Opinions - Drugs and Crime Go Hand in Hand

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

In 2004, 17% of State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs.... In 2002 about a quarter of convicted property and drug offenders [ed. note: WTF?!] in local jails had committed their crimes to get money for drugs, compared to 5% of violent and public order offenders.

Which means... what exactly? As ECL pointed out above, these are not terribly high numbers.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that in 2005, 4.0% of the 14,860 homicides in which circumstances were known were narcotics related. Murders that occurred specifically during a narcotics felony, such as drug trafficking or manufacturing, are considered drug related.

FOUR PERCENT is supposed to be significant? I'd be willing to bet that a higher number were disgruntled employees offing their mean bosses. Next thread: Bad Jobs and Crime Go Hand in Hand!

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Victims of violence were asked to describe whether they perceived the offender to have been drinking or using drugs.

How is Joe Average supposed to recognize when someone's been using "drugs"? If the perp was close to the victim, the victim might be able to smell the booze on the perp's breath, but otherwise ... oh, brother. What, are they on the lookout for red eyes, dilated or constricted pupils, gurning, or Doritos crumbs on the perp's shirt?

More likely: "Do you think the man who assaulted you was on drugs?" "Oh, I think so, officer. So many of the darker races do drugs, you know."

How about a stat for victims' perceptions of offenders' personal hygiene? I bet you could show that crime and lack of bathing go hand in hand... at least 25%!

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Among State prisoners, drug offenders (44%) and property offenders (39%) reported the highest incidence of drug use at the time of the offense. Among Federal prisoners, drug offenders (32%) and violent offenders (24%) were the most likely to report drug use at the time of their crimes.

It sickens me -- shocks and sickens me -- to learn that less than half of drug offenders were able to have a hit before getting arrested.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

About 74% of State prisoners who had a mental health problem and 56% of those without were dependent on or abused alcohol or drugs.

By the usual gov't definition, all illegal-drug use is abuse; according to White House statistics, 41.7% of Americans (!) have used illegal drugs. According to SAMHSA, roughly 50% of mentally ill people (whether or not, remember, they have been chucked in jail for anything) have substance-abuse problems. Your numbers, therefore, show a correlation between substance abuse and crime, but not a shocking one.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Abused State inmates were more likely than those reporting no abuse to have been using illegal drugs at the time of their offense. This pattern occurred especially among female inmates. Forty-six percent of the abused women committed their current offense under the influence of illegal drugs. Among women who were not abused, 32% committed their offense while on drugs.

So if you want to stop drug abuse and its related crime, how about stopping creeps from beating women up first?

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Thirty-two percent of mothers in State prison reported committing their crime to get drugs or money for drugs, compared to 19% of fathers.

And my wife would agree with this one: kids drive women to drink! And apparently do other things!

et cetera. This game gets less fun the more you go on.

Anyhow, PO, You've got our takes on these stats -- I'm more interested in your take on them. Some of us here won't believe a thing put out by the government; I'm inclined to take the statistics as probably roughly accurate, but I wonder what they're supposed to mean, exactly. I take it that your posting the info means you agree with it, or something, but it doesn't seem to me to be making any kind of strong point. Could you maybe extract some of the bits that are most significant to you and comment on them?

I do think it's probably a bit disingenuous to bring out the old "correlation is not causation" saw-whip every time someone slaps out a statistic we don't agree with (although it's a good thing to keep in mind always when interpreting statistics). In my experience, there is a correlation between the use of illegal drugs and involvement in other crime, but that is more than adequately accounted for by the fact that drugs themselves are illegal. As I pointed out somewhere else (or maybe earlier in this thread), a tertiary effect of prohibition is the shunting of drug users into the criminal underworld. When one has to associate with dirtbags to get what one wants (and as one interacts with said dirtbags and realizes that they can be, and often are, more than decent human beings who happen to be on the wrong side of the law), then one's boundaries regarding what is acceptable and what isn't will often shift. Since only one of organized (and disorganized) crime's tentacles is the distribution of drugs, folks who rub up against that one tentacle often wind up dancing with other tentacles.

(Which is a very confused metaphor, but I think I've made myself clear...)

I maintain that if drugs were available in a regulated and controlled fashion (i.e. like government liquor stores in Canada, not like picking up an eightball at the 7-11) then much of the "drug-related" crime would simply vanish, as drugs and crime would no longer be so closely associated.

Reputation Comments on this post:

concise

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by grandbaby

I do think it's probably a bit disingenuous to bring out the old "correlation is not causation" saw-whip every time someone slaps out a statistic we don't agree with (although it's a good thing to keep in mind always when interpreting statistics).

Perhaps, but it is the most common logical error I encounter. Sometimes I get tired.

In my experience, there is a correlation between the use of illegal drugs and involvement in other crime, but that is more than adequately accounted for by the fact that drugs themselves are illegal. As I pointed out somewhere else (or maybe earlier in this thread), a tertiary effect of prohibition is the shunting of drug users into the criminal underworld. When one has to associate with dirtbags to get what one wants (and as one interacts with said dirtbags and realizes that they can be, and often are, more than decent human beings who happen to be on the wrong side of the law), then one's boundaries regarding what is acceptable and what isn't will often shift. Since only one of organized (and disorganized) crime's tentacles is the distribution of drugs, folks who rub up against that one tentacle often wind up dancing with other tentacles.

My experience has been the opposite - the vast majority of drug users I've known have not been involved in other forms of crime. I've known a couple whole stole, but none who were violent. Goes to show how opinions are colored by personal experience.

(Note: my contention that most drug users are peaceful is not based on such. It's a fact.)

But I do think you're on to something. American alcohol Prohibition caused a number of formerly law-abiding citizens to lose respect for the law and those who enforce it; the same is true of drug prohibition. I think it's one of the nastier consequences of the drug war, and one of the least recognized.

However, I don't think it's really so much that those who hang out with criminals become likely to commit crimes themselves. I think it's more likely that both things, the will to try an illegal drug and the will to commit a crime, require a certain level of rebelliousness. Those who are rebellious without reason (because they're mental, or just angry at the world, or whatever) probably do both. Those with a more evolved sense of right and wrong - who rebel only against perceived foolishness - do not.


ECL

[Police Officer]

BUMP.

I'll probably answer most posts later. Theres no need to leave negative feedback quite yet.

Well, that was yesterday^ Believe it or not, since then I've received negative feedback from this post, and I'll quote "STOP DODGING QUESTIONS" Again, if I seemed to have ignored your question (which I can guarantee is not the case and I've just missed it and tried to keep up with the most recent posts) and you would like me respond to it you have to do one of a couple things. Give it a "Bump, please answer." Of course, like I've asked before, if you really want to make sure I dont miss it just send me a PM. Theres only two people on here that I regularly purposely dont even read their posts. No, Calico, you're not one of them. ;->

[zera]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

But I do think you're on to something. American alcohol Prohibition caused a number of formerly law-abiding citizens to lose respect for the law and those who enforce it; the same is true of drug prohibition. I think it's one of the nastier consequences of the drug war, and one of the least recognized.

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."


what kind of drugged degenerate said this?


Albert Einstein

[samuraigecko]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

"My experience has been the opposite - the vast majority of drug users I've known have not been involved in other forms of crime. I've known a couple whole stole, but none who were violent. Goes to show how opinions are colored by personal experience."

(Note: my contention that most drug users are peaceful is not based on such. It's a fact.)

ECL

The vast majority. . . . yet another example of true experience.

Most of the drug users and abusers (they are two different things) whom SWIM knows are either middle to middle-high class and mostly law abiding. I am saying "mostly" because of the paradox that drug prohibition exits so therefor the drug itself is a crime. If you were to take that away then SWIM would say that ALL of the people he knows whom use (not abuse) drugs are completely law abiding and tax paying citizens. The vast majority of the abusers (not users) SWIM knows would then also be "generally" law abiding. Also a fair cross section of these peoples are in some sort of law enforcement (police, security, bouncers, bodyguards, etc . . even a few govt. officials. SWIM could put a few peoples career on the line if he so wished).

The previous statements One has said still remain fact. One left in the last bit of your quote to show that he is not biased and knows and agrees with certain things SWIY has said.

The majority of people WANT to be good, but it is always the minority that is focused upon. This has been true throughout history and will remain true for hundreds of years yet. Segregation was supposed to be a thing of the past in this NEW world we as westerners have created for ourselves (lol) but we just find other ways to impose this segregation as soon as one becomes socially unacceptable.

Another sad but true fact. . . .

[samuraigecko]

yawn yawn yawn and more yawn, those are GOVT stats, not taken from the populace in general but from prisoners etc, if you were to take a cross section of prisoners of course you will come out with a (considerably low) statistic like that.

How many of those prisoners were previously law enforcement?
How many of those prisoners were formerly some type of security officer?
How many of those prisoners were formerly military?

I bet the amount is fairly staggering . . . L M A O

One cannot even take into account ANY type of government statistic because most of it is bullshit anyway. Stuff they make up so they can make new policies to fit their voters etc. "oh the people are worried about drug related crime, lets focus on that, make up some stats, make a plan of attack, and people will love us and vote for us"

BAAA BAAAA BAAAA just like fucking sheep.

The fact remains that YOU are just as much a criminal as SWIM or any of his friends.

Peace.

Reputation Comments on this post:

No flaming.

[FuBai]

Those statistics work via looking at criminals. If you look at criminals you have no proof that drugs cause crime because you have started off with a selective population that is composed entirley of criminals. Using drugs is a criminal activity - you can get imprisoned for it anyway, therefore all drug users are criminals. So of course there is a direct link if the activity itself is illegal. And moreover, because drugs are illegal the type of people who are able to come into contact with dealers, who recieve the same time as murderers and rapists, are likley to be of a more criminaly minded bent anyway. Because drugs are illegal; drugs and crime go hand in hand, if drugs were legal you would greatly change that proportional relationship for the better.

I'm not into slagging off the veracity of your statistics or that they arn't accurate but you have to look carefully at what they are actualy claiming. Statistics can seem very convincing when actualy they say very little about the situation. For instance a few years ago a british newspaper headlined with the title "Half of doctors are below average." Seems shocking until you realise that an average is defined as a mid-point, so neccesarily half of doctors HAVE to be below it.

I don't think the idea of a conspiracy in government holds much water. Occasionaly some statistics are falsified entirley, but this is rare. It is the presentation of statistics as having a real bearing upon a situation that actualy have very little to do with it that is by far the more common. Look at the issue and ask yourself - do drugs cause crime because they are intrinsicaly criminal motivators, or because of thier cost and illegality?

Reputation Comments on this post:

great post and well articulated

[Lunar Loops]

Make stats do the dirty work for you eh? Well P.O., how many of those prisoners were tea drinkers? coffee drinkers? smokers? drank alcohol? The statistics might lead us to believe that coffee and crime go hand in hand?

[El Calico Loco]

I don't think you understand, PO. No one here denies that some people commit crimes in order to fund a drug habit. I'm even willing to believe that the vast majority of real criminals (ie, those who practice deception and violence) do enjoy drugs - but that does not imply that the majority of drug users commit crimes, as the title of this thread seems to imply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Perhaps that's not what you meant to say. Perhaps all you meant to say was that something like 20% of crimes are committed for drug-related reasons, which wouldn't amaze me (after all, that means that 80% of crimes are committed for other reasons - like crimes of passion or simple sloth and greed). If that's so, then I apologize for making assumptions.

I know you find it difficult to accept, but the majority of drug users - like users of alcohol - do not prey on others. Most of them are normal folks with normal, boring jobs. You know - the ones you never have occasion to meet in your line of work. You probably know a few of them without realizing it.

Look deeper into the statistics and you'll find a far higher correlation between alcohol and tobacco use among serious offenders. I'll bet you a dollar that this correlation is in the high nineties, not the high teens.

Remember: figures don't lie, but liars do figure, and he who takes the king's coin becomes the king's man. You'll have to forgive us if we are skeptical of government studies on the matter.


ECL

[Ori]

Id agree there is a slight correlation between drugs and crime but they dont neccesarily cause each other. The correlation could be explained by a number of other factors. For example poverty has been shown to increase the likelyhood of crime and the likelyhood of drug addiction, it could be claimed that poverty is the most important factor to be considered in this relationship.

I find the focus on mental illness and violent crime of your presented data rather sloppy use of statistics- you are sensationalising your data.

Half your data is concerned with mentally ill inmates, surely this factor has more bareing on whether they commit crime or not?

Your own statistics show that alcohol has a much larger percieved correlation between it and violent crime rather than violent crime and drugs.

The statement that drugs and crime go hand in hand implies that there should be a very high percentage of drug users who commit crimes and a very high percentage of criminals who are drug users. Your statistic certainly dont show that most drug users are criminals nor that most criminals (bar those who have mental illness according to your study) are drug users.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well said.

[podge]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Dont believe me? I have statistical xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And no, it dosent make me happy to say that. I find it rather sad. I find it sad to know that there are a great deal of people who will rob, pillage, and murder to support a drug addiction.



DO NOT LINK TO .GOV SITES.

Fucking hell you talk some serious amount of shit. You've been here how long and you've still learned nothing ?......swiy sounds like the stereotypical cop to me.... back to the donut shop with you. (ah now i get it....being narrow minded can be fun....)

Reputation Comments on this post:

No flaming.

[Coconut]

A correlation between drugs and crime? Hm, I wonder why that is. Maybe because drugs are mostly in the hands of organised crime due to the fact that they're illegal. Jesus Christ, I am actually astonished that this isn't completely obvious to everyone on Earth.

[dwilkes7]

I'm a little let down by the study. You see, I had my own theory about crime. I was trying to conduct a study on the ownership of cars and the stastical relationship to crime. I gave up when the % entered the 90's. Would that be a direct link or not? I wonder?

[samuraigecko]

the PO obviously has an intellectual disability, perhaps we should just know it for what it is (bullshit) and leave this thread be? LMAO.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Its not very nice to insult people.

[wreckreational]

It seems to me that PO has no choice but to defend this probitionist veiw on drugs as his job depends on it. The fact that the whole drug war provides jobs, taxes, court and probation fines on a fed., state, and local level makes it far to lucrative to the "other side" to ever give in to reason. All hail the mighty dollar!!!!

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by wreckreational

It seems to me that PO has no choice but to defend this probitionist veiw on drugs as his job depends on it. The fact that the whole drug war provides jobs, taxes, court and probation fines on a fed., state, and local level makes it far to lucrative to the "other side" to ever give in to reason. All hail the mighty dollar!!!!

LEAP is a great pressure group and one that I support that is composed of law enforcement officials or ex-law enforcement.

I don't like all of the slagging off that the police recieve on these forums. They do do an excelent job, putting themselves in harms way and serving society. Remember that they are not going to be the sharpest fish in the banana plantation (I love that expression), because thier job is low level and low paid. They do really feel a duty to the community - or the ones I have talked to do.

Also remember that they are just as brainwashed, even more so, than the rest of the population, by governmental hysteria towards drugs. They see the worst parts of drug abuse, the chronic addicts who steal and harm are the drug users that by en-large come into their purview. Because they arn't the most intellegent people they see a link between drug use and crime - it's superficial and incorrect but in thier minds it makes sense and fits with everything they have been told about the world. "Drugs cause crime" is a mantra they can grasp because they think they can see it in thier work. This makes them more predisposed to deal with drugs harshly, because they believe that they are protecting the community.

People do have stories about errant over-enthusiasts or policemen who are just plain corrupt, but they are rare and the police performs and much needed and useful job - so remember that before you slag them off.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	I decided against the kick in the nuts. Good post.
	Nice perspective. Thank you for being a voice of reason.

[wreckreational]

FuBai- wasn't trying to knock police as individuals more the whole war on drugs in general, I would love to feel safe inviting those that put thier life on line in for tea, but don't want to lose my freedom(for lack of a better word) over my personal views of recreation. So yes that does make them the henchmen of a much more evil political state, they may believe in what they are doing but so did the nazis. To pursecute a person because it is your job doesn't make it right. I have met plenty of decent police men and women but that doesn't change the fact that many times in my life I've been left to the whim of powermongering fascist in a blue uniform, who just got thier rocks off tightening the screws, so to speak.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by wreckreational

FuBai- wasn't trying to knock police as individuals more the whole war on drugs in general, I would love to feel safe inviting those that put thier life on line in for tea, but don't want to lose my freedom(for lack of a better word) over my personal views of recreation. So yes that does make them the henchmen of a much more evil political state, they may believe in what they are doing but so did the nazis. To pursecute a person because it is your job doesn't make it right. I have met plenty of decent police men and women but that doesn't change the fact that many times in my life I've been left to the whim of powermongering fascist in a blue uniform, who just got thier rocks off tightening the screws, so to speak.

I'd agree with you there, but I don't think that they quite understand the nature of the crime that they are purpurtrating. For the Nazis exterminating humans in concentration camps is obviously corrupt by any moral standard extant, and certainly by the moral standard prevelant in Germany at the time. The problem comes in that they see themselves lawfully and correctly imprisoning criminals who harm society at large. Whilst you do get racial profiling and racism they don't aim (at least in the UK) to imprision people based on a characteristic that the individual had no choice in. They see drug use as an active choice that crosses racial and social boundaries, and therefore an action liable for punishment if so deigned by a democraticaly run state.

The policemen see the damage prohibition does eveyday in the slums and poor areas, but rather than balming prohibition they blame the drugs themselves. They can't see or don't believe the world wide imporvishment, crulety and death that the war on drugs perpetrates. They don't understand that they are doing a greater damage by enforcing prohibition, they don't see the deaths and deprevations caused by it, and the glimspes they do see they chalk up to the drugs themselves.

[wreckreational]

Originally Posted by FuBai

I'd agree with you there, but I don't think that they quite understand the nature of the crime that they are purpurtrating. For the Nazis exterminating humans in concentration camps is obviously corrupt by any moral standard extant, and certainly by the moral standard prevelant in Germany at the time. The problem comes in that they see themselves lawfully and correctly imprisoning criminals who harm society at large. Whilst you do get racial profiling and racism they don't aim (at least in the UK) to imprision people based on a characteristic that the individual had no choice in. They see drug use as an active choice that crosses racial and social boundaries, and therefore an action liable for punishment if so deigned by a democraticaly run state.

The policemen see the damage prohibition does eveyday in the slums and poor areas, but rather than balming prohibition they blame the drugs themselves. They can't see or don't believe the world wide imporvishment, crulety and death that the war on drugs perpetrates. They don't understand that they are doing a greater damage by enforcing prohibition, they don't see the deaths and deprevations caused by it, and the glimspes they do see they chalk up to the drugs themselves.

Agreed, so how do we change it? (p.s. mabey the whole nazi thing was a bit of a stretch but it added color)

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by shroomonger

Make stats do the dirty work for you eh? Well P.O., how many of those prisoners were tea drinkers? coffee drinkers? smokers? drank alcohol? The statistics might lead us to believe that coffee and crime go hand in hand?

Of course I am. Coffee, huh? I'd be in trouble.

Originally Posted by FuBai

LEAP is a great pressure group and one that I support that is composed of law enforcement officials or ex-law enforcement.

I don't like all of the slagging off that the police recieve on these forums. They do do an excelent job, putting themselves in harms way and serving society. Remember that they are not going to be the sharpest fish in the banana plantation (I love that expression), because thier job is low level and low paid. They do really feel a duty to the community - or the ones I have talked to do.

People do have stories about errant over-enthusiasts or policemen who are just plain corrupt, but they are rare and the police performs and much needed and useful job - so remember that before you slag them off.

lmao Your post makes me want to kick ya in the nuts (not too hard) and at the same time shake your hand and tell you thanks.

What do you guys think that society in general thinks about LEAP?

I'll probably answer most posts later. Theres no need to leave negative feedback quite yet.

Well, that was yesterday^ Believe it or not, since then I've received negative feedback from this post, and I'll quote "STOP DODGING QUESTIONS" Again, if I seemed to have ignored your question (which I can guarantee is not the case and I've just missed it and tried to keep up with the most recent posts) and you would like me respond to it you have to do one of a couple things. Give it a "Bump, please answer." Of course, like I've asked before, if you really want to make sure I dont miss it just send me a PM. Theres only two people on here that I regularly purposely dont even read their posts. No, Calico, you're not one of them. ;->

Reputation Comments on this post:

ok

[podge]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

What do you guys think that society in general thinks about LEAP?

Swim would guess that the majority of society havent even heard of LEAP. Swim thinks its fantastic and gives gives swim a lot of hope for our world, some of the very people at the forefront of this war on drugs are finally seeing sense and arent too scared to admit it despite the social and professional pressure attached to taking a stand against prohibition.

What is the general feeling in the law enforcement community towards LEAP? Hated, respected, unknown to the majority ?

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Of course I am. Coffee, huh? I'd be in trouble.

Yeah. How would you feel about that?

Originally Posted by Police Officer

What do you guys think that society in general thinks about LEAP?

I don't think many people have heard of LEAP. I'd be willing to bet my left nut, though, that the general population would be willing to change their views on prohibition if it came from "credible" sources such as police officers who have done their time on the front lines of the war. IMO, LEAP presents their arguments very well, both rationally and emotionally, and as such would be quite successful if they could get their message out more broadly.

What do you think, PO?

[samuraigecko]

you have to be kidding right? LOL

[wreckreational]

Originally Posted by samuraigecko

you have to be kidding right? LOL

no just hoping someone had a better idea before applying for a visa in amsterdam lol

[FuBai]

Well the first place to start is to establish credibility. People don't beleive (or the majority don't) that there is a government conspiracy in this area, and the majority of the populace have a real respect for the police. So, even if you beleive that the police are faschists and the government a conspiracy don't use these lines of argument in public debate. Focus on the 'sadly mistaken legislators' or the 'over enthusiasm of the police to protect'. The person who puts forward the drug legalisation argument should appear to be a respected and intellegent citizen who is not out to fight the establishment but to reform some of its more 'misguided policies'. There's no need to shout, the person who puts forward the argument should seem sane, rational and reasonable.

I beleive the way to reform the gross problems of prohibition is via pressure group action and gradual reform, to re-incorporate isolated elements back into society, to come at the problem both from a liberal way and a conservative way. Ask questions like "Do we really want to get rid of drugs, or do we want to minimise of the problems of drug use?" Point out that whilst the former is unachievable in 80 years of strict prohibitionism, the latter is completely achievable in 5 years of leaglisation.

Parents worry about thier children - tell them that at the moment they are more at risk because dealers will sell them anything without them needing to be 21 - at least under legalisation underage drug use could be managed without criminalising children etc etc. The arguments should be credible - not to you, you already know what's right, but to the population at large. Politics is a pragamtists game - enter into it with high and unyielding idealism and prepare to be sidelined and crushed at every turn.