digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Cash-Poor States Free Prisoners

washingtonpost.com — Some felons released in Calif, RI, Kentucky and Mississippi.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JohnUSeed, on 05/06/2008, -7/+21Need others to follow as well...
    • Kaitsu, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5To let prisoners out? Right...
    • volfvolf1, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0i not prisoner. Aplodisments!
    • dragis101, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Hmmm...people who steal to get cash...are being released...because the state is low on cash...well I think those criminals have learned their lesson!
      ...
      • funkytaco, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1I see what you failed to do there...
  • WiseWeasel, on 05/06/2008, -5/+74Good! We need to release more in California, as the prisons are dangerously overcrowded. The 'Three Strikes' law recently put in place in CA has been a complete, unmitigated disaster, and we're getting prisons packed with inmates sentenced to significantly longer sentences than they would normally have received, often much longer than appropriate for the crime they got charged with. This is a good start, but until the sentencing comes back down to earth, and until we stop persecuting people for consensual 'crimes' among adults such as drugs, gambling and prostitution, we are going to be faced with intolerable levels of incarceration, way above average for developed countries. Some sanity in the justice system is long overdue.
    • sv650touring, on 05/06/2008, -5/+10No. As a taxpayer I like knowing that tens of thousands of dollars per prisoner per year are being spent to keep those killer potheads behind bars - safe away from the children.
    • Schrodinger2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7"If it works for baseball, it must work for criminals!" Stephen Colbert
    • CarbonAndroid, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10We have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.
      • marx2k, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7What did you expect when you allow private industry to run prisons?
    • robbob, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2"prisons are dangerously overcrowded"? Dangerous for who?

      I say we deny health care to lifers to move their sentences along
      • DangerMouse9, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I say we make you a prison guard, then enact all these rules only in the prison you work at.
  • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -13/+8Hey, maybe it'll also be an incentive to finally look at the probably %30+ of innoscent prisoners..for once maybe they'll be color blind...
    • RizzoFrank, on 05/06/2008, -7/+9Was going to digg you until i read the last few words.
      • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -15/+3Yes, because of course the entire prison population is multi-cultural...ignorance is bliss with you, huh, you know I'm right.
        • Dundasbro, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11Actually I would say that the prison population is multi-cultural, are you saying there is only people of one culture in prison?
          • DangerMouse9, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2He's saying there are a disproportionate number of minorities in prison.
    • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2 Only greater than 30% are innocent? How quickly you forgot (from your first hand experience in a prison) that they are all innocent. "I didn't do nothing wrong, man", thats what they all say.
      And your "color blind" statement....perhaps you should quit seeing everything based on color. The race card is old, only blacks keep holding on to the grudge. White people get ***** too (past, present, future) and there are more than just whites and blacks on the face of the Earth so grow up, get some intelligence and common sense, and while your learning...look up the word "innocent" (since it seems so hard to get right)
      • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -6/+4FACT, more minorities are arrested, prosecuted, and given harsher or wrong sentences for crimes they didn't commit or otherwise relativly minor..but I'm guessing your a privaleged white jerk for implying racism is a dead-issue...you really just wouldn't know/care.
        • gryphon50, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2and I assume you're black since you think a bunch of blacks in prison means a bunch of innocent people are in prison. Maybe they did actually commit the crimes. They usually seem pretty proud of it actually. Gives them "street cred", right?
          • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4Then explain to me why most wrongfully convicted are minorities..after all if they simply all committed the crimes they wouldn't be let out more often, would they?.
          • schroeder, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2More minorities are in prison because there are more minorities in high crime low income areas. And most of these areas are urban with high population density. Poverty breeds crime, violence and corruption. But many people think minorities are prone to commit crimes because they don't take in to consideration the reasons for the statistics. You see a lot of white people committing crimes in the same areas as minorities, just that there is usually a much higher ratio of minorities for the population. In the same regard you usually don't see well-off minorities committing similar criminal acts unless they grew up in those conditions and made a lot of money (gangsta rappers and such).
          • DangerMouse9, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2@schroeder

            Why is it then that affluent white kids will receive only a warning for the same crime a less affluent minority receives a charge for? You can't deny that the sentences are different based on the neighborhood the crime took place in.
        • mcphatty, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2This is a fact? Care to share your sources?
        • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0 Again, learn to spell check (its a simple button right next to the Submit button). Privileged? How so? I go to work and earn my keep...is it a privilege that I have a job? Or is it a privilege that I happened to be born white? I don't remember God asking me if I wanted to be born American, White/Black or any other ethnicity, nor did God ask me if I wanted poor parents (or rich, but I got stuck with poor ones...so what?)
          And you are right, I don't care about race. I don't expect a white person to be anything to me at all (not a friend, not trustworthy, etc.). Do you feel that a black person you meet (a stranger) can be trusted based strictly on color? If so, you are really mistaken! I don't care what race you are, I don't know you and I don't trust you either. A true friend can only be judged by character, intelligence, attitude, moral standing, and other pertinent characteristics. NOTE: Character! That is what I inspect of others to determine WHO they are. Skin color and financial class is only used to divide and continue to fuel envy/hate for others.
          But I waste my time, someone has already planted the seeds of hate in you. I know, I've seen racists before. They always jump to incorrect assumptions (like the comment I'm privileged in some way....your life is more likely ten times better than mine....)
        • Abomonog, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Hate to say it but the guy is right. Racism is alive and well in America. True, the lynchings have ended and a black person can sit anywhere he or she wants on the bus. We don't see the blatant things like that anymore. But look at our presidential race. Everyone in the race is staring at Obama and thinking, "How dare that scuzzy ***** get all uppity and show me up for president!". You can see the loathing in the slandering, the debates, the fact that even republicans are clamoring to get behind Clinton. The racism lies in laws guaranteed to put more minorities in prisons than anyone else. It lies in the fact that even in this most enlightened age inner city schools are still the least funded schools in our country. And it lies in the fact that being a single black male qualifies you for government assistance programs that being white alone would have disqualified you for. I'm a white dude and I see racism all the time. It's in the restaurant owner who only charges gratuity to credit cards held by minorities without asking.
          It's in the mechanic who charges an extra half hour labor time when the car he is working on is owned by a minority. Both are real people living within a 3 hour drive from our not racist nations capitol and one is a minority himself. And worse yet. In both cases the activities are totally legal. It's perfectly legal for a restaurant to charge gratuity to a credit card without asking and it's expected for a mechanic to charge an extra half an hour over book time for incidental extra work that may happen. Racism is out there and rampant. Today it just wears speedos instead of a white cloak and hood.
    • blackdude, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Dude their are all "inno(s)cent"!
  • palatka, on 05/06/2008, -4/+121legalize drugs. I am tired of paying for other people's drug problems.
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/06/2008, -20/+3Do you know the effects that would have? Think of all the deaths....of Kids and such.
      • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -0/+17Kids with a capital "K"... You don't even pretend any more. The magic word for everybody who wants to force their own agenda onto the general population.
        Have you read any studies of possible effects of the legalization of drugs? Or are you just talking out of your ass now? Start with weed, ok? I admit, I have no clue about the "hard stuff", so let's just talk about weed. If it was legalized, that would mean an enormous amount of people released. Medically, socially it would be a justified move, but I guess you law-and-order, protect-our-children types would oppose that, too.
        • popfrogs, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8Legalizing weed also may have the nice side effect of helping curb the border violence among mexican drug cartels.
          • DangerMouse9, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1So would a fence that was one billion feet high.... and that went to the core of the earth so they couldn't dig under it. Then it'd have to be 100 miles thick so there's no way they can get through!




            I should hope I don't have to include the /sarcasm, but I'm afraid some of the ***** hicks on here would think I'm serious.
      • Gunsdead, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11No, tell me. Are you aware of the effects of the current prohibitionist approach on drugs is? A hell of a lot more death and disease.....of Kids and such.
        • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4When you lock up Kids for drug offenses, they cease to be Kids. They'll transform into "Scum", or "***** little ~put your favorite ethnicity here- punk" for whom prison is too good. Amazing transformation, really. Only the caterpillar's transformation into butterfly comes close in nature.
        • Yonson, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9@spngya77
          And what of the deaths of people caught in the crossfire of gang-related violence that's fueled by the illegal drug trade? If there's anything we learned from alcohol prohibition it's that banning these kinds of substances doesn't do away with them, it simply hands the market over to thugs and gangsters.
          • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Where's the debate in that? I know these things. I agree that prohibition does not work (Especially when you have guns so readily available.)
            What I don't know is what the effect would be of legal coke or heroin. I have no idea whatsoever, that's why I focused on weed only.
            Users should be helped, in any way, not criminalized. Many families, "Kids" get hurt in this stupid war on drugs. Not to mention that the state itself was caught red-handed in drug-trade at least once... -iran-contra, anyone?
      • brstilson, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10"Do you know the effects that would have? Think of all the deaths....of Kids and such."

        Think of all the kids that are lured into drug dealing through violent gangs. Think of all those kids that grow up and think they have no choice, no hope. Think of all those kids that end up dying in drug-related crimes.

        All things things happen solely because drugs are illegal. Temperance and alcohol prohibition birthed Al Capone and others into the world, people who held cities like Chicago hostage. Drug laws are doing the same today. Give people legal access to marijuana alone, and you put the Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, and Aryan Brotherhood out of business over night. Legalized drugs takes away these violent gangs' sole source of income and reason to exist.
        • objectcode, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2but think of the Kids
          • DangerMouse9, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0"But think of the kids" is what everyone always says, until one of the kids gets molested, then it's "everyone but so-and-so think of the kids!"
      • objectcode, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Oh the horror

        ***** clown
      • privatejoeker, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Millions of children are already being screwed when their parents are hauled off to jail for having 1 ounce of any drug on them. Why not save the $ used on housing them there and start a few more drug addiction programs in the city. Give them more opportunities to clean their lives up.
        • DangerMouse9, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Because that would admit defeat on the war on drugs, and they'd rather put a bullet in everyone's head than admit they ***** up.
    • Kaitsu, on 05/06/2008, -17/+3I think they should legalise theft and rape too, would be less inmates and less paying for other people's problems for sure.
      • MiDri, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3Ok, everyone watch that slope! It's apparently slippery as *****!
      • altgeeky1, on 05/06/2008, -1/+14If you go around equating rape and theft with pot prohibition, you REALLY deflate and trivialize these crimes.
        I bet you wouldn't have the guts to say that in front of a rape victim who is a black belt, or packing.
        PLEASE put what you just said on your bumper, and wear it on a tee shirt. You'll be quite the hit!





      • skidooer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10The thief or rapist might come and steal or rape me. A drug user, on the other hand, will not come up to me a force a joint in my mouth and make me smoke it. Therefore, I'd like to have at least some sense of protection from the first two. I don't really care what the last guy is up to.
        • hempydave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Your likely wasting your breath Kaitsua needs a conjugal visit from a large gay bondage rapist.
      • sb66, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3so you're an idiot who can't see the diffference between a crime with a victim, and someone deciding to do something that effects only their own body?
        • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0As much as I disagree with that idiot, I'd like to say something to this effect. They don't just do it to their own body. As much as alcohol, if misused drugs destroy lives, and lives of the people around the addict. Just ask someone who was abused by an alcoholic parent. (And it's hard to see how can someone be a "casual heroin addict".) Addiction is never good, and people with addiction should be helped, not locked up. Prohibition does not work, as we see. We have to find something else that does.
          • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Misuse and abuse of anything can be a problem for everyone involved. The question to ask is, what will help the situation more, lock them up and ruin their life or offer help?
          • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I'm thinking about legalizing ALL drugs. The problem is, how can you not misuse a drug that causes dependency after a few use and fry your brain?
            Of course users need help, not punishment. But the "crowd" does not see like that. It doesn't get you votes. The whole justice system is broken.
          • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -0/+21) Both OTC and prescription drugs can be misused but we still allow them.
            2) Everyone reacts differently to both drugs and addiction. Not everyone will get addicted and the government's POV is very biased so take their words with a grain of salt.
            3) No matter what you outlaw, people will find something else. You can get high off your own feces if you really want to.
        • marx2k, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2@spongya77 - someone can be a 'casual heroin addict' or .. 'a heroin user' the same way someone can be a casual drinker or smoker. Not everyone who tries or steadily uses a substance is addicted to it.
          • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That's why I said I don't know anything about the hard stuff. It's just hard to imagine using something like coke "casually". Heck, if I get a jar of Nutella, I can't stop eating while I'm seriously nauseated... :) It seems like it usually kills everybody using it -but then again, it might be just the hysteria surrounding them. I'll need to read about it.
            But reading about the story of Aerosmith, or any other great bands in the '70s it seem like hard drugs really are bad.
    • boredrph, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6if you don't want to pay for people's drug problem's... you better not support nationalized health care. Heck, then you shouldn't support welfare programs, housing programs, etc.... because all that money spent on drugs could be money those people use to support themselves.

      And... I would support legalizing all drugs in a second if I truly didn't have to pay for other people's problems... but good luck!
      • turkeyssr, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The most sane comment in the whole list!
    • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8The War on Drugs does a few things such as militarize the domestic law enforcement agencies, put non-violent people in jail, curtail civil liberties, enrich thugs and outlaws, strain our court system and generally trash the inner city and numerous aspects of our country. And guess what, it doesn't even work. I'd say it's a pretty ridiculous policy at this point.
      • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2...especially when the state itself is involved in the drug trade by supporting dictators in the Americas -or directly, like in the case of Iran contra...
  • DaDrake, on 05/06/2008, -43/+9Housing a felon cost 40k a year in some places.

    Bullets are $1 each

    You do the math. =)
    • JoshuaLowe, on 05/06/2008, -5/+33You = moron. Math completed.
      • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -17/+3But he was right...
        • spacecheese, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8bandwagon assed *****..
          • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -10/+0no rebuttal huh, idiot.
          • Waiting2awake, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10rod - there aren't enough small words to explain the situation in a manner you would understand.
        • Acewrap, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3No, he is not right. Bullets may cost significantly more or less than $1.
        • hempydave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I sell bullets for a living, most hollow points are dam close to a buck each and anything bigger than .308 is over a $1 a bullet , with 45/70 running $2+ each
    • jezsik, on 05/06/2008, -3/+17Educating them costs a lot less and can make them a productive (i.e. tax paying) member of society. Do the new math.
      • brstilson, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Easier said than done. Most of these people don't want to change.
        • Chestnut3499, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5I'm sorry, how many of "these people" do you actually know?
        • hempydave, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I know lots of the drunken/crak dealing forks in my back alley, I live next to an Indian reservation, Dry out the lazy drunken/drug addict parents and the gang ***** would disappear.
          We sure the fork don't have a white gang problem. The Hells Angels make a neighborhood better not worse. I also live near Blackfalds where their headquartered and their is no drive bye's there!
        • marx2k, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1@hempydave: Are you plastered right now?
        • hempydave, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Don't wear bear goggles.
          Stuck looking at the paper where 4 Indians beat up a taxi driver because the baby stroller wouldn't fit in the trunk.
          what's that baby learning?
    • Jogga, on 05/06/2008, -2/+20You are getting a bad deal on bullets if they're $1 each.
    • BoonTobias, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8ropes are reusable and have 0 emissions
    • rex84, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12You would love it in China.
  • darkcss, on 05/06/2008, -9/+4Rhode Island Sucks.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -6/+22"In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. Among State prisoners, drug offenders (44%) and property offenders (39%) reported the highest incidence of drug use at the time of the offense. Among Federal prisoners, drug offenders (32%) and violent offenders (24%) were the most likely to report drug use at the time of their crimes."

    It's not that clear cut.

    Marijuana: good.
    The rest: bad.
    • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -30/+1Oh for gods sakes...marijuana is a hallucinagen just like all the others, its about public safety...alcohol is the same and they tried banning it once

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_Un ...

      stop with this marijuana is harmless bs...to legalize it would be to legalize all drugs...
      • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+17Wow you're stupid.

        Marijuana is not a hallucinogen. Alcohol is not a hallucinogen.

        How the hell does legalizing marijuana equal legalizing all drugs?

        How the hell can you be so stupid and still be somewhat able to read and write? How do you use a computer?
        • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -18/+2So your trying to tell me you can drive and smoke pot because "Marijuana is not a hallucinogen"?.idiot.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13WTF? Who the hell mentionned driving while high?

            Never mind stupid, you are insane. Insanely stupid or stupidly insane, you choose.
          • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2...or just smoked too much. :P
          • Waiting2awake, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6EIA - I believe the term is troll.

            Just saying...
          • darkcooger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Whether or not it is a hallucinogen is irrelevant to whether or not you should drive while under its influence. Driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal because it dulls your reaction time and senses, not because it makes you see things. Ninnyhammer.
          • LogicBomB, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7@ rodgerse: I think I found out the problem. You don't know what a hallucinogen is. Let me explain, please read it this time.

            Hallucinogen: Chemical substance which can distort perceptions to induce delusions or hallucinations.
            Psychoactive: A chemical substance that exerts psychological effects including changes in mood, cognition, and behavior

            Examples (because I am 100% sure you still don't get it):

            Hallucinogens: LSD, Salvia Divinorum
            Psychoactive: Alcohol, Tobacco, Weed
        • drvcr, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10Rodgerse is talking out of his ass. While marijuana is considered a psychoactive drug, hallucinations are not a primary symptom of ingestion. Even if it does cause extremely mild hallucinations, they are no where on the scale of acid, lsd or pcp.

          You shouldn't be driving in general while taking any substance in general that may impair your motor skills and coordination.

          I'm an ER resident and I have seen more accidents due to alcohol and prescription pill abuse than marijuana consumption. Granted this evidence is anecdotal, but I still think prescription drug abuse is an even more serious problem.
          • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -12/+0..in short, I was right.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9No you were not right. You are an idiot. You can't possibly be right. Even if you were right, you wouldn't know why because you're such an idiot.
          • LogicBomB, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Wow, not even close rodgerse. Why do you post so much ***** around here? You have zero experience on either the educational side or the experience side of the issue so I'm REALLY confused why you keep insisting you are right?
      • spacecheese, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10wow. just wow.
      • republicker, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12what a *****.
        • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -11/+1so yur not going to prove me wrong stupif *****?.
        • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10You don't need to be proven wrong. Your statement was sooooo idiotic, that it does not need anything. If you knew anything (I mean ANYTHING) about the world, you'd know, too. You showed yourself to be an idiot; that's all.
    • LogicBomB, on 05/06/2008, -4/+21If you don't know what the ***** you are talking about just stay quiet. You make as much sense as me telling everyone caffein causes hallucinations and violent behavior.

      Simply put, if you've never tried it and don't know someone you trust whose tried it and explained it to you in detail, just shut up. Period. No seriously, you are not allowed to talk side effects unless you've tried it, been explained it or witnessed it first-hand.

      I ***** LOVE how all you morons who have NEVER TRIED IT keep telling the people WHO HAVE TRIED IT what the effects of the drug are. Do you honestly expect us to stand up and say "oh, so when I was listening to music and laughing with my friends I was actually violently hallucinating and a threat to public safety? Huh, didnt' know that before! Thanks!"

      JUST SHUT UP.
      • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -18/+0your an idiot..just 'cause you fried your brain on it doesn't make you more of an expert.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11Ok, let's get the tar and feathers out.
          • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -12/+0troll much, huh?.get a life and stop following me, point is marijuana does alter your consiousness which is why its bad to drive or be in public in genera..happy?. .
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12No, keep correcting yourself until you come up with an accurate description. And you're in my thread you *****.
          • bdawg123, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7@rodgerse

            It's obvious to everyone here that you have NEVER tried marijuana. Please stop acting like you have any idea about its effects and you just may stop looking like a complete idiot.
          • LogicBomB, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7@rodgerse: As does alcohol, tobacco and caffein. How many of them are hallucinogenic? NONE.

            Guess what? Salvia Divinorum is a LEGAL (yes, LEGAL) hallucinogen you can find in any most pipe stores around the USA and Canada. Now this stuff will make the walls spin/breathe in and out, checker-pattern your vision and make you feel as if you are in another world. Your depth perception goes to hell and you are lucky to get a few steps off before crumbling to the ground if you take a good hoot. Lasts 30 seconds to 5 minutes. I suppose because it's legal it's cool right? That's how you guys think? If it's legal than it's fine?
          • Jassman, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1bdawg123, sorry I had to digg you down, but there's no way this guy will ever "stop looking like a complete idiot".
      • darkcooger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8Agreed. I've never tried it and I was generally opposed to legalizing marijuana. Then I found out my best friend had smoked it for a while. At first I was shocked, but knowing him, I figured it couldn't be as bad as all that, so I asked. And wouldn't you know it? Everything I thought was wrong, and now I favor legalizing it because prohibition doesn't work anyway and it seems pointless to outlaw something that is largely harmless.

        Anyway, point is, I agree - those who have not tried it or have not discussed the effects with someone they trust who has tried it should not judge it. I'm living proof that such a judgement can be completely wrong.
        • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -7/+0Just so we're clear, you favor legalized pocession AND being under the influence in public?
          • darkcooger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9Sure, I have no problem with that. I've been around plenty of people that were high on pot and they seem pretty much their normal selves, except maybe happier about it. I wonder if you lead an exceptionally sheltered life or something.
          • bdawg123, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4People are under the influence of alcohol in public all the time. What's your point?
      • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -3/+0 The effects aren't the same for everyone, some are really susceptible to the effects and can't handle it. And stoners that get hydro, kind bud, dank, etc can get really high (and hallucinate, I know I've smoked the ***** many times. No big deal for me but I've had friends crash cars and few have died from their stupidity/drug use. Not that any one cares about anyone other then themselves)
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Yeah, my uncle ate beans once and he farted his house down. I did it too, no big woop.
        • dylio, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That's called natural selection.
    • lnf69, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10Hi, my handle is 'rodgerse', and this is me covering my ears to the truth. Ouch it hurts!!!
      • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7He doesn't need to do that, he has to wear a helmet at all times.
      • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -9/+0well sinse you've tried it why don't you tell us all how safe t is to drive with marijuana.
        • lnf69, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8If I was absolutely forced to choose between getting in a car driven by a drunk (alcohol) driver, or a stoned (marijuana) driver, I'd choose the latter every time.
          Please understand that it is not safe to drive under the influence of any mind-altering substance. But there are extremely great differences between the affects of various drugs.
          And......, if you still have your ears unplugged I'd like to add that anyone high on pot will lose the effects of being high with a rush of adrenaline, while anyone drunk can only wait until a sufficient amount of alcohol is out of his system before the effects go away.
          Conclusion: it is not "safe" to drive while under the affects of THC, but it is much safER then you might think.
          • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -9/+0but then it should be prohibited for that reason just like alcohol then..do you not get it now.
          • LogicBomB, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8What are you talking about? Alcohol is legal and you aren't allowed to drive under the influence, the same should apply to pot. It's not safe to drive under the influence of alcohol, weed, or even cold pills. I'm really not sure what your point is? Do we make caffein, cold pills, painkillers, alcohol, tobacco and all substances illigal or do we simply make proper laws surrounding their use?

            You can NOT have double standards without sounding like a hipocrit.
          • lnf69, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7rodgres: "but then it should be prohibited for that reason just like alcohol then..do you not get it now."
            Yes, driving under the influence of pot or alcohol and many other mind-altering drugs should be prohibited. The DRIVING, not the consumption! Are you able to distinguish between the two?
          • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -6/+0Consumption in public?..I assume your claiming its ALOT less altering than alchohol seeing as its baned in public as well.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Why do you keep comparing marijuana to alcohol?

            That's like arguing that oranges are red because apples are.
          • darkcooger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6@rodgerse: I'm sorry, but I haven't seen ANYONE argue that driving under the influence of marijuana should be legal. People are basically saying that marijuana use should be legal and you retort that driving under its influence is dangerous. Nobody is disputing that fact, so why are you arguing?
          • Jassman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3"Consumption in public?..I assume your claiming its ALOT less altering than alchohol seeing as its baned in public as well."

            You talk like our laws are based on sound, logical reasoning. And please learn to spell. "Baned"? You can't be serious. How old are you? It takes two consonants (usually) to give the vowel its short sound.
        • lnf69, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Plus, in case you're getting ready to label me as a typical stoner, I would like to take the time now to be a grammar nazi.
          your phrase in the original: "well sinse you've tried it why don't you tell us all how safe t is to drive with marijuana."
          your phrase in English:"Well, since you've tried it, why don't you tell us how safe it is to drive under the influence of marijuana."
          Because driving "with" marijuana is only dangerous if you're busted!
      • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Here it is stupid:
        http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/d ...
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z5jkYvKscw&eurl=ht ...
        • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -7/+0So cellphones are illegal to drive with but marijuana isn't that bad..thats your point?.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7My point is that everything that comes out of your mouth is the stupidest ***** I've ever heard in my life. And at my age, I heard A LOT of stupid *****.

          You just admitted that weed is less dangerous than cell phone use while driving. Keep arguing, you're about to turn Rasta at this rate.
          • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -8/+0Weed less dangerous than cellphones..thats your brilliant argument?.whatever pothead, can't wait for you to get behind the wheel..
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7So you can wash my car you uneducated piece of *****?
      • darkcooger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Sorry, meant to digg. Would someone be kind enough to fix my mistake for me?
    • solidfusion, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2To be honest I think those numbers are quite low to make a correlation. If you are going to make a correlation between drug abuse and criminals, I would expect to see numbers larger than the general population. Those numbers also don't take in account what type of drugs the person is using. You also failed to mention your source.

      While I don't believe impairing your judgment could make somebody be more responsible and less likely to commit a crime, I don't believe that it is effects people as much as some make it out to be. I believe if drugs were legalized, especially marijuana, we would have less crime as people wouldn't have to run from the law, have guns to protect themselves from dealers, and other problems that go along with being a "criminal" for wanting a little weed.

      Prohibition was a good example of how alcohol turned perfectly normal people into "criminals" and spurred a huge insurgence of power for criminal groups such as the mafia. Once alcohol as made legal again, the real criminals had less power over the normal people, and the normal people could go back to being normal instead of criminals.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4There's a clear relation between crimes and any kind of addiction. Gambling, alcohol, prescription, if it's an uncontrollable addiction that cost more than you make: there's a very good chance that it will lead to crime.

        If you add the psychological effects of drugs like crack, amphetamines or cocaine, there's an added risk of violent behaviour, simply caused by desperation and the inability to think clearly.

        This is my source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm

        The figures include alcohol consumption.

        It's true that drugs don't make you commit crimes. But addiction, desperation and the effects of certain drugs put together are certainly not helping.
        The rate of substance dependence or abuse varied by gender, race, and offense:

        44% of men and 52% of women were dependent on drugs or alcohol.
        78% of white, 64% of black, and 59% of Hispanic inmates were dependent on drugs or alcohol or abusing them.
        Inmates convicted of burglary had the highest rate of substance dependence or abuse (85%), followed by inmates convicted of DWI/DUI (82%), weapons violations (79%), and drug possession (75%).
        The lowest rate of substance dependence or abuse was among inmates convicted of sexual assault (50%).
    • absurdist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Then punish people for the crimes they commit. Not for the substances they've ingested because they MIGHT commit a crime. Once again, correlation /= causation.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1??

        The figures posted talk about committing crimes while under the influence of drugs.
        • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2No the figures posted talk about crimes committed by individuals that are abusing drugs. If the numbers were about people under the influence while committing their crimes, how is it that only 82% of the people convicted of DWI/DUI were under the influence? Also, according to the government, any use of an illegal drug is abuse even though there is an obvious difference between use and abuse.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2You're mixing up two different sets of figures.

            Absurdist responded to the original comment and now you use a different set of figures I posted in response to solidfusion.

            And you didn't even read them right. 82% of people convicted of DWI and DUI were ADDICTED or ABUSED certain substances regularly, they were all under the influence for being arrested under the influence.

            And if you had read the report, abuse and addiction are defined. And it's not any use.

            So you misread, used the wrong set, made non-argument and lied.
          • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1@ElAssoWipo
            1) I did mix up two different posts and I apologize for that.
            2) The only definition I saw for abuse was "Used drugs at least once week for a month". That's barely use, certainly not abuse.
            3) There is a big difference between making a mistake and being a liar.
        • absurdist, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2You're missing my point, EAW. Whether these people were/are under the influence of drugs is irrelevant. The actual crimes that they've committed are the relevant point. To cite an overused cliche, I would hazard a guess that 100% of these people have drunk milk at one point in their lives. Shall we then extrapolate that milk drinking leads to criminal behavior?

          (And to the vegans in the audience, I see it coming already. Shut up. ;) )
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I didn't miss your point, I dismissed it.

            Criminals that are in prison are 46 times more likely to be addicted to class B drugs and over than the general population.

            Correlation isn't always false.

            100% of convicts drank milk, so did everybody else.

            If people with red hats are 47 times more likely to shoot you in the head, you avoid people with red hats.
    • jcb8060, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0You mean it's not as clear cut as "Marijuana: good. The rest: bad."?
  • willk281, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Ain't nobody leaving Huntsville, that's for damn sure.
    • Chestnut3499, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You ain't just whistling Dixie.
  • hokie47, on 05/06/2008, -4/+40Guys I understand that some of these people should never have been locked up, but a good number of these people will commit crimes again. Don't think these people are your typical fun loving pot smoking digg nerd. Go to the court house for a day and wake up to reality.
    • ayeroxor, on 05/06/2008, -3/+17"but a good number of these people will commit crimes again."

      Then you're still proving the point: we're wasting our money and should be doing something different.
      • hokie47, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5You can't commit a crime when you are locked up, but I am all for doing something different too if it works.
        • aladrin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12Actually, you -can-. Only against other prisoners or the guards, but those are crimes still.
        • hokie47, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I forgot how nitpicky people can be. EDIT: You can't commit a crime that most people care about when you are locked up
          • ubuwalker31, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Uh, what about murder and rape in prison? People care about that. There is also drug use and corruption. Prisons are a reflection of our society, and using our prisons as a guide, our society is screwed.
          • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Unless of course you have access to mail, telephone or Internet. Which they all do.
    • dstz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8"Don't think these people are your typical fun loving pot smoking digg nerd"

      Then, make room for those who are dangerous. Simple.
      • hokie47, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Only if it was that simple. The problem is that only .01% of the people locked up the are your typical fun loving pot smoking digg nerd. Does not really free up that much room, but they should be released.
        • bpoteat, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6But MANY of those locked up ARE for the same reason as the .01% you name, regardless of whether or not you think they are normal people just like you. A large percentage of the prison populations are there SOLELY for using drugs and for nothing else. Our prisons are crowded because of 'crimes' that have done or posed no harm to anyone (except possibly themselves).
      • EarlOfLade, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Are you trying to tell me that American criminals are worse than criminals in other parts of the world? If so, what is the reason?

        The US justice system is a huge failure and needs a complete overhaul,
      • wattersm, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Then you lock them up for THOSE crimes. Keeping people in jail for something they MIGHT do is just plain wrong.
        • marx2k, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0Michael Crichton says you've got it all wrong.
    • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1 You are right, all these posts from people (who are probably stoners that live in a delusional state of mind, construed reality) assuming the prisons mostly contain inmates charged with drugs. They are greatly mistaken...but watch them cry foul when one of these prisoners invades their home and rapes/kills a beloved family member. The chances of such a horrific crime occuring in your life are getting greater everyday, partly because the death penalty is not taken as an option and partly since attorneys can claim mental illness and get sadistic individuals light sentences.
      I'm all for right to live, but not everyone deserves humane treatment or the right to continue breathing. If one does not respect others right to live, than they automatically should be denied their own right to exist. Including those taking advantage of people incapable of defending themselves (child abusers/molesters/murderers)
      • marx2k, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1So if you drive drunk and accidentally kill someone, should we write laws that have the first officer on the scene put one in the back of your head?
    • altgeeky1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Of course, if you feel they should let NO ONE OUT early, then be prepared to either A) pay more in taxes or B) print more money/borrow from China (either of which has the effect of de-valuing the Dollar and by extension your retirement savings).

      Like everything else, you can miss the forest through the trees. It's all about priorities. Are priorities met here? Are the prisons there for rehabilitation or to just keep everyone out of harm's way? Could YOU be put in federal prison for life if you grew pot for yourself? Absolutely. Do coke snorting elite get a free pass while crack smokers don't? Absolutely.

      It's not a coincidence that Three Strikes came about exactly when prison management was outsourced to commercial entities. Look up the history of privatized prisons in Texas, and the plain truth that these corporations (and their employees) have actively lobbied for MORE and tougher laws. This is a business, and it's big.

      It's not often noted, but the US does have SIGNIFICANT unused prison space. However, that is reserved for potential FEMA emergencies.




      • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1 I have heard about the unused prison space on reserve for "emergency"...its a scary thought what planned "emergency" their preparing for. I'm told there is a massive area of land in California that resembles a HUGE concentration camp, with concrete buildings that are windowless and unoccupied. I can only speculate what the future use will be. I do know it is government owned.
        I repeat what I am aware of, but I am not a conspiracy theorist or trying to scare anyone. Though I worry when I put so many pieces together. Oh well, life goes on :)
    • sporg, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I once had a co worker who had been paroled after serving a number or years for double homicide. He seemed like a typical fun loving guy to me and explained that he only killed those two people because they were trying to shoot him as well.
      • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0 Was there a point?
        Maybe you were saying that a murderer can look like your neighbor? (of course, life is a delicate gift that is easy to kill, anyone can do it. No special skills needed)
        Self defense would not be punishable. but to be categorized as such, both of the victims had to be wielding life endangering weapons and attacking him.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Are you suggesting that there are not people locked up for pot offenses, and that if those people we not locked up, that there wouldn't be more room available for the truly dangerous felons? Let's at least start there.
  • DeFex, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9I guess they didnt get their kickback checks
  • DDMX, on 05/06/2008, -18/+6Lets cut welfare, food stamps, etc. Don't let people out of jail.
    • Dundasbro, on 05/06/2008, -0/+16Aha... Poverty and the need for money to live is a prime motivation for a good deal of crimes. So... Lets remove a whole bunch of the mostly uneducated people's sources of income to save money! That surely won't end up with more people needing to go to our already overcrowding jails! Hell no!
      • JointVenture, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1People dont commit crimes for diapers or food.
      • cdahlkvist, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Wow. That's a tough one. Seriously.

        You make a valid point. Take away their income and they may commit crimes to survive.

        Unfortunately you missed the other side of the double-edged sword:

        When we throw many of these cons on the streets they will be practically unemployable (not many places will hire a hard time felon). That means many will either latch onto the welfare system (thus causing a financial burden elsewhere) or commit crimes to survive.
        • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2If simple possession was not a felony then getting a job would not be problem.
    • wsuvtx, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2These are people that should not have been in jail to begin with.
    • jessehadden, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3You better start building more jails, then.
      • oli5993, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I always thought those /sarcasm tags were just stupid and unneeded.
        I change my mind.
  • prompel, on 05/06/2008, -1/+25Rejoice, inmates! There's a recession!
  • Pittance, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10So I guess its gonna take huge state debts and budget plans to get minor drug laws changed instead of the obvious need for reform.
    • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1It's a free market, after all...
      • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1word play. You don't really think free market means everything should be free of cost, do you?
    • LogicBomB, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3They are not minor in any sense of the term. When you get arrested for smoking some weed, kicking a ball around and laughing and thrown in jail for 30 years because of it, that is not ***** minor.
      • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2 You served 30 years for smoking weed? No, to get that kind of sentence, you had to be smoking a ball of rock. You were probably so high that you thought you were smoking weed and kicking a ball around...in reality, you were smoking crack and kicking some bum in the face!
        But seriously, what is with all this "pro drug use" posts? What good to you (or anybody) will come from you being able to afford a ***** of dope? It'd be one thing if you only ruined your life, but that is not what happens. Others around you suffer from your stupidity too.
        • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Others are suffering from your stupidity too, but we haven't outlawed you.
  • egoherodotus, on 05/06/2008, -1/+27Good. We need to let out violent criminals to house non-violent pot smokers.
    • h3smith, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13No no, those people are evil. Lets let out the child rapists first. Remember kids, POT IS BAD!
    • lastholdout, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I don't see anything in the article stating violent criminals are being released.
  • dinki, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12We've had something similar happen locally. The sheriff cried about jail overcrowding and started releasing prisoners who committed nonviolent felonies (including DWI/DUI). Then the city council proposed a new tax to increase capacity at the jail.

    While prison overcrowding is definitely an issue, our local jail has a high percentage of federal convicts. The jail gets paid a good bit of money to house these inmates. So instead of using those cells to house our local scumbags, they use them to make money. Why aren't they using this federal money to make the improvements to the jail instead of burdening the public for more tax money? It's called having your cake and eating it too.
    • wsuvtx, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3I would say that DWI/DUI should be considered a violent crime. As there is a good chance that a drunk driver can hurt others. If there is a threat to the safety of others then they should be locked up. Drug users are not usually a threat to others.
      • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Yes, driving under the influence is stupid, but killing someone by driving under the influence is murder. Do you see the difference?
        • yacks, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1So wouldn't that make driving under the influence, attempted murder?
          • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2The ability to do harm, the intent to do harm and actually doing harm are all different and should be treated as such.
    • WallyAnti, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Where do you think federal money comes from?
  • jezsik, on 05/06/2008, -1/+23The problem is that a lot of these prisoners are victims of a vengeful justice system. You embezzled your company, had too many parking violations, bounced too many checks? Go to jail! Society is in no physical danger from these people. These types of non-violent criminals could be better handled with a VERY strict probationary system - one that focuses on accountability and restitution.
    • gryphon50, on 05/06/2008, -4/+0if the worst thing that can happen to you is probation, you can expect a giant explosion in crimes.
      • jezsik, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4I'm not suggesting that probation be the worse thing that can happen to you. Even if that was the case, the sort of probation I'm thinking of looks nothing like the probation we have today.
      • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2We should at least keep the violent and non-violent criminals separate. The way our prisons are now just results in better criminals.
    • scamper22, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Actually, my thinking is the opposite.
      If you're so sick in the head to go murder someone, or rob someone with the intention to kill, or violently rape someone, what do you think that person's mind state thinks of prison? They probably have a don't give a fck attitude about life. Prison is not a deterrent to these people. For some, it even becomes a lifestyle. Unless you plan to lock em up just to keep the public safe; that's one thing...but then I'd say lock em up for life. Unless they truly changed or it was a crime of passion that isn't likely to occur again or something, they are going to continue to be dangerous.

      For these sickos, either invest in proper treatment/rehab or jail for life. I don't do death penalty sorry (I'm not killing a potentially innocent person). At least in jail, they can still prove their innocence or get rehab.



      I would actually argue prison should be used more for what you would think as small crimes. think white-collar crimes like fraud... people only do them because the payoff outweighs the cost. A person who commits these kinds of crimes probably has a decent life...but wants more. To them, jail time would act as a good deterrent. Of course these types of people can be put in a very basic jail. No need for crazy security.

      Now that I've ranted, realize its just another way of looking at it. They are a million exception and details that would probably complicate this kind of system :P I'm well aware of them.
      • jezsik, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Imprison non-violent criminals? What’s the point? Revenge? If these people are not likely to physically endanger others, no point spending tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to keep them away from society. Remove a painful portion of their assets and put the blighters to work! Which do you think is a greater deterrent to a corporate criminal, the loss of one third their net worth and a lengthy (seriously controlled) probation or a year sitting in a Motel 6 prison?
        • scamper22, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0We should take their net worth and imprison them.
          Well now you mention "lengthy (seriously controlled) probation" which is fine by me. I made the point of a very basic jail :P You certainly wouldn't be spending tens of thousands per year on these characters. They're not dangerous. A lengthy probation and mandatory work (highway garbage cleanup...) would do just as well. But again the point is the suspension of freedom is a better deterrent to 'white-collar' crimes than the sickos we typically put in jail.

          It's more to address the mentality of people who think increasing jail times has a deterrent effect. The main point is for the real sickos, it has no effect.
  • blah247, on 05/06/2008, -1/+22Let anyone out who's in there for 'pot' and that should clear up some room. I'm not a pot smoker but that seriously isn't a horrible drug.
  • BeforeSputnik, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5"Mississippi ... to release some terminally ill inmates"
    Is that the smartest idea? People who have committed crimes before and who now have little time left to face the consequences of any of their future actions might not be the best candidates for release.
  • Barbarino, on 05/06/2008, -2/+44My buddy is in Jail here in fort lauderdale, he writes me all the time for the past year hearing rumors they may let people out early due to budget issues, I mailed him a copy of this article so he can stop hoping. No mention of Florida. He gets out June 9. 6 months in jail for a roach in his car, and he's a former navy seal... amazing waste of tax dollars...
    • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1I'm sorry for my ignorance, but what's roach? (Aside from the insect.)
      It's really sad, that the system locks everyone up for the smallest offenses (and lets the big fish go free). And they'll be felons for the rest of their lives.
      • roaryyyj, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11A roach is the butt of a joint, so it probably has a minuscule amount of marijuana in it. Giving 6 months for that is absolutely ridiculous
        • pwndrew, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1I think that is a lie. There is no way someone is getting 6 months in jail for a roach. He must have had priors or something else that contributed to that sentence. Did he represent himself in court or have sex with the judges wife?
        • Chestnut3499, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Unfortunately, this is the type of situation that happens often in states or communities with "zero tolerance" policies on the books. Those are the types of laws that WILL put someone in jail for 6 months or longer, just for having trace amounts of drugs, including pot.
      • Cytranic, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I'm calling BS on this. No way Fort lauderdale cops would lock up someone for 6 months for a roach. This ex navy seal must have went AWOL or something. Impossible to lock up someone in the broward courts over 1 roach.
    • blah247, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Former SEAL huh? What's his name...
    • truenorthern, on 05/06/2008, -9/+3Navy SEAL huh, I would expect he would know the drug was illegal. Maybe he would not be in jail if he did not knowingly break the law?. Sorry he made a brutally bad choice.
    • chantron, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2If he's a NAVY SEAL, why'd he get caught? :p
    • JointVenture, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Im always running into Navy seals and CIA agents at the pubs in Bangkok.

      Its amazing how many there are!
    • purplehaze420, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13Wow, serving your country apparently isn't enough to make them overlook one move... The only mistake this man made was getting caught. If you are mature enough to fight for your country, and risk your life, why can't you risk your life by smoking a joint, like honestly, the US drug laws are a ***** joke.
  • ayeroxor, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Haha! Loser taxpayers and prison towns don't get a cut of America's $37 billion prison economy!

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2 ...
  • chantron, on 05/06/2008, -0/+17Crackheads need jobs and rehab, not prison time.
    It's a new day in America, people are starting to realize just how ***** stupid these conservative policies are and how much damage they have done.
    (btw sloppy article? They get the dad whose kids were killed by a drunk driver to talk about how bad it would be to let criminals out. The thing is, no one is saying letting people out who have killed people.)
    • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2 I have questions from your comment. Who said they should start smoking crack? Where do they get money for crack if they don't have a job? Are you saying that I should hold there hand and get them a job (why can't they get a job now? because they're on drugs? They can get rehab now...so whats stopping them? I'm not holding them down and forcing them not to work, not to quit buying and smoking crack. Besides, they know the law, you disrespect the laws of our country and you know the consequences for doing so)
      Your attitude seems to be that people can't make (the smart) decisions on their own! I do NOT want a Big Brother telling me how to live because 30 million+ drug abusers want to whine that it's not their fault, people can't make good judgment calls. I use my brain, maybe you and these other drug addicts should try that on for size (might make your life better and you won't need to get high on poisonous substances....just a thought)
      • chantron, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5You could use a little perspective. Maybe then you'd see that life in America isn't all white picket fences and that in some cases, no amount of that "Old American Determination" and Andrew Ryan ***** can solve the problems facing this country's poor.
      • gurudrew, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5"I'm not holding them down and forcing them not to work"
        No, the current drug laws and the attitudes of employers are. Why should someone be denied a job just because they use a recreational drug on their own time?
  • dupswapdrop, on 05/06/2008, -0/+19We can find unlimited amounts of money to go somewhere else and shoot people, but to spend some money at home to help our own people that's a crime!
    • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1 hahaha! We don't "find unlimited" money, the U.S. is in serious deficit of 12 TRILLION dollars....the money is borrowed from Chinese Republic and dollars are printed from the Treasury press (further weakening the value of every dollar...sending us deeper into recession and debt). But we the tax payers are going to pay the cost. But I get your point, we throw money all around the world trying to fix everyones problems while disregarding domestic issues altogether. Sometimes the wealth of a man isn't the qualifying characteristic for a leader of the most powerful government ;)

      • dupswapdrop, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1But when we go to war with China our deficit will be canceled out! Mr bush is doing our planing so we will come out of this just fine!
  • bcclist, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Write a senator - especially Levin and Stabenow.

    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ ...

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa020199 ...

  • blitzkriegpunk, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13From Article: Said Pack: "I guarantee you that if this program is fulfilled, somewhere down the road -- it could be three months or a year -- there's going to be a family in court over the death of a loved one, because of someone who got out early."

    They're thinking about releasing prisoners convicted of nonviolent, nonsexual offenses 20 months earlier than they usually would if their entire sentence was carried out. What's stopping them from committing a murder if they, instead, stayed full term and were then released?

    ***** naysayers.
  • Cubby2Zeta, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8How about we actually deport the illegals in our prisons, that should free up some cash.
    • xxgigavirusxx, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Till they come back
    • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3You can't focus on anything else? Do you think that the larges prison population on Earth has so many illegals, that after deportation you'd see the slightest change?
      I doubt it. But it sounds nice, doesn't it? You can rally your buddies with it, instead of focusing on the actual problem.
      • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0 FACT: 1 out of 3 prisoners in the U.S. are illegal immigrants.
        You must be one of the illegals...congratulations on breaking your first U.S. law. Sarcasm, I would have you and others breaking my country down SHOT DEAD ON SITE if only I could run this country (I can dream, can't I?)
      • samansb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1ok first of all dobestpossible needs help and at this rate is going to end up in the prison system that she o so dearly loves and wants to make into a KKK gathering.
        second: about 10% of California's (state prison system) inmates are illegal immigrants. (or as they call it undocumented immigrant)
  • peaceninja, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9"You've got two decades of failed policies," said Laura Sager a consultant in Michigan for Families Against Mandatory Minimums. She said mandatory sentencing laws and tough penalties for drug offenses in the 1980s "bloated prisons and prison populations, and the taxpayer is paying a very high price."
  • SpykerSpeed, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6So the state didn't steal enough money from the people, so it can't afford to lock them up anymore. Wow.
    • SkittishCoyote, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I'll bet they could find enough money to build a new sports stadium!
  • BXRWXR, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9A lot of those guys/gals are in there for non-violent crimes. You can let them go, heck, I don't agree they should be there in the first place. Keep the violent offenders incarcerated and release the people that got prison time for having/using drugs (not distributing).

    /My $.02./
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/06/2008, -7/+10Now now you didn't think the terrorist United States Government was going to ask for more money on a 1000 lie war like Iraq.
    You didn't think the terrorist United States Government was going to ask for more money to attack Iran based on lies.
    The terrorist United States Government needs more money to lock up the criminals, even though they make a so called criminal look like a boyscout.
    • amightywind, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2Hey everybody! It's Ward Churchill!
    • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -4/+0 Your a fool. There are enemies to America (and your one of them). Its not a game.
      • usgovterrorists, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5The truth should never be an enemy to the United States Government!
        Starting wars based on lies is NOT a game, but the work of the most despicable terrorists imaginable!
        • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0 We should've finished Iraq in the first Gulf War...the fact that Bush Sr didn't finish the job, Bush Jr had to one-up his dad's incompleteness. Its a family thing!
      • samansb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Enemies of US? ok. can you tell me how exactly are Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan enemies of US. how are they a threat to US?
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3On these 935 separate occasions, the database’s authors write in their introduction, officials “stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration’s case for war.”
      • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0 I'm very aware of the lies...but I also know what they don't tell everybody.
    • ubuwalker31, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1So, if you think that the US government is terrorist, do you think your government is terrorist too? And I'm sure that the government that you plan on replacing them with won't be a terrorist government either, right?
      /end sarcasm
  • endustry, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Good. Animal houses should be for animals and not low level pot dealers and tax evaders.
  • nexus37, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3Watch the crime rate stats after this happens. Most inmates are repeat offenders - hence the three strikes. I can't get excited about these folks being freed to commit the fourth strike. Hey I know - maybe they could all go to your house since you don't see any problem with it!
    • chantron, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6What we're talking about here is people who commit crimes that typically harm no one but themselves.
      But you can keep cowering in the corner, afraid of all the scummy poor people.
      • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1 Poor people???? Scummy???? Are you implying that nexus37 is rich and afraid? What makes you get that impression? Are you poor and addicted to dope? Need someone to blame (go ahead, blame those who have more than you for they are truly the root of all your problems!)
    • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0 Finally someone using their brain for something other than absorbing intoxicants!
  • maxlightz, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3to quote Jim Carey in Liar Liar - "STOP BREAKING THE LAW *****!"
  • 360news, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Sounds like an interesting approach to get poor people to pay more taxes to me.
  • coffee200am, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Good! More bushcheneyhaliburtonclinton political prisoners released! I suggest that Diggers open their homes to these people and let them stay for a while. I can't....my landlord is a neocon bushie and he would evict me!
  • Chimone, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12legalize it and let my people go
    • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -4/+0Let your people go?!!! Man, your really high! lol
      Maybe they can go get high on your bag and sleep on your couch with no job, no money, no motivation to do *****.... Your such pathetic arguers for pro drug reform legislation :)
      • sb66, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4since most adult pot smokers have jobs and families just like drinkers, you're really showing your ignorance. Why don't you quaff a quart of LEGAL whisky and see what happens.
        • dobestpossible, on 05/06/2008, -3/+0 I don't drink or smoke (done it, grew up and saw that no good comes from it) My ignorance is not that people can live decent lives with an occasional toke but rather that I get pissed by people with short, simple statements that don't provide the truth (and only talk about how good pot is compared to cocaine/alcohol/etc.) Marijuana is a drug, and that black resin in your pipe...thats in your lungs too ;)
  • Kaitsu, on 05/06/2008, -10/+2This is why we need the death penalty.

    Especially on the repeated small crime offenders, they know they get stupidly short convictions every time so they don't even care unless their own life is at stake.
    • MrTulip, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7if you're being sarcastic: my apologies.
      but it's a well known fact that harsher penalties have no influence whatsoever on crime rate. reeducation and rehabilitation is the way to go. it might sound costlier and more complicated, but in the end it pays off. in combination with legalization of certain drugs the resources available could be spent more efficiently on crimes and criminals that really pose a threat to society and to catch more people who commit serious crimes. imho it's not the penalty but the number of people who can get away with their crime which 'enables' the crime in the first place.

      take marihuana, for instance: it has been quasi legal in the netherlands for some time now and the percentage of people consuming it has always been lower than in germany where it's still verboten. at the same time the holland police has more resources at their disposal to focus on crimes where there are actual victims.
    • maz2331, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Are you so sure that's a good idea?

      People facing a potential death sentence or decades in jail may decide to simply "take their chances" and shoot the cops. Or even worse, resort to flat-out terrorism and insurgency. It's a recipe for total disaster, and I for one would prefer not to be put in the line of fire.

      Sometimes too much is worse than not enough.
  • Hetman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Just release all non-violent drug offenders and give them rehab and counseling instead. Seriously as long as someone is non-violent their really is no need for them to be in jail.
  • corryface, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1its actually been proven though, that a longer sentence doesn't decrease the chances of reoffending. people will just keep commiting crimes, there isnt any real 'all in one solution'. maybe work schemes or the army or sumthin??
  • prleet, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Weed: I did an experimentation on myself back in late 90's to see what its affect was. After a month of smoking, all I got was hungry. Even when I tried to ride bicycles, I wasn't speeding. And everyone around me was "homie".
  • anarchytv, on 05/06/2008, -3/+21What all you tough on crime people don't realize, is that under the justice system, everyone here is a criminal and could easily be put away for 5-20 years (which is plenty to destroy your life forever and make you become bitter and insane). Ever download an mp3? How about a movie? I imagine most of you guys have quite a collections, that would put you away for a good 120+ years if the Feds charged in at 3am at night (when they always do it) and seized your computer. I bet you don't have your massive collection encrypted, and if you did, your ipod would get you busted anyway.

    As a computer geek, I got a 2 year tour of the US prison system from the inside before I won my appeal. One of those things where you happened to be standing apparently in the wrong place at apparently the wrong time, but there really was nothing wrong about what you yourself were doing.

    Let me tell you, it is a ***** nightmare. Its an alternate reality, a hell of constant noise, stupidity, hunger, danger, stress, sleep deprivation, retardedness, and fatigue. It is 100% like a Nazi concentration camp, only minus the ovens and people dying of starvation. They don't want you to die... they want to keep you barely alive to drag you out in some painful, pained existance that is worse than hell. Make no mistake about it, it is torture, pure and simple... no, they don't have to put you in a rack or an iron maiden or waterboard you... they don't have to do a damn thing but lock you in a box. The building does it for you. Your body, your soul, can't fight against concrete and steel, no more than you can survive dumped in middle of the ocean. Eventually you will give out no matter how long you can swim, and drown, and that is prison. Concrete and steel knows no fatigue like the ocean knows no fatigue, and it will contionous grid you into the ground until you can't fight it anymore.

    After about a year and a half with no escape in site, I just gave up inside and died. I didn't want anything more to do with humanity after that. Man was not meant to be locked up in a concrete box with a bunch of people, it destroys your mind.

    Yes, there are some messed up people in prison that should never see the light of day again... but I would say about 2/3s of them could be let out with marginal impact whatsoever. Sentences are about 4x what they should be.... and that is the problem. Sentencing length is obscene, it really is. And there is no justice in it. There really isn't. It fixes nothing. It doesn't try to fix anything. Its not designed to fix anything. Its only designed to profit off of a slander game in the name of justice.

    200 years later, we still have crime. 1000 years later, with the same system, we will still have crime. The justice system says "hey, we can't stop crime, we can't change human nature, but we can profit off of criminalizing and villianizing people and babysitting them in concrete boxes that make them go mad."
    • IronDonut, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5What were you originally convicted of?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Good point. I'm sure that about 90% of us have something on our computer, that spun the right way in a courtroom, could have us serving real time. We may be MOSTLY legal and buying our software and music -- but very few are PROVABLY 100% legal. Everyone has probably sped through a traffic light, or broken a law they didn't know about.

      The Law and Order types just don't think these things effect them. That's how people can laugh about someone going to prison and getting abused.

      I think prisons should be for reform -- I don't think punishment really works except with White Collar crimes where people actually think of Risk vs. Reward. If you made drugs legal -- but had the Death Penalty for embezzling, well, we'd probably have a better country.
      • IronDonut, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Is there actually anyone in prison for having illegal MP3s on their computer or iPod? I see a lot of civil actions against file sharing but no crimminal convictions for copyright infringement.

        The only crimminal prosecution that I could find was related to the illegal distribution of copyright materials.

        Then you'll still be innocent until proven guilty. It would seem (and I'm speculating here) that they would have to prove that the media was gotten though illegal means.
    • eryximachus, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4you should be professional storyteller
    • IronDonut, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I searched and couldn't find anyone convicted and sent to prison for possessing illegal music. I did find a student that was convicted to illegally distributing copyright music files. He only received probation.
    • EvilAnimator, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Weren't you on Oprah selling a book?
  • JointVenture, on 05/06/2008, -8/+1If you want to stop people from selling and doing crack or coke impose the death penalty.

    It works in countries that do it. It would only take a year or so, sure it would be an awful year but the long term benefits would far outweigh the short term misery.

    Its real simple, you wanna live? dont do coke or heroin, then once thats fixed we can add other drugs that are associated with violent crime.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I'd rather have legal cocaine and other recreational drugs, to keep people off the crack. I'd rather live in a country with a drug problem, than in a country that gets to shoot people who use drugs. If you want, go live there where they've "solved this problem." If the police or the powerful don't like you -- they just wack you.

      And don't tell me, that the elite in those countries don't get their prostitution and drugs. These laws only effect the poor and middle class in any country.
      • JointVenture, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1I know it doesnt end corruption, just look at the drug purge in Thailand.

        The point I was trying to make is that its obvious that the current laws dont deter anyone.

        If you think COKE should be legal you've never done COKE.
  • notman, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1In other news, unemployment rates skyrocket in California, Rhode Island, Kentucky and Mississippi.
  • MaddieCakes, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I think anybody who ***** all over this should have to pay for just one minor-offense felon to stay in prison. Sponsor them, if you will. They'll sing a different tune once it gets through their ignorant heads that money comes out of THEIR pockets because of the overcrowded prisons.
  • cooke6point3, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1California apparently does not realize they are spreading their crime problem all over the country. Arkansas state prisons are full of California criminals with two strikes waiting to be released. The northwest corner of the state and little rock already have a good foundation for gang life, so most of the times when they get released they stay in the state only to continue their lifestyle. Finish the job, California.
    • samansb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1finish the job? like Arkansan has a rehabilitation program. the system is broken at a national level.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6We spend more money on prisons than on education now. Bravo!
    Hopefully, they can let go the non-violent drug offenders.
    Of course, this will raise the unemployment figures but NOT the cost of unemployment -- the taxpayer WAS paying more for these people to be in prison, than it would cost to send them to college or put them on welfare. The whole War on Drugs was to impoverish our infrastructure and to support a bigger criminal system in this country. We now have prison systems lobbying governments for harsher punishments for drugs and such -- makes more customers. Where do you think the "three strikes and your out" policy came from.

    We are going to need to spend more money, to integrate these people back into society. I'm not looking forward to a crime wave from people who can't find work and can't cope. We'd all be better off if they gave them job training and a welfare check each month. We spend more money on Exxon trying to inspire them to hunt for oil.
    • EvilAnimator, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The USA does not spend more on prisons than education. Bogus urban myth.
  • dropthehammer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4good. they should release some of these people, particularly people in for petty drug crimes. they never should have been jailed in the first place, just given a fine.
  • Technoloki, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Okay . . . somehow this article needs to tie in with Ubuntu so that I'll know I'm reading a Digg
  • icndvl, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I have the perfect solution so we can save tax dollars and help the war:
    Give people the option of serving their sentence fighting for freedom and oil in Iraq!
    • samansb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I like were your head is, but these people are unstable and this will most likely be a case of cruel and unusual punishment due to high chances of death serving their time. and keep in mind close to 10% of the prisoners (in California) are undocumented, which means they cannot serve in our armed forces.
  • maroger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Just in time for the new Democratic administration....
    • jacothedevil, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1democrats won't do anything to reverse the trend. this is an economic issue, and they're as much at fault as the republicans.
  • veriix, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3"Do you want to build prisons or do you want to build colleges? If you're a governor, it's kind of come to that choice right now."

    Ok, so you now have our money, where is that new college you were speaking of?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.