PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader:

All we have to do to win the War on Crime is to make it legal, to turn all the criminals into angels, and all the problems will be solved.

******

Methinks, there seems to be much missing in the story, like there’s much missing in your understanding of the law of supply and demand, along with laws in general.

******

Sprewell says: “So you believe that taking drugs, which harms nobody but yourself…etc.”

That’s what you believe.

Is pickpocketing, speeding, or littering the same level as murder or theft?

The evidence suggests more guns prevents crime, including from out of control drug addicts

******

I’ve already answered all those questions before, and it’s illogical to assume all drug crimes are on the level of littering. Moreover, it seems, some people didn’t get my joke that if you just make crime legal, there’d be no criminals and all crime problems would disappear.

So, I’ll ask you some questions. If speeding isn’t enforced, e.g. in Portugal, for years, and then the fine for speeding is reduced, will that have a significant effect on speeding?

Do you believe guns, cars, factory equipment, etc. are basically the same as drugs?

Do you believe Prohibition increased or reduced consumption of alcohol?; and if Prohibition continued for one or two more generations, do you believe there would have been more or fewer alcohol users?

******

Also, it seems, your Cato study is based on junk science:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/Fact_Sheets/portugal_fact_sheet_8-25-10.pdf

And from Huffington Post:

“According to statistics compiled by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) between 2001-07, after decriminalisation (in Portugal), more people took cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy, and LSD – but decreased in neighbouring Spain between 2003-2008.”

******

I only acknowledged the obvious, illegal drugs are illegal or a crime. You made the false assumptions about murder, littering, etc..

If you accept junk science on drugs, do you also accept junk science on global warming?

Your answer suggests guns and drugs are basically the same. So, for example, you believe when more guns are consumed, there’s more crime, because when drug consumption rises, crime rises.

And do you really believe alcohol consumption increased during Prohibition! The data show it dropped like a rock (regardless of what you saw on the “Untouchables”)

Moreover, I guess, you don’t believe legalizing drugs in the U.S. would raise social costs by several hundred billion dollars each year, which is a lot more than the $40 billion a year spent to control drugs.

******

Guns and drugs aren’t the same.

Opium in 19th century China:

As more and more addicts were created, Emperor Dao guang (1821-1850) of the Qing Dynasty became alarmed. He ordered that Guangdong (Canton), the only port then open to foreigners, be closed to all opium traffic.

But British captains evaded the edict by smuggling opium into China with the help of local pirates.

Opium presently became so widespread that by 1838, officials in Guangdong and Fujian were notifying the Imperial government that nine people out of ten in these provinces were addicts.

The Emperor responded by naming as High Commissioner to Canton, a most extraordinary man, Lin Zexu. Lin was given strict orders to rid the country of opium.

In a letter to Queen Victoria which was never sent, Commissioner Lin chided:

“… so long as you do not take it (opium) yourselves, but continue to make it and tempt the people of China to buy it, you will be showing yourselves careful of your own lives, but careless of the lives of other people, indifferent in your greed for gain to the harm you do to others: such conduct is repugnant to human feelings …”

After confiscating and destroying the opium stocks and pipes being sold by Chinese merchants, Lin put pressure on all merchant ships in the harbour carrying the drug to deliver their opium stores to him. Although these stores were publicly disposed of, it did not restrain the British as he had hoped.

One tension led to another, finally erupting in the war of 1839 to 1842, called the Opium War by the Chinese. It was an epithet bitterly resented by the British, who piously maintained that the war’s purpose was to teach the Chinese a lesson in free trade.

Just what kind of trade was meant was obvious from the swarm of opium boats which followed the Royal Navy upstream to Nanjing, where the Qing Dynasty was forced to sign a treaty opening China to trade.

Peace had barely been concluded when the opium boats began to hawk their wares: ‘Opium is on sale very cheap at Sui Shan – an opportunity not to be missed.’

******

Anyway, how do you declare war on drugs? Do you declare war on tires (when they go flat) or on coffee (when it gets cold)?

Do you delcare war on pollution? What will pollution fight you with in a war?

******

So, the only war on drugs is within the individual drug user, who decides whether or not to use drugs.

It’s a war within himself or herself, and unfortunately, too many of them lose.

Individuals who never used drugs and obey the law don’t have to fight a war on drugs.

And, without drug laws, the war on drugs would be much bigger.

******

Based on cirrhosis of the liver data, alcohol consumption fell during Prohibition:

Alcohol Prohibition and Cirrhosis – Angela K. Dills Department of Economics, Clemson University – Jeffrey A. Miron Department of Economics, Boston University

“Cirrhosis was low during the fourteen years of Prohibition compared to periods before or after. The average value over the years 1920-1933 was 7.3, while the average value in the years 1900-1919 and 1934-1997 was 11.5. This simple comparison between the Prohibition and non Prohibition years is the basis for the claim that Prohibition reduced cirrhosis.

Conclusion:

Constitutional prohibition reduced cirrhosis by about 10-20 percent…We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.”

My comment: The article adjusts for lags and other factors.

Also, I may add, this is the most cited study by far.

State laws account for additional declines.

******

Ron, the parts you picked either support or don’t contradict my original statements. So, what’s your point, except trying to fool people again and looking foolish again.

******

Also, Prohibition didn’t seem to be a strong law:

“Prohibition in the United States was a national ban on the sale, production, and transportation of alcohol…Private ownership and consumption of alcohol was not made illegal.

Congress passed the Volstead Act, the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, over President Woodrow Wilson’s veto on October 28, 1919, and established the legal definition of intoxicating liquor, as well as penalties for producing it.

Though the Volstead Act prohibited the sale of alcohol, the federal government did little to enforce it.”

******

Why do you view personal freedom as opportunities to take drugs?

******

Are we locking up people for just smoking a joint? There are many social costs, e.g. lost productivity, traffic & work injuries & fatalities, health problems & drug treatment, mental illness, unemployment, crime, domestic violence, child abuse, and other social services.

******

Harold Beaver says: “36% of federal prisoners were low level offenders.”

It’s easier to convict or plea bargain on a lesser charge. There’s a positive correlation between drug use and crime, which has declined sharply, to 1963 levels, since drug laws were strengthened and enforced. Crime rates are low, because criminals are in jail (of course, not all drug users commit crimes, other than breaking drug laws). Putting criminals in jail reduces social costs. You seem to believe more drug users will reduce social costs, or the fall in existing social costs will exceed the rise in new social costs, when millions of new drugs users are created. I’ve shown substantial evidence otherwise.

******

And if you want to learn about your rights, light a joint or smoke crack in front of a police officer.

Sure, producing drugs is output and getting caught committing property crimes at night, while working at a regular job during the day reduces employment.

******

Basically, that’s the same question Morganovich asked me many times. Here are some of my answers (yet, he still asks me the same question!):

*If you don’t violate the rights of others, you should be able to get as high as you want and have the right to OD too. However, someone higher than a kite might shove you in a trash compactor, before you OD, and not even know it.

*It’s too bad Americans who obey the law have to pay for Americans who don’t obey the law.

*It’s like a baby who craps in his diapers. A responsible adult has to clean it up.

*It’s like pollution. For every dollar of private benefits, there may be $10 of social costs, which other people pay for, including people who don’t use drugs.

*I’d like the liberty to drive as fast as I want. However, there are consequences.

*Say you drank gin or smoked marijuana, while watching Monday Night Football on your private property. Then, at halftime, there’s an emergency and you decide you need to drive your car. Using your poor judgment, you end up killing someone other than yourself. You can be arrested.

*You don’t have the liberty to pollute unabated.

*You’re not losing a right, because illegal drugs have never been legal while you’ve been alive.

*Why promote alcohol or illegal drugs when the devastation is massive. Do we need more alcoholics and drug addicts?

*Whether or not you like a law, if you break it, you should be punished, right?

*Why should someone who obeys the law be punished by the law-breaker’s ignorance, selfishness, carelessness, etc.?

*Should people have the right to choose which laws they want to obey?

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/the-failed-shameless-war-on-drugs-fuels-chicago-murders/#comments

---

PeakTrader:

Ron, people can be charged with more than one crime. It may be more likely other crimes are connected to marijuana posession (e.g. property or violent crimes) with blacks than with whites.

Also, a larger proportion of blacks are poor compared to whites.

******

Yes, what’s the point? To legalize drugs, and crime in general, because it’s racist?

Lawyers are experts at twisting reality. Marijuana use increased, because of decriminalization. All other drug use decreased, because of law enforcement. So, that would account for the percentage of marijuana arrests increasing compared to all drug arrests.

Legalizing marijuana in poor black neighborhoods, where there are liquor stores on every other corner, is like pouring gasoline on a fire. It seems, even Obama knows that.

Drug laws have been effective in reducing “serious crime,” because most serious crimes are caused by drug users.

******

What medical conditions do teens go for at marijuana dispensaries?

Your own article states:

http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/medical-marijuana-teenagers.aspx

“…the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, marijuana use by 10th and 12th graders has risen in the last three years, with roughly one in 15 high school seniors smoking marijuana daily or near-daily. The report, cited in the economists’ study, surveyed 46,700 students in the eighth, 10th and 12th grades, in 400 secondary schools.”

I’ve shown there’s a positive relationship between drug use and crime (marijuana is a mind-altering drug that can create dependency).

******

American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM)
Apr 29, 2013

“There is no such thing as medical marijuana.”

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/803318

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/the-aclus-new-report-on-the-racial-disparity-of-the-war-on-weed-probably-now-the-most-anti-black-law-on-the-books/#comments

---

PeakTrader:

Who goes to jail just for small quantities of marijuana?

It’s better to give them a ticket, with a fine, rather than legalize it to get more of it and tax it to get less of it.

Of course, if you just make minimum wage, you’ll have to do community service instead.

I guess, marijuana would be an excellent complimentary good for alcohol, and a powerful combination. I mean how many people drink a glass of wine with a glass of beer?

******

Morganovich, it’s driven by something even simpler than that; the same thing that got Obama elected and reelected, and made people in North Korea believe their leader is God.

Don’t worry. In 20 years, the country will be like California, except much poorer, and you can move to the Netherlands.

******

Methinks, I thought you’d be happy that blacks, who you say aren’t even worth minimum wage, would get out of jail and work for free doing community service.

******

The real joke is Methinks’s prior comment, along with the many thoughts of the pro-drug legalization crowd:

“…the putrid reality of a system that first prices these young (black) men out of the job market and then finishes them off by incarcerating them for the only economic activities left open and attainable for them.”

---