Call for more non-custodial sentences

Sunnyisland

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1022/prison.html

Inspector of Prisons Judge Michael Reilly has called for an end to the imprisonment of people who commit low level crimes.
Speaking at a human rights conference in Dublin this lunchtime Judge Michael Reilly said all types of non-custodial options should be considered for those involved in less serious crime.
Judge Reilly said the Irish prison population had increased by 44.5% from 2008 to this year and this had not made society any safer.
He said the justice system needed to look at other ways to deal with those who commit crimes like disorderly conduct, stealing personal property or graffiti.
Judge Reilly said he would be in favour of Problem Solving Courts which are non-adversarial, address the reasons for the crime and divert people away from petty crimes.
He said these courts were currently in use in the US, England and New Zealand and had resulted in a marked decrease in low level crime.
Addressing the 9th annual Irish Human Rights Commission and Law Society of Ireland conference, Judge Reilly called on all those working in the justice system to change their work practice and introduce such initiatives to reduce prison overcrowding.
On a separate point, Judge Reilly also said that best practice in the investigation of deaths in prison had not been followed to date.
He said the Irish Prison Service had recently established an independent body to investigate deaths.
Judge Reilly also criticised the disciplinary practice of withdrawing what are described as 'privileges' from prisoners, such as family visits or recreation time.
He said these are not 'privileges' but are in fact 'rights' and should not be taken from prisoners without just cause and due process.
Judge Reilly also said that a proper complaints system for prisoners was absolutely essential and is one of the benchmarks against which any prison system should be judged.
Judge Reilly is currently working on a report on how a prisoner complaints model could be introduced in Ireland.

I agree with him, Being sent to prison for low offending crimes is ridiculous,More use of doing some sort of service or work in the community should be made available.
On the last part dont know to much about that what do you all think ?

woodoo

So how do you punish people for burglary and stealing etc

mackg

woodoo wrote: »

So how do you punish people for burglary and stealing etc

20 minutes in the Sharpshooter.

mikemac

realies wrote: »

Judge Reilly is currently working on a report on how a prisoner complaints model could be introduced in Ireland.

realies wrote: »

the Irish Prison Service had recently established an independent body to investigate deaths.

Yet more quangos, as if we don't have enough already
And why can't Reilly do the work anyway, he is Inspector of Prisons already

When John O'Donoghue was Minister for Justice the Prison visiting committees were stuffed with supporters from Kerry. They don't get paid but they sure collect expenses to go all over country.
It's not just a Kerry issue, all the ministers hand out appointments to their cronies

We don't need even more quangos setup

MagicSean

What happens after you commit 50 little crimes. Do you get punished then? What we need is more prison spaces and for people to be afraid of going there.

woodoo

The way i look at is i don't break the law so why should anyone else. There is no excuse for it.

If they choose to go down that path then they should be punished. I think the sentences are too light here if anything.

Bergkamp 10

you shouldnt go to prison for low level tax and litter issues or debt issues.

smk89

woodoo wrote: »

So how do you punish people for burglary and stealing etc

An accidental dose of gonadal radiation.

Bergkamp 10

bit of a disgrace alright mike. the prisons here have been described as third world by the EU health and safety.

outbreak of tb in one prison among guards i seen in the paper. some of these hellholes need to be investigated.

mountjoy should be closed down. the amount of prisoner deaths these days is a disgrace, and as always its usually the lowest down that suffer.

mikemac

Sorry Bergkamp 10, I deleted my post by mistake, I'll type it again

It's mad that prisoners have to slop out in Mountjoy

But what politician is going to stand up and propose spending tens of millions on improvements and new facilities?

There are no votes in spending money on prisoners and so it will not get done

Merry_Hell

Does Judge Reilly attend court these days? Custodial sentences are not given out for "less serious" crimes. You'd have to be unlucky to receive a prison sentence for your fifth burglary conviction....

How many small crimes make a big crime?

If you are in prison for shoplifting you can guarantee that you are not there for being caught once. You are there for being caught 15 + times, for not engaging in community service or your probation requirements, for not paying your fines in relation to the previous 14 offences.....

At what point do we wake up and realise we owe these people nothing? What does it take to put the rights of tax payers ahead of the criminals who steal from them? You're in prison so that businesses can open their doors with 1 less person free to steal from their shelves. You're in prison so that decent people can sleep a bit easier at night. If we could get over this mental block Judge Reilly's statement would have been greeted with the laughter it deserved.

Separate to all this, our population is forecast to increase. More people means more criminals. It's a recession so crime will increase (is increasing). I seriously think that if we only locked up murderers, rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers, burglars, knife and gun criminals we would still need more prison spaces in the near future. Statements like the one Judge Reilly made today is distracting from this and giving the government an excuse not to provide for our safety in the near future.

I won't start on how I feel they should be treated once they are in prison....... Stick you complaints procedure up your...

Capt'n Midnight

thought this would be another death penalty thread

Overheal

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

thought this would be another death penalty thread

Hey, I have an idea...

HavingCrack

MagicSean wrote: »

What we need is more prison spaces and for people to be afraid of going there.

Bull****, how come this approach hasn't worked anywhere? Look at the United States and see how much of a failure just building more prisons is without any attempt to actually reform prisoners.

Before anyone calls me a 'do-gooder' liberal I amn't, I'm simply just in favour of the approach that reduces crime the most and makes the community safer for everyone.

DEFTLEFTHAND

mikemac wrote: »

Sorry Bergkamp 10, I deleted my post by mistake, I'll type it again

It's mad that prisoners have to slop out in Mountjoy

But what politician is going to stand up and propose spending tens of millions on improvements and new facilities?

There are no votes in spending money on prisoners and so it will not get done

Let them slop out. Prison has to be a deterrent.

MagicSean

HavingCrack wrote: »

Bull****, how come this approach hasn't worked anywhere? Look at the United States and see how much of a failure just building more prisons is without any attempt to actually reform prisoners.

Before anyone calls me a 'do-gooder' liberal I amn't, I'm simply just in favour of the approach that reduces crime the most and makes the community safer for everyone.

It hasn't worked because people aren't afraid of going to prison. It's seen as a minor inconvenience for the most part.

Mike 1972

woodoo wrote: »

The way i look at is i don't break the law.

Are you sure ?

Capt'n Midnight

urban myth ?
TV's (or sky) were banned in a Dublin prison and the crime rate went down for a while

Freddie59

woodoo wrote: »

So how do you punish people for burglary and stealing etc

Yep. Precisely. Here we go again. Let the scumbags have free rein; a slap on the wrist; revolving door; and hey presto - it's back to making life a misery for everyone else. What planet is this man on??:eek:

'Privileges', 'rights'....what about the rights of the law-abiding citizens. And this in a week where a drunk-driver gets just four years for killing four, including an unborn baby - he will be out after two years.

HavingCrack

MagicSean wrote: »

It hasn't worked because people aren't afraid of going to prison. It's seen as a minor inconvenience for the most part.

Stealing in Saudi Arabia and Iran means having your hand cut off but yet they still have relatviely high levels of theft in those countries. Discuss..

Kernel

Said it before, saying it again.

Tie in court imposed fines with social welfare payments and bring in a system whereby the same fines could be imposed on the parents of juvenile delinquents. If your dole is cut from 200 a week to 150 for a period of time, you'll soon stop breaking up wing mirrors and such.

If the offender doesn't learn from that, then it's time for a lock up.

Kernel

HavingCrack wrote: »

Stealing in Saudi Arabia and Iran means having your hand cut off but yet they still have relatviely high levels of theft in those countries. Discuss..

Stats?

MagicSean

HavingCrack wrote: »

Stealing in Saudi Arabia and Iran means having your hand cut off but yet they still have relatviely high levels of theft in those countries. Discuss..

Repeat offenders are rare though and that is one of the biggest problems in this country. The reasons for theft as well as the types of offenders and goods stolen are all different in those countries. It's not really useful to compare them.

mikemac

Iran has issues with smuggling, opium, other drugs and alcohol. Lots of neighboring countries and lots of ways to get goods in and out

As for Saudi Arabia you have a large immigrant population, many from India.
No, I'm not posting all the crime is down to the immigrants
But competition for work is fierce, contracts finish so work isn't always full time and permanent and people find themselves in bad situations.
A sector of your population who can't find work and have no safety net is going to result in crime

Sunnyisland

Kernel wrote: »

Said it before, saying it again.

Tie in court imposed fines with social welfare payments and bring in a system whereby the same fines could be imposed on the parents of juvenile delinquents. If your dole is cut from 200 a week to 150 for a period of time, you'll soon stop breaking up wing mirrors and such.

If the offender doesn't learn from that, then it's time for a lock up.

Could look at the imposed fines linked into there payments whether there from social welfare or employment,Sending people to prison has been around since the 1700,s and doesn't seem to work,even when throwing away the key and leaving people to rot.We have to try something else as it costs a fortune to run and society does not get any benefits back.

Sunnyisland

# 1 United States:11,877,218
Crime in United States # 2 United Kingdom:6,523,706
Crime in United Kingdom # 3 Germany:6,507,394
Crime in Germany # 4 France,771,850
Crime in France # 5 Russia:2,952,370
Crime in Russia # 6 Japan:2,853,739
Crime in Japan # 7 South Africa:2,683,849
Crime in South Africa # 8 Canada:2,516,918
Crime in Canada # 9 Italy:2,231,550
Crime in Italy # 10 India:1,764,630
Crime in India # 11 Korea, South:1,543,220
Crime in Korea, South # 12 Mexico:1,516,029
Crime in Mexico # 13 Netherlands:1,422,863
Crime in Netherlands # 14 Poland:1,404,229
Crime in Poland # 15 Argentina:1,340,529
Crime in Argentina # 16 Sweden:1,234,784
Crime in Sweden # 17 Belgium:973,548
Crime in Belgium # 18 Spain:923,271
Crime in Spain # 19 Chile:593,997
Crime in Chile # 20 Thailand:565,108
Crime in Thailand # 21 Ukraine:553,594
Crime in Ukraine # 22 Austria:552,411
Crime in Austria # 23 Finland:520,194
Crime in Finland # 24 Denmark:491,026
Crime in Denmark # 25 New Zealand:427,230
Crime in New Zealand # 26 Hungary:420,782
Crime in Hungary # 27 Czech Republic:372,341
Crime in Czech Republic # 28 Zimbabwe:351,153
Crime in Zimbabwe # 29 Norway:330,071
Crime in Norway # 30 Romania:312,204
Crime in Romania # 31 Switzerland:307,631
Crime in Switzerland # 32 Turkey:286,482
Crime in Turkey # 33 Morocco:283,702
Crime in Morocco # 34 Venezuela:236,165
Crime in Venezuela # 35 Portugal:218,360
Crime in Portugal # 36 Colombia:214,192
Crime in Colombia # 37 Malaysia:167,173
Crime in Malaysia # 38 Peru:161,621
Crime in Peru # 39 Bulgaria:148,915
Crime in Bulgaria # 40 Uruguay:134,010
Crime in Uruguay # 41 Belarus:132,867
Crime in Belarus # 42 Tunisia:130,375
Crime in Tunisia # 43 Slovakia:107,373
Crime in Slovakia # 44 Greece:102,783
Crime in Greece # 45 Croatia:101,853
Crime in Croatia # 46 Lithuania:92,646
Crime in Lithuania # 47 Philippines:85,776
Crime in Philippines # 48 Saudi Arabia:84,599
Crime in Saudi Arabia # 49 Slovenia:81,697
Crime in Slovenia # 50 Ireland:81,274
Crime in Ireland # 51 Hong Kong:80,592
Crime in Hong Kong # 52 Iceland:60,242
Crime in Iceland # 53 Zambia:59,426
Crime in Zambia # 54 Estonia:57,799
Crime in Estonia # 55 Latvia:49,329
Crime in Latvia # 56 El Salvador:44,762
Crime in El Salvador # 57 Costa Rica:40,263
Crime in Costa Rica # 58 Jamaica:39,188
Crime in Jamaica # 59 Kyrgyzstan:38,620
Crime in Kyrgyzstan # 60 Moldova:36,302
Crime in Moldova # 61 Mauritius:35,943
Crime in Mauritius # 62 Bolivia:31,138
Crime in Bolivia # 63 Luxembourg:26,046
Crime in Luxembourg # 64 Yemen:24,066
Crime in Yemen # 65 Panama:21,058
Crime in Panama # 66 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of:19,814
Crime in Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of # 67 Kuwait:19,350
Crime in Kuwait # 68 Burma:18,301
Crime in Burma # 69 Malta:17,023
Crime in Malta # 70 Azerbaijan:15,520
Crime in Azerbaijan # 71 Georgia:15,029
Crime in Georgia # 72 Papua New Guinea:13,292
Crime in Papua New Guinea # 73 Cyprus:13,023
Crime in Cyprus # 74 Armenia:12,048
Crime in Armenia # 75 Oman:11,782
Crime in Oman # 76 Nepal:8,872
Crime in Nepal # 77 Dominica:7,857
Crime in Dominica # 78 Maldives:7,026
Crime in Maldives # 79 Qatar:5,838
Crime in Qatar # 80 Albania:5,303
Crime in Albania # 81 Seychelles:4,297
Crime in Seychelles # 82 Montserrat:751

FGR

HavingCrack wrote: »

Bull****, how come this approach hasn't worked anywhere? Look at the United States and see how much of a failure just building more prisons is without any attempt to actually reform prisoners.

Before anyone calls me a 'do-gooder' liberal I amn't, I'm simply just in favour of the approach that reduces crime the most and makes the community safer for everyone.

The reason the US has the largest prison population is because they enforce far harsher sentences. There's also a belief that the general public are much safer with these lads behind bars as opposed to roaming on the streets through massaged statistics (Temporary Release and Bail).

Look at how many people in Ireland are out on Bail and Temporary Release at any given moment; and that's due to there being no spaces in prison! I for one would sleep more soundly knowing that the person who's after breaking into my house is now behind bars for the next few years as opposed to four weeks + temporary release for the remainder.

Chuck Stone

Merry_Hell wrote: »

What does it take to put the rights of tax payers ahead of the criminals who steal from them?

When they stop putting people in prison for crimes against sensitive pussy-ass puritans i.e. the victimless crimes of drug taking and supply.

People need to man the fuck up and end prohibition so we can get rid of a good chunk of the coddled bastards in law and order.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When they stop putting people in prison for crimes against sensitive pussy-ass puritans i.e. the victimless crimes of drug taking and supply.

People need to man the fuck up and end prohibition so we can get rid of a good chunk of the coddled bastards in law and order.

Rabble rabble rabble

Tell me how legalising drugs will make anything better. Drugs will be more expensive so the black market won't be going anywhere and neither will the drug murders and turf wars. People won't suddenly become responable addicts. Junkies will still rob to support their habit. People will still do stupid things because they're high. The money saved on not putting dealers in jail will probably have to be spent on rehab centers for their customers.

Kernel

realies wrote: »

Could look at the imposed fines linked into there payments whether there from social welfare or employment,Sending people to prison has been around since the 1700,s and doesn't seem to work,even when throwing away the key and leaving people to rot.We have to try something else as it costs a fortune to run and society does not get any benefits back.

Locking up people is not purely for rehabilitation or for society getting something back, it's also for keeping dangerous and violent people away from the rest of us!

Oh and Chuck Stone - the day they legalise drugs in this country is the day I'll finally be getting the hell out of it. The Irish cannot even handle alcohol, or head shops, so imagine what it would be like if smack was handed out in the local newsagents. No thanks.

7sr2z3fely84g5

ForegoneReality wrote: »

The reason the US has the largest prison population is because they enforce far harsher sentences. There's also a belief that the general public are much safer with these lads behind bars as opposed to roaming on the streets through massaged statistics (Temporary Release and Bail).

This is the issue.i don't think handing down life without parole for smaller stuff will do anyone any benefit.The problem with US is a promise of "getting tough on crime" is an ticket to getting elected.But in some cases US justice system is too harsh on smaller crimes.

Our own problem is there weren't any prisons built during the good times.And society has gone more violent with more prisoners been sent down for life. Which is taking up prison space as quoted here-
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0808/1224302026247.html

Since 2005 the number of prisoners serving sentences from five years to life jumped by 51 per cent. This group, numbering 1,480, now accounts for just over one-third of the prison population.
These long-term prisoners have effectively become the prison system’s “bed blockers”, absorbing much of the accommodation.

Chuck Stone

Herp de derp

MagicSean wrote: »

Tell me how legalising drugs will make anything better.

Because we could stop wasting money wrecking people's lives because of lifestyle choices.

Drugs will be more expensive so the black market won't be going anywhere and neither will the drug murders and turf wars.

LOL. While you're looking into your crystal ball could you tell me who's going to win the football next week? You may be magic but you ain't no savant.

People won't suddenly become responable addicts. Junkies will still rob to support their habit.

Nice strawman. You're conflating two issues. Substance abuse and substance use. Learn the difference.

People will still do stupid things because they're high.

People don't need to be 'high' to do stupid things.

The money saved on not putting dealers in jail will probably have to be spent on rehab centers for their customers.

There you go with that crystal ball again.

Weed use among teens in Portugal went down after it was decriminalised. That's not crystal balling.

You keep flogging that dead horse though and taking money from people because of your puritan ideals.

mikom

MagicSean wrote: »

Drugs will be more expensive so the black market won't be going anywhere and neither will the drug murders and turf wars.

Like the massive black market and turf wars over the legalised drug alcohol.
Oh wait, there isn't any.
Prohibition is the problem.

Kernel wrote: »

The Irish cannot even handle alcohol, or head shops, so imagine what it would be like if smack was handed out in the local newsagents. No thanks.

That's some leap.
Are cigarettes handed out in the local newsagents?
Is alcohol handed out in the local newsagents?


Regulation, not prohibition.
Use not abuse.

Some posters here seem to lap up everything they are fed by the powers that be it seems.


Inform yourself as to the benefits of decriminalisation......

A study by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, has found that in the five years after decriminalisation, Portugal’s drug problems had improved in every measured way. The man behind the research, Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer, told Time: “Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success.”

Portuguese policy is that possession of small amounts of any drug is not a criminal offence; if you are found possessing it, you can be put before a panel of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser, who will decide appropriate treatment. You are free to refuse that treatment, and a jail sentence is not an option. Drug trafficking is still illegal and punishable by jail.

I’ll just go through the figures; apologies for the slew of statistics. Drug use among 13- to 15-year-olds fell from 14.1 per cent in 2001 to 10.6 per cent in 2006. Among 16- to 18-year-olds it has dropped from 27.6 per cent to 21.6 per cent. This, incidentally, has come after years of steadily increasing drug use among the young; between 1995 and 2001, use in the 16-to-18 bracket leapt up from 14.1 per cent to its 2001 high. This drop has come against a background of increasing drug use across the rest of the EU.

There has been a mild increase in use among older groups, 19-24 and up, but this is expected due to the rise in use in the young in the 1990s; it’s a “cohort effect”, meaning that young people get older, and take their habits with them.

Further, HIV infections among drug users fell, drug-related deaths fell, there was a decrease in trafficking, and a huge amount of money was saved by offering treatment instead of prison sentences.

The Portugal experience suggests that decriminalisation is exactly the right approach for their stated priorities of reducing drug use and reducing crime. If your approach has been shown, several times, to achieve the opposite of what you intend, it may be time to change that approach.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture...in-respond-no/

Chuck Stone

Kernel wrote: »

Locking up people is not purely for rehabilitation or for society getting something back, it's also for keeping dangerous and violent people away from the rest of us!

Conflating two issues again. Where is your evidence that drug users are violent?

Oh and Chuck Stone - the day they legalise drugs in this country is the day I'll finally be getting the hell out of it. The Irish cannot even handle alcohol, or head shops, so imagine what it would be like if smack was handed out in the local newsagents. No thanks.

And you think criminalising people because they can't handle substances is a good idea? It's a fantastically stupid idea and is a huge cost to society.

Also, I'd imagine that any return to the legalisation of drugs would not be done unilaterally so don't forget to turn off the lights on your way to Saudi Arabia.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Because we could stop wasting money wrecking people's lives because of lifestyle choices.

Drug abuse wrecks many lives already. Throwing dealers in prison doesn't change that but arguably reduces it.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

LOL. While you're looking into your christal ball could you tell me who's going to win the football next week? You may be magic but you ain't no savant.

So in your free for all world who will manufacture the drugs? Who will do the quality control on the drugs? Who will sell them? Pharmaceutical companies will hit the drug with a mark up for their profit. They did it with the aids drugs what makes you think they'll sell hash for cheap? Addicts won't want to pay the high prices so the black market will be just as busy.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Nice strawman. You're conflating two issues. Substance abuse and substance use. Learn the difference.

You probably believe that every user is really a responable hash smoker. The reality is that heroine, crack, lsd and cocaine are also widely used and have much worse effects than a few joints and they are much more addictive.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

People don't need to be 'high' to do stupid things.

No, but they often are. Wether it be alcohol, ecstasy or cocaine the majority of public order and assault arrests are as a result of incidents caused by people under the influence.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There you go with that christal ball again

It's not hard to see that legalising all drugs will most likely result in a higher level of addiction, particularly in people who use heroin or crack.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Weed use among teens in Portugal went down after it was decriminalised. That's not christal balling.

Again, weed is not the only drug out there. The rest are much worse.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You keep flogging that dead horse though and taking money from people because of your puritan ideals.

i couldn't give a **** if you want to melt your brain by snorting gasoline. What I don't agree with is that the people who don't want anything to do with drugs will still have to deal with the idiots who go around as high as a kite causing nothing but trouble. The majority of drug users don't sit around smoking joints, giggling and eating munchies. They take drugs to escape reality or feel powerful and there are often bad consequnces to this.

mikom

MagicSean wrote: »

Drug abuse wrecks many lives already. Throwing dealers in prison doesn't change that but arguably reduces it.

Alcohol abuse wrecks many lives already. Throwing landlords in prison doesn't change that but arguably reduces it.
See how that works.

MagicSean wrote: »

So in your free for all world who will manufacture the drugs? Who will do the quality control on the drugs? Who will sell them? Pharmaceutical companies will hit the drug with a mark up for their profit. They did it with the aids drugs what makes you think they'll sell hash for cheap? Addicts won't want to pay the high prices so the black market will be just as busy.

See alcohol....

MagicSean wrote: »

You probably believe that every user is really a responable hash smoker. The reality is that heroine, crack, lsd and cocaine are also widely used and have much worse effects than a few joints and they are much more addictive.

A heroine is a good thing.
Similar to heroes.

MagicSean wrote: »

It's not hard to see that legalising all drugs will most likely result in a higher level of addiction, particularly in people who use heroin or crack.

See Portugal as quoted above.

MagicSean

mikom wrote: »

Like the massive black market and turf wars over the legalised drug alcohol.
Oh wait, there isn't any.
Prohibition is the problem.

You make a good point. The alcohol market did not have that trouble. Mostly because of the massive demand and low production cost. The same cannot be said for drugs. Harder and more expensive to produce and the market is much smaller meaning much more competition.

But even if you assume the drug market is as smooth as the alcohol one. Would this benefit us? Do you have any idea the damage to society caused by people on alcohol. Assaults, domestic violence, road deaths. All massively supported by our good old alcohol market. And lets not forget the cost to the HSE for treating alcohol related disease.

You can go on about the difference between use and abuse if you want. But it is completely irrational to expect people to behave responsably when taking an addictive substance.

mikom wrote: »

That's some leap.
Are cigarettes handed out in the local newsagents?
Is alcohol handed out in the local newsagents?

Em....yes

mikom wrote: »

Regulation, not prohibition.
Use not abuse.

A lovely rhyme. But it completely ignores the addictive nature and damaging affects of most drugs.

mikom wrote: »

Some posters here seem to lap up everything they are fed by the powers that be it seems.

While others seem to live in a magic world free of consequnces.

mikom wrote: »

Inform yourself as to the benefits of decriminalisation......

I have. I think it would probably work with cannabis. But not the rest.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Conflating two issues again. Where is your evidence that drug users are violent?

In a Garda cell on most Friday and Saturday nights.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And you think criminalising people because they can't handle substances is a good idea? It's a fantastically stupid idea and is a huge cost to society.

You think absolving people of responsability because they were high is a good idea? It's retarded.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Also, I'd imagine that any return to the legalisation of drugs would not be done unilaterally so don't forget to turn off the lights on your way to Saudi Arabia.

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean

MagicSean

mikom wrote: »

Alcohol abuse wrecks many lives already. Throwing landlords in prison doesn't change that but arguably reduces it.
See how that works.



See alcohol....

That's not an argument for legalising drugs. It's an argument for making alcohol illegal.

mikom wrote: »

A heroine is a good thing.
Similar to heroes.

That's all you can come up with? A spelling mistake? Really? If you look harder you might find more.

mikom wrote: »

See Portugal as quoted above.

Cannabis is not addicitive. If you can point to a country which legalised heroin and saw a reduction then you might have a point.

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

Drug abuse wrecks many lives already.

Of course it does. But do you think kidnapping people and locking them up with real criminals and giving them a criminal record is a good idea?

It's one of the most stupid and costly things 'we' do. If there was a little tick box at the bottom of people's wage slip saying 'tick here for paying for prohibition' the whole farce would, most likely, quickly collapse due to lack of funding.

Throwing dealers in prison doesn't change that but arguably reduces it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7Sp4ExCqOsk/TSYHJoRDO3I/AAAAAAAACJE/WnS68Hc38MY/s400/flogging_dead_horse_what.jpg

So in your free for all world

Strawmanning again. Can you stop doing that please?

who will manufacture the drugs?

Pfizer. Eli Lilly. BASF. Take your pick.

Who will do the quality control on the drugs?

Pfizer. Eli Lilly. BASF. Take your pick.

Who will sell them?

Shops.

Pharmaceutical companies will hit the drug with a mark up for their profit.

Crystal balling. If there was no patent on drugs there would be no mark-up. Drug patents are another evil of our 'modern' world.

They did it with the aids drugs what makes you think they'll sell hash for cheap?

They couldn't patent drugs because nobody owns them and they been around since forever.

Addicts won't want to pay the high prices so the black market will be just as busy.

Crystal balling and scare-mongering. Look at alcohol for your example of how a legal substance is produced and sold to adults who choose to drink.

You probably believe that every user is really a responable hash smoker.

I've known plenty of hash smokers and they really are not in the business of annoying others. It's difficult to get them to come out of their living rooms never mind getting up to mischief.

The reality is that heroine, crack, lsd and cocaine are also widely used and have much worse effects than a few joints and they are much more addictive.

Absolutely correct. Again, locking up drug users with real criminals is a stonkingly stupid idea.

I'm going to use my crystal ball now and predict that the drug abuse realted cost to scoiety would drop considerably after decriminalisation.

No, but they often are. Wether it be alcohol, ecstasy or cocaine the majority of public order and assault arrests are as a result of incidents caused by people under the influence.

Mostly alcohol I would hazard a guess. Public order is one thing and drug prohibition is another

mikom

MagicSean wrote: »

You make a good point. The alcohol market did not have that trouble. Mostly because of the massive demand and low production cost. The same cannot be said for drugs. Harder and more expensive to produce and the market is much smaller meaning much more competition.

Harder and more expensive to produce?
You know little of drug production it seems.
I'd do a bit more research before stating everything as fact.

MagicSean wrote: »

Do you have any idea the damage to society caused by people on alcohol. Assaults, domestic violence, road deaths.

More so than all the illegal drugs combined.
Your point?

MagicSean wrote: »

All massively supported by our good old alcohol market. And lets not forget the cost to the HSE for treating alcohol related disease.

And with the regulation of alcohol and cigarettes the government have an avenue of revenue through taxes on these products.
Taxes that can go towards health services.
The status quo you are happy with leaves us without taxes from drugs which are gonna be taken anyway......... not to mention all the police and courts time and expense.

MagicSean wrote: »

You can go on about the difference between use and abuse if you want. But it is completely irrational to expect people to behave responsably when taking an addictive substance.

You must lead a very sheltered life if you have never met a responsible cigarette smoker or alcohol drinker.
Heaven forbid, you may also have unknowingly met a few responsible cannabis smokers.
Lol

mikom

MagicSean wrote: »

Cannabis is not addicitive. If you can point to a country which legalised heroin and saw a reduction then you might have a point.

Marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other illicit street drugs are all decriminalised (not legalised) in Portugal.
It's working out better than before.
See the quoted article.

Drug use among 13- to 15-year-olds fell from 14.1 per cent in 2001 to 10.6 per cent in 2006. Among 16- to 18-year-olds it has dropped from 27.6 per cent to 21.6 per cent. This, incidentally, has come after years of steadily increasing drug use among the young; between 1995 and 2001, use in the 16-to-18 bracket leapt up from 14.1 per cent to its 2001 high. This drop has come against a background of increasing drug use across the rest of the EU.

Further, HIV infections among drug users fell, drug-related deaths fell, there was a decrease in trafficking, and a huge amount of money was saved by offering treatment instead of prison sentences.

HIV infections among drug users fell....... even better for your heroin users.
Would you agree.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Of course it does. But do you think kidnapping people and locking them up with real criminals and giving them a criminal record is a good idea?

It's one of the most stupid and costly things 'we' do. If there was a little tick box at the bottom of people's wage slip saying 'tick here for paying for prohibition' the whole farce would, most likely, quickly collapse due to lack of funding.

It would be that or "tick here for rehabilitation". I think it is perfectly acceptable to lock up people who damage the lives of others.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Strawmanning again. Can you stop doing that please?

You know that isn't actually an argument. If you want to claim strawman you should at least try and explain why.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Pfizer. Eli Lilly. BASF. Take your pick.



Pfizer. Eli Lilly. BASF. Take your pick.



Shops.

What makes you think they would if there is so little money in it?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Crystal balling. If there was no patent on drugs there would be no mark-up. Drug patents are another evil of our 'modern' world.

And the patents are the only reason drug companies mass produce drugs. It's where they make their money.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They couldn't patent drugs because nobody owns them and they been around since forever.

So they wouldn't make them.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Crystal balling and scare-mongering. Look at alcohol for your example of how a legal substance is produced and sold to adults who choose to drink.

And look at alcohol for the massive damage this does to society.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've known plenty of hash smokers and they really are not in the business of annoying others. It's difficult to get them to come out of their living rooms never mind getting up to mischief.

Stuck on hash again. The mellow stoner is not as common a personality as you seem to think.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Absolutely correct. Again, locking up drug users with real criminals is a stonkingly stupid idea.

I'm going to use my crystal ball now and predict that the drug abuse realted cost to scoiety would drop considerably after decriminalisation.

By drug users do you mean cannabis users or do you include all drugs?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Mostly alcohol I would hazard a guess. Public order is one thing and drug prohibition is another.

While alcohol might account for a higher quantity of prisoners, the drug isers would account for the most damage caused.

MagicSean

mikom wrote: »

Harder and more expensive to produce?
You know little of drug production it seems.
I'd do a bit more research before stating everything as fact.

On a grand scale with proper quality control on suppliers and manufacturers it would be more expensive.

mikom wrote: »

More so than all the illegal drugs combined.
Your point?

The reason it is more so is simply because it is legal.

mikom wrote: »

And with the regulation of alcohol and cigarettes the government have an avenue of revenue through taxes on these products.
Taxes that can go towards health services.
The status quo you are happy with leaves us without taxes from drugs which are gonna be taken anyway......... no to mention all the police and courts time and expense.

You're assuming the drug market would work as smoothly as the alcohol and tobacco markets. I don't think it would.

mikom wrote: »

You must lead a very sheltered life if you have never met a responsible cigarette smoker or alcohol drinker.
Heaven forbid, you may also have unknowingly met a few responsible cannabis smokers.
Lol

I've never met a responable alcoholic. Nicotine doesn't have the same effect on the brain as most drugs so its pointless to use it as an example. And cannabis isn't addictive.

mikom wrote: »

Marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other illicit street drugs are all decriminalised (not legalised) in Portugal.
It's working out better than before.
See the quoted article.

Hmmm....the article doesn't seem to exist.

EDIT: If it's the bit you quoted the reductions are quite small and could easily be explained by anti drug campaigns which ran at the same time as the legalisation process.

mikom wrote: »

HIV infections among drug users fell....... even better for your heroin users.
Would you agree.

Same effect could be achieved by a needle exchange program.

mikom

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikom
You must lead a very sheltered life if you have never met a responsible cigarette smoker or alcohol drinker.
Heaven forbid, you may also have unknowingly met a few responsible cannabis smokers.
Lol

MagicSean wrote: »

I've never met a responable alcoholic. Nicotine doesn't have the same effect on the brain as most drugs so its pointless to use it as an example.

Alcohol drinker = alcoholic ............in your mind.
Hmmm.
I think I am wasting my time here

MagicSean wrote: »

Hmmm....the article doesn't seem to exist.

Direct link......... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100047485/portugal-drug-decriminalisation-a-resounding-success-will-britain-respond-no/

MagicSean wrote: »

EDIT: If it's the bit you quoted the reductions are quite small and could easily be explained by anti drug campaigns which ran at the same time as the legalisation process.

Yeah, that's what it is.......

The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.

And it's decriminalised not legalised.
Time to learn the difference.
Users should not be treated like criminals and that's what Portugal has adopted.

The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz1bd2pt5p7

MagicSean

mikom wrote: »

Alcohol drinker = alcoholic ............in your mind.
Hmmm.
I think I am wasting my time here

Not at all. I just think it is stupid for someone to expect that making drugs freely available will somehow make users more responsable, particularly those who are addicted.

mikom wrote: »

Direct link......... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100047485/portugal-drug-decriminalisation-a-resounding-success-will-britain-respond-no/

Thanks.

mikom wrote: »

Yeah, that's what it is.......

And it's decriminalised not legalised.
Time to learn the difference.
Users should not be treated like criminals and that's what Portugal has adopted.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I think dealers should be in jail and I think people who do stupid things while on drugs should be in jail. Putting people in jail for simply getting caught with small quantities of hash serves no benefit. As for the other drugs, I think mandatory probation and rehab would be better.

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

You can go on about the difference between use and abuse if you want. But it is completely irrational to expect people to behave responsably when taking an addictive substance.

The vast majority of people have a few drinks and never get into trouble. Actually the vast majority of drug users never get into troublen I'd say. Again you're conflating two issues. Violence and drug use.

You know that isn't actually an argument. If you want to claim strawman you should at least try and explain why.

That strawman you made saying 'In [my] free for all world' is quite wrong. I personally don't think the law comes down hard enough on violent people whether they are on drugs or not. Rape, assault, murder, corporate crime, child abuse are totally under-punished imo.

I'm not anti-law and order. I'm anti-puritan laws where there is no victim.

In a Garda cell on most Friday and Saturday nights.

Anecdotal evidence. Probably alcohol realted but again I'd be of the opinion that violence is not punished enough.

You think absolving people of responsability because they were high is a good idea? It's retarded.

No-one is calling for a consequence free world yet you keep presenting this strawman (srawman being the misrepresentation of anti-prohibitionists views)

Why can't you separate the issues of drug use, drug abuse and drug related violence?

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean

What I'm saying is that any country unilaterally decriminalising drugs would probably be hugelly problematic in that there would be a chance that it would attaract an unsavoury element. The repeal of prohibition would probably be gradual and global.

MagicSean wrote: »

It would be that or "tick here for rehabilitation".

I'd much rather tick for rehab.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to lock up people who damage the lives of others.

So do I. Substance use is a lifestyle choice. It's only the person damaging himself by personal choice.

What makes you think they would if there is so little money in it?

Where there's profit there are people who will seek it even if margins are tight.

And the patents are the only reason drug companies mass produce drugs. It's where they make their money.

Not true. Medicine patents run out after 10 years (could be corrected) and yet people still make anti-biotics paracetemol and all sortrs of out-of-patent medicines.

So they wouldn't make them.

Wrong. See above.

And look at alcohol for the massive damage this does to society.

True but could you imagine the havoc caused if alcohol was prohibited and people who use it were deemed criminal?

Stuck on hash again. The mellow stoner is not as common a personality as you seem to think.

Stoners are usually very peacefull people who find walking to the shop for munchies a massive chore, never mind getting into an argument.

By drug users do you mean cannabis users or do you include all drugs?

I would say all drugs. The people on the worst ones are the ones who would need the most care rather than criminalising.

While alcohol might account for a higher quantity of prisoners, the drug isers would account for the most damage caused.

Damage caused to what?