A good article on what happens when you let criminals control the soft drug market -- murders for no reason. If weed was legal, you can bet that nobody would be killing each other over territory; it would just be yet another thing you could buy at Starbucks or the corner convenience store.
"A good article on what happens when you let criminals control the soft drug market -- murders for no reason. If weed was legal, you can bet that nobody would be killing each other over territory; it would just be yet another thing you could buy at Starbucks or the corner convenience store."
If weed was legalized, the dealers would just move onto something heavier, like cocaine. Not only that, but the weed you get from the government would have to be regulated and it wouldn't be the same as the stuff you get on the streets, which would still result in dealers selling it illegally.
When you can't get it at starbucks (which probably won't happen unless they get a license) or as easily as you want it, will you still buy from a dealer down the street?
The problem I see is that many of the pro-marijuana users are just like the pro-piracy people. They won't stop until they get exactly what they want, which is just unrealistic.
When music piracy first came to the masses in '99 (I know it was around well before this), the main argument was that music was too expensive and the artists were getting screwed. Now that you can get music for 99 cents and the artist can sell it without a recording contract, piracy is worse than ever and there are a whole new set of excuses.
This is why I believe that the illegal sale of pot will never stop unless it's completely unregulated, which will never happen.
We also don't have any really good long-term studies regarding pot. Cigarettes cause cancer. Do we really want to legalize another substance that does the same thing or worse?
You also seem to shift the blame of the violence on the government. So, it's the government's fault that kids decided to sell pot illegally, make shit-tons of money, and attempt to get another dealer killed (and get killed in the process). They could have somehow magically prevented the situation by legalizing pot.
It's this kind of thinking that has blamed the cigarette companies for killing people when in reality, we all have free will. If you start smoking tomorrow, it's your own fault if you get cancer, not the company that sold it to you.
>Not only that, but the weed you get from the government would have to be regulated and it wouldn't be the same as the stuff you get on the streets, which would still result in dealers selling it illegally.
If this were true, wouldn't you also expect to see more alcohol dealers on the streets?
>Do we really want to legalize another substance that does the same thing or worse?
By this argument, we should just make everything that causes harm illegal. Hammers, knives, cars, etc kill people, should we make them illegal? What about prescription drugs? What about alcohol? Alcohol is an infinitely more dangerous substance than marijuana.
> Now that you can get music for 99 cents and the artist can sell it without a recording contract, piracy is worse than ever and there are a whole new set of excuses.
Have you ever talked to an artist about what their percentage take on an online sale is verses a CD sale? (Hint: it's less) Have you ever investigated how hard it is to get listed on Amazon or in iTunes unless you are on a major or minor label (RIAA-member or not)? Don't think that these issues are 'magically' resolved just because one can now buy music for a reasonable price in an ala carte manner.
You've presented the 'main argument' as having two distinct issues: 1) music was too expensive and 2) the artists are getting screwed. Music is now more reasonably priced (though they still haven't offered anything at lossless quality other than a few gimmicky promotional sales), but the artists are still getting screwed. The issue of artists getting screwed will probably not resolve itself until the major record labels are out of business (or their operations are seriously scaled back). There needs to be more competition between labels for artists, and artists need to be more aware of the predatory practices that the major labels use in recruiting.
If weed was legalized, the dealers would just move onto something heavier, like cocaine. Not only that, but the weed you get from the government would have to be regulated and it wouldn't be the same as the stuff you get on the streets, which would still result in dealers selling it illegally.
If weed was legalized, dealers would be shit out of lock for product to sell. They would not be able to compete with industrial corporations pumping out perfectly rolled marijuana cigarettes (joints), scaled operations, marketing/brand trust, and distribution. This wipes out tax dollars wasted on weed enforcement from police on the ground to clogs in the justice system, and in fact raises tax revenue for states (see California). If dealers decide to switch to serving harder drugs, they would only saturate existing cocaine/meth/heroin markets. Thats a big IF, because those drug productions are not as simple as growing plants and are significantly harder to enter at a big scale.
We also don't have any really good long-term studies regarding pot. Cigarettes cause cancer. Do we really want to legalize another substance that does the same thing or worse?
We have thousands of years of marijuana usage in humans. We have studies, just uneducated people.
Marijuana fights lung cancer:
"The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.ht...
Marijuana fights brain cancer:
"THC, causes brain cancer cells to undergo a process called autophagy. Autophagy is the breakdown of a cell that occurs when the cell essentially self-digests.
The team discovered that cannabinoids such as THC had anticancer effects in mice with human brain cancer cells and people with brain tumors. When mice with the human brain cancer cells received the THC, the tumor growth shrank."
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marij...
Marijuana fights breast cancer:
"A compound found in cannabis may stop breast cancer from spreading throughout the body, according to a new study by scientists at California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute. The researchers are hopeful that the compound called CBD, which is found in cannabis sativa, could be a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312132,00.html
You also seem to shift the blame of the violence on the government. So, it's the government's fault that kids decided to sell pot illegally, make shit-tons of money, and attempt to get another dealer killed (and get killed in the process). They could have somehow magically prevented the situation by legalizing pot.
An economics 101 class would do wonders for anyone and everyone. When something is illegal to have, there is a risk of being caught. When theres a risk of being caught, you need incentive to put your ass on the line. When the incentives are big money and fast money, people start getting crazy. Gangs and organized crime get involved, and shit goes down. Why aren't gangs killing each other over tobacco and alcohol dealing?
> Why aren't gangs killing each other over tobacco and alcohol dealing?
[sarcasm] Because tobacco and alcohol are gifts directly from God, but pot gets shipped into the country on the express train from Hell packaged by none other than the Devil himself. Anyone that even looks at a joint is touched by the hand of the Devil and must be purged. [/sarcasm]
It never fails to amaze me how people seem to deny/forget that alcohol and tobacco/nicotine are drugs too. They just happen to be drugs that were sanctioned by the government as 'legal' instead of 'illegal.' Marijuana was added to the list of drugs in the 1920's (IIRC). Do you really think that there was much scientific though/research put behind that? Hardly. [Note: It was made illegal by an act of Congress so I'm sure you can search the archives for the minutes of the session] It was 100% a political decision, the same as the 'child porn' witch-hunts that we have today (where we are charging sex-ting teens as child pornographers). And because it's illegal it makes it even harder for researchers to actually do research on marijuana since they have to jump through all sorts of red tape just to make it legal for them to have it.
I knew a lot of these types of drug dealers when I was that age in the mid 90s. It's mind boggling that they got so big so fast. It starts to get pretty dangerous by the time you're moving just a couple thousand a week, first from gangs, but then from the DEA. They're lucky they didn't get killed.
I posted a book review about a guy with a similar story, except he dealt cocaine, and got a 25 year sentence. His book, however, focuses mostly on life behind bars; it doesn't detail any of the glory days.
A fascinating story, but singularly disheartening. One of the main characters regrets nothing of leading a life of crime, and the author is willing to give him the final say. This is moral laxity. He plays up the drama to the point where the story is entertainment, and therefore transmits nothing.
Let me write my own end then: some people will never regret their evil actions, even if they are caught. These people should be avoided because ruin travels closely on their heels.
Dealing marijuana doesn't make you an evil person. You should reconsider what you believe to be a "life of crime". He took advantage of a system that doesn't work (marijuana prohibition) and got rich for it.
Laws against marijuana don't make sense. Millions of people are incarcerated for simple possession. Prohibition simply raises the profit margins for it, pushing dealing to organized crime, and eventually violence.
Who in the story was hurt by marijuana directly? No one. No one was evil for dealing drugs, just young and stupid.
The cops even were portrayed as having this same attitude. They figured those kids weren't hurting anybody and were relatively harmless small potatoes; but because they became more successful, the situation grew more and more untenable due to the higher exposure to increasingly shadier people.
"Laws against marijuana don't make sense. Millions of people are incarcerated for simple possession. Prohibition simply raises the profit margins for it, pushing dealing to organized crime, and eventually violence."
Millions for simple possession..really?
Unless you are dealing, most cops will not bother you. Many states now also will only slap you with a fine.
Anything illegal will have a black-market behind it. Prostitution, gambling, and even illegal fireworks. The only way to get rid of the organized crime and violence is to legalize everything that is illegal..which isn't very practical.
It's not really prohibition. It's illegal. Alcohol prohibition only lasted for 13 years. Marijuana and many other drugs have been illegal for 70+ years. Otherwise, we would say there is a prohibition on rape and murder.
Sorry, your points made no sense to me. Prohibition means prohibited which means illegal. Marijuana has been used throughout human history over thousands of years, and all of a sudden in 1920s its illegal. Legalizing and regulating things is actually quite practical. The government regulates tobacco, alcohol, firearms, pharmaceutical drugs, our food, the toys our children play with, etc.
You don't see organized crime killing each other over the alcohol and tobacco markets, thats because theres no profit for them, big companies scale better. Illicit drugs however, pay well.
As for the incarceration numbers: "According to the most recent figures available from the FBI, police arrested an estimated 786,545 people on marijuana charges in 2005 -- more than twice the number of Americans arrested just 12 years ago. Among those arrested, about 88 percent -- some 696,074 Americans -- were charged with possession only. The remaining 90,471 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use.
These totals are the highest ever recorded by the FBI, and make up 42.6 percent of all drug arrests in the United States. Nevertheless, self-reported pot use by adults, as well as the ready availability of marijuana on the black market, remains virtually unchanged."
Today, in the USA, dealing marijuana is a crime. Making a (highly profitable) living off dealing marijuana is, at the very least, a "career of crime".
The individuals in this story did much more than deal in marijuana - they set up a business, made huge amounts of money, wasted it, acted irresponsibly, and were finally caught. Furthermore, they celebrated their exploits. The point isn't that dealing marijuana is crime, the point is that no light has penetrated the thick skulls of these young men. It seems to me that it is possible but unlikely that they will come to see the error of their ways.
I think that you should refrain from calling them "evil actions." He was just a pot dealer/smuggler that got rich, then got caught because a rival 'kingpin' decided to escalate things to the next level. If anything it was the guy that escalated things (and ended up dead) that should be pointed to as the 'evil' one as well as the guys that he hired to hit his rivals.
If they had moved into dealing harder drugs, I might agree with calling their actions 'evil,' but not much comes out of pot other than a possible psychological addition.
> One of the main characters regrets nothing of leading a life of crime, and the author is willing to give him the final say. This is moral laxity.
You're also reading an article written for Rolling Stone magazine. Have you never heard the term "Sex, Drugs and Rock'n Roll?" Is it any wonder the tone of the article? I don't turn on Fox News and expect to hear things with a liberal slant to them.
You also seem to be falling into the trap of reading an article that has a spin on it that is the opposite of your own principles and wishing the article author to write the article with a spin on it that you approve of. Shouldn't we just be looking for journalism that has no (or little) bias in it rather than arguing which is the correct bias to use?
{update} As an addendum, do you consider the people that ran illegal alcohol operations during Prohibition to be evil people? What about the people that run/ran legal alcohol operations after Prohibition? Does your definition of 'evil' come down to "what the government deems to be legal/illegal?"
Ah, evil. Such an interesting concept. What is right and wrong, not only now but what will be looked upon as wrong in the future?
I would bet that pyre is right - these dealer/smugglers will not be considered evil if you look back on the situation in 100 years. Just as we do not consider someone running a speakeasy during Prohibition to be evil.
What will be considered evil is a very interesting concept. International oppression for resources, drastically different living standards based on luck and geography, over-consumption and waste?
But perhaps other items that you would not even expect. Elimination of languages and distinct cultures? Holding dolphins in captivity if we discover they are as intelligent as us but just lack the ability to use tools? The use of plastics?
Whatever the answers are - what the government deems to be legal/illegal is irrelevant when looking from that perspective.
In this article, Rolling Stone abused its cultural influence by glorifying career criminals. Young people read this magazine, and the technical quality of the articles is very very high. In my opinion, if you are going to write a crime story, then you have a moral obligation to conclude that crime does not pay. The article concludes that crime is an exciting adventure! Ridiculous!
Articles like this give pundits on the right fuel for the argument that liberals lack morals.
Making millions of dollars by dealing drugs, wasting money, and buying guns to protect your illegal operations is wrong.
> In my opinion, if you are going to write a crime story, then you have a moral obligation to conclude that crime does not pay.
What if you are writing an article about a criminal that got away with their crime due to gaming the system? Do you have a moral obligation to lie/distort the truth to try and show your audience that "crime does not pay?" Is so, then how is that any different than rewriting the history books to suit the social agendas that you want to achieve?
