The Murder Solution Rate In The US Used to Be 91%

williatw · Post by **williatw** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:27 am

MSimon wrote:This encapsulates why:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

Sooner the better...hoping those longevity breakthroughs arrive soon, but maybe not too soon. 10-12yrs should thin the herd nicely. Though of course if forfeiture of assets keeps increasing exponentially....we will see how much those old codgers like the WOD, when their stuff starts disappearing into gov coffers at an alarming rate.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:15 pm

A choice of words, that from my perspective applies to you more so than me. Of the two of us, I perceive that I am the only one with any real experience dealing with people addicted to hard drugs. You are still in the wading pool of the drug culture. Get in deeper and I fear you will drown.

The Swiss program of legalization reduced addiction rates by 82%. Maybe the people you came across were in that other 18%.

Nothing is perfect.

===

Even more interesting is that the Swiss program reduced crime by 60%. The police officer explains it all in the video I posted at the beginning of this thread.

williatw · Post by **williatw** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:12 am

Good video thanks for posting it. Slowly but surely good sense will prevail eventually. Yes smoking and drinking hard liquor would be examples of highly addictive substances usage of which in this country have been greatly reduced over time by education and treating addiction to it as a medical condition not a crime. Similar experience in the Netherlands, Switzerland and Portugal with drugs even hard drugs. Unfortunately there is in the US the thinly veiled desire to simply jail undesirables, drugs being a good excuse. The one thing the war on drugs has accomplished is to incarcerate millions of those scary young black men that terrify a significant percentage of our older white population. Many people simply think anything that gets them off the streets is a good thing, whether drug use goes up, down or stays the same. They will simply rationalize reasons to keep doing it. The one thing they learned from alcohol prohibition is make sure you jail the right kinds of people. But now the driver will increasingly be the very profitable for the state, asset forfeiture. It will be those who are perceived as having things worth taking, rather than the easiest to convict/jail who will be the ones targeted. We will see what happens as asset forfeiture continues to increase, let us see their devotion to the WOD when it starts costing them their money, property, cars etc. Easy to talk about “making the tough choices”, need for “external governors”, when it is someone you don’t care much about anyway being jailed, brutalized, lives destroyed, but asset forfeiture is quite different. Maybe I am being cynical, but think that will end of WOD more than anything else does.

cgray45 · Post by **cgray45** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:41 am

MSimon wrote:
A choice of words, that from my perspective applies to you more so than me. Of the two of us, I perceive that I am the only one with any real experience dealing with people addicted to hard drugs. You are still in the wading pool of the drug culture. Get in deeper and I fear you will drown.
The Swiss program of legalization reduced addiction rates by 82%. Maybe the people you came across were in that other 18%.

Nothing is perfect.

This. The question isn't "is addiction bad." It obviously is, no matter the substance. It is: are Current US policies effective in reducing teh amount of addiction and are they cost effective for the benefits, and the answer to that is no. If anything, by creating an ever growing pool of convicts who are essentially locked out of civil society, it produces the very opposite effect.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:15 am

MSimon wrote:
A choice of words, that from my perspective applies to you more so than me. Of the two of us, I perceive that I am the only one with any real experience dealing with people addicted to hard drugs. You are still in the wading pool of the drug culture. Get in deeper and I fear you will drown.
The Swiss program of legalization reduced addiction rates by 82%. Maybe the people you came across were in that other 18%.

Nothing is perfect.

===

Even more interesting is that the Swiss program reduced crime by 60%. The police officer explains it all in the video I posted at the beginning of this thread.

Show the real source, show other studies. You are spamming questionbale numbers again. Your many times touted "cop" buddy is dated. Your current vaunted youtube of him has him using 2008 numbers.

cgray45 · Post by **cgray45** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:23 am

Here is an article of the prtuguese decriminalization. Note that this is after a full decade of the program, so we can take the evidence as representing long term trends.

http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal ... rks-2012-7

The Cato institute paper 9is here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal ... rks-2012-7

Note that both drug use and drug related crimes experienced rather dramatic drops.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:34 am

ladajo wrote:
MSimon wrote:
A choice of words, that from my perspective applies to you more so than me. Of the two of us, I perceive that I am the only one with any real experience dealing with people addicted to hard drugs. You are still in the wading pool of the drug culture. Get in deeper and I fear you will drown.
The Swiss program of legalization reduced addiction rates by 82%. Maybe the people you came across were in that other 18%.

Nothing is perfect.

===

Even more interesting is that the Swiss program reduced crime by 60%. The police officer explains it all in the video I posted at the beginning of this thread.
Show the real source, show other studies. You are spamming questionbale numbers again. Your many times touted "cop" buddy is dated. Your current vaunted youtube of him has him using 2008 numbers.

So you think the trends noted after the program was operated for 10 or 14 years reversed? If so why hasn't it been in the news? Why haven't the Swiss reversed course?

You will note that the first Swiss vote on heroin legalization was on the order of 55%. The second vote years later was about 68%. Sure signs of a failed program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/3 ... 47245.html

BTW the Swiss did not legalize pot. Go figure.

It really is amazing the number of realists around here who have lost faith in reality. Without even checking. Not a very engineering oriented attitude. At all.

And funny thing. The Swiss move did not lead to a breakdown of the social compact (as so many here predict).

On a separate issue, 52 percent of voters approved an initiative to eliminate the statute of limitations on pornographic crimes against children before the age of puberty.

Another one:

From: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 56,00.html

The HAT experiment was borne out of the closing, in the early 1990s, of Zurich's infamous Letten "needle park," where thousands of addicts from across Europe gathered to shoot heroin on garbage-strewn railway tracks. "We wanted to offer a program to reach out to these people," says Dr. Adrian Kormann, medical director of a Zurich HAT clinic where Heun is treated. "And we knew that an approach based only on repression doesn't work."

Instead, Swiss government convened expert scientific and ethical advisory bodies that devised a liberal alternative to "zero-tolerance" drug policies practiced elsewhere, focusing on prevention, harm reduction, and therapy. Switzerland's stance of giving the most severely dependent addicts not only heroin, but also counseling and medical treatment, has since spawned similar programs in Great Britain and the Netherlands. A handful of other countries are considering implementing this strategy as well.

Though the long-term goal of the program is to get addicts off the drug says Kormann, "our immediate priority is survival, reintegration into society, and reducing crime. In this regard, we have been very successful."

I keep hearing from so many that America is a Christian nation. I ain't seein' it. Evidently compassion is no longer a Christian virtue in America.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:38 am

Why do you not comment that this is decriminilization targeted for addicted users and early users, who must still go to court, and then must participate in court mandated treatment programs (or face more severe consequences for defying the court). Do you know what is done for distrubutors and dealers?

You do understand that Portugal did not "legalize" as is inferred by Simon and others. They (primarily) decriminilized users. The follow on question one needs to ask is about cost comparisons for society. Is it cheaper to provide state mandated and funded treatment for the addicts (a lifetime commitment) or is it cheaper to lock them up? One must also ask which is more productive, effect per dollar if you will. For me, I still wonder if some mix is appropriate. And it does seem that this is possible in the Portuguese system as the court has retained circumstantial abilities in each case heard.

Legalization it is not.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:03 pm

And per say if you really wish to push this agenda you need to consider the following. ATF yes I said it ATF will now most likely be involved. Just as the ATF control the proof of alcohol, the way its manufactured, the regulation for distributions. permits, licencing taxation. ENFORCEMENT! You talk about the corporate prison system. Decriminalization and legislation will put more fines and prison terms that it being illegal combined.
Your in essence inviting Big government right into your own home. You scoff but think of the moonshine industry and the regulation of the bar industry. you can not brew hard liquor at home, You can not possess sell or give it away if its un-taxed. repeat offenders do hard time. and its no real soci al stigma to turn in a neighbor you don't like for avoiding taxes
so welcome to the new ATFM alcohol tobacco firearms Marijuana
Be careful what you ask for you just may get it.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:34 pm

ladajo wrote:Why do you not comment that this is decriminilization targeted for addicted users and early users, who must still go to court, and then must participate in court mandated treatment programs (or face more severe consequences for defying the court). Do you know what is done for distrubutors and dealers?

You do understand that Portugal did not "legalize" as is inferred by Simon and others. They (primarily) decriminilized users. The follow on question one needs to ask is about cost comparisons for society. Is it cheaper to provide state mandated and funded treatment for the addicts (a lifetime commitment) or is it cheaper to lock them up? One must also ask which is more productive, effect per dollar if you will. For me, I still wonder if some mix is appropriate. And it does seem that this is possible in the Portuguese system as the court has retained circumstantial abilities in each case heard.

Legalization it is not.

Well I assume people can read. Probably a faulty assumption.

And you are correct so far no country has had the courage to go back to pre 1914 rules.

But take rehab. With rehab about 5% of the "addicts" quit every year. Not an astounding success rate - but it is something.

Without rehab - about 5% of the "addicts" quit every year.

===

Which is to say that the remaining laws and courts etc. are just there to pacify the fearful. We could get the same results by doing nothing.

A large cohort of humans gets comfort from believing that they or those they trust are in control. I have never believed in control. Which may make me closer to reality but leaves me odd man out. I do have a few friends.

===

A while back I posted about opium use in Nantucket in the late 1700s. Back then there were no laws about it and from the description it seemed less problematic than alcohol use.

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/08/opiu ... cket-1792/

So how did it become the problem it is today?

Progressives and their camp followers. They did the same thing with Demon Rum. Their anti-opiate campaign was more successful because few had contact with opiate users. Their campaign against cannabis is failing because a lot more people have come in contact with it thanks to prohibition.

Eventually "conservatives" will give up being Progressives and return to their small government roots. But it will take another generation. Right now all that is left of 1900s conservatism is the "small government" slogan.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:43 pm

Your in essence inviting Big government right into your own home. You scoff but think of the moonshine industry and the regulation of the bar industry. you can not brew hard liquor at home, You can not possess sell or give it away if its un-taxed. repeat offenders do hard time. and its no real soci al stigma to turn in a neighbor you don't like for avoiding taxes

Well I think we are better off without alcohol prohibition.

I think we would be much better off without big government.

Trouble is there are still too many "conservatives" who don't agree. Despite being nominally members of the small government party.

I'd like to see them live up to their ideals. Or declare that they really don't have any. i.e. it is all a matter of convenience.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:17 pm

MSimon wrote:
Your in essence inviting Big government right into your own home. You scoff but think of the moonshine industry and the regulation of the bar industry. you can not brew hard liquor at home, You can not possess sell or give it away if its un-taxed. repeat offenders do hard time. and its no real soci al stigma to turn in a neighbor you don't like for avoiding taxes
Well I think we are better off without alcohol prohibition.

I think we would be much better off without big government.

.

This is not about effect or Prohibition this is what would most probably happen with legalization. The government can not leave no form of revenue un-taxed. And I think by getting what the left hand wants your going to see what the right hand holds. Big government needs big funding. I think your drug culture ideas are at best a Faustian bargain.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:03 pm

paperburn1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:
Your in essence inviting Big government right into your own home. You scoff but think of the moonshine industry and the regulation of the bar industry. you can not brew hard liquor at home, You can not possess sell or give it away if its un-taxed. repeat offenders do hard time. and its no real soci al stigma to turn in a neighbor you don't like for avoiding taxes
Well I think we are better off without alcohol prohibition.

I think we would be much better off without big government.

.
This is not about effect or Prohibition this is what would most probably happen with legalization. The government can not leave no form of revenue un-taxed. And I think by getting what the left hand wants your going to see what the right hand holds. Big government needs big funding. I think your drug culture ideas are at best a Faustian bargain.

Well maybe so. But I think of thing in terms of better/worse. I'm no utopian.

Perhaps breaking the DEA will lead to breaking the ATF.

Depends on how "conservatives" break. If they are true to form they will pass up the opportunity.

In any case my hope is for the next generation. Say about 20 years out. I should live so long.

williatw · Post by **williatw** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:12 pm

paperburn1 wrote:This is not about effect or Prohibition this is what would most probably happen with legalization. The government can not leave no form of revenue un-taxed. And I think by getting what the left hand wants your going to see what the right hand holds. Big government needs big funding. I think your drug culture ideas are at best a Faustian bargain.

I think you have a point, legalizing drugs could lead to that....but hard liquor, & cigarettes, are legal, taxed also highly addictive substances that presumably lead to increased gov tax revenue. That hasn't stopped the gov from anti-smoking public service education, campaigns against drunk driving etc., to curb smoking and consumption of hard liquor. Sure practically no one here thinks that we would be better off with prohibition of either one of those two. The experiences of Portugal, Switzerland or the Netherlands in legalizing/decriminalizing hasn't led to gov pushing heroin, crystal meth or crack etc. on people to increase tax revenue.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:59 pm

MSimon wrote:
A choice of words, that from my perspective applies to you more so than me. Of the two of us, I perceive that I am the only one with any real experience dealing with people addicted to hard drugs. You are still in the wading pool of the drug culture. Get in deeper and I fear you will drown.
The Swiss program of legalization reduced addiction rates by 82%. Maybe the people you came across were in that other 18%.

Nothing is perfect.

===

Even more interesting is that the Swiss program reduced crime by 60%. The police officer explains it all in the video I posted at the beginning of this thread.

Okay, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and watch your video and see what it has to say.

Starts off with a complete lie. (Not a good beginning.) The lie is that "Europe imprisons 150 people per 100,000, while the United States imprisons 1,000 people per 100,000. Charles Murray (Writer of "The Bell Curve" etc.) has pointed out that once the Demographics of America are adjusted to equal the homogeneity of Europe, the differences in incarceration not only disappear, but the US has an even lower rate of incarceration than does Europe. Now what am I supposed to do? If the man is starting out with a garbage theory, how is he going to go anywhere with it? ...

Now he is postulating a false theory of equivalence between usage and imprisonment. His argument is that blacks make up 13.5% of users, but make up 37% of people arrested for using drugs. The impression he wants you to take away from his point is that Drug laws are inherently racists, and intentionally target minorities because DRUG LAWS ARE RACIST!!!!!!!!! (A common accusation by those who want to legalize drugs anyway. They figure that playing the race card works in politics, so they want to get in on the action too!!!)

Now either the man is a special class of fool, or he is just lying.* Anyone who works in law enforcement is very likely aware that the crime statistics between Black and White are very disproportionate. Though Blacks make up ~ 13 % of the population, they make up something like 30-40% of all Homicides.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homici ... acetab.cfm

Obviously the laws against MURDER are also racist. Who knew?

I'm not watching any more of this crap, and that's what it is CRAP. It is an intentional effort to mislead people about the reality of what is happening, just to promote the legalization of drugs. The Man is a Boston educated Liberal whack job, and he is now intentionally trying to mislead the public to promote his own nutty ideas. I've caught him lying twice now, and as far as i'm concerned, two strikes and your out.

* Is the man really lying, or is he just misinformed? Does he have an agenda? Well, according to ".linkedin" it says:

University of Massachusetts Boston
MS, Public Policy

1996 – 1999

Jack holds a B.A. in Criminal Justice and a Masters degree in Public Policy. Currently writing his dissertation for the Public Policy Ph.D. Program at the University of Massachusetts, his major focus is on the issues of race and gender bias, brutality and corruption in law enforcement.

So, odds are he really does know the truth about Race and Crime, and is intentionally covering it up so as to push his agenda. While we're on the topic, here are the Rape/Murder Statistics for New York. Apparently Rape is also a Racist Law.

Murder/Rape statistics for New York 2011. Black Arestees make up 45% of total.