PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader:

I bet almost everyone has been a victim of a crime committed by a low-life on drugs, and many victims don’t even know it.

It’s not easy to catch and convict a criminal, even if he committed dozens of crimes over many years.

We should praise the professional work of police, in general, for reducing serious crime rates to 1963 levels.

Is Illinois winning the War on Drugs?
Chicago Tribune
July 24, 2011

“Jack Riley, special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration in Chicago…noted that Chicago’s decreasing crime is an important indicator that the so-called War on Drugs is working.

About 70 percent of all crime can be traced to drugs, he said, and crime in the city is at its lowest in years.

“They (police, DEA, etc.) believe in what we’re doing because they see the devastation drugs are causing.””

****

Ben says: "Boozers murder 10,000 every year on the highways. Any argument that can be made against legalizing drugs must be made against the drug alcohol."

Why don’t we legalize all crimes to get rid of crime and turn criminals into angels?

And, after all drugs are legalized, we can have as many marijuana murders on the highways as alcohol murders.

****

Benjamin, I think, you have a better chance of getting run over by someone high on marijuana than getting arrested for smoking marijuana at your house.

Of course, at Dodger Stadium, some people may not want a second-hand high, even if it’s free.

Anyway, why do you want to create millions of responsible drug users and millions of irresponsible drug users? It seems to be a waste (pun intended).

Potential victims have rights too.

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/11/the-war-on-drugs-which-has-trampled-our-constitutional-rights-and-overcrowded-our-jails-and-prisons-must-end/#comments

---

PeakTrader:

It’s ridiculous to blame drug laws for the devastation caused by drugs, e.g. the steep rise in property crimes. Chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg

****

It’s amazing, the explosion of drug use, in the ’60s and ’70s, caused massive devastation, and when government is forced to spend money to deal with the problem, some people blame government.

It’s like more people flying on the freeway at 100 MPH, and when cops start giving out tickets, they blame the cops.

****

“80-90% of crack cocaine and meth users don’t get addicted.”

If true, the 10% to 20% could still create a lot of damage, or social costs, along with some of the 80% to 90%.

---

Che is dead:

“The origins of federal drug laws were a response to disastrous drug and violence epidemics when virtually every family had access to opiate- and cocaine-based remedies around the end of the 19th century. Drugs were available without penalty. Addiction was rampant, with an estimated 250,000 opiate addicts in the U.S. population of 76 million.” — WSJ

In fact, the current drug laws are a response to the societal dissolution brought on by legal drug usage.

---

morganovich:

that sounds like a big number, but it’s not.

250k out of 76 mm is 0.3%.

---

PeakTrader:

I doubt the U.S. had anything like the cultural drug revolution in the 1960s and 1970s that came out of hell and spread like wildfire, when drug laws were more lax and lenient.

Also, maybe, Americans had higher moral standards in the Victorian Age, learning from stories, like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and tough laws, like hanging horse thieves, helped.

****

It’s possible, soaring property crimes, in the ’60s & ’70s, would’ve been worse without the “War on Poverty,” at least initially, e.g. over the first decade.

---

Paul:

Could be, I guess. Do you have any evidence for that?

---

PeakTrader:

Paul, no, I’m just speculating a drug addict, for example, may steal less, or less often, each month, when on welfare.

---

Paul:

True, but OTOH the welfare wagon affords people with marginal judgement a cushion for engaging in destructive behavior. A casual drug user can fully engage his habit if he doesn’t have to worry about the alarm clock going off at 6:30 AM. So I think there would be alot less thieving drug addicts minus the social safety hammock.

Long run, they get paid to breed more morons just like themselves, and that’s how you end up with Detroit 2013.

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/11/worlds-no-1-jailer-no-other-country-on-the-planet-puts-more-of-its-citizens-in-cages-for-life-for-nonviolent-drug-offenses-than-the-united-states-of-america/#comments

---

PeakTrader:

There’s a positive correlation between drug use and crime, particularly property and violent crime.

And, when you legalize something, you get more of it.

Do we want more crime on the streets, or more criminals in jail and in jail longer?

****

I think, wealth or income inequality rather than racism is why there’s a disproportionate higher share of blacks, and other minorities, in jail.

****

It should be noted, while the real minimum wage declined over 25%, although low-wage productivity increased about 25%, since the 1970s, low-wage unemployment has soared, e.g. reflected in the steep decline in the teen labor force participation rate, since the 1970s, and the high teen unemployment rate.

****

Prohibition, which allowed consumption of alcohol, was not strongly enforced, like drug laws, which have been effective in slowing, stopping, and reversing the steep rise in drug use and crime simultaneously.

The comparison between Prohibition and drug laws is weak.

****

During the drug cultural revolution, of the 1960s and 1970s, when drug laws were lax and lenient, crime rates soared.

The “War on Drugs” was in response to the soaring crime rates caused by drugs.

Congress overwhelmly passed drug laws. Does the pro-drug crowd believe Congress didn’t know what was happening?

Crime rates soared during the crack epidemic of the late 1980s too.

****

Maybe, Congress was high on drugs or just wanted to beat-up drug users for the hell of it:

Controlled Substances Act of 1970

Passed U.S. House 392-16
Passed U.S. Senate 97-2

“Every President since Nixon supported it…Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, responded with programs that were essentially a continuation of their predecessors… Bush maintained the hard line drawn by his predecessor and former boss…Clinton, Bush and Obama continued this trend, maintaining the War on Drugs.”

----

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/11/the-war-on-drugs-has-given-rise-to-an-american-police-state/#comments

---