America Could Learn From Singapore

[bankside]

You're not using any. How is murder or identity theft a "victimless crime"???

Over 80% of violent crime is generated by the government through its "War on Drugs", which is nothing but persecution of people who enjoy a form of recreation that's looked down on.

It is not social snobbery as you suggest. Drugs are much more than that: they can never become an ordinary class of consumer products because of their addictive properties. If I don't like my dishwasher detergent, I can just switch brands, or even say fuck it and wash them by hand, or just buy paper plates instead.

If I don't like my video game console, I don't need to ever buy another one. The properties of drugs are such that the consumer's choice is often taken away.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is not social snobbery as you suggest. Drugs are much more than that: they can never become an ordinary class of consumer products because of their addictive properties. If I don't like my dishwasher detergent, I can just switch brands, or even say fuck it and wash them by hand, or just buy paper plates instead.

If I don't like my video game console, I don't need to ever buy another one. The properties of drugs are such that the consumer's choice is often taken away.

So you punish the vast majority because of the effects on a small minority?

The only drug so bad it should be banned is meth.

 

[JB3]

I have no idea what the unions are like. But the legislature got an itch in their pants when I was still at OSU and decided you have to have a Master's in your area of expertise to even be hired any more.



That's not especially a high standard. As I said, in Oregon you have to get that bachelor's in education, and a master's in your area of expertise. So to teach chemistry, I would need to get the education degree, and then a master's in chemistry. And some districts will require you to pick up a master's in education as well before you've taught for five years.

That's ridiculous that they require a masters before you even teach. About half of my masters coursework I can't even START until I have a job. Requiring a masters like that is a good way to make sure that your state is extremely unattractive for prospective teachers from other states. I don't know of any other state with a requirement like that; most simply require a bachelor's degree in education in the specific area in which you'd like to teach. (Michigan requires two certifications, Illinois only requires one) In Illinois, before you renew your initial certificate, you have to prove you've completed graduate coursework. And then you have to complete your masters by the 10 year mark, I believe.

Much more reasonable.

 

[bankside]

So you punish the vast majority because of the effects on a small minority?

The only drug so bad it should be banned is meth.

My understanding is that "use as directed" use of illegal drugs carries a risk to the consumer not found in any other products generally available for sale. We'd shut down a butcher's shop or a cannery that would put out that quality of product. A car manufacturer would be ordered to recall.

Moreover my understanding is that the addictive properties make it difficult for the consumer to quit at will. It is the ideal market-distorting product.

The fact that demand exists in spite of these factors is a function of the effects of the product more so than ordinary consumer choice.

Anyway, we agree on principle with regard to meth. And my position on other drugs hinges entirely on my understanding of their comparable effects, which regardless of their magnitude exceed a certain reasonable threshold. If you can point me to some kind of substantial research that would undermine my understanding, then of course my position would change accordingly as to what constitutes a reasonable threshold.

 

[Kulindahr]

My understanding is that "use as directed" use of illegal drugs carries a risk to the consumer not found in any other products generally available for sale. We'd shut down a butcher's shop or a cannery that would put out that quality of product. A car manufacturer would be ordered to recall.

Moreover my understanding is that the addictive properties make it difficult for the consumer to quit at will. It is the ideal market-distorting product.

The fact that demand exists in spite of these factors is a function of the effects of the product more so than ordinary consumer choice.

Anyway, we agree on principle with regard to meth. And my position on other drugs hinges entirely on my understanding of their comparable effects, which regardless of their magnitude exceed a certain reasonable threshold. If you can point me to some kind of substantial research that would undermine my understanding, then of course my position would change accordingly as to what constitutes a reasonable threshold.

Read Saying Yes, by Jacob Sullum. Addiction and damaged lives are far less common than the propaganda would have.

As for quality of product, they should be subject to the same rules as anything else.

As for the dangers, educate people and let them choose. And for those whose lives get messed up, have treatment programs, not jail or prison.

For starters, make it legal if it will grow in your garden; keep lab drugs off limits.

 

[kallipolis]

The following documentaries are for the curious and informs us that Singapore's success has been a fact of life for over 100 years rather than a modern phenomenon. As a child of empire it might be said that Singapore's success story is a product of that empire.

Singapore 1938:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvvhY6DtfZs[/ame]

Singapore 1957

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw7toyYrqjs[/ame]

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, this post is so divorced from reality that I just don't know where to start. The most charitable way to look at it is that you're viewing the issue from an immersed viewpoint.

Dr. Robert Maples, the famous "bone-doctor", was once against the death penalty. Before his death, he had revised his opinion. He had come to the conclusion that American society had not advanced enough to allow the death penalty to be abolished. That should tell you something.

The idea that "most crime is victimless" is just flat-out wrong. Human beings—especially in America—do the most hair-raising, harrowing things to each other—things that would make your hair curl.

Yes, people do harrowing things to each other. But that doesn';t change the fact that most people in jail never did a thing to another human being, or even to someone else's property. Most people in prison smoked something, ate something, drove something, shot something up, or otherwise indulged in private pleasure, that didn't affect anyone else in the least.

Just as an example, over 90% of people arrested for anything at all in California were arrested for possession or another drug "crime" that didn't involve anyone else (I found a figure of 25:1 for victimless to victimizing crimes, which is pretty astounding -- and 11:1 for the nation). In Multnomah County here, over 40% of the people in jail are there for smoking marijuana -- and they only arrest you for that if you're stupid enough to get caught by a police officer, in the act, and sass off about it.

Your argument is like saying that because in one argument on a school playground one kid hit another, then most arguments on playgrounds are violent.

I think you need to spend some time volunteering for the police department. It would be an experience that would change your attitudes.

No, I'd rather not spend time learning to trample on people's rights, stand up for the rich, penalize people for being poor, and inventing evidence to convict people who did nothing wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

^You contend that 90% of prisoners are in prison for victimless crimes, mostly for smoking marijuana?

<purses lips>

There's someone I could ask. My sister served on the force for over 20 years.

That's the arrest rate figure for California.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

You're not using any.

From my perspective, neither are you .

How is murder or identity theft a "victimless crime"???

Dunno. You're argument...

Over 80% of violent crime is generated by the government through its "War on Drugs", which is nothing but persecution of people who enjoy a form of recreation that's looked down on.

Recreation is fine as long as it is used solely for recreation, and it's those other uses that are a problem. Coke and meth are also used to make a person more active, but there are definite trade-offs in decision-making ability. We're not talking someone who happens to go to work drunk or stoned; we're talking about using the drug as a performance-enhancer with possibility fatal results. At that point I think that the laws are at least okay.

Take those out of the equation, and the crimes that are left are things people did to themselves, not to anyone else.

I'm willing to compromise at alcohol, smoking, and marijuana. However, the drugs at issue, again, are mostly the nastier drugs, such as cocaine and meth. As I don't see those drugs being made legal any time soon, I don't see their lethality going down either. I know some marijuana growers are just as bad, but we're starting to see those go down as marijuana makes steps towards legality.

Besides that is the high number of people who get arrested for things they haven't done or for things that aren't crimes, but end up "criminals" because they can't afford to fight the system. DAs regularly pile up four or five charges for a single action, forcing people to take a plea bargain or risk being convicted by cops who manufacture evidence to make the arrest look righteous.

I sort of agree with you on this; I would also throw defense attorneys who are trying to get through a case as quickly as possible and "encourage" taking the plea bargain. There are some areas where the system needs to be reformed.

However, whereas I agree that some of the crimes are moronic (sodomy laws are my personal favorite), the majority are actually crimes. Someone is injured, or has the potential for injury. I'm willing to debate if essentially administrative crimes (such as speeding tickets) are crimes (which they aren't from a legal perspective), but I'm just not buying that eliminating the War on Drugs would decrease crimes as we know it...

RG

 

[Kulindahr]

Recreation is fine as long as it is used solely for recreation, and it's those other uses that are a problem. Coke and meth are also used to make a person more active, but there are definite trade-offs in decision-making ability. We're not talking someone who happens to go to work drunk or stoned; we're talking about using the drug as a performance-enhancer with possibility fatal results. At that point I think that the laws are at least okay.

I'm willing to compromise at alcohol, smoking, and marijuana. However, the drugs at issue, again, are mostly the nastier drugs, such as cocaine and meth. As I don't see those drugs being made legal any time soon, I don't see their lethality going down either. I know some marijuana growers are just as bad, but we're starting to see those go down as marijuana makes steps towards legality.


I sort of agree with you on this; I would also throw defense attorneys who are trying to get through a case as quickly as possible and "encourage" taking the plea bargain. There are some areas where the system needs to be reformed.

However, whereas I agree that some of the crimes are moronic (sodomy laws are my personal favorite), the majority are actually crimes. Someone is injured, or has the potential for injury. I'm willing to debate if essentially administrative crimes (such as speeding tickets) are crimes (which they aren't from a legal perspective), but I'm just not buying that eliminating the War on Drugs would decrease crimes as we know it...

RG

Two things: it seems to me you're soaking up the propaganda about drugs rather than facts. Jacob Sullum takes the government's own numbers on drugs and shows that it's only a very small minority of users who get addicted or have any noticeable negative influence on their lives. So what we have is a situation where the Puritan streak in American is punishing the vast majority because of the problems of a few.

Second, I think you're looking at the different things called crimes, and I'm looking at the crimes that are committed and the arrests made. In California, arrests for drug offenses are made twenty-five times as often as others, ad of those arrests, only a small fraction are anything but users. Nationally, it's eleven times as many.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Singapore 2011:

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Two things: it seems to me you're soaking up the propaganda about drugs rather than facts. Jacob Sullum takes the government's own numbers on drugs and shows that it's only a very small minority of users who get addicted or have any noticeable negative influence on their lives.

Yes, and it's also a very few of them that get caught. Read: It's a very few of the few that are also addicted that also get caught. Remember, it's not the average user that is an issue, but the ones that cause problems that are issue. For most drug arrests, it isn't the person who uses them at home or at parties away from the public that are arrested, but the ones that basically smoke under the cop's nose that are arrested. I have no problem with that happening.

So what we have is a situation where the Puritan streak in American is punishing the vast majority because of the problems of a few.

What "vast majority"? Argue facts; don't offer up bad propaganda. The US is not the only country that penalizes those that abuse that drugs; even countries with very liberal drug policies have more serious penalties than the US does. For someone that has issues with propaganda, you seem to be the bigger victim of it here.

Second, I think you're looking at the different things called crimes, and I'm looking at the crimes that are committed and the arrests made. In California, arrests for drug offenses are made twenty-five times as often as others, ad of those arrests, only a small fraction are anything but users. Nationally, it's eleven times as many.

It's more of a "you are attempting to justify a particular stance regardless of the facts, and I am calling 'bullshit'". Sometimes a society has to protect its members from itself; just because the crime is self-inflicted doesn't make it victimless.

No, I'd rather not spend time learning to trample on people's rights, stand up for the rich, penalize people for being poor, and inventing evidence to convict people who did nothing wrong.

Yeah...I'm the one who is a victim of propaganda. Sure. Whatever makes you able to sleep at night....

RG

 

[JB3]

MRIII:

How about you address what a person that actually lives in Singapore said about the country?

 

[Kulindahr]

Robin, I gave you facts, and you call them bullshit. You even called it bullshit when you agreed with the facts.

Read the book. And do the math on the arrest rates.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Kulindahr: I'm not disagreeing with the facts, just the interpretation of those facts. Read: I expect more low-level prisoners in prison than I do, say, murderers and thieves. No offense, but a drug dealer doesn't get into prison based on just one charge; there needs to be numerous charges. Otherwise, you go to jail (not prison (there is a difference)) for a few months and get shoved into a rehab program. You also usually don't go to prison for drug possession unless you had a huge amount on you when you got arrested. You just don't get 5-10 years for possession of a joint.

I know that there's this huge myth of people getting sentenced to death for having a joint, but it's generally because they were doing a lot of other things. Worse, even if there were no War on Drugs, dealers would probably be seeing hard time anyway; communities are starting to take back their streets and they want those that dirtied them to pay. Throw in the trend towards people that hate putting things in their bodies that they shouldn't, and this means that drug dealers are being sentenced, and being sentenced harshly.

The bottom line here is that as long as you think that the justice system is essentially corrupt and that drug addicts are essentially innocent, we are going to disagree.

RG

 

[Kulindahr]

The bottom line here is that as long as you think that the justice system is essentially corrupt and that drug addicts are essentially innocent, we are going to disagree.

RG

If those addicts haven't harmed anyone, they are innocent -- and so are the great majority of drug users, who never become addicts.

And meanwhile the government is not innocent: it pumps over eighteen billion dollars a year into generating violent crime, with its "War on Drugs".

 

[zingerz]

yes, but at the same time sing is supported by a very rich population. now lets take hong kong for example which is also quite free economically since the british take over and even after the hand over back to the chinese... hong kong is not supported by a exclusive population and because of that that small population which is ridiculously rich controls the entire city. and not to mention the economy is so unstable and chaotic there it goes through a ressession and growth in one year. america is WAYYYYYY too large to not be managed at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Managed"?

The moment you start to "manage" an economy, you impair its efficiency.

 

[Dobson73]

Kulindahr, isn't this thread about Singapore v the USA? Seems you're talking a lot about prisons and drugs and sentences in the US. Should that be a separate thread?

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, isn't this thread about Singapore v the USA? Seems you're talking a lot about prisons and drugs and sentences in the US. Should that be a separate thread?

No.

See, I'm working around to recommending that we don't arrest drug users, just cane them good and let them go.