Jim Martin #12: Against mandatory minimums for drug dealing?
posted at 3:40 pm on November 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
The NRSC continues its series of Jim Martin Facts in their effort to win re-election for Saxby Chambliss in the run-off for Georgia’s Senate seat. Today, they go back twenty years to find Martin objecting to mandatory minimum sentencing for drug dealers:
This doesn’t make a terribly compelling argument, in my opinion. People can understand the necessity of protecting children from pushers in close vicinity to schools, which was featured in an earlier web ad. Forcing non-violent offenders in the drug war to serve minimum amounts of prison time may not garner the same kind of enthusiasm.
Which brings us to a greater question: does the drug war matter any more? Have people grown tired enough of it to start scaling it back, at least? We’ve sunk hundreds of billions into long sentences, oversized enforcement, and have not made much of a dent at any level of the demand for drugs in the US.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
The drug war has been a huge failure, in my view. I understand that legalization is never going to happen, but surely there must be an emerging consensus that our current policies are irrational and need to be changed.
Bugler on November 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM
How about mandatory minimums for something that makes sense…murder, rape, armed robbery? Some kid smoking a joint driving by a school does not make him or her a drug dealer.
Prosecutors use this BS for leverage and pervert our legal system to bolster their conviction rates.
Stupid ad. But it should work in GA.
The Race Card on November 20, 2008 at 3:49 PM
How about drug testing the entire legislative branch? No test needed for the judicial branch. We already know a lot of our judges are smoking something.
The Race Card on November 20, 2008 at 3:51 PM
It’s a failure. I would legalize it, regulate it and tax it. Taxes going solely for rehab & drug awareness/discouragement programs. Regulate it so that if you are selling/giving drugs to kids you do do hard time. If a 30 y.o. at the end of a day wants to light up a joint and watch tv, that’s his own business. Frankly I’m glad I’m way over that stage, having a clear mind again is a good thing.
And if private employers want to have drug screening programs, that is fine by me. Oh, and if you are a junkie, the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to you.
rbj on November 20, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Yep. I’m all for letting people be stupid with their life. If I were a republican in office; I’d say let’s decriminalize drugs -but- if you apply for federal or state money, drug tests are mandatory and if you fail, you don’t get one red cent. So put the personal responsibility on the users to keep a job.
Also, I think government should offer free needles to people; and when they show up, just put a bullet in their head. Why kill them slowly, when you can end it quick?
lorien1973 on November 20, 2008 at 3:54 PM
How about drug testing every single lawyer in the United States, even if they hold a political position, and if found positive, mandatory sentance…………. twenty years to life, since they wield so much power in society?
Seven Percent Solution on November 20, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Hey. where do you live? I assure you we here in GA have a lot more sense than you give us credit… I am so tired of the south being portrayed as uneducated,backwoods, toothless cousin-marrying hicks. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go stir my squirrel stew.
beththebaker on November 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Good of you to admit that. Mandatory minimums for a non-violent offense are a futile attempt at deterrence. If they weren’t ignored wholesale on racial grounds or due to patronage and family ties…maaaybe i could get behind them for harder drugs. But the fact of the matter is an inner city kid getting busted first time for selling weed is likely to be hit with a mandatory minimum or trumped up sentence, while the suburban white boy just the same age will not even see “intent to sell” on their charge. It is a corrupt and injust system…lets not act like it works
ernesto on November 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I completely agree with Ed. The commercial stinks and so does the issue for the Republican party.
Although there is not enough time to change course in connection with the GA runoff, there really needs to be a total re-think on this issue and the only political party that will be deemed credible enough to make that change is the Republican party. The only problem is that there are not enough Republicans out there who have the courage/intellectual capacity to realize that the so called “War on Drugs” is not about conservative ideals at all. Rather, the idea of putting more and more non-violent drug addicts in jail forever and seizing their property seems like something you would learn about happening in Venezuela, Iran, Russia, or Syria – as opposed to the U.S.A.
One of the few good things about the financial crisis is that maybe (just maybe) it will make our political “leaders” (and taxpayers too) take a look at the BILLIONS of dollars per year we are wasting on this sinking ship. For many years (before Dubya), Republicans championed the idea of eliminating the Department of Education as a worthless agency that sucked tonnes of taxpayers dollars away with little benefit. I think a better plan would be to start with eliminating the DEA…
sayabule1 on November 20, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Seven Percent Solution said “How about drug testing every single lawyer in the United States” on November 20, 2008 at 3:57 PM.
The problem with that proposal is that if you were to drug test lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. there would be no lawyers, doctors, politicians left in America.
sayabule1 on November 20, 2008 at 4:10 PM
the war on drugs has been a total failure. all it’s done is militarize our local police which has led to innocent people dying.
I say legalize/decriminalize and tax it. Drug testing should probably also end, as it’s not reliable enough (I’m on medication that gives false positives for speed.) Not to mention you could go home and smoke a joint and test positive for a long time after that. There’s no reason a workplace should care what you do at home in your free time (showing up to work baked is another matter.)
cameo on November 20, 2008 at 4:21 PM
No. What a waste of man-hours and money! This clean-cut non-toker says “legalize it”.
Tzetzes on November 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Having seen up-close what drugs like meth do to people, I’m still in favor of VERY tough enforcement on dealers/manufacturers. Not so much on users, but definitely on dealers. Anyone who would willingly profit off of destroying others’ lives is a lowlife. I’d even be in favor of Three-Strikes-You’re-Riding-On-Old-Sparky for meth dealers. Seriously. You could shoot a guy in the chest with a .357 and do him less harm than getting him hooked on meth.
innominatus on November 20, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Kudos to Ed for his skeptical view on the effectiveness of the war on drugs. And phooey on the GOP for this tedious garbage.
The drug war still matters inasmuch as it provides an excuse for politicians to sound tough on crime by publicly favoring stronger sentences. For whatever reason, many people think the drug war is an end unto itself, and don’t appreciate the damage it has caused to American civil liberties, so politicians keep pushing it. Even Obama, who has admitted to trying cocaine and pot, hasn’t indicated he will roll back the drug war, probably because he assumes it would be very unpopular.
I blame parents. As soon as people have children, they suddenly become very irrational about the state’s responsibility to protect their children from any bizarre thing that may happen to them. Most people can’t intuit how the war on drugs causes tremendous harm – all they know is that their precious little child might some day smoke a joint, and so the government better lock up anyone who has a bag of weed in their pocket.
This nonsense has to stop. The drug war fills our prisons with non-violent dealers who are simply selling adults a product they want to buy. The violence that comes with the drug trade would disappear if drugs were legal – after all, violence is the only way to settle disputes in a black market. If drugs were legal, drug dealers wouldn’t have to resort to violence, they’d just be competing entrepreneurs.
We’ve spent billions of dollars on trying to stamp out the natural human drive to self-intoxicate, and the one thing we haven’t done is reduce the market for drugs. The war on drugs has been a failure. Parents seem to be concerned that giving up the war on drugs will send their children the wrong message. But the message we’re currently sending is that it’s sensible to waste money, incarcerate non-violent Americans, and otherwise put people at risk for no reason other than it gives a certain segment of the population a smug sense of self-satisfaction.
As has been observed before, the war on drugs in over – drugs won. Even if most folks aren’t as extreme as me in terms of legalizing everything, could we at least make weed legal?
Enrique on November 20, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Thank you innominatus for the obligatory “HEY CERTAIN DRUGS ARE REALLY EVIL AND BAD AND WE SHOULD STILL CONTINUE THE WAR ON DRUGS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS FASCIST AND INCONSISTENT WITH NATURAL LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.”
It is all or nothing brother. Either we decriminalize all or impose Sharia law (which, btw, is not much different than what we have now) with respect to drugs. I agree that we should increase enforcement for those who provide drugs to children under 18, otherwise, we really need to grow up and let people make (and live with) their own decisions…
sayabule1 on November 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM
The War on Drugs is a total failure. We have no room for rapists, murderers, and pedophiles in our prisons because some stoner is sitting in their spot, except that this guy is most likely a threat to no one but himself. Sure, drug dealers should be punished, but what makes someone who buys an ounce or even a pound of weed and splits it with his neighbors, friends, or colleagues, a drug dealer per say? Is it if and when that person makes a profit? Decriminalization for soft drugs and regulation for harder drugs is the only way.
AlexK on November 20, 2008 at 4:45 PM
It’s not up to us, “conservatives”, who happen to believe in individual responsibility and minimalist government to prevent stupid or naive people from acting stupidly or naively. They have parents for that, and if they failed them, hopefully, a strong drug addiction will prevent them from having kids of their own and repeating the vicious cycle. Chances are, if that meth-head tweeker tries to break into my house for money for his/her habit, they will likely be experiencing the pain from that 357 regardless. Between the meth and the 357, that druggie won’t need sentencing. Let evolution and natural selection run it’s course. I don’t agree with much that George Carlin believed, but I agree with him when he said, “the kid who ate too many marbles didn’t get to grow up to have kids of his own.” I know many here, (long time reader, first time poster) believe that all life is precious, but me, I think humans are overrated, and need as little coddling as possible. As someone else once said, “I love certain humans, but I hate humanity.” And if this last election showed me anything, it was how right that statement is.
AlexK on November 20, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Legalizing alcohol didn’t increase its use so…oh wait. Yeah it did! Hmmmm? Well at least kids don’t have easy access to alcohol…oh.
Black market dealers smuggle and sell CD’s, DVD’s, cigarettes, electronic goods, shoes, designer label merchandise, and guns. So legalizing drugs would accomplish what? Legalizing alcohol didn’t rid us of the mafia, so why would we believe it will rid us of drug gangs?
Drugs aren’t exactly expensive now. Ever hear of a “dime bag”? So how cheap do we have to make drugs before we remove the incentive to smuggle them? How many junkies do you know who hold down a job sufficient to finance their habit? They smash car windows for a couple of bucks in change rather than work for it. They can’t come up with $10 a day so how is legalization gonnna change that human dreg into something else?
Did prohibition create alcoholics? Does drug prohibition create addiction?
Cocaine, meth, heroin, opium? Legalize them all? If not then what have we accomplished? If so then google meth addicts and take a look at the images. Do you really believe those people will ever stop? Ever get a job at a McDonalds? Do we really want pharmaceutical manufacturers getting into the business of selling these drugs to the public?
Show me one example of a place where legalization has been enacted that has actually had the positive effect envisioned by its supporters. Look at England after heroin users were given a regular supply. Not pretty.
Tell China how harmless opium is! The British used opium as a means to break the Chinese state and it came close to working. The United States had 400,000 opium addicts around the same time. It was outlawed for a reason in both China and the United States.
sharrukin on November 20, 2008 at 5:02 PM
The Strawman Lives!
My argument is less about drugs specifically, and more about predatory types who make their living from others’ misery. Those are the types our society needs rid of. I could care less about the average bowl-burner who splits a bag with his buddy.
Should just anybody be able to buy vancomycin?
innominatus on November 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM
another day… another reason not to vote for Martin. yay! I’m so excited! /sarc
here’s a brilliant idea, maybe someone should give me a reason to vote for saxby… the chicken little tactics aren’t working
gatorboy on November 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Show me one place where a war on drugs worked. Let’s just assume that there will always be drugs and drug users until the end of times and start from there, rather than what we envision our utopia to look like. I’m not promoting drug use. I’m promoting a moral scale to crime. Is the meth-head (again with meth, which is a filthy drug, primarily because it is cheap, like crack) who doesn’t break other laws considered as much a criminal as one who breaks into people’s property? I consider anyone who breaks into property as a criminal. Try them for that and book em. The jankster sitting by the beach asking for money and then buying a bag probably won’t live for very long anyway. Let nature run it’s course.
AlexK on November 20, 2008 at 5:24 PM
I’m sorry but when was the last time a city had a spike in its murder rate because of pirated DVDs or cigarettes or stereos. Come. the f*ck on man. The drug war has been the biggest failure in American CJS history. It’s militarized both the police and street gangs to a ridiculous degree. It’s empowered terrorists, yes the Taliban grows poppy seed nimrod. And no one, that I know, who doesn’t smoke weed, does so because they are afraid of criminal penalties.
You’re…kind of an idiot. Drugs aren’t exactly expensive? I just…Wow. So people are smuggling drugs because they AREN’T profitable? People are killing over drug territory because it’s NOT profitable? It’s so easy and cheap to supply people with drugs that there aren’t massive street gangs organized around doing NITHNG BUT THAT!?!? Oy vey.
No one said anything about addiction. Addiction happens when you have nothing in your life but the drug. Not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. Not everyone who smokes weed is a drug addict. Meth is another matter, but drugs that are natural products of the earth, i.e. pot and mushrooms should be legal.
Alot of the people who die from overdoses do so because they aren’t actually smoking the drug they are supposed to be smoking. It’s been laced with something or cut with something. If its regulated that will not happen as much. And people who abuse drugs will commit crimes and then they should be jailed. In fact the penalties for crimes while under the influence should equal the penalties now for felony distribution. That’s how you get people to be responsible. Not by saying no.
Show me one example of a place where legalization has been enacted that has actually had the positive effect envisioned by its supporters. Look at England after heroin users were given a regular supply. Not pretty.
Tell China how harmless opium is! The British used opium as a means to break the Chinese state and it came close to working. The United States had 400,000 opium addicts around the same time. It was outlawed for a reason in both China and the United States.
DeathToMediaHacks on November 20, 2008 at 5:27 PM
@ sharrukin on November 20, 2008 at 5:02 PM
How about you answer why its your business or the government business if I want to have a drink of alcohol or puff on a big ole bowl of marijuana? This is another case of, if you dont want to do it, don’t. If you don’t want your children to do it, teach them that there are negative effects. Of course if you try to demonize drugs to the point that the Drug War has, with those stupid commercials, you kids will rebel when they figure out you were lying to them.
muyoso on November 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM
High-profile killings connected to illicit tobacco networks in the Balkans have claimed journalists, intelligence officers, politicians and the criminals themselves. In the fight to control this multi-billion dollar criminal enterprise, gangsters often use the most ruthless methods to assert their authority and send a reminder of their power to the public at large.
Ivan Todorov, a Bulgarian mob boss suspected of cigarette smuggling, was murdered in central Sofia in February of last year. Todorov had been connected with Marko Miloševic, son of former war time Serbian President Slobodan Miloševic.
In one of the more chilling examples of cigarette smugglers’ disregard for life, Dusko Jovanovi? was shot and killed outside the paper he worked at in Montenegro, a regional cigarette smuggling hub. The then editor-in-chief of Dan, the Montenegrin daily, was gunned down in 2004 shortly after publishing a series of articles on the illicit tobacco smuggling activities of underworld kingpins.
http://www.reportingproject.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=47
sharrukin on November 20, 2008 at 5:38 PM
AlexK on November 20, 2008 at 5:24 PM
We’re in agreement on users – the one who uses but commits no other crime (however rare such an individual may be) deserves no attention from the law.
Still no takers on my vancomycin question. Hmmm.
innominatus on November 20, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I can understand your exasperation; twisting so many words to fit your dim view of things can be tiring. My comment made no mention of uneducated,backwoods, toothless cousin-marrying hicks.
I’ve lived in Georgia and have family there now. I just think GA is one of those places that responds strongly to stiff law-and-order legislators. That can sometimes create a blind spot to practicality.
Another thing, the terms “hick” and “redneck” are pejoratives. Your usage pretty much condones the usage of such terms against your oh-so-colorfully described cousins. They are not effective descriptors and promote linguistic sloth.
I’ll take Squirrel Nut Zippers to squirrel stew any day.
The Race Card on November 20, 2008 at 5:40 PM
You live within a society you have both duties and obligations. TANSTAAFL (There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) means that there is a price to be paid for everything. You don’t get to do anything you want if you choose to accept the protection and benefits of society.
Alcohol and drugs both exact a price from society and the question is whether restricting their use, and to what degree is reasonable.
Your not the boss of me isn’t much of an argument!
sharrukin on November 20, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Well, at the very least people who sell recreational drugs to kids ought to face penalties no less than those who sell alcohol to kids.
Further, anyone who sells drugs which can be shown to have come from a narco-terrorist organization of any kind should have an abetting terrorism added to the charges.
njcommuter on November 20, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Ed, you just keep asking this very stupid question about the War on Drugs. Over and over.
Since you keep this up, I assume you’ve got some drugs you’d like legalized so the Little Admiral can take them. Care to name some?
unclesmrgol on November 21, 2008 at 2:52 AM
(Over and over? Que?)
Nothing to see here, move along, demonize the messenger… (Am I leaving anything out?) Classy.
[Captain Ed]
With all due deference to the Race Card, I think that even in GA, this argument won’t “work” in the sense of bringing Saxby any additional votes. At best it’s one of those topics that voters tolerate because they think they’re supposed to (i.e., the position, no matter how obnoxiously or tendentiously portrayed, is the “responsible” one), and pols like Saxby consistently put it out there because they think they’re supposed to as well (’cause that’s just what “moral, upstanding, responsible” office-seekers are supposed to do / harp on).
And in the end it doesn’t really add up to much, or move the needle one way or the other, since most voters appropriately tune it out. (Now, if anyone seriously thought that the choice of Saxby vs. Martin would make a hill of beans’ worth of difference in the actual trajectory of the War on Drugs, it might be a different story…)
RD on November 21, 2008 at 5:57 AM
Comment pages: