4 ms·

I'm starting to have this odd thought that its time for a softer harm reduction approach regarding undesirable forms of financial activity: dodgy investment sch

by api 8y ago

I'm starting to have this odd thought that its time for a softer harm reduction approach regarding undesirable forms of financial activity: dodgy investment schemes, gambling, even money laundering. Like drugs prohibition doesn't seem to work. It pushes these activities further into the shadows and generates deeper and less obvious forms of corruption. It also seems to drive socially harmful manifestations like the use of residential property as a money dump. Maybe we could have regulated unregulated financial arenas with appropriate disclaimers and some degree of KYC to prevent the absolute worst use cases?

sandworm101 8y ago
This isnt addiction. There is no disease here. This is money laundering. This is conspiracy to hide criminal activity. If we harm-reduce we should harm-reduce the underlying crime, not the conspiracy to launder its profits. This isnt about homeless drug addicts with few choices in life, people that need protection. Money laundering, by definition, is done by people with money, by people with every choise in the world.
- api 8y ago
  Gambling us addictive and seems hard wired into our nature. Quite a bit of financial activity is basically gambling. Another huge category is flight capital from authoritarian countries. Finally there is a tie in with drugs here. A harm reduction approach with drugs would drastically reduce the amount of black money looking for a way to be laundered.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    Harm reduction is different than legalization and/or decriminalization. The harm-reduction measure for drug addicts in places like vancouvers insight program have absolutely no impact on money. Totally different objectives.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "A harm reduction approach with drugs would drastically reduce" NO. Harm reduction in Vacouver at INSITE has basically done nothing. The area around the clinic is a thriving cesspool, worse than it ever was. The data used to validate 'harm reduction' doesn't even help them: they talk about 'avoided deaths form overdose' as though someone od'ing in an alley would have died fro their od and not had access to ambulances. It's not really that much more dangerous to shoot up 'in an alley' than in a clinic, surprisingly - you'll eventually have access to an ambulance either way and most OD's are not 'instant death' anyhow. It's the practice/behaviour that kills, the OD is the instance. The most obvious benefit is that users can get access to clean up programs etc. but there doesn't seem to be evidence that is materially working. Vancouver has an entire industry of drug related 'harm reduction' approaches - and yet, the problems continue to thrive. It would seem those policies haven't made a dent, and there might be better ways to spend that money to solve the problem.
    - Scoundreller 8y ago
      > NO. Harm reduction in Vacouver at INSITE has basically done nothing. The area around the clinic is a thriving cesspool, worse than it ever was. Expecting one program at one location to stop the entire problem is expecting a lot. The real question that needs to be answered is: Is it better to have the program or not? Other than space and a few staff, it can't be expensive to operate, especially when scaled out. > The most obvious benefit is that users can get access to clean up programs etc. but there doesn't seem to be evidence that is materially working. Indeed, the OnSite program is available in the same location. What better place to reach users than a program they'll come to everyday. There's plenty of evidence that opiate dependence treatment works, and is cost-effective: reduced HIV infections (it's not necessarily the opiates themselves that kill you), reduced property crime, reduced deaths from overdose. > Vancouver has an entire industry of drug related 'harm reduction' approaches - and yet, the problems continue to thrive. It would seem those policies haven't made a dent, and there might be better ways to spend that money to solve the problem. But would the problem be worse without the current programs? "We've spent all this money on health care and people are still dying, shutdown the hospitals!" Anyways, I'd argue any worsening is triggered by the new availability of potent and cheap opioids that people can't dilute properly.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  The point is that prohibition doesn't work very well, at least in the democratic West where we don't like to take measures like executing people for being in possession of 200 grams or more of an illicit substance. The inefficacy and harmful unintended consequences of prohibition have nothing to do with whether the culprits "need protection" or not.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Prohibition works fine well enough, or rather, much better than most alternatives. If Opium were for sale in every corner store (even if it was safely packaged, measured etc) we would have a healthcare epidemic that would shatter society. About 10% of society would be addicted very quickly, another 20% would have some fallout pretty quick, and that's enough to take everything down. Opiates are extremely addictive, to the point that doctors now give you the 'minimum number of pills' you need after surgery, not the whole bottle. The #1 cause opiate problem is addiction to legal pain killers and it's not a 'street problem' it's a 'suburbs problem'. So if the most conscientious, bill paying, regular folk in society can't even handle access to their regular pain killers, there's no hope for us otherwise. And now with fentanyl which is wiping people out - the discussion becomes moot because it's just so powerful it's not even a debate. Most hard drugs should be prohibited and that's just the world we live in. We give up small rights, like the ability to smoke heroin, because society at large can't deal with it, and that statistically probably includes you and I anyhow. So maybe soften punishment or whatever, decriminalize, fine. But I don't even think most 'harm reduction' works - in 20 years of 'insite' in Vancouver, that disgusting, drug ridden area is thriving in it's ability to keep people addicts and screwed up. As for money laundering, it's easier than we think to stop, but the BC government is soft, inept, and everyone is addicted to the money anyhow. Specific requirements and transactional requirements for mortgages, registration of accounts, limits and controls at casinos (you cash out more than $!K you provide an ID etc.) Corrupt money from Asia is Canada's economic heroin.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      >>If Opium were for sale in every corner store (even if it was safely packaged, measured etc) we would have a healthcare epidemic that would shatter society. Smoking has been decreasing for 60 years, despite being legal, and that's due to anti-smoking campaigns and growing social rejection of smoking. And nicotine doesn't kill a significant proportion of its users within five years the way heroin does. Drug-use would be heavily discouraged if it were legal. Reducing use through social pressure seems to me to be far more effective than reducing it through legal punishment of those that buy, sell and possess it. >>The #1 cause opiate problem is addiction to legal pain killers and it's not a 'street problem' it's a 'suburbs problem'. So the problem could be that medical professionals are recommending people to use it, not that it's available on the street. Legalizing it would eliminate the entire illicit drug market, and would significantly reduce the crime committed by drug addicts to support their habit.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  That isn't the point of legalization and decriminalization but that if the cure is worse than the disease keeping it illegal is irrational. Not saying that it is the case for money laundering but that is theoretically and counterintuitively possible. The whole point is that it creates two money types - clean and dirty with extra steps involved and desire to spend their ill gotten gains which results in filtering processes which can drive other problems starting with it driving takeovers and inflating bubbles. It is perfectly possible that despite the harm this is still way preferable than treating all income as clean and tax admissions completely private for sake of right against self incrimination. Again not saying money laundering is right but that it may shockingly prove be better off for everybody if there is say a 25% tax dirty money conversion service. It is like the death penalty in heinous cases - it may be that a serial torture murderer really deserves to die but that the death penalty does more harm than good.
  - tareqak 8y ago
    If someone pays that 25% to convert dirty money, then the government is saying that crime is effectively allowed if you can get away with it AND the person who paid it is basically going to be under the lens of law enforcement for the rest of their life.
Spooky23 8y ago
The problem with real estate money laundering is technically easy to solve, except that making lots of money via tax avoidance on real estate is a major fuel for corporate profitability.

by api 8y ago

sandworm101 8y ago

This isnt addiction. There is no disease here. This is money laundering. This is conspiracy to hide criminal activity. If we harm-reduce we should harm-reduce the underlying crime, not the conspiracy to launder its profits. This isnt about homeless drug addicts with few choices in life, people that need protection. Money laundering, by definition, is done by people with money, by people with every choise in the world.

api 8y ago
Gambling us addictive and seems hard wired into our nature. Quite a bit of financial activity is basically gambling. Another huge category is flight capital from authoritarian countries. Finally there is a tie in with drugs here. A harm reduction approach with drugs would drastically reduce the amount of black money looking for a way to be laundered.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Harm reduction is different than legalization and/or decriminalization. The harm-reduction measure for drug addicts in places like vancouvers insight program have absolutely no impact on money. Totally different objectives.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "A harm reduction approach with drugs would drastically reduce" NO. Harm reduction in Vacouver at INSITE has basically done nothing. The area around the clinic is a thriving cesspool, worse than it ever was. The data used to validate 'harm reduction' doesn't even help them: they talk about 'avoided deaths form overdose' as though someone od'ing in an alley would have died fro their od and not had access to ambulances. It's not really that much more dangerous to shoot up 'in an alley' than in a clinic, surprisingly - you'll eventually have access to an ambulance either way and most OD's are not 'instant death' anyhow. It's the practice/behaviour that kills, the OD is the instance. The most obvious benefit is that users can get access to clean up programs etc. but there doesn't seem to be evidence that is materially working. Vancouver has an entire industry of drug related 'harm reduction' approaches - and yet, the problems continue to thrive. It would seem those policies haven't made a dent, and there might be better ways to spend that money to solve the problem.
  - Scoundreller 8y ago
    > NO. Harm reduction in Vacouver at INSITE has basically done nothing. The area around the clinic is a thriving cesspool, worse than it ever was. Expecting one program at one location to stop the entire problem is expecting a lot. The real question that needs to be answered is: Is it better to have the program or not? Other than space and a few staff, it can't be expensive to operate, especially when scaled out. > The most obvious benefit is that users can get access to clean up programs etc. but there doesn't seem to be evidence that is materially working. Indeed, the OnSite program is available in the same location. What better place to reach users than a program they'll come to everyday. There's plenty of evidence that opiate dependence treatment works, and is cost-effective: reduced HIV infections (it's not necessarily the opiates themselves that kill you), reduced property crime, reduced deaths from overdose. > Vancouver has an entire industry of drug related 'harm reduction' approaches - and yet, the problems continue to thrive. It would seem those policies haven't made a dent, and there might be better ways to spend that money to solve the problem. But would the problem be worse without the current programs? "We've spent all this money on health care and people are still dying, shutdown the hospitals!" Anyways, I'd argue any worsening is triggered by the new availability of potent and cheap opioids that people can't dilute properly.
CryptoPunk 8y ago
The point is that prohibition doesn't work very well, at least in the democratic West where we don't like to take measures like executing people for being in possession of 200 grams or more of an illicit substance. The inefficacy and harmful unintended consequences of prohibition have nothing to do with whether the culprits "need protection" or not.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Prohibition works fine well enough, or rather, much better than most alternatives. If Opium were for sale in every corner store (even if it was safely packaged, measured etc) we would have a healthcare epidemic that would shatter society. About 10% of society would be addicted very quickly, another 20% would have some fallout pretty quick, and that's enough to take everything down. Opiates are extremely addictive, to the point that doctors now give you the 'minimum number of pills' you need after surgery, not the whole bottle. The #1 cause opiate problem is addiction to legal pain killers and it's not a 'street problem' it's a 'suburbs problem'. So if the most conscientious, bill paying, regular folk in society can't even handle access to their regular pain killers, there's no hope for us otherwise. And now with fentanyl which is wiping people out - the discussion becomes moot because it's just so powerful it's not even a debate. Most hard drugs should be prohibited and that's just the world we live in. We give up small rights, like the ability to smoke heroin, because society at large can't deal with it, and that statistically probably includes you and I anyhow. So maybe soften punishment or whatever, decriminalize, fine. But I don't even think most 'harm reduction' works - in 20 years of 'insite' in Vancouver, that disgusting, drug ridden area is thriving in it's ability to keep people addicts and screwed up. As for money laundering, it's easier than we think to stop, but the BC government is soft, inept, and everyone is addicted to the money anyhow. Specific requirements and transactional requirements for mortgages, registration of accounts, limits and controls at casinos (you cash out more than $!K you provide an ID etc.) Corrupt money from Asia is Canada's economic heroin.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    >>If Opium were for sale in every corner store (even if it was safely packaged, measured etc) we would have a healthcare epidemic that would shatter society. Smoking has been decreasing for 60 years, despite being legal, and that's due to anti-smoking campaigns and growing social rejection of smoking. And nicotine doesn't kill a significant proportion of its users within five years the way heroin does. Drug-use would be heavily discouraged if it were legal. Reducing use through social pressure seems to me to be far more effective than reducing it through legal punishment of those that buy, sell and possess it. >>The #1 cause opiate problem is addiction to legal pain killers and it's not a 'street problem' it's a 'suburbs problem'. So the problem could be that medical professionals are recommending people to use it, not that it's available on the street. Legalizing it would eliminate the entire illicit drug market, and would significantly reduce the crime committed by drug addicts to support their habit.
Nasrudith 8y ago
That isn't the point of legalization and decriminalization but that if the cure is worse than the disease keeping it illegal is irrational. Not saying that it is the case for money laundering but that is theoretically and counterintuitively possible. The whole point is that it creates two money types - clean and dirty with extra steps involved and desire to spend their ill gotten gains which results in filtering processes which can drive other problems starting with it driving takeovers and inflating bubbles. It is perfectly possible that despite the harm this is still way preferable than treating all income as clean and tax admissions completely private for sake of right against self incrimination. Again not saying money laundering is right but that it may shockingly prove be better off for everybody if there is say a 25% tax dirty money conversion service. It is like the death penalty in heinous cases - it may be that a serial torture murderer really deserves to die but that the death penalty does more harm than good.
- tareqak 8y ago
  If someone pays that 25% to convert dirty money, then the government is saying that crime is effectively allowed if you can get away with it AND the person who paid it is basically going to be under the lens of law enforcement for the rest of their life.

Spooky23 8y ago

The problem with real estate money laundering is technically easy to solve, except that making lots of money via tax avoidance on real estate is a major fuel for corporate profitability.