NYPD Gangbusting at the Marcy PJs?
http://www.nysun.com/article/68117
Gang Bust Could Aid Troubled Area of Brooklyn
By CHRISTOPHER FAHERTY
Special to the Sun
December 14, 2007
The large-scale takedown yesterday of a violent gang that dealt crack-cocaine in northern Brooklyn could be another positive step in the police department's battle to reduce the area's murder rate.
Nine members of the violent gang known as the G's Up, which is affiliated with a larger gang known as the Bloods, were converged upon and arrested on drug and gun charges in the early hours of the morning at the Marcy Houses, a public housing project situated between the Fort Greene and Bedford-Stuyvesant sections of Brooklyn, officials said.
Northern Brooklyn, where the gang operated, is one of the only sections of the city where murders are on the rise this year, increasing by about 10% compared with the same period last year, according to police statistics.
While statistics showing the number of murders committed by gangs in the city are not readily available, the commanding officer of the police department's gang division, Chief Robert Boyce, said the Bloods, of which six of the suspects were known members, are the predominant street gang in northern Brooklyn.
The suspects, who are being investigated for possible ties to at least one murder, had been under investigation by a task force of federal agents and police for about 20 months, Chief Boyce said.
Among the nine suspects arrested was Nicholas Hayes, whom Chief Boyce called a leader of the drug ring.
Hayes's brother, John Hayes, was shot to death along with his girlfriend inside a parked car near the housing project in July 2006, about two months after the investigation into the gang began. Chief Boyce said the shooting was likely linked to the G's Up.
Chief Boyce also said investigators are currently questioning the suspects about their involvement in other crimes.
____________________________
So, waddaya think? Thuggery comes to an end, or a chance for a rising dirtbag to fill the shoes of the arrested gang leaders? Assuming these guys get long sentences (not a safe assumption), the crime can only lower longterm by the cops preventing the void of gang activity from being filled again. The 'bust and chill" approach never works. It just gives the budding crooks a chance to get roots dug in.
Gang Bust Could Aid Troubled Area of Brooklyn
By CHRISTOPHER FAHERTY
Special to the Sun
December 14, 2007
The large-scale takedown yesterday of a violent gang that dealt crack-cocaine in northern Brooklyn could be another positive step in the police department's battle to reduce the area's murder rate.
Nine members of the violent gang known as the G's Up, which is affiliated with a larger gang known as the Bloods, were converged upon and arrested on drug and gun charges in the early hours of the morning at the Marcy Houses, a public housing project situated between the Fort Greene and Bedford-Stuyvesant sections of Brooklyn, officials said.
Northern Brooklyn, where the gang operated, is one of the only sections of the city where murders are on the rise this year, increasing by about 10% compared with the same period last year, according to police statistics.
While statistics showing the number of murders committed by gangs in the city are not readily available, the commanding officer of the police department's gang division, Chief Robert Boyce, said the Bloods, of which six of the suspects were known members, are the predominant street gang in northern Brooklyn.
The suspects, who are being investigated for possible ties to at least one murder, had been under investigation by a task force of federal agents and police for about 20 months, Chief Boyce said.
Among the nine suspects arrested was Nicholas Hayes, whom Chief Boyce called a leader of the drug ring.
Hayes's brother, John Hayes, was shot to death along with his girlfriend inside a parked car near the housing project in July 2006, about two months after the investigation into the gang began. Chief Boyce said the shooting was likely linked to the G's Up.
Chief Boyce also said investigators are currently questioning the suspects about their involvement in other crimes.
____________________________
So, waddaya think? Thuggery comes to an end, or a chance for a rising dirtbag to fill the shoes of the arrested gang leaders? Assuming these guys get long sentences (not a safe assumption), the crime can only lower longterm by the cops preventing the void of gang activity from being filled again. The 'bust and chill" approach never works. It just gives the budding crooks a chance to get roots dug in.
Comments
-
I'd just like to point out that the assumption is that they're innocent until the DA can prove that they've committed any actual crimes.
And the government could easily stop all deaths and gang activity related to drug trafficking... but they choose not to. But hey, private prisons need more bodies, right? -
BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: I'd just like to point out that the assumption is that they're innocent until the DA can prove that they've committed any actual crimes.
But of course . . .
And the government could easily stop all deaths and gang activity related to drug trafficking... but they choose not to. But hey, private prisons need more bodies, right? -
nd the government could easily stop all deaths and gang activity related to drug trafficking... but they choose not to.
through legalization. But how else? -
Carmen wrote:
There is no other option. But legalization is certainly better than what we have now.nd the government could easily stop all deaths and gang activity related to drug trafficking... but they choose not to.
through legalization. But how else? -
legalize it - don't criticize it...
-
are there any drugs that you wouldnt legalize?
If so, nothing will change.
If not, will there be paying 'customers' that could be turned away for any reason?
I know this debate has been done to death on the web. I'm curious as to whether there are any new twists worth discussing. -
Guvna wrote: are there any drugs that you wouldnt legalize?
Anything a consenting adult/consenting adults wants to do, that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, should be legal imo. This applies to abortion, prostitution, same sex marriage, assisted suicide, drug yse, gambling, etc.
This means all drugs. Yes, including crack cocaine/If so, nothing will change.
Why would people be turned away? People with tracheotomies aren't banned from buying cigarettes.
If not, will there be paying 'customers' that could be turned away for any reason?
I know this debate has been done to death on the web. I'm curious as to whether there are any new twists worth discussing. -
I don't know if legalizing drugs would ever work. I personally would not like a doctor to operate on me after smoking a joint or taking a hit off a crack pipe, nor would I like the police officers senses dulled by weed or on the other hand have them all jacked up on coke. Do we still let teachers teach our children who are high?
I agree that what you do to your own body is your own business but once you become addicted it not only affects your body it affects all those that come into contact with you. -
BedStuyDoOrDie wrote:
I dont know. It seems that the drug addicts I see arent very useful to society. Someone has to care for them. Will it increase the number of addicts if we legalize drugs? Will it make it harder to get them off drugs if we make drugs freely available?
Anything a consenting adult/consenting adults wants to do, that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, should be legal imo. . .
This means all drugs. Yes, including crack cocaine/Why would people be turned away? People with tracheotomies are banned from buying cigarettes.
Well, if the drugs are clearly destroying someone, would you still give them drugs? -
I 150% agree with ^^^
And to ^^- why would you assume that legalizing "hard" drugs would cause more people to do them? Do you really feel like people who currently have no interest in smoking crack would run out and buy some if it were legal? I don't certain drugs not because of their illegality or even cost, but because I don't like how it makes me feel or act or even look. Similarly, I have done certain drugs because I enjoy the way they make me feel or act regardless of their legal status. If drugs were legalized sure, the first few years would cause a huge influx of drug users...but how is being a crackhead any worse than being a raging alcoholic? ASIDE from the fact that crackheads are classified as such because they steal/are broke or homeless/mug people etc...all of which are directly caused by the cost associated with the drug, which is DIRECTLY caused by the illegal status. Coke only costs hundreds of dollars per use because it's illegal and dangerous to produce and transport, not because the drug itself is super expensive to make... -
Guvna wrote:
This is a part of a broader, larger and more universal argument I think- who's responsibility is it to "protect" someone from themselves? In my mind, this country is supposed to be founded on individual freedom- the freedom to speak, to act, to think and along those lines we should have the freedom to ingest whatever we want. Is it the governments job to stop someone from doing drugs, even if its "destroying" them? Or is it their right to destroy themselves and our collective responsibility to make sure that they do so in a matter that directly negatively effects the least people? I argue for the latter. It is no ones job but my OWN to take care of myself.
Well, if the drugs are clearly destroying someone, would you still give them drugs?
Note that I'm talking about non-retarded or handicapped ADULTS. No one is arguing that kids should do coke (I don't think?) -
Carmen wrote: I 150% agree with ^^^
Someohow I think "some" people who become inclined to get stoned by SOMETHING will choose the legal alternatives available, as opposed to going down a dangerous route to some crack dealer. If we make the crack dealer legal, this person now would be free to choose crack. Not all drugs are created equally. I dont think we need more crackheads out there.
And to ^^- why would you assume that legalizing "hard" drugs would cause more people to do them? Do you really feel like people who currently have no interest in smoking crack would run out and buy some if it were legal? I don't certain drugs not because of their illegality or even cost, but because I don't like how it makes me feel or act or even look. Similarly, I have done certain drugs because I enjoy the way they make me feel or act regardless of their legal status. If drugs were legalized sure, the first few years would cause a huge influx of drug users...but how is being a crackhead any worse than being a raging alcoholic? ASIDE from the fact that crackheads are classified as such because they steal/are broke or homeless/mug people etc...all of which are directly caused by the cost associated with the drug, which is DIRECTLY caused by the illegal status. Coke only costs hundreds of dollars per use because it's illegal and dangerous to produce and transport, not because the drug itself is super expensive to make...
Also, how can you dismiss the first few years of legalization so easily? -
Carmen wrote: [quote=Guvna]
This is a part of a broader, larger and more universal argument I think- who's responsibility is it to "protect" someone from themselves? In my mind, this country is supposed to be founded on individual freedom- the freedom to speak, to act, to think and along those lines we should have the freedom to ingest whatever we want. Is it the governments job to stop someone from doing drugs, even if its "destroying" them? Or is it their right to destroy themselves and our collective responsibility to make sure that they do so in a matter that directly negatively effects the least people? I argue for the latter. It is no ones job but my OWN to take care of myself.
Well, if the drugs are clearly destroying someone, would you still give them drugs?
Note that I'm talking about non-retarded or handicapped ADULTS. No one is arguing that kids should do coke (I don't think?)
Yeah, but when this person starts affecting your quality of life, what to do? The downward spiral isnt pleasant. -
Guvna wrote: [quote=Carmen]I 150% agree with ^^^
Someohow I think "some" people who become inclined to get stoned by SOMETHING will choose the legal alternatives available, as opposed to going down a dangerous route to some crack dealer. If we make the crack dealer legal, this person now would be free to choose crack. Not all drugs are created equally. I dont think we need more crackheads out there.
And to ^^- why would you assume that legalizing "hard" drugs would cause more people to do them? Do you really feel like people who currently have no interest in smoking crack would run out and buy some if it were legal? I don't certain drugs not because of their illegality or even cost, but because I don't like how it makes me feel or act or even look. Similarly, I have done certain drugs because I enjoy the way they make me feel or act regardless of their legal status. If drugs were legalized sure, the first few years would cause a huge influx of drug users...but how is being a crackhead any worse than being a raging alcoholic? ASIDE from the fact that crackheads are classified as such because they steal/are broke or homeless/mug people etc...all of which are directly caused by the cost associated with the drug, which is DIRECTLY caused by the illegal status. Coke only costs hundreds of dollars per use because it's illegal and dangerous to produce and transport, not because the drug itself is super expensive to make...
Also, how can you dismiss the first few years of legalization so easily?
Check out what I wrote about crackheads- what makes a crackhead worse than an alcoholic? Why would you prefer someone be drunk driving than driving on crack? Or heroin? Or meth or blow or x or whatever. It's all mind altering, it's all dangerous.
And I don't dismiss it easily- it would be difficult, but I think that the impact that it would have on so many aspects of not only our country but also the world would make it worth the transition period.
It's a pretty basic concept of supply and demand- people want to get high. You can't cut out the supply as long as there is a demand- maybe we, as a society, should focus on figuring out WHY people want to get high and what we can do to alleviate the depression and the poverty and the anxiety and the cultural void that encompasses this country's very dna. Only then will we lose the demand and then the supply. As long as people want drugs, SOMEONE will provide them. -
Guvna wrote: [quote=Carmen][quote=Guvna]
This is a part of a broader, larger and more universal argument I think- who's responsibility is it to "protect" someone from themselves? In my mind, this country is supposed to be founded on individual freedom- the freedom to speak, to act, to think and along those lines we should have the freedom to ingest whatever we want. Is it the governments job to stop someone from doing drugs, even if its "destroying" them? Or is it their right to destroy themselves and our collective responsibility to make sure that they do so in a matter that directly negatively effects the least people? I argue for the latter. It is no ones job but my OWN to take care of myself.
Well, if the drugs are clearly destroying someone, would you still give them drugs?
Note that I'm talking about non-retarded or handicapped ADULTS. No one is arguing that kids should do coke (I don't think?)
Yeah, but when this person starts affecting your quality of life, what to do? The downward spiral isnt pleasant.
Tell me exactly how they would negatively affect my quality of life if drugs were legalized. -
Carmen wrote: [quote=Guvna][quote=Carmen]I 150% agree with ^^^
Someohow I think "some" people who become inclined to get stoned by SOMETHING will choose the legal alternatives available, as opposed to going down a dangerous route to some crack dealer. If we make the crack dealer legal, this person now would be free to choose crack. Not all drugs are created equally. I dont think we need more crackheads out there.
And to ^^- why would you assume that legalizing "hard" drugs would cause more people to do them? Do you really feel like people who currently have no interest in smoking crack would run out and buy some if it were legal? I don't certain drugs not because of their illegality or even cost, but because I don't like how it makes me feel or act or even look. Similarly, I have done certain drugs because I enjoy the way they make me feel or act regardless of their legal status. If drugs were legalized sure, the first few years would cause a huge influx of drug users...but how is being a crackhead any worse than being a raging alcoholic? ASIDE from the fact that crackheads are classified as such because they steal/are broke or homeless/mug people etc...all of which are directly caused by the cost associated with the drug, which is DIRECTLY caused by the illegal status. Coke only costs hundreds of dollars per use because it's illegal and dangerous to produce and transport, not because the drug itself is super expensive to make...
Also, how can you dismiss the first few years of legalization so easily?
Check out what I wrote about crackheads- what makes a crackhead worse than an alcoholic? Why would you prefer someone be drunk driving than driving on crack? Or heroin? Or meth or blow or x or whatever. It's all mind altering, it's all dangerous.
And I don't dismiss it easily- it would be difficult, but I think that the impact that it would have on so many aspects of not only our country but also the world would make it worth the transition period.
It's a pretty basic concept of supply and demand- people want to get high. You can't cut out the supply as long as there is a demand- maybe we, as a society, should focus on figuring out WHY people want to get high and what we can do to alleviate the depression and the poverty and the anxiety and the cultural void that encompasses this country's very dna. Only then will we lose the demand and then the supply. As long as people want drugs, SOMEONE will provide them.
Alcoholics/crackheads = all the same. People who have lost all control. Addiction does that. Do you see the legalization of alcohol as a success? It is an utter tragedy that idiots nationwide can go and freely buy liquor, get hammered, then stumble into their cars and kill people. I enjoy a drink from time to time, but do we actually NEED liquor? Consider the deaths attributed to drunk driving. Were they WORTH our "freedom" to choose to get drunk? I'm not convinced.
As for quality of life: Drug addicts tend to have trouble holding onto their jobs. Then they lose their homes, and then they stop bathing. They end up stinking, and getting in your face for money. Now, if the government doesnt step in, who will? Or should we just wait until they rot and die? Afterall, it is their fault for deciding to get high, as consenting adults. -
Guvna wrote: [quote=Carmen][quote=Guvna][quote=Carmen]I 150% agree with ^^^
Someohow I think "some" people who become inclined to get stoned by SOMETHING will choose the legal alternatives available, as opposed to going down a dangerous route to some crack dealer. If we make the crack dealer legal, this person now would be free to choose crack. Not all drugs are created equally. I dont think we need more crackheads out there.
And to ^^- why would you assume that legalizing "hard" drugs would cause more people to do them? Do you really feel like people who currently have no interest in smoking crack would run out and buy some if it were legal? I don't certain drugs not because of their illegality or even cost, but because I don't like how it makes me feel or act or even look. Similarly, I have done certain drugs because I enjoy the way they make me feel or act regardless of their legal status. If drugs were legalized sure, the first few years would cause a huge influx of drug users...but how is being a crackhead any worse than being a raging alcoholic? ASIDE from the fact that crackheads are classified as such because they steal/are broke or homeless/mug people etc...all of which are directly caused by the cost associated with the drug, which is DIRECTLY caused by the illegal status. Coke only costs hundreds of dollars per use because it's illegal and dangerous to produce and transport, not because the drug itself is super expensive to make...
Also, how can you dismiss the first few years of legalization so easily?
Check out what I wrote about crackheads- what makes a crackhead worse than an alcoholic? Why would you prefer someone be drunk driving than driving on crack? Or heroin? Or meth or blow or x or whatever. It's all mind altering, it's all dangerous.
And I don't dismiss it easily- it would be difficult, but I think that the impact that it would have on so many aspects of not only our country but also the world would make it worth the transition period.
It's a pretty basic concept of supply and demand- people want to get high. You can't cut out the supply as long as there is a demand- maybe we, as a society, should focus on figuring out WHY people want to get high and what we can do to alleviate the depression and the poverty and the anxiety and the cultural void that encompasses this country's very dna. Only then will we lose the demand and then the supply. As long as people want drugs, SOMEONE will provide them.
Alcoholics/crackheads = all the same. People who have lost all control. Addiction does that. Do you see the legalization of alcohol as a success? It is an utter tragedy that idiots nationwide can go and freely buy liquor, get hammered, then stumble into their cars and kill people. I enjoy a drink from time to time, but do we actually NEED liquor? Consider the deaths attributed to drunk driving. Were they WORTH our "freedom" to choose to get drunk? I'm not convinced.
As for quality of life: Drug addicts tend to have trouble holding onto their jobs. Then they lose their homes, and then they stop bathing. They end up stinking, and getting in your face for money. Now, if the government doesnt step in, who will? Or should we just wait until they rot and die? Afterall, it is their fault for deciding to get high, as consenting adults.
Alcoholics have trouble holding jobs too and the reson mots of them get in your face for money is because drugs are WAY more expensive than alcohol- how many alcoholics who have lose their homes do you know? Prob not many- but is that because alcohol is somehow not as bad or because its cheap enough to be able to afford to be an alcoholic and have a semi-normal financial existance? Why do people assume its something about crack as a drug that causes people to turn into "crackheads"- crack is COCAINE just like the white powder rich kids use is cocaine. Yeah its a different form of ingestion and thus a different high but crack isn't some demon of a drug that goes out and steals people's lives- and I assert that the types of people who CHOSE to start smoking crack are different than the types if people who chose to be alcohlics, not because of their drug use but because they are almost willing to delve into that drugs culture- I do not know a SINGLE person who has become an addict who were totally "normal" and happy before. The stories of the straight-a student and prom queen suddenly turning into meth addicts "out of the blue" are just not true. -
I respectfully disagree with you, Carmen. Addiction is addiction and yes, alcoholics can lose their home and destroy their lives just as easily as a crackhead. Once your life spirals out of control, and it doesn't matter HOW it happens, you are seeing the powerful destructiveness of addiction.
I believe in regulation of certain drugs. Marijuana, for sure. Mushrooms, something to consider. I look at Holland as an example of a progressive stance on these substances. I suppose the difference between these and substances such as cocaine, crack, and heroine is the addictive nature of the latter-mentioned drugs. -
Carmen wrote: [quote=Guvna][quote=Carmen][quote=Guvna][quote=Carmen]I 150% agree with ^^^
Someohow I think "some" people who become inclined to get stoned by SOMETHING will choose the legal alternatives available, as opposed to going down a dangerous route to some crack dealer. If we make the crack dealer legal, this person now would be free to choose crack. Not all drugs are created equally. I dont think we need more crackheads out there.
And to ^^- why would you assume that legalizing "hard" drugs would cause more people to do them? Do you really feel like people who currently have no interest in smoking crack would run out and buy some if it were legal? I don't certain drugs not because of their illegality or even cost, but because I don't like how it makes me feel or act or even look. Similarly, I have done certain drugs because I enjoy the way they make me feel or act regardless of their legal status. If drugs were legalized sure, the first few years would cause a huge influx of drug users...but how is being a crackhead any worse than being a raging alcoholic? ASIDE from the fact that crackheads are classified as such because they steal/are broke or homeless/mug people etc...all of which are directly caused by the cost associated with the drug, which is DIRECTLY caused by the illegal status. Coke only costs hundreds of dollars per use because it's illegal and dangerous to produce and transport, not because the drug itself is super expensive to make...
Also, how can you dismiss the first few years of legalization so easily?
Check out what I wrote about crackheads- what makes a crackhead worse than an alcoholic? Why would you prefer someone be drunk driving than driving on crack? Or heroin? Or meth or blow or x or whatever. It's all mind altering, it's all dangerous.
And I don't dismiss it easily- it would be difficult, but I think that the impact that it would have on so many aspects of not only our country but also the world would make it worth the transition period.
It's a pretty basic concept of supply and demand- people want to get high. You can't cut out the supply as long as there is a demand- maybe we, as a society, should focus on figuring out WHY people want to get high and what we can do to alleviate the depression and the poverty and the anxiety and the cultural void that encompasses this country's very dna. Only then will we lose the demand and then the supply. As long as people want drugs, SOMEONE will provide them.
Alcoholics/crackheads = all the same. People who have lost all control. Addiction does that. Do you see the legalization of alcohol as a success? It is an utter tragedy that idiots nationwide can go and freely buy liquor, get hammered, then stumble into their cars and kill people. I enjoy a drink from time to time, but do we actually NEED liquor? Consider the deaths attributed to drunk driving. Were they WORTH our "freedom" to choose to get drunk? I'm not convinced.
As for quality of life: Drug addicts tend to have trouble holding onto their jobs. Then they lose their homes, and then they stop bathing. They end up stinking, and getting in your face for money. Now, if the government doesnt step in, who will? Or should we just wait until they rot and die? Afterall, it is their fault for deciding to get high, as consenting adults.
Alcoholics have trouble holding jobs too and the reson mots of them get in your face for money is because drugs are WAY more expensive than alcohol- how many alcoholics who have lose their homes do you know? Prob not many- but is that because alcohol is somehow not as bad or because its cheap enough to be able to afford to be an alcoholic and have a semi-normal financial existance? Why do people assume its something about crack as a drug that causes people to turn into "crackheads"- crack is COCAINE just like the white powder rich kids use is cocaine. Yeah its a different form of ingestion and thus a different high but crack isn't some demon of a drug that goes out and steals people's lives- and I assert that the types of people who CHOSE to start smoking crack are different than the types if people who chose to be alcohlics, not because of their drug use but because they are almost willing to delve into that drugs culture- I do not know a SINGLE person who has become an addict who were totally "normal" and happy before. The stories of the straight-a student and prom queen suddenly turning into meth addicts "out of the blue" are just not true.
That hasnt been true in my experience. I have seen alcoholics fired for coming to work drunk. I am no expert on drugs, but I have found that most folks who like a drink can usually pull it together just enough to keep their jobs, at least for a while. Conversely, crackheads simply fall to pieces. Something tells me that crack is far more powerful, though alcohol can have that effect on certain people too. Anyway, the point stands that when addicted to either, people get fired. When you have no job, you quickly take a turn for the worst. Then they get in peoples faces for money. The cost of illegal crack only affects the amount of time they spend getting in peoples faces, versus the amount of time they would spend if crack was legal. In both cases they would still need the money to buy it, no matter what the cost. We are not talking about productive members of society here. These are hopeless addicts. Who will give them money for food, housing, AND drugs? -
stacey wrote: I don't know if legalizing drugs would ever work. I personally would not like a doctor to operate on me after smoking a joint or taking a hit off a crack pipe, nor would I like the police officers senses dulled by weed or on the other hand have them all jacked up on coke.
How would you feel about a doctor operating on you after a twelve-martini lunch, or police offers with senses dulled by Stella Artois or wigged out on tequila? -
queencallipygos wrote: [quote=stacey]I don't know if legalizing drugs would ever work. I personally would not like a doctor to operate on me after smoking a joint or taking a hit off a crack pipe, nor would I like the police officers senses dulled by weed or on the other hand have them all jacked up on coke.
How would you feel about a doctor operating on you after a twelve-martini lunch, or police offers with senses dulled by Stella Artois or wigged out on tequila?
I would feel the same way and that was the point I was making - its hard enough worrying about alcohol - add to that drugs now and how do we determine, without violating anyone's rights, who is doing what? I do believe in legalizing drugs and having them prescribed to you (i.e., marijuana) but to just legalize them without any type of restrictions would be devastating. -
stacey wrote: [quote=queencallipygos][quote=stacey]I don't know if legalizing drugs would ever work. I personally would not like a doctor to operate on me after smoking a joint or taking a hit off a crack pipe, nor would I like the police officers senses dulled by weed or on the other hand have them all jacked up on coke.
How would you feel about a doctor operating on you after a twelve-martini lunch, or police offers with senses dulled by Stella Artois or wigged out on tequila?
I would feel the same way and that was the point I was making - its hard enough worrying about alcohol - add to that drugs now and how do we determine, without violating anyone's rights, who is doing what? I do believe in legalizing drugs and having them prescribed to you (i.e., marijuana) but to just legalize them without any type of restrictions would be devastating.
My point, though, is that no such restrictions exist on alcohol. If you believe in restricting drugs because "it's hard enough worrying about alcohol", why not PUT restrictions on alcohol? -
Guvna wrote:
We tried making alcohol illegal. What we got was the birth of organized crime, hundreds of people dying from poorly manufactured bathtub gin, and millions wasted on law enforcement to combat the sale of booze. This is essentially what's happening with the War on Drugs. And it's been going on for decades, without improvement.
Alcoholics/crackheads = all the same. People who have lost all control. Addiction does that. Do you see the legalization of alcohol as a success? It is an utter tragedy that idiots nationwide can go and freely buy liquor, get hammered, then stumble into their cars and kill people. I enjoy a drink from time to time, but do we actually NEED liquor? Consider the deaths attributed to drunk driving. Were they WORTH our "freedom" to choose to get drunk? I'm not convinced.As for quality of life: Drug addicts tend to have trouble holding onto their jobs. Then they lose their homes, and then they stop bathing. They end up stinking, and getting in your face for money. Now, if the government doesnt step in, who will? Or should we just wait until they rot and die? Afterall, it is their fault for deciding to get high, as consenting adults.
Oh noes! They get in our faces for money!
How bout we give them treatment? It's far cheaper than spending billions on the DEA and prisons to lock up nonviolent drug offenders. We'd be SAVING money, not spending more. Why not treat it the same as cigarettes? Yes, it's legal, but we as a society do everything we can to encourage them to stop, even to the point of making it socially unacceptable. We don't let lung cancer patients lie on the street to rot away.
And look at this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21678030/WASHINGTON - Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.
Add to this the huge number of homeless ex convicts, and you have a lot of homeless people who were fucked up long before they ever lit a joint or shot up. And the government had a large part in that process.
But back to cigarettes: Diseases caused by tobacco products kill 435,000 people a year. Illicit drugs, all of the combined, cause less than 20,000. It's obvious which is the greater burden to America. So why is that legal, but not crack? -
not getting enough sleep with inhibit your performance to the same degree as being drunk or otherwise high
I just don't trust Budweiser or similar large distributer to advertise crystal meth responsibly. I think American society could handle marajuana on a legal market now.
As to the gang stuff, nothing will change until the kids realize that being a criminal is giving money to the corporations building all these megaprisons. They are just feeding the portfolio of some rich guys out west. -
one thing to consider is how physically addictive a drug is. alcohol is psychologically addictive for many people, but you have to get into pretty serious consumption before physical addiction becomes an issue. so your alcoholic surgeon has an easier time taking a day off than your heroin-addicted surgeon would.
of course, heroin's nothing compared to cigarettes, but whatever their other myriad evils (and believe me, i hate them a LOT), cigarettes have far less impact on judgment than some of our currently illegal pals do.
in terms of the cost of health care in this country, it's worth considering that coke and many of the other uppers can hurt bodies much more quickly than alcohol or cigarettes. obviously, it's possible that legalization would not lead to more users, but if it were to, consider in your calculations that these consenting adults may be parents whose children cannot consent to be orphaned by cocaine heart attacks. children's welfare is in the monetary interest of the state, in both the short and long term.
regardless of whether you think legalization would lead to more people intending to use drugs over the long term, i think we can agree that it would likely lead to people feeling more free to try a drug once just to see what it is like. (i'll name myself as someone who really is constrained in my behavior my legal issues. you can also include at least some proportion of the people whose on-job/playing field testing or ambitions (say, politics) hold them back.)
how many people do you know who have said something like "i tried smoking once when i was a teenager, just to see what it was like, and it was so perfect for me that i couldn't quit for years/ever"? i know quite a few. consider that some of the drugs we're talking about have similar addiction potential to cigarettes. in the short term, spending 5 years smoking cigarettes isn't likely to have a big negative effect on most of your life (including your years of earning money and contributing to the income tax base). yes, it may shorten your lifespan, but that's later. some of the other drugs we're discussing are not so delayed in their consequences.
i'm not sure i'm opposed to legalization, but these thoughts give me pause.
the rhetoric of crack vs. coke i will give you as a class issue. but consider that if anything gives us a hint of what happens when drugs become cheap, its crack -
Drug legalization (of all drugs, even crack) is an important first step if our collective goal is to decrease drug dependency and violence. BUT it can't be done in a vacuum.
Right now, lots of people use and abuse drugs, including doctors and police officers, etc, but we don't see much of that activity. Many, many people who use and sell do so behind closed doors with relative impunity.
(me included!)
Instead, we scapegoat certain kinds of drug use/sales, so that we may feel secure in our knowledge that drug offenders are:
1. different than us (they're young black men who live in projects, of course!)
2. safely behind bars!
This creates a nasty little subculture that glamorizes drugs, drug money and drug violence, and leaves all those other users to wrestle more or less quietly with their addictions, which have an added illicit taint that can make help seem further away than it actually is.
Legalizing/decriminalizing drugs in Holland works because there is a social system in place for drug abusers, who Dutch society has decided are *people*. Junkies still go to the doctor, are much more likely to be seeing people regularly that can help them get off drugs. Drug use is tolerated but not condoned, and abuse is seen largely as a medical problem that it makes no sense to hide.
Americans, unlike the Dutch, are both intensely moralistic and compulsively independent. In our culture as it exists today, legalizing drugs would force a wave of bureaucracy and social service that nobody would tolerate.
I think that's too bad. -
BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: [quote=Guvna]
We tried making alcohol illegal. What we got was the birth of organized crime, hundreds of people dying from poorly manufactured bathtub gin, and millions wasted on law enforcement to combat the sale of booze. This is essentially what's happening with the War on Drugs. And it's been going on for decades, without improvement.
Alcoholics/crackheads = all the same. People who have lost all control. Addiction does that. Do you see the legalization of alcohol as a success? It is an utter tragedy that idiots nationwide can go and freely buy liquor, get hammered, then stumble into their cars and kill people. I enjoy a drink from time to time, but do we actually NEED liquor? Consider the deaths attributed to drunk driving. Were they WORTH our "freedom" to choose to get drunk? I'm not convinced.As for quality of life: Drug addicts tend to have trouble holding onto their jobs. Then they lose their homes, and then they stop bathing. They end up stinking, and getting in your face for money. Now, if the government doesnt step in, who will? Or should we just wait until they rot and die? Afterall, it is their fault for deciding to get high, as consenting adults.
Oh noes! They get in our faces for money!
How bout we give them treatment? It's far cheaper than spending billions on the DEA and prisons to lock up nonviolent drug offenders. We'd be SAVING money, not spending more. Why not treat it the same as cigarettes? Yes, it's legal, but we as a society do everything we can to encourage them to stop, even to the point of making it socially unacceptable. We don't let lung cancer patients lie on the street to rot away.
And look at this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21678030/WASHINGTON - Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.
Add to this the huge number of homeless ex convicts, and you have a lot of homeless people who were fucked up long before they ever lit a joint or shot up. And the government had a large part in that process.
But back to cigarettes: Diseases caused by tobacco products kill 435,000 people a year. Illicit drugs, all of the combined, cause less than 20,000. It's obvious which is the greater burden to America. So why is that legal, but not crack?
Seriously, most of us know about prohibition. That doesnt make having liquor freely available to idiots righ though, does it? There has to be a better way than simply reacting to people getting mowed down by drunkards.
As for treatment, why is it assumed that treatment and keeping drugs illegal are mutually exclusive? Call me crazy, but I cannot stand being harassed by smelly drunks/crackheads. That does not mean that I am against them getting treatment. Far from it. HOWEVER, it was suggested earlier that those who choose to get high are adults and can do what the hell they want, so long as it doesnt affect others. Well, harassing other people DOES affect others. Then comes the whole issue of what to do with them once we so proudly allow them to exercise their right to get high and become addicts. Legalization under that approach will create more problems than solutions, in my view.
IF, for arguments sake, we legalize hard drugs, how does that benefit addicts? Sure it lowers the price, stops the arrests, but it also makes it ridiculously easy to get more of the very stuff that messed them up in the first place! Treatment? You have to be kidding. For that treatment to work, you'd need a "boot camp" environment, and even then, what the hell chance do they have once they get out and walk down the street to their local crack-selling pharmacy/bodega/liquor store, government office? No, the only justification for legalization of hard drugs under that model would be to take the profit from the gangs and give it to the government, who will then piss it away on ineffective treatment? deny treatment to addicts? Then you are back to square one, because then the illegal market will return.
Dont get me started on tobacco, or our treatment of vets! -
I don't have time at the moment to respond (again) but I wanted to jump in and say that I'm glad this thread exists and it's brought hope back to this board- intelligent debates DO still exist on brooklynian!! Even in the bedstuy forum!
-
BedStuyDoOrDie wrote:
yup. and so did drugs -- sometimes supplied by the government, sometimes used later to self-medicate the effects of that war. but that statistic doesn't prove that those vets are not on the street in part bc of drugs.
And look at this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21678030/WASHINGTON - Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.
Add to this the huge number of homeless ex convicts, and you have a lot of homeless people who were fucked up long before they ever lit a joint or shot up. And the government had a large part in that process.
as for "fucked up before they ever lit a joint or shot up" -- this sounds related to your very well-put argument in a different thread about the problems with giving up on people who have bad troubles. seems like this time you're arguing the other side, though. -
sweet tea wrote: [quote=BedStuyDoOrDie]
yup. and so did drugs -- sometimes supplied by the government, sometimes used later to self-medicate the effects of that war. but that statistic doesn't prove that those vets are not on the street in part bc of drugs.
And look at this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21678030/WASHINGTON - Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.
Add to this the huge number of homeless ex convicts, and you have a lot of homeless people who were fucked up long before they ever lit a joint or shot up. And the government had a large part in that process.
Yes. But it's our government's duty to make sure vets don't end up homeless/insane/drug addicted at such ridiculously high levels.as for "fucked up before they ever lit a joint or shot up" -- this sounds related to your very well-put argument in a different thread about the problems with giving up on people who have bad troubles. seems like this time you're arguing the other side, though.
My point was that alcohol isn't the "x factor" messing up their lives. Alcohol is just their method of self destruction. We should be asking ourselves what drives people to sit on the sidewalk, in the cold, and drink for hours on end. something went wrong somewhere down the road, and we as a nation/city/borough should try and fix it.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds