Is there an observable benefit to the criminalization of certain drugs?

It gives people an excuse for their preexisting judgment and condescension. If we legalized it, they wouldn’t have it as an excuse to be a douche and treat drug users like sh*t. And then where would we be? A society that reflects inward and treats others with respect? I know none of us want that!

@papayalily

Ah…the loose definition of “benefit.” :-)

besides giving the cops and jails something to do..and wasting tax payers money… NO

@Dewey420

This is what I think – I don’t see profit to any industry other than the prison and law enforcement industries.

Although now that I think about it, it may be a safe assumption that the alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries may have realized a good amount of profit from the ban.

The purpose of the criminalization of drugs is to discourage people from consuming such illegal drugs. Therefore, the benefit cannot be “observed” (you can’t see something that didn’t occur, e.g., the lack of health problems that you mentioned). To measure those benefits, we’d need to see how consumption patterns change once drugs are legalized.

It is massively profitable to the huge and growing for-profit prison system. THe War on Drugs was designed to fatten the pockets of politically well connected people who the government is now outsourcing incarceration to. It also provides a convenient way to lock up a disproportionate percentage of inner city youths. If this were done in other ways, it just might look like racial bias. But pushing a culture of drugs and then profiting from those gullible enough to fal for its allure is as unbiased as you can get.

I am not saying that drugs like cocaine don’t cause deviated septums and deep holes in an adict’s bank account, or that crystal meth isn’t a fast road to an ugly death. But I believe we’d spend far less and accomplish far more taking the allure out of the drug culture and teaching the dangers of truly addictive substances. Deal with addiction as a public health issue and sell and tax less harmful drugs. It would be far more cost effective and I predict it would cut down on drug abuse. Yet again, prohibition has failed.

@ETpro Can I get a “mandatory minimums”?

Regarding the general prison industry profit issue, does anyone have any reports (reasonably unbiased sources that can be independently verified preferred) that show the profits generally that the system has seen?

@papayalily:

I’ll see your “mandatory minimums” and raise you a “three strikes, you’re out!” And you know what, I’m throwing in the “Rockefeller Laws” too…

@iamthemob I found this that speaks to its size. The USA now locks up more of its citizens than any other nation on Earth, even massive China with its repressive, authoritarian government and 1.3 billion people.

Here’s background on how the Prison Industry helped shape Arizona’s anti immigrant bill.

@ETpro Is that percentage or total?

@iamthemob I call your 3 strikes and your Rockefeller, and I raise you assault rifles “covered” by the 2nd amendment.

I believe it was Dostoyevsky who spoke of “The Noble Lie” as beneficial for rulers to govern their people by. These Noble Lies have the affect of rallying the masses around a specific cause, in order to conceal the real problems that we are facing.

The War on Drugs could be considered as one of many Noble Lies. Others might include the War on Terror, Swine Flu Virus, GMO foods, flouride in drinking water… Hitler promoted a Noble Lie to the citizens of Germany. They strike at passions and use fear tactics to validate a string of half truths into a monster that society must confront and overcome.

All lies, no matter how noble, are still lies.

@bob_

Agreed, you can’t prove a negative as described. However, what about comparisons to countries where drug use isn’t prosecuted in the manner it is in the U.S.? Conrolling for other variables, is there a difference in health costs associated with drug use? Is there a negative or positive general economic effect? Do such countries, most importantly, have an observable increase in consumption? And if so, is it an increase associated with casual use or consumption? We needn’t use the U.S. population alone as the test population.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Testify. Awesome.

@iamthemob portugal doesnt have drug laws. Their drug abuse rates are lower than in the US. Prohibition doesnt do shit but create criminals.

I am not aware of any studies showing whether or not it discourages drug use, but at least it promotes general awareness of how dangerous drugs are.

People are dangerous. Drugs are simply a tool that people use.

Why should the government be allowed to arrest me for planting a seed that grows naturally?

@papayalily

Now it’s on – I’m gonna toss in “disproportionate levels of check cashing places and pawn shops in low-income neighborhoods” as well as ”disclosure of convictions in employment applications” and ”felony disenfranchisement”

DMT is illegal as well, yet we all produce it in our very own brains every night. We’re all carriers.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Would you prefer psychological programming to make us dislike drugs, but let them remain on sale? You could make the same argument for anything – ‘People are dangerous. Nuclear weapons are simply a tool people use.’ The sale of nuclear weapons is illegal because of what might happen if they fell into the wrong hands. The same is true of drugs. Sure, some people may be able to use them responsibly, but that is no argument for deregulation. ‘Natural’ is not a synonym for ‘good’. Uranium is a natural substance, but you’re not allowed to have that hanging around in your back yard either.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies DMT is the greatest drug ever. I actually wrote a college paper on how its bullshit to have a substence banned that is found in every human being on this earth :P.

@FireMadeFlesh guess what though, making drugs illegal doesnt stop ANYONE from using them. Its a moot point.

@uberbatman True, but I believe it to be well intentioned. Road rules don’t stop anyone speeding either, but the police still fight that one every day. See my original post.

@FireMadeFlesh

I would argue that it actually has a negative effect on the dangers of drugs. I remember around 2000 a lot of ecstacy deaths that were associated with overconsumption of water. The people knew that E dehydrates you, so they drank more water than usual. But they didn’t know the actual risk level of dehydration, and therefore overcompensated. Since much of the awareness surrounding drug use in the criminalization context is of the “scare tactics” variety, you can’t comfortably have a conversation about how you can use an illegal narcotic safely. If there was, it might generate more awareness about how to judge what’s happening to you.

Also, criminalizing the drug doesn’t allow us to have open research in the lab or really provide for a broad analysis of the effect of use over time. Criminalization causes most of the participants in a poll regarding use to be selected in a manner limited to those arrested, in recovery, etc…not a full picture.

I fear that the dialogue, for these reasons, tends to be limited and cautious in a criminalization based society…

I think society, through government, has a right and responsibility to regulate “drugs” or whatever you want to call them, but I don’t think there is necessarily any benefit to criminalizing them. There is not physiological difference in being addicted to and abusing an illegal opiate as opposed to a legal, regulated, prescription opiate. We live in a society that allows amphetamines to be legally prescribed to 5 year olds for ADHD but make other types of amphetamines completely illegal for adult use. I think both are probably a bad idea. It’s just kind of insane. We treat drugs that are almost chemically identical and identical in their effect on people completely differently simply by determining one to be legal, but regulated and available under specific circumstances and the other to be completely illegal under all circumstances. That isn’t particularly rational or productive. You end up creating a class of people who are criminals merely because they use one particular form of a drug and others who are not because their circumstances permit them access to a legal, but regulated, e.g. prescription form of the drug.

@iamthemob Uh-oh, I fold. You are clearly the superior player, and I genuflect in your presence.

@iamthemob That is a tragedy, but would you really dive into a river without checking its depth first? The state is not responsible for self-inflicted harm. However the state does pay the medical bills when people do screw up, so making drugs illegal gives them a basis from which they can seek some form of remuneration for all the money they are shelling out to fix up people who have self-inflicted injuries.

Genesis 1:29 KJV
“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Now we know how the Bible was written!

@papayalily Sorry it took me so long to get to your question. If we believe what China reports about how many people they have incarcerated, then the US locks up more in real numbers. THe US prison population is around 2,200,000 and China claims theirs is 1,400,000.

In this report from 211 nations including the US, Russia and China, there were around 9 million people incarcerated and 2,200,000 of those are here in the USA. We are talking BIG business. Huge profits to be made, and incentives to suggest new ideas for locking ever more people up, and pay off the politiciains who will demonize the necessary “threats”.

@FireMadeFlesh Invalid comparison for Nuclear Weapons and Drugs.

Nuclear weapons can be used to kill everyone.

Drugs can be used to kill, save, or enlighten only one’s self.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies That isn’t the point. I was simply responding to your suggestion that the drugs in themselves are not dangerous, so they should be free to all.

I understand.

@ETpro I’d never heard the theory that incarceration was big biz. It makes perfect sense. How did I not see this?

@lillycoyote

Regulation as opposed to decriminalization would increase responsibilities of one agency or another to monitor compliance, but this doesn’t mean increased costs necessarily…the regulation may be more the transfer of responsibility from one agency (DEA) to another (FDA) or a revision of the first agency’s duties. So clearly I agree with you – in fact we pretty much have a mechanism in place to help it along. And the regulation concept also brings into the conversation the potential revenue benefits the government would gain from taxation (and the accompanying potential relief for the people for the massive investment in the war on drugs).

And to add to the concerns about the chemical-similarity, legal-difference debacle, you have to reference the severe sentencing differences for crack possession as opposed to cocaine possession – with the coinciding disparate impact on the poor and minority groups.

@iamthemob I am not aware of any such studies. Y’all can check this out, though.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The for-profit prison business is one that need run no television advertising. They drum up new business through lobbyists, who are paid very well to be discrete.

How insanely obvious. Wow!

I guess that explains why there is so very little rehab in prisons, and also why there is still such rampant drug use within prison. They could stop the drug use in prison very easily if they really wanted to.

Holy shit! It just dawned on me the obvious truth… They can’t even stop drug use within prisons… How the FUCK do they expect to stop it in society? How absurd!

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies No good business model tries to drive away repeat customers.

No doubt.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies So it seems the illegality or otherwise is quite irrelevant to the argument. It is the lack of significant action that allows the cycle to continue.

@FireMadeFlesh I’m not following you. Would you elaborate on that thought a bit?

@FireMadeFlesh

re: response to the ecstacy example – I don’t really think it’s an accountability issue in that part of the discussion. Whether or not they made a smart choice isn’t in question – using drugs is always pretty stupid. However, it’s possible that if there was a more open conversation about safe use they could have used it to make themselves more safe. Using your analogy, you can’t check the depth of the pool before you dive in easily if someone’s covering your eyes.

I’m also unclear on the medical care payment issue – I don’t believe myself that the state should be responsible for the medical care of someone who incurs the debt because of their own lifestyle choices…but I don’t see how they do here. Nothing indicates that they automatically pay for drug injuries…and there’s nothing to indicate how many people with drug-based health issues are uninsured or otherwise not covered. It being a crime doesn’t mean that the government gets remunerated – criminals don’t automatically pay fines. These people go to jail. Finally, the incarcerated are, ironically, the only people in the U.S. who get mandatory free health care – so while in prison the health issues MUST be paid for by the gov. whereas if they were free a lot more would be covered by the private sector. If you mean something else, please clarify – let me know if I’m missing your point.

The war on drugs is a failure, from the citizen’s perspective, because it is geared toward punishment rather than therapy. I know this is a highly unpopular view, but concentration of tax money in order to convert drug users into productive citizens rather than lose them completely as disenfranchized second class citizens is the only rational way, in my opinion. It works in other countries and these same countries don’t have the financial burden of repeatedly incarcerating the drug users.

Over my lifetime, we have become a hardened, punative society. Like ETpro has repeatedly said, we incarcerate more people (per capita at least) than any country on earth. Between 1997 and 2007 we doubled the prison population in this country from 1m to 2m people, to the enormous profit of the stock holders backing the privatized, for-profit prison system, although the daily costs of supporting a prisoner in a private prison is more than in the government system.

This is not only due to lobbyists, as ETpro asserts, but also due to the cross-pollenization of key executives from investment firms such as Dillon, Read & Co into key positions at DOJ, HUD and other federal agencies. DOJ approved the use of the privatization of the prison system and HUD, through FBI raids, fed people en masse into the prisons.

The term “Loser” is used frequently and loosely in villification to describe people who, for whatever reason, fall out of the or contributing norm and into dependency. This is symptomatic of a sick society. We have gone from a charitable society of understanding to a selfish, mean one whose answer to any divergence from the accepted norm is punishment. This is to our detriment morally and financially.

@ETpro From @RealEyesRealizeRealLies’ comment, if they don’t bother to crack down on drugs in prisons, then the cycle continues. Making it illegal isn’t enough, there needs to be action to rehabilitate the drug users and dealers that are locked up.

@iamthemob I’m not totally aware of how the US health system works, but here in Australia there is public health care for those who cannot afford private, and drug users aren’t always wealthy, so the state ends up picking up the hospital bill. There was a recent case where a heroin addict received a liver transplant, then killed the new liver with more heroin. There was a huge uproar because the WA government gave a zero interest loan for her to have another transplant from her mother’s liver.

@Espiritus_Corvus

I agree with the general point regarding how we should approach the issue. I always get concerned, though, when we start talking about morality. I want to try to stay on actual, observable, factual benefits related to drug criminalization (still haven’t seen any presented unequivocally) – talking about how our compass is off is worthwhile, but a WHOLE other can of worms to open. ;-)

@FireMadeFlesh why lock them up in the first place though? It does nothing. Why not just work on rehabilitating? It works in other countries, why not here?

@uberbatman As with suicide, making it illegal gives the state an avenue to force people into rehabilitation. Unfortunately that isn’t used much. I agree, jail isn’t the right place for users and dealers. I think most crimes should be answered with rehabilitation rather than jail time, but most people in the drug lifestyle don’t realise how bad it is until they get out.

@FireMadeFlesh

Ah thanks! There was the disconnect – we were talking about two different systems and didn’t know it. Unfortunately, I think it would be difficult to figure out if this created an actual negative impact on the costs to the state. As you said, not all drug users are particularly wealthy – but not all are particularly poor. Additionally, all this is based on the fact that there would be an increase (a permanent increase, mind you) in consumption that would create an impact not already felt by illegal use. There’s an argument that if there were no criminal penalties, then addicts might recognize trouble and seek treatment prior to serious or more significant health issues arise. Where there’s a criminal penalty in the U.S., an addict might not do so for fear of revealing their criminal behavior, thereafter being surveilled, and then relapsing and getting arrested (all addicts are at risk for relapse).

Regarding in-prison reforms – if there’s no crime, that reform can be done out in the open, that treatment in the real world, perhaps with the private sector shouldering more of the cost, taking the burden off the state and before it becomes a major issue.

@FireMadeFlesh Suicide isn’t illegal in any of the states.

@papayalily Thanks for the info. I thought it was though, because of this thread.

@FireMadeFlesh thats why its important to educate from an early age instead of the misinformation that seems so prevalent now a days. Again going to the Portugal example. While there arent any real drug laws as far as usage goes, if you have over 10 doses worth of whatever drug it is, you are sentenced to a rehab. Its a far better system.

@uberbatman That does sound like a better system then. I don’t know much about international approaches to drugs, but I do take offence at suggestions that drugs are harmless and/or victimless crimes.

@FireMadeFlesh some drugs are harmless victim-less crimes. Others are not. Me smoking weed in my room effects you none though.

@FireMadeFlesh Historically, various states listed the act as a felony, but all were reluctant to enforce it. By 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime (North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma, which repealed its law in 1976). By the early 1990s only two US states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation#United_States

BUT if you threaten it, they can throw you in the psych ward (although there are certain parameters – it has to be “I’m gonna kill myself tonight with a noose” not “I feel like doing it but have no plan”). It sure feels like prison (and the beds aren’t as nice), but it’s technically not illegal – you won’t get thrown in jail or get a ticket or have it on your record.

@FireMadeFlesh Aha. Thanks for explaining. Criminalization of drug use is not used here in the USA to force people into rehab. It is used to force them into a prison system which is rapidly becoming a large, for-profit industry. It does nothing to save the state money. Far from it, it cost a huge amount. We pay for each prisoner’s every need, including all medical care while they are locked up. They are a drain on the economy, producing no goods or services, and paying no taxes. And when released as ex-cons, they are fortunate if they can land any job, even at minimum wage. Most are in and out of prison for the rest of their lives.

Your analogy regarding diving into a river without knowing its depth doesn’t accurately fit this topic. We know the effect of other approaches by how they work where they are put to use. We also know the abject failure of prohibition here in the USA when it was applied to another mind-altering drug, alcohol. It did nothing to stop the use of alcohol. Instead, it created a massive and powerful new crime syndicate called the Mafia to supply the alcohol the people wanted illegally. Drug prohibition has done exactly the same thing this time around.

So it is not like we are dealing with some huge unknown. We know what does work, and we know what we are doing doesn’t work —except of course for the owners and investors in the prison industry it feeds.

@FireMadeFlesh

Bouncing off the suicide comparison (and understanding that it’s not factually accurate) I think that uberbatman outlines the better system as you’ve just admitted while I am typing this. Criminalization only really forces people into rehab when it’s already maybe too late. On the other hand, if they are convicted, they’re future prospects become limited – which only increases the negative emotions and life situations that generally drive addiction. Further, again, if it’s criminal people talk about it less (e.g., homosexuality, when illegal, was not discussed, and there was a vast amount of misinformation regarding it) and there is an additional stigma that adds to the shame associated (any user doesn’t want to be known as a druggie – casual drinkers aren’t, on the other hand, automatically alcoholics). If people are less ashamed, they ask for help sooner, and the problems remain manageable.

And, sorry to do this…coming back to the nuclear weapons example – yeah, I feel like the allusion is a little too extreme to be relevant. But I see your point. Unfortunately, it’s more along the lines of the U.S. issue with second amendment (right to bear arms) issues. The argument you disagreed with was sort of like the “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” position of the gun industry and the NRA. I think that’s bull…and agree with you therefore on the position that we shouldn’t just say it’s the drugs that are dangerous, so we don’t really need to blame the user or seller. However, I disagree with an absolute right to bear arms, and support strict regulation that would limit the types of guns, the number of them, and the age and periods that a person should be able to get guns. I’m also of the mind that gun violence victims should have recourse against former owners and the manufacturer for injuries they sustained from guns purchased on the black market. But we can, and already have, imposed a lot of this regulation on the gun industry already because it’s out in the open, and therefore we have a better opportunity to monitor it. The drug market, on the other hand, is completely underground. Therefore, we can’t monitor easily when and where people are using, how young the buyers are, what kind of quality the seller is distributing, whether the production is done in a manner respecting the basic human rights of the workers (p.s. – the War on Drugs generally ensures that these human rights violations will occur), etc. An open industry makes it a regulated industry. Otherwise, it’s open to anyone and everyone, and will most likely attract the lower common denominator.

it’s like.. if someone huffs a buncha paint thinner and becomes retarded or dies..well, the warning is right there on the label! Seems like it would be simpler to just make it all legal.. and just slap a warning label on it..and sell the really crazy stuff like H and Crack for like 10k a oz or something.

@FireMadeFlesh

Also, I agree that a statement that drug use is harmless and victimless is a little too flippant. No matter what the legal status of drugs in the U.S. or the world, it will victimize families, probably the poor and otherwise oppressed as well. But mostly when it concerns addiction. However, I believe this is a social and not legal issue.

Unfortunately, I think that most of the harm caused by the use and sale of drugs is due to it’s illegal nature. It creates the black market and violence associated with it (as referred to in ETpro’s post above). A vast amount of the world’s money is associated with the drug trade (may be considered drug dollars), and because it’s carefully laundered, it can’t be reasonably tracked and easily goes to fund other criminal activities – most noticeably terrorism. It’s odd, but because of this one can argue that the funding produced by War on Drugs is the reason why we fight a well-supplied enemy in the War on Terror.

@Dewey420
Unfortunately, making it legal means letting the market determine much of the pricing scheme. You have to let the industry run at it’s own natural level of profitability (subtracting the costs of regulation of course) – your suggestion, although mostly symbolic I think, would pretty much ensure either (1) the bankruptcy of those in the market selling the crazy stuff already, or (2) the refusal of anyone even trying to get into sale of the crazy stuff because there would be no way to make it profitable. We can pretty much guarantee that drugs would be profitable (with the black market there), so we have to let it be. Regulating the industry to the extent suggested, or any extent that acts as a barrier to entry, will pretty much have the effect that criminalization has now in terms of the peripheral harm of the drug industry: no one would be arrested for possession probably, but you’d have underground producers violating the human rights of their workers because there’s no oversight (if you’re not selling it through the legal channels, you have to hide production), dealers working without regulatory oversight selling what they have to whoever wants it (possession with intent to distribute would be a crime here, so the dealer has the negative incentive to refuse sale to minors but also the perverse incentive to sell to them as unloading as quickly as possible reduces the chance the dealer might get caught with the drugs), and finally you’d have street violence as people involved in the black market warring over their market turf.

@uberbatman It doesn’t effect me, but if you lived in Australia it would, because my taxes would support you in care when you develop schizophrenia (if of course you were a moderate to high volume user).

@ETpro I think you misinterpreted my analogy. I was referring to people taking E without knowing the risks. It was not a comment on the risks of a system overhaul.

@iamthemob I used nuclear weapons as my example because gun laws are a less clear cut issue. However I do think the same applies, and the US has reaped the rewards of its laws with its obscenely high rates of firearm crime.
“However, I believe this is a social and not legal issue.” I agree. My point all along was that criminalising it is well-intentioned, and that total deregulation is worrying. I since found out no one here is supporting total deregulation – my bad.

@FireMadeFlesh

Ah! Again, thanks for putting your argument into context. Yes, the question is whether criminalization produces benefits as opposed to another system. I rarely believe that there are two options…and never believe it when it involves a complex social, political, criminal and economic issue. :-) If we’re going to stand behind criminalization, I believe that we should have seen some objective evidence that there’s a benefit to it, and then we take that and weigh it against the costs.

Personally, I’m in favor of decriminalization and heavy, heavy regulation. I like the idea of heavy (not crippling) sin taxes – I (and I think you’ll agree with me) consider high sin taxes as you pre-paying for all of the problems that are going to arise with your health, etc. after you do what you do for a few years. I also believe that, unfortunately, transition between the two systems cannot end up being pretty. I would, however, like to take that short-term harm for a long-term solution.

@FireMadeFlesh when i develop schizophernia ! lol. please do show me some solid research proving this.

@uberbatman How Psychology Applies to Everyday Life and Marijuana as medicine?: the science beyond the controversy, among others. Most of the data suggests that marijuana has a greater effect on people with pre-existing schizophrenia, but there is a fair volume of material that suggests it can induce similar effects in moderate to heavy users. The evidence is still controversial, but in my opinion even a small indication of such neurological effects are enough to avoid use.

@iamthemob I don’t disagree on any particular point. I will support anything that can be shown to work.

Health risks to the point of death are associated (without controversy) with so many other activities, an argument which suggests that it might cause schizophrenia can’t really be taken into account I believe. Unless there is a causal connection, it can only be something you take into account in deciding whether you are going to use it yourself. It cannot be part of the basis of a criminal policy (I would argue enforcement policy).

@FireMadeFlesh Thanks for the clarification. I had misunderstood what you were getting at. I fully agree we shouldn’t take mind altering drugs without knowing the risks, how to minimize them, and how to recognize trouble in time to get help should things go wrong. Hey, I ask my doctor for that sort of information about prescription drugs before I take them.

As I believe others had noted, decriminalizing and regulating recreational drugs would make it far easier to access such information and to have some level of confidence it is accurate.

@iamthemob & @Espiritus_Corvus I agree with Iamthemob that one person’s morality is another’s bane, but EspiritusCorvus has a point I think we can all relate to: the financial costs to the taxpayers of being a vindictive, punitive society.

This is costing us an enmormous amount of our treasury unnecessarily when, in certain cases rehabilition efforts are a more rational option like in cases of drug abuse. More research into rehab treatments (encompassing diet, excercise, yoga, relocation after a therapeutic period of clinical isolation from society, etc.) and more rehab facilities are required it this nation is actually serious about confronting this widespread societal problem.

To find existing money that could be diverted into these programs, we could start with special attention given to the vast waste of funds spent incarcerating marijuana offenders, releasing them ROR and reducing the charge of possession in any amount anywhere, anytime, to a ticketable misdemeanor requiring only a fine. These incarcerations alone are disenfranchising enormous amounts of Americans because of a drug we now know has no lethal dosage and is physically non-addictive unlike the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.

@Hypertiger333

Wait – you know that you’re agreeing with my position, right?

Yes, I just edited to that effect while you responded. I don’t think our position is very popular right now, so you need all the yeas you can get. I also think showing where we can get the money will help this position.

@Hypertiger333

Ha! I see that now. Excellent. Yes, that’s why I started the thread. I haven’t seen a real tangible benefit to the criminalization. It seems agenda-driven and now money-driven. I wanted to see if there was something I was missing.

Just read the whole thread. If you are missing something, then so is everybody else. The only benefits are to the private prison industry and the political careers of certain prosecutors and “Law and Order’” types. I can see no direct benefits to the average citizen. I can’t see where anyone else here has seen any either.