Posted: 2/22/2007 3:02:33 PM EDT
|
For all the "legalize it and there won't be any crime" types answer this...... If alcohol is legal and regulated (there are thousands of laws, taxes, and regulations from the just about every arm of the government from the dept. of health, to the dept. of family services) explain to me why there is a problem with crime associated with homeless drunks. They are homeless because they spent all their money on alcohol....they are jobless because they spend all their time being drunk and cannot function....they are draining the health care system and rasing the cost of health care because their condition causes medical problems that wind up being treated by public servants (EMT's, paramedics) and dumped off on hospitals who in turn put the cost on us.....they then beg for money on the side of the road and sleep in public which brings down the value of a neighborhood.....AND THEN TO TOP IT OFF THEY BREAK INTO CARS, HOMES, AND BUSINESSES to steal things to pawn or get money all to pay for MORE ALCOHOL. So if alcohol is regulated and legal why is there still crime???????????? DO YOU REALLY THINK DRUGS WILL BE ANY DIFFERENT? If you do I have this follow up question........What color is the sky in your world? |
 [the OP's point is that legalizing drugs may not eliminate the problems that some say it will.] |
|
Well in the old west they had alcohol. If you broke into a building you got shot, hung or jailed. Now we just say that they are a bad person and let them go on their way because they have "special needs" that we need to respect. ETA: What are LEOs doing to stop this? |
No,it didn't go over my head.We have tried the prohibition route for how long now?And at what cost financially?And what are the results? You are going to have problems either way.Legalized or not. There is no way,no way at all to make a Utopia here.Aint gonna happen. I don't do any drugs.Don't smoke or drink either. |
Nope, I don't think it would be any different at all. As in legalizing alcohol ended the turf war violence and organized crime activity associated with prohibition. But, if you prefer the corruption and violence associated with the prohibition of any popular substance which is relatively easy to smuggle and market to addicts stealing your CDs, more power to you. It certainly means more money for enforcement. More dead innocents and powerful criminal organizations, but, hey... Of course, if decriminalization did happen we could free up some of those billions we spend on AWACs and speedboats and imprisoning a larger percentage of our population than any other developed country to use on treatment to get some of those drunk and drug addled homeless, who are quite frequently mentally ill long before they are addicted, off the streets and reduce crime all around. Maybe even make them productive citizens. Not to mention the fact that drug prohibition is the biggest enemy of our Constitutional rights going, petty details. |
You're skipping a step. They spent all their money on alcohol because they have poor judgment. A person with poor judgment and little to live for will have no problem becoming homeless and/or committing crime REGARDLESS of their alcohol use. Give me a break.
Where is it that you live where homeless people commit most of the "real" crime?  What do you think they beg for money and wash your windshield for? Based on your post, I don't think you've ever bought or drunk a drop of alcohol. Very few people become so addicted to it that they have to commit burglary to finance their habit. Even extremely hard alcohol is really cheap, and people who drink a lot tend to smile quietly or just go to sleep. You said it yourself that they are "too drunk to function." Oh, and if you're an leo6223 then I'm a flying monkey. |
|
Your question is retarded. You must have skipped logic class. Instead of comaring the problems caused by legal alcohol to the problems caused by illegal drugs, you should be comparing the problems caused by illegal alcohol to those caused by legal alcohol and apply the results of that comparison to the drug situation. What was worse, the organzied crime and street gangs created by the prohibtion of alcohol or the bums on the street because of legal alcohol? It seems pretty obvious that it is preferable to have legal alcohol. Now apply what we found to the war on drugs. What is worse, organized crime and gangs created by the prohibition of drugs, or the potential problems caused by legal drugs? If you want to use alcohol laws as the the test case, like in your post, then it seems clear that we would be better off without the organized crime and gangs the result from drug prohibition. ETA: Not to mention that there is no evidence that drug prohibition revents people from ruing their lives with drugs. Just like alcohol prohibition didn't prevent people from ruin their lives with alcohol. It just made it so that people who might have a casual drink while out on the town couldn't do that. |
there are like 17000 accidents related to drunk driving in the us every year...im not sure about deaths, i could ask my dad, its what he does...no no be a drunk driver, he runs a county stop dwi program, so yeah, i would have to venture a guess that DWI;s kill more people then assualt weapons in teh us.
|
Well, in case you missed all the previous threads on the subject: 1) No policy will completely eliminate crime related to drugs. However, other policies than prohibition will do a better job of controlling it. Same thing we discovered with alcohol prohibition. 2) All those problems you are complaining about got worse during alcohol prohibition, not better. In addition, it triggered a huge drinking epidemic among US kids. That is why it was repealed. 3) If you care to read the history of the subject, you will find that all these drugs were once legal and there was no crime associated with them -- except for alcohol. Here is one of many references on the subject you could try Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs |
No, it didn't. The biggest drops in alcohol consumption came before national prohibition went into effect. Alcohol use continued to drop for the first two years of Prohibition and rose every year thereafter. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and related crimes were already above the pre-Prohibition records. See Did Alcohol Use Decrease During Prohibition Furthermore, it triggered a huge drinking epidemic among US children. That is the major reason that many supporters turned against it. They said Prohibition made it easier than ever for their kids to get booze. See What happened to children during alcohol prohibition? |
If you have any actual evidence of that assertion I would love to see it. |
1. Because as posters have already stated, there are people who lack the capability to make good and rational life decisions. Some go so far as to be labeled mentally ill. Obviously the laws do not change their behavior, as you said they break laws to acquire booze. 2. No. In fact, they are readily available, despite being illegal. What's your point?  3. The sky is blue. In fact, I do not wear a blue uniform running around clucking "The sky is falling! The sky is falling" the moment I hear of legalizing drugs. |
Those people will always exist. If alcohol was prohibited, homeless drunks would look like angels compared to the type of people that would now control the alcohol trade. The birth of the mob and the fundamental reason for NFA 34 stemmed from the idiotic idea that prohibiting alcohol would make society's problems with substance abuse disappear. |
|
If something is illegal, and there is a demand for it, supply sources will appear, reaping huge illegal profits (illegal=harder to obtain/more costly in many ways). These sources may do all they can to maintain their money making venture, up to and including murder. Tax money is SPENT trying to stop this (examples: Prohibition and the War on Drugs). If something is legal, and there is a demand for it, sources will appear, reaping much more reasonable profits (legal=much more easily/cheaply obtained). Tax money is GAINED. Crime went down after the Repeal of Prohibition, since there was no longer the same incentive (read:huge UNTAXED profits). I would expect to see a similar drop in the crime rate if some/all drugs were decriminalized. Yes, there would still be crime and abuse, but IMO, at a much lower rate. Everything would depend on the social and moral norms of the day (or who's in power at that time). No, I am not a Socio-Economist, but I did sleep at home last night.  HKO |