Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation

[capricorn]

The root causes of crime are not illegal drugs or poverty; the root cause is amoral, predatory, violent criminals. We are not dealing with Robin Hoods stealing from the rich to give to the poor, nor are we dealing with poor people who have turned to crime for survival.

I agree with you West Viking. You may already be aware of this article that looks up close at the concept that criminals who simply want to be criminals are the root cause of the problem.

The cause of criminal violence is not drugs or alcohol but rather criminals. To believe otherwise is to expect every drug dealer in America to give up and apply for a job at McDonald’s or WalMart the day legalization occurs. Every society contains a sizable element whose members refuse to make an honest living under any circumstances. The legalization of drugs will not change this large-scale reality of human behavior.

For now, many societal malefactors have the option of selling or trafficking drugs. But their real trade is to profit from the unwillingness of others to take the risks involved in illegal activity. Think of drug legalization, then, as a new government regulation on the drug dealer. It removes the illegality, and therefore much of the profit, from his trade. Experience suggests that such changes in government policy motivate economic actors to find loopholes. For the drug dealer or supplier, that means finding some new illegal activity through which to cash in on one’s tolerance for the risks of crime.

The mob did not disappear when alcohol became legal again. It turned to narcotics and also used violence to create competitive advantage in otherwise legitimate trades (gambling, for example). There is no reason to believe that drug legalization would have a vastly different effect today. Under legalization, today’s drug dealers will run tomorrow’s rackets in money laundering, tax-free contraband, gun-running, human trafficking, identity theft, numbers, contract killings, perhaps even conflict diamonds. There are dozens of other such enterprises, including the more pedestrian forms of violent crime, which have been eclipsed in profitability by the drug trade. In the event of legalization, we can expect a migration back toward them. It would also be foolish to believe that a black market in drugs would disappear with legalization, especially if drugs are taxed and regulated by the government.

http://www.culture11.com/article/36437?from=feature

[DrGreenthumb]

The criminal code is a federal jurisdiction in this country.

You mean personal choices like gunning down people in parking lots?

Gibberish, I did no such thing. You are the one justifying murder in the name of "peoples personal choices".

I've never claimed to be a Libertarian. There have to be limits. Libertarianism is like anarchy, a pipe dream because someone will always want to be the boss and will do anything to become one. Eventually you wind up with a despot running the place. Gang wars are a basic example of that process. They are allowed to function because we enable their behavior.

We all have to remember that Wilbur's son is a cop sucking on the prohibition tit. That kind of puts into perspective all of the ridiculous things he says. Its really no different than if a house painter wanted to make it a criminal offence not to paint your house every two years. Your credibility on this issue went down the toilet when you admitted that your family is profiteering from from prohibition. I bet chicken farmers would like to make having eggs for breakfast mandatory too.

[Oleg Bach]

Everything is pro-choice - to gun down or not - to abort or not - maybe these choices offered are inferiour. Show me the good choices and let me decide in a safe and informed manner.

[Michael Hardner]

Progressive Tory

When has it ever worked in the past?

It has "worked" in that eventually the violence dies down and the public levels of interest subside. My point is that the public isn't concerned with drug addiction, as much as the attendant violence that might actually affect THEM.

[eyeball]

I agree with you West Viking. You may already be aware of this article that looks up close at the concept that criminals who simply want to be criminals are the root cause of the problem.

What a pile of crap. From your source;

The cause of criminal violence is not drugs or alcohol but rather criminals. To believe otherwise is to expect every drug dealer in America to give up and apply for a job at McDonald’s or WalMart the day legalization occurs. Every society contains a sizable element whose members refuse to make an honest living under any circumstances. The legalization of drugs will not change this large-scale reality of human behavior.

To believe this you'd have to believe that every criminal in a given society is predisposed to violence, this is just nonsense. In the society of people who demand and supply pot, yes, as in any other society there are a few who are predisposed to violence, but nothing 'large-scale', that's a ridiculous way to characterize the reality. In the case of pot we're talking a number that is a miniscule fraction of the violence that is associated with alcohol.

It stands to reason the difficulty of going after the small number of violent members of any society will be vastly compounded if you treat the rest as if it were nearly as bad. There is something about this issue that is eerily similar to using a population as a human shield, except in reverse. Its no less a moral outrage.

[Oleg Bach]

You may be correct..as there may not be a natural predisposition to violence. As a child I was meek and mild - shy and fearful..even delicate to a degree. It was a rough and poor neighbourhood (we were the richer immigrants, because we were industrious) - Eventually the violence got closer and closer to me and those around me - Finally as boy I stepped forward and found out that I had very fast hands and a certain cunning for mutual street combat. One by one I humiliated the bullys - some ten years older than I...was I violent by nature or out of neccesity to survive? I would say it was a survival thing - You can not get rid of violence in society or in the world in general untill you civilze the people - old school Christianity did that - but with a corporate secualist system..there is no hope because there is no rule of law.

For instance in America when they removed the monolith from the court house bearing the 10 commandments...foolishly saying they were seperating church and state - the truth was that law is not a pie in the sky religious adventure - law is not religious or spiritual - so by removing the law from the court house they actually seperated not religion from the state - but law from the state? Not very smart...shows you where political correctness is in-correct.

[eyeball]

Progressive Tory

It has "worked" in that eventually the violence dies down and the public levels of interest subside. My point is that the public isn't concerned with drug addiction, as much as the attendant violence that might actually affect THEM.

Why is addiction being treated as a crime then?

The trouble is that after this round of violence dies down we'll still be left with the new laws on the books that it provoked. The next time violence breaks out and the panic sets in people will scream the same thing, that the existing laws, the new one's we're adopting now, aren't tough enough and so we'll need tougher laws, more prisons, greater restrictions.

Repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, etc, etc, and before you know it we'll have dosy doe'd our way over an authoritarian cliff.

[Michael Hardner]

eb

Why is addiction being treated as a crime then?

The trouble is that after this round of violence dies down we'll still be left with the new laws on the books that it provoked. The next time violence breaks out and the panic sets in people will scream the same thing, that the existing laws, the new one's we're adopting now, aren't tough enough and so we'll need tougher laws, more prisons, greater restrictions.

Repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, etc, etc, and before you know it we'll have dosy doe'd our way over an authoritarian cliff.

The easiest thing to do is call the police and lock 'em up.

The authoritarianism part doesn't worry me at all. I don't think many are worried, or should be worried.

But for those who get caught in this trap, it's just a sad waste of a life.

[Oleg Bach]

Addiction per say is not a crime in it self, but if you are not wealthy and you have an addiction you must manage it anyway you can..steal, cheat, lie etc> Here is an example about wishful liberal thinking on my part - in my neighbourhood there is a fine strip of gentrified buisnesses - but on the corner is Canada's oldest existing strip club - exotic dancers - and prostitutes...so on their days off the girls would come over to the club where the average Joes and Janes hang out...The "girls" are very charming and loving...and will play you..if they believe you have money (foolishly the thought I was rich) - well.....they are wonderful woman...BUT they can not be trusted - all have addicitions...and all even though they mean well have crimminal minds because of prolonged addiction and the conditioning it has on the character over time - addiction and crimminaly are hand in hand.

[WestViking]

We all have to remember that Wilbur's son is a cop sucking on the prohibition tit. That kind of puts into perspective all of the ridiculous things he says. Its really no different than if a house painter wanted to make it a criminal offence not to paint your house every two years. Your credibility on this issue went down the toilet when you admitted that your family is profiteering from from prohibition. I bet chicken farmers would like to make having eggs for breakfast mandatory too.

A personal attack is a lame excuse for inability to deal with the issues under discussion. Your generalized and unsupported distaste for authority is juvenile and unconvincing.

[WestViking]

Why is addiction being treated as a crime then?

The trouble is that after this round of violence dies down we'll still be left with the new laws on the books that it provoked. The next time violence breaks out and the panic sets in people will scream the same thing, that the existing laws, the new one's we're adopting now, aren't tough enough and so we'll need tougher laws, more prisons, greater restrictions.

Repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, etc, etc, and before you know it we'll have dosy doe'd our way over an authoritarian cliff.

Dealing with criminal gangs is not turning addicts into criminals. It is not addicts who are shooting it out for territorial control. This is not just a drug problem. Criminal gangs are almost always engaged in several criminal enterprises at once.

[Oleg Bach]

Dealing with criminal gangs is not turning addicts into criminals. It is not addicts who are shooting it out for territorial control. This is not just a drug problem. Criminal gangs are almost always engaged in several criminal enterprises at once.

Addicts are busy being addicts. The are the aggregate and of little consequence in the whole scheme of things. Gangs are about money - and they have one idea and justification - they have no respect for law and order because these wise guys are wise enough to know that those who are established and run the nation are also a gang - just bigger and more polite.

[Michael Hardner]

WestViking,

I agree with you about DrGreenthumb's post. We don't dismiss views of pot smokers here, so why should we dismiss someone's view because their family is involved in law enforcement ? It makes no sense.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Oleg Bach]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I don't doubt that the legislation will pass with support but I don't know that it will have a big difference to those in gangs who are fighting over a very profitable drug industry.

Don't care about this stuff - I just want to know who left the door open for the riff raff. Was no one street wise enough to understand that we were importing thousands of crimminals?

[jdobbin]

Was no one street wise enough to understand that we were importing thousands of crimminals?

The First Nations were not able to stop the flood of people in.

[WestViking]

Don't care about this stuff - I just want to know who left the door open for the riff raff. Was no one street wise enough to understand that we were importing thousands of criminals?

Peppergate pretty much established that.

[Wilber]

So what? Why should this stop other jurisdictions from deciding if they want it enforced in their locations? This is in the thrust and spirit of the policies the US is now talking about putting in place. There's no reason why we can't here.

The criminal code is a federal jurisdiction for a good reason. Do you want to drive into the next village without knowing what you can be charged with or what the penalties are?

No, like unwinding with a beer or two at the end of the day.

Well there are personal choices and then there are personal choices aren't there.

Where on Earth did I say that?

When you blame authority for the actions of drug dealers who make the world a shooting gallery for their own purposes.

Yes, this is why we place limits on what the state can do to people. By the way who's this "we" you're talking about? I'm not the one who is enabling authoritarianism, you are.

That's the thing, its all about you. I'm not the one trying to justify enabling these gangs, you are. I'm just saying that there has to be limits on people's behavior unless you want to live in fear of anyone who is bigger, stronger or has a more lethal weapon than you. Of course there has to be limits on authority as well but like it or not, the only people out there doing that for you are the police. You and Greenthumb sit there comfortably bitching about authority but without it you are just another species of prey to the predators of the world.

[eyeball]

You're not the one trying to justify enabling these gangs, I am.

So the bottom line is, you absolutely insist that everybody be forced to buy their drugs from gangs? Its your way or the highway?

[eyeball]

By the way Wilber, what's your redeeming vice?

[KingIggy]

Why don't Cannabis Prohibitionists look at the coffee, alcohol and tobacco industries ? Do criminal gangs control the entire production and distribution of them ? No, it's Nabob, Labatts and Du Maurier rather than Al Capone.

Apparently, rightwing moralists prefer a nearly omnipotent Al Capone to be in charge of the Cannabis industry.That's where their blind ideology puts them in the exact same political policy spot as Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter and Rumsfeld. They blindly accept and assert the same policy dogma, and fail to look at the reality of the situation.

[WestViking]

Why don't Cannabis Prohibitionists look at the coffee, alcohol and tobacco industries ? Do criminal gangs control the entire production and distribution of them ? No, it's Nabob, Labatts and Du Maurier rather than Al Capone.

Apparently, rightwing moralists prefer a nearly omnipotent Al Capone to be in charge of the Cannabis industry.That's where their blind ideology puts them in the exact same political policy spot as Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter and Rumsfeld. They blindly accept and assert the same policy dogma, and fail to look at the reality of the situation.

This thread is entitled "Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation". Why are you whining about cannabis - afraid your supply may disappear? How come dealers raided happen to have 1) lots of drugs other then mj; and 2) lots of guns and ammunition? You really want these dudes living next door when rival gang-bangers drop by? Either you are very naive or you have not thought this through.

[eyeball]

This thread is entitled "Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation". Why are you whining about cannabis - afraid your supply may disappear? How come dealers raided happen to have 1) lots of drugs other then mj; and 2) lots of guns and ammunition? You really want these dudes living next door when rival gang-bangers drop by? Either you are very naive or you have not thought this through.

Why is Harper's government whining about pot?

[KingIggy]

This thread is entitled "Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation". Why are you whining about cannabis - afraid your supply may disappear? How come dealers raided happen to have 1) lots of drugs other then mj; and 2) lots of guns and ammunition? You really want these dudes living next door when rival gang-bangers drop by? Either you are very naive or you have not thought this through.

Hey Oxycontin/Paxil/Prozac/Zoloft addict... it is the PROHIBITION of Cannabis which ALLOWS those criminals to take over the production and distribution of Cannabis. The banning of Cannabis EMPOWERS them. Coffee and alcohol are not banned, which is why those criminals haven't taken over those industries. During alcohol prohibition, the gangsters were EMPOWERED by taking full control over the production and distribution of alcohol. Are you a total ignoramus ? A TOTAL hypocrite ? A total moron ? Yes X 3.

Edited March 2, 2009 by KingIggy

[DrGreenthumb]

WestViking,

I agree with you about DrGreenthumb's post. We don't dismiss views of pot smokers here, so why should we dismiss someone's view because their family is involved in law enforcement ? It makes no sense.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Pot smokers would not profit from pot being legalized. We will not be paid thousands of dollars per year if pot prohibition is repealed so there is a big difference. All we are argueing for is to be left alone. Law enforcement argueing for more prohibition that they get paid to enforce is a totally different story. If anything people who sell or grow pot for sale would LOSE tons of money were pot legalized.

Also West Viking and Wilbur have both accused those of of us that want prohibition repealed of being self centered, in it for ourselves and only caring about our own interests. That is pretty hypocritical coming from someone who DIRECTLY PROFITS from prohibition, and is lobbying for even more of it.

When the arguer may have alterior motives for taking the position he has taken, it is necessary to point that out. If an arms dealer is argueing that we need to expand our military, don't you think people should be aware of the fact that his positions stem from the fact that he wants to sell us weapons?

It's no coincidence that the staunchest supporters of prohibition, are almost all profiteering from it in some way. We should never let roofers pass laws requiring us to re-shingle our roofs every year.

[WestViking]

Hey Oxycontin/Paxil/Prozac/Zoloft addict... it is the PROHIBITION of Cannabis which ALLOWS those criminals to take over the production and distribution of Cannabis. The banning of Cannabis EMPOWERS them. Coffee and alcohol are not banned, which is why those criminals haven't taken over those industries. During alcohol prohibition, the gangsters were EMPOWERED by taking full control over the production and distribution of alcohol. Are you a total ignoramus ? A TOTAL hypocrite ? A total moron ? Yes X 3.

Right. Your purchases of illicit drugs on the black market has nothing to do with it. You are an integral part of the problem. Without your support, pot growers would have nowhere to sell. Welcome to reality.