Prohibition Makes Drug Dealers Richer - NPR - Page 2

On April 14 2011 15:24 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 03:32 Etherone wrote: edit: also did you just compare smoking to sex and food, those are biological imperatives, how is that even remotely an argument? seriously wtf im sympathetic to the cause, but really you don't need strawmen and slogans to do it. EDIT2: I hope you were high when you wrote that I compared it to sex and food cause sex, food and drugs are all what we in the psychology world call "primary reinforcers" because these are things that motivate all living beings. You're right, sex and food are both biological needs that are required for survival. I'm not saying using drugs is a biological imperative. And drugs are a primary reinforcer because they alter our state of consciousness, and that's the key. We all make efforts to alter our state of consciousness and pleasurable alterations are reinforcing to our behavior. The point I'm trying to make is that drugs, which alter our state of consciousness in a pleasurable way, are something that will always be sought by the human population, and to try and restrict people from having something that they strongly desire will always fail.

This logic doesn't work..."some people will always want it therefore it should be legal"..people will always want more land, more material possessions, more sex, etc....so by this logic prostitution should be completely legal (would quite possibly increase human trafficking) ..pedophiles will always exist and trying to keep them from having sex w/ children will always fail, doesn't mean society shouldn't try to stop it. Also to preempt that argument of "child abuse hurts others, drug abuse doesn't hurt anyone else", drug abuse does hurt friends/family emotionally, and a person who is intoxicated on pcp is more likely to physically assault someone then if they were sober. Plus drug use leads to an increase is intoxicated driving which increases motor fatalities. So increased drug use can/will have real negative effects on people besides the drug user.

If legalization/availability/proximity don't effect addiction then why does Nevada have double the rate of gambling addicts as the rest of the country? More and more states are loosening their laws on gambling so they can raise money because they are all in debt. Sure most people that go into a newly built casino won't develop an addiction, but some do, and they end up ruining their lives.

I shoulda said "the majority of people want it", not some. When you try and prohibit something that the majority of people want it fails. People want to alter their state of consciousness through drugs, and that's not going to stop cause we tell them not to.

And I think prostitution should be legal. Human trafficking would definitely decrease if it was legal, not increase.

No time to make that argument right now but penn and teller did a great job of it in their show "Bullshit"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805439/

It's streaming on netflix if you wanna check it out.

EDIT: trying to do homework while LP is open is a bad idea, hehe, so distracting

Blackjack, some people watch porn and become addicted. Should we therefore make porn illegal? Just cause some people can't handle it does it mean that you shouldn't be allowed to do it? I think that's what it comes down to for me.

Suggesting that usage rates would increase if the substance were legal is incorrect. There have been many large studies done that examine usage rates when comparing whether the drug is legal or illegal in various countries. It has been statistically proven over and over again that usage rates do not increase with the legalization of a drug. Individuals who choose to use drugs are doing so because they enjoy the activity and in some cases become dependent on the substance. Individuals who do not use drugs choose to avoid them because they want to preserve their own health. Legal status of the drug is not a factor in peoples decisions whether or not to use drugs. It's a health decision. Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal. You don't see everyone becoming an addict. In fact rates of smoking have decreased as people have become more and more aware of the health risks over the years. The more awareness there is about the bad effects of using substances the more people intelligently choose to refrain from usage to protect their health.

If you want to talk about harm reduction think of how much damage those who become addicted to drugs do to themselves, their families, and the community because of crimes related to the acquisition of more drugs. If you decriminalize or legalize controlled substance usage rates stay the same but the price goes way down. Drugs that are less expensive and more easily available = less crime committed by those committing crime to feed their addiction. All of a sudden its no longer underground or difficult to receive the substances. Put a government tax on all drugs sold and use it towards rehabilitation centers that treat people who suffer from serious addiction and mental health issues. Government programs that provide free drugs to addicts in order to scale them down to lower and lower rates of usage until eventually reaching zero is far superior to the current model.

It's all about what causes the least harm to society. Attempting to control something that cannot be controlled is retarded. If you want to treat the sources of the problem you focus on harm reduction, education, rehabilitation, and access. If you want to sit on your high horse and cry about how drugs are bad and we should all be scared to make them legal go ahead but the argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting the drug war. There is mountains of evidence supporting a different approach. Sure there are two sides to every argument. My side is the right one. Your side is just a bullshit political agenda used to get votes from ignorant masses of people who don't know shit and don't care to read or learn about the issue.

On April 14 2011 16:07 blackjacki2 wrote: If legalization/availability/proximity don't effect addiction then why does Nevada have double the rate of gambling addicts as the rest of the country? More and more states are loosening their laws on gambling so they can raise money because they are all in debt. Sure most people that go into a newly built casino won't develop an addiction, but some do, and they end up ruining their lives.

Well probably because you made a comparison that is completely retarded. Lets ask a simple question.

1. Would a reasonable person think that visiting the casino just for fun could have a negative effect on their health?
2. Would a reasonable person think that using drugs even just recreationally could have a negative effect on their health?

Yes or no question. In case one the obvious answer is no. Visiting the casino for entertainment purposes and with the expectation that you will lose some money but have some fun is not expected to have negative consequences. Using drugs on the other hand is widely known to have potentially harmful effects on your health.

Usage rates don't increase for drugs when they're legal because people know it's bad for them. Usage rates of casinos obviously go up when there is one nearby simply because it's just a form of entertainment. There is no negative health effects of visiting a casino.

I still don't like decriminalization because you don't get rid of the drug dealers.

it would hurt dealers due to an increase in supply but it doesn't get rid of them legalization just shifts where the illegal dealings would be occurring, instead of dealers selling to adults illegally you would have underage people buying and using the drugs illegally. This leads to a larger amount of teenage use, probably would be mis-use, leads to death and damages occurring that otherwise wouldn't have. Decriminalization prevents this.

if you really want to go uber close to legalization in a real world example then the Colombian law of "personal production" being legal hurts the cartels without having full legalization.

Plus the whole get rid of the drug dealers isn't really a fair argument, the people who are the drug dealers now-a-days would just move to a different type of crime. Lets take the 3 big gangs of LA and their illegal activities

Latin Kings: Racketeering, assault, arms trafficking, drug trafficking, extortion, identity document forgery, robbery, and murder

Bloods: Murder, Drug trafficking, Robbery, Extortion

Crips: Drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, murder, burglary and identification theft

Legalizing drugs would not stop the dealers of these gangs from committing harmful crimes, it would just shift what harmful crimes they are committing.

what a revelation.. people profiting from illegal activities, which would otherwise be legal, is resulting from... it being illegal? Wow!

edit: in other news - during the time of prohibition (the noble experiment), numerous syndicates profited immensely from extremely high-priced alcohol due to the inherent illegal nature of it. Ie. Al Capone, Kennedy family, etc.

Does this surprise anyone?

I think that's a pretty cool picture and from my impression, pretty accurate, although some of the "yellow" drugs are only "yellow" under the assumption that they are used correctly.

On April 14 2011 16:16 Bejamin1 wrote: Suggesting that usage rates would increase if the substance were legal is incorrect. There have been many large studies done that examine usage rates when comparing whether the drug is legal or illegal in various countries. It has been statistically proven over and over again that usage rates do not increase with the legalization of a drug.

find me any study that has been done on the legalization of hard addictive drugs (meth, cocaine, heroin) for any amount of personal use in a society does not lead to an increase in the addiction rate and I'll believe you. Studies on things that have been legalized like pot n shrooms etc have no influence in this since they arn't addicting.

If you want to talk about harm reduction think of how much damage those who become addicted to drugs do to themselves, their families, and the community because of crimes related to the acquisition of more drugs. If you decriminalize or legalize controlled substance usage rates stay the same but the price goes way down. Drugs that are less expensive and more easily available = less crime committed by those committing crime to feed their addiction. All of a sudden its no longer underground or difficult to receive the substances. Put a government tax on all drugs sold and use it towards rehabilitation centers that treat people who suffer from serious addiction and mental health issues. Government programs that provide free drugs to addicts in order to scale them down to lower and lower rates of usage until eventually reaching zero is far superior to the current model.

agreed which is why i support decriminalization.

It's all about what causes the least harm to society. Attempting to control something that cannot be controlled is retarded. If you want to treat the sources of the problem you focus on harm reduction, education, rehabilitation, and access. If you want to sit on your high horse and cry about how drugs are bad and we should all be scared to make them legal go ahead but the argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting the drug war. There is mountains of evidence supporting a different approach. Sure there are two sides to every argument. My side is the right one. Your side is just a bullshit political agenda used to get votes from ignorant masses of people who don't know shit and don't care to read or learn about the issue.

I don't think there's much of an argument out there besides that tax revenue for full legalization either, could be wrong, but i havn't seen any studies on it. Pretty sure the vast majority of the studies and evidence supports decriminalization of the drugs.

On April 14 2011 16:39 palak wrote: Legalizing drugs would not stop the dealers of these gangs from committing harmful crimes, it would just shift what harmful crimes they are committing.

I have to agree and disagree here. Although it is true that there will be a shift from one illegal profitable activity (drug-trafficing), to another one (ie. prostitution) in order to make money, it is also equally true that the amount of money being made is directly relative to the amount of money that people (society) will spend on it.

Yes, they could probably make money focusing on other under-world activities, but it all comes down to the amount. For example (and this is completely hypothetical, dont get nitty on numbers) a gang of 1000 makes 1000 dollars a day selling crack. Crack becomes legalized, therefore they sell minute amounts of crack. There will be a shift to another less profitable means of accruing revenue (say they make $500/day), but, it most likely wont support the gang of 1000 members.

Also, the nature of the high amounts of profit (risk vs return) are what lead to so much desperate (violent) activity, as groups fight to hold the high-return illegal activities.

A great example of this is with prohibition in the Capone era. Yes, many of them moved on to other activities (especially high-jacking, union fund theft, union control and exploitation of contractual work), however, the amount of outright murder and crime dropped significantly.

edit: I haven't read through the whole thread, just a couple posts - so forgive me if i'm repeating what's been said earlier.

On April 14 2011 16:22 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 16:07 blackjacki2 wrote: If legalization/availability/proximity don't effect addiction then why does Nevada have double the rate of gambling addicts as the rest of the country? More and more states are loosening their laws on gambling so they can raise money because they are all in debt. Sure most people that go into a newly built casino won't develop an addiction, but some do, and they end up ruining their lives. Well probably because you made a comparison that is completely retarded. Lets ask a simple question. 1. Would a reasonable person think that visiting the casino just for fun could have a negative effect on their health? 2. Would a reasonable person think that using drugs even just recreationally could have a negative effect on their health? Yes or no question. In case one the obvious answer is no. Visiting the casino for entertainment purposes and with the expectation that you will lose some money but have some fun is not expected to have negative consequences. Using drugs on the other hand is widely known to have potentially harmful effects on your health. Usage rates don't increase for drugs when they're legal because people know it's bad for them. Usage rates of casinos obviously go up when there is one nearby simply because it's just a form of entertainment. There is no negative health effects of visiting a casino.

As if this country were full of reasonable and healthy people.. It's not exactly a secret that cigarettes or fast food will kill you either.

On April 14 2011 16:08 k2o4 wrote: I shoulda said "the majority of people want it", not some. When you try and prohibit something that the majority of people want it fails. People want to alter their state of consciousness through drugs, and that's not going to stop cause we tell them not to. And I think prostitution should be legal. Human trafficking would definitely decrease if it was legal, not increase. No time to make that argument right now but penn and teller did a great job of it in their show "Bullshit" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805439/ It's streaming on netflix if you wanna check it out. EDIT: trying to do homework while LP is open is a bad idea, hehe, so distracting

not surprised Penn and Teller want it to be legalized.

http://prostitution.procon.org/

There are a bunch of arguments on it. Some studies show rape increased when prostitution is legalized, others show it decreases. Some people say sex trafficking will increase, others say it will decrease. I'm going to go ahead and say the swedish system is a good compromise. Selling sex is legal, buying sex is illegal. Pretty good compromise for everyone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitu...en#Research_on_prostitution_in_Sweden

On April 14 2011 16:59 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 16:39 palak wrote: Legalizing drugs would not stop the dealers of these gangs from committing harmful crimes, it would just shift what harmful crimes they are committing. I have to agree and disagree here. Although it is true that there will be a shift from one illegal profitable activity (drug-trafficing), to another one (ie. prostitution) in order to make money, it is also equally true that the amount of money being made is directly relative to the amount of money that people (society) will spend on it. Yes, they could probably make money focusing on other under-world activities, but it all comes down to the amount. For example (and this is completely hypothetical, dont get nitty on numbers) a gang of 1000 makes 1000 dollars a day selling crack. Crack becomes legalized, therefore they sell minute amounts of crack. There will be a shift to another less profitable means of accruing revenue (say they make $500/day), but, it most likely wont support the gang of 1000 members. Also, the nature of the high amounts of profit (risk vs return) are what lead to so much desperate (violent) activity, as groups fight to hold the high-return illegal activities. A great example of this is with prohibition in the Capone era. Yes, many of them moved on to other activities (especially high-jacking, union fund theft, union control and exploitation of contractual work), however, the amount of outright murder and crime dropped significantly. edit: I haven't read through the whole thread, just a couple posts - so forgive me if i'm repeating what's been said earlier.

Could easily be true. Violent crimes and the such probably would decrease, I just don't like the idea ppl seemed to be putting across that made it seem like dealers would magically no longer be committing crimes.

I have issues with having the current trade compared to prohibition though which is why I have been avoiding it. Prohibition and the alcohol use at the time was a lot different then it is today with drug use. For example during prohibition people went to speakeasys during prohibition specifically for drinking. Now-a-days people who do meth, cocaine, heroin, etc do not really gather in a common place day after day specifically to do drugs. They usually buy on their own for personal use or use at a different place. People also do not gather at clubs specifically to do drugs, drugs are a part of a larger social setting, not the focal point.

On April 14 2011 16:10 k2o4 wrote: Blackjack, some people watch porn and become addicted. Should we therefore make porn illegal? Just cause some people can't handle it does it mean that you shouldn't be allowed to do it? I think that's what it comes down to for me.

I didn't say anything should be illegal. I'm just not buying the premise that legalizing something won't cause more people to do it. There isn't a single thing I can think of that if legalized more people wouldn't do. Well, maybe necrophilia.

On April 14 2011 15:59 palak wrote: so by this logic prostitution should be completely legal (would quite possibly increase human trafficking)

and legalizing drugs would quite possibly increase drug dealing

On April 14 2011 17:51 blackjacki2 wrote: There isn't a single thing I can think of that if legalized I wouldn't be more aware of people doing.

Did I fix your post by reality-izing it?

On April 14 2011 17:51 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 16:10 k2o4 wrote: Blackjack, some people watch porn and become addicted. Should we therefore make porn illegal? Just cause some people can't handle it does it mean that you shouldn't be allowed to do it? I think that's what it comes down to for me. I didn't say anything should be illegal. I'm just not buying the premise that legalizing something won't cause more people to do it. There isn't a single thing I can think of that if legalized more people wouldn't do. Well, maybe necrophilia.

There are tons of studies showing drug use for non addictive substances does not change over the long term by a significant factor. I believe (to lazy to find the study or figures) but pot use in the netherlands following marijuana legalization increased sharply for like 3-6 months or something, then decreased to levels just barely higher then they were while the drug was illegal. Basically everyone went, holy shit pot is legal lets smoke a fuck ton, then ppl who didn't like to smoke said fuck it and the levels went back down. Pretty much every study or article I have read comes to the conclusion that non-addictive drug rates do not increase or decrease to statistical significance due to legalization.

Decriminalizing addictive substances also does not appear to have a statistically significant effect on the amount of users either. I mean Yes CATO institute says it decreases rates, but that's cuz they are a libertarian think tank so while their studies are well done and have good numbers, etc. They are really biased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

On April 14 2011 16:08 k2o4 wrote: I shoulda said "the majority of people want it", not some.

This argument doesn't work for this discussion. The majority of people also won't or don't want to do hardcore drugs such as cocaine, heroin, or meth. So then it should stay illegal right cuz a minority want to do it? At least that's the logic of that argument. For pot or whatever you might be able to make the majority argument, for hardcore drugs you can't.

On April 14 2011 20:23 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 17:51 blackjacki2 wrote:   On April 14 2011 16:10 k2o4 wrote: Blackjack, some people watch porn and become addicted. Should we therefore make porn illegal? Just cause some people can't handle it does it mean that you shouldn't be allowed to do it? I think that's what it comes down to for me. I didn't say anything should be illegal. I'm just not buying the premise that legalizing something won't cause more people to do it. There isn't a single thing I can think of that if legalized more people wouldn't do. Well, maybe necrophilia. There are tons of studies showing drug use for non addictive substances does not change over the long term by a significant factor. I believe (to lazy to find the study or figures) but pot use in the netherlands following marijuana legalization increased sharply for like 3-6 months or something, then decreased to levels just barely higher then they were while the drug was illegal. Basically everyone went, holy shit pot is legal lets smoke a fuck ton, then ppl who didn't like to smoke said fuck it and the levels went back down. Pretty much every study or article I have read comes to the conclusion that non-addictive drug rates do not increase or decrease to statistical significance due to legalization.

Key words being non-addictive, which in the case of illegal drugs is probably the exception and not the rule.

On April 14 2011 18:21 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 17:51 blackjacki2 wrote: There isn't a single thing I can think of that if legalized I wouldn't be more aware of people doing. Did I fix your post by reality-izing it?

yeah you're right, going to prison and getting ass raped isn't a deterrent for anything.