Prohibition Spawns Drug Violence

bit_pattern

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Posts
9,053
Likes
354
Location
Mosman
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #1
A refreshing bit of logic regarding drug prohibition from the mainstream media. From an Australian perspective, does anyone think Carl Williams would be anythting other than another Broady bogan if it weren't for the astronomical profits available from the illegal drug trade? Or would bikie gangs be anything near the force they have morphed into if they weren't producing vast quantities of sub quality amphetamines?

Prohibition Spawns Drug Violence

I don't expect politicians to be sticklers for logic, but this is ridiculous. Americans also have a hefty demand for Mexican beer, but there are no "Mexican beer cartels." When Obama visits France, he doesn't consult with politicians about "wine violence." What's happening on the Mexican border is prohibition-caused violence.

A legal product is produced and traded openly, and is therefore subject to competition and civilizing custom. If two beer distributors have a disagreement or if a liquor retailer fails to pay his wholesaler, the wronged parties can go to court. There's no need to take matters violently into their own hands. As a result, in legal industries the ability to commit mayhem is not a valued skill.

On the other hand, dealers in a prohibited product operate in the black market. Upstanding businesspeople stay away, relinquishing the trade to those without moral scruples. Black-market operators can't resolve disputes in court, so being good at using force provides a competitive advantage.

Politicians gave us prohibition and created the conditions in which violence pays. This doesn't excuse those who commit it, but the fact remains that a legal drug market would be as peaceful as the beer, wine and whiskey markets. When alcohol prohibition, which spawned large-scale organized crime, ended in 1933, there was a brief upsurge in drinking, but America became a more peaceful and less corrupt place.

We should learn from that, but we haven't. American politicians are largely responsible for the atrocities now taking place.

That's not what they want to hear, of course, so they blame others. Their "solution" to increasing violence is to crack down even more on production and distribution of some drugs. This has never worked before, and it won't work now.

Black-market profits are abnormally high because of the risk premiums and limited competition, so plenty of people will want to enter the business. Wipe out one cartel, and another is waiting to take its place. The high profit margins leave plenty of cash to bribe judges, cops and border guards. Even in America.

When American politicians scapegoat drug consumers, they bring the court system to a standstill and clog prisons with nonviolent offenders who are stigmatized for life. Minorities bear the brunt of any crackdown.

When will we learn that prohibition doesn't banish a popular product? It merely turns the trade over to thugs. The result is worse for society than if drugs were legal. After decades of the "war on drugs," anyone can still buy most any drug he wishes. Authorities can't even keep drugs out of prisons.

Another aspect of this issue has been overlooked, especially by conservative supporters of the drug war: President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have promised the Mexican government they will stop the southern flow of American guns said to be used by the drug cartels. A war on drugs inevitably becomes a war on guns. Yet conservative Second Amendment advocates refuse to see the connection.

Obama's drug warriors are happy to link the issues. The president says, "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border, and that's why we're ramping up the number of law enforcement personnel on our border" (http://*******.com/dk7hh3).

That 90 percent figure has been repeated many times, but FactCheck.org says it's bogus:

"The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. ... U.S. and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns than it submits for tracing ... " (http://*******.com/c6zbcz).

And FactCheck says Mexico only submits those it already has reason to believe came from the United States.

Once again the politicians show contempt for the truth as well as for freedom.

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity."

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john...-violence.html
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wahooti Fandango

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Posts
17,465
Likes
1,559
Location
SAPMA Headquarters
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Queensland Reds, Melbourne Rebels
#2
Great article and very sound logic, although I doubt any government would have the balls to legalise 'drugs' and there is also the issue of the conservative right. Why do they always have to stand in the face of logic?
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Posts
1,981
Likes
390
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#3
We need a mainstream party to adopt legalisation as part of it's social policy. Interfering in the lives of others in relation to drug use to my mind is far more destructive than non-interference
 

bit_pattern

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Posts
9,053
Likes
354
Location
Mosman
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #9
What drugs would get legalised?

Which ones wouldn't?
I don't see why any drug should be subject to prohibition. Some people are going to use drugs regardless of any law, may as well at try to regulate that in some form. At the very least it would decimate organised crime, 90% of their profits would be gone in one fell swoop.
 

Chops_a_must

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Posts
11,986
Likes
117
Location
The Terrortory!
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Uni Rats! Believeburgh
#10
I don't see why any drug should be subject to prohibition. Some people are going to use drugs regardless of any law, may as well at try to regulate that in some form. At the very least it would decimate organised crime, 90% of their profits would be gone in one fell swoop.
I like drugs, but Meth is pure evil, and I have no time for it.

Would really not like to see wide use of it, that's for sure.
 

The Passenger

Mr. Mojo Risin'
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Posts
30,218
Likes
16,808
Location
Hasa Diga Eebowai
AFL Club
West Coast
#11
it's such a tricky issue and there is a very very fine line and it's hard to know where it is.

i'm very pro drugs, but i'm also aware it's going to be very difficult for a government to convince the wider public hard substances such as heroin, crystal methamphetamine and cocaine should be made for public use.

the other side of the story is that these drugs are redicolously available, whether people like to believe it or not.

just before christmas me and a mate were having a few beers on a sunday afternoon and decided to conduct a bit of a social experiment.... we were gonna head into town (sydney) and see what we could score without ringing people - just simply asking around strangers in clubs and pubs. within 4 hours we had sourced out 3 mdma capsules ($100), a gram of coke ($300) and $200 worth of heroin from three different sets of complete strangers. (for anyone, don't bother with the lectures about what a dangerous thing this was to do because i'm aware and i don't care :))

a lot of people want to stick their hands in the sand - the general line parents use to kids is "don't do drugs", or "if someone offered you something you'd say no right?" but education is the key.

i reckon i've handled things fine because i love reading about drug experiences and about the effects and all that sort of crap, so pretty much every drug experience i've had i've been ready for because i was educated for it. the only one i wasn't ready for was coke and i didn't really handle it all that well the first time. education is the key to drugs.

as for prohibition - it would take an awfully gutsy governemnt to "legalise" drugs and allow companies to manafacture for wider sale, but i believe it's wrong that the issue is just point blank stamps as "drugs are illegal and this will never changed"

some people really have a closed mind on the subject and don't realise how readily available pretty much any substance is in any case.

i think their should be some sort of models put in place and the pro's and con's of each discussed but i don't see it happening.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Passenger

Mr. Mojo Risin'
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Posts
30,218
Likes
16,808
Location
Hasa Diga Eebowai
AFL Club
West Coast
#12
I like drugs, but Meth is pure evil, and I have no time for it.

Would really not like to see wide use of it, that's for sure.
it's one drug i've never tried and for some time said i never would.

but speaking to a mate who's a non drug user about 2 months ago he said last winter he went skiing some guys bought some ice along and he gave it a try and said it was one of the best experiences of his life.

my understand of meth is that it's the addictive qualities and the reduced feeling of sensation with each hit that is the problem. when you have your second hit you won't get as high, but you'll want your third hit more than you wanted your second hit after your first if you get what i mean. that can make for a dangerous combination.
 

Chops_a_must

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Posts
11,986
Likes
117
Location
The Terrortory!
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Uni Rats! Believeburgh
#13
it's one drug i've never tried and for some time said i never would.

but speaking to a mate who's a non drug user about 2 months ago he said last winter he went skiing some guys bought some ice along and he gave it a try and said it was one of the best experiences of his life.

my understand of meth is that it's the addictive qualities and the reduced feeling of sensation with each hit that is the problem. when you have your second hit you won't get as high, but you'll want your third hit more than you wanted your second hit after your first if you get what i mean. that can make for a dangerous combination.
It's more the serotonin crash that is the problem. It's severe and unpredictable, which is why I really do not like it. Its side effects are so random and you think you're straight when you're really bent, and that's more dangerous than anything.

I can't handle the spike and then the crash. It really bent my brain like nothing else. Never again.
 

Kram

I'll brik u
Joined
May 2, 2007
Posts
53,198
Likes
66,658
Location
WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Chicago Bears, de Boer, Arsenal
#14
^Never understood the big attraction too that stuff, a big rush and fun while it still works, but the crash is pure hell. I guess that's why they get the addicts. Seems to attract all the lowlifes in society as well.

Stay away and take the occasional E instead.
 

fairdinkum

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
9,981
Likes
1,084
Location
Road to nowhere
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#15
Hadn't heard of this before.

New designer drug Mephedrone or MM-Cat being bought over internet

STUDENTS and clubbers are buying a new designer drug billed as "a cross between cocaine and ecstasy" over the internet.

Drug experts are alarmed by the emergence of mystery drug Mephedrone - known on the street as MM-Cat, Plant Food, Meow and 4-MMC.

The latest "legal high" is being pushed on social networking sites such as Facebook.
So we don't know whether or not it is legal here, but it certainly is legal elsewhere.

I did some 'research' on the drug by visiting forums dedicated to chat about drugs, such as bluelight and it seems as though nobody really knows whether or not this stuff is 'safe' because the clinical experiments simply haven't been done.

Seems to me that a lot of people who take this stuff (here and overseas) would do so because of the legal ambiguity surrounding it. If ecstasy were legal and regulated so that uses could know exactly what they are getting, I am certain that these sorts of 'new drugs' -- which could well be very harmful for all we know -- would not get nearly as much traction.
 

bit_pattern

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Posts
9,053
Likes
354
Location
Mosman
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #16
That was a poorly researched and potentially dangerous article imo, this line in particular:

"Dealers often advertise this drug as being like ecstasy but its properties are much more similar to cocaine and amphetamines," said Professor Iain McGregor, director of Sydney University's Psychopharmacology Laboratory. "Users get feelings of euphoria, it's dancey, it's happy, a bit trippy.

"Unfortunately for people like myself and Paul (Dillon), who are here to tell people drugs are bad, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot that is bad about it.
Maybe if you just told the TRUTH about drugs, good and bad.

It sounds like an advert for what is, as FD points out, a largely unknown substance with a huge potential for cardiotoxicity. It's a shame the good professor didn't do his homework properly before promoting it in this way. These new sorts of research chems are a bit of a worry, producers are marketing them as safe alternatives to legal drugs when they are anything but. But that's just another side-effect of prohibition. There's always going to be unscrupulous people willing to fill the void created by the drug laws in whatever manner they can.
 

chesson

All Australian
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Posts
759
Likes
2
Other Teams
Tasmania
#17
Some good valid points made in this thread bp. The opening article is quite good.

Not sure about prohibition. The alcohol fueled beatings in Australia might be overtaken by weed explosions.
 

fairdinkum

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
9,981
Likes
1,084
Location
Road to nowhere
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#18
That was a poorly researched and potentially dangerous article imo, this line in particular
Yep, that last line was what piqued my interest enough to do further research on the drug. A drug as good as that but which isn't dangerous? Sign me up, I thought. I've since learnt it might not be quite as harmless as the article implied, but not everybody will put the effort in to read more about the drug, so I can understand your point that the article might be 'dangerous'.
 

Niximus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Posts
13,482
Likes
13,557
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
#24
I personally don't take drugs (I don't smoke and I rarely drink either) but I'm not against legalising them.

That said I would support a license system for all drugs including alcohol and tobacco.

Drugs could be categorised and you could apply for a license to take whatever you want. This process could screen out those who are already too mentally unstable without adding drugs into the equation.

So say you want to smoke weed and drink alcohol, you'd apply for example for an 'A class' and 'F class' drug license. You have the tests (both physical and test your knowledge on the effects of the drug to make sure you're aware and prepared), get approved and pay for your 2-year license. You head over to the drug shop, pick what you want and swipe your license, all's good, you pay and go.

You would also need to disclose this when applying for health insurance (I'm not having my premiums go up when drugs are legalised and you know if that happens they will). Should you be caught taking a drug that you haven't been licensed for you can still be charged with using a substance without a license. Just as with alcohol you won't be allowed to consume your drugs in most public places.

Also as with alcohol, crimes committed while intoxicated will carry harsher sentences.

Supplying drugs to an unlicensed person would be a serious crime.

I think all the above is a fair and reasonable way to move forward.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,231
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#25
A refreshing bit of logic regarding drug prohibition from the mainstream media.
from the article

When Obama visits France, he doesn't consult with politicians about "wine violence." What's happening on the Mexican border is prohibition-caused violence.
Alcohol related violence is a major issue in the UK. The vast majority of emergency services calls on a weekend are supposedly alcohol related.

I am for liberal laws but I think you have to be a bit more nuanced than blanket liberalisation. For instance issues of purity, price, availability etc would have to be closely looked at.

You wouldnt want to end up like Russia.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-half-of-russias-premature-deaths-453197.html

Excessive drinking causes nearly half of all deaths among Russian men of working age, researchers have found

Russia has one of the lowest life expectancies among industrialised countries - 59 for men and 72 for women - and its record-beating alcohol consumption is a key factor.
 
Top Bottom