Baltimore getting "progressive"

That might be because the issue isn't being phrased very well. Why are we fighting to legalize drugs (any drugs) and does legalization actually accomplish our goals.

From my perspective, people say that they want to reduce crime and reduce unnecessary incarcerations. All goals that I agree with but then no one actually gets into details on reducing crime and/or incarcerations except to assume that people will automatically transfer into legal jobs at better than subsistence rates. But there's nothing presented to support the automatic transfer to jobs theory.

And while I don't want to speak for anyone else, it makes the legalization push seem less well thought out for those goals.

By contrast, if the goal was that people just don't want to be arrested for doing drugs then that argument is at least logically sound but it's lacks the implication of a higher morality (no pun intended) that pro-legalizers seem to crave (okay, a little pun intended).
Having had you explain your perspective, I understand your argument. That doesn't address those that are against the status quo but fail to offer even a shell of an alternative.
 
Having had you explain your perspective, I understand your argument. That doesn't address those that are against the status quo but fail to offer even a shell of an alternative.

But why does supporting the status quo require an alternative? I'm a believer that change simply for the sake of change is the worst way to develop new policy. Something's not working, change it...even if we don't know if the change will be better or worse is an approach I don't support.

My personal opinion is that if someone doesn't have a good alternative, it's best to say nothing. And simply because you haven't come up with a better solution doesn't mean you can't see the flaws in the proposed solution.
 
The book isn't about climate change, instead it is about how corporations and ideologues have manipulated public perception of scientific issues over the last 60ish years.

Maybe I'll see if it's on kindle.


Drug dealers are not dealing drugs because it's a job where both parties are satisfied (To be frank, assassination is a crime where both parties are happy with the transaction. All crimes have 2 happy parties at the end.). Drug dealers are dealing drugs to make money. Absent drug dealing, they still need to make money. Until that issue is answered, I consider the analysis incomplete.

All crimes have 2 happy parties at the end (and of course no parties who can claim injury)? Almost zero murders are "for hire" so why use that example except to ignore the basic fact that selling weed has zero bearing on being a thief or a violent criminal. You can't understand that or just don't want to acknowledge it?

Your archetype seems to be from t.v. and movies. Do you have any studies you can reference that backs up any of your assumptions about who makes up the nation's "dealers"? I don't. But I do have experience in the market (unlike you). My experience says that many folks sell part-time and have other legal sources of income as well. They also come and go, with many of them discontinuing dealer activities regardless of any legal troubles (and most likely because they themselves stopped doing drugs or lost their connection). A long-term regular reliable dealer is a precious commodity.

I don't know there's an answer that can satisfy you. Right now when an industry undergoes a massive shift there is little ability to predict in which directions those formerly employed are subsequently dispersed. You've presented nothing to suggest that former black market dealers will predominantly turn to crimes with victims (i.e. robbery, sex trafficking) rather than find legitimate work. That you won't recognize the moral leap from selling something to a willing buyer to stealing someone's shit means your analysis has an agenda.

From an incarceration perspective, all things being equal, the prison population will decrease when drug offenders are no longer locked up. Of course some of those folks will commit other crimes so that will offset some gains. I'd also imagine that freeing up law enforcement resources by cutting loose the drug war would allow for greater apprehension/conviction rates elsewhere. At least then we'd all be far more likely to agree the people in prison committed crimes that warrant being separated from the rest of the population. And many people will find jobs in the legal sale of drugs and many will move on to new lines of work altogether.

Do you think new criminal enterprises will just spring up because drugs are legal? Will, for example, the demand for forced prostitution go up? Where are these other jobs in the criminal world going to come from? For all you know people sell drugs because the hours agree with them and there's just not enough jobs that'll offer the same pay and flexibility. Probably not though. But I'm certain that your view that most of these people will be professional criminals no matter what is incorrect.
 
That might be because the issue isn't being phrased very well. Why are we fighting to legalize drugs (any drugs) and does legalization actually accomplish our goals.

From my perspective, people say that they want to reduce crime and reduce unnecessary incarcerations. All goals that I agree with but then no one actually gets into details on reducing crime and/or incarcerations except to assume that people will automatically transfer into legal jobs at better than subsistence rates. But there's nothing presented to support the automatic transfer to jobs theory.

And while I don't want to speak for anyone else, it makes the legalization push seem less well thought out for those goals.

By the way, we don't need a 100% success rate of turning criminals into middle class workers in order to see the benefits of making a policy change. Sometimes you just take a look at the costs and benefit and decide something isn't worth it. In this case that would be prohibition. Direct those funds toward inner city education if that's what you're worried about. Surely you can agree that education has more potential benefit than a prison sentence?
 
All crimes have 2 happy parties at the end (and of course no parties who can claim injury)? Almost zero murders are "for hire" so why use that example except to ignore the basic fact that selling weed has zero bearing on being a thief or a violent criminal. You can't understand that or just don't want to acknowledge it?

Someone's injured in drug production. It consumes resources that could be allocated to other endeavors. Reducing resource supply eventually leads to increased costs. So, we're all injured to an extent. I can acknowledge your point, I just think it's superficial.

Your archetype seems to be from t.v. and movies. Do you have any studies you can reference that backs up any of your assumptions about who makes up the nation's "dealers"? I don't. But I do have experience in the market (unlike you). My experience says that many folks sell part-time and have other legal sources of income as well. They also come and go, with many of them discontinuing dealer activities regardless of any legal troubles (and most likely because they themselves stopped doing drugs or lost their connection). A long-term regular reliable dealer is a precious commodity.

Ah, you're sure that I have no experience in the market? I never sold a little in college? My brothers never sold a little? I don't have long time friends that sold, kidnapped and extorted as part of the game? No one I know was spending cash on expensive items so that rivals wouldn't think he was stacking cash in his house and set him up to get robbed?

I don't have a cousin who did time? Not to stereotype but I am half Jamaican, lol.

None of my business clients got their start in, ahem, less savory industries?

But you're sure I have no experience...:wink:

I didn't even finish the rest of the post, maybe later after you've had a chance to digest that I'm not randomly discussing this subject.
 
But why does supporting the status quo require an alternative?
I'm talking about people that don't support the status quo. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary and potential damaging. In this thread we've had multiple posters talk about how the current situation is broken and then fail to offer any alternatives.
 
By the way, we don't need a 100% success rate of turning criminals into middle class workers in order to see the benefits of making a policy change. Sometimes you just take a look at the costs and benefit and decide something isn't worth it. In this case that would be prohibition. Direct those funds toward inner city education if that's what you're worried about. Surely you can agree that education has more potential benefit than a prison sentence?

As I said, no one's convinced me that ending prohibition is worth it. We could just as easily direct funds to education without legalizing anything. That's not a reason to legalize or criminalize something.

I see no benefit to the policy exchange except that people who don't like to think of themselves as criminals can breathe easier knowing that they're definitely not criminals.

And if you don't have the data to convince me...what did you use to convince yourself other than personal experience?
 
I'm talking about people that don't support the status quo. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary and potential damaging. In this thread we've had multiple posters talk about how the current situation is broken and then fail to offer any alternatives.

My mistake, I meant why does not supporting the status quo require that the person also have a fully vetted alternative?
 
My mistake, I meant why does not supporting the status quo require that the person also have a fully vetted alternative?
The only one that has criticized a lack of fully vetted alternatives has been you, in your comments about legalization.

What I'm talking about are people like MarkHuntsFist who states that the status quo is not okay, shrieks about legalization being a horrible idea (for emotional reasons), and offers no alternative whatsoever.
 
Someone's injured in drug production. It consumes resources that could be allocated to other endeavors. Reducing resource supply eventually leads to increased costs. So, we're all injured to an extent. I can acknowledge your point, I just think it's superficial.



Ah, you're sure that I have no experience in the market? I never sold a little in college? My brothers never sold a little? I don't have long time friends that sold, kidnapped and extorted as part of the game? No one I know was spending cash on expensive items so that rivals wouldn't think he was stacking cash in his house and set him up to get robbed?

I don't have a cousin who did time? Not to stereotype but I am half Jamaican, lol.

None of my business clients got their start in, ahem, less savory industries?

But you're sure I have no experience...:wink:

I didn't even finish the rest of the post, maybe later after you've had a chance to digest that I'm not randomly discussing this subject.

lol at calling what I'm saying superficial when you have to resort to "society" being injured. What metric are you using to show "society" has improved due to prohibition. As for your experience, it seems to contradict your view of who sells drugs in America and how those people will just be worse criminals post-legalization. I don't really need the data I asked you for because it's not my point that requires it. It's yours, since you're the one defying logic. Maybe if you read my entire post you could see that.

We could just as easily direct funds to education without legalizing anything.

Tell me how this reconciles with your first paragraph above.
 
lol at calling what I'm saying superficial when you have to resort to "society" being injured. What metric are you using to show "society" has improved due to prohibition. As for your experience, it seems to contradict your view of who sells drugs in America and how those people will just be worse criminals post-legalization. I don't really need the data I asked you for because it's not my point that requires it. It's yours, since you're the one defying logic. Maybe if you read my entire post you could see that.


You're the one who brought up the "everyone's happy with the transaction" argument. That I consider superficial. There are externalities to the drug trade that go beyond the end consumer and his immediate supplier. You ignored them, I reminded you that they exist.

I never said society improved so why should I provide a metric for something I never said?

As for my experience, it goes beyond what I typed but I figured that would be enough to inform you that assuming I lacked experience while you had some was an incorrect assumption.

Also, my listed experience doesn't contradict what I said at all about who sells or doesn't sell. I haven't claimed that my listed experience is representative of the drug dealing world. My point was that you were using the college dealer archetype (which I have experience with) and ignoring the other type of dealer (which I also have experience with).

My position denies logic so it needs data but your position is unassailable so it doesn't need data? That makes no sense. Your position needs data since you're contending that the status quo needs to be changed - there must be some data that supports the proposed change. I've already stated that my position in undecided - a position that implies it hasn't seen sufficient data to lean conclusively in either direction. It's strange to me that the undecided person wants data but the person with a conclusion doesn't think he needs any. :eek:

Additionally, how am I defying logic if you don't have any data that contradicts me?

And I didn't read the rest of your post because the moment you referred to a perceived difference in knowledge it was clear that basis of the argument wasn't one about the actual benefits/detriments of the proposed course of action. It was about your personal interpretation of the drug market but since you don't represent the entirety of the market, I'd prefer a broader approach.

Dochter seems pro-legalization and he can acknowledge that plenty of dealers will still be in the same economic circumstances and so still have to consider crime as a means to economic stability. You seem focused on the type of individual that you're normally encountering who are at the other end of the economic spectrum, regardless of if they deal or not.

Tell me how this reconciles with your first paragraph above.

It's not attempting to reconcile anything but I'll explain. If you want to direct money to education, you can simply take money from other sources without changing the legalization of drugs. You could raise taxes, you could cut unnecessary programs. You could raise the fee on speeding tickets.

Raising money for education has nothing to do with the legalization of drugs. They're unrelated. Now, some people might argue that directing tax revenue from drug sales to education is a good reason to legalize drugs but that's a different argument.

That argument is that we can develop positive benefits from legalization. However, the benefits don't have to be education. The money could go to infrastructure or the homeless or anything. The point being that funding education isn't intrinsically related to the legal status of any drugs so it's not a good argument for it.

To return to assassinations - we could legalize assassination and all of the tax revenue goes to education. Everyone knows that's a stupid argument because assassination's legal status should turn on the pros/cons of assassination itself, not if we might spend the gains on something we like. Legalizing drugs is the same. Legalization must stand on it's own two feet, regardless of where the revenue might end up.
 
The poorest, meth-infested trailer parks in the US don't have a fraction of the homicide rateand gun play that goes on in Baltimore, DC, Chicago

Probably because the poorest meth infested trailer parks are in towns with 10,000 people or less, and Baltimore, DC and Chicago are some of the most populated cities in the US.

DC still has an issue with crime, but their violent crime rates have dropped immensely since the 1990s.
 
^^^^^^ Dude, if you can't/won't acknowledge the difference between the crime of selling a prohibited substance and one where someone's property is stolen or physical harm inflicted then how is anyone going to take your thoughts on it seriously?

Here's me:

x people are in prison for no reason other than selling drugs
if that wasn't a crime those people wouldn't be imprisoned
not all drug users/growers/sellers have committed other jailable offenses
without drug crimes fewer people would be in prison

Here's you:

x people are in prison for drug crimes
if drugs were legal those people would still end up in jail for other crimes.


Which position makes logical sense and which requires substantiation?



As for your 2nd response, it seems to miss the point. The point being you said drugs were somehow costing society something in resources and then when I said those resources could be redirected you said we could do whatever (in this example it's education) without those resources. So which is it? It's taking resources that could be reallocated or it isn't?

Here's the biggie though. You want we the people to combat drug use. You want to pay money for state-sponsored actions. Because the status-quo is such that it is you've taken for granted the the burden of proof is on me to show it's a bad policy when the truth is it's incumbent upon you to show why we all need to continue to engage in this action (spending time/money on prohibition). Outside of 70 years of tradition what have you got that validates continuing this policy? And can you carve out a rationalization that wouldn't lead to far more extensive prohibition? I'm guessing you can't but won't care. Fun topic to discuss with other professionals while hanging out at the pub.


fcea9fd1c871a7081a25e5c0bcb4e007.jpg
 
Back
Top