War on drugs: Definition of insanity

The timing was probably coincidental, but days after announcing that the feds would no longer prosecute folks for using medicinal marijuana, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Drug Enforcement Administration publicized huge raids conducted nationwide, including in metro Atlanta, against the Mexican drug cartel La Familia. In other words, they want it known that they  are still heavily involved in the futile “war on drugs.”

In metro Atlanta, authorities arrested 31 people  in Gwinnett County, three in Cobb and one in Clayton while recovering a total of 188 pounds of crystal meth, 17 kilos of cocaine, 13 guns and $50,000.

Gwinnett police officers raided 10 locations in that county alone. Rodney Benson, special agent in charge of the DEA’s Atlanta Field Division, said metro Atlanta, Dallas and the Los Angeles area were La Familia’s biggest operational centers.

Of course, there is a huge difference between cancer patients smoking a little pot and the savagely violent La Familia, which traffics in meth and cocaine, launders drugs and kidnaps and kills. Still,  the feds wouldn’t say whether they arrested any cartel leaders, which suggests they didn’t.  And as long as cartel leaders remain free,  the family’s violent work will continue.

And why wouldn’t it when they have so many customers here in the United States?

Analysts said the operation appeared designed to allay skepticism among Mexico’s political leaders about the U.S. government’s commitment to Mexico’s crackdown on cartels. The drug-related violence has taken about 15,000 lives since President Felipe Calderón entered office in 2006. Mexican authorities have arrested 80,000 drug suspects, and Washington has responded with $1.4 billion in aid under the Merida initiative, but some in Mexico have grown frustrated with the U.S. market’s continuing demand for illegal drugs.

In other words, the war on drugs still isn’t making any progress. Both Mexico and the United States would be better off if the US shifted billions in resources away from police and prosecution and into education and drug treatment. Yes, we should still target violent cartels. But until we can curb the appetite for meth through drug treatment, the violence will continue.

73 comments Add your comment

Turd Ferguson

October 23rd, 2009
7:58 am

Here HERE Cynthia!! The appetite will NEVER be curbed. I know people in their late 40’s still enjoying “high times” and appears they have no intent on stopping.

“You see it in the headlines, you hear it ev’ry day
They say they’re gonna stop it but it doesnt go away
They move it through Miami, sell it in L.A.
They hide it up in Telluride, I mean its here to stay…”

woodbutcher

October 23rd, 2009
8:13 am

qoute: [[But until we can curb the appetite for meth through drug treatment, the violence will continue.]]
There is a simple answer to the methamphetamine problem .
Desoxyn!! im not sure if i spelled it right but it is a brand name for pharmacutical meth.that is why meth is classified as a schedule 2 drug and not a schedule 1 drug like heroin and cannabis and lsd .The ONLY way and i do mean the ONL way we will rid our selves of drug cartels is through medicalization of hard drugs and legalization of cannabis and other mild halucigens .yrs ago in america when people were still actually free you could go to the doctor if you had a problem with drugs and they could prescribe what you needed and try to help you ween off when you are ready.But now we have legislaters and cops and judges all who think they are more experianced and knowledgable about how to deal with a medical problem than a person who actually have a medical degree like maybe a doctor for instance!!Drug dependence is a medical problem the govt made it a legal problem only furthur complicating a already hard to deal with issue.Until judges and prosecuters and cops get medical degrees they have no buisness screwing with addicts who need help not persecution by a bunch of people who want to push their morals and belief that drug addicts should be punished even if they have not committed a crime other than use a substance that some believe is immoral .

BKB

October 23rd, 2009
8:15 am

AMEN! This insane war needs to stop. All the lives lost, money wasted, and people incarcerated for nothing!

Call it like it is.

October 23rd, 2009
8:21 am

I just want to make sure I understand you. The war on drugs is futile, and you also don’t want Americans to be able to carry a handgun to protect themselves.

Before you leave OZ tell Dorthy I said hi.

SouthernGal

October 23rd, 2009
8:45 am

The drug war is insane. I would like to see drugs legalized with the same controls we have on alcohol. A new source of revenue for the dumbest of society.

Chris Broe

October 23rd, 2009
8:46 am

There was a drug war in OZ. The witch made a field of poppies (opiates) appear in the path of the free government handouts, (heart, brain, courage and a balloon ride home). This was the last stand of small government, low taxes and personal responsibility. (The witch was definitely a conservative). The “good” witch foiled her plans with snow, (so much for global warming, eh?).

Joan

October 23rd, 2009
9:24 am

Ok, the war on drugs doesn’t make progress because people will still insist on killing themselves the slow and destructive way. But to say you can educate the uneducable is absurd. Druggies are dropping out of this so very politically correct society that is so horribly, and clearly corrupt. Frankly, in sum, I agree with you–let them all die and the quicker the better. But don’t spend good money after bad trying to educate them.

jconservative

October 23rd, 2009
9:35 am

Americans say they do not like to lose wars. In fact, the US has had its national butt kicked up oneside of the country & down the other side in the “war on drugs.” But the majority insist that the war continue. But they do not want to spend the trillion dollars it would take to win the war. So we pretend we are fighting a war we can win.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
10:03 am

Yes, it’s insane. So what’s new? Leagalize and tax it so the funds will be available for education and treatment without being a drain on the treasury; a net gain of at least $200 billion.

What are we doing wrong in raising our children? Why do they grow up to be drug addicts? Is it as simple as putting them on that big yellow bus before dawn when they’re 5 years old?

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
10:11 am

jconservative

October 23rd, 2009
9:35 am

Who are those majority? I don’t know anyone that doesn’t think it’s stupid, even our sheriff.

Eric

October 23rd, 2009
10:11 am

You’re right of course, but treatment only works for people who want treatment. Education is paramount, but the right wing thinks of education as indroctination. The war on drugs is only one of the wars we’ll never win. It’s like trying to legislate morality. Can you say David Vitter?

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
10:12 am

Joan

October 23rd, 2009
9:24 am

The education has to start from the day they are born, which doesn’t cost anything.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
10:14 am

SouthernGal

October 23rd, 2009
8:45 am

What about requiring alcohol to be sold by a pharmacy instead oc making it so convenient? Ditto for nicotine.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
10:16 am

Call it like it is.

October 23rd, 2009
8:21 am

I’m sorry, but I miss the connection. Just keep thinking you’re protecting yourself. You’re putting yourself, and everybody else, at more risk.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
10:18 am

BKB

October 23rd, 2009
8:15 am

If only it cost nothing! 70% of drug users incarcerated held fulltime jobs.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
10:20 am

woodbutcher

October 23rd, 2009
8:13 am

It’s job security for the justice system. It’s become a cottage industry.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
10:22 am

Turd Ferguson

October 23rd, 2009
7:58 am

What creates the appetite in the first place? Are we born drug addicts?

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
10:27 am

Eric

October 23rd, 2009
10:11 am

Whatta you mean? Prohibition wiped out alcohol didn’t it? And we’re no longer bothered by prostitutes and have eliminated poverty. And things are going swimmingly in Iraq in Afghanistan, if you like swimming in red ink and blood. The terrorists have withdrawn in abject fear.

Turd Ferguson

October 23rd, 2009
10:46 am

“I was gonna call Ms Tucker
but then I got high
I was gonna send some flowers
but then I got high
I was gonna take her out
but then I got high…”

jt

October 23rd, 2009
10:52 am

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
10:59 am

Turd Ferguson

October 23rd, 2009
10:46 am

High and dry.

See if you can’t get a rally going on Wall Street.

RealityKing

October 23rd, 2009
11:28 am

Drug treatment has proven just as ineffective and wasteful as the war.

Which leaves us right back where we started. Not able to morally give drugs a green light and yet also not able to stop its use.

EROCK

October 23rd, 2009
11:36 am

We have two choices. Let the cartels regulate the drugs or the government, because DRUGS WILL NEVER GO AWAY. There is no middle ground. The most addictive drug in the world is nicotine, we cut the use of nicotine in half by educating not incarcerating!

Turd Ferguson

October 23rd, 2009
11:41 am

TN…appears a day of some consolidation and thats ok. Had some decent runs of late so have let market breath, let shorts cash out then next leg up.

In the mean time…

“Dont bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to me…”

demwit

October 23rd, 2009
11:54 am

Speaking of drugs..,
Wheres the H1N1 vaccines Obama told us not to worry about??
And hand cream.., I need some hand cream due to all the hand washing..

Giant Squid

October 23rd, 2009
12:20 pm

@ RealityKing .. drug treatment is not ineffective. I went at the suggestion of others and have stayed clean for 6 years. Depends on the person and kind of treatment. I will say the success rate is low (prob 5%) for those forced to go to rehab since treatment is for those who want it , not necessarily for those that need it. You have to at least try and plant a seed though and when ppl get “sick and tired” they may come in from the cold. I have seen this time and again. Have also seen quite a few get clean from the Cobb county drub court which is one of the strictest in the nation. Better to spend the money to offer treatment to users (or at least try) than sending them to jail unless they’ve been stealing, murdering, etc. What good does that do? Now they’re just addicts in jail and they will just continue when they get out. It’s not a criminal issue, as others have said, its a medical one. Most of the things that harm society about drugs stem from the fact that they are illegal and therefore expensive.

Sven Turgidsen

October 23rd, 2009
12:48 pm

I agree the “war on drugs” has failed, and should end . . . but let’s be clear-eyed about what will happen when it does. When drugs are de-criminalized, the middle class will have the resources to pay for its highs. Poor, minority communities won’t. If drug use expands in those communities after de-criminalization, so will the criminal activitiy (thefts and robberies) needed to finance it. Can you really claim that “drug education” is the answer? These same communities can’t be bothered to support academic education, so why will drug education work? The irony here is that Ms. Tucker undoubtedly opposes the war on drugs because it ensnares and imprisons so many in poor minority communities . . . . yet the de-criminalization of drugs will accelrate the decline of those same communities at an ever faster rate. Either way, they lose.

Jesse

October 23rd, 2009
2:06 pm

Sven,

You need to consider why drug users commit crimes…

It’s because anything illegal will automatically SKYROCKET in price for those who want it.

Basic supply and demand laws… Why would anyone steal to buy their drugs if they could pick it up for 3 bucks just like ibprofen?

-also, before people start throwing around the blanket term “junkie” for anyone that uses drugs… remember over 50% of people in the nation have tried cannibis. That means statisitcally speaking, if you have 2 children, AT LEAST one will try drugs. does that make your kid a junkie? hell no.

You want to incarcerate 50% of the nation? good luck with that. I hope your kids are the ones caught in the snare.

sherm

October 23rd, 2009
2:19 pm

Rendition. Mexico sends secret squads into the US and grabs the kingpins, wherever they are and transports them to some nasty place in South America for the rest of their lives.

The drug war is a much bigger immediate threat to Mexico’s security than al Qaeda or the Taliban are to the US. – 15,000 lives. Our government embraces the right of rendition, and can grab anyone in the world it feels like, then toss that person into a black hole. Why not Mexico?

I’m sure Mexico and the US know who the kingpins are, but arrest means probable cause. The kingpins keep themselves clean, have the best lawyers, and unlimited bribe money. Rendition eliminates all the problems. They’ll get the wrong guy once in while – what ever happened to uncle Pedro? But that’s life.

The main obstacle of course is that we would never tolerate having a foreign government coming on our soil and grabbing someone off the street. How dare they even think about it! The US is the only country in the world that has the divine right to use rendition as it sees fit.

Chris Broe

October 23rd, 2009
2:39 pm

What if they gave a drug war and nobody came?

2 cents worth

October 23rd, 2009
2:43 pm

TnGelding Where do you get that 70% of those incarcerated held fulltime jobs!!! Fulltime pushing and selling drugs!!!! It isn’t just about drug users being incarcerated; more than likely they are also drug pushers/sellers, they do have to support their habit afterall.

We are just a very sick society. . . bottomline!

Shananeeeeee Fananeeeeeeee

October 23rd, 2009
3:10 pm

You know that big drug bust in Gwinnett that the poice as so proud of yestesrday, well a new operation will be up and running by the end of the weekend.

Conservative White Male

October 23rd, 2009
3:52 pm

They need to keep the drugs out of the inner cities where the violence is.

Where I am from we use rugs without having to kill each other.

A little meth, or hillbilly heroin never hurt anyone. It helps me stay awake when I am driving my 18 wheeler

woodbutcher

October 23rd, 2009
6:41 pm

Every country that has decriminalized drugs has seen not omly drops in their crime rates but have seen significant drops in the use of drugs by children. this is a fact. the netherlands this year is closing 8 prisons due to a lack of inmate’s .Canada just completed the NAOMI project recntly. A program tha supplied heroin to addicts . the results are aval for reading online. they had a 98 % success rate in getting people their lives back in order jobs homes rebuilding their relationships with family members.The war on drugs will never be won for every plant they pull up we will plant 100 more in it’s place. stop arresting addicts and start arresting these crooked politicians and bankers who are bleeding our country dry.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
7:33 pm

Sven Turgidsen

October 23rd, 2009
12:48 pm

Why do you think it would expand? How could it possibly be any worse? The politicians and their children get caught in the web as well. That alone should be enough for them to have the courage to end it.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
7:35 pm

Jesse

October 23rd, 2009
2:06 pm

I haven’t because I’m uneducated. Why is it a rite of passage in high school and college? Can’t we raise our children to be smarter than that?

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
7:38 pm

sherm

October 23rd, 2009
2:19 pm

Did you miss the part about the raids and arrests?

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
8:02 pm

2 cents worth

October 23rd, 2009
2:43 pm

Only 61% in this study:

From Sentencingproject dot org

4. Community Ties

A final area of inquiry concerns the background characteristics of drug offenders. We have already seen that there are a substantial number of low-level offenders filling the nation’s prisons. An approach to this level of drug abuse that emphasizes law enforcement and incarceration over prevention and treatment inevitably will result in excessive use of imprisonment. Further analysis illustrates that increasing incarceration for drug offenders can also prove deleterious to the network of informal personal bonds that exists in communities and neighborhoods.

Of our sample of inmates, 61% had a job or business during the month before their arrest. Of those respondents who answered in the affirmative, 78% (or 48% of the full sample) were employed full-time, with a median monthly income of approximately $1050. This profile reports a startlingly different tale than common perceptions of drug
offenders. Prior to their incarceration, drug offenders were for the most part employed, residing in private living quarters, and earning a wage.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
8:03 pm

Conservative White Male

October 23rd, 2009
3:52 pm

Ever heard of meth mouth? That alone should be enough to make yu stop.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
8:05 pm

woodbutcher

October 23rd, 2009
6:41 pm

But Big Brother wants us to think they’re protecting us from the evil weed, as well as the evil-doers. Not true in either case.

TnGelding

October 23rd, 2009
8:10 pm

ST. LOUIS — American taxpayers would save more than $46 billion if drug addicts now in prison were instead treated, according to a study released Friday at a national convention of drug court professionals.

Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a former U.S. drug czar, and actress Melanie Griffith joined experts in calling on lawmakers to increase funding for such courts.

“This is not a war on drugs,” McCaffrey said. “This is a problem for our families in America. In order to turn drugs around in this country, we’re going to have to treat those 1.5 million people who are addicted.”

Griffith, a recovering alcohol and drug addict, said she believes drug courts are effective because they provide both support and accountability for abusers.

“I had a long struggle with addiction because I didn’t have that. And by the grace of God, I didn’t end up in prison,” Griffith said. “There are so many people, who with this kind of help, can lead beautiful lives.”

The study from the Urban Institute in Washington found that about 3 percent of arrested addicts are referred to a drug court, which offers supervised treatment to nonviolent offenders whose records are expunged if they complete the program.

“Most addicts need something more than being warehoused,” said Judge Charles Simmons Jr., a drug court judge in Greenville, S.C. “Drug courts are putting families back together, and they are decreasing crime at a tremendous savings to taxpayers.”

Housing an inmate in prison can cost up to $40,000 a year while drug court treatment costs up to $3,500 per offender a year, Simmons said.

McCaffrey said 15 years of research has yielded definitive proof that drug courts significantly reduce crime by as much as 35 percent. He said legislators and the public may get behind the system once they understand its cost savings.

“The math in unarguable,” McCaffrey said. “If you want to unclog America’s prisons, drug courts need to be taken to scale.”

Many prosecutors, judges, social workers, health providers and attorneys who participate in the 2,100 drug courts nationwide attended the three-day conference at America’s Center that ended Friday.

Missouri has 110 drug court programs serving more than 3,400 participants. Since their inception, more than 6,200 people have graduated from a drug court in Missouri with a 10 percent recidivism rate.

Illinois has 19 drug courts in operation, including one in Madison County, with more in the developmental stages.

john

October 24th, 2009
10:01 am

If you support the war on drugs, you are by definition misinformed. No rational, sane, well informed person could possibly support such a disasterous counterproductive public policy as the war on drugs. If you do support this fiasco, please educate yourself on the real effects of the war on drugs and educate your fellow citizens. In a democracy we are only as smart as the ignorant masses want to be.

Rita Stricker

October 24th, 2009
12:12 pm

Drugs don’t cause violence. War, by definition, does. If you want to stop the violence, end the war. If you support the war, accept that the violence will continue as well. Maybe you don’t care that the once-proud “Land of the Free” has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Maybe you don’t care that your rights to privacy have been eroded to the point that you no longer have sovereignty even over your own body. Maybe you believe that somehow you can be free when your government dictates what you may or may not own. Maybe you even believe that Washington politicians have some right or obligation to make medical decisions for the rest of us. Or — maybe you think there’s a better use for your hard-earned dollars. Ending prohibition would not only put an end to drugwar violence, but would save taxpayers over $60 billion a year AND increase revenues by not incarcerating drug-using taxpayers and by taxing sales of currently illegal drugs and the income derived from those sales. Consider the restoration of freedom and an end to the drug cartels’ reign of terror just inconvenient but necessary side-effects.

Rita Stricker

October 24th, 2009
4:06 pm

BTW, TnGelding, meth mouth may be reason enough to quit; it is NOT an excuse to send heavily-armed SWAT teams to invade and ransack our homes and terrorize our children.

newageblues

October 24th, 2009
9:43 pm

RealityKing

October 23rd, 2009
11:28 am

“Drug treatment has proven just as ineffective and wasteful as the war.

Which leaves us right back where we started. Not able to morally give drugs a green light and yet also not able to stop its use.”

2 points in response:
cannabis deserves more of a green light than alcohol does, not less, because it rarely causes violence, don’t we wish we could say the same about alcohol.

Using your traffic light analogy, I wouldn’t want to give a green light to hard drug use either, but an orange caution light might be in order, warning potential users of the dangers, perhaps requiring drug education or other hoops to go thru before allowing hard drug use, but not outright prohibition which has had such terrible consequences

John Williams

October 25th, 2009
2:00 am

Looking at the drug problem from an entirely cost benefit analysis, harm reduction, would create massive tax payer savings. Punishing drug addicts by imprisoning them instead of treating it as a genetic mental health problem or disease is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Society and taxpayers pay huge sums of money for the war on drugs. I do not think drugs should be legalized but addicts should be treated as though they have a mental health disorder or a genetic disease that is also due to bad choices similar to heart disease. There is evidence from twin studies that there is a genetic component and the bad choices are apparent.
There is no way to not pay for addicts, either one way or the another, it will cost society. It makes no sense to continue to pay large sums of money due to theft, law enforcement, correctional services, justice system, lawyers, health costs that result from unhealthy lifestyles, plus the lost tax revenue that could be gained by the income tax payed by the addicts who become gainfully employed if drugs are supplied to them in a disease/mental health harm reduction model.
After realizing this I do not think it makes sense to pay all these costs to try to force someone to straighten out and live a normal drug free life if they are not ready or willing too. Utilizing a harm reduction model that supplied drugs, when possible, until the addict stabilized while encouraging them to quit, would be better for the addict and society. The money society would save could be used for childrens’ education and other worthy causes including proper drug education for children.
This could also have the further benefit of destroying the profitability of drug dealers and pushers since their customers would gradually move into a harm reduction program. Hopefully this would help to destroy the infrastructure of the blackmarket drug dealers and cartels so that they do not have the resources to supply children, hopefully also destroying the cycle of drug addiction.
Giving control of the illicit drug market to cartels and pushers whose sole purpose is to create profits and therefore customers is much worse than strictly regulating drugs by treating addicts through a harm reduction/mental health model that seeks to stabilize lifestyle then encourage abstinence.

Markmiwords

October 25th, 2009
3:56 am

End the drug wars by ending drug prohibition. Visit leap.cc for info. Educate kids with factual education. Don’t lie to them and say, “marijuana/cannabis is a shedule 1 drug, & this means that it’s as deadly, & addictive as heroin, with no medical value”. Kids try pot, it doesn’t kill, or addict them. It actually treats a host of health problems, & a lot of minors successfully self-medicate with pot. This doesn’t mean I’m for letting minors smoke pot. I believe it should be legalized. But, I’m for making the minimum age 25. My point is kids know they’ve been lied to about pot. So, how many pot seeking kids were forced into buying their pot from dealers who gladly expose them to hard core drugs to create repeat customers? How many kids got exposed to heroin, hooked on heroin, & die from heroin overdose due to prohibitionists lieing about pot? Making kids think they’ve been lied to about heroin, too. Lay a whole bunch of addicted kids & their overdosed dead bodies right down there in front of the Drug Czar & D.A.R.E. There ya go! Good little prohibition victims. no one’s going to miss you, but your loved ones. Anyone who talks that crap about how prohibition keeps kids from getting pot is full of sh*t. They can buy pot easier than alcohol. Because, alcohol is regulated & licensed merchants successfully prevent minors from getting booze 90% of the time. What % of the time do you figure criminals sell pot to kids who have the money? That’s right. 100% of the time. Pot prohibition keeps kids from buying pot, how? End the pot prohibition, now.

Pat Rogers

October 25th, 2009
1:40 pm

Well put and all good observations Ms. Tucker.

Criminalizing more and more people is no way to wean them from either the drugs or the black market economy that people who are consuming ‘illegal’ products become economically dependent upon.

The war on drugs is not simply a waste of time but counter-productive.

As long as addicts, abusers and gangsters control the sales of drugs children will have unfettered access to drug sales. When drug distribution is put under regulated and licensed adult supervision the values of society against premature access to drugs by children will finally prevail.

Prohibition abandons American children to addict dealers, gangsters and social predators who use drugs to prey on children.

Finally, as we can see in Afghanistan today, the war on drugs also abrogates American constitutional values. The Obama administration has issued an assassination list of drug gangsters in that country. This subverts the rule of law and invites both gangsters and terrorists to turn the same tactics back on American political leaders who sanction such atrocious tactics.

Pat Rogers

October 25th, 2009
3:56 pm

Police and the DEA are really just government paid enforcers for the drug lords.

The police and DEA track down and remove the smaller and dumber dealers leaving the market free for the bigger smarter gangsters.

And the Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske, is nothing more than a shill for the cartels. As long as he propagandizes against legalization he is defending the black markets status quo for the drug cartels, gangsters and even terrorists who all thrive in the black markets imposed by the war on drugs policy.

Supporting the war on drugs is supporting America’s sworn terrorist enemies. Giving them “aid and comfort”. That is treason according to the United States constitution.

The Sage

October 25th, 2009
7:02 pm

I’m so tired of people who don’t know what they are talking about trying to sound intelligent by suggesting the answer is legalization and treatment. Legalizing drugs isn’t going solve anything. Most of the crime in this country can be linked back to junkies trying to support themselves. The problem is not that drugs are really expensive because they are illegal. Drugs are actually quite cheap. The problem is the junkies can’t even support a cheap drug habit because they can’t keep a job.

Treatment is there for just about anyone who wants it. The FACT is, most junkies are content with their condition. They may say they’d like to get off drugs, but actions speak louder than words. If they really wanted to, they would. Look at the way family members have to twist people’s arms on that show “Intervention” to get them into rehab. 99% of them don’t want to go. So how is “more treatment” going to solve anything?? If they won’t go to treatment, it’s going to do nothing.

The answer is to have treatment available for those who want it and have stiff penalties for people who continue to use drugs and commit crimes to support their habit. Either you get clean, or you go to prison for a long time. Either you stop selling drugs, or you go to prison for a long time. When you just give out “slaps on the wrist” there is no incentive for people to stop making bad decisions.

And Pat Rogers, you’re a fool. Make sure you wear your tin foil hat next time you post!