Legalize drugs to stop the violence?

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
Considering that alcohol, a legalised substance, is causing more damage to British economy (in volume of crimes it creates and the cost of damages associated with it) - I can't see how the legalisation of hard drugs would do anything but worsen society.

Take a drive through any big town or city on a weekend (and most weekdays too, now), hang around for a while, and you'll witness en-masse the effects of legalised alcohol on society.

Now imagine all these binge-drinking alcohol drinkers are also on even more physically damaging substances that can cause an even greater loss of control (and in some drugs increase of aggression, paranoia etc.) - and that access to very addictive substances is available to anyone to get hooked on to the point of needing it, and what they will do when they can't afford more but are physically addicted (either costing our health service to get them off the drugs, or cost in crimes committed to fund the drugs)....

No, it's ridiculous.

The evidence of a legalised substance is visible for all: Alcohol. The thought of all of our streets and pubs drunken population also being fuelled by heroin, crack cocaine, crystal meth... or staggering around the streets hallucinating on acid as they try to make their way home at closing time... it's not a happy world.

Consider these people you say are misbehaving because of alcohol. Say they didn't use alcohol. You think they wouldn't commit crime anymore?
It's still the people who commit crimes, but I'm more than interested to see some data that proves your statement that there is a serious causal relation between alcohol and crime. Because I'm inclined to believe that even if some people weren't using alcohol, they'd still commit crimes.
 

Scorpio

Head Gardener
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
373
Location
NZ
Considering that alcohol, a legalised substance, is causing more damage to British economy (in volume of crimes it creates and the cost of damages associated with it) - I can't see how the legalisation of hard drugs would do anything but worsen society.

Take a drive through any big town or city on a weekend (and most weekdays too, now), hang around for a while, and you'll witness en-masse the effects of legalised alcohol on society.

Now imagine all these binge-drinking alcohol drinkers are also on even more physically damaging substances that can cause an even greater loss of control (and in some drugs increase of aggression, paranoia etc.) - and that access to very addictive substances is available to anyone to get hooked on to the point of needing it, and what they will do when they can't afford more but are physically addicted (either costing our health service to get them off the drugs, or cost in crimes committed to fund the drugs)....

No, it's ridiculous.

The evidence of a legalised substance is visible for all: Alcohol. The thought of all of our streets and pubs drunken population also being fuelled by heroin, crack cocaine, crystal meth... or staggering around the streets hallucinating on acid as they try to make their way home at closing time... it's not a happy world.

Consider these people you say are misbehaving because of alcohol. Say they didn't use alcohol. You think they wouldn't commit crime anymore?
It's still the people who commit crimes, but I'm more than interested to see some data that proves your statement that there is a serious causal relation between alcohol and crime. Because I'm inclined to believe that even if some people weren't using alcohol, they'd still commit crimes.

Well...

British Crime Survey said:
Facts & figures

"in nearly half (45%) of all violent incidents, victims believed offenders to be under the influence of alcohol"

"this figure rose to 58% in cases of attacks by people they did not know"

"37% of domestic violence cases involve alcohol"

"in nearly a million violent attacks in 2007-08, the aggressors were believed to be drunk"
 

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
Considering that alcohol, a legalised substance, is causing more damage to British economy (in volume of crimes it creates and the cost of damages associated with it) - I can't see how the legalisation of hard drugs would do anything but worsen society.

Take a drive through any big town or city on a weekend (and most weekdays too, now), hang around for a while, and you'll witness en-masse the effects of legalised alcohol on society.

Now imagine all these binge-drinking alcohol drinkers are also on even more physically damaging substances that can cause an even greater loss of control (and in some drugs increase of aggression, paranoia etc.) - and that access to very addictive substances is available to anyone to get hooked on to the point of needing it, and what they will do when they can't afford more but are physically addicted (either costing our health service to get them off the drugs, or cost in crimes committed to fund the drugs)....

No, it's ridiculous.

The evidence of a legalised substance is visible for all: Alcohol. The thought of all of our streets and pubs drunken population also being fuelled by heroin, crack cocaine, crystal meth... or staggering around the streets hallucinating on acid as they try to make their way home at closing time... it's not a happy world.

Consider these people you say are misbehaving because of alcohol. Say they didn't use alcohol. You think they wouldn't commit crime anymore?
It's still the people who commit crimes, but I'm more than interested to see some data that proves your statement that there is a serious causal relation between alcohol and crime. Because I'm inclined to believe that even if some people weren't using alcohol, they'd still commit crimes.

Well...

British Crime Survey said:
Facts & figures

"in nearly half (45%) of all violent incidents, victims believed offenders to be under the influence of alcohol"

"this figure rose to 58% in cases of attacks by people they did not know"

"37% of domestic violence cases involve alcohol"

"in nearly a million violent attacks in 2007-08, the aggressors were believed to be drunk"

This does not indicate a causal relationship.
What would prove it, would be the data of a country moving from a ban on alcohol to a legalisation of alcohol (or vica versa).
Then see if the crime-statistics increase/decrease.
 

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
And these are the kind of facts that really undermine your entire argument (and TheNamelessWonder already posted similar statistics earlier in this topic):

1. Homicides (Alcohol Prohibition: between 1920 and 1933)
homic.gif


Or even clearer:
pa-157d.gif


2.Total Arrests in Philadelphia 1910-1925
TOTAL ARRESTS
1910 82,017
1911 87,557
1912 96,084
1913 103,673
1914 100,629
1915 91,237
1916 95,783
1917 96,041
1918 94,037
1919 75,618
1920 73,015
1921 83,136
1922 99,601
1923 115,399
1924 130,759
1925 137,263

We see that not only the arrests don't decrease, they even increase. I do agree that this does not indicate that a ban on alcohol increases crime, but it definitely states that we cannot just accept that alcohol causes crime.
edit: Indeed, the increase in homicides is already visible before the ban on alcohol, but the trend continues, which might show that perhaps alcohol isn't the cause of homicides?
We do see a clear decrease in homicides after the ban is lifted, so this can be an indication that a ban on alcohol is the cause of homicides (as TNW stated earlier: A majority of the homicides connected to crack has to do with dealers killing each other for turf).
 

Azzer

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,215
Surely the increase in arrests after banning alcohol is because suddenly all the hundreds of thousands of people used to drinking alcohol very legally are all of a sudden doing something illegal (drinking alcohol), which the police have been told they have to enforce (and so are going around arresting everyone they can that was drinking alcohol - which no doubt would have caused a lot of violence in response)?

Eg let's say tea drinking... everyone in the UK is drinking tea. Suddenly tomorrow it's illegal to drink tea. You will find lots and lots of people continue drinking tea because it's been a legal and normal way of life for them for a long time. These people are now committing a crime. Therefore crime stats will go up because something that was legal and lots of people do (and enjoy) has suddenly become illegal (plus add the "rebellion factor" in to it...).

So it doesn't suprise me in the least that the number of crimes would go up in a country immediately following the banning of a commonly used and enjoyed substance - and those stats likewise prove nothing related to alcohol fuelled crime.

But if you think alcohol does not do anything bad and people do not commit crimes when under the influence of alcohol (I'm sure many victims and families of victims related to drink-driving accidents will appreciate such an opinion), so be it - I doubt you'd find any stats which prove the argument either way to a level which satisfies you.
 

lavadog

Head Gardener
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
322
Yes, but not only the number of crimes went up, but the number of homicides shot through the roof too. So making alcohol illegal did not only increase the crime rate due to people secretly drinking, but also gave organized crime a boost through illegal distilleries and such. And the mob doesn't do fair competition, they kill their competition. I bet making alcohol illegal now would have much the same effect.

However, don't think I'm advocating people getting drunk and harming other people in the process. That's mainly why I rated alcohol worse than weed earlier, since violence and recklessness is a nasty side effect of alcohol for a lot of people.
 

Silence

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
331
Admittedly the 'war on drugs' is inefficient, incompetent, rife with corruption; and not all that effective.

"The war on drugs suggests that there is a war and that people who are f***ed up are winning it."
~Bill Hicks

The war on drugs gives people something to focus their hate at. "We hate drugs!" It allows us to ignore the problems with the "taxed drugs" because lets face it, they are ok as noone dies from consuming them =P
 

Scorpio

Head Gardener
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
373
Location
NZ
Fact is, a lot of ppl in Holland aren't so satisfied with this legalization at all, so there is (imo) an example of Fail.
 

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
Surely the increase in arrests after banning alcohol is because suddenly all the hundreds of thousands of people used to drinking alcohol very legally are all of a sudden doing something illegal (drinking alcohol), which the police have been told they have to enforce (and so are going around arresting everyone they can that was drinking alcohol - which no doubt would have caused a lot of violence in response)?

Eg let's say tea drinking... everyone in the UK is drinking tea. Suddenly tomorrow it's illegal to drink tea. You will find lots and lots of people continue drinking tea because it's been a legal and normal way of life for them for a long time. These people are now committing a crime. Therefore crime stats will go up because something that was legal and lots of people do (and enjoy) has suddenly become illegal (plus add the "rebellion factor" in to it...).

So it doesn't suprise me in the least that the number of crimes would go up in a country immediately following the banning of a commonly used and enjoyed substance - and those stats likewise prove nothing related to alcohol fuelled crime.

But if you think alcohol does not do anything bad and people do not commit crimes when under the influence of alcohol (I'm sure many victims and families of victims related to drink-driving accidents will appreciate such an opinion), so be it - I doubt you'd find any stats which prove the argument either way to a level which satisfies you.

Yes, your explanation is quite efficient at explaining why the number of homicides continued to rise during the ban, and went down the year the ban got lifted.

Anyway, I knew you would say this, but I wonder why the number of arrests continues to increase during the years of the ban. Surely, if it was merely people get caught drinking, we'd see a peak in the first year, then people got scared and we'd see a decrease or at least a stabilization. In the 3th and 4th year of the ban we see the largest increases, so I don't think the data agrees with your statement of people rebelling against the ban.

The extremely interesting part is that a trend of decreasing arrests gets turned to a trend of quite an impressive increase. Obviously this can be allocated to multiple factors, I do not say that the ban causes more crime. I do say that this raises the question whether alcohol causes crime, or whether the people who perform crime while drunk, would do it anyway even if they weren't drunk. And that is my point, nothing else.

I do wonder why, if you doubt I can find stats to prove my point, why you don't get off your bum and find stats to prove your point, because atm I do believe that this data proves my point of there not being a significant causal relation between alcohol and crime.
 

ViVi

Pruner
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
88
Location
Luton, UK
I think it will be a sad day for my country if we ever reach a point where we decide that the only course of action left to us is to legalize the usage of such drugs. While a multiplicity of reasons have been brought forward as why "prohibition doesn't work" I am inclined to cite the same reasons as Azzer in regards to explaining them. Homicides rose because a product that had been "a legal and accepted" part of our culture for centuries was abruptly cut off and so people either rebelled and continued on with their lives as they would have regardless of the prohibition, whilst an up springing of violence occurred not to mention an exponential rise in criminal activity owing the potential money involved in the continued supply of liquor, which, I am sure, had a healthy effect on "homicides".

On the flip side, I always feel like a complete hypocrite when talking about this subject because I've always felt alcohol is one of the worst things we subject ourselves to and this is coming from someone that probably drinks a little more than he ought to. While I like to believe it's too entrenched in our culture to suddenly drop it, I find it hard to justify my views on other drugs while happily subjecting myself to alcohol.

None the less, I think a very long hard look at the negative social and moral consequences of such a change would bring before we can ever consider legalization. I personally see little that is heartening in it.


As for relation to alcohol and crime? Are you being serious or what?
 

septimus

Harvester
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
116
I've always been in favor of legalization. I feel the amount of money spent in an effort to stop the flow of drugs, at least to the US, is ridiculous. I'm talking from the initial efforts to prevent it getting here in specialized forces, all the way down to the overcrowding in the prison system to deal with people caught with a fairly small amount on themselves.

I saw a video for this organization before:
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Basically, it's people from law enforcement, current and past, for the legalization of drugs. One of the things that I found hit home the most for me was their comparison of drugs to cigarettes. Basically what they were saying is that education is the primary way to get people to give up their drug, whatever it may be. Over the past couple of decades the number of people quitting smoking has been increasing greatly due to a better understanding of the negative effects cigarettes cause.

What they said was that instead of trying to force people to quit by making them criminals, it would be more effective to educate them, so that they choose to quit on their own. There will always be people that use drugs, like there will always be people that smoke, or drink. But I personally feel that drugs, if legalized can be much more easily controlled, (The tax income from it wouldn't be that bad either!) But basically, if the drugs are illegal there is no real method to look into the long-term, and short-term negative impacts drugs have on people, therefore it is difficult to really educate people about the reasons to not use them.

In terms of it ending the violence and whatnot, I don't really buy into that, the drug dealers now are really just people that prey on others, they will find something else to prey on if the drugs are legalized, I just think that legalizing the drugs will have more of a positive impact then the current method, let's face it, if it hasn't worked for the past few decades we have to admit that the war on drugs is a failed war, and look into other methods to curtail drug use.

More on my comparison of cigarettes to drugs:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96950224

That shows that since smoking has been looked at negatively, and education, and studies of the negative effects have been looked into there has been a drop in the number of people that smoke. I saw Alci mention that more people will try drugs due to peer pressure, and the ease at which it can be attained, cigarettes though are the same way, most people try due to peer pressure, or seeing family doing it. They're easy to get, at least in the US. But, as education has increased on the subject the number of people smoking has slowly declined, and continues to decline.

I don't really believe that legalizing it will make it any easier for people to get it, as it is now I imagine that most people here either know someone, or know someone thats knows someone that deals drugs.
 
Last edited:

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
vivi said:
As for relation to alcohol and crime? Are you being serious or what?
Your conventional wisdom does not prove anything.
What is widely accepted as the reason why crime dropped in the '90s in the USA? Better police tactics, tougher gun control law?
No, the single most important reason is that 18 years before that, abortion was made legal.
What I am trying to say with this example, is that it's quite easy to state things that make sense, but that the underlying causal relation might just not be true.
Get me more specific data that proves your point of less alcohol-related crimes, which proves your point, I am very interested and will without hesitation admit that you have proven this causal relation. Before that, I wonder why you don't back your claims up with data, because frankly even a 5 year old can come on an internet forum and spout random "widely accepted wisdoms"...
Read "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt, then you'll understand why I'm reluctant to accept your conventional wisdom for truth.

edit: Do I say that alcohol/other drugs are a good thing? No, it's as you say actually poisoning your body. But instead of putting your resources into banning it, you'd better put them into informing people to help them make the right choice for themselves. Because that is the only way to actually do something about anything.
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Today, I was debating weed legalization in drug awareness. I was thoroughly unleashing arguments: how marijuana turns normal citizens into criminals, how the government spends billions to enforce drug laws, when I lost my train of thought. My teacher grinned saying, "My point exactly." FML
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
i would love to give vivi a topic and just let him argue both sides by himself.

I wonder how many times he'd call himself out.


obvious troll/spam
I removed the response below as well - HG
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ViVi

Pruner
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
88
Location
Luton, UK
i would love to give vivi a topic and just let him argue both sides by himself.

I wonder how many times he'd call himself out.

I apologize that I don't believe the legalization of drugs is the solution to our current drug problems, or is it because you've got a fetish with pedobear that I can't see eye to eye with?
 

ViVi

Pruner
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
88
Location
Luton, UK
How does the legalisation of abortion eighteen years prior have an impact on crime in the 90's?
 

timtadams

Landscape Designer
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
2,260
Location
Australia
I think he is making an assumption that a lot of people that werent planned, so to speak, would have been brought up uneducated and neglected, and thus were more likely to have been involved in some sort of crime when they grew up...so crime went down [edit] because there were less neglected/uneducated people

I dont really know, im just guessing
 
Last edited:

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
How does the legalisation of abortion eighteen years prior have an impact on crime in the 90's?

Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

And the main criticism on it:
http://www.isteve.com/freakonomics_fiasco.htm
Obviously you'll say that I exaggerated by saying it is widely accepted, because there is a lot of criticism on it, but you cannot deny that for a controversial study, its methods are quite convincing.

And I think this really explains perfectly what i was saying: Try to clear your mind of prejudices and go where the data leads you.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1186920,00.html
Also, I will try to keep to this last part, which I think is essential to following the trail that data leaves for you:
And by the way, if you can come up with some good evidence to the contrary, Levitt will listen, and if you're really convincing, he's the sort of person who will change his mind.

Edit: Criticism focusses on his positive causal relation between abortion and crime rate, yet it does not touch his other results: The single most cited reason for the decreasing crimerate (innovative policing strategy) has, according to his study, absolutely no impact on crimerate. Which brings me back to my original point: Conventional wisdom is useless as an argument, unless you can back it up with data.
 
Last edited:

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
I think you're arguing the wrong side Hobbe.
Your statistics may or may not have some connection with ban of consuming alchool or lifting ban, or simply that was a warm year and high temperature can make ppl loose their minds or simply the national football team lost an important game and everybody went nuts.

I lost count how many times i saw on tv news crimes and other incidents where those who did it said since beeing under the influence of alchool they didn't judge right anymore and exagerated their reaction grabbing a knife and stabbing.
There is a sure relation between consuming alchool and crimes since the purpose of alchool is to loose control of your body, to forget about all restrictions and all your problems, create a state of euphoria, indiference and you feel above everything. I don't know about you but my common sense tells me if a person it's known to be violent/dangerous and he gets drunk it's better to avoid having a conflict with. Don't tell me you don't see ppl all around who act much more violent than usual when drunk ? It's so obvious it's ridiculous to argue this.
I know ppl who look "normal" but when drunk they just turn into walking zombies and seek for a reason to get a fight going from anything.
Sure if you're an evil person you will do crimes even when sober but the potential increases under influence of alchool.
 

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
I lost count how many times i saw on tv news crimes and other incidents where those who did it said since beeing under the influence of alchool they didn't judge right anymore and exagerated their reaction grabbing a knife and stabbing.
Yes, I've seen people say that the reason why some German kid shot 10 people at his school, is because his girlfriend might or might not have broken up with him.
No, the reason is because he was a nutcase, simple as.

Darksider said:
There is a sure relation between consuming alchool and crimes since the purpose of alchool is to loose control of your body, to forget about all restrictions and all your problems, create a state of euphoria, indiference and you feel above everything. I don't know about you but my common sense tells me if a person it's known to be violent/dangerous and he gets drunk it's better to avoid having a conflict with. Don't tell me you don't see ppl all around who act much more violent than usual when drunk ? It's so obvious it's ridiculous to argue this.
Seriously, read my posts. I never said alcohol doesn't create the mentioned state of less control. I am saying, on the other hand, that you can't say that they won't get aggressive because they haven't drunk.
People who drink to created the state you mention, probably have a lot of frustrations, which even without alcohol might lead to violence. Which is why I went out to search for data to prove that without alcohol the same kind of people would not commit violence.
And the data seems to say that we can't without hesitation accept that alcohol is the reason for violence.

darksider said:
I know ppl who look "normal" but when drunk they just turn into walking zombies and seek for a reason to get a fight going from anything.
No. I don't accept that. Anyone who is in their righteous mind will have this occur maybe once, but after that, you KNOW you're an aggressive drinker, and make sure you don't drink that much. For me, anyone who drinks so much they're really gone, are not normal people. I do not per definition accept that these people wouldn't cause trouble if there was no alcohol.

darksider said:
Sure if you're an evil person you will do crimes even when sober but the potential increases under influence of alchool.
Evil in this case is a bit black-and-white imho. People will problems I'd say.
 
Top