rehabilitation instead of prison…
How about if I’m not bothering anybody then don’t even arrest me?
Edit:
How about if I’m not bothering anybody then don’t even arrest me?
I misunderstood that comment above. My bad.
What do you mean? People get arrested for possession of weed for example that they plan to consume by themselves, not bothering anybody. Then they get locked up. You rather lock them away, than try to rehabilitate them? This applies to so many cases. Of course there are cases where the verdict says prison but at least try to keep people out of prison. But wait the prison system is a corporation trying to make money.
Uh did you misread it? That’s exactly his point, people getting arrested when they weren’t even bothering anyone.
My bad, I did indeed. English is not my native language 🙈
Just gonna leave this PDF of Angela Davis’ Are Prisons Obsolete? here.
TLDR?
TLDR: Yes
Any headline that ends in a question mark has the answer as “no”
Except for this one it sounds like
And not only is the first part necessarily the worst, but once you’re in the system they make it hard to get back out by throwing all sorts of arbitrary requirements on you to fulfill, with little to no flexibility. 10-week class that occurs right in the middle of your work-day? Fuck you. It all serves to essentially keep you in the system as it keeps on fucking with your life. Not to mention prison/jail, which brands you with a permanent scarlet letter that bars you from even working at many jobs even after you’ve gotten out.
Same thing with having one of those breathalyzer things on your car. You have to pay to have it installed, pay a monthly fee in addition to all the other shit you’ve already paid for. And then you can only go a very few certain places. Makes it incredibly difficult to recover from that. It’s not to punish you or keep you off the road after a DUI, it’s so they can extract more money from you
They don’t arbitrarily hand those things out… Don’t drink and drive and it’s not a problem.
Our entire bar/nightclub economy would collapse if nobody drank and drove. Not defending it, just pointing out America has terrible public transportation and very little means to access these places without driving.
Human beings make mistakes.
Eh, yet. There’s talk of mandating them for new cars.
Where?
America and it already passed in 2021 to be effective 2025 source: https://www.kbb.com/car-news/new-law-will-require-in-car-breathalyzers/
In the other article linked by that one it says it’s just a recommendation. Seems weird.
A federal advisory board recommended yesterday that safety regulators require “alcohol impairment detection systems to be included in all new vehicles.” The move is just a recommendation, but it has the weight of law behind it.
EU.
Lmfao not at all
They ended up requiring only ease of installation but it’s definitely something that was on the cards.
Source?
My bad, they only ended up mandating ease of breathalyzer installation https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12799-Road-safety-easy-installation-of-alcohol-interlocks-in-vehicles_en
If they become mandatory, they’re probably not going to restrict where you can go.
Hopefully, but it’s still a device to maintain and check at special government approved companies.
They limit where you can go? Like with GPS reporting to somebody?
I’ve unfortunately had the pleasure of needing one of these interlock devices installed on my car back in 2010. It’s definitely been awhile but the device only limits where you could go if you had alcohol in your system, and that limit would be NOWHERE. If you were sober you just had to blow clean every 5-20 minutes and I could drive as much as I pleased. The option without the device was no driving except to and from work and maybe the grocery store 1-2 times a week.
go if you had alcohol in your system, and that limit would be NOWHERE.
Isn’t that kind of the point of such a device?
Yes, I was explaining to the person I replied to because they clearly didn’t have a true understanding of how the device works.
Okay, then I misunderstood the tone of your comment.
how comes you had to have this installed?
I’ve never heard of this, but I’m sure there’s some jurisdiction that would probably limit you to only going to work or something if you have one
I’ve had one before and without it you can only go to work and the grocery store. With it you just have to blow sober and you are free to drive as you please, it’s like having the judge in the car to make sure you don’t fuck up.
And then they charge you hundreds to thousands of dollars for those classes so that once you do find a job, they just garnish your wages.
They charge you for drug tests and “renting” ankle monitors, and if you don’t pay they just throw you back in jail. Which sometimes has its own fees. Even public defenders can have fees depending on your state/county, and they will threaten to take you to small claims court over the $50 they billed you without telling you. For counsel that literally exists to represent poor people. Ask me how I know.
The logic is deterrence.
I mean it’s stupid, but that’s what the supporters think.
The thing they are missing is that no one commits a crime thinking they will get caught. So ever increasing the deterrence doesn’t help.
Drugs is a public health issue, no really criminal. Prohibition doesn’t work with things done at scales like drugs and alcohol. You’re just feeding the criminal gangs.
It’s not deterrence, that’s not the point. Deterrence does not work.
It’s about sending people to prison so they can do cheap labor. It’s also about racism because it’s disproportionately targeted towards minorities. It absolutely makes sense in that light.
I’m sure that is the motivation of some, those involved, but the vast majority of support will be voters who think deterrence works.
It’s the prison-industrial complex paying the politicians to push this stuff through. Voters don’t matter to the politics being pushed, they just get told later that they wanted them.
Policy at a macro scale is very different than policy at a citizen level. While both inform the other many decisions are made on either side without understanding consequences. Banning drug use at a home or even a town level could make sense and work in the head of household’s favor but that one town or house banning the use could make things worse for another, but from the smaller level makes a ton of sense, unfortunately.
Maybe. But not all police forces and legal systems are like this. In the developed world, the US is a bit of an outlier.
The logic is subjugation. These laws are applied largely to a specific group of people, and even if they don’t spend life in prison, their ability to build a life for themselves afterwards is neutered, and they lost the right to vote.
The logic is it also ruins other peoples lives. No one exists in society in a nut shell or as an island. If your choice to use drugs would expose, entice, or otherwise encourage a person to use drugs then it is reasonable in my opinion for the state to protect people from it.
That being said clearly our approach isn’t working. There shouldn’t be laissez-faire drug use all over but there shouldn’t be life in prison immediately consequences either.
The most succesful drug rehabilitation programs are mandatory rehab facilities that are a choice alternate to going to jail for an equal amount of time.
Also housing first models are incredibly effective. But… the entire western world uses housing as an investment vehicle and commodity so it is diametrically opposed to housing first initiatives. If the average citizen is paying 50% of their income for housing and then “junkies” get given free housing the political party that implemented it would be booted so fast.
That’s because it’s not logic - it’s propaganda. The war on drugs was always built on a solid bedrock of oppressing minorities, black people in particular.
What? White people like smoking weed? Well its probably ok then. What? White people enjoy opioids? Oh no, it’s a crisis we better get people the help they need. Don’t worry big pharma drug dealers, you can keep your fortune, just say sorry.
It’s perfectly circular, like this man’s dome.
Don’t forget that drug laws are often racist e.g. cocaine possession carries a lesser punishment than crack, cannabis is a schedule 1 substance, etc. This goes some way to explaining the legal rationale.
The rest can be found on the Nixon tapes. :)
How is this racist? I don’t doubt that you’re right but I’m not understanding what makes that racist. Are black people significantly more likely to have crack than cocaine or something? At first glance it seems logical to me that cocaine has less of a punishment than crack, but that’s based off of a somewhat limited understanding of the effects of the two drugs.
Crack and cocaine are the same drug! From https://americanaddictioncenters.org/cocaine-treatment/differences-with-crack: “Pharmacologically, cocaine and crack are the same substance.”
They are the same pharmacologically, but the effects between snorting and smoking vary greatly.
Regular cocaine powder is cocaine hydrochloride. Crack is made by mixing cocaine hydrochloride with ammonia and then burning off the hydrochloride which makes it a freebase. People don’t smoke regular cocaine until it has been turned into freebase. Smoking cocaine powder is just wasteful compared to snorting it.
Smoking crack results in a more rapid absorption into the bloodstream—compared to snorting the powder. Therefore, the effects are more rapid and quicker to dissipate than if someone just snorted cocaine.
Crack is cheaper than powder cocaine, because crack has less cocaine per dose, and is still very potent. So poorer areas get flooded with crack, as no one can afford to be addicted to cocaine powder in the lower class.
So, in conclusion, it is absolutely discriminatory to have harsher punishment for crack than cocaine. Even if crack is more potent, it has less illegal substance in it by weight than cocaine powder does.
It is right in the name.
The racist associations between crack and black people are rumored to actually be an intentional thing. The US government says the allegations have no merit, but the CIA has been accused of funneling large amounts of crack cocaine into the black neighborhoods of LA. Here’s one article about it on a .gov but you can find many other sources on google: THE CIA-CONTRA-CRACK COCAINE CONTROVERSY Relevant quote from the original source accusing them:
For the better part of a decade, a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles and funneled millions in drug profits to a Latin American guerrilla army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, a Mercury News investigation has found.
This drug network opened the first pipeline between Colombia’s cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles, a city now known as the “crack” capital of the world. The cocaine that flooded in helped spark a crack explosion in urban America . . . and provided the cash and connections needed for L.A.'s gangs to buy automatic weapons.
Air America is a decent movie about another CIA drug ring.
Makes more sense when you consider that the “justice” system profits greatly from the war on drugs.
Gotta love private jails
13th amendment (which means we can guillotine it right away) for the plantation win boys!
Regan’s administration started the war on drugs. Convicting drugs users of a criminal crime has the effect of taking the right to vote away from people who tended not to vote for the Republican party and allowed them to be legally used as slave labour. At least one member of that administration has explicitly stated that this was a strategic decision to win elections.
I think it was John Erlichman who served under Nixon who said that. Whether that’s true is actually disputed though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#20th_century
I agree that both Nixon’s and Reagan’s policies on drugs were pretty harmful though.
*Reagan. Donald Regan was Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff for a couple of years.
I’m from the city this cop was from and if I remember correctly he was shot in the head and survived but obviously not the same. Maybe he died I don’t really remember.
I’m not a fan of the police but on a human level some awful stuff happened to this guy.
Edit: looked it up because I was curious he underwent brain surgery and survived.
Fuck the police as a whole tho
I used to have that same belief but watching “good” cops cover for bad ones made me realize they’re all scummy.
I agree even this guy but life has nuance and I felt this was info that is pertinent to the meme.
There is always some nuance, but in general most morally upstanding people drop out of training or are pushed out of the force in some way.
That’s the rub, ask yourself why doesn’t it happen more often that a “good cop” calls out a “bad cop?” It just seem so rare. I don’t understand why, these are people from the same community. 🤷♂️
Good cops are usually punished for calling out bad cops. The system is broken.
If only it was like in Portugal…
Or Switzerland
Or literally most western countries
Or no.
I couldn’t name another other than Portugal and Switzerland that have essentially decriminalised most drugs last I checked.
I was comparing to America
Which tbf is a really low bar (except for weed in some states. Still find that fascinating)
Why what you got over there?
Not Portuguese myself but my understanding is that since 2001 most drugs are decriminalised for possession (the rule is like 10 days’ worth or something) but they can still confiscate your drugs and levy fines in rare cases. These offences carry no criminal record and can never carry a sentence of incarceration. Basically kinda illegal but not really.
Wow yeah no way that would fly in the USA. Prisons make too much money.
Guess what, it happened in Oregon! (it’s a trainwreck)
Just a reminder that cops exist simply to uphold the status quo! Our first police squads were created to hunt down escaped slaves! Fuck - and I really mean this - the police.
Also, ACAB. Yes even your friendly neighborhood school pig. ALL COPS
Yeah just generalize and dehumanify the people that pay attention that people don’t break the law, steal, murder and destroy stuff.
You know they are human too? Also would you generalize other large groups of people like this? Without police there would be anarchy and the most violent criminal gangs would make the rules.
You sound like a very annoying person that I would not want to be around.
Cops do not, never have and never will “protect and serve” a regular person. They protect and serve the elite.
There is a good reason we say ACAB, fuck the police and call them class traitors
They don’t protect people at all, they protect capital
ACAB
all cats are biutifull
Taps the sign that says “The Cruelty Is The Point”
“They’ll ruin your life cause I’ll ruin your life!”
It didn’t say what mechanism would be used for the drugs to ruin your life. Prison works just as well as turning tricks for smack as far as life ruining goes.
