More gang activity

[RobertNashville]

I'm sorry but as a person with libertarian leanings how can you say that the current drug laws (and all the bad things that come from them), don't need to be changed?...

I"m sorry that you seem to have trouble understanding what I'm saying that you, again, have to put words in my mouth and claim I said something I didn't say...I did not say they “don’t need to be changedâ€; I SAID I’m okay with them as they are.

Those two statements are not interchangeable. If you think they are you’re just wrong.

I also said that while I recognize that our drug laws aren’t perfect, I see no significant reason to change them and that I’m okay with the drug laws as they are. I take that position because when looking at what social policies/issues are important to me right now, “drug laws†don’t even move the needle on my personal “Importance†meter. That may change for me in the future but at the moment I can think of so many issues that are terribly important to me that “drug laws†are a total non-starter…oh I’ll happily discuss them and the concept of legalizing/not legalizing them…but do I really care about them? No, I don’t. Right now, I'm a lot more concerned about whether our country will even survive as a Constitutional Republic than I am whether some kid has to pay a fine because he has a 1/8 of an ounce of pot on him or whether you can buy an saline IV for your bug-out bag. *

You are right, I did say that I have libertarian “leaningsâ€â€¦but note the word “leaningsâ€.

I’m not a libertarian…I don’t subscribe to all their positions and certainly don’t subscribe to their more extreme positions such as abolishing all drug laws. But, I DO recognize that moving in the direction of no or relaxed drug laws is more in keeping with the ideals of personal freedom and liberty which I most certainly DO believe in.

[Jonnin]

I'm assuming you two aren't equating organized crime to the old syndicates but sticking to the gangs, which

are the organized criminals of today, they will resort to any kind of vicious neighborhood crime including all of the above

you mentioned? They're already doing those things, aren't they?

I could see a hostile takeover on that company that is bankrupt :Twinkies?

Yes, modern organized crime, which is in a large part gangs though some of the old school remains as well (at times, a tier up from the street gangs but on the same team).

Um, think of it like a stock portfolio of crime. Yes, they already "invest" in other things, but if suddenly the drug "stock" crashes, they move those resources to other "market areas". The guys that were selling dope move to selling illegal guns or Identity theft or any of 1000 other things. Sure, someone already is selling those things, but there is room for more players in any of the other illegal goods and services markets of the world. The one thing you can be assured of is they will not just hang it all up and get a day job because dope went legal. Kinda like the legalization of booze; organized crime did not dry up and go away after that, did it?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Only a change in faces. The crime element has always been around and wasn't created by Prohibition,

like some would think, and will move on to something else when the latest thing becomes less than desirable.

Edited October 1, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[strickj]

Street gangs ≠ organized crime mobs.

Drug dealers ≠ gangs.

Drug cartels ≠ street gangs.

Legalizing drugs is irrelevant to most of the street gangs.

Street gangs are about "family", getting stoned, misanthropy and fighting. Chattanooga gangs (as are most urban) are primary thieves and hoodlums. Some sell drugs but not all of them do. And not all drug dealers are affiliated with gangs.

We can legalize all drugs and gangs will still break into cars and homes and shoot each other up.

In the fantasy land of legalized drugs will stop street sales, the only thing it would stop is drug dealers. Gangs and organized crime would still be a problem.

That thought is a fantasy because drug dealers and gangs are not going to give up their multimillion dollar trade overnight.

Moreso, I do not see many companies that would want to take on the liability of producing and selling substances like crack in this sue happy society, Let alone any insurance companies that would insure such a venture.

Far as the Libertarian stance on drugs and personal freedoms goes....

Drug users rob, cheat, rape, vandalize and murder while either under drugs' influence or in order to obtain more drugs. That is removing my freedoms and liberties.

This is the reason alcohol is legal and drugs are not. The effects of alcohol is vastly different than the effects of drugs. Drugs causes people to do things that alcohol does not.

See the FL zombie for recent proof.

[Guest tommy62]

It's all a government created mess to begin with... The fact is you can't stop capitalism... There is a product and a high demand market.. By driving that market underground you end up with street gangs who can't work within the system and therefore blood spills out into the streets.

We've seen this movie before and the *only* way to get rid of the gang problem is to get rid of prohibition because the high demand for their product is impossible to get rid of.

Make the product they're selling legal and the gang problem would be gone in 12-18 months.

What a crock.

[Chucktshoes]

See the FL zombie for recent proof.

The FL zombie's toxicology reports showed that he had nothing more than marijuana in his system. No meth, no bath salts, nothing more than a little weed. Try again.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Street gangs ≠ organized crime mobs.

Drug dealers ≠ gangs.

Drug cartels ≠ street gangs.

Legalizing drugs is irrelevant to most of the street gangs.

Street gangs are about "family", getting stoned, misanthropy and fighting. Chattanooga gangs (as are most urban) are primary thieves and hoodlums. Some sell drugs but not all of them do. And not all drug dealers are affiliated with gangs.

We can legalize all drugs and gangs will still break into cars and homes and shoot each other up.

In the fantasy land of legalized drugs will stop street sales, the only thing it would stop is drug dealers. Gangs and organized crime would still be a problem.

That thought is a fantasy because drug dealers and gangs are not going to give up their multimillion dollar trade overnight.

Moreso, I do not see many companies that would want to take on the liability of producing and selling substances like crack in this sue happy society, Let alone any insurance companies that would insure such a venture.

Far as the Libertarian stance on drugs and personal freedoms goes....

Drug users rob, cheat, rape, vandalize and murder while either under drugs' influence or in order to obtain more drugs. That is removing my freedoms and liberties.

This is the reason alcohol is legal and drugs are not. The effects of alcohol is vastly different than the effects of drugs. Drugs causes people to do things that alcohol does not.

See the FL zombie for recent proof.

Although I agree with your explanations, I would have to say there are similarities in those groups, more like using

"approximately" instead of "not equal" is close, but not quite.

[strickj]

The FL zombie's toxicology reports showed that he had nothing more than marijuana in his system. No meth, no bath salts, nothing more than a little weed. Try again.

???????

I said

Drugs cause people to do things that alcohol does not.

See the FL zombie for recent proof.

Weed is a drug. It caused something that beer would not have. Thus the differences in effects between drugs and alcohol.

[Tennjed]

Street gangs ≠ organized crime mobs.

Drug dealers ≠ gangs.

Drug cartels ≠ street gangs.

Legalizing drugs is irrelevant to most of the street gangs.

Street gangs are about "family", getting stoned, misanthropy and fighting. Chattanooga gangs (as are most urban) are primary thieves and hoodlums. Some sell drugs but not all of them do. And not all drug dealers are affiliated with gangs.

We can legalize all drugs and gangs will still break into cars and homes and shoot each other up.

In the fantasy land of legalized drugs will stop street sales, the only thing it would stop is drug dealers. Gangs and organized crime would still be a problem.

That thought is a fantasy because drug dealers and gangs are not going to give up their multimillion dollar trade overnight.

Moreso, I do not see many companies that would want to take on the liability of producing and selling substances like crack in this sue happy society, Let alone any insurance companies that would insure such a venture.

Far as the Libertarian stance on drugs and personal freedoms goes....

Drug users rob, cheat, rape, vandalize and murder while either under drugs' influence or in order to obtain more drugs. That is removing my freedoms and liberties.

This is the reason alcohol is legal and drugs are not. The effects of alcohol is vastly different than the effects of drugs. Drugs causes people to do things that alcohol does not.

See the FL zombie for recent proof.

I am sorry are you saying alcohol doesn't cause people to rob, cheat, rape, vandalize and murder? I hope I am misreading your statement and that isn't what you are implying

An estimated 23,200 murdered in U.S. last year Newsweek -

Of all murders, alcohol was involved in at least 34% of cases.

Rape - More than 1/2 of rapists had been drinking.

Child abuse - mothers convicted are 3 times more likely to be alcoholics - fathers 10 times more likely.

Suicide - Up to 36% of victims were drinking just before. Prodigy Services Co. -

Heavy drinking is involved in 60% of violent crimes, 30% of suicides, and 80% of fire and drowning accident

One half of all traffic accidents are alcohol related. U.S.A. Today

The suicide rate of alcoholics is 30 times that of the general population. AFA journal -

Alcohol related crashes kills someone in the U.S. every 22 minutes. At any minute, one of 50 drivers on the road is drunk and every weekend night, one out of 10 is drunk.

According to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, there are 105,000 alcohol related deaths annually due to drunken drivers and alcohol related injuries and diseases. AFA journal Times

Weed is not good for you and has problems, but not to the extend alcohol does. Alcohol has removed more than its fair share of freedoms and liberties

Edited October 2, 2012 by Tennjed

[Chucktshoes]

???????I saidWeed is a drug. It caused something that beer would not have. Thus the differences in effects between drugs and alcohol.

So you are actually going to hold to the position that pot caused the guy to eat another man's face. OK. Pot does not have a reputation for causing that kind of psychotic episode. After the tox reports came back even the investigators threw up their hands and said essentially they don't know why the guy did what he did.

BTW, alcohol can cause psychosis. Alcohol related psychosis is well documented, so yes, beer can cause this type of thing to happen.

http://emedicine.med...289848-overview

Edited October 2, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[DaveS]

The FL zombie's toxicology reports showed that he had nothing more than marijuana in his system. No meth, no bath salts, nothing more than a little weed. Try again.

BINGO!

Dave S

[Chucktshoes]

BINGO!

Dave S

Meh, StrickJ already attempted to make that case, already been addressed. To reiterate, alcohol is far more likely to cause that kind of psychosis than pot.

[TrickyNicky]

^^^ This.

I used to smoke a sh&@ load of the stuff, probably close to my body weight worth and never once, not even for a second did I ever consider eating any part of a human. The guy who did that was/is a psychopath end of story.

I find it a bit humorous and a bit sad that many folks anti-pot sentiments nearly exactly mirror the opinions and concerns of the gun grabbers... People with no first hand experience with firearms will be sure to tell you all about how dangerous guns are and how that anyone even owning one is a dire threat toward their personal freedoms and liberties.

Of course those of us who do have the experience know this a bunch of poppycock.

Liars will always lie, cheaters will always cheat, rapists will always rape, and murderers will always kill. What that has to do with an otherwise law abiding citizen making a decision that you don't personally agree with is what baffles me.

[strickj]

Meh, StrickJ already attempted to make that case, already been addressed. To reiterate, alcohol is far more likely to cause that kind of psychosis than pot.

Far more likely? But which one actually caused it, though

Kinda irrelevant in this thread anyway. The discussion is about gangs and legalizing drugs. Not which drug is worst...

[DaveTN]

Kinda irrelevant in this thread anyway. The discussion is about gangs and legalizing drugs. Not which drug is worst...

The discussion now seems to be… Alcohol is bad, so let’s legalize drugs.

[Lumber_Jack]

The discussion now seems to be… Alcohol is bad, so let’s legalize drugs.

That's where it always goes. I've had the "legalize drugs" discussion with several of my friends, and it always turns to the evils of alcohol.

[Tennjed]

That's where it always goes. I've had the "legalize drugs" discussion with several of my friends, and it always turns to the evils of alcohol.

I think the reason that happens is the pro legalization people are trying to get people to look at it objectionably. We already have one of the most dangerous drugs not only legal but celebrated. It is ironic and a little hypocritical to be ok with one and not the other. Alcohol is involved in most violent crimes. The conversation turns to it because it is a natural comparison. The problem is most anti legalization people become fluster with the debate when they are asked to explain why they get to be drug users (alcohol) or a very dangerous drug but yet do not believe others should be. Most violent crimes involve alcohol It is selfish and hypocrital to drink alcohol and say other drugs should not be legal.

[Lumber_Jack]

I think the reason that happens is the pro legalization people are trying to get people to look at it objectionably. We already have one of the most dangerous drugs not only legal but celebrated. It is ironic and a little hypocritical to be ok with one and not the other. Alcohol is involved in most violent crimes. The conversation turns to it because it is a natural comparison. The problem is most anti legalization people become fluster with the debate when they are asked to explain why they get to be drug users (alcohol) or a very dangerous drug but yet do not believe others should be. Most violent crimes involve alcohol It is selfish and hypocrital to drink alcohol and say other drugs should not be legal.

Yeah I understand why its compared I just simply don't agree with the premise. Legalizing more dangerous drugs, doesn't make alcohol less dangerous. You know if its just a little bit harder for my children to get Marijuana, I'm OK with that, regardless of the difficulty of accessing alcohol. Lets face it, if a grown adult wants weed, they can get it, if not they aren't looking hard enough.

[Tennjed]

Yeah I understand why its compared I just simply don't agree with the premise. Legalizing more dangerous drugs, doesn't make alcohol less dangerous. You know if its just a little bit harder for my children to get Marijuana, I'm OK with that, regardless of the difficulty of accessing alcohol. Lets face it, if a grown adult wants weed, they can get it, if not they aren't looking hard enough.

I understand what you are saying also, but there are grown adults in jail right now whose only crime was trying to get weed. You either need to grow it yourself (which will get you in major trouble) of subject yourself to dealing with dangerous drug dealers

[RobertNashville]

...there are grown adults in jail right now whose only crime was trying to get weed.

I call Bovine Scatology on that...pray tall me, who, specifically, is "...sitting in jail right now who's only crime was trying to get weed"? Most states, including Tennessee, makes simple possession a misdemeanor and that's been true for a long time.

Specifically...

39-17-401, et seq. Possession Possession or casual exchange of: Less than .5 oz.: Class A misdemeanor and attendance at drug offender school and minimum $250 fine

Any adults sitting in jail right now because of trying to get weed were either in possession of a ####load of it or there were other, serious, crimes in play at the same time.

And for future reference, you'll almost never bring anyone over to your position by making wildly untrue, ridiculous statements. I know...I've tried it...it doesn't work.

[Lumber_Jack]

I was pretty sure simply possession was a misdemeanor as well, but didn't really care enough to look it up.

I have a friend that did 10 years for possession of marijuana.......he had 249 lbs of it

[Tennjed]

I call Bovine Scatology on that...pray tall me, who, specifically, is "...sitting in jail right now who's only crime was trying to get weed"? Most states, including Tennessee, makes simple possession a misdemeanor and that's been true for a long time.

Specifically...

Any adults sitting in jail right now because of trying to get weed were either in possession of a ####load of it or there were other, serious, crimes in play at the same time.

And for future reference, you'll almost never bring anyone over to your position by making wildly untrue, ridiculous statements. I know...I've tried it...it doesn't work.

Well I know of a few people from my home town who are in jail because they had 1-2 plants growing on their property. Not selling personal use. As I said in my post you quoted, people that want to use it either have to grow it or subject themselves to drug dealers. Many people choose to grow a plant or two themselves. Getting caught with 1 plant will land you in jail in most places regardless of intent. There are people all over the country in similar situations as the people I know of locally.

For the record, accusing someone of making wildly untrue and ridiculous statements, when in fact they are true doesn't help your argument

[Lumber_Jack]

Well I know of a few people from my home town who are in jail because they had 1-2 plants growing on their property. Not selling personal use. As I said in my post you quoted, people that want to use it either have to grow it or subject themselves to drug dealers. Many people choose to grow a plant or two themselves. Getting caught with 1 plant will land you in jail in most places regardless of intent. There are people all over the country in similar situations as the people I know of locally.

Their are plenty of suburban white boys, slinging MJ. They aren't dangerous. But lets face it, I will never understand a persons want or desire to smoke weed, so this argument is really doomed from the start.

[Tennjed]

Their are plenty of suburban white boys, slinging MJ. They aren't dangerous. But lets face it, I will never understand a persons want or desire to smoke weed, so this argument is really doomed from the start.

I respect your opinion, but your desires and others desires are 2 different things. I personally don't understand people's desires to drink alcohol, but they do.

As far as suburb white kids selling pot. I will give you specific examples I know of. I grew up in a very small town in MS. Years ago I used to hang out in every back road country bar in the area. Those bars were filled with good old country people that liked to smoke pot. A lot of them were hard working. They did manual labor jobs during the day and did their own thing at night. Lots of them choose to grow their own pot. It is not easy for a "good old country boy" in his 40s to drive into the big city suburbs and by pot

[RobertNashville]

Well I know of a few people from my home town who are in jail because they had 1-2 plants growing on their property. Not selling personal use. As I said in my post you quoted, people that want to use it either have to grow it or subject themselves to drug dealers. Many people choose to grow a plant or two themselves. Getting caught with 1 plant will land you in jail in most places regardless of intent. There are people all over the country in similar situations as the people I know of locally.

For the record, accusing someone of making wildly untrue and ridiculous statements, when in fact they are true doesn't help your argument

You are absolutely correct, your statement is true once you provide some additional facts (which you did not provide in your original post). Growing marijuana is a serious felony and just because your hometown acquaintances say it's for personal use the law doesn't see it that way.

For the record, you made it sound, either purposely to enhance your point or out of ignorance, that there were people sitting in jail just because they had a tiny bit of marijuana on them...that's what I called BS on because that assertion was BS and is BS.

Here is a clue for your home town acquaintances (and this is a difficult concept for some folks to grasp so you may have to tell them multiple times before they get it) - don't do illegal stuff, especially serious illegal stuff, and you won't have to sit in jail!

If you are going to do illegal stuff then the ramifications for that choice is 100% on them...if they don't like the laws then operate within the system to get the laws changed; in the meantime, I'm not going to shed one tear for someone stupid enough to grow the stuff knowing the possible consequences.

Edited October 2, 2012 by RobertNashville