The Drug-Violence Myth • Hacker News Board

Re: The Drug-Violence Myth

#41

Post by msandford » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 7:45 PM UTC

happyscrappy wrote: post #35

msandford wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do gangs even exist, though?

There's a school of thought that we inadvertently create terrorists by interfering in the middle east and thus motivating people to want to do us harm. And by 'we' I mean 'The United States'.

I suspect that a similar argument can be made that the illegal drug trade and gangs are fairly well correlated and that gangs arise because individuals don't derive any security from the police for a variety of reasons. So gangs are the result of police policy, not that police policy is the result of gangs.

I'm not suggesting that this is a 100% solid theory. But there's probably some nugget of truth in it.

Re: The Drug-Violence Myth

#42

Post by api » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 7:51 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #30

There are mental gymnastics involved anytime the umbrella term "drugs" is invoked; the behavioral differences between cannabis, LSD, PCP, heroin and crack cocaine are so staggering, it's absurd to talk about them lumped together. You might as well try to include roller skates, go-carts and fighter jets into traffic laws. Anecdotally, there are instances where there is a correlation between some drugs and violence, wh…

Try "socially unacceptable drugs" or "taboo drugs." The classification is completely arbitrary, and is usually related to whether or not the drug is used by a socially marginal or ethnic minority group like blacks or hippies. Alcohol can be as dangerous as heroin if used heavily, but upper class white people drink it so it's okay and is not a "drug."

Re: The Drug-Violence Myth

#43

Post by stinos » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 7:53 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #40

I 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.

Feels like your story is incomplete: tell us how did the junkies behave?

Re: The Drug-Violence Myth

#44

Post by douche » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 7:54 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #41

happyscrappy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Why do gangs even exist, though? There's a school of thought that we inadvertently create terrorists by interfering in the middle east and thus motivating people to want to do us harm. And by 'we' I mean 'The United States'. I suspect that a similar argument can be made that the illegal drug trade and gangs are fairly well correlated and that gangs arise because individuals don't derive any security from the police f…

Gangs tend to organize around any kind of illegal, lucrative market. Smuggling (which is really what drugs and alcohol are about), gambling, prostitution, vote buying/selling, theft. Because those activities are outside the law, the law can't really regulate the market.

Then there is racketeering/blackmail, which is probably more of a problem of ineffective policing, at least as far as the "Hey, you've got a nice business here, how about you give me a cut to make sure nobody comes by [sic buy] and smashes your cabbages" variety goes.

Re: The Drug-Violence Myth

#45

Post by qnaal » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 7:57 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #41

happyscrappy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Why do gangs even exist, though? There's a school of thought that we inadvertently create terrorists by interfering in the middle east and thus motivating people to want to do us harm. And by 'we' I mean 'The United States'. I suspect that a similar argument can be made that the illegal drug trade and gangs are fairly well correlated and that gangs arise because individuals don't derive any security from the police f…

from the perspective of drug trade, gangs exist to protect the distribution- that part could be much more decentralized if it were legal

Re: The Drug-Violence Myth

#46

Post by beat » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 7:58 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #30

There are mental gymnastics involved anytime the umbrella term "drugs" is invoked; the behavioral differences between cannabis, LSD, PCP, heroin and crack cocaine are so staggering, it's absurd to talk about them lumped together. You might as well try to include roller skates, go-carts and fighter jets into traffic laws. Anecdotally, there are instances where there is a correlation between some drugs and violence, wh…

Well, the article pointed to three different sources of drug violence - violence from intoxication, violence from getting money for drugs, and violence from selling drugs. They need to be dealt with as separate issues.

Violence from intoxication depends on the drug. Alcohol is probably the worst, followed by amphetamines and cocaine. Nobody wants to break a nose because they're high on pot. So the laws don't line up with violent potential.

Violence from getting money for drugs is because drugs are expensive, and addicts tend to be social outcasts. It's also incidental to property crime in general.

Violence from drug sales is 100% the result of prohibition. During alcohol Prohibition, alcohol business crime was widespread. Today, it's nonexistent. Likewise, there's virtually no violence in the field of loosely handled prescription drugs. If drugs (not just marijuana, but hard drugs like cocaine and heroin) were broadly legalized and readily available in a safe and competitive market, violence from both the drug trade and the cost of drug addiction would disappear.

Which makes one ask, "Why do we do this?", when it makes so little sense. Then one might answer, "Is racism a root cause of the war on drugs?", and a whole bunch of people would howl with indignation.

Re: The Drug-Violence Myth

#47

Post by happyscrappy » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 7:58 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #41

happyscrappy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Why do gangs even exist, though? There's a school of thought that we inadvertently create terrorists by interfering in the middle east and thus motivating people to want to do us harm. And by 'we' I mean 'The United States'. I suspect that a similar argument can be made that the illegal drug trade and gangs are fairly well correlated and that gangs arise because individuals don't derive any security from the police f…

I detected a hint of "the cop is the perp and the perp is the victim" in your other post but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. This kind of attitude is quickly disabused of when living in a poor neighborhood. Why are gang members practically suicidal? Drugs play a part, but they are not protecting their neighborhood they are trying to get a larger territory to deal drugs. As for the US going into the Middle East, it was probably a bad idea but then people turn around and complain we are not doing anything in Syria.

Re: The Drug-Violence Myth

#48

Post by qnaal » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 7:59 PM UTC

douche wrote: post #44

msandford wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do gangs even exist, though? There's a school of thought that we inadvertently create terrorists by interfering in the middle east and thus motivating people to want to do us harm. And by 'we' I mean 'The United States'. I suspect that a similar argument can be made that the illegal drug trade and gangs are fairly well correlated and that gangs arise because individuals don't derive any security from the police f…

Gangs tend to organize around any kind of illegal, lucrative market. Smuggling (which is really what drugs and alcohol are about), gambling, prostitution, vote buying/selling, theft. Because those activities are outside the law, the law can't really regulate the market. Then there is racketeering/blackmail, which is probably more of a problem of ineffective policing, at least as far as the "Hey, you've got a nice bus…

why would they smash cabbages they already bought?

Re: The Drug-Violence Myth

#49

Post by Yakimoto » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 8:06 PM UTC

api wrote: post #42

lukifer wrote: post #30

There are mental gymnastics involved anytime the umbrella term "drugs" is invoked; the behavioral differences between cannabis, LSD, PCP, heroin and crack cocaine are so staggering, it's absurd to talk about them lumped together. You might as well try to include roller skates, go-carts and fighter jets into traffic laws. Anecdotally, there are instances where there is a correlation between some drugs and violence, wh…

Try "socially unacceptable drugs" or "taboo drugs." The classification is completely arbitrary, and is usually related to whether or not the drug is used by a socially marginal or ethnic minority group like blacks or hippies. Alcohol can be as dangerous as heroin if used heavily, but upper class white people drink it so it's okay and is not a "drug."

>Upper class white people

Your racism is showing.

Upper class people like Cocaine too, care to inject a racial undertone as to why that is illegal?

Re: The Drug-Violence Myth

#50

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 8:10 PM UTC

qnaal wrote: post #8

mbrutsch wrote: post #5

Sadly, 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

Right, because things were so awesome back in the day...not. Sowell has made a great living out of pandering to white conservative nostalgia; his rhetoric relies almost exclusively on emotional arguments, wrapped in a thin veneer of objectivity and disinterested logic. Note, for example, the assertion of a vanished status that 'worked,' sidestepping the question of why there was any impetus to change it in the first place.

A reading trick that I find incredibly useful (no matter what your political affiliation) is to mentally highlight all valuable adjectives and implicit adjectives - valuable being 'nice car' as opposed to purely descriptive adjectives like 'blue car', and implicit adjectives being things like 'worked' above, which implies something that worked well rather than worked badly. Some writers, and I think Sowell is an exemplar here, specialize in stating a bunch of logical non-sequiters as a frame for a purely emotional, subjective argument. This is the rhetorical equivalent of the stage magician drawing your attention to the absence of anything being up his sleeve in order to distract your attention from what he's doing with the top hat.