🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7ta39u$2te6$2@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
  "Steven Mix" <stevenmix@prodigy.net> wrote:
> wcolley@my-deja.com wrote in message <7t4scm$kco$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Greetings All,
> >
> >In article <7t42oq$16n0$8@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Steven Mix" <stevenmix@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> No Malcolm, that's exactly the germaine argument.  I don't want
> >> the problems in my neighborhood, otherwise, I do not care about
> >> what adults do to their bodies and minds.  Well, within reason.
> >
> >I realize I am being somewhat obtrusive in replying without reading
all
> >previous 200+ posts within this thread, but Mr. Mix, are you
suggesting
> >that as long as there are "no problems" in your neigborhood then you
are
> >unconcerned with problems that exist in the country at large?
>
> No, of course not, we all want certain things that move society
> forward in a better positive direction for the whole.  I am just
> not willing to gamble on the viability of my neighborhood, for
> the sake of forwarding a radical transformation in the opposite
> direction of progress we have worked very hard to make.

A valid point Mr. Mix. Question, do you suggest that a more peaceful
society would be a "radical transformation"? If so, is this not a
desirable form of a "radical transformation" that you would support?

> Also, you
> >seem to agree that adults can do as they choose to themselves but
> >qualify this sentiment by stating "within reason". What exactly
should
> >adults not be able to do with their own bodies and minds, as long as
you
> >are not asked to support it?
>
> Just a loose example that should not be allowed, a mass suicide
> cult that makes it's intentions and actions publicly known beforehand.

If such a cult makes it's intentions and actions publically known
beforehand, then wouldn't any citizen who did not wish to commit suicide
leave? (note, I do not advocate suicide).

> Or removal of major body parts, for the purpose of self-expression,
> like tatooing is done.

Do not individuals have exclusive domain over their own bodies? If not,
then do you suggest that the government should have domain over the
bodies of its citizens? As an aside, if the government decided that
tatooing was "immoral" and passed laws to arrest and incarcerate all
citizens who have tatoos, would you support such laws?

>There are questions of taste that a culture as
> a whole has a right to impose, to a degree.

But Mr. Mix, neither you nor I have the power or legal right to impose
our taste on anyone. Politicians do have this power though.

> If it's highly visible to
me,
> or costs me, or interferes with values I try to impart to my children,
>I
> may object.  If it truly stays below my horizon of awareness, then
> I am generally content to leave well enough alone.

I agree you should never have to subsidize or pay for behaviour or
culture that you disapprove of. I agree that no one should have the
authority to teach values to your children except you. But what exactly
do you mean by "horizon of awareness"? I am aware that there are people
living in your neighborhood that have values differing from your own,
but if they never commit a crime against property or persons, why should
you use violence against them?


> >While I do not live in an urban area and therefore in no way have the
> >insights into urban problems that you do, would you agree that if
there
> >was no crimes committed against people or property in your
> >neighborhood then you would be willing to allow its inhabitants to do
as
> >they please?
>
> The entire quality of life is what is at stake.  Litter, declining
> property values, noise, lack of upkeep, lack of community support,
> stagnation, lack of investment.  These are all issues that inner urban
> dwellers must deal with as a result of the behavior by some.  So
> it goes a bit deeper than just *crime*.

Litter is a crime as is loud noise under some circumstances, and I do
not oppose using government to arrest and prosecute individuals
committing such crimes. As for the other issues, I am sure we could
debate them at length, but are you willing to use violence against
someone who doesn't offer enough community support, who doesn't invest
in your neighborhood, or who doesn't maintain their property to your
satisfaction? I suggest that while many issues go beyound crime, the
power of government should not.

> >As I understand it the primary difference between urban areas and
> >suburban areas is the number of people per square unit area. Of
course
> >there are infrastructure differences, but it is the sheer number of
> >people that urbanites must deal with that is the root of any
differences
> >in the problems.
>
> It's much more than that.  It's a difference in attitudes and
> expectations.  Suburban dwellers often are better off, because
> as a people they tend to behave differently.

But are not those attitudes and behaviours a result of living in such
close proximity to many thousands of strangers?

>Here is an example.
> A suburban co-worker of mine commented that he did not run
> his lawnmower before 9 am, so as not to disturb the neighbors.
> That's a typical suburban sentiment, I would say.  But that attitude
> simply tends not to exist here.  People routinely make all sorts
> of disruptive noise, at all hours, day or night.

I do not suggest that police should not enforce laws against disruptive,
loud noises that disturb the peace. They should.

>Just the other day
> I had to re-attach a lamp that some kid had unscrewed from the
> post, and just left hanging.

Vandalism is a crime. while crimes committed by children are
problematic, (and I don't have all the answers), one solution is to hold
parents criminally liable for the actions of their children.

>Little kids play around the carport, 2  and
> 3 year olds, totally unsupervised.

Take action against the parents (again, there are many issues involved
in childraising that I don't claim to good answers to).

>My neighbor just commented
> to me that she had to be real careful when she drives in, because
> they don't move, and they are almost too small to see.  But
> nobody watches them, ever.

The problem of children being unattended is not restricted to urban
areas, nor is the problem of them being in danger due to traffic. Again,
parents are responsible for their children. Make them answerable.

> >
> >> If it's about prohibition as cause or cure as you say, well:
> >> If prohibition is the cause of the drug epidemic, then you
> >> guys are 20 years too late.  For us.  We have already been
> >> decimated.
> >
> >Mr. Mix, are you suggesting that it is drugs per se and not violence
(by
> >which I mean crimes against people/property) that is the main problem
> >with your neighborhood? I realize that there are correlations between
> >the two, but they are seperable behaviours, yes?
>
> The drugs interact with those attitudes and expectations in
> some very negative ways.  Like my little neighbor kids calling
> each other *crack head*.  When people use crack openly,
> and scream about it when they fight, and cause other pain
> around it, or are victimized as a result of being on it, or whatever,
> it shows up on these little kids' radar screens, and just further
> deteriorates their attitudes and expectations.  I make no
> excuses for alcohol, it plays a very similar role in the neighborhood.

Many things interact with peoples attitudes and expectations in very
negative ways. Children have called each other names throughout history,
today it's crackhead, tomorrow maybe nethead. I am willing to conceed
that people may not always have the right to use drugs in public places.
 Screaming can be considered distrubing the peace and grounds for
arrest. Fighting is violence and grounds for arrest. Parents should (but
don't always, I conceed) have the authority to teach their children
values. You have the right to advocate sobriety.

> >
> >> But if prohibition is the cure for the drug epidemic, then you
> >> are wrong.  And we have made substantial progress in the
> >> interim.
> >
> >Do you mean by substantial that your neighborhood is safer because
there
> >has been a reduction in the level of violence?
>
> Our murder rate fell below 100 this year, for the first time in
> 20 years.  It is noticeably different, even before the statistic
> came out to prove it.  Rapes are down.  Armed robberies are
> way down.  Bad properties were closed.  One vacant old
> grocery that was a heroin den has become a large chain
> video rental outlet, at least in half the building.  There is
> hope for more development.  Community organizations
> are strong, and ongoing now, year after year.  There is a
> sense of community developing.  We have a wonderful
> new produce market on a busy corner, that was a rundown
> drug store, and is now thriving, drawing people in from the
> affluent areas.

These are all wonderful developments and I am glad you can report them.


> >> So you see, the cost/benefit ratio of throwing out prohibition
> >> now carries big risk for us urbanites.  We potentially gain little,
> >> because the neighborhoods have already been torn apart,
> >> and we are rebuilding on our own, driving the drugs out block
> >> by block.
> >
> >Without disparaging the progress your neighborhood has made in
advancing
> >the quality of life, can you be certain that you have eliminated drug
> >use? It is relatively easy to know when violence occurs, people call
the
> >police (hopefully) to respond. But how do you measure drug use in the
> >absence of associated violence? I can think of hypothetical means,
such
> >as mandantory urine testing for all residents, but I hardly think
this
> >is actually happening.
>
> We can measure it by the numbers of visible ones, the panhandlers
> in the grocery parking lots, that seem to target older women, the
> group that hangs in front of the post office all day, the little
dealers
> that made all their multiple daily rounds, they are all declining.
This
> is the case from all over the country, from what I have seen.  Credit
> goes to many areas, more police, very hard community work, a
> much better sustained economy.  Though our police budget has
> been frozen for the last 10 years or so, they have begun operating
> better for us, getting out of the patrol cars and doing community
> policing in the neighborhoods, for example.  The biggest change
> they made was instigating a drug hotline, for anonymous reporting.
> They use better techniques, like surveillance and indictments.

These all sound like positive developments, as long as the rights of all
PEACEFUL citizens are respected. The only exception I would make is the
use of anonymous reporting, which can be easily used to target innocent
people. What if some drug dealers took offense at your efforts to better
your neighborhood, planted drugs on your property, and called the police
on you? The police should be used only to deal with people who committ
or threaten to commit crimes against people/property.

> And it's not just drugs.  We are doing the same for chop shops,
> that specialize in stolen cars and dismantling and rebuilding
> into new vehicles.  We also have fences, who operate regular
> yard sales of stolen household items.  Some of the same drug
> properties rebuild stolen bicycles.  Targeting properties like
> that is the most effective way to knock those down, and reduce
> local burglaries.

All commendable efforts for which I applaud you.  Property crimes are
immoral and should be eliminated, if possible, and reduced to as low a
level as possible otherwise.

> >> But we could potentially be set back another 20 years, and
> >> have to start all over with new lessons, and another lost
> >> generation, if you are wrong.  I can't take that risk.
> >
> >If you mean to suggest that you can't take the risk of propagating
> >violence, I am in agreement.
>
> We cannot take the risk of reversing the trend by losing the tools
> we have worked so hard to gain.  All those police tactics, the
> interface with the community, would be negated with legalization.
> We cannot force a bad property to close if the people there
> are not doing something *illegal* that we can readily prove.
> We all know what people are doing, but proving it can be
> impossible.  For example, a local drug dealer had his car
> refitted with a new engine in a local chop shop.  The
> skeleton of the stolen vehicle that supplied the engine was
> abandoned in a local house garage.  All the registration
> paperwork was still with the stripped down vehicle.  Police
> confirmed it was stolen.  We up here knew the drug dealer's
> car had been broken down for a week, and suddenly it was
> running great again.  Through the community network we put
> two and two together with the other neighborhood, and it was
>  the same vehicle, and the same time frame.  Bingo.
> So we reported it up the channels in the police, thinking it would
> kill two birds with one stone, by taking out the drug dealer with
> receiving stolen property.  But the police could not even look
> at the car, without permission.  They would have to look under
> the hood to check the VIN numbers on the engine, and compare
> them with the stolen skeleton, which would be in the database
> anyway.  Simple, right?  Can't be done.  So that was that.  And
> even if they had a pretext to look, like a bust of the dealer, and
> a search of the car, he could always claim he bought it unknowing,
> or from a third party.  There was absolutely no way to make the
> connection for a court case.  So basically it's open season on
> stolen car parts.  And they know it.


Just as police use entrapment techniques today to collect evidence
against peaceful drug users/dealers, it would be easy for them to use
entrapment techniques to collect evidence against people committing
property crimes. This would not change with legalization, if anything
the police would have much more time to go after property crime. The
community could continue to be just as involved as it is.

Also, if drug use were legal, the current true criminals involved in the
trade would no longer have availble the money that drug trafficking
provides. How many of them  get rich selling black market cigaretts or
booze?

> And then to add insult to injury, the car was stolen from a
> neighboring town.  So it likes we residents and our police
> just allow chop shops to operate openly in our neighborhoods
> under everybody's nose, like we don't care.  That makes
> residents from the burbs even more wary of us, as stories
> like that get around.  So they stay away, along with their
> money that we need so desperately in our mom and pop
> stores.  Even our own residents do that, shop out of town,
> for pretty much the same reason.  Police develop the same
> attitude, because most of them live in the burbs, and commute
> in to work.  So the point is, we need all of our tools.

I agree you need every tool you can get to stop violence, except for
more violence.

> > You seem to be suggesting
> >that, in the absence of prohibition, there are violent individuals
> >waiting to assult your neighborhood. Do you think this is true? If
so,
> >would it not be better to use limited police powers to directly
confront
> >the violence (or threats of violence) as opposed to arresting drug
users
> >in masse who may or may not be violent?
>
> Not so much strictly violent as predatory.  Anything to make a
> buck.  Stolen parts, drugs, robbery, burglary, intimidation,
> whatever.

Exactly why if drugs were legal, then criminals wouldn't sell drugs for
proffit. Oh I conceed there will always be some who try, like there are
criminals who try to sell cigaretts and alcohol now. But none of them
make much of a buck doing it.

> There are outright threats of violence, but also
> just property damage, or annoyance.

Outright threats of violence are grounds for arrest. Property damage is
grounds for arrest. Annoyance is not.

>Big crowds get rowdy
> and cars do donuts, run into property and other cars, beer
> bottles get tossed and broken.  Police don't have the time
> for that sort of thing, and it's usually moved on by the time
> they get out there.

Perhaps if police did not waste time arresting any peaceful citizens
they would have more time to arrest non-peaceful criminals.

>These guys grew up in the hood, and
> they tend to stick, until they die or get locked up, or get
> rich and move up the dealer hierarchy.

I don't want to allow them to get rich from dealing drugs, unless they
become pharmacists or convience store clerks and work within proper
governmental regulaions. The owners of Pharmaceutical companies, alcohol
companies, and tobacco companies are rich, but they don't use violence
to sell their products.

> It's much more than violence, a lot of it is just intimidation.

Intimidation is violence, and I for one would want to see police arrest
people who use intimidation against others.

> One local drug house got foreclosed, the people were
> supposed to leave, most did, except the toughest young
> punks, who set about completely destroying the property,
> while turning it into a full-out crack whorehouse.  The bank
> manager in charge of the foreclosure was way out in the
> burbs, and was afraid to come out to the property to close
> it up right, for months.
> And for good reason, it scared me too, because it was a
> big stopping off place for all the mobile dealers I had
> under surveillance.  I almost got into a car wreck right
> there one time while I was doing one of my drivebys.
> After that I backed off and just let it be, until the bank
> finally dealt with it.

As difficult as it is, the police do have the thankless task of
confronting violence. Why did they not arrest those young punks for
destroying the property that was not theirs? Use force against violent
people, not against peaceful citizens.

[some snippage]

Mr. Mix, you and I seem to agree on many points, and I certainly can't
tell you what is "right" for you or your neighborhood. The only point I
wish to emphasize is I never think it is acceptable to use force and
violence (except in self defense) to try and control the behaviour of
peaceful citizens. Please don't think I am against your stance on
sobriety. I just ask you to think about why the government should ever
use force against peaceful citizens.

William C Colley.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.