ShareThis Page

Cruel & stupid policy

| Friday, May 19, 2017, 8:57 p.m.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions talks to President Donald Trump during the 36th annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service earlier this month on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, ordered federal prosecutors to seek maximum penalties for drug-related crimes.

This is both cruel and stupid.

It's cruel because Sessions' 5,000 prosecutors must now push for long jail sentences even for people who pose no violent threat and for some who are utterly innocent.

It's stupid because it will cost America a fortune but won't make us safer.

The U.S. already locks up more people than any other country. We have 4 percent of the world's population but more than 20 percent of the world's prisoners.

This happened partly because of bad reporting by people like me. Decades ago, my colleagues and I made people more terrified of crime than they needed to be — by covering all the grisly details of local crimes.

Our scary reporting, combined with a doubling in the crime rate from about 1960 to 1990, led politicians to say, “We must do something!” Politicians reacted to the media hype by passing three-strike laws and intensifying the war on drugs.

Taking away judges' ability to use their own judgment in individual cases is cruel to some defendants. It's also not clear that the longer sentences made us safer.

Intensifying the drug war definitely did not work. America locked up drug sellers up but drug use remained the same.

Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama used drugs when they were young. But then, when they became presidents, they hypocritically supported the drug war.

That didn't stop drug sales. The drug war just drove the trade into the hands of nastier criminal gangs. Violence between those gangs is a much bigger problem than the drug use itself.

As Neill Franklin, a former Baltimore police officer and drug warrior, puts it, “Drugs are problematic. But the policies to prohibit their use are 10 times more problematic.”

During Prohibition, gangs like Al Capone's shot each other over alcohol. It wasn't because alcohol suddenly made people more violent during those years. It was simply because a popular product was made illegal. The murder rate dropped by half when Prohibition ended.

Trump says he's worried about violence in black neighborhoods and violence committed by drug gangs along the U.S.'s southern border. He's right to worry. So legalize the stuff! Take sales away from the black market.

That's all he'd have to do to take the money and allure out of gang life. When drugs are legal, customers buy intoxicants from ordinary stores, businesses that settle disputes with lawyers instead of guns.

There are no beer or tobacco gangs. Jack Daniels is a mind-altering substance, but liquor sellers don't shoot each other. Sessions ought to factor that into claims people make about drug laws enhancing “safety.”

The strangest part about his renewed drug war is that we have a clear example of how well people do with loosened drug laws. Portugal decriminalized every drug. There was no surge in drug abuse — in fact, the number of young users and problem users dropped.

Give freedom a chance. End three-strike laws. Legalize all drugs.

John Stossel is the author of “No They Can't! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.