Legalizing drugs would do much to reduce gun violence.

[GreenStormCloud]

This story is just one example of many in the nation:

Police: Fatal shooting victim had drug history

By PATRICIO G. BALONA
Staff writer

DELAND -- A house near DeLand where a man was shot multiple times and killed has a history of drugs, sheriff's officials said Wednesday.

Tymon Ross, 33, was gunned down at 11:19 p.m. Tuesday and responding deputies found him on the ground outside lying in a pool of blood.

SNIP

Tymon Ross is described by a law enforcement narcotics source as a large-scale, upper-level drug dealera criminal history that includes conspiracy to traffic cocaine, court records show.

Since drugs are outlawed, those who make a business of selling them do not have access to the courts to settle disputes. So they settle them with violence, often by gun.

Legalize drugs, allow the new businessmen to sue in court like everybody else, and the violence will naturally reduce.

[unpossibles]

1. I agree it would help, although it may not stop it either

Did gun violence go down post-prohibition? I would assume it did, as the black market for booze was suddenly gone, but I'd also assume that those who deal with black market illegal items will just switch inventory to some other thing.

[GreenStormCloud]

2. If that other things if profitable to smuggle, then they are already doing it. N/T

[dmallind]

3. Exactly - black market criminal participation will simply shift focus

It's not like major marijuana smugglers will simply open up retail stores and become legal entrepreneurs if that product is made legal. They will shift to importing more heroin or cocaine etc. In fact the resulting turmoil as they try to carve out market share from existing providers could actually increase violence in the short term.

At the street level, legalizing some drugs would reduce violence only temporarily as the providers of the now legal drugs seek other profitable criminal activites. It is unlikely the lowest level dope dealers to consumers would decide to attempt to break into coke distribution, but many of them without legal alternatives - and this is obviously the segment most willing to use guns as your average frat boy with "a connection" isn't gunning down competitors even now - will simply turn to armed robbery or muggings or prostitution.

Now if we (rather stupidly) legalized ALL narcotics and other drugs for free and open use, there may be some temporary respite, but remember the lure of big money and the low threshhold for committing acts of violence can never be taken away and the hardcore criminals will just target the money directly most likely rather than trying to provide any contraband at all.

[TheWraith]

8. You don't need to eliminate smuggling in order to suppress it.

If we just legalized, say, marijuana and cocaine, it would take an enormous bite out of the available demand for illegal drugs.

[dmallind]

9. But not illegal activity and gun crime

Make no mistake I favor the legalization of MJ at the least, but it's for the cost vs benefit analysis of imprisoning users and minor dealers rather than the idea that it would reduce gun violence. The people who use guns to support their income source of dealing dope are not going to be the people who supply the legal market in a legal manner. They will still have both the unrealistic desire for high income and the willingness to use criminal means to pursue that income, so they will shift into any drugs that will remain illegal, or other contraband, or outright theft, and not somehow lose their willingness to use guns in the process.

Fortunately, all the prison space created by releasing simple nonviolent drug users and street level dealers will be available for them for a long long time.

[TheWraith]

16. We're talking about supply and demand.

There's a certain limited demand for illegal drugs, and a large supply of people trying to provide them.

If you legalize some/many drugs, then the overall demand for illegal ones goes down, since fewer recreational substances are illegal. That means that no matter how many ex-drug-dealers there are on the street, the drug trade can't continue to finance the gangs it does now. It would be starving them of their income. By that original logic, after Prohibition ended we shouldn't have seen a decrease in violence because all the people involved should just have moved to other rackets. But that didn't happen--the gun homicide rate in this country dropped by two thirds, instead. There's lots of evidence that when you decriminalize things, those niches get taken up by law abiding markets, and shrink the available room for black marketeers to operate.

[dmallind]

17. The difference is the booze runners were part of existing organized crime.

They weren't JUST booze runners, and once booze became legal they could still gain most of their income - and I'm talking the same people - from protection rackets, gambling and so on. The drug industry is much more dedicated and much more mature. The income of the individual criminals will be affected more completely by legalizing drugs that it was in the unstable and still turf-battle ridden days of prohibition - which remember lasted only 14 years compared to the many decades of illegal drug markets. That criminal element will seek income elsewhere, and of course most of that will be in attempting to take such income from criminal gangs who already have it and will not give it up peaceably.

In white market terms it's the difference between an emerging and unstable market like, say, nanotechnology not working out (and the people employed in it now having to find jobs in related markets, or even the same companies since nanotech tends to be a niche in advanced conglomerates, that require similar skills), and what would happen if we wiped out the entire pharmaceutical industry overnight (where most organizations specialize in only pharmaceuticals and the skills are not all that readily transferable except to existing mature and competitively balanced industries such as food production). The former would mean a precipitous drop in nanotech of course (the seat of the pants unstable activities equivalent to the gun battles of booze runners trying to stabilize their industry), but little loss of overall GDP or employment (the equivalent of booze runners integrating into their existing criminal organizations without having to carve out their own turf again violently in more mature segments). The latter would mean literally hundreds of thousands of specifically trained and focused workers unable to find employment in the only other areas that need their skills without ousting current food or beverage etc employees. If jobs were settled at gunpoint like criminal income opportunities often are, you can imagine what would happen.

[Euromutt]

23. Actually, the booze runners largely *created* organized crime

That is, while the participants in alcohol trafficking were already members of organized criminal gangs, they had previously been limited to operating locally. Prohibition prompted the creation of trafficking networks that extended across many states, and indeed across international borders, extending the power of whoever controlled that network along with it. It was Prohibition that opened the way for the pre-existing Chicago Outfit to extend its influence as far afield as Florida and California, creating a network that it would later use to extort labor unions from Milwaukee to Hollywood.

It also created a need for closer coordination between existing criminal organizations. Whether or not the "National Crime Syndicate" ever actually existed, Prohibition certainly paved the way for the consolidation of mob activity, and where that failed, to create turf wars between gangs that prior to Prohibition would never have found themselves vying for control of the same territory.

[Euromutt]

26. You've got a point that legalization alone won't solve the problem

But you have to look at the nature of the drug trade at the retail level in the United States. To a large extent, it's concentrated in large cities, among the more socio-economically disadvantaged elements of the population, which translates in practice to ethnic minorities and blacks in particular.

A large reason any inner-city black teenage boy is drawn to the drugs trade is because it provides a more attractive alternative to other, legitimate, means of gaining income. It's way more lucrative than working at Taco Bell, more easy to get into than retail work, and unlike higher education, it doesn't require a large investment of time and money (money which they don't have) before you--maybe--start seeing a return on that investment. Because their fathers are all too often dead, imprisoned or otherwise absent, these kids frequently carry the burden of providing, or helping to provide, for their families, and it does even happen that their mothers pressure them into criminal activity because it provides serious money, and provides it quickly.

So the strategy has to be two-pronged: first, criminal activity has be made less attractive, and legalizing drugs will certainly play a large role in that. But second, any potential gang recruit has to be offered other options, and those options need to have a bit more certainty attached to them than "if you stay in school, then maybe you'll get a decent-paying job in another eight years or so."

The problem is, of course, that the second prong is going to require massive investment in education and job creation. But there's no reason to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we can at least reduce criminal activity by legalizing drugs, at little to no cost (for starters, we can stop spending the ludicrous amount on drug enforcement that we're currently pissing away and spend it on something useful), then why should we do it?

There's an international angle to consider as well. Currently, sales of marijuana in the United States provide some 60% of the Mexican drug cartels' revenue. Sure, they also produce meth and heroin, and are the primary actors in transshipment of cocaine, but even so, marijuana represents the majority of their income. Legalizing cultivation, sale and possession of marijuana would do way more to hinder the cartels' ability to wreak havoc in Mexico than any renewed "assault weapons" ban; they can't get guns from the US if they can't pay for them. In the words of Detective Lester Freamon on The Wire, "follow the money."

[GreenStormCloud]

11. They already do all of that.

They already target the money directly.

Smuggling is driven by demand. So if a smuggled item become legal, the smugglers can't shift to smuggling something else instead because they are already smuggling that other item. An increase in smuggling the second item will simply reduce the end price due to increased supply.

I support legalizing all of it. Legalize drugs, narcotics, hard drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. Then moderately regulate them and moderately tax them.

[dmallind]

13. So your contention is either

a) all drug distributors import all drugs, as well as being involved in all other vice areas, and can accept the loss of income from legalizing some or even all drugs.

or b) drug distributors whose primary or sole income is legalized will be peacefully absorbed into other areas of vice without having to gain market share violently.

I'm not sure either is true. Sure if you say "criminals" as a whole deal with all vice areas then yep that's self-defining - but on an individual level suspect X who is a major dope distributor and gets most/all of his income from that isn't just going to man a cash register at Doobies R Us and nor is he going to be handed a piece of the action in existing criminal activities because he's a nice guy. What does suspect X - with his income slashed and his predilection for violence undiminished - do to replace his dope-based income now he's been supplanted by Costco?

[krispos42]

15. Well, with the demand for cocaine and heroin fixed...

(no pun intended)...they would have limited avenues for profitability. They would either have to increase their customer base significantly or try to take business from the existing dealers to grab some of the market share.


I suspect many would simply retire, unwilling or unable to take on the cutthroat Columbian cartels, and enjoy a life of leisure. Some would, no doubt, offer their former MJ-smuggling infrastructure to the cartels, increasing the number of vectors into the US for drug delivery and making law-enforcement's job harder.

On the other side, we'd have more LEO's available for stopping cocaine and heroin, and more prison space for holding dealers that are convicted.

[Mike K]

46. Shift focus?

To what?

Your seem to think that if marijuana is legalized the market for heroin and cocaine will expand. Do you base that projection on the notion that marijuana is a "gateway" to heroin and cocaine use?

Since the Netherlands decriminalized marijuana in 1976 there has been a marked reduction in the use of all other illegal drugs as well as a reduction in marijuana use by adolescents. This is believed to be the result of eliminating a major segment of the illegal narcotics trade. E.g., those who sold illegal marijuana also sold other things, so making marijuana legally available got rid of a major source of those other, illegal things.

Briefly stated, legalization gets rid of "pushers."

[benEzra]

4. Yes, as I recall the murder rate decreased from >9/100K to under 3/100K

when Prohibition was repealed. That's off the top of my head, so you'd want to find some actual figures, though.

The anti-alcohol crusaders, of course, had predicted precisely the opposite effect (legalizing alcohol would cause alcohol-related crime to skyrocket), but the net effect was beneficial.

[TheWraith]

7. Predicting the opposite of what happened?

Sounds like the people who claimed CCW was going to mean blood running in the streets and gunfights on every corner.

[dmallind]

10. Somewhat different situation.

The recreational narcotics and dope markets have been around much longer and are much more mature than the relatively brief prohibition era allowed for booze markets to become. Much of the fall of violent crime between the 80s and 2000s credited to various sources such as broken-windows enforcement or get tough sentences or, yes I confess, CCW, in reality had much to do with the reduction of large scale turf battles between drug suppliers and the solidification of the market with separate areas of control for the remaining players. The Capones of the world never got that level of stability.

Now again I am in favor of soft drug legalization and have no doubt that at the street level it would see some diminution of gun deaths, but only to the extent that the people in question a) accept that their avenue of income from drug sales is closed AND b) choose alternatives that do not require gun violence - either "going straight" or sticking to burglary or petty frauds and so on. The booze running gangs had other illicit but more stable alternatives such as gambling and loan sharking within their orgnaizations - few if any were "just" booze runners. Plenty of criminal enterprises ARE just drug distribution and retail and they cannot be expected to be peacably absorbed into equally high income activities.

[Mike K]

45. ". . . switch to some other thing."

Such as?

Everything that can be distributed via the black market is already being distributed that way, including guns. But if drugs were legalized it would affect the illegal gun market, too. Because illegal guns are smuggled via the same channels as are illegal drugs.

If you want to buy an illegal gun, talk to your local drug dealer. And if he doesn't sell guns, with very few exceptions he knows someone who does. America never had the kind of gun problem it has now until Reagan escalated Nixon's War On Drugs.

[safeinOhio]

5. So write the NRA and tell them to support legalization

and good luck with that one

[GreenStormCloud]

12. The NRA takes no stance on legalization of drugs. They are strictly a single issue organization. N/

[safeinOhio]

28. and if you read their mag before the 208 election you'd think

that single issue was to attack Obama. A year later and not one of their predictions have come to pass.

[benEzra]

29. Thanks to the fact that Obama is a hell of a lot smarter than Clinton was...

(not to mention Biden, Holder, and Feinstein) and rejected the gun-control lobby's calls for a new AWB and other bans.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Read Obama's stance on gun-control, and his record, and you will understand why.

Regretfully, Obama's stance was hard core pro-gun control. However, as president he has been smart enough to not keep those promises he made to the gun-control folks.

[safeinOhio]

31. I don't remember any "promises".

What I don't understand is all you folks that don't like Obama, always defend the NRA and have enough money to join the NRA and can't afford to support DU, are doing here, other than looking to push one issue that you can't find anywhere else to argue about. Did you vote for McCain too?

[Euromutt]

32. Personally, I wrote in Richardson

Joining the NRA isn't a huge investment, especially in an election year. I got a 5-year membership for $120, and then I bought a handgun that came with a coupon for a year's membership, so I'm paid up for another four years for an average of $20/year. I've given $50 to DU, and I've only been here eight months.

Obama lost my vote as far back as 2006, with his "Call to Renewal" speech, in which he gave ample evidence that he simply does not get the motivations nor the objectives of fervent supporters of the separation of church and state; or if he does, that he's willing to pretend he doesn't in deference to the militantly religious element of the electorate.

Which isn't to say I didn't prefer him over McCain. McCain's stated position on abortion and gay rights already turned me off sufficiently, but picking Palin as a running mate definitely clinched it. McCain 2000, I might have gone for; McCain 2008, not a fucking chance.

And precisely because the American electoral system so often forces you to vote for the candidate with whom you least disagree, it's entirely possible to prefer a given candidate while disagreeing vehemently with him or her on a couple of specific issues. In a two-party system, especially in a country this size, very few people are ever going to fully support the party's chosen candidate on every issue.

[eqfan592]

33. I'm in the same boat you're in.

Though I did end up voting for (and even campaigning for) Obama, I strongly disagree with his stance on a variety of issues. But McCain 2008 was just waaaaay to freaky for me to even contemplate in the long run (I also might have gone for McCain 2000).

I'm also an NRA member, and I'm also a donor to the DU.

[aikoaiko]

36. You criticize the NRA's take on Obama's policy but failed to read Obama's campaign pledges?

:shrug: You are a strange one.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda

# Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[PavePusher]

38. Warning, Will Robinson, Warning!!

!Flaming Strawman and Massively Failed Assumption Alert!

[aikoaiko]

35. Did you read the NRA magazines?

I did the NRA and they attacked Obama's previous and 2008 campaign positions on guns (and not on other issues). Albeit on several things the NRA took kernels of truth and exaggerated them wildly.

Even Obama promised to seek to reauthorize the AWB.

I am sure that when Obama and his administration saw the massive surge in gun and ammo buying they realized that gun owners were motivated to protect their access to popular firearms to the point of spending serious cash during a recession. I am sure that sent a message of warning about what would happen at the polls should they actually reauthorize the AWB or other stupid gun control legislation.

[safeinOhio]

37. I glad to see all

those with stars answer my questions. Where are the rest of you? Please include other parts of the Democratic platform that support and other progressive policies you are behind. If there are none WTF are you doing here?

[aikoaiko]

40. This is the GUNS forum so we talk about gun policy here. I nor anyone else has to justify their...

...Party credentials to you or anyone else (except the admins perhaps).

But for your piece of mind, I support much more Democratic party platform issues than Republican. And that's good enough.

[safeinOhio]

41. Yes it is. Thank you for your thoughts.

If you support the left and progressive ideas, you have my respect no matter what you post on this forum, as long as you do it with respect for others. I get the feeling that some that post only on the gun forum and can not find any thing, at all, wrong with right wing front organizations are in the wrong place. Those are my thoughts. Not my rules. It is my suggestion that people that use this forum support it with their donations. I am not talking to, or about those, that do contribute.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. I don't enjoy posting in a echo chamber.

In the other forums, pretty much everyone agrees with me, except for nuances. I support health care reform, cleaning up the earth, legalizing drugs, pro-choice on abortion, I think the war in Afghanistan is futile, etc. And on many issues I am not well educated enough to contribute, so I only lurk. So what is the fun for me in posting? Here in the guns forum I am knowledgeable of the subject and I get to engage people of the opposite opinion, although I am disappointed that the level of discourse from the antis is so poor.

[safeinOhio]

44. Yes, and you do post on other subjects and I respect you for that

many others that I have checked on this forum post only about guns. I never hear them defend ANY liberal or progressive ideas. I have a problem, granted it is my problem and not others. I would suggest if you support the NRA, you also support DU. I would hope every one would stick to issues and not call every one that disagrees an idiot,etc.....because that distracts from your point of view. It never hurts to have empathy for those that disagree as their experiences may differ totally from your own. That applies to both sides. I'm not perfect. But I do feel I belong and have something in common with DUers and resent FRers using what I and other contributers fund to attack liberals.

[PavePusher]

39. So, if the "pro-gun lobby" had stayed silent...

you assume that nothing would also have occurred? You seem to ba a little naive on the political proccess. Those who speak up.... get heard.

[TheWraith]

6. Oh hell yes.

The drug trade and the gang wars it sparks are by an order of magnitude the largest source of gun deaths in this country. If you either got rid of the illegal drug trade, or eliminated the poverty that provides an unending stream of available recruits for those gangs, then you'd probably see gun murders in this country drop by two thirds overnight.

[dmallind]

14. Sadly it took this long for the real solution to be mentioned.

Legalizing some criminal activities will simply move the same criminals into other criminal activies, and it will not reduce their willingness to do so with guns. The same number of people will be willing to kill for a high and illicit income.

The only real solution is to present a more acceptable alternative. Not every gun-using criminal wants or is trying to be Scarface or Don Corleone. They just want to live with some dignity and a chance of some financial security. The only way to dramatically reduce gun violence is to find a way to offer people an alternative way to get that. Most of them will decide a slightly reduced economic upside is worth a dramatically increased chance of living past 30. But not when the alternative is grinding poverty on welfare with no prospects. You will still get the real pathologies that drive the hardcore - that's an aberration in human nature that gets thrown up from time to time and has long before guns were even an idea. But they will get a damn sight fewer volunteers to be their minions.

[dairydog91]

18. You want us to pull out of the war on drugs? But pulling out isn't manly!

P.S. - RIP George Carlin

[Euromutt]

27. Tell that to Rocco Siffredi (n/t)

[depakid]

19. Would stop the family killings

17 dead in the state of Oregon in November alone....

[eqfan592]

20. Nor would gun control.

Nice try though. ;)

Also, drugs may play a part in some family killings as well, so it may even prevent a couple of those anyway, so you're pretty much wrong on all counts. Slam dunk for you!

[depakid]

22. Of course it would!

You're just too obsessed to acknowledge the obvious- namely, that take the guns out of the equation- and most of these families would still be alive.

Also- and this is even more bizarre on your part- legalizing drugs would somehow reduce family killings where drugs may have been involved?

:rofl:

[eqfan592]

25. Let me rephrase...

..."illegal" drugs may play a part in family killings. There, that's better ;)

You love the word "obsessed" depakid. You seem to assume that because somebody doesn't agree with you on a subject, they must somehow be "obsessed" with the object at hand.

You managed to come to the rational conclusions on issues like vaccination and climate change, but I don't think this is because you have a rational mind. Your postings here, especially your belief that guns are themselves the causes of violence, is not a demonstration of a rational mind.

[SteveM]

47. Why do you think prohibition will work? Would it be similar to drug prohibition? (nt)

[divineorder]

24. It would work if there's a comprehensive plan

A lot of low-level dealers aren't necessarily violent-except in self-defense against those who are. To these people I would offer a Second Chance: forgiveness of their non-violent dealing offenses, allowing them to get Student Loans, live in public housing, and in short take advantage of the federal and local safety net for a fresh start. Of course, they would have to remain on the right side of the law and completely give up what remains of street dealing. But if they are willing to meet half-way, a lot of low-level dealers should be given that chance.

I would end 90% of the anti-drug apparatus-but offer retraining for more conventional police work for those capable of taking it. Others should be allowed to retire, go back to college, whatever. After all, they did what we asked them to do, some of them with reservations.

The cartel heads are the least of my concerns. Many of the ones who made it all the way to the top have no doubt killed their share of people and will be dealt with either by the law or by their fellow criminals as they fight over access

Violence will drop because there will be far less to fight over. The legal prices are lower, the state regulates the number of outlets which means everyone has a near-guaranteed turf. Indeed, because it's legal, the substances are cheap enough that it is easier to simply panhandle for the money instead of stealing it by burglary or armed robbery.

[Pavulon]

34. or stabbings, rape, swimming pool deaths, or number of americans who die

every year choking themselves while chokin the chicken. Suicide and drug law drive gun death in the us. Both could be addressed.

Reality is there will be no gun ban here, ever. We can do things to reduce violent crime's motives.

[eqfan592]

21. Legalization would help...

...but as others have pointed out it wouldn't get rid of the people who tend to fall into the criminal world in the first place. Legalization along with some major anti-poverty and education programs would be a much better combo in the long run I think. Take away the item they've been easily selling, then give them an out in the form of a good education that can lead to a much more successful life in the long run with much less risk of incarceration and death due to criminal activities.

Yeah, there's still be folks who stuck it out in the criminal world, but in the long term, they would have a much harder time recruiting.

[Jamastiene]

42. I'm too late to Rec this, but I will kick it.

:kick: