^you just proved my point again, pothead

12/30/2008 5:45:00 PM

It was an economics professor that first made the point to me that crime increases when the economy struggles.

There are many statistics in this world that correlate, obviously. This is one of them - not all that special. The observation is somewhat novel, I'll give you that. But there is little reason to stress the "unscientific" aspect of it.

[Edited on December 30, 2008 at 5:52 PM. Reason : ]

12/30/2008 5:51:25 PM

^^

The fact that you assume I'm a "pothead" is just further proof that you're a prejudiced moron.

12/30/2008 6:00:26 PM

RSXTypeS mostly hangs around The Garage. he comes in here from time to time to shoot his mouth off, but he doesn't really understand subtle things like logic and fact-based debate.

so, you know, don't spend too much time on him.



[Edited on December 30, 2008 at 7:54 PM. Reason : ]

12/30/2008 7:54:23 PM

Quote :

"but as far as I'm concerned, cops openly opposed to the war on drugs are the only cops worth respecting"

im going to go out on a limb here. i personally am not a fan of the so called drug war. im not exactly for the totally unlimited legalization of drugs, but i think there is a happy in between. part of me is for limited legalization and taxing the fuck out of it, but i digress. my beef with drugs on the street has less to do with the drugs and more to do with the side effects of it: such as gangs, violence etc. i think its a complex problem and a solution is tricky. i mean in hind sight prohibition looks really dumb. the problem is illegal drugs have side effect problems and legalizing it will inevitably have unforeseen side effects. but im quite open minded on the issue and i usually dont think that busting a junkie with a crack rock or a college kid with a dime bag is a solution to the problem. im quite rational, im not a black n white cop, i like to use discretion when needed. hell i have given many a break to polite college kids whom i have caught doing dumb shit....the key is they were polite and respectful. not all cops are irrational morons and im sure plenty of cops have some issues with the laws they enforce. we are just doing a difficult job as best we can. all i personally ask for is some occasional respect, and i will offer it in kind. im a damn reasonable person.

12/30/2008 8:09:10 PM

^ My favorite solution is to handle drugs as Navada currently handles prostitution: on a county by county basis. This way, urban areas or regions where drugs are on-net devastating can enforce their ban, where-as rural regions which choose to live with the downsides of legalized drugs can do so. In this way, everyone can be happy: drug users get their drugs, although perhaps not where they would prefer, but their fellow enhabitants will be freed of the negative externality of having drug-using neighbors.

12/30/2008 9:13:00 PM

i'd support drugs laws if it were handled on a state by state basis

I think the fed is completely breaking the 10th amendment by storming medicinal marijuana shops in california which is legal according to the state. We all know though that the fed really just wipes its ass with the constitution when it suits its own interest.

12/30/2008 9:21:26 PM

Quote :

"my beef with drugs on the street has less to do with the drugs and more to do with the side effects of it: such as gangs, violence etc."

Gangs and violence are NOT side effects of drugs.

Gangs and violence are consequences of drug criminalization.

Making goods that are in high demand illegal will always, of necessity, bring bad people to run black market local/regional monopolies based on the threat and use of violence. That is unavoidable fact.

Legalize drugs and the gangs disappear....because all of a sudden there would be no money greasing the wheels. Who wants to run a gang just to show off your social maladjustment? Not too many. How many newcomers is the former drug kingpin going to get, when he drives the same kind of beater as the 12 year-old recruit's mother?

You want to get rid of the bad guys? Instead of trying to lock-up the endless flow of hopeless and violent people in them, it's a whole lot easier just to drive them out of business.

[Edited on December 30, 2008 at 11:34 PM. Reason : a]

12/30/2008 11:32:59 PM

As much as I'm totally for the immediate legalization of most drugs and the decriminalization of the rest there will be side effects. There will probably be a rise in drug addicts, drug related accidental deaths, and a few other things, but the net change will be positive because the largest black market in the country will disappear. Street gangs and large organized crime will largely cease to exist or will at least lose their largest source of income, urban violence will decrease, our borders will be a lot safer, and our prisons can actually be used to hold people who commit real crime.

12/31/2008 12:21:58 AM

^ (Both of you) Dude I am not completely disagreeing with you, but I am disagreeing with your key points. A lot of what I said above agrees with you, for as I said I am not really a fan of the war on drugs. I am somewhat of an expert on the gang issues though, and I disagree that drugs are the only thing keeping them around. The powerful street gangs existed and got big before the profitability of the crack market began in the 80s, so to say they will just disappear is nonsense. They will continue on with plenty of other rackets of crime like robberies and break ins. Gang culture in the US is far more complex than just just slinging dope, and the rise in gangs over the last decade into areas not used to seeing them is not directly correlated with gang controlled drug markets. Large scale cartel gangs will either go out of business or become legitimate distribution companies if drugs were legal, but the smaller street level gangs would not just go away.

Also, violence is not just a consequence of drugs but a side effect as well. Even if it were legal, addicts who need a fix will still do desperate things to obtain drugs and money. Plenty of crime on the streets, from strong arm robbery to home invasion, has to do with people desperate for money to get drugs. People trade things for drugs people steal for drugs and people kill for drugs. I dont think these types of crime will go away because its legal. Whether they mug you for 20 bucks to buy from a dealer or an ABC store, they still will mug you

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 12:30 AM. Reason : .]

12/31/2008 12:29:57 AM

Quote :

"Gangs and violence are NOT side effects of drugs. Gangs and violence are consequences of drug criminalization. Making goods that are in high demand illegal will always, of necessity, bring bad people to run black market local/regional monopolies based on the threat and use of violence. That is unavoidable fact. "

Quote :

"They will continue on with plenty of other rackets of crime like robberies and break ins. "

None of which are as nearly as profitable and provide the incentive as drug sells.

I disagree with your "violence" argument completely for a majority of scheduled drugs. Although you probably are correct with substances such as crack cocaine and heroin (at least from teh stealing to feed your heroin addiction).

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 12:36 AM. Reason : k]

12/31/2008 12:31:23 AM

yes i already commented on that

12/31/2008 12:34:07 AM

Sure, people will still steal to feed their addictions, but there are people doing that now for booze or prescription meds (I see it literally every day).

I suspect we'd probably see an uptick in that type of crime and probably more cokeheads if the stuff was legal, but by and large I think if drugs were legal the overall societal change would not be as immense as some folks think. There seems to be this notion that if it was legal everyone would do it and do it to excess. That line of thinking is just asinine.

The gangs would continue to exist, no question. As long as there are black markets to be had there will be groups that exploit them. However, the massive growth of street gangs can be traced pretty clearly back to the crackdown on drugs in the 70s. They were trafficking drugs prior to that, but the crackdown made it much more profitable and discouraged what I would term "mom and pop" dealers from continuing to sell.

12/31/2008 12:42:00 AM

BUT BUT BUT JESUS SAYS DRUGS ARE BAD AND EVIL

12/31/2008 12:42:37 AM

im telling you guys, street gang culture now is way more complex then just drugs. they are not going away drugs or no drugs

12/31/2008 12:51:43 AM

They'll still be there, I agree, but you've got to concede that eliminating the illegal drug trade by legalizing it would cripple them financially for a significant period. I realize they'll still be running guns, prostitution, murder for hire, etc. but everything I've ever seen and read about street gangs (even the large ones like the crips, bloods, Nortenos, etc.) indicate that drug trade is their lifeblood.

12/31/2008 12:55:23 AM

^^
Can you explain?
Unless you can enlighten us with some facts and evidence, I don't see why we should just believe that you're "somewhat of an expert on the gang issues....im telling you guys...." **cough cough smug cough**

The overwhelming majority of gang revenue is from drugs. Think about it. Drugs are a constant, like food -- people buy drugs, consume them, buy more, and repeat. On the other hand, how many guns does someone really need to buy? Sure, there are some gun nuts out there... but the demand for guns is nothing compared to the demand for drugs -- not in degree, amount, or frequency. The demand for prostitutes might be a better comparison, but it too could be legalized...

There will, of course, always be thieves, vandals, and thugs. These and other real criminals will always form groups of some kind. This is a given. However, removing the influence of drug dealing from these criminal groups, gangs, and even terrorists would put a huge dent in their size, their power, and perhaps most importantly, their connection to and association with average otherwise law-abiding citizens who simply want to buy drugs.

Addicts simply have a medical issue and should be treated like patients, not criminals.

Quote :

"Also, violence is not just a consequence of drugs but a side effect as well. Even if it were legal, addicts who need a fix will still do desperate things to obtain drugs and money. Plenty of crime on the streets, from strong arm robbery to home invasion, has to do with people desperate for money to get drugs. People trade things for drugs people steal for drugs and people kill for drugs. I dont think these types of crime will go away because its legal. Whether they mug you for 20 bucks to buy from a dealer or an ABC store, they still will mug you."

If you think about it, you've sort of proved yourself wrong here. As you said, "Whether they mug you for 20 bucks to buy from a dealer or an ABC store, they still will mug you." Or, in other words, "Some criminals are still criminals whether or not what they're addicted to is illegal." So why not make it legal? (Then, at least, everything would be "in the light" where it could be seen, regulated, taxed, made safe and affordable, etc.)

The thing to keep in mind is, that these criminals you speak of are just criminals period. It matters not that they want booze, pills, dvds, or legos. They are still criminals, and they commit crimes. Any drugs they happen to use, are addicted to, sell, make, or are otherwise illegally involved with likely have nothing to do with whether or not they are otherwise a criminal. Addiction must be very severe for it alone to drive an otherwise non-criminal to commit violence or theft. It's generally only through drug prohibition that these levels of addiction can be reached. Consider addicts on the methadone program. They can get their "fix" without worry. They know the price ahead of time, which is reasonable, so they can afford it. They don't interact with the black market "pharmies" anymore, because, why would they?

Some criminals use drugs, but drug use does not a criminal make. That way of thinking is simply not supported by fact or logic.

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ]

12/31/2008 11:54:58 AM

what parts of town/neighborhoods are you seeing these rises in crime occur?

12/31/2008 1:22:15 PM

State based decriminalization with extra penalties where violent crimes or firearm possesion are involved.

12/31/2008 1:53:18 PM

Quote :

"Can you explain? Unless you can enlighten us with some facts and evidence, I don't see why we should just believe that you're "somewhat of an expert on the gang issues....im telling you guys...." **cough cough smug cough**"

dude are you serious? get off his nuts. he is a cop and i'm sure he has more true experience with gangs than all of our collective arm chair analysis could ever provide. you don't have to take what he says as gospel but don't try and dispel him from being an expert and then act as if you have more knowledge on the issue at hand.

i'm not disagreeing with you i just want you to know that you don't have to be a dick even though its a message board

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 1:57 PM. Reason : not disagreeing]

12/31/2008 1:55:13 PM

after reading through, there are good points on both sides, but i have always been perplexed by two things:

The refusal of gov entities to have an open, honest discussion about the drug issue w/o the typical (and many times false) stigmatic company line.

and the bend over backwards effort to provide/regulate alcohol, when it is proven to cause many of the problems drug critics cite as reasons for them to be illegal.

regardless of what anyone says, i'm convinced this issue has nothing to do with keeping people/society safe.

12/31/2008 2:13:15 PM

Big Pharma has a lot to lose by legalizing marijuana

12/31/2008 3:26:21 PM

^Why?

Are you referring to money lost in cancer treatment medications?

12/31/2008 3:47:24 PM

do you guys really think that they'll legalize every drug? there's no way you'll be able to buy heroin or cocaine from the government. i think the legalization of marijuana is just a matter of time, but studies show that is a drug that does less harm than good. gangs will still be able to sell their crack or coke or whatever it is they want to sell.

1/1/2009 10:11:15 PM

Quote :

"there's no way you'll be able to buy heroin or cocaine from the government"

Don't be so sure. Some countries already have government-provided heroin, and the US already offers the methadone program.... While they very likely won't ever be available at convenience stores, it wouldn't be unreasonable for cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine to be available to adults at every pharmacy. I simply don't see the problem with that.

1/1/2009 11:24:25 PM

Drug laws are never going away b/c they are a cost-effective way of convicting criminals without having to convict based on actual crimes against other people.

1/1/2009 11:37:23 PM

Except for half of those convicted of drug crimes were never involved in any sort of violent or other type of offense

take your fucking DEA propaganda elsewhere

1/2/2009 12:03:43 AM

^ Relax, Bob Marley. Just saying why they aren't going away.

1/2/2009 1:06:56 AM

lol

I say keep the drugs illegal. our general populace is already lazy and stupid. adding legal weed to the mix will only make it worse.

1/2/2009 10:05:42 AM

You need to not worry about keeping drugs you dont use or care about illegal.

You should focus on making alcohol illegal again. People commit every crime under the sun influenced by its use.

1/2/2009 10:17:59 AM

Quote :

"adding legal weed to the mix will only make it worse"

Worse how?
Are you suggesting that if marijuana were to be legalized, significant numbers of people who don't smoke weed would begin to?...and therefore we'd have more "lazy pot-heads"? If that's what you're saying, I disagree. Very few people, if any, abstain from smoking weed simply because it's illegal. They might abstain for their job, but that's different, and as has been pointed out, that wouldn't change if weed were legal. Despite it being illegal, anyone who wants weed can find it, so pretty much everyone who would smoke legal weed already smokes illegal weed. Also, since some of the social stigma, and most or all of the legal stigma would be removed were weed to be legalized, many "lazy pot-heads" who currently don't seek treatment, would choose to. And, if any current federal spending on the war against weed was instead spent on subsidizing drug treatment, even more "lazy pot-heads" would seek treatment. In other words, legal pot would result in fewer "lazy pot-heads", not more.

1/2/2009 10:45:58 AM

the lazy argument is weak as hell. There is impairment like many other chemicals many of which are legal. The rest is self accountablity. If youre too weak to get off the couch and earn a living thats your choice the government shouldnt need to protect you from the evil plant.

1/2/2009 10:52:38 AM

Quote :

"You should focus on making alcohol illegal again. People commit every crime under the sun influenced by its use."

potheads always bring up the alcohol argument. very lazy of you.

1/2/2009 2:53:56 PM

you can make a lazy personal attack or rebutt my argument.

All you really said on topic was: someone brought up "the" aclohol argument again.

1/2/2009 2:59:24 PM

I just dont feel like re-posting the same tired arguments pro or con to the legalization of stupid weed. TWW is quite literally FULL of these same debates and I really dont have the inclination or time at the moment to get into with you. therefore, I will continue to obviously troll you.

weed makes people lazy and stupid. we need less lazy and stupid in our society. keep it illegal.

1/2/2009 3:03:31 PM

So does booze. Bring back Prohibition! (And all its attendant failures. Oh, wait...)

1/2/2009 3:08:24 PM

Quote :

"So does booze."

sure does...and there are already enough people lazy and stupid off booze. potheads want to add to that number. I want to keep it the same.

1/2/2009 3:10:22 PM

Quote :

"I just dont feel like re-posting the same tired arguments pro or con to the legalization of stupid weed. TWW is quite literally FULL of these same debates and I really dont have the inclination or time at the moment to get into with you. therefore, I will continue to obviously troll you. weed makes people lazy and stupid. we need less lazy and stupid in our society. keep it illegal."

So the first part says I dont feel like getting into it. hahaha why the fuck would you even post here then.

Second you openly admit youre trolling a Soapbox Tread.

The third part supports a big brother government that knows whats best for its citizens. I thought We told the government what we wanted not the other way around.

1/2/2009 3:11:28 PM

Quote :

"sure does...and there are already enough people lazy and stupid off booze. potheads want to add to that number. I want to keep it the same."

If laziness and stupidity are such horrible, horrible vices which are obviously your business (since, it would seem, every personal failing of everyone is), then why not bring back Prohibition?

I mean, it sure got people to stop drinking, right? And all the problems of alcohol just evaporated like that - right?

Oh wait... it didn't quite work out that way with alcohol either, huh?

[Edited on January 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ^^]

1/2/2009 3:12:49 PM

Quote :

"We told the government what we wanted not the other way around. "

we do. thats why drugs are illegal. duh.

Quote :

"then why not bring back Prohibition"

do you really want to debate in hypotheticals? I mean, we both can readily concede Prohibition of alcohol isnt returning ANY time soon....so whats the point of even talking about it? would it make you feel better for me to same that I agree that a lot of our nation's health and societal problems would probably be affected in a positive manner if this were to happen? because I do agree.

I just hope that isnt your only argument. its tired and ineffective.

lazy potheads always trying to bring up some old shit.

1/2/2009 3:19:11 PM

^actually prohibition of alcohol would create more societal problems, which is why it was repealed.

Quote :

"we do. thats why drugs are illegal. duh"

see california

1/2/2009 3:26:13 PM

to quote eleusis from one of the many other debates on this subject...

Quote :

"This is so typical of your average pothead - Rag on the abuse potential of other substances to justify your own drug abuse. If the only thing we had to judge a drug by was it's negative side effects, then chemicals that serve such a useful benefit to the medical community such as opiates and NSAIDS would never be allowed to exist. "

Quote :

"see california"

so now you are arguing that California is the moral compass for the rest of the country?

[Edited on January 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2009 3:38:05 PM

Nope, just the contrary....there were enough POSITIVE benefits for it to be legalized in california...hence the people choosing that, but the federal gov, contrary to constitutional law is trying to prevent the will of the people.

That's my major issue. it has been proven to have benefits to the extent that doctors support its legalization, and it's still taboo to even discuss it at the federal level, eventhough it shouldn't be the fed's decision.

Quote :

"so now you are arguing that California is the moral compass for the rest of the country?"

nope, just shooting down your "will of the people argument". I'd be ecstatic to see each state decide for itself one way or the other.



[Edited on January 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2009 3:43:00 PM

Quote :

"do you really want to debate in hypotheticals? I mean, we both can readily concede Prohibition of alcohol isnt returning ANY time soon....so whats the point of even talking about it? would it make you feel better for me to same that I agree that a lot of our nation's health and societal problems would probably be affected in a positive manner if this were to happen? because I do agree."

A hypothetical would be a policy which has only been proposed and never put into action.

Prohibition, on the other hand, was tried, and did fail. Miserably. The negative social impacts of Prohibition - from the health consequences (as one will note, drinking hardly ceased, although the average purity declined considerably) to the effect upon law and order (from both criminal enterprises and the corruption of law enforcement) were enough to warrant widespread support for its repeal. You want to know why we'll never bring it back again? Because it failed that badly.

Only an obstinate fool would refuse to learn from that lesson.

Quote :

"I just hope that isnt your only argument. its tired and ineffective."

The same goes double for the whole "lazy potheads" line of argument. If the chief argument against legalization is the fact that sales in cool ranch Doritos will suddenly spike, the case against prohibition has grown quite weak indeed.

1/2/2009 3:46:38 PM

Ive just never understood why anyone in their right mind would argue that we should introduce MORE legal, dangerous substances to the general populace than already exist.

SUPER idea.

for the record, I dont give a baker's fuck one way or the other about weed. it being legal or illegal doesnt change my life in the least...except for the impact of general society upon me. that said, with all the lefty movements towards socialized medicine it stands to reason that since my hard-earned tax dollars are going to pay for every swingin' peter's runny nose sooner than later, it is to my benefit to continue to advocate AGAINST the legalization of another substance for people to do too much of, drive under the influence of, and to make babies on that I have to support financially.

so all of you pothead crusaders can suck it until the legalization of marijuana bill includes provisions eliminating my exposure to said lazy, freeloading, substance-abusing bastards.

[Edited on January 2, 2009 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM. Reason : substance-abusing bastards being those who suckle at the tax-payers teet and contribute nothing ]

1/2/2009 4:00:42 PM

Quote :

"Ive just never understood why anyone in their right mind would argue that we should introduce MORE legal, dangerous substances to the general populace than already exist."

It's called "harm reduction." The harms of making certain substances illegal are greater than those of having them legal and regulated. See, for instance, funding gangs, and the whole theory of the "gateway drug." The only reason marijuana is even remotely a "gateway drug" is because to get marijuana, you generally have to go associating with people who both sell and/or use harder substances.

Naturally, following that logic, tobacco is the ultimate "gateway drug." Quick, let's ban it!

Quote :

"so all of you pothead crusaders can suck it until the legalization of marijuana bill includes provisions eliminating my exposure to said lazy, freeloading, substance-abusing bastards."

Would it help you any if I remarked upon the fact that I am strongly opposed to government-run healthcare? Look, I don't think anybody should be on the hook for paying for anybody else's vices - and that includes every legal vice under the sun.

But look at the spot you're getting yourself into. By taking the lurch toward socialization of medicine as an inevitable outcome and thus making policy from that perspective (of cost minimization), look at where it leads you: straight into the arms of the nanny-statists who also believe it's their job to ban fatty foods, sedentary lifestyles, smoking, drinking, and the like.

In other words, complete Puritan dickbag assholes.

It's logical to say, "I don't want to pay for your vices." It's not logical to say, "I don't want to legalize [insert substance here] because I'll be paying for your vices." It leads you straight to the thinking of the same kind of jerks who want to ban everything that's bad for you. Whose business is it what you do with your own body? Be it marijuana, junk food, or booze.

1/2/2009 4:30:20 PM

To the OP, yo are superb at stating the obvious. Most crime happens over money, so less money flow in the economy would trigger a criminal response, ya think?

[Edited on January 2, 2009 at 4:34 PM. Reason : /]

1/2/2009 4:32:42 PM

Quote :

"Whose business is it what you do with your own body? Be it marijuana, junk food, or booze"

I agree completely, but with the way our governmental policies are going, someone else's body will be taken care of by the tax dollar. therefore, it becomes my business...fair or not.

1/2/2009 4:36:28 PM

This thread has turned into a troll feeding trough

1/2/2009 4:37:43 PM

^^if that's your ultimate motivation you're wasting your time either way.

1/2/2009 4:47:14 PM