I would imagine the private prison lobbyists are going to fight tooth and nail against this.
I would imagine the private prison lobbyists are going to fight tooth and nail against this.
A little over 100, comprising between 3-4% of the total prison population.
Hard to find info on number of private prisons vs public on my phone. I did find that in a few states more than half of the prisoners are housed in a private prison. Louisiana has somewhere around 80k prisoners for example over 40k are in for-profit private prisons.
Ok, so seems to be just a few states. I wouldn't really worry too much about their lobbying as honestly I think the first ones that will be released if this happens are the ones in state/county prisons.
Relevant:
Source: http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/13...up-to-a-point/The costs certainly are high. Over 219,000 inmates are held in federal prisons, 47% of them for drug offenses, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Most federal prisons operate at 40% above capacity, Holder said on Monday. That costs taxpayers dearly at a moment of budget shortfalls: over $28,000 per year per inmate.
Under the new policy, judges have more leeway when sentencing nonviolent drug offenders without ties to large-scale organizations, gangs and drug cartels. If a defendant is charged with selling a controlled substance, they will be charged based on the nature of their crime; not forced to serve a specific amount of time. Currently, there is a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of 28 g, or about an ounce, of crack cocaine.
While drug-policy reformers cheered Holder’s speech, Piper also noted that the attorney general was catching up with a movement already under way around the nation.
“The states have been leading on this issue for years,” Piper says. Viguerie echoed that criticism: “By waiting to take up criminal-justice reform until almost a year into his second term, Holder is playing catch-up and has little credibility on this issue,” he said in a statement.
It’s no surprise that states would lead the way on this issue: state prisons house about 1.3 million people, or 86% of the U.S. prison population, putting strain on their reduced budgets. In California, overcrowding is so severe that last week the Supreme Court ordered the state to release more than 9,000 inmates.
Texas is credited with pioneering a statewide reform movement in 2007, when legislators decided against building several new prisons and instead shifted nonviolent offenders to prison alternatives and spent more than $200 million on antirecidivism programs. The state hopes to save $2 billion as a result, even as its crime rate has fallen to 1960s levels (although its prison population remains the nation’s highest).
In all, 27 states have now experimented with reforms, ranging from reclassifying some offenses as misdemeanors rather than felonies to providing better substance-abuse and mental-health treatment. Critical to the political durability of these reforms is the fact that all but three of the reformist states have experienced a drop in their crime rate, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts Public Safety Performance Project.
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/13...#ixzz2btXWlMDc
A lot of offenses, especially dealing with the "war on drugs" which is a federal offense get sentencing guidelines including min/maxes from the feds. Drug use is a federal offense which is why the feds can still keep raiding pot dispensaries even if it's legal in the state.
iirc Texas has surprisingly lax or no minimum sentences for that kind of stuff, and I believe CA as well. I think this is a decent change, and probably is going to roll into the momentum for legalizing pot; hopefully that's something that gets done and regulated at the the state or federal level so they can tax the shit out of it.
All drugs should be legalized. Should be treated like cigs and booze - you're an adult, you have the right to screw up your own life if you want to. Giving, contributing, or selling to minors should carry serious penalties, since by definition they lack the knowledge and judgement to make good decisions. Wanna sell your house for more crack? Go ahead, there is a store on the corner that sells it.
I can agree with this, up to a certain point. Drugs that are insane addictive and have horrible, horrible consequences (think krokodil), or ones that have a tendency to make people extremely violent and juggernaut-like (think bath salts) should still be outlawed.
Pretty much agreed with that sentiment...I think certain things are a little too heavy-duty, but for the most part I would be for the legalization of recreational stuff if it was tightly regulated as to create government revenue and eliminate black markets. I would also like it to only be legalized within one's own household for personal use and to still have limits where certain levels of possession becomes trafficking; and extremely stiff penalties for operating vehicles while under the influence.
This is really the only acceptable reason to ban a drug. It's not the government's job to protect people form themselves. If someone wants to eat at McDonalds every day until they are 1000 lb, jump out of an airplane without a parachute, or do crack, they should be able to do so, no matter how stupid, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If you don't want people to do such things, improve education, so fewer people want to do them.ones that have a tendency to make people extremely violent and juggernaut-like (think bath salts) should still be outlawed.
@Buffy
Why are we as a society ok with people fucking up their lives? Yea I agree about legalization but not because "people have the right to fuck up their lives". What is this, the Dark Ages? We just give up on people that seemingly have given up on themselves?
Because it's none of our business. Other than drugs, we don't legislate anything else that would fuck up people's lives. Putting them in jail just makes their lives even worse anyway. Not to mention the senseless violence caused by drug wars that kills plenty of innocent people.
You just went full libertarian
Because in the process of trying to save people from themselves we've created a black market that thrives on producing these illicit drugs which further destroys the lives of many who die in ground wars between cartels, drug dealers and the DEA. So much of the allure of illicit drugs comes from the fact that it's shunned by society and shrouded in mystery rather than being presented the same way other vices are. Marijuana has been demonized so hard that teens feel it's cool to experiment with which draws them into an underworld of dealers rather than picking up a pack of smokes like you can with cigarettes and liquor.
It should be your choice so long as you behave within the boundaries of the law the same way we punish persons for driving drunk. Enjoy your liquor but keep that shit off the road where you could hurt or kill other people.
We live in the information age and the more information you put out there regarding the negative effects of these substances the way we've done for cigarettes and liquor, the higher chance that persons will choose to refrain from abusing these substances or avoiding them outright. Organizations can devote their existences to making arguments for or against using substances and effect people accordingly.
Hiding them away in a closet and hoping that no one notices that marijuana exists is an exercise in wasting American tax dollars.
http://media.moddb.com/images/member...y_bottles.jpegOther than drugs, we don't legislate anything else that would fuck up people's lives.
http://www.rcuv.org/wp-content/uploa...-Countries.jpg
Forgive me, i'm sick and high on percocet. I meant we don't ban them. Such drugs should definitely be regulated. Also, alchohol and tobacco are drugs...