3 ms·

"Tracey Bogle, who served a 16-year prison sentence for kidnapping, armed robbery, assault, car theft, and sexual assault" Yeah, he'd be a saint if drugs were

"Tracey Bogle, who served a 16-year prison sentence for kidnapping, armed robbery, assault, car theft, and sexual assault" Yeah, he'd be a saint if drugs were legal.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
In for a penny, in for a pound. If you make it illegal, for the sake of being able to throw certain demographics in prison (brown, black, hippies), then you incentivize further actions. If you're caught, you're already going away for a long time. That's why decriminalization/legalization of drugs also stops other crime. Suddenly, $thing is no longer criminalized, so people doing it have no reason to commit crimes.
- panzagl 8y ago
  TFA didn't mention drugs, it talks about a family where burglary was a bonding activity. Plenty of crime existed before War on Drugs, and it still exists in places where such strictures don't exist.
rconti 8y ago
The article is scant on details, but if the ancestor's only crime during Prohibition was bootlegging, then actually, it's possible Prohibition caused generations of other crimes that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
- panzagl 8y ago
  Then we should also get rid of the prohibition on ivory- after all, think of all of those future generations of criminals we're creating by jailing poachers.
  - arminiusreturns 8y ago
    its not the same thing at all, and your argument is logically fallacious because of it. A person consuming a drug violates no other beings rights. This is obviously not true about ivory poaching.
    - panzagl 8y ago
      The fallacy is defining all crimes as drug crimes, then saying legalizing drugs will end all crime. Might as well legalize violence directly.
      - rconti 8y ago
        But actually, crime IS crime, in important ways. Put it this way; marijuana can be a "gateway drug" without being addictive, because people who are willing to break the law and social norms to do one thing are the kind of people who might break the law and social norms to do another thing; it's correlation in that case, though. To extent the analogy, maybe now the marijuana user's child begins using marijuana because their parents did, but then they move on to hard drugs. Their willingness to break the law and social norms in one way made them more open to doing so in another way. Same thing here; if you create too many victimless crimes, children of 'crime' may grow up to do crimes that actually have victims.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        > The fallacy is defining all crimes as drug crimes, then saying legalizing drugs will end all crime. But no one is making that argument. You’re attacking a strawman.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

"Tracey Bogle, who served a 16-year prison sentence for kidnapping, armed robbery, assault, car theft, and sexual assault" Yeah, he'd be a saint if drugs were legal.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

In for a penny, in for a pound. If you make it illegal, for the sake of being able to throw certain demographics in prison (brown, black, hippies), then you incentivize further actions. If you're caught, you're already going away for a long time. That's why decriminalization/legalization of drugs also stops other crime. Suddenly, $thing is no longer criminalized, so people doing it have no reason to commit crimes.

panzagl 8y ago
TFA didn't mention drugs, it talks about a family where burglary was a bonding activity. Plenty of crime existed before War on Drugs, and it still exists in places where such strictures don't exist.

rconti 8y ago

The article is scant on details, but if the ancestor's only crime during Prohibition was bootlegging, then actually, it's possible Prohibition caused generations of other crimes that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

panzagl 8y ago
Then we should also get rid of the prohibition on ivory- after all, think of all of those future generations of criminals we're creating by jailing poachers.
- arminiusreturns 8y ago
  its not the same thing at all, and your argument is logically fallacious because of it. A person consuming a drug violates no other beings rights. This is obviously not true about ivory poaching.
  - panzagl 8y ago
    The fallacy is defining all crimes as drug crimes, then saying legalizing drugs will end all crime. Might as well legalize violence directly.
    - rconti 8y ago
      But actually, crime IS crime, in important ways. Put it this way; marijuana can be a "gateway drug" without being addictive, because people who are willing to break the law and social norms to do one thing are the kind of people who might break the law and social norms to do another thing; it's correlation in that case, though. To extent the analogy, maybe now the marijuana user's child begins using marijuana because their parents did, but then they move on to hard drugs. Their willingness to break the law and social norms in one way made them more open to doing so in another way. Same thing here; if you create too many victimless crimes, children of 'crime' may grow up to do crimes that actually have victims.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > The fallacy is defining all crimes as drug crimes, then saying legalizing drugs will end all crime. But no one is making that argument. You’re attacking a strawman.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]