45 dead in attack on casino in northern Mexico

[Lord Zentei]

That's only part of the reason why. Technology had a huge influence on the decline of organized crime within the US as well.

Partially, though the decline of the mobsters correlates strongly with the legalization of alcohol. There's a reason they stopped selling that stuff, after all: it was no longer a viable source of income. In any case, the technology aspect of the decline of the mobsters is not be relevant to the specific question of whether to legalize drugs today, since its further development will continue regardless of legalization.

[Block]

That's only part of the reason why. Technology had a huge influence on the decline of organized crime within the US as well.

Partially, though the decline of the mobsters correlates strongly with the legalization of alcohol.

No, it doesn't. They just changed business models. Instead of alcohol they got into gambling, extortion, etc. and were made stronger for a period of 15-20 years after prohibition ended because they became much harder to track. The real decline of the mob didn't happen until the 50s or 60s.

[Flagg]

It wasn't the decline of the mob, it was a decline in mob violence.

[Darth Wong]

Another, less-stated danger from prohibition was not just the Mob, but the rise of casual contempt for the law among the common citizens. The so-called "habit of obedience" which helps maintain order in civilized societies is based on a latent respect for the law: one which people generally don't put into words but which is demonstrated in their deference toward police officers and their reluctance to break laws even if no one appears to be watching.

However, in a society where almost every adult drinks, a total prohibition on alcohol has the effect not of eliminating alcohol consumption, but of creating an environment where the majority of people begin to break the law and then become accustomed to doing so. When you turn a huge chunk of the population into scofflaws, this is just plain bad for society. It leads to widespread contempt for the law. There is a danger inherent in outlawing something that almost everyone does.

[Spoonist]

That's only part of the reason why. Technology had a huge influence on the decline of organized crime within the US as well.

Partially, though the decline of the mobsters correlates strongly with the legalization of alcohol.

No, it doesn't. They just changed business models. Instead of alcohol they got into gambling, extortion, etc. and were made stronger for a period of 15-20 years after prohibition ended because they became much harder to track. The real decline of the mob didn't happen until the 50s or 60s.

Agreed, it had nothing to do with the end of prohibation. The decline in the 50s and 60s is because of the first federal units to combat organized crime. Local police was too close not to be intimidated or corrupted by the mafia. See Chicago for the prime example for this.
That ended with the "Top Hoodlum Program" and the "United States Organized Crime Strike Force" which led to the famous infiltration of the mobs in the 60s. (Which is nowadays virtually non-existant due to politics).
Then came the best piece of legislation ever, the RICO act in 1970, which put a real damper on stuff.

However mob-power has increased throughout the 90s and 00s because of the corruption of politicians. The Organized Crime Council, stopped its meetings in '93. Also it used to be that you could get elected on an anti-mafia platform, that is just impossible today. So elected officials have little to gain to be anti-mafia while they unfortunately have much to gain to be pro-mafia...
Then after 911 all the agents and money went into terrorism, while anti-mafia got less agents with corresponding less done.

In 2008-2010 there was a failed effort to increase anti-mafia efforts by the US gov. They even tried to show the link between orgoanized crime and terrorism, but even that didn't get the needed attention. This report is from '10 as a congressional pre-brief.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40525.pdf

As previously discussed, in FY2004, the FBI utilized about 35% fewer agents on organized crime
matters than it did in FY2000. Agent utilization on organized crime matters also declined by over
15% between FY2005 and FY2009. The FBI has recognized that prioritizing counterterrorism
and counterintelligence cases affects resources available to criminal investigations and that
targeting the most significant threats will allow criminal investigative resources to be used most
effectively. FBI Director Robert Muller testified to the need for restoring resources to the FBI’s
criminal programs, which include organized crime.102 Efforts—both administrative and
congressional—can be made to this effect in several ways. One congressional option may be to
increase overall funding available to the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies that may
be experiencing a decrease in resources dedicated to more traditional crime fighting matters,
including organized crime. If these resources are then administratively allocated to criminal
programs, organized crime agent utilization could potentially be more closely aligned with agent
allocation without taking resources away from higher priority areas.

[Lusankya]

With regards to the legalisation of marijuana, I recall that there is evidence that suggests that the legalisation of marijuana has little effect on the number of people using marijuana, and also possibly decreases the use of other illicit drugs. If you look here, you'll see a comparison between drug usage in South Australia (where marijuana is decriminalised) and drug usage in the rest of the country. Given that it's all just Australia, there's no real major cultural or supply differences aside from the decriminalisation.

I believe that statistics also show that the Netherlands, with decriminalised marijuana, also has lower rates of hard drug use than neighbouring countries in Europe.

[Lord Zentei]

That's only part of the reason why. Technology had a huge influence on the decline of organized crime within the US as well.

Partially, though the decline of the mobsters correlates strongly with the legalization of alcohol.

No, it doesn't. They just changed business models. Instead of alcohol they got into gambling, extortion, etc. and were made stronger for a period of 15-20 years after prohibition ended because they became much harder to track. The real decline of the mob didn't happen until the 50s or 60s.

Very well, though going by your argument, alcohol was nonetheless removed from the mob's list of viable revenue sources, which still provides important clues as how to handle some of their other revenue sources. Thus supporting my initial assessment of "After legalization, organized crime withered - or might have except for the ban on other drugs".

And my other point remains, which was that even if we ascribe the decline in the mob more to the advancement of technology, that doesn't make an argument against legalization, since such development can happen regardless, but removing the economic basis of specific revenue sources of the mob does not.

[Block]

Very well, though going by your argument, alcohol was nonetheless removed from the mob's list of viable revenue sources, which still provides important clues as how to handle some of their other revenue sources. Thus supporting my initial assessment of "After legalization, organized crime withered - or might have except for the ban on other drugs".

And my other point remains, which was that even if we ascribe the decline in the mob more to the advancement of technology, that doesn't make an argument against legalization, since such development can happen regardless, but removing the economic basis of specific revenue sources of the mob does not.

This is again incorrect. They moved on to things like gambling, counterfeiting, protection, etc. Drugs weren't really a major revenue source for them until much much later, and many families resisted that.

[Lord Zentei]

Very well, though going by your argument, alcohol was nonetheless removed from the mob's list of viable revenue sources, which still provides important clues as how to handle some of their other revenue sources. Thus supporting my initial assessment of "After legalization, organized crime withered - or might have except for the ban on other drugs".

And my other point remains, which was that even if we ascribe the decline in the mob more to the advancement of technology, that doesn't make an argument against legalization, since such development can happen regardless, but removing the economic basis of specific revenue sources of the mob does not.

This is again incorrect. They moved on to things like gambling, counterfeiting, protection, etc. Drugs weren't really a major revenue source for them until much much later, and many families resisted that.

So, you are still evading my points. I would have chalked that up to an error on my part earlier, but now you are coming off more as a dodging weasel.

[Block]

Very well, though going by your argument, alcohol was nonetheless removed from the mob's list of viable revenue sources, which still provides important clues as how to handle some of their other revenue sources. Thus supporting my initial assessment of "After legalization, organized crime withered - or might have except for the ban on other drugs".

And my other point remains, which was that even if we ascribe the decline in the mob more to the advancement of technology, that doesn't make an argument against legalization, since such development can happen regardless, but removing the economic basis of specific revenue sources of the mob does not.

This is again incorrect. They moved on to things like gambling, counterfeiting, protection, etc. Drugs weren't really a major revenue source for them until much much later, and many families resisted that.

So, you are still evading my points. I would have chalked that up to an error on my part earlier, but now you are coming off more as a dodging weasel.

No, you re-iterated your point. That they might have withered if there hadn't been other illegal drugs. This was not the case. Until the 50s or 60s illegal drugs were mostly dealt/supplied by black and asian gangs.

[Lord Zentei]

No, you re-iterated your point. That they might have withered if there hadn't been other illegal drugs. This was not the case. Until the 50s or 60s illegal drugs were mostly dealt/supplied by black and asian gangs.

No, that was not my point. My points were that the legalization directly caused the removal of a revenue source of the mob, and that advancement of technology will happen regardless of whether we legalize or not. The issue of whether the mob moved on to other drugs or other crimes than drugs is not the issue.

[Spoonist]

@Lord Zentei
That's a stupid slippery slope kind of logic - if we stretch that argument to its extreme then we should legalize everything that the mafia profits from. Which is completely moot point, because organized crime will always profit on something as long as there isn't effective counter measures.
You are also missing the public opinion angle that DW tangentially refered to. The first "battle" is in public opinion -which is where the war on drugs so far has lost every time. Which has very little to do with the mafia or legalization.

[Lord Zentei]

@Lord Zentei
That's a stupid slippery slope kind of logic - if we stretch that argument to its extreme then we should legalize everything that the mafia profits from. Which is completely moot point, because organized crime will always profit on something as long as there isn't effective counter measures.
You are also missing the public opinion angle that DW tangentially refered to. The first "battle" is in public opinion -which is where the war on drugs so far has lost every time. Which has very little to do with the mafia or legalization.

WTF are you talking about? That's not a slippery slope you're accusing me of. That's a slippery slope you're committing.

See, this is a slippery slope fallacy:

"We can't legalize gay marriage, because taking that to it's logical extreme, then we would have to legalize polygamy, beastality and pedophilia too."

That's exactly the kind of counter-argument you're using. Saying that permitting A would lead to permitting B when there's no logical connection between A and B. Incidentally, appeal to public opinion is also a fallacy, and has nothing to do with a discussion on what constitutes a useful socio-economic policy. So, want to try that again?

[Lord Baal]

So you are pro to legalize marijuana, but not other drugs. Maybe it could be a war on two fronts, for one marijuana gets legalized and for the other the mobs are taking down while they take the punch of losing the marijuana businesses??

The trouble I have with legalizing marijuana (besides it being a drug), is that eventually the mobs are going to be moving onto other things, and it's not like if it gets legalized today the criminals would get a huge blow on their finances, the smart ones will even shift long before the law is passed, since a thing like this would take a lot of time and will make a lot of noise to be approved!

I agree that a bullet storm is not the solution, but legalizing is not either. Marijuana could be like a pilot to see how well legalizing a drug works on todays world, but in then end even if it works good not all drugs can be legalized, out of not only "moral issues", but public heath ones.

[Lord Zentei]

So you are pro to legalize marijuana, but not other drugs. Maybe it could be a war on two fronts, for one marijuana gets legalized and for the other the mobs are taking down while they take the punch of losing the marijuana businesses??

What's up with all these assumptions? Where have I said that I'm not for legalizing other drugs? I'm for drug legalization. That doesn't mean that I'm for legalizing everything the mob makes money on, which can include extortion and such.

The trouble I have with legalizing marijuana (besides it being a drug), is that eventually the mobs are going to be moving onto other things, and it's not like if it gets legalized today the criminals would get a huge blow on their finances, the smart ones will even shift long before the law is passed, since a thing like this would take a lot of time and will make a lot of noise to be approved!

So despite the fact that it's pointless to wage the "war on drugs", we should keep doing it anyway, because the mob will commit other crimes if it's made legal? Don't you see how ridiculous that argument is?

[Lord Baal]

Okay, I don't know if you actually do drugs, but relax. First I believed you where referring to other drugs. So to be clear, you are pro for legalizing all drugs?

And about the "war on drugs", you think the cartel will simply disappear by legalizing everything? I mean, every drug? And yeah, these people are criminals that should be prosecuted even after legalizing the drugs (if that ever happen), or do you think that if the legalization occurs this guys should be forgiven and all of sudden they will be model citizens? Don't you see how ridiculous that argument is?

I said to keep prosecuting them while taking away their financial resources by making drugs (not all of them perahps) legal under controlled environments. Now I don't know if that would ever work because I don't see everyone going to a clinic to get high, but according to some people on this thread some programs have resulted, so why don't give them a shoot then?

[Lord Zentei]

Okay, I don't know if you actually do drugs, but relax.

What possessed you to post this?

First I believed you where referring to other drugs. So to be clear, you are pro for legalizing all drugs?

I am for legalizing recreational drugs.

And about the "war on drugs", you think the cartel will simply disappear by legalizing everything? I mean, every drug? And yeah, these people are criminals that should be prosecuted even after legalizing the drugs (if that ever happen), or do you think that if the legalization occurs this guys should be forgiven and all of sudden they will be model citizens? Don't you see how ridiculous that argument is?

Now you are again making assumptions. This is a blatant strawman of what I've posted here.

I said to keep prosecuting them while taking away their financial resources by making drugs (not all of them perahps) legal under controlled environments. Now I don't know if that would ever work because I don't see everyone going to a clinic to get high, but according to some people on this thread some programs have resulted, so why don't give them a shoot then?

In other words, legalization but with distribution by government, with mandating clinical therapy to go with it? You can do that, but you can also legalize the drugs, tax them, and then use the revenue thus generated to pay for the clinics.

Incidentally, would you impose these programs of yours for alcohol sales, seeing as alcohol is also debilitating and addictive?

[Lord Baal]

Ok, now I like your tone better. I'm reiterating it, I'm not here to argue with anyone.

The first was a joke, sorry if it wasn't funny.

Second, thanks for clearing that out, but what are this ones? And would you use them, or allow your children to use them?

I'm not making assumptions, not more than you thinking that stopping the law enforcement and simply legalizing a lot of things is going to solve the situation.

You are right, It would be more profitable to tax it!

As for alcohol, maybe it should, but it has grown as a social costume from many millennia ago. Of course is a drug and by logic it should be banned/allowed as the rest of them.

[Lord Zentei]

Ok, now I like your tone better.

I'm reiterating it, I'm not here to argue with anyone.

The first was a joke, sorry if it wasn't funny.

Second, thanks for clearing that out, but what are this ones? And would you use them, or allow your children to use them?

"All of them", "no" and "no".

I'm not making assumptions, not more than you thinking that stopping the law enforcement and simply legalizing a lot of things is going to solve the situation.

I pointed out where you had done so. Nor have I said that we should stop enforcement. While I'm not sure what you mean by "solving the situation", its obviously the case that criminals will still exist and they must still be prosecuted. But by removing a valuable source of their income then we can get a much better handle on the situation.

As for alcohol, maybe it should, but it has grown as a social costume from many millennia ago. Of course is a drug and by logic it should be banned/allowed as the rest of them.

If you can't show that such-and-such a drug causes more problems than alcohol, then I'm not sure how you can logically justify banning the one and not the other. Appeals to tradition aren't much of an argument.

[Lord Baal]

Being polite doesn't cost much... really. This is not the fight club, or I am mistaken?

Good to know you are pro drugs, ALL of them, but never used them or willing to. Do you have experienced first hand this matter? Really? Are you willing to make the thing legal so your kids can use them just as easy as eating a ice cream?

You seem to think that the war on drugs is something bad, and you do assume that the war on drugs should stop and legalizing drugs, ALL OF THEM will solve the problem. Show me scientific data on this then.

I can't show you that because it doesn't exist. Unluckily, alcohol and tobacco are socially accepted, and is not up to me to make you understand the reasons why or to propose a reform to our society, neither is up to you. This is up to the governments, and their reasons whatever their are to ban allow some drugs.

And to end this, I'm not here to argue about this with you or anyone, I have stated this before, but you come here looking for a fight and defending the legalization of drugs when you haven't even used them.

[Lord Zentei]

Being polite doesn't cost much... really. This is not the fight club, or I am mistaken?

You're not in a position to make that complaint. And if you can't take the heat...

Good to know you are pro drugs, ALL of them, but never used them or willing to. Do you have experienced first hand this matter? Really? Are you willing to make the thing legal so your kids can use them just as easy as eating a ice cream?

You seem to think that the war on drugs is something bad, and you do assume that the war on drugs should stop and legalizing drugs, ALL OF THEM will solve the problem. Show me scientific data on this then.

One does not ask for scientific data on what should be done, because science only deals with testable claims.

I can't show you that because it doesn't exist. Unluckily, alcohol and tobacco are socially accepted, and is not up to me to make you understand the reasons why or to propose a reform to our society, neither is up to you. This is up to the governments, and their reasons whatever their are to ban allow some drugs.

So on a board called News and Politics, we shouldn't discuss this thing, despite the fact that it is an example of news and politics, because this issue is all up to governments. Wow.

And to end this, I'm not here to argue about this with you or anyone, I have stated this before, but you come here looking for a fight and defending the legalization of drugs when you haven't even used them.

Who's "looking for a fight"? And if you're not here to argue about this, then what are you doing in this thread?

I really don't see what my not having used drugs has to do with anything.

[Lord Baal]

Had I been rude to you? It's not a matter if I can take the heat or not, more like I think we all can share our opinions without the need of being rude to each other. Also this is not a matter where you can say you are absolutely right or wrong, there's no a formula, constants variables that can be easily identifiable, this is a social, humanistic trouble, not the calculation of a formula. I can't say I'm absolutely right on this, you I assure, you aren't either.

If you are not backing up your argument with statistics then you are making assumptions too. Actually, this is not a issue that can be easily quantified as I said, because is something very subjective for every nation, government, culture, family and person, yet you do make assumptions, while you accuse me of making them while I was only trying to figure out your opinion!

Yes, we can discuss this, as a matter of fact we are doing it. I merely pointed out that in the end there's no a real point or goal in our discussion beyond it's mere existence, because the real decisions are made by governments.

Not using them per se, but I'm very interested in why a person that apparently know nothing about them beyond the reading field (if that's the case) what's to have an environment where in the future it's offspring can buy cocaine or crack as easily as soda or aspirin.

[Lord Baal]

I meant: "wants to have" on the last line. Sorry about the typo and the double post.

[evilsoup]

Being polite doesn't cost much... really. This is not the fight club, or I am mistaken?

See here, specifically debating rule 3.

Good to know you are pro drugs, ALL of them, but never used them or willing to. Do you have experienced first hand this matter? Really? Are you willing to make the thing legal so your kids can use them just as easy as eating a ice cream?

I obviously can't speak for Lord Zentel, but most people who are for the legalization of drugs would like to use similar rules to alcohol laws (so children wouldn't be able to get their hands on them, buying for children would be a punishable crime, and schools would discourage their use). Nice slippery slope fallacy, though.

You seem to think that the war on drugs is something bad, and you do assume that the war on drugs should stop and legalizing drugs, ALL OF THEM will solve the problem. Show me scientific data on this then.

The 'war' on drugs is bad for the same reasons actual wars are bad: because lots of innocents get hurt and killed, in this case for very little (if any) gain. What are you asking for evidence about? That legalizing drugs has positive effects on society? Surely you should be the one to provide evidence that banning drugs is a net good.

I can't show you that because it doesn't exist. Unluckily, alcohol and tobacco are socially accepted, and is not up to me to make you understand the reasons why or to propose a reform to our society, neither is up to you. This is up to the governments, and their reasons whatever their are to ban allow some drugs.

What is this- are you serious? You don't feel that you should criticize government decisions? I'm sure I remember you slandering you president a while ago, but now you say that you shouldn't debate government policy?

And to end this, I'm not here to argue about this with you or anyone, I have stated this before, but you come here looking for a fight and defending the legalization of drugs when you haven't even used them.

1. Whether he has used drugs is irrelevant (I don't play MMOs, but I would still call someone wanting them banned a moron), 2. if you don't want to debate the issue, why bother posting at all?

[Lord Baal]

Ok, so I'm being dishonest?

Yeah, that's why no children smoke or drink alcohol, because there's laws that forbid them to happen.

Ok then, stop the prosecution of the illegal drug business and legalize it then, that will utterly solve the situation. If you payed attention to any of my post, you would have notices that I'm actually against the all violence solution. And you are the ones that want to stop it, show me how would it work? I already say that I agree with legalizing of some of them while keep prosecuting the criminals, I don't know if you are really against prosecution then or what.

We are free to criticize all we want. In the end the real decision we can make is up to our vote, from then on the current government make the choices. You should abide rule number 3 by also quoting me on this:

Yes, we can discuss this, as a matter of fact we are doing it. I merely pointed out that in the end there's no a real point or goal in our discussion beyond it's mere existence, because the real decisions are made by governments.

If you don't realize this problem beyond reading on the internet from the safe of your own house then you can't be serious we talking about legalizing all of them and somewhat expect the problem to be solved. That's a great leap and a not so nice slippery slope fallacy indeed.