4 ms·

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 ch

by 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
  - confuzatron 16y ago
    "heavy pot smokers are generally low-achieving/non-functioning due to the drug" That's just like, your opinion man. (update: I am lowering the tone with a Lebowski quote)
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      It's at least an empirical opinion. Apart from some extraordinary individuals I am not aware of a heavy pot smoker (from among my retinue of friends/aquaintances/people I know about) who does not suffer from some form of associated problem. I'm willing & happy to be proved wrong, but there hasn't been enough studies yet to prove one way or the other (though as far as I last read it was starting to come down on the side of what I have seen)
ethan 16y ago
>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 :) I totally agree, and that's why we should bring back alcohol prohibition. Sure, it would increase alcohol-related violence, but "people will commit crimes regardless", so what does it matter?
- ErrantX 16y ago
  What I'm saying isn't necessarily that this is a reason against legalization, just that we shouldn't call legalization a solution to the crime factor.
  - ethan 16y ago
    Why not? It is a solution to the cannabis-crime factor. Prohibition of alcohol isn't "a solution to the crime factor", but it certainly led to a reduction in obtaining-alcohol-related-crime.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      > but it certainly led to a reduction in obtaining-alcohol-related-crime. As I pointed out, it's incomparable because it is a different type of crime. Prohibition of Alcohol probably would reduce the overall amount of crime in society. But it's another matter. If, on the other hand, prohibition drove individuals to other (hypothetically legal) substances which had the same affect as alcohol and were eventually as widespread then it is a comparable issue. You can't turn around and present legalization as a way of reducing crime - because that seems very unlikely. It's better to rely on other arguments.
    - pyre 16y ago
      > Why not? It is a solution to the cannabis-crime factor. I think that you're missing the point. Like was said before, most of the people committing crimes related to cannabis will just move on to commit the same crimes, but related to another drug or illegal substance. The effect on overall crime will probably be negligible. On the other hand, it would reduce the 'crime' related to things like possession. I guess it really comes down to which stats you are using to look at 'crime'...

by ErrantX 16y ago

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
- confuzatron 16y ago
  "heavy pot smokers are generally low-achieving/non-functioning due to the drug" That's just like, your opinion man. (update: I am lowering the tone with a Lebowski quote)
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    It's at least an empirical opinion. Apart from some extraordinary individuals I am not aware of a heavy pot smoker (from among my retinue of friends/aquaintances/people I know about) who does not suffer from some form of associated problem. I'm willing & happy to be proved wrong, but there hasn't been enough studies yet to prove one way or the other (though as far as I last read it was starting to come down on the side of what I have seen)

ethan 16y ago

>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 :) I totally agree, and that's why we should bring back alcohol prohibition. Sure, it would increase alcohol-related violence, but "people will commit crimes regardless", so what does it matter?

ErrantX 16y ago
What I'm saying isn't necessarily that this is a reason against legalization, just that we shouldn't call legalization a solution to the crime factor.
- ethan 16y ago
  Why not? It is a solution to the cannabis-crime factor. Prohibition of alcohol isn't "a solution to the crime factor", but it certainly led to a reduction in obtaining-alcohol-related-crime.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    > but it certainly led to a reduction in obtaining-alcohol-related-crime. As I pointed out, it's incomparable because it is a different type of crime. Prohibition of Alcohol probably would reduce the overall amount of crime in society. But it's another matter. If, on the other hand, prohibition drove individuals to other (hypothetically legal) substances which had the same affect as alcohol and were eventually as widespread then it is a comparable issue. You can't turn around and present legalization as a way of reducing crime - because that seems very unlikely. It's better to rely on other arguments.
  - pyre 16y ago
    > Why not? It is a solution to the cannabis-crime factor. I think that you're missing the point. Like was said before, most of the people committing crimes related to cannabis will just move on to commit the same crimes, but related to another drug or illegal substance. The effect on overall crime will probably be negligible. On the other hand, it would reduce the 'crime' related to things like possession. I guess it really comes down to which stats you are using to look at 'crime'...