US Crime Rate!

Previous posts have referred to the high US crime rate. I don’t really know where we stand in comparison to other countries but the following are some of my thoughts:


1.Crime rates involve underreporting, due to victims not reporting and due to reporting manipulation. As to both aspects, I think our system reporting is more honest and likely more true. I would trust some other nation’s data far less.

2. Our police system is less corrupt and far less likely to “look the other way” for a price, influence, power, or other reasons. In some countries people would not even dream of calling the police. In contrast to #1 above, this aspect may significantly effect underreporting, but not due to manipulation or control of reporting, just outright selectively dealing with crime. This aspect may greatly increase underreporting. This degree is the US is far less, IMO .


I also hold the view that much the same can be said for our prison population. To the extent that we are high on that factor too, it is also for many of the same reasons. However, since I strongly feel that drugs should be legal, if not for that one very grave factor, our prison population would be far lower.


IMO

totally agree, although i think what you say is probably true for english speaking countries and places like germany, switzerland, denmark, etc.


the culture is just one that is totally different from even, say, france or italy (read somewhere somebody was saying they had to go down and give the telephone company guy a bribe to get his phone service turned on in france or italy or somewhere. this may have been some time ago, though. wow.)


also note that when your talking about certain issues a lot of time youre comparing the same country with itself over time.


also things like homicide statistics tend to be cut and dried (at least in first world countries).


brad

Having drugs illegal certainly creates high costs. But in many different settings throughout history, societies have moved in the direction of making drugs illegal. So they must have been experiencing even higher costs with legal drugs.


My own suspicion is that people's hearts just aren't hard enough to stomach a legal-drug population withering in the streets.


eLROY

I think we may be saying the same thing.


Legalizing drugs will still mean that there will be a cost to society in programs, etc. However, the reduction in crime and the harm done through those crimes will more than offset any other costs related to legalizing drugs. (not ot mention reduced costs of law enforcement, prisons, impact on families)


Also, I feel that there will be less people getting involved in drugs, because drug dealers "push" there products. No reason to do so anymore.


Out society is not yet there, but 'there' is where we have to go/

well, who is going to work in wackenhut prisons is drugs are legal?


brad

A very good display of English skills, brad.

well, who is going to work in wackenhut prisons if drugs are legal?


brad

"there will be a cost to society in programs, etc."


Locking them up works every time. I have not seen a whole lot of evidence that "programs" do much good. And not only are programs a joke, but the question of costs is not so much their size, but who bears them. I would prefer the biggest burden be put on those using the drugs. That way, it discourages the problem - feedback:)


You might say that, when the costs are spread around society, that the natural response of society is to make drugs illegal, to prevent the user from using all he wants. Then, when the costs are targeted at the user, the natural response is to use less.


"the reduction in crime and the harm done through those crimes"


Are you talking about a reduction in crime simply by reducing the number of things which are called crimes? Or are you saying that drug addicts commit more crime when they are in prison?


"not ot mention reduced costs of law enforcement, prisons, impact on families"


If you have ever lived around serious addicts, you will know that the impact on their families is much mitigated when they are finally locked up. At the same time as their life expectancy rises drastically. Do you have any idea the true cost of having an uncontrollable, self-destructing addict in your family or community?


If you are just talking about the high-rolling families of drug dealers, screw'em.


Finally, I am confused as to why you would venture a wild guess that the cost of legal drugs would be lower, when the actual experience of societies throughout history would suggest otherwise.


eLROY

'Finally, I am confused as to why you would venture a wild guess that the cost of legal drugs would be lower, when the actual experience of societies throughout history would suggest otherwise. '


restricting the argument to heroin addicts, programs in holland and england prove you wrong.


on a tangent, dr. dean edell (used to listen to every day) makes the valid point that substantial morphine users can lead a perfectly normal life (talking about chronic pain associated with very serious diseases).


brad

yes, in places like england and holland if you a heroin addict you can enroll in a program where you can receive medical treatment including pharmaceutical grade heroin.


some addicts just stay on goverment heroin.


dont know that much about it, heard it on dr. dean edell.


the significant fact is that even when people can voluntarily use hard core drugs, the vast majority of people simply choose not to.


brad

Obviously, the number of people on government-financed heroin, just like the number of people on welfare, is not produced by some roll of the dice, or turn of the stars.


If you want to encourage more people to move into the addict population, it's easy, all you have to do is tweak the cost/benefit scenario slightly, and the numbers will fluctuate by the millions.


eLROY

'just like the number of people on welfare, is not produced '


since we have in US


1} big infrastucture problem {bridges and stuff)

2} surplus workforce


i can only conclude we have a leadership problem.


brad

What do you mean a "big infrastructure problem?" Don't we also have a big housing problem, and a big car problem, and a big medicine problem, and a big...


If you are simply saying we could find a use for more of any of these things - or of any other scarce, economic good - no kidding. There is no magic level of infrastructure any more than anything else. If you buy more of one, you buy less of another. At some quantity, we always stop buying one. Who's to say how much infrastructure should be demanded, or what price should be paid for it?


The right amount is the amount where the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded. If we lower the cost of drug use, people will use more, up to a ridiculous amount. And so far as a "surplus workforce," that is impossible. If these people are not worth it to anybody to hire, at the price they demand to be paid before showing up at work, then they don't really have anything to offer. They aren't really a workforce.


There is never a surplus of anything unless the price is too high. You can always raise the quantity demanded by lowering the price. You can always buy more infrastructure, and get less of something else, meaning a something-else problem, somewhere else. If these idiots want to work for $2.00 an hour - and if their unions will allow them to - I'd be happy to see them paint a bridge somewhere. Otherwise, screw off, I've got other things to worry about.


eLROY

"If you want to encourage more people to move into the addict population, it's easy, all you have to do is tweak the cost/benefit scenario slightly, and the numbers will fluctuate by the millions."


I disagree on this. I would guess that the demand elasticity for heroin is very, very, low. Heroin addiction is an extreme behavior and as such, I don't believe it is modeled very well by the marginalist paradigm.

1) we have manpower that is sitting idle. (opponents of welfare would have us believe getting paid for staying home.)


2) we have infrastructure in need of upgrade/repair/rebuilding, which i would guess would be very manual labor intensive.


http://www.asce.org/reportcard/


http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/08/crumbling.infrastructure/


'There is no magic level of infrastructure any more than anything else.'


theres a reason some countries dont have running water.


'If these people are not worth it to anybody to hire, at the price they demand to be paid before showing up at work, then they don't really have anything to offer. They aren't really a workforce. '


the whole point of civilization is to have a subset of the population produce an excess of necessities so that the remaining population can produce luxuries, right?


brad

If you can get all these extra benefits and programs - which people like Brad and Zen are recommending - simply by being on heroin, then how will we stop new people from taking heroin just to stay on welfare?


eLROY

really not what i said, but giving soma to the masses is really what welfare is all about in a way , so i agree with you.


brad

legalization of drugs v. criminalization of drugs


Resources can~~~~~~~~~Billions of dollars

be used elsewhere~~~~~~wasted on "war on drugs"


Fewer prisoners~~~~~~~~Overcrowded prisons


Tax revenues gained~~~~~Money wasted


Drug quality regulated~~~~Drug quality unregulated


These are but a few examples of how the criminalization of drugs is much more costly, in terms of money and human safety, than drug legalization. Alcohol is a legal drug and, yes, people are harmed as a result of its use, but the alternative would be much worse. Prohibition failed miserably, and the war on drugs is on a slow, painful, expensive downward spiral, as well.


It simply is not the government's place to make judgments on issues of morality. Rather, that is one the primary functions of family and religion. The only answer is to legalize prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc. The most basic law of economics tells us that as long as a group wants to partake in these activities (demand), some enterprising people are going to make them available (supply). Logic tells us to tax and regulate them, and spend our precious tax dollars on problems that can actually be solved.