U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 01-29-2009, 01:11 PM
 
294 posts, read 592,384 times
Reputation: 81

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NooYowkur81 View Post
He might be a libertarian. Libertarians are not necessarily liberals.
Could of fooled me from his stand on anti-cameras in streets to legalizing drugs.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2009, 01:19 PM
 
294 posts, read 592,384 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by NooYowkur81 View Post
He might be a libertarian. Libertarians are not necessarily liberals.

Next thing you know, he wants prositution legal. I wouldn't put it pass him. I wouldn't be surprised if he has Socialist views and is PRO- Rent Stablization or as I like to call it: The Robin Hood Law. Take from the rich (the landlord) to give to the poor. Even though the perception of ALL landlords being rich is FALSE.

And if he did try to run for public office, I would be forced to run against him to knock down all these horrible ideas he has for the city.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2009, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Medina (Brooklyn), NY
656 posts, read 1,054,638 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Better_Bronx_2morrow View Post
Are you kidding me? Now I know you have a screw loose. You are way too liberal for my taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Better_Bronx_2morrow
Next thing you know, he wants prositution legal. I wouldn't put it pass him. I wouldn't be surprised if he has Socialist views and is PRO- Rent Stablization or as I like to call it: The Robin Hood Law. Take from the rich (the landlord) to give to the poor. Even though the perception of ALL landlords being rich is FALSE.

And if he did try to run for public office, I would be forced to run against him to knock down all these horrible ideas he has for the city.[/b]
...LOL. Why are you trying to analize me?

Being that I am a student in criminal justice alot of the questions that I bring up here are just different things that we discuss. I like to hear different views and different arguments and see things from both sides. What does my political affiliation have to do with my question? This is what's wrong with America. People are always turning everything into a gang war. Black vs White, Natives vs Immigrants, Republican vs. Democrat, Liberal vs Conservative, Rich vs Poor etc.

Relax man and have a drink, you have too much energy.

Last edited by Viralmd; 01-29-2009 at 04:47 PM.. Reason: Personal attack
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2009, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
7,903 posts, read 13,935,293 times
Reputation: 2432
Justfarr, I just wanted to touch on your previous question (which I think is worthy of its own thread btw), legalizing drugs is an interesting concept.

Many believe there would be instant anarchy on the streets if they made drugs legal tomorrow, but I don't generally see it that way. I just don't have an addictive personality, and I have no desire to indulge in drugs aside from the occasional alcoholic beverage, and I know there are many people like myself. People that actively seek out drugs are going to do so whether they are legal, illegal, on mars, whatever.

Legalizing would get rid of pretty much most of the criminal problems although there would still be a black market. I think in my lifetime they will eventually legalize Marijuana, or at least allow states to decide without the Feds stepping in. I think there is a valid argument to be made for the legalization of all drugs, but too often it gets shut down before anyone bothers to hear it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2009, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Medina (Brooklyn), NY
656 posts, read 1,054,638 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by NooYowkur81 View Post
Justfarr, I just wanted to touch on your previous question (which I think is worthy of its own thread btw), legalizing drugs is an interesting concept.

Many believe there would be instant anarchy on the streets if they made drugs legal tomorrow, but I don't generally see it that way. I just don't have an addictive personality, and I have no desire to indulge in drugs aside from the occasional alcoholic beverage, and I know there are many people like myself. People that actively seek out drugs are going to do so whether they are legal, illegal, on mars, whatever.

Legalizing would get rid of pretty much most of the criminal problems although there would still be a black market. I think in my lifetime they will eventually legalize Marijuana, or at least allow states to decide without the Feds stepping in. I think there is a valid argument to be made for the legalization of all drugs, but too often it gets shut down before anyone bothers to hear it.
Thankyou for your concern NYer. Let us discuss this: (Long Post)

How about for a moment we attempt to figure out the real underlying issue and not blame race or even bring it into this debate. I believe it is a socioeconimc issue, that has already been played out before in American History. My reasoning is simple. The US homicide rate in 1920-1933 was around 10 per every 100,000 person. The current US homicide rate is 5.7 per every 100,000 person. Let me explain to why bringing up blacks (race) has nothing to do with the crime debate.

In the 1920's through the 1930's the US banned an illegal substance called alcohol. It has been proven before government bans on illegal substances leads to an increase in the homcide rate i'll slowly explain. It is really basic economics. When the government creates laws banning addictive substances (alcohol in the 1920's herion, cocaine, and weed in todays economy) illegal cartels/gangs/organized crime usually comes to the aid of the "consumer" and fill a market need (demand). These gangs engage in trafficking these illegal substance to meet an overwhelming demand, that was created in the absence of the product or newly created illegal product. These drug dealers then charge prices that are substanctially higher than what these illegal substances would fetch if they were legal. In other words they sell at a huge premium to what their real market value is. Part of the astronomic increase is related to the level risk under taking such illegal activity. The risk associated with such illegal activity is jail. You also have to pay off local authorities, because no illegal organization can operate without some sort of help from legal business or police etc. Depending on how the law penalizes (or uses a deterrent) to eliminate this activity can have significant effects on drug dealers outcomes. In other words the use of law as a deterrent has a significant effect on the homicide rate. The more brutal the penalty (or the more serve the penality for engaging in this activity) the higher the cost of getting caught, thus the more likely a drug dealer will do whatever it takes to protect their freedom and thier business.

Okay, so that's the basics. The next thing you have with illegal crime is cartels or gangs that supply these drugs and they operate just like businesses. Revenues come from the selling of drugs to consumers, their overhead or cost of doing business (administrative or operational cost) comes from the thugs they employ. Okay let's continue with thinking of this for what it is and understand the model. Okay so as consumer demand increases the price of the good increases. As the price of good increase more competition decides to enter the market, because of the profits that can be made. Once large amounts of competition comes in you have two options (if you were running a legal business you would have a lot more than two as you could merge, lower prices, lay-off employees, sell to another firm etc). However you have two distinct options as an illegal business:

1. Lower Prices
2. Eliminate your competitor

Just for the sake of it i'll put the additional options

3. Cut Cost (real business involves downsizing) however in illegal business it involves killing off your own associates, so they don't rat you out.

4. Merging with a competitor (well, you could do that, but you would have to kill the leader first) either way you're doing a lot of killing

Well, homcide goes up because most illegal business choose to maintain high margins and would prefer to operate as monopolies, so they usually kill their competition. Okay let's say the laws change and become even harsher on individuals engaging in illegal activities. Well, that is seen as an increase in the cost of business or in other words an increase in risk. When risk increases so do murders and eliminating all competition. This was the case with white mobsters like Segal, Ted Kennedy's father, and a host of other drug dealers during the 1920's and is no different then the major drug problem seen in todays inner cities.

Okay, how do you eliminate such a problem? Well, you do what they did for prohibition you eliminate the middle man (drug dealer). When this is done the incentive to engage in this activity becomes unprofitable and the incentive to murder someone drops percipitiously. It is estimated that violent crime (murder) would drop by 90% in the inner city as most murders are related to the sell/trade of drugs. To Clarify I meant you make all drugs legal, that is the only effective way to eliminate the middle man. It drops the price to normal market rates, so individuals that were drug users who engaged in crime to support their habit now do not spend nearly as much money on the habit as perviously etc..I mean there are other problems to legalizing all drugs, but this is not the forum.

Also you would have to institute programs. They invest in poorer individuals human capital (better quality schools). Job opportunities (younger people are usually used extensively in teh drug trade because they're cheap labor and usually not subject to law, because they're under the age of 18) To prevent gun violence you could make stricter penalties on any crime, that involves the use of a hand gun either flashing or firing. These allows presecutors to effective prosecute inviduals who use guns to commit crimes and not penalize law abiding citizens that use them for protection/and or sport.

Next just in case you ask it. There's a huge drug problem in rural america why don't poor rural whites kill as much as poor inner city blacks? Well, in terms of their drug trade most of the whites that operate and engage in illegal activities, because of size and space in rural america they operate near monopolies in most cases and are not subject to large amounts of competition, so there's really no incentive to kill someone when the next drug dealer lives 40 or 50 miles away from your territory.

Okay i'll also answer the next question, but people in the UK do drugs and it is not legal, but they don't have the high murder rate the US has. Here's how to explain why and it has nothing to do with gun control whatsoever or the fact that the US has a higher minority population.

1. The most important thing to remember is the risk associated with engaging in illegal activity
2. All drug dealers are "rational" people, so is there a marginal benefit to such activity and do the cost outweigh the risk?
3. What are the penalties if I engage in such illegal behavior are they extremely strict? Or are they extremely laxed?

In my opinion three is the most important determinant in what the murder rate will be for trafficking illegal drugs. In the UK the answer to three is less than 3 years in jail. In America the answer to three is 10+ years.

Conslusion

There is a larger risk associated with traffiking drugs in the US than their is in the UK. Therefore the greater the risk associated with an illegal job the greater the number of homicides. Now should the UK change their drug policies and start to crack down and impose stiffer penalties they will start to see the murder rate we do regardless that their society is 95% white. Race has nothing to do with illegal activity. Poverty, lack of human capital investments, marginal benefit or incentive to crime, and a host of other socieconomic determinants play a factor in determing who is most likely to engage in illegal activity race is not remotely part of that equation.

Okay, I explained this as best I could. I wanted to look at this from a different aspect. *Waits for criticism*
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2009, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Medina (Brooklyn), NY
656 posts, read 1,054,638 times
Reputation: 197
^Any Feedback?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2009, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
7,903 posts, read 13,935,293 times
Reputation: 2432
Quote:
Originally Posted by justfarr1030 View Post
^Any Feedback?
You make compelling arguments Justfarr, and I agree with your point very much so that race has nothing to do with it. If you provide people with enough opportunities, for the most part they won't resort to selling drugs. It's definitely more of a socie-economic issue within the dynamics of urban America.

I think we have to as a society eventually re-evaluate the way we look at drugs when clearly so much crime is related to the use, trade, and general business of drugs, and not only is it a social burden, but an economic one too. We spend so much money fighting drug related crime.

Do you think if the U.S. were to legalize all drugs there would be no black market? I guess this would depend on the pricing. For instance once cigarettes went up enough, you started seeing more and more dudes selling them on the corner.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2009, 09:53 PM
 
Location: LawnGuyLin
674 posts, read 1,196,271 times
Reputation: 196
The reason america has harsh drug penaltys is because they dont make any money off it alchahol and tobbaco are "OK" because the government makes money off it Marijuana is "BAD" because the government dosnt make money off it

inspire revolution, the governments not invincible.
Vietnam to Venezuela, trick knowloge they pimpin you,
all up in the hood, like McDonald's and liquor.
Selling AIDS medicine, well we know you got the cure killers
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2009, 10:59 PM
 
3,225 posts, read 5,423,639 times
Reputation: 845
Quote:
Originally Posted by justfarr1030 View Post
Thankyou for your concern NYer. Let us discuss this: (Long Post)

How about for a moment we attempt to figure out the real underlying issue and not blame race or even bring it into this debate. I believe it is a socioeconimc issue, that has already been played out before in American History. My reasoning is simple. The US homicide rate in 1920-1933 was around 10 per every 100,000 person. The current US homicide rate is 5.7 per every 100,000 person. Let me explain to why bringing up blacks (race) has nothing to do with the crime debate.

In the 1920's through the 1930's the US banned an illegal substance called alcohol. It has been proven before government bans on illegal substances leads to an increase in the homcide rate i'll slowly explain. It is really basic economics. When the government creates laws banning addictive substances (alcohol in the 1920's herion, cocaine, and weed in todays economy) illegal cartels/gangs/organized crime usually comes to the aid of the "consumer" and fill a market need (demand). These gangs engage in trafficking these illegal substance to meet an overwhelming demand, that was created in the absence of the product or newly created illegal product. These drug dealers then charge prices that are substanctially higher than what these illegal substances would fetch if they were legal. In other words they sell at a huge premium to what their real market value is. Part of the astronomic increase is related to the level risk under taking such illegal activity. The risk associated with such illegal activity is jail. You also have to pay off local authorities, because no illegal organization can operate without some sort of help from legal business or police etc. Depending on how the law penalizes (or uses a deterrent) to eliminate this activity can have significant effects on drug dealers outcomes. In other words the use of law as a deterrent has a significant effect on the homicide rate. The more brutal the penalty (or the more serve the penality for engaging in this activity) the higher the cost of getting caught, thus the more likely a drug dealer will do whatever it takes to protect their freedom and thier business.

Okay, so that's the basics. The next thing you have with illegal crime is cartels or gangs that supply these drugs and they operate just like businesses. Revenues come from the selling of drugs to consumers, their overhead or cost of doing business (administrative or operational cost) comes from the thugs they employ. Okay let's continue with thinking of this for what it is and understand the model. Okay so as consumer demand increases the price of the good increases. As the price of good increase more competition decides to enter the market, because of the profits that can be made. Once large amounts of competition comes in you have two options (if you were running a legal business you would have a lot more than two as you could merge, lower prices, lay-off employees, sell to another firm etc). However you have two distinct options as an illegal business:

1. Lower Prices
2. Eliminate your competitor

Just for the sake of it i'll put the additional options

3. Cut Cost (real business involves downsizing) however in illegal business it involves killing off your own associates, so they don't rat you out.

4. Merging with a competitor (well, you could do that, but you would have to kill the leader first) either way you're doing a lot of killing

Well, homcide goes up because most illegal business choose to maintain high margins and would prefer to operate as monopolies, so they usually kill their competition. Okay let's say the laws change and become even harsher on individuals engaging in illegal activities. Well, that is seen as an increase in the cost of business or in other words an increase in risk. When risk increases so do murders and eliminating all competition. This was the case with white mobsters like Segal, Ted Kennedy's father, and a host of other drug dealers during the 1920's and is no different then the major drug problem seen in todays inner cities.

Okay, how do you eliminate such a problem? Well, you do what they did for prohibition you eliminate the middle man (drug dealer). When this is done the incentive to engage in this activity becomes unprofitable and the incentive to murder someone drops percipitiously. It is estimated that violent crime (murder) would drop by 90% in the inner city as most murders are related to the sell/trade of drugs. To Clarify I meant you make all drugs legal, that is the only effective way to eliminate the middle man. It drops the price to normal market rates, so individuals that were drug users who engaged in crime to support their habit now do not spend nearly as much money on the habit as perviously etc..I mean there are other problems to legalizing all drugs, but this is not the forum.

Also you would have to institute programs. They invest in poorer individuals human capital (better quality schools). Job opportunities (younger people are usually used extensively in teh drug trade because they're cheap labor and usually not subject to law, because they're under the age of 18) To prevent gun violence you could make stricter penalties on any crime, that involves the use of a hand gun either flashing or firing. These allows presecutors to effective prosecute inviduals who use guns to commit crimes and not penalize law abiding citizens that use them for protection/and or sport.

Next just in case you ask it. There's a huge drug problem in rural america why don't poor rural whites kill as much as poor inner city blacks? Well, in terms of their drug trade most of the whites that operate and engage in illegal activities, because of size and space in rural america they operate near monopolies in most cases and are not subject to large amounts of competition, so there's really no incentive to kill someone when the next drug dealer lives 40 or 50 miles away from your territory.

Okay i'll also answer the next question, but people in the UK do drugs and it is not legal, but they don't have the high murder rate the US has. Here's how to explain why and it has nothing to do with gun control whatsoever or the fact that the US has a higher minority population.

1. The most important thing to remember is the risk associated with engaging in illegal activity
2. All drug dealers are "rational" people, so is there a marginal benefit to such activity and do the cost outweigh the risk?
3. What are the penalties if I engage in such illegal behavior are they extremely strict? Or are they extremely laxed?

In my opinion three is the most important determinant in what the murder rate will be for trafficking illegal drugs. In the UK the answer to three is less than 3 years in jail. In America the answer to three is 10+ years.

Conslusion

There is a larger risk associated with traffiking drugs in the US than their is in the UK. Therefore the greater the risk associated with an illegal job the greater the number of homicides. Now should the UK change their drug policies and start to crack down and impose stiffer penalties they will start to see the murder rate we do regardless that their society is 95% white. Race has nothing to do with illegal activity. Poverty, lack of human capital investments, marginal benefit or incentive to crime, and a host of other socieconomic determinants play a factor in determing who is most likely to engage in illegal activity race is not remotely part of that equation.

Okay, I explained this as best I could. I wanted to look at this from a different aspect. *Waits for criticism*
Darned, justfarr, is this your Phd thesis or what? I'll have to get back to you next week when I'm done reading it!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2009, 12:45 AM
 
Location: Medina (Brooklyn), NY
656 posts, read 1,054,638 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by NooYowkur81 View Post
You make compelling arguments Justfarr, and I agree with your point very much so that race has nothing to do with it. If you provide people with enough opportunities, for the most part they won't resort to selling drugs. It's definitely more of a socie-economic issue within the dynamics of urban America.

I think we have to as a society eventually re-evaluate the way we look at drugs when clearly so much crime is related to the use, trade, and general business of drugs, and not only is it a social burden, but an economic one too. We spend so much money fighting drug related crime.

Do you think if the U.S. were to legalize all drugs there would be no black market? I guess this would depend on the pricing. For instance once cigarettes went up enough, you started seeing more and more dudes selling them on the corner.
(Long Post)
Lol, I'm glad you said that (the bold parts). Well, of course there will ALWAYS be some black market quite honestly. As I said in my other post there are other problems with legalizing drugs but I didn't really want to get into in this thread. But I will tell you how I feel:

First, let's talk about Here is a FACT: Studies have found that marijuana usage in the USA is higher than AT LEAST 16 other countries. It's related to affluence rather than the laws imposed. Strictly speaking, those countries with less stringent laws (like the Netherlands for example) have less users. Since our country has the highest percentage of users anyway, legalizing the substance is not going to cause more people to become addicted. Analysts for legalizing marijuana say that the benefits of doing so could be of tremendous help to the economy and the citizens. Their data and research comes from looking at statistics from other countries, but the ideas are much the same. Some of the numbers have been adjusted from the analysts initial findings to include inflation and things of that nature. It has been stated that:

1.) Legalizing marijuana would inject roughly $10 Billion in tax revenue into the economy. That money could be used in other areas like improving education or working on a new energy policy to rid us of our dependence on foreign oil.
2.) By legalizing the substance, the government could save a substantial amount on the war on drugs. So far this year, the government has spent $34,433,700,162 on the war on drugs, so legalizing at least marijuana would cut back a good portion of that, which is more money that can be funneled elsewhere, including towards the deficit.
3.) Some analysts believe that legalizing marijuana will cut back on police corruption, drug-related crimes, and will open up new jobs as marijuana farms will crop up throughout the U.S.
4.) If the substance is legalized, the government will have more control over the content of the product and the regulations. For example, the product could be required to go through rigorous testing before being delivered to consumers hands to ensure safety. In addition, strict regulations could be imposed such as they are for alcohol and cigarettes (ie: users must be at least 18 (or 21)), they could set a standard legal limit like they do with alcohol, impose higher taxes on the purchase of the substance, and limit the advertising that marijuana companies would be able to put out there.

*sighs*...Now, legalizing Crack/Cocaine (And The HARD drugs)

I have a hard time suspending my moral judgments with this argument because the fact is, the hard drugs have been proven to be very harmful to people. And that alone is enough for me to say I donít think its a good idea to legalize them. Itís also the reason I think the government wouldnít even entertain the notion of legalizing them.
Beyond the harmful affects, drugs like cocaine and ecstasy are really seductive at first. The high they promise lure people in, especially kids. So the concern is that by legalizing these drugs, more kids would become addicted and more would lose their lives. Given the harmful affects these kinds of substances have, itís hard to argue against that.
However, the benefits of legalizing them would be to inject (I swear, no pun intended) roughly $40 billion in tax revenue to the economy, a total savings on the war on drugs, a decrease in drug-related crimes and murders, and still another increase in jobs. Really, the benefits for legalizing all street drugs is much the same as legalizing weed, itís just on a larger scale. What has to be decided is whether the benefits far outweigh the consequences.

Personally, I donít see a problem with legalizing weed based on the evidence. To me, it seems very much like alcohol and cigarettes. I donít smoke and I drink on rare occasions, so for me, if marijuana were legalized it really wouldnít matter. I have no desire to try it. But, since there is no evidence to suggest it is harmful beyond what both alcohol and cigarettes do, then I see no reason we should waste money on trying to keep it off the streets when that CLEARLY isn't working and theyíve made an exception to legalize it for medicinal purposes. Just legalize it and use the gained income to get us out of debt and work towards other important projects like education and an energy policy. I also think itís silly that companies fire perfectly good employees who went to a party and smoked a little weed for fun. Since it's currently illegal, I understand the reason behind having to do so; however, itís a waste when good employees have to be fired.

Now, the argument on legalizing all street drugs is absolutely ridiculous in MY opinion. I don't know why people think that would be a brilliant idea and a wonderful solution to our problems, but it would not. While legalizing them would put an end to the black market and give us more money in tax revenue and savings on the war on drugs, the problem is that it alters chemicals in your brain thus enabling and encouraging users to act violently and irrationally. We would then be in hostile relationships with those countries smuggling drugs in. It's a big business for them and IF by some twisted, unforeseeable reason the government would do this they would certainly insist on it being U.S. made so they could control the purity of the substance. There are so many things wrong with this on so many levels, I canít even adequately put them into words. But then, I'm making a moral judgment. Someone else may be able to look at this objectively and see it differently.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top