[joel_perl_prog]

Just ask yourself one question: what did all the bootleggers do after alcohol prohibition was dropped? Exactly. There's a sort of twinge of classism (or even racism) in your comment, by the way.

The assumption that people who participate in a normal capitalist marketplace are inherently criminals is just silly. They do what they do because it's a bustling marketplace. Period.

[Natsu]

> Just ask yourself one question: what did all the bootleggers do after alcohol prohibition was dropped?

"Bootlegging helped lead to the establishment of American organized crime, which persisted long after the repeal of Prohibition. The distribution of liquor was necessarily more complex than other types of criminal activity, and organized gangs eventually arose that could control an entire local chain of bootlegging operations, from concealed distilleries and breweries through storage and transport channels to speakeasies, restaurants, nightclubs, and other retail outlets. These gangs tried to secure and enlarge territories in which they had a monopoly of distribution. Gradually the gangs in different cities began to cooperate with each other, and they extended their methods of organizing beyond bootlegging to the narcotics traffic, gambling rackets, prostitution, labour racketeering, loan-sharking, and extortion. The national American crime syndicate, the Mafia, arose out of the coordinated activities of Italian bootleggers and other gangsters in New York City in the late 1920s and early ’30s."

Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/73745/bootlegging

[joel_perl_prog]

Well, so some of them moved on to other activities that also shouldn't be criminalized, then. I speak about gambling. Which is de-facto legal now, because of how many Indian casinos there are in so many states. Prostitution? We have a long way to go in decriminalizing this. But slight progress is being made. Just another stupid moralizing law that achieves nothing.

Now as to protection rackets, extortion, etc. These would remain unaffected, most likely.

But can we agree that at least some (perhaps most) of the enterprises they moved into, most of the total crime these criminals are responsible for, are just also yet more normal human activities that should never have been illegal?

Can we also agree that decriminalizing normal human behaviors, while it won't eliminate all crime (that was never a claim I made), it will reduce the total overall amount of crime? How could it not?

When everything is illegal, we are all criminals.

[Natsu]

It's tautological to say that decriminalizing things reduces crime. It would be more productive to do a cost benefit analysis. Most of the advocacy I've seen is starry-eyed and simply ignores or rejects the idea that the social costs--for example marginally or completely unemployable addicts. There's a fair point that this is true of legal drugs (alcohol) but it's not something we should want to expand (c.f. drunk driving), so it should be advocated according to a reasonable analysis of the trade-offs.

[joel_perl_prog]

Yes. I am very simply saying that if certain vices (not sure how I even feel about employing that word, actually) were made legal, then by definition many of us would cease being criminals. Sure. It's pretty simple. Seems almost stupidly simple. But I argue that the actual situation we face really is just this simple. These should never have been illegal.

The analysis is being performed in my state right now. Re: legal pot. And the results, although only about 5 months' worth, are overwhelmingly clear: legalizing has zero negative consequences, while also having huge benefits; the benefits being both financial and of course, the big win is for the people, who are no longer being oppressed by counter-productive, society-damaging law.

What if it's not as complicated as we've been led to believe, in other words? Could that be? Could it actually be as simple as legalization? I argue yes, it is.

[nmjohn]

While I agree that the statement is tautological, it isn't necessarily irrelevant. Consider this. People who are released from prison are significantly more likely to commit another crime landing them back in prison than the average person. On one hand,some might conclude that it simply is because those in prison have some sort of inclination towards that life and simply are an ill fit for the society in which we live.

On the other hand, what if that wasn't really the case, what if it was how desensitized to hatred and violence most prisoners become after a stay in prison. And it was this desensitization combined with the relationships formed in prison, which inherently only could be with other "criminals," that led to an increased propensity to commit a crime?

If that were the case, then decriminalizing things reduces crime, not only by it's tautological implication, but because it reduces the desensitizing effects prison has, leading to the in-and-out cycle experienced by many in the prison system.

I recognize that the world is not 100% like the case I presented, but I would argue the truth lies somewhere in between (like it does in most issues) and that decriminalization or alternative punishments (especially with teens) have potential to significantly reduce crime, by all rights, both in number and it's relative proportion to the hypothetical rate pre-decriminalization.

[Natsu]

Yes, I can agree that prison is sub-optimal and I would like to sees more reform. On the other hand, having had a family member violently murdered, I would like to point out that the rest of us should have the right not to have to see certain people free ever again. There are better tools, like being confined to one's house, for the more petty crimes. On that, I think we agree, as we do also on the fact that reducing recidivism is in everyone's best interests.

The biggest problem with prison it seems to me is that it pulls them further away from normal society and changes their social circle to one made of criminals. This then leads to all the other ills, as they experience a daily life of overt racism, violence and apathy. As you say, though, it's not 100%. I once knew a guy who, based on what I know of him, is most aptly described as a drug loser. He (amazingly) stayed out of prison for some years after pulling all sorts of really stupid crimes and bragging of them. He managed to avoid issues by being a skilled liar and there being a lack of solid proof. Also, there was the time he fled from the jurisdiction. In the end, he was turned in by his own parents after he attacked and seriously injured them. So as you say, it's "prison made them worse" is only part of the story and many of them. It's certainly true from what I can see, but it doesn't mean they were anyone you'd want to hang around in the first place. FWIW, that person had a loving home and parents who did everything they could to help him (counselors, doctors, etc.). I believe the doctors mostly resulted in him selling or trading his meds and/or taking them with alcohol...

While I do not want to see people go to prison for minor offenses, my biggest worry with decriminalization is that it will turn out to be like deinsitutionalization--i.e. they'll end up on the streets causing problems for everyone else with no real support from society. This does not seem like a net benefit for everyone who is not already a criminal.

[smsm42]

Add to that the fact that felony conviction (and many drug crimes and other invented crimes are felonies) significantly reduces one's chance to ever find good well-paying employment, while prison comrades would be dangling the possibility of quick earnings under one's nose without the necessity to prove yourself twice as hard as the next guy on every step - and the picture becomes even more slanted towards recidivism.

[angersock]

"for example marginally or completely unemployable addicts."

This is, in particular, a really bad example--consider the background checks and nonviolent felons which are created by the current policies.

Or, you know the, hundreds of thousands incarcerated instead of out in the workforce.

[Natsu]

Having worked with such people in a place where they were employed, being one of the few places in the area that did NOT reject folks for that, I am instead referring to violent or erratic behavior, inability to follow simple instructions, propensity to not show up for work (especially after being paid) as well as the fact that they can endanger others.

I have personally witnessed all of the above except for that violence, which I've only heard bragging of and, eventually, a conviction for. This was a factory environment. It does not take great skill to work there and it pays a very decent wage for unskilled labor and should be within the means of almost anyone capable of being useful.

> Or, you know the, hundreds of thousands incarcerated instead of out in the workforce.

Be careful what you wish for. I only hope you are someday able to work with some of the people I've met.

[thecabinet]

Instead of accusing people of racism, why I don't you try actually answering the question? "OMG, he said crack rather than meth, therefore racism!" So, what did all the bootleggers do? I don't have any idea, so I'm probably a racist too... I do know alot of them became politicians, so I think the suggestion that they might turn to a different criminal enterprise is entirely on point.

According to Freakonomics, a lot of low-level drug dealers make less than minimum wage. So why do they take those jobs? Can they not find legal employment (ue to lack of opportunities, disqualification due to criminal record, insufficient education, etc. or are they rejecting legal employment for a job that's more exciting, more acceptable among their peers, has a higher maximum vale despite lower expected value, etc?

If they're rejecting legal employment it's entirely plausible they'll move on to a different (probably criminal) enterprise that has similar characteristics.

[justincormack]

No they really can't find other work. Drugs are the only option in many areas. Philippe Bourgois's book In Search of Respect is a good read on this. So there will be more issues in areas with no jobs after legalization.

[aianus]

I don't know, what did the low level bootleggers and enforcers do after prohibition ended? If I was one, I'd have moved on to similar work in narcotics and prostitution.

People choose to risk jail time and physical harm to make mediocre money as a street dealer because they have no better options. Most of them don't even have high school diplomas, what else are they going to do? If we don't do anything other than eliminate the black market for drugs their next best option is still going to be some sort of crime.

[joel_perl_prog]

Sure. But you assume there's a permanent class of criminals whose only interest is crime. The principle interest in the drug game is money. It's a business.

What I'm saying is, there's not a "fixed amount of crime," which you imply; you basically say it's like squeezing a balloon. The amount of air doesn't change, it just gets displaced a little bit.

What we need is a sociologist (or someone who has otherwise done the reading) to come in with studies and numbers. I'm sort of working outward from my reference, Pinker's The Better Angels Of Our Nature, and suggesting that crime, too, overall crime, is dropping. And would drop even more if the laws were written correctly. In other words, there's not a fixed number of criminals, nor a fixed amount of crime.

[dinkumthinkum]

You can talk about studies and all that and that's fine but I think this is horribly naive. The world is not a pop sociology book.

[joel_perl_prog]

That's exactly why it's so important to decriminalize (or outright legalize). Because the theory behind criminalization simply doesn't work. It is you who are naive, sir. Please see my other comments above. I explain this. I hope I explain this. What didn't I convey?

[dinkumthinkum]

Oh, no I'm not naive. You think some Pinker book shows that complete legalization would result in people involved in the drug becoming upstanding members of society. You talk of "criminals" as some kind of theoretical agent.

[joel_perl_prog]

I can see that were not going to connect here. And I shouldn't have called you naive. I should have said your position is naive.

But is it really such a stretch to expect alignment between swiftly declining rates of violence and declining rates of all anti-social behavior.

Keep in mind, doing drugs, just recreationally doing drugs, minding ones own business IS NOT A CRIME (or shouldn't be) and isn't anti-social (or doesn't have to be, and isn't for most casual users). Think: casual alcohol drinkers. As most are. Are there alcoholics? Of course. But that does nothing to diminish my case. It was never expected that all crime would vanish (or perhaps...you expect that?).

[dobbsbob]

Most gangs are not directly involved in the sale of narcotics, instead they are involved in extortion "taxing" those who are selling drugs in their area. If drugs disappear they will find another black market to tax like gambling, fencing stolen goods or selling weapons. However the difference is they won't make a million dollars per month taxing somebody running an illegal gambling operation unlike jacking cocaine drivers. It will be a much smaller criminal enterprise, they won't be able to afford a small army of thugs to terrorize an entire city like they currently do here now with all their windfall narco profits.

As for non violent street peddlers I imagine they will go into exports, shipping narcotics to countries where it's still illegal. After Marijuana was symbolically decriminalized by police here refusing to arrest people for possession, and the black market was swamped with declining prices, many former dealers and growers instead decided to operate unlicensed tourist operations selling weed travel packages, and running their own storefronts for legal drugs using their profits as street dealers to bootstrap it.

[joel_perl_prog]

Sure, but even if some number of drug dealers moved on to other crime, would there not necessarily be less crime, overall, if a major aspect of normal human life were to suddenly be decriminalized? In other words, when everything is a crime, we are all criminals. That's my basic position on the war on drugs, and so many other things.

Edit: whoops, meant to reply thecabinet.

[dinkumthinkum]

Are you serious? Many moved on to other criminal activity.