Gang Warz

[ReeferMadness]

sharkman, I agree that there is a lot of pointless bickering on this topic.

According to a front-page spread on Sunday's Victoria Times Colonist, the police are blaming the gang wars on drugs. (If they were honest, they would admit that the problem is actually due to the obscene amounts of money they make on drugs which are directly attributable to prohibition) It was eyeball (I believe) who summed it up nicely. If you want to stop drug use, you'll need a police state. Our neighbors to the south have tried everything that Harper wants to do (and a whole bunch more) and they've gotten nowhere. I'm sick of hearing that the police need more 'tools' or the courts are too soft.

Conversely, if you really want to control drugs, legalize and regulate. This won't cure the gang problem overnight but it will definitely take a big bite out of their revenue stream and that will reduce their size. And when I say legalize, I mean everything except for perhaps the worst of the worst (e.g. crystal meth, PCP, maybe crack).

Everyone who is seriously interested in this topic should acquaint themselves with what happened during the alcohol prohibition years:

• Consumption initially went down but then began a steady growth year over year
  
• Alcoholic beverages became stronger to make them easier to conceal
  
• Without regulation, poisonous alcohol was being produced and sold
  
• Criminal gangs flourished as they took over the alcohol trade in many major cities
  
• It was rumored there were more "speakeasies" in New York during prohibition than saloons before prohibition
  
• Although overall consumption declined (at least initially), there is no evidence that it declined for problem drinkers
  

IOW, it was a total failure. Yet here we are, nearly 100 years later, trying to do the same stupid thing with drugs! And we haven't even touched on whether it is legitimate for the state to tell people what they can't put in their bodies.

If drugs are legalized and regulated, then we have at least some control over potency and toxicity. We save money on police, court and prison costs that could be put towards drug rehabilitation and social programs. We can raise money on taxes. Education programs can be used to reduce drug abuse as they have been very successful with cigarettes and somewhat successful with alcohol. There would probably even be research into safer ways for people who want to alter their consciousness.

Someone did raise a valid point that it will be difficult for us to legalize without permission from those south of the border who know much better than us. It would also require us to withdraw from the UN Single Convention. Difficult is not impossible and I think there are large chunks of the world that would abandon the convention if they were shown a success story.

Edited March 4, 2009 by ReeferMadness

[sharkman]

Your side has been presented many different times on many different threads, and it still has the same outcomes. Legalizing drugs will not dwindle the number of addicts who roam around breaking and entering to steal for a fix. In fact, more addicts will join the ranks if the restraints of the legal system are removed. So crime will go up. I had my car broken into twice in two years because of this, with me having to replace tools and stereo equipment and pay a deductible for repairs, costs that would all go up and be borne by, you guessed it, the innocent.

But lets look at the effects of alcohol on our society. Non-abusers do alright depending on the health of their livers after 30 years, but what about the abusers and those affected? Drunk drivers kill and maim thousands of innocents every year, with innocent families picking up the pieces of their lives. The associated medical costs of this item alone are prohibitive both of the abusers and the victims. Then there are those with addictive personalities who become alcoholics and ruin their lives and those of their families, with children being abused and neglected while spouses live in desperation, in fear of another beating. Oh, and let's not forget about FAS since it was mentioned that up to half of all prison inmates have it. Just more lives wrecked and doomed to a criminal lifestyle, all because of booze.

In light of all this, how can anyone say that, yeah, let's legalize most drugs too. Only those who are already addicted and unable to see the dangers to society. Like I said, as long as I can get my fix, screw society.

Alcohol is a powerful substance, but not inherently bad. It must be treated with respect. Many do not have the capacity to be careful with something that can take control of your life, as my above comments indicate. But drugs go beyond this, since many of them become insanely addictive, and the person will do absolutely anything to get a fix. How can anyone in good conscience release this blight on society by legalizing it? There are no benefits, only harm. Only those making profits off of the backs of addicts would want this.

We actually need to stiffen the penalties for pot growing and use. The hands off approach of the justice system has given our society the gang problem, plain and simple. With so little punishments, the drug trade in Canada has flourished to the point that shoot outs now commonly occur. I actually saw a news story on CTV which tried to blame the shootings in BC on guns being smuggled into Canada from the US.(Good thing we have a gun registry BTW ) What a crock. What are they shooting each other over, dear reporter? Money. Which comes from selling drugs.

[eyeball]

Legalizing drugs will not dwindle the number of addicts who roam around breaking and entering to steal for a fix.

Neither will prohibition.

Your side has been presented many different times on many different threads, and it still has the same outcomes.

Ditto for your side.

[eyeball]

I actually saw a news story on CTV which tried to blame the shootings in BC on guns being smuggled into Canada from the US.(Good thing we have a gun registry BTW ) What a crock. What are they shooting each other over, dear reporter? Money. Which comes from selling drugs.

I'm pretty sure I saw the same story and it didn't blame the shootings on guns being smuggled into Canada it merely pointed out that was where the vast bulk of the guns were coming from.

It's ironic that the US would close the border against the flood of drugs that would come from our side if we went with legalization but we can't do the same in the face of the flood of prohibited guns from their's. I guess its just one more example of the chronic hypocrisy this issue is entirely saturated with.

Edited March 4, 2009 by eyeball

[sharkman]

I'm pretty sure I saw the same story and it didn't blame the shootings on guns being smuggled into Canada it merely pointed out that was where the vast bulk of the guns were coming from.

It's ironic that the US would close the border against the flood of drugs that would come from our side if we went with legalization but we can't do the same in the face of the flood of prohibited guns from their's. I guess its just one more example of the chronic hypocrisy this issue is entirely saturated with.

Hello? That's because guns aren't illegal in Canada. They are legal in Canada. Strange to call that a hypocrisy. Yes I know that some guns are prohibited, there's a big difference between that and having all guns being prohibited.

Edited March 4, 2009 by sharkman

[sharkman]

Neither will prohibition.

You may have missed what I pointed out, that legalizing drugs would add more users and addicts to the ranks if the restraints of the legal system were removed. "Prohibition" is keeping this from happening.

Edited March 4, 2009 by sharkman

[guyser]

You may have missed what I pointed out, that legalizing drugs would add more users and addicts to the ranks if the restraints of the legal system were removed. "Prohibition" is keeping this from happening.

We are taking about pot. Therefore , legalizing pot would not add more addicts to the ranks, since there arent any now.

[sharkman]

We are taking about pot. Therefore , legalizing pot would not add more addicts to the ranks, since there arent any now.

No we are not. The reefer guy above suggested legalizing most drugs, and this point was in answer to him.

[guyser]

No we are not. The reefer guy above suggested legalizing most drugs, and this point was in answer to him.

Read again, he wasnt.

[sharkman]

sharkman, I agree that there is a lot of pointless bickering on this topic.

And when I say legalize, I mean everything except for perhaps the worst of the worst (e.g. crystal meth, PCP, maybe crack).

This line is what I am referring to. To me it means most drugs except the worst of the worst, as he mentioned. I believe that you can get addicted to cocaine and heroin.

And again we have more splitting hairs and bickering over this issue. *sigh*

This is because typical Canadians want the option to get high, and really don't care about the implications to society that a drug culture and an underground industry will affect. As long as I can get high, screw innocents that get shot up once in a while.

Edited March 4, 2009 by sharkman

[guyser]

except the worst of the worst, as he mentioned. I believe that you can get addicted to cocaine and heroin.

Worst of the worst is coke and heroin. Thats why he used e.g.

[sharkman]

Say, here's an idea, why don't we bicker about this for the next two pages. I'll keep saying when he said everything but, for instance, crack(a form of cocaine), but didn't exclude the milder form(cocaine), that he meant just that.

You can ask me what I'm smoking, because e.g. means a hellava lot.

Howabout forget it. Instead, I'll make the leap over to your side and say, how about we just legalize pot(since you seem to be unable to do this for yourself), or whatever fine line distinction you want to make.

Now I'll point out what's been pointed out before several times in this option. It won't stop the gangs from dealing pot and the harder stuff. They'll actually flourish since demand would go up. Picture more gang warfare with more innocents getting shot up and afraid to go out at night. It's not an option worth thinking about, even if it lets the pot smoker get stoned legally.

Gangs. The subject of this thread. They won't go away without a fight.

Edited March 4, 2009 by sharkman

[guyser]

Say, here's an idea, why don't we bicker about this for the next two pages.

No thanks, I think it would be best to point out tha inanities that tend to crop up from time to time.

For example....

Now I'll point out what's been pointed out before several times in this option. It won't stop the gangs from dealing pot and the harder stuff. They'll actually flourish since demand would go up. Picture more gang warfare with more innocents getting shot up and afraid to go out at night. It's not an option worth thinking about, even if it lets the pot smoker get stoned legally.

Gangs. The subject of this thread. They won't go away without a fight.

1- they will not comtinue dealing pot because the price wont be worth it. Sure some might, but not even close to what you assert. Kind of like after prohibition.

2-more gang warfare? dont think so, but go ahead, show us why.

3- not an option, so then society continues to put up with gang violence and everything you loathe continues.

If you want to stop the gangs, it means doing something we havent tried before, but can be shown to work.

Nah, lets just be ostriches.

[sharkman]

Okay, show me how the price would go down on pot.

This wouldn't affect the markets of the other drugs would it. So how is only one drug going to shut the gangs down?

[Oleg Bach]

Okay, show me how the price would go down on pot.

This wouldn't affect the markets of the other drugs would it. So how is only one drug going to shut the gangs down?

The product that profit from the product that stimulates the grow of orgainized crime (gangs) is the least of our concern and it is a non-starter in regards to cleaning up our west coast. Take Richmond B.C. & Richmond Hill, Ontario - about 20 years ago these two places attracted Asian immigrants like crazy - because the are a superstitious bunch and money is a great part of their religious values if you can call it that. They hear the word RICH attatched to a place and they Fungshway their way there in a bee line. Seeing British Columbia - and parts of Ontario (Markham) etc. bet over whelmed by Asian immigrantion should have been a sign that maybe we have to much of one group.

BUT the immigration policy was one based on ecomomics and not on the character of the immigrant - If you had stolen a few million dollars out of Tiawan - and the lease was shutting down, with China peering over the horizon to take over - The crooks ran and brought the plunder - with their fancey new monster homes came _ gambling - asian style prostitution, fraud and a very quiet drug trade. The same took place in British Columbia - but they were the second wave - this wave was even more crimminally orientated...and more ambitious plus ruthless - It was our immigration policy that was based in greed and supposed ecomomic growth that brought this on...as long as they brought money - they were welcome - but they brought something else with them - evil and disorder...when crimminality gains order - real order and law and order leave - they simply become better orgainized than us.

[guyser]

Okay, show me how the price would go down on pot.

Sure, the moment I see your link that pot use would increase.

Lets just step back and think. I have a choice today, and that is I can buy beer from the beer store at about $35 a case. Or I can go to a bootlegger and buy it (like it used to be on sundays) for almost double that price.

It only makes sense that people will buy the product that they can get at a store,safe, reliable and comes with some assurances. ......or they can go to the black market....or they can grow their own.

Lets also factor the risk reward. It is gone once legalization comes about.

This wouldn't affect the markets of the other drugs would it. So how is only one drug going to shut the gangs down?

Thats a good question , and from what I can see it will affect the other markets. It is my understanding that pot sales supplies the cash to fund other activities.

Gang elimination while ideal is not going to happen. Putting a good dent in the amount of money they obtain is a useful goal. From there we could allocate more funds (taxes from pot) to further fund the border services to find and intercept other drugs which are not made here, but imported.

At any rate, de-criminalize, or make legal are our choices since everything else we have tried has been an abjunct failure. Even the police know this.

[Oleg Bach]

If pot were to be made legal, the same thing would happened as it did with alcohol when it became legal again. Because addiction is the most lucrative buisness known to mankind - it is also the most competative. With booze - certain groups competed for the market place and the ones that came out top dog - not only were rich but they took that money and bought up almost every company in the nation and eventually had influence over our judical systems as well.

In other words whether it be the Royal fortune partly based on the old opium trade - or the fortune that spawned leadership in the form of American Presidents (Kennedy) - all based on the cornering of the alcohol market. Addictions breed power - total power - Pot smoking has now reach the same level as that of alchohol use...who ever corners this market will eventually rule the nation. We are at a turning point - the old guard that runs the show are still in effect living off the avails of the booze trade to this day. To legalize pot would be in a way - a toppling of the old status quo...the problem is that the establishment that had no problem selling booze - hold this false ethical thing that marketing of dope is below them ..... so I guess you are just going to have to wait for these overly proud buggers to die ---- then we will go from drunkend judges and politicans to stoned ones....I don't know if that is an improvement or not.

[ReeferMadness]

Your side has been presented many different times on many different threads, and it still has the same outcomes. Legalizing drugs will not dwindle the number of addicts who roam around breaking and entering to steal for a fix.

And why is it, do you think, that we don't have huge numbers of alcohol addicts roaming around breaking and entering to steal for a fix?

In fact, more addicts will join the ranks if the restraints of the legal system are removed. So crime will go up.

You have evidence for this? I don't often agree with the CATO institute but they predict crime will go down if prohibition ends.

But lets look at the effects of alcohol on our society. Non-abusers do alright depending on the health of their livers after 30 years, but what about the abusers and those affected? Drunk drivers kill and maim thousands of innocents every year, with innocent families picking up the pieces of their lives. The associated medical costs of this item alone are prohibitive both of the abusers and the victims. Then there are those with addictive personalities who become alcoholics and ruin their lives and those of their families, with children being abused and neglected while spouses live in desperation, in fear of another beating. Oh, and let's not forget about FAS since it was mentioned that up to half of all prison inmates have it. Just more lives wrecked and doomed to a criminal lifestyle, all because of booze.

You're right. Alcohol can be a dangerous drug. They tried making it illegal once and that was a complete failure. The lesson (still to be learned, obviously) is that you can't save people from themselves. Adults have a right to make choices, even if you don't approve of those choices. Sometimes we as a society need to help people after they've made bad choices. It turns out that it is cheaper and easier to help people recover from their bad choices than to forcibly remove the choice. It's also the right thing to do.

In light of all this, how can anyone say that, yeah, let's legalize most drugs too. Only those who are already addicted and unable to see the dangers to society. Like I said, as long as I can get my fix, screw society.

Are you calling me a drug addict???? That's absurd. I have a caffeine habit but I don't think it's ruining my life. I occasionally have a few drinks. That's it. Oh, wait - I take, get this, vitamins!!! Almost every day!! I avoid OTC meds like the plague and actively discourage my doctor from bringing out the prescription pad.

Alcohol is a powerful substance, but not inherently bad. It must be treated with respect. Many do not have the capacity to be careful with something that can take control of your life, as my above comments indicate. But drugs go beyond this, since many of them become insanely addictive, and the person will do absolutely anything to get a fix.

You're right - alcohol is not inherently bad. Nothing is inherently bad, it's how you use something that makes it good or bad. But you seem to be one of those who thinks that illegal drugs are on some completely different level than legal ones. Check this out. In terms of addictiveness, nicotine is rated the worst for dependence (over cocaine and heroin) and alcohol produced the most severe withdrawal symptoms.

How can anyone in good conscience release this blight on society by legalizing it? There are no benefits, only harm.

No. Legalizing and regulating allows us to lessen the harm of drugs. As I said before, you can't save people from themselves.

Only those making profits off of the backs of addicts would want this.

I'd like clarification on this. You appear to be accusing me of being a drug dealer.

We actually need to stiffen the penalties for pot growing and use. The hands off approach of the justice system has given our society the gang problem, plain and simple. With so little punishments, the drug trade in Canada has flourished to the point that shoot outs now commonly occur.

Clearly, you don't pay attention to the American "war on drugs" which has been an abysmal failure. Four hundred thousand people are in jail but drugs are available as ever.

I actually saw a news story on CTV which tried to blame the shootings in BC on guns being smuggled into Canada from the US.(Good thing we have a gun registry BTW ) What a crock. What are they shooting each other over, dear reporter? Money. Which comes from selling drugs.

Right. Back to the original topic of discussion. They're shooting each other because of the money they make from selling drugs. If you want this to stop, you legalize the drugs. Legal businesses have legal remedies when their deals go sour. The don't normally resort to shoot-outs on the street.

[eyeball]

Hello? That's because guns aren't illegal in Canada. They are legal in Canada. Strange to call that a hypocrisy. Yes I know that some guns are prohibited, there's a big difference between that and having all guns being prohibited.

The gun's the gangs are using are. Goodbye.

[ReeferMadness]

No we are not. The reefer guy above suggested legalizing most drugs, and this point was in answer to him.

That reefer guy? I think he means me.

It seems that a lot of people look at my handle and assume that I'm heavy into illegal intoxicants. In fact, the only drugs I use are caffeine, alcohol and vitamin pills. Reefer Madness is the name of a movie made in 1936 to scare gullible people away from marijuana. It was a deplorable, trashy piece of propaganda that claimed (among other things), that pot would make you insane and drive you to murder. Ironically, it became a cult hit as a comedy.

To me, the movie is a perfect metaphor for the ease of which lies can become commonly accepted truth and authoritarians can scare citizens into surrendering their rights and freedoms.

Edited March 4, 2009 by ReeferMadness

[Oleg Bach]

It's about money. Untill the producers of alcohol and the potential producers of pot come to an agreement - then pot will continue to be illegal. No one in his right mind can take a swig of straight gin and say that it is less poisonous than a draw of pot..there is no moral high ground as some like to present. Both are actually contray to morality at their base. Gangs that are running methedrene or cocaine and heroin - have a dream - to be as big and rich and influential as those who got to the top by their grandfathers selling alcohol.

I suggest that if you belong to one of the influetial traditional Canadian families that were bootleggers at one time - then you had better lobby your governement to come down hard on these gangs - because if left unchecked - your grand children will be washing their toilets and your grandsons may stand before a judge who's grand father ran herione out of the Philipeans...and lived in Vancouver...goes around comes around..

[capricorn]

From there we could allocate more funds (taxes from pot) to further fund the border services to find and intercept other drugs which are not made here, but imported.

This raises a major problem. If pot was legalized, there is no doubt the government would view using pot as a "sin" such as with tobacco or booze. Governments being greedy by nature, taxes on pot would be set then regularly raised to the nth degree. And let's not forget their penchant for bending to the demands of special interest groups, such as the anti-smoking bunch and MADD, who would demand all sorts of legislated regulations. Exorbitant taxes on tobacco has resulted in a marked increase in black market tobacco. Law enforcement just can't keep up with tobacco smuggling and there is evidence that organized crime has a hand in it. The same thing would happen with pot and we would be right back where we started, i.e. gangs and organized crime supplying pot to those who want to get around the high price of the legal product.

[sharkman]

Sure, the moment I see your link that pot use would increase.

Lets just step back and think. I have a choice today, and that is I can buy beer from the beer store at about $35 a case. Or I can go to a bootlegger and buy it (like it used to be on sundays) for almost double that price.

It only makes sense that people will buy the product that they can get at a store,safe, reliable and comes with some assurances. ......or they can go to the black market....or they can grow their own.

Lets also factor the risk reward. It is gone once legalization comes about.

Thats a good question , and from what I can see it will affect the other markets. It is my understanding that pot sales supplies the cash to fund other activities.

Gang elimination while ideal is not going to happen. Putting a good dent in the amount of money they obtain is a useful goal. From there we could allocate more funds (taxes from pot) to further fund the border services to find and intercept other drugs which are not made here, but imported.

At any rate, de-criminalize, or make legal are our choices since everything else we have tried has been an abjunct failure. Even the police know this.

On your first point, you didn't take enough of a look at things. When stores and chains start to carry pot, where are they going to get a good reliable supply from? From the professional suppliers who grow the best product in the world, that's where from. Think about it. The gangs are simply going to go legit in the pot industry, and since they have a going concern already, with top grade product that users all over north america know about, they would simply set up dummy corporations and take it to the bank by the truckload. They would sell it for whatever the market was, it wouldn't matter to them.

Anyone starting up would have to face an established industry with product ready to go. It would be a cake walk. As Oleg said with the booze industry, since some are so fond of referring to it, the free market would allow them to buy up competitors, etc.

There would be no "dent" in the gangs.

[sharkman]

No, reefer guy, I wasn't calling you a user or a dealer, but saying that those 2 groups are the most enthusiastic supporters of legalizing pot. I notice you sidestepped the issue of which drugs you want legalized.

I'm not going to respond to your various comments point for point, I don't have the time right now, but off the top of my head, the reason we don't have alcohol addicts doing B&Es is that alcohol isn't as addictive like heroin, for instance. Not that some don't get addicted.

I'm having trouble following the logic on your name. Of all the things to call yourself, you choose reefer madness but claim not to use. You avoid meds like the plague. Uh-huh. Whatever floats you boat, I guess...

[eyeball]

This raises a major problem. If pot was legalized, there is no doubt the government would view using pot as a "sin" such as with tobacco or booze. Governments being greedy by nature, taxes on pot would be set then regularly raised to the nth degree.

This of course assumes that everyone agrees that its a good idea to let the government determine what 'sin' means. You'll never get me to agree with that.

In any case, the amount of taxes on 'sinning' should be levied according to the actual cost the particular 'sin' exacts on society. I'd suggest doctors, scientists, actuaries and experts determine this. Under no circumstances should politicians be allowed anywhere near this decision other than to rubber stamp it (I have to say the utter idiocy and depth of hypocricy that the issue of substance use seems to engender has caused me to seriously question some of the positions I put forward in other threads on expanding democracy).

On the question of relative harm, cost and so on here's the perspective of a few experts...

In a recent Canadian study, the lifetime cost of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders was estimated at $1 million per case. With an estimated 4000 new cases yearly, this translates to $4 billion annually.

Source

In the meantime...

A new Canadian study suggests smoking marijuana while pregnant is an effective way to combat morning sickness, though researchers note the findings are far from conclusive.

Source

Edited March 4, 2009 by eyeball