3 ms·

Err... They would simply use their billions to go legit? No damage, just making their business legal. If I may, let's say there's no more illegal activity rela

Err... They would simply use their billions to go legit? No damage, just making their business legal. If I may, let's say there's no more illegal activity related to drug. Would that solve violence? Not really, life of crime is chosen because you don't have options. Only the top drug lords are wealthy with drugs, read Freakonomics for more info about it. There was an interview from a crime lord who said something along the lines "when people have the possibility to get real jobs, it's very difficult for me to hire". Drug is one end of the problem, it's also a health problem in itself. But making drug legal won't solve much of violence and misery in the world.

roel_v 16y ago
Of course not. The skills and infrastructure needed to run criminal organization are vastly different from those to run a business in a regular market. Apart from that, I don't see the problem with former drug lords turning into 'regular' companies, as long as they stick to the rules of the 'regular' market, which they'll have to if they want to succeed. It's not like Proctor & Gamble goes around beating people up to maintain their edge in the diaper business. Secondly, it will of course not solve all violence. But it will at least solve the assassinations (and the collateral damage that comes with it) that directly stem from doing business in a lawless world (there is no way to enforce contracts in the underground except by violence and reputation) and it will take away much of the necessity to commit petty crime by small time criminal junkies. Depending on which country you look at, 20 to 60+ % of prison populations across the world are incarcerated for drug-related offenses. Are you honestly going to argue that all of those people will switch to robbing banks or other violent crimes when drugs are legalized? There are basically three ways to illegally make money nowadays: drugs, violent crimes (including property crimes which may not be 'violent' in the standard definition such as night-time burglary) and fraud (white collar but also smuggling cigarettes etc.) Many of the people who are now in the drug business will simply not have the opportunity to switch into a different field even if they wanted to! And yes I did read Freakonomics, I don't know what your point is there. While an entertaining read, a quote from a single guy who may or may not be the 'drug lord' he's claiming hardly makes for a convincing argument to defend current drug policy on. It's quite obvious that 'solving' poverty (whatever that may mean, considering that 'poverty' is such an ill-defined concept) is a good way to eliminate crime. It's not something that can be reached with policy though, at least not in the near term. Drug policy is much more contained and within reach of the legislature (by definition even), if it weren't for all the people who oppose drugs on ideological and/or mis-informed factual grounds.
- shin_lao 16y ago
  I don't get your point. A poor person sells drug because it's the only way to make money. He doesn't make a lot of money out of it and any job would be better as he would get health care and pension on top of it. He would not also risk going to jail or die from a gunshot. Now there's no more "illegal drugs" to sell. What does this person do to make money? Remember there's no job for him/her and he somehow needs to eat to live. I'm not saying the war on drug is fought properly, but between putting in jail all people who sell and/or consume drugs and let everyone do as they want there's probably stuff to be done. Heroin was legal when first discovered, it was removed from the market because it's a lethal substance. The "let everyone decide" doesn't work. Food education doesn't beat the commercial from Coca-Cola & the like. You would get the same problems with drugs, except drugs are not only lethal on the short term but somehow make you unproductive. Then you're going to tell me "but we would regulate these drugs and they would have to comply to strict regulations". Boom. Crime opportunity. My point is that legalizing some drugs wouldn't change the core of the problem.
  - mootothemax 16y ago
    Heroin was legal when first discovered, it was removed from the market because it's a lethal substance. Care to cite a couple of sources for that? I thought it was due to being highly addictive with few medicinal benefits.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    Your argument only holds if all poor people would switch to selling drugs. You're saying there is no alternative to selling drugs, which there obviously is, as demonstrated by the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who are poor yet do not sell drugs. If drugs are not illegal, those who are now selling drugs will simple have to do like the other poos people now.
    - shin_lao 16y ago
      No, I'm saying that people who currently chose a life of crime would look for other criminal activities.
CamperBob 16y ago
Err... They would simply use their billions to go legit? No damage, just making their business legal. Yes, that is exactly what they will do. Read about the Kennedy family sometime.

roel_v 16y ago

Of course not. The skills and infrastructure needed to run criminal organization are vastly different from those to run a business in a regular market. Apart from that, I don't see the problem with former drug lords turning into 'regular' companies, as long as they stick to the rules of the 'regular' market, which they'll have to if they want to succeed. It's not like Proctor & Gamble goes around beating people up to maintain their edge in the diaper business. Secondly, it will of course not solve all violence. But it will at least solve the assassinations (and the collateral damage that comes with it) that directly stem from doing business in a lawless world (there is no way to enforce contracts in the underground except by violence and reputation) and it will take away much of the necessity to commit petty crime by small time criminal junkies. Depending on which country you look at, 20 to 60+ % of prison populations across the world are incarcerated for drug-related offenses. Are you honestly going to argue that all of those people will switch to robbing banks or other violent crimes when drugs are legalized? There are basically three ways to illegally make money nowadays: drugs, violent crimes (including property crimes which may not be 'violent' in the standard definition such as night-time burglary) and fraud (white collar but also smuggling cigarettes etc.) Many of the people who are now in the drug business will simply not have the opportunity to switch into a different field even if they wanted to! And yes I did read Freakonomics, I don't know what your point is there. While an entertaining read, a quote from a single guy who may or may not be the 'drug lord' he's claiming hardly makes for a convincing argument to defend current drug policy on. It's quite obvious that 'solving' poverty (whatever that may mean, considering that 'poverty' is such an ill-defined concept) is a good way to eliminate crime. It's not something that can be reached with policy though, at least not in the near term. Drug policy is much more contained and within reach of the legislature (by definition even), if it weren't for all the people who oppose drugs on ideological and/or mis-informed factual grounds.

shin_lao 16y ago
I don't get your point. A poor person sells drug because it's the only way to make money. He doesn't make a lot of money out of it and any job would be better as he would get health care and pension on top of it. He would not also risk going to jail or die from a gunshot. Now there's no more "illegal drugs" to sell. What does this person do to make money? Remember there's no job for him/her and he somehow needs to eat to live. I'm not saying the war on drug is fought properly, but between putting in jail all people who sell and/or consume drugs and let everyone do as they want there's probably stuff to be done. Heroin was legal when first discovered, it was removed from the market because it's a lethal substance. The "let everyone decide" doesn't work. Food education doesn't beat the commercial from Coca-Cola & the like. You would get the same problems with drugs, except drugs are not only lethal on the short term but somehow make you unproductive. Then you're going to tell me "but we would regulate these drugs and they would have to comply to strict regulations". Boom. Crime opportunity. My point is that legalizing some drugs wouldn't change the core of the problem.
- mootothemax 16y ago
  Heroin was legal when first discovered, it was removed from the market because it's a lethal substance. Care to cite a couple of sources for that? I thought it was due to being highly addictive with few medicinal benefits.
- roel_v 16y ago
  Your argument only holds if all poor people would switch to selling drugs. You're saying there is no alternative to selling drugs, which there obviously is, as demonstrated by the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who are poor yet do not sell drugs. If drugs are not illegal, those who are now selling drugs will simple have to do like the other poos people now.
  - shin_lao 16y ago
    No, I'm saying that people who currently chose a life of crime would look for other criminal activities.

CamperBob 16y ago

Err... They would simply use their billions to go legit? No damage, just making their business legal. Yes, that is exactly what they will do. Read about the Kennedy family sometime.