7 ms·

Coffee addictions don't lead to more violent crime or robbery, as far as I know. Does making meth and crack legal make less crime (violent or robbery) than if

by genwin 13y ago

Coffee addictions don't lead to more violent crime or robbery, as far as I know. Does making meth and crack legal make less crime (violent or robbery) than if their usage was nil? I highly doubt it.

CamperBob2 13y ago
The same questions were once asked about alcohol. Did you get your answers then?
- genwin 13y ago
  Apples to oranges, since unlike meth and crack users, the vast majority of those who drink alcohol can hold down a job to pay for it, instead of resort to theft or worse.
  - warfangle 13y ago
    Prescription opioid drugs like oxycodone kill more people than meth or crack. And there are a lot of people able to hold down a job and pay for cocaine (see also: wall street). What was your point again?
    - genwin 13y ago
      I'd include a lot of legal drugs in my war on drugs!
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        You would intensify the pursuit of criminal prosecution of people who find themselves addicted to prescription painkillers? An addiction to morphine is really little different than an addiction to heroin, except society has a greater understanding of addiction to morphine as an illness, not a crime. Treating morphine abusers like we treat heroin users would be devastating to society. It would be a ludicrously senseless step backwards. Your perspective on drug use is absolutely insane.
        genwin 13y ago
        > You would intensify the pursuit of criminal prosecution of people who find themselves addicted to prescription painkillers? No, rehab for them and all other people addicted to hard drugs. I'd seek criminal prosecution against the pushers who knew or should've known the drugs hurt much more than they help.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > I'd seek criminal prosecution against the pushers who knew or should've known the drugs hurt much more than they help. You would really prosecute the psychiatrists? Good for you. "CHILD DRUGGING: PSYCHIATRY DESTROYING LIVES" : http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/child-drugging/introduction.html http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/child-drugging/introduction... "Rebecca Riley": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Riley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Riley Quote: "Rebecca Riley (April 11, 2002 – December 13, 2006), the daughter of Michael and Carolyn Riley and resident of Hull, Massachusetts, was found dead in her home after prolonged exposure to various medications, her lungs filled with fluid. The medical examiner's office determined the girl died from "intoxication due to the combined effects" of prescription drugs. Police reports state she was taking 750 milligrams a day of Depakote, 200 milligrams a day of Seroquel, and .35 milligrams a day of Clonidine. Rebecca had been taking the drugs since the age of two for bipolar disorder and ADHD, diagnosed by psychiatrist Kayoko Kifuji of the Tufts-New England Medical Center."
        jlgreco 13y ago
        What, their doctors? Criminal prosecution for people who prescribe morphine?
        lutusp 13y ago
        Actually, that does happen, and IMHO for good reasons. "When Is a Pain Doctor a Drug Pusher?" : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17pain-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17pain-t.html?pag...
        13y ago
baddox 13y ago
I really can't imagine violence going up if drug prohibition was ended, even if you don't count the violence committed by public officers enforcing drug laws.
- genwin 13y ago
  I can imagine that, because a crack or meth user can't hold down a decent job. Whether legal or not they'd tend to have to rob to get the money to stay high. And when legal it's likely more people would get addicted.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Now you're assuming both that drug abuse would increase if drug prohibition ended and that drugs wouldn't get drastically cheaper. Both are claims you would need to support, and claims I do not believe.
    - genwin 13y ago
      I don't think it would matter how cheap it is. Even at a dollar a hit a jobless person tends to need to steal to get that dollar, in addition to money for food. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that legal things become more prevalent than illegal things, especially highly addictive things. Believing that requires no more support than disbelieving that.
      - baddox 13y ago
        > I don't think it would matter how cheap it is. I don't see how that's defensible. You seem to be talking only about people with zero money, which is few people even among jobless (even homeless) people. Surely the price of the drug, all else being equal, would strongly correlate to the number of crimes committed to obtain the drug. > I don't think it's a stretch to believe that legal things become more prevalent than illegal things, especially highly addictive things. I absolute think that's a stretch to believe, at least for things like drugs in large areas like the USA, where physically preventing their existence altogether is (apparently) not feasible.
shawn-furyan 13y ago
>Does making meth and crack legal make less crime (violent or robbery) than if their usage was nil? That's not one of the available options. I mean, looking back at the article, the spoils of this program are incredibly paltry given the enormity of the data set. Criminalization of drugs and Militarization of enforcement groups is not significantly deterring usage because they are so ineffective even with so many resources and so little respect for the civil rights of users and non-users alike. All these programs have been effective at is raising the bar for drug distribution organizations to a point where militarization and violence is necessary for operation. >Coffee addictions don't lead to more violent crime or robbery, as far as I know. Perhaps they would if they were criminalized. There's nothing very violent about marijuana use except the militarized distribution chain and criminal enforcement apparatus. If 7-11 could sell it from behind the counter, I expect that you would see marijuana related violent deaths drop precipitously.
- genwin 13y ago
  > Perhaps they would if they were criminalized. But why would it be criminalized? For that to be justified it needs to be a drain on society in some significant way. I don't support the current flawed war on drugs, especially forfeiture of property and imprisonment for users. I don't support a war on drugs that are essentially victimless, like on marijuana. I support the ideal war on drugs (one based on evidence to show that it does more good than harm).
  - shawn-furyan 13y ago
    >But why would it be criminalized? For that to be justified it needs to be a drain on society in some significant way. Substance bans do not /at all/ have a track record of being grounded in quantifiable measures of societal harm. That is to say, the current substance restriction policies are more or less completely arbitrary. The arbitrariness of current policies gives a natural experiment opportunity to assess the harm of the criminalization policies themselves by comparing the societal impact of substances such as caffeine, tobacco/nicotine, and alcohol with those of marijuana plus the associated negative impacts of marijuana criminalization. At least in the case of marijuana, the cure seems to be significantly worse than the disease. >I support the ideal war on drugs (one based on evidence to show that it does more good than harm). I wrote a more generalized comment[1] on the idea of an "ideal war on drugs". The gist is that I think it's a completely fantastical idea. The idea that you can squash a market with inelastic demand is soundly dispelled by all current and historical attempts at doing so. Further, I think that it's harmful that such an idea persists, because it allows for the justification of more and more extreme enforcement measures. Arguments like "If we got rid of meth then society would be significantly improved?" are based on a false premise. This is an outcome that clearly cannot be brought about by the war on drugs, yet such reasoning is continually used as a justification for more and more extreme enforcement measures that have increasingly diminishing returns as well as an increasingly negative impact on broader society as a whole. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6324214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6324214
pstuart 13y ago
80,000 deaths per year in the US attributed to alcohol: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm It's a dangerous drug. It makes people violent. People drink and drive and kill people. Let's make it illegal too, eh? Drug addiction is a health issue and should be treated as that. Making drugs illegal CREATES MORE CRIME. We could stop this madness if only people would STOP SUPPORTING THE MADNESS. Sorry to shout, but I'm sure you're an otherwise intelligent individual, but you are failing in this subject.
- genwin 13y ago
  You seem to be assuming that a war on drugs must make them illegal. It needn't. Instead the war could do whatever is most effective (per dollar spent) at reducing usage. I support rehab for alcoholics, and measures to reduce drunk driving. I don't support the war on drugs in its current form.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > You seem to be assuming that a war on drugs must make them illegal. It needn't. Instead the war could do whatever is most effective (per dollar spent) at reducing usage. You mean, it could be legalization, taxation, and using taxes to fund intervention, referral, and treatment programs, and not be opposed to legalization at all? If so, then its obviously not what people supporting legalization are arguing against when they are arguing againt the War on Drugs.
    - genwin 13y ago
      Yes, that's consistent with my top-most comment in this thread, where I describe a different, gentler and constitutional war on drugs. I wouldn't stop at using the taxes from the sale of hard drugs to reduce their usage. If spending $X against drug usage lead to $2X in net benefits, I'd support spending $X no matter how much higher it was than those taxes. A key component would be rehab, in which case it might be tough to make the drug legal. Suppose crack is legal and so there's some parent high on crack all day, providing only the most basic of care for the kids. If it takes keeping crack illegal to legally force that parent into rehab, then I'd want crack to stay illegal, but change the consequence to rehab.
rhizome 13y ago
Coffee addictions don't lead to more violent crime or robbery, as far as I know. You don't know at all, because it's never been illegal. However, there is plenty of evidence that making it illegal would indeed lead to robbery and violence.

by genwin 13y ago

Coffee addictions don't lead to more violent crime or robbery, as far as I know. Does making meth and crack legal make less crime (violent or robbery) than if their usage was nil? I highly doubt it.

CamperBob2 13y ago

The same questions were once asked about alcohol. Did you get your answers then?

genwin 13y ago
Apples to oranges, since unlike meth and crack users, the vast majority of those who drink alcohol can hold down a job to pay for it, instead of resort to theft or worse.
- warfangle 13y ago
  Prescription opioid drugs like oxycodone kill more people than meth or crack. And there are a lot of people able to hold down a job and pay for cocaine (see also: wall street). What was your point again?
  - genwin 13y ago
    I'd include a lot of legal drugs in my war on drugs!
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      You would intensify the pursuit of criminal prosecution of people who find themselves addicted to prescription painkillers? An addiction to morphine is really little different than an addiction to heroin, except society has a greater understanding of addiction to morphine as an illness, not a crime. Treating morphine abusers like we treat heroin users would be devastating to society. It would be a ludicrously senseless step backwards. Your perspective on drug use is absolutely insane.
      - genwin 13y ago
        > You would intensify the pursuit of criminal prosecution of people who find themselves addicted to prescription painkillers? No, rehab for them and all other people addicted to hard drugs. I'd seek criminal prosecution against the pushers who knew or should've known the drugs hurt much more than they help.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > I'd seek criminal prosecution against the pushers who knew or should've known the drugs hurt much more than they help. You would really prosecute the psychiatrists? Good for you. "CHILD DRUGGING: PSYCHIATRY DESTROYING LIVES" : http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/child-drugging/introduction.html http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/child-drugging/introduction... "Rebecca Riley": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Riley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Riley Quote: "Rebecca Riley (April 11, 2002 – December 13, 2006), the daughter of Michael and Carolyn Riley and resident of Hull, Massachusetts, was found dead in her home after prolonged exposure to various medications, her lungs filled with fluid. The medical examiner's office determined the girl died from "intoxication due to the combined effects" of prescription drugs. Police reports state she was taking 750 milligrams a day of Depakote, 200 milligrams a day of Seroquel, and .35 milligrams a day of Clonidine. Rebecca had been taking the drugs since the age of two for bipolar disorder and ADHD, diagnosed by psychiatrist Kayoko Kifuji of the Tufts-New England Medical Center."
        jlgreco 13y ago
        What, their doctors? Criminal prosecution for people who prescribe morphine?
        lutusp 13y ago
        Actually, that does happen, and IMHO for good reasons. "When Is a Pain Doctor a Drug Pusher?" : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17pain-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17pain-t.html?pag...
        13y ago

baddox 13y ago

I really can't imagine violence going up if drug prohibition was ended, even if you don't count the violence committed by public officers enforcing drug laws.

genwin 13y ago
I can imagine that, because a crack or meth user can't hold down a decent job. Whether legal or not they'd tend to have to rob to get the money to stay high. And when legal it's likely more people would get addicted.
- baddox 13y ago
  Now you're assuming both that drug abuse would increase if drug prohibition ended and that drugs wouldn't get drastically cheaper. Both are claims you would need to support, and claims I do not believe.
  - genwin 13y ago
    I don't think it would matter how cheap it is. Even at a dollar a hit a jobless person tends to need to steal to get that dollar, in addition to money for food. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that legal things become more prevalent than illegal things, especially highly addictive things. Believing that requires no more support than disbelieving that.
    - baddox 13y ago
      > I don't think it would matter how cheap it is. I don't see how that's defensible. You seem to be talking only about people with zero money, which is few people even among jobless (even homeless) people. Surely the price of the drug, all else being equal, would strongly correlate to the number of crimes committed to obtain the drug. > I don't think it's a stretch to believe that legal things become more prevalent than illegal things, especially highly addictive things. I absolute think that's a stretch to believe, at least for things like drugs in large areas like the USA, where physically preventing their existence altogether is (apparently) not feasible.

shawn-furyan 13y ago

>Does making meth and crack legal make less crime (violent or robbery) than if their usage was nil? That's not one of the available options. I mean, looking back at the article, the spoils of this program are incredibly paltry given the enormity of the data set. Criminalization of drugs and Militarization of enforcement groups is not significantly deterring usage because they are so ineffective even with so many resources and so little respect for the civil rights of users and non-users alike. All these programs have been effective at is raising the bar for drug distribution organizations to a point where militarization and violence is necessary for operation. >Coffee addictions don't lead to more violent crime or robbery, as far as I know. Perhaps they would if they were criminalized. There's nothing very violent about marijuana use except the militarized distribution chain and criminal enforcement apparatus. If 7-11 could sell it from behind the counter, I expect that you would see marijuana related violent deaths drop precipitously.

genwin 13y ago
> Perhaps they would if they were criminalized. But why would it be criminalized? For that to be justified it needs to be a drain on society in some significant way. I don't support the current flawed war on drugs, especially forfeiture of property and imprisonment for users. I don't support a war on drugs that are essentially victimless, like on marijuana. I support the ideal war on drugs (one based on evidence to show that it does more good than harm).
- shawn-furyan 13y ago
  >But why would it be criminalized? For that to be justified it needs to be a drain on society in some significant way. Substance bans do not /at all/ have a track record of being grounded in quantifiable measures of societal harm. That is to say, the current substance restriction policies are more or less completely arbitrary. The arbitrariness of current policies gives a natural experiment opportunity to assess the harm of the criminalization policies themselves by comparing the societal impact of substances such as caffeine, tobacco/nicotine, and alcohol with those of marijuana plus the associated negative impacts of marijuana criminalization. At least in the case of marijuana, the cure seems to be significantly worse than the disease. >I support the ideal war on drugs (one based on evidence to show that it does more good than harm). I wrote a more generalized comment[1] on the idea of an "ideal war on drugs". The gist is that I think it's a completely fantastical idea. The idea that you can squash a market with inelastic demand is soundly dispelled by all current and historical attempts at doing so. Further, I think that it's harmful that such an idea persists, because it allows for the justification of more and more extreme enforcement measures. Arguments like "If we got rid of meth then society would be significantly improved?" are based on a false premise. This is an outcome that clearly cannot be brought about by the war on drugs, yet such reasoning is continually used as a justification for more and more extreme enforcement measures that have increasingly diminishing returns as well as an increasingly negative impact on broader society as a whole. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6324214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6324214

pstuart 13y ago

80,000 deaths per year in the US attributed to alcohol: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm It's a dangerous drug. It makes people violent. People drink and drive and kill people. Let's make it illegal too, eh? Drug addiction is a health issue and should be treated as that. Making drugs illegal CREATES MORE CRIME. We could stop this madness if only people would STOP SUPPORTING THE MADNESS. Sorry to shout, but I'm sure you're an otherwise intelligent individual, but you are failing in this subject.

genwin 13y ago
You seem to be assuming that a war on drugs must make them illegal. It needn't. Instead the war could do whatever is most effective (per dollar spent) at reducing usage. I support rehab for alcoholics, and measures to reduce drunk driving. I don't support the war on drugs in its current form.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > You seem to be assuming that a war on drugs must make them illegal. It needn't. Instead the war could do whatever is most effective (per dollar spent) at reducing usage. You mean, it could be legalization, taxation, and using taxes to fund intervention, referral, and treatment programs, and not be opposed to legalization at all? If so, then its obviously not what people supporting legalization are arguing against when they are arguing againt the War on Drugs.
  - genwin 13y ago
    Yes, that's consistent with my top-most comment in this thread, where I describe a different, gentler and constitutional war on drugs. I wouldn't stop at using the taxes from the sale of hard drugs to reduce their usage. If spending $X against drug usage lead to $2X in net benefits, I'd support spending $X no matter how much higher it was than those taxes. A key component would be rehab, in which case it might be tough to make the drug legal. Suppose crack is legal and so there's some parent high on crack all day, providing only the most basic of care for the kids. If it takes keeping crack illegal to legally force that parent into rehab, then I'd want crack to stay illegal, but change the consequence to rehab.

rhizome 13y ago

Coffee addictions don't lead to more violent crime or robbery, as far as I know. You don't know at all, because it's never been illegal. However, there is plenty of evidence that making it illegal would indeed lead to robbery and violence.