That's supposition on your part. If the severity of punishment had a statistically significant deterrent impact then US states with the death penalty for murder would have lower homicide rates than similar US states which don't. The evidence seems to show that the main thing that has a deterrent effect is the likelihood of getting caught, rather than the severity of the legal consequences.
There is little point in proposing severe punishments if the resources are not there to catch people who have commited crimes. So I do agree that the "likelihood of getting caught" deterrent is a bigger disincentive to commiting crimes compared to the "severity of punishment" deterrent, however my point is that the "severity of punishment" deterrent is also a important disincentive as well. Thus, you need to get both deterrents right if you want to stop people from say possessing, selling, distributing and/or producing narcotics.
In other words; if you want to stop somebody from commiting a certain action, its not just about making it likely that said person will be caught commiting that action, but also making that person fear being caught commiting said action.
Hence why my 5 proposals not only include severe punishments; but also an increase in the surveillance powers and resources that law enforcement possess to enforce the law of the land.
That's just naive. Give an institution authoritarian powers and they will inevitably be abused.
Not if there are a checks and balances in place to discourage such abuses. Because it's one thing to abuse ones powers and do so without any consequences, its another to abuse ones powers and end up in court as a result.
Likewise I would also be willing to support make abusing & misusing Law Enforcement's Powers & Privileges Treasonable Offence, something that can be justified on the basis that all Law Enforcement Officers are required to swear an oath to honour and enforce both the Constitution & Laws of the Land (thus abusing & misusing their Powers & Privileges would violate that oath). Not only that, but I would also be willing to support the establishment of a seperate Police Department to "police" said National Police Department to prevent the latter commiting any abuses of their powers.
The power to torture suspects is pretty much an invitation to abusers, given that you don't need any clear evidence to categorise someone as a suspect.
I would like to point out that my proposed expansion of surveillance powers would allow Law Enforcement to record all the Internet History, Voice Calls, Emails, Social Media Posts, Text Messages, DNA, Fingerprints, Faces and Goverment Records (alongside any Footage from an extensive CCTV Network featuring said person) of everyone within the United States. So if someone does get arrested for Possession of Illegal Narcotics (should these proposals get implemented); it's highly likely that said Police would have obtained a lot of evidence (which showed that said suspect does in fact possess narcotics) they could use against them.
Thus meaning that the number of innocent people that are wrongfully arrested for Possession of Illegal Narcotics would not be very high to start with. Although if any innocent people do end up getting wrongfully arrested & tortured, I wouldn't be against said people being allowed to sue Law Enforcement for both wrongful arrest and abuse of power.
Likewise for people who have been arrested for Possession of Illegal Narcotics and in which the police have a lot of evidence against said people (which proves said possession), they would be allowed to cut a deal with the Police to avoid both jail time & torture. Provided that they agree to take part in a drug treatment programme and rat out their Drug Dealers (for example by becoming a Police Informant).
So at the end of the day (under these proposals), the only people (that are under arrest for Possession of Illegal Narcotics) that would likely be tortured would be those foolish enough to not co-operate with Law Enforcement.
And even if you could prevent abuse, saying that these powers will only be used to enforce the law only works as a defence as long as the laws stay reasonable.
What all Police States share is the fact they where all propping up an Unpopular & Hated Regime (or at least a Regime that ended up becoming Unpopular & Hated). In contrast what I am proposing is granting Law Enforcement the powers and resources of a Police State; but only to enforce the Rule of Law and nothing more.
In other words; what the likes of Edward Snowden fail to understand is that Police States are hated not because of the powers they hold, but the fact they are protecting (at all costs) a regime that no one really likes and is failing to provide decent living standards (and the ability of people to personally enjoy themselves) towards their own people. In contrast; in places where Governments (that are Police States) do provide high enough living standards (and the ability of people to personally enjoy themselves) to their own people (such as China), there are a lot less complaints against said Police State.
So if you have a issue with the prospect of having to follow unreasonable & unpopular laws (in a nation whose Law Enforcement has the powers and resources of a Police State); one needs to understand that the real problem is not the fact somebody is recording your internet history and every single time you have appeared in CCTV, no the real problem is how broken the Political System is in said country (broken enough at least to pass said unreasonable & unpopular laws).
Because at the end of the day; the real villians are not those doing the dirty work of enforcing the law (or propping an unpopular regime), but rather those who order said Law Enforcement to do said dirty work in the first place.
If those powers are already in place when a semi-competent authoritarian comes into power it makes it really easy to pass laws that turn those powers against their political opponents.
If you want to prevent Authoritarians from obtaining power; rather than deny Law Enforcement the resources & powers they need to properly deal with both Drug Cartels and Terrorists (Foreign & Domestic), you would be better off doing all of the following:
- Establish an Economic System that provides a High Standard of Living, Quality Public Services, Decent Housing and Excellent Infrastructure to the entire population.
- Require all Candidates to swear an oath to obey both the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
- Consolidate the entire Media and Communications Sector into a single "National Media & Communications Corporation", a Corporation with both a Public Service Ethos and a legal requirement to operate for the benefit of General Population. Thus preventing wannabe Authoritarians from using the Media (Broadcast & Social) to promoting their dishonest claims.
- Require the entire Mililtary & Police to swear an oath to protect both the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
- Avoid giving Legal Immunity to those holding any Public Office.
Those 5 measures would make it a lot harder for a Trump or Robinson-like figure to obtain power in either Britain or the United States. A figure like Tom Cotton for example.
Torture of suspects is to treat anyone who is even accused of using a drug with extreme cruelty. Torturing people who haven't even committed the crime cannot possibly deter people from committing it. If anything, it's going to make the crime more attractive (if you're going to be tortured anyway, you might as well do something to deserve it). It also makes it infinitely more difficult for users to end an addiction, since by admitting their addiction to anyone in authority they risk being subjected to torture and life imprisonment. So the only drug rehab that users would risk using would be those who are operating under the radar of the government.
When it comes to Drug Related Offences, I would want to arrest people for the following specific offences:
- Possession of Illegal Narcotics
- The Production or Manufacture of Illegal Narcotics
- The Distribution & Transportation of Illegal Narcotics
- The Selling & Marketing of Illegal Narcotics
So admitting that you have used Illegal Narcotics (as part of a process of seeing help for ones Drug Addiction) at some point in your life should not really be an arrestable offence (unless one is stupid enough to be posessing Illegal Narcotics while seeking help). However if you still have concerns on this particular matter; I would have no problem if Drug Addicts received legal immunity from being Arrested & Charged for Possession of Illegal Narcotics, but only on the condition that they take part in a Government Programme to deal with their Drug Addiction (and with the additional caviat that they strictly follow it, otherwise said legal immunity is revoked) and that they are not currently being investigated or charged for Possession of Illegal Narcotics.
As for those who have been arrested (but not charged) for Possession of Illegal Narcotics (but wholm are actually innocent); then one should be smart enough to both co-operate with Law Enforcement (by explaining what exactly you have been doing of late and what locations you have recently visited) and obtain a Good Lawyer (one that would be willing to ask the Police if they have actually found any narcotics in the possession of their client, as well as any CCTV Footage and Internet History they hold in relation said client).
Thus; the only innocents that would likely face torture would be those stupid enough to be openly hostile to the Police and have a terrible Lawyer representing them.
And my point is that your proposals are both impossible to implement in the real world and inherently totalitarian.
I would like to state that my proposals are actually authoritarian (since said proposals ultimately encourage people to strictly follow the rule of law) rather than totalitarian (since said proposals do not force people to show blind obedience to any particular government). However while my proposals are far from perfect, they are more workable and less damaging than a complete decrimminalising of the production, distribution, marketing and selling of all narcotics.
And yet the Western country which has seen the most success in dealing with the drug problem is Portugal (the only country in recent years to see a massive drop in hard drug use, alongside significantly slower rise in soft drug use). And they are also the only country which has taken the approach of decriminalising drugs. Their approach clearly works better than the British or American one, is far more practical than yours (in that it's actually possible), and seems to have far fewer negative side effects.
I admit that Portugal's Method of dealing with Narcotics has managed to reduce the negative impact of said Narcotics, however there are two things that I would like to point out. Firstly; all Portugal has done is decriminalise the Possession of Narcotics (while keeping the production, distribution, marketing and sale of Narcotics illegal) and thus is very different to the complete decriminalisation that the majority of decriminalisation advocates are demanding. Secondly; their focus has mainly been to try and negate the problem rather than actually try and solve it, a policy that doesn't actually cure the problem.
Thus at the end of the day; my aim is not that one should accept that the problem is not going to go away and thus one should just try & deal with the symptoms. Rather my aim is to try & eliminate the problem altogether and do so by cutting off the supply of narcotics to the general population (via crippling the Drug Cartels and their ability to produce, distribute and sell Narcotics), with the end game of de facto forcing Drug Users to seek treatment since it would be virtually impossible to obtain their perfered drug of choice under those circumstances. Hence why I deliberately reject the Portugal Method; not because its ineffective, but rather because one needs Drug Addicts to rat out their Drug Dealers (to try and solve the bigger problem) and the only way to get said types to rat them out is by offering the prospect of spending the rest of their lives in prison (at best) if they don't co-operate.
Finally I would point out that while my proposals are authoritarian; they are more practical compared to simply treating the symptoms (as Portugal's Method does) or creating an industry that will likely ruin the lives of hundreds of milions (for the sake of profit) and thus create more problems for a world that is already having to deal with Wealth Inequality, Climate Change, Political Instablity and Religious Extremism. Simply because said problems aim to directly wipe out the entire Narcotics Industry via various means.
A narcotics industry that lobbies governments rather than funding terrorism is far less damaging to society than the police torturing people on the basis of mere suspicion.
We all know perfectly well the damaging impact that both Corporate Lobbying (especially by Fossil Fuel Industries) and Media Disinformation (by the likes of Murdoch) against dealing with Global Warming has done to the effort to try & deal with Climate Change. Likewise we also know about the corrosive effect of both Corporate Lobbying & Media Disinformation on other aspects of Human Society, something which has led to various problems such as Wealth Inequality and the failure of Western Governments (especially in Britain & America) to properly deal with COVID19.
So giving the Narcotics Industry (an industry that has a vested interest in making sure that as many humans as possible get addicted to Narcotics, all the while having zero regard for the consequences of such action) the "right" to de facto bribe Politicians and to buy off the Media (to promote Media Disinformation) is something that should be horrifiying for anyone across the political divide. Not just because of the direct impact & the wider consequences of such an action, but also because of the likely additional negative impact of large sections of the population being driven (as a result of seeing their loved ones end up getting addicted to Narcotics) to support more extreme Political Ideologies (that claim to stand up against the Narcotic Industry) as a result.
Thus when you look at the choice of either allowing the Narcotics Industry to fund Terrroism or allowing the Narcotics Industry to ruin the lives of hundreds of millions; you can see why I would rather support the five proposals instead, especially when it comes with the added benefit of improving peoples living standards in places such as Mexico, Central America, Columbia, Venezuela and the Caribbean (to the benefit of hundreds of millions). Because at the end of the day; I always prioritise the prosperity, health, wellbeing, safety and security of the wider General Population over the Civil Liberties of a foolish few. Not because I oppose the idea of Civil Liberties (in fact I strongly support it), but for the sake of the greater good when one is forced to choose between the two.