Gang Warz

[Oleg Bach]

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...

Sharkman - you live up to your name - Reefer guy likes the tag because it is cool - a bit dated but so what...he's probably a bit older...and this stuff - and I can tell you are either a dupish liberal or have investments in the oppression of those brighter than you hold shares in big pharma? "You avoid meds like the plague. Uh-huh" - that is a tell tail sign that you are about power and control - I am sure you were refering to mind altering governmentally santioned compounds? Break and enters are done more by those drunk on alcohol than a person with drawing from narcotics...they are a sheepish bunch were drunks are brazen.

[ReeferMadness]

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.

If history is any indication, that's exactly what will happen. I've read that Samuel Bronfman (Seagrams) and Joseph P. Kennedy (JFK's dad) both made their fortunes selling alcohol during prohibition. So what? These guys don't sell drugs because they're criminals. They're criminals because they sell drugs (and because drugs are illegal).

But now, they need to face competition without killing them. They can't beat up their customers.

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.

Again, so what? 80 years ago, that's how it was with liquor.

There would be no "dent" in the gangs.

Just because some of the same people would be involved doesn't mean that things would be done in the same way.

[guyser]

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.

You have made my argument for me.Thank you.

If they go legit, then great. They have to pay taxes, healthcare or benefits etc, and be accountable.

As for selling it for whatever the market was, well, what isnt? Nothing.

But should one now 'legit ' gang up the price, free market forces would swoop in at a price point lower.....competition rules the day.

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.

But the gangs are legit. Just now they cannot resort to criminal activity to garner more of the market.

Pepsi doesnt go around shooting Coke when Coke rules the market. What makes this any different?

[ReeferMadness]

sharkman

We've all agreed that gangs get a major part of their income from drugs. So, the question is, how do we cut off that income?

I see three possibilities:

1) the status quo or some version of it where we can control what people put into their bodies without implementing a police state

2) implementing a police state

3) legalizing drugs to remove the excess profit created by black market economics

I flatly reject #2 and I think the overwhelming majority of people will as well. I am very concerned that people will let themselves be manipulated into something resembling this due to fear.

You seem to favour #1 but can't think of any examples where this has worked. Maybe you can enlighten us.

The third option has been shown to work with alcohol.

[guyser]

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.

Major? I am not so sure, but I do concede part of your point.

First off, yes govt would be greedy due to the fear factor from the electorate not to mention the wont for more funds.

Please dont mention MADD, for I cant stand those sanctimonious bullshit artists. But anyhow...yes those groups would make the case for some restrictions, however with the good comes the bad.

The black market is getting stupid on cigs. But that is far and away the feds problem due to the inability to enforce the rules . It is certainly no secret exactly who is selling/producing the black market cigs but the feds wont do anything about it.

And that brings me to a question. When was the last murder over black market cigs? If there are any, does it rival the problem w protecting the turf for street level sales? I would think not even remotely close.

Lastly, gangs and org crime would have no business in this product . It is a legit business that anyone could get into. Org crime or gnags selling at too high a price.....someone steps in with a lower price.

[ReeferMadness]

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've sidestepped nothing. You had a debate with someone else over what I meant. If you want me to elaborate, ask me.

I would say that the onus should be on the authoritarians to prove that prohibition solves more problems than it causes. I'm certain this is not true for 'soft' drugs like marijuana an hashish. It's likely not true for harder drugs like cocaine and heroin as well.

I'm sure it would be cheaper, more effective and certainly much more humane to give heroin addicts free heroin and offer them counselling and treatment than to follow the current course of action (which is to wait until they turn to crime to feed their addiction and then lock them up in jails where they continue to get heroin).

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.

You're obviously not going to read my various comments either. If you did so and follow one of the links, you'd see that by some measures nicotine and alcohol are more addictive than heroin.

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...

Did you read the post? I said Reefer Madness (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.

[capricorn]

And that brings me to a question. When was the last murder over black market cigs? If there are any, does it rival the problem w protecting the turf for street level sales? I would think not even remotely close.

No, I have never heard of a street level murder over this in Canada. Yet, dealings connected to contraband tobacco are not without violence.

Apart from the loss of tax revenues, there is also a potential for violence and/or intimidation within that criminal market.This violence/intimidation has already been exhibited through thefts at tobacco wholesalers and retailers, and the hijacking of tractor trailer tobacco loads.

http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annua...cco_2005_e.html

There have been quite a few truck hijackings in the US and abroad where truckers and/or hijackers and police were injured or killed.

Lastly, gangs and org crime would have no business in this product . It is a legit business that anyone could get into. Org crime or gnags selling at too high a price.....someone steps in with a lower price.

Gangs that make cheap cigarettes available provide a good first contact for anyone looking for other things such as illegal drugs or other goods. Word of mouth works wonders. Organized crime and gangs who are in competition may well undercut each other's price for smokes as a way to lure customers and build a clientele for their other enterprises.

Edited March 5, 2009 by capricorn

[sharkman]

You have made my argument for me.Thank you.

If they go legit, then great. They have to pay taxes, healthcare or benefits etc, and be accountable.

As for selling it for whatever the market was, well, what isnt? Nothing.

But should one now 'legit ' gang up the price, free market forces would swoop in at a price point lower.....competition rules the day.

But the gangs are legit. Just now they cannot resort to criminal activity to garner more of the market.

Pepsi doesnt go around shooting Coke when Coke rules the market. What makes this any different?

I'm surprised you take such a shallow look at things yet again since for the third time I explain in detail the difficulty with your reasoning. I'm not going to yet again do this. I will, however, give you a hint. It's right there in the quote you made of me after you highlighted the word legit. The gangs will not stop producing all of the other drugs they do, so there will be yet more turf wars and shootings over pot customers as well as the others. You keep assuming they will behave. I can't for the life of me understand how you can expect them to transform into law abiding citizens when they will still be producing all manner of illegal drugs.

Edited March 5, 2009 by sharkman

[sharkman]

sharkman

We've all agreed that gangs get a major part of their income from drugs. So, the question is, how do we cut off that income?

I see three possibilities:

1) the status quo or some version of it where we can control what people put into their bodies without implementing a police state

2) implementing a police state

3) legalizing drugs to remove the excess profit created by black market economics

I flatly reject #2 and I think the overwhelming majority of people will as well. I am very concerned that people will let themselves be manipulated into something resembling this due to fear.

You seem to favour #1 but can't think of any examples where this has worked. Maybe you can enlighten us.

The third option has been shown to work with alcohol.

This is just more of the same. I am not in favour of any of your choices( I haven't fully fleshed out what I think would work, and why should I, just more throwing pearls before...). The third one has been a dismal failure with alcohol. You yourself argue it can be more addictive than heroin, then applaud its present status as it wrecks life after family after baby(FAS). That's some kind of logic.

You too are infected with faith in gangs, that they will either become model companies producing pot for market or fade away into obscure shadows of their former selves. But we are talking about hardened violent criminals here. I have worked with some of them. One had a pitbull which he trained to attack at the sound of a sharp intake of breath and then pointing at the victim. He said the only way to get the dog off was to poke something in its rectum. Another ran grow ops and told stories of how he attacked and maimed his enemies. Very little of what goes on actually ends up in court or the news. People shut up and stay silent about what's been done to them. You seem to have very little idea of what gangs are capable of. They will not go away or simply go legit if pot is legalized. Nice thought though, kind of like how safe injection sites help the situation, kind of like putting out fire with gasoline.

What a silly thread this has become.

[eyeball]

The third option (legalizing drugs to remove the excess profit created by black market economics) has been a dismal failure with alcohol. You yourself argue it can be more addictive than heroin, then applaud its present status as it wrecks life after family after baby(FAS). That's some kind of logic.

Why is the state spending so much effort on recreational drugs that are already illegal when there are only one or two left to criminalize? Despite all your sudden concern for FAS I'm betting you'll apologize for alcohol's present status before ever doing anything about prohibiting it.

Speaking of logic, don't you think it would be easier for the state to stamp out substance use if it wasn't selling one of the worst substances there are? The state is just another gang as far as I'm concerned.

Edited March 5, 2009 by eyeball

[guyser]

I'm surprised you take such a shallow look at things yet again since for the third time I explain in detail the difficulty with your reasoning.

Shallow look at things?

I'm not going to yet again do this. I will, however, give you a hint. It's right there in the quote you made of me after you highlighted the word legit. The gangs will not stop producing all of the other drugs they do, so there will be yet more turf wars and shootings over pot customers as well as the others.

This does not make any sense that I can see.

If pot is legalized, you suggest that there will be more turf wars and shootings over pot customers (as well as others)

How could that possibly be. anyone will be able to go into The Pot store and purchase a legal product. Why would anyone get shot over it?

You talked about (after the quoted 'legit') truckloads of money and dummy corporations and for the life of me cannot figure what that has to do with this. If it is a legal product and they make money who cares?

You keep assuming they will behave. I can't for the life of me understand how you can expect them to transform into law abiding citizens when they will still be producing all manner of illegal drugs.

They may very well not behave, but once we remove a major source of their income, they will either wither off and die, or go into something else.

The legalization of pot will not be a panacea for all of lifes ills. But the gangs will have been dealt a major blow.

[sharkman]

I thought we agreed that we wouldn't be removing a major source of their income since they would simply sell their product on the legal market. Profits might go down, but consumption would go up.

Funny how reasonable people can't seem to agree on what to do about gangs and drugs. I guess that's why they're still both a blight on our society.

[ReeferMadness]

This is just more of the same. I am not in favour of any of your choices( I haven't fully fleshed out what I think would work, and why should I, just more throwing pearls before...).

In the posts I've read, you haven't suggested anything - just some vague 'get tough' nonsense.

You too are infected with faith in gangs, that they will either become model companies producing pot for market or fade away into obscure shadows of their former selves.

I have faith that most of the time, most of the people will do what's in their best interest. When things are legal and business is conducted fairly, it's normally not in people's best interests to start shooting at each other. If the proportion of people who commit violent acts is quite low, the police and courts can deal with them. Prohibition sets up the conditions in which the proportion of people who commit violent acts rises. As well, it sets up an environment that erodes people's respect for the law.

Look. I am not in favour of people abusing drugs. I know that there are lots of people who have been killed or had their lives ruined by drugs. But the overwhelming majority of them took the drugs willingly. Read the next sentence slowly, several times. You - can - NOT - save - people - from - them - selves. The best you can do is help them. Our system of criminal law (not justice) is a blunt instrument and I don't think there are many who come out of it better people than when they went in.

People don't have problems because they take drugs. They take drugs because they have problems. Admittedly, the drugs make things worse most of the time but I think you're confusing cause and effect. If you really want to help people, support research into what motivates them to do stupid things like abuse drugs.

If you're one of those people who just want to control what others do, you're wasting your time and mine.

[ReeferMadness]

Speaking of logic, don't you think it would be easier for the state to stamp out substance use if it wasn't selling one of the worst substances there are? The state is just another gang as far as I'm concerned.

Eyeball, that's just a ridiculous statement. While there is somewhat of a conflict of interest in the government selling addictive substances, for the most part they act quite responsibly. When the government sells liquor, they don't put stores on every street corner, they don't advertise, they don't upsell when you go into the store. They don't deliberately get people addicted and they don't extend credit and break legs when you don't pay.

Governments are there to represent the people and while there definitely are issues in terms of how well democracy is instituted (see the STV debate), overall they do a pretty good job.

[Oleg Bach]

One of the hardest things to learn and to gain a good skill level in is self control. It is not taught anymore...in fact it is frowned upon by professionals. If you want to control your environ (other) - the only way you can accomplish this is to control yourself...Social vacariousness has become a disease and it is spreading - I hear people going on and on about other peoples buisness. Usually under the guise of caring - but they really don't care about anyone but them selves - It's like a politican who stands up and wants to change the drinking laws so as to "protect the youth of the nation" _ mean while the s o b - controls 52% of the shares in companies that manufacture booze. I say to those that want to crawl under your skin and be you - are those that want to put you into an occultish state of possession - that they want you to be THEIR POSSESSION....sorry - find another host!

[sharkman]

One of the hardest things to learn and to gain a good skill level in is self control. It is not taught anymore...in fact it is frowned upon by professionals. If you want to control your environ (other) - the only way you can accomplish this is to control yourself...Social vacariousness has become a disease and it is spreading - I hear people going on and on about other peoples buisness. Usually under the guise of caring - but they really don't care about anyone but them selves - It's like a politican who stands up and wants to change the drinking laws so as to "protect the youth of the nation" _ mean while the s o b - controls 52% of the shares in companies that manufacture booze. I say to those that want to crawl under your skin and be you - are those that want to put you into an occultish state of possession - that they want you to be THEIR POSSESSION....sorry - find another host!

I agree with much of what you say, self control is today seen as being some sort of crutch for those with dark urges, not something to protect oneself from the many pitfalls in life. Our society today demands to experience every thrill and as soon as caution is mentioned, you are trampling their 'rights'.

Meanwhile, addictions, STDs, and all manner of harms could be avoided if simple common sense was used. The real real reason gangs thrive is because Canadians want the addictive wares they sell in ever increasing numbers, plain and simple, and nothing is going to stop this. Where we will all end up because of this is anyone's guess, but as our policing, medical and welfare services get taxed to the point of failure, it will not be pretty.

[sharkman]

I have faith that most of the time, most of the people will do what's in their best interest. When things are legal and business is conducted fairly, it's normally not in people's best interests to start shooting at each other. If the proportion of people who commit violent acts is quite low, the police and courts can deal with them. Prohibition sets up the conditions in which the proportion of people who commit violent acts rises. As well, it sets up an environment that erodes people's respect for the law.

I will repeat what I said one more time. Gangs would sell pot legally if it becomes legal. But they would still manufacture/procure illegal drugs and sell them.

The customers for these drugs, having a higher profit margin, would be hotly contested over, just like they are now.

They would continue to behave violently. They would continue to do what they've always done. How is this complicated to see?

They are not going to change their behavior just because one sector of their industry becomes legal.

I have never said anything about trying to saving people from themselves but totally agree with your sentiments. However, making drugs legal and much easier for these people to get and abuse and then setting up all manner of expensive treatment centers for the expected surge in abusers seems strange to me. Give them the means to ruin their lives and then house them, clothe and feed them, try to weed them off of their drug of choice all paid for by hard earned tax dollars. An exercise in futility.

Just like this thread.

[Oleg Bach]

It all gets down to protecting home and harth - or as the gangers say - turf....We supposedly are the establishment - and we must protect our vested interests of our family (nation) . The gang bangers are up and comming establishemt - interlopers - It is not that we are better or worse then them - it is that we were here first and they have come like upstarts to steal our wealth and home over time...I say no. What ye sayth?

[eyeball]

Eyeball, that's just a ridiculous statement. While there is somewhat of a conflict of interest in the government selling addictive substances, for the most part they act quite responsibly. When the government sells liquor, they don't put stores on every street corner, they don't advertise, they don't upsell when you go into the store. They don't deliberately get people addicted and they don't extend credit and break legs when you don't pay.

I suppose your right. I haven't completely given up hope on the institution of government, its still a good theory on paper.

Its hard for me to reconcile or ignore what I see in here and on the ground where I live. I've seen too many examples everywhere of lip service being paid to the issue of alcohol compared to the loathing and vindictiveness that's reserved for all other drugs. The mission statement of our local gang of drug-warriors clearly equates alcohol with drugs including the desire to force the scourge of both out of our community. In the time its taken them to report 8 so-called drug houses to police (that they knew about anyway) and report to the community that the RCMP still can't do anything because of the Charter, we've seen 3 new alcohol houses become established - within a couple of blocks of a school no less.

Despite all the lip service there has not been a single peep of protest about this to the village council that allowed the zoning for these things. I might add this very same crowd quite successfully pressured council to vote down a zoning by-law application that disallowed an assisted living facility for mentally ill and addicted people.

Perhaps its not as ridiculous to go after alcohol as it seems. I don't expect Parliament to ever be cured of its reefermadness without some sort of prompting from the supreme court. It doesn't appear the Charter has left any room for a challenge on the grounds that an equal right should exist or for people who choose to do with drugs what drinkers do with alcohol. I have to wonder though if challenging the Charter rights in the context of equal protection for alcoholics is the way to go. There is an argument that prohibition protects an individual and society from the harm that drug use causes and because of this it should be maintained.

Given the low numbers of drug addicts compared to alcoholics that exist and the far higher cost alcohol exacts on society, it appears drug prohibition does in fact offer more protection to individuals and society. Shouldn't alcoholics and society benefit from equal protection under and before the law? Do laws that allow the manufacture and sale of alcohol violate their right to an equal level of protection from addiction that the prohibition of drugs provides everyone else?

Perhaps forcing the issue this way would force the government to completely revisit the entire issue from the perspective that individual choice should trump state intervention because the alternative, a war on anyone altering their minds, is just too bleak a prospect. Think of it as a MAD doctrine - Mutual Assured Dictatorship.

Governments are there to represent the people and while there definitely are issues in terms of how well democracy is instituted (see the STV debate), overall they do a pretty good job.

I'm trying my best to maintain this belief but its a real struggle some days. I imagine its a lot like trying to stay clean. Please don't give up on me.

[guyser]

I thought we agreed that we wouldn't be removing a major source of their income since they would simply sell their product on the legal market. Profits might go down, but consumption would go up.

No, I dont believe so.

Most production, at least in this area, is from grow ops run by people not in gangs, but they do sell to gangs (presumably). That would stop primarily because the growers would sell to legit businesses. It would also drive the price down through competition. So,profist would go down, in plenty of cases it would go down to zero.

As for consumption gowing up, what leads you to say that? Alcohol is legal, do we have a rising epidemic in the use of alcohol?

Funny how reasonable people can't seem to agree on what to do about gangs and drugs. I guess that's why they're still both a blight on our society.

I dont find funny the inability of our lawmakers to use rational thought processes to see through the folly of their ways. Nor in those citizens who support such folly.

"The Volstead Act has been the direct result of creating more crime in the State of New Jersey than there ever has been before.

It has endangered the life and limb of those using the public streets, through autos being operated by drunken drivers; it may be that there were just as many auto drivers that drank before prohibition, but what they drank did not affect their ability to run an automobile with safety. To-day one or two drinks create a menace to life and limb to those who use our streets and highways.

Statistics have shown that drivers of automobiles arrested for drunkenness have increased 100 per cent in the last few years. Some one may ask where do they get it?

If some one would ask the question: Where can't you get it? It would be more difficult to answer."

Testimony of Henry Hilfers, President, New Jersey State Federation of Labor

[Oleg Bach]

Starting to wonder of those that appoint judges might be socio-paths...and encourage their underlings to follow suit. I should ask my friend if he is one - but I am afraid too. I really wish it was "folly" or common foolishness...but I really doubt that the powers that be are fools. Maybe some group of powerful men and woman have taken it upon themselves to punish the unwashed masses? For instance the concept of reverse onis that they banter about in regards to making bail...They talk as if this is some new concept - It has always been up to the accused or his lawyer to talk his way out - and back on to the streets...maybe they are better at talking these days......I don't think so - as young boys we would never dare to even touch a hand gun let alone transport it - And if you were caught with one - (they are designed to kill human beings) - There would be no way that you would walk out of that courtroom - times have changed - I think it's called corruption.

[Wilber]

Starting to wonder of those that appoint judges might be socio-paths...and encourage their underlings to follow suit. I should ask my friend if he is one - but I am afraid too. I really wish it was "folly" or common foolishness...but I really doubt that the powers that be are fools. Maybe some group of powerful men and woman have taken it upon themselves to punish the unwashed masses? For instance the concept of reverse onis that they banter about in regards to making bail...They talk as if this is some new concept - It has always been up to the accused or his lawyer to talk his way out - and back on to the streets...maybe they are better at talking these days......I don't think so - as young boys we would never dare to even touch a hand gun let alone transport it - And if you were caught with one - (they are designed to kill human beings) - There would be no way that you would walk out of that courtroom - times have changed - I think it's called corruption.

Speaking of judges. One Retired Judge's Opinion

[ReeferMadness]

Read The UN's approach to drug prohibition is a failure.

[eyeball]

"We are concerned that the war on drugs has failed and the harm it has caused is far greater,"

Cut and run?

I wonder how many more years we'll have to wait until they start entertaining similar conclusions about other hopeless wars on fill-in-blank-here that are only making things worse?

[ReeferMadness]

They've recognized that the emperor has no clothes but they have yet to discover the man behind the curtain. When Orwell wrote 1984, he understood that fear of a common enemy is a powerful means of controlling the population. Since then, we've had the cold war, the war on drugs, and the war on terror. I predict it won't be long until there is some kind of 'war' with China over control of Eurasia. It won't be a large scale shooting war of course because the wrong type of people could get hurt.

How long will it be until people start to get wise to manufactured problems?