3 ms·

For the most part I agree with your arguments, except: crime is reduced I'm not so sure that is the case (well, apart from the fact that selling the drug woul

by ErrantX 16y ago

For the most part I agree with your arguments, except: crime is reduced I'm not so sure that is the case (well, apart from the fact that selling the drug would no longer be illegal :)). It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway. But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D

pyre 16y ago
> It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway. That depends on what you mean by 'crime due to people taking the drug.' How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit. > But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D True, but then it would no longer be 'pot-related crime' where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.' You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit. We still have to account for potential taxation etc. so the price might not go right down. Secondly there will certainly be more users and possibly people using more of the drug. With all that said I highly doubt there is a meaningful statistic for pot abusers causing crime; it's just not the profile of the drug. You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another. Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :) where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.' So then it becomes "crack is destroying our society" - there will always be people saying these things. Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our society". I guess pot is more widely lambasted due to being illegal (and possibly due to the fact it tends to inhibit abusers interactions in a much more noticable way) In this situation I would probably support legalization; if you look at the drugs profile in the area most of the production is from small/medium gangs and individuals. The legal trade has changed that profile even more. The major stumbling blocks I feel exist generally for legalization of pot is that in other areas larger, more dangerous drugs gangs exist and I a) don't think we should give into them and b) don't imagine they will let us take a lucrative industry from them without a fight.
  - pyre 16y ago
    > Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :) My point was that a number of people point to crime as the reason to keep it illegal. "If it's causing all this crime now, then making it more easily accessible to larger amounts of people would cause even more crime." Crime is the symptom, but <insert illegal drug here> is not the disease. > Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our society" To a lesser extent though. People like to attack drugs that are illegal much more just because: - They have been illegal. (i.e. the government says it's bad so therefore it must really be bad) - They have been demonized for very long time. (i.e. "I grew up hearing about how bad <drug> is; therefore that is 'the way things are.'") - They are an unknown. (i.e. "I've never taken the drug, and I don't know anyone that has taken the drug so therefore it's very easy for me to just believe all the demonizing stories I hear and blame drug users for all the ills of the world.") This is very similar to the attitudes that a lot of people have (or have had) towards homosexuals. Some of the ideas that people have about how 'all' homosexuals are, are completely outrageous, but they hold these ideas very easily because they've never met/known someone that isn't heterosexual. (I'm not really saying that 'drug users' are just persecuted like gays are/were. There are plenty of people have have wild fantasies about what the reality of drug use really is, and I'm using the wild fantasies that people have about what homosexuals are really like as a parallel.)
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      People like to attack drugs that are illegal much more just because: Yeh, sorry that was my point. I was trying to say; it's not an ideal argument because there will always be people who say these things. In a small part they are right (because heavy pot smokers are generally low-achieving/non-functioning due to the drug). But then the same applies to heavy alcohol abusers. Basically; it's possible to simply ignore those who blame pot/alcohol/broccoli etc. because they will always moan about something regardless of what happens :P
      - 16y ago
mattmiller 16y ago
This depends. Do people get into the weed industry because they want to commit crime (naturally evil), or do they get into crime because the weed industry is lucrative and crime comes with it (naturally good with lax morals).
- ErrantX 16y ago
  I don't think the distinction matters; surely both profiles will move to other drugs (the first because they want to commit crime, the second because the illegal drugs market is probably more lucrative)
illumin8 16y ago
How can you not understand this? Look at the prohibition of alcohol for an example. Organized crime ran the bootlegging operations; people were shot in the streets for control of the alcohol and money generated from it. Now, look at what is happening in Mexico and the southern parts of the U.S. Try to tell me that crime wouldn't be reduced.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Do you imagine that the people in Mexico and South US are not the same people who, during prohibition, would be running alcohol? So has the removal of prohibition removed problems due to trading in illegal substances? Answer, by your own admission, is no :)
  - fgf 16y ago
    You need to learn some basic economics. (First question: Cocaine, heroin, opium, alcohol and marihuana used to be legal in the UK (and most other places), there was nothing like todays gang violence. Why? Second question: Why did crime increase during prohibition?) http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      I hate to be glib but my economics is pretty good. Would you care to explain what you mean?
      - fgf 16y ago
        Prohibition of a substance people wants leads to illegal distribution. Illegal distributors can not use private property protection normally used by those who distribute legal goods. So bootleggers, crack dealers etc. kill each other to enforce contracts, take markets and steal each others stuff. This is why prohibition causes crime. You will have a very hard time finding any informed participant in the debate over legalization contesting this fact.

by ErrantX 16y ago

pyre 16y ago

> It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway. That depends on what you mean by 'crime due to people taking the drug.' How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit. > But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D True, but then it would no longer be 'pot-related crime' where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.' You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another.

ErrantX 16y ago
How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit. We still have to account for potential taxation etc. so the price might not go right down. Secondly there will certainly be more users and possibly people using more of the drug. With all that said I highly doubt there is a meaningful statistic for pot abusers causing crime; it's just not the profile of the drug. You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another. Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :) where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.' So then it becomes "crack is destroying our society" - there will always be people saying these things. Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our society". I guess pot is more widely lambasted due to being illegal (and possibly due to the fact it tends to inhibit abusers interactions in a much more noticable way) In this situation I would probably support legalization; if you look at the drugs profile in the area most of the production is from small/medium gangs and individuals. The legal trade has changed that profile even more. The major stumbling blocks I feel exist generally for legalization of pot is that in other areas larger, more dangerous drugs gangs exist and I a) don't think we should give into them and b) don't imagine they will let us take a lucrative industry from them without a fight.
- pyre 16y ago
  > Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :) My point was that a number of people point to crime as the reason to keep it illegal. "If it's causing all this crime now, then making it more easily accessible to larger amounts of people would cause even more crime." Crime is the symptom, but <insert illegal drug here> is not the disease. > Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our society" To a lesser extent though. People like to attack drugs that are illegal much more just because: - They have been illegal. (i.e. the government says it's bad so therefore it must really be bad) - They have been demonized for very long time. (i.e. "I grew up hearing about how bad <drug> is; therefore that is 'the way things are.'") - They are an unknown. (i.e. "I've never taken the drug, and I don't know anyone that has taken the drug so therefore it's very easy for me to just believe all the demonizing stories I hear and blame drug users for all the ills of the world.") This is very similar to the attitudes that a lot of people have (or have had) towards homosexuals. Some of the ideas that people have about how 'all' homosexuals are, are completely outrageous, but they hold these ideas very easily because they've never met/known someone that isn't heterosexual. (I'm not really saying that 'drug users' are just persecuted like gays are/were. There are plenty of people have have wild fantasies about what the reality of drug use really is, and I'm using the wild fantasies that people have about what homosexuals are really like as a parallel.)
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    People like to attack drugs that are illegal much more just because: Yeh, sorry that was my point. I was trying to say; it's not an ideal argument because there will always be people who say these things. In a small part they are right (because heavy pot smokers are generally low-achieving/non-functioning due to the drug). But then the same applies to heavy alcohol abusers. Basically; it's possible to simply ignore those who blame pot/alcohol/broccoli etc. because they will always moan about something regardless of what happens :P
    - 16y ago

mattmiller 16y ago

This depends. Do people get into the weed industry because they want to commit crime (naturally evil), or do they get into crime because the weed industry is lucrative and crime comes with it (naturally good with lax morals).

ErrantX 16y ago
I don't think the distinction matters; surely both profiles will move to other drugs (the first because they want to commit crime, the second because the illegal drugs market is probably more lucrative)

illumin8 16y ago

How can you not understand this? Look at the prohibition of alcohol for an example. Organized crime ran the bootlegging operations; people were shot in the streets for control of the alcohol and money generated from it. Now, look at what is happening in Mexico and the southern parts of the U.S. Try to tell me that crime wouldn't be reduced.

ErrantX 16y ago
Do you imagine that the people in Mexico and South US are not the same people who, during prohibition, would be running alcohol? So has the removal of prohibition removed problems due to trading in illegal substances? Answer, by your own admission, is no :)
- fgf 16y ago
  You need to learn some basic economics. (First question: Cocaine, heroin, opium, alcohol and marihuana used to be legal in the UK (and most other places), there was nothing like todays gang violence. Why? Second question: Why did crime increase during prohibition?) http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    I hate to be glib but my economics is pretty good. Would you care to explain what you mean?
    - fgf 16y ago
      Prohibition of a substance people wants leads to illegal distribution. Illegal distributors can not use private property protection normally used by those who distribute legal goods. So bootleggers, crack dealers etc. kill each other to enforce contracts, take markets and steal each others stuff. This is why prohibition causes crime. You will have a very hard time finding any informed participant in the debate over legalization contesting this fact.