The best way to reduce gun violence is to end the Drug War

[netsecurity]

So, when Prohibition ended, so did the Mob, right, right?

More or less yes. It surely didn't end crime, but it dried up the "popular" black market enough to make it so the big organized crime dramatically shrunk.

I believe it is the popular market that makes it so lucrative for gangs and cartels to thrive. Crack and heroin in my opinion are not that popular. Simply legalizing weed, which EVERYONE already has access too because no one has reservations about it being illegal (just like alcohol in a way), would take away the biggest chunk of money from the gangs and cartels, shrinking them by as much as 75%.

Contrary to lies told by the government, pot is not a gateway drug. People who want to do drugs seek them out regardless. Pot has massive potential to quell addiction because of its low tolerance buildup, and safety profile, practically unlike any other drug. Pot is really only a gateway drug when you are forced to buy it off of a street corner where a guy is pushing some nasty crack or similar. Most people won't seek out crack, even if it were legal, which is why I see no reason to legalize it, and same with many dangerous drugs.

So the solution is simple, legalize weed. Even if we go further, this is the best first step IMO.

 

[bigus_D]

If it's legal and taxed, they'll sell untaxed weed. Since the .gov will jack up the tax like it does on tobacco.

Just like they sell untaxed cigarettes and beers. Yep, your logic is sound.

Oh, wait...

 

[netsecurity]

Just like they sell untaxed cigarettes and beers. Yep, your logic is sound.

Oh, wait...

Yea, I buy all my beer on the street corners, because I save a dollar haha. People will gladly pay more for a safer product, but the reality is that drugs are only expensive because they are illegal. If they were legal, the price would likely be far less than now and quality controlled, making them far safer.

Frankly, a lot of you pious types would rather someone die from polluted drugs than have access to safe drugs, and I think that is despicable.

 

[qwerty]

Let's keep doing what we have been doing since it is working so well.....

 

[JR50]

Wait a minute!
Let's get back to the title of this thread. While there are situations of criminals using guns violently, we tend to shortcut and say 'gun violence'. The dip sticks on the news and writing for most newspapers are conditioned to use the term. I'm getting more and more irked, however, when responsible gun owners use this term. In most cases, particularly in big cities we should be talking about GANG violence. We should be sending messages to the press to use the proper terminology. Rant over. Return to your duties.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

If you agree to simultaneously test everyone on ANY TYPE of public assistance (I don't care even if it's just WIC) for drugs (you can throw alcohol in too for all I care), and if positive, they permanently lose the ability to EVER receive ANY TYPE of public assistance again, then I'll support legalization. We also test all new applicants going forward, and test all current applicants every 90 days.

Do we have an accord?

I agree with rambone that making something illegal only creates a black market and thus gang violence. The issue you pointed out is another good point. It would be difficult to legalize everything with the enormous welfare state we have. We would have to legalize and remove the ability for welfare at the same time.

 

[mrjarrell]

there would be no fear of prosecution more people would become users and then they would become addicts.They would more than likely loose/quit there jobs,crime rates would rise due to theft to support their habits.more lives would be destroyed from the drugs themselves..

Portugal has over 10 years of experience that says otherwise.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Just like they sell untaxed cigarettes and beers. Yep, your logic is sound.

Well, cigarette smuggling is an extremely lucrative endeavor.

Cigarette smuggling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KLB]

So, when Prohibition ended, so did the Mob, right, right?

No, but much of the violence did.

 

[yepthatsme]

Wait a minute!
Let's get back to the title of this thread. While there are situations of criminals using guns violently, we tend to shortcut and say 'gun violence'. The dip sticks on the news and writing for most newspapers are conditioned to use the term. I'm getting more and more irked, however, when responsible gun owners use this term. In most cases, particularly in big cities we should be talking about GANG violence. We should be sending messages to the press to use the proper terminology. Rant over. Return to your duties.

I agree JR50. The statistics have already proven that violence involving guns is lower now than it was when the first assault weapons ban was in place, so this isn't about gun violence. This is about crime and gang violence. (I also hate using the term "assault weapon". We ought to follow Homeland Security's definition, they have changed the term to "personal defense weapon", to suit their own agenda.) Don't buy into the media's hype and believe that every problem has a simple solution.

 

[cosermann]

I second the motion.

One could argue that modern gun control was kicked off by . . . wait for it . . . the "war on alcohol," a.k.a Prohibition (1929-1933). It fueled the gangster era.

“While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it stimulated the proliferation of rampant underground, organized and widespread criminal activity. Many were astonished and disenchanted with the rise of spectacular gangland crimes (such as Chicago's St. Valentine's Day massacre), when prohibition was supposed to reduce crime. Prohibition lost its advocates one by one, while the wet opposition talked of personal liberty, new tax revenues from legal beer and liquor, and the scourge of organized crime.” - wikipedia.

It was the St. Valentine's Day massacre that led directly to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. "A famous and widely publicized case where fully automatic weapons were used in crime in the United States was during the Saint Valentine's Day massacre during the winter of 1929; this Prohibition-era gangster sub-machine gun mass murder led directly to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was passed over a year after Prohibition had ended." - wikipedia.

The so-called drug war is having exactly the same effect. Will we never learn from history?

Or, have politicians actually learned from history and found it an effective technique for government to create a problem, and then further expand that same government, and/or further curtail liberty in the process of "fixing" the problem they created?

Fighting gun control advocates with an argument for personal liberty, new tax revenues from legal drugs, and the scourge of organized gangs could be just as effective today.

 

[Liberty1911]

I agree with rambone that making something illegal only creates a black market and thus gang violence. The issue you pointed out is another good point. It would be difficult to legalize everything with the enormous welfare state we have. We would have to legalize and remove the ability for welfare at the same time.

Exactly, but notice that rambone and his fellow libertarians won't take that offer. They're all about "freedom" but only pay lip service to personal responsibility. Freedom without responsibility, that's the libertarian motto.

 

[rambone]

If it's legal and taxed, they'll sell untaxed weed. Since the .gov will jack up the tax like it does on tobacco.

Otherwise they'll move into other drugs or some other graft. E.G., illegal guns, untaxed smokes, health care (after Obamacare is implemented).

That's why I don't support "sin taxes." Marijuana should be treated like any other garden vegetable.

 

[lucky4034]

talk about the zombie apocalypse what are you smoking?

So if they legalize Crack tomorrow, you will run and smoke it?

Or... do you think crack being illegal deters people from smoking it? No one is suggesting that you sell it in a gas station.

The fact is... people who want to do drugs -- do them. People who don't -- don't.

Heroin is legal in many European countries and they have way less people addicted to it.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with Rambone that legalizing hard drugs will remove all black markets. However, it will at the very least relieve the enormous amount of money we spend as taxpayers to fight this un-winnable war.

The war on drugs cost too damned much and thats why I think drugs should be legalized..... This is a completely separate issue from welfare.

 

[lucky4034]

have you ever been around any addicts??

Do laws stop addicts currently?

 

[Stschil]

More or less yes. It surely didn't end crime, but it dried up the "popular" black market enough to make it so the big organized crime dramatically shrunk.

So the solution is simple, legalize weed. Even if we go further, this is the best first step IMO.

By the time Prohibition ended, the large crime organizations had already consolidated and solidified their power, so they were aleady shrinking. They didn't go away, they merely moved on to other endeavors and different criminal pursuits.

I agree that legalizing Marijuana will not necessarily lead to further addictions but I don't see it as a solution to violent crime. Those who after the easy money where the violence takes place will not suddenly be overcome with the will to buckle down and become productive citizens. The use of force is how they live.

I couldn't care less of someone smokes weed, i really don't care, but legalization isn't the answer. The Govt won't shrink it will do just the opposite, there is already talk in DC about the new buerocracy that will need to built to 'Administer" the new State systems that have to be put in place in WA and CO.
Welfare won't be impacted, except to enlarge it to accommodate those who end up jobless because they'd rather get stoned than work.

Add: I personally think the War On Drugs is useless. Having been involved in Drug Suppression operations and the DARE program, I saw first hand what a waste of effort. Money, and time it is. It's stupid, but as with any pet issue, people seem to never see beyond their goal or their own personal satisfaction. For every action there is a reaction, there are host of unintended consequences.
Cut users off from all assistance programs- OK. now what happens? Will the clean themselves up to get back on the dole, or will the keep getting their fix, paying for it with ill gotten gains?
Where do all the financial resources spent by the .gov on enforcement go? To reduce the debt? Doubt it. uncle Sammy never takes a cut.
Do you give Unemployment benefits to someone who gets fired for coming to work stoned?
Where is the weed going to come from? Imported from Mexico?
Questions, questions, questions

 

[mrjarrell]

Exactly, but notice that rambone and his fellow libertarians won't take that offer. They're all about "freedom" but only pay lip service to personal responsibility. Freedom without responsibility, that's the libertarian motto.

Riiight. No libertarian has ever called for the welfare state to be dismantled. The problem is that if we wait for that to happen then prohibition will continue forever.

 

[Jludo]

Exactly, but notice that rambone and his fellow libertarians won't take that offer. They're all about "freedom" but only pay lip service to personal responsibility. Freedom without responsibility, that's the libertarian motto.

You obviously can't be too familiar with libertarians as they are against the welfare state as well. What you're describing is a modern day liberal, someone who is pro-welfare, pro-drug legalization. That's freedom without responsibility.

 

[Jludo]

There will still be criminals, but I can't think of a business they could get into as lucrative as drugs.

 

[Liberty1911]

You obviously can't be too familiar with libertarians as they are against the welfare state as well. What you're describing is a modern day liberal, someone who is pro-welfare, pro-drug legalization. That's freedom without responsibility.

Right. I'll answer you and mrj at the same time.

I understand libertarians will call for the end of the welfare state. That however isn't my proposal.

My proposal is to include, in the legalization law, the welfare testing and exclusions in my earlier post.

You'd think that would be a win-win for libertarians. They get legalization, AND the ability to make the welfare state smaller at the same time by excluding drug users.

So, any libertarians want to agree to that? I'm still waiting.