4 ms·

Gun running, human trafficking, political corruption, extortion, kidnapping, straight up stealing shit, fencing, counterfeiting. You know all those crimes that

Gun running, human trafficking, political corruption, extortion, kidnapping, straight up stealing shit, fencing, counterfeiting. You know all those crimes that aren't substance based. And depending on the terms of legalization, I'm sure drugs would always be a small part, whether that be black market to avoid taxes or prescription drugs.

sliverstorm 15y ago
We should probably legalize all those too. They'll go away.
- r0s 15y ago
  This is hyperbolic, unreasonable and valueless.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Or it could just be tongue-in-cheek
- yters 15y ago
  I like the way you think! I had the same idea. What makes something a crime is that it is illegal. If we make everything legal then there isn't any crime! I know, I know, I'm a genius.
robotresearcher 15y ago
None of these things is as profitable as drugs. Tens of dollars per gram, of stuff that grows in the forest and requires but a little processing. There's nothing so profitable to move on to.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Are you suggesting that the lower profits mean a crime ring can't be organized around them? Because history would disagree with you.
  - robotresearcher 15y ago
    Of course not. Just that a less profitable but still high-risk business is less attractive and likely to be pursued less vigorously and by fewer people. Which is the outcome we want. Zero tolerance is not eliminating crime, and it is extremely expensive.
    - rdl 15y ago
      Plus, most of the criminal activities organized crime goes into which aren't drugs have non-consenting victims -- like extortion, theft of vehicle cargoes, human smuggling (vs. domestic labor), etc. So it's easier for the law enforcement groups to ally with those victims against the organized crime groups.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    No, what he (and I, I suppose) is suggesting is that without drugs criminal organizations lose their primary source of funding. They can move onto other, smaller pies, but ultimately it means a dramatic downsizing of organized crime and a consequent loss of influence. Which isn't to say that they won't run guns and traffick humans, but right now the problem in Latin America is that these criminal organizations practically run the government they are so large. Depriving them of the drug pie, the tobacco pie, the alcohol pie... they will have nothing they can turn to that will allow them to maintain their present level of governmental corruption.
nikatwork 15y ago
Market size. Drugs are relatively easy to produce and smuggle and have a massive community demand. Nothing else comes close. Added benefit: fewer drug-related prisoners being trained up as career criminals. EDIT: also, "people" refers to "people in the community taking drugs", not the gangs.

sliverstorm 15y ago

We should probably legalize all those too. They'll go away.

r0s 15y ago
This is hyperbolic, unreasonable and valueless.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Or it could just be tongue-in-cheek
yters 15y ago
I like the way you think! I had the same idea. What makes something a crime is that it is illegal. If we make everything legal then there isn't any crime! I know, I know, I'm a genius.

robotresearcher 15y ago

None of these things is as profitable as drugs. Tens of dollars per gram, of stuff that grows in the forest and requires but a little processing. There's nothing so profitable to move on to.

sliverstorm 15y ago
Are you suggesting that the lower profits mean a crime ring can't be organized around them? Because history would disagree with you.
- robotresearcher 15y ago
  Of course not. Just that a less profitable but still high-risk business is less attractive and likely to be pursued less vigorously and by fewer people. Which is the outcome we want. Zero tolerance is not eliminating crime, and it is extremely expensive.
  - rdl 15y ago
    Plus, most of the criminal activities organized crime goes into which aren't drugs have non-consenting victims -- like extortion, theft of vehicle cargoes, human smuggling (vs. domestic labor), etc. So it's easier for the law enforcement groups to ally with those victims against the organized crime groups.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  No, what he (and I, I suppose) is suggesting is that without drugs criminal organizations lose their primary source of funding. They can move onto other, smaller pies, but ultimately it means a dramatic downsizing of organized crime and a consequent loss of influence. Which isn't to say that they won't run guns and traffick humans, but right now the problem in Latin America is that these criminal organizations practically run the government they are so large. Depriving them of the drug pie, the tobacco pie, the alcohol pie... they will have nothing they can turn to that will allow them to maintain their present level of governmental corruption.

nikatwork 15y ago

Market size. Drugs are relatively easy to produce and smuggle and have a massive community demand. Nothing else comes close. Added benefit: fewer drug-related prisoners being trained up as career criminals. EDIT: also, "people" refers to "people in the community taking drugs", not the gangs.