Category: drugs

By on

This might just be a wild hair up my ass but I keep thinking there is a better way to deal with criminals we can’t actually catch or prosecute — particularly those involved in the illegal drug trade. Pablo Escobar famously had more money than he could ever spend — loosing hundreds of millions of dollars to decay because he hid his money so poorly. And, despite the worms eating the dollars, he still had billions left to spend.

To start out with, let me acknowledge that Pablo Escobar was an asshole. He murdered people. There is no doubt about it. And the general resume for someone involved in the illegal drug trade would be someone similar in ilk to Escobar. They deserve stiff prison sentences more than their ill gotten money. The people hurt by these criminal deserve justice.

The problem is catching them and/or prosecuting them isn’t always successful. The criminal eludes justice and gets to keep his money which largely goes unspent and whatever money is spendable goes to mostly dubious ends. The victim doesn’t get any justice or restitution for what happened to them without prosecution.

The government wants somewhere in the neighborhood of 46 billion dollars to deal with illegal drugs. Some of this goes to drug treatment but at least 11 billion goes directly into enforcement. The question, then, is do we get a good return on this investment. Illegal drugs, for as long as I can remember, seem to be doing just fine. Yes, there is something to be said for there being no price on justice. The criminal justice system is taking the hard way out here — there has to be punishment for the criminal or there is no justice. Perhaps, but getting a financial settlement is better than nothing at all.

This means if a person wants a return to society with the ability to spend some of their cash legally, the drug dealer will surrender all of their hidden cash, pay a very stiff fine from those funds, pay any taxes due based on this money and get out of drug dealing. Since a lot of these dealers are sitting on pile of cash and are pretty tired with running from the law, they might jump at a chance to get out of the game.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But, then, much of the justice system is imperfect. What we are aiming for is a reduction in crime. If this takes some people out of drug dealing, it is better than getting nobody out of drug dealing.

Won’t this only encourage people to commit crimes if they aren’t punished for their crimes? Maybe but then, it is illegal now and a lot of people seem to be willing to take the risk. I think the government would have some discretion in how they move forward. Focus would be on the big dealers with large amounts of hidden cash. Also removing the bigger names from the drug trade might have some impact on the food chain for trafficking in drugs.

The problem here is that the government since the 1960’s has been fighting a losing war with illegal drugs — mostly because a significant portion of the citizenry want to use them which makes the illegal trade of drugs profitable. This doesn’t look like it is going to change any time soon. I am betting that some of these people are tired of running and would like a way out. Right now, there is no realistic exit — it is death or jail. Letting them get out with something might make them think differently.

And their is precedent for this — the Sackler family. The Sacklers unleashed Oxycontin onto the American Public with devastating effect. The government, in order to get something out of this criminal family, made deals that involved financial penalties. It was far from a perfect deal, particularly for those families who lost loved ones to addiction. On the other hand, the Sacklers were able to hide a lot of their money and delay the legal process that they might never have gotten anything if they waited for justice. Again, the settlement wasn’t perfect, but it was something and something is better than nothing.

Maybe we forego punishment over an imperfect pay off.

By on

Lucian Truscott IV proposes the most bizarre reason yet for the Democrats loss in last year’s election. His idea is that too many of the potential Democratic voters were high on legal marijuana. Yes. You heard it right. As a legal marijuana smoker, I can only reply one way. For Christ’s fucking sake, man, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for that one.

His opinion, which he himself concedes is based in speculation and no data whatsoever, sees millions of potential voters emotionally deadened to the prospect of an authoritarian takeover of their government just failed to vote. They just weren’t scared enough to vote because they were floating on feel good marijuana.

This isn’t even worth consideration — not even worth a maybe and lets look into this further. This is bullshit with a capital B. It is just a way to avoid looking at the bigger problem that large swaths of the Democratic Party establishment are out of touch with regular voters. Hell, they are out of touch with their own voters.

I hang with a primarily liberal Democratic group and I don’t know anyone who cares about proper pronoun use or support sex change operations for children. Republicans managed to attach these really suspect ideas onto the Democratic brand. The Democratic Establishment did relatively little to change this perception. Instead of Hell no this isn’t what we are about, they downplayed the importance of the issues saying that the vast majority of voters don’t care about these issues as they only affect a small number of Americans. Not talking about an issue that is unpopular to the general population is a terrible response to the question. It is as good as admitting that these issues were indeed important to the Democratic Party but are too toxic to talk about.

If people in my liberal circles aren’t particularly worried about proper pronouns and child sex change operations, then I am pretty certain that people who have less liberal inclinations are baffled. This awkward non-response left a lot of people asking why are we talking about transexuals in the schools in the first place. Parents would much prefer children learning what a pronoun is before learning which is their child’s preferred pronoun. These aren’t issues that will capture the imaginations of mainstream voters.

Say like the homeless overrunning the streets of our cities. I happen to agree that this is a bigger problem and isn’t easily solved. It also sounds like an excuse to do absolutely nothing. Well, then, if you can’t do anything to resolve the problem, then why wouldn’t people opt for someone, no matter how awful he is, who seems willing to take on the problem. Liberal government has to perform with the resources it has and perform well. Right now the perception is that government is failing to deal with the homeless problem and, I am afraid, this perception is right.

A lot of this caution is due to concern about the rights of homeless people. Middle class people vote, the homeless do not. Political parties have to deal with reality in order to get elected. This means addressing the concerns of this larger electorate is an important step in winning elections. When people have homeless people camping out on their streets and government says we are unable to help you because the homeless have rights, well what the hell can you do then? Shrugging your shoulders in despair is hardly a motivating call to action.

In the meantime, by all means, go after the non-voting marijuana smokers if you must. But, I think a better use of our resources would be to learn how to deliver better government services to the people who vote. All I know is that after reading all Truscott’s bullshit, I need to smoke me a joint.