- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 28,908
- Reaction score
- 15,212
I agree that if tax dollars were rerouted from arresting, prosecuting and housing them in prison, they should be diverted to rehabilitation programs. Of course, there's always the issue of leading a horse to water. Tough thing to do and I say that as a former addict myself.
That's why I honestly don't think any sort of decriminalization will move the meter much at all, I don't think it created any more addicts than there already are; the idea that it will is nonsense. But the same time I don't know how effective adding rehabilitation programs are. I guess it would be nice to at least provide better options right away and hope for the best.
I think as a general rule, I weight rehabilitation significantly higher than incarceration on a case by case basis. Meaning that rehabilitating one individual provides more tangible downstream benefit than incarceration. Speaking purely financially, you create a taxpayer instead of a tax drain. Socially, you encourage people to not stigmatize drug users and advocate for their help long before they get to the point where they would be running into police. Politically, it reinforces my beliefs toward bodily autonomy, and is really the only tenable outcome that satisfies my internal reasoning for the positions I have.
I'm not opposed to still using incarceration as a deterrent in severe cases, but I'd need to see a concrete plan for rehabilitation instead of imprisonment. If it resembles an involuntary psych hold over an arrest, I'd be okay with that. Ultimately, I just don't think we're doing anything but creating more criminals by sending them to jail. That becomes significantly more likely when we brand them as felons and stop them from returning to normal life, thereby making them significantly more likely to reoffend in the future.