What Can Be Done About Violent Crime You Ask?

[Polishprince]

Bullshit. If illicit drugs no longer earn money for the gangsters, they will earn another way.

You mean like moonshiners did once prohibition was lifted?

In the 1930's, when Prohibition was lifted, the La Cosa Nostra branched out into unionism.

 

[K9Buck]

It minimizes the problem and we need to start executing dealers like many nations do.

So you agree that people should not be free to ingest whatever they like into their body, correct?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Singapore has very little crime. There are very small prison populations and no fines for any crimes. Drug users and sellers are executed. Misdemeanors and low level felonies never go to prison. They are whipped or caned. There is seldom recidivism.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It minimizes the problem and we need to start executing dealers like many nations do.

So you agree that people should not be free to ingest whatever they like into their body, correct?

A week ago some guy exercised his freedom to ingest fentanyl and heroin into his body. Then he went home, speeding, and died behind the wheel smashing into my parked car. So no. Unless people are handcuffed and shackled to the wall in their homes they do not have the right to ingest whatever they like into their bodies. He smashed into a parked car. It could have been a person or the wall of someone's home.

 

[K9Buck]

Singapore has very little crime. There are very small prison populations and no fines for any crimes. Drug users and sellers are executed. Misdemeanors and low level felonies never go to prison. They are whipped or caned. There is seldom recidivism.

Yea I've heard that. Perhaps that should be our approach too.

 

[K9Buck]

It minimizes the problem and we need to start executing dealers like many nations do.

So you agree that people should not be free to ingest whatever they like into their body, correct?

A week ago some guy exercised his freedom to ingest fentanyl and heroin into his body. Then he went home, speeding, and died behind the wheel smashing into my parked car. So no. Unless people are handcuffed and shackled to the wall in their homes they do not have the right to ingest whatever they like into their bodies. He smashed into a parked car. It could have been a person or the wall of someone's home.

Ok.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Singapore has very little crime. There are very small prison populations and no fines for any crimes. Drug users and sellers are executed. Misdemeanors and low level felonies never go to prison. They are whipped or caned. There is seldom recidivism.

Yea I've heard that. Perhaps that should be our approach too.

It should. In some places it was. I

 

[Rigby5]

I believe that drug legalization would significantly reduce violence in America, particularly in America's ghettos.

I disagee entirely. Its unlikely that legalization of drugs will reduce the illegal drug trade as the taxes on legal grass are exhorbinate. However, even if the drug trade provided cheap highs, violent gangs will find other rackets to make money with. Like when booze was legalized in 1933, gangsters entered the union rackets and gambling, as well as drugs.

Yep. There’s no casual users of heroin and PCP. All hard drugs immediately sink their talons into you and will never ever release. It’s a spiral to death. The lucky ones stop but it’s a fight they make 7/24.

Wrong.
If drugs are legal, they are less profitable, fewer interesting in pushing them, government would have more credibility about dangers, and you can easily get medical help then to get off of them.

Sure after Prohibition was ended the gangs got into other things, but violence greatly reduced.

The massive taxes that states are putting on grass continue to make it a profitable racket. Smuggling cigarettes because of the tremendous tax rates is very profitable for gangsters.

Further, even if the government made drugs cheap and available to the Junkies, gangsters would just find another racket to operate and fight with themselves over. In the 1930's, labor unions became a great way to shake people down and "earn" a living.

It does not matter if gangsters find something else,
The point is all the violence is caused by drugs, is actually all unprotected cash.
Because they are illegal, drugs then incite lots of violence over these big wads of unprotected cash, as well as turf wars.
When gangsters went into unions and gamboling instead of alcohol, the level of violence greatly reduced.
The same would happen with drugs.
The goal is not to end gangsters, but to reduce the violence.

 

[Bush92]

See if you can find a common theme and possible action to reduce violent crime based upon these events over the past year:

Violent And Serious Acts Eligible For Early Release Under Proposition 57

California releases some inmates doing time for murder. Advocates push to free more

Inmates charged with violent crimes poised for release

Violent criminals and sex offenders released early due to 'First Step Act' legislation

Violent felons released early

Inmates charged with violent crimes poised for release due to COVID-19

New York State and local officials are seeking the release nearly 1,500 inmates.

abcnews.go.com

Exclusive: Violent criminals and sex offenders released early due to 'First Step Act' legislation

More than a hundred violent criminals and sex offenders have been released under the First Step Act, President Trump's signature bipartisan criminal justice reform package, according to data from an administration official provided to Fox News on Monday.

www.foxnews.com

Violent felons released early; Is the justice system working?

A News 5 investigation has uncovered the majority of officer-involved shootings in Pueblo involve felons who are on probation or parole and should not have been in possession of a firearm. Some offenders have violent histories. District Attorney Jeff Chostner explains why some felons don’t always se

www.koaa.com

Amid COVID-19, California releases some inmates doing time for murder. Advocates push to free more

California has focused on freeing nonviolent offenders to combat the spread of coronavirus in prisons, but some have committed violent crimes.

www.latimes.com

Violent and Serious Acts Eligible for Early Release Under Proposition 57 | klaaskids.org

The following crimes are not technically considered "violent," so therefore, qualify as "non-serious, non-violent offense" eligible for early release in Proposition 57. Crimes with an asterisk (*) appear more than once in the categories below. Crimes Involving Acts of Violence Assault by Means...

klaaskids.org

Democratic Party is the pro-crime Party.

 

[initforme]

Full drug legalization. You do gooders. Cannot stop what a large percentage of americans want. Stuff it.

 

[initforme]

The ironic thing is most all businesses would cry and whine about paying workers more. So hire drug addicts for cheap....or pay alot more. Otherwise shut up.

 

[Rigby5]

I believe that drug legalization would significantly reduce violence in America, particularly in America's ghettos.

That is the most absurd and bizarre statement I ever heard. In places where drugs are so available the issue of legalization is moot, the violence is common.

Yes, millions trying to buy drugs they desperately need with no money because in their drug induced lives they can’t hold down a job.

Perfect formula for violent crime to skyrocket.

I posit that a different approach is necessary.

Before drugs were criminalized, there was much less problem.
When drugs are legal, then government is more credible and you can get medical help.

Why were drugs less of a problem? Users didn't live long. There was no social safety net. No medical care at all. No food stamps or EBT. No welfare, no shelters, not even a charity supplied tent. Piss someone off and get shot or lynched. Families that cared might lock a user in an attic or basement. I would certainly support the legalization of drugs if they were left to die in an alley.

Wrong.
Drugs were less of a problem when they were not illegal because people believed it more when they were warned about them.
There also was less profit in pushing them.
Medical care was much more accessible than now.
You did not need a social safety net because food in the wild was plentiful and agricultural food was cheap.
There was way more charity then compared to now, with churches actually doing things instead of TV Evangelists.

 

[2aguy]

See if you can find a common theme and possible action to reduce violent crime based upon these events over the past year:

Violent And Serious Acts Eligible For Early Release Under Proposition 57

California releases some inmates doing time for murder. Advocates push to free more

Inmates charged with violent crimes poised for release

Violent criminals and sex offenders released early due to 'First Step Act' legislation

Violent felons released early

Inmates charged with violent crimes poised for release due to COVID-19

New York State and local officials are seeking the release nearly 1,500 inmates.

abcnews.go.com

Exclusive: Violent criminals and sex offenders released early due to 'First Step Act' legislation

More than a hundred violent criminals and sex offenders have been released under the First Step Act, President Trump's signature bipartisan criminal justice reform package, according to data from an administration official provided to Fox News on Monday.

www.foxnews.com

Violent felons released early; Is the justice system working?

A News 5 investigation has uncovered the majority of officer-involved shootings in Pueblo involve felons who are on probation or parole and should not have been in possession of a firearm. Some offenders have violent histories. District Attorney Jeff Chostner explains why some felons don’t always se

www.koaa.com

Amid COVID-19, California releases some inmates doing time for murder. Advocates push to free more

California has focused on freeing nonviolent offenders to combat the spread of coronavirus in prisons, but some have committed violent crimes.

www.latimes.com

Violent and Serious Acts Eligible for Early Release Under Proposition 57 | klaaskids.org

The following crimes are not technically considered "violent," so therefore, qualify as "non-serious, non-violent offense" eligible for early release in Proposition 57. Crimes with an asterisk (*) appear more than once in the categories below. Crimes Involving Acts of Violence Assault by Means...

klaaskids.org

Ooooh, Oooooh......Pick me......pick me!!!!


Vote out democrat party judges and politicians.....they are the ones releasing violent, repeat gun offenders and other violent criminals....over and over again....

 

[Rigby5]

I believe that drug legalization would significantly reduce violence in America, particularly in America's ghettos.

I disagee entirely. Its unlikely that legalization of drugs will reduce the illegal drug trade as the taxes on legal grass are exhorbinate. However, even if the drug trade provided cheap highs, violent gangs will find other rackets to make money with. Like when booze was legalized in 1933, gangsters entered the union rackets and gambling, as well as drugs.

Yep. There’s no casual users of heroin and PCP. All hard drugs immediately sink their talons into you and will never ever release. It’s a spiral to death. The lucky ones stop but it’s a fight they make 7/24.

Wrong.
If drugs are legal, they are less profitable, fewer interesting in pushing them, government would have more credibility about dangers, and you can easily get medical help then to get off of them.

Sure after Prohibition was ended the gangs got into other things, but violence greatly reduced.

Yeah, right. Drug cartels are just going to take a loss. Get real.

If drugs become legal once again, then gangs won't have a monopoly any more.
Price and profits will go back down.

Most hard drugs must be imported because they don’t grow here. And all hard drugs turn all users into unproductive jellyfish.

Anyone who wants to legalize drugs should go to Los Angeles skid row to see how legalization works in real time.

Skid row is due to drugs being illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

That is the most absurd and bizarre statement I ever heard. In places where drugs are so available the issue of legalization is moot, the violence is common.

Drug wars drive a lot of violence. Once the profit is removed from the illicit drug trade, the accompanying violence also vanishes. A user has no need to buy from a local drug gang when they can buy it at a local drug store.

How does a jobless addict get drugs?
Oh yeah. They rob and murder.

Who says drug users are unemployed?
Most the ones I know/knew were employed.
Some meth heads have incredible productivity.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep. There’s no casual users of heroin and PCP. All hard drugs immediately sink their talons into you and will never ever release. It’s a spiral to death. The lucky ones stop but it’s a fight they make 7/24.

Alright. Well, then let's make them illegal and then the problem will go away.

It minimizes the problem and we need to start executing dealers like many nations do.
Watch the problem go away.

When government executes when not in defense, then that government is criminal and needs to be destroyed.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I believe that drug legalization would significantly reduce violence in America, particularly in America's ghettos.

That is the most absurd and bizarre statement I ever heard. In places where drugs are so available the issue of legalization is moot, the violence is common.

Yes, millions trying to buy drugs they desperately need with no money because in their drug induced lives they can’t hold down a job.

Perfect formula for violent crime to skyrocket.

I posit that a different approach is necessary.

Before drugs were criminalized, there was much less problem.
When drugs are legal, then government is more credible and you can get medical help.

Why were drugs less of a problem? Users didn't live long. There was no social safety net. No medical care at all. No food stamps or EBT. No welfare, no shelters, not even a charity supplied tent. Piss someone off and get shot or lynched. Families that cared might lock a user in an attic or basement. I would certainly support the legalization of drugs if they were left to die in an alley.

Wrong.
Drugs were less of a problem when they were not illegal because people believed it more when they were warned about them.
There also was less profit in pushing them.
Medical care was much more accessible than now.
You did not need a social safety net because food in the wild was plentiful and agricultural food was cheap.
There was way more charity then compared to now, with churches actually doing things instead of TV Evangelists.

Nonsense. Medical care more accessible! Where? There might not be a doctor in 100 miles. Go to a church for charity and you get a broom and an axe. Sweep up and then chop firewood. Go hunt. Root in the dirt. Piss off the wrong person and it's instant karma.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Yep. There’s no casual users of heroin and PCP. All hard drugs immediately sink their talons into you and will never ever release. It’s a spiral to death. The lucky ones stop but it’s a fight they make 7/24.

Alright. Well, then let's make them illegal and then the problem will go away.

It minimizes the problem and we need to start executing dealers like many nations do.
Watch the problem go away.

When government executes when not in defense, then that government is criminal and needs to be destroyed.

Permit the victims to execute. I would have gladly shot the guy who carjacked me. Same with the guy who smashed into my car. But he was dead already.

 

[Rigby5]

I believe that drug legalization would significantly reduce violence in America, particularly in America's ghettos.

That is the most absurd and bizarre statement I ever heard. In places where drugs are so available the issue of legalization is moot, the violence is common.

Yes, millions trying to buy drugs they desperately need with no money because in their drug induced lives they can’t hold down a job.

Perfect formula for violent crime to skyrocket.

I posit that a different approach is necessary.

Before drugs were criminalized, there was much less problem.
When drugs are legal, then government is more credible and you can get medical help.

Why were drugs less of a problem? Users didn't live long. There was no social safety net. No medical care at all. No food stamps or EBT. No welfare, no shelters, not even a charity supplied tent. Piss someone off and get shot or lynched. Families that cared might lock a user in an attic or basement. I would certainly support the legalization of drugs if they were left to die in an alley.

Wrong.
Drugs were less of a problem when they were not illegal because people believed it more when they were warned about them.
There also was less profit in pushing them.
Medical care was much more accessible than now.
You did not need a social safety net because food in the wild was plentiful and agricultural food was cheap.
There was way more charity then compared to now, with churches actually doing things instead of TV Evangelists.

Nonsense. Medical care more accessible! Where? There might not be a doctor in 100 miles. Go to a church for charity and you get a broom and an axe. Sweep up and then chop firewood. Go hunt. Root in the dirt. Piss off the wrong person and it's instant karma.

Country or village doctors never turned people away because they do not pay.
Actually I did not see medicine turn into a high cost business until the late1960s.
Before that there was always a county hospital you got treated for without a bill.

Nothing wrong with asking the poor to work for their food.
There just are no opportunities to even do that any more.

And no, I an not sure, but I would bet the crime rate was less than compared to now.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep. There’s no casual users of heroin and PCP. All hard drugs immediately sink their talons into you and will never ever release. It’s a spiral to death. The lucky ones stop but it’s a fight they make 7/24.

Alright. Well, then let's make them illegal and then the problem will go away.

It minimizes the problem and we need to start executing dealers like many nations do.
Watch the problem go away.

When government executes when not in defense, then that government is criminal and needs to be destroyed.

Permit the victims to execute. I would have gladly shot the guy who carjacked me. Same with the guy who smashed into my car. But he was dead already.

Oddly enough I sort of see the point to allowing victims to get retribution.
It is just governments I object to doing it.