# Gangland Killings



## Sunny (14 Dec 2006)

Had the misfortune of going for a pint after work in the IFSC last night and seeing the results of the latest murder. How do we stop these scumbags or are we so desensitised that we just accept these events as a fact of life. I am totally against the death penalty but having seen first hand the respect that these people have for human life, it does make me wonder..... Now we have mothers and innocent kids doing a days work getting caught up in it. Depresses me


----------



## micheller (14 Dec 2006)

I share your depression and (maybe naive) but I cannot believe what's going on, and allowed to go on. 
There is something gone so wrong with our justice system when there are this many murders- the last few months have been just off the scale.
Mr mc dowell- stand up....we're all ears..


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2006)

Great, lets have another "blame the politicians" thread.


----------



## almo (14 Dec 2006)

Maybe it's because I'm at a distance from it now, but I figure most all of us grew up hearing daily of murder, punishment beatings, bombings, arrests since the 70's, and after a government blind eye murder of a gangland leader (Cahill) we have the mess we're in today.  It's easy to blame drugs, but how many posters have indulged in "soft drugs"?  Whn doing so has anyone wondered where they're produced?  Who is controlling the flow etc?  When I was last in Ireland for a prolonged period I had the chance to teach in my local 2ndary school, where, during my time there, I arrived into work on a Monday 3 times after a weekend local murder, the 3rd time was the uncle of 2 of my students, all drug or crime related.  

We've just come out (in a way) from a 20-odd year civil war, the means of funding that violence are now coming back to bite us, and so long as we continue to ignore facts on the ground then this is not going to go away.


----------



## Sunny (14 Dec 2006)

Purple said:


> Great, lets have another "blame the politicians" thread.


 
Who is blaming the politcians?


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Dec 2006)

Sunny said:


> Who is blaming the politcians?



Well, the previous poster had said...



micheller said:


> Mr mc dowell- stand up....we're all ears..


----------



## shnaek (14 Dec 2006)

Legalise drugs? I am not so sure about this one myself, but I haven't heard it mentioned once in press, radio or TV. I think it is worth debating though. Of course you would need to look at the experience of other countries EG. Switzerland who have done this to see if gang crime is lower there. We would also need a mature political attitude, which is something I can't see happening any time soon.


----------



## SineWave (14 Dec 2006)

Memories are short. We had an exact similar situation in the mid-90's with similar debate. 
Unfortunately it took the high profile murder of a high profile journalist to act as an immediate catalyst to fast-track change in legislation and initiate preventative action. This change could have been initiated at any stage previous to this as the writing was on the wall.


----------



## Sunny (14 Dec 2006)

Maybe the Americans have the right idea with suspected terrorists and Guantanamo Bay. Anyone "known to Gardai" (apart from the ones in Donegal) would be rounded up, put in an orange jumpsuit and interned on Achill Island.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2006)

Yeah - internment without trial worked really well the last few times it was used in this and other jurisdictions!


----------



## Markjbloggs (14 Dec 2006)

ClubMan said:


> Yeah - internment without trial worked really well the last few times it was used in this and other jurisdictions!


 
Maybe not internment, but constant, oppressive surveilance.  Watch their every move until they make a mistake, then wade in big.


----------



## Sunny (14 Dec 2006)

ClubMan said:


> Yeah - internment without trial worked really well the last few times it was used in this and other jurisdictions!


 
I know. Was just being flippant. It just amazes me that everyone who gets killed seems to be known to Gardai and I assume they are getting killed because they are up to no good so either they are too smart to get caught or the guards don't have the powers to touch them. Its like the guy in Finglas earlier in the week. Everyone in the Guards and even the Press knew he was one of the County's biggest drug dealers and yet they couldn't touch him.


----------



## Glenbhoy (14 Dec 2006)

shnaek said:


> Legalise drugs? I am not so sure about this one myself, but I haven't heard it mentioned once in press, radio or TV. I think it is worth debating though. Of course you would need to look at the experience of other countries EG. Switzerland who have done this to see if gang crime is lower there. We would also need a mature political attitude, which is something I can't see happening any time soon.


In my opinion legalisation of drugs would be a massive step forward, maybe it's time to recognise that this prohibition policy introduced in the 30's (?) is a not working - don't we all look back at US prohibition and think, what a disaster that was.  The major advantages/benefits would be:
1. Remove the supernnormal profits for the dealers, no longer any incentive for criminals to get involved and put their lives at risk for a few euro.
2. Ensure the quality of the product - this would save lives of the users.
3. Reduce petty crime by users trying to fund their habit.
4. Bring in revenue for the state which could be used for education on the dangers of various substances.

I don't know how this would work, presumably through the pharmacy network in some form, but any new system could not be worse than the current situation.  We have to realise that just because something is available, it does not mean that the people are going to go out and use these substances to extemes, some will obviously, but they currently do anyway, at any rate, it is time for a grown up debate on this, not just here, but throughout Europe (no point in involving the US as they got us into this mess in the first place).


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2006)

Sunny said:


> It just amazes me that everyone who gets killed seems to be known to Gardai


That _Latvian _woman who was shot dead recently was known to _Gardaí _but not for any wrongdoing. That young apprentice plumber who was shot dead was not known to the _Gardaí_.


----------



## Duplex (14 Dec 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> In my opinion legalisation of drugs would be a massive step forward, maybe it's time to recognise that this prohibition policy introduced in the 30's (?) is a not working - don't we all look back at US prohibition and think, what a disaster that was. The major advantages/benefits would be:
> 1. Remove the supernnormal profits for the dealers, no longer any incentive for criminals to get involved and put their lives at risk for a few euro.
> 2. Ensure the quality of the product - this would save lives of the users.
> 3. Reduce petty crime by users trying to fund their habit.
> ...


 
I agree the drug problem and associated crime and social issues have gone beyond the simplistic 'Victorian' probhibition remedy.


----------



## elefantfresh (14 Dec 2006)

Any political party that proposed legalisation of certain drugs (even soft drugs) would be gone so fast they couldn't say boo. I agree that something must be done as what they are currently doing obviously doesn't work. Perhaps some sort of legalisation may be the answer but you can bet your bottom dollar than in this Modern Ireland there are still the old school who will never allow something like that to happen even if it was proved to work. You know the type. Enda Kenny stands up and says lets legalise spamspamspam for this reason and that reason - thats the last we'll see of him - Political suicide unfortunatly. Perhaps in 20 years.


----------



## Sunny (14 Dec 2006)

ClubMan said:


> That _Latvian _woman who was shot dead recently was known to _Gardaí _but not for any wrongdoing. That young apprentice plumber who was shot dead was not known to the _Gardaí_.


 
I think you know what I meant. Neither of those murders were so-called gangland killings i.e. one criminal scumbag killing another. They were just innocent victims.


----------



## sunrock (14 Dec 2006)

Not much will happen until someone important like a t.d., judge , garda or such like..higher ranking person gets murdered.
Then the autorities will pull out all the stops......like going around to all the known top gang leaders and using c.a.b. to confiscate their ill gotten gains.....it`s all a matter of political will.
Criminals killing off each other ...  or some unfortunates caught in the crossfire....won`t get the same response.They haven`t forgotten the response ..after the guerin murder
I`M SURE THE CRIMINALS ARE AWARE OF THIS and don`t want to bring serious heat on themselves by doing in an important person deliberately.
Was the apprentice plumber aware he was working in a gang leaders house? AND the latvian woman...was threatened by her ex.. ..were all putting themselves in danger.despicable as these crimes were.
Now decriminalising drugs sounds good..but why decriminalise a dangerous substance,whose use would then escalate. Look at spamspamspam... causes mental illness in many of its users..schizo.etc
There is no point in making it easy for people to get illegal drugs...at least if they buy the drugs from criminals..they know they`re participating in a sordid trade.....anyway its a great way of educating people about our market economy.
As was said the gardai know all the players so there is a lid on this activity..plenty of grasses,and  a hierachy of criminals, all getting an oppurtunity to get promoted as other players "leave" the scene.


----------



## micheller (14 Dec 2006)

I believe the garda and their deployment lies within Mr mcdowells role?
I'm open to correction on that.
Ultimately, policing will have to be part of the solution. 
Policing currently does not appear to be able to cope with this area, and so it would seem to me that something needs to be done about that....

That's the reason for my comment...


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2006)

Sunny said:


> I think you know what I meant.


I try not to second guess what people *mean*. I know what you *said*. 


> It just amazes me that everyone who gets killed seems to be known to Gardai and I assume they are getting killed because they are up to no good so either they are too smart to get caught or the guards don't have the powers to touch them.


----------



## Sunny (14 Dec 2006)

ClubMan said:


> I try not to second guess what people *mean*. I know what you *said*.


 
Thanks for that because reading that again, it is not clear whether I am referring to a mother shot dead on her doorstep and a young plumber doing his job in the wrong place at the wrong time or the numerous criminals who have been shot dead over the past few years. Useful service you administrators provide.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2006)

No problem.


----------



## nelly (14 Dec 2006)

sunrock said:


> Was the apprentice plumber aware he was working in a gang leaders house? AND the latvian woman...was threatened by her ex.. ..were all putting themselves in danger.despicable as these crimes were.



Sorry, but i think this statement is disgraceful.


----------



## almo (14 Dec 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> The major advantages/benefits would be:
> 1. Remove the supernnormal profits for the dealers, no longer any incentive for criminals to get involved and put their lives at risk for a few euro.
> 2. Ensure the quality of the product - this would save lives of the users.
> 3. Reduce petty crime by users trying to fund their habit.
> 4. Bring in revenue for the state which could be used for education on the dangers of various substances.


 
1.  Profits will be profits and there will always be some group making a killing (think border diesel, illegal cigs, firewrks etc).  
2.  Yes, and who regulates the "quality" of heroin?  When ROCHE or BAYER put some bad stuff on the street, will they be chased down in the courts or will our country's judiciary be engaged in a massive case when junkie x's family sue the company afer he'd overdosed?
3.  I guess that heroin addicts will take up 9-5 employment, or even that the already affordable drugs will be even cheaper, or maybe we can claim our e's and grass on the medical card.  
4.  The state already spends copious amounts on tobacco and alcohol awareness campaigns, yet the numbers of young smokers and drinkers remain high, and binge drinking remains the plaything of Indo writers.

The above isn't an effort to be flippant or rude, your points are well made and I would lways try to think along those lines, but to what point is the drug trade to be legalised or regulated?  Has the apparent openess to the problem helped social difficulties in Holland?

There is no way to eradicate this problem when there are massive amounts of money to be made and political gains to be had.  The Soviets took out a corrupt drugmaking regime in Afghanistan to stop the spread of opium and heroin out of the region, hitting certain US interests in SE Asia (remember it was CIA men who sowed up packages of heroin in dead gi's being flown home from Vietnam in order to fund their activities), thus triggering the US involvement and recruitment of radical arabs and muslims who funded a lot of their fighting with drug sales.  Each time the drug "problem" is addressed it switches and seems to be getting worse.


----------



## sunrock (14 Dec 2006)

I see how my point about the young plumber and the latvian girl seem very callous.It seems  that to be  in the wrong place at the wrong time......or if one has in some personal way irratated a violent individual....that it might cost you your life.
Of course,if you are an ordinary working class person ,living in a crime ridden area ,your chances of being in the wrong place at the wrong time are much greater.
I guess that`s why more affluent ,safer areas are much more expensive.
There is a good argument for legalising drugs for addicts.
However early users of drugs shoul be under no illusion of the sordid nature of the drug trade.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2006)

nelly said:


> Sorry, but i think this statement is disgraceful.


I agree. In any case this statement is factually incorrect since the house in question was not the "gang leader's" own. 


sunrock said:


> Was the apprentice plumber aware he was working in a gang leaders house?


----------



## almo (14 Dec 2006)

sunrock said:


> There is a good argument for legalising drugs for addicts.
> However early users of drugs shoul be under no illusion of the sordid nature of the drug trade.


 
But early users then become addicts, and legalising it will not benefit them.  In the same way as warnings on cig packs haven't stopped 13 year old girls from smoking, we have to accept that unless there is a magcal solution we are jammed with this globally proficient problem.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2006)

There was an interesting discussion about the drug legalisation issue on _BBC2_ _Newsnight _last night and somebody made the valid point that in this debate a lot of the time people are looking for the perfect solution rather than the one with the best cost/benefit tradeoff. He happened to be arguing for some sort of legalisation of heroin.


----------



## almo (14 Dec 2006)

James Whale was reviewing papers on Sky this morning and wanted to legalise prostitution, drugs (all types) and bring the nation into the "20th" century, maybe I was just confused, but legalising heroin doesn't seem to have a great deal of benefit.  I know here in Croatia there were the first addicts in europe (thanks to the east-west trail and major ports) and good old Tito stuck them all onto islands.  He died and the new mob decided it wasn't so nice, so they set about carving up countries for themselves.  Can there be a solution for something so rotten as drugs?


----------



## BillK (14 Dec 2006)

The Chinese solution seems to have worked.


----------



## auto320 (14 Dec 2006)

I tend not to agree with McDowell very often, but he made a statement a few months ago to the effect that _anyone_ who buys drugs is contributing to the problem. "Anyone" means the person who does a line of coke at a posh party or who smokes a joint at the weekend.

Nobody seems to be able to make the link between cause and effect, that the drug lords couldn't live off the proceeds of a few junkies on heroin -- a drug that is much cheaper now in real terms than it ever was. The real money is in the so-called recreational drugs, and if you ever use any of these you should know that you helped support an "industry" that killed that young plumber this week.

This is a message that needs to be drummed into the head of every self-centered jerk who uses illegal drugs. Its not just a case of doing themselves harm, they are helping to wreck lives and families all over the country with their selfish and stupid behaviour.


----------



## almo (15 Dec 2006)

Well put Auto.


----------



## Dreamerb (15 Dec 2006)

auto320 said:


> This is a message that needs to be drummed into the head of every self-centered jerk who uses illegal drugs. Its not just a case of doing themselves harm, they are helping to wreck lives and families all over the country with their selfish and stupid behaviour.


 
Oh I think you're wrong on that one. They are actually helping to wreck lives and families all over the _world._


----------



## ivuernis (15 Dec 2006)

auto320 said:


> I tend not to agree with McDowell very often, but he made a statement a few months ago to the effect that _anyone_ who buys drugs is contributing to the problem. "Anyone" means the person who does a line of coke at a posh party or who smokes a joint at the weekend.
> 
> Nobody seems to be able to make the link between cause and effect, that the drug lords couldn't live off the proceeds of a few junkies on heroin -- a drug that is much cheaper now in real terms than it ever was. The real money is in the so-called recreational drugs, and if you ever use any of these you should know that you helped support an "industry" that killed that young plumber this week.
> 
> This is a message that needs to be drummed into the head of every self-centered jerk who uses illegal drugs. Its not just a case of doing themselves harm, they are helping to wreck lives and families all over the country with their selfish and stupid behaviour.


 
Correct me I'm wrong but I assume from your post you would be against any form of legalisation of current illegal drugs?

People (and some animals) have used recreational drugs for millennia. This is unlikely to change. The case for legalizing illegal drugs grows stronger all the time when the current means of preventing their use and thus curtailing the illegal trade in them does not have the desired effect and if anything is counter-productive. Prohibiting recreational drugs results in their illegal trade becoming massively profitable. Legalizing their use and distribution with proper government regulation should negate this. The proceeds can be used to provide the required mechanisms and social supports to (a) prevent people who succumb to addiction from falling into that category (i.e. many of those who have fallen through the social net) and (b) in the event of this failing provide them with the adequate support and means to recover from addiction. 

We already have many legal drugs (e.g. tobacco and alcohol being the most common) whose use quite probably lead to more deaths, despair and destruction than illegal drugs yet we tolerate their use. Governments and multi-national co-operations profit from their use just as the illegal drug industry profits from the trade in illegal drugs yet one we can legally justify and accept one but not the other. Why not? Is the person who legally smokes tobacco or drinks alcohol also _"self-centered jerk"_ as they are _"not just a case of doing themselves harm, they are helping to wreck lives and families all over the country with their selfish and stupid behavior"_ by supporting an industry involved in the legal trade and consumption of tobacco or alcohol.

Surely the link between cause and effect is more complex than recreational drug use simply being the reason why the illegal drugs trade is along with the trade of military arms and fossil fuels one of the largest economic activities in the world. We should ask ourselves why humans seem to have a need to experiment with recreational drug and proceed from there rather than try to deny and suppress human nature and suffer its consequences. Better to acknowledge these desires and work from there.


----------



## Dreamerb (15 Dec 2006)

ivuernis said:


> Is the person who legally smokes tobacco or drinks alcohol also _"self-centered jerk"_ as they are _"not just a case of doing themselves harm, they are helping to wreck lives and families all over the country with their selfish and stupid behavior"_ by supporting an industry involved in the legal trade and consumption of tobacco or alcohol.


 
The point is not just about what you are doing to yourself, it's what you're supporting. In the case of illegal drugs, you're not the only one paying the price. It could be farmers in Columbia at the mercy of gun-toting drug-dealing terrorists, drug money going to the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan used to buy explosives that kill civilians, contractors and soldiers, or supernormal profits funding the purchase of the guns that are later used to kill an enemy and a completely innocent bystander back here in Dublin. 

The alcohol and tobacco industries are not particularly _nice_ ones, particularly the latter, but they aren't quite as blood-soaked. 

We are not, imo, going to get drugs legalised - probably in our lifetimes. I actually agree that legalisation would help address at least some of the issues around drug supply and addiction, but no-one will have the political courage to do it and risk seeming to place some sort of imprimatur on recreational drug use. 

Against that background, I think it's very important that there's a clear message to those who think "It's only hash / it's only a line / it's just a pick-me-up; there's no harm in it," that YES THERE IS HARM IN IT, *and* you're probably not the one who'll suffer most from it.


----------



## Guest109 (15 Dec 2006)

i have no sympathy for those drug dealers gangsters who try to wipe each other out, i hope they do just that, its a pity an innocent bytander had to die as well


----------



## ivuernis (15 Dec 2006)

Dreamerb said:


> The point is not just about what you are doing to yourself, it's what you're supporting. In the case of illegal drugs, you're not the only one paying the price. It could be farmers in Columbia at the mercy of gun-toting drug-dealing terrorists, drug money going to the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan used to buy explosives that kill civilians, contractors and soldiers, or supernormal profits funding the purchase of the guns that are later used to kill an enemy and a completely innocent bystander back here in Dublin.


 
I agree Dreamerb that many people across the world suffer on the supply side just as badly and many times far worse than those who also suffer on the demand side. Colombia and Afghanistan as you mention being the most well-known locations of these happenings. However, the origins of the drug trade in these countries came about as a result of depressed or shattered economies (sometimes caused due to Western policies) where the only avenue left open to impoverished landholders was the cultivation of illicit substances, coca derivatives in Colombia and opium in Afghanistan. For many in such situations there is no alternative. Many times, in Colombia for example, the threat to growers from _"gun-toting"_ elements comes not from the _"drug-dealing terrorists"_ but state itself. It is also obvious that the US "War on Drugs" is failing in this respect despite the fact that billions of dollars have been spent on trying to reduce both supply and demand, the aerial fumigation to eradicate coca crop in Colombia being the most controversial means to attempt this. 




Dreamerb said:


> The alcohol and tobacco industries are not particularly nice ones, particularly the latter, but they aren't quite as blood-soaked.


 
Yes, and the reason they are not blood-soaked is probably in large part due to the fact they are legalised. I'm sure if they were illiegal we would be seeing the same effects from their illegal trade as we see in the drugs trade. 




Dreamerb said:


> We are not, imo, going to get drugs legalised - probably in our lifetimes. I actually agree that legalisation would help address at least some of the issues around drug supply and addiction, but no-one will have the political courage to do it and risk seeming to place some sort of imprimatur on recreational drug use.


 
Unfortunately not, even a well-informed debate seems unlikely any time soon. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that humans have always and will always experiment with mind-altering substances. It's in our nature, from time immemorial we have seeked ways to escape reality for a time. For some it is a cigarette, for others it is "joint", for some a pint, for others an "pill". Why can we accept all the legal forms of such escapism but not those that are deemed illegal. Whether a drug is legal or illegal there will always be those who become addicted and cause pain and suffering to themselves and others, this is unfortunate especially for those involved, but not acknowledging or dealing with the problem(s) will not make it go away.




Dreamerb said:


> Against that background, I think it's very important that there's a clear message to those who think "It's only hash / it's only a line / it's just a pick-me-up; there's no harm in it," that YES THERE IS HARM IN IT, and you're probably not the one who'll suffer most from it.


There is harm done to others in many things we do and actively support, some knowingly and others unknowingly. Market protectionism in developed countries can cause pain and suffering in developing countries. Western lifestyles could/will make the planet less habitable for futures generations. Prohibiting recreational drugs results in their illegal trade becoming massively profitable, thus spawning crime and violence and as a result pain and suffering. It is only by dealing with the root causes in a fair and humane manner that we can ever hope to alleviate their worst consequences. 

*Postscript:* I thought the staged display of armed Gardai on the streets of Dublin last night showed how far we have yet to go in attempting to form a constructive and long lasting solution to the problems mentioned in this thread.


----------



## daltonr (15 Dec 2006)

These murders are not drug related.  They are Gang Related.  The fact that the gangs happen to deal in drugs doesn't mean the gangs will go away if you legalise drugs.  

These are people who feel that Crime Pays, and if you remove the profit margin from one crime (by either legalising it, or making it to difficult to commit the crime) then they'll switch to another crime.   Gun Running, Armed Robbery, Kidnapping, Bootleg Clothes or DVD's.

Whatever the crime is the Gangs will still exist and still shoot each other and innocent people in order to grow their business.

So, let's separate the debate about legalising drugs, from the potential impact on crime.   Let's assume that the criminals will find other crimes.

The case for legalising drugs has to stand on it's own merits, just like the case for legalising Prostitution has to.  I happen to think there are some merits in the arguments for both of these, but they are incidental to the debate on gun crime.

The solutions to crime have to come from policing, and from society deciding it has had enough, not from making more and more things legal until there are no crimes left to commit.

We know that where there is a will great strides can be made to cut crime.  When a Journalist gets shot and there is national outrage suddenly all sorts of resources can be made available and they have an effect.

So ask yourself why it is that you allow the people who hold the purse strings to sit back and wait for someone famous to die before they do something.  

Is a Journalist, a politician or a Judges life worth more than a plumbers?  If so then OK.  At least society has decided on who's murder it will tollerate and who's it wont.   I'd like to have known all this when I filled out my CAO form, but I suppose it's never to late to get these things sorted out.

-Rd


----------



## Sunny (15 Dec 2006)

daltonr said:


> Is a Journalist, a politician or a Judges life worth more than a plumbers? If so then OK. At least society has decided on who's murder it will tollerate and who's it wont. I'd like to have known all this when I filled out my CAO form, but I suppose it's never to late to get these things sorted out.
> 
> -Rd


 
Good point. If Baiba Saulite's solicitor had been murdered like they were threatening and thankfully he wasn't, I reckon the law society would have made such political noise that we would have seen a response from the governement and from the Judiciary (who seem to get off blame free when this topic is debated) similar to that when Veronica Guerin was killed.


----------



## Gordanus (15 Dec 2006)

there is a sense in which a young plumber is even more innocent than the others - Guerin knew she was in danger from the gangs, judges and solicitors can see what happened the judiciary in Italy with Mafia reprisals.  He was just doing a job on a house which was owned by a mother of two young kids, who happened to be the niece of the gang leader.
(I don't actually think anyone is less 'innocent', just making the point.)

But I do think that the illegal trade in arms needs urgent stamping out - criminals who don't have access to guns aren't QUITE as dangerous to the public.


----------



## Glenbhoy (15 Dec 2006)

daltonr said:


> These murders are not drug related. They are Gang Related. The fact that the gangs happen to deal in drugs doesn't mean the gangs will go away if you legalise drugs.
> 
> These are people who feel that Crime Pays, and if you remove the profit margin from one crime (by either legalising it, or making it to difficult to commit the crime) then they'll switch to another crime. Gun Running, Armed Robbery, Kidnapping, Bootleg Clothes or DVD's.


I disagree Dalton, the gangs only exist because they see an opportunity for profit - by your logic gangs such as those we have now have always existed - I don't know, is that the case?
An element will obviously switch to other crimes, but the numbers will surely drop, when there isn't the same easy money in the trade as there currently is, it's less likely to attract young lads into it as a career move.  Most of the other alternative crimes have a different risk/reward profile, ie more risk and less guaranteed reward, if the easy money was gone I think the crime would drop too.


----------



## Glenbhoy (15 Dec 2006)

almo said:


> 1. Profits will be profits and there will always be some group making a killing (think border diesel, illegal cigs, firewrks etc).
> 2. Yes, and who regulates the "quality" of heroin? When ROCHE or BAYER put some bad stuff on the street, will they be chased down in the courts or will our country's judiciary be engaged in a massive case when junkie x's family sue the company afer he'd overdosed?
> 3. I guess that heroin addicts will take up 9-5 employment, or even that the already affordable drugs will be even cheaper, or maybe we can claim our e's and grass on the medical card.
> 4. The state already spends copious amounts on tobacco and alcohol awareness campaigns, yet the numbers of young smokers and drinkers remain high, and binge drinking remains the plaything of Indo writers.
> ...


1. Exactly, profits in any proscribed activity come about because of unneccessary legislation, do we need our legislators telling us how to live, I mean banning fireworks?
2. Yes, obviously the supplier of the product would liable for ensuring quality, that happens with every product.
3. Many 'addicts' do hold down 9-5 jobs, you also should not focus solely on heroin addicts, remember the vast majority of drug users are not 'addicts', and I'm sure you encounter them on a daily basis, but you can't guess their sordid secrets!
That aside, for addicts I would be in favour of providing whatever substances they need via the health system - addiction is a disease too, the taxes on drugs could be ring fenced for drug education and treatment.
4. There is nothing wrong with people using recreational drugs in moderation, no more than there is with people drinking alcohol or smoking - at least if these substances were legalised we could start to understand their effects better.

I think your last sentence sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly.


----------



## dodo (15 Dec 2006)

Quote  It just amazes me that everyone who gets killed seems to be known to Gardai , 
I dont think they knew that poor young plumber who got murdered


----------



## ClubMan (16 Dec 2006)

As I said above....


----------



## auto320 (16 Dec 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> 4. There is nothing wrong with people using recreational drugs in moderation, no more than there is with people drinking alcohol or smoking - at least if these substances were legalised we could start to understand their effects better.


 
Really?

It is the so called "recreational drug users" that provide the profits for the people that killed that young plumber this week, keeping them in business and making it attractive for them to kill each other and anyone that gets in their way in the pursuit of their sordid profits.

Anyone that uses so-called "recreational drugs" is just as guilty of this killing as the person that pulled the trigger -- they helped provide the funds that killed this kid. They should get their selfish self-centered heads around that thought for a while.


----------



## liteweight (16 Dec 2006)

> I disagree Dalton, the gangs only exist because they see an opportunity for profit - by your logic gangs such as those we have now have always existed - I don't know, is that the case?



I remember my mother telling me of gangs in Dublin long before the drugs era. On such notorious gang was called The Animal Gang. So gangs have always been around but their modus operandi has changed. Was it the General or Gilligan who said...'if you think I'm bad, wait till you see who's coming after me..'?


----------



## daltonr (16 Dec 2006)

> I disagree Dalton, the gangs only exist because they see an opportunity for profit


 
My point was that the gangs will exist as long as they see an opportunity for profit, and there will always be an opportunity for profit, no matter how many vices you make legal.



> by your logic gangs such as those we have now have always existed - I don't know, is that the case?


 
Gangs like this always have and always will exist.  What's different now is the type of weapon they use, and the number of them that are heavily armed.

The drugs are irrelevant, it's the guns that are the problem.
If some other product can be found that pulls in the profits of drugs then they'll use guns and be just as brutal in search of control of that market.

What is interesting about drugs, and what possibly drives the profits is that "respectable" society is pumping the money into drugs and creating the demand.   Now, there are other activities that will tap money from respectable people...counterfit clothes and handbags, counterfit DVD's, cheap fuel etc.

But drugs are addictive, easier to transport than 100 handbags, and for these reasons and more, they are the product of choice.   If you legalise them you may drive down the profits, you may drive some less committed criminals out of that market.   But I guarentee you you will still have gangs, you'll still have criminals, you'll still have gang shootings etc.

So is it worth it?   You need to weigh up the expected drop in crime against the downsides of legalising drugs.  You will have more addicts.   A heroin addict is going to be a lot more desperate for a fix than a nocotine addict,  you will still have the crime that feeds the habit.

Where do we end with the legalise it to lower crime argument?  When the gangs switch to handbags, and start making big profits and shooting each other,  so we legalise counterfitting?   Surely counterfit handbags are less socially destructive than narcotics?

I understand why people would want to legalise drugs.  I have even argued myself that some so called "soft drugs" should be legal.  Or to be more accurate, I've argued that it makes no sense that alcohol and tobacco are legal while some other less harmful drugs are not,  and since you can't ban alcohol and tobacco you should legalise the other less harmful drugs.

But I wouldn't get into an argument on legalising drugs as a measure to reduce serious crime.  I think they are separate issues, and mixing them muddies the water.

-Rd


----------



## Glenbhoy (16 Dec 2006)

auto320 said:


> Really?
> 
> It is the so called "recreational drug users" that provide the profits for the people that killed that young plumber this week, keeping them in business and making it attractive for them to kill each other and anyone that gets in their way in the pursuit of their sordid profits.
> 
> Anyone that uses so-called "recreational drugs" is just as guilty of this killing as the person that pulled the trigger -- they helped provide the funds that killed this kid. They should get their selfish self-centered heads around that thought for a while.


Or conversely the government that brought in the law delegalising such products is equally as guilty.


----------



## Glenbhoy (16 Dec 2006)

daltonr said:


> The drugs are irrelevant, it's the guns that are the problem.
> If some other product can be found that pulls in the profits of drugs then they'll use guns and be just as brutal in search of control of that market.
> 
> So is it worth it? You need to weigh up the expected drop in crime against the downsides of legalising drugs. You will have more addicts. A heroin addict is going to be a lot more desperate for a fix than a nocotine addict, you will still have the crime that feeds the habit.


Yeah, I agree with most of what you say - I don't know however that legalising dugs such as heroin would lead to an increase in addictions - I don't really see why it would, but the crux of the matter is a cost-benefit analysis does have to be carried out - weighing up all the issues, then perhaps our legislators could make an informed decision on the drugs issue rather than just outlawing everything that's not understood.
BTW Heroin and nicotine are equally addictive.


----------



## auto320 (16 Dec 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> Or conversely the government that brought in the law delegalising such products is equally as guilty.


 
Most of these drugs were never legal in Ireland as far as i know. It is the role of government to ensure that dangerous substances are not made frely available; it has often beeen argued that if tobacco were to be introduced today, it would not be approved for sale.

McDowell is right about one thing -- the people who buy drugs are providing the resources for these gangs to kill people on an almost daily basis. There is little point in expecting the government to solve this problem; the population could solve it if they stopped buying cocaine, spamspamspam, Es etc.


----------



## auto320 (16 Dec 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> Or conversely the government that brought in the law delegalising such products is equally as guilty.


 
Most of these drugs were never legal in Ireland as far as i know. It is the role of government to ensure that dangerous substances are not made frely available; it has often beeen argued that if Tobacco were to be introduced today, it would not be approved for sale.

McDowell is right about one thing -- the people who buy drugs are providing the resources for these gangs to kill people on an almost daily basis. There is little point in expecting the government to solve this problem; the population could solve it if they stopped buying cocaine, spamspamspam, Es etc.


----------



## ivuernis (17 Dec 2006)

auto320 said:


> It is the role of government to ensure that dangerous substances are not made frely available; it has often beeen argued that if Tobacco were to be introduced today, it would not be approved for sale.


 
Can you not see the hypocrisy is this statement?



auto320 said:


> McDowell is right about one thing -- the people who buy drugs are providing the resources for these gangs to kill people on an almost daily basis. There is little point in expecting the government to solve this problem; the population could solve it if they stopped buying cocaine, spamspamspam, Es etc.


 

Why is there little point in expecting governments to solve (or at least debate) the issue? Because they are unwilling to do so? Hardly seems a logical argument. 

The population *may* solve the issue regarding supplying certain criminal elements with the funds to run their operations but it does not solve the issue that people will always (and have always) experimented with mind-altering substances. Until that issue is addressed there will always be an illegal trade in such substances attracting an undesirable element.


----------



## jake108 (17 Dec 2006)

Sunny said:


> I think you know what I meant. Neither of those murders were so-called gangland killings i.e. one criminal scumbag killing another. They were just innocent victims.


 

Exactly. You cannot compare these murders to what those scumbags are doing to each other almost nightly!


----------



## sunrock (17 Dec 2006)

Clearly ,there needs to be a massive education drive to inform the young people especially in the crime ridden areas about the evils of drugs.
This funding should be distributed ,not just to teachers and health advisers,but to a whole network of ordinary opinion formers in the community.
And the top dealers, who everyone knows, should be in jail.....i`m sure there is plenty of evidence.
Our government is very hypocritical.....they tolerate these drug lords who wreak havoc in poor crime ridden communities. The ordinary decent residents ,become effected by this pervasive drug culture.....even if they themselves are not drug users...might however be effected by passive smoking of hash or crack etc.
Our government  has a very lenient policy towards the top distributors,hoping no doubt that the damage will be confined or limited control can be achieved......the legal system can be tough on younger dealers...thes are easily replaced.in/out of jail/bail.
Imagine for a second if these drug gangs decided to start a terrorist campaign in affluent areas.....our irish gov would take the gloves off and have it dealt with it  in a week....the gang members  and leaders would be all put in jail without bail....and the judiciary wouldn`t be going on about due process when its their area that   is targeted.
I agree that a large amount of the public use recreational drugs and that is unlikely to stop,even though we should not stop trying. However i think our gov should take the gloves off....


----------



## Gordanus (17 Dec 2006)

sunrock said:


> .....
> And the top dealers, who everyone knows, should be in jail.....i`m sure there is plenty of evidence.
> ....
> Our government  has a very lenient policy towards the top distributors,hoping no doubt that the damage will be confined or limited control can be achieved..



I don't think this is true.  Unfortunately just as the criminals have become forensically aware, the top men have also become aware of how to distance themselves from drugs and money laundering.   The gardai seemed to know that Hyland was involved, but couldn't prove it.  The Criminal Assets Bureau has come down very heavily on anyone they can.  But the court cases need hard evidence, and the way of getting it often is from turncoats - but the gangs single out their extended families in retaliation and the gardai can't protect everone.  A Witness Protection Programme would entail sending people abroad as Ireland is too small, and even then can't send entire extended families.


----------



## bogwarrior (18 Dec 2006)

liteweight said:


> Was it the General or Gilligan who said...'if you think I'm bad, wait till you see who's coming after me..'?



I think that was one of the Dunnes - they were among the first crowd to sell heroin in Dublins inner-city in the early 80's.


----------



## daltonr (18 Dec 2006)

> I don't know however that legalising dugs such as heroin would lead to an increase in addictions - I don't really see why it would.





> BTW Heroin and nicotine are equally addictive.


 
Yet, there are many many more nicotine addicts than heroin addicts.   Now, I'm not saying this difference is a result of Nicotine being legal and Heroin being illegal, but that question would need to be asked and answered before any more drugs are legalised.

Nicotine has a reputation of being less harmful and less addictive than Heroin.  Heroin as a product gets a pretty bad rap.  But legalise it, and put some drug company money behind changing that image and see how it's brand, and the number of users climb.

Now, the pro Drug types will try to stear the conversation away from heroin (it's not a good poster boy if you want to legalise drugs)  They'll say they only want to legalise Softer Drugs.  They want to be able to buy a Joint at the local Spar, as easily as a box of Marlboro.

But, if the reason for legalising a drug is to take the profits away from criminals, then all drugs should be up for grabs.  In fact the harder the drug the better, since it's more important to control the use and the quality etc.

I think rather than legalising any more drugs we shuld be focusing our efforts on making abuse of all drugs socially unacceptable (including Nicotine and Alcohol).   The Smoking ban was a step in the right direction.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who do nothing else but smoke a joint every now and then, and cause no harm to anyone, but if they're caught with a little too much they're guilty of a series crime,   while joe down the road can go to France and bring a Car load of cheap booze home, drink it in a couple of binges, stagger out into the street, cause all sorts of trouble, and all he's guilty of is being drunk and disorderly.

It seems wrong to me that for one drug you are guilty of merely possesing it, while for another you are only guilty if you use it to such excess that it causes you to behave in an anti-social way.

I'm just not sure that legalising drugs on balance is the best way to make the situation fairer.  Perhaps making things tougher for the cigarette and alcohol addicts is the way to go.

Of course my opinion is clouded by the fact that I dont drink or smoke.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (18 Dec 2006)

daltonr said:


> Of course my opinion is clouded by the fact that I dont drink or smoke.


Do you take smack though?


----------



## colc1 (20 Dec 2006)

I agree with a lot of what daltonr is saying, no offence to anyone but I think they should get tougher on the nicotine addicts too it would be doing them a favour too by making cigarettes illegal (wishful thinking I know).


----------



## almo (20 Dec 2006)

I know this is probably a moot point to those who breathe, but the nonsense over "soft" and "hard" drugs is really grating.  It reminds me of a geography teacher we had years ago who hit the nail on the head.  For years we were taught about soft (sedimentary) and hard (igneous) rocks, which, having studied geography at 3rd level, just doesn't stack up.  Mr. Ryan summed it up very neatly, "Forget about hard or soft rock, it's nonsense, you wouldn't be thinking very much if you get a belt of a lump of limestone in the back of the head."  Drugs are drugs and affect individuals differently, like alcohol, tobacco, the works.


----------



## shnaek (20 Dec 2006)

colc1 said:


> I agree with a lot of what daltonr is saying, no offence to anyone but I think they should get tougher on the nicotine addicts too it would be doing them a favour too by making cigarettes illegal (wishful thinking I know).



We are supposedly born free as human beings. Why should a government tell us what we can or can't do to our own bodies  in our own homes? A good government is one which interferes in personal lives as little as possible, yet in Ireland we have one who has interfered as much as possible for years. As long as what an individual does doesn't adversely affect other peoples rights then live and let live. If they do interfere with other peoples rights then that's a different matter. Of course this is taking things off the origional topic so I apologise for that. Just giving my own two cents worth.


----------



## daltonr (20 Dec 2006)

> Why should a government tell us what we can or can't do to our own bodies in our own homes?


 
It shouldn't. But if your actions put a strain on the Health Service then it has a right to try to get you to stop, or to make what you're doing illegal if it think's it's serious enough.

Smokers have it easy right now in terms of smoking in their home and smoking in their car etc. Personally if there were kids in the car (especially) or the home, I'd charge the parents with Child Abuse.

Let's not get into another Right to Smoke debate, we did all that when the smoking ban was the issue of the day. Suffice to say that smoking iterferes with other people far more than smokers generally accept.

The same would apply when considering legalising other drugs. You are not simply screwing with your own body or mind, you'r actions so have consequences for the people around you and for wider society, and the state has a right to try to control those consequences.

And yes, this logic in principle would extend to trying to control the kind of food people eat, or the amount of excercise they get. E.g. the New York moves on Trans Fats.

I know how you feel though.  My vice is driving, I enjoy it.  I really don't like the way it's taxed in Ireland, even though I accept that the government have a right to tax behaviour they see as undesirable.

-Rd


----------



## shnaek (20 Dec 2006)

daltonr said:


> I know how you feel though.  My vice is driving, I enjoy it.  I really don't like the way it's taxed in Ireland, even though I accept that the government have a right to tax behaviour they see as undesirable.
> 
> -Rd



And I too understand your points. I think though that when a government decides to take responsibility for the actions of it's citizens you end up with a nation of irresponsible citizens. 

People need to take responsibility for themselves as much as possible.


----------



## daltonr (20 Dec 2006)

> I think though that when a government decides to take responsibility for the actions of it's citizens you end up with a nation of irresponsible citizens.


 
Well that's an interesting point.   There are certain things I won't do regardless of whether they are legal or not.  E.g. I don't drink, so I certainly don't drink and drive.   I don't do any illegal drugs, and I wouldn't if they were legalised.

I try not to speed even though I know my chances of getting caught in Ireland are low.

Then there are things that I do that are strictly speaking illegal, but because the state chooses not to police it at all I have no problem with it.  The example I've used in the past is that I have no problem bring electronic goods, clothes  etc that I've bought abroad into the country, even if I exceed my limits.

I guess my feeling is that if the state doesn't take a rule seriously then I don't either, and I rely on my own sense of right and wrong to guide my actions.

I recognise the contratiction in that, but there you have it.

-Rd


----------



## annR (21 Dec 2006)

Well posted daltonr.

We also have children to think of.  Children need example and guidance from society (often, laws)  in order to work out what is good or bad because they are not able to work it out for themselves.  

You could argue that they would get an equally good example from adults making their own choices responsibly but that hasn't really happened with alcohol for instance.

Can you rely on people in general to behave responsibly?


----------

