How to Fix the Ghetto. [Archive]

GardoneVT

07-08-2014, 11:44 AM

Goodness knows well never see concrete solutions from the government, so I pose the question to LEOs and other folks who've grown up and worked in the urban cesspools of America.

As a black man who left the city for his own life and future, it's distressing to see many in the inner city perpetuating criminal living like it's a positive thing. When I was growing up a common question I'd get from the women at my high school was "wat gang u wit".Upon answering" none" they'd promptly leave my company for someone with "rep". I got called more names then I can remember for wearing glasses and reading books in high school, while the drug dealers were socially elevated as people to look up to.

We know gun control, zero tolerance, metal detectors, and welfare don't work. All those programs have done is help establish a culture which says following the law is for suckers, and 'real men' hustle. Until someone gets shot or locked up, in which case it's the government's fault.

How do we actually fix that problem? How can we bring civilization back to the inner city, if it's possible?

TCinVA

07-08-2014, 11:50 AM

Duces Tecum

07-08-2014, 12:41 PM

[URL="http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404838044&sr=8-1&keywords=please+stop+helping+us"]Everyone responds to incentives. The ghetto is the ghetto because there are a ton of perverse incentives in play. Removing the incentives is necessary to begin changing the diseased culture that results in the worst aspects of the 'hood.

The May/June issue of Imprimis features an article on this subject ("The Worldview that Makes the Underclass") The writer's point is consistent with TC's observation. Simply put, welfare (as distinct from charity) produces a victim mentality and everybody loses.

imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/2014_05_06_Imprimis.pdf

TAZ

07-08-2014, 01:34 PM

I'd say step one is reassessing programs intended to "help" people in the ghetto, which a lot of credible evidence shows to be doing precisely the opposite. (http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404838044&sr=8-1&keywords=please+stop+helping+us)

Everyone responds to incentives. The ghetto is the ghetto because there are a ton of perverse incentives in play. Removing the incentives is necessary to begin changing the diseased culture that results in the worst aspects of the 'hood.

Bingo. Why should people change their ways when they are rewarded for their behavior. As a society we have chosen, or at least allowed our leadership to consistently reward bad behavior. Hard to teach a dog to sit when you give it treats every time it runs away and ignore it when it does sit. The constant in lots of government programs is the rewarding bad behavior. Get pregnant as a HS student Don't worry we'll give you child care and some $$ to help you. Drop out of school; don't worry we'll give you a place to live and some free food.

Change that retardedness and you'll change the Gheto. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.

JHC

07-08-2014, 01:47 PM

Following along the lines of previous posts; I'm thinking it's got to be a bit more uncomfortable to be a deadbeat. Our "poverty level" cannot include consumer electronics, free cell phone.

The socialist paradise of Sweden saw years ago the unsustainable trajectory of their entitlement spend. They rationally tweaked it down so that it tops out per adult and doesn't keep climbing per dependent. Sweden's % of adults in the work force is dramatically higher the USA's even though this welfare safety net is there for them if they stop working. It's just not that much fun to go that route there anymore.

If that were proposed here (by say Paul Ryan or someone) they'd be compared to Stalin.

RoyGBiv

07-08-2014, 02:03 PM

I had hoped, in 2008, that Mr. Hope and Change would be a better example, a leader, instead of Al Sharpton with a Harvard tongue. What a wasted opportunity to close the divide. For a man raised from humble beginnings, in a mixed race family, partly in Indonesia, to ascend to the highest political office in the world and so completely squander the opportunity to be a racial bridge builder is among the greatest failures of his presidency. The only difference between Obama and Sharpton is that Obama is better at division.

The solution must come from within the black community. Whitey can tell you what's good for you until he turns blue from the effort. Until there's a credible movement within the community to throw off the shackles of government assistance, nothing will get better.

Let's look at the Asian community for an example. Although brought to this country under less duress, "Coolie" laborers, almost as easily identifiable as a member of their ethnic group as blacks and denegrated by US Presidents as recently as Roosevelt (Teddy) and Harding, managed to raise themselves from poverty by working together, providing mutual aid and throwing the criminals out from amongst them. Chinatown of the late 1890's was as ghetto as it gets. The impetus for change came from within that community, as it must for any real change to take root.

Blacks have it especially tough. The media gives a platform to folks like Sharpton and denigrates folks like Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Tim Scott and even Bill Cosby, who the media is all to happy to question as a "race traitor" for pointing a finger of responsibility at poor parenting and delinquent children.

It's been 30+ years since I was a white teen living in a (mostly) black community, going to 95% black inner-city schools, so, I don't really know squat about today's realities. But I can tell you with certainty that there's not a white guy on the planet that can fix it. The white man's got no cred.

The good news, as evidenced by the 2008 presidential landslide, is that there's a lot of white guilt, ready to be part of the solution when one emerges. Too bad Mr. Hope and Change is no kind of leader. Too bad, for all of us.

Tamara

07-08-2014, 02:08 PM

RoyGBiv

07-08-2014, 02:23 PM

Who's going to tell Whitey (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-kevin-d-williamson) what's good for him?

If you put people in zoos, they will act like animals. It's that simple.
I came from a "zoo". I saw it for what it was. I walked. Other people have done it. Many others.
Nobody "put" me there. Nobody "kept" me there. It was my parents choice to enter, it was my choice to leave. They left too once they were shown a better place.

The problem is that the people who remain are led by self-serving haters and those that would look inward for the root causes are shouted down. I remember a ton of good people in my zoo. Good family people who were raising their kids well. I never did understand why they chose to stay, but not fight. If you're gonna stay in the zoo, you gotta fight to make sure your neighbors don't defecate in your stream.

This won't get fixed from the outside.

TCinVA

07-08-2014, 02:43 PM

Who's going to tell Whitey (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-kevin-d-williamson) what's good for him?

If you put people in zoos, they will act like animals. It's that simple.

Great article. My family's roots are in Appalachia from Logan County West Virginia down through Kentucky and South Carolina. His observations are dead on.

GardoneVT

07-08-2014, 03:04 PM

TCinVA

07-08-2014, 03:46 PM

Yet, the folks in Appalachia seem to avoid shooting each other daily over "disrespect".

There's certainly a cultural component to that...as well as a density issue. You've probably never been to the white ghetto. They're not stacked in crumbling public housing projects where rivals in drug/gang business are tripping over each other in the hallways. There's usually a 'holler or two between each abode, except in trailer parks. And trailer parks are not known as tranquil places free from violence.

Tamara

07-08-2014, 03:54 PM

There's certainly a cultural component to that...as well as a density issue.

That right there.

How much time you spent in the places where they gotta pipe the daylight in, GardoneVT?

richiecotite

07-08-2014, 03:59 PM

A good first step would be ending the drug war.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

BobLoblaw

07-08-2014, 04:24 PM

GardoneVT

07-08-2014, 04:28 PM

The white ghetto is in driving distance for me and I have several friends who grew up, lived there, and work there. Street cred isn't a thing and it doesn't increase popularity. The difference with the white ghetto is that the bad guys tend to do more damage to themselves than others and gangs are small and far between (even though they like using our interstate on their way down from Detroit). Murder is rare, robbery not so much, and drug use is typically the cause for both. Those types of behavior are not rewarded or popular so it seems the problem is more of due to a slowly impoverishing region than a deeply embedded and cyclical cultural dysfunction. Many motivated people see the writing on the wall with the coal industry withering so over time they abandon the area.

While the level of poverty is the same, in the urban ghettos being "in the game" and a violent sociopath is a respected quantity instead of being a side effect of a criminal lifestyle. The guy or girl who starts the most trouble is who has the most social status. Its so bad people will actively fake being criminals to fit in or avoid being labeled.

JHC

07-08-2014, 05:00 PM

MDS

07-08-2014, 05:09 PM

Tamara

07-08-2014, 05:22 PM

The white ghetto is in driving distance for me and I have several friends who grew up, lived there, and work there. Street cred isn't a thing and it doesn't increase popularity.

I've got a fair amount of time in and around Appalachia myself, as well as a bit of time living in The Big City. Here's a shocker: Street Cred isn't a thing that increases popularity with normal folk who are just trying to get by in either place. Don't buy into the BS. The guy here in Indy down around Thirtywhatth and What who's listening to "Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangsta"? He's got a photographic negative in a Lumpkin County trailer park.

How many of your friends in the White Ghetto ever cooked meth?

MDS

07-08-2014, 05:23 PM

I don't accept that the war on drugs drives more violence. I do think drug use does however. And releasing all legal restraints on drugs will lead to more use of more addictive intoxicants that rot souls and we will reap a worse whirlwind I think.

Interesting. Do you feel the same way about alcohol? I.e., do you believe that making alcohol illegal would reduce violent crime? Or do you believe that drugs and alcohol are fundamentally different in terms of soul-rotting and the whirlwind crop that is reaped thereby? Or something else?

I ask because every drug-addicted felon that I have interacted with on a personal level - and there have been more than one - would most certainly take whatever path was easiest to get their fix. I know a couple of guys were basically indentured servants - their boss provided a roof, food, transportation to and from some brutal work conditions, and a hit every so often during the day. Both dudes I knew in this situation were perfectly happy with it, as long as they got their crack. These and other experiences lead me to believe that even the most addled crackhead is going to be less violent if the violence would lead to less crack instead of more...

JHC

07-08-2014, 05:27 PM

Interesting. Do you feel the same way about alcohol? I.e., do you believe that making alcohol illegal would reduce violent crime? Or do you believe that drugs and alcohol are fundamentally different in terms of soul-rotting and the whirlwind crop that is reaped thereby? Or something else?

I ask because every drug-addicted felon that I have interacted with on a personal level - and there have been more than one - would most certainly take whatever path was easiest to get their fix. I know a couple of guys were basically indentured servants - their boss provided a roof, food, transportation to and from some brutal work conditions, and a hit every so often during the day. Both dudes I knew in this situation were perfectly happy with it, as long as they got their crack. These and other experiences lead me to believe that even the most addled crackhead is going to be less violent if the violence would lead to less crack instead of more...

No. Alcohol is cool. Considering about 198 million Americans use it safely. ;)

Nobody is going to use crack and meth safely and responsibly, ever.

JHC

07-08-2014, 05:28 PM

He's got a photographic negative in a Lumpkin County trailer park.

How many of your friends in the White Ghetto ever cooked meth?

Yep. Flat billed baseball caps and all! Gladly trade 10 million of them for 10 million Mexicans.

LOKNLOD

07-08-2014, 05:31 PM

While the level of poverty is the same, in the urban ghettos being "in the game" and a violent sociopath is a respected quantity instead of being a side effect of a criminal lifestyle. The guy or girl who starts the most trouble is who has the most social status. Its so bad people will actively fake being criminals to fit in or avoid being labeled.

And there you have one reason we can't just "fix" the ghetto - there is a whole subculture there, and it can't be addressed, because any attempt to even point it out becomes wrapped up in racism. Sometimes attempts to identify the problems come to fruition in the form of racism on the part of the observer -- people see patterns and get their correlation and causation mixed up -- but more often these days members of the culture, or those with a vested interest in maintaining control of that culture, jump straight to accusations of racism. The race hustlers and rich liberals have to keep race and culture completely tied together to so as to keep the status quo - the Sharptons of the world maintain power, fame, and a semblance of importance; meanwhile liberal Dem power brokers maintain a voting block. And they've been telling these lies for so long, that to the people trapped in this culture, "black" is not just a descriptor of the skin color someone's born with, it's a state of being, a lifestyle, a status - and something that can be betrayed. When your culture is that tied to a taboo topic like skin color, it becomes unassailable because of the useful idiots who're allowing -- forcing -- us to continue down the path of PC thought-police nannyism. And that lets the racebaiters keep certain groups right where they want them - trapped in 21st century sharecroppin'.

BobLoblaw

07-08-2014, 05:35 PM

I've got a fair amount of time in and around Appalachia myself, as well as a bit of time living in The Big City. Here's a shocker: Street Cred isn't a thing that increases popularity with normal folk who are just trying to get by in either place. Don't buy into the BS. The guy here in Indy down around Thirtywhatth and What who's listening to "Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangsta"? He's got a photographic negative in a Lumpkin County trailer park.

How many of your friends in the White Ghetto ever cooked meth?

No, mostly just bar fights. They weren't raised in trailer parks either but there's no segregation of class. I also don't think you can compare the image of a gangster to urban youth to that of a meth head to poor white youth.

Tamara

07-08-2014, 05:43 PM

There have been ghettos for as long as people have gathered together - in cities, temporary tent towns, caravan waypoints, summer hunting grounds, whatever. Smarter folks with more motivation and wherewithal to effect change have dedicated their lives to the issue, with no long- or even mid-term impact that I can detect. I despair of ever finding a "fix."

Unless you include iron-fisted dictatorship as a viable fix. Which I don't...

Part of the problem in America is that the ghettoes served as a waystation to assimilation. Culture after culture... squareheads, wops, Micks ...came through the ghettos of America, bought into the dream, and moved out within a matter of a few generations, leaving the ghetto to the next wave of immigrants. It wasn't until the 1960s that we slammed the door on the ghetto, turning it into a zoo. How ironic that the wave of immigrants trapped there were all internal immigrants...

Tamara

07-08-2014, 05:44 PM

No, mostly just bar fights. They weren't raised in trailer parks either but there's no segregation of class. I also don't think you can compare the image of a gangster to urban youth to that of a meth head to poor white youth.

I've lived in a trailer park in the North Georgia mountains and I've lived in the hard hood. I've known felons in both places who've done hard time. I know what I'm comparing to what.

MDS

07-08-2014, 05:49 PM

No. Alcohol is cool. Considering about 198 million Americans use it safely. ;)

Nobody is going to use crack and meth safely and responsibly, ever.

Ummm, I just gave an extreme example, from real personal experience, of hard-core crack-addicts using safely and responsibly. There are many more out there. If you're trolling me, you've done a great job, I've taken it hook, line, and sinker. Otherwise, maybe you could explain how you reached the hard-line conclusion that nobody is going to use crack or meth safely, ever?

GardoneVT

07-08-2014, 05:52 PM

And there you have one reason we can't just "fix" the ghetto - there is a whole subculture there, and it can't be addressed, because any attempt to even point it out becomes wrapped up in racism. Sometimes attempts to identify the problems come to fruition in the form of racism on the part of the observer -- people see patterns and get their correlation and causation mixed up -- but more often these days members of the culture, or those with a vested interest in maintaining control of that culture, jump straight to accusations of racism. The race hustlers and rich liberals have to keep race and culture completely tied together to so as to keep the status quo - the Sharptons of the world maintain power, fame, and a semblance of importance; meanwhile liberal Dem power brokers maintain a voting block. And they've been telling these lies for so long, that to the people trapped in this culture, "black" is not just a descriptor of the skin color someone's born with, it's a state of being, a lifestyle, a status - and something that can be betrayed. When your culture is that tied to a taboo topic like skin color, it becomes unassailable because of the useful idiots who're allowing -- forcing -- us to continue down the path of PC thought-police nannyism. And that lets the racebaiters keep certain groups right where they want them - trapped in 21st century sharecroppin'.

Agreed. That's why I started this thread, because leftist government and greater society alike is just fine with the status quo, if not the body count it generates. In Chicago the politicians deliberately cast a blind eye to the struggles in the ghetto, because a dependent voting base keeps them in office. Why would a Chicago politician logically want a voting base of educated people in place of the welfare drones in the south and west sides? Meanwhile , that approach also spares the upper crust leftist intellectuals from confronting the truth that their precious programs have crashed and burned.

MDS

07-08-2014, 05:54 PM

Part of the problem in America is that the ghettoes served as a waystation to assimilation. Culture after culture... squareheads, wops, Micks ...came through the ghettos of America, bought into the dream, and moved out within a matter of a few generations, leaving the ghetto to the next wave of immigrants. It wasn't until the 1960s that we slammed the door on the ghetto, turning it into a zoo. How ironic that the wave of immigrants trapped there were all internal immigrants...

Awesome point, I hadn't considered that. The broad sweep of history is a powerful perspective. Still and all, for the narrow sweep of a single lifetime, or even half that - whether the ghetto was a waystation or a final destination - life sucks there a good bit worse than, say, the Colorado countryside. Ask me how I know. :p

JHC

07-08-2014, 05:59 PM

Ummm, I just gave an extreme example, from real personal experience, of hard-core crack-addicts using safely and responsibly. There are many more out there. If you're trolling me, you've done a great job, I've taken it hook, line, and sinker. Otherwise, maybe you could explain how you reached the hard-line conclusion that nobody is going to use crack or meth safely, ever?

I'm not trolling. They are physiologically more damaging in short order. So they can't be used safely. That's my take. And the "what about alcohol" doesn't resonate with me because even if it were as destructive per user capita, that's not a reason to add more addictive intoxicants to the mix.

There is evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is healthy - for longevity. I don't think we will ever be able to say such about crack or meth.

Edit: I'm no expert on drug abuse by any means and my fairly top line understanding pretty much maxes out all I got on the topic.

GardoneVT

07-08-2014, 06:00 PM

Part of the problem in America is that the ghettoes served as a waystation to assimilation. Culture after culture... squareheads, wops, Micks ...came through the ghettos of America, bought into the dream, and moved out within a matter of a few generations, leaving the ghetto to the next wave of immigrants. It wasn't until the 1960s that we slammed the door on the ghetto, turning it into a zoo. How ironic that the wave of immigrants trapped there were all internal immigrants...

Isn't this post a violation of the forum CoC? I realize its not directed at anyone, but theres a platter of offensive slurs in your post which aren't needed to make your point.

BobLoblaw

07-08-2014, 06:03 PM

I've lived in a trailer park in the North Georgia mountains and I've lived in the hard hood. I've known felons in both places who've done hard time. I know what I'm comparing to what.

Not questioning what you've seen, but it wouldn't be so hard to for me to believe that a kid in the ghetto would want to be "powerful" like his estranged gangster big bro. I have a hard time seeing a little trailer crawler espousing that he wants to be addicted to meth when he grows up.

john556

07-08-2014, 06:22 PM

Isn't this post a violation of the forum CoC? I realize its not directed at anyone, but theres a platter of offensive slurs in your post which aren't needed to make your point.

She just described my entire ethnic makeup and yet I'm not the least bit upset. Why did her using those term in a historical context seem to upset you so terribly?

JHC

07-08-2014, 06:26 PM

I think so long as she didn't call YOU a drunken mick she's ok. ;)

MDS

07-08-2014, 06:29 PM

I'm not trolling. They are physiologically more damaging in short order. So they can't be used safely. That's my take. And the "what about alcohol" doesn't resonate with me because even if it were as destructive per user capita, that's not a reason to add more addictive intoxicants to the mix.

There is evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is healthy - for longevity. I don't think we will ever be able to say such about crack or meth.

Gotcha. Sorry if the alcohol question seems out of bounds - this view is different from mine (at least for now, I'm eminently convinceable!) and I'm looking for consistencies to help me understand the drug questions, especially as they pertain to the ghetto. In that spirit, do you think tobacco should be legal? After all, it's demonstrably physiologically damaging and we'll never be able to say that moderate tobacco consumption is healthy. Again, not trying to be flippant, just exploring the edges of this concept in hopes of understanding the shape!

GardoneVT

07-08-2014, 06:32 PM

She just described my entire ethnic makeup and yet I'm not the least bit upset. Why did her using those term in a historical context seem to upset you so terribly?

Upset me personally ? No. I'm not in the ethnic categories she's mentioning, and I realize its not directed at an individual.

However, another PF member of Italian decent might have a different perspective. Considering she could edit those words out and not change the meaning of the post at all, that's why I'm lodging a protest . Theres nanny state PC BS, and then theres using offensive words where none are necessary.A subject also covered by this sites CoC.

Now if Tam being called out on this means the servers will blow up in C4 powered fury, then fugediboudit.

MDS

07-08-2014, 06:44 PM

Upset me personally ? No. I'm not in the ethnic categories she's mentioning, and I realize its not directed at an individual.

However, another PF member of Italian decent might have a different perspective. Considering she could edit those words out and not change the meaning of the post at all, that's why I'm lodging a protest . Theres nanny state PC BS, and then theres using offensive words where none are necessary.A subject also covered by this sites CoC.

Now if Tam being called out on this means the servers will blow up in C4 powered fury, then fugediboudit.

I find it to lend valuable historical color in a minimally offensive package - the wording conveys, mildly, some of the offensiveness that is so much a part of ghettos in every era. Still, for silly humor at the expense of subtle shades of meaning, I would vote to replace this platter with "kittens, smurfs, and meeses." ;)

john556

07-08-2014, 06:50 PM

Upset me personally ? No. I'm not in the ethnic categories she's mentioning, and I realize its not directed at an individual.

However, another PF member of Italian decent might have a different perspective. Considering she could edit those words out and not change the meaning of the post at all, that's why I'm lodging a protest . Theres nanny state PC BS, and then theres using offensive words where none are necessary.A subject also covered by this sites CoC.

Now if Tam being called out on this means the servers will blow up in C4 powered fury, then fugediboudit.

First off, I don't know Tam and have never corresponded with her. It is solely your reaction that I am concerned with.

As far as people of Italian descent being upset at reading the word WOP, it's all about the context. I know many full blooded Italians and I believe all would take great offense if the word was used in an aggressive or disrespectful manner, but I have never seen any, my family included, who would react to the word itself the same way superman reacts to kryptonite. Kind of the same way I don't have a problem with people carrying guns, but I suddenly become very concerned when a gun is pointed at my head.

richiecotite

07-08-2014, 07:07 PM

I'm not trolling. They are physiologically more damaging in short order. So they can't be used safely. That's my take. And the "what about alcohol" doesn't resonate with me because even if it were as destructive per user capita, that's not a reason to add more addictive intoxicants to the mix.

There is evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is healthy - for longevity. I don't think we will ever be able to say such about crack or meth.

Edit: I'm no expert on drug abuse by any means and my fairly top line understanding pretty much maxes out all I got on the topic.

I kind of get what your saying, but I think your downplaying The dangerous effects of alcohol. According to CDC stats, there are 88,000 alcohol related deaths each year in 'Murica. Crack and meth, not even close.

I find it interesting you use the most extreme examples of drug use too. Even if crack and meth were legal, I don't think you'd see a huge jump in usage. Most people know crack and meth not good for you, same way most people know drinking a fifth of vodka is bad for you. Addiction is addiction.

Marijuana has been shown to have numerous health benefits, including chronic pain m anagement and reducing deadly epileptic seizures.

JHC

07-08-2014, 07:12 PM

Gotcha. Sorry if the alcohol question seems out of bounds - this view is different from mine (at least for now, I'm eminently convinceable!) and I'm looking for consistencies to help me understand the drug questions, especially as they pertain to the ghetto. In that spirit, do you think tobacco should be legal? After all, it's demonstrably physiologically damaging and we'll never be able to say that moderate tobacco consumption is healthy. Again, not trying to be flippant, just exploring the edges of this concept in hopes of understanding the shape!

Check this kitten out!!! http://ezinearticles.com/?Nicotine---Are-We-Ignoring-Its-Health-Benefits?&id=291157

I'm pro-vices in general. Just anti-drug. Smoking cigs - inhaling is pretty dang destructive I think. Back when one of the kiddo's was in the orthodontist chair for a long time I went through the doc's textbook on oral cancer. Very little research on smokeless. Oral cancers were a 10 to 1 thing male to female in 1946 or something and by 1970 the ratio was 1 to 1. Gals didn't take up dipping. Hot smoke changes everything.

The Swedes had high smoking and high lung cancer rates years ago. Unlike America they didn't go all "no safe alternative"; they promoted snus. They've cut their smoking and cut their cancer. "60 Minutes" did a profile on them about this a few years ago contrasting it with the US approach. Their surgeon general counterpart was pretty convincing it was a low risk alternative. Now they have purity standards that don't exist there.

What's your super power? I have super human levels of rationalization. :D

john556

07-08-2014, 07:15 PM

I think the entire point is that alcohol being more prevalent is a large reason why it accounts for more deaths. I do believe if the harder drugs were to be made legal we would see a substantial jump in deaths related to their use. Maybe not right away but eventually. People have long known the dangers of smoking, but they continue to smoke. Self imposed ignorance is bliss.

JHC

07-08-2014, 07:23 PM

I kind of get what your saying, but I think your downplaying The dangerous effects of alcohol. According to CDC stats, there are 88,000 alcohol related deaths each year in 'Murica. Crack and meth, not even close.

I find it interesting you use the most extreme examples of drug use too. Even if crack and meth were legal, I don't think you'd see a huge jump in usage. Most people know crack and meth not good for you, same way most people know drinking a fifth of vodka is bad for you. Addiction is addiction.

Marijuana has been shown to have numerous health benefits, including chronic pain m anagement and reducing deadly epileptic seizures.

You may be right. Around here the meth eats so many folks alive that I gravitate to that example. But prescription pain killers may be even worse! Our ERs are jammed with strung out poor whites trying to bluff their way to prescriptions for them. There is a lot of recent research pretty damning of the harmless hemp however. Just sayin' . But at the end of the line; why add more legal intoxicants etc? What good does that serve?

YVK

07-08-2014, 07:28 PM

Isn't this post a violation of the forum CoC? I realize its not directed at anyone, but theres a platter of offensive slurs in your post which aren't needed to make your point.

I am a first gen immigrant, and I don't find it a least bit offensive. What I do find ironic is you calling her out on form without regard to content and context after this...

because any attempt to even point it out becomes wrapped up in racism. Sometimes attempts to identify the problems come to fruition in the form of racism on the part of the observer -- people see patterns and get their correlation and causation mixed up -- but more often these days members of the culture, or those with a vested interest in maintaining control of that culture, jump straight to accusations of racism.

Agreed.

...'cause you're accusing her of a racism by means of offensive slur when she is making a valid point in a literary and dispassionate form.

JHC

07-08-2014, 07:31 PM

I'm half Polish and consider "Pollock" a term of endearment. ;)

JAD

07-08-2014, 07:34 PM

Keeping things on topic, I've lived in both trailer parks and ghettos, and alcohol lubricated the ruination of more lives in both places than crank or crack. The discussion points to the root of the central question. The question isn't 'what laws can we add that will make people more moral.' It is 'how do we become a more moral culture.' Ghettos (projects, cropper shacks, or 14x70s) are the little stagnant pools that full the low ground around the river of culture. Secularization levels the riverbed, until it's all one big morass.

RoyGBiv

07-08-2014, 07:35 PM

Agreed. That's why I started this thread, because leftist government and greater society alike is just fine with the status quo, if not the body count it generates. In Chicago the politicians deliberately cast a blind eye to the struggles in the ghetto, because a dependent voting base keeps them in office. Why would a Chicago politician logically want a voting base of educated people in place of the welfare drones in the south and west sides? Meanwhile , that approach also spares the upper crust leftist intellectuals from confronting the truth that their precious programs have crashed and burned.
QFT

MDS

07-08-2014, 08:00 PM

Check this kitten out!!! http://ezinearticles.com/?Nicotine---Are-We-Ignoring-Its-Health-Benefits?&id=291157

Ooh, fun! http://www.livescience.com/41277-health-benefits-illegal-drugs.html ;)

I'm pro-vices in general. Just anti-drug.

Gotcha, just trying to dig a little deeper to understand how drugs are different from other vices. Thanks for humoring me, I got enough that I don't need to derail this thread further with it.

What's your super power? I have super human levels of rationalization. :D

I once played a game of nethack all the way through in a single sitting. It wasn't pretty, but I think it should count. (Of course, now we have to talk about how video games are what's ruining our youth. ;) )

I think the entire point is that alcohol being more prevalent is a large reason why it accounts for more deaths. I do believe if the harder drugs were to be made legal we would see a substantial jump in deaths related to their use.

I don't disagree - but I think the drop in deaths from legalizing the drug industry would more than make up the difference. Even if that weren't true, who am I to forbid anyone from throwing their life away on the chemistry of bliss?

ffhounddog

07-08-2014, 08:17 PM

There are more secondary and third order effects that happen with drugs that make me not want to legalize them. It is what causes more problems than being a functioning druck.

BobLoblaw

07-08-2014, 08:18 PM

john556

07-08-2014, 08:33 PM

I honestly don't have a problem with people who choose to ruin their lives with drugs so long as others aren't affected by their stupid choice. But in such a codependent society it becomes almost impossible. One exception to this would be smoking as there is almost no way to do it where it doesn't affect those around you.

GardoneVT

07-08-2014, 08:52 PM

I'm Italian but truth is truth regardless. Tam's post is solid.

The history of alcohol is well documented. It ain't goin away no matter how you feel about it. I also agree that smack, crack, and meth have shown (without intervention) to lead to broken lives with regularity. Pot on the other hand is much more like alcohol in that people partaking CAN retain a long, functional life without spinning out of control. Plus, it's a ton of money taken from the gangs and cartels without ruining lives. I honestly think that fact alone is worth pursuing even if it means DEA gets less big busts.

Realistically, it's a culture problem. It must be fixed from within. A hometown leader is the only hope.

In terms of relevance to violence glorifying ghettos, drugs won't make a difference. Take away the profit on illegal drugs, and the criminal culture will sell fake credit cards, prostitute kids, or turn to some other crime while larger society gets high on legal dope.

That's the core problem, the culture which says in urban America that being a slang talking thug is better then being a productive member of society.

BobLoblaw

07-08-2014, 09:07 PM

In terms of relevance to violence glorifying ghettos, drugs won't make a difference. Take away the profit on illegal drugs, and the criminal culture will sell fake credit cards, prostitute kids, or turn to some other crime while larger society gets high on legal dope.

That's the core problem, the culture which says in urban America that being a slang talking thug is better then being a productive member of society.

I somehow doubt that they can easily recover those losses and retain their consistent accrual of "pledges" over time with crimes like those which leads to less profit and less expansion. This isn't a third world country yet so those types of activities would be seemingly harder to swallow for the urban community, I hope.

RevolverRob

07-08-2014, 09:21 PM

I don't accept that the war on drugs drives more violence. I do think drug use does however. And releasing all legal restraints on drugs will lead to more use of more addictive intoxicants that rot souls and we will reap a worse whirlwind I think.

I think violence begets more violence. The war on drugs is an extremely violent war, arguably the most violent ever. Police use increasingly violent tactics to arrest drug users/providers, district attorneys use increasingly aggressive sentencing and threats of violence (what do you call being threatened with incarceration?) to convict drug users and providers, and then we are shocked that violence is the end result? Sorry garbage in, garbage out.

I don't disagree - but I think the drop in deaths from legalizing the drug industry would more than make up the difference. Even if that weren't true, who am I to forbid anyone from throwing their life away on the chemistry of bliss?

Bingo. Who cares if more drug addicts die? To qupte the eminent Ebenezer Scrooge, "If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." I have no remorse for those who willingly destroy themselves, regardless of the substance.

Instead we could eliminate in one swoop a whole sub-culture related to being a drug dealer and shut down cash flow for gangs faster than you could blink, by eliminating the war on (some) drugs.

I was listening to NPR today - For those who didn't know, the state of Washington legalized the sale of marijuana for recreational use today. Some 10,000 people went and bought their pot legally and provided tax revenue to Washington state today and guess what...nobody did anything dumb. Meanwhile, in Louisiana today another guy was sentenced to a 10 year sentence for the possession of half an ounce of marijuana due to mandatory sentences...in Washington state he could have possessed twice as much and gotten a pat on the back by police officers. These things do NOT make logical sense...Guess who has the worse violent crime? New Orleans or Seattle?

-Rob

Tamara

07-08-2014, 09:24 PM

Not questioning what you've seen, but it wouldn't be so hard to for me to believe that a kid in the ghetto would want to be "powerful" like his estranged gangster big bro. I have a hard time seeing a little trailer crawler espousing that he wants to be addicted to meth when he grows up.

The trailer tot doesn't want to be a meth head; he wants to be the guy who is livin' large from sellin' to the meth heads. The kid in the inner city doesn't want to be a crackhead, either; he just wants to be be the mack daddy who moves the stuff to the crackheads.

EDIT: Endless mirth and amusement that Firefox's spell checker recognizes "crackhead". :D

BobLoblaw

07-08-2014, 10:10 PM

The trailer tot doesn't want to be a meth head; he wants to be the guy who is livin' large from sellin' to the meth heads. The kid in the inner city doesn't want to be a crackhead, either; he just wants to be be the mack daddy who moves the stuff to the crackheads.

EDIT: Endless mirth and amusement that Firefox's spell checker recognizes "crackhead". :D

I've seen very few meth heads around here so maybe that skews my perception. The cash crop was pills (thanks to the FL pain clinics) and likely still is. That's an addiction that doesn't get enough attention.

fixer

07-09-2014, 06:39 AM

An additional variable which complicates "fixing the ghetto" is a media machine that incentivizes and truly glorifies ghetto life as something cool. Stopping this, while difficult, would be a good first step. Ghetto life is true windfall for many and is a perverse conflict of interest.

As others have mentioned, until people feel the real consequences of being stupid, accountability will remain elusive.

However, even with the best system in place to reduce poverty of mind and spirit, there will be those whose life is devoted, like a blood oath, to being a loser.

JHC

07-09-2014, 07:02 AM

I think violence begets more violence.

-Rob

Really? In all facets of human endeavor or just in LE? OCONUS also or is this just how criminals should be treated non-violently? Or just a drug related thing?

RevolverRob

07-09-2014, 07:41 AM

Really? In all facets of human endeavor or just in LE? OCONUS also or is this just how criminals should be treated non-violently? Or just a drug related thing?

Yes really. In all human conflict, violence begets more violence. Definitively across the globe. No it is not just a drug related thing.

Use of force and violence is a spectrum. If you use violence to get your way the backlash response is violence. It will escalate until one or both sides agree to stop either literally or implicitly. No war was ever won when the other team showed up ready to kick your ass, it isn't until the other team is kicking your ass thoroughly that you decide maybe you should have some peace talks. I honestly cannot tell you who started the conflict (the war on drugs) whether it was the drug dealers or the politicians. But I can tell you that it has been a war of escalation since it started.

We had night sticks, they got knives, they got knives we got guns, they got bigger guns. The entire evolutionary framework is built on an arms race-type paradigm, because it is supported by the evidence at hand. In short it is in our very nature to be fighting with one another. The real question is, in this case does the end justify the means?

Flip it around what IS the end of the drug war? Is it the elimination of all potentially addictive toxins arbitrarily placed on a list? Is it 'for the children'? Or is it a never-ending war who's justification is lost to political history? Does it do harm or do good? Consider all the factors - Is the drug war a contributor to the so-called "Ghetto Lifestyle"? Is it a contributor to massive violence in this and other countries around the world? Is it a contributor to the violence that police officers and public servants have to endure in their daily lives? Do the number of lives 'saved' really balance the negatives?

In my opinion the lives saved do not balance the lives lost figuratively and literally. I am by no means a pacifist, violence is sometimes the answer, but you have to be prepared if you bring the pain without a total-war commitment (Sherman-style) and the other team shows up to play, you're going to lose.

-Rob

BaiHu

07-09-2014, 08:07 AM

I'll play.

1. As a Dago, WOP, Guinea, I don't take offense to this type of stuff. If people call me a slur and I agree with their assessment, then I need to take a second look at myself honestly to rectify being said slur. If I don't agree with them, then why bother getting red-kittened over it...

2. The ghetto, as Tam accurately pointed out, was an entry level town where fellow immigrants fought and helped each other in order to get out.

3. The ghetto, according to politicians should not be a reality and instead should be considered an unfortunate 'incident'. Never let a crisis go to waste is not just a liberal stance. Let's legislate reality out of life, b/c giving people a place to escape by voting us in benefits us, the politician, best.

4. Legalizing more drugs is no different than making driving fast on a highway safer with seat belts and airbags, people will just push the limits farther than before. Oddly, if we were just a tad more enlightened as a people, we'd realize that we are always hanging on the balance and we could all just freeze time right here and just really work hard to contain the balance we have. No new laws, no new drugs, no new life-saving devices, no new technology. Human beings have NEVER changed, just the crap we accumulate around our phalanges.

JAD

07-09-2014, 11:27 AM

Excellent editorial on exactly this topic in the WSJ today, by the way. "Chicago and Black Criminality," Jason Riley.

TCinVA

07-09-2014, 11:30 AM

4. Legalizing more drugs is no different than making driving fast on a highway safer with seat belts and airbags, people will just push the limits farther than before. Oddly, if we were just a tad more enlightened as a people, we'd realize that we are always hanging on the balance and we could all just freeze time right here and just really work hard to contain the balance we have. No new laws, no new drugs, no new life-saving devices, no new technology. Human beings have NEVER changed, just the crap we accumulate around our phalanges.

I don't expect legalization to eliminate the problems that go along with the abuse of drugs, but it might help some of the problems that have come of government drug interdiction efforts.

Even then, realistically the cat is kind of out of the bag on that stuff already and I doubt the courts will be stuffing genies back in bottles to fix it.

BaiHu

07-09-2014, 11:38 AM

Excellent editorial on exactly this topic in the WSJ today, by the way. "Chicago and Black Criminality," Jason Riley.
I hear his book is awesome. It's called "Please Stop Helping Us".

Chuck Whitlock

07-09-2014, 12:42 PM

An additional variable which complicates "fixing the ghetto" is a media machine that incentivizes and truly glorifies ghetto life as something cool. Stopping this, while difficult, would be a good first step. Ghetto life is true windfall for many and is a perverse conflict of interest.

I recall some months back seeing a kid, perhaps all of ten years old, wearing a t-shirt that said, "thug life", and sporting a caricature of what was clearly, to me, sum dood getting rear-ended by some other guy, presumably in a prison shower. I cannot fathom a parent buying that for his/her little tyke.

Joe in PNG

07-09-2014, 12:55 PM

Funny thing about the war on some drugs- the rates of addiction and mayhem are about the same now as before they became illegal, 'cept now we're spending waaay more moneys on the problem.

Another interesting book re: teh ghetto is Tom Wolfe's classic "Radical Chic" and "Mau-mauing the Flack Catchers" (Amazon sells them together). One big problem is that many in the upper classes, the ones who make the media and cultural trends, are just in love with the whole ghetto lifestyle. Thus, the middle class lifestyle and habits are treated with contempt by those who fear Selling Out and want to Keep It Real- usually the upper class wealthy media types.

BaiHu

07-09-2014, 01:07 PM

Great points Joe.

Shellback

07-09-2014, 01:46 PM

Excellent editorial on exactly this topic in the WSJ today, by the way. "Chicago and Black Criminality," Jason Riley.

I hear his book is awesome. It's called "Please Stop Helping Us".

Thomas Sowell writes a short review on it here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/thomas-sowell/a-primer-on-race/), A Primer On Race, definitely well thought out. Sowell's archive of articles (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/thomas-sowell/) is nothing short of awesome and he spells out the problem with blacks in a very succinct manner. Quote from his review:

His brief comments pack a lot of punch. For example, “having a black man in the Oval Office is less important than having one in the home.”

Mjolnir

07-11-2014, 08:35 PM

Stop the flow of drugs at the source: BEFORE they arrive into the Black neighborhoods would be a good step.

Workfare across the nation not welfare for those under retirement age or are not disabled.

Provide incentives for small businesses (needs to be done NATIONWIDE).

Re-emphasize FAMILY and education. That will require the media to participate and I don't see that happening.

Reinstilling CULTURE and dropping the BS "culture" foisted upon them by Rap, Hip Hop and Hollywood.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

RoyGBiv

07-11-2014, 10:12 PM

Stop the flow of drugs at the source: BEFORE they arrive into the Black neighborhoods would be a good step.
Fantasy.

Precedent? Prohibition.

Mjolnir

07-12-2014, 05:33 AM

It's all fantasy...

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

trailrunner

07-12-2014, 06:12 AM

My wife was a head start teacher at the poorest school in the county. Granted, I live in a wealthy county, but she had a front-row seat to the urban side of poverty.

The kids in her class came from two general types of families: 1) immigrants (legal or not), and 2) welfare moms. She said for the most part, the immigrants were loving parents who tried to do their best. They would show up for conferences and be somewhat engaged, while trying to manage to hold down a couple of low-paying jobs. Worst case was if dad got borracho and got locked up for domestic. The welfare moms, on the other hand, were a tragedy. The typical mom would be about 22, but already be on her fourth kid, most likely with four different men, who had long ago disappeared from the scene. The home lives that these kids experiences were sad. Lots of video games, lots of shady guys coming in and out, a mom who sat on the sofa most of the day. What bothered my wife the most was the supreme entitlement attitude of the welfare moms when it came to her as a teacher, or the school, or the government. No humbleness, no recognition that society was carrying them and they were the ones that owed something, and no recognition that they alone made not one, but several stupid choices and have made a mess of their life. Meanwhile, the administrators in the program would go to the great ends of the earth to try to help these people, to beg them out of their lifestyle. After all, who will think of the children?

JHC

07-12-2014, 08:25 AM

ford.304

07-12-2014, 10:48 AM

It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Lack of opportunity discourages work, which makes people less worthy of opportunity. Few random thoughts:

Illegal drug dealing is a classic lottery type economic situation. Most low-level drug dealers make less from dealing than from their day jobs at minimum wage. But dealing gives them a chance to strike it big - fast food doesn't have that option.

Legalizing drugs doesn't get rid of the problems of broken families, or addicts robbing people to get their fix. It does stop the gang violence over turf that comes from having a black market -- which is source of the majority of homicides in this country. Yes, gangs will have other illegal businesses -- but those markets already exist, and are ignored in favor of drugs because they have nowhere near the amount of demand that drugs do. They can't support the same level of gang operations currently going on.

I'm pretty convinced that if you squeezed the white ghetto into an area the size of the south side of Chicago, you'd see the murder rate go up quite a bit. It's economics and human nature - the meth dealers and pill pushers don't have the same size of market to fight over, and aren't tripping over each other every day.

Lack of opportunity makes it harder to escape, and harder to convince people that escape is possible or worth all the work it requires. At the very least, it raises the difficulty curve. I know - anyone with a work ethic and a good head on their shoulders can make a living wage in America. I agree with that statement wholeheartedly... what about the people who don't have those things? Or possess them only to a marginal degree? If America is a true meritocracy, iterate long enough and the population is going to sort itself out by merit... but even if poverty is "just" in that sense it doesn't provide a path for eradicating it, and doesn't solve the problems of the people trapped in it. Make people suck less is a good end goal, but it's hard to do that when their parents don't agree with you on what "sucking less" is, or don't care.

The "wops, spics, and micks" were people from a mix of classes and backgrounds across the spectrum of their home countries. Our new ghettoes (white and black) are home grown. In a lot of ways we've already given a lot of the families who had the ability to get out, a way out. My grandma's family was one of those.

Culture starts in the family, and something about our current incentives has absolutely trashed the low-income family. Call it the way welfare is structured, changed morality around sex, the drug war (if you imprison a third of the male population, the remaining third has a lot of bargaining power in relationships), what-have-you -- the point is that the people who make it out usually had an involved father or an exceptional mother.

More than anything... I think we need to realize that solutions to poverty aren't something that happen in a single generation. It's not about sending the child of a drug addict single mom to Harvard Law. It's about getting them into a trade school and a steady job. So they can afford to marry, pay their rent and utilities, and send their kid to state college for an engineering degree. The American dream in reality has never been to make it big yourself -- it's to see your grandchildren become spoiled brats like all the other suburban kids.

RoyGBiv

07-12-2014, 11:06 AM

Legalizing drugs doesn't get rid of the ................... addicts robbing people to get their fix.
Actually, it does. When you treat drug dependency like a disease, those afflicted can get "medication" from their healthcare provider.
Not to mention the likely drop in the cost of legal drugs vs. street prices.

It does stop the gang violence over turf that comes from having a black market -- which is source of the majority of homicides in this country. Yes, gangs will have other illegal businesses -- but those markets already exist, and are ignored in favor of drugs because they have nowhere near the amount of demand that drugs do. They can't support the same level of gang operations currently going on.
Which leads to an interesting question...
If the illegal drug trade evaporated, you'd still have gangs and thugs looking to make money by means other than honest labor.
Which crimes would go up, and by how many orders of magnitude, when all the drug sellers had to find other income? /tangent

NEPAKevin

07-12-2014, 11:17 AM

There are no external fixes. The people who escape poverty are those who manage to somehow keep their self worth and self respect while working hard and looking out for their own or their family's best interests.

RevolverRob

07-12-2014, 11:21 AM

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_25770838/more-colorado-drivers-fatal-crashes-positive-pot-study

Legalization. Adding new legal intoxicants will only make things worse IMO. It's just beginning in CO. They've also had some number of admissions to their ERs of young children gobbling mom's brownies or some other edibles that are being marketed now like candy.

Because no one ever crashed a car while under the influence of alcohol, (legal) prescription narcotics, cold medicine, or while driving distracted?

Let me see if I can figure this one out...Pot is legal, therefore people will use pot, therefore people will make poor decisions (like driving under the influence), resulting in a fatal crash. Pot is illegal, therefore people will use pot, therefore people will make poor decisions (like driving under the influence), resulting in a fatal crash.

Guns are legal, therefore people will use guns, therefore people will make poor decisions, resulting in fatal outcomes. Guns are illegal, therefore people will use guns, therefore people will make poor decisions, resulting in fatal outcomes.

Sorry the logic train fails. Whether an <insert any inanimate object here> is legal, semi-legal, or illegal...humans will make poor decisions.

Meanwhile legalization of drugs will eliminate the blackmarket drug trade almost entirely, allowing greater regulation and monitoring of it. You know what I don't see? Wal-Mart employees going over to Target and torching the building. You know what I do see? Crack dealers popping each other over business.

-Rob

ford.304

07-12-2014, 11:41 AM

Actually, it does. When you treat drug dependency like a disease, those afflicted can get "medication" from their healthcare provider.
Not to mention the likely drop in the cost of legal drugs vs. street prices.

I agree with you to a degree, but it's a harder assertion to prove. Bums will still mug you for alcohol. It'll go down, but it's not the biggest win from ending the drug war.

Which leads to an interesting question...
If the illegal drug trade evaporated, you'd still have gangs and thugs looking to make money by means other than honest labor.
Which crimes would go up, and by how many orders of magnitude, when all the drug sellers had to find other income? /tangent

I think you'd see most of the low-level members get "laid off." I think that short term, I think you see people move into businesses still related to the same customers. Low-income housing markets, for example. Probably prostitution, but they already control that pretty strongly. Who knows, maybe crack dispensaries if we ended the entire war. Probably loans if the assault on payday loan type places continues.

I think that the history of the Mafia period from the end of prohibition to the beginning of the drug war would be a good comparison. Maybe they'd start a racing circuit or go into politics :/

41magfan

07-12-2014, 11:56 AM

In a nutshell, Uncle Sammy created his own plantation in the late 60's and branded it the Great Society. Under that paradigm, people of all colors have been rewarded for being irresponsible and as a result have voluntarily subjected themselves to a form of bondage that doesn't even need a taskmaster to watch over things. It was designed to be the perfect prison without a single fence or wall.

Lyndon Johnson and his ilk understood quite well how this system would perpetuate itself forever and kill two birds with one stone; keep the poor in a state of designed and regulated poverty, and at the same time guarantee for themselves a voting base that couldn't afford to be manipulated into anything else.

Pure genius if you ask me and the undeniable proof of that is self-evident.

John Hearne

07-12-2014, 02:06 PM

JHC

07-12-2014, 02:31 PM

Because no one ever crashed a car while under the influence of alcohol, (legal) prescription narcotics, cold medicine, or while driving distracted?

Let me see if I can figure this one out...Pot is legal, therefore people will use pot, therefore people will make poor decisions (like driving under the influence), resulting in a fatal crash. Pot is illegal, therefore people will use pot, therefore people will make poor decisions (like driving under the influence), resulting in a fatal crash.

Guns are legal, therefore people will use guns, therefore people will make poor decisions, resulting in fatal outcomes. Guns are illegal, therefore people will use guns, therefore people will make poor decisions, resulting in fatal outcomes.

Sorry the logic train fails. Whether an <insert any inanimate object here> is legal, semi-legal, or illegal...humans will make poor decisions.

Meanwhile legalization of drugs will eliminate the blackmarket drug trade almost entirely, allowing greater regulation and monitoring of it. You know what I don't see? Wal-Mart employees going over to Target and torching the building. You know what I do see? Crack dealers popping each other over business.

-Rob

Don't add additional intoxicants into the legal and widely used mix. John Hearne put the rest of it better.

RevolverRob

07-12-2014, 03:08 PM

I have mixed feelings about the illegality of certain drugs. In theory, legalization seems like it would work. But, some times what works in theory doesn't work in practice.

Yes alcohol is mostly legal (don't forget those underage) and it exacts a certain social cost. I'm not sure how increasing the number of destructive alternatives will actually improve anything. I've watch meth burn its way through the local population. Before the precursor laws were passed, meth was practically free. It's low cost did absolutely nothing to mitigate the damage it did.

I realize that suppressing illegal drugs is not perfect and something will always leak through, however, I don't see that as a reason not try. I liken it fire ants in my backyard. If I don't try to kill the fire ants they takeover and ruin the place - making it impossible to enjoy the yard. I check the yard at least once a week and hit mounds whenever I see them. Despite these efforts, I still have occasional mounds that start. It takes continued and diligent effort to keep the fire ants at a manageable level but I'm not going to stop just because I won't ever "win." The cost of not fighting is simply too high.

I am having trouble understanding your point, you want to enjoy your backyard so you continue to fight fireants in it. The fireants are the equivalent of meth-heads? Your backyard is the equivalent to society?

Let's try it without analogy - The cost of not fighting the war on drugs is...what?

So far I have seen good statistics that indicate addiction rates are essentially the same whether a substance is legal or illegal. But we have a whole level of prior data that suggest that prohibition causes dramatic increases in crime. We are experiencing nationally reduced crime rates, especially violent crime, at this point, and one correlation with that is reduced criminal penalties associated with drug possession. The other is better base-level education on what drugs do to the human body.

I have seen rhetorical statements that adding intoxicants to the mix is bad, but I haven't seen a clear explanation as to why.

-Rob

41magfan

07-12-2014, 03:20 PM

Following some of this logic, decriminalizing drunk driving legal should make the roads safer. Is that right or did I miss something?

RoyGBiv

07-12-2014, 03:27 PM

Following some of this logic, decriminalizing drunk driving legal should make the roads safer. Is that right or did I miss something?

I got a little lost too.. but I'd say no to your question.
Decriminalizing drugs is not the same as decriminalizing criminal behavior. DUI would still be a crime.

NEPAKevin

07-12-2014, 03:28 PM

RoyGBiv

07-12-2014, 03:29 PM

Maybe they'd............ go into politics :/

LOL!

http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/city_hall/2013/11/29/toronto_mayor_rob_ford_could_be_denied_entry_to_us/rob_ford_summer.jpg.size.xxlarge.promo.jpg http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/gty_marion_berry_jef_120607_wblog.jpg

41magfan

07-12-2014, 03:51 PM

I got a little lost too.. but I'd say no to your question.
Decriminalizing drugs is not the same as decriminalizing criminal behavior. DUI would still be a crime.

Yea, I get that. I just can't comprehend how redrawing the lines makes anything "better" by any meaningful standard.

I worked for a guy once that liked to cook the books with crime stats, i.e. B&E's suddenly became Damage to Property Incidents if nothing was reported missing. Crime undeniably went down but the quality of life remained absolutely unchanged.

JHC

07-12-2014, 04:02 PM

RevolverRob

07-12-2014, 04:14 PM

Over the last 10 years Denmark has been struggling with spiraling drug use (already LEGAL) including ODs. It's a mess and they can't get the genie back in the bottle.

http://www.eurad.net/en/news/consumption_data/Drug+Use+Soars+in+Denmark.9UFRnMYs.ips

0.0066% of the population of Denmark is suffering from drug addiction. And yet their violent crime ranks as some of the lowest in the world per capita: https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=13713

Once again, what is the cost of not fighting the drug war? A minor increase in addiction rates? That's an excellent trade-off in my opinion to eliminate major amounts of violent crime and criminal activity in the United States and globally. If, after all, the War on (Some) Drugs is for the children, why aren't we thinking about the children being sent to the U.S. to escape gang violence that is based in the illegal drug trade from Central and South America?

Think of this way, if we stopped pouring TRILLIONS of dollars into drug enforcement, we could instead pour a billion dollars into treating addicts and studying drug addiction.

-Rob

John Hearne

07-12-2014, 04:23 PM

Shellback

07-12-2014, 04:28 PM

A much smaller prison population for victimless crimes. Getting high without the government's permission, and being imprisoned for it, is the antithesis of personal freedom.

The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population.

RevolverRob

07-12-2014, 04:47 PM

I think that "if we stopped pouring TRILLIONS of dollars into drug enforcement, we could instead pour a billion dollars into treating addicts and studying drug addiction" is way too simple. The costs of additional drug use in dollars and civil liberties are not included in that analysis. And as a general rule, addicts need a internal motivation to stop using drugs - simply offering addiction treatment isn't going to cut it.

Just the sheer issue created by additional impaired drivers will be huge to our country. If you're griping about traffic safety checkpoints with no-refusal blood draws, imagine what will happen when the only quantitative test for drug impairment is a blood draw (urine only tells you if drugs are on board, not how much).

Just to get this straight - Legalization of drugs means the streets will run red with bloo...err addicts? Are you sensing some rhetorical device there? What does prior data tell us about what is likely to happen when everyone is allowed to be free?

I never said it was a simple problem with a simple solution. But I also have not yet seen a convincing argument as to why we think prohibition is 1) Working currently. 2) Is something we should continue to spend copious amounts of money on.

Edit: What exactly are the costs of legal drug use on civil liberties? Unconstitutional check points that shouldn't exist for alcohol let alone drug users? How about we just do away with those too?

GardoneVT

07-12-2014, 07:34 PM

Just to get this straight - Legalization of drugs means the streets will run red with bloo...err addicts? Are you sensing some rhetorical device there? What does prior data tell us about what is likely to happen when everyone is allowed to be free?

I never said it was a simple problem with a simple solution. But I also have not yet seen a convincing argument as to why we think prohibition is 1) Working currently. 2) Is something we should continue to spend copious amounts of money on.

Edit: What exactly are the costs of legal drug use on civil liberties? Unconstitutional check points that shouldn't exist for alcohol let alone drug users? How about we just do away with those too?

I think the trouble is that there's no better option then prohibition, broadly speaking

Prohibitions repeal didn't end crime. Thousands of people a year die from alcohol related incidents, and crime syndicates still exist. Chicago, among other things, is still a violent and corrupt city . Repeal pot regulations, and criminals will move on to cocaine and heroin. Assuming those get legalized, they'll move on to something else to sell while teenagers dying of smack and driving while stoned become the new public health issues.

Prohibition sucks, but legalization has its own drawbacks. If alcohol legalization in the past didn't end criminal syndicates, pot legalization won't do it either.

Shellback

07-12-2014, 07:51 PM

...cocaine and heroin. Assuming those get legalized...

Let's not ignore history.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02328/cocaine-tooth-drop_2328302k.jpg

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/showpics/bayer1901.gif

http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cokewine.jpg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/1c/48/45/1c4845a7a2e1e6e6676948333da38cd3.jpg

TCinVA

07-12-2014, 11:22 PM

Think of this way, if we stopped pouring TRILLIONS of dollars into drug enforcement, we could instead pour a billion dollars into treating addicts and studying drug addiction.

We already put way more than a billion into various social services, treatment programs, and even direct payments intended to help addicts and the human consequences brought about by addicts. Those programs aren't terribly effective.

The problem with attempting to make financial arguments is that it all depends on how you do the count.

Legal drugs will bring with them costs. Big ones. We know this because legal alcohol brings with it big costs, especially in the number of people killed on the road where alcohol has been a factor. Not to mention the enormous social costs of alcoholism which impact everything from crime rates to dependency on government assistance, child and spousal abuse, etc.

Alcohol got banned in the first place because of the impact it was having on society. There was a for-real big friggin' problem with the stuff which caused the temperance movement and ended up with a constitutional amendment. No small task.

The problem is that legal prohibitions do not change human nature. Human nature always wins. Prohibition didn't stop the problems with alcohol in society, it created new problems a number of which were arguably worse.

I don't expect legalization to be cheaper in the long run, especially not if you attempt to do an honest accounting of ALL the costs associated with it. I don't expect it to be a remedy for civil liberties, either. I get a good giggle out of people who think that legalization will dismantle decades of jurisprudence with the stroke of a pen. The regulatory state will not go so gently into that good night, folks. Count on it.

Given the core of the problem, policy strikes me as tinkering on the margins. X% fewer people in jail on drug charges, but Y% more people being housed in government provided housing, getting government benefits because they're "disabled" by addiction. Tomato, tomatoe.

Sensei

07-13-2014, 12:29 AM

Let's not ignore history.

Do you think that the historical experience with cocaine in sodas and heroin elixirs is applicable to today's crack, meth, prescription opiates/benzos, etc? Are the social constructs that surrounded prohibition in the early 20th century similar to what we see today?

I ask this because you seem to be drawing an equivalence between very different eras and even more different drugs. I have a heard time accepting this since the technology behind these drugs has made them more addictive while our social construct has made us more dependent on government; a truly frightening proposition when you think about it.

JHC

07-13-2014, 05:12 AM

.

The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population.

I don't necessarily conclude that is a bad thing; assuming we actually have good numbers on prison populations in the sketchy members of the global community. Violent crime rates have been dropping for the decades that number has been growing. The non-violent drug possession inmate is a mythical but not in there anymore. Ethnically homogenous societies don't spin off as much crime theoretically although there are plenty of exceptions in Latin America.

Joe in PNG

07-13-2014, 06:23 AM

We already put way more than a billion into various social services, treatment programs, and even direct payments intended to help addicts and the human consequences brought about by addicts. Those programs aren't terribly effective.

The problem with attempting to make financial arguments is that it all depends on how you do the count.

Legal drugs will bring with them costs. Big ones. We know this because legal alcohol brings with it big costs, especially in the number of people killed on the road where alcohol has been a factor. Not to mention the enormous social costs of alcoholism which impact everything from crime rates to dependency on government assistance, child and spousal abuse, etc.

Alcohol got banned in the first place because of the impact it was having on society. There was a for-real big friggin' problem with the stuff which caused the temperance movement and ended up with a constitutional amendment. No small task.

The problem is that legal prohibitions do not change human nature. Human nature always wins. Prohibition didn't stop the problems with alcohol in society, it created new problems a number of which were arguably worse.

I don't expect legalization to be cheaper in the long run, especially not if you attempt to do an honest accounting of ALL the costs associated with it. I don't expect it to be a remedy for civil liberties, either. I get a good giggle out of people who think that legalization will dismantle decades of jurisprudence with the stroke of a pen. The regulatory state will not go so gently into that good night, folks. Count on it.

Given the core of the problem, policy strikes me as tinkering on the margins. X% fewer people in jail on drug charges, but Y% more people being housed in government provided housing, getting government benefits because they're "disabled" by addiction. Tomato, tomatoe.

I kind of like the option which reduces the likelyhood of having my door kicked in because someone put the wrong address on the warrant.

hufnagel

07-13-2014, 06:30 AM

I kind of like the option which reduces the likelyhood of having my door kicked in because someone put the wrong address on the warrant.

^^ This, oh so much this.

Or because someone decides to drop a dime on you in retaliation.

Shellback

07-13-2014, 10:17 AM

Do you think that the historical experience with cocaine in sodas and heroin elixirs is applicable to today's crack, meth, prescription opiates/benzos, etc? Are the social constructs that surrounded prohibition in the early 20th century similar to what we see today?

I ask this because you seem to be drawing an equivalence between very different eras and even more different drugs. I have a heard time accepting this since the technology behind these drugs has made them more addictive while our social construct has made us more dependent on government; a truly frightening proposition when you think about it.
I look at it as a decline in liberty. Prior to the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914 anyone could walk into their local drugstore and buy these things over the counter. We didn't have a nation of addicts and you didn't need a permission slip from the government to purchase or ingest them. Now, pharmaceutical drugs are a much larger problem than many illicit drugs; proving to be more addictive and taking far more lives due to overdosing.

Meth, bath salts, etc. were all developed due to the inaccessibility of quality imports and the war on drugs. Supply and demand. It'll never end, it's big business and there's plenty of people getting rich on both sides of the "war". I also think it's absurd that people are wholly supportive of alcohol, caffeine and nicotine yet condemn those who choose to get high on some other type of drug.

July 17, 1971 Nixon declared a war on drugs... After 43 years shouldn't we contemplate revising our tactics?

ford.304

07-13-2014, 10:34 AM

GardoneVT

07-13-2014, 10:52 AM

It's not that legalizing drugs is a panacea. It's that making them illegal has failed horribly at its own purpose.

Drug use has not gone down. Addiction rates have not gone down.

On the other hand, we've spent trillions of dollars to the destabilize of Mexico, rip the 4th amendment to shreds, and fund a well-armed and organized gang culture in our own cities. Our own data on alcohol prohibition shows a marked increase in crime following prohibition, and a marked decreased following its repeal.

Drug prohibition has not been successful at its own stated purpose. That seems as though it ought to be the first requirement of a major government program. When infringing a right has a utilitarian benefit, you have to do some balancing and make some decisions. When there is no proven utilitarian benefit, what is the point?

Except can we really lay the blame for those issues at the feet of the War on Drugs?

I can say this much with confidence; gangs would still exist as they do now whether drugs were legal or not. Many folks who are in that lifestyle come from perfectly good homes .I'm sure also that Mexicos culture of corruption will exist regardless of the legality of drugs in the US-and as far as Prohibition goes, we must also consider the social problems DUIs and alcohol fueled assaults bring to the picture.

I'm not exactly a fan of prohibition of marijuana, but on balance the alternative poses just as much risk. My chances of having a tactical narcotics squad kick in my door is a lot lower then being in a car wreck because some teenager got stoned on the way to work.

TCinVA

07-13-2014, 12:18 PM

I kind of like the option which reduces the likelyhood of having my door kicked in because someone put the wrong address on the warrant.

That's the hope of legalization from the libertarian spectrum...but I don't think legalization will put much of a dent in the liklihood of that. I'd love for it to be the case, I just don't think it will be.

JHC

07-13-2014, 04:11 PM

MDS

07-13-2014, 08:46 PM

Legalization. Adding new legal intoxicants will only make things worse IMO. It's just beginning in CO. They've also had some number of admissions to their ERs of young children gobbling mom's brownies or some other edibles that are being marketed now like candy.

Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects) accounting for 30% of children 1-4 who die of accidental injury (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars) Where's the War on Swimming Pools?

I'm not exactly a fan of prohibition of marijuana, but on balance the alternative poses just as much risk. My chances of having a tactical narcotics squad kick in my door is a lot lower then being in a car wreck because some teenager got stoned on the way to work.

Well said. You've captured the essence of the rationalization for the war on drugs. But, hmm. I'm having a vague sense of deja vu. Bear with me while I parameterize your statement: I'm not exactly a fan of prohibition of Bad Thing, but on balance the alternative poses just as much risk. My chances of Bad Thing Helping Me is a lot lower then Bad Thing Hurting Me.

Hmm, yeah, that definitely sounds familiar. Again, bear with me while I play around with substitute parameter values: I'm not exactly a fan of prohibition of guns, but on balance the alternative poses just as much risk. My chances of successful self defense is a lot lower then innocent people dying from gun violence.

Yep, I've hear that before! Near as I can tell, the drug-grabbing rhetoric is the same as the gun-grabbing rhetoric. How can we decry the ignorance and hubris - the lack of respect for our personal freedoms! - that drives the anti-gun movement, while engaging in that same exact behavior as part of the anti-drug movement?

That's the hope of legalization from the libertarian spectrum...but I don't think legalization will put much of a dent in the liklihood of that. I'd love for it to be the case, I just don't think it will be.

Dude. Here I am on a roll about freedom and liberty and don't tread on me. Same arguments we use against the war on guns, but I'm using them against the war on drugs. Now, in that very convincing way you have, that whole line of thinking's just a political fap? Is it still just wishful thinking to apply that line of thought to guns? If not, is it because the right to keep and smoke pot isn't enshrined in the Bill of Rights?

Bottom line: why do we all feel such a deep need for everyone else to live according to our own principles? Are we really so stupendously blind that we think we Know Best?!? (Rhetorical question, of course you all think you know best, but given the high average intelligence on this board I'm sure with a high enough post count I can bring you lot around. ;) )

ford.304

07-13-2014, 09:13 PM

Except can we really lay the blame for those issues at the feet of the War on Drugs?

I can say this much with confidence; gangs would still exist as they do now whether drugs were legal or not. Many folks who are in that lifestyle come from perfectly good homes .I'm sure also that Mexicos culture of corruption will exist regardless of the legality of drugs in the US-and as far as Prohibition goes, we must also consider the social problems DUIs and alcohol fueled assaults bring to the picture.

I'm not exactly a fan of prohibition of marijuana, but on balance the alternative poses just as much risk. My chances of having a tactical narcotics squad kick in my door is a lot lower then being in a car wreck because some teenager got stoned on the way to work.

Except for we have *very* clear data on what markets fund gangs, and happens to those gangs when that market is taken away. No, Los Zetas aren't going to disappear. But they're going to get a lot smaller when they can't make millions dealing illegal dope. Like any profit-seeking company, they downside if they can't afford to pay people. Which is exactly what happened to organized crime after the end of prohibition. The big guys moved into politics and pseudo-legitimate business. The career low end guys kept on a smaller scale or got real jobs, and overall their ability to recruit diminished drastically.

There's always going to be a black market, true. But the size of the market is going to determine how many people can make a living off of it.

GardoneVT

07-13-2014, 09:19 PM

Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects) accounting for 30% of children 1-4 who die of accidental injury (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars) Where's the War on Swimming Pools?

Well said. You've captured the essence of the rationalization for the war on drugs. But, hmm. I'm having a vague sense of deja vu. Bear with me while I parameterize your statement: I'm not exactly a fan of prohibition of Bad Thing, but on balance the alternative poses just as much risk. My chances of Bad Thing Helping Me is a lot lower then Bad Thing Hurting Me.

Hmm, yeah, that definitely sounds familiar. Again, bear with me while I play around with substitute parameter values: I'm not exactly a fan of prohibition of guns, but on balance the alternative poses just as much risk. My chances of successful self defense is a lot lower then innocent people dying from gun violence.

Yep, I've hear that before! Near as I can tell, the drug-grabbing rhetoric is the same as the gun-grabbing rhetoric. How can we decry the ignorance and hubris - the lack of respect for our personal freedoms! - that drives the anti-gun movement, while engaging in that same exact behavior as part of the anti-drug movement?

Dude. Here I am on a roll about freedom and liberty and don't tread on me. Same arguments we use against the war on guns, but I'm using them against the war on drugs. Now, in that very convincing way you have, that whole line of thinking's just a political fap? Is it still just wishful thinking to apply that line of thought to guns? If not, is it because the right to keep and smoke pot isn't enshrined in the Bill of Rights?

Bottom line: why do we all feel such a deep need for everyone else to live according to our own principles? Are we really so stupendously blind that we think we Know Best?!? (Rhetorical question, of course you all think you know best, but given the high average intelligence on this board I'm sure with a high enough post count I can bring you lot around. ;) )

Maybe, just maybe, the folks who came before us who banned weed knew what they were doing.Perhaps we really should just step away from the remote and not change the dial.
I'm not a fan of the current status quo, but some problems in life don't have a whiz bang solution. Some problems only are addressed by a choice of bad solutions, and in this case I consider the current adverse consequences of a ban better on balance then the adverse consequences of total legalization. Unintended consequences hurt just as bad as intended ones at the end of the day.

RevolverRob

07-13-2014, 09:19 PM

Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects) accounting for 30% of children 1-4 who die of accidental injury (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars) Where's the War on Swimming Pools?

Well said. You've captured the essence of the rationalization for the war on drugs. But, hmm. I'm having a vague sense of deja vu. Bear with me while I parameterize your statement: I'm not exactly a fan of prohibition of Bad Thing, but on balance the alternative poses just as much risk. My chances of Bad Thing Helping Me is a lot lower then Bad Thing Hurting Me.

Hmm, yeah, that definitely sounds familiar. Again, bear with me while I play around with substitute parameter values: I'm not exactly a fan of prohibition of guns, but on balance the alternative poses just as much risk. My chances of successful self defense is a lot lower then innocent people dying from gun violence.

Yep, I've hear that before! Near as I can tell, the drug-grabbing rhetoric is the same as the gun-grabbing rhetoric. How can we decry the ignorance and hubris - the lack of respect for our personal freedoms! - that drives the anti-gun movement, while engaging in that same exact behavior as part of the anti-drug movement?

Dude. Here I am on a roll about freedom and liberty and don't tread on me. Same arguments we use against the war on guns, but I'm using them against the war on drugs. Now, in that very convincing way you have, that whole line of thinking's just a political fap? Is it still just wishful thinking to apply that line of thought to guns? If not, is it because the right to keep and smoke pot isn't enshrined in the Bill of Rights?

Bottom line: why do we all feel such a deep need for everyone else to live according to our own principles? Are we really so stupendously blind that we think we Know Best?!? (Rhetorical question, of course you all think you know best, but given the high average intelligence on this board I'm sure with a high enough post count I can bring you lot around. ;) )

That is the core of it right there.

Thanks for this post!

-Rob

GardoneVT

07-13-2014, 09:24 PM

Except for we have *very* clear data on what markets fund gangs, and happens to those gangs when that market is taken away. No, Los Zetas aren't going to disappear. But they're going to get a lot smaller when they can't make millions dealing illegal dope. Like any profit-seeking company, they downside if they can't afford to pay people. Which is exactly what happened to organized crime after the end of prohibition. The big guys moved into politics and pseudo-legitimate business. The career low end guys kept on a smaller scale or got real jobs, and overall their ability to recruit diminished drastically.

There's always going to be a black market, true. But the size of the market is going to determine how many people can make a living off of it.

Did the prevalence of streaming media put Netflix out of business?

Did the advent of digital documents end Xerox?

Companies -which is essentially what the Cartels are- seek new product lineups to maintain their income streams when their old products become obsolete. If Los Zetas can't make money due to legalized dope, they'll pay some chemist to make a designer drug.Welcome back to Square Uno.

RevolverRob

07-13-2014, 09:34 PM

Maybe, just maybe, the folks who came before us who banned weed knew what they were doing.Perhaps we really should just step away from the remote and not change the dial.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

This is a very common logical fallacy that impacts our ability to critically analyze situations and data. I want to provide a challenge here and it is not meant to be an ad hominem attack - Have you read the history of the temperance movement, prohibition, and the historical precedence leading to the laws that results in the banning of narcotics? If not, I strongly suggest that you do.

MDS

07-13-2014, 09:41 PM

Maybe, just maybe, the folks who came before us who banned weed knew what they were doing.Perhaps we really should just step away from the remote and not change the dial.
I'm not a fan of the current status quo, but some problems in life don't have a whiz bang solution. Some problems only are addressed by a choice of bad solutions, and in this case I consider the current adverse consequences of a ban better on balance then the adverse consequences of total legalization. Unintended consequences hurt just as bad as intended ones at the end of the day.

I hear you, I really do! My question stands, though: how is this argument against drugs any different from the fundamental argument against guns? If vague calculations of social benefit - calculations that are long on emotionally-charged anecdotes and short on rigorous analysis - if you think these are an acceptable basis for deciding policy then why not ban guns? If you really think iron-fisted prohibition of potentially dangerous matériel is a good way to protect the child victims of drug-gang drive-by's, why don't you think the same approach is a good way to protect the Newtown children?

ford.304

07-13-2014, 10:00 PM

Did the prevalence of streaming media put Netflix out of business?

Did the advent of digital documents end Xerox?

Companies -which is essentially what the Cartels are- seek new product lineups to maintain their income streams when their old products become obsolete. If Los Zetas can't make money due to legalized dope, they'll pay some chemist to make a designer drug.Welcome back to Square Uno.

No, but it killed Blockbuster. And Xerox is still in business largely because businesses are too old and incompetent to actually run paperless.

They're corporations. They'll seek other markets. Do you see an alternative market that has anywhere near the potential size and scale of illegal drugs? Seriously, what are they going to go into that's going to make that kind of cash? Wouldn't they already be doing it? Prostitution? Loan sharking? Garbage pickup? They're already doing it, and none of those can support the level of infrastructure and turf wars that drugs can.

Look at the data from prohibition! This isn't me logicking my way into the libertarian result I want. Look at the data around alcohol prohibition, at the clear and direct increase and following decline in murders, robbery, organized crime, police state funding, and prison population. Then tell me how the economics of pot is any different.

Yes, there will be a social cost. But it's nothing compared to the immediate violent results of a large and profitable black market with no police protection.

Sensei

07-13-2014, 10:08 PM

I hear you, I really do! My question stands, though: how is this argument against drugs any different from the fundamental argument against guns? If vague calculations of social benefit - calculations that are long on emotionally-charged anecdotes and short on rigorous analysis - if you think these are an acceptable basis for deciding policy then why not ban guns? If you really think iron-fisted prohibition of potentially dangerous matériel is a good way to protect the child victims of drug-gang drive-by's, why don't you think the same approach is a good way to protect the Newtown children?

Because guns in the hands of a well disciplined militia (i.e. an educated and trained populace according to Jefferson and Publius in Federalist #46) are an essential check on the power of a central government. What essential service to our society do drugs provide that should warrant enshrinement in our Constitution?

GardoneVT

07-13-2014, 10:43 PM

No, but it killed Blockbuster. And Xerox is still in business largely because businesses are too old and incompetent to actually run paperless.

They're corporations. They'll seek other markets. Do you see an alternative market that has anywhere near the potential size and scale of illegal drugs? Seriously, what are they going to go into that's going to make that kind of cash? Wouldn't they already be doing it? Prostitution? Loan sharking? Garbage pickup? They're already doing it, and none of those can support the level of infrastructure and turf wars that drugs can.

Look at the data from prohibition! This isn't me logicking my way into the libertarian result I want. Look at the data around alcohol prohibition, at the clear and direct increase and following decline in murders, robbery, organized crime, police state funding, and prison population. Then tell me how the economics of pot is any different.

Yes, there will be a social cost. But it's nothing compared to the immediate violent results of a large and profitable black market with no police protection.

The economics of the situation says that said black market will exist either way. The Mob didn't cease to exist when Prohibition bit the dust. Legalization or no, the Sinaloa folks won't be holding a liquidation sale .The drugs of the past were Opium and Alcohol.Today its pot and Oxycodone. Tomorrow it'll be something else. I find the idea of legalization ending drug trafficking as laughable as debit card banking ending vault robberies at branches.

RevolverRob

07-13-2014, 10:46 PM

Because guns in the hands of a well disciplined militia (i.e. an educated and trained populace according to Jefferson and Publius in Federalist #46) are an essential check on the power of a central government. What essential service to our society do drugs provide that should warrant enshrinement in our Constitution?

Oh goody, I have been waiting for this one to come up.

Since we got all Jefferson - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion - Jefferson, I might remind you repealed the Whiskey Tax, because he felt it placed undue burden on producers of intoxicants.

(Un)fortunately, later SCOTUS went down the slippery slope with alcohol leading the way, to decide that business regulation was a power of the state, not the federal government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugler_v._Kansas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munn_v._Illinois

Which is the main reason why we needed the 18th Constitutional Amendment to pass the Volstead Act. Because constitutionally, we do NOT have federal authority to prohibit, sale and production of intoxicants. What essential service to our society do intoxicants provide? They provide a critical check on federal regulatory power, necessary to maintain a free state. We do not need to enshrine them in the constitution, they are already enshrined there. And when the 18th Amendment was ratified and effective, it was clear that federal regulatory efforts on alcohol fell very short. Guess what? They do today too.

I actually question the legality of the Controlled Substances Act - Which at present appears to only be constitutional, because it represents law that "enables us to meet the obligations of international treaties". Which are of course held as the authority of congress under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. If Congress were to withdraw from the international treaty the CSA enables us to meet, the CSA would in fact be unconstitutional. What essential service do drug prohibition laws provide to us today? Well at present they represent an end-run around the constitution.

-Rob

LOKNLOD

07-13-2014, 11:17 PM

If you really think iron-fisted prohibition of potentially dangerous matériel is a good way to protect the child victims of drug-gang drive-by's, why don't you think the same approach is a good way to protect the Newtown children?

I'll come right out and say it -- iron-fisted tyrannical gun-ban might actually be effective in stopping Newtowns. A true hardcore, tyrannical straight-up ban on private weapons might make it very difficult for the average whackadoodle to grab something and shoot up a place. Maybe, maybe not.

But I don't give a flying fig if it works or not, because effective weapons in the hands of the populace is crucial to a free society. An unarmed man is not free except at the benevolence of someone who allows the illusion of freedom until he wills otherwise. I politely say, to hell with that. I'd rather be fighting for real freedom than living in an illusion until someone in power decides differently. I may not be able to win, but if I'm armed I can stand in a spot and say "f*** you, I'm not doing that" and force you to make me at your own peril. Unarmed, I can still so "no" but have little to no power to assert my will. Defiance without action. Without the action, it's just martyrdom.

The guns and drugs analogy works in that the same rhetoric is used, but if you skin away the rhetoric I don't believe the meat underneath is the same. Guns have utility; guns have meaning. I don't think drugs do. We have an enshrined right to bear arms because we have a duty to be responsible for our own liberty, for our defense of self, family, property, country, and principles. We own firearms because there are things worth fighting -- killing and/or dying -- to protect.

The risk, the cost, of having arm in society - that cost being the danger that bad people might use them to hurt others -- is well worth the benefit they provide.

Somebody make that case for drugs for me? I get the whole "pursuit of happiness" angle, to a degree, but what I see in drugs is a hedonistic desire to feel good. A hedonistic, selfish, self-destructive desire to escape from reality in a chemical high? Do drugs provide a benefit that offsets their cost? It's not that I think the gov't should be interfering in what adults do to themselves in their own homes. My post here is not about being anti-drug; its just that I don't think the analogy holds up past the shallow rhetoric. The freedom to get high is not fundamentally important to a free society in the same way as bearing arms. If anything it's just the freedom to be a slave to a different master.

I think when the discussion on guns is limited purely to a functional "this works, that doesn't" we are losing - not because we are wrong, but because by limiting ourselves to that we are failing to acknowledge the philosophical underpinnings of the freedom that are tied to arms. Meanwhile, I think that the drug debate is opposite. It's just a matter of functionality and practicality. It's just a matter of how better to manage the governments role in drugs, those that use them, those that deal in them. There are cases to be made both ways, for stricter prohibition and for looser legalization. Drugs suck, either way. Make the case based on how to manage that negative impact while having the least amount of "collateral damage".

Sensei

07-13-2014, 11:34 PM

Oh goody, I have been waiting for this one to come up.

Since we got all Jefferson - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion - Jefferson, I might remind you repealed the Whiskey Tax, because he felt it placed undue burden on producers of intoxicants.

(Un)fortunately, later SCOTUS went down the slippery slope with alcohol leading the way, to decide that business regulation was a power of the state, not the federal government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugler_v._Kansas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munn_v._Illinois

Which is the main reason why we needed the 18th Constitutional Amendment to pass the Volstead Act. Because constitutionally, we do NOT have federal authority to prohibit, sale and production of intoxicants. What essential service to our society do intoxicants provide? They provide a critical check on federal regulatory power, necessary to maintain a free state. We do not need to enshrine them in the constitution, they are already enshrined there. And when the 18th Amendment was ratified and effective, it was clear that federal regulatory efforts on alcohol fell very short. Guess what? They do today too.

I actually question the legality of the Controlled Substances Act - Which at present appears to only be constitutional, because it represents law that "enables us to meet the obligations of international treaties". Which are of course held as the authority of congress under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. If Congress were to withdraw from the international treaty the CSA enables us to meet, the CSA would in fact be unconstitutional. What essential service do drug prohibition laws provide to us today? Well at present they represent an end-run around the constitution.

-Rob

The Whiskey Tax repeal had much more to do with differing approaches to Federalism (Jefferson vs. Hamilton) than lifting the burden on producers of intoxicants. In fact, Jefferson and Madison remained silent when the tax was first passed as it was part of their deal with Hamilton to pay off state's war debt and move the Capitol from Phili to DC. It was not until after Hamilton's heavy handed tactics that Jefferson came to his senses.

Which leads us to Federalism. The US is not a libertarian utopia nor is it in our DNA to live and let live. Madison once described the power of States over the individual as infinite having intended the BOA as a check only on Federal power. I know that incorporation of the BOA is very popular on gun forums, but can we at least agree that states have the authority to regulate intoxicants?

hufnagel

07-14-2014, 06:26 AM

I have no idea how I got to this link but it's certainly topical...
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/13/gunplay_is_all_i_know/

there were 2 paragraphs that struck me...

I thank God I never had to use it. We weren’t killers and didn’t even think about dealing at the time. We were just scared kids who didn’t want to lie dead in the streets like our brothers, fathers, friends and the rest of the black dudes who get murdered all over the country.

Isn't that what the rest of us want, at the core of it?

Ironically, it was followed by this paragraph...

African-American males are being hunted from multiple directions. We kill each other; we are killed by sociopaths like George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn and then the cops.

If he'd just stopped after the start of the 2nd sentence he'd have the core of the problem in hand... We kill each other... there's your 99%. If they as a community focused on solving the causes of THAT problem...? But my advice or suggestions will never be heard, because I'm white.

GardoneVT

07-14-2014, 06:40 AM

I have no idea how I got to this link but it's certainly topical...
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/13/gunplay_is_all_i_know/

there were 2 paragraphs that struck me...

Isn't that what the rest of us want, at the core of it?

Ironically, it was followed by this paragraph...

If he'd just stopped after the start of the 2nd sentence he'd have the core of the problem in hand... We kill each other... there's your 99%. If they as a community focused on solving the causes of THAT problem...? But my advice or suggestions will never be heard, because I'm white.
I'm black, and they wouldn't listen to me either.

Right now in Black America we have a culture among our youth which says schools are bad and crime is good. 65% of black men are in jail because most of them want to be there.

TCinVA

07-14-2014, 06:46 AM

Dude. Here I am on a roll about freedom and liberty and don't tread on me. Same arguments we use against the war on guns, but I'm using them against the war on drugs. Now, in that very convincing way you have, that whole line of thinking's just a political fap? Is it still just wishful thinking to apply that line of thought to guns? If not, is it because the right to keep and smoke pot isn't enshrined in the Bill of Rights?

Bottom line: why do we all feel such a deep need for everyone else to live according to our own principles? Are we really so stupendously blind that we think we Know Best?!? (Rhetorical question, of course you all think you know best, but given the high average intelligence on this board I'm sure with a high enough post count I can bring you lot around. ;) )

We have a second amendment that supposedly enshrines the right to keep and bear arms...and it's still ate up with the requirements of the regulatory state. The regulatory state nor the jurisprudence that's made it possible will not disappear if we legalize drugs. Cigarettes are legal and taxed...and there's enforcement of those taxes by armed agents at multiple levels including all the door-kicking SWAT stuff you can imagine.

I honestly couldn't care less if somebody wants to blitz themselves into oblivion with drugs...whatever the drug they choose is, be it crack or Oxycontin. It's sad, but much of human nature is sad and there's not much anyone can really do about it.

I simply don't see legalization rolling back the encroachments on civil liberties people often attribute to the WOD. With legalization current interdiction resources would be re-purposed for enforcement. There would still be SWAT teams and door kicking and all that other stuff people hate related to legal drugs. We have all that now with alcohol and cigarette enforcement, particularly cigarette enforcement thanks to the multi-billion dollar industry that has arisen to get around state and local taxation on tobacco. People don't often hear about it because I guess it's not sexy enough to make the papers, but it's there and it's working every day doing all the sorts of things that are done for cocaine busts. Asset forfeiture, no knocks, surveillance, the lot.

It's not an argument against legalization, it's stating the unpleasant truth that legalizing drugs won't fix the government any more than banning drugs fixed society at large. The problems are way bigger than that.

Somebody make that case for drugs for me? I get the whole "pursuit of happiness" angle, to a degree, but what I see in drugs is a hedonistic desire to feel good. A hedonistic, selfish, self-destructive desire to escape from reality in a chemical high? Do drugs provide a benefit that offsets their cost?

We need guns because of the inevitability of human nature. Civilized society is a shared fiction that exists because everybody else around you pretends it exists, too. If one person stops clapping for Tinkerbelle it gets primitive really damn quick. The people who don't clap for Tinkerbelle have to be put down with violence. The police will only be there after there's a body count, not in time to prevent one.

The same inevitability of human nature that makes it a good idea to have a firearm on you would apply to intoxicants. People will get high. Some because the circumstances of their life are awful and the chemical substances keep them from having to face how bad their prospects are. Some because they're nihilists who can't find joy in anything about life. Some will want the novelty and adventure of playing with chemicals. Whatever the reasons, they will exist and there will be a supply for them one way or another. Even in the tightly controlled environment of a prison where the guests can literally be subjected to an inspection of their rectum at any time they can't keep drugs out.

We have laws that forbid drugs, and yet any teenager can get their hands on the stuff we've banned pretty darn easy. Beyond that, they're in lunchrooms and college libraries swapping various prescription meds like you wouldn't believe. I could show up on the college campus this afternoon and find a source for just about anything you can imagine without much difficulty.

Whether drug use is good or bad for individuals, it's irrelevant...it's going to happen. Every legal substance we have in the country is abused with enormous social costs to go along with it. (Stop for a second and ponder the amount of police, court, and healthcare resources that are necessary to deal with the consequences of alcoholism) Same goes for every illegal substance that's out there. It's a function of human nature and the laws against certain drugs might as well be spitting in the wind.

The argument for guns is the human nature argument. The human nature argument is also a pretty compelling reason to legalize currently controlled substances and prostitution.

RoyGBiv

07-14-2014, 08:09 AM

The whole "guns/drugs" comparison doesn't work for me. Apples and iPads.

Thankfully, we have "laboratories of Democracy" in Colorado, Washington and other places that will expose the good/bad/ugly benefits/ramifications of marijuana legalization in the USA. All we need is some patience, good/fair data collection and honest analysis (no small task in today's political environment (Anthropomorphic Global Warming, anyone?)). We also have examples (albeit culturally less of a match) in Portugal and The Netherlands to learn from.

I'm very much on the side of "less government" wherever possible, but I'm open to being proven wrong here.
I just don't see where it's the government business to regulate what I put in my body. I can make an argument for regulating antibiotics (overuse fosters the evolution of stronger bacterias, endangering everyone), but if I decide to use cocaine or meth, governments role begins where I become a danger to someone other than myself. Manufacturing meth in a residential neighborhood or without proper training and safety should be illegal, certainly. So should operating a vehicle while intoxicated (or while texting... we almost got hit twice by texting drivers failing to maintain their lane on Saturday.).

One big open question for me is "what will happen to the drug cartels?"
The Mafia and gangs kept a hand in the alcohol business for a long time after the 21st was passed. That's not nearly enough of a reason to shutter the idea of decriminalization, just an excuse. Gang activity would still be illegal even if drugs were not illegal. But, what will gangs do? Will they fall apart without funding? Unlikely. What other things will they turn to? I doubt the police will be out of a job if drugs are decriminalized, but certainly quite a few prison guards will be looking for other work.

TCinVA

07-14-2014, 08:23 AM

I doubt the police will be out of a job if drugs are decriminalized, but certainly quite a few prison guards will be looking for other work.

I'm not so sure.

If there's one thing that's abundantly clear about modern American society it's that we have a whole bunch of dudes walking around breathing free air who should be in a cage. A comprehensive study across the nation hasn't been done yet, for some reason, but in individual states where they've looked at violent offenses and traced the records of violent offenders they've found that the sizable majority of people who commit most violent crime have a history of...surprise...violent crime. Ohio did a study where they found that the less than 1% of the population who had 3 prior felony convictions was responsible for more than 1/3 of all violent crime convictions.

The majority of our violent crime is perpetrated by dudes who we keep letting out to commit more crimes.

Some blame this on housing requirements of the WOD, but they're not letting out a dude with multiple violent felonies on his rap sheet to make room for somebody who got caught with a joint.

Tamara

07-14-2014, 08:26 AM

If there's one thing that's abundantly clear about modern American society it's that we have a whole bunch of dudes walking around breathing free air who should be in a cage.

...and vice versa.

LOKNLOD

07-14-2014, 09:28 AM

We have a second amendment that supposedly enshrines the right to keep and bear arms...and it's still ate up with the requirements of the regulatory state. The regulatory state nor the jurisprudence that's made it possible will not disappear if we legalize drugs. Cigarettes are legal and taxed...and there's enforcement of those taxes by armed agents at multiple levels including all the door-kicking SWAT stuff you can imagine.
(snip)
It's not an argument against legalization, it's stating the unpleasant truth that legalizing drugs won't fix the government any more than banning drugs fixed society at large. The problems are way bigger than that.
(snip)
We need guns because of the inevitability of human nature. Civilized society is a shared fiction that exists because everybody else around you pretends it exists, too. If one person stops clapping for Tinkerbelle it gets primitive really damn quick. The people who don't clap for Tinkerbelle have to be put down with violence.
(snip)
The argument for guns is the human nature argument. The human nature argument is also a pretty compelling reason to legalize currently controlled substances and prostitution.

TC, I appreciate the reply. I don't disagree on the whole, but I still think it comes down differently - guns have a positive benefit that offsets any cost associated, and are, as you say, needed. We defend, champion, and enshrine the right to bear arms as a positive model for society, and the antis demonize it as a plague upon the world. People promoting drug use the way we promote gun rights are on the fringe and probably too high to argue about it on internet forums. But both of the more realistic sides on this drug argument seem to just be arguing about the utilitarian nature of damage control - the constant "people are gonna do it either way, what's the most efficient and/or effective way to deal with it". It's arguing about the lesser of two evils, but both are still evils. Do we cut out the cancer, or hit it with chemo, or some combo? (If we treated it like we promote guns, we'd be saying "lets feed it, maybe it's a symbiote that will give us super powers".)

[sidebar: I'm filing away the "clapping for Tinkerbell" bit for my own use]

I think your points about impact of legalization on regulations, enforcement, and taxation are spot on. Cigarettes are heavily, heavily regulated, smokers are vilified, and we're constantly beat down with stats about all the people it gets credited for killing. It's billboards and ad campaigns. It's taxed at insane levels. How many people will get plumb offended if they have to sit next to a person who smells like Marlboros, but think marijuana should be legalized? I can't imagine the gov't is going to let the pot market run free and easy for too long before it's just like tobacco or alcohol, or worse. And I don't have a clue how it would need to expand to "manage" the harder stuff.

MDS

07-14-2014, 10:00 AM

I'll come right out and say it -- iron-fisted tyrannical gun-ban might actually be effective in stopping Newtowns. [...]
But I don't give a flying fig if it works or not, because effective weapons in the hands of the populace is crucial to a free society. An unarmed man is not free except at the benevolence of someone who allows the illusion of freedom until he wills otherwise.

First, I didn't say it wouldn't be effective (that's debatable) - I asked if it would be a good answer.

Second, how can you argue so vehemently for a free society, then argue just as passionately to keep me from smoking a rock?

If personal freedom is a good argument for guns, why not for drugs? And if you're willing to lean on debatable interpretations of poorly-gathered and -analyzed statistics in order to ban certain chemicals then why get so bent out of shape when they're used to ban guns? If emotional anecdotes of death and personal tragedy can be used to justify a huge government apparatus....... I think you get the idea.

And as for the argument that comparing the wod to the gun-grabbers is wrong because "drugs are different" - well, sure, you see them differently. But they are both inanimate objects that provide a pleasant, harmless pastime for millions; they both occasionally save a life; and they both are abused by a very visible and unfortunately glorified minority to perpetrate ghastly tragedies. The only real difference involves personal tastes and social mores. This willingness to fund an outrageously large government effort to force moral outrage down my throat is disappointing and offensive.

Some blame this on housing requirements of the WOD, but they're not letting out a dude with multiple violent felonies on his rap sheet to make room for somebody who got caught with a joint.

For context, see my sig - I share your wrath for the violent offenders who walk free. But there is plenty of jail room taken up by non-violent drug offenders. I know a few. One guy comes to mind who went in for conspiracy to import marijuana, he had the pleasure of seeing many violent felons come in and out, including for pled-down murder one, while he continued to rot. But the jail-space argument against the wod is tertiary to the freedom argument, just like the crime-reduction argument against the gun-grabbers is tertiary to the freedom argument. Why go to all the trouble of feeding that hungry tree of liberty, just to take away people's freedom to dose up in their own home?

I don't do drugs. Any of them. But where I grew up, I saw first hand - up close and very personal - the damage that drugs can enable. And I also saw plenty of people who abstained, or who partook recreationally without ruining anyone's life. I just can't make myself argue that people shouldn't be trusted with dangerous drugs, then turn around and demand to be trusted with dangerous guns.

If arguing along these lines is naïve wishful thinking - which is what I hear you saying, and you may certainly be right! - well, I've heard that before. About my arguments, my voting, the way I treat my employees, the way I deal with customers, the way I wooed my wife, the way I raise my kids - generally the way I interact with people. So far, it's been working out for me. In the end, all I can control is myself. Think carefully, speak plainly, act accordingly, and take what you get - there's a lot to recommend a life of robust naïveté.

BaiHu

07-14-2014, 12:06 PM

And as for the argument that comparing the wod to the gun-grabbers is wrong because "drugs are different" - well, sure, you see them differently. But they are both inanimate objects that provide a pleasant, harmless pastime for millions; they both occasionally save a life; and they both are abused by a very visible and unfortunately glorified minority to perpetrate ghastly tragedies. The only real difference involves personal tastes and social mores. This willingness to fund an outrageously large government effort to force moral outrage down my throat is disappointing and offensive.
SNIPPED
...........Think carefully, speak plainly, act accordingly, and take what you get - there's a lot to recommend a life of robust naïveté.

The above is a great point. And I agree with much of it including the 'I don't partake', but I've known/seen some people get crushed by drugs; from high school OD to college tripper until he went insane, etc.

That being said, I like taking the tabula rasa approach: If we just go back to the moment guns or drugs were invented, what factors required intervention beyond the local community?

My own thought is that all of these arguments can be brought back to state's rights. As a counterpoint to my own thought, I also see any nation, state, county, or town to be a part of a larger organism. The antibiotics argument (that if we abuse antibiotics, we create a stronger strain to spread to the populace) can easily be passed along to the gun/drug argument. How fallacious is the below argumentation?

The more people who use guns, the more likely we will see a stronger need to use a gun (judicious marksmanship be damned), the 'more it spreads'.

The more people who use drugs/alcohol, the more likely we will see a stronger need to use drugs/alcohol (staying home and not out among the public be damned), the 'more it spreads'.

We can decry that we have too much gov't anywhere, but until we are unified on what personal freedom really is, I don't see how we don't continue struggling right where we are.

MDS

07-14-2014, 01:12 PM

The above is a great point. And I agree with much of it including the 'I don't partake', but I've known/seen some people get crushed by drugs; from high school OD to college tripper until he went insane, etc.

[...]

We can decry that we have too much gov't anywhere, but until we are unified on what personal freedom really is, I don't see how we don't continue struggling right where we are.

I've known/seen people get crushed by guns, too. And drugs, and alcohol, and tobacco killed my dad before he could meet my kids, and and and. Tragedy is fundamental to existence. Human tragedy is a result of humans interacting with themselves and each other. The supporting cast of items - animal, vegetable, or mineral - is incidental to the tragedy, but starving as we are for some way to stop the pain, we focus on these incidental items like castaways looking at a menu. Banning stuff will stop the pain like eating the menu will feed the castaway. "Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

And I think we do broadly agree on defining personal freedom, it's just easy to fall into the trap of seeing our personal choices and beliefs as Ultimate Truth worthy enough to force upon others. We confuse "wrong" (i.e., different from our own choices and beliefs) with "bad" and therefore subject to prohibition.

BaiHu

07-14-2014, 01:29 PM

Agreed. WRT personal freedom, I think we on PF mainly agree. But the larger society, I think, confounds personal freedom with lack of responsibility at times. Does that make sense?

Alpha Sierra

07-14-2014, 01:43 PM

If there's one thing that's abundantly clear about modern American society it's that we have a whole bunch of dudes walking around breathing free air who should be six feet underFIFY

RoyGBiv

07-14-2014, 01:45 PM

My personal freedom ends at the point where it begins to interfere with yours. From there, the decision about what to do about it should be made as locally as possible.

Neighbor, block, town, city, county, state, etc. (I assume we're talking about rules/regulations/laws, generally)

BaiHu

07-14-2014, 01:53 PM

LOKNLOD

07-14-2014, 02:20 PM

First, I didn't say it wouldn't be effective (that's debatable) - I asked if it would be a good answer.

Second, how can you argue so vehemently for a free society, then argue just as passionately to keep me from smoking a rock?

I didn't intend for my argument against drugs to be as passionate as my argument in favor of guns. Sorry it read that way. I don't like drugs - hell, I don't even like alcohol - but my feelings on the gov'ts approach to them are still a bit more neutral; even undecided on some facets. I don't like overreaching gov't either.

And as for the argument that comparing the wod to the gun-grabbers is wrong because "drugs are different" - well, sure, you see them differently. But they are both inanimate objects that provide a pleasant, harmless pastime for millions; they both occasionally save a life; and they both are abused by a very visible and unfortunately glorified minority to perpetrate ghastly tragedies. The only real difference involves personal tastes and social mores. This willingness to fund an outrageously large government effort to force moral outrage down my throat is disappointing and offensive.

I realize there is a whole spectrum of drugs, their usage, and abuse, and that a great chunk of the misery that comes from them is related to the illegal trafficking activities they bring under the current prohibition. But, I ask honestly, is it really accurate to say they are just a pleasant, harmless pastime for all but a minority of their users? Maybe it's true, maybe not; maybe it's true for drug X, but not for drugs Y and Z. I don't know. I just can't get to viewing it as exactly the same as guns. Nobody goes home and beats their wife, or puts their car into a family head-on, because they fired a few too many rounds at the range after work with their buddies. Sure, one can purposefully do harm with a gun but purposefully is a key word there. A gun is an inanimate object completely in the control of its user. Once drugs are in use, they are not an inanimate object under the control of a rational user - the user is an animate object, who may or may not be in full control of their faculties, and can be an irrational, potentially dangerous actor. Perhaps, since drug use is inevitable at some level, that means that legal use in the home is the best way to keep that person and others safe from negative effects. Or perhaps it's justification for continued prohibition.

Maybe they should be much like guns - legal, cheap, readily available - and absolutely life-destroying to misuse. No room for error, kitten up and you're toast. Would that be a fair approach?

If arguing along these lines is naïve wishful thinking - which is what I hear you saying, and you may certainly be right! - well, I've heard that before. About my arguments, my voting, the way I treat my employees, the way I deal with customers, the way I wooed my wife, the way I raise my kids - generally the way I interact with people. So far, it's been working out for me. In the end, all I can control is myself. Think carefully, speak plainly, act accordingly, and take what you get - there's a lot to recommend a life of robust naïveté.

I like it :cool: A mantra in my household from my dad was about only being able to control ourselves and our reactions. All anyone has control over, truly, is themselves. Maybe that's why I'm so distrusting of someone relinquishes that control to an intoxicant.

Just trying to give some insight into how I approach the question on drugs and why I come at it differently than guns. I'm not saying expanding the gov't to some further Orwellian nightmare is the right answer.

RoyGBiv

07-14-2014, 02:30 PM

A mantra in my household from my dad was about only being able to control ourselves and our reactions. All anyone has control over, truly, is themselves.
My wife taught me a good one...

"Be 100% responsible for your 50% of the relationship"

She's a keeper.

BaiHu

07-14-2014, 02:54 PM

....I just can't get to viewing it as exactly the same as guns. Nobody goes home and beats their wife, or puts their car into a family head-on, because they fired a few too many rounds at the range after work with their buddies. Sure, one can purposefully do harm with a gun but purposefully is a key word there. A gun is an inanimate object completely in the control of its user. Once drugs are in use, they are not an inanimate object under the control of a rational user - the user is an animate object, who may or may not be in full control of their faculties, and can be an irrational, potentially dangerous actor. Perhaps, since drug use is inevitable at some level, that means that legal use in the home is the best way to keep that person and others safe from negative effects. Or perhaps it's justification for continued prohibition.

Maybe they should be much like guns - legal, cheap, readily available - and absolutely life-destroying to misuse. No room for error, kitten up and you're toast. Would that be a fair approach?

I think this is a really good place to start the distinction. Drugs definitely begin to take hold and become the puppeteer. The inanimate becomes the animator. I think this would be less likely to happen to a gun enthusiast than a recreational drug user.

Counterpoint: Can a gun enthusiast become corrupt by the power of the steel/polymer? I think not. Can a recreational user have their mind corrupted? I think it's more likely. However, in order for either to be corrupted, I believe both have to be corruptible either by force (the spin off of the drug trade is the sex trade) or by individual desire.

RoyGBiv

07-14-2014, 03:03 PM

We have a tendency here in the US of not giving full consideration to things that were not invented here.
While I agree that the US is not Portugal, the predictions of "everyone will be wasted", "society will crash", will certainly not come true.

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/)

'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060-2.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/17/lowering-the-deadly-cost-of-drug-abuse/decriminalizing-possession-of-all-illicit-drugs

TAZ

07-14-2014, 04:03 PM

We can dream up all sorts of things to fix the ghetto; but none of it is going to work. You can lead a horse to water; but you can't make them drink. Applies to people as well. Until the ghetto wants to be fixed we can throw quadrillionth of dollars at it from every conceivable angle to no effect.

41magfan

07-14-2014, 04:09 PM

It will fix itself when the host animal has no more to offer the parasites.

MDS

07-14-2014, 04:36 PM

Agreed. WRT personal freedom, I think we on PF mainly agree. But the larger society, I think, confounds personal freedom with lack of responsibility at times. Does that make sense?

Makes total sense. Free as in "free from cost." I thought you were referring to "us" in this particular discussion, rather than "us" in the general voting public. In that larger context, the tricky thing ime is to engage in productive conversation at all, let alone examine deep-seated assumptions and definitions.... Sometimes I feel like hanging out on this board has ruined me for other, less polite discussion fora. :)

But, I ask honestly, is it really accurate to say they are just a pleasant, harmless pastime for all but a minority of their users?
[...]

Just trying to give some insight into how I approach the question on drugs and why I come at it differently than guns. I'm not saying expanding the gov't to some further Orwellian nightmare is the right answer.

First, awesome way to break down your viewpoint so I can understand it! I was a bit of a drug-free anomaly in my peer group growing up, I've still got friends that partake regularly, and not just pot. What if we treat drugs like alcohol? No DUI, generally no public intoxication, etc? If we outright prohibit drugs, only criminals will take drugs - why bother exercising judgment in my drug use if I'm already making poor choices by definition? But give me a path to judicious drug use and I'm more likely to do it within the prescribed safety parameters.

BaiHu

07-14-2014, 04:42 PM

You guys put this thing on the map. This conversation has really made me rethink my position a bit more. I'm no longer of the opinion that simply legalizating and taxing will be the best route.

However, bringing it out of the shadows, regulating it like cigarettes and tobacco, may only leave the true victimless users behind and save some of the real victims, which are the children of addicts, the children of the drug war and the children of the sex trade.

JAD

07-14-2014, 04:56 PM

One of my objections to legalization is similar to my position regarding the death penalty, back before I developed a moral objection to it. I was unsatisfied with the government being in charge of death. Likewise, if drugs are legalized, I'm going to bet they won't be privatized; and then the government becomes the purveyor of drugs, which is intolerable.

BaiHu

07-14-2014, 05:20 PM

I hear your concerns, but we have a private/public conundrum as we speak with the FDA and big pharma. Are you worried that we'll just have drug - addled wards of the state that vote for their pusher? If so, then it really won't be much different than it is now, right?

LOKNLOD

07-14-2014, 05:29 PM

First, awesome way to break down your viewpoint so I can understand it! I was a bit of a drug-free anomaly in my peer group growing up, I've still got friends that partake regularly, and not just pot.

I appreciate you bearing with me as I got the thoughts out. I always enjoy the P-F discussions. I'm a bit of an anomaly too, I think - heck I made it through college without ever drinking. I've never been offered pot. And yet I like a lot of stoner humor. Go figure :p I'd probably be a real hoot, if I got high...

If we outright prohibit drugs, only criminals will take drugs - why bother exercising judgment in my drug use if I'm already making poor choices by definition? But give me a path to judicious drug use and I'm more likely to do it within the prescribed safety parameters.

I kind of wondered the opposite - what if the risk of criminal charges is what makes me afraid to try it, and if it's legal, it must be okay, like alcohol is? Are people who otherwise wouldn't touch it going to get sucked in if it's readily available and doesn't carry the same legal consequences? I think both viewpoints are legitimate and apply to a certain percentage of the population.

JHC

07-14-2014, 05:34 PM

Even the least of them are poison. Full court presses against it in the past reduced use. But we don't maintain those efforts. IMO we would be doing the young of the future a better service by doubling down on the "Reefer Madness" message ;) than legalizing it.

"This body of literature is strengthening the evidence for the risks that marijuana poses for the development of schizophrenia." http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Schizophrenia9&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=117962

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2691837/Smoking-cannabis-DOES-increase-risk-anxiety-depression.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=persistent%20cannabis%20users%20and%20 meier

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=effect%20of%20long-term%20cannabis%20use%20and%20zalesky

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2014/07/hardcore-pot-smoking-could-damage-brains-pleasure-center

Shellback

07-14-2014, 05:45 PM

It's no secret that I lean towards the Constitutionalist/libertarian side of the political spectrum. Personally, I believe that the prohibition of marijuana usage is a state's rights issue, read the 10th Amendment, and should not be decided by the federal government. If in fact they want to regulate it there should be a Constitutional Amendment passed as was done for the prohibition of alcohol, the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act.

That's where the argument ends for me. Personally I don't care if people want to smoke their bong, eat their twinkies and ice cream while watching Dazed & Confused. However, I do think these stories below are quite interesting and also point to some very valid medical reasons for the use of marijuana.

This Montana man cured his 2 year old son's brain cancer using marijuana in a medicinal fashion (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1383240/Boy-brain-cancer-cured-secretly-fed-medical-marijuana-father.html).

The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm) who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

The National Cancer Institute has changed it's wording due to the overwhelming responses they received after publishing the fact that marijuana has helped decrease tumors in humans. They still have relevent information concerning testing on mice and rats here (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/Page4#Section_7). A little more info on human testing is here. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/Page7#Section_13)

And recently in Colorado. (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/07/13/medical-marijuana-refugees/12612251/)

Hundreds of families, including some from St. Louis, have become medical marijuana refugees. They've moved to Colorado because they have children with epilepsy and a special strain of oil from the marijuana plant seems to dramatically reduce seizures.

Another article on children with seizures (http://myfox8.com/2014/06/25/family-moving-to-colorado-in-hopes-that-medical-marijuana-will-help-son/)benefiting from CO's stance on MJ.

JAD

07-14-2014, 07:00 PM

No, I don't think the government should be in the business of dispensing recreational drugs.

MDS

07-14-2014, 07:08 PM

I kind of wondered the opposite - what if the risk of criminal charges is what makes me afraid to try it, and if it's legal, it must be okay, like alcohol is? Are people who otherwise wouldn't touch it going to get sucked in if it's readily available and doesn't carry the same legal consequences?

I guess it depends on the person, right? I always thought the reason pot can be a gateway drug is that all that stuff gets lumped into the same bucket. So a kid gives in, he shares a joint, and he's worried because he's seen the videos of crackheads and reefer madness.... except the only thing that happens is he laughs a lot, eats 47 Krystal burgers, makes out with bad girl Jenny just like he's fantasized since fall, then has the best night's sleep in forever. Nothing very scary even after several times. You know, if they were wrong about pot, maybe a little heroin won't be too bad, either... It could go either way, and if someone wants drugs, they are easy to get, War on Drugs or no. Then again, I can't imagine a high school and college experience where you were never offered a joint. Background colors our experience and maybe I've just been desensitized to recreational drugs so they seem normal and harmless, though they're certainly have the potential for tragedy if misused.... but again, doesn't that describe us about guns, compared to many city kids who have never been offered a trip to the range?

Anyway, I just don't see a big danger in having decent, law-abiding people smoke or drink or whatever. Just like with guns, they're only really dangerous in the hands of people who wouldn't let prohibition stop them anyway.

I think both viewpoints are legitimate and apply to a certain percentage of the population.

Agreed! What sucks is that one viewpoint is illegal if you actually act on it...

David S.

07-14-2014, 07:17 PM

David S.

07-14-2014, 07:19 PM

John Hearne

07-14-2014, 08:08 PM

I am fairly convinced that drugs do not cause gang violence - drug sales are just what they are fighting over today. Gang violence is generally the result of a large group of people (density is important) living without the rule of law. Since they can seek no redress of grievance from a formal authority, they act to redress their own grievances.

These are uneducated, illiterate people fighting over scarce resources - respect and turf*. Today a lot of "turf" is the right to sell drugs in a given area. However, if drugs were legal tomorrow these people are still uneducated, illiterate, and unable/unwilling to earn a living through conventional means. Nothing about drugs being legal changes the fact that they can't function in a modern, capitalist society. We have groups that believe that criminality is a worthy pursuit while education, employment, thrift, and saving are pursuits for suckers.

While not politically correct by any measure, Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals gives a great perspective on the current crisis we face. While not solely focused on these issues, an interesting take on the rule of law and modern v. tribal societies and the pressures they create can be found in Nicholas Wade's A Troublesome Inheritance. Another fascinating read on this subject is Sudhir Venkatesh's Gang Leader For A Day.

* A really disturbing picture of the typical gang member is found in the FBI's "Violent Encounters" study.

Hatchetman

07-14-2014, 08:48 PM

I'll just leave this here:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img607/7854/13v152.gif

BaiHu

07-14-2014, 09:00 PM

Are you saying that money doesn't solve all of your problems? What kind of animal are you?

RoyGBiv

07-14-2014, 09:06 PM

No, I don't think the government should be in the business of dispensing recreational drugs.

Still have State-run liquor stores in several States.... PA, NC, VA come to mind quickly.
Although I agree with you, the States should not be in the business.

I would expect some transition period until the unplanned-for issues are well known/resolved, then a move to privatizing manufacturing and sales, similar to alcohol.

GardoneVT

07-14-2014, 09:41 PM

To play devils advocate, how far should we take the legalization movement?

In principle, the justification for legalizing weed applies equally to legalizing Oxycodone or Meth . After all, if the government has no business regulating pot it conceptually has no business banning or controlling the harder stuff either.

I knew a chick when I was active duty who had a problem with Oxy , and she was an Airman to boot. I walked in from work one day to find her in the closet threatening suicide, high on someone else's prescription pills. I spent a harrowing hour talking her off the edge, realizing the whole time that I didn't know her First Shirts phone number if things went straight to hell. Because she had illegal pills she didn't want to seek help or counseling, and to her credit a repeat incident didn't happen again. Still..... that's the kind of thing we can look forward to more often in a nation where drugs are openly legal.

While a counterpoint to that might be "she got pills on a military base, so clearly the laws don't matter" my response is this; the law didn't stop her from consuming, but it had a lot to do with why she quit associating with the folks who supplied her the stuff. In a society where Oxy is legal to consume without limit, I doubt shed be here .

BaiHu

07-14-2014, 09:51 PM

While a counterpoint to that might be "she got pills on a military base, so clearly the laws don't matter" my response is this; the law didn't stop her from consuming, but it had a lot to do with why she quit associating with the folks who supplied her the stuff. In a society where Oxy is legal to consume without limit, I doubt shed be here .

You raise an interesting point, but did she stop because it was illegal or because it almost killed her?

Secondly, no law stops anyone from doing anything, it just penalizes those who get caught and threatens those that don't. All of this makes me think of the Mel Gibson line in the Patriot: Why would I trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?

Shellback

07-14-2014, 09:52 PM

* A really disturbing picture of the typical gang member is found in the FBI's "Violent Encounters" study.

Full color PDF of the report here (http://njiat.com/media/FBI%20176%20Page%20Report%20titled%20Violent%20Enc ounters.pdf) for those who are interested.

GardoneVT

07-14-2014, 10:03 PM

You raise an interesting point, but did she stop because it was illegal or because it almost killed her?

Secondly, no law stops anyone from doing anything, it just penalizes those who get caught and threatens those that don't. All of this makes me think of the Mel Gibson line in the Patriot: Why would I trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?

The legal consequences were part of why she gave it up and decided, more importantly, to face her life issues in better ways. Ive known others who would be frequent drug users if their military career and associated regs didnt preclude that.

MDS

07-14-2014, 10:11 PM

I knew a chick

Sad story. How does that justify telling me I can't take some oxy? I'm not hurting anyone - even in your story this girl didn't hurt anyone, nor even threaten anyone but herself. How can you be pro-gun after Newtown, yet one chick has a bad day in your vicinity and you run to ban whatever dangerous thing seems most proximate at the time?

GardoneVT

07-14-2014, 10:19 PM

Sad story. How does that justify telling me I can't take some oxy? I'm not hurting anyone - even in your story this girl didn't hurt anyone, nor even threaten anyone but herself. How can you be pro-gun after Newtown, yet one chick has a bad day in your vicinity and you run to ban whatever dangerous thing seems most proximate at the time?

My core question is where do you draw the line?

If its conceptually wrong to ban weed, it is consistent to say that it is conceptually wrong to ban any recreational drug.

JAD

07-14-2014, 10:29 PM

Just watched an excellent documentary on pbs on this topic, 'POV: Getting Back to Abnormal.' Worth streaming.

BaiHu

07-14-2014, 10:46 PM

Link?

MDS

07-14-2014, 10:57 PM

My core question is where do you draw the line?

If its conceptually wrong to ban weed, it is consistent to say that it is conceptually wrong to ban any recreational drug.
I'll make you a deal - you answer the question I've been asking you for a while, and I'll answer yours. Why is your personal negative experience a sufficient reason to ban drugs, but someone else's personal negative experience is not sufficient to ban guns?

RoyGBiv

07-14-2014, 11:22 PM

^^^ when the consequences are treatment and not jail, a person in your friends situation would be more likely to seek and receive assistance with fsr fewer negative ramifications.

tremiles

07-14-2014, 11:39 PM

Isn't it all kind of a moot point if marijuana production isn't legalized nationally? Not decriminalization of possession, or recreational use, but large scale production to meet national demand. As soon as the DEA finds evidence of WA state and CO produced pot crossing state lines, the growers and processors are going to get shut down. I'm guessing they artificially limit their production to minimize that risk, so Central American and Mexican cartel (and from what I read, Afghani) produced pot will simply be cheaper and drug trade violence for control will continue whether cartel vs cartel, or black vs latino vs asian vs white supremacist gangs.

It's not gonna happen.

But, you give Monsanto a license to produce GMO pot. Then not only will it be cheaper, but pot growers next to Monsanto pot seed farms will get sued out of business when wind, bugs, birds etc cross-pollinate their crops. You won't even have to prosecute illegal pot grows. They'll just go broke and get jobs at Starbucks. The granola tree huggers will protest and stop smoking pot. You'll see commercials on CNN and MSNBC with Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins decrying GMO produced pot. Pot demand will simply disappear. Goodbye MS13.

JAD

07-15-2014, 05:15 AM

Link?

Sorry, it was on tv.

JAD

07-15-2014, 05:18 AM

. Goodbye MS13.

MS13's sole possible source of income is marihuana production?

JV_

07-15-2014, 05:51 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/25/ms-13-gang-seeks-to-unite-nationwide/?page=all

According to the DEA, the gangs’ major source of income is narcotics and arms trafficking. Human trafficking and extortion also are becoming lucrative enterprises for them, the DEA agent said.

TCinVA

07-15-2014, 06:23 AM

MS13's sole possible source of income is marihuana production?

In my area they made a fair piece of change running 10-14 year old girls as prostitutes for the local "immigrant" population.

If running drugs across the border became unprofitable...and I don't forsee that happening anytime soon, as any legal drugs will be taxed and that gives the gangbangers a market albeit with probably lower margins...they'll find some other way to make money.

JHC

07-15-2014, 08:05 AM

In my area they made a fair piece of change running 10-14 year old girls as prostitutes for the local "immigrant" population.

If running drugs across the border became unprofitable...and I don't forsee that happening anytime soon, as any legal drugs will be taxed and that gives the gangbangers a market albeit with probably lower margins...they'll find some other way to make money.

Right. I just heard on the radio that the legal pot in WA is around $360/oz. Plenty of room for a black market.

cclaxton

07-15-2014, 08:16 AM

Some problems are intractable. As long as humanity exists there will be ghettos and the people there see theft, drug dealing, burglary, prostitution, assault and even murder as a rational decision. The real question to me is which laws make it better or worse for society and for them? And, what kinds of enforcement make it better for society and for them?

My own view is that the higher the punishment for things like drugs and prostitution, the higher the violence, the higher risk to law enforcement, and the more suffering for the residents of the ghetto. That doesn't mean there should be no consequences, but using drug courts and offering rehab will help both society and them. And, legalizing prostitution will reduce a lot of the violence perpetrated on them and reducing sexually transmitted disease, and reduce underage prostitutes. That being said, when we find people who are repeatedly guilty of assault, or guilty of rape, or repeatedly guilty of battery, they ought to find a new home in the penitentiary.
Cody

JAD

07-15-2014, 08:56 AM

Baihu: http://www.pbs.org/pov/abnormal/

And, OMG! $90 a quarter. Get off my lawn.

hufnagel

07-15-2014, 09:00 AM

You know, I have no idea if that's expensive. I have literally no knowledge about weed, how much you use, how much it costs, etc. :D

Tamara

07-15-2014, 09:11 AM

You know, I have no idea if that's expensive. I have literally no knowledge about weed, how much you use, how much it costs, etc. :D

Can't help you much, I just realized that the last pricing info I have is a quarter century out of date. :eek:

I'm assuming there has been some inflation in that period.

NickA

07-15-2014, 09:18 AM

If running drugs across the border became unprofitable...and I don't forsee that happening anytime soon, as any legal drugs will be taxed and that gives the gangbangers a market albeit with probably lower margins...they'll find some other way to make money.

Living relatively close to the border, this is a potentially big issue for me. We've got what amounts to a heavily armed rogue government (in that they basically control everything along the border) in the cartels. If their main source of income is cut off they're not just going to go legit and become philanthropists a la Bill Gates. Depending on how uppity they get it's not too hard to imagine large scale gunfights on this side of the Rio Grande.

cclaxton

07-15-2014, 09:24 AM

In my area they made a fair piece of change running 10-14 year old girls as prostitutes for the local "immigrant" population.

If running drugs across the border became unprofitable...and I don't forsee that happening anytime soon, as any legal drugs will be taxed and that gives the gangbangers a market albeit with probably lower margins...they'll find some other way to make money.
They will just move up the chain: cocaine, heroine, guns, etc.
Cody

RoyGBiv

07-15-2014, 09:24 AM

To reiterate a point I made earlier... The Ghetto can't be fixed until it wants to be fixed.. from the inside.

Jersey City mayor slams sidewalk memorial honoring cop killer (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/15/police-officer-who-dreamed-following-cop-uncle-footsteps-slain-by-killer-who/)

"Thug in peace"

Where's my magic eraser?

NETim

07-15-2014, 09:28 AM

In my area they made a fair piece of change running 10-14 year old girls as prostitutes for the local "immigrant" population.

If running drugs across the border became unprofitable...and I don't forsee that happening anytime soon, as any legal drugs will be taxed and that gives the gangbangers a market albeit with probably lower margins...they'll find some other way to make money.

Probably could make a ton o' money reselling their "Fast and Furious" windfall.

Shellback

07-15-2014, 09:44 AM

You know, I have no idea if that's expensive. I have literally no knowledge about weed, how much you use, how much it costs, etc. :D

Go to www.weedmaps.com and it'll show you delivery prices for the applicable states. $90 for a quarter of medicinal grade weed is about standard in Las Vegas. It ranges from $60 - $120 typically. Here's an example of one of our big delivery service menus (https://weedmaps.com/dispensaries/super-buds-alternative-healing-center-2-las-vegas?c=main) for medical marijuana patients. The prices include the delivery fee.

tremiles

07-15-2014, 10:09 AM

MS13's sole possible source of income is marihuana production?

C'mon, MS13 has never had to deal with animals like Monsanto attorneys. They wouldn't know what hit 'em.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

JodyH

07-15-2014, 11:11 AM

Can't help you much, I just realized that the last pricing info I have is a quarter century out of date. :eek:

I'm assuming there has been some inflation in that period.
$25/qtr. back in the day (1989'ish)... so I heard.

MDS

07-15-2014, 11:14 AM

I'm assuming there has been some inflation in that period.

Yes, quite a bit. And deflation, too. Of chest cavities. Regardless of legal status. From what I hear the cost at a Colorado PotBucks is about double what it is in the alley across the street, but legal prices have been dropping since the initial rush of demand. Marijuana Barista is a thing, and folks are willing to pay $50 instead of $25 for a dime bag. (Remember when "dime bag" referred to the price, instead of the amount?)

If running drugs across the border became unprofitable...and I don't forsee that happening anytime soon, as any legal drugs will be taxed and that gives the gangbangers a market albeit with probably lower margins...they'll find some other way to make money.

There are some things for which prohibition will never eliminate or even substantially reduce demand. Prohibition makes servicing that demand in a black market just ludicrously lucrative, attracting the kind of businessman who is willing to risk major criminal charges. That willingness is the source of most of the violence in the WOD. Reduce the margins by introducing legitimate or even gray-market competition, and that kind of black-market businessman will move on. This is already happening in CA and CO, at least anecdotally IME - I know a couple of folks who have moved their business out of those states because they're willing to risk jail in exchange for better margins. OTOH, I know even more folks who are excited about "coming out" and the explosion of quality pot being invented, folks who are excited about the stuff but aren't hardened criminals willing to do violence, folks who fought long and hard for legalization so they could pursue a dream.

You don't need to legalize everything, just enough so that folks with those desires have a way to satisfy them (in econ 101 they called this a "substitute good.") Legalize the Big Three illegal drugs (heroin, coke, pot) and the black-market margins will drop on everything from crack to meth, oxy to adderall. Legalize prostitution for 21-and-over, and the margins will drop in the market for 10-14 year old girls. Not drop to zero, but any significant drop will reduce the willingness for dealers to risk hard time, and therefore reduce the overall violence in their business dealings.

Now, before you lecture me on how this is all a pipe dream: I don't disagree. IMO, the underlying reasons for these kinds of prohibitions (e.g., of drugs and of gay marriage by the right, of guns and spanking by the left, of prostitution by almost everyone) are not not usually rational reasons, born of data and analysis. They are emotional reasons, born of ignorance and prejudice and fear. Rational discussion, of the kind we're so proud to have so often on this board, doesn't often reach those kinds of decision centers, let alone influence or change them. Maybe one by one, if you find people willing to revisit their deeply-help convictions, but certainly not at a scale to influence national or state or even local policy. But as I mentioned to someone else recently, work has been a bear lately and debating politics on the internet is the only thing keeping me from heading to PotBucks for a way to take things off my mind. ;)

TCinVA

07-15-2014, 11:29 AM

and the margins will drop in the market for 10-14 year old girls.

Not when the johns are specifically after 10-14 year old girls. It's not like the Sur-13 smurf-heads couldn't find 21 year old Mexican women to force into a brothel at gunpoint. The 10-14 year olds made more money.

There are rational actors involved in these things, but a whole smurf-load of it is irrational and persistently so.

cclaxton

07-15-2014, 11:29 AM

They are emotional reasons, born of ignorance and prejudice and fear. Rational discussion, of the kind we're so proud to have so often on this board, doesn't often reach those kinds of decision centers, let alone influence or change them. Maybe one by one, if you find people willing to revisit their deeply-help convictions, but certainly not at a scale to influence national or state or even local policy. But as I mentioned to someone else recently, work has been a bear lately and debating politics on the internet is the only thing keeping me from heading to PotBucks for a way to take things off my mind. ;)
In my view there are two kinds of people in the world: Believers and Scientists. Believers are going to believe the earth is 6000 years old because the Bible told them or that prostitutes should be executed because the Koran told them or that legalizing drugs will lead to everyone being hooked on heroin. Scientists are willing to set aside the Bible/Koran/PopularBelief and look at the FACTS and the tested theories about how the earth works, how ecology works, how the human animal works and how society works, and consider changes that will reduce suffering, cost less, and still provide a civil society we can raise our kids in.

I put myself in the category of scientist. In my experience believers are only going to believe facts that will support their beliefs, or will accept things that won't interfere with their beliefs. But it is a different way of thinking....once a believer has said they are going to take it on "faith" or, "blind faith" in order to prove their faith....they are lost. They will never accept anything that would contradict their belief. THis is not a religious question as it is a mental/psychological question. You can still be a scientist and believe in God, but accept that these ancient books of God are...well...ancient. And, the rules of physics don't change, so we have to accept that the earth is billions of years old and humans evolved from apes and humankind was born hundreds of thousands of years ago. People can still have faith in God, but it just gets further clarified through our understanding of science, the ecology, biology, psychology and our ability to observe ourselves.
Cody

BaiHu

07-15-2014, 11:36 AM

Baihu: http://www.pbs.org/pov/abnormal/

And, OMG! $90 a quarter. Get off my lawn.

Thanks.

MDS

07-15-2014, 11:56 AM

Not when the johns are specifically after 10-14 year old girls. It's not like the Sur-13 smurf-heads couldn't find 21 year old Mexican women to force into a brothel at gunpoint. The 10-14 year olds made more money.

There are rational actors involved in these things, but a whole smurf-load of it is irrational and persistently so.

Sure. But how many johns specifically seeking 10-14 year olds would make do with a 21-year-old in a schoolgirl costume? No amount of prohibition will stop the hardcore pursuers of little girls, just like no amount of prohibition will stop hardened criminals from getting guns or being violent. But prohibition does make criminals of folks who would be happy with a 21-year-old - and, perversely, can often encourage such a person to accept the pimp's offer of a 14-year-old because they're already breaking the law, and the girls seems really willing, and...you know?

In my view there are two kinds of people in the world: Believers and Scientists.

In my view there is only one kind of person in the world: flawed. I wish I could agree with you, but my perception of reality doesn't jibe at all with such simplicity.

BaiHu

07-15-2014, 12:00 PM

In my view there are two kinds of people in the world: Believers and Scientists. Believers are going to believe the earth is 6000 years old because the Bible told them or that prostitutes should be executed because the Koran told them or that legalizing drugs will lead to everyone being hooked on heroin. Scientists are willing to set aside the Bible/Koran/PopularBelief and look at the FACTS and the tested theories about how the earth works, how ecology works, how the human animal works and how society works, and consider changes that will reduce suffering, cost less, and still provide a civil society we can raise our kids in.

I put myself in the category of scientist. In my experience believers are only going to believe facts that will support their beliefs, or will accept things that won't interfere with their beliefs. But it is a different way of thinking....once a believer has said they are going to take it on "faith" or, "blind faith" in order to prove their faith....they are lost. They will never accept anything that would contradict their belief. THis is not a religious question as it is a mental/psychological question. You can still be a scientist and believe in God, but accept that these ancient books of God are...well...ancient. And, the rules of physics don't change, so we have to accept that the earth is billions of years old and humans evolved from apes and humankind was born hundreds of thousands of years ago. People can still have faith in God, but it just gets further clarified through our understanding of science, the ecology, biology, psychology and our ability to observe ourselves.
Cody
At one point a scientist was a believer that pursued that belief until it was a confirmed fact....for now. Gravity anyone?

45dotACP

07-15-2014, 12:18 PM

Considering the status of marijuana as a "Gateway Drug" I think legalizing pot will reduce overall drug use, as well as reducing the number of pot cases that send kids to prison (which is essentially trade school from criminals). But I don't think that will fix the Ghetto. I think the Ghetto could be repaired, but the issue is a complicated one. Gateway drugs are only dangerous because they introduce previously noncriminal individuals to criminal individuals. If they already know each other (such as in an insular community such as the inner city) then the point is moot.

It may have an effect in suburban areas, where the drug trades are larger (albeit slightly less violent) than inner city markets.

But we'll have to see with Colorado and Washington...

This from a believing science afficionado. I am completely certain there are more than just two types of people in the world. There are people who give absolutely not a kitten about how to fix the world, or how to fix the ghettos or anything but how to make a dollar or two off of the chaos. There are people who don't care about how to fix the ghetto because they are too busy trying to survive it.

The problem with the Ghetto in my opinion, is that the drug trade in places like Chicago is highly unstable. Lots of smaller street gangs all vying for their piece of the action. None of these people are believers or scientists, but they are the kind who would exploit the situation and kill a rival for their turf. The kids who are caught in the crossfire don't believe that harsher punishments will deter crime, and neither do they research economic theory and ascertain that the elimination of gateway drugs might reduce overall drug use.

David S.

07-15-2014, 12:21 PM

In my view there is only one kind of person in the world: flawed. I wish I could agree with you, but my perception of reality doesn't jibe at all with such simplicity.

+1 but I'm sure you (Cody) ultimately agree with that too. I'm curious where you're going with that thought on "believers and scientists." While the way in which a person comes to a belief or understanding on a topic may be interesting, how does it apply to the topic at hand?

Cheers,
David

Mr_White

07-15-2014, 12:55 PM

This doesn't contribute much to the practical nuts and bolts of the discussion, but 'leave me alone' is a sentiment I deeply appreciate - and appropriately this comes from the apparently half-serious Guns and Dope Party:

Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching
on one candy bar after another.

After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said,
"Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you.
It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat."

Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old."

The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"

Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own f*cking business."

RevolverRob

07-15-2014, 01:04 PM

The injection of philosophical naturalism in this argument is so left field, it makes my brain hurt. I'm getting the scientist shakes from all the paragraphs that contain facts, belief, science, while talking about the same subject.

-Rob

cclaxton

07-15-2014, 01:13 PM

+1 but I'm sure you (Cody) ultimately agree with that too. I'm curious where you're going with that thought on "believers and scientists." While the way in which a person comes to a belief or understanding on a topic may be interesting, how does it apply to the topic at hand?

Cheers,
David
Well, I do think every individual is unique and different and flawed. My comment was in response to MDS about "deeply held convictions...etc." The problem is that a certain segment of the population will never be convinced that marijuana or prostitution should be legalized or decriminalized even in the face of clear evidence that doing so would reduce suffering in the ghetto without ruining our society. A certain segment of the society will never be convinced that concealed guns are a good thing for society. A certain segment of the society will never be convinced that gov't regulations can have good effects. A certain segment of the society will never be convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter of JFK. A certain segment of society will never be convinced that Democrats support gun rights. Etc. Etc. Etc.

While I do think some people can repent and become scientists, I have also seen scientists become believers. The issue is that a believer has to suspend their rational brain in order to believe something that is clearly irrational. Once you have done that, then everything is subject to the same process. It becomes a matter of personal subjective experience, preference and the influence of others.

It's a way of thinking...kinda hard to think two different ways at the same time.
Cody

RevolverRob

07-15-2014, 01:40 PM

MDS

07-15-2014, 01:43 PM

kinda hard to think two different ways at the same time.

I guess this is what I'm saying: everybody thinks two ways at once. To use your dichotomy, everyone is a scientist sometimes, and a believer sometimes, and some of those sometimes are the same time. Sometimes folks just aren't aware of this cognitive dissonance, sometimes they're perfectly happy with it... And some of those sometimes are the same time, too.

cclaxton

07-15-2014, 02:41 PM

Oh my gosh, I had to stop what I was working on today, because my indignation requires me to do this.

Cody, you have conflated philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism to give an extremely skewed definition of what a scientist is. I take major affront to this, because I self-identify as a professional scientist. To paraphrase your signature quote, "Claiming to be a scientist without proper training is like purchasing dental equipment and thinking you can be a dentist."

Here are excerpts from the lecture I give to college freshmen on what is science and the nature of science these are definitions:

Modern Science seeks to explain natural phenomena using natural terms.

Fact – Observation that has been repeatedly confirmed; can be overturned with new evidence.

Hypothesis – Explanation or statement about natural phenomena that ideally can be tested or evaluated; can be overturned with new evidence.

Theory – highly-tested and substantiated explanation of a natural phenomena based on large collection of observations, facts, and experiments (can consistently predict natural phenomena).

BELIEF is not a part of this definition and in fact has NOTHING to do with being a "scientist" or "believer". This dichotomous worldview is completely fallacious. Methodological naturalism means that scientists restrict themselves to natural explanations for observed phenomena (we do not invoke supernatural explanations for a phenomena). Philosophical naturalists suggest that all questions can be explained via a naturalistic framework. Methodological naturalists suggest that only natural phenomena can be explored utilizing science.

Please separate these as different constructs in your mind. A scientist IS a methodological naturalist and must investigate phenomena in a naturalistic framework, but a scientist may choose to also be a philosophical naturalist and incorporate science into their belief system. But science is NOT a belief system NOR is it intended to be a framework by which beliefs may be evaluated or addressed, unless you are explicitly a philosophical naturalist.

In my anecdotal experience the vast majority of scientists globally are NOT philosophical naturalists.

-Rob
Rob,
I don't dispute what you have so articulately written. It was not my intention to complicate the matter by using the word "scientist" to describe the alternative to believer. But nevertheless I think the dichotomy exists and I see evidence of it everyday in how people interact and justify their positions and activities.

We may be getting tripped up on words and definitions here, so I will try and explain:
- A Believer is someone who will believe something is true even though there is clear evidence it is not due to their deeply held convictions;
- A scientist (in my definition) is someone who will not let their own belief system overrule clear and convincing scientific knowledge about a given subject and will accept that results from use of the scientific method are superior to beliefs. Now if you want to call that a philosophical naturalist, that is fine with me.

Now maybe I should be using a different word other than scientist, and I am open to calling it something else.

But here is my question for you: If a methodological scientist is studying anthropology, for instance, how can he/she also hold the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old? It seems to me that is going to so bias their methods and their findings that this become a self-fulfilling prophesy. (See, I proved the earth is only 6000 years old!!)
Cody

RevolverRob

07-15-2014, 02:54 PM

Cody,

Your first point the word you are looking for is skeptic, or perhaps rational skeptic, as opposed to scientist. Skeptics reject/question belief systems and are inclined to question all data types. Extreme skeptics are those that reject knowledge or belief. A rational skeptic would accept that belief is true, but would question the data that are used to arrive at belief systems.

The second question: This is dealt directly in the definition of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalists would set aside the common Young-Earth Creationist explanation for how the Earth was created, God created it, because that is not a phenomena that can be investigated using methodological naturalism. God, ghosts, aliens are all supernatural explanations that cannot be evaluated with observations, hypotheses, or used to make predictive statements about modern phenomena. So, the viewpoint here would be, "How old is the Earth?" Not "is the Earth only 6000 years old. A naturalistic method would require you to age components of the Earth, Solar System, and even Universe to develop your hypothesis of how old the Earth is. From this, you could then utilize absolute dating methods (which are themselves based on natural radioactive decay that is measurable, observable by multiple independent observers, and repeatable) to age the components of Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe. You would draw your conclusions from the data you gathered.

There is a legitimate concern of "confirmation bias" in modern science. This is alleviated by a repeatablity criterion that requires results to be able to be replicated by multiple, independent, observers. As long as conditions for the original observation are met, then the same result should occur. This is something that modern academic scientists are struggling with at present, because most of the conditions of the original observation are not being recorded adequately to allow the observations to be repeated.

-Rob

Sensei

07-15-2014, 03:01 PM

I'll make you a deal - you answer the question I've been asking you for a while, and I'll answer yours. Why is your personal negative experience a sufficient reason to ban drugs, but someone else's personal negative experience is not sufficient to ban guns?

I'll make you a deal: first remove all of the social programs that benefit the addicted at the expense of the tax payer, then we can proceed with legalization of crack, meth, non-therapeutic Oxy, etc. That means repeal EMTALA, shut down WIC, close Section 8, do away with food stamps, and end Medicaid. Only then will people enjoy the full freedom that you envision - the freedom to enjoy the consequences of their decisions without a public safety net. As long as we expect the government to wipe our ass, expect it to have a say as to what we put into our bodies - the carrot and the stick.

JHC

07-15-2014, 04:54 PM

What is with this GUNS=Narcotics analogy?

99.9% of guns are good

99.9% of illegal narcotics are bad

This libertarian fantasyland has never existed short of free ranging aborigines and it sure hasn't built or maintained a civilization.

Tamara

07-15-2014, 05:02 PM

I was wondering when we'd get to Argumentum Ad Somalium. :D

JHC

07-15-2014, 05:06 PM

This doesn't contribute much to the practical nuts and bolts of the discussion, but 'leave me alone' is a sentiment I deeply appreciate - and appropriately this comes from the apparently half-serious Guns and Dope Party:

I like to be left alone. I like to leave others alone too. But that is not sufficient as an ideology to organize a society around. Other than wandering aborigines, what modern civilization can be built or sustained without some element of the Team? Team requires some compromise for the Self. Individualism was one thing. A major societal attribute for a lot of our history. But that golden age had numerous behavioral and moral standards that were enforced in all manner of ways from legal to just social. It created a civil society. Swear in front of a woman, get punched. No spitting in the street. Perhaps municipal decree that no guns were to be carried in town.

Todays general collapse of societal standards of decency aren't making people more free in any meaningful sense. Drug legalization with just be an accelerant poured onto our bonfire.

Mr_White

07-15-2014, 05:08 PM

libertarian fantasyland has never existed short of free ranging aborigines and it sure hasn't built or maintained a civilization.

I have a Cold Steel Assegai in my closet ready to go. I don't think I can build anything with it though. ;)

JHC

07-15-2014, 05:15 PM

I was wondering when we'd get to Argumentum Ad Somalium. :D

http://utahliberty.org/content/1349

Somalia???? :D

Civilizations are formed around a central ideology; like classical liberalism formed Western Civilization. Some of today's popular points of view are dogma rather than an ideology.

The "ghettos" (of the inner city or the meth cooking backwoods) need to adopt and enforce standards across the board. Will never ever happen. I can't imagine the mechanism that could cause that.

Mr_White

07-15-2014, 05:25 PM

I like to be left alone. I like to leave others alone too. But that is not sufficient as an ideology to organize a society around. Other than wandering aborigines, what modern civilization can be built or sustained without some element of the Team? Team requires some compromise for the Self. Individualism was one thing. A major societal attribute for a lot of our history. But that golden age had numerous behavioral and moral standards that were enforced in all manner of ways from legal to just social. It created a civil society. Swear in front of a woman, get punched. No spitting in the street. Perhaps municipal decree that no guns were to be carried in town.

Todays general collapse of societal standards of decency aren't making people more free in any meaningful sense. Drug legalization with just be an accelerant poured onto our bonfire.

Like I said, I just like the sentiment. I know it's not a description of how a society can work. But I sure want to post that 'little Tony' thing every time my sister starts spamming my wife on Facebook close to Halloween about 'don't buy candy bars x, y, or z because GMO or fair trade' or whatever the busybody reason is.

And, I have become a real convert in recent years of something Tam and Jody mentioned: rhetoric. That's where the action is. Just look at the court on Idiocracy. Debating is something I clung to as a teenager. How useless. Sorry, I am just being cynical now. :)

RoyGBiv

07-15-2014, 05:26 PM

There are some things for which prohibition will never eliminate or even substantially reduce demand. Prohibition makes servicing that demand in a black market just ludicrously lucrative, attracting the kind of businessman who is willing to risk major criminal charges. That willingness is the source of most of the violence in the WOD. Reduce the margins by introducing legitimate or even gray-market competition, and that kind of black-market businessman will move on. This is already happening in CA and CO, at least anecdotally IME - I know a couple of folks who have moved their business out of those states because they're willing to risk jail in exchange for better margins. OTOH, I know even more folks who are excited about "coming out" and the explosion of quality pot being invented, folks who are excited about the stuff but aren't hardened criminals willing to do violence, folks who fought long and hard for legalization so they could pursue a dream.

You don't need to legalize everything, just enough so that folks with those desires have a way to satisfy them (in econ 101 they called this a "substitute good.") Legalize the Big Three illegal drugs (heroin, coke, pot) and the black-market margins will drop on everything from crack to meth, oxy to adderall. Legalize prostitution for 21-and-over, and the margins will drop in the market for 10-14 year old girls. Not drop to zero, but any significant drop will reduce the willingness for dealers to risk hard time, and therefore reduce the overall violence in their business dealings.

Now, before you lecture me on how this is all a pipe dream: I don't disagree. IMO, the underlying reasons for these kinds of prohibitions (e.g., of drugs and of gay marriage by the right, of guns and spanking by the left, of prostitution by almost everyone) are not not usually rational reasons, born of data and analysis. They are emotional reasons, born of ignorance and prejudice and fear. Rational discussion, of the kind we're so proud to have so often on this board, doesn't often reach those kinds of decision centers, let alone influence or change them. Maybe one by one, if you find people willing to revisit their deeply-help convictions, but certainly not at a scale to influence national or state or even local policy. But as I mentioned to someone else recently, work has been a bear lately and debating politics on the internet is the only thing keeping me from heading to PotBucks for a way to take things off my mind. ;)
+1

JHC

07-15-2014, 05:28 PM

I was wondering when we'd get to Argumentum Ad Somalium. :D

I've been waiting for this trusty standard: ""If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

JHC

07-15-2014, 05:30 PM

Like I said, I just like the sentiment. I know it's not a description of how a society can work. But I sure want to post that 'little Tony' thing every time my sister starts spamming my wife on Facebook close to Halloween about 'don't buy candy bars x, y, or z because GMO or fair trade' or whatever the busybody reason is.

And, I have become a real convert in recent years of something Tam and Jody mentioned: rhetoric. That's where the action is. Just look at the court on Idiocracy. Debating is something I clung to as a teenager. How useless. Sorry, I am just being cynical now. :)

I harbor much more subversive sentiments myself. I do realize they are properly subordinate to the mores of my society. ;)

Tamara

07-15-2014, 05:33 PM

I've been waiting for this trusty standard: ""If ye love wealth better than the kinds of liberty that I approve of,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of licensed and tightly circumscribed "freedom",
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

FIFY. ;)

Kyle Reese

07-15-2014, 05:47 PM

I was wondering when we'd get to Argumentum Ad Somalium. :D

As in "if you don't agree with my specious arguments and love of anything statist, you should move to Somalia" ?

JHC

07-15-2014, 05:52 PM

As in "if you don't agree with my specious arguments and love of anything statist, you should move to Somalia" ?

I'm pretty sure that's what she meant. And there is a fancy dead language Latin phrase that describes the absurdity of that strawman argument too! ;)

Tamara

07-15-2014, 05:59 PM

As in "if you don't agree with my specious arguments and love of anything statist, you should move to Somalia" ?

Bingo.

I'm pretty sure that's what she meant. And there is a fancy dead language Latin phrase that describes the absurdity of that strawman argument too! ;)

True, you actually used the "Well, show me where libertarians put down their bongs and invented a civilization!" variant. ;)

Tamara

07-15-2014, 06:01 PM

I'll make you a deal: first remove all of the social programs that benefit the addicted at the expense of the tax payer, then we can proceed with legalization of crack, meth, non-therapeutic Oxy, etc. That means repeal EMTALA, shut down WIC, close Section 8, do away with food stamps, and end Medicaid.

*makes 'go on' gesture with hands*

Yeah, okay. And...? :D

(It's not going to happen, though. I mean, all that stuff will eventually come to an end because that which cannot go on forever, doesn't...)

MDS

07-15-2014, 06:03 PM

I'll make you a deal: first remove all of the social programs that benefit the addicted at the expense of the tax payer

Done and done! I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to actually make that happen, though. ;)

I was wondering when we'd get to Argumentum Ad Somalium. :D

It's always there, lurking in the background, isn't it?

Todays general collapse of societal standards of decency aren't making people more free in any meaningful sense. Drug legalization with just be an accelerant poured onto our bonfire.

So, ah, you're taking the moral standards of some golden age as a model, this golden age before the DEA, before mandatory sentencing for pot ownership, before ..... you know what? It's cool.

I don't mind the ad somaliam aspect that Tam pointed out. What get me is the big, broad, bold, loud exclamantions of TRUTH with no apparent willingness to accept that these statements might be false (so why bother presenting a counter argument, you know?) let alone a coherent set of facts or halfway cogent train of reasoning to show how this truth was arrived at.

But it's cool! Work seems to be about to settle down now, and I'll be able to live my life without serious internet debate for a while. ;)

Dr. No

07-15-2014, 06:07 PM

This won't get fixed from the outside.

That is the golden nugget right there. You CHOSE to make a difference.

Every time I go to the hood it's "Why you laws f-in with me" "Ya'll is out to get me" "I was just walkin" .... when they're a known burglar who was carrying a gun and got stopped because they ran when they saw me.

All parents need to teach personal responsibility and lead by example. Stop relying on everyone else to fix their own situation and get off their ass and work to get themselves out of their own hole. Stop blaming everyone else for your own poor choices and MAKE BETTER ONES.

Work. Stop getting handouts.

JHC

07-15-2014, 06:33 PM

Done and done! I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to actually make that happen, though. ;)

It's always there, lurking in the background, isn't it?

So, ah, you're taking the moral standards of some golden age as a model, this golden age before the DEA, before mandatory sentencing for pot ownership, before ..... you know what? It's cool.

I don't mind the ad somaliam aspect that Tam pointed out. What get me is the big, broad, bold, loud exclamantions of TRUTH with no apparent willingness to accept that these statements might be false (so why bother presenting a counter argument, you know?) let alone a coherent set of facts or halfway cogent train of reasoning to show how this truth was arrived at.

But it's cool! Work seems to be about to settle down now, and I'll be able to live my life without serious internet debate for a while. ;)

I'm appealing to pragmatism vs the idealism of how smooth legal narcotics in today's America will work out; not "TRUTH".

Although I'm not technically Christian or Jewish I do respect what Judeo-Christian moral codes have accomplished if that's where you were tracking.

JHC

07-15-2014, 06:37 PM

Bingo.

True, you actually used the "Well, show me where libertarians put down their bongs and invented a civilization!" variant. ;)

It's all fun and all but I never even inferred to go to Somalia or anywhere else. I don't want libertarians to leave. Just learn from and respect history and tradition vs inventing a new world that no one managed to do on a civilizational level before them EXCEPT IN GOD-KITTEN SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS! ;)

RevolverRob

07-15-2014, 07:02 PM

Just learn from and respect history and tradition

This thread has jumped the shark and reached truly ironic levels.

Robert Mitchum

07-15-2014, 07:06 PM

No such fix
My own solution after working as a Correction Officer for 25 years and dealing with Da Hood never live anywhere near the hood.
It was like dealing with creatures from different dimensions that only understand force and violence.
It has taken me 7 years away from hood rats and other scumbags to be half normal now.
There where a few hood rats who where solid guys but there numbers where very small in fact one stopped a guy who was going to stab me while I was fighting with 2 other inmates in a bad city jail when I first started.

JHC

07-15-2014, 07:07 PM

This thread has jumped the shark and reached truly ironic levels.

Ok because in colonial times they didn't regulate cocaine? Well yeah, there's that. ;) States regulated religion but not cocaine. :D

I was harkening to a point Sensei made better: "Which leads us to Federalism. The US is not a libertarian utopia nor is it in our DNA to live and let live."

It will all be moot in a few years and the legalization position is gaining ground and may already be a majority view for pot.

I believe Wash DC is about to make up to an ounce of pot in possession an infraction worth a $25 fine.

Sensei

07-15-2014, 07:19 PM

*makes 'go on' gesture with hands*

Yeah, okay. And...? :D

(It's not going to happen, though. I mean, all that stuff will eventually come to an end because that which cannot go on forever, doesn't...)

Done and done! I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to actually make that happen, though. ;)

Waving your hands at the major down side to your position is not an answer. This argument is very similar to the immigration debate: before Y, X must happen. Legalizing all intoxicants on a welfare state is akin to granting amnesty to illegal aliens with an open border policy; both remove the consequence of personal behavior which is the antithesis of liberty. It sounds great if you are an addict or alien, but a raw deal for the person paying the bills.

As it stands now, you want me to open the season on all intoxicants and then pay for their lifestyles with my taxes. What is the tax rates in the Netherlands where they offer government rehab on demand? Sorry, I'm not feeling the liberty and freedom.

JAD

07-15-2014, 07:24 PM

Back to the OP, what I got out of the little program I watched, combined with an earlier post of Tam's, is that the way to fix the ghetto is to make it go away. Don't cluster low income housing, seed it widely, and don't make it quite as cheap. Build new and destroy the old. Do it quickly, before nearby cities do, and you will become less attractive and be less burdened.

The community is what drives the culture. Disperse the community and you weaken (and assimilate) the culture.

This used to work by itself. People used to want to get out of the hood. They don't anymore -- we at some level have declined in our desire to better ourselves, or the belief that we can. So we have to break the ghetto into small enough pieces to absorb. This will have to be done over and over again until we restore values, however that might be done.

Tamara

07-15-2014, 07:44 PM

Waving your hands at the major down side to your position is not an answer.

No, I'm making the 'go on' gesture. Like where you said "repeal EMTALA, shut down WIC, close Section 8, do away with food stamps, and end Medicaid", and I say "Absolutely, yes! Let's! I agree! And...? I mean, that's a good start, but why stop with the Great Society?" :)

Sensei

07-15-2014, 08:04 PM

Ok because in colonial times they didn't regulate cocaine? Well yeah, there's that. ;) States regulated religion but not cocaine. :D

I was harkening to a point Sensei made better: "Which leads us to Federalism. The US is not a libertarian utopia nor is it in our DNA to live and let live."

It will all be moot in a few years and the legalization position is gaining ground and may already be a majority view for pot.

I believe Wash DC is about to make up to an ounce of pot in possession an infraction worth a $25 fine.

Most libertarians would be very uncomfortable at the dinner table with Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al. They were not libertarians and none of the Founders ever envisioned the BOR being applied to state or local governments. In fact, some states had established religions until the late 1800's, and it was not unheard of for governors/mayors to confiscate arms during times of crisis. This notion of incorporating the BOR (i.e. making them apply to all levels of government) sprung from SCOTUS decisions in the early 20th century that took very twisted logic to the post-Reconstruction Amendments. It is no coincidence that once we incorporated the BOR, the federal government began to assume a greater role in the lives of average Americans - as protector, benefactor, and tyrant. It also no coincidence that ghettos thrive on the dependence that results from this federal intrusion.

So, before we cheer SCOTUS decisions such as Heller, ask what would the Founders say about such an intrusion on states rights? Personally, I'd much rather have the Federal government involved only in the interstate sale of weapons and leave the rest to the states. Sure, there would be no-go States such as Cali and NJ, but some state would likely allow machine guns. I argue that it would likely be no worse for must of us and possibly much, much better on many other issues.

MDS

07-15-2014, 08:09 PM

Waving your hands at the major down side to your position is not an answer. [...] As it stands now, you want me to open the season on all intoxicants and then pay for their lifestyles with my taxes.

Dude, I can totally respect that argument! The cold truth, though, is your taxes already pay for their lifestyle. If you really think hard addiction would go up when drugs are legal, we can disagree there - after all, neither of us has a crystal ball. I certainly don't think we should start all kinds of new programs to treat addicts or etc. We already have plenty of that. But even if the government cost of dealing with addiction goes up, you can't believe it would go up by more than what we'd save by ending the WOD. Right? Hmm. <googlegooglegoogle>

Looks like (http://bit.ly/1zH2qFG) in 2013 the federal government spent $15.2B on specific drug enforcement (not counting incidental drug enforcement, court, jail, and other costs of putting folks through the system) but only $9.4B on treatment and prevention. I'm not sure what the state government numbers are, but I'd suspect the state-level cost would focus even less on treatment and prevention. So there's quite a bit of room there in case the bleeding-heart types decide that addicts need your money more than you do...

the way to fix the ghetto is to make it go away. Don't cluster low income housing, seed it widely, and don't make it quite as cheap. Build new and destroy the old. Do it quickly, before nearby cities do, and you will become less attractive and be less burdened.

Say, that's an interesting idea, I don't think I've heard it before! Quick question while I let this idea sink in: how will the city that adopts this idea afford to "seed it widely?" Low-income housing has to be low-cost housing, and a large part of what makes housing low-cost is that it's surrounded by low-cost housing...?

John Hearne

07-15-2014, 08:13 PM

the way to fix the ghetto is to make it go away. Don't cluster low income housing, seed it widely, and don't make it quite as cheap. Build new and destroy the old. Do it quickly, before nearby cities do, and you will become less attractive and be less burdened...The community is what drives the culture. Disperse the community and you weaken (and assimilate) the culture.

The "ghetto" is more of a mindset and collection of values than an actual place. Dispersing the people has been tried and has been a complete catastrophe.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/

JAD

07-15-2014, 08:14 PM

: how will the city that adopts this idea afford to "seed it widely?" Low-income housing has to be low-cost housing, and a large part of what makes housing low-cost is that it's surrounded by low-cost housing...?

If you find time try to skim the documentary I mentioned earlier. It describes post-Katrina NO -- a little, at least -- and the concept comes up there.

Ultimately, though, it's really expensive and has to be done through charity and regulation, which makes me sad but there you go.

Tamara

07-15-2014, 08:18 PM

Most libertarians would be very uncomfortable at the dinner table with Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al.

Starting with the way they, you know, owned the waitstaff.

JAD

07-15-2014, 08:23 PM

The "ghetto" is more of a mindset and collection of values than an actual place. Dispersing the people has been tried and has been a complete catastrophe.

I'll read the whole Article tomorrow (thanks for the link) but I believe you, and bummer. One for Jude, I guess.

BaiHu

07-15-2014, 09:01 PM

Can't keep up, so I'm just going to place my two super heroes here:

Milton Friedman & Thomas Sowell vs. A Welfare Adm…: http://youtu.be/WIl_FtuDSPs

TCinVA

07-15-2014, 09:03 PM

I'll read the whole Article tomorrow (thanks for the link) but I believe you, and bummer. One for Jude, I guess.

Cabrini Green is the classic example. Housing project in Chicago that was a hive of scum and villainy. A little girl was killed in the crossfire of some gang violence, there was community outcry, and Chicago PD rolled through there like an invading army. Place was shut down and everybody got moved out.

...which led to all the stuff that was contained in Cabrini Green being spread throughout Chicago.

Cities that saw significant relocation from Katrina refugees saw crime rates spike. Wherever you see section 8 housing significant increases in crime go right along with it. The thought was if you take people out of the ghetto they'll do better...but it turns out that the ghetto comes right along with them when they're moved. Changing the location without changing the fundamentals doesn't do much.

Changing the fundamentals is difficult...but as Mr. Sowell points out above the current welfare state has a lot to do with why those fundamentals are so messed up. It subsidizes all the wrong things and, surprise surprise, we get all the wrong results.

Tamara

07-15-2014, 09:21 PM

Cabrini Green is the classic example. Housing project in Chicago that was a hive of scum and villainy. A little girl was killed in the crossfire of some gang violence, there was community outcry, and Chicago PD rolled through there like an invading army. Place was shut down and everybody got moved out.

...which led to all the stuff that was contained in Cabrini Green being spread throughout Chicago.

Cities that saw significant relocation from Katrina refugees saw crime rates spike. Wherever you see section 8 housing significant increases in crime go right along with it. The thought was if you take people out of the ghetto they'll do better...but it turns out that the ghetto comes right along with them when they're moved. Changing the location without changing the fundamentals doesn't do much.

Changing the fundamentals is difficult...but as Mr. Sowell points out above the current welfare state has a lot to do with why those fundamentals are so messed up. It subsidizes all the wrong things and, surprise surprise, we get all the wrong results.
I'm reminded of the chapter "Poverty Policy: How to Endow Privation" in Parliament of Whores, where P.J. was talking to that woman in the projects about proposed programs where tenants could buy the building, effectively going condo and building equity and credit, and to every advantage he quotes, she flatly replies "I'm not going for any of that."

Good book... great book, actually, if anybody here hasn't read it. (The chapter "Drug Policy: The Wiffle Life", where he goes on the ride-along with the DC cops, is also a good one, and relevant to the thread.)

MDS

07-15-2014, 09:45 PM

RoyGBiv

07-16-2014, 08:20 AM

The "ghetto" is more of a mindset and collection of values than an actual place. Dispersing the people has been tried and has been a complete catastrophe.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/
Thanks...

On the drug tangent...

Colorado's Governor Sees the Light on Marijuana Legalization (http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/14/how-is-marijuana-legalization-going)

"It seems like the people that were smoking before are mainly the people that are smoking now," Hickenlooper said as Colorado marked six months of legal recreational sales at the end of June. "If that's the case, what that means is that we're not going to have more drugged driving, or driving while high. We're not going to have some of those problems. But we are going to have a system where we're actually regulating and taxing something, and keeping that money in the state of Colorado…and we're not supporting a corrupt system of gangsters."

.....

cclaxton

07-19-2014, 06:53 PM

When Rhode Island accidentally legalized prostitution rape and STD's dramatically went down.

Street walking was still banned.

Example of how laws can improve those in the lower incomes and society benefits too.
Cody
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-26741

GardoneVT

07-19-2014, 07:09 PM

Thanks...

On the drug tangent...

Colorado's Governor Sees the Light on Marijuana Legalization (http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/14/how-is-marijuana-legalization-going)

If Colorado doesnt want to support and fund gangsters, they should inititate secession proceedings ASAP.

BaiHu

07-20-2014, 04:23 PM

A snippet of Riley's book off of my Kindle. It's a bit blurry cuz I'm reading in the car, but it's readable. The book is great.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/21/javu6ere.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/21/a8y6yge9.jpg

Jack Ryan

07-20-2014, 05:56 PM

Bingo. Why should people change their ways when they are rewarded for their behavior. As a society we have chosen, or at least allowed our leadership to consistently reward bad behavior. Hard to teach a dog to sit when you give it treats every time it runs away and ignore it when it does sit. The constant in lots of government programs is the rewarding bad behavior. Get pregnant as a HS student Don't worry we'll give you child care and some $$ to help you. Drop out of school; don't worry we'll give you a place to live and some free food.

Change that retardedness and you'll change the Gheto. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.

Change that and you change a whole lot of America, for the better. Don't stop at the ghetto either go head first in to farm programs and the banking industry to name just a couple more. Completely eliminate the federal reserve.

Scott M

08-14-2014, 11:04 AM

Probably depends on the intoxicant. Legalizing marijuana which has legitimate medicinal uses is probably not such a bad thing. Bath salts, OTOH, really needed to be taken out of the mix. It would be nice if someone could figure out a way to legalize marijuana with out the stoner culture.

Bath salts exist as a legal (for now) substitute for illegal hallucinogens. If LSD or Ecstasy or MDA were legal you wouldn't see bath salts. If those drugs were legal you will still have some people react badly to them and or OD but I don't think the percentage will increase and you'd probably have fewer people eating someone else's face off.

LittleLebowski

08-14-2014, 11:12 AM

Bath salts were NOT to blame for the FL cannibalism incident.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/us/florida-cannibal-attack/

Scott M

08-14-2014, 11:13 AM

JHC

08-14-2014, 11:17 AM

Bath salts were NOT to blame for the FL cannibalism incident.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/us/florida-cannibal-attack/

Whoa. I did not know that. Talk about reefer madness.

Totem Polar

08-14-2014, 03:23 PM

Whoa. I did not know that. Talk about reefer madness.

Heh... given the massive number of recreational MJ users world-wide who do *not* attack the homeless and nosh on their faces, I'm going with "batshit crazy" with an unrelated side of THC.

<on edit: per usual, MGIW: "Mom got it wrong"...>
:rolleyes:

JHC

08-14-2014, 07:26 PM

Heh... given the massive number of recreational MJ users world-wide who do *not* attack the homeless and nosh on their faces, I'm going with "batshit crazy" with an unrelated side of THC.

<on edit: per usual, MGIW: "Mom got it wrong"...>
:rolleyes:

We don't KNOW that. ;) It's just the research piling up about brain damage - particularly with the modern high intensity brands. Schizophrenia worst. Cannibalism is a bit of an outlier, grant you that!

PPGMD

08-15-2014, 10:52 AM

We don't KNOW that. ;) It's just the research piling up about brain damage - particularly with the modern high intensity brands. Schizophrenia worst. Cannibalism is a bit of an outlier, grant you that!

Bingo these new high THC strains are uncharted territory. The 60s weed, that most people think of when discussing the ending the MJ prohibition, at THC content on average of 4-6% with super high end strains in the 10-15% range. Granted the average THC of street weed hasn't gone up much, with most averaging at 8-10%, but we now have super high end strains that are in excess of 30% and many people think 40% isn't too far off.

Personally I am meh on the ending of the MJ prohibition. The only thing I ask is that the people be honest. Medical marijuana programs should be for legitimate medical reasons with doctor testing, follow ups, and prescriptions of set amounts. Not the back door legalization that you have in California, a card that has no regulation for issuing with little oversight, and allows you to purchase as much weed as you want for a year isn't a legitimate medical program that I've been in. You want to legalize it, be honest to the voters and say that you are legalizing it.

Sensei

08-15-2014, 08:22 PM

Heh... given the massive number of recreational MJ users world-wide who do *not* attack the homeless and nosh on their faces, I'm going with "batshit crazy" with an unrelated side of THC.

Exactly, just like SSRI's have nothing to do with school shootings; selection/population bias is a real bitch.

In addition, I'm not sure that the correlation between ghetto and drugs is as strong as people think. I agree there is an association and that drugs exacerbate the ghetto, but as others have said, the ghetto is more of a state of mind than an actual place. Before there were drugs, there were ghettos, and there will always be people making choices that land them in the ghetto zone (think phantom zone) .

Personally, I kinda like the current set up where we largely contain the ghetto instead trying to eradicate it. Here's a shout out to my homies in blue who keep the ghetto outta my back yard - peace out.

MDS

08-23-2014, 09:32 PM

Whoa. I did not know that. Talk about reefer madness.

I don't want to break any HIPPA laws, but my very close acquaintance ran several social programs in Miami for many years. The zombie in question was a client for some time. It's not like he smoked a high-capacity clip of marijuana (is clip the right term? I'm so out of date.) and suddenly went from paragon of mental health to face-eating zombie. Dude had issues.

TCinVA

08-24-2014, 04:29 PM

I figured he was yet another example of somebody with a genetic diathesis for a severe mental disorder who screwed around with drugs messing with what was already some pretty sketchy brain chemistry, bringing the disease to full bloom, and then cycling through the on-meds/off-meds/substance abuse cycle until he hit a low enough point where he was trying to eat a dude's face in the street.

To quote Dr. Evil, "pretty standard stuff, really..."

Wheeler

08-24-2014, 10:28 PM

I don't know if I have any correct answers or not but I do have a lot of observations.

My parents grew up dirt poor in SouthWest Va during the 40's. They escaped their particular circle of poverty through diligence and hard work. My dad never completed high school and was well into his fifties before he became an avid reader. They clawed their way up from living in houses that had no indoor plumbing to an upper middle class lifestyle when they retired. A deeply ingrained work ethic had a lot to do with their accomplishments.

My wife and I were involved in the foster care program until we adopted. The meth issues in our locality are astounding. There are so many kids in the system because of meth that the system is overwhelmed. People, regardless of color looking for some sort of escape. The poverty is the same but the pride and work ethic are gone. They have become sociopaths with little to no regard for family, children or neighbors. In the course of my work, I've been accosted by the same young lady in the same general retail area looking for a few bucks for 'gas' money. The last time she had a boy with her around eight or nine years of age. She was using the kid to lend credence to her claims and garner more sympathy to her 'plight'.

My conclusions are that folks are no longer willing to work, they want certain luxuries with no willingness to earn them. When they lie, cheat or steal to acquire things they think they deserve, they easily rationalize their choices, including using children as a means to their ends. Teach people self respect, teach them how to work, and take away easy access to social assistance might fix things. That's probably never going to happen in my lifetime though.

RevolverRob

08-25-2014, 10:00 AM

My conclusions are that folks are no longer willing to work, they want certain luxuries with no willingness to earn them. When they lie, cheat or steal to acquire things they think they deserve, they easily rationalize their choices, including using children as a means to their ends. Teach people self respect, teach them how to work, and take away easy access to social assistance might fix things. That's probably never going to happen in my lifetime though.

That would be absolutely ideal...

Unfortunately, that is not a real solution to the problem. Even if you eliminated the welfare state tomorrow, you'd have several million people without jobs and no way/skills/inclination to get them. So, next you'd have to fund the jobs for them, but the jobs would be the lowest common denominator with minimal growth potential, because most of these folks are unskilled. And of course corruption/crime would remain rampant. You could incentivize hiring them, but the companies would lose tons of money because of theft/laziness/incompetence and ultimately reject the incentives (that is what happened in the past). Additionally, no one could afford to hire them, because of the minimum wage standards and required insurance standards of today either. No, we've arrived at a place, where it is better to make sure the bread deliveries arrive on time to keep the masses quiet, than actually try to solve the problem.

It is times like these, where I find little hope.

GardoneVT

08-25-2014, 12:16 PM

That would be absolutely ideal...

Unfortunately, that is not a real solution to the problem. Even if you eliminated the welfare state tomorrow, you'd have several million people without jobs and no way/skills/inclination to get them. So, next you'd have to fund the jobs for them, but the jobs would be the lowest common denominator with minimal growth potential, because most of these folks are unskilled. And of course corruption/crime would remain rampant. You could incentivize hiring them, but the companies would lose tons of money because of theft/laziness/incompetence and ultimately reject the incentives (that is what happened in the past). Additionally, no one could afford to hire them, because of the minimum wage standards and required insurance standards of today either. No, we've arrived at a place, where it is better to make sure the bread deliveries arrive on time to keep the masses quiet, than actually try to solve the problem.

It is times like these, where I find little hope.

The transition would be harsh, no doubt.

But its better then the alternative, which for the moment is the path were on nationally. There's an especially powerful scene in the movie 'Sno on the Bluff' which shows the protagonist thug explaining to the camera in front of one of his kids how he got to where he is as a drug pusher.

His granddad was a drug dealer, then he got sent up and his father went to the streets until he got shot dead,but not before siring the protagonist who then followed in their criminal lifestyle. Take the clock back to the 1950s, and you'll find a shocking similarity between conservative white families today and black families of that time.The difference was the creation of the welfare state in the 60s and later.

The more we keep incentivising bad behavior via government handouts, the more bad behavior were going to get. Let's take ethics out of the consideration and think about this, dollars and cents wise; why should a woman bother to marry one guy unless he makes more then she can make from welfare? I'm not going to throw stones at single moms or dads ,but a loving two parent household is better for all parties .

Thanks to the expanding welfare state,young people are getting hip to the notion that working a proper job is for suckers, when you can just punch out two kids and collect without lifting another finger.Like with Mr Sno on The Bluff, the next generation will be raised with an even lesser regard for your work ethic and thus civilization itself.And so on,and so on with each generation until we get something truly despicable.

RoyGBiv

08-25-2014, 12:47 PM

The transition would be harsh, no doubt.

But its better then the alternative, which for the moment is the path were on nationally. There's an especially powerful scene in the movie 'Sno on the Bluff' which shows the protagonist thug explaining to the camera in front of one of his kids how he got to where he is as a drug pusher.

His granddad was a drug dealer, then he got sent up and his father went to the streets until he got shot dead,but not before siring the protagonist who then followed in their criminal lifestyle. Take the clock back to the 1950s, and you'll find a shocking similarity between conservative white families today and black families of that time.The difference was the creation of the welfare state in the 60s and later.

The more we keep incentivising bad behavior via government handouts, the more bad behavior were going to get. Let's take ethics out of the consideration and think about this, dollars and cents wise; why should a woman bother to marry one guy unless he makes more then she can make from welfare? I'm not going to throw stones at single moms or dads ,but a loving two parent household is better for all parties .

Thanks to the expanding welfare state,young people are getting hip to the notion that working a proper job is for suckers, when you can just punch out two kids and collect without lifting another finger.Like with Mr Sno on The Bluff, the next generation will be raised with an even lesser regard for your work ethic and thus civilization itself.And so on,and so on with each generation until we get something truly despicable.
This.

Time for tough love....

To Revolver Rob's point... Jobs, jobs, jobs are critical to the solution. But changing expectations is more so.
This economy could overflow with jobs if we changed tax code and stopped dis-incentivizing domestic job creation.
Change a few regulations and grant a few permits and the energy sector would explode with jobs. Good paying jobs.

On welfare? Work. Anyone physically able should be working in some constructive capacity in order to collect.
Sweep the streets, plant flowers, work in a daycare to provide childcare so others can clean streets, etc.

The welfare culture will not be changed without leadership, which is completely absent today.

Break the cycle. By all means necessary.

Tamara

08-25-2014, 01:08 PM

I know I've said it before, but The Ghetto is where successive waves of immigrants processed through to learn how to be Americans, leaving The Ghetto to the next wave of immigrants. The Great Society slammed the door on The Ghetto in the 'Sixties, trapping the final wave of immigrants in there, and transforming The Ghetto into a zoo for humans. The irony is that the immigrants in that final wave were internal ones.

Wheeler

08-25-2014, 01:49 PM

RevolverRob

08-25-2014, 02:32 PM

the next generation will be raised with an even lesser regard for your work ethic and thus civilization itself.And so on,and so on with each generation until we get something truly despicable.

I have no doubt to the truth of your statement. I grew up in a southern ghetto myself and saw it first hand. But, I'm not sure that slamming the door on the bread factory will solve the problem. Transitioning might be tough - As in total full-on warfare, military in the streets to control the riots, tough. Ferguson was just a taste of what could be if the bread trucks don't arrive on time...

I want to solve the problem as well, don't get me wrong.

This.

Time for tough love....

To Revolver Rob's point... Jobs, jobs, jobs are critical to the solution. But changing expectations is more so.
This economy could overflow with jobs if we changed tax code and stopped dis-incentivizing domestic job creation.
Change a few regulations and grant a few permits and the energy sector would explode with jobs. Good paying jobs.

On welfare? Work. Anyone physically able should be working in some constructive capacity in order to collect.
Sweep the streets, plant flowers, work in a daycare to provide childcare so others can clean streets, etc.

The welfare culture will not be changed without leadership, which is completely absent today.

Break the cycle. By all means necessary.

The Works Progress Administration was, in my opinion, the single best, most productive, and desperately needed program to come out of FDR's Welfare State and should be revived. Unemployed? WPA will put you to work, clean the streets, fix sidewalks, paint stripes, whatever. It's amazing the amount of infrastructure that the WPA built between 1935 and 1943, it is staggering. I just left an institution where the basement was loaded with fossils collected by the WPA. The WPA collected more fossils in 8 years than an entire program of paleontologists did in 100 years. Did we need those fossils? Heck no, but hey we had people that needed jobs and we figured to get something out of it, off to west Texas they went to earn a wage to take care of their families. WPA programs were brilliantly funded - partially on federal money and partially on the money of the folks that wanted WPA help. A similar system could be created today in weeks - If various labor unions and groups wouldn't oppose it (and frankly why wouldn't you, if you were a union employee of the city/state...).

Hell, I look around my neighborhood right now, these sidewalks need fixing, the street needs repair, the paint on the curbs needs to be refreshed, but if I go ten blocks west, I see able bodied people sitting on front porches without employment...I completely agree with you here. Although, we might disagree on the energy sector, having worked closely with oil industry folks, I'm not inclined to back off of regulations on those folks - Many of them are nice and wonderful people who intend no harm, but their greed-driven overlords are more questionable. That's a different discussion for a different thread. We are in agreement about eliminating the disincentive to create American jobs and get folks to work doing something positive.

I know I've said it before, but The Ghetto is where successive waves of immigrants processed through to learn how to be Americans, leaving The Ghetto to the next wave of immigrants. The Great Society slammed the door on The Ghetto in the 'Sixties, trapping the final wave of immigrants in there, and transforming The Ghetto into a zoo for humans. The irony is that the immigrants in that final wave were internal ones.

Truth.

I have no illusions that it would be difficult and realize that my 'solution' is overly simplified. I look at the lack of young people coming into my trade and think to myself what's going to happen when I'm too old and decrepit to do a young buck's work anymore. It's not just the ghettos and trailer parks, it's everywhere.

It's a classic conundrum. We've driven skilled labor out and have no means to replace it...That's another classic sign of a failing democracy. Which as someone pointed out here, or the Ferguson or the PD thread - We're starting to arrive where most classic democracies have gone. The people vote themselves wealth from the public coffers, refuse to contribute back, and want something for nothing.

GardoneVT

08-25-2014, 05:59 PM

The Works Progress Administration was, in my opinion, the single best, most productive, and desperately needed program to come out of FDR's Welfare State and should be revived. Unemployed? WPA will put you to work, clean the streets, fix sidewalks, paint stripes, whatever. It's amazing the amount of infrastructure that the WPA built between 1935 and 1943, it is staggering. I just left an institution where the basement was loaded with fossils collected by the WPA. The WPA collected more fossils in 8 years than an entire program of paleontologists did in 100 years. Did we need those fossils? Heck no, but hey we had people that needed jobs and we figured to get something out of it, off to west Texas they went to earn a wage to take care of their families. WPA programs were brilliantly funded - partially on federal money and partially on the money of the folks that wanted WPA help. A similar system could be created today in weeks - If various labor unions and groups wouldn't oppose it (and frankly why wouldn't you, if you were a union employee of the city/state...). "

Problem is,back then kids of all races in America understood that they had to work for a living.The younger generation does not. I know a grown man still using his moms insurance and cell phone plan.

As such, even if job openings were offered like that, they'd go unfilled. My peers for the most part would rather mooch then lift a finger to work anywhere .