Judge Posner On Pot Laws: "Absurd"
Larry Bodine blogs at Lawyers.com that respected federal judge Richard A. Posner, who's considered a legal conservative, called for the elimination of criminal laws against pot in a lecture at Illinois' Elmhurst college:
"I don't think we should have a fraction of the drug laws that we have. I think it's really absurd to be criminalizing possession or use or distribution of marijuana," he said. "I can't see any difference between that and cigarettes." The audience gave him a round of applause...."But also I'm skeptical about the other drug laws," Judge Posner added. "The notion of using the criminal law as the primary means of dealing with a problem of addiction, of misuse, of ingesting dangerous drugs -- I don't think that's sensible at all."
He said drug laws are "responsible for a high percentage of our prisoners. And these punishments are often very, very severe. It's all very expensive." Judge Posner has pointed out that legalizing marijuana and other drugs would save federal, state and local governments $41.3 billion per year.
He said drug laws are, "...a waste of a lot of high quality legal minds, and it's also a waste of people's lives who could be as least moderately productive with having to spend year after year in prison. That is a serious problem."
Posner's entire speech is on YouTube.
Common sense will not prevail. DEA agents belong to a union that contributes to politicians, as do prison guards.... I'd guess those who own privatized prisons bribe, err I mean contribute to, politicians as well.
Liberty doesn't stand a chance against money.
MarkD at September 12, 2012 6:24 AM
Not sure Poz is thought of as conservative... If he were, he'd get along with Scalia a little better than he does.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 12, 2012 6:55 AM
What Crid said.
BlogDog at September 12, 2012 7:10 AM
>>Liberty doesn't stand a chance against money.
The sad truth.
Assholio at September 12, 2012 8:20 AM
I am not sure how many are in prison for drugs. At least from what I have been hearing most have been let out as cost cutting measures.
The Former Banker at September 12, 2012 8:43 AM
We've discussed this, right? OK, just checking.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 12, 2012 9:44 AM
Bigger, no color adjustment. She may be wearing some kind of cosmetic enhancements.
...Probably not, but maybe. It's at least possible, and we should keep that in mind.
Also, here's Roundabout.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 12, 2012 9:57 AM
That's right, this guy.
Also, if we're all in a progrock frame of mind, consider this.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 12, 2012 10:12 AM
Reading his view means that he gets it plain and simple:
The Eighteenth Amendment (Amendment XVIII) of the United States Constitution established prohibition in the United States.
If it worked -- why was it repealed? When you can answer that question, without hypocrisy, I might actually believe in the "War on drugs."
Jim P. at September 12, 2012 10:14 PM
Interestingly, according to Richard Shenkman's book, Prohibition actually did lower the number of people who drank - it's just that the social cost turned out to be too high.
lenona at September 13, 2012 5:50 PM
"The notion of using the criminal law as the primary means of dealing with a problem of addiction, of misuse, of ingesting dangerous drugs -- I don't think that's sensible at all."
Sensibility often has a difficult time against prejudice, ignorance and hysteria.
JD at September 13, 2012 5:58 PM
Leave a comment