I am in MA. Does anyone else find it disturbing that after over 1 Trillion dollars and 40 years 'fighting' drug prohibition that not only can drugs not be kept off of the streets of every major city in the country, they can not even be kept out of even ONE MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY?
1 Trillion plus down the drain, hundreds of cops children left without fathers, millions of citizens families broken up, with the children left to be raised without a father (which coincidentally I once attended a psychiatric grand rounds discussing teenage murder rates). The presenter showed a graph of the city with the poverty area's greyed out and there was an obvious correlation between those areas and teenage murders.
Then he showed another slide. This one was the same city, but the greyed out area's were those with the highest ammt of single parent homes. The correlation was astonishing!
Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
Printable View
-
04-24-2010, 12:05 AMKeyser_SozeDrugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
-
04-24-2010, 05:06 AMcyjeffRe: Drugs Can Not Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
Spam... reported.
-
04-24-2010, 05:31 AMPapi YanquiRe: Drugs Can Not Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsI now agree with you. The poster is clearly pursuing a political agenda on a forum intended to be one of substantive discussion and advice.Quote:
Quoting cyjeff
I owe you a beer.... -
04-24-2010, 08:17 AMBaystategirlRe: Drugs Can Not Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
But...Drug Prohibition does NOT work any better than alcohol Prohibition did in the '20s.
As a result of Prohibition we have rampant street gangs both local and foreign that have made themselves rich off our Government prohibiting citizens from freedom to mess up THEIR OWN bodies with drugs.
I. personally, think if you are stupid enough to do drugs...that is your own problem. I would like to see my tax dollars spent to protect children and education them so they never feel the need to escape through drugs. -
04-24-2010, 09:05 AMcyjeffRe: Drugs Can Not Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsThis seems to be a knee jerk reaction our culture has to any issue that is very difficult to manage.Quote:
Quoting Baystategirl
If way too many people are doing it, we should make it legal. -
04-24-2010, 03:09 PMashman165Re: Drugs Can Not Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsReported for reporting.Quote:
Quoting cyjeff
-
04-24-2010, 04:33 PMashman165Re: Drugs Can Not Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsProvided the issue under consideration isn't immoral, yes. Oh wait, we live in a country we like to tell the rest of the world is the freest on Earth, for something to be illegal it must first be demonstrated to be necessary to proscribe. We don't live in a society where we have show that we have the freedom to do something. It is the government's responsibility to show that there is a compelling reason we are not free to do something. The feigned morality of your dictates from the divine are not a sufficient reason to cause anyone else's life to suffer.Quote:
Quoting cyjeff
-
04-25-2010, 10:27 AMKeyser_SozeRe: Drugs Can Not Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsNice response when one can not offer a resonable counter argument. Are drug laws forboden topics in this forum or something? I did a search to try to find the correct forum to post this as I felt it could lead to interesting discussion (to those with open minds to discussing such things of course).Quote:
Quoting cyjeff
Substantive discussion and advice that YOU agree with, or substantive discussion and advice that you may or may not agree with (and if you disagree have ample opportunity to engage in said discussion and advice.Quote:
Quoting Papi Yanqui
But you make a snide comment instead. That seems more like spam to me than my post does. -
04-25-2010, 12:02 PMcyjeffRe: Drugs Can Not Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsNo, jackass... it was because it wasn't a legitamite query but, instead, a way to get people to frequent your crappy website.Quote:
Quoting Keyser_Soze
If you want to advertise, contact the admins and pay for it like everyone else. -
04-25-2010, 12:28 PMKeyser_SozeRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
I'm not advertising anything (other than the opinion that drug prohibition leads to violence and does not decrease drug use) and do not own, nor am I affiliated with any websites. So wrong on both counts.
and oh yeah, cyjeff, what site did I pimp in my op? R u confused perhaps? Did u not approve another post I made that did happen to mention a site that I still have no affiliation with and associate that site with my op here?
And what is wrong with discussing the pro's and con's of drug prohibition anyway? Are u afraid of what u might learn? I'm not afraid of any truthful information myself. -
04-26-2010, 01:57 PMKeyser_SozeRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
cyjeff, I'm still waiting for you to point out the site I pimped.......?????
not to mention you still have not engaged in intelligent argument on the topic. Either you are able to do so or are not. Put forth your arguments and let the people decide. -
04-26-2010, 07:40 PMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisonsand based on your reasoning, we should legalize murder, theft, rape, alcohol interdiction laws and just about any other crime. Crime statistics show no matter how much money we have spent on them, their frequency has increased. We should just quit spending money on fighting any crime because it seems no matter how much we spend, the criminals just keep committing crimes.Quote:
Quoting Keyser_Soze
Just think about how much more we have spent than Mexico has. Then run across the boarder to Ciudad Juarez or Matamoros and see what happens when you don't spend money on drug crimes. -
04-27-2010, 05:09 AMAnother DemiseRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisonswell i think if there was an increase in crimes during the 20s that might have to do with an increase in laws to be broken. When the speak easies rose up and the gangsters started smuggling booze and bootleggin was there a difference between the amount of people drinking before and after prohibition or was it the exact same amount of drinkers with the exception of the latters all strictly speaking being outlaws? I think being criminal and being unlawful are a tad different. There are no "good rapes" or "good murders" though. They are all malicious fundamentally. The laws against the drugs being abolished could cut down on the gangster elements of drug dealings, territorial squabbling, and the crazy attempts to avoid detection and drug charges. Its hard for non destructive drug users to find drug dealers who aren't destructive to their communities or have committed heinous acts to keep their perch. Normalization could make the guy in the trench coat whispering from the alley not extinct but maybe obsolete.Quote:
Quoting jk
Either way I also don't believe a law should be overturned just because a large amount of people disobey it. I mean it begs the question of what any cop does when he meets non compliance. Surely he doesn't just go back to the station to eat donuts..
Most crimes can only be kept at bay. Sometimes that's the best you can do. Buford Pusser would tell you that much. If we stopped funding efforts to prevent murder and rape they would go up more then drug offenses i think though.
why in the world would you ever reference Mexico's effort? THERE DRUG CZAR WAS ARRESTED FOR DRUGSSSSSS:wallbang::wallbang::wallbang::wallbang:Quote:
Just think about how much more we have spent than Mexico has. Then run across the boarder to Ciudad Juarez or Matamoros and see what happens when you don't spend money on drug crimes.
Part of the reason Mexican efforts come up short is widespread corruption. You have dirty cops, probably no internal affairs, you have only federal officers with only really good track records, you have police arresting police and you have ex military commandos joining cartels and transforming them into paramilitary groups.. Too many Alonzo Harrises not enough Serpicos...
Mexican law enforcement is almost as laughable as the Soviet judicial system lmao. -
04-27-2010, 10:10 AMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisonswhat? Based on that statement, let's simply abolish all laws. That way there would be absolutely no crime.Quote:
well i think if there was an increase in crimes during the 20s that might have to do with an increase in laws to be broken.
obviously but as your propose, why bother, let's just legalize everything because it costs money to enforce the laws and we will never have a crime free society, as long as we have laws anyway.Quote:
Most crimes can only be kept at bay.
that is all you can ever do.Quote:
Sometimes that's the best you can do.
that it irrelevant. The point is: if you remove the law, it is no longer illegal. It still doesn't make it right.Quote:
. If we stopped funding efforts to prevent murder and rape they would go up more then drug offenses i think though.
because they are an example of what happens when you do not enforce your laws.Quote:
why in the world would you ever reference Mexico's effort?
there are myriad reasons why Mexico's efforts are not effective and you have named a few.Quote:
Part of the reason Mexican efforts come up short is widespread corruption. You have dirty cops, probably no internal affairs, you have only federal officers with only really good track records, you have police arresting police and you have ex military commandos joining cartels and transforming them into paramilitary groups.
If we had weak law enforcement, do you believe we would be any better off?
and do you think the drug cartels that are making billions of dollars annually will simply cease to exist if we legalized marijuana (since that is the only drug we are actually considering legalizing)? There are others that cause huge problems as well. Cocaine from South America, heroin from Afghanistan and surrounding areas, and our own home grown meth. Do you really believe legalizing marijuana will actually reduce our drug problems? -
04-27-2010, 03:07 PMAnother DemiseRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisonsim strait edge, I frown upon drug usage, i have contempt for druggies, but the "wrongness" of drug use is still debatable.Quote:
that it irrelevant. The point is: if you remove the law, it is no longer illegal. It still doesn't make it right.
but their enforcement is offsetted by cops who do the opposite of their job. So its kinda like they aren't spending as much money as they did.Quote:
because they are an example of what happens when you do not enforce your laws.
it will start to eat at their roots.. their dealers on the street can't compete with the reefer in everyone's back yard, no deelers to fight with each other, no crazed attempts to evade detection or capture. Same with opium and coca, and the users ODing is their problem not ours.. Of course im just saying i see where they are coming from, my preference of choice is for the cops to really go hard. What do you even mean by "drug problem?"Quote:
and do you think the drug cartels that are making billions of dollars annually will simply cease to exist if we legalized marijuana (since that is the only drug we are actually considering legalizing)? There are others that cause huge problems as well.
-
04-27-2010, 03:21 PMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
are you suggesting legalizing heroin and coke and meth? If not there will be the same actions you claim will disappear only it will involve heroin, coke, and meth.
the drug lords in Mexico will simply adapt and drop MJ as their product and start shipping in other product that will afford them huge profits.
So, that supports my claim even more. They have horrible trafficking problems. If they spend more money to fight it, they would be able to better control the problem.Quote:
but their enforcement is offsetted by cops who do the opposite of their job. So its kinda like they aren't spending as much money as they did.
-
04-27-2010, 04:17 PMKeyser_SozeRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsMaybe the USA should outlaw beach front property and start spending a trillion dollars on fighting that.... I'll own a dozen mansions on the beach by the time I retire based on your governments track record lolQuote:
Quoting jk
-
04-27-2010, 04:20 PMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsQuote:
Quoting Keyser_Soze
I don't get it.
Oh, you are implying you are a successful drug dealer. I get it now. If they outlawed beachfront property (drugs) due to the ineffectiveness of our police, you would own a dozen mansions (lots of big time drugs) by the time you retire. -
04-27-2010, 04:27 PMKeyser_SozeRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsThis is all simply wrong. Drug cartels thrive because they specialize in using violence as a key aspect of their business model. Violence is also a very, very expensive aspect of a business model. They could never compete against a pharmaceutical company. Never.Quote:
Quoting jk
here are a few things to ponder about where our 'drug laws' came about:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsa...506730,00.html
On April 3 1924, a group of American congressmen held an official hearing to consider the future of heroin. They took sworn evidence from experts, including the US surgeon general, Rupert Blue, who appeared in person to tell their committee that heroin was poisonous and caused insanity and that it was particularly likely to kill since its toxic dose was only slightly greater than its therapeutic dose.
They heard, too, from specialist doctors, such as Alexander Lambert of New York's Bellevue hospital, who explained that "the herd instinct is obliterated by heroin, and the herd instincts are the ones which control the moral sense ... Heroin makes much quicker the muscular reaction and therefore is used by criminals to inflate them, because they are not only more daring, but their muscular reflexes are quicker." Senior police, a prison governor and health officials all added their voices. Dr S Dana Hubbard, of the New York City health department, captured the heart of the evidence: "Heroin addicts spring from sin and crime ... Society in general must protect itself from the influence of evil, and there is no greater peril than heroin."
The congressmen had heard much of this before and now they acted decisively. They resolved to stop the manufacture and use of heroin for any purpose in the United States and to launch a worldwide campaign of prohibition to try to prevent its manufacture or use anywhere in the world. Within two months, their proposal had been passed into law with the unanimous backing of both houses of the US Congress. The war against drugs was born.
To understand this war and to understand the problems of heroin in particular, you need to grasp one core fact. In the words of Professor Arnold Trebach, the veteran specialist in the study of illicit drugs: "Virtually every 'fact' testified to under oath by the medical and criminological experts in 1924 ... was unsupported by any sound evidence." Indeed, nearly all of it is now directly and entirely contradicted by plentiful research from all over the world. The first casualty of this war was truth and yet, 77 years later, the war continues, more vigorous than ever, arguably the longest-running conflict on earth.
There are no panaceas in the world but, for social afflictions, legalizing drugs comes possibly as close as any single policy could. Removing legal penalties from the production, sale and use of "controlled substances" would alleviate at least a dozen of our biggest social or political problems.
Are we ready to stop wringing our hands and start solving problems?
1 Legalizing drugs would make our streets and homes safer.
As Jeffrey Rogers Hummel notes ("Heroin: The Shocking Story," April 1988), estimates vary widely for the proportion of violent and property crime related to drugs. Forty percent is a midpoint figure. In an October 1987 survey by Wharton Econometrics for the U.S. Customs Service, the 739 police chiefs responding "blamed drugs for a fifth of the murders and rapes, a quarter car thefts, two-fifths of robberies and assaults and half the nation's burglaries and thefts."
The theoretical and statistical links between drugs and crime are well established. In a 2 1/2-year study of Detroit crime, Lester P. Silverman, former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, found that a 10 percent increase in the price of heroin alone "produced an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." Armed robbery jumped 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent throughout the city.
The reasons are not difficult to understand. When law enforcement restricts the supply of drugs, the price of drugs rises. In 1984, a kilogram of cocaine worth $4000 in Colombia sold at wholesale for $30,000, and at retail in the United States for some $300,000. At the time a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman noted, matter-of-factly, that the wholesale price doubled in six months "due to crackdowns on producers and smugglers in Columbia and the U.S." There are no statistics indicating the additional number of people killed or mugged thanks to the DEA's crackdown on cocaine.
For heroin the factory-to-retail price differential is even greater. According to U.S. News & World report, in 1985 a gram of pure heroin in Pakistan cost $5.07, but it sold for $2425 on the street in America--nearly a five-hundredfold jump.
The unhappy consequence is that crime also rises, for at least four reasons:
Addicts must shell out hundreds of times the cost of goods, so they often must turn to crime to finance their habits. The higher the price goes, the more they need to steal to buy the same amount.
At the same time, those who deal or purchase the stuff find themselves carrying extremely valuable goods, and become attractive targets for assault.
Police officers and others suspected of being informants for law enforcement quickly become targets for reprisals.
The streets become literally a battleground for "turf" among competing dealers, as control over a particular block or intersection can net thousands of additional drug dollars per day.
Conversely, if and when drugs are legalized, their price will collapse and so will the sundry drug-related motivations to commit crime. Consumers will no longer need to steal to support their habits. A packet of cocaine will be as tempting to grab from its owner as a pack of cigarettes is today. And drug dealers will be pushed out of the retail market by known retailers. When was the last time we saw employees of Rite Aid pharmacies shoot it out with Thrift Drugs for a corner storefront?
When drugs become legal, we will be able to sleep in our homes and walk the streets more safely. As one letter-writer to the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, "law-abiding citizens will be able to enjoy not living in fear of assault and burglary."
2. It would put an end to prison overcrowding.
Prison overcrowding is a serious and persistent problem. It makes the prison environment, violent and faceless to begin with, even more dangerous and dehumanizing.
According to the 1988 Statistical Abstract of the United States, between 1979 and 1985 the number of people in federal and state prisons and local jails grew by 57.8 percent, nine time faster than the general population.
Governments at all levels keep building more prisons, but the number of prisoners keeps outpacing the capacity to hold them. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons' 1985 Statistical Report, as of September 30 of that year federal institutions held 35,959 prisoners-41 percent over the rated prison capacity of 25,638. State prisons were 114 percent of capacity in 1986.
Of 31,346 sentenced prisoners in federal institutions, those in for drug law violations were the largest single category, 9487. (A total of 4613 were in prison but not yet sentenced under various charges.)
Legalizing drugs would immediately relieve the pressure on the prison system, since there would no longer be "drug offenders" to incarcerate. And, since many drug users would no longer need to commit violent or property crime to pay for their habits, there would be fewer "real" criminals to house in the first place. Instead of building more prisons, we could pocket the money and still be safer.
Removing the 9487 drug inmates would leave 26,472. Of those, 7200 were in for assault, burglary, larceny-theft, or robbery. If the proportion of such crimes that is related to drugs is 40 percent, without drug laws another 2900 persons would never have made it to federal prison. The inmates who remained would be left in a less cruel, degrading environment. If we repealed the drug laws, we could eventually bring the prison population down comfortably below the prison's rated capacity.
3 Drug legalization would free up police resources to fight crimes against people and property.
The considerable police efforts now expended against drug activity and drug-related crime could be redirected toward protecting innocent people from those who would still commit crime in the absence of drug laws. The police could protect us more effectively, as it could focus resources on catching rapists, murderers and the remaining perpetrators of crimes against people and property.
4 It would unclog the court system.
If you are accused of a crime, it takes months to bring you to trial. Guilty or innocent, you must live with the anxiety of impending trial until the trial finally begins. The process is even more sluggish for civil proceedings.
There simply aren't enough judges to handle the skyrocketing caseload. Because it would cut crime and eliminate drugs as a type of crime, legislation would wipe tens of thousands of cases off the court dockets across the continent, permitting the rest to move sooner and faster. Prosecutors would have more time to handle each case; judges could make more considered opinions.
Improved efficiency at the lower levels would have a ripple effect on higher courts. Better decisions in the lower courts would yield fewer grounds for appeals, reduing the caseloads of appeals courts; and in any event there would be fewer cases to review in the first place.
5 It would reduce official corruption.
Drug-related police corruption takes one of two major forms. Police officers can offer drug dealers protection in their districts for a share of the profits (or demand a share under threat of exposure). Or they can seize dealer's merchandise for sale themselves.
Seven current or former Philadelphia police officers were indicted May 31 on charges of falsifying records of money and drugs confiscated from dealers. During a house search, one man turned over $20,000 he had made from marijuana sales, but the officers gave him a "receipt" for $1870. Another dealer, reports The Inquirer, "told the grand jury he was charged with possession of five pounds of marijuana, although 11 pounds were found in his house."
In Miami, 59 officers have been fired or suspended since 1985 for suspicion of wrongdoing. The police chief and investigators expect the number eventually to approach 100. As The Palm Beach Post reported, "That would mean about one in 100 officers on the thousand man force will have been tainted by one form of scandal or another."
Most of the 59 have been accused of trafficking, possessing or using illegal drugs. In the biggest single case, 17 officers allegedly participated in a ring that stole $15 million worth of cocaine from dealers "and even traffic violators."
What distinguishes the Miami scandal is that "Police are alleged to be drug traffickers themselves, not just protectors of criminals who are engaged in illegal activities," said The post. According to James Frye, a criminologist at American University in Washington, the gravity of the situation in Miami today is comparable to Prohibition-era Chicago in the 1920s and '30s.
It is apt comparison. And the problem is not limited to Miami and Philadelphia. The astronomical profits from the illegal drug trade are a powerful incentive on the part of law enforcement agents to partake from the proceeds.
Legalizing the drug trade outright would eliminate this inducement to corruption and help to clean up the police's image. Eliminating drug-related corruption cases would further reduce the strain on the courts, freeing judges and investigators to handle other cases more thoroughly and expeditiously.
6Legalization would save tax money.
Efforts to interdict the drug traffic alone cost $6.2 billion in 1986, according to Wharton Econometrics of Bala Cynwyd, Pa. If we ad the cost of trying and incarcerating users, traffickers, and those who commit crime to pay for their drugs, the tab runs well above $10 billion.
The crisis in inmate housing would disappear, saving taxpayers the expense of building more prisons in the future.
As we've noted above, savings would be redirected toward better police protection and speedier judicial service. Or it could be converted into savings for taxpayers. Or the federal portion of the costs could be applied toward the budget deficit. For a change, it's a happy problem to ponder. But it takes legalization to make it possible.
7It would cripple organized crime.
The Mafia (heroin), Jamaican gangs (crack), and the Medellin Cartel (cocaine) stand to lose billions in drug profits from legalization. On a per-capita basis, members of organized crime, particularly at the top, stand to lose the most from legalizing the drug trade.
The underworld became big business in the United States when alcohol was prohibited. Few others would risk setting up the distribution networks, bribing officials or having to shoot up a policeman or competitor once in a while. When alcohol was re-legalized, reputable manufacturers took over. The risk and the high profits went out of the alcohol trade. Even if they wanted to keep control over it, the gangsters could not have targeted every manufacturer and every beer store.
The profits from illegal alcohol were minuscule compared to the yield from today's illegal drugs. They are the underworld's last great, greatest, source of illegal income--dwarfing anything to be made fromgambling, prostitution or other vice.
Legalizing drugs would knock out this huge prop from under organized crime. Smugglers and pushers would have to go aboveboard or go out of business. There simply wouldn't be enough other criminal endeavors to employ them all.
If we are concerned about the influence of organized crime on government, industry and our own personal safety, we could strike no single more damaging blow against today's gangsters than to legalize drugs.
want more ?
No, if they spent trillions fighting it, it would be readily available at a cost millions can afford. Legality has nothing to do with it.Quote:
Quoting jk
-
04-27-2010, 04:46 PMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
the amount of money spent to fight drugs: that's a cost of enforcing our laws and if anything, it causes the price of drugs to go up, not down. So, based on your analogy, beach front property prices will go up, not down.
and if you think heroin and coke are going to be legalized, you are delusional.
what is your point?Quote:
Drug cartels thrive because they specialize in using violence as a key aspect of their business model.
Really? Actually the violence tends to keep monetary costs low. You hire a mule and promise a lot of money to deliver. Mule delivers and you shoot mule. You saved all that money. You offer to buy off the drug czar. that costs a lot of money. You shoot the drug czar, it cost you a buck.Quote:
Violence is also a very, very expensive aspect of a business model.
they don't need to. If MJ was legalized, they simply start moving other illegal drugs. They do not need to compete with pharma cos.Quote:
They could never compete against a pharmaceutical company.
-
04-27-2010, 11:30 PMashman165Re: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsCareful, jk. You're treading dangerously close to arguing that if something is illegal, it necessarily should be.Quote:
Quoting jk
Oh, nevermind. You went there. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong; only illegal. Consider anti-miscegenation laws; there is nothing wrong with black folks marrying those white folks. But it was illegal.Quote:
that it irrelevant. The point is: if you remove the law, it is no longer illegal. It still doesn't make it right.
Sorry, but any argument you're going to make here cannot be predicated on the fact that a law exists. The law must be justified beyond the mentally deficient non-reasoning that it's a law because the conduct the is illegal; it's illegal because there's a law.
Drug cartels make money because they specialize in selling a product one can't get elsewhere.Quote:
Quoting Keyser_Soze
-
04-28-2010, 03:13 AMAnother DemiseRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsBut I am saying they are bleeding as much blood as is being pumped in to 'em.. We have dirty cops but not massive corruption anywhere on that scale.Quote:
So, that supports my claim even more. They have horrible trafficking problems. If they spend more money to fight it, they would be able to better control the problem.
How do we know the narcs in mexico are even doing their jobs at all if its not clear who is corrupt?
Money can not circumvent a complete breakdown in ethics and if we are partnering with them on the issue it puts a whole in our efforts.profits are gonna be way down due to multidrug users switching to the ones legalized exclusively. It is going to be hard for certain cartels to make the transition. Its gonna be hard to gain ground against existing non-MJ cartels.Quote:
the drug lords in Mexico will simply adapt and drop MJ as their product and start shipping in other product that will afford them huge profits.
I saw History Channel's History of Drugs. They said every U.S. drug law was based on race and racial prejudice.. Opium to check "chinamens", prohibition to check those recently freed blacks.. etc etc.. It was an interesting segment of that documentary though, you should watch it jk. I think we might have drug laws for all the wrong reasons..Quote:
here are a few things to ponder about where our 'drug laws' came about:
oh pls, any drug king pin trying to be on some Saddam s**t is gonna have mules and partners alike switching up on his trigger happy ass. That's gonna lead to a high turnover rate, infighting, and a mule shortage, period.Quote:
Really? Actually the violence tends to keep monetary costs low. You hire a mule and promise a lot of money to deliver. Mule delivers and you shoot mule. You saved all that money
yea your right. 'Cause if that was the case, they'd make money through offering hits at reasonable prices, they'd launch coups d'état, or they'd simply be soldiers of fortune.. They aren't in the violence biz, just the one with drugs, although it helps..Quote:
Drug cartels make money because they specialize in selling a product one can't get elsewhere.
But are you saying JK that drugs go up when more money is used to fight them? I would propose a radical new approach in where perhaps there is an interim period of legalized drug use which would essentially put the cartel industry in shock, law enforcement agencies would then capitalize on the collapsed industry in a moment of weakness and lead a massive crack down (no pun intended). Perhaps longer probationary periods could be used as well as wider restrictions and more constant check ups and drug tests. This will be the reality for offenders who could not be housed in over populated jails. They could then be put under DOC jurisdiction in their homes and the money from them can be used to fund more anti drug strikes and more officers. There should also bestate or nationwide infiltration plans to enter into the drug world as well as a blockade of states that have government weak on drugs. So mexico must be blocked. There must be a system that allows for rewards for turning in certain drug traffickers. Seized drug money can go to individuals testifying against local drug pushers and the drug money must go to increased patrols and witness protection efforts. Drug profits must become the drug runners biggest enemy. I'm not asking for a police state where everyone tells on everyone though. -
04-28-2010, 10:15 AMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsI am not disagreeing with the point you make but it has nothing to do with my point. Soze is arguing is costs money to enforce the drug laws so to save all that money, we should simple abolish all drug laws. He also argues that there has been no benefit to the laws therefore all money spent on enforcing laws has simply been wasted.Quote:
Quoting ashman165
I made my statement because I do not agree with those points. The drug laws do provide a benefit and the costs of enforcing the laws is just part of running out government.
So, since soze wants to base his arguments for legalizing all drugs on the basis that is costs money to enforce them then I simply applied that thinking to a few other crimes.
So, your basic argument is that if everybody was allowed to legally take any drug they want without limitations, everything would be fine. Well, you might find a documentary about the 60's and see that your argument would be wrong.Quote:
I saw History Channel's History of Drugs. They said every U.S. drug law was based on race and racial prejudice.. Opium to check "chinamens", prohibition to check those recently freed blacks.. etc etc.. It was an interesting segment of that documentary though, you should watch it jk. I think we might have drug laws for all the wrong reasons..
you would be spending money to fight something you just legalized. That makes less sense that spending money to enforce laws.Quote:
But are you saying JK that drugs go up when more money is used to fight them? I would propose a radical new approach in where perhaps there is an interim period of legalized drug use which would essentially put the cartel industry in shock, law enforcement agencies would then capitalize on the collapsed industry in a moment of weakness and lead a massive crack down (no pun intended).
probationary periods for what? If there are no laws against the drugs, there will be no probationary periods, drug tests, and constant check ups. Those people won't be criminals anymore so all of that goes away.Quote:
Perhaps longer probationary periods could be used as well as wider restrictions and more constant check ups and drug tests
again, you just legalized drugs. Why would you be seizing drugs and why do you need increased patrols and since there are no laws, there are no trials therefore no witnesses that need witness protection.Quote:
Seized drug money can go to individuals testifying against local drug pushers and the drug money must go to increased patrols and witness protection efforts
it hasn't so far and it happens all the time.Quote:
oh pls, any drug king pin trying to be on some Saddam s**t is gonna have mules and partners alike switching up on his trigger happy ass. That's gonna lead to a high turnover rate, infighting, and a mule shortage, period.
-
04-28-2010, 06:09 PMAnother DemiseRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisonsno because the laws would soon be reinstated, but this would come at a time that cartels were weakened alowing law enforcement to quickly gain control of the situation. Its a power vacuum.Quote:
you would be spending money to fight something you just legalized. That makes less sense that spending money to enforce laws.
oh pls if that was the reason they were killed how did u come to learn it?Quote:
it hasn't so far and it happens all the time.
the bottomline is this, the war on drugs isn't going as well as it should. when it reachs near close to a stalemate regardless of what your principles are or what your stance is or what side your own you have to start making concessions. -
04-28-2010, 08:18 PMashman165Re: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsOk, I'll accept that I just misunderstood the point you were making; though, I'm not sure your claim is demonstrably true. The drug laws, without a doubt, provide a result; it is far from demonstrable that such result is a benefit. Anyway, that's another conversation for another time I suppose.Quote:
Quoting jk
Ok, I was sincerely hoping you weren't arguing in the fashion I addressed in my response.Quote:
So, since soze wants to base his arguments for legalizing all drugs on the basis that is costs money to enforce them then I simply applied that thinking to a few other crimes.
You seem not to understand what a necessary condition is. In all cases you could possibly cite, there are only a few necessary conditions: that a certain drug be outlawed (or at the very least regulated), and that a certain person or group thereof are offering it illicitly. That violence might sometimes attend this condition doesn't make the condition necessary. I know this because I can brew, say, hydrocodone right here at my house (were I so inclined). Then I could sell the fruits of my chemical knowledge to people.Quote:
Quoting Another Demise
I could also choose to beat the shit out of people in the process, but it's not essential. That you can somehow show that some people within a drug cartel use violence is irrelevant to whether one could exist without using violence. Essentially, you've argued that in the quest for an object of desire, some people will resort to violence. I agree.
So too must you agree that in the pursuit of such, there are many people who will not resort to violence. This means that the presence of violence is not a necessary condition in this trade. Yes, some drug users are violent. Some drug pushers are violent. This says nothing whatever about the ones who do not use violence. -
04-28-2010, 08:30 PMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsOh. so you are going to legalize drugs, wait until the drug lords are vulnerable due to a lack of money, reinstate the laws and run down and arrest the drug lords in another country.Quote:
Another Demise;415961]no because the laws would soon be reinstated, but this would come at a time that cartels were weakened alowing law enforcement to quickly gain control of the situation. Its a power vacuum.
Wow, are you ambitious, and a bit out of touch with reality.
I can't say.Quote:
oh pls if that was the reason they were killed how did u come to learn it?
ya, that's the way to do it. We should have thought of that when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor or when Germany was doing really well in WWII. or when North Vietnam was doing so well, wait, we did make concessions then...we gave up and the North Vietnamese took over the entire country of VietNam.Quote:
the bottomline is this, the war on drugs isn't going as well as it should. when it reachs near close to a stalemate regardless of what your principles are or what your stance is or what side your own you have to start making concessions.
No, you look at why your efforts are failing and just like a football team, you figure out the opponent weaknesses and attempt to capitalize on them.
the biggest mistake out country made in the "The War on Drugs" was giving it the title "The War on Drugs". It isn't a war. You can win wars, you can lose wars but they almost always come to an end after both sides either decide they are not getting anywhere or one side whips the other and they sign a peace treaty.
Well, in the "war on drugs" there is no end. Just like declaring a war on speeders or murderers or any other crime, there is always going to be a criminal we need to deal with. There will be no peace treaty an neither side will "win". The government keeps enforcing laws and the bad guys keep trying to escape the law.
Drugs are a business and you need to put the bad guys out of business. It takes a very different approach than fighting a war. In a war, you just shoot the bad guys until there aren't enough to fight back anymore. You can't do that when you are enforcing laws. -
04-28-2010, 08:40 PMashman165Re: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsWell, I'm not so sure that this is true. I think it's aptly described as a war given the number of people our government kills each year in this whole mess. We don't send down armed military attack helicopters for moral support, you know. Those armaments we deplete around the world in our drug interdiction quests are depleted into people.Quote:
Quoting jk
-
04-28-2010, 08:48 PMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
just like our war on "terrorism"
you do not declare wars on a verb or an inanimate noun. -
04-28-2010, 08:51 PMashman165Re: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsWell, no. In the case of the war on "terror" or "terrorism", yes, that's a stupid phrase. It is literally nonsensical unless the action to be taken against is non-action. Otherwise, war and terror are necessary components of the other.Quote:
Quoting jk
War against Germany: Germany is an inanimate noun; it is literally a geographic boundary incapable of moving under its own power (if it had any power of its own to start with). Yes, we do declare wars against nouns, even inanimate ones. =P -
04-28-2010, 09:04 PMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
Germany = Hitler and the Nazis
drugs= pharmaceutical companies? your neighborhood pharmacist? -
04-29-2010, 01:06 AMKeyser_SozeRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
I see you really nit picked in the way you responded to my long post. Does this mean that you have no arguments against the overwhelming majority of what I posted.
And I ask again, should I post more?
You say there has been benefit to drug laws yet you ignore the cost of the drug war. You can't look at one side of an issue and say your right because your only looking at one side of the story, not the whole story.Quote:
Quoting jk
There are many many atrocities because of the drug prohibition.
So let's add up all the costs (financial, body count, etc) and see if we are getting a benefit from drug prohibition or are suffering because of it. I'll tell you one thing, your 6 yo daughter won't be accidentally murdered in the middle of the night if a strung out junkie breaks in and she sees him stealing your TV. You know why, because if drugs were legal drug addicts would not steal to buy them, just like they don't steal to buy other legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol.
My argument against drug prohibition has nothing to do with DRUGS. My argument against drug prohibition is an argument against CRIME and VIOLENCE. The crime and violence associated with the drug war EXIST BECAUSE THERE IS A SO CALLED 'WAR ON DRUGS'.
If there were no war on drugs cops would not be getting shot by dealers, dealers would not be shooting each other, etc, etc. People would not mug and steal to pay for a 200 a day crack habit.
THEN we might actually be able to do something about the drug problem. As it stands now there are the same % of drug addicts in this country since before the harrison drug act was created in 1920 or whenever. ZERO progress and tons of death and wasted resources.
Let's not forget that the drug war has been going on for FORTY YEARS or more and has cost over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS and drugs can not even be kept out of ONE SINGLE MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON IN THIS ENTIRE COUNTRY. coming close to a stalemate? that's the understatement of the decade lmaoQuote:
Quoting Another Demise
Once people find out your brewing hydrocodone in your home you better be willing to not only beat the shit out of people but be willing to kill or hire people to kill those that will come to steal it. Because you will be in a black market business. And in black market businesses, the business owners can not call the cops for protection. They also can not claim losses from theft on insurance policies.Quote:
Quoting ashman165
So you will either eventually get robbed blind (if you don't use your own method of 'policing' (i.e. violence) or you will use violence to protect your business (because everyone who steals knows u cant go to the cops so this makes you a higher level target than a white market business where you dial 911 and cops race to save you and your goods and file a report you can submit to your insurance company. -
04-29-2010, 06:19 AMashman165Re: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsI'm glad you're sufficiently reasonable to have outright admitted that violence isn't a necessary condition. Thank you for that stipulation, necessary though it was.Quote:
Quoting Keyser_Soze
Or, I could do, you know, the reasonable thing and just lie about where I buy it from so that no one is under the impression I make it myself. Or, you know, I could pick a select clientele of means such that they needn't be bothered with petty concerns.Quote:
So you will either eventually get robbed blind (if you don't use your own method of 'policing' (i.e. violence) or you will use violence to protect your business (because everyone who steals knows u cant go to the cops so this makes you a higher level target than a white market business where you dial 911 and cops race to save you and your goods and file a report you can submit to your insurance company.
At any rate, all you've argued successfully is that in some cases, violence can be used. You attempted to argue that I must be prepared for it as though it is a necessary condition, which flies in the face of your outright acceptance and admittance of the fact that it is not a necessary condition. You are very contradictory. -
04-29-2010, 12:32 PMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisonssure. I wasn't aware there was a mandatory keystroke count for my responses.Quote:
=Keyser_Soze;416030]I see you really nit picked in the way you responded to my long post. Does this mean that you have no arguments against the overwhelming majority of what I posted.
And I ask again, should I post more?
.I ignored it? No, I spoke directly to it. I said it costs money to enforce laws.Quote:
You say there has been benefit to drug laws yet you ignore the cost of the drug war. You can't look at one side of an issue and say your right because your only looking at one side of the story, not the whole story.
There are many many atrocities because of the drug prohibition
you really miss a huge part of drugs, especially since you seem to be speaking of legalizing all drugs:Quote:
So let's add up all the costs (financial, body count, etc) and see if we are getting a benefit from drug prohibition or are suffering because of it. I'll tell you one thing, your 6 yo daughter won't be accidentally murdered in the middle of the night if a strung out junkie breaks in and she sees him stealing your TV. You know why, because if drugs were legal drug addicts would not steal to buy them, just like they don't steal to buy other legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol.
it costs money to buy drugs. People on heroin, crack, meth, and cocaine are notoriously unable to maintain employment. Since those drugs are also very addictive, you figure the government should then just supply those drugs for free? Legalizing those specific drugs will cause more crime as more and more people figure since they are legal, why not do them. Then, they will have to support their habit and without a job, guess how they are going to do that?
robbing, stealing, what ever. Then what? More 6 yo kids will be killed because there actually will be more crime.
to support my argument; look at legal drugs such as oxycontin, percoset, and a dozen other legal drugs. Do people commit crimes attempting to obtain them and pay for them? Yep, they sure do.
the police would be more than thrilled if there was no violence; if the dealers and junkies would simply turn themselves in without a fight but they don't. Look at Mexico; they have extreme crime problems. Is that because the police try to enforce the laws? Partially but a huge part of the crime is from warring drug lords fighting for territory.Quote:
My argument against drug prohibition has nothing to do with DRUGS. My argument against drug prohibition is an argument against CRIME and VIOLENCE. The crime and violence associated with the drug war EXIST BECAUSE THERE IS A SO CALLED 'WAR ON DRUGS'.
actually, incorrect. There would be a bunch of strung out junkies not working that need a fix so guess how they will get the money to buy their fix?Quote:
If there were no war on drugs cops would not be getting shot by dealers, dealers would not be shooting each other, etc, etc. People would not mug and steal to pay for a 200 a day crack habit.
link some support for your claim.Quote:
THEN we might actually be able to do something about the drug problem. As it stands now there are the same % of drug addicts in this country since before the harrison drug act was created in 1920 or whenever. ZERO progress and tons of death and wasted resources.
and in 40 years, how much was spent on education; all law enforcement; fighting "righteous" wars?Quote:
Let's not forget that the drug war has been going on for FORTY YEARS or more and has cost over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS and drugs can not even be kept out of ONE SINGLE MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON IN THIS ENTIRE COUNTRY. coming close to a stalemate? that's the understatement of the decade lmao
A trillion dollars is a lot of money. In fact it is about 30% more than the one bill that passed through Congress as an effort to help stabilize our economy. It took a couple minutes for everybody to sign that bill and whoosh, there went over 3/4 of a trillion dollars.
1 trillion dollars is about 38% of our federal budget for this year; just this year, not the last 40 years combined. You might want to calculate the money just our federal government spent of over the last 40 years and put a little perspective on the situation.
You sound like a typical drug user that somehow sees a panacea in legalizing drugs. You seem to believe crime will just go away once drugs are legalized. It simply is not true. -
04-29-2010, 12:44 PMKeyser_SozeRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisonswhat % of long term high level drug dealers (300K/yr) do you think successfully conduct business over the course of a 10 year period without using violence?Quote:
Quoting ashman165
All it takes is 1 customer to tell one person u have product and you are 100x more a target for robbery than any white market business because you can not call the cops.
One the word is out it's OK to steal from you, your broke and out of business.
Sure, 1 in 10,000 can fly under the radar for 3 years and get out profitably without being busted or killing someone but they are the exception. They are also flying under the radar of cops so they are no one you are talking about in the drug war. -
04-29-2010, 12:52 PMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons
sounds like you speak with the voice of experience.
-
04-29-2010, 01:05 PMKeyser_SozeRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsI am AGAINST drug use. I already said drug legalization is a solution to the CRIME and VIOLENCE PROBLEM (al la al capone). Not a solution to the drug problem. And if you think the so called drug war (which is really a war on black people, brown people, and poor people- the majority who wind up dead, in prison, fatherless, husbandless, etc as a result of this war) is a solution to the drug problem u are delusional. 40 years and you can't keep drugs out of even 1 maximum security prison. LMFAO give me a break already.Quote:
Quoting jk
-
04-29-2010, 05:30 PMashman165Re: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsUnless it's 100%, your argument has failed and mine has prevailed. But I like how we move this here friendly goalpost.Quote:
Quoting Keyser_Soze
Wait, are you practicing your creative writing skills or what? I can make stuff up too; I generally try to pretend to argue from a position of reasonableness though. Alas, this is a trait we don't seem to share.Quote:
All it takes is 1 customer to tell one person u have product and you are 100x more a target for robbery than any white market business because you can not call the cops.
I think your character development is a little lacking. We should like to see a more dynamic character lineup coupled with a clever plot.Quote:
One the word is out it's OK to steal from you, your broke and out of business.
Even if they are the exception, my case prevails. I said that violence isn't a necessary condition to the trade. You agree, which is so far the most reasonable position I've seen you take. Small steps.Quote:
Sure, 1 in 10,000 can fly under the radar for 3 years and get out profitably without being busted or killing someone but they are the exception. They are also flying under the radar of cops so they are no one you are talking about in the drug war.
-
04-29-2010, 05:58 PMjkRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security Prisons.everything you posted says otherwiseQuote:
I am AGAINST drug use
Oh, so there is no crime, expecially in Chicago. Once that prohibition thing went away, it's been peaceful ever since.Quote:
I already said drug legalization is a solution to the CRIME and VIOLENCE PROBLEM (al la al capone).
of course there are no white people that do drugs, died due to some aspect of drugs and that;s because there aren't any poor white people, right?Quote:
. And if you think the so called drug war (which is really a war on black people, brown people, and poor people- the majority who wind up dead, in prison, fatherless, husbandless, etc as a result of this war) is a solution to the drug problem u are delusional.
and you know what? if those people would not mess with illegal drugs, guess what, most of them would be alive today. You see, it isn't legalizing the drugs that is the cure, it is to have people to stop breaking the law. If there is no market for the drugs, all of the problems with drugs goes away. but no, you want to simply legalize something that just because people die when they get involved with illegal things.
you seem to miss all the drug rehabs around the country that deal with junkies. Have you forgotten that you can die from heroin withdrawal as well as OD?
and yes, there is a lot of lost time due to booze and a lot of violence and crime but I guess you just figured you would ignore all of that.
I feel sorry for you. Your cure for anything seems to simply be: give up.
they are more concerned with keeping the inmates in the prison. and just as you said the Mexicans are corrupt; well guess what; we have corrupt people to.Quote:
40 years and you can't keep drugs out of even 1 maximum security prison.
-
04-29-2010, 11:32 PMKeyser_SozeRe: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsEver heard the expression 'the exception that proves the rule'? Nothing is 100%, but to suggest that the business of drug dealing and the associated violence comes even remotely close to the violence associated to any legal (white market) business is absolutely ridiculous and we both know it.Quote:
Quoting ashman165
[QUOTE=jk;416220].everything you posted says otherwise
----------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't, cops do not help drug users, drug counselors, etc do a much better job of that.
Oh, so there is no crime, expecially in Chicago. Once that prohibition thing went away, it's been peaceful ever since.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It eradicated the crime associated with the manufacture, transportation, distribution, and sales of alcohol. That's the point. Making alcohol legal is not going to turn a car thief into a non car theif but it will turn a guy who steals cars to pay for his $200/day crack habit into a non thief if his habit will only cost $10/day like a vodka addicts habit costs. He no longer needs to steal to pay for his daily habit.
of course there are no white people that do drugs, died due to some aspect of drugs and that;s because there aren't any poor white people, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------Re read what I wrote, I said POOR PEOPLE in that sentence too... largely because rich white people are not the ones getting shot in the streets and locked up in prison for drugs, some are but I would venture to guess that it is largely disproportionately POOR white people who die and go to jail than wealthy white people. Your racism is showing through here.
and you know what? if those people would not mess with illegal drugs, guess what, most of them would be alive today.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And if nobody ever made an unhealthy choice most of them would be alive today as well. But making unhealthy choices illegal is silly, it certainly hasn't stopped people from choosing drugs, it has just turned them into felons who when they get out of jail can't get jobs because of their record.... so after getting turned down 10 times they go back to the black market where a felony conviction and a rep of keeping your mouth shut on your co-conspirators is a PLUS on their job application. Everyone has to eat.
You see, it isn't legalizing the drugs that is the cure,
====================================
It is the cure to the CRIME AND VIOLENCE. go watch the video and come back and talk to me, unless u are too afraid to.
If there is no market for the drugs, all of the problems with drugs goes away.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is why I asked u if u understood about Economics, and from this statement it is obvious that you do not understand that subject at all. You CAN NOT end supply while there is demand. If 10% of the population in this country wanted to own hand grenades, and was willing to pay the price to get them here, then there will be someone bringing them.
Saying 'yeah, but if people just stopped doing dumb/bad things the world would be better!' solves nothing. And neither does arresting and locking up drug addicts.
but no, you want to simply legalize something that just because people die when they get involved with illegal things.
----------------------------------------------------------------
How many times to I have to say this. I want to legalize them to STOP the CRIME and VIOLENCE.
you seem to miss all the drug rehabs around the country that deal with junkies. Have you forgotten that you can die from heroin withdrawal as well as OD?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actually your wrong, you can NOT die from heroin withdrawl, and the overwhelming majority of 'heroin od's' are actually situations where someone mixes heroin with benzodiazapines or barbituates, or they have been clean from the heroin for a while, so their tolerance has gone but they shoot the same ammt they used to when they had a tolerance.
In fact, heroin is a very benign substance to the human body. This is medical fact.
and yes, there is a lot of lost time due to booze and a lot of violence and crime but I guess you just figured you would ignore all of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Booze is a drug that causes a huge ammt of violence from CONSUMING IT. Heroin does not. Neither does cocaine (except in some cases such as cocaine induced psychosis where people stay up for days using it).
I feel sorry for you. Your cure for anything seems to simply be: give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MY proposal will cure the crime and violence. Then we can actually ADDRESS the drug problem. -
04-30-2010, 12:49 AMashman165Re: Drugs Cannot Be Kept Out of Max Security PrisonsEver heard you're an idiot? Aphorisms aren't actually arguments. My argument is that violence is not a necessary condition to dealing drugs. You argued that there are cases in which it isn't. This my argument holds and the claims you made that it must be present fail. It's that simple.Quote:
Quoting Keyser_Soze
Why am I dealing with this troll?