If we took the profits of the drug trade out of gangbangers pockets, how much reduction might we see in inner city gun violence?
Reducing gun violence through drug legalization
- Thread starter WyrdRich
- Start date
GuiltySparc
OT Supporter
Interesting thought, though i feel like instead of banging their pistols into plows, current drug dealers would go on to other criminal enterprises.
LOL. I have bought a LOT of drugs in my life, but they have never been sold to me by a "Gang Banger," mostly just college kids and waiters trying to earn a little extra money for their text books.
So the first post should really say,
If we took the profits of the drug trade out of college kids pockets and gave it to Philip Morris and the government for their slice, how much reduction might we see in inner city gun violence?
Listen those negro's are shooting each other because their backwards shitty culture, their shitty to non-existent family environment, and ZERO upward mobility turns them into little idiot sociopaths that think that sporting wood and steel equates to being a man.
So the first post should really say,
If we took the profits of the drug trade out of college kids pockets and gave it to Philip Morris and the government for their slice, how much reduction might we see in inner city gun violence?
Listen those negro's are shooting each other because their backwards shitty culture, their shitty to non-existent family environment, and ZERO upward mobility turns them into little idiot sociopaths that think that sporting wood and steel equates to being a man.
7960
Well-Known Member
Where do you think they got the drugs they're selling? For the most part they're not growing weed to then sell it.
Black, brown, white, yellow, it don't make a bit of difference. We have criminal gangs in the drug trade from every racial category. Take the racist crap elsewhere, please.
Independent primo weed growers, with private distribution networks are not the norm, outside of college kids with kooky uncles. Depending how far down the chain you buy (and your stated experience sound strictly dimebag retail), the guy your guy gets from, or the level over that, scares the shit out of him.
But that's ok. There nothing to do with the cartels, when the cool waiter puts a bindle in your napkin.
Jerb Creator
OT Supporter
- Jan 30, 2004
- 32,290
That's true. Speed, heroin, and cocaine are going to have come into the legal system, as well as good chronic. It isn't going to be pretty, but I'll contend that legalized hard drugs will still be less harmful to society than an entire underground marketplace of illegal ones.
We should note too, that under a legal system, speed freaks aren't going to using the hellbroth that is on the streets today, and we can start pouring the money that used to go into prisons, into rehab, and treatment on demand.
MrKranky
WhazzamattaU?
- May 11, 2005
- 9,065
We would have to limit what the Gov would want to tax on it or there would still be a black market for gangs to under-cut the legalized price due to heavy handed taxation.
MrKranky
WhazzamattaU?
- May 11, 2005
- 9,065
Those wanting to mess themselves up will find a way. Sniffing glue, gasoline, whippets, etc. Maybe letting people scramble their brains out of existence will decrease the number of stupid kids being procreated from them?
Those who want to mess themselves up these days simply go to the criminal market to get it, pouring ammunition money into the pockets of gangs.
The speculation about taxation driving the prices higher than they are in the illegal market is completely ridiculous.
There would have to be controls on the distribution of the hard drugs, obviously, but until the initial crime reduction goals are met, we need a system that leaves no incentive to stick with the dealers.
The speculation about taxation driving the prices higher than they are in the illegal market is completely ridiculous.
There would have to be controls on the distribution of the hard drugs, obviously, but until the initial crime reduction goals are met, we need a system that leaves no incentive to stick with the dealers.
MrKranky
WhazzamattaU?
- May 11, 2005
- 9,065
Just a general response concerning drug laws that was not meant as an answer or specifically what he meant by FULL
So, just wasting time replying I guess.
MrKranky
WhazzamattaU?
- May 11, 2005
- 9,065
Politicians have looked quite a number of times at pot revenue being their salvation. Look at the price of cigarettes today and the amount of income states have and continue to make off them. As people stop smoking cigs then pot will simply take up where it left off. Sure, some people will pay full "retail" for their pot but you will also have plenty of black market running around at a cheaper cost.
"controls on the distribution of hard drugs"? Maybe the ATF? Kinda like their successful control illegal drugs today? Right.
Really? Which politicians? I'd be interested to do some further research on them, and possibly donate to the campaign.
The real money in legal pot is the law enforcement savings, from police to prisons.
As for how, maybe look outside the douchebag for possible protocols? I think you meant DEA, instead of ATF, and I'm sure they'd want to see some records, just like they do for oxycontin right now.
Thanks for admitting the war on drugs is a big fat (extremely expensive) failure though. Meditate on that for a bit, and see if you can think up a better way.
spagina
Banned
I remember cigarette vending machines in the lobby of almost every theater and waiting area of every restaurant. I also remember condom vending machines in every bus stop in America. I remember when you could score an ounce of excellent weed for $5.00. I remember when gas was $.40 a gallon, people pumped it for you, checked your fluid levels, aired up your tires, cleaned your windows and you got a tumbler (drinking glass) with a 10+ gallon fill up.
This ain't Kansas, Dorothy. You can kick the shit out of your heels.... You ain't going home.
How was I being racist? Apart from my use of the word Negroes I mean, which, sure, isn't very nice, sorry
of course there are gangs of every race, but come on, are you really trying to say that whites, asians and indians have as much of a gang presence as blacks and mexicans in urban areas, or, uh anywhere in america for that matter? Because that is frankly a ridiculous statement. People join gangs because they feel like they don't have any other choice. It's pretty rare for whites or Asians to feel that way because there are plenty of social mechanism which allow upward mobility that are much more accessible for whites and Asians. Don't forget the significant role of social expectation as well. People tend to meet the expectations that others place on them, good or bad.No dude, maybe if you are buying skank weed which is all the cartels move. If you are buying preemo it's being filtered down from Cali or Colorado and places like that from the grey market. Nobody intelligent even sells regi anymore. It's just not smart business because you get the same legal trouble for moving a ounce of hydro as you do an ounce of regi except the hydro is worth about five times more for your effort.
ALSO, where coke or the other harder drugs are concerned. the thread (as I understood it) was about gang violence in urban areas, not the violence caused by Mexican cartels or Andean Gangsters. And Gangs in urban areas are getting their supply from the same places as Mr. Johnson at your local chilies. So whatever significance you are placing on cartel or Columbian/Peruvian/Bolivian whatever the heckian guerillas, seems a little out of place.
But... just to sprinkle some salt on the wound, my commentary of urban black culture btw isn't intended to be racist. But the lack of upward mobility, the startling lack of family cohesion/support, and a culture which glorifies gun violence and rags to riches stories through unconventional and illegal methods, are all unfortunate facts of life for many urban blacks. It doesn't have anything to do with their race, and has everything to do with undeniable cultural issues that have to be recognized and dealt with if you actually care about the progress of impoverished blacks in urban environments. Ignoring those problems isn't going to help anybody.
So having established you're a little younger than me then, what has the rising cost of living got to do with shit, Toto?
After prohibition ended most bootleggers simply changed products, the really successful ones became politicians and began dealing in lives instead.
No more than trying to change the subject is going to distract from your already established ignorance on the realities of drug trafficking.
I don't know where you are getting your picture of the weed trade as some picturesque pastoral. High grade weed comes out of sophisticated growhouses, run by organized crime, a lot more often than the 25 mature plants in a 'Nam vet's basement.
And after prohibition, we couldn't just lay all those cops off, so they came up with a jobs program, instead.
Lol, Of course you are right about the source, I never denied that, but pay close attention because you're the one changing the subject buddy. Organized crime does NOT necessary equate to gun violence. The kind of sophisticated growing operations that you are talking about are run by people smart enough to know not to attract unwanted attention by acting like a bunch of little thugs. Try and focus on your own point, which is GUN VIOLENCE. Of course there is an occasional sensationalized shootout between the police and growers during raids, but that represents a TINY NEGLIGIBLE fraction of gun violence, that has nada to do with typical gang gun violence. Where most gang violence is concerned, what is being sold is much less important than where it's being sold. Most gang gun violence occurs because of what boils down to territorial disputes between ground pounders, not through armed weed growers or whatever fantasy you have in your head.
Further, examining the actual reason from most gang gun violence, which is what your original premise was all about, involves examining the cultural conditions that lead to urban violence, so I can't see how I was off the point at all.
You act like legalizing drugs would suddenly cure the world of social stratification. While I might not be an expert of drug trafficking, you appear to be entirely devoid of understanding about the causes of social marginalization and the detrimental effects that has on minorities.
Further, examining the actual reason from most gang gun violence, which is what your original premise was all about, involves examining the cultural conditions that lead to urban violence, so I can't see how I was off the point at all.
You act like legalizing drugs would suddenly cure the world of social stratification. While I might not be an expert of drug trafficking, you appear to be entirely devoid of understanding about the causes of social marginalization and the detrimental effects that has on minorities.
spagina
Banned
Not a damn thing, other than you dispelling the old adage that with age comes knowledge....
- Feb 28, 2002
- 41,335
As you might have guessed, I am in favor of legalization. However, I'm also fully in favor of allowing companies(and individuals) to discriminate in who they sell to.
Issues of poverty, and how we can best address the problem is a subject of much interest to me, Nebulous (and I know a fair bit more about the current approaches than comes from sitting through a liberal professor getting off on a tangent), but the subject here is reducing gun violence, by taking drug profits out of the gang cultures. If they still want to go after each other with baseball bats, at least that cuts down on children catching a stray bullet. The violence doesn't need to be directly associated with the trade, it only needs to be funded by it.
That's a fair point, but I worry about the income vacuum that would result. Would criminal organizations accept the loss of income, or would they make up for it in other ways, for example through increased racketeering, kidnapping, and extortion?
Although coming up with an equivalent cash cow to narcotics is pretty hard to imagine.
Incidentally, one other point we haven't discussed, is that a lot of drug related violence and crime happens at the user end. Users who are addicted to heavy narcotics often dope themselves right into a state of extreme poverty. Just because their income has disappeared, doesn't mean their need for the narcotic goes away. So even with these highly addictive drugs legally available at your local CVS, that part of the crime seems unlikely to significantly reduce.
The bootlegger gangs of prohibition gave us organized crime that lingers to this day. Erasing the ills of 40 years worth of a horribly failed drug policy isn't going to happen overnight. Unlike the independent pot growers (and the gang associated ones, who have kept their records clean), most people in the drug industry aren't going to have an option of going clean. The whole mid-level career field for drug dealers is going to disappear overnight. I think we can be quite certain not all of them are simply going to go apply to flip burgers at Wendy's. As you said though, no way to replace that cash cow.
I've never seen a good study on drug money, as a specific component of the inner city economy. The same pool of cash that isn't going to be available for guns and ammo also isn't going to be available for home/personal electronics, car customizing, ridiculous fashion statements or general bling, either. Businesses that depend on stupid teens and 20-nothings with pockets full of cash are going to take a hit, too. Oh well.
Since the first goal of this hypothetical legalization is to eradicate the criminal marketplace, pricing heroin addicts and such out of the market would be wholly counterproductive. If we have to, distribute it free to registered users through a clinic system. We could improve the health of meth addicts immediately, simply by creating access to the drug made with the right ingredients, under lab conditions, instead of the coldpill and tractor starting fluid methods used today.