3 ms·

> Robbery, extortion, theft and burglary - plus other crimes and social ills - are all made far, far, far worse... Really? What's the evidence for that? I'm n

> Robbery, extortion, theft and burglary - plus other crimes and social ills - are all made far, far, far worse... Really? What's the evidence for that? I'm not necessarily in favor of criminalizing drug trade, but it stands to reason that absent that "line of business", criminals would be under higher pressure to make money otherwise. Drug trade at least is more likely to only affect those involved with drugs, whereas these other crimes are more likely to affect "bystanders".

pmachinery 6y ago
> Really? What's the evidence for that? I thought this was an uncontroversial fact everyone knew, but a two-second search on drug-related crime would answer your question, with many links. For example: "In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs [...] In 2002 about a quarter of convicted property and drug offenders in local jails had committed their crimes to get money for drugs [...] Among state prisoners in 2004 the pattern was similar, with property (30%) and drug offenders (26%) more likely to commit their crimes for drug money than violent (10%) and public-order offenders (7%)." https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm > I'm not necessarily in favor of criminalizing drug trade, but it stands to reason that absent that "line of business", criminals would be under higher pressure to make money otherwise. Drug legalization is not about ending all crime, and nobody is saying it would, so I'm not sure why you keep saying this. It's about reducing the power of organized crime/cartels, reducing drug-related crime (see above), providing more effective rehabilitation and safety/health, and civil liberties. > Drug trade at least is more likely to only affect those involved with drugs, whereas these other crimes are more likely to affect "bystanders". I'm not even sure what you're arguing here, but it seems to be that you think the drug trade only negatively affects drug users and, even more bizarrely, that criminals aren't already involved in "other crimes".
- gridlockd 6y ago
  > I thought this was an uncontroversial fact everyone knew... Well, obviously not. > ...but a two-second search on drug-related crime would answer your question, with many links... So, a minority of offenders claim they did their deed "because of drugs" and if drug legalization were to happen and we suppose that 100% of these candidates now stay on the good side of the law, we can expect, at the very best, a 30% reduction in crime. That doesn't answer the question about career criminals. Let's say drugs are free, that's great, no more crime for drug money. What else do people want to buy with money they can't earn legally? What about status symbols like jewellery or sneakers? Don't you need these to be free too? But then how could they be status symbols? I have no doubts that drug legalization will reduce some amount of crime that is tangentially related to drug use or trade. However, there's no clear correlation between drug prohibition and crime, some countries with very strict prohibition (Japan, Korea) are low on crime, others are high in crime (Phillipines). I reiterate, if you have a bunch of gangsters and take away their most lucrative and (arguably) most benign stream of income, they need to move on to other venues. I'd rather have them sell weed and coke and maybe get into the occasional turf war, rather than having them double down on robberies and home invasions. > Drug legalization is not about ending all crime, and nobody is saying it would, so I'm not sure why you keep saying this. I'm not saying this. > I'm not even sure what you're arguing here, but it seems to be that you think the drug trade only negatively affects drug users... Read it again, maybe you'll figure it out. Drug trade mostly affects drug dealers, users and their peers. Certainly you must recognize that there's a tradeoff here - legalization of all drugs would be a big experiment with lots of unknowns.

pmachinery 6y ago

> Really? What's the evidence for that? I thought this was an uncontroversial fact everyone knew, but a two-second search on drug-related crime would answer your question, with many links. For example: "In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs [...] In 2002 about a quarter of convicted property and drug offenders in local jails had committed their crimes to get money for drugs [...] Among state prisoners in 2004 the pattern was similar, with property (30%) and drug offenders (26%) more likely to commit their crimes for drug money than violent (10%) and public-order offenders (7%)." https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm > I'm not necessarily in favor of criminalizing drug trade, but it stands to reason that absent that "line of business", criminals would be under higher pressure to make money otherwise. Drug legalization is not about ending all crime, and nobody is saying it would, so I'm not sure why you keep saying this. It's about reducing the power of organized crime/cartels, reducing drug-related crime (see above), providing more effective rehabilitation and safety/health, and civil liberties. > Drug trade at least is more likely to only affect those involved with drugs, whereas these other crimes are more likely to affect "bystanders". I'm not even sure what you're arguing here, but it seems to be that you think the drug trade only negatively affects drug users and, even more bizarrely, that criminals aren't already involved in "other crimes".

gridlockd 6y ago
> I thought this was an uncontroversial fact everyone knew... Well, obviously not. > ...but a two-second search on drug-related crime would answer your question, with many links... So, a minority of offenders claim they did their deed "because of drugs" and if drug legalization were to happen and we suppose that 100% of these candidates now stay on the good side of the law, we can expect, at the very best, a 30% reduction in crime. That doesn't answer the question about career criminals. Let's say drugs are free, that's great, no more crime for drug money. What else do people want to buy with money they can't earn legally? What about status symbols like jewellery or sneakers? Don't you need these to be free too? But then how could they be status symbols? I have no doubts that drug legalization will reduce some amount of crime that is tangentially related to drug use or trade. However, there's no clear correlation between drug prohibition and crime, some countries with very strict prohibition (Japan, Korea) are low on crime, others are high in crime (Phillipines). I reiterate, if you have a bunch of gangsters and take away their most lucrative and (arguably) most benign stream of income, they need to move on to other venues. I'd rather have them sell weed and coke and maybe get into the occasional turf war, rather than having them double down on robberies and home invasions. > Drug legalization is not about ending all crime, and nobody is saying it would, so I'm not sure why you keep saying this. I'm not saying this. > I'm not even sure what you're arguing here, but it seems to be that you think the drug trade only negatively affects drug users... Read it again, maybe you'll figure it out. Drug trade mostly affects drug dealers, users and their peers. Certainly you must recognize that there's a tradeoff here - legalization of all drugs would be a big experiment with lots of unknowns.