Recreational drug users are responsible for organised crime gangs

[pinkyBear]

Are you suggesting that the reason Rotterdam is Europes busiest port is because drugs are coming in there?

No I amn't.

but my point there was that these people aren't purchasing from a dealer. These people are buying what is legal in their own country and bringing it here. Yes, an illegal activity

So they in them selves are dealing - certainly if they are buying to supply onto others.

And therefor recreational drug users are not responsible for the gangs.

Eh what planet are you on - yes they are - inadvertainly they are - Joe Bloggs buys some hash from a local small dealler in town, this dealer buys from a bigger dealler and so on - so eventually along the chain it goes to an organised gang.

If the gangs are just going to move their business, then we can see it is the fact the drugs are illegal in the first place that is responsible.

You are not making one ounce of sence here - The only way gangs can be obliterated is if every country in the world has an "open drugs" policy - and concidering there isn't even a global "open alcohol" policy that is some stretch of imagination.

Holland in isolation has an open and supportive attitude to Drugs, however it cannot be disputed that it enables large scale drug trafficking within Europe all be it unintentionally...
I am afraid shneak you are being far too simplistic in you view as to what is a very complex issue - alot of money gets made in Drugs and could it even be said that drug money influences certain governments...

 

[shanegl]

Eh what planet are you on - yes they are - inadvertainly they are - Joe Bloggs buys some hash from a local small dealler in town, this dealer buys from a bigger dealler and so on - so eventually along the chain it goes to an organised gang.

It think his point might be that you said the gangs would remain if drugs were legalised, which contradicts the claim that the drug users are responsible for the existance of the gangs. Either the gangs would mostly disappear if everyone stopped buying drugs from them, or they will remain. In the first case drug users should all stop, in the second case it doesn't matter what they do and everyone should focus their energy on the root cause of gangland criminality - gangs.

 

[ubiquitous]

It think his point might be that you said the gangs would remain if drugs were legalised, which contradicts the claim that the drug users are responsible for the existance of the gangs. Either the gangs would mostly disappear if everyone stopped buying drugs from them, or they will remain. In the first case drug users should all stop, in the second case it doesn't matter what they do and everyone should focus their energy on the root cause of gangland criminality - gangs.

It beggars belief that people are arguing that buying cocaine that is sourced by criminal gangs does not support these gangs financially and perpetuate their criminality. A bad case of "hear no evil see no evil" methinks. If enough people, by word and deed, cried "stop", this problem would diminish and wither, even if it would never go away completely. This is what happened in Northern Ireland when the public turned against paramilitarism.

 

[room305]

It beggars belief that people are arguing that buying cocaine that is sourced by criminal gangs does not support these gangs financially and perpetuate their criminality. A bad case of "hear no evil see no evil" methinks. If enough people, by word and deed, cried "stop", this problem would diminish and wither, even if it would never go away completely. This is what happened in Northern Ireland when the public turned against paramilitarism.

I agree completely, if enough people stop buying illegal drugs the trade will diminish and without a large enough market it would not be worth the risk for gangs to import large quantities of drugs.

However, it is equally true that if recreational drugs were sold legally in licensed premises in a manner similar to alcohol, the illegal drugs market would shrink considerably, starving the gangs of revenue.

That is why I consider it duplicitous for the government to blame recreational drug users for gang violence without acknowledging their own role in the affair.

 

[shnaek]

It beggars belief that people are arguing that buying cocaine that is sourced by criminal gangs does not support these gangs financially and perpetuate their criminality.

Who is arguing that?

So they in them selves are dealing - certainly if they are buying to supply onto others.

My specific question there was if you think recreational users from abroad or here who have their own drugs and are using it themselves and not selling it are responsible for criminal gang violence. Do you think this? A yes or no will suffice.

It think his point might be that you said the gangs would remain if drugs were legalised, which contradicts the claim that the drug users are responsible for the existance of the gangs.

Yes, that is the point I was attempting to make.

I am not saying that I think drugs are a good thing. I am just saying that there is a certain hysteria surrounding gang warfare at the moment, and I am of the same opinion as Vincent Browne who makes the points more succinctly than I can, that the governments focus on this is out of proportion compared to, for example, the incidence of violence on the streets or sexual crimes. However, I don't wish to go off topic.

 

[shnaek]

I agree completely, if enough people stop buying illegal drugs the trade will diminish and without a large enough market it would not be worth the risk for gangs to import large quantities of drugs.

However, it is equally true that if recreational drugs were sold legally in licensed premises in a manner similar to alcohol, the illegal drugs market would shrink considerably, starving the gangs of revenue.

That is why I consider it duplicitous for the government to blame recreational drug users for gang violence without acknowledging their own role in the affair.

Well put.

 

[room305]

So it is all very well to champion for civil liberties - if you yourself and none of your friends or family are affected and none of the trouble is in your back yard.

This is an anonymous message board so try not to make assumptions about what people are or are not exposed to in their own "back yard". Civil liberties are important, and during times of duress governments will frequently try erode these liberties citing 'special circumstances'. Just look at the Bush administration in the US. Now I hear our own Minister for Justice has been positing the idea of Gardai bugging known or suspected criminals. If drug culture is something you are "very exposed to", how would you feel if the Gardai used that as justification to listen in on your telephone calls?

Yes you are correct - but in the two years I lived in Finglas there were three shootings - none of them newsworthy and one of these incidents narrowly missed children. The dealer involved was small time and we later discovered was involved in 16 shootings in the area.

But had it not been for the illegal drugs trade this guy would probably have pursued a career in investment banking, right?

 

[ubiquitous]

Originally Posted by ubiquitous
It beggars belief that people are arguing that buying cocaine that is sourced by criminal gangs does not support these gangs financially and perpetuate their criminality. Who is arguing that?

Who is arguing that?

Either the gangs would mostly disappear if everyone stopped buying drugs from them, or they will remain. In the first case drug users should all stop, in the second case it doesn't matter what they do
....
and everyone should focus their energy on the root cause of gangland criminality - gangs.

This ignores the obvious point that if the market for cocaine contracted, there would be less business and money for the criminal traffickers. Even though they would never completely go away, I believe strongly that less criminality is good for society, just as less paramilitarism was good for Northern Ireland.

 

[MrMan]

But had it not been for the illegal drugs trade this guy would probably have pursued a career in investment banking, right?

Well if he is in a disadvantaged area there is a chance that his involvement with drugs started at an early age therefore removing any chance of a normal life.
The other aspect is, that no matter where he is from, there is no other illegal trade that can make so much money with so little risk to the seller. The levels of money that can be made are reflected in the apparent willingness to eliminate any competition from the market.

At what line do the pro legalisation people draw to what can be construed as a legal drug that should be made available to the open market. Surely there have been enough proven cases to show that most hard drugs have a very negative impact on users. Should heroin, LSD etc be available to 18 year olds as soon as they leave school? Would legalising it not remove the final barrier from kids experimenting and putting their lives on the line?

 

[pinkyBear]

Civil liberties are important, and during times of duress governments will frequently try erode these liberties citing 'special circumstances'.

Absolutly - I am not arguing otherwise - but what I am saying is that the criminal gangs do impeded ordinary citizens civil rights. And those who'se money ends up with the gang is enabling them.

 

[shanegl]

This ignores the obvious point that if the market for cocaine contracted, there would be less business and money for the criminal traffickers.

Indeed, I agree. This argument also holds for legalising drugs though. A poster responded to this saying they shouldn't be legalised on this basis, since gangs "won't go away", and will "shift business elsewhere". My point was that if you're going to argue against legalisation on this basis, you can't simultaneously argue that buying drugs supports the gangs. If you re-read my post you'll see I'm not arguing that buying drugs doesn't support gangs, I was offering two possible scenarios.
Both legalisation and abstaining will produce the same effect of reducing the gangs' impact. Neither are very likely unfortunately.

 

[room305]

Well if he is in a disadvantaged area there is a chance that his involvement with drugs started at an early age therefore removing any chance of a normal life.

Only a very small percentage of dealers are in such a position because they became addicted to drugs at an early age. Neither this, nor being born into an area of disadvantage is an excuse to engage in violent behaviour. Either way it misses my point completely, which is that anyone who is willing to kill someone for the sake of a few Euro is unlikely to be a productive member of society, regardless of whether drugs are illegal or not. You touch upon this in your next point.

The other aspect is, that no matter where he is from, there is no other illegal trade that can make so much money with so little risk to the seller. The levels of money that can be made are reflected in the apparent willingness to eliminate any competition from the market.

The risk to the seller is actually enormous, I don't know how you can think it isn't. However, the potential for profit is huge and more importantly the demand is huge. There is probably no other illegal trade where it is so easy to find a buyer for your product.

At what line do the pro legalisation people draw to what can be construed as a legal drug that should be made available to the open market. Surely there have been enough proven cases to show that most hard drugs have a very negative impact on users. Should heroin, LSD etc be available to 18 year olds as soon as they leave school? Would legalising it not remove the final barrier from kids experimenting and putting their lives on the line?

I imagine what is acceptable varies from person to person and there is no easy line to draw. At the very least there should be democratic debate on the issue. The current stance by the government lacks any credibility and does far more harm than good. I am shocked by the amount of spamspamspam teenagers in my area smoke, it beggars belief. Yet they believe it to be "harmless". This is what happens when the dangers of drugs are grossly exaggerated for shock effect - people end up believing they are totally without risk.

 

[ubiquitous]

This argument also holds for legalising drugs though. A poster responded to this saying they shouldn't be legalised on this basis, since gangs "won't go away", and will "shift business elsewhere". My point was that if you're going to argue against legalisation on this basis, you can't simultaneously argue that buying drugs supports the gangs. If you re-read my post you'll see I'm not arguing that buying drugs doesn't support gangs, I was offering two possible scenarios.
Both legalisation and abstaining will produce the same effect of reducing the gangs' impact. Neither are very likely unfortunately.

Yes, but legalisation is hardly even an option for Ireland in isolation from similar action by the US and other Western powers?

 

[room305]

Absolutly - I am not arguing otherwise - but what I am saying is that the criminal gangs do impeded ordinary citizens civil rights.

Perhaps, but your statement did imply that you viewed civil liberties as something of luxury, and not for those toiling at the coalface as it were.

And those who'se money ends up with the gang is enabling them.

Indeed, but has been pointed out by multiple posters including myself, these gangs are also enabled by the criminalisation of recreational drugs. It goes without saying that the members of these gangs would be vehemently opposed to any legalisation of the product they distribute.

 

[MrMan]

Neither this, nor being born into an area of disadvantage is an excuse to engage in violent behaviour.

I'm not offering an excuse, my point is that disadvantaged areas have generally been the worst hit in terms of crime, alcohol and drug abuse.

The advent of drugs as a major industry on these shores in the last decade has led to a major upsurge in violent crime because this new easy money is hard to let go of. A cycle of crime generally exists in these areas and the next generation look to be even more violent.

The risk to the seller is actually enormous, I don't know how you can think it isn't.

I don't think it is. At the lowest level many sellers get cautions, or carry low levels of supply on them. By the time they get jailed, it's usually short sentences with part suspended. At the higher levels the risk is in who you mix with. And when you consider soime of the sentences for large shipments worth millions the risks are nearly worth it in my opinion.

 

[room305]

I'm not offering an excuse, my point is that disadvantaged areas have generally been the worst hit in terms of crime, alcohol and drug abuse.

If you are not pro-offering it as an excuse, why even mention it? The point remains - and your other comments appear to support this view as well - individuals with a penchant for violent behaviour are attracted to drug dealing because it is an industry in which violent behaviour is rewarded.

I don't think it is. At the lowest level many sellers get cautions, or carry low levels of supply on them. By the time they get jailed, it's usually short sentences with part suspended. At the higher levels the risk is in who you mix with. And when you consider soime of the sentences for large shipments worth millions the risks are nearly worth it in my opinion.

As a profession, small time drug dealers are remarkably poorly remunerated for the work they put in. Quite apart from the risk of being jailed, most small drug dealers operate on credit from larger dealers. They then extend credit to those to whom they sell even smaller quantities of drugs. As any small tradesman and the executives at Northern Rock know, if your creditors fall due before your debtors have paid up, serious cash flow difficulties can arise. Only for drug dealers, these difficulties can result in death.

Though the margins from bulk shipment to street level are huge, the small time drug dealer doesn't get to take advantage of these. The bigger they try to become, then the greater the risk of imprisonment or death.

I know it's a US study but Freakonomics author Steven Levitt has done some work on the economics of drugs gangs. He concludes that the majority of dealers do not make more than the minimum wage.

We use a unique data set detailing the Financial activities of a drug-selling street gang to analyze gang economics. On average, earnings in the gang are somewhat above the legitimate labor market alternative. The enormous risks of drug selling, however, more than offset this small wage premium. Compensation within the gang is highly skewed, and the prospect of future riches, not current wages, is the primary economic motivation. The gang engages in repeated gang wars and sometimes prices below marginal cost. Our results suggest that economic factors alone are unlikely to adequately explain individual participation in the gang or gang behavior.

 

[MrMan]

I know it's a US study but Freakonomics author Steven Levitt has done some work on the economics of drugs gangs. He concludes that the majority of dealers do not make more than the minimum wage.

I read that too and while it was interesting I would be unsure of wheter to fall back on it for an argument. Small time dealers here vary in intelligence and circumstance and the more astute ones seem to make a relatively decent income without the hassle of 40hr week. I've known guys who have stopped working as block layers because they were making enough through dealing. Most of the lucky ones get caught once or twice and then turn away from it, the guy I mentioned never looked back and now he is a shadow of his former self through the continued use of heroin.

 

[room305]

Yes, but legalisation is hardly even an option for Ireland in isolation from similar action by the US and other Western powers?

This is a fair point. Some of the UN treaties the country is a signatory too have specific clauses about the legal status of certain drugs. So it may be that we don't have an alternative option, but this needs to be acknowledged. Yet, both the UK and the Netherlands have managed to relax their drug possession laws to a certain extent without being alienated.

Personally, I think that while we need to remain cognisant of such issues they are not insurmountable. I doubt it would be a good idea to legalise all drugs overnight - but the country needs to admit that the present system is not working and begin evaluating alternative options.