Gangland Killings

[Glenbhoy]

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]

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.

There is no way to eradicate this problem when there are massive amounts of money to be made and political gains to be had.

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]

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]

As I said above....

 

[auto320]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

.....
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]

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]

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]

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

Do you take smack though?

 

[colc1]

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]

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.