Here's an article from the BBC about informants in the US and the feeding chain............

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21939453

From the article.......

Over a period of several weeks, Horner provided Matt with four bottles of prescription pain pills - morphine and hydrocodone. He says he also lent him money. On the last occasion Horner handed over pills, he was arrested.

"The next thing I know I got a guy's knee in the back of my neck grinding my face into the concrete. I'm told, 'You're under arrest for trafficking.'"

According to Sheriff's Office documents, Matt paid Horner a total of $1,800 (£1,200) for the pills, in three separate payments. The money had been provided by agents who also recorded the transactions.

That was the basis of the charge laid against Horner. Let's say he was caught bang to rights, what was the sentence?

25 years in jail. A grossly over the top sentence. What is the point of jailing that man for 25 years? As well as that telling him to go snitch on 5 other people who would get the same tariff and his sentence would be reduced?

So let's say he found another 5 in exactly the same circumstances.........you would end up with 5 people in jail for 25 years for selling 20 bottles of prescription medicine and turning over $9000.

Come on, get some sense back into sentencing

I have mixed feelings about legalizing all drugs. It is obvious that the war on drugs is not preventing them. It is just making them much more expensive and a lot more dangerous as they are usually cut with other substances. I agree that the sentences are ridiculous.

America has some crazy drug enforcement and general crime enforcement laws. The 3 strike rule for one.

As pointed out in the OP the harsh sentences for minor drug infractions. Nearly always small time players.

The only people who benefit are the corporations who run the prisons in America and corporations who supply law enforcement equipment and services... Harsher laws and longer sentences mean greater profits.

De-criminalising drugs will have to to be done at some stage. The entire crime cycle is basically because there is huge profits to be made selling and users need to obtain cash to buy, so resort to crime or re-selling small quantities.

Sets up a cycle of crime that cant be broken with enforcement. Prohibition has never worked and there is no solution on the horizon that will see it work.

Look for the words 'War on ........' and there follows an ill advised and costly campaign almost invariably doomed to failure. Surely prohibition was ample demonstration of this fact.

America has some crazy drug enforcement and general crime enforcement laws. The 3 strike rule for one.

As pointed out in the OP the harsh sentences for minor drug infractions. Nearly always small time players.

The only people who benefit are the corporations who run the prisons in America and corporations who supply law enforcement equipment and services... Harsher laws and longer sentences mean greater profits.

De-criminalising drugs will have to to be done at some stage. The entire crime cycle is basically because there is huge profits to be made selling and users need to obtain cash to buy, so resort to crime or re-selling small quantities.

Sets up a cycle of crime that cant be broken with enforcement. Prohibition has never worked and there is no solution on the horizon that will see it work.

Just because the enforcement of drug laws, as they currently stand, is difficult does not mean that the law-makers should give up.

Consumption of drugs, whether for recreation or the diminution of the realities of a poor life, destroys not only the participant, but family and social circle. Drugs destroy society and the traffickers in these vile substances must be caught and severely punished. I am in favour of the penalties throughout SE Asia - the death penalty for major amounts included.

For me, not just traffickers but anyone in possession of illegal drugs should receive a custodial sentence and the prisons should be drug-free. Our society is far too lax on drug crimes.

America has some crazy drug enforcement and general crime enforcement laws. The 3 strike rule for one.

As pointed out in the OP the harsh sentences for minor drug infractions. Nearly always small time players.

The only people who benefit are the corporations who run the prisons in America and corporations who supply law enforcement equipment and services... Harsher laws and longer sentences mean greater profits.

De-criminalising drugs will have to to be done at some stage. The entire crime cycle is basically because there is huge profits to be made selling and users need to obtain cash to buy, so resort to crime or re-selling small quantities.

Sets up a cycle of crime that cant be broken with enforcement. Prohibition has never worked and there is no solution on the horizon that will see it work.

Just because the enforcement of drug laws, as they currently stand, is difficult does not mean that the law-makers should give up.

Consumption of drugs, whether for recreation or the diminution of the realities of a poor life, destroys not only the participant, but family and social circle. Drugs destroy society and the traffickers in these vile substances must be caught and severely punished. I am in favour of the penalties throughout SE Asia - the death penalty for major amounts included.

For me, not just traffickers but anyone in possession of illegal drugs should receive a custodial sentence and the prisons should be drug-free. Our society is far too lax on drug crimes.

Lax on alcohol I would agree. Hardly lax on other drugs.

Unfortunately the methods you advocate have been tried without success for years. Nothing will change through the current method of enforcement. Imagine in Western society EVERYONE who has possession of illegal drugs getting a custodial sentence... You would have to build thousands of warehouses just to accommodate people

In fact the actual money to be made merely corrupts law enforcement, politicians, etcetera, further undermining societal values. It enables criminal elements to become powerful, also undermining societal values

Having prohibition on drugs just doesn't work and all the trillions of dollars spent fighting a false fight woudl be better spent on education and treatment for susceptible individuals.

Great minds think alike..... theblether and Obama.

US to cut back minimum sentences for some drug offences

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23671354

Before the 'war on drugs' started in the UK there were ~5000 heroin addicts - all registered and receiving regular prescriptions from their own GPs. The black market was minuscule. Heroin addicts were known to their doctors. They lived normal lives. It's possible to live a normal life on heroin as long as it's not cut with all sorts of crap, the strength is known and you don't have to break the law to obtain it.

The Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 changed all that. Basically it criminalised the use of heroin and created a black market overnight. Today there are estimated to be ~300,000 heroin addicts in the UK. We can no longer be any more specific because they're not registered with a GP. The vast majority of crime in the UK is now drug related.

Before 1967 we were doing quite a good job on keeping the lid on heroin addiction. The United Nations and our allies didn't really like the methods we were using and 'encouraged' us to sign up to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs from which came the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It's all been downhill since then.

I personally think this article really sums up the most logical way forward on the subject of drug legalization:

http://www.economist.com/node/13237193

I think the three strike law is pretty clear and good. One can do couple of mistakes, but if the behaviour continues, then the good will ends and it's time to go for prison out of other people's lives.

The effect of these druggies does not restrict to the people who they sell the drugs. It's also the families of the drug users who have to suffer.

I think it's very fair to give few changes, but nothing more than that. Specially when the rules are well known and enforced. They do destroy more lives than they could ever live themselves.