Ways to make some programs work better

[kandrathe]

Yeah, I'm not sure where you got that from.

Protecting those that cannot protect themselves was a reference to:
a ) Children living in households with substance abuse (alcohol, smoking, drugs) etc.  Or even not abuse but increased exposure.  Decriminalisation will increase usage (or is this disputed?), increasing the number of children that will be exposed within the home.

b )  Protecting non-users from the users.  Just like the drug testing example showed.  1/100 drivers in that sample were under the influence of drugs.  That's bad enough, but do you really want the numbers to increase?

As to your example, again I'll state that it is just my opinion, but I would prefer the person locked up.  Better no influence than a harmful one.

As to asking you to pay for it, I'm not sure where I said that either.
[right][snapback]66852[/snapback][/right]

We'll have to disagree about this one. I believe that having two loving parents (whatever the quality), baring abuse, is better than one or none. What you are talking about is when the State (as in Police State) should intervene in the lives of citizens. Criminalizing something is the highest sanction on freedom that a state can impose on a behavior. We, the people, need to be very careful about what freedoms we allow the state to sanction (in the name of protecting us from ourselves).

The question is; Is the State criminalizing the right behavior? Criminalizing driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated makes sense, while criminalizing intoxicating substances may be too much an infringement on personal liberty. I think the history of "Prohibition" shows us that it does reduce the number of consumers, but vastly increase the number of criminals.

Make X illegal, and you have a new class of criminals. For example some recent State contemplations;
"Hey Mac, what are you in for?"

* "I cloned a human embyro."
* "I didn't turn in my father's WWII service revolver."
* "I collected a bunch of tunes from KaZaa."
* "I cut down a cactus."

There are too many "criminalized" behaviors in my book.

For example, above, you mentioned smoking cigarettes. Would you really want to see a State where children of habitual smokers are institutionalized to protect them from the deleterious health effects of second hand smoke? Then, we could have random State mandated blood tests to determine who is in compliance (much like queues for auto emissions inspections).

"As to your example, again I'll state that it is just my opinion, but I would prefer the person locked up. Better no influence than a harmful one."

Three things; Who pays for incarceration (or enforcement, hence, my reference to paying for my own shackles)? What pro-social behaviors are the incarcerated learning? When the "sentence" is completed how much better off is the society?

For many reasons, I believe that prison is the last possible sanction that the State should impose on an individual and only when the persons predilictions require the State to intervene for the safety of the citizens. We, as a society, would be better off if the bulk of the current prisons populations had been sentenced to court supervised therapy and probation. If you can keep a person engaged in the society, while providing for their "improvement", then the result will be a better society. Some people will catch on to the "wake up call" and sober up (so to speak), and some will not.