Cigarettes vs Hard Drugs

[Darth Wong]

The same argument could be used to explain away hard drug-related violence. At some point, it still boils down to people wanting to feed their addiction and not caring who gets hurt in the process.

You can't simply link A to C like that. Sure, the poor smoker will naturally buy the cigarettes for 1/2 price off a thief who has stolen from a store, but the same can be said of ANY high cost, low weight item that is widely sold. For a long time there was a HUGE market for hijacked shipments of Pentium processors because they were worth their weight in gold and much easier to steal, yet there is no addiction they are feeding.

What does that have to do with anything? Tobacco is indisputably an addiction. Sure, it's possible for people to commit crimes for nonaddictive products, but the threshold for incentive is much, much lower when addiction is involved.

[kojikun]

Kernel: I think the point that Mike is trying to make is that hard drugs are so associated with violent crimes because of their price and because of their difficulty to get due to illegality, and that once other commodities like cigarettes or petrol become more expensive and harder to get, you start seeing the same violent trends with them as you do with hard drugs.

[The Kernel]

What does that have to do with anything? Tobacco is indisputably an addiction. Sure, it's possible for people to commit crimes for nonaddictive products, but the threshold for incentive is much, much lower when addiction is involved.

Addiction might lead to high demand for items at a lower price, but there are hundreds of other factors that can lead to higher demand for black market items. Your story is interesting, but it fails to create a direct link between addiction to legal drugs and violent crime, it only creates a direct link between addiction and demand which naturally leads to underground markets.

[The Third Man]

Actually, petrol is most assuredly addictive. It has been called the great addiction of the industrialized nations.

SD.Net is pretty addictive too. You could conduct a little sociological experiment of your own by charging for the service. I hereby volunteer to be in the non-paying control group.

[The Kernel]

Kernel: I think the point that Mike is trying to make is that hard drugs are so associated with violent crimes because of their price and because of their difficulty to get due to illegality, and that once other commodities like cigarettes or petrol become more expensive and harder to get, you start seeing the same violent trends with them as you do with hard drugs.

Right, that's called high demand, which can be caused by hundreds of factors besides physical addiction. There is nothing specific to the addiction properties of tobacco that leads to high demand (and thus violent crime) since many things can drive up demand for items. Remember when people used to kill other people for their Air Jordans or leather jackets?

[kojikun]

Kernel, here's the connection:

Legal addictive drugs are in demand for as low a price as possible.
Prices for said drugs go up, so people want to find cheaper buys elsewhere.
Criminals take advantage of this and steal the drug in order to resell.

If there was no addiction to cigarettes the price change wouldn't matter and so criminals would have no incentive to steal them. Same goes with Pentiums. The whole point is that people say that cigarettes don't cause harm and crime like hard drugs, when that's obviously not true once the price for cigs gets high enough.

[The Kernel]

Kernel, here's the connection:

Legal addictive drugs are in demand for as low a price as possible.
Prices for said drugs go up, so people want to find cheaper buys elsewhere.
Criminals take advantage of this and steal the drug in order to resell.

If there was no addiction to cigarettes the price change wouldn't matter and so criminals would have no incentive to steal them. Same goes with Pentiums. The whole point is that people say that cigarettes don't cause harm and crime like hard drugs, when that's obviously not true once the price for cigs gets high enough.

I agree that there is a connection between the demand rising and violent crime being used to obtain the items for underground markets, but that doesn't mean that physical addiction = violent crime. Like I've said, there are so many things that can drive up the demand of an item (and thus the cost) that it is pointless to single out tobacco. You might as well start claiming that Gap is causing an increase in shoplifting because their clothes are too expensive.

[Rogue 9]

Yes, but unlike Gap clothing, those addicted to cigarettes (or any other drug) will be willing to do what it takes to satisfy their addiction nearly regardless of cost. If Gap raised its prices too much, they'd lose sales. If cigarette prices go too high, the sales do not drop so much because there's a bottom limit of those too addicted to stop.

[Darth Wong]

Addiction might lead to high demand for items at a lower price, but there are hundreds of other factors that can lead to higher demand for black market items. Your story is interesting, but it fails to create a direct link between addiction to legal drugs and violent crime, it only creates a direct link between addiction and demand which naturally leads to underground markets.

So? The exact same criticism could easily be made for hard drugs. So no matter how you slice it, the cigarettes != hard drugs claim is still bullshit.

[The Kernel]

So? The exact same criticism could easily be made for hard drugs. So no matter how you slice it, the cigarettes != hard drugs claim is still bullshit.

The exact same critcism can be made for pornography for fuck's sake. Does that mean Cigarettes = Hard Drugs = Porn?

[Darth Wong]

So? The exact same criticism could easily be made for hard drugs. So no matter how you slice it, the cigarettes != hard drugs claim is still bullshit.

The exact same critcism can be made for pornography for fuck's sake. Does that mean Cigarettes = Hard Drugs = Porn?

If you have examples of a violent crime wave related to porn theft, bring it. Otherwise, please dispense with the bullshit.

[The Kernel]

If you have examples of a violent crime wave related to porn theft, bring it. Otherwise, please dispense with the bullshit.

Porn is addictive, on this we can all agree I'm sure. It is also in high demand, heavily regulated and there are numerous laws about what can and can't be done in porn.

Because of this, there are plenty of "black market" porn makers out there (kiddie porn, rape porn, porn where the women are abused off camera) that have cropped up to meet demand for this highly addictive item. Thus, according to your logic, porn leads directly to violent crime.

[Darth Wong]

If you have examples of a violent crime wave related to porn theft, bring it. Otherwise, please dispense with the bullshit.

Porn is addictive, on this we can all agree I'm sure.

Not in the sense that people are unwilling to pay high prices to get it legally. Porn videotapes and DVDs have been ridiculously overpriced compared to mainstream Hollywood videotapes and DVDs for years, and it hasn't hurt sales at all.

It is also in high demand, heavily regulated and there are numerous laws about what can and can't be done in porn.

How is this relevant?

Because of this, there are plenty of "black market" porn makers out there (kiddie porn, rape porn, porn where the women are abused off camera) that have cropped up to meet demand for this highly addictive item. Thus, according to your logic, porn leads directly to violent crime.

Actually, you're confusing violent/rape/kiddie porn with conventional porn, which is just bullshit on your part. Illegal violent/rape/kiddie porn does lead directly to violent crime; no one in his right mind denies that. Thanks for making my point for me.

[The Kernel]

Actually, you're confusing violent/rape/kiddie porn with conventional porn, which is just bullshit on your part. Illegal violent/rape/kiddie porn does lead directly to violent crime; no one in his right mind denies that. Thanks for making my point for me.

Hold on there, the abuse of women that comes with seedier porn manufacturing (especially now with internet based distribution) doesn't necessarily dictate on screen abuse. It can be the same as anything you buy on DVD from the porn shop, but behind the scenes the women can be badly abused and not given proper compensation because the high price of "Hollywood" porn has led to the demand of lower cost "internet" porn. If you don't think that the underground porn market, even in porn that would otherwise be considered legal, doesn't have plenty of abuse involved then you are kidding yourself. I can point you to a number of books on the subject that give detailed first-person accounts of this sort of abuse.

[Stofsk]

That's not the point. Cigarettes, a legal substance, can incite violence and illegal behaviour - a reputation it previously didn't have.

Now hold on a second. The cost of cigarettes make them a valuable item which means they are attractive in a robbery because they can be resold for high prices. You can't make a case against tobacco addiction causing violence when the real motive is greed.

So... they rob a store because it has money from cigarette sales, and you say I can't make a case that tobacco addiction doesn't cause violence? "The 'REAL' motive is greed" you said. Greed for what? Money. Money produced how? From the selling of overpriced cigarette prices.

Holy shit, a tobacco product being the root cause for a new wave in violence! Wow, that's sooo hard to understand.

It's cigarettes the criminal wants, it's the addiction which drives them to want it, and it's the monetary value which pushes them over the edge

Hold on, it's quite possible the blaggards were non-smokers, looking for a high-value, low-bulk item which can be readily sold on. Addiction is not necessarily a direct factor in the crime.

The ironic thing is you didn't quote me in full, because I said addiction AS WELL AS the monetary value is the direct factor to these crimes; I was careful to point this out.

[The Third Man]

I said addiction AS WELL AS the monetary value is the direct factor to these crimes; I was careful to point this out.

And unless you can prove that the criminals in ALL "these crimes" were ALL tobacco addicts, then I have countered that point. For a non-smoking robber monetary value would be the sole motivator, no "AS WELL AS" about it.

Note the word "direct" (which was first used by yourself). Addiction may come into play as an INdirect factor, but that would be part of the subsequent crime of handling stolen goods (or whatever the charge is), not the violent crime of robbery that is being discussed in the article.

[Stofsk]

I said addiction AS WELL AS the monetary value is the direct factor to these crimes; I was careful to point this out.

And unless you can prove that the criminals in ALL "these crimes" were ALL tobacco addicts, then I have countered that point. For a non-smoking robber monetary value would be the sole motivator, no "AS WELL AS" about it.

What the hell? I point out how there are two direct causes, 1) money and 2) OVERPRICED CIGARETTES, which is where the money (or root cause number 1) came from, and you come back and say that they must ALL be cigarette smokers? I never made that claim. Nor does it need to; cigarettes THEMSELVES are the direct cause, as is their monetary value. A nonsmoker robber isn't going to rob a convenience store out of a non-existent tobacco addiction - but he's still going to rob it out of a prevalent and implicit ACCEPTANCE of cigarette addiction.

Don't you get it? Cigarettes are LEGAL, and one of the reasons why is because they have a reputation that they don't incite violence the way 'hard drugs' do. Well, the article aims to shed some light on this reputation.

Besides, did you read the article?

"One guy comes in, he has a gun. He ask me for money. I told him that today I didn't make any money. I gave him a pack of cigarettes and he left," Kook says, smiling and leaning across the store counter.

His store, which closes at 11 p.m., has also been robbed in the middle of the night, and with an insurance deductible of $5,000, he has no choice but to absorb the losses.

He turns serious. "I've been here over 20 years and what happened when the cigarette prices went up, people go crazy," he says.

Notice the two bolded sections? I think they're important. The first showcases a violent crime which is solved by giving the addict a free fix, and thus crisis averted. The second shows someone's first hand experiences bear testimony on the effect of overpriced cigarettes.

Note the word "direct" (which was first used by yourself). Addiction may come into play as an INdirect factor, but that would be part of the subsequent crime of handling stolen goods (or whatever the charge is), not the violent crime of robbery that is being discussed in the article.

What is being discussed in the article is the CAUSE for this escalation in violent crime. These are stores which don't have anything of value, other than overpriced cigarettes. Chew on that for a second. How is an addictive substance that ALSO happens to be expensive and ALSO happens to be what these stores have in common NOT be considered one of the direct causes?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh damn, I know, let's ban cigarettes and increase the violence associated with tobacco by having it distributed by means of gangs and organized crime while simultaneously putting a lot of people like this poor guy out of work by robbing them of perhaps they're most lucrative product, and simultaneously do very little to stop actual tobacco use.

This is tragic, and shows how fucking pathetic humanity is. But the solution of banning it certainly is not a net-positive gain for society.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The idea that the quantity of violent crime associated with illegal addicted substances applies for similar, legal addictive substances like cigarettes is total bullshit.

Mr. Kim is, again, a horrible loss to some heartless fuckers. But while legal alcohol is an indespuitable social problem and a source of crime, who will claim that it was better under Prohibition? Does anyone think the quantity of violent crime would go down if cigarettes were illegal? Does anyone really think that the organized crime and gang violence associated with the sale of cocaine would increase if it was governed by law and sold legitimately under the eyes of the government?

[Darth Wong]

Oh damn, I know, let's ban cigarettes and increase the violence associated with tobacco by having it distributed by means of gangs and organized crime while simultaneously putting a lot of people like this poor guy out of work by robbing them of perhaps they're most lucrative product, and simultaneously do very little to stop actual tobacco use.

Missing the point completely. The point is that tobacco and hard drugs are similar. Your diatribe does nothing to change that.

This is tragic, and shows how fucking pathetic humanity is. But the solution of banning it certainly is not a net-positive gain for society.

Interesting how no one mentioned banning all tobacco until YOU did just now. I certainly mentioned no such thing.

The idea that the quantity of violent crime associated with illegal addicted substances applies for similar, legal addictive substances like cigarettes is total bullshit.

Wrong; the increase in price creates a barrier and the nature of the addiction drives people to circumvent that barrier. The higher the price, the closer the barrier comes to unobtainability for lower-income people, hence it becomes functionally equivalent to criminalizing it, from their perspective.

Mr. Kim is, again, a horrible loss to some heartless fuckers. But while legal alcohol is an indespuitable social problem and a source of crime, who will claim that it was better under Prohibition? Does anyone think the quantity of violent crime would go down if cigarettes were illegal? Does anyone really think that the organized crime and gang violence associated with the sale of cocaine would increase if it was governed by law and sold legitimately under the eyes of the government?

None of this disproves the point at all, since it is a different point than the one you apparently think it is.

[The Third Man]

What the hell? I point out how there are two direct causes, 1) money and 2) OVERPRICED CIGARETTES

No, you said "addiction AS WELL AS the monetary value is the direct factor to these crimes". That is clearly what I was responding to.

, which is where the money (or root cause number 1) came from,

Now you're confusing me. How can something be a root cause if it came from some other cause?

and you come back and say that they must ALL be cigarette smokers? I never made that claim.

You implied it by saying that addiction is a direct factor in the crimes.

Nor does it need to;

Nor does what need to what, exactly?

cigarettes THEMSELVES are the direct cause, as is their monetary value.

Earlier you said the direct causes are "addiction AS WELL AS the monetary value"

A nonsmoker robber isn't going to rob a convenience store out of a non-existent tobacco addiction -

Quite. And in this case addiction would not be a direct cause. Which is exactly the point I was making in response to your claim that "addiction AS WELL AS the monetary value is the direct factor"

but he's still going to rob it out of a prevalent and implicit ACCEPTANCE of cigarette addiction.

Which would be an INdirect factor. Joe Blaggard doesn't care about the sociology, physiology or psychology of addiction when he robs something of high value, low bulk and easy resellability any more than he cares about the chemistry or engineering of the internal combustion engine when he's robbing petrol, to re-use my earlier example.

Don't you get it? Cigarettes are LEGAL, and one of the reasons why is because they have a reputation that they don't incite violence the way 'hard drugs' do. Well, the article aims to shed some light on this reputation.

Then that article is using flawed logic, as demonstrated by the examples of petrol and pentiums cited earlier in this thread, both of which are non-addictive (to humans ) and became the objects of robbery when their value became high.

How is an addictive substance that ALSO happens to be expensive and ALSO happens to be what these stores have in common NOT be considered one of the direct causes?

The fact that the substance is addictive is immaterial as a direct cause. The fact that it is valueable is sufficient in itself to make it attractive to robbers.

To use The Kernels example, a vilian does not have to understand PC architecture to filch a container-load of Pentiums, nor does he have to be a tobacco addict to thieve a shop-load of cigarettes.

[Joe]

Why are cigarettes so expensive in Canada? High taxes, price floors, something like that?

[His Divine Shadow]

It seems to me the reasons are at this point rather clear, what should be done(if anything) to rectify the situation? Lowering prices? It'd be interesting to see what happened at any rate if that was attempted.

An offtopic but related issue is if this reasoning could also be used as an argument for decriminalizing hard drugs and making them cheaply available? Would that lower the occurence of crimes like this, and would the then easier access to hard drugs create more trouble than what we currently have in the form of crimes like this?

[SCRawl]

Why are cigarettes so expensive in Canada? High taxes, price floors, something like that

High taxes, almost exclusively. The product itself would be dirt cheap (we grow it in Ontario, after all). The Ontario government just recently jacked up the taxes on cigarettes to record levels.

[rant]I often wonder about why people ever start smoking. I mean, we all know it's stupid, we all know it's addictive, we all know it's bad for you. And really, the whole exercise is pretty absurd: dry out some weeds, roll them up into a paper tube, place it in your mouth and set it on fire. [/rant]

To keep in the spirit of this debate, it must be clear that the fact that people are addicted to cigarettes is the root cause of their value, whether real or perceived. There exists a market out there who will buy cigarettes, not because they want them but because they must have them, or believe that they must. If there were no demand, then there would be no reason to steal them. Of course, this just becomes all the more lucrative when you start jacking up their price, which only increases their perceived value.

[Stofsk]

No, you said "addiction AS WELL AS the monetary value is the direct factor to these crimes". That is clearly what I was responding to.

I think I understand what you're on about. I got confused before, and I haven't had much sleep so... You're right, for addiction to be a direct factor everyone who holds up a store would have to be an addict. This isn't totally true, as you pointed out - not every robber will be an addict. HOWEVER, the article provided two points that addiction is still an important factor.

My point is altered slightly, that addiction is a strong secondary cause, with money/opportunism being the direct cause - from the robber's point of view. This doesn't change the fact that the opportunism stems from the addiction, and that the monetary value of cigarettes wouldn't become a factor without the addiction. Nor does it change the fact that some of these crimes are motivated by the addiction soley.