Calgary Gangster arrested in Vancouver

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The logic produced by the anti-legalization crowd, which basically comes down to "well it won't remove every problem, so we shouldn't do it" is assinine. The goal of government and society should be to reduce harm and increase quality of life in as many areas as possible. If legalizing cocaine and heroin results in a 30% decrease in gang violence, and a 20% decrease in incarceration rates, how is that a bad thing?

It's not! But where you going to the cocaine and heroin from?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Again I don't put a lot of bank into those figures. They're usually based on European markets where they don't have the same gang problems as North American's have.

Are you not seeing the correlation here?

I don't believe that gangs will just throw up their hands and go away under a legalization market. They will either find or create other products. Or they will put weight on the harvest and manufacturing side of the drug business to bring it down. Or they'll bring in cheap synthetic versions of the drugs that will appeal to the addicts looking to stay out of the public eye and looking for cheap highs.

History says you're wrong. Is the black market liquor business still really thriving? While this will happen to some degree, it doesn't present nearly as high of a profit margin as the current model does. This is my point, the argument advocates wasting a potential partial reduction in harm and costs because it doesn't reduce all harm and costs.

On top of that there is nothing out there that suggests that medical crack, or Crystal Meth or other hideous drugs that are less harmful to the addict.

I wasn't aware that there had been many studies done on medicinal crack and meth. There are some indications that cocaine, while highly addictive, does have certain medicinal benefits.

I believe that it will also create a major cash market based around prescription fraud.

For who? Why would someone pay for a fraudulent prescription if they can obtain a legitimate one for free. I understand that there are some hardcore addicts who you believe will not seek the legal avenues to obtain their fix, but that represents a very small percentage of the population as well as drug users in general. Also, have you had to fill a prescription for oxy or any other opiate in the last ten years? It's not exactly a five minute process. There are safeguards in place.

Legalizing it won't make the problem go away, it will create other worse problems the biggest of which is gangs fighting for a declining market by creating a new market.

Again, the point isn't that it will make the problem go away. The point is that it will reduce some of the symptoms and burdens presented by the current model. You don't wear a seatbelt because it eliminates car accidents, you wear it because it reduces the associated damages by a certain percentage. I also fail to see what new market gangs can create out of this.

But a utopian model where people can go and get crack and crystal and heroin from doctors for example is horrible.

A society where addiction is treated as an illness instead of crime is horrible?

A governments shouldn't be enabling those type of addictions. B No doctor out there is going to prescribe Crystal Meth or Heroin or Crack to anyone, it goes against their oath.

How is attempting to ween someone off a substance enabling exactly?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It's not! But where you going to the cocaine and heroin from?

Afghanistan and Bolivia?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It's not! But where you going to the cocaine and heroin from?

Why not grow it in BC?


Erythroxylum novogranatense

• Erythroxylum novogranatense var. novogranatense (Colombian Coca) - a highland variety that is utilized in lowland areas. It is cultivated in drier regions found in Colombia. However, E. novogranatense is very adaptable to varying ecological conditions. The leaves have parallel lines on either side of the central vein.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The logic produced by the anti-legalization crowd, which basically comes down to "well it won't remove every problem, so we shouldn't do it" is assinine. The goal of government and society should be to reduce harm and increase quality of life in as many areas as possible. If legalizing cocaine and heroin results in a 30% decrease in gang violence, and a 20% decrease in incarceration rates, how is that a bad thing?

Where is there any proof those would be the effects? Increased access to addictive highly drugs could result in a huge surge in other problems. Not only do you have to look at the potential crime produced by these new addicts, you also have to look at the inefficiency created by their increased medical costs and decreased working ability.

We have all sorts of people campaigning against smoking, yet we should just flood the market with cocaine, meth, and heroin?

The only way to cut out the black market is to make it readily available to everyone.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

Where is there any proof those would be the effects? Increased access to addictive highly drugs could result in a huge surge in other problems. Not only do you have to look at the potential crime produced by these new addicts, you also have to look at the inefficiency created by their increased medical costs and decreased working ability.

Why does increased access automatically equal increased usage? Most studies contradict this, and the medical costs don't go away because it's illegal.

We have all sorts of people campaigning against smoking, yet we should just flood the market with cocaine, meth, and heroin?

Yes, people do campaign against the adverse health effects of smoking. I don't see a whole lot of rallies and campaigns dedicated to criminalizing it. I think you're confusing the issues here.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.gangstersout.com/
http://gangstersout.blogspot.ca/

Half of that blog is following gang connections in the news and the other half is nutter conspiracy theories about 9/11 being an inside job and other garbage. I only seem to read that for entertainment purposes only.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Why does increased access automatically equal increased usage? Most studies contradict this, and the medical costs don't go away because it's illegal.

What studies? When has Heroin ever been made widely available to an entire country?

Several countries in Asia experienced epidemics when meth use was legal. There are several countries in East Africa where law enforcement has broken down, and you're seeing a massive explosion in drug use.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yes, people do campaign against the adverse health effects of smoking. I don't see a whole lot of rallies and campaigns dedicated to criminalizing it. I think you're confusing the issues here.

Not criminalizing but decreasing access. The issue here is access to the drug.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

What studies? When has Heroin ever been made widely available to an entire country?

I was referring more to places like Holland and Portugal, but no, heroin has never been fully legalized.

Several countries in Asia experienced epidemics when meth use was legal. There are several countries in East Africa where law enforcement has broken down, and you're seeing a massive explosion in drug use.

Post hoc fallacies are fun, but they're also very poor arguments.

Using two of the most poverty-stricken and uneducated regions in world as examples is pretty misleading. Can you show me statistics that indicate meth use has gone down in those regions in Asia since it's been criminalized, and that those areas have not seen an increase in affluence or general law & order?

With regards to East Africa, this again can generally be attributed to a lack of order and high levels of poverty, which have a well documented link to increased crime, drug use, and generally destructive behaviour. Both regions lack a a strong, legitimate state presence.

Not criminalizing but decreasing access. The issue here is access to the drug.

Then I'd like you to show me how criminalization as opposed to regulation decreases access. Most research I've seen tends to show the opposite. Anecdotally, I could get my hands on pretty much any drug I wanted to in high school at any time I wanted. Getting my hands on booze was a different story.