From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:01:27 -0500

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>In article <1992Sep8.001256.25626@news.cs.indiana.edu> hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
>}
>}Breaking the subculture of youth gangs and substituting 
>}something else in its place has been the prescription for several
>}generations now.  In principle, there is nothing wrong with this.
>}The biggest problem I have with Clinton -- and this applies to other
>}drug warriors who point to gangs as the justification for the war --
>}is that he obviously has only the most superficial kind of knowledge
>}of the problem.  Drugs are functionally irrelevant to the problem of
>}youth gangs.  The flucuations in drug use over the past 80 years have,
>}so far as I know, not been tracked by gang membership or gang activity.
>}Drug use is a symptom and not a cause.

>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?
>Would they war over sales territory?  Would they recruit those that can be
>tried as juveniles?

Point taken.  To the extent that sophisticated weaponry has found its
way into youth gangs, the black-market money from drug dealing is
probably the most important component.  And, I agree that recruiting
kids to be mules is a direct result of prohibition.

>Not as much as with drug prohibition.

>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.

Here is where you and I part company.  Negative sanctions, when they are
applied, are not effective.  Enforcing the law, assuming a libertarian
utopia in which there are no sumptuary laws, is not going to deal with
the underlying causes of delinquency and youth gangs.  We're talking
about a sociological/anthropological phenomenon and idealized
conceptions of rational individuals choosing behavior on the basis of
utilities offer, at best, grossly inadequate explanations.

I happen to believe that the underlying causes of youth gangs can be
identified and treated.  I also believe that the evidence is that
that there is an appropriate role for government to play in this process.
Ultimately, correcting the problems pays dividends for society so
there is a "profit" in taking action, but it is not the sort of
profit that appeals to private industry.

>You note drug use as trivial, but marketing and distribution are highly
>correlated with youth gangs.

The gangs, given that they already are dissaffected with the dominant
normative structure, easily fit into a prohibition-driven black
market.  My only point is that eliminated the black market will only
reduce the monetary power of gangs but little else.

>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
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs