You start by saying, "...a person could be sentenced to 10 years for the crime of drug addiction, and someone in a white collar crime like embezzling $10M from a company could get away with a 4 year sentence."
But then you say, "...it's ridiculous to prosecute someone who commits a non-violent crime..."
Insider trading and embezzling are non-violent crimes while trafficking illicit drugs involves criminal networks that are willing to wreak violent mayhem to protect and expand their markets.
This is not to diminish the harm of financial crimes or extol any fictitous virtue of the so-called war on drugs but a better expressed principle would help nudge the discussion along. I think there is plenty of room for improvement in how penalties are assigned to various offenses but at the end of the day we elect representatives that reflect (we hope) our views on what is an offense and what the appropriate penalty ought to be.
As financial crimes take an ever increasing toll on our society they will no longer be viewed less damaging than a bank robber taking money under threat of violence. Likewise we may decriminalize marijuana out of fatigue of enforcing laws against what is at worst a nuisance. However, we may stiffen penalties for harder drugs like meth and cocaine that do undeniable damage to individuals and society as a whole. Once upon a time horse thievery was a capital offense because the loss of a horse was so devastating to the livelihood of the victim. Nowadays it is merely felony larceny. Laws evolve over time and what is important is to have a system that facilitates this natural evolution.
Good conversation starter. 
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read