Just more evidence that the war on drugs does far more damage than drugs themselves.
The Drug-Violence Myth
31–40 of 72 posts
Re: The Drug-Violence Myth
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, all you have to do is to read up on who's murdering who. Drugs and violence are intimately tied together at least in the USA. The laws are set-up to punish drug offenders based on the quantity of drugs in one's possession. Beyond a certain quantity, the offender crosses a threshold into "distribution" rather than "use"-- and long histories of violent, organized crime is typical for those folks.
The text of the article is designed to respond to exactly this familiar argument. If you're reading this, angdis, you may be interested in reading the article.
The article conflates drug users and drug dealers.
Re: The Drug-Violence Myth
#33I've been assaulted twice by complete strangers in the night time in the city. Both times I managed to avert major violence and get away unscathed. In one case it was someone raging on alcohol and being angry at the world. In the other case it was someone so high on something that he essentially wasn't there. Glazed eyes, a blank stare, mouth foaming and taking off his clothes. He couldn't even talk but for some reason he wanted to hurt me specifically. I don't think he would have attacked me if he wasn't high so I think that is an obvious case of drugs causing violence. Don't think I'm the only one that has been attacked by a drug maniac either.
Re: The Drug-Violence Myth
#34Long, long ago, in a college town far away, I was arrested in my own home, without a warrant, for possession of marijuana. The case was thrown out by a judge due to various evidence problems, stemming from not getting a warrant. There are a limited number of circumstances under which it is legal for police to enter and search a home without a warrant. As my lawyer casually knocked down the others, the prosecutor fina…
im confused - who was outside for 15 minutes ?
The cops. There were three of them outside our house. They came on a noise complaint - we were having band practice, and didn't hear them knocking. They looked through the window and saw pot on the coffee table (AFTER I had already gone through once and cleaned it up and yelled at stupid careless musicians to not do that, in case the police were called about the noise, sigh).
They had plenty of opportunity to get a warrant, but were just too lazy to do so. When I finally answered the door, they asked if they could come in, I said no, and the sergeant in charge said "Oh yes we can!" and forcibly shoved me out of the way.
After gathering us all up, they separated me and asked me privately who it belonged to - me and my roommate, or our three guests? The implication was that they'd arrest the two of us, or arrest everyone. I lied and said it was all ours, so the other three were released.
Judge ruled the confession was coerced. I wasn't "under arrest" officially, so I hadn't been read my rights, but I was not free to go, and they intended to arrest me, and it was clear that was the intent. And he ruled the evidence from the search inadmissible due to lack of a warrant.
What's irritating is how cocky they all were. My roommate's lawyer advised a guilty plea. Luckily, mine wanted to fight. If we had lost, I would have had to pay for the public defender (since we won, the state paid). In today's environment, an unreasonably high bail would have been required instead of our own recognizance, and a guilty plea offered as a bargain at the bail hearing. It's a shitty system.
Re: The Drug-Violence Myth
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now I'm dying to know what percentage of violent crimes involve police.
It's an interesting though, that it's possible (no idea how likely) that violence could be decreased through a reduction in laws such that the amount of enforcement -- and thus violence -- is reduced. I really wish that we had good stats on this stuff so that the laws could be crafted to minimize violence. Anyone who says we're civilized and "beyond that" isn't paying attention, it's just that the violence has largel…
>violence could be decreased through a reduction in laws such that the amount of enforcement -- and thus violence -- is reduced.
Gang members seem to have no regard for enforcement of any kind and throw their lives away with abandon, but I still think less enforcement will only embolden them.
Re: The Drug-Violence Myth
#36I've been assaulted twice by complete strangers in the night time in the city. Both times I managed to avert major violence and get away unscathed. In one case it was someone raging on alcohol and being angry at the world. In the other case it was someone so high on something that he essentially wasn't there. Glazed eyes, a blank stare, mouth foaming and taking off his clothes. He couldn't even talk but for some reas…
Alcohol contributes to far more intoxication-related violence than any other drug. If the violence of intoxication is to be a factor, there's no reason at all to ban marijuana, and every reason to ban alcohol.
Re: The Drug-Violence Myth
#37I've been assaulted twice by complete strangers in the night time in the city. Both times I managed to avert major violence and get away unscathed. In one case it was someone raging on alcohol and being angry at the world. In the other case it was someone so high on something that he essentially wasn't there. Glazed eyes, a blank stare, mouth foaming and taking off his clothes. He couldn't even talk but for some reas…
This type of anecdata is exactly what the article is trying to convince people not to fall prey to.
From the actual article:
> Ultimately there is no solid proof that drugs cause violence. Most drug offenders commit nonviolent offenses and at low rates. Though certainly drug addicts commit more crimes, they commit them at low rates, and the connection between drugs and violent crimes is complex and not conclusive. Empirical evidence that I discovered with Frank McIntyre actually shows that drug defendants commit less violent crime on pretrial release than any other group of defendants.
Re: The Drug-Violence Myth
#38Sadly, our world-class political system is based entirely upon feelz, with no minimum qualifications for participation.
"Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good." -Thomas Sowell
Also applies very well to an old software project.
Re: The Drug-Violence Myth
#39I've been assaulted twice by complete strangers in the night time in the city. Both times I managed to avert major violence and get away unscathed. In one case it was someone raging on alcohol and being angry at the world. In the other case it was someone so high on something that he essentially wasn't there. Glazed eyes, a blank stare, mouth foaming and taking off his clothes. He couldn't even talk but for some reas…
low quality drugs "cut" with some bad stuff because good quality cheap drugs are just not available due to the Prohibition. Or may be it was somebody just mentally ill.
And speaking of connection between violence and soberness - Tsarnaev brothers were model of soberness, and the older was even a real drug fighter - he killed 3 grass smokers/dealers about a year before the bomb attack explicitly because of their drug "sin". Or Roof, or Colorado theater shooter, or McVeigh - all sober... Probably we need to outlaw soberness.
Re: The Drug-Violence Myth
#40I worked for a not-so-short time in a run-down bar... I had drinkers, fighters, junkies and stoners.
Guess which group I never had problems with? Yup, the stoners. They were just sitting there, smoking outside and not being aggressive. The drunks would always fight sooner or later.