One of many awful features of the sentencing reduction (called sentencing "reform") bill pending in the Senate is its retroactive effect: Drug dealers by the thousands would be able to march into federal court, most with attorneys you're paying for, to argue that their behavior wasn't all that bad. Instead of responding to the legion of new cases in need of initial adjudication, federal prosecutors (also on your dime) will have to respond to these motions, creating an even bigger backlog on the docket than we have now, and doing so with cases that ended long ago.
On the face of it, does this sound like a good thing for the cost or efficiency of the criminal justice system?
But it gets worse. In the middle of a drug overdose epidemic fueled by, among other things, heroin and abuse of prescription opioids, people like Dr. Vincent Colangelo will be using the proposed dumbing-down of statutory penalties, just as
we see they are now using the dumbing-down of sentencing guideline ranges:
A man who made millions operating a half a dozen pill mills in South Florida wants his prison sentence reduced.
The attorney for Vincent Colangelo has asked a Miami judge to reduce his sentence from 20 years to 16 years. Attorney Alvin Entin says a retroactive change in federal sentencing guidelines justifies the reduction.
Colangelo was sentenced in 2012 after pleading guilty to federal drug, money-laundering and tax charges. Court documents
show he operated six pain clinics that made an estimated $22 million in profits through illegal sale of oxycodone and other drugs.
Six other people were charged in the case. South Florida was once the nation's pill mill leader, but new laws and tougher law enforcement has all but eliminated them.
That last sentence is particularly interesting. New laws and tougher enforcement have helped take down one source of a huge amount of human misery. But now we propose -- through federal sentencing "reform" -- to turn away from this success and re-embrace failure. And pay for all of it with hefty amounts of taxpayer dollars.
By shutting down the pill mills, Bill, we created to heroin scourge you lament in another post. Is that a real story of success or a story that criminal justice approaches to health problems often produce new and different health problems....
So we should re-open the pill mills???
Well, should we?
And no, "we" most certainly did not create the heroin scourge. The scourge was "created" by addiction fed in large measure by the heroin dealers you spend a good deal of energy saying we've "demonized."
Addiction is both a health problem AND a criminal justice problem. Let's provide help to addicts, and jail -- plenty of it -- to the heartless hoodlums who sell this stuff and thus profit off addicts' misery.
I do not want a return to pill mills, I want a government crack down on the drug kingpins of Big Pharma who made the pills and reaped huge profits from pushing on docs and patients the product that pill mills were selling.
Addiction science highlights that social/personal context is critical precursor for addictions and thus I think our societal desires to look for magic solutions via pills ("we") are responsible for these problems. (I have seen you and other conservatives, Bill, blame society for the break down of the modern family, so I surmise you think it is sometimes appropriate to look at collective responsibility.)
I surmise that you do consider heroin dealers to be demons, and I generally share your interest in calling out for censure folks who profit from preying on the weak. But in a free society, there will always be snake oil salesmen, and I fear prohibition serves only to increase the profits that these sellers can obtain by pushing even less safe products in black markets. That was the reality with alcohol Prohibition and also seems to be the reality in pockets of the country that still try to enforce blanket gun prohibitions and gambling prohibition.
In other words, the more you try to attack the supply side of the problem with lots and lots of jail for the pushers, the more profits are available for those willing to take the risks and enter the market. It really is simple economics, which most true fiscal conservatives understand. But because you are more of a big government social conservative, Bill, I am not surprised you rather just keep throwing more and more money at these problems by forcing more and more people to go to govt funded treatment programs (with limited proven benefits) and sending more and more drug dealers to jail (with limited proven benefits). This is, of course, a good recipe for creating more government jobs and justifying higher taxes, but I am still waiting for any evidence that this approach helps reduce the use and abuse of intoxicating substances.
1. "Addiction science highlights that social/personal context is critical precursor for addictions and thus I think our societal desires to look for magic solutions via pills ("we") are responsible for these problems."
A broad brush diffusion of responsibility only academia could love.
2. "I have seen you and other conservatives, Bill, blame society for the break down of the modern family, so I surmise you think it is sometimes appropriate to look at collective responsibility."
Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is wrong. I blame individual parents for their failures, not society. We can start with Mrs. "Affluenza."
3. "I surmise that you do consider heroin dealers to be demons..."
Nope. Don't believe in demons. I believe there are human beings who ignore what they know is right to make a fast buck, however. Don't you?
4. "In other words, the more you try to attack the supply side of the problem with lots and lots of jail for the pushers, the more profits are available for those willing to take the risks and enter the market. It really is simple economics, which most true fiscal conservatives understand."
Yes, I do understand it, and it is simple: The more you punish X activity, the less of X activity you will get. This is why the huge majority in the country, conservative and liberal alike, continues to want to criminalize hard drugs.