Halloween in New Orleans - 2 Dead Many Wounded

[mikeb302000]

http://news.yahoo.com/halloween-shootings-orleans-french-quarter-163518076.html">Yahoo News reports

Violence marred Halloween night in New Orleans, with two men killed and more than a dozen others wounded in five separate shootings, including incidents on Bourbon Street in the city's famous French Quarter and on nearby Canal Street.

In another story, the mayor had this to say.

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu at a press conference Tuesday said a "culture of violence" that involves young black men with illegal guns has plagued the city and must be stopped.

Isn't that a riot, "black men with illegal guns?"

Those "black men with illegal guns" are like the users of heroin. But at least in the ill-advised War on Drugs we have enough integrity to admit it's not the end user who's the problem. It's the dealers and the suppliers.

It's the same thing with the gun problem. The criminals who use guns badly should be stopped, just like their heroin-injecting cousins, but the focus needs to be on the source of the guns. Failing to do that would be like blaming the street junkie fo the billion-dollar drug business that continues unabated.

Gun availability to unfit people is the problem, http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/solution.html">and it's a preventable one.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[ileus]

1. Guns, still killing people after all these years.

[Remmah2]

2. Is there a link to the second story?

nt

[AtheistCrusader]

3. I see you are in favor of the drug war.

"should be stopped, just like their heroin-injecting cousins"
"It's the dealers and the suppliers."

Ill-advised huh? So why are you advocating for something you just called ill-advised, and simultaneously advocating expanding that same ill-advised policy into a new market?

[iverglas]

4. I see you favour keeping the African-American population drugged and poor

At least by your tricks of rhetoric, I do.

You don't think that heroin use by young black men is a serious personal and social problem for them and their communities, and that both would benefit if they stopped, or better yet didn't start? Huh.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Prohibition doesn't work.

What they are doing in Portgual does seem to be working.
Expanding controls that resemble the drug war to combat illegal guns is a slightly different condition and may have slightly different results, but it's still pretty dumbass justification.

[iverglas]

6. and the poster did not suggest it does

What red herring trail is that that we are following? Did the poster make some suggestion that drug war-like methods be applied to firearms? I didn't see it.

I support decriminalization of drug posession. However, I do not labour under, or attempt to propagate, the notion that decriminalization will solve the problems associated with drug use, or eliminate organized crime and the violence attendant on its activities.

Activities that it cannot carry on without access to firearms.

Or maybe without firearms, they'll just become some kinder gentler version of gangs and mobs, succeeding by gentle persuasion and sweet reason ...

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Decriminalization does work.

I'm not sure if I should copy-paste Mike's assertion about targeting dealers/etc. He clearly linked the two subjects. I didn't just bring it up out of nowhere.

[iverglas]

11. I'll do it for you

But at least in the ill-advised War on Drugs we have enough integrity to admit it's not the end user who's the problem. It's the dealers and the suppliers.

And as you and I and all of us know perfectly well, he supports firearms registration and some form of universal requirement for proof of eligibility for firearms purchases, and safe/secure storage requirements.

I.e.: targeting the dealers and suppliers.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. How well has targeting the dealers and suppliers worked in the drug war?

These people have built fucking SUBMARINES to supply the demand. Guns and drugs move both ways across our borders. The two are solidly linked, because both make for valuable contraband.

[iverglas]

15. sorry, just not worth belabouring

I doubt that you really think that an equivalency rather than a rough handy analogy was intended here, so I'm not going to bother pursuing that point.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. We'll have to agree to disagree I think.

I feel addressing the demand is generally the best approach, and 'ban it harder' never seems to work. Portugal's solution to drugs has worked much better than bans and raids, and targeting dealers and things like that. You can target dealers all day long, as long as enough money is there to be made, someone else will step up and fill that role, even as the previous fellow is led away in cuffs or a plastic sack.

A significant portion of the illicit firearms trade would simply dry up upon legalizing drugs, and drug use itself would dwindle.

[rl6214]

41. He supports banning guns, posted it here many times.

You want to see it, google it, I know you know how to use google.

[iverglas]

46. if I'm ever in need

of your vile crap about another poster at this site, I'll let you know.

[rl6214]

55. So glad I can be of help to you

and how is my reposting of his gun ban position "vile crap"?

[iverglas]

58. check post 40

Oops.

[rl6214]

64. Oh...My...Gosh...

You got a post deleted, aren't you a bad ass. A self admitted acid dropping, pot smoking badass but a badass none the less.

[one-eyed fat man]

10. Culture and peer pressure

The leading cause of death for black men 15 to 34 is homicide. If those men were dying from a disease, the black community would cry out for a cure.

If those men were dying solely at the hands of white people, the black community would protest.

Instead, the hip-hop world’s celebration of savage violence, educational failure and misogyny by gangsta rap has been one of the worst influences on American youth, especially black youth, in decades.The worst of gangsta rap has not merely reflected behavior but has also inspired it, much of it lawless and destructive. Its lyrics are paeans to murder and mayhem. It celebrates an outlaw culture that disrespects women, mocks middle-class values and preaches against any cooperation with police in catching criminals.

In this destructive environment, the more violent and predatory you are, the more heroic you seem. The world of thug culture, middle-class men with minor legal transgressions feel compelled to exaggerate their bad behavior, claiming to be hard-core degenerates in order to impress youngsters looking for outlaw role models.

When the offspring of sucessful black parents, enrolled in one of the best schools in the country tell researchers that academic achievement is looked on as "acting white" and they aspire to emulate "gangstas" rather than their professional parents the problem is not the outside.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lTBQvE0yH7oC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=students+fail+shaker+heights&source=bl&ots=plLjn02hho&sig=eV8ndT6pcq887yWWUu5yaLTmFkc&hl=en&ei=qVqxTqmUJumPsQKx_emkAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=students%20fail%20shaker%20heights&f=false

If it is better to be an outlaw than to be a teacher or a chemist or accountant, then young black men will continue to go to prison in record numbers. If it is more acceptable to be violent and reckless than to be a responsible father and husband, then marriage will continue to decline in black communities. If you want to ruin a nation, a society or an ethnic group, persuade its members that the highest form of achievement lies in criminality.

[iverglas]

12. fascinating

And your solution?

Gosh, I wonder whether one of the reasons why "it is better to be an outlaw than to be a teacher or a chemist or accountant" might actually be because the chance of a young black man in an impoverished and underdeveloped and violence-ridden community becoming one of those is about nil?

Just by the bye, it might help if young black women got a thought here too. Being exploited for sex and becoming a parent at 16 isn't exactly a dream career, and doesn't exactly contribute to the success of either the woman or her children. But then again, becoming a teacher or a chemist or an accountant isn't exactly on the horizon for most such young women either.

Gosh, I just have to wonder whether racism and oppression and exploitation really are at the root of it all after all, and it isn't all just a matter of bad culture and poor choices ...

[one-eyed fat man]

17. Did not look at all at the link did you?

Here is another. Cal Professor John Ogbu knows why rich black kids are failing in school, do you?

http://books.google.com/books/about/Black_American_students_in_an_affluent_s.html?id=lKNB4asR5oIC

The professor and his research assistant moved to Shaker Heights for nine months in mid-1997. They reviewed data and test scores. The team observed 110 different classes, from kindergarten all the way through high school. They conducted exhaustive interviews with school personnel, black parents, and students. Their project yielded an unexpected conclusion: It wasn't socioeconomics, school funding, or racism, that accounted for the students' poor academic performance; it was their own attitudes, and those of their parents.

Ogbu concluded that the average black student in Shaker Heights put little effort into schoolwork and was part of a peer culture that looked down on academic success as "acting white." Although he noted that other factors also play a role, and doesn't deny that there may be anti-black sentiment in the district, he concluded that discrimination alone could not explain the gap.

"The black parents feel it is their role to move to Shaker Heights, pay the higher taxes so their kids could graduate from Shaker, and that's where their role stops," Ogbu says during an interview at his home in the Oakland hills. "They believe the school system should take care of the rest. They didn't supervise their children that much. They didn't make sure their children did their homework. That's not how other ethnic groups think."

It took the soft-spoken 63-year-old Nigerian immigrant several years to complete his book, Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement., which he wrote with assistance from his research aide Astrid Davis. Before publication, he gave parents and school officials one year to respond to his research, but no parents ever did. Then Ogbu met with district officials and parents to discuss the book, which was finally published in January.

The gatherings were cordial, but it was clear that his conclusions made some people quite uncomfortable. African-American parents worried that Ogbu's work would further reinforce the stereotype that blacks are intellectually inadequate and lazy. School district officials, meanwhile, were concerned that it would look as if they were blaming black parents and students for their own academic failures.

Why has smoking declined in the past 40 years? Because in most circles it has gone out of fashion. That had more to do with it than graphic labels, dire warnings and 4 buck a pack taxes. Same with drunks and drunk driving. WC Fields, Foster Brooks, among others, made a living portraying lovable lushes, even that style of comedy has become as unacceptable as "Amos 'n' Andy."

As for the women, wife-beaters tend to breed wife-beaters and abused women beget daughters who view abuse as their lot in life. Again, to extent that art imitates life, "ho's 'n' bitches'spects to be whupped on by their nigga."

"2 Deep" by "Waka Flocka Flame"
(feat. Gucci Mane, Wooh Da Kid, YG Hootie, Ice Burgandy, Slim Dunkin, Lil Capp & Frenchie)

(Intro & Chorus:}
GROVE street, BLOOD we two deep
Don't get your ass deep, don't get your ass deep.
GROVE street, BLOOD we two deep
Don't get your ass deep, don't get your ass deep.

(Verse 1: YG Hootie)
Too my nigga in a... bitch nigga mad cause I'm fucking this woman
Get your ass beat put to sleep cause that's b game we too deep
I'm what's poppin on grove street I'm smokin kush it feel like byrum
Fuck out my way I stay poppin if he hatin ain't YG take my G so I...
Touch for... guns ring out like a harmony
One for two three for four... the best I think so, she think so, we so on
Beat your ass like I'm mike tyson that's my type can't lie that's my life.

(Verse 2: Papa Smurf)
Prime red flag I'm a figure role nigga, they don't know what it's...
Just like my croll nigga, fuck a job, did that shit over the stove nigga
Smell the blow on my mothafucking clothes nigga
Grind all day party all night, canary yellow diamonds, ferrari all white
They say that boy a killer to me he alright
That nigga ain't got it all Shit we just alike

(Chorus)

(Verse 3: Slim Dunkin)
I ain't no vegetarian, bitch I like the beef
Put your lips on the curve make you bite the street cut yo fuckin ankles off
If like to see, put your ass on the mug like some nike cleats
Quit actin 'fore I put you in the trunk dummy
Better break fast 'fore I take yo lunch money
You had a good show them goons had to clap ya
I ain't want yo bitch she got an attitude

(Verse 4: Lil Capp)
See I came to the club on that bullshit
My partna outside with a full clip
... you don't wanna fight
'Cause after we beat yo azz yo gon lose yo life
So let that shit go pussy tuck that pride in
And when your niggas sleeping my nigga ridin
Grove st killers my nigga ridin
The choppa hangin on my shoulder like a violin

(Chorus)

(Verse 5: Gucci Mane)
Brick squad so deep is a privilege to speak
All my fans say what's up and my local meet & greets
Living reppard fuck it rugged cold name mothafuck it two bloods and a blunket '78 cutless
Monster, monsters Gucci mane's a monstar
DTG is the title of my young star
The man of the south you can call em hellron
1017 brick boys made some lepchrons

(Verse 6: Frenchie)
F.R. are you... cussin out by you
Free niggas in the back of a G ride
That's how we ride I'm a a threat on the east side
Like panth up with no peace sign bitch I'm bustin at em look how fast I reach mine
The only thing hanging is the pants on you
Knock you out u swear I had ciara's feet dancing on you
All my niggas trained to go strapped from straight from head to toe
Play a stunt man and I put shawty lo

(Chorus)

(Verse 7: Ice Burgandy)
Blood tell you where you from west side inglewood
Don't tell em your name ice burgandy is tha name
I be in the hood, I've been hanging out my pocket like I'm hit squad
My flag dark red like a brick wall
Inglewood avenue my party is like grove street, I'm young and respected like an og
I ain't scared to shit look up in my eyes I push kaliana like in 1995

(Verse 8: Wooh Da Kid)
First rule never ride if that nigga snitching
Dey gon find him in a lake while dem boys fishin
You're just a pono wooh da king play yo position
Hole jus too big ain't no need for stitchin'
W O O H D A
K I N G he super straight
Taliban hit squad bustin on a grove
Come and holla at the king I've king of souls

(Chorus)

Bill Cosby is right, people didn't protest, march, sacrifice, get beaten and for this.

[iverglas]

19. I did, actually

Confirmed it wasn't the first time I'd seen it.

But racism, that just has nothing to do with anything, right? I think that was my question.

You're walking a pretty fine line with some of your comments there.

I don't think I've seen you claim to be African-American. Are you just one of those people who knows what other people need?

I don't even know what you're saying these other people here need, other than a good dose of finger-pinting, but whatever.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. "Are you just one of those people who knows what other people need?"

There are a couple of "those people" in this thread alone. I leave it to the reader to figure out who they are...

[iverglas]

24. no, I guess you're just one of those people

who will not say what they mean and mean what they say.

All I see you saying, with your source as back-up, is that African-Americans are bad parents ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Just trying to follow the rules. A couple of links to illustrate my point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=447729#447911

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=459802#459960

[iverglas]

37. oh dear

I neglected to notice that it was you who had jumped into my conversation with someone else.

Sorry to have put you to the trouble of replying to something not meant for you.

[one-eyed fat man]

25. When does racism

quit being a reason and becomes an excuse? There are books, lots of them, by black authors, raising the very same questions.

Lots of people have grown up poor, without much education, without resorting to crime. There are lots of groups who were discriminated against at one time or another, although it might be easier to hide your Irishness or your Jewishness than being female or black.

I am not saying anything, I am asking. How much has the thug culture become a self-fulfilling stereotype?

Would it be different if I said I was Irish, therefore I'm supposed to drink up my paycheck, beat my wife, confess on Saturday, go to Mass and keep her pregnant?

[iverglas]

29. "When does racism quit being a reason and becomes an excuse?"

I know! I know! Ask me!

When you say it does!

Did I get it right?

Now here's my answer: when racism ceases to exist.


Would it be different if I said I was Irish, therefore I'm supposed to drink up my paycheck, beat my wife, confess on Saturday, go to Mass and keep her pregnant?

I give up. Are Irish Americans currently the victims of racism, and systematically and systemically denied the benefits and opportunities that accompany membership in US society for other groups? Did the discrimination against the Irish that occurred some generations ago in the US involve generations of enslavement and more generations of institutionalized disadvantage as the situation of African-Americans did and does? Are you actually trivializing racism in the US to this extent?

Are you stating that someone said that African-Americans are "supposed to" do something?

[rl6214]

45. "Are you just one of those people who knows what other people need?"

Pot, Kettle, Black

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. ever heard of The High Point Strategy?

Providence, RI -- For years, Wanda Perry was scared to visit her family in Chad Brown, a housing project in Providence that had long been known as a violent drug haven.

In 2008, police began trying a strategy that combined traditional enforcement with more community involvement, more social services and second chances for a select few non-violent dealers.

"It changed a hell of a lot," said Perry, who moved into Chad Brown in 2010 because police had cleaned it up and kept it safe. "No loud music at night, nobody fighting, no cops coming in except to do their rounds. You can actually sit outside with your kids and do a cookout."

Named for the North Carolina city where it started, the "High Point strategy" used at Chad Brown is one of several unconventional and sometimes controversial methods that cities are using to shut down open-air drug markets, cut gun violence, prevent drunken driving and keep probationers from going back to prison.

more at link:
http://www.digtriad.com/news/article/195456/1/Cities-Rethink-Crime-Fighting-With-High-Point-Strategy

[petronius]

75. Interesting article, thanks. Sounds like more overall work, but for a better result

than the typical approach...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

76. thanks -

glad someone in here read AND commented.

[Hoopla Phil]

78. Very interesting. THANK YOU for the link!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

79. you are most welcome

thanks for replying :)

[Atypical Liberal]

9. Are you REALLY comparing gun control to the War on Drugs?

Those "black men with illegal guns" are like the users of heroin. But at least in the ill-advised War on Drugs we have enough integrity to admit it's not the end user who's the problem. It's the dealers and the suppliers.

People choose to buy and use drugs. Without demand, there would not be any dealers or suppliers.

Furthermore, the War on Drugs puts everyone in jail - users and dealers alike. In fact, our increasingly for-profit prison systems love drug user inmates, as they are non-violent and thus cheap to imprison.

The War on Drugs is a colossal, stupendous waste of money, is completely ineffective, trashes personal liberty, and increases the police powers of the state.

When you start comparing gun control to the War on Drugs, you have completely lost the argument.

Prohibition does not work, and it is an attack on freedom.

[iverglas]

14. "People choose to buy and use drugs."

Astounding.

Yes, people choose to be born into circumstances where their futures are determined by race, low income, underdevelopment and violence in their communities, absence of social supports, poor educations, absence of employment opportunities ...

Oh, I forgot. Those people use drugs because, like, it's fun.

[rl6214]

47. Yes, tell that to all the spoiled rich white kids in Beverly Hills

or any other rich white community in the US. Drug abuse is not just a problem for " low income, underdevelopment and violence in their communities, absence of social supports, poor educations, absence of employment opportunities ..."

Drugs aren't cheap, rich kids use drugs too, but of course you know that, you just aren't willing to admit that for this situation.

[iverglas]

53. "you just aren't willing to admit that for this situation"

But you're willing, nay eager, to say any false thing you can come up with, aren't you?

The post I was replying to was about DRUG USERS, not rich white kids:

People choose to buy and use drugs.

No qualification, no distinction. All.

So take your false statements and shove them up the barrel of one of your guns, k?

[rl6214]

56. Yet all you seem to post about on this thread is

"determined by race, low income, underdevelopment and violence in their communities, absence of social supports, poor educations, absence of employment opportunities ..."


""you just aren't willing to admit that for this situation"
Posted by iverglas
But you're willing, nay eager, to say any false thing you can come up with, aren't you?

The post I was replying to was about DRUG USERS, not rich white kids:

People choose to buy and use drugs.

No qualification, no distinction. All.

So take your false statements and shove them up the barrel of one of your guns, k?"

Keepin it classy as usual.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. Do you ever reply to your own threads? Please read my post above. I hope that you do -

regardless of whether you reply or not. I also hope you click on the unblind link for more of the article. Thanks.

[Hoopla Phil]

80. Very rarely does he reply, or reply to a post that he did not start. On the

rare occasion he does reply, it is most often to someone that agrees with him. He is not here for debate or open, honest discussion. You can decide for yourself why he is here.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

83. yeah,

it is OK that he doesn't reply - -

I just hope he reads the article I posted and, hopefully learns something or, at least gives him something to think about.

:shrug:

[one-eyed fat man]

20. blaming the street junkie for the billion-dollar drug business

That is precisely where the blame belongs. It is all those recreational drug users whose money fuels the illicit enterprise. Their DEMAND for an illicit and illegal substance is unabated. Their willingness to spend money to get what they want fuels an incredible criminal enterprise.

People who are willing to kill for market share, officials willing to be bribed to look the other way, all of it, is paid for by the consumer of illegal drugs. The cost of digging a rail equipped tunnel under the border to come up in a warehouse in San Diego is overhead.

The economics of supply and demand apply to dope as they do to legal commodities. As long as you and your cohorts are willing to spend cash like this:


YOU PAY FOR MAYHEM LIKE THIS....

[AtheistCrusader]

21. OR

you could remove the massive collectors value overhead of the drugs by de-criminalizing them as in Portugal.

[one-eyed fat man]

28. Biggest obstacle to decriminalization

Is the enforcement industry and the corruption of it. There are too damn many crooked, cops, judges, politicians and lawyers who profit from it. For them it's a jobs program, catch and release, keep the courts and prisons full of "little fish," and the money in their pockets from the high rollers.

The bribes, the graft, are too much for the overtly corrupt to give up. The increased budgets, the confiscations of fast boats, hot cars and airplanes, and the neat military hardware of the drug task forces are inducements to the "honest" drug warriors.

[SteveM]

62. And tobacco prohibition is on the immediate horizon. nt

[iverglas]

26. more incoherency

blaming the street junkie for the billion-dollar drug business That is precisely where the blame belongs. It is all those recreational drug users whose money fuels the illicit enterprise.

Totally and completely incoherent.

Unless you are using the terms "street junkie" (the subject of the post you chose to reply to) and "recreational drug users" as identical and interchangeable, all you have done is attempt a little bit of trickiness that fell flat on its face for the world to see.

But keep on blaming the victim. It's what you're good at.

[one-eyed fat man]

32. Part and parcel

Unless you equate "street junkie" to "skid row alcoholic" at which point they might be accurately considered victims of addiction.

Dealers in heroin, meth, hydrocone, etc might be relying on the addictive qualities of their brands of poison to ensure repeat customers. But I have been assured by lifelong users of cannabis that their 50 year old habit has nothing to do with addiction, thus their use must be recreational.

I suppose a few distilleries might go out of business if they had to rely on absolute alcoholics for all their trade. Social drinkers likely account for more of their custom.

As you yourself have said, "Pot's pleasant enough, but for many years I've declined to provide the demand that draws people to the supply side of the equation who are happy to kill other people to protect the profits my demand creates."

The countless, unaddicted users of recreational drugs are less sanguine than you. They are in complete denial over any dead Mexicans in their supply chain. At least you took steps to avoid paying for blood.

"....Then we grew that small crop of a dozen or so kind of stunted specimens in plantpots on our deck, which was pretty good, actually...."

"Not fair on me that I can't get what I want, but that's life." Does that mean you see yourself as a victim?

[Remmah2]

33. I caught the half-quote by Mr. Twister too.

Glad someone else picked up on it.

[iverglas]

38. are you actually attempting to refer to me?

If so, spit the mealies out of your mouth and say whatever it is you're saying.

[iverglas]

36. you're going to ride that hobbyhorse to death

But I have been assured by lifelong users of cannabis that their 50 year old habit has nothing to do with addiction, thus their use must be recreational.

And once again: this has to do with "street junkies" ... how?

I suppose a few distilleries might go out of business if they had to rely on absolute alcoholics for all their trade. Social drinkers likely account for more of their custom.

And you imagine that social smack snorters account for most of the custom of the drug cartels?


The countless, unaddicted users of recreational drugs are less sanguine than you.

I don't think you know what "sanguine" means. I'm the less sanguine about this situation.

Not fair on me that I can't get what I want, but that's life.
Does that mean you see yourself as a victim?

Uh ... what are you on about now? Yeah, I'm a "victim" of counterproductive anti-drug laws, driven by USAmerican politics, which mean that I can't pick up an ounce of pot if I happen to feel like it without fear of prosecution. Not something I spend a lot of time whining about, mainly since I'm not especially interested in smoking pot; those who are and who are prosecuted when caught are much more victimized than me. As what I said actually made quite clear: in my case, "that's life", which generally indicates a lack of serious concern. So what would you call someone like me vis-à-vis drug policies that unfairly and improperly interfere in my little pleasures? If you were prohibited by law from owning a gun despite being a fine upstanding individual, would you be a victim?


Now I still want to know where I can find all your posts on the internet vilifying all of the people in the great small towns of the USofA who are walking around in clothing and filling their houses with crap made by workers, including children, who receive wages too low to live on, have no labour rights and are in danger from death squads if they try to organize, have no health care, cannot afford to educate their children ...

Those consumers are responsible for their choices, obviously. Do you want to pointedly ignore this question again? I'll be happy to keep asking it.

It seems that you think that only these élites of yours are to be held accountable for the choices they make and the harm they cause by their choices. WalMart shoppers of the world are absolved of all blame for anything. Maybe they're just more likely to own guns, and thus be good.


html fixed on edit

[one-eyed fat man]

74. Actually you know it has worked.

More than one celebrity has been brought down by the negative publicity of having their clothing line in made in some sweat shop.

When government regulation proved ineffective in getting factory fishing fleets in changing their methods, a consumer boycott worked. It was a precipitous drop in sales that convinced Star-Kist, Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee etc to market "Dolphin Safe Tuna."

Imagine the turmoil if dopers suddenly all demanded dead Mexican free dope and boycotted suppliers who could not certify their weed.

I'd wager a boycott by dopers would send a message.

The odds of that happening are just slightly less than the odds of you jumping out of the cake naked at Stephen Harper's next birthday party.

[iverglas]

81. still not gonna do it, eh?

Not gonna give me directions to all the places on the internet where you have been haranguing all the people who buy sweatshop products, who contribute to the miserable wages and working conditions and living conditions and all-round hopelessness of the people who produce the crap they buy?

Oh well. Back to pointing fingers at drug addicts.


typo fixed, time to go eat something

[rl6214]

49. Do you have a link for these quotes?

[one-eyed fat man]

51. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=190&topic_id=3920&mesg_id=3931

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=447748&mesg_id=448383

[iverglas]

54. 2005, you'll notice the first one was

A handy reference for refuting the attempted smear of my character in the second one, wasn't it? :)

[rl6214]

61. So you used to do acid and smoke pot but you gave both up

because you didn't want to be part of the organized crime problem? Did I get that right?

[iverglas]

63. did you get it right?

More or less. My interest waned, and the conflict between values and behaviour, had I continued, was the deciding factor, I suppose.

I have a friend who could connect me with some good shit and I'd most likely do it just to have around for a very occasional toke, all other things being equal; but I know it's biker weed so I never have.

So yeah, the deciding factor.

I don't generally hold the entire world to my standards. I don't blame the masses of middle America for buying food at WalMart, especially now that WalMart has put their other local businesses out of business. I don't blame them for buying hamburgers at McDonalds, despite its union busting and ruination of the health of a load of people who didn't deserve it. I don't even really blame the jobless opportunity-less youth who voluntarily enrol in the US military to participate in that country's wars of atrocities.

I find blaming to be often pointless, and not nearly as emotionally satisfying as many people obviously find it to be. I guess I just don't have as many personal failings I need to divert my own attention from.

Snork.

[rl6214]

65. So acid and pot are legal in oh-canada?

Because you obviously wouldn't do anything that was against the law, being a lawyer as you are. Or you weren't a lawyer yet and in order to get a real job you had to quit?

[iverglas]

70. so you've framed that dumb question to make some sort of point?

Because you obviously wouldn't do anything that was against the law, being a lawyer as you are. Or you weren't a lawyer yet and in order to get a real job you had to quit?

What the fuck is that about? Weren't a lawyer yet and in order to get a real job had to quit? I don't even know what that could mean. How many times do you people have to be told? I was a lawyer for a few years more than a decade, I closed my practice to focus on my other "trade", largely for personal reasons: the nature of my practice made me vulnerable to burnout, and I burned out. Quite a lot of lawyers switch careers in middle life. People who actually know lawyers know this. Lawyers tend to be of well above average intelligence with a versatile skill set; many have academic backgrounds and skills that they choose to work with instead. I am one.


When I was a lawyer, I broke laws. Name me somebody who doesn't. I'm an inveterate jaywalker, and when I drove I was a dreadful highway speeder (and drove urban speeders nuts by driving well below speed limits in residential areas).

Personal possession of "soft" drugs is generally ignored in Canada. Police overwhelmingly support decriminalization.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009002/article/10847-eng.htm

Over the past 30 years, the rate of police-reported drug crime in Canada has been consistently driven by cannabis offences (Chart 2), most notably possession. Although the rate of cannabis offences has generally been declining since 2002, these types of offences continue to account for the majority of drug crimes. Among the over 100,000 drug-related incidents identified by police in 2007, 62% involved cannabis. Of these, three-quarters were for possession.

So that makes 3/4 of 63% of 100,000 = 46,500. My bet would be that a large number were connected with investigations of other crimes.

A US comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States

According to the most recent Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, police arrested 847,864 persons for marijuana violations in 2008. Of those charged with marijuana violations, 754,224 were charged with possession only.

At the handy 1 : 9 population ratio, the US conviction rate was 1.8 times the Canadian, i.e. not far off double.


In the nation's capital:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Police+chief+supports+marijuana+decriminalization/2950487/story.html

An Angus Reid poll released earlier this month shows a majority of Canadians remain in favour of legalizing the plant. And last Tuesday, hundreds flocked to Parliament Hill to smoke up in an annual ritual in support of decriminalization.

“If this is about, ‘we don’t want people to have a criminal record for possession of marijuana,’ that message is a good message,” <Ottawa Police Chief> White said. “Because I don’t want them to have a criminal record for possession of marijuana either.”

... White said he believes police forces across the country would not oppose decriminalization.

“There’s not a police chief in the country, I think, that sits there salivating over the fact that people with simple possession charges have criminal records,” White said. “I’ll tell you the truth — most guys don’t get charged with marijuana anyway. Most people who have marijuana end up with it heeled into the ground, or with a verbal warning.”

Statistics Canada figures for 2008 show that, of more than 50,100 incidents in which police encountered a cannabis possessor, police laid possession charges less than half of the time.

Who am I to argue with police chiefs? ;)

[Union Scribe]

69. You stopped? I guess we'll have to come up with another

explanation for your manic posting jags, then.

[iverglas]

57. oh, and do note the bit that got omitted from one of those quotations

-- the bit that our friend evades when it's raised, that was part of what I said at this site at 6 pm on March 3, 2005:

Pot's pleasant enough, but for many years I've declined to provide the demand that draws people to the supply side of the equation who are happy to kill other people to protect the profits my demand creates. Don't buy things made by 12-year-olds for slave wages, don't buy things grown by organized crime either. Not fair on me that I can't get what I want, but that's life.

I love the internet.

[jmg257]

22. Agree - illegal gun manufacturers and unlawful gun dealers must be shut down.

Anyone who knowingly and illegally builds, possesses, or deals with/in guns must be penalized.

Focus on them with stiff(er) mandatory penalities, punitive damages, etc.

[iverglas]

27. yeah

Focus on them with stiff(er) mandatory penalities, punitive damages, etc.

But don't do anything to actually DETER them from engaging in illegal firearms transactions.

Unless by "etc." you meant "register all firearms transfers so the last legal owner of a firearm can be identified quickly and easily, thus giving all firearms owners a serious disincentive for transferring firearms to ineligible people". That must have been it.

Mandatory penalties and punitive damages and "etc." applied to people who can seldom be identified ... yup, that'll stop them all from trafficking, alrighty.

[jmg257]

30. Facing harsher penalties would be a deterent. Handgun registration w/could help too.

I saw that was one of Breur's ideas in that Fast & Furious link...to further penalize illegal dealers by having the 'ability to forfeit the weapons and the inventories of gun dealers who knowingly sell their guns to criminals'.

Good idea.

[iverglas]

34. penalties are only a deterrent to people who expect to be caught

(a) Few criminals expect to be caught.

(b) People who engage in illegal private firearms transfers know that there is virtually no way to identify them / prove their knowledge that the transfer was illegal.

Registration gives criminals good reason to expect to be caught, since they know they can be traced as the last legal owner instantly.

This is especially effective for those who are not criminals by trade, but rather casual criminals, engaging in private firearms transfers to ineligible people only occasionally or even only once, as in the case of a girlfriend pressed into service for a straw purchase.

And indeed, handgun registration in particular is crucial.

Of course, it is virtually pointless if it is required in one jurisdiction while the jurisdiction down the road or over the river does not require it.

[jmg257]

35. Agree with what you have said. Sucks about the 'lack of deterent'. I don't particularly like

'the idea' of registration, but not sure why any more. Originally I worried about confiscation, but IF certain (long) guns were banned, I would follow the law anyway. My handguns are registered with no REAL complaints, so I have no good argument against that.

Others will step in with the perceived 'downsides' most likely...

edit:
Re: deterent...would criminals ever face a risk they find 'just not worth it if I get caught'? Are they really so sure of themselves?
I guess if the death penalty ain't enough to scare people off...

[iverglas]

39. "I guess if the death penalty ain't enough to scare people off..."

Exactly. Nor was having one's hand cut off ...

Some people actually seem to live under the illusion that if they just flog hard enough, would-be criminals will say "oh dear, I might get flogged". They never have and they never will.

The possibility of negative consequences works for certain types of bad acts and certain types of people. We tend to obey speed limits, those of us who would otherwise drive faster, because even though the chances of getting caught may be low, the consequence of losing one's licence or even paying a hefty fine is a serious one that your average person wants to avoid. Deterrent sentencing works on people who actually do risk analyses and actually can't afford the consequences. And of course who actually have a range of choices available to them as substitutes for criminal activity (like getting a decent job rather than holding up a small business or bank).

Firearms registration operates on the same general group of people as speed limits. People who are casual law-breakers, who have something to lose that matters to them if they get caught, and who are generally "law-abiding". And of course who have substitutes for law-breaking, which means having some way of identifying ineligible purchasers of firearms in this instance, which calls for either licensing of eligible purchasers or access to the background check system.

Actual "criminals" don't think like you and me, for a variety of reasons. They often do not have a solid attachment to societal values like not harming endangering other people or taking things that aren't theirs -- often for very understandable reasons; we internalize those values by learning the benefit of them early in life, and some people do not get that opportunity. They don't have much to lose, since they don't have much (either materially or socially) to start with. They may see others experience undesirable consequences for engaging in bad acts, but they don't see many people experiencing rewards for not engaging in bad acts, and they have no reason to anticipate such rewards themselves.

The vague prospect of punishment, no matter how harsh, just isn't effective enough at the macro level to rely on it to solve social problems of crime and violence. Genuine prevention calls for methods that operate to actually prevent. Preventing criminals from getting guns calls for preventing people from giving them guns in the various ways that happens, at the point where a normally law-abiding person is involved: straw purchases for direct transfer or purchases for trafficking, intentional or unwitting private sales to criminals, theft.

And without registration, that more effective deterrent just isn't there.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. But it's possible to catch them either way.

There is still a form of registration. There is a form at the sales point that contains the records of the person who bought the firearm. So, if a weapon is recovered from a crime, and it was wronfully in the hands of the person who committed the crime, the police can start with the manufacturer, go to the point of sale, find the person, interview the person, and begin tracking where the gun went from there.

More time consuming, but avoids the registration thing that most gun owning americans are unhappy with.

[iverglas]

52. more time consuming

and completely unreliable.

Give me a bleeding break.

the police can start with the manufacturer, go to the point of sale, find the person, interview the person, and begin tracking where the gun went from there.

I sold it to somebody who answered my ad in the pennysaver.

He was kinda tall ... and he drove a red pickup truck ...


... Damn, trying to find a thread here that had exactly that situation in it, with pretty much exactly that description, referring to sales at a gun show as I recall, and all I can find is me saying

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=246574&mesg_id=246731

My gun was used to hold up a bank? Oh, well, I sold that gun five years ago, to some guy who answered my ad in the Pennysaver.
Nope, didn't get his name ...

;)


Ah, here we are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=447423&mesg_id=447889

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=eacb8f20-4cad-45cd-b758-9a6f3fef505e

Vancouver Sun December 14, 2010

... The first Glock was bought from the Cascadia Armament Corp on Jan. 31, 2006, by a man who told investigators he resold it later in 2006 at a gun show in Puyallup, Washington "to an older white male whom he had seen at previous gun shows." He had no receipt for the sale, the report said.

The second Glock was bought in May 2003 by a guard who lives in Seattle and told police he resold the gun in March 2004 to a man who claimed he sold it at a Washington Arms Collector gun show in Puyallup. He couldn't provide the ATF with documentation of the sale.

The Sig was bought at Paul's Sporting Arms, in Snohomish, in February 2005 and traded for another gun though the gun owner "could not remember with who."

ATF agents found the other man, who also did not remember details of the trade or provide documentation of the transaction.

(These were three of the four guns found in the vehicle of a major organized crime figure in British Columbia, since dead -- all bought at gun shows in Ohio.)

As I said at the time: over to you.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Sure.

But another funny thing happens: The police link one person to a bunch of 'oh I sold that gun' stories, and the ATF makes a case, for which the person in question has already admitted they have no exonerating evidence.

[one-eyed fat man]

77. all bought at gun shows in Ohio?

Seems odd that a criminal from British Columbia would travel all the way to Ohio to buy guns, that were all originally sold in Puyallup and Snohomish.

Did they go from Washington state to Ohio then back through Ontario and west? Just seems like an odd coincidence that all three would go all that way and back again rather than directly from Washington to BC.

The article in the Sun went on to say, "The report, filed at Bacon's sentencing hearing on 10 gun convictions, does not say how the guns got into Canada."

[iverglas]

82. oh, mea gigantic culpa

I typed "Ohio" when I should have typed "Washington".

I'm in Ontario. Firearms trafficked into this province tend to come from Ohio. I've been to Ohio countless times, but never to either BC or Washington state.

[jmg257]

48. Thanks for that...appreciate the time/effort & it makes sense. nt

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

42. do you consider reading a thread before posting it it?

Try post 20, and others on the subject you chose to address. I don't see any "anti-gun zealots" behaving as you allege.

Of course, you've joined the chorus anyway, so I'm not sure what your problem might be with any "anti-gun zealots" who might agree with you in this finger-pointing exercise.




In case of mishap, this is what I'm addressing:


Do you ever listen to what you say?
Posted by rl6214

"But at least in the ill-advised War on Drugs we have enough integrity to admit it's not the end user who's the problem. It's the dealers and the suppliers."

In the war on illegal guns going to mexico, you anti-gun zealots like to say it's the fault of the US drug users that enable this to happen with their insatiable need for drugs that fuels the drug cartels and their need for newer and more powerful weapons. You know, if it weren't for the US drug users there would be no war on drugs.

"Failing to do that would be like blaming the street junkie fo the billion-dollar drug business that continues unabated."

It is the junkies fault, don't try to place the blame on anyone else. That's like saying it's McDonalds fault for a fat person being fat.



Since I have omitted what may be the problematic aspects, this post is without problem.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Who blames the users?

I've only seen one or two people on DU ever do that.

I blame the war on drugs, period.

[iverglas]

60. good grief

The first three words of the post you have just replied to were:

Try post 20.

Now try also post 9.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. 9 attacked the war on drugs, not the users.

I also immediately responded to one eyed fat man. He is one of only a few people I have ever seen do that on this site.

[iverglas]

71. if I may quote post 9 again

People choose to buy and use drugs. Without demand, there would not be any dealers or suppliers.

The direction that finger is pointed in looks pretty clear to me.


I just see the usual practice of saying whatever seems to serve a purpose at the time, myself. Although the other one does seem to be really invested in that hobbyhorse.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Well, sure they are a part of it.

But read on:

"The War on Drugs is a colossal, stupendous waste of money, is completely ineffective, trashes personal liberty, and increases the police powers of the state."

Without the 'war on drugs' these drugs have little black market value.

[one-eyed fat man]

73. I see them as complicit

Drug users and drug prohibitionists have a symbiotic relationship. Denied a legal source, the dopers turn to criminals. The politicians, career opportunists, declare war on drugs to placate the prohibitionists, while at the same time benefiting from the graft and corruption.

The gangster with a brain would see the killing as bad for business. Bribing cops, judges and prosecutors is part of the overhead. Pass it on to the consumer, you have the product he has to have. For every one Canadian who quits smoking dope because dead Mexicans bother her conscience there are thousands who don't give a fuck. Countless users would rather deal with murderers, risk adulterated or contaminated drugs, not to mention arrest, jail, or loss of employment than quit. When you have someone that willing to spend whatever it takes, there will be someone who will fill that need for a price.

The Volstead Act enabled Al Capone to amass an empire that had 100 million dollars in annual revenue by 1924. To put that in perspective, the War Department budget for 1924, including operating the the Panama Canal was only $157,214,895.78. One bootlegger, in one town, and the entire population of the United States in 1924 was only 114,109,000 people. How many legitimate companies did 100 million in revenue in 1924?

The war on drugs will never end as long as corrupt government officials can count on the money from the criminals and the votes from the prohibitionists. And the money will always be there because the users will never quit and they will pay whatever it takes to get them what they want. Bribes and blood are just part of the cost of production and distribution.

[rl6214]

50. "do you consider reading a thread before posting it it?"

Depends on how long the thread is whether I read the entire thing first.

Today, I am too busy doing the dishes and cleaning the house, just popped in for a moment and saw this thread.

[rl6214]

66. Oh, my, god, you got my post deleted...

I am so upset.

"in case of mishap"

Snork, aren't you clever.

[SteveM]

59. Get past your prohibitionism and you might see a greater problem:

"But at least in the ill-advised War on Drugs we have enough integrity to admit it's not the end user who's the problem. It's the dealers and the suppliers."

No, Mike, it's the prohibitionist laws.