• jabjoe@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • NuraShiny [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • jabjoe@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m sure that is the motivation of some, those involved, but the vast majority of support will be voters who think deterrence works.

        • NuraShiny [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • epyon22@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • jabjoe@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe. But not all police forces and legal systems are like this. In the developed world, the US is a bit of an outlier.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Tehzbeef@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.