21–30 of 145 posts
Then organized crime would run the streets, as the combative pressure keeping these operations small would removed. Gangs would spring up like weeds, get absorbed into syndicates, and wield large amounts of power over ghettos and other blighted areas without regular sweeps to keep them in line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding drug policy, the biggest misstep of the past 40 years has been taking a public heath issue It's never been a public health issue for its major proponents. The war on drugs has always been about racism, corruption, the militarization of police forces, civil forfeiture and the prison-industrial complex.
I always thought it was more about religion and politics than those.
In the case of religion, you're confusing a transparent and rarely-invoked justification with the actual reasons for the WoD. In the case of politics, you're confusing the mechanism for prohibition with the actual reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When this topic of marijuana legalization comes up, it seems like most conservative news agencies ask the loaded question, "Does this mean you're in favor of decriminalizing hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and meth?" I don't know a good response, though. How would you answer?
Simple. The answer is "yes." So-called hard drugs are ... well ... they ain't health food. But presumably I'm writing to an audience of utilitarian thinkers, so it should be trivial to load up the arguments onto a balance beam: for, and against. We have lived through the against side it. We know exactly what those consequences are, for society. Importantly, criminalization does ZERO to limit demand, and thus, supply.…
Legalizing drugs might therefore lead to an increase in robberies, muggings, kidnappings, sex trafficking, etc as these former dealers need to find new ways to support themselves. Thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple. The answer is "yes." So-called hard drugs are ... well ... they ain't health food. But presumably I'm writing to an audience of utilitarian thinkers, so it should be trivial to load up the arguments onto a balance beam: for, and against. We have lived through the against side it. We know exactly what those consequences are, for society. Importantly, criminalization does ZERO to limit demand, and thus, supply.…
One thing I've always wondered: what would street dealers do if they couldn't make money selling crack anymore? I somehow doubt they'd give up and get a job at McDonald's. Legalizing drugs might therefore lead to an increase in robberies, muggings, kidnappings, sex trafficking, etc as these former dealers need to find new ways to support themselves. Thoughts?
The assumption that people who participate in a normal capitalist marketplace are inherently criminals is just silly. They do what they do because it's a bustling marketplace. Period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Choose your own semi-ironic response now: ☐ "Which totally doesn't happen now. Oh wait..." ☐ "Yeah, Amsterdam is completely run by gangs. Oh wait..." ☐ "Yeah, gangs would get richer and expand as price of drugs plummets and they get commoditised. Oh wait..." Edit: downvotes? I was trying to summarise the inevitable counterpoints.
Well, one could argue that (in the short term) there would be more violence as the current power balance is disrupted and gangs search to expand into other areas to generate their money...
The Mafia, Yakuza and the Hong Kong triads have in large measure done away from street crime and moved to more economic-oriented crimes such as buying legitimate companies and fiddling with their accounts to illegally import and sell goods, avoid taxes, peddle in corruption, gambling, ...
Excuse my ignorance, but is it legitimate for subordinate entities in a federalist system to simply not fund enforcement of policies they don't agree with? For example, would it be possible to have a vice squad with a budget of 1 dollar, effectively preventing enforcement of drug-related crime?
And obviously in the case of marijuana legalization, states like Colorado are already engaging in quasi-nullification: they're thumbing their nose at FedGov despite a federal law saying that mere possession of pot is a crime.
This is why FedGov tries to tie its mandates on states to funding, like speed limits and drinking ages. Remember Real ID was not a direct mandate on the states but a carrot-and-stick approach to nationalized drivers licenses (or, you could argue, a uniform national ID).
They would be sanctioned and heckled by other city governments.
They may even have their drug enforcement programs carried out by other governments, like when Canada sat back for years while Marc Emery sold Marijuana seeds worldwide.
The DEA basically coughed and the RCMP had Emery arrested on the spot and extradited to the U.S.A. to face charges in a country he was not even a resident of.[0]
I am sure there was a bit more to it than that. The USA probably insinuated some very strong consequences for Canada if they didn't turn him over. But that's entirely speculation.
Marc Emery aka "the prince of pot" remains incarcerated in the U.S.A. to this day.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Emery#2005_arrest_and_extr...
Then organized crime would run the streets, as the combative pressure keeping these operations small would removed. Gangs would spring up like weeds, get absorbed into syndicates, and wield large amounts of power over ghettos and other blighted areas without regular sweeps to keep them in line.
They ran a story about arresting a Colombian drug lord and raiding his mansion. Immediately following was a commercial break which featured August Busch talking about some charity his brewery was sponsoring.
And it hit me: one drug lord gets a small army sent after him and another drug lord is allowed to operate openly and even accepted as an upstanding member of the community. What is the difference between the two?
Of course the key difference is: when the drug is legal, it's far more profitable and easier to run above board, even with the burden of taxes and regulations. Why run a complicated network of smugglers and violent enforcers, running the risk of extended jail time, when you can just maintain a distribution network and pay for advertising? I'm sure Pablo Escobar would have gladly given up his thuggish ways in exchange for decent shelf placement in retail establishments and ads featuring "Escobar's Finest Blend. Don't settle for imitations!"
Excuse my ignorance, but is it legitimate for subordinate entities in a federalist system to simply not fund enforcement of policies they don't agree with? For example, would it be possible to have a vice squad with a budget of 1 dollar, effectively preventing enforcement of drug-related crime?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I've always wondered: what would street dealers do if they couldn't make money selling crack anymore? I somehow doubt they'd give up and get a job at McDonald's. Legalizing drugs might therefore lead to an increase in robberies, muggings, kidnappings, sex trafficking, etc as these former dealers need to find new ways to support themselves. Thoughts?
Just ask yourself one question: what did all the bootleggers do after alcohol prohibition was dropped? Exactly. There's a sort of twinge of classism (or even racism) in your comment, by the way. The assumption that people who participate in a normal capitalist marketplace are inherently criminals is just silly. They do what they do because it's a bustling marketplace. Period.
People choose to risk jail time and physical harm to make mediocre money as a street dealer because they have no better options. Most of them don't even have high school diplomas, what else are they going to do? If we don't do anything other than eliminate the black market for drugs their next best option is still going to be some sort of crime.