Making Laws that Make Sense

[Rational Gaze]

Any action undertaken by an individual that does not violate the rights of others should not be illegal. It really is that simple. That building a society on such principles would lead to massive drops in crime is simply a happy accident.

[KingsGambit]

Any action undertaken by an individual that does not violate the rights of others should not be illegal. It really is that simple. That building a society on such principles would lead to massive drops in crime is simply a happy accident.

This is basically a tautology, so I assume you mean "crime" in a generic, non-legal sense?

[Darth Executor]

I think it is fair to assume that criminals - especially hardened ones - will remain criminals. They will look for other illegal activities if the profit is taken out of the ones they now engage in.

More importantly, dealing drugs in and of itself isn't violent, and when it is they mostly kill each other (i suspect this was also the case with prohibition). If they start turning to house invasions or prostitution, it's gonna get bloodier for innocent people.

This was seen at the end of Prohibition as organized crime moved from distributing alcohol into other "lucrative" endeavors. But the end of Prohibition also brought about a dramatic drop in violent crime which is something that ought to be factored into the discussion.

I generally consider comparisons with Prohibition fallacious. The twenties and thirties had a lot more legitimate opportunities for the type of people who become dumb violent thugs today.

[Cow Poke]

Wrt the example in question in some jurisdictions possessing more than a few grams of pot (enough for a couple of joints) was considered as having more than enough for private consumption. I had a friend (lost contact with him a few years ago) who smoked an ounce a week (would buy a quarter pound at the start of each month). He didn't like the idea of going out and buying some pot every other day. AFAIK he never sold any.

Obviously he isn't the norm but it does bring up the issue of what constitutes too much for personal consumption -- a couple of joints worth or a month's supply.

Yeah, even in my cop days, we had those "threshholds", and sometimes you'd find a young kid JUST OVER the limit.... a lot of us would take such a person to the bathroom and say, "watch -- I'm flushing this small amount down the head, and only writing you the 'personal amount'". If we wrote just a wee tad more, the kid would go before a judge where there was mandatory sentencing for a serious hit.

Sometimes, of course, the guy would be a total jerk, and wouldn't listen to what we were trying to do, so we'd let him have the full ride.

[Teallaura]

Er, not so fast - the 'it was all Prohibition' theory doesn't make sense when you look at homicide rates for the decade before and after - there really isn't a sudden drop off in '33. The biggest decline is between '34 and '35 - but it is still well above the pre-Prohibition levels. It doesn't drop below until '38 - and that at the high end of the pre-Prohibition levels - it's not until the early '40's and the end of the Depression that levels come back down to the lowest pre-Prohibition levels.

Also, the rates were already increasing significantly prior to Prohibition. While they do continue that upward spiral throughout the Prohibition era, there's no sudden jump - in fact, homicide rates level off during most of Prohibition. I couldn't find violent crime rates so that might support the argument - but it seems unlikely since homicide and violent crime are often mirrors of one another.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...y/homrate1.htm

[rogue06]

Er, not so fast - the 'it was all Prohibition' theory doesn't make sense when you look at homicide rates for the decade before and after - there really isn't a sudden drop off in '33. The biggest decline is between '34 and '35 - but it is still well above the pre-Prohibition levels. It doesn't drop below until '38 - and that at the high end of the pre-Prohibition levels - it's not until the early '40's and the end of the Depression that levels come back down to the lowest pre-Prohibition levels.

Also, the rates were already increasing significantly prior to Prohibition. While they do continue that upward spiral throughout the Prohibition era, there's no sudden jump - in fact, homicide rates level off during most of Prohibition. I couldn't find violent crime rates so that might support the argument - but it seems unlikely since homicide and violent crime are often mirrors of one another.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...y/homrate1.htm

You're right that it didn't go back to pre-Prohibition levels principally because crime became Big Business during that time with many folks moving into the "industry." As I said, criminals - especially hardened ones - will remain criminals. As a secondary effect Prohibition also led to a general lessening in respect for the law.

And while the rate was steadily climbing prior to Prohibition (and I didn't say otherwise the rate dropped sharply during the decade after prohibition

Prohibition started in 1920 and ended in Dec. of 1933 (notice the sharp drop starting a month later in 1934). There was no leveling off of the rate during Prohibition

[Teallaura]

Actually, there was (hard as heck to see in your chart because it's covering such a long time). The rate hovered in the 8.4 area for several years (1925 - 1929).



1932 was 9.0. 1933 - 9.7 and 1934 - 9.5 - a .2 drop. Several identical drops occur during Prohibition (22-23, 24-25 and 28-29). The biggest drop is 34-35 (from 9.5 to 8.3). The lowest post-Prohibition levels occur during WWII. It would be interesting to compare the enlistment numbers for the 33 - 39 period to see if that had an effect (the probable explanation for the war drop being enlistment). The numbers don't bear out a 'Prohibition only' theory - nor do they eliminate a Prohibition effect - it simply isn't as stark in the homicide rates as indicated. And it doesn't happen between 33-34 as claimed.

[phank]

Er, not so fast - the 'it was all Prohibition' theory doesn't make sense when you look at homicide rates for the decade before and after - there really isn't a sudden drop off in '33. ....

While some of the gruesome drug cartel wars have produced headlines, we're not really looking at homicides here, we're looking at supporting a very expensive habit. You don't generally kill people to score a couple hundred bucks for some drugs, you burgle them instead.

And certainly the incarceration rate in the US is phenomenal, and calls for some sort of correction. When fully half of our jailed population is in for nonviolent drug offenses, we need a different approach. I find it perverse to argue that we should not eliminate a fabulous goldmine for organized crime, on the grounds that some of these people will simply turn to other crimes, go for smaller and higher-hanging fruit. Some of them will, of course. But if Joe Potsmoker can just head down to the store to buy some for a quarter the previous price, chance are he'll do that without first commiting yet another crime.

I'm uncomfortable with the argument that if we criminalize something nearly everyone does, this gives us a pretext to lock away the truly bad people we can't nail for the truly bad things they are actually doing! For one thing, that approach makes law enforcement capricious. And for another thing, it's NOT the real bad ones who are being locked away, it's their downstream customer base.

[rogue06]

While some of the gruesome drug cartel wars have produced headlines, we're not really looking at homicides here, we're looking at supporting a very expensive habit. You don't generally kill people to score a couple hundred bucks for some drugs, you burgle them instead.

And certainly the incarceration rate in the US is phenomenal, and calls for some sort of correction. When fully half of our jailed population is in for nonviolent drug offenses, we need a different approach. I find it perverse to argue that we should not eliminate a fabulous goldmine for organized crime, on the grounds that some of these people will simply turn to other crimes, go for smaller and higher-hanging fruit. Some of them will, of course. But if Joe Potsmoker can just head down to the store to buy some for a quarter the previous price, chance are he'll do that without first commiting yet another crime.

I'm uncomfortable with the argument that if we criminalize something nearly everyone does, this gives us a pretext to lock away the truly bad people we can't nail for the truly bad things they are actually doing! For one thing, that approach makes law enforcement capricious. And for another thing, it's NOT the real bad ones who are being locked away, it's their downstream customer base.

I seriously doubt that prices will decrease much if any as the government will keep it up for tax revenue. Has there been a marked drop in prices in Washington or Colorado? Or in states where it is available for "medical purposes" like California?

[Cow Poke]

I seriously doubt that prices will decrease much if any as the government will keep it up for tax revenue. Has there been a marked drop in prices in Washington or Colorado? Or in states where it is available for "medical purposes" like California?

A friend who just got back from Colorado said that the "medical grade" marijuana was 2 to 4 times as expensive, but was the exact same quality -- it's cheaper to buy it "in the sticks". (And, believe me, he should know! )

[rogue06]

Teal, I don't think that I or anyone else proposed a 'Prohibition only' theory

[rogue06]

A friend who just got back from Colorado said that the "medical grade" marijuana was 2 to 4 times as expensive, but was the exact same quality -- it's cheaper to buy it "in the sticks". (And, believe me, he should know! )

Confirms what I suspected. The government won't let prices drop when they can keep them up and collect the high prices as taxes.

[Cow Poke]

Confirms what I suspected. The government won't let prices drop when they can keep them up and collect the high prices as taxes.

Well, besides that, the "medical supply" places for marijuana have to pay rent, or mortgage payments, utilities, salaries... I wonder if they have to chip in for Obamacare.

[rogue06]

Well, besides that, the "medical supply" places for marijuana have to pay rent, or mortgage payments, utilities, salaries... I wonder if they have to chip in for Obamacare.

Well so did pot dealers but the reason that the prices were so high was the fact that it was illegal and there was a substantial risk involved. Those two reasons have been removed and prices have not changed. I suspect this is because the government is keeping the price up and pocketing the cash.

[phank]

Well so did pot dealers but the reason that the prices were so high was the fact that it was illegal and there was a substantial risk involved. Those two reasons have been removed and prices have not changed. I suspect this is because the government is keeping the price up and pocketing the cash.

The risk was also part of the price. Spending the same amount per ounce with no legal risk is a LOT cheaper than spending it with the risk of some whimsical jail sentence that, depending on the judge, could be decades.