Announcement

**Kyle** · January 6, 2002, 21:38

People like Bill O'Reilly repeatedly throw this statistic out to paint a picture of addicts running around shooting and mugging people. But what is the truth?

He actually used that as evidence that the drug war wasn't working.

As for the statistics, I don't know.

**Juggernaut** · January 6, 2002, 21:45

Yup, if drugs weren't so expensive due to low supply due to prohibition, there wouldn't be as many crimes.

**General Ludd** · January 6, 2002, 21:51

I thought being an addict in and of itself was a crime?

**Wraith** · January 6, 2002, 22:01

If by "addict" you mean "addicted to power", then yeah, I could see that.

Wraith
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

**faded glory** · January 6, 2002, 23:30

O'Rielly is right

But he doesnt like the war drugs either. He thinks the solution is to put army on mexico border to stop hard drugs.

Which would probably work some to stop the hard stuff. I think he wants to legalize medicinal and recreation marijiauna, not sure about latter. But I think he is wrong. I disagree on some of his liberal ideas... But hey, when you get 20 million viewers from America to Australia every night tuning in (and it continues to grow), who cares.

O'Rielly is pretty cool tho. I like him...

**DinoDoc** · January 6, 2002, 23:53

Let's turn this thread away from the usual course it is bound to follow and have some people answer this question. What sort of changes would a Libertarian like to see made to current law in order to allow for legalization, ie How would you prevent another round of "Big Tobacco" type lawsuits?

**Case** · January 7, 2002, 00:11

A couple of years ago the Premier of the Australian state of Victoria claimed that over 50% of crime in the state was commited by drug addicts (mostly herion users), so I guess that the American figures are similar.

In Australia it's been proposed that a system where addicts are given herion be trialed to see the impact on crime rates (similar trials have had positive results in Switzerland)

**Kyle** · January 7, 2002, 00:30

If I recall correctly, California instituted a law that puts (at least)some drug abusers into treatment programs, rather than jail. Hopefully in a couple years we'll see some success out of that.

**Berzerker** · January 7, 2002, 03:03

Kyle -

He actually used that as evidence that the drug war wasn't working.

But his solution is to increase the drug war, not reduce or eliminate it.

Osweld -

I thought being an addict in and of itself was a crime?

Depends on how the word "crime" is defined. If we define it as any illegal activity, then real crimes like slavery and genocide are not crimes if they are legal.
This goes to the question of which came first, crime or "government". Was government created to identify what is or is not a crime or was government created to stop or deter crime that existed before the creation of government. In other words, did government invent crime by passing laws or did crime lead to the creation of government to combat crime.
Only the latter makes sense since the perpetrators of the worst crimes have been governments which precludes government as the arbiter of what is or is not a crime. The best definition of "crime" requires a victim, therefore, drug use is not a crime even though government says otherwise...

Faded Glory -

But he doesnt like the war drugs either. He thinks the solution is to put army on mexico border to stop hard drugs.

He likes the drug war - prohibition, he just wants it fought his way.

Which would probably work some to stop the hard stuff.

Nah, the traffickers would just find a way around the army. And Posse Comitas(?) doesn't allow for the military to be used to enforce laws except in time of rebellion or war.

I think he wants to legalize medicinal and recreation marijiauna, not sure about latter.

I'm not sure about either, I've never heard him advocate the legalization of pot for any reason, only the opposite.

But I think he is wrong. I disagree on some of his liberal ideas...

If freedom is a liberal idea, what is the conservatism that opposes it? Remember, if "government" can outlaw your use of pot, it can regulate or ban anything else you might what to ingest - and that ain't freedom.

DinoDoc -

Let's turn this thread away from the usual course it is bound to follow and have some people answer this question. What sort of changes would a Libertarian like to see made to current law in order to allow for legalization, ie How would you prevent another round of "Big Tobacco" type lawsuits?

The same changes we need now anyways. No one can sue for the damage they do to themself as long as the product they are using doesn't malfunction within reasonable limits. The new TV I buy blows up and sets the house on fire - lawsuit. My 15 year old TV goes kaput, time for a new TV. Of course, with products like tobacco or pot, the only consumer protection would be against fraud or mis-labeling - selling a product as tobacco or pot when it's something else.

**CB2034** · January 7, 2002, 07:46

Re: 70-75% of all Crime is Committed by "Addicts"?

Originally posted by Berzerker
People like Bill O'Reilly repeatedly throw this statistic out to paint a picture of addicts running around shooting and mugging people. But what is the truth?

sometimes facts are the truth

A large percentage of this number is made up of people convicted of possessing drugs - buying, selling, or possession. While I don't know the number I would expect that over half are convicted of possession, say, 60%, which means about 30% of the crime is committed by "addicts" (apparently every user is an addict). But the number shrinks even more when we acknowledge that some of these addicts are engaged in and convicted of prostitution to purchase drugs - maybe 3% of the 30%.

so basically, in order to refute him, you just make up stuff, how convenient

But the number decreases even more given the fact many addicts who steal from others to pay for drugs do so not because the drugs they are using somehow compels them to commit crimes, but because they run out of drugs and need money to buy more drugs. Claiming the need for money to buy the drugs is no different than "compelling" these people to commit crimes ignores the picture painted by the prohibitionists - that the drugs biologically induce criminal behavior. Johnny uses pot, and the pot makes Johnny shoot his neighbor because pot induces violence, rather than Johnny shoots his neighbor in a bungled mugging because he needs money to buy pot, etc.

Johnny should get a job and stop shooting people and get treated for his addiction. Whats your point here?

The problem with this equation is that if it's not so much the drugs that induce crime but the need for money to buy drugs, then a policy - prohibition - designed to inflate the cost of drugs is linked to the crime. A heroin addict willing to steal from others to raise money for heroin needs to steal alot more - with more victims - if the heroin costs hundreds of dollars rather than the few dollars the drug would cost if legal.

This is a big assumption on your part. You are assuming the government wouldn't tax it at all. I on the other hand, if it were legal, would hope it cost as much because of taxation to pay for all the treatment these people are gonna want when they realize heroin is destroying them.

If the cost of food was inflated by 40 times with a gallon of milk costing $100, the resulting crimes committed by people to raise money to buy food would be the result of a stupid policy as well as people willing to steal. If 25-30% of crime is committed by addicts, how much of this is committed by people trying to raise money for drugs rather than people committing crimes while "drug-crazed"? I'd bet much of this 25-30% is the result of people committing property crimes or muggings to raise the money to buy drugs.

Last I checked, this weekend, a gallon of skim milk cost me $3.25. Thats 3.25%(that was some easy math) of the price your are just making. When Milk does cost $100 a gallon, and its not going to in my lifetime I can assure you, use that argument again.

That would leave us with about 10-15% of the crime - real crime with victims - in this country committed by people who were "compelled" by the drugs to commit their crimes. But the statistic is actually smaller given the fact some of the crime categorized as "drug-related" is the result of the black market - crime that does not include possession, but the Mafia/gangs fighting over marketshare.
How much is a matter of speculation, but I'll bet the percentage of "drug-related" crime actually committed by addicts who were "compelled" to commit their real crimes by the drugs is 1-3%!

Lets assume that what you said was true, even though it is mostly fictoral. And that 1%percent of crime involves your family. Your wife or your child or your mom is robbed and killed. It would have been nice to have saved their life.

Anyone know of a site that actually breaks down crime statistics to show a more accurate picture?

Error 404

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/crime.html

**Wraith** · January 7, 2002, 09:31

--"While I don't know the number I would expect that over half are convicted of possession,"

This does seem to be the case, but it's hard to tell exactly what that means thanks to the plea bargain system.

--"I thought being an addict in and of itself was a crime?"

Being addicted isn't, but trying to satisfy your addiction is.

--"What sort of changes would a Libertarian like to see made to current law in order to allow for legalization, ie How would you prevent another round of "Big Tobacco" type lawsuits?"

Major tort reform, which has been very much needed in this country for a long time. The lawyers have run the show long enough that this is highly unlikely, though.

--"so basically, in order to refute him, you just make up stuff, how convenient "

Actually, the part about half of them being convicted of simple possession matches some stats I dug up a while back for another thread, which did show that about half of people in jail with drug charges as their most serious conviction were in on possession.
The numbers you link to, by the way, are not at all detailed in breakdown. They lump all drug charges, including the basic posession charge, together.

--"I on the other hand, if it were legal, would hope it cost as much because of taxation"

Nothing is taxed that heavily right now. Things like heroin and marijuna are not at all expensive to create, and wouldn't be expensive to store or transport if they were legal. Street prices are still several hundred, if not thousands, times greater than the expenses on some of those. Even going to European-gas-tax levels prices would be an order of magnitude lower.

--"and its not going to in my lifetime I can assure you, use that argument again."

There's actually historical precedent for his argument. Perhaps you've heard of the Prohibition. Violent crime rates rose dramatically after it was instituted, fell greatly after it ended, and rose dramatically again when the War on Drugs got going.

Of course, milk prices are greatly inflated these days, as are most food prices. Kind of amusing how we on the one hand subsidize farmers to keep prices high and on the other hand out money so poor people can buy food... But, this is what passes for logic in government.

Wraith
"Many of the politicians who say that marijuana is a "gateway" drug (leading to cocaine and crack use) apparently smoked marijuana themselves when they were younger. By their logic, that makes them crack-heads and we should pay no attention to what they say."
-- Harry Browne

**Kyle** · January 7, 2002, 09:35

But his solution is to increase the drug war, not reduce or eliminate it.

He wants to put the military on the border to assist on immigration and drug interdiction operations. But he also wants forced drug rehabilitation.

And so what if he did want to increase the drug war? There can be more than one way to do it, but a population hooked on hard drugs or even soft drugs, is not a good thing for the country.

**Deity Dude** · January 7, 2002, 11:17

Let's look at this a different way.

What do people here think would happen to crime rates and society in general if tobacco were made illegal and that law were enforced with the same zeal as the current drug laws in the United States.

My personal opinion is that:

A) Crime would go up since not everybody would quit, we can debate what pct. would or wouldn't, but some portion of the population would be involved in using a controlled substance, "the drug addict".

B) Someone would sell the substance to users, "the pusher". He's probably be the same guy you'd probably go to if u needed herion too so then tobacco would become "the gateway drug".

C) The price would go up since there would be no consistant supply and do to the added risk "the pusher" would assume.

D) Some people wouldn't have enough money to pay for the higher priced tobacco so they would steal to get the money. Others might go into prostitution (the tobacco whore) or sell the stuff (the pusher) themselves to get the money. Still others may spend money they would have spent on more worthwhile things like their kids college education fund.

E) The quality of the product would be dubious and perhaps more harmful then it already is.

F) The profit would go into the black market (the tobacco cartels) as opposed to being split by a legitmate business owner and the illegitimate government tax.

G) Your taxes would go way up to enforce the law (the war on tobacco).

H) Violence would increase as rival growers and distributors protected thier turf.

I) Someone would develop super powerful strains of tobacco (the nicotine overdose) and different forms of the drug (crystal nicotine)

J) My parents, in the 8th decade of their lives, would go from model citizens enjoying their retirement and going to 7-11 for a pack of cigareettes to the scum of the earth, addicted, "nicotine head" criminals living day to day to figure out how to get their next fix.

Thats just my opinion though. What do you think?

**Berzerker** · January 8, 2002, 00:07

CB2034 -

sometimes facts are the truth

The definition of "fact" is truth so all facts are truth, not sometimes.

so basically, in order to refute him, you just make up stuff, how convenient

My estimates of how much "drug-related crime" is actually attributable to non-criminal activities like possession may be off by modest amounts, but not the fact that "possession" is included within the statistic O'Reilly offered as proof that addicts are running around shooting and mugging people. If possession is a crime according to O'Reilly and the stat compilers (and it is), then it is not only included in his stat, it makes up the largest percentage of crimes reflected by the stat. Are you disputing my claim that possession, which includes the buying and selling of drugs, factors into the stat O'Reilly offered?

Johnny should get a job and stop shooting people and get treated for his addiction. Whats your point here?

The point is that not all muggings/murders are committed by people because the drugs they use somehow compel them to commit these crimes, but that because the drug war inflates the cost of drugs, many users who commit these crimes do so to raise the extra revenue to buy the drugs. And if Johnny doesn't do what you suggest, and continues doing what he is doing, the added costs of buying drugs because of the drug war means Johnny might need to rob people for money to buy the drugs. If he could buy the drugs at their legal market prices, then he could do so by panhandling or getting a minimum wage job.

This is a big assumption on your part. You are assuming the government wouldn't tax it at all. I on the other hand, if it were legal, would hope it cost as much because of taxation to pay for all the treatment these people are gonna want when they realize heroin is destroying them.

I'm not responsible for reading your mind as to what you want so don't tell me I am making a big assumption, my comment only pointed out that if a policy tries to dramatically inflate the cost of products in demand, and some people are willing to steal to get the money to meet those inflated costs, the policy is linked to the crime. Am I taxed now to pay for Alcoholics Anonymous? Forced treatment is a joke if the addict doesn't want to quit, and if he wants to quit, he doesn't need government "treatment". Btw, if you want "taxes" - legalized theft - to inflate the costs to their current level, you won't get rid of the black market fueling some of the crime in this country. The victims of property crimes resulting from the inflated costs of drugs are essentially paying a "tax" now to pay for the drug war.

Last I checked, this weekend, a gallon of skim milk cost me $3.25. Thats 3.25%(that was some easy math) of the price your are just making. When Milk does cost $100 a gallon, and its not going to in my lifetime I can assure you, use that argument again.

You're missing the point, If the cost of food was inflated as many times as the drugs, crime would go up, not down. If milk cost $100 a gallon and the costs of other foods were also increased in a similar fashion, not only would crime escalate beyong belief, the result would be a revolution or a change of the policy at the polls.

Lets assume that what you said was true, even though it is mostly fictoral. And that 1%percent of crime involves your family. Your wife or your child or your mom is robbed and killed. It would have been nice to have saved their life.

But how did the drug war "save" their lives? According to the estimated breakdown of the stats I offered, they are more likely to be robbed or killed by an addict trying to raise the money to buy drugs, or as "colateral" damage because of the black market - government's enforcement of the drug laws. Believe it or not, I'm more worried government agents will break into our home in the middle of the night based on some paid informant's "word" that we have drugs than an addict robbing us for money. Btw, how do the actions of ~ 1% justify punishing the remaining ~ 99%? That is your argument! Punish millions of people - all drug users - because a much smaller group commit actual crimes with victims. Does it bother you that racists use your "logic"? One last point, I thought you were a Christian. If so, does the Golden Rule mean you want us to punish you because someone else committed a crime?

Your link didn't offer a breakdown of the "drug-related crime" statistics.

Wraith -

This does seem to be the case, but it's hard to tell exactly what that means thanks to the plea bargain system.

True, I imagine most plea bargains are lowering a drug dealing charge to possession.

Being addicted isn't, but trying to satisfy your addiction is.

Through stealing, but you knew that

Actually, the part about half of them being convicted of simple possession matches some stats I dug up a while back for another thread, which did show that about half of people in jail with drug charges as their most serious conviction were in on possession.

Yup, a fact (estimate) ignored by O'Reilly and many other supporters of the drug war when they throw around statistics that paint a false picture of reality.

There's actually historical precedent for his argument. Perhaps you've heard of the Prohibition. Violent crime rates rose dramatically after it was instituted, fell greatly after it ended, and rose dramatically again when the War on Drugs got going.

Another fact ignored by the prohibitionists. A rather amusing debate between Dr Strangelove (a prohibitionist) and Ramo had the good Doc claiming alcohol prohibition reduced crime even after Ramo posted Commerce Dept stats showing that homocide rates significantly increased - almost doubled - under prohibition. The Doc said the stats were invalid because they were not accompanied by publication dates, lol.

Kyle -

And so what if he did want to increase the drug war?

I was responding to the claim he wanted to reduce current outlays for drug enforcement.

There can be more than one way to do it, but a population hooked on hard drugs or even soft drugs, is not a good thing for the country.

You would use heroin if it was legal? I wouldn't and I've used a wide variety of drugs that never "hooked" me. But I have news for you, the rest of us do not exist to serve your desires. My only obligation to you is to not physically harm or defraud (or steal from) you. I wish you recognised the same obligation when you have "government" steal (yeah, it's "legal") my money to pay for what you want.

Announcement

70-75% of all Crime is Committed by "Addicts"?

70-75% of all Crime is Committed by "Addicts"?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment