jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (37 posts)

Do You Think Laws Create Crime and Violence

  1. profile image0
    awesome77posted 6 years ago

    Before you tell me we need laws to function as a society, my question is directed at those laws that are designed to control what we do to our body!

    Many products are known to be bad for you and then the govt creates laws to support some of the products and ban others!

    You can presently buy

    Cigarettes - known killer of millions yearly

    Alcohol - You can presently buy all kind of drinks - the health consequences destroys millions slowly yearly

    Gun - another deadly device greatly encouraged by the govt.

    Now, here comes Mr. smart ass politician trying to outlaw

    marijuana

    cocaine

    heroin

    ice

    etc!

    All the above products will kill you eventually, so why outlaw some and approve some! Please do not tell me one is worse than the other, because i can point to statistics to prove otherwise!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Can you provide a study where marijuana is worse than cigarettes.

      They didn't try and outlaw those things they did outlaw them.

      And now they should legalize them and create some revenue.

      That health care plan is gonna be a budget killer.

      1. kirstenblog profile image78
        kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I know you probably don't rate Harvard very highly but this is just the first link I found

        http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99 … lth_1.html


        Marijuana has often been touted as one of the safest recreational substances available. This is perhaps true; many reputable scientific studies support the conclusion that cocaine, heroine, alcohol, and even cigarettes are more dangerous to the user's health than marijuana. In addition, the celebrated pharmacological properties of cannabis have led thirty-six states to permit its use as a therapeutic drug for, among others, those suffering from AIDS; various painful, incurable and debilitating illnesses; the harmful side effects of cancer chemotherapy, and glaucoma. Additional research is being conducted concerning the use of marijuana on the treatment of anxiety and mental disorders.

      2. kirstenblog profile image78
        kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Second site I found, a new site reporting on scientific research.


        http://newsflavor.com/world/europe/scie … r-ecstasy/

        Professor Nutt, chairman of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College, London, and head of the Neuropsychopharmacology Unit at Bristol University, is now calling for the creation of an “index of harm,” to enable members of the public to compare the differences in danger levels between various drugs, both legal and illegal. In this index, alcohol would be considered the fifth most dangerous substance, after cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, and methadone. Cigarettes would be ranked number nine – higher than cannabis, LSD, and ecstasy, ranked  respectively at 11, 14, and 18. Drugs in the index are scored and ranked based on the physical harm they may cause the user, the likelihood of dependence, and harm caused to society.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm having a hard time with marijuana being more a hazardous substance than cigarettes especially considering all of the chemicals found in a cigarette.

          But, I read it on the internet so it must be true.

          1. fireplaceguy profile image59
            fireplaceguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I heard that the reason marijuana was outlawed was because alcohol sales after prohibition didn't come back to pre-prohibition rates. When the alcohol companies looked into it, they found that people had started using marijuana more heavily when they couldn't get alcohol. In economic terms, this is called a 'substitute' good. Back then, marijuana was legal and frequently prescribed by doctors.

            The alcohol companies then lobbied congress and had laws erected to outlaw marijuana possession. At that time, there was no one to defend marijuana. This naturally caused sales of alcohol to increase.

            The thing about this story is that, while plausible, I'm not sure how one would go about documenting and proving it. Still, it makes a good, plausible story.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Its possible, it was outlawed not too long after alcohol was legalized again.

              1. kirstenblog profile image78
                kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I have heard reports that it was the cotton industry that petitioned the government to ban the stuff as the hemp industry was working on a hemp gin (for mass production of cloth) and would threaten a very profitable industry. Either way it does sound very plausible. May be that the two industries helped each other out there.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I've read so many conflicting stories about why marijuana is illegal it's not even funny.

                  Some say it's because of Hearst's influence: he wanted to not have to worry about cheaper hemp paper threatening his wood pulping operations.

                  Some say it's because of the Cotton industry's influence: they didn't want cheap hemp fabric to compete with cotton.

                  Some say it's due to the pretroluem industry's influence: they didn't want hemp oil to compete with petroleum.

                  Some say it's because of racism: white leaders wanted an excuse to harass hispanics and blacks, who at the time were the main recreational  users of cannabis.

                  I doubt it was solely because of any one of these causes.

                  1. kirstenblog profile image78
                    kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I have heard a few of these theories, I suspect it was a little of each smile

                2. Jim Hunter profile image60
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I haven't smoked any in 40 years, a 4 finger lid cost 10 bucks.

                  Damn, I'm old.

          2. kirstenblog profile image78
            kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The links I provided state that cigarettes are more dangerous, seems when I read your request for links proving the opposite I got swapped around in what I thought you were asking for. As you got swapped around as to what my links are supporting, that cigarettes are indeed more dangerous then smoking pot. 

            I gotta say, I am not having the best day today, my concentration is all over the place. Tried to write a hub and got as far as creating a title for the first text capsule then realized I was not focusing and likely to write total crap. Just one of those days I guess hmm

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I thought what I read was saying it was worse.

              I didn't read too much of it though.

              Harvard doesn't have the best reputation. tongue

              1. kirstenblog profile image78
                kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I have heard people dis Harvard enough to think its not the best source to back an argument but it was at the top of my search big_smile

                I might be tired and unfocused but at least I know not to let Harvard studies alone back up an argument lol

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What about methamphetamines? I've heard they are quite harmful. Perhaps the worry is that they are so easy to produce from over-the-counter ingredients.

          Also, unjust laws or unjust law enforcement authorities do create alienation and violence by those suffering the injustice.

          1. lady_love158 profile image59
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Meth is NOT easy to produce and it's dangerous but yes you can do it in your kitchen with ingredients bought over the counter, but you could also blow yourself up. Perhaps that's another reason to make it legal.

      3. I am DB Cooper profile image70
        I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Wow Jim, for the first time ever on here I actually agree with most of what you said. Marijuana should be legalized and taxed. I'm not a current user nor do I plan on becoming a future user regardless of whether or not it's legal, but simple economics tells us the current black market equilibrium price of marijuana is much higher than the cost of growing it. That leaves plenty of room for a tax. There's also a significant cost savings from not having to arrest and process people caught carrying a joint. Jails and prisons are expensive.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          DB, it's important to realize that taxing--even highly taxing--marijuana sales will not be an important source of revenue.

          Much more important will be the reduction of expenses related to interdiction, prosecution and incarceration.

          This whole war on drugs thing has been a huge boondoogle, and turned people from productive citizens into prisoners.

          But yes, taxing the sales of recreational cannabis will be important to help enforce the health/safety laws that we'll need. I've heard stories about black market marijuana being laced with other drugs, either maliciously or as an 'extra kick,' and an unwitting user had a bad experience.

          1. profile image61
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Agree. The real cost savings is the in the interdiction and prosecution. My only concern is if it were leaglized the state and federal government would be so eager to tax it heavily. This would only keep the black market profitable. Cannibis is simply too easy to grow, therefore making it too difficult to regulate.

      4. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "And now they should legalize them and create some revenue."

        Here, Here, Jim! But legalization will help more by cutting the expense of enforcing a bad law than by creating a new source of tax revenue.

        It's nice to agree with you for a change. smile

    2. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Some laws do create the problem of violent crime others do not. In my opinion possession of anything should not be a crime. Certainly if drugs were legal, all drugs, then they wouldn't be so profitable to sell. It is the money that can be made from their sale due to an astronomical profit margin as a reult of their illegality that fuels violence with dealers willing to kill to protect their "turf". Of course there is a huge amount of maney to be made by making these substances illegal too from the (government) system, plus there is the diversion premium as politicians use the "drug problem" as an excuse to keep us ffrom seein how much they are stealing from us.

      1. kirstenblog profile image78
        kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Bravo!!!! *standing ovation*

        I think this is the first time I completely agree with you regarding a political or religious matter, I just love it when people of opposing views can agree on something! big_smile

        1. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I believe in freedom and personal responsibility and government that insures that we maintain both. It's pretty simple really.

          1. kirstenblog profile image78
            kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I share the desire to see these things, I think the difference comes into play when we get to the 'how' to make freedom and personal responsibility a reality smile

  2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Of course they do. Something can't be illegal if there is no law.

    But surely your question is asking 'do certain laws have the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of making situations worse'.

    Once again, the answer is "of course".

    This tenant of "unintended consequences" was a central point in a recent TV special:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsUZkxyYJUk

    And it's a central and critical aspect of the Austrian School of Economics (yes, there are different economic models out there. When you read something in the newspaper, it is almost assuredly a Neo-Classical take on Economic thought.)

    With drugs - if you make an entire industry unable to use the natural system of law, they will enforce the law the best way they can. This will lead to violence and further law problems.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, the short answer is that laws can create crime and violence.

      Anytime you outlaw something that people want to do, people will break that law.

  3. BillyDRitchie profile image61
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    Well, as much as I hate drugs, you rarely see a news story about a car accident being caused by someone who was high.  Almost always, if there is a cause, it's alcohol.

    Yeah, I've never understood why some things are acceptable and some aren't either.....

    1. kirstenblog profile image78
      kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have heard of stories of accidents happening while high. The problem is that it is very difficult to test a driver to see if they are actively high while driving. That said, just keep out of your car and I have no reason to care if you get high or not. With the price of the stuff I suspect it wont be long before you are selling your car tho lol

  4. I am DB Cooper profile image70
    I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago

    Any time a law makes something that people have a demand for illegal, a black market for that product is created. Because there is a lot of money exchanging hands in this black market and everything is done "under the table" without simple protections like an FDIC-insured bank account, there are going to be people trying to steal some of that money. Violence comes with that.

    Now, there is always a question of how violence levels with laws criminalizing drugs compare to what they would be without drug laws. I call this the "drugs turn people into violent animals" argument, and I think it's highly speculative. Very few "drug crimes" are committed by people who become violent under the influence of drugs. Most drug crimes are really just money crimes. People involved in the drug trade make money, other people try to steal it, violence ensues. In addition, there is very little evidence to suggest that drug use goes up when drugs are legalized.

  5. profile image61
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    what the heck is that?

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think Sydney got the stuff sprayed with paraquat.

      1. profile image61
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        HUH???

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They use to spray marijuana with paraquat..

          Never mind, its not a good joke if I have to explain it.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Is a paraquat like a kumquat that jumps out of airplanes?

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Something like that.

  6. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 6 years ago

    I remember reading a few years ago that something like 70% of the money passing through the City of London was drug related. As I doubt the City is that much worse than other stock markets it strikes me that governments will have a lot of pressure on them not to meddle with the drugs market.

 
working