[calex59]

The absurd hypothesis as you put it, is based on fact. One fact that is easily checked is the repeal of prohibition. How anyone can understand that repealing prohibition eleminated, at least 99 percent, the crime associated with Alcohol and think that somehow the methods used agains alchohol will work with drugs is flabergasting! Particularly in light of the faillure of the WOD and the ease with which people obtain drugs.

The truth is, if drugs were legalized addiction would drop, as alcoholism and drinking dropped when prohibition was repealed.

Stop making drugs profitable by legalizing them and you will take the crime out of it.

The reason gangs and the mafia started selling drugs was because their alcohol money dried up. Legalize drugs and that dries up, viola, no crime, no drug runners, no street gangs because their money would be gone.

Back in the 1930s thru the 50s, street gangs were a minor element because they had no money to purchase serious weapons. With the advent of gangs selling drugs they became a major factor in our lives. MS-13 for example would leave here if there was no drug money to be made, drug runners would stop coming across the border because they couldn't make a profit here.

People who can't see that are just blind to the truth and letting their morality and the fact they want to control other people and tell them what to do get in the way of clear thinking.

[rottndog]

People who can't see that are just blind to the truth and letting their morality and the fact they want to control other people and tell them what to do get in the way of clear thinking.


Ditto! Just the facts....no emotions....just the facts.

[Mannaggia l'America]

Stop making drugs profitable by legalizing them and you will take the crime out of it.

If legalizing drugs will "stop making drugs profitable", then who will sell them? If there's no profit, who will have any motivation to make the drugs or sell them?

I certainly don't want government in the drug making/selling business - that wouldn't be very libertarian...

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

The bright side of prohibition -- as much as I would have been against it -- is that it accomplished the goals that the prohibitionists wanted to accomplish. Unemployment dropped. Personal incomes rose. Broken marriages dropped. Domestic abuse dropped. Non-organized crime (assault, simple burglary, disorderly conduct, etc.) dropped.

Yes, organized crime increased. And yes, all of the benefits that prohibition brought about were also lost. My argument against legalizing drugs has little to do with crime. It has to do with the volatility of drugs, how much more volatile they will become, and the effect on society if anywhere even near 20 percent of the populace has their lives ruined by recreational drug usage.

Do you think it would not have organized crime if it were not for prohibition?

Criminals are not criminals because something is illegal. They are criminals because they want to make a lot of money fast, by filling the niche of a criminal enterprise. Those that are currently dealing drugs will switch to another crime to make their money. They won't simply join up with society and get desk jobs.

[LexBaird]

How anyone can understand that repealing prohibition eleminated, at least 99 percent, the crime associated with Alcohol ...

An important distinction here: There is crime related to alcohol (or drugs) directly, and there is crime related to the sales and distribution of same. Eliminating prohibition did nothing to stop crimes committed under the influence of alcohol. The Kennedy Clan springs to mind.

If society were much more harsh on these crimes, I'd be more sanguine about lifting prohibitions on other drugs. Imagine what Teddy and Son could do on a PCP bender or tweeking on meth.