|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Friday, December 2, 2005 |
Fishy Science
Thanks to scottp, comes this breaking news from New Scientist: Cannabis doubles the risk of fatal crashes.
Now since all the reliable data I've found indicates that, while smoking pot while driving is a bad idea, it actually causes drivers to be cautious and is actually safer than driving while fatigued, or any of a host of other distractions. So the alarmist nature of this article aroused my curiosity, especially these statements:
"These shocking results prove beyond doubt the dangers of drug-driving, and of mixing drink and drugs before getting behind the wheel," says Mary Williams, chief executive of Brake, the UK's national road safety charity. [read MADD]
"We need to see the government doing targeted, prime-time TV advertising on the issue of drug-driving, and we ... need to see a national roll out of roadside drugs-testing by the police to catch drug-drivers before they kill or injure innocent road users."
Whoa. Just what did this study discover?
Let's look. I'm quoting extensively so you can get a real feel for the extent of this 'scientific reporting.'
Cannabis almost doubles the risk of fatal car crashes, according to a new study, though smoking the drug is still far less risky than drink-driving, the researchers say.
Stoned drivers were almost twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crashes than abstemious drivers, according to a study of 10,748 fatal car crashes in France between 2001 and 2003. More than half of the drivers in the study themselves died as a result of their accidents and all the subjects were tested for drug and alcohol use after crashing.
Even after accounting for factors such as the age of the drivers and the condition of the vehicle, the researchers conclude that cannabis caused a significant number of the fatalities, with 2.5% of the crashes directly attributed to cannabis use. Alcohol was the direct cause of about 29%.
Using cannabis and alcohol together was 16 times more risky than driving with neither drug in their body.
"You are more likely to be involved in a crash, probably because of the drug's effect on your reaction times and concentration," says Jean-Louis Martin who carried out the research at the Univeristé Claude Bernard in Lyon, France. "But the drug also makes you more vulnerable to the effects of the crash, so you are more likely to die." The study did not explore why cannabis smokers fair less well in a crash.
There are so many questionable assumptions in this piece that I have absolutely no idea whether there is a lick of real science involved. I do see that cannabis is somehow "responsible" for 2.5% versus 29.0% for alcohol, which certainly doesn't make cannabis look very bad. And the "more vulnerable to the effects of the crash" stuff? -- WTF??
If anybody can track down an English version of the actual research or an abstract from it, please let me know. I have a feeling that we'll be seeing this quoted by prohibitionists without them having a clue to the actual methodology, and I want to be prepared.
Update: Thanks to everyone who tracked down information. I've spent some time reading the study, and I lack the skills to completely parse everything in it.
There were, however, a couple of questionable assumptions used. For example, the study assumes that the prevalence of cannabis use within the overall driving population could be accurately represented by analyzing those drivers involved in minor injury crashes (and this is critical to forming an odds analysis of responsibility). I'm not so sure that it's a reasonable assumption. Additionally, I question some of the decisions used in determining responsibility for fatal crashes, and groups excluded.
2:10:37 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
DEA - business as usual
Back in August, I mentioned the case of Essam Magid, a DEA informant that the agency continued to use after the FBI dismissed him for revealing his undercover status and identifying two agents.
Today, the LA Times has a four-page story: Snagging a Rogue Snitch. It's a stark look at how the DEA operates. Using questionable informants who frame innocent victims while living high on DEA cash. And then DEA agents lie in court to protect their snitches. Fortunately, one Judge wasn't going along:
U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer was listening closely. In an earlier hearing before the judge, FBI agent Pifer testified that she had explained to [DEA Agent Dwayne] Bareng the reasons why the FBI had stopped using Magid in 2002.
Breyer testily pointed out the discrepancy in the two versions. After a break, Bareng got back on the stand and changed his story. Pifer had told him the reason for the firing, he said. Furthermore, Bareng acknowledged, he had discussed the matter with Magid as well as with his DEA supervisor.
Now Breyer was angry.
Breyer: "So the fact that an informant comes in, lies to the FBI, you find out about it, Magid comes and tells you that he lied to the FBI -- that's just nowhere in the DEA records; is that right? And you had conversations with the DEA and there are no records of that; is that right?"
Bareng: "That's correct."
The judge had heard enough. He suggested that Bareng, his supervisor and maybe others had relied knowingly on a "lawless" informant "who has been chastised by the government, who has been fired for it." More than that, Bareng may have perjured himself, Breyer told prosecutors.
In a rare scene, Bareng soon invoked his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and asked for a lawyer. Within minutes, Hunter, the assistant U.S. attorney, was passed a note from her superiors: The government moved to dismiss the case against Ismael.
That might have been the end of it all, but the judge wasn't done. Because witness misconduct and potential perjury had occurred in a case before his court, Breyer said he was compelled to call for an investigation.
The probe, which is being conducted by the inspector general's office and federal prosecutors from San Diego, is centered on Magid's possible obstruction of justice.
Investigators are also exploring whether Bareng lied in court about the DEA's knowledge of Magid's reckless behavior, whether the agent encouraged some of that conduct and how much his higher-ups knew.
Time for the DEA to pay up for lawless behavior.
Note: This is a problem that goes all the way up to the top. I wrote some time ago about Deputy DEA Director Michele Leonhart and her questionable connections with super-snitch Andrew Chambers.
[Thanks to jackl for the tip.]
10:17:18 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Wishful Drug-Warrior Thinking
Walters and the other prohibitionists have been bragging recently about a recent spike in the street price of cocaine.
CATO's Ted Galen Carpenter, writing at NRO, stuffs that spike down their throat:
f you had received a dollar every time a U.S. government official announced that victory was near at hand in the war on drugs, you would be a rich person. [...]
Carpenter uses Walter's numbers against him to demonstrate that the claims are baseless.
For the past twelve years, street prices of cocaine have fluctuated between $120 and $190 per gram. Clearly, a price of $170 is well within that "normal" range. Indeed, the price of cocaine has fluctuated 19 percent or more -- both up and down -- many times during the twelve-year period. The latest fluctuation is nothing to get excited about.
If one examines the price trend over a longer period, the "achievement" is even less impressive. During the early 1980s, cocaine sold for more than $500 per gram. The long-term trend has clearly been toward lower prices, suggesting that the supply of cocaine has become more plentiful.
In conclusion, Carpenter takes on the entire philosophy of the drug warrior:
The reality is that a supply-side strategy of drug prohibition cannot produce a worthwhile result. If it fails and drug supplies remain plentiful, it is a waste of time and money. If it "succeeds" and creates a supply shortage and a resulting price spike, it drives addicts into lives of greater and greater criminal behavior. One would be hard-pressed to come up with a better definition of an inherently bankrupt policy.
That last is a very interesting point, which is often overlooked. The one caveat I'd add, is that while I agree with Carpenter's conclusion -- including, to a degree, the likely results if the supply side strategy of drug prohibition "succeeds" -- I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is possilble for such a strategy to succeed.
8:10:54 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, December 1, 2005 |
The more science studies, the more cannabis impresses
Cannabis Could Reverse Psychosis
AUSTRALIAN researchers believe cannabis, a drug believed to increase the risk of psychosis, may also be able to reverse psychotic behaviour.
Scientists at Melbourne's Monash University say they have found a chemical compound in cannabis, cannabidiol, that reverses drug-induced behavioural disturbances in mice.
The marijuana-psychosis links have always been questionable, due to methodology and self-medication issues. Now it may be that there are also countering elements within marijuana.
Just like marijuana smoke has carcinogenic compounds, and yet marijuana itself counters with anti-cancer properties.
Every bit of evidence so far seems to show cannabis to be the most amazing plant in creation. If only we weren't so afraid to study it.
10:02:23 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Drugs and Death
Nguyen Tuong Van was hung in Singapore a couple of hours ago. But before we spend too much time discussing this individual who was put to death for smuggling drugs, keep in mind that he has a lot of company in certain parts of the world.
From this article in CNN today [thanks to dwrr], the use of execution for drug crimes is startlingly common.
Despite the fact that death penalty figures are kept a closely guarded secret in many countries (so detailed statistics are often hard to track down), it appears that
[...] more than 420 prisoners have been hanged in Singapore since 1991, most of them for drug trafficking, [...]
[Vietnam in 2004] sentenced 88 people to death, half for drug offenses [...]
Indonesia [...] has 54 people under the sentence of death, with 30 of those facing execution convicted of drug-related crimes, Amnesty reports. [...]
In Thailand, possessing 20 grams [less than one ounce] or more of a Class A drug (which includes ecstasy, amphetamines) at an exit point such as a sea- or airport is regarded as trafficking, and if found guilty, an offender will be punished with death.
Despite the profligate use of the death penalty for drug cases (Aren't there worse criminals for them to go after?), drug use and trafficking still seem to flourish in those countries.
And how about Thailand? Less than an ounce? If you've got any enemies, it sure would be easy for them to slip less than an ounce in your pocket without your knowledge as you're heading for the airport.
Well, I think I know some of the countries I'm crossing off my vacation itinerary.
9:49:48 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Prohibition corrupts
Link
MEXICO CITY - Eleven federal agents were charged with kidnapping four alleged drug hit men and possibly helping rival traffickers kill them, as depicted on a brutal DVD made public, the Mexican Attorney General's office said Thursday.
The federal agents - who also face charges of drug trafficking, organized crime and weapons possession - were paid by a rival cartel, said Jose Luis Santiago Vasconcelos, Mexico's top anti-drug prosecutor.
The victims - four men seen beaten and bound on the video, one of whom was shot in the head at the end of the tape - identify themselves as members of a band of Mexican soldiers-turned-hit men believed to work for the Gulf cartel, known as the Zetas.
So you've got corrupt Mexican federal agents in an all-out revenge war with corrupt former soldiers who were trained by the U.S. to hunt drug traffickers.
The drug war is so corrupt that we now have a situation where both sides of feuding drug gangs are made up of former "good" guys. You never have a shortage of bad guys with a drug war. Prohibition just makes more of them for you!
8:53:43 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
'Happy Holidays' part of well-funded, fringe effort to legalize drugs
Well, I think it's finally time to reserve the rubber room for Bill O'Reilly.
I don't know if you've been following his rants about how stores shouldn't use the phrase "Happy Holidays" because it's offensive to Christians and therefore Americans. This silly campaign became ridiculously sublime when it was discovered that the Fox News store was selling holiday ornaments for your holiday tree, including a Bill O'Reilly one (they've since changed the wording in their store).
So what's behind this anti-Christian, anti-American effort to destroy Christmas by uttering the offensive words "happy" and "holidays"? On Neil Cavuto's show, O'Reilly made it clear:
O'REILLY: Secular progressives which are driving this movement, OK, don't want Christmas. They don't want it as a federal holiday, they don't want any message of spirituality or Judeo-Christian tradition because that stands in the way of gay marriage, legalized drugs, euthanasia, all of the greatest hits on the secular progressive play card. If they can succeed in getting religion out of the public arena --
CAVUTO: Who's "they?"
O'REILLY: George Soros. He's the moneyman behind it. It's a philosophy. Go on the websites and look at it. It's there.
Happy Holidays, Bill.
[I wish someone would tell the progressives that they're supposed to be for legalized drugs.]
8:25:14 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 30, 2005 |
GAO fails to understand what it measures
The AP discusses a GAO report:
The report prepared by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, found that U.S. cocaine seizures from 2000 to 2004 increased by 68 percent to a record 196 metric tons in the "transit zone," the area between the U.S. and South America.
But the Pentagon's attention to armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Homeland Security Department's focus on Hurricane Katrina threaten to undermine recent achievements, the GAO said in its report.
The report, an advance copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, offers a sobering look at the future of government efforts to stymie America's $65 billion illegal drug habit. It notes that while drug seizures have increased, U.S. cocaine supplies and the number of users (2 million) have not fallen, apparently due to a rise in shipments.
Do they even see how clueless they appear? The government continues to look at quantities of drugs seized as if that was a measure of "winning." And then they act baffled that the prices and availability have, somehow, not been significantly affected.
Drug traffickers treat seizures in much the same way that department stores account for shoplifting -- as a normal write-off in their business.
11:34:15 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Offensive Ad
DARE Generation Diary pointed out this outrageous TV ad...
u hear bout kim?
what bout kim?
she has HIV
she got high
she got stupid
she has HIV
use ur brain.
keep ur body healthy.
b drug free.
hiv.drugabuse.gov
World AIDS Day, December 1
The implication? Smoking pot leads to HIV. Of course, this is stupid on the surface since the likelihood of "getting stupid" (and thus having unprotected sex, thereby getting HIV) is not very likely to be stimulated by pot use.
On a deeper level, this ad is seriously offensive, since, while the documented incidents of people getting HIV from smoking pot have to be about nil, there is a verified epidemic of HIV as a result of needle sharing, and this same government has obstructed and opposed needle-exchange programs which have been proven to save lives and limit the spread of HIV.
In fact, the whole notion of a website with the address hiv.drugabuse.gov is offensive. Even more so is the fact that there is not a single mention on that site of HIV contracted through needles (and of course, no mention of needle exchange or harm reduction programs).
Correction: bcoherent points out that the ad does not seem to implicate pot, but rather some unspecified pills (I should have watched it closer instead of so quickly getting upset by the message). That reduces my surface objection to the ad (the pot issue), and I'm all for people not "getting stupid" at parties, but it doesn't change the offensiveness of a campaign that projects hiv fear onto unspecified drug use, while ignoring what the government has done to block harm reduction efforts (sexual and drug related) that would reduce the spread of hiv.
10:45:42 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 |
A lesson from Singapore
25 year old Nguyen Van Tuong will soon hang for smuggling drugs to Australia and making the mistake of routing his flight through Singapore (he should have used Travelocity).
TalkLeft has been covering this well, including the strange story of the Singapore hangman.
Over at Crooked Timber, Brian Weatherson questioned Singapore's justification for hanging and suggested some kind of human rights protest. The majority of the commenters to that post missed the point and mostly seemed to parrot the dual talking points of "Singapore has the right to enforce its own laws" and "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." (I would guess that you could come up with at least a half-dozen non-drug laws that are enforced in other countries to which those same commenters would vociferously object, like some of the extremist Islamist laws enforced against women).
One of the best comments about this story comes from Glen Whitman at Agorophilia:
But what sprang to my mind was David D. Friedman's argument in "Law's Order": if you impose your legal system's harshest punishment for a particular crime, you cannot impose any additional punishment to deter related crimes committed by the same person.
In other words, if you know that you face death for smuggling drugs, the law itself provides incentive to kill any witnesses? The law itself provides incentive to shoot it out to the death with the police. This is a lesson to Singapore, but also from Singapore.
The same lesson applies to the drug war here, even though we don't use Darshan Singh's services. As we have ratcheted up the penalties for drug trafficking over the years, we have, through the law, added incentives for criminals to use force to avoid capture. This increase in the use of force and the inflation of weapons for protection then encouraged law enforcement to increase their use of force. Now we're stuck in the middle, dodging the bullets. (Other side effects have included the use of children and the poor as mules.)
Inflation of violence is a direct result of our own laws. This statement is not in any way meant to excuse or reduce criminals' responsiblity for their own violence, but it is essential to note that there are inexorable forces in criminal justice (as a function of economics) that we ignore at our own peril.
When you are driving and you're caught speeding, you curse to yourself, think about the delay, and the cost of the fine, and how it'll affect your insurance, and that you're embarrassed to be caught, and how everyone's going to be looking at you pulled over on the side of the road, but you pull over anyway, because in the overall scheme of your life, these are minor indignities that you can face and move past. What if that same situation meant that you would lose everything you own and spend the next 55 years in prison? Would you pull over without hesitation?
10:59:38 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Interesting developments in Bolivia
Link
Mr. [Evo] Morales, a onetime leader of the coca growers federation, has steadily become revered by the left around Latin America as an unbending opponent of globalization. That is worrisome enough to the Bush administration. But more alarming to American officials is that a man who promotes coca farming -- an industry central to cocaine production -- may soon lead this Andean nation.
Rising in part on his pledge to legalize coca, Mr. Morales has become the top presidential candidate in Bolivia, and he now leads his closest adversary, Jorge Quiroga, an American-educated former president, by 33 to 27 percent, according to a poll conducted earlier this month.
Mr. Morales's ascent now, at a time when President Bush holds the lowest standing of any United States leader ever in Latin America, has intensified a clash of cultures with Washington that shows some of its deepest strains here.
Morales has made it clear that he wouldn't side with the drug warriors.
Though the Bolivian government has made growing coca largely illegal, the bright green leaves are taken for granted as part of Andean culture.
They are still bought and sold legally across Bolivia for chewing or making tea, with people young and old never giving it a second thought. Indeed, coca tea is sold in supermarkets and it is consumed across the Andes, even in elegant hotels and offices.
While acknowledging that cocaine trafficking is a problem, Mr. Morales and the coca growers contend that most coca in the Chapare goes for traditional uses. Mr. Morales says that as president he would allow the "industrial" use of coca, to make everything from toothpaste to pharmaceuticals to soft drinks to be exported as far away as China and Europe.
"Coca and coca tea can be industrialized to circulate internationally," Mr. Morales said during an interview en route to a meeting with coca farmers. "How can we not legalize, since we are not hurting anybody?"
I wonder who the U.S. will send to "monitor" the elections?
12:21:37 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, November 28, 2005 |
Drug Czar phones it in; Barthwell up to her usual tricks
Walters isn't even trying any more. Check out this standard obligatory news release: Drugged Driving as Common as Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among Teens. He'll get some play from the dumber media outlets, but I'm betting most of the majors will pass on it or question it.
Here are a couple of the startling discoveries:
... a 2005 survey reveals
that these teens say that cars are the second most popular place for smoking
marijuana.
Anyone who was ever a teen since cars were invented will not be surprised to learn that teens might use a car to do something that they can't do at home. I'm only surprised that it's the second most popular place.
Then, there's this one...
A recent
study from a large shock trauma unit found that 19 percent of automobile crash
victims under age 18 tested positive for marijuana.
This is the best you've got?? That is so incredibly weak. This study doesn't cover such basic details as how recently marijuana was smoked (could have been days), whether it caused impairment, or even... whether the one tested for marijuana was driving, or was a passenger or a pedestrian. I can give you this page of studies about marijuana and driving, and yet the Drug Czar can only come up with the old trauma unit garbage. Come on, John. Give me something hard.
Oh, and by the way, I decided to follow the link to theantidrug to check out the "New Driver's Kit" (which I never found), but I got distracted by the section of Resources for Faith Leaders that had this gem:
Oftentimes, youth begin experimenting with marijuana, inhalants or ecstasy, believing that these drugs are harmless. In reality, these drugs are quite harmful and may kill - even on the first use.
I wonder why I've missed all the reports of marijuana smokers dropping dead the first time they use it. Oh, that's right -- because nobody has even died directly from smoking pot. Ever.
 I know we don't have Andrea Barthwell to kick around much anymore, but I miss her, and I caught her lying (or at least misleading) again big time today. Even though it's only peripheral to the drug war, it's still a whopper and worth discussing.
Check out this Illinois news item:
November 28, 2005 - As we head into December, a month filled with holiday parties, a physician-led traffic safety group listing the 15 states that have the highest number of alcohol related traffic fatalities. Illinois is in that group.
It's not a title to be proud of. Traffic safety groups, physicians and local authorities announced their annual list of the fatal 15 - the 15 deadliest states for impaired driving.
"The fatal 15 are states in which 41-percent or more of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related," said Dr. Andrea Barthwell, co-chair, END.
Heading the list is Rhode Island at 50.6-percent, Wisconsin is number 7 at 45.2-percent and Illinois is right behind at 44.5-percent. It's the second year Illinois made the list
OK, it gets good here. The fatal 15. Ooh, scary. But wait a second. How do they figure that again? "percent of all traffic fatalities" ??? Does that really mean anything?
So I looked up the statistics in the U.S. Department of Transportations Traffic Safety Report 2004. Sure enough. Alcohol-related traffic fatalities as a percentage of total traffic fatalities: Rhode Island at 50.6 percent, Illinois at 45.2 percent, and so forth, down to the lowest: Alaska at 31 percent. Problem is that this says nothing about the overall level of traffic fatalities in the state. So I compared Illinois (one of the fatal 15) with Alaska (the supposed safest in this model).
Alcohol-related traffic fatalities per 100,000 population:
- Illinois: 4.75
- Alaska: 4.73
The reason it's so close? Alaska is a more dangerous state for traffic fatalities than Illinois. It turns out that Illinois is very safe state for traffic fatalities, so even the low amount of alcohol related fatalities show up as a high percentage of total fatalities. Fatal 15? Not a chance.
(Oh, and the definition of alcohol-related fatalities? It's 0.01 BAC or higher. That's right.)
So how did this "Fatal 15" crap get started?
We go to the website of the Coalition to End Needless Deaths (END)
On December 7, 2004 END conducted their kick-off event at the American Hospital Association Headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. At that event, END co-chairs Drs. Andrea Barthwell and Thomas Esposito announced a list of the fifteen deadliest states in the country for impaired driving. The Fatal Fifteen are states in which 44 percent or more of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.
That's right. Barthwell's group invented it. And what is the purpose of END? From looking at their website, it appears to be a scam to bring in tax-free donations so that Andrea and Thomas can talk to the media once a year about the Fatal Fifteen.
It's Barthwell. Business as usual.
11:24:05 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, November 27, 2005 |
Today: Big Brother. Tomorrow: Gravy for the Brain
Could've told you this would happen.
Lots of up-in-arms in the blogosphere today over Pentagon Expanding Its Domestic Surveillance Activity in the Washington Post.
The Defense Department has expanded its programs aimed at gathering and analyzing intelligence within the United States, creating new agencies, adding personnel and seeking additional legal authority for domestic security activities in the post-9/11 world.
The moves have taken place on several fronts. The White House is considering expanding the power of a little-known Pentagon agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, which was created three years ago. The proposal, made by a presidential commission, would transform CIFA from an office that coordinates Pentagon security efforts -- including protecting military facilities from attack -- to one that also has authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage or even economic espionage.
Apparently, CIFA is already reading some blogs, and Atrios went so far as to put out a distress call seeking a libertarian -- he's apparently ready to believe in those black helicopters.
None of this would be possible to the extent that it is now without the past decades of erosion of the rights of American citizens under the excuse of the war on drugs. And during all that time, people sat by and said, "Why should we get worked up over some stoned hippies? It's not worth diluting our efforts for or against gay marriage and abortion. After all, we don't deal drugs (sure we smoke some pot and stuff), but we're not the ones they're after."
And when the Justice Department said with each erosion, "Trust us. We'll only use these powers to get the bad guys," the nation collectively bent over and accepted it. And now the 4th Amendment is so far up our asses that it'll take some major surgery (or a DEA agent doing a full cavity search) to get it out again.
And now we also have an administrative mindset that is willing to give an official and public sanction to the notion that torture is OK when needed to get information from the bad guys. Not here. Yet. Trust us.
7:56:29 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Odds and Ends
At Dare Generation Diary:
- Link. Just how are school drug zones calculated, anyway? As the crow flies or as the dealer walks? (NY State Court of Appeals goes with the crow)
- Profiting from the Drug War, part 47,283.
D'Alliance talks about GOP Support for Industrial Hemp. I take issue with the headline. The hemp bill referred to was introduced by Ron Paul (as much libertarian as Republican) and three Democrats. And then you've got a couple of Republicans that are interested in the issue for practical reasons. Perhaps the title should be: "A small assortment of rogue, lilbertarian-minded politicians from both sides of the aisle support Industrial Hemp despite the active antagonism and indifference respectively from the Republican and Democratic parties."
Grits for Breakfast notes what should be obvious, but seems to be missed by our law-and-order prison-complex punishment-oriented criminal justice system:
If we really cared about public safety instead of just vengeance and retribution, programs to help offenders find jobs and places to live would be as important a part of the corrections system as prison walls and bars.
7:30:36 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
