I don't know what the right punishment is for that, but the original sentence of 45 years seems too steep. As does 25.
Santos was considered a "King Pin" under the law, which essentially meant that he had several people working under him and was also dealing with very large financial transactions (this by his own admission in the UC Berkeley video).
By today's standards the punishment may seem harsh, but at the time it was probably appropriate.
I was born in DC; I don't need the Wikipedia article on the crack epidemic.
You really think locking people up is what solved that problem?
Your comment, on the other hand, does nothing but say that my comment is worthless.
Put that on your profile so next time this topic come up we know. Seriously. I didn't know that about you and time and time again posters post something from the past to give context.
Context might explain why the "tough on crime" politicians pushed for mandatory sentences even for minor amounts.
I'm not saying that selling drugs is equal or worse than murder, just that there is a lot more to what happens when you distribute drugs than just moving around white powder.
In a way, you could make an argument that prison should not have timed sentences, but rather that it should be "you stay until it is deemed that you will not offend again, and that you can be a productive member of society."
After all the word "corrections" implies that something should be corrected, not that somebody should be punished.
If it were only for corrections, then it would cause all kinds of problems. The most obvious one is that you get one "free crime" to commit.
There's also a fairness (and rule-of-law) argument: if two people steal $100 each, why would one person be let out earlier?
If that's your justification then the horse has already left the barn, developed space travel and colonized Mars. Look at the number of factors that go into sentencing -- or just the definition of the crime, like what was stolen (distinct from its market value) and how (e.g. on a computer vs. in person vs. in a conspiracy with accomplices), then there is a lot of flexibility for the sentence itself (most sentences are "up to" X penalty) with a whole list of mitigating and exacerbating circumstances in the sentencing guidelines, subsequent parole for good behavior in prison, etc. etc.
Even if prison was entirely intended for corrections, it is punishment (a denial of freedom). So there is a fairness argument that if two people do reasonably similar crimes that they should get comparable sentences. That is just one argument though, and fairness (as always) is weighed against other arguments.
Sure he's just one cog in a giant machine, but he's also responsible for death and hardship as a result of the drugs he moved.
Society in general also carries some of the responsibility, as do those involved in his upbringing. But I know that if my child came to any harm as a result of the drugs he supplied for his own profit I'd want him to be behind bars for that long - or until he was rehabilitated.
"In 2004, 17% of U.S. State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-related_crime
And we'd have a hella better handle on it it it were legal. Right now, I can drink myself to death; or get piss-end drunk and smack my partner around; or get piss-end drunk again, hit a ball game and start a fight in the stands - none of these actions would gain me 25 years in jail (though I'd be dead cause my partner would shoot me - and rightly so. :) ).
I can smoke cigarettes which has had one purpose - to addict me (oh and kill me in the process) but I can't smoke a joint in my own home without running a risk that some a-hole walking by will smell the pot and call the cops.
Utterly ridiculous.
Drinking to excess is a growing problem and one that should be tackled.
I can't really understand what point you're making, is it that you think class A drugs should be legalised?
Not to mention, most of the violence caused by the illegal drug trade wouldn't exist.
My point is, in America it's legal for me to smoke cigarettes, carry weapons of mass destruction in my pocket, drink liquor (anywhere I please) but it's not legal for me to smoke a joint.
That's my point.
Drinking is difficult because there are reported health benefits as well and most of the world does not drink to excess.
You may think that doing those things in your own home, with your own body is nobody's business but yours. That, however, is naive. Let's say you overdose on cocaine or you get lung cancer from smoking, that is not a burden only you will carry, that is a burden on society.
Money spent on your treatment could be better spent elsewhere. This isn't about personal freedoms, it's about being a responsible member of society and unfortunately talking about it on the personal scale is totally different to talking about it on a national scale.
Ahh when was the last time you been to a football game in Europe? Or heard about a fight breaking out in the stands? Trust, they aren't smoking pot. So yes the rest of the world does abuse alcohol.
Oh and by the way, cocaine and pot also have health benefits. In fact, cocaine is still used today. And I doubt anyone will debate the health benefits of marijuana today.
"Let's say you overdose on cocaine or you get lung cancer from smoking, that is not a burden only you will carry, that is a burden on society..."
Let see; drunk driving; domestic abuse, liver damage, kidney failure - on and on. So don't give me this BS about the "burden on society". Go tell that to the many mothers against drunk driving.
"Money spent on your treatment could be better spent elsewhere. This isn't about personal freedoms, it's about being a responsible member of society and unfortunately talking about it on the personal scale is totally different to talking about it on a national scale."
There are more folk in treatment for alcohol abuse than drug abuse. And yet alcohol is legal. More people are shot by people drunk than people high. And yet alcohol is legal. More deaths are due to cigarettes than drugs (and alcohol). And yet cigarettes are legal.
And if we did end the drug war - over right the deaths in mexico would end. It's just that simple.
There is no reason to maintain the drug war except that every cop, every firefighter; every city, town, and state shares in the drug war pot. It's become a revenue stream. And the "war" part the the "Durg War" was lost decades ago.
Really look forward to a night out when a bunch of people are buying heroin in one bar, cocaine in a another and ecstasy at the club - sounds awesome!
I am from Europe, yes I've been to those games. No doubt alcohol is a problem. Comparing pot to alcohol is just dumb, they have complete opposite physiological effects. I've seen what long term pot smoking does to normal people, with normal jobs and normal lives - it's not harmless.
I have not seen any studies on the health benefits of pot or cocaine as part of a regular lifestyle - can you enlighten me? I've seen reports of pot and ms or cocaine used by doctors for procedures, but I never heard of them being recommended for regular consumption as a way to improve health.
And, again, point out the draw backs of some drugs (alcohol) does not mitigate the problems associated with other drugs (pot).
Yes, because making alcohol illegal actually made things worse in the very same ways strict drug prohibition creates vast revenue streams for organized crime and incurs a great deal of violence.
How about starting a startup? That often results in elevated stress and could impact health. Let's ban that too.
How about we take the ridiculous amounts spent on the drug war, regulate supply and tax products for potential harms, then use that to educate people on safety and provide support to people that get in trouble.
Not all drug takers have a problem with drugs. I know successful and effective CEOs, developers, prolific scientists, government policy analysts, and many others that take drugs. They are often more effective than any other people I know. So please check your stereotypes.
You could argue similarly by replacing drugs with anything (legal) that could harm your children. For example, do you blame motorcycle vendors for being responsible for deaths and hardship among the families of motorcyclists?
Drugs and motorcycles are certainly different, but it's a bit too easy to blame drug traffickers or dealers only without taking into consideration the parents and the social circle of the children.
Knives also enable me to prepare dinner and surgeons to remove my appendix.
I don't think that class A drugs carry the same risk/benefit ratio, do you?
Also, I think you missed the part where I said that society and family carry some of the responsibility for that child taking drugs, but then you were too busy arguing the point you wanted to make rather than actually tackling what I said directly.
Unfortunately, these drugs often are unpatentable, so it's safer to make them illegal (class A so that law says they "have no medical purpose"). Then big pharma can find less effective substances, sell them for more, and it's all under the guise of safety.
It's not as if you wake up one day, and you're now instantly addicted to cocaine and are destroying your life. You had to make the choice to start using the drugs.
If that was really true, we wouldn't hold them criminally responsible for their actions.
Until you realize that most of those destroyed lives are because drugs are illegal in the first place, which makes them:
1) expensive, 2) reason to get fired, 3) of unknown quality and ratios (hence overdosing), 4) related to gangs and violent crime, etc etc.
There is a very strong case to be made for the War on Drugs being far, far more harmful to society than drug use itself has ever been.
luckily there are other fun and legal substances like alcohol that never cause such damage. oh, wait.