
This is Your Constitution on Drugs - brandonlc
https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/this-is-your-constitution-on-drugs
======
xrd
When I read this kind of thing, I ask myself: "Is this similar to the way that
the moment I start discussing something remotely technical with my wife, she
looks like she gives up within about ten seconds?" I just can't finish an
article like this without wanting to throw up in my mouth.

I read an article like this and the US legal system seems so completely
arbitrary and full of holes to be exploited by whomever can put ideological
judges (with essentially lifetime appointments) in place first.

Comparing this to technical systems, both laws and old legacy systems have
"tech debt" that has accrued over long periods of time. But, with a technical
system, you can remove pieces when they hinder the working of the system.

With legal systems, it seems like everything is based on precedent. Which mean
decisions, good or bad, force future decisions in the same direction.

Is this a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things actually work? If
not, is there any hope of fixing that trait of the US legal system, where our
criminal justice system has so many flaws that impact so many people in such
awful ways?

~~~
imperialdrive
The US legal system is built in a way that prevents itself from ever being
'too sure' of something on purpose. It's a safety mechanism to provide some
flexibility and protection in edge cases. Technology systems have a very
different set of requirements for success.

~~~
staticautomatic
It’s awfully sure about statutory sentencing.

~~~
anon9001
You're just not waiting long enough.

Give it another 50 years or so and statutory sentencing probably go away. It's
a system that moves so slowly that it can take multiple generations to correct
wrongs. I think that's considered a feature for long-term stability, but it
seems like poor design to me.

If you look at a long enough timescale, we are trending in the right
direction.

~~~
staticautomatic
California’s Determinate Sentencing Law was enacted not long ago, in ‘77. What
would you call that? A local minimum? In any event, I can only wait as long as
I’m not convicted of a crime which carries a statutory sentence. How long is
it fair for those already sentenced to wait from the comfort of their prison
cells?

~~~
anon9001
It's not fair, but I meant 50 more years. I figure real change takes about 4
generations to happen.

If it makes you feel better, you can think of the non-violent imprisoned as
grains of sand on the scales of justice. Your persistent outrage helps push
for change in the same way.

------
mac01021
For a TLDR, look two the first two paragraphs of the last section:

"""""""""""""""""""""

The war on drugs has been fought largely with laws that were beyond Congress's
powers to enact. Although it took a constitutional amendment to allow Congress
to prohibit alcohol nationwide, the prohibition of now-illicit substances
under the CSA took place without any such amendment. This is perhaps mainly a
commentary on the Supreme Court's expansive reading of the Commerce Clause,
but it should give pause to anyone who takes the Constitution seriously.

Beyond the modern drug war's legally dubious initiation, the strained legal
interpretations and yawning exceptions officials have made to sustain the
effort continue to warp our constitutional system. In prosecuting and
expanding the war on drugs, the federal government has racked up colossal
amounts of debt, fostered state protectionism, adopted countless new federal
crimes, and invaded foreign countries without congressional authorization.
Meanwhile, government actors at all levels have undermined Americans' freedoms
of expression and religious exercise, deprived citizens of their rights to
vote and bear arms, authorized warrantless searches and seizures of property
without due process, and thrown tens of thousands of people —
disproportionately racial minorities — into overcrowded prisons for sentences
that are out of step with the crimes they've committed. These actions have
changed our understanding of such foundational principles as limited
government, federalism, and the separation of powers, all while casting doubt
on America's commitment to the rule of law.

"""""""""""""""""""

