Opinions - Drugs and Crime Go Hand in Hand

[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.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	This thread seems to have sparked some good discussion. Considering your OP got censored, It'd be nice if you edit it an...
	it was interesting topic u started,forget to rep u before

[stoneinfocus]

There´re are great deal of people who will rob and murder and set whole countries on fire with their military and support the weapon industry, just for profit and power.

If we take the heroin model with legal heroin given to addicts as done in Canada, Germany Denmark(?) and Switzerland, then one would see the crime rate go to zero (0).

If Laudanum were legally sold, the number of heroin addicts would decrease, if Cocaine was still legal then there would be no need for "junkies" to steal money to feed their habit.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good summary

[dsl39uf]

Drugs and crime go hand in hand first of all because production, trafficking, and sale are crimes. And second, because of prohibition. To say that everybody who smokes a joint for the first time will slit their mother's throat to smoke their next joint is absolutely absurd. See the point?

Originally Posted by co-incidence

There´re are great deal of people who will rob and murder and set whole countries on fire with their military and support the weapon industry, just for profit and power.

Even worse, there are people who will kill, maim, and plunder in the name of their god, religion, or what they think is right. People like the ones who were responsible for 9/11. You can clearly see that the worst things done in history were not done in the name of drugs. Unless that is, you count things such as China executing its drug addicts. But still, that is somewhat the opposite of the point the thread starter is trying to make.

[stoneinfocus]

Accordig gto this "press-survey" there wasn´t even a choice of statement like "make them legal again"

It´s totally biased, as I expected, without even looking a it and according to police officer´s profound opinion shown in his thread.

[hh339]

Police Officer: If a person is arrested for stealing or some other crime that is not directly linked to drug-whatever, and he has a gram or two of weed on him, would you really believe that this is because "drugs and crime go hand in hand"? Would you say that drugs and cars go hand in hand just because some people drive AND smoke at the same time? I think you better think this trough a few more times PO. Oh and by the way, are you aware of the FACT that you are working under some of the world's worst terrorists? Would it be OK to say that police and fascism go hand in hand?

[Micklemouse]

PO, please remove the link & replace it with a plain url (not hyperlinked) & the information contained within.

It is also worth noting that the figures are for the USA only - not necessarily representative for drug-users or criminals generally.

Looking at the figures, the stats for drug related homicide have not gone above 5% in the last decade (they peaked at 7.4% in 1989, & I think it woth noting that this is the year that George Bush Senior took over from Reagan. They have steadily declined since.)

Another way to look at this may be Drug Policy & Crime go hand in hand.

Many of the studies cited are several years old, with no apparent new figures to compare to, others are based on victims perceptions (never a good bench-mark, as cultural prejudices may play a large part in colouring these perceptions), others are based on prior drug use (which may include once only drug use). Use of alcohol is also tellingly lacking in many of the studies.

Also, it doesn't take into account any socio-economic factors such as class, employment (either individually, in the wider community or nationally), & without this they are just another tool in the War Against Drugs, rather than showing any proof that drugs alone may lead to increased crime, rather than the political & economic climate, & attitude towards drugs at a political level.

[Felonious Skunk]

Your own words:

Originally Posted by Police Officer

And yeah, I dont understand why people smoke. But I dont remember ever working a burglary, robbery, or other type of stealing where somebody was trying to finance their smoking habit.

And nicotine is arguably up there with opiates with regard to addiction potential. I lost my dear mother after a 30-year nicotine addiction that finally manifested in lung cancer.

I never "blamed" her for the addiction that was the proximate cause of the disease that took her life. And I think it quite possible that this good, kindhearted lady would have become a "criminal" had our governmental keepers decided to save the world by enacting legislation proscribing tobacco (after having lucratively exported it to other countries over the last 200 years. While the DEA has spent billions in South America trying to spray the cocaine problem away, you don't see foreign narcs over here spraying fields in Virginia, do you?).

If ill health and the spectre of death couldn't stop her from smoking, only an idiot would think that a "law" could.

The point is, when she was young she made a choice that she probably regretted later on as she realized that nicotine was something she couldn't live without. Some people are just genetically wired to have addictive cravings for certain chemicals that are very hard to control. It has nothing to do with malice or laziness or sociopathology or evil.

The government creates the compulsion for addicts to steal by making drugs available only on the black market at hyperinflated prices. Thus the addict must commit more crime to obtain funds for his drugs.

While an addict's initial choice to experiment with the drug that ultimately becomes an addiction could be regarded as poor judgement, destructive drug policies that totally ignore human nature often turn this choice into years of lawlessness in which the singular motivation is maintaining the chemical dependency.

Moving drugs out of the black market would eliminate crime motivated by this chemical dependency, as evidenced by the statement above claiming you've never encountered a nicotine addict that engaged in crime to support his habit.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	well said. great post
	Good points made.
	Well done.
	wow - excellent post, articulate
	Nicely debated

[old hippie 56]

But, the smuggling of cigarettes is ranked right up there with drugs;
http://www.havocscope.com/trafficking/cigarettes.htm

Billions of dollar business.

[grandbaby]

One of the secondary/tertiary effects of prohibition is the shunting of users into the criminal underworld. Once users (particularly young ones) are in contact with people who are intimately involved with crime (beyond the statutory crime of breaking prohibition laws), the strong taboos against law-breaking begin to crumble and it becomes more acceptable in their minds to break laws to finance their habits: "I'm already a criminal for using heroin; I might as well knock over a liquor store."

If someone is a functioning addict (like many alcoholics and nearly all tobacco users), they shouldn't be barred from taking gainful employment. However, under prohibition, this is exactly what happens. Nobody will hire a heroin addict, even though the vast majority of them, given the chance to be honest and productive citizens, would choose to do so. But since they have little ability to choose gainful employment, they are forced to crime to pay for not only drugs, but food and all necessities.

Imagine a world (could have happened!) where if you were, say, Jewish, you were not allowed to hold a job. Most Jews would take jobs anyway, hoping that none of their co-workers would find out their ethnicity. Others would turn to crime. Police officers would then encounter a disproportionate number of Jews involved in crime. And this would in turn reinforce the idea that Jewishness and criminality go hand in hand. If most Jews are natural criminals — hey, it's been proven statistically! — then it follows that the laws keeping Jews out of the workforce are necessary and just.

That's part of the reason there's less tobacco-related crime than for other, less addictive drugs. Most cigarette smokers, knowing they are still on the right side of the law, will not readily cross the line. Same with boozers, even though alcohol's a drug with high potential for addiction which also lowers inhibitions — a combination you'd think would make a recipe for lots of crime associated with it. (Not counting, for the purposes of argument, DUIs and alcohol-induced violence such as bar fights, since PO is arguing basically about "people who will rob, pillage, and murder to support a drug addiction.") Do you see where this is going? When you decriminalize substances, you remove users from the realm of criminality, and by legitimizing their recreational choices, you allow them to make the choice of remaining on the right side of the law. This, in turn, reinforces trust in police and government — not incidentally making YOUR job easier, PO — and strengthens the bonds of community and country. *cue tears, flag-waving, and stirring patriotic brass-band music*


(P.S. PO, while I have your attention, you've abandoned this thread. Have you any further thoughts, or are you just going to duck the issue forever?)

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Well written, well reasoned & humourous as ever!
	Very good, liked the paralell with the jews
	right on

[Orchid_Suspiria]

One thing swim has noticed is when people who are in favor of the drug war are given actual statistics or shown rational reasons why the drug war isn't working they simply duck out of the debate.

[Felonious Skunk]

^^^^ That's because propaganda doesn't fare well in arenas where truth, logic, and critical thinking are standard protocols.

Much easier to pontificate in venues where the audience can be told what to think.

[Woodman]

1.) If drug use were treated as a public-health issue instead of a criminal issue, then it would not be a "crime" to use drugs, would it?

So when you make "drug use" a "crime", it only stands to reason that drug use & crime go hand in hand, because THAT'S HOW YOU STRUCTURED DRUG-POLICY IN THE FIRST PLACE!

DAH!

2.) If drug manufacturing and distribution were to be decriminalized and regulated, it would eliminate the vast quantity of street dealers and organized-crime syndicates that currently profit from revenues that are the result of failed social policies which make drugs illegal.

These organizations rely on criminals to do their work.

Is anyone stupid enough to think that a doctor, pharmacist, engineer, chemist (or any other group of responsible, well educated professionals) would risk subjecting themselves to the stigma that comes with policy of prohibition that allows institutionalized discrimination against drug users?

Again, it only stands to reason that the majority of individuals who would consider such enterprise a viable economic option would come from the lower (criminal) class of society.

This is the result of failed drug-policies, NOT the drugs.

[Felonious Skunk]

And I was always amused by the contention that ingestion of certain molecules in itself reroutes brain circuitry in such a way as to compel a mammal to commit crimes.

While this may be true of substances like alcohol and barbiturates that have been shown to affect inhibitory responses in humans, I'm curious what connection the drug warriors draw between other substances and "crime." For example:

1. Are potheads compelled to rob the Doritos truck?

2. Would a drug-decriminalized America begin its decline with speed freaks caught trespassing in department stores after-hours, rearranging the displays until they're just right?

3. Can acidheads be charged with contempt for wearing a tye-dyed shirt to court?

4. Should we charge etards with hugging when they should be drinking and getting into brawls?

[Nagognog2]

And thus was why Uncle Zwigwarsksy recieved 20 years in the Alabama State Pentitentiary for going into anaphalactic shock from Pennicillin. At least he died from his diseases and didn't have to work the chain-gang that long.

The family is still appealing the $750 burial charge.

[Harry]

Religion is responsible for a lot more violence, death, and overall disharmony in humankinds history then drugs, by far and large...would you argue this point, PO?

Maybe we should consider having a look at making it illegal, heck, even abolishing it! (activate sarcasm detector now)

[sergei77]

Yes, drugs and crime go hand in hand for the simple reason that drugs are illegal. If flying kites was illegal then flying kites and crime would go hand in hand too.

[Ranke]

PO, as other have explained your logic is flawed. By definition anything if an activity is illegal that activity goes hand in hand with crime. So now that we've got that clear can you come back and answer some questions that have been asked? It appears that when confronted with questions that attack the foundation of your beliefs you disappear. To make this simpler I will present my questions in list form rather than mixing them with the rest of my post.

1. If as you claim drug and crime go hand in hand, how do you explain the reduction in criminal activity when heroin was provided to heavy users in switzerland. This was well documented in a study by Martin Killias and Marcelo F. Aebi [http://www.popcenter.org/Library/Cri...1/Killias.pdf]

2. Your claim that drugs and crime go hand in hand suggests that drugs CAUSE the crime. The problem is you have skipped a crucial step. A drug user does not commit a crime because of drugs. The drug user commits a crime because of a DESIRE for drugs. So if one really wanted to stamp out crime associated (the correct word, there can be association without cause) all that would need to be done is to alter the neurochemistry of all drug users brains in such a way that they no longer desired drugs. So given two choices, one being to legalize drugs so that the user who DESIRES drugs can afford them, or two alter all drug users brain chemistry in such a way that they no longer desired drugs, which would you choose?

To simplify my life I also would like to ask one question of you unrelated to the thread topic rather than asking in another of your threads.

Seeing as you consider it the duty of all citizens to conform to the laws set down by their government will you refrain from ever giving or receiving oral sex? As you probably know many state still have laws on the books that prohibit "sodomy" (defined as "anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex"). Although in 2003 anti-homosexual laws were invalidated the word "sodomy" is still present the laws of many states, mine included. As I assume you have had oral sex at least once in your life you are guilty of sodomy and seeing as only anti-homosexual laws were invalidated you could theoretically be prosecuted for engaging in oral sex. Considering the obvious insanity of these laws, do you still feel that all residents of states with such laws should refrain from engaging in oral sex simply because it is against the law? Or consider this, our country was created through the refusel to abide by laws set down the by british government, should we have never rebeled? If all people were to subscribe to your beliefs society would never advance beyond its present state. Humanity needs rebellion in order to evolve.

Note: If you do respond I may take awhile to read your thoughts and possibly post a reply. Frankly these discussions make me angry, depressed, and sick to my stomach. The only way I can muster up the energy to argue this issue is to take amphetamine (which I am prescribed, so I feel swim is unnecessary).

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Really good post man, love the questions you got waiting for PO, he probably won't answer.
	Very good post, although the last paragraph makes you seem like a bit of a nutter.

[sergei77]

What a surprise, no reply from PO to any of the very valid issues raised. He is practically an advertisment for why prohibitionists are wrong - they cannot use logical or arguments to their defense beyond "drugs are bad, humm-k?".

In the UK we've just has this report published by an organisation called Transform regarding the legalisation/prohibition debate, I think it debunks pretty much every myth that PO subscribes to, but of course he will never take the time to actually read it:

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Tools_For_The%20Debate.pdf

[methMADMAN]

I've seen the absolute EVIL, side of drug addiction, but I know from education that prohibition is no answer. Education, and I mean the WHOLE truth, is the only way to go. To simply tell a child that "drugs are bad, don't do them", sends a mixed message when they see other young people, experimenting and enjoying the use of drugs. Having not the full spectrum of knowlege of the drugs, they then decide (rightly so), that their parents have lied to them or not told the whole truth and they try drugs, without any awareness, of the benefits, risks, and nature of each specific substance. This greatly increses the incidence of abuse and eventually, in my opinion leads to an increased risk of addiction. Education, not prohibition is the answer, and legalization and taxation, would fund treatment for those with a genetic predisposition to severe and ruinous addiction.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good post. as the saying goes- "knowledge is power"

[Woodman]

Enough already!

The Author of the O/P obviously doesn't care to answer salient points made in response to this topic (Hmmm, doesn't THAT look familiar??).

It seems like the thread was made just to bait response, and at this point, I think it should just be closed.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Post seems like its intended to pick a fight.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Woodman

Enough already!

The Author of the O/P obviously doesn't care to answer salient points made in response to this topic (Hmmm, doesn't THAT look familiar??).

It seems like the thread was made just to bait response, and at this point, I think it should just be closed.

Yes, this thread was made to bait responses. Just like any other thread. Why would you want to start a discussion that dosent invite, well, discussion. Close it if you like. My orginal post was edited in such a manner that my stat pages were deleted. This thread had also not been posted to in over two months before the few recent ones.

Wood, the negative feedback that you left me was one of the goofier ones. And trust me, I've received some really goofy ones.

Additionally, if someone wants to hear my point of veiw on a subject and the subtle nudges in posts arent doing the job then send me a PM and say "Hey, can you respond in this thread/to this post." I imagine that would work better than leaving negative feedback.

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Yes, this thread was made to bait responses. Just like any other thread. Why would you want to start a discussion that dosent invite, well, discussion. Close it if you like. My orginal post was edited in such a manner that my stat pages were deleted. This thread had also not been posted to in over two months before the few recent ones.

Wood, the negative feedback that you left me was one of the goofier ones. And trust me, I've received some really goofy ones.

Additionally, if someone wants to hear my point of veiw on a subject and the subtle nudges in posts arent doing the job then send me a PM and say "Hey, can you respond in this thread/to this post." I imagine that would work better than leaving negative feedback.

Yet another post that does nothing to address the responses made directly to this issue.

[El Calico Loco]

Criminals are often caught with drugs, so drugs and crime go hand-in-hand.

By similar logic, criminals are often caught with cars - so cars and crime go hand in hand.

Come to think of it, criminals are often - not always, but often - caught with clothes on. There must be some connection between clothes and crime.

Sorry, Officer - but this argument flunks Logic 101. Correlation is not causation. There was a time when people thought that leaving rags and scraps in a corner caused the spontaneous generation of mice, because mice always appeared under these circumstances.


ECL

[SunnyBee]

Police Officer? Here's a story..June, 2004...Guy swoons young innocent/ naive young lady to use her name for his drug enertrprise. Finally, when ordering ingredients from Paris, France-their Fbi- contacts our FBI, and what follows a EXACTLY LIKE IN GOODFELLAS with helicopters, etc. Guy arrested for manufacturing first and largest ECSTACY-METHAMPHETAMINE Lab in NE USA-charged to get 20 years and 1 million dollar fine. 2005-Guy is free and clear after turning all friends in to the DEA..that mostly grow marijuana!! They don't go to jail either. The point of all of the arrests was to ???All still using illegal drugs thanks to the DEA! The Big guy not on probabtion, no record..NOTHING!!!WHY???

[enquirewithin]

OK. Tell us your point of view. We all know that when the US had alcohol prohibition, drinking and crime went together. Now illegal drugs and crime go together, although some (ie, heroin) are more conducive to crime than others.