3 ms·
Well, that's perhaps true but the broader point still stands. Legalised drugs companies don't tend to have the same violent tendencies. Glaxo-Smithkline don't t
by kolektiv 17y ago
Well, that's perhaps true but the broader point still stands. Legalised drugs companies don't tend to have the same violent tendencies. Glaxo-Smithkline don't tend to have violent gun battles with Bayer over who gets to supply prescription meds to a 'hood.
Also, although that may be the violence most prominent in the US, there's plenty of police/army vs. drug cartel violent crime in other countries.
edit: typo.
- Qz 17y agoI don't disagree that legalization would reduce violence. Part of it probably comes from the fact that since what they're doing (on a large scale) is massively illegal, so using violence to compete isn't much of a leap.
- warfangle 17y agoA huge part of it is by sheer nature of the black market, traditional dispute resolution is out of the question. You can't go to a lawyer and say, "This dude backed out on his deal, cheating me out of $10,000 of grass." So the only method left for many grey/black market areas is physical retaliation. Outlaw a market, and only outlaws (and their own twisted senses of justice and retribution) will thrive in the market.
- dagw 17y agoCigarettes are legal, yet there are still criminal gangs making their living out of smuggling and selling cigarettes. Unless drugs are sold without restriction and without tax there will still be a market for illegal drugs. Sure the market will be smaller and less profitable, but that might just make the gangs more violent in defending their turf as they need a larger market share to keep their current profit levels.