From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:04:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.191254.3733@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}: 
}: I've excerpted the paragraph I object to in an otherwise agreeable post.
}: 
}: Absent drug prohibition, would youth gangs be able to afford automatic weapons?
}
}Possibly. There would always be something else illegal that they could sell.
}Do they have automatic weapons, or is it a bunch of WOD hype?

I'm at a loss to think of what could possibly take the place of cocaine,
hemp, heroin, LSD, speed, meth, and the other drugs whose prohibition would
be repealed.

They do have automatic weapons, indeed.  There are residents of Oakland who
pick up spent shells from their yards every morning, as if they grew there:
32 caliber, 9mm, 22 caliber, etc.

}: Would they war over sales territory?  Would they recruit those that can be
}: tried as juveniles?
}
}Certainly. They have done that - drugs or no drugs. They would war over
}territory - just because they want it. They would recruit members as usual.
}Remember, these are youth gangs - not legal adults.

They'd compete, but at a much lower level of armament.  Without the black
market drug trade, they couldn't afford their current level of weaponry.  As
for their being minors, I wasn't using the term youth gangs that restrictively.
My experience is that youth gangs include members as old as their late 20s.

}: Not as much as with drug prohibition.
}
}Possibly, not necessarily. I don't see how you can make any causal connection.

The black market drug trade is enormously profitable.  This makes it affordable
for the distributors, salesmen, and marketers to gear up with guns - otherwise,
they'd rely on switchblades, as they had to in the past, prior to the advent
of the trade in prohibited drugs.

}: Youth gangs aren't necessarily a problem.  They're a problem if they engage in
}: impermissible activity, in which case the recourse is to criminalize the
}: activity and enforce the law, or if they engage in immoral activity, in which
}: case legal recourse is ineffective and inappropriate.  Persuasion and
}: education must be relied upon, and perhaps other consensual activities.  There
}: is no place for the state in this.
}
}Right. Enforcement has been tried for centuries. It never has worked - it never
}will. As you say, persuasion and education would have better results. Maybe
}giving these people some hope for the future would even work better.

Attend to my words: by crime, I mean the violation of individual rights.
Enforcement of the laws against crime is the only thing which has ever worked -
specifically, a policy of deterrence.

As for giving them some hope for the future, privatization and deregulation
could do wonders in that direction.  In the instance of South Central LA,
repealing the zoning and building codes (deregulation), and instituting
voucher systems for both school and police services would make the area a
miniature Hong Kong within 5 years.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.drugs