More gang activity

[Tennjed]

Same here! When I did it, I made sure there was a good source of junk food and a cozy couch nearby.

If there is a way to decriminalize pot without adding all the bureacracy and dealing with legal decisions and

existing prisoners with their burdens of society paying both ways, blah, blah, blah, and, oh yes the idea of

taxation which I don't see why this is necessary, and whatever else like all the safety considerations, please

tell how this can be accomplished easily.

Not doing something because it is hard is not the way to go IMH0. Keeping prisoners in jail solely because you don't want to go thru the red tape to free they is also not the way to go. It had been done in other countries and we are currently allowing people to use it legally in some states, so I think we could figure it out

[Tennjed]

specifically, let em out if their only offense was possession. Stealing is nonviolent.

correct, if they committed another crime along with possession you stay in

[JayC]

First, I kinda take offense to that... I've never smoked a cigarette let alone pot or any other illegal drug in my life... I never felt the need or desire to, and honestly I don't drink either.

I think drugs are bad, they're bad for you physically (so are M&M's), they're bad for your family, they're bad for your ability to provide a living, they're just all around bad when they are abused... but that can be said about any other thing taken to extremes... I'd never want my children or family members to get involved in drugs... whether legal or not, just as I'd never allow my children to smoke tobacco.

So, lets run down your rabbit hole... if we make illegal drugs legal, where are the gangs going to get the replacement cash flow? What is it today they're not doing to the best of their ability already that tomorrow when drugs are legal they'll start doing?

Trust me they're already exploiting those other cash flows... most of which we should make legal as well... What you're left with are real serious criminal activity, which isn't very profitable on any large scale. Things that are hard for people to turn the other way on...

So what is it exactly they'll start doing tomorrow that will replace the BILLIONS (350-400 billion a year estimated)...

You're right gangs won't go away, there will be an uptick in some violent crimes... but just like any other business or army, you need money to recruit, train and equipment your soldiers, and drugs provide the lions share of that money today.

I really think the ones who want it legalized so bad are mostly people who want to smoke it. I was a teenager once, and I didn't care about it, but the stuff around it was alluring. "Aw, yeh, he's making this up". Believe what you want. I do, too. I don't see the benefit in the stuff for the argument to be carried on as long as it has. When you guys use that argument for medicinal mary jane, that reminds me of all the rationalizing about the abortion argument. Two different issues using the same type of argument. That's another reason for me to come out against legalizing the stuff. There's too much case law involved, too many side issues concerning safety in the workplace, and I'm sure if you're really interested, there are more, but if you like the stuff so much, go smoke it. Odds are you won't get caught. That's how much of an issue this is. You can argue this issue until the cows come home. Enjoy it!

I don't even consider this a libertarian argument because there are so many more important, fundamental issues to tackle before this joke needs to be dealt with.

Gang crime and pot may be hand in hand but legalizing pot won't do anything to the gang issue. Gangs will just move their cash stream somewhere else. Broken homes contribute more to the gang problem than whether or not it is with pot or something else. Go do some damn charity work in inner cities working with kids, before you go home and smoke a bowl.

Edited September 27, 2012 by JayC

[JayC]

The way I would fix the drug problem is cut the head off the snake. That means take out the biggest suppliers and cut the flow. However, these are so called “Non-Violent†offenders because they don’t get their hands dirty with the violence. Let them go?

Dave,

No offense, but going after the suppliers will solve nothing. The only way to stop the flow of drugs is to remove the market for drugs... and that is impossible.

Removing the supply will just increase the cost of the product, until new suppliers emerge who provide more supply and reduce the costs. The high price will be temporary, and while it may price some users out of the market, they will likely enter back in once the price starts to come down.

This is econ-101.

You can't fight human nature, people want this stuff and are willing to pay money for it, somebody will provide it.

We don't have a supply problem, we have a demand problem and there is virtually no way to fix that... much easier to legalize the supply side and take this revue stream away from the criminal elements.

[Chucktshoes]

We don't have a supply problem, we have a demand problem and there is virtually no way to fix that... much easier to legalize the supply side and take this revue stream away from the criminal elements.

Exactly. When was the last time anyone heard about drug reps for Pfizer and Glaxo Smith Klein getting into a shoot out over whose peter pumper pill was going to be prescribed by an MD?

[Chucktshoes]

Double tap.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[Jonnin]

So, lets run down your rabbit hole... if we make illegal drugs legal, where are the gangs going to get the replacement cash flow? What is it today they're not doing to the best of their ability already that tomorrow when drugs are legal they'll start doing?

I think you got it right, they would have to move to more risky behavior such as stealing more, or whatever. Could go political. Could go world-wide, taking the legal drugs here to some country that has them illegal. Could sell illegally here, home-made dope for less, tainted and dangerous as that stuff can be, people use it. Could move into the identity theft market.

There are tons of ways to make money. Anything you can think of that is illegal to do, someone will pay for it... sex, chemistry, weapons, stealing/fencing, counterfeiting, tax evasion/launderng, gambling, ......

[Guest 6.8 AR]

First, I kinda take offense to that... I've never smoked a cigarette let alone pot or any other illegal drug in my life... I never felt the need or desire to, and honestly I don't drink either.

I think drugs are bad, they're bad for you physically (so are M&M's), they're bad for your family, they're bad for your ability to provide a living, they're just all around bad when they are abused... but that can be said about any other thing taken to extremes... I'd never want my children or family members to get involved in drugs... whether legal or not, just as I'd never allow my children to smoke tobacco.

So, lets run down your rabbit hole... if we make illegal drugs legal, where are the gangs going to get the replacement cash flow? What is it today they're not doing to the best of their ability already that tomorrow when drugs are legal they'll start doing?

Trust me they're already exploiting those other cash flows... most of which we should make legal as well... What you're left with are real serious criminal activity, which isn't very profitable on any large scale. Things that are hard for people to turn the other way on...

So what is it exactly they'll start doing tomorrow that will replace the BILLIONS (350-400 billion a year estimated)...

You're right gangs won't go away, there will be an uptick in some violent crimes... but just like any other business or army, you need money to recruit, train and equipment your soldiers, and drugs provide the lions share of that money today.

Little tongue-in-cheek okay? My youth was a fairly typical one and I mostly avoided pot and other drugs

because they just weren't for me.

I mostly agree with your assessment. I have been trying to point out the difficulties with everything involved.

I don't have the answer for this stuff. What I have been saying is there is no simple way to deal with this. I

agree with you about drugs being bad, but only when those drugs are used inappropriately.

Edited September 27, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Exactly. When was the last time anyone heard about drug reps for Pfizer and Glaxo Smith Klein getting into a shoot out over whose peter pumper pill was going to be prescribed by an MD?

Those kinda pills are in high "demand" also. They may get that way. Never know.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The problem in the end, and I guess I'm repeating others, will be how to address the gangs. Since they will be

doing other things to replace cash flow, they will be the end game on this problem, won't they? Crime will remain

in one form or another. We'll be chasing our tails forever about that.

[leroy]

"Been watchin the drift of this thread RE: The causes of the "gang problem". I think most everyone has fixated on what the gangs do and has maybee overlooked what causes them to begin with. It aint suprizing to me that lots of younger folks may not have thought of what i believe is the main problem for the "gang thing" because its been goin on so long.

In my view, the gang problem is far more due to the "Matrarical society" in the poor community (....read that absentee dads; one parent family, if a family at all....). The fact is that when the great LBJ declared "War on Poverty"; he inadverdantly declared war on poor workin men. In the early 1900's (....about 1908, i think....); ninety six percent of black families had both parents at home; and they were republicans by the way (...no extra charge for that....) because of the high regard for that greatest republican of 'em all, Abraham Lincon. Today, the out of wedlock figure in the black community is about 80% or so; with the white community not far behind. When ya tell poor women they dont need men and give them money for it ALA the welfare state you get what ya get. This has goin on since the early sixties.

Regardless of what any "expert" says; kids (...especially boys...) need a father figure. If there aint one at home; they will find one on the street. VIOLA!!!: The gang thing starts. They need money, they dont know (...or maybee dont care....) about honest work; VIOLA!!! Crime. Someone tries to call them down or invade their turf. The shootin begins.

The gang problem used to be "across the track" so no one cared (....except those livin "across the track"....). When you have the legal enterprise that coddles these kids, the "community organizers" who run local government in Chattanooga and other places as well, and the ratty economy we have; the "across the track" thing spreads out. Its spreading in Knoxville and Chattanooga. I'm sure its spreading other places as well.

leroy

Edited September 27, 2012 by leroy

[Tennjed]

"Been watchin the drift of this thread RE: The causes of the "gang problem". I think most everyone has fixated on what the gangs do and has maybee overlooked what causes them to begin with. It aint suprizing to me that lots of younger folks may not have thought of what i believe is the main problem for the "gang thing" because its been goin on so long.

In my view, the gang problem is far more due to the "Matrarical society" in the poor community (....read that absentee dads; one parent family, if a family at all....). The fact is that when the great LBJ declared "War on Poverty"; he inadverdantly declared war on poor workin men. In the early 1900's (....about 1908, i think....); ninety six percent of black families had both parents at home; and they were republicans by the way (...no extra charge for that....) because of the high regard for that greatest republican of 'em all, Abraham Lincon. Today, the out of wedlock figure in the black community is about 80% or so; with the white community not far behind. When ya tell poor women they dont need men and give them money for it ALA the welfare state you get what ya get. This has goin on since the early sixties.

Regardless of what any "expert" says; kids (...especially boys...) need a father figure. If there aint one at home; they will find one on the street. VIOLA!!!: The gang thing starts. They need money, they dont know (...or maybee dont care....) about honest work; VIOLA!!! Crime. Someone tries to call them down or invade their turf. The shootin begins.

The gang problem used to be "across the track" so no one cared (....except those livin "across the track"....). When you have the legal enterprise that coddles these kids, the "community organizers" who run local government in Chattanooga and other places as well, and the ratty economy we have; the "across the track" thing spreads out. Its spreading in Knoxville and Chattanooga. I'm sure its spreading other places as well.

leroy

Great points and good post

[DaveTN]

To add to what Leroy said above, these gang bangin’ kids know they are going to prison. Their fathers, uncles, and brothers are in or have been to prison and they know they are going. It’s just a matter of when and for how long. They do not fear prison.

They need money and they are going to get it some way. Making drugs legal won’t change that one bit. If they can’t make money off drugs they will stick a gun in someone’s face. If the people in their neighborhood don’t have any money, they will come to your neighborhood and stick a gun in your face.

[Jonnin]

snip good stuff you can read it up there^^

leroy

I would add that poverty is spreading. Gas, corn, food, anything transported all cost more, people make the same money and many lost jobs or have had to take a lesser job than they rate to get some money, etc. Less opportunity for everyone hits the lesser educated and already poor even harder. That sort of thing always leads to more theft and petty crimes which is a downward spiral. It leads to more drugs/booze too, people want to escape their life or feel good for a change.

Only way I see of putting an end to it all is a combination of a star trek replicator in every home + libertarian approach to making stuff legal. Neither one of those is coming in the near future. Its a mess with no solution.... any improvement is a step up but the staircase is an escher one that just ends up back where it started.

[DaveTN]

I guess I needed to be more specific and spell it out. We should let out non violent marijuana users out of prison. Never meant to imply legalizing theft.

I see, just pot smokers go free.

Your other argument about the piss test is easily solved by not firing someone who doesn't break the law

You aren’t going to tell business owners how they are going to run their companies on this issue any more than they will be told they have to allow guns; it isn’t going to happen. Especially when it just because I few people feel the need to get high.

Drinking is legal, but you can still be fired for it. Tobacco is legal, but some companies have banned its use by employees even on their off time.

[Tennjed]

Double post

Edited September 27, 2012 by Tennjed

[Tennjed]

<

/>I see, just pot smokers go free.<br />

<br /><br />You aren’t going to tell business owners how they are going to run their companies on this issue any more than they will be told they have to allow guns; it isn’t going to happen. Especially when it just because I few people feel the need to get high.<br /><br />Drinking is legal, but you can still be fired for it. Tobacco is legal, but some companies have banned its use by employees even on their off time.

<br />You are taking everything to the extreme and over complicating it. I would never tell a business owner what they can do. They have the oppurtunity to choose to treat it the same way if they want to. Can a employer tell you you are not allowed to drink off the job? 

You are a drug user that found a boss ok with you using alcohol off the job. The same can be said for drug users that smoke pot.

Your argument that you cannot legalize pot because of piss test is very strange. I was intending to point out an employer has the right to keep someone employed even if they smoke pot.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Tennjed

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That will be one of the problems if people take a liking to pot, which I doubt, but the old piss test will clean

a bunch of potheads from dangerous jobs. I'm subject to those all the time and if pot is legalized I hope

the tests are done more often. I can imagine some dumbass engineer coming at me with a buzz at 50 miles

an hour runs a red signal, kills 4 or 5 of us, two or three chlorine tank cars slide off the track and start

leaking. Won't matter to me, I'll be dead, but that radius of chlorine will kill a bunch more.

Nah I doubt it happens.

[DaveS]

lol hes doing 5 MPH on the interstate, darn stoned drivers!

And his best friend is the Pizza delivery guy!

Dave S

[DaveS]

I have a question for the OP:

If I'm walking down my street either OC or CC with a beer in my hand, and a sherrif deputy drives down the road and notices me...he can and most likely will stop and question me. I can even be tested by field sobriety ect ect. And, I believe under certain circumstances I can be blood tested.

My Question: If pot gets legalized, and I'm walking down my road while CC or OC and smoking any number of things (pipe, cig, doobie, cigar, blunt, crack pipe, dope pipe, regular pipe ect)...does it mean I'm going to get stopped because the Officer doesn't know what I'm "smoking". Will I have to go in for a hair sample or pee test everytime an officer see's me smoking in public while carrying a handgun?

Our handgun carry privilages are getting less and less every day. We DON'T NEED anymore laws governing our carry privilages!!

One more question; are you from the UK?

Dave S

Edited September 27, 2012 by DaveS

[QuietDan]

Intercept and poison the shipments. Dead end-users, fear of the product, demand reduction. A little drastic, might violate a few laws, but -- what the hey!

Surely, surely, we still have a little Agent Orange left over for the jungle production areas . . .

I'm not a fan of drug use, drug users, or the impact on others, to include parking lot gun battles, human trafficking, child abuse, medical costs, traffic accidents, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. There are no victimless crimes. Start with heroin, cocaine, marijuana, . . . alcohol is a separate case due to cultural acceptance, take it on if any users are left.

[DaveTN]

You are taking everything to the extreme and over complicating it.

I’m not over complicating or taking anything to the extreme, I’m not the one posting they want to make drugs legal, or why it’s a good idea.

(I’m not laughing at you; I hope I’m laughing with you. This discussion has gone on years, and is really moot; no one is going to legalize drugs.)

You are a drug user that found a boss ok with you using alcohol off the job. The same can be said for drug users that smoke pot.

Your boss can do whatever he likes. But if you are injured at work in this state a positive drug test is a presumption that the drugs caused the injury. You have to prove that they didn’t. If you can’t prove that you may be denied benefits. If you go to the hospital with a work related injury; you are going to be drug tested.

Your argument that you cannot legalize pot because of piss test is very strange. I was intending to point out an employer has the right to keep someone employed even if they smoke pot.

I have said nowhere in this post that you can’t legalize pot because of anything. Here is what I said about a piss test....

Is that fair? Nope, and you can make drugs legal if you want, but that won’t change how business handles testing positive. Life is not fair, and one has nothing to do with the other.

And....

And it still won’t be “legal†for those that have to work for a living. Companies aren’t going to change their drugs policies; test positive and you are out. Just another nail in the U.S. manufacturing coffin.

Can a boss fire you because you drink alcohol? Certainly he can. You live in an “Employment at will†state. Your boss doesn’t even have to give a reason if he fires you, unless he’s disputing your unemployment benefits.

My own belief on this is that if you want to sit at home at night a burn a bowl that you bought with the money from the job you worked; that is your business. But that is not what is going to happen.

Most people I know that have a job and take care of their family, and want to smoke pot do it anyway; so what’s the problem? Most of those types aren’t going to get busted by the cops. They may get burned on a drug screen and lose their jobs, but my point is that will probably happen even if drugs were to be legalized.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm probably the one who brought up the piss test. And the reason I did was to show one more angle in the

mix of complexities of your idea of legalizing something like pot. Too many hurdles and too many things to

justify/unjustify to get at what your goal is. And the bottom line of this endeavor? You haven't done anything

about what you originally set out to do. That had to do with crime, gangs and the like. This legalization of pot

may sound great, but it doesn't fly, nowadays.

Fore you guys who think legalization and taxation is an answer. Why do you want to increase government

for that? Just one more thing to have the gods of government hold over you, at the end of the day.

It won't do one thing for crime.

Edited September 28, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[JayC]

I think you got it right, they would have to move to more risky behavior such as stealing more, or whatever. Could go political. Could go world-wide, taking the legal drugs here to some country that has them illegal. Could sell illegally here, home-made dope for less, tainted and dangerous as that stuff can be, people use it. Could move into the identity theft market.

There are tons of ways to make money. Anything you can think of that is illegal to do, someone will pay for it... sex, chemistry, weapons, stealing/fencing, counterfeiting, tax evasion/launderng, gambling, ......

And organized crime is doing all of those things today... Do you really think there is another 400 BILLION dollars a year they're leaving on the table?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They are too smart to leave anything on the table.