Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LTnewsDawg

LNP - Want to reduce violence? End the war on drugs

Recommended Posts

finchfeeder

You think so? You ever deal with a homicide over drugs? Ever arrest a MPH who has just committed a violent crime who is " High". A very common occurance. The thread is about reducing crime by legalizing drugs, you a the one using ths as a vehicle to tout your drug of choice.

 

No, the OP is about reducing violent crime and how the "war on drugs" has not accomplished it, as was promised, by folks like Nixon and Reagan. The letter writer brought up the topic of Pot and expanded upon it, as I did:

 

 

Ask yourself, is this community —the City of Lancaster and the broader Lancaster County — a safer place because of the war on drugs? Is there less crime and violence than there would be if, say, marijuana were legal and addiction were treated as a public health crisis rather than a matter for the police and courts?

View the full article

 

Bottom line: Prohibitionists had 50+ years to deliver on their promise, regarding criminalizing Pot.

 

If you hired a consultant to improve your risk management and that consultant assured you of the improvements, how long would you wait for that delivery? Would you wait 50+ years? Shit no. After 1 year of waiting, you'd fire them.

 

That's reality. Pot Prohibition is on the verge of being fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

No, the OP is about reducing violent crime and how the "war on drugs" has not accomplished it, as was promised, by folks like Nixon and Reagan. The letter writer brought up the topic of Pot and expanded upon it, as I did:

 

 

 

Bottom line: Prohibitionists had 50+ years to deliver on their promise, regarding criminalizing Pot.

 

If you hired a consultant to improve your risk management and that consultant assured you of the improvements, how long would you wait for that delivery? Would you wait 50+ years? Shit no. After 1 year of waiting, you'd fire them.

 

That's reality. Pot Prohibition is on the verge of being fired.

 

Violent crime is reduced by vigorous enforcement and not making " excuses " for criminal behavior. You are pulling Pot into the conversation the way another poster touts atheism......every chance you get on topic or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Violent crime is reduced by vigorous enforcement and not making " excuses " for criminal behavior. 

 

Agreed, in principle. 

 

So, how does diverting and using resources to arrest and convict non-violent Cannabis consumers stop violent crime?

 

You can hammer a nail as vigorously as you'd like. However, if the nail consistently misses its mark, the vigor at which one works, is definitely nothing worthy of commendation or admiration. Instead, one either observes someone demonstrating Einstein's definition of insanity, or, worse yet, someone collecting a paycheck from his employer, for simply going through the motions. 

 

IBISWorld (2014) values the US medical Marijuana market, alone, at $2 billion. The numbers for Recreational will follow. That $2 billion represents a shit load of customers who would otherwise be buying from the black market. As both markets expand and free-market principles do their work, prices will go down and more customers will be wooed from the black market. (The downward price-trend also being influenced by business owners and consumers pushing for lower tax rates, state-by-state.)

 

You're not stupid. Protecting profits, territory, and a customer base is what puts the Violence into the Marijuana black market. Squeezing out the profits, by taking the customer base, is what will de-nut it. The rats may move on to different objectives. However, since when was that a valid excuse for not doing something that's obvious?

 

Bottom line: Legalization will solve what Prohibition could not. That may be embarrassing to Prohibitionists. 

 

However, it's even more embarrassing to be viewed as one hammering vigorously at a nail that's going nowhere. 

 

 You are pulling Pot into the conversation the way another poster touts atheism......every chance you get on topic or not.

 

Oh, Martin. Stop struggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

Agreed, in principle.

 

So, how does diverting and using resources to arrest and convict non-violent Cannabis consumers stop violent crime?

 

You can hammer a nail as vigorously as you'd like. However, if the nail consistently misses its mark, the vigor at which one works, is definitely nothing worthy of commendation or admiration. Instead, one either observes someone demonstrating Einstein's definition of insanity, or, worse yet, someone collecting a paycheck from his employer, for simply going through the motions.

 

IBISWorld (2014) values the US medical Marijuana market, alone, at $2 billion. The numbers for Recreational will follow. That $2 billion represents a shit load of customers who would otherwise be buying from the black market. As both markets expand and free-market principles do their work, prices will go down and more customers will be wooed from the black market. (The downward price-trend also being influenced by business owners and consumers pushing for lower tax rates, state-by-state.)

 

You're not stupid. Protecting profits, territory, and a customer base is what puts the Violence into the Marijuana black market. Squeezing out the profits, by taking the customer base, is what will de-nut it. The rats may move on to different objectives. However, since when was that a valid excuse for not doing something that's obvious?

 

Bottom line: Legalization will solve what Prohibition could not. That may be embarrassing to Prohibitionists.

 

However, it's even more embarrassing to be viewed as one hammering vigorously at a nail that's going nowhere.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, Martin. Stop struggling.

Oh finch read the OP......it was saying that the recent violence was heavily drug related, since you found a need to jump on the pot bandwagon given that you must be saying that " pot " and violence go hand in hand.

 

Interesting point you make in the first line of your post......." How does diverting resources to arrest and convict non violent heroin consumers stop violent crime? " plug in your drug of choice and your point really dosent really change at all.

Edited by Martin Riggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Oh finch read the OP......it was saying that the recent violence was heavily drug related, since you found a need to jump on the pot bandwagon given that you must be saying that " pot " and violence go hand in hand.

 

What bandwagon?

 

No, I'm not saying that Pot and violence go "hand in hand." What gave you that idea?

 

Interesting point you make in the first line of your post......." How does diverting resources to arrest and convict non violent heroin consumers stop violent crime? " plug in your drug of choice and your point really dosent really change at all.

 

That's a very good point, Martin. You score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

How do you figure out who is violent and non-violent cannabis consumers? 

 

I guess that depends on one's definition of violent.

 

There is no doubt that the marihuana market will bring in tons of money.  It's not going to stop people from reaching that "ultimate high."  Even in the legal trade there are those that want to create a higher high.  There are also those that are extracting straight THC from marihuana for a very dangerous high. 

 

Well, god forbid. The heathens.

 

I'm quite fond of States' Rights. Let them decide their own course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

That's what I'm asking.

 

I'd define it as someone busted for pot along with a crime involving antisocial behaviors (ASPD), as a high-end gauge. Along a continuum, work your way down to the threshold for not diagnosis. It's basic-enough for starters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

I'd define it as someone busted for pot along with a crime involving antisocial behaviors (ASPD), as a high-end gauge. Along a continuum, work your way down to the threshold for not diagnosis. It's basic-enough for starters.  

Well then time for you to switch your line of thinking......Spend a week in South Central with the Gang unit. Possession and or influence is the usual " condition " with every arrest. Is that " basic " enough?

 

I guess that depends on one's definition of violent.

 

 

 

Well, god forbid. The heathens.

 

I'm quite fond of States' Rights. Let them decide their own course. 

The problem is that currently states rights are pushed aside by Federal law " full faith and credit ".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

 There is no doubt that the marihuana market will bring in tons of money.  It's not going to stop people from reaching that "ultimate high."  Even in the legal trade there are those that want to create a higher high.  There are also those that are extracting straight THC from marihuana for a very dangerous high. 

 

You're probably talking about hash oil, I believe. People have been processing it for decades. 

 

The most-dangerous part is making it, because it involves flamibles and heat, and requires good ventilation: Put some ground-up Cannabis in a quart jar. Cover with 100+ proof alcohol and let it soak for several minutes (EverClear, preferably). Put cheese cloth over another container. Pour the liquid through the cloth along with the Pot. Squeeze everything out. Evaporate the alcohol by placing the container in a rice cooker (or heating it on the stove to 170 degrees, or so, which is more-dangerous). You have hash oil.

 

The danger is making it. Colorado has banned home production, because of some house fires in Denver.

 

However, licensed producers can still sell it.

 

You may also be talking about edibles and the Maurine Dowd experience. Last year, Colorado tightened up its Edibles regulations, which involved requiring individual packaging and labeling instead of bulk quantities. Maurine Dowd was inexperienced with Edibles and ate a whole fucking candy bar. 

 

There's a certain amount of personal responsibility, there. No sane individual would chug a bottle of Tequila outside the State Store. No sane individual (especially one with no experience with Edibles) should have munched down an entire candy bar. 

 

The war on drugs is far more vast than marihuana.  Marihuana is a highly sought after product.  What the cartels will do is compete with legal markets through affordable prices.  A dime bag at the head shop might be $20, but if the cartel offers it for $5, what should be done?  Should law enforcement go after those that would seek to undermine our legal market? 

 

Legal businesses can have a tighter profit margin than dealers. No dealer, even if they grew the stuff, could make any money at $5. This, plus the fact that legal businesses have better quality, better selection, and...its customers don't have to worry about getting busted with their purchase when they walk out that "head shop's" doors.

 

You're correct, though: It's about competition.

 

I'm still not sold on legalization... medical marihuana, maybe, but not total legalization.  I personally don't believe legalization will solve anything.  Sure, there will be some revenue, but that revenue will soon be rerouted to combating drugged driving, illegal sales, addiction therapy and medical costs.  Many like to say that it's safer than alcohol... but it's really not, when we talk about DUI.  You drink one glass of wine, you're fine to drive.  You take one hit off of a joint and you're an unsafe driver.  And then there's the gateway drug theory.  Whether you care to admit it or not, marihuana was the first drug used by heroin users, meth addicts and any other addict. 

 

No, one hit on a joint does not compare to a glass of wine regarding safe or unsafe driving. I'd bet that one glass of wine would get you pretty-damned close to the impairment threshold. I came across some research, a while back, that actually had participants smoke pot while an IV monitored THC levels, in real time. It was quite interesting. I'll check to see whether I saved it and get back to you.

 

Also, your statement about "rerouting" revenue is off.

 

I posted this on #85. It's a Report by the Congressional Research Service. When comparing the social cost of Alcohol to Cannabis, it concluded this:

 

When making the logical comparison of alcohol and cannabis’ ‘external costs’ (i.e., taxation to equate with external costs of the drug use to society), researchers peg alcohol’s external costs to the nation at $30 billion annually; cannabis, at $0.5 – $1.6 billion.

 

That's a hell of a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Well then time for you to switch your line of thinking......Spend a week in South Central with the Gang unit. Possession and or influence is the usual " condition " with every arrest. Is that " basic " enough?

 

One dot on the map does not represent the entire country. 

 

I think that's the problem, here. You've spent plenty of years knee-deep observing drug-related crime and you're generalizing.

 

That would be like me, working for years in the Mental Health field,...and claiming that everybody is "nuts."

 

The problem is that currently states rights are pushed aside by Federal law " full faith and credit ".

 

Interesting phrase: "Full faith and credit." How much "faith" do you have in the Federal government, at this point?

 

This is about states taking the lead, on Cannabis, and the Feds being behind the curve, as usual.

 

If the shoe were on the other foot, would you think so little of States' Rights, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

One dot on the map does not represent the entire country.

 

I think that's the problem, here. You've spent plenty of years knee-deep observing drug-related crime and you're generalizing.

 

That would be like me, working for years in the Mental Health field,...and claiming that everybody is "nuts."

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting phrase: "Full faith and credit." How much "faith" do you have in the Federal government, at this point?

 

This is about states taking the lead, on Cannabis, and the Feds being behind the curve, as usual.

 

If the shoe were on the other foot, would you think so little of States' Rights, then?

Here is the problem we are talking about crime......large urban centers are ground zero for the overall majority of crime, and are in fact a better " lab " to view cause and effects by virtue of total volume of violent crimes and the relationship that drugs play in that. So in a sense South Central does a good job representing the entire country.

As to " full faith and credit " it forces other States to accept .......drivers licenses issued to illegals in one state be valid in all states. Same with Gay marraige....and now in 4 states and DC legal recreational pot. Perhaps Colorado should ban sales to anyone who doesn't live in a Recrational legal state.

Edited by Martin Riggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Here is the problem we are talking about crime......large urban centers are ground zero for the overall majority of crime, and are in fact a better " lab " to view cause and effects by virtue of total volume of violent crimes and the relationship that drugs play in that. So in a sense South Central does a good job representing the entire country.

 

Research outcomes can only be generalized to the population that you're observing. So, if you're observing the population in South Central, you can only generalize the outcomes to South Central. That's one of the most important principles of research (not to mention that it's common sense).

 

Would you accept the outcomes, if Gallup conducted a Pot Legalization poll in a city that was ground zero for pot legalization, and then published the results as: "80% of US adults want Pot legalized?" How about gun laws? Would you accept the outcomes, if Gallup, conducting a poll in California, which has the most-strict gun laws in the country, applied the results to the entire country?

 

That's essentially what you're doing.  

 

As to " full faith and credit " it forces other States to accept .......drivers licenses issued to illegals in one state be valid in all states. Same with Gay marraige....and now in 4 states and DC legal recreational pot. Perhaps Colorado should ban sales to anyone who doesn't live in a Recrational legal state.

 

So, now you're changing your tune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

Research outcomes can only be generalized to the population that you're observing. So, if you're observing the population in South Central, you can only generalize the outcomes to South Central. That's one of the most important principles of research (not to mention that it's common sense).

 

Would you accept the outcomes, if Gallup conducted a Pot Legalization poll in a city that was ground zero for pot legalization, and then published the results as: "80% of US adults want Pot legalized?" How about gun laws? Would you accept the outcomes, if Gallup, conducting a poll in California, which has the most-strict gun laws in the country, applied the results to the entire country?

 

That's essentially what you're doing.  

 

 

 

 

 

So, now you're changing your tune.

Not at all.......you didn't seem to understand what " full faith and credit " means, I was just helping you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Not at all.......you didn't seem to understand what " full faith and credit " means, I was just helping you out.

 

Yea, now, how about answering my questions about generalizing a dot to the entire country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

Yea, now, how about answering my questions about generalizing a dot to the entire country.

The subject is violent crime.......the " dots " represent the areas that provide the bulk of that crime. So they are representing of the countries crime problem. You are the one generalizing.......you know some responsible " pot " users, there for it is a positive thing for the whole country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

The subject is violent crime.......the " dots " represent the areas that provide the bulk of that crime. So they are representing of the countries crime problem. 

 

No, it's "the dot"...one area with a violent history and one perspective, from a police officer who lived it.
 
I respect that, Martin. 
 

The subject is violent crime.......the " dots " represent the areas that provide the bulk of that crime. So they are representing of the countries crime problem. 

 
Prove it. Find a credible link. Compare the SCLA violent crime stats with the national ones...within a couple years of current.
 

You are the one generalizing.......you know some responsible " pot " users, there for it is a positive thing for the whole country.

 

Now, now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

The Netherlands has a liberal drug policy.  It's a country that doesn't sweat the small stuff.

 

Netherlands Close Eight Prisons Due To Lack Of Criminals

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/26/netherlands-prisons-close--lack-of-criminals-_n_3503721.html

 

And then this:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-newman/obama-says-treating-drug_b_6528174.html

It would be " racist " to point out why that is the situation in Holland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

No, it's "the dot"...one area with a violent history and one perspective, from a police officer who lived it.

 

I respect that, Martin. 

 

 

 

 

Prove it. Find a credible link. Compare the SCLA violent crime stats with the national ones...within a couple years of current.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, now.

 

Violent crime and its relation to drug use is what it is. Find a credible link that would make the claim that SCLA violent crime is different from violent crime anywhere else in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Violent crime and its relation to drug use is what it is. Find a credible link that would make the claim that SCLA violent crime is different from violent crime anywhere else in the country.

 

I'll get back to you this afternoon. 

 

I've collected all the data. However, I need to go make the doughnuts this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Violent crime and its relation to drug use is what it is. Find a credible link that would make the claim that SCLA violent crime is different from violent crime anywhere else in the country.

 

That's pretty easy to find.

 

In fact, violent crime in South Central doesn't even represent the rest of Los Angeles, let alone "anywhere else in the country."

 

Mapping LA: Violent Crime Ranking (LA Times; June 16 to Dec 14, 2014).

 

If you scroll across South Central's neighborhoods (and look at the list), they comprise 18 of the top 20 violent crime areas, in LA, for that period (per capita ranking = per 10,000). (To calculate per 100,000: Divide the violent crime numbers by the neighborhood's population x 100,000.) If you consider the top 30, you could add at least another 5 more SC neighborhoods to that list. Shit, the top 20 don't even compare to the lower 100+, which means that violent crime in South Central LA can't even be generalized to LA, as a whole, for that period, let alone the rest of the country.

 

Here are the violent crime rates for Los Angeles (2000 to 2012), understanding that the top 4 categories come under the FBI's definition of "Violent Crime." I'm not willing to invest the research and the time, but, one has to wonder how much South Central's lopsided violent-crime rates skew those numbers.

 

That, alone, blows holes in your argument, Martin. 

 

Also, SC demographics don't come close to matching LA's, let alone the Country's. (I couldn't find SC numbers more-recent than 2000.)

 

South LA (expanded SC; 2000): White = 2.2%...Black = 38%...Hispanic/Latino = 56.7%

Los Angeles County (2013): W = 71.5%...B = 9.2%...H/L = 48.3% 

US: W = 77.7%...B = 13.2%...H/L = 17.1%

 

So, the demographic variable undermines you're argument, as well. There are very few comparisons between SLA, LAC, and the US.

 

Now, city-to-city, compare LA violent crime rates (per-capita top 4 categories) to Detroit, for example. Detroit is off the charts, where LA is above-average (probably within +1 SD) compared to the US, as a whole. Also, compare the drug most-associated with violent crime: Los Angeles (Methamphetamine; see Figure 1) with Michigan (Cocaine declining, with Heroin and Marijuana increasing; see Figure 1)--Detroit considered the hub of drug distribution (see pg 15).

 

As an aside, regarding liberalized Marijuana laws and their effect on violent crime, that's an interesting dynamic, regarding Marijuana and comparing the two cities, because Pot availability, in LA, via MMJ legalization, stands head-and-shoulders above that for Methamphetamine (see figure 2). Yet, Meth owns the majority of associated violent crimes. This, opposed to Michigan's MMJ laws, which allow home cultivation, but do not allow state-licensed dispensaries.

 

It's an interesting comparison, when one argues that legalizing Marijuana reduces trafficking, which reduces violent crime.  

 

So, no matter how one slices it. You're perspective is flawed in comparing South Central, to the US. 

 

It's quite basic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

That's pretty easy to find.

 

In fact, violent crime in South Central doesn't even represent the rest of Los Angeles, let alone "anywhere else in the country."

 

Mapping LA: Violent Crime Ranking (LA Times; June 16 to Dec 14, 2014).

 

If you scroll across South Central's neighborhoods (and look at the list), they comprise 18 of the top 20 violent crime areas, in LA, for that period (per capita ranking = per 10,000). (To calculate per 100,000: Divide the violent crime numbers by the neighborhood's population x 100,000.) If you consider the top 30, you could add at least another 5 more SC neighborhoods to that list. Shit, the top 20 don't even compare to the lower 100+, which means that violent crime in South Central LA can't even be generalized to LA, as a whole, for that period, let alone the rest of the country.

 

Here are the violent crime rates for Los Angeles (2000 to 2012), understanding that the top 4 categories come under the FBI's definition of "Violent Crime." I'm not willing to invest the research and the time, but, one has to wonder how much South Central's lopsided violent-crime rates skew those numbers.

 

That, alone, blows holes in your argument, Martin. 

 

Also, SC demographics don't come close to matching LA's, let alone the Country's. (I couldn't find SC numbers more-recent than 2000.)

 

South LA (expanded SC; 2000): White = 2.2%...Black = 38%...Hispanic/Latino = 56.7%

Los Angeles County (2013): W = 71.5%...B = 9.2%...H/L = 48.3% 

US: W = 77.7%...B = 13.2%...H/L = 17.1%

 

So, the demographic variable undermines you're argument, as well. There are very few comparisons between SLA, LAC, and the US.

 

Now, city-to-city, compare LA violent crime rates (per-capita top 4 categories) to Detroit, for example. Detroit is off the charts, where LA is above-average (probably within +1 SD) compared to the US, as a whole. Also, compare the drug most-associated with violent crime: Los Angeles (Methamphetamine; see Figure 1) with Michigan (Cocaine declining, with Heroin and Marijuana increasing; see Figure 1)--Detroit considered the hub of drug distribution (see pg 15).

 

As an aside, regarding liberalized Marijuana laws and their effect on violent crime, that's an interesting dynamic, regarding Marijuana and comparing the two cities, because Pot availability, in LA, via MMJ legalization, stands head-and-shoulders above that for Methamphetamine (see figure 2). Yet, Meth owns the majority of associated violent crimes. This, opposed to Michigan's MMJ laws, which allow home cultivation, but do not allow state-licensed dispensaries.

 

It's an interesting comparison, when one argues that legalizing Marijuana reduces trafficking, which reduces violent crime.  

 

So, no matter how one slices it. You're perspective is flawed in comparing South Central, to the US. 

 

It's quite basic.

Utter nonsense the relation of drugs and drug use as related to violent crime are easier to observe where there are more events. Nothing you posted in anyway proves that violent crime and drugs are different in Omaha or South Central except for total numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Utter nonsense the relation of drugs and drug use as related to violent crime are easier to observe where there are more events. 

 

I agree. However, you can't simply generalize the results to the rest of the country. 

 

 Nothing you posted in anyway proves that violent crime and drugs are different in Omaha or South Central except for total numbers

 

Well, don't be so sure. Besides, that's the nature of research--to quantify data.

 

In fact, quite literally, you undermined the rationale for your own argument when making the comment to Vincent regarding the Netherlands (post #108):  "It would be ' racist ' to point out why that is the situation in Holland." With that comment, you've said that race demographics, at least, must be considered (as a confounding variable), when attempting to generalize data.

 

Look, you're stuck on this because you blame violent crime on drug use, rather than drug trafficking. (Remember, that I'm speaking about Cannabis.) We know, without a doubt, that the latter is true and that one of the few lessons we can learn from Holland, is that the former is not. This, along with Prohibition's history of playing demand-side whack-a-mole, which has not worked to stop Cannabis use, but, it sure-as-hell worked to fuel the Pot black market.

 

As a Realist, why aren't you being realistic?    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...