It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government For Crime Sindicates??

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   
it's the mob against me
how fun

So what everyone's saying is if we legalise drugs, then there will be no drug related crime and no deaths due to drugs

The Junkies will want a 'fix', they will need money for the drugs, but a normal job can't provide the sort of money that they will most likely need for the drugs
following me so far

How do they get extra money for the drugs????? They rob somebody.... wait a second that's a crime isn't it
So by legalising drugs your not stopping the drug related crime, your simply making the drugs more accessable for more people




posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   
God are you dumb or somthing?!? You dont see anybody robbing people for a packet of ciggarettes, if its LEGAL the goverment will sell it and it will be cheap... The only reason they charge huge prices on the black market is because A - They can and B - Because of the risk factor because its ILLEGAL

Any other problems you wanna add???? Try and think about if they were LEGAL, they would be similar to alcohol and tobacco... THEN state problems



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Squid
God are you dumb or somthing?!? You dont see anybody robbing people for a packet of ciggarettes, if its LEGAL the goverment will sell it and it will be cheap... The only reason they charge huge prices on the black market is because A - They can and B - Because of the risk factor because its ILLEGAL


People get robbed for their mobile phones, and mobile phones are legal




Originally posted by The_Squid
Any other problems you wanna add???? Try and think about if they were LEGAL, they would be similar to alcohol and tobacco... THEN state problems


Alcohol is a form of drug, you see binge drinkers in the street: vomiting on the pavement, fighting, kicking over rubbish bin's
Yes that's good isn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alcohol is too easily avalible, kids are drinking it, there are under-age drinkers in bars and pubs, society apparntly doesn't have moral's anymore
Drinking alcohol effects you liver and many other internal organs (permanent effects)

Tobacco is bad for you, it should be banned in public, i don't want to inhale the fumes off somebody else smoking,

All illegal drugs have side effects, even when not mixed with other substances



[edit on 26-8-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by The_Squid
God are you dumb or somthing?!? You dont see anybody robbing people for a packet of ciggarettes, if its LEGAL the goverment will sell it and it will be cheap... The only reason they charge huge prices on the black market is because A - They can and B - Because of the risk factor because its ILLEGAL


People get robbed for their mobile phones, and mobile phones are legal




Originally posted by The_Squid
Any other problems you wanna add???? Try and think about if they were LEGAL, they would be similar to alcohol and tobacco... THEN state problems


Alcohol is a form of drug, you see binge drinkers in the street: vomiting on the pavement, fighting, kicking over rubbish bin's
Yes that's good isn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alcohol is too easily avalible, kids are drinking it, there are under-age drinkers in bars and pubs, society apparntly doesn't have moral's anymore
Drinking alcohol effects you liver and many other internal organs (permanent effects)

Tobacco is bad for you, it should be banned in public, i don't want to inhale the fumes off somebody else smoking,

I will never agree to the selling of harmful drugs, all illegal drugs have harmful effect!!!



Mobile phones are expensive, if you charge 5 for a container of drugs, then they wont steal things to get money for that, and mobile phones that ARE stolen are more than likely going to a pawn broker to pay for some drugs.

Ok ok, so you get alcohol and tobacco that are bad for you, that is THEIR choice to do it, im all against smoking around people... but its their choise if they want their body wreaked, if they want to be sociable and they think its worth the damage its THEIR choise... but you get that anyway, why not legalise drugs and let the goverment sell them to end tons of other problems that are worse for us, them and the community!?!



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Also, I didnt say other substances, I said CRAP that is mixed in it. That will effect the percentage strength... then when sombody gets a bit thats a different strength thats way over the tolerance they are used to will cause an overdose.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   

you charge 5 for a container of drugs, then they wont steal things to get money for that,


If drugs are cheaper, the junkies will want more, they will need more money, so they will go back to stealing to feed their habit, as they won't be able to fund their habit off their normal income


I still don't agree with legalising drugs

Cannabis: Risks: Affects Short Term Memory, Can cause paranoia, Loss of co-ordination, loss of concentration, hard to quit, problems associated with smoking.

Cocaine: Risks: Heart Problems, chest pain, confusion, paranoia, damage to nose, overdose, convulsions.

Ecstasy: Risks: Damage to Kidney's/Liver, nausea, tiredness, depression, extreme sweating

Are these the kind of drugs you to be legally available to people???

Do you want death sold legally??
Do you really????

[edit on 26-8-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   
OK. The point here is that if government legalises drugs it CONTROLS the supply, the drug dealers don't. This means that government can use the money gained from the sale to put in place programmes like AA to support addicts.

Which would you prefer, the situation above which if implemented correctly would lead to a controlled drug culture, self-financing support schemes and therefore reduced crime or all the drug related problems you mention above plus the increasing crime levels needed to support the addicts habit.

I prefer to reduce crime you it seems do not!?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
why not legalise burglary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the government can tax how may houses you break into
this will then fund support groups to help people stop breaking into peoples houses

what don't you like that idea, funny you seem to think the same method works with drugs

Crime is crime, drugs are drugs, making it legal won't stop the bad effects



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   
You seem very adept at missing the point.

Without crime, drug taking is, in essence, an activity that affects no one else. It is only the illegality that causes crime to support the habit with associated adverse effect on others.

Burgulary on the other hand always adversely affects someone else, nearly always emotionally, sometimes violently, occassionally fatally. That is its intent. Of course, drug related crime features in all three categories.

To use your rather strange way of arguement regarding burgulary, but against your position: why not ban listening to live rock concerts where high sound levels are known to be harmful to hearing? Why not take it a step further - ban listening to music at home on headphones at high levels because that can be harmful also? In fact make headphones illegal just in case someone overdoses on decibels! Because it does not affect anyone else, that's why not.

Clearly there is a difference between activities that affect only the participant and those that affect others. By legalising drugs you move an activity from the affecting others category (by associated crime) into the category where it does not, and where it can be effectively controlled.

So tell me again, why wouldn't you want to stop the crime element associated with supporting the habit of drug taking?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   

you charge 5 for a container of drugs, then they wont steal things to get money for that



If drugs are cheaper, the junkies will want more, they will need more money, so they will go back to stealing to feed their habit, as they won't be able to fund their habit off their normal income


are you going to answer my post?


Junkies need money for drugs, they want drugs, the more drugs the
better, to get the drugs they need money, but the more drugs they get the more money they need, when they start running out of their money, they'll take other peoples money.... simple

DRUGS = CRIME

LEGAL DRUGS = CRIME

no difference, changing the legality of it doesn't help



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I assume others are still welcome to chime in.
i have had this very same debate in a college class. the debate went for almost a week, with both sides having very valid points to offer. There is something to be said for the tax advantage, the crime drop, the ability to focus the money and manpower spent to keep drugs off the street to something more purposeful. The forbidden fruit tasting the sweetest, the more consistant quality of the product... ect....
and it is also true that it would increase the use of the drugs among the populace... but not so much as you would think...
in a survey at the college (voluntary) between 5-10% of the population said that they would try drugs that were legal, but wouldn't try them if they were illegal. the illegality of the usage didn't seem to stop very many from trying them anyway.
overall the effect of making them legal will have a detrimental effect on drug related crime (increasing it), unless a welfare drug system could be established. This is because the drugs would actually go up in cost if made legal. Some drugs would increase in cost by a scale of ten. A $10 bag of pot would become the same price as it is in california ($100) for everyone. But then the quality would also be better, and it might lower the frequency of usage But the arguement that legalization would greatly increase the use is bogus... just as saying that keeping them illegal will decrease the usage...
but as for the origin of the topic...
legalizing drugs wont do a scratch to the mafia...
they have fingers into everything now... from the milk in your refrigerator to the car you drive... money went into the crime syndicates from the purchase of each... in some way or another.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I assume others are still welcome to chime in.
i have had this very same debate in a college class. the debate went for almost a week, with both sides having very valid points to offer. There is something to be said for the tax advantage, the crime drop, the ability to focus the money and manpower spent to keep drugs off the street to something more purposeful. The forbidden fruit tasting the sweetest, the more consistant quality of the product... ect....
and it is also true that it would increase the use of the drugs among the populace... but not so much as you would think...
in a survey at the college (voluntary) between 5-10% of the population said that they would try drugs that were legal, but wouldn't try them if they were illegal. the illegality of the usage didn't seem to stop very many from trying them anyway.
overall the effect of making them legal will have a detrimental effect on drug related crime (increasing it), unless a welfare drug system could be established. This is because the drugs would actually go up in cost if made legal. Some drugs would increase in cost by a scale of ten. A $10 bag of pot would become the same price as it is in california ($100) for everyone. But then the quality would also be better, and it might lower the frequency of usage But the arguement that legalization would greatly increase the use is bogus... just as saying that keeping them illegal will decrease the usage...
but as for the origin of the topic...
legalizing drugs wont do a scratch to the mafia...
they have fingers into everything now... from the milk in your refrigerator to the car you drive... money went into the crime syndicates from the purchase of each... in some way or another.


Thanks for that
i think you made more progress in that one post than all the agrueing in the entire thread
Erm.. not sure how to really reply...... alot of the points are interesting, i was surprised about the costs of drugs going up, that's a bullet in head for those who support legalising drugs

[edit on 26-8-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I did answer your post - you keep missing the point. To summarise:

Drugs are illegal therefore supply is short but still out of the control of government. Price is therefore high.

As drug dependency (demand) increases so does price. This makes the junkie commit more crime (some petty, some more serious) to support their habit. This is a classic supply and demand situation but with the added factor the dealers control supply and price.

Targetting and seizing drugs does not give government control, if anything it just reduces the supply and drives prices higher. This leads to greater levels of crime by junkies to supprt their habit. And so on and so on.

How do you break the circle?

Can you actually stop drug supply completely? At what cost to the tax payer 50,000 civil servants? more? less? who knows. In any event, Prohibition of alcohol in the USA shows this cannot happen.

Instead prohibition brought about the largest increase in organised crime ever in the states because of the excessive profits that could be made from illegal supply.

To break the circle, legalise drugs, give the supply control to government who reduces prices (even to the point of subscription as they do now anyway) and use the revenue generated to put in place rehabilitation programmes.

This means junkies can afford their fixes (even if they are really really poor) and the rehab programmes means there are fewer junkies out there anyway. This reduces both the need for crime and the financing of the policing authorities which in turn releases more money for the rehab programmes which reduces any crime still further and so on and so on.

This solution treats the underlying cause and not the symptom which is the way you solve problems for the longer term. Modern government (due in part to the need for shortermism due to the requirement for re-election very few years) insists on addressing symptoms not causes. A new thread on "addressing the symptom, not the cause" anyone?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Also another point, I know it wouldnt scratch the mafia, but other crime sindicates it more than likely would. As far as I know.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
i doubt the revenue from the drugs sales will cover the support groups,

why not simply stop the drugs entering Britain, that way no drugs = no junkies = no drug crime

Increase border control, water patrols, sniffer dogs at ports etc...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I somehow doubt either of us is going to change our ideal's to that of the other



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
They have tried that over and over and over, heres just one point why that doesnt work well - Crime Sindicates are incredibly rich, all they have to do is pay off a few people in the right places and they will let them through and there you are drugs have entered the country.

People can also grow the drugs, meaning you dont have to bring them into the country anyway

Legalise drugs and this wont be a problem


You can NOT stop it, prohibition wont work



[edit on 26-8-2004 by The_Squid]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Yes everything you said is very logical, and seems correct...Which is why the government will never do it. Organized crime and big bro are joined at the hip.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColonelForbin
Yes everything you said is very logical, and seems correct...Which is why the government will never do it. Organized crime and big bro are joined at the hip.



If it is logical and correct they why WONT they do it? It makes sense, if the politicians just stoped being selfish for a bit they would realise that.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
If i remember right you, (The_Squid) said pure drugs are less harmful (sorry if i remember wrong)

Pure Heroin Deaths



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Yes, You remembered right, but one thing that you've missed is my reason why I said that; I said that because people are used to a certain strength, say 20% heroin and 80% mixed in stuff, If they suddenly get a "High-Purity" Batch, say 60% heroin and 40% mixed in stuff, then they wont be used to that doesage and overdose.

Thats what they are saying in that news story.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join