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

[Drago Sinio]

It seems to me that criminal behaviour and drug abuse are further linked and interwined in that both activities are stupid and self destructive. The sort of fool who takes drugs, is the same sort that commits petty crimes.


So the real problem to correct is not drugs, or crime, but stupid self destructive behaviour. In other words you need to cure the disease not just bandage over the symptoms of the disease. You need some way for the fools in question to maximize what intelligence they possess, and to increase their self image so that they have no wish to harm themselves anymore.

Then the drug and crime issues are moot, because the former criminals will be busy in some productive enterprise- being a vital part of society rather than sucking the life out of it- and themselves.

[Berzerker]

Deity Dude -

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.

The irony is that none other than Orrin Hatch (Sen. of Utah) had hearings a few months after the Rob Reiner cigarette tax went into effect in California and that the testimonials were from hand-picked crime experts who identified an increase in black market crime resulting from the tax. While Hatch agreed that crime increased due to the tax, he apparently cannot understand that the same cause and effect applies to other drugs as well. Of course, he gets money from tobacco dealers

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".

Aside from the oxy-moron of claiming prohibition will reduce crime by criminalizing a peaceful activity - freedom -engaged in by tens of millions of people, the crime increases even more because of the black market and government enforcement "mistakes".

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".

That was what a recent government medical commission concluded - that marijuana is only a "gateway" drug in the sense that it's illegal status promotes the incentive to buy other illegal drugs offered by the dealer when pot supplies are low. Btw, I used alcohol and tobacco long before ever trying pot, but I don't hear the prohibitionists pushing for wars on these drugs based on the fact millions of people used these before other drugs.

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

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.

It's quite funny to hear an "oil man" like Bush tell drug users they are guilty of funding terrorist groups that make money by "protecting" drug producers when it is government policies that push the drug producers into the arms of these groups.

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.

I couldn't see myself stealing to buy tobacco if it was illegal, but then again, I didn't steal to buy the illegal drugs I used either. But the nature of black markets leads to more crime because the suppliers and buyers are already breaking one set of laws so breaking other laws to avoid getting caught or in the course of doing business becomes a viable option. But obviously some people do steal to buy what they want, most of these people are called Democrats and Republicans

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

Which is why I can't take seriously the prohibitionists who claim they are concerned with the addict's well-being. If they were, they wouldn't support a policy that promotes a lack of quality control along with the often hostile environment in which transactions take place.

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

Yup, taxes are nothing but "legalized stealing", but it's those drug addicts who are immoral

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

When was the last time you heard about alcohol dealers having shootouts over marketshare? I usually ask this question when debating prohibitionists but never get an answer.

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

That was how "crack" was invented, the poor man's cocaine. But when crack hit the streets, the prohibitionists NEVER acknowledged it was the result of the war on cocaine which, in turn, was a result of the war on marijuana.

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.

How can we have a war without "demons" to fight?

[Berzerker]

Drago -

It seems to me that criminal behaviour and drug abuse are further linked and interwined in that both activities are stupid and self destructive. The sort of fool who takes drugs, is the same sort that commits petty crimes.

Neither I nor millions of others who have used drugs - legal or illegal - committed petty crimes. Do fools make these kind of generalizations

So the real problem to correct is not drugs, or crime, but stupid self destructive behaviour.

You mean "re-education" centers to teach us how to better take care of ourselves?

In other words you need to cure the disease not just bandage over the symptoms of the disease. You need some way for the fools in question to maximize what intelligence they possess, and to increase their self image so that they have no wish to harm themselves anymore.

You're assuming every drug user is causing an unacceptable level of harm by their standards, not yours. Many addicts are trying to ease the physical or emotional pain they've suffered so you're right to a degree. Often the drugs are not the cause, but a symptom of other problems.

Then the drug and crime issues are moot, because the former criminals will be busy in some productive enterprise- being a vital part of society rather than sucking the life out of it- and themselves.

I disagree that drug users are criminals. Just because "government" says an activity is "criminal" doesn't mean it is, nor is an activity non-criminal just because "government" says it is legal.
Slavery and genocide have been, and are in some places, legal activities, but they are still criminal. "Government" is nothing more than a group of people and their opinions are no better by virtue of their status as "government" than the opinions of others.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Crap. Rubbish.

Nearly everyone breaks the law. Nearly everyone is a criminal. It's estimated that the most widespread crimes are tax evasion and theft from the workplace.

So what percentage of the population is an addict? If you want to see what a criminal looks like, start by looking in a mirror.

[Berzerker]

Nearly everyone breaks the law. Nearly everyone is a criminal. It's estimated that the most widespread crimes are tax evasion and theft from the workplace.

So what percentage of the population is an addict? If you want to see what a criminal looks like, start by looking in a mirror.

How about speeding and littering? Yeah, %75 of the "crime" is committed by addicts, lol. Good point!!!

[Drago Sinio]

Neither I nor millions of others who have used drugs - legal or illegal - committed petty crimes. Do fools make these kind of generalizations

Note that that I said "drug abuse", not "drug use". It is indeed possible to use a drug, like having a a glass of wine with dinner. However at some point it becomes self destructive- it becomes abuse. Whether your particular level of drug use falls into the former category or the latter, is for you to decide. And yes, I agree that to generalize is another way to make a fool of yourself.

You mean "re-education" centers to teach us how to better take care of ourselves?

If I knew the answer to that- I could become quite wealthy. I don't see an easy answer. The best possible moral education is certainly a good start, though.

[Drago Sinio]

I disagree that drug users are criminals. Just because "government" says an activity is "criminal" doesn't mean it is, nor is an activity non-criminal just because "government" says it is legal.

Well, no, you are wrong. Government does in fact decide what is legal and what is illegal. Its is their primary function, it is what allows society to function. Without laws and government you have only chaos. Read the Constitution.

I suspect that you are trying to say an activity is not "right" or "wrong" because the Government says so. If that is the case, I agree.

To illustrate the difficulty of solving the problem of self destructive behaviour, look at the family of John Adams. He had three sons- presumably raised under similar circumstance. One became President and was considered among the most brilliant men of his time, John Quincy Adams. Another son was quite ordinary, he stayed home on the family farm. A third son became a drunk, and was so self destructive it eventually killed him.

So what was the difference? Genetic? Intelligence? Something else? I dont know. It may be an unalterable human condition, that some of us are just predestined to be "bad people". I dont believe that, but who knows?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The problem is not drugs.
The problem is not crime.

The problem is poverty.

Addicts don't commit crimes. Poor addicts commit crimes. Rich addicts go on to found places like the Betty Ford Clinic, where other rich addicts can go to detox. You want to stop crime by addicts? Yes, legalize drugs and treat addiction as a disease, not a crime. But above all, ameliorate the devastating effects of poverty. (Bonus: you'll stop terrorism, too. Check my sig.) This is just one of the places where western Europe (and probably Canada and Australia too) is way, way ahead of the US.

Edit - Before any else sidetracks this: yes, rich individuals and wealthy corporations commit crimes, too; hell, if the Fortune 500 were a street gang they'd be on the FBI's Most Wanted list (among them, they average more than 1 felony per day). But when O'Reilly and other media blowhards mouth off about crime, they never mean tax evasion, political bribery, or toxic dumping. They mean the kind of crime commited by the poor.

[Berzerker]

Drago -

Note that that I said "drug abuse", not "drug use". It is indeed possible to use a drug, like having a a glass of wine with dinner. However at some point it becomes self destructive- it becomes abuse. Whether your particular level of drug use falls into the former category or the latter, is for you to decide. And yes, I agree that to generalize is another way to make a fool of yourself.

The problem with this is that users are not the ones who get to decide when they magically become "abusers", the people pushing the drug war decide that. I rarely hear them mention drug use, but drug abuse is the phrase commonly used. I most certainly qualified as a drug abuser in their minds back when I was using drugs, but I never stole to buy drugs.

The best possible moral education is certainly a good start, though.

Hmm...are drug "abusers" immoral? If so, why? Please answer without making a generalization...

Well, no, you are wrong. Government does in fact decide what is legal and what is illegal.

I didn't say otherwise, I said government is not the arbiter of what is or is not criminal.

Its is their primary function, it is what allows society to function. Without laws and government you have only chaos.

And a government that has immoral laws is worse than chaos. Under a system of "chaos", people can defend themselves from evil-doers whereas under an immoral government, they are put in the position of defending themselves from evil-doers wearing badges. If we could ask the millions of victims of Hitler and Stalin if they could have lived in "chaos" rather than under those governments, I'd bet they choose "chaos".

Read the Constitution.

I have, and no where in that document does it say Congress can decide what we ingest. The Foreign and Interstate Commerce clauses were meant to create a free trade zone within the US while blocking the states from making their own trade treaties with other nations. But even if we ignore the Framer's intent, neither power touches intrastate commerce and non-commerce which makes up much of the drug use in this country.

I suspect that you are trying to say an activity is not "right" or "wrong" because the Government says so. If that is the case, I agree.

What other basis do you use for determining what is criminal? Which came first, crime or government? If you say government, then you put yourself in the position of arguing that slavery and genocide are not crimes because governments have committed both.

To illustrate the difficulty of solving the problem of self destructive behaviour, look at the family of John Adams. He had three sons- presumably raised under similar circumstance. One became President and was considered among the most brilliant men of his time, John Quincy Adams. Another son was quite ordinary, he stayed home on the family farm. A third son became a drunk, and was so self destructive it eventually killed him.

They all chose their respective paths, I'd rather we each choose our paths rather than a king decide for us.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drago Sinio
The sort of fool who takes drugs, is the same sort that commits petty crimes.

I'm the sort of fool who takes illegal drugs, as are many of my friends. We are not the sort of fools who engage in petty crimes. In fact, most of us are either successful businessmen or professionals. So stuff your opinion up your arsehole and spin on it.

[Drago Sinio]

Hmm...are drug "abusers" immoral? If so, why? Please answer without making a generalization...

Yes, they are being immoral. First let me say that I am defining immoral as "causing harm to yourself or others" which is the simplest definition I can think of at the moment. You must agree that drug abuse is harmful to yourself and or to others. Its just a question of degree. It can take the extremely harmful form of a drunk driver causing a fatal accident, or the relatively benign form of damaging your own health. I would even argue that since you are not at your best while under the influence, you are harming yourself in that instead of lying on the couch in a drug induced stupor, you could be doing something productive. Its just a question of degree.

I didn't say otherwise, I said government is not the arbiter of what is or is not criminal.

Yes, in fact it is. If you define crime as breaking the law, and government writes the law, then clearly you are absolutely wrong.
If you are defining "crime" in some other way, you need to be more specific as to your definition in order for your argument to be understood.

If we could ask the millions of victims of Hitler and Stalin if they could have lived in "chaos" rather than under those governments, I'd bet they choose "chaos".

Yes, I agree. I forget the exact phrase, but in either the Declaration or the Consititution it says somehting similar to
" A just government draws its power from the consent of the governed".

I have, and no where in that document does it say Congress can decide what we ingest. The Foreign and Interstate Commerce clauses were meant to create a free trade zone within the US while blocking the states from making their own trade treaties with other nations. But even if we ignore the Framer's intent, neither power touches intrastate commerce and non-commerce which makes up much of the drug use in this country.

I agree that there is no specific prohibition of drug abuse, nor is there any specific protection of it.

Which came first, crime or government? If you say government, then you put yourself in the position of arguing that slavery and genocide are not crimes because governments have committed both.

No, not at all. Governments often break or suspend their own laws. And I don't believe that either slavery or genocide are currently legal in the US.

They all chose their respective paths, I'd rather we each choose our paths rather than a king decide for us

Yes, I believe the American Revolution addressed that particular issue.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drago Sinio
Note that that I said "drug abuse", not "drug use

That is incorrect. See the quote in my post above. Before engaging in debate with others, have your story straight, please.

[chequita guevara]

Berserker, I highly doubt O'Reilly's statistic. First off, it seems to me that the majority of all crimes are probably traffic violations. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Second, O'Reilly is likely only considering non-traffic convictions, and not accounting for crimes that go unreported and unsolved. Finally, as Rufus T. Firefly previously mentioned, there is a vast amount of corporate crime that goes on that is ignored by O'Reilly and his ilk. You are correct about possession. Approximately half of all people in prison are there on possession charges, but as Wraith mentions, that may well have something to do with plea bargining.

As much I may dislike O'Reilly, I have to give him props for something. On Sep 22, he invited an Arab American university professor on his show, and then proceeded to do his O'Reilly thing (take quotes of of context, etc. etc.). End result, the tenured professor gets fired from his University of South Florida position. O'Reilly has public criticized the University for doing this, whether this is because O'Reilly actually stands for the right of everyone to have his own opinions or because O'Reilly won't have any guests if they are in danger of losing their jobs, it doesn't matter. At least he's taking the University to task (and opposing Jeb Bush who supports the firing) for this violation of the 1st Amendment. Props Bill.

[Drago Sinio]

I'm the sort of fool who takes illegal drugs, as are many of my friends. We are not the sort of fools who engage in petty crimes. In fact, most of us are either successful businessmen or professionals. So stuff your opinion up your arsehole and spin on it.

Yes, actually, since taking illegal drugs is by definition a petty crime, you are exactly that sort of fool. Further you are also foolish to harm yourself, your business or your professional career with drug abuse. Just think of what you could do with the money and time you waste alone!! I can only hope you modify your foolish behaviour before you do any permanent damage.

[Drago Sinio]

That is incorrect. See the quote in my post above. Before engaging in debate with others, have your story straight, please.

I checked, and I said what I said I said, not what you said I said.
So please read more carefully next time, to avoid embarassing yourself.