Again, its just a request. Where would YOU draw the line?

Various types of fraud, crimes resulting in intentional permanent injury (rape, battery, assault, whatever else), sexual crimes (including harassment), and purely violent crimes would all cross that line without question. Drug violations, driving violations, other small things certainly wouldn't.

The real question is things like DUI. Maybe you could throw in things like perjury or obstruction of justice into that equation. They aren't deadly crimes on their own but have the potential to change lives for the worst.

I think we should take a hard line on things such as DUIs, throwing them into the first category. That to me would seem likely to reduce them. Ah, drugs. I take a harder line than you on drugs but have began to loosen my stance on some of the lesser drugs such as weed. My concern especially with some of the more potent drugs is that my money will be spent on people that make very poor, preventable decisions. Perhaps some of that money could come from tax revenue on said drugs. If it could equal rehab/care costs I would be more open to it.

Prison and court costs for drug abuse could easily be replaced by rehabilitation costs with the way we incarcerate people for having a single plant in their bedroom anymore. Might be worth finding the numbers on that (I tried, but everything politicizes it and none of the data is solid). Public taxes are put into both of them, so you might as well use the money to fix people rather than ruin their lives for what's often a single, relatively short-term decision.

Statistics are always worth having but usually hard to find. And you raise a good point. Now the solution would be to collect enough taxes on said drugs to cover additional costs from legalization. If that cannot be done, I don't support any legalization. And as for the prison/rehabilitation, perhaps a short prison term followed by rehab to not neglect the criminality of the behavior entirely?

Marijuana use is only criminal behavior because big pharma wants it to be. Can't really be argued. Those that try are using outdated sources or simply don't know what they're talking about.

It's awfully expensive as is, you know - $50 an eighth of weed around here (don't ask how I know that - I will say it's not from me personally buying/selling but that's all I'll say) and according to the internet you can find headies up to $75 in Jersey.

For reference, a habitual smoker can probably make an eighth last four or five days. If you pay $50 a week for a recreational habit and you're not racking up the cash, you are paying a ton for weed.

Case in point - legalizing weed would make the price go waaaay down. Probably a similar trend to tobacco and alcohol. Sin taxes are easy to administer, too, and they'd do a lot of it. With all the breathing room they'd have, they could make those just about as high as they want.

Ignoring the criminality? It is only criminal because you say it is criminal - at mostb it should he a civil charge (like leaving your car parked in a city without permission) - heroin should he treated as a medical problem, read Junkie by William S. Burroughs.

Make drug use a civil issue and you will take power out of the hands of the drug suppliers (you allow drug usere seek rehab without them having jail sentences to fear) - there are a few steps inbetween decriminalizing, and regulation. Regulated sale of 'medical' marjuana happens in California, and you can easily see the state didn't fall apart. 'oh somebody think of the children' is a great way to scare politicians away from doing anything which makes them look soft on drugs, but the current 'solutions' don't resolve the problem.

Alcohol, Tobacco and Caffine are all legal and suffer different amounts of regulation and taxation, why stop there? Why did prohibition fail in the 20s? Ecstacy and Cannabis are great drugs and would be much safer if regulated (and customer protections meant you knew what you were getting was pure)

Portugal decriminalized everything in 2001. And hasn't had any surge in drug use. (minor variation in usage patterns at worst) which pretty much shows, criminalizong drug use doesn't control supply/demand. (note: it is still illegal to sell/grow/distribute, so you're allowed to carry up to ten days personal use without fear, and no more)

Here's a crime that isn't worth rehabbing.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/justice/montana-teacher-rape-sentence/index.html?hpt=us_c2

Only 30 days in jail? WTF

A 15 year sentence, all but 31 days suspended. Got credit for one day already spent in jail.

In short, the judge blamed the victim.

First, let's look at the whole thing. He saw some nieces and nephews with other adults present. That was a *techincal* violation of the agreement. So he got 301 days for seeing them, basically. the judge could have looked at the prosecution and said "they are his family members seen with family present, I'm not letting you proecute this old case on a technicality" and thrown the whole thing out, putting back in place the deferred prosecution agreement.

Now, I'm not defending the scum bag., only the judge here. The prosecution should never have agreed to a deferment to begin with. this scumbag former teacher had sex with a 14 year old. He was a teacher at her school so he knew she was under age. this isn't like he picked her up at a bar or club where she had snuck in with a fake ID dressed like she was on the prowl to get some. No, he knew how old she was and he had sex with her. He is scum.

But the 31 days was because he had broken an agreement to not see kids and probably thought nothing of his neices and nephews in a family setting.