"If drugs were legal, crime will go down"

[Xandyzon]

Uhm, where do you see "government policy" in my post? If anything, I'm stating that "government policy" helped nothing in that case. The governments only policy was to get rid of all the people of Christina, and they mean to do this by police force. How did this have an impact on the hard drug trade?
The people made the impact, not the government. (so i think we're really saying the same thing)

You're missing the point.

This thread is about the pro and contra of hard drug legalisation.

Danish hippies provide an interesting example how a base democratic and effectively anarchic society, starting out with hard drugs being perfectly legal within its social context, proceeds to effectively ban them after a fairly short amount of time, since the associated problems ended up ticking off the hippies, causing them to react in effectively the same fashion as the oh so oppressive and clueless 'Normal' governments.

It's a pretty good example of hard drug legalisation not having its suggested, positive effects, but... The exact opposite, to the point where they got banned again.

So, you'e saying:
Citizen of Freetown Christiania = danish hippies. Danish government = "oh so oppressive and clueless" (said sarcastically, I'm assuming).
All a bit oversimplified, but sure, for arguments sake, let it be.

So tell me. In the article (I'm gonna hope you read it), does it come forth that the government took the individuals of hard drug users the Christianites listed and removed them?
If you answered "yes", you didn't read the wikipedia article and you're wasting my time. You answered "no", then read your last post again, you should be able to correct your own mistakes.

[Nazis in Space]

You're missing the point.

This thread is about the pro and contra of hard drug legalisation.

Danish hippies provide an interesting example how a base democratic and effectively anarchic society, starting out with hard drugs being perfectly legal within its social context, proceeds to effectively ban them after a fairly short amount of time, since the associated problems ended up ticking off the hippies, causing them to react in effectively the same fashion as the oh so oppressive and clueless 'Normal' governments.

It's a pretty good example of hard drug legalisation not having its suggested, positive effects, but... The exact opposite, to the point where they got banned again.

So, you'e saying:
Citizen of Freetown Christiania = danish hippies. Danish government = "oh so oppressive and clueless" (said sarcastically, I'm assuming).
All a bit oversimplified, but sure, for arguments sake, let it be.

So tell me. In the article (I'm gonna hope you read it), does it come forth that the government took the individuals of hard drug users the Christianites listed and removed them?
If you answered "yes", you didn't read the wikipedia article and you're wasting my time. You answered "no", then read your last post again, you should be able to correct your own mistakes.

So, who was supposed to teach you how to read, and why did they fail to do so?

[Thalam]

Legalizing hard drugs is a difficult problem, and I am not totally decided on the matter. However they should be decriminalized - the solution for drug addiction is not to lock addicts up, or to fill up an already much to large industrial prison complex with non-violent offenders.

Note that decriminalization and legalization of sale are not the same thing.

[GeneralHaNor]

I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:

The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?

And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?

Please correct me if I made ​​a mistake.

1. Some simply want decriminalization, however in the former case, the price of doing legal (taxed) business is considerably less then the cost of running the black market. Legal protections provide incentive to pay taxes on products, punishments for tax avoidance provide incentive to comply with regulations. Crime will decrease, drastically. To find a drug dealer who would bother to operate illegally is to find a fool, nobody would want his over-priced product anyway (illegal product always carries the risk premium)

2. A lower cost for drugs, lowers the need to commit crime in order to fund a habit, a legal and regulated practice provides the framework for increased rehabilitation efforts, the addict that has lost everything and needs to commit crimes in order to continue his habit, has a smaller gap to overcome, and more "Outs". People don't really enjoy being addicts, they simply don't see alternatives. Provide those alternatives, and you will see less addicts (and less crime)

[Xandyzon]

So, you'e saying:
Citizen of Freetown Christiania = danish hippies. Danish government = "oh so oppressive and clueless" (said sarcastically, I'm assuming).
All a bit oversimplified, but sure, for arguments sake, let it be.

So tell me. In the article (I'm gonna hope you read it), does it come forth that the government took the individuals of hard drug users the Christianites listed and removed them?
If you answered "yes", you didn't read the wikipedia article and you're wasting my time. You answered "no", then read your last post again, you should be able to correct your own mistakes.

So, who was supposed to teach you how to read, and why did they fail to do so?

Yo momma!

[Hydesland]

With regards to violent crime, particularly in say Mexico or Jamaica, it's utter utter bullshit. Most of the gang warfare has absolutely fuck all to do with drugs, contrary to popular belief.

[Risottia]

I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:

The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?

I think the key here is "drop" - as opposed to "disappear". The illicit trafficking will ALWAYS exist, but it would become something more similar to the simple smuggling of alcohol - as it happens today towards country with high taxes on alcoholic beverages, take Norway or Sweden - rather than something reminiscent of the Chicago Mafia during the dry years.

And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?

This is a reasonable objection.
Anyway, I think that:
a) if the market is regulated so that you can get drugs in a safe and controlled way (like, let's say, at a pharmacy, with medical prescription) you can prevent most people from getting into the worst levels of addiction.
b) people love addicting substances - they're addicting for a reason: take nicotine, alcohol, caffeine... banning them doesn't work because addictees will do anything to get a fix. Controlling and regulating them works better - expecially if you act on the cultural level to create an idea of avoiding the abuse. But 100% efficiency is an utopia: some people will have a self-destructive behaviour no matter what, and there's nothing one can do to stop them, if you don't want to live in a nightmarish totalitarian police state.
Personal experience, some of my students use drugs (marijuana, and I guess MDMA and cocaine sometimes). They asked me if I did drugs, too, and what I thought about addictees. I told them I wasn't going to tell them (because of the different roles: I'm not their friend/brother/father, I'm their teacher) but I equated those who smoke a joint every day to those who gulp down grappa every day. I think they got the gist of it.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

There's historical precedence for legalized drugs = lower crime.

It's called Prohibition.

This.

I completely agree. I mean, who cares that alcohol had been legal before and it was just denyng? Or that everyone drinks and it is not as addictive, or with as many side effects?
Come on. When was the last time you heard of a 'social crackhead'?

[PrncssOfCuddles]

Wouldn't crime go down if we made any illegal thing legal? Isn't that the way it works, like, by definition?

[Soviet Haaregrad]

This.

I completely agree. I mean, who cares that alcohol had been legal before and it was just denyng? Or that everyone drinks and it is not as addictive, or with as many side effects?
Come on. When was the last time you heard of a 'social crackhead'?

I've known dozens of coke users, I've never known a coke addict. They all used it socially.

[Dyakovo]

Because me smoking weed in the privacy of my house is the same as me violating someone's rights by murdering them.

It is.
*nods*
But that's just because you are a bad person...

[GeneralHaNor]

I completely agree. I mean, who cares that alcohol had been legal before and it was just denyng? Or that everyone drinks and it is not as addictive, or with as many side effects?
Come on. When was the last time you heard of a 'social crackhead'?

I've known dozens of coke users, I've never known a coke addict. They all used it socially.

I've known a few "Coke" addicts, but Coke is expensive and takes a lot of resources to maintain a habit
by that point most just slide down to "crack" which is considerably easier to maintain as a habit, but usually impossible to maintain socially.

[Ripn]

Pot would be a good move imo. But let me ask you this? Have you ever done PCP? Coke? You WILL do more illegal shit. Get wet then try to stay on the couch. Its not going to happen. Your going to do tons a stupid shit and 99% of it is going to be illegal.

I do heavly support weed though.

[GeneralHaNor]

Pot would be a good move imo. But let me ask you this? Have you ever done PCP? Coke? You WILL do more illegal shit. Get wet then try to stay on the couch. Its not going to happen. Your going to do tons a stupid shit and 99% of it is going to be illegal.

I do heavly support weed though.

Most people who are inclined to use, usually find a drug that works for them and settle on it.
Drug Preference usually divide users. Hell as a former Meth Addict I despised Crack Users. (we called them base heads)
We based such prejudice on the perceived actions of users, and determined that crack heads were considerably more likely to steal from one another.


This "bouncing" theory does pan out in the stats

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Because me smoking weed in the privacy of my house is the same as me violating someone's rights by murdering them.

It is.
*nods*
But that's just because you are a bad person...

Actually it's because with every bowl I smoke another life gets took.

[Augarundus]

I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:

The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?

And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?

Please correct me if I made ​​a mistake.

Dude. How the fuck are you libertarian?


1) I'm an anarchist, so I don't support taxation.
But cartels wouldn't provide drugs anyway; legitimate businesses would. By mass producing them (safely), they would out-compete cartels. But there's no reason why a drug business would avoid taxation anymore than an automobile manufacturer...

2) That's what people currently do.
And legalizing drugs reduces the prices/increases safety (see: cigarettes) ---> No, the entirety of the world wouldn't become addicted and kill each other for crack.

[Yaltabaoth]

No, the entirety of the world wouldn't become addicted and kill each other for crack.

Of course they would. The moment crack is decriminalised I'm marching straight down to my nearest high-street dealer and demanding several hits, then promptly eating said dealer's spleen.
Because it's only the law that's preventing me from doing so now.

[Tekania]

I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:

The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?

And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?

Please correct me if I made ​​a mistake.

1. Yes, of course there is nowhere near the money in that so it still would mean crime would decrease.
2. No more so than the people who resort to crime to support their nicotine or alcohol addiction.

[Beldonia]

Because me smoking weed in the privacy of my house is the same as me violating someone's rights by murdering them.

Ah, sarcasm. "The protest of people who are weak." That's from A Separate Peace.

[Airstrip 100]

If murder were legal, crime would also go down. Sure, the incidences of murder may go up, but it is no longer a crime. Problem solved.

[Ifreann]

Because me smoking weed in the privacy of my house is the same as me violating someone's rights by murdering them.

Ah, sarcasm. "The protest of people who are weak." That's from A Separate Peace.

Whereas disregarding someone's argument because the use sarcasm and instead insulting them is the sign of a strong person with a big dick.




Oh snap, sarcasm again!

[Beldonia]

Ah, sarcasm. "The protest of people who are weak." That's from A Separate Peace.

Whereas disregarding someone's argument because the use sarcasm and instead insulting them is the sign of a strong person with a big dick.




Oh snap, sarcasm again!

Yeah, I didn't feel like responding to the argument. Of course they're not the same thing. I just like that quote and wanted to use it.

[Amacia]

With regards to violent crime, particularly in say Mexico or Jamaica, it's utter utter bullshit. Most of the gang warfare has absolutely fuck all to do with drugs, contrary to popular belief.

What's it really about, and sauce please.

[Tekania]

If murder were legal, crime would also go down. Sure, the incidences of murder may go up, but it is no longer a crime. Problem solved.

Sure if this was the system of logical argument used by drug legalization proponents, your sarcasm would look witty; it isn't, so it just makes it look like you're to lazy to formulate a meaningful argument. The "crime rate" that is talked about going down is the "crime rate" caused by the criminal syndicates who finance themselves through the sale and transport of illegal drugs.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

With regards to violent crime, particularly in say Mexico or Jamaica, it's utter utter bullshit. Most of the gang warfare has absolutely fuck all to do with drugs, contrary to popular belief.

What's it really about, and sauce please.

It's all about the money Lebowski.