« Meghan McCain in the New York Times | Main | The West vs. the Islamic world »

May 28, 2011

Comments

Actually Hispanics have a crime rate that is higher than that of whites and Asians. In New York City, they commit around 30% of the homicides.

[HS: New YorkCity "Hispanics" are atypical in that the are mostly black Hispanics from Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic.]

Greater use of marijuana rather than cocaine *may* be a factor behind declining crime rates, but I can't imagine that it's more than a very minor factor.

The continued illegality of marijuana completely baffles me. Nobody who matters really cares about reducing the crime rate. Upper middle class people who are mellow and high are not seriously threatening the privileged position of elites.

HS:
This is along your topic of dangerous SWPL activities- marathons, mountain climbing, etc. Graphic- pics of abandoned bodies on the way up to Mt Everest. http://godheadv.blogspot.com/2010/04/abandoned-on-everest.html

Pretty simple reason why crime is reducing - the prison population is increasing:

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/03/crime-rates-and-increase-in-prison.html

I was told by an acquaintance in law enforcement that if you get robbed by a Mexican normally you'll be unharmed where as with a black thug being shot was a strong possibility. Take that for what it's worth.

I always wondered what the effects of AIDS and heroin needles had on the crime rate. All those junkies died and the crime rate seemed to fall at the same time. Do people still share needles?

@Russ

Not with all the AIDs prevention campaigns and free access to needles to avoid that very problem.

The problem with all this theorizing about diminishing violent crime is that the two most likely factors, statistical lying and increased covert welfare, are never even talked about. Even people predisposed to violent crime are going to be more mellow when they have money in their pockets. The Democrats have perfected many ways of eliminating the cost of living for blacks, and this is likely the best most important factor.

OneSTDV is right. Putting criminals in jail reduces crime. Charles Murray has pointed out that crime has decreased even though criminality (measured by the number of people in the justice system) has increased.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003016.html

The largely unheralded great reduction in crime since the 1970s is one of the greatest achievements of the conservative movement.

The idiotic "Three Strikes Rule" from the Drug War, has caused the over exhaustion of the prison system by flooding it with harmless marijuana related offenders. Rather have thugs and cartel henchmen in prison than hippies and SWPLs wasting resources and their future. Marijuana should be also taxed, so that it can balance many state budgets, especially that of California.

"Marijuana makes people mellow, and mellow people don’t commit crimes."

Bull. They run out of dope eventually and dope dealers commit crimes.

Also, lazy folk on marijuana are even lazier. We already have over half of all folks not paying their own health care. We don't need more brown sofa potatoes.

[HS: If marijuana were legalized, then there wouldn't be any dope dealers committing crimes. Just mellow poor people.]

"If marijuana were legalized, then there wouldn't be any dope dealers committing crimes. Just mellow poor people."

Uh huh, and would that make them more or less competent at using their birth control, doing their jobs and supervising their stupid violent kids?

[HS: More competent than if they were abusing alcohol instead.]

Where will the poor people get money to pay for all the legal, taxed pot? As well as being too mellow to commit crime, they will be too stoned to get a job. When their welfare money runs and their pot stash runs out they aren't going to be feeling very mellow. Of course they could grow their own, I suppose.

The non-addicted population will have to support them, one way or another.

Posted by: John
"OneSTDV is right. Putting criminals in jail reduces crime. Charles Murray has pointed out that crime has decreased even though criminality (measured by the number of people in the justice system) has increased."

I agree that this system has largely been effective.
But Demographics is destiny. Back when NAM's made up only 15% of the population the taxpayers could afford to keep society safe and lock up the criminals (most of whom were NAM's of course). At $30,000 per prisoner it was an expensive social policy but still something that society could afford.

However now that NAM's make up 30% of the population, the system is collapsing. There is simply too many bad behaving NAM's and not enough white people (who pay more taxes than NAM's) to fund the system. IMHO the greatest beneficiary's of this system were black people who did not commit crimes. They got to enjoy the privilege of living in a safer neighborhood thanks to Whitey footing the bill.

There's an interesting psychological phenomenon at work in these sorts of discussions. When you ask people questions like "why has crime gone down," they tend to seize upon some plausible explanation, for example greater use of surveillance cameras, and believe in that explanation despite a lack of solid confirming evidence evidence.

Most people who drink are not alcoholics, most people who smoke are not stoner. Most people do these things in moderation, if they do these things at all.

Carry a firearm or at least a blade. Things are going to get nasty when the economy collapses.

"The idiotic "Three Strikes Rule" from the Drug War, has caused the over exhaustion of the prison system by flooding it with harmless marijuana related offenders. Rather have thugs and cartel henchmen in prison than hippies and SWPLs wasting resources"

It's just a teensy bit uncommon for SWPLs to have a single felony conviction on their record, much less two others, violent or otherwise. The people snagged by three strikes laws are violent, dangerous, habitual criminals who need to be permanently locked up, not harmless potheads.

tteniasanaazns

Weed doesn't seem to make Jamaicans mellower.

Yes how about some actual evidence on what percentage are incarcerated for smoking pot? or even minor dealing?

Driving under the influence of marijuana would go up. That's illegal; and most users I think drive. They don't wait to sober up first before conducting their daily business because the high lasts awhile and they're high a good percentage of the time.

Hispanics don't commit much crime? Really? And its not violent? I wonder who killed those 72 people on the Mexican border (answer: Zetas). I wonder who rolled severed heads onto a disco floor in Acapulco (answer: Zetas). I wonder who sent residents fleeing in Michoacan (answer, Gulf Cartel).

The hyper-violence, much of it merely violence for the sake of violence (no money attached) in the Cartel-led drug wars in Mexico is ominous. Already the US in the border areas is seeing a huge increase in violent crime done by Cartel-led folks. When you have a 14 year old Sicario, with about 20 kills to his name, assisted by his 16 year old sister, society has rapidly collapsed into hyper-violence, killing just to kill. Not even Al Capone would have contemplated that. It is folly to think it will magically stay south of the Border when Mexicans cross it with ease, and bring the hyper-violence with them.

Just ask Bryan Stow.

Heroin makes people mellow, too. Are heroin addics less crime-prone?

Interestingly, the article doesn't make one mention of methamphetamine. I suspect that's a more popular replacement for crack than marijuana is.

What marijuana is, is cheap. And that probably reduces the necessity of users committing crimes to support their habit. I don't believe it makes people less crime-prone than they'd be if they were clean altogether. The "mellow" thing is a myth, much like the myth of the meth or coke addict with a super-clean home. Marijuana screws up dopamine levels and makes people oversensitive, which in people prone to crime results in violence.

You know what else has risen as crime has dropped? Obesity. I'd like to see a study on whether overweight/obese people are less likely to commit crimes. I suspect yes, because it's more difficult for them to get around.

"You know what else has risen as crime has dropped? Obesity. I'd like to see a study on whether overweight/obese people are less likely to commit crimes. I suspect yes, because it's more difficult for them to get around." - Sheila Tone


There might be something to this albeit for a slightly different reason. Passive people are sitting on the couch watching TV or playing video games. Stability is enabled by zombifying the public. The reduction in crime does correlate with the rise of an indoor sedentary lifestyle.

I think commenters should have to give thier height and weight. All the NAM haters who comment here are probably obese.

HS, you should start a debate with Steve Sailer on this one.

He's the one who went around claiming that marijuana's sapping of youthful vigor justifies keeping it illegal, and by extension, subject to the drug war's excesses.

"Parents understand that changing laws to make marijuana more readily available -- and, let's not kid ourselves, that's what these 'reforms' would do -- would create an even more inert and obese generation of young people."

Then, a few days ago, Steve declared:
"My impression is that popular culture today has gotten rather authoritarian or militaristic."

He richly deserves to be called out on his criticism of "authoritarian" popular culture while advocating keeping marijuana illegal, which causes plenty of authoritarian or militaristic excesses.

A root beer float is a vegetable for them. It's got "root" in its name.

As a criminal prosecutor, I can tell you that I do not send a lot of people to jail or prison for marijuana, or even mere possession of other more dangerous drugs. It's not that I don't try, but Florida uses a point scoring system for sentencing. Offenders get points based of their history, current offenses, status, etc. Drug crimes are scored so few points, that often even serious habitual offenders don't score. That is often the case even when they are dealing. If they don't score, they can usually just plea to the bench for non-jail sentences.

Judges in Florida are very soft of drug offenders. There a likely several reasons for this; pressures from over crowded jails, budget cuts, too many more serious crimes on the dockets. There simply is not enough resources to appropriately prosecute and punish all criminals in Florida.

I just got back from a trip to California, where the big story is a recent supreme court case ordering CA to release some 30,000 prison inmates! Non-serious offenders rarely make is to prison (more that a year sentence). These are serious criminals folks!

Marijuana screws up dopamine levels and makes people oversensitive

I'd never heard that, but it really squares with my experience. Do you happen to have a cite for it?

Haha, yes why not legalize heroin, I'd like to buy some OTC. Or at least some opiods like Oxycontin. Really, there's no reason to restrict any of those, except to protect people from themselves, and children.

Problem I see is that users seldom stick to just one thing. They combine drugs much like partiers combine booze and caffeine, trying to get just the right high.

It's funny isn't it, how slackers with nothing else to do, no pressure, need dope to relax, and how young people with lots of energy need energy drinks. I wonder why that is.

Legalize it. Then tax it. Then smoke up.

Think of all the tax and tourism dollars California would have gotten if it had legalized weed in the last election.

Just think.

I think commenters should have to give thier height and weight. All the NAM haters who comment here are probably obese.-

As long as anybody who walks behind me ain't black, then I'm cool. You dig?

*** All the NAM haters who comment here are probably obese.-***

@ JJ

Not in my case. I'm 6 ft tall and weigh 200 pounds.

"Think of all the tax and tourism dollars California would have gotten if it had legalized weed in the last election."


Stupid and short sighted.

Just think ahead.

Why are conservatives always against pleasure?

JJ,

Blacks and Hispanics have a higher rate of obesity than whites. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=91&cat=2

All the NAM haters who comment here are probably obese.
If you think my comment above qualifies then I'll oblige.

As a criminal prosecutor, I can tell you that I do not send a lot of people to jail or prison for marijuana, or even mere possession of other more dangerous drugs. It's not that I don't try, but Florida uses a point scoring system for sentencing. Offenders get points based of their history, current offenses, status, etc. Drug crimes are scored so few points, that often even serious habitual offenders don't score. That is often the case even when they are dealing. If they don't score, they can usually just plea to the bench for non-jail sentences.

My brother-in-law is a vice cop in a drug-infested area. He laughed at me when I asked him if it's really true that our court systems are clogged up with non-violent, docile offenders prosecuted under basic possession laws.

He says that their police force puts away lots of offenders for only their drug distribution or possession charges for the sake of speed and less paperwork, sometimes dropping a litany of other charges along the way if they deem that those additional charges aren't likely to result in additional actual jail time.

Those against legalizing marijuana are fat proles, just like tetotalers.

Why do HEAVY drinkers have lower mortality rates than NON drinkers? Because non drinkers are fat stupid proles.

[HS: I believe you are correct, the upper classes drink more than the middle class and high proles. But low proles like to get drunk.]

Should have been "teetotalers". Just like a fat prole to misspell "teetotaler".

Legalizing drugs and allowing them to be regulated and sold like alcohol would have a dramatic effect on crime reduction.

The single biggest black market industry is drugs - Take black market drug funds out of the local gangbusters budget and he won't have the cash to keep his gang organized and together. No more gang wars over who controls the sale of drugs in certain markets, etc.

Sure addicts will still commit crimes to get the cash to feed their addiction... no different from what currently happens except now the drug dealer has incentives to keep his clients addicted - Government regulated sale would ensure balanced incentives, especially if governments sold the drugs at cost (no incentive to increase sales)

I don't understand...why do people think that legalizing drugs will somehow take "cash out of the pockets" of gang bangers?

[HS: Because they profit from selling drugs because they don't care about getting arrested. After legalization, profits will go to legitimate businessmen.]

"I don't understand...why do people think that legalizing drugs will somehow take "cash out of the pockets" of gang bangers?"

I've never known a drug dealer who also sells alcohol with only ONE EXCEPTION - A buddy of mine worked construction on a dry reserve (no alcohol), when he came back he joked about how he was spoiled on the reserve because the guy he bought weed from also sold whiskey.

Make illegal drugs like alcohol, sell them at reasonable prices (even at cost) and the black market dealers will simply be out-competed.

I remember in high school some of the older dealers served a fairly small market for underage booze/cigarettes... but for the most part that market was served by older siblings (easier to trust)

HS: "Because they profit from selling drugs because they don't care about getting arrested. After legalization, profits will go to legitimate businessmen."

But won't the gangs simply become "legitimate" businessmen themselves? In fact, wouldn't they use their enforcers to keep out the legitimate businessmen and then use the legit drug businesses to launder money from their other illicit activities?

[HS's response: no, the only competitive advantage gang members have is that they are willing to break the law. They lack the intelligence, cooperativeness, and future-time orientation to compete in legal businesses. Gangs won't run the legal marijuana business anymore than they run liquor stores or tobacco sales today.]

"Sure addicts will still commit crimes to get the cash to feed their addiction... no different from what currently happens except now the drug dealer has incentives to keep his clients addicted - Government regulated sale would ensure balanced incentives, especially if governments sold the drugs at cost (no incentive to increase sales)"

That's not necessary. The only reason drug addicts would need to steal to feed their addiction is that drugs are expensive because they're illegal. The stuff would be basically free if it was legal.

And government selling it at cost is no good for anybody.

[HS's response: no, the only competitive advantage gang members have is that they are willing to break the law. They lack the intelligence, cooperativeness, and future-time orientation to compete in legal businesses. Gangs won't run the legal marijuana business anymore than they run liquor stores or tobacco sales today.]

But this does not make any sense. It's clear that drug dealers have the competitive advantage to make and distribute drugs because they are already doing so. They already have an infrastructure to tap into. All legalization will do is make this infrastructure untouchable by the police.

Your liquor store/tobacco store analogy does not hold up. The existing tobacco/alcohol production and distribution network is already in place and highly decentralized and legal. that is not the case for the illicit drug market.

"Make illegal drugs like alcohol, sell them at reasonable prices (even at cost) and the black market dealers will simply be out-competed."

This makes no sense. Who is going to go into the drug business to sell at cost just to get rid of black markets?

And I don't understand this obsession with cost. Drugs are already pretty cheap. Neither heroin, meth, marijuana or any other drug is like cocaine back in the 80's. The drug problem seems to be as high as it is precisely because crack dropped the cost of getting high to rock bottom prices and spurned other revolutions in cheap, highly addictive substances. The price drop from cocaine to crack did not wipe out the drug dealer...they just switched to selling the new stuff.

Richard -

"That's not necessary. The only reason drug addicts would need to steal to feed their addiction is that drugs are expensive because they're illegal. The stuff would be basically free if it was legal."

Again, drugs are not expensive. Addicts steal because thy cannot hold down jobs, They can't hold down jobs because they are addicts. Cheaper drugs are not going to solve the problems of someone who has no income.

Btw, Half, I would like a response to my interrogatories. I am trying to make a point through the Socratic method instead of just declaring what I want to say.

"Again, drugs are not expensive. Addicts steal because thy cannot hold down jobs, They can't hold down jobs because they are addicts. Cheaper drugs are not going to solve the problems of someone who has no income."

If it's cheap enough you can get it through begging, like alcoholics do.

"This makes no sense. Who is going to go into the drug business to sell at cost just to get rid of black markets?"

No offense, but you apparently don't understand free market principles at all (although the earlier comment by someone 'selling at cost' is idiotic as well). It would be sold for slim profit, like all legal goods and services. Black market = high profits (higher prices due to risk as a matter of the illegality). But most people don't actually want to break the law and are willing to sell goods with a slim profit margin. In spite of claiming that 'drugs are cheap' (according to what scale? it's an arbitrary statement), they would be an order of magnitude cheaper if legalized because of basic supply/demand principles.

"All legalization will do is make this infrastructure untouchable by the police."

How? If it's truly legalized (not de-criminalized, which was the problem with the Netherland's model where syndicates still controlled distribution) then there's no need for the police to touch the infrastructure anyway. Unless they aren't paying their taxes properly which is then purview of the IRS like any other business.

The comments to this entry are closed.