  Gaz Member Username: Gaz Post Number: 31 Registered: 04-2008 |
As I read the posts here, I see one of the biggest problems Detroit faces is crime - against the citizens of Detroit and against the city itself (I.e.,burning and looting of buildings, houses, and properties. It's disgusting! Why not empty the jails, and send the inmates to intolerant dictatorships like Iran or China? Also, anybody convicted of these crimes could be sent post- haste to one of these countries. After hearing a few horror stories of the fates of these criminals, crime would come to a screeching halt. | ||
Lombaowski Member Username: Lombaowski Post Number: 88 Registered: 11-2004 |
Have you ever seen the movie Escape from New York? That might be a better idea. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1198 Registered: 12-2006 |
Crime would not come to a halt. You are operating under the nonsensical belief that most criminals rationally plan out what they do and consider things like downstream risks. A very large number of the more troublesome criminals are how they are because of drugs. You could make the penalty for burglary having one's testicles removed with plumbing equipment, and crack and meth addicts would still break into houses to steal things to get drug money. The difference between high crime cities and low crime cities has to do with how much effort the government puts into dealing with crimes like burglary and auto theft. Now, here's an experiment: go to Detroit, call the police from a residence and tell them you've been burglarized. Two minutes after placing that call, you will understand why crime is so bad in Detroit. Let me know how it goes. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 626 Registered: 12-2006 |
best way to lower the crime rate is to legalize drugs. The majority of crime in America is in some way related to drugs and the black market required to get them. Eliminating that black market, or reducing it would go a long way towards lowering crime overall. If drugs were readily available (albeit heavily secured) at local pharmacies and other stores, it would eliminate the need for the dangerous and crime creating black market that currently supplies the product. Not to mention the fact that it would finally allow the government to draw tax revenue from this multi-billion dollar a year industry. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2973 Registered: 04-2006 |
It's Groundhog's Day... again. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1199 Registered: 12-2006 |
This discussion keeps coming up, Iheart, because El_J is correct. It is somewhat quixotic to discuss this, though, because nobody on either side of that business (those profiting from the illegality of drugs because they deal in drugs, and those profiting from the illegality of drugs who make a living pretending to fight it) is interested in any change to the status quo. | ||
Tompage Member Username: Tompage Post Number: 60 Registered: 01-2005 |
El jimbo, eliminate laws and you eliminate violations of laws! No laws, no crime. (Sarcasm.) Legalizing drugs, your solution to crime, would lead to more drug use. I really don't think we'd want to see more meth freaks around. The pharmacology of methamphetamine causes violent behavior. I certainly wouldn't want my dentist using marijuana before he performs a root canal. I certainly wouldn't want my bus driver to go "on the nod" from heroin. And I certainly wouldn't want to ride my motorcycle next to the PCP user. Legalizing drugs wouldn't eliminate crime any more than legalizing alcohol put organized crime out of business. | ||
Gaz Member Username: Gaz Post Number: 34 Registered: 04-2008 |
I am not against legalizing drugs, provided it is tightly controlled. Any and all stops need to be pulled out to stop this problem. Detroit will always - as long as crime is so rampant - have a big problem attracting people or business. While I was being my old cynical self by suggesting criminals be sent to Iran or China, something more than what is happening now needs to happen, because it ain't working. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1200 Registered: 12-2006 |
Tom, where do you get "legalizing drugs... would lead to more drug use"? That flies in the face of facts. Fact: alcohol consumption per person in the United States was higher during prohibition than at any other time in our history (at least since we started keeping such data). Fact: almost every alcohol user in the United States began drinking while it was age-prohibited; the number is over 95%. It's silly to make the "bus driver" argument. Whiskey is legal, but your bus driver isn't allowed to use it before driving. The current drug policy causes all manner of trouble, has created massive wealth among a violent class of criminals, turns ordinary people into felons and solves exactly nothing. I, just so you know, do not use illegal drugs and am not in any way involved in the trade. I'm not a pot smoker arguing that my habit should be legalized. I have studied these regulations and their impact, and have seen the devastation caused by the current system at first hand. A drug policy created by throwing darts at random words on a dartboard could not possibly be more harmful than what we have deliberately crafted. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 631 Registered: 12-2006 |
Professor Scot, You beat me to it. I was going to say the exact same thing comparing the war on drugs to prohibition. They are both foolish things. All you do is drive the business underground, providing an easy source of income for all kinds of shady people from the neighborhood dealer to organized crime. Making drugs "legitimate" would eliminate the revenue streams for those people, thus eliminating them. Also, while no system is perfect, having drugs available in regular stores is easier to regulate. We could put an age limit on drugs like we do for cigarettes and alcohol. We could also put a monthly cap on the amount of the drug an individual is able to purchase. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than what we have now. Crime would decrease. Tax revenues would increase. New crops would open up for American farmers to produce. Also, drug use would NOT increase. The people who want to do it now will be the same people who will want to do it in the future. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1202 Registered: 12-2006 |
Thanks El_J. Can you imagine? Me, a guy in his mid forties, sitting at home with the Sunday Freep: "Look, honey, they've legalized cocaine - we should head out straight away and go buy some. Perhaps they'll be carrying it at the seven-eleven." It boggles the mind. | ||
Detroitbill Member Username: Detroitbill Post Number: 600 Registered: 09-2006 |
Umm, what makes you think that China or Iran would even consider taking them?? We dont have any right to send them there and I am sure those countries have little interest in accomodating them. | ||
Club_boss Member Username: Club_boss Post Number: 377 Registered: 12-2006 |
"Why not empty the jails, and send the inmates to intolerant dictatorships like Iran or China? Also, anybody convicted of these crimes could be sent post- haste to one of these countries. After hearing a few horror stories of the fates of these criminals, crime would come to a screeching halt." How about we arm every citizen, give each adult (barring that Ypsi. State isn't chasing after them) a pistol, shotgun and rifle. Say 1500 rounds for the rifle and pistol and 500 for the shotgun. Instead of calling 911 for help, and being put on hold for 20 minutes, you can call 911 to pick up the dead bodies, I bet they don't wait 20 minutes in the summertime to pickup those dead bodies. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 5028 Registered: 12-2005 |
From New Way To Cut Budget: Release Prisoners: quote:Emphasis mine. This ought to get interesting. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1203 Registered: 12-2006 |
I think the states need to be just a tad selective about who they let out. I agree with the concept of this, but this is one of those examples where the details are nontrivial. | ||
Tompage Member Username: Tompage Post Number: 61 Registered: 01-2005 |
Also during prohibition liver disease decreased, productivity increased, divorces decreased, accidents decreased, etc. Prohibition from many standpoints was a roaring success, and was not the overall failure many make it out to be. Yes, alcohol is a drug. But to equate the effects of alcohol with the non-alcohol drugs is very simplistic. Marijuana, for example, has impairing effects for 24 to 48 hours after use - even though the user doesn't feel effects. Dangerous indeed. Many people, particularly youth, don't use drugs BECAUSE they are illegal. Take away that onus of illegality and I am certain many more would use drugs - after all, the government says they are legal. And I suspect that if drugs were legal, the negative impact would be greatest on those communities that can afford it the least - the poorer, single parent homes for instance. A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit Sweden. At that time, drug use, even in public, was de facto legal. The lawn of Stockholm's City Hall was filled with drug users on the nod, needles next to them. The Swedes told me that they were beginning to criminalize drug use because they couldn't afford to continue to support an underclass of society that contributed little, but got "high" all day. I suggest you ask someone in drug rehab what he/she thinks of legalizing drugs. The ones I have talked to have told me they'd never be able to quit if they were legal. To paraphrase you (professorscot), I also have seen the devastation caused not by the "system," but by the drug themselves. And I seen many people actually beat their addiction because of sanctions imposed by the criminal justice system. I | ||
Gaz Member Username: Gaz Post Number: 35 Registered: 04-2008 |
I was being cynical about sending them to Iran and China. But maybe arming the citizens of Detroit wouldn't be a bad idea. When two crooks get angry at each other, they could just have a shoot out. Then, there could be an outraged citizen there to shoot the surviving crook. I can only imagine how the law-abiding, decent citizens of Detroit must be fed up with all the crime. Might work. | ||
Snoringbeagle Member Username: Snoringbeagle Post Number: 19 Registered: 02-2008 |
It's easy, just make the Sharia the law of the land. Missing hands, feet and stoning will go a long way. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 634 Registered: 12-2006 |
Tompage, who said drugs would totally be legal. Put an age limit on them like cigarettes and alcohol. Something like you can't smoke weed until 18 and all the other stuff at 21. Also, there is no way to say that Prohibition wasn't a failure. If the goal of prohibition is to stop the use of alcohol, then the fact Americans actually consumed MORE alcohol during prohibition than before makes for a pretty damn big failure. I think part of it is that people tend to crave what they can't or aren't supposed to have. If the allure of doing something that could potentially get you in trouble isn't there anymore then people tend to control their use more. For example, look at the difference between how underage drinkers act compared to people of age. those underage kids drink like its going out of style and drink to get wasted. Of age drinkers tend to have a few drinks as a part of the evening..not the central theme of the evening like underage drinkers. For the of age drinkers, the allure isn't there anymore because they are not breaking any rules anymore. | ||
Exmotowner Member Username: Exmotowner Post Number: 474 Registered: 06-2005 |
"Have you ever seen the movie Escape from New York? That might be a better idea." I still vote to annex Highland Park, wall it off and make a supermax prison to put all the criminals. It would solve the HP problem and employee hundreds of Detroiters! LOL (yes Im being cynical). | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2765 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: As mentioned above, a significant amount of crime that happens in Detroit is committed by drug users who steal in order to buy drugs. If drugs were sold legally in every corner store, would those same drug users suddenly have the cash they need to buy their drugs? If not then we're back in the same place we currently are. quote: Source? | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 635 Registered: 12-2006 |
Fnemecek, Much of the cost of drugs is made up in the many "middle men" and unconventional means in which they are brought to market. This plus their supply compared to demand inflates their cost. If efficiencies in supply chains were created and the elimination of several levels of middle men were enacted, the price of production costs would drop dramatically. Even with heavy taxes on the product, it could be sold at a much lower cost to the consumer. | ||
Jonnyfive Member Username: Jonnyfive Post Number: 121 Registered: 03-2007 |
"But maybe arming the citizens of Detroit wouldn't be a bad idea. When two crooks get angry at each other, they could just have a shoot out. Then, there could be an outraged citizen there to shoot the surviving crook. " Yes. Detroit needs more criminals shooting eachother in order to combat the crime problem... | ||
Lifeinmontage Member Username: Lifeinmontage Post Number: 80 Registered: 10-2007 |
let them poke smot | ||
7051 Member Username: 7051 Post Number: 98 Registered: 02-2006 |
Making regulated, taxed, drugs cheaply available would stop huge amounts of violent personal and property crime. It immediately takes the big money out of the equation and the corresponding street violence (turf wars, drivebys, etc.) In fact, every drug seizure causes, at least temporarily, an increase in price and a new, motivated-by-big profit seller to fill the void left by the old seller (simple supply/demand/price/market economics). A large percentage of property crime is also committed by those looking to buy drugs which are not cheap here compared to other industrialized nations. In addition, you, the taxpayers, continue to pay $30,000 per year per person to house what is now the world's most (highest percentage of its citizens) incarcerated population. Sixty-five to eighty percent of those in prison are criminals that are locked up because of drug or drug related (murder, property crime, assault) crime. Ours is also the most violent country in the world with over 600,000 American homicide victims since 1971. The federal drug war has now raged for over 35 years, with no measurable results as the total inflation adjusted, street value of the industry is acutally slightly larger than it was 35 years ago. Do some online research and you will easily find these facts. Face it, drugs are big business and related "law enforcement" and the prison industry is EVEN BIGGER. To all of those who have never witnessed the drug related violence and crime of an urban area due to your daily travels not intersecting, avoidance, etc., you are naive no matter how "worldly" or knowledged you may think yourself to be. Once you see this violence up close, through work, location of your domicile, volunteering, etc., you will soon understand how it is directly or indirectly drug driven. Why would one continue to spend ever increasing billions, only to see the same result (no reduction in drug supply/trade, violence, etc.) over 35 times in a row?•••• This fits the often quoted definition of true insanity-"Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." At minimum, a 5 year trial period of this new concept is due. Only one new additional law is needed-anyone caught selling to those under 18 will be penalized by death or life sentence with hard labor (your choice). At least try something different and stop wasting my money on a solution that has failed over 35 times consecutively. Use some of this law enforcement savings to pay for "say-no-to-drugs because they are bad for your health" education and drug cessation programs. As a final note, any of you ultra right wingers(not your centrist/normal conservatives) or just plain naive people,who proclaim "we can't let people do this to themselves!", you aren't stopping them now! In fact, you will have a good chance of being one of their victims (property or personal crime) in your lifetime and you will definitly be paying for their incarceration with your hard-earned dollars. DOn't take my word, listen to those who have many more years experience with this culture than you or I - law enforcement retirees. http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.p hp Signed, A non-drug user. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2766 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Much of the cost of any commodity is made up of "middle men". This is one of the reasons why food costs a lot more at the grocery store than it would if you drove out to the farm and bough directly from the farmer. As to the relationship between supply and demand, it's doubtful that making the product legal would effect either of those variables. Now, back to the question that I initially posed: If drugs were sold legally in every corner store, would drug users suddenly have the cash they need to buy their drugs? If a drug user has no money then it doesn't matter very much whether his drugs cost $1 or $1,000. His most likely course of action is still to steal something in order to get the drugs that he wants. Which just leaves us where we currently are. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5804 Registered: 10-2004 |
Scrappers rip off aluminum siding in order to buy readily available cheap alcohol. Others mug or burglarize for small amounts of cash too. Frank is right: bums will still be bums and thieves will still be thieves and muggers will still be muggers or worse--no matter how cheaply it would be for them to buy whatever they are addicted to. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 636 Registered: 12-2006 |
Fnemecek and LY, You have good points. However, how much violent crime is associated with the drug trade OTHER than from the small percentage of drug addicted bums? Without a product to sell on the streets there wouldn't be a need for drug dealers, thus no more turf wars. Gangs would lose one of their primary sources of income. Much of the crime associated with drugs is due to the limited and nefarious means of getting the product in the first place. Not to trivialize the crimes of scrapping, mugging and burglary, but those crimes pale in comparison to our nations high murder rate, a rate which is kept high due to drug related homocides. Also, if the police did not have to devote as much time to dealing with drug dealers and the crimes surrounding them they could put more emphasis on dealing with the scrappers and muggers. (Message edited by el_jimbo on April 09, 2008) | ||
Gaz Member Username: Gaz Post Number: 51 Registered: 04-2008 |
The problem here is that if Detroit is going to be a viable city again - and I believe that it will - something has got to be done about the crime. Life is hard enough today, just trying to keep up with the bills, pay taxes, buy gasoline, keep a roof over your head and food in your belly. But rampant crime on top of all that makes things almost impossible. I am tired of criminals repetedly making life miserable for everybody else, and I don't much care what happens to them, as long as they are away from me. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2767 Registered: 12-2004 |
El_jimbo, Prohibition ended in 1933. However, the bootleggers and organized criminals that fueled and profited from the violence associated with trafficking illicit alcohol continued to do business for decades after booze was legalized again. In Detroit, the Purple Gang remain powerful, profitable and dangerous well into the 1940s before they were overtaken by their Italian and Sicilian counterparts who, in turn, remained in business for decades later. Professional criminals are like any other business. They adapt in order to survive. If drugs become legal, they'll find another source of revenue. Turf wars will no doubt continue over the new source of revenue. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 637 Registered: 12-2006 |
Rackets will always exist. Not much you can do with the gambling and prostitution will always be there. However, drugs is BY FAR the biggest moneymaker for all forms of organized crime today. By eliminating that income, those organizations will be cut off at the knees. Without that money, they can't afford the guns and other things necessary to keep their organizations intact. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2768 Registered: 12-2004 |
Just like the Purple Gang was "cut off at the knees" in 1933, right? | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 638 Registered: 12-2006 |
did the Purple gang move on to narcotics? how active were their gambling rackets? | ||
Markopolo Member Username: Markopolo Post Number: 19 Registered: 10-2007 |
We can’t stop crime. It is the second oldest profession. But what about this for getting convicted felons out of our pockets. Instead of putting them in prisons and paying their freight send them to Bikini. Bikini is an island in the south pacific that the U.S. use to use for testing nuclear bombs. The folks that once lived there haven’t yet returned, probably because of radioactivity. What about sending all our locked-up prisoners there and give them a goat, pig, whatever and some seeds as they get off the boat. No guards, no more money spent on them. Let them use the seeds to grow some veggies and eat or mate the livestock. Bikini lies in shark-infested waters so if the convicts ever figured out how to make a boat, it would undoubtedly sink before they went a mile (if that far). This way we could close the prisons and layoff the guards. Oh shucks, that wouldn’t work. I’ve just created a new class of unemployed people who will probably turn to crime once their unemployment benefits run out. Of course, we could send them out there once they’ve been convicted of a crime. So it might still work. | ||
Gaz Member Username: Gaz Post Number: 54 Registered: 04-2008 |
I know a nuclear physicist in Las Vegas who said he wouldn't go near Bikini. Send them there, for all I care. One way ticket, and they will be left to their own devices for survival (which probably wouldn't be very long.) |
