New Georgia Gov. Deal (R) Questions Keeping Drug Addicts in Jail to Save Money

In his inaugural address, the new Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) questions the wisdom of keeping criminals locked up, when their main offense is a drug charge:

"Presently, one out of every 13 Georgia residents is under some form of correctional control. It cost about $3 million per day to operate our Department of Corrections. And yet, every day criminals continue to inflict violence on our citizens and an alarming number of perpetrators are juveniles....

“For violent and repeat offenders, we will make you pay for your crimes. For other offenders who want to change their lives, we will provide the opportunity to do so with Day Reporting Centers, Drug, DUI and Mental Health Courts and expanded probation and treatment options. As a State, we cannot afford to have so many of our citizens waste their lives because of addictions. It is draining our State Treasury and depleting our workforce…..”

According to HuffPo, here's a stat showing just how many are in Georgia prisons with drugs has their main offense:

According to a 2009 Office of National Drug Control Policy report, approximately 17% of Georgia's 53,268 prisoners had drug-related offenses listed as their primary offense.

I happen to agree with this to a certain extent. Throwing drug addicts in jail won't cure them. In fact, it can make it harder for them to move on to a better life. They need psychiatric help, and you can't get good psychiatric help in prison.

Many drug possession charges are felonies, and that can haunt them for the rest of their lives, if they have a felony on their record. Even if they are staying clean, they will have a harder time getting a job or a place to live, especially in a good area, with that on their record.

Now, I'm not calling for the legalization of drugs or letting them off the hook totally. I just think that they should rethink how they deal with non-violent drug offenders.

Violent drug offenders should never be let off easy. Also, drug dealers should get tougher sentences because they are knowingly taking advantage of the pain and misery of addicts like parasites, in order to make money and gain power.

However, non-violent addicts should be put into recovery programs and institutions with the option of their charges to be expunged, if they stay clean for a certain length of time, and periodic drug tests should be done to prove that they've stayed clean before their charges are pardoned.

If these addicts get help and stay clean, then, they'll stay out of jail, and in the long run, that'll save money.

Clinton: Mexican Drug Wars Are America's Fault

Hillary Clinton: Sorry Mexico, Your Violence is All Our Fault
On her "Gosh We're Sorry" tour, Clinton assures Mexico it's all our fault...
Posted by Warner Todd Huston
Friday, March 27th at 10:56AM EDT

Mexican government officials are in the pocket of Mexican drug lords. Members of the Mexican military lend their support to Mexican drug lords. Mexican police double deal by being footsoldiers for Mexican drug lords at the same time they work for the various states. It’s all a great, corrupt mess down there.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s message to Mexico? It’s America’s fault.

And as the violence in Mexico begins to leak across the border into our southwestern states, what is Barack Obama’s idea to help? He wants to disarm our own people by raising the specter of “assault rifles,” a term that has no real meaning, and by re-instituting the “assault weapons” ban in the U.S.

So, another country’s internal corruption and internecine violence is our fault according to Obama and Clinton. And we are going to disarm ourselves in the face of foreign violence to “solve” the problem? Apparently, we are the ones the Mexicans have been waiting for, too. At least we are the ones that Mexican drug lords have been waiting for, anyway.

Naturally, the Old Media have painted this “new attitude” of American foreign policy as a relative good. McClatchy, for instance, praises Clinton’s capitulation to Mexico as a “humble” new policy, her “humility” being “served up” at every stop as she tours our southern neighbor. This new tone is an effort to reverse the problem of a “world opinion of the U.S. which sank deeply” during the Bush years, according to McClatchy.

For its part AFP says that America no longer views Mexico’s violence as the Mexican problem the Bush administration assumed it to be. We are taking “co-responsibility” for the violence as AFP quotes Mexican officials as saying.

It’s all of a piece with Obama’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” tour of the world. And what is the main offering on this tour besides a debasing of the U.S.A.? Money. And big money, too. To start with, Clinton’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” offering to Mexico is 80 million dollars in new spending as a sop to the corrupt nation. This new foreign aid is supposed to go to help Mexico buy new Blackhawk helicopters to assist the Mexican military to interdict drug cartels. But will it go to that end or will some of it end up in the hands of the very drug lords it is supposed to combat? Your guess is as good as mine.

Our government in Washington is almost bankrupt, we supposed to be in an “emergency” situation with our economy and what is Obama planning? 80 million dollars in new spending to Mexico.

Where that 80 mil would better be spent is in shoring up our border with Mexico and making sure their violence doesn’t come across the border in the first place. Let the money be spent on Americans instead of Mexicans if it must be wasted by government.

And lastly, when did Hillary Clinton realize that the role of Secretary of State included making American laws?

“I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don’t belong on anyone’s street,” said Clinton who pushed for the ban as a New York senator.

“During the time period from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, our police in America were able to drive crime down because they didn’t have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members,” the chief US diplomat said.

“So we will make the case that we need to put more teeth in the law, try to prohibit the sale outside of our borders of these guns,” Clinton said.

Someone needs to remind Her Thighness that she has NO ROLE in “making the case” that a new so-called assault weapons ban needs to be instituted. That is Congress’ and the president’s role, not hers. Her role as Secretary of State does NOT include lawmaking. She is Obama’s mouth on foreign policy, not America’s advocate for new laws, acts, or internal policy ideas.

This is what you signed on for, honey. You are not a Senator anymore. Keep out of matters in which you do not belong.

Meantime, Obama’s new policy of “we are the fault you’ve been waiting for” rolls on. Reaching out to enemies and slighting friends is a wonderful way to… I not sure what it is, actually. Besides stupid, that is.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/03/27/hillary-clinton-sorry-mexico-your-violence-is-all-our-fault/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

How on earth is the fact that Mexico cannot control their own crime and government our fault? We aren't in control of Mexican police, military, or government. So, how is could be the US's fault?

I am in total agreement with Huston. I wonder why while we have the biggest amount of deficit spending ever, we are throwing $80 mil down the Mexican rat hole? It could be much better spent as he pointed out.

Mexico is in total shambles. Something must be done as it is bleeding into this country through illegal immigration. This isn't just a Mexican problem anymore. The war is taking American casualties on our soil as well. However, Clinton's approach of apologizing and taking guns out of the hands of those that need to defend themselves looks like weakness to the drug lords. Banning assault weapons isn't going to keep them out of the criminals just the law abiding victims. Liberals need to wake up and realize these facts.