Drug legalisation

[eFestivals]

You've made a huge generalisation here. While many underprivileged entrepreneurs will use the drugs market as a means to create and expand a business empire, there is a much greater amount of under class desperados that won't make it.

What you're putting forward in effect is the myth glamourised by gang-rap culture spawned through the ghettos. The rise of 'bling' culture comes from the idea that an underprivileged black man can become a succesful business man by utilising drugs. His symbols of wealth become symbols of black resistance.

I've lived with a drug dealer who listened to gangster rap artists that glamourised this myth and he did nothing other than sit on the dole and lose cash because he took too much of his own product. He really believed that he was the king pin though. This is so often the case and the more criminal it is, the more dangerous the image becomes, the more they want to be involved.

Making drugs criminal creates an alluring image of danger for otherwise uneducated, down-and-out people in poorer areas and perpetuates a culture of false hope excellently illustrated in films like City of God. That's your link between drugs and crime right there - poverty.

It's a generalisation, yes. If I'd meant everyone I'd have said everyone.

What I'm putting forwards is no myth glamorised by gang-rap culture spawned thru the ghettos.

What I'm putting forwards is what I've experienced myself, where the majority of people that I knew who were dealing drugs 20-25 years ago are now successful businessmen at some level.

Your one experience is not the whole world. But of course you think it is, because you're never wrong are you?

[Snufflebutt]

Probably.

Tho the EU has just ruled that Holland is allowed to introduce/have laws that ban foriegners from its cannabis cafes. There's a law like that already in operation in Maastrict, and it's now likely to go nationwide across Holland.

But who needs to go to Amsterdam anyway?

[eFestivals]

I know quite a few Dutch people and they say that the only people going to the cannabis cafes (and wandering round the red light district as well) are tourists.....

I had family live in A'Dam for about 5 years, and while I know that the Dutch don't in general smoke dope (the proportion is lower than it is in the UK), and that the cafes in A'Dam's red-light district are mainly frequented by tourists, there's still cafes outside of the city centre and in other Dutch cities which are used just about exclusively by the Dutch.

And what evidence is there that legalising drugs will not lead to vastly increased drugs use? I can kinda understand how - I dont take drugs and wouldnt if they were legal, in the same way i dont smoke - but would be interested too see evidence.

Drugs have been decriminalised in various ways in a number of European countries (Holland, Portugal, Switzerland, Spain - if not others too) over the past 30 years (some of which has been reversed since) and without exception they've not led to greater drug use.

Of course, that's no guarantee that the same would happen here, but the general expectation is that while there might be a rise in the short-term it's unlikely to stay that way - but there's a number of factors that can change that, not least the price of other intoxicants in comparison (such as alcohol).

[worm]

It's a generalisation, yes. If I'd meant everyone I'd have said everyone.

What I'm putting forwards is no myth glamorised by gang-rap culture spawned thru the ghettos.

What I'm putting forwards is what I've experienced myself, where the majority of people that I knew who were dealing drugs 20-25 years ago are now successful businessmen at some level.

Your one experience is not the whole world. But of course you think it is, because you're never wrong are you?

[eFestivals]

No, my one example is not the whole world it's just one experience representative of the point I was making. This is as opposed to the generalised conclusions you made on the back of your experience that also has the effect of perpetuating a myth. An effect proven by science, no less.........

The incorrect assumption that drug dealers are ''FAR more likely to end up as successful legal businessmen of some type or other'' has the effect of perpetuating the myth of drug dealers as business people, which leads to young down-and-out kids getting into it by thinking they're gansters.

Drug dealers ARE business people.

Just because their wares are illegal makes no difference to the fact that they buy in and sell on - a very standard business practice.

In a minority of cases it's a corrupt business practice via protected 'turfs' that others can't sell within, but such things are very much the minority in this country.

It could be rightly claimed that the whole thing is not close to being a free trade because the goods can't be freely bought and sold, but that's actually the same with everything any one can buy legally too, tho to a lesser degree. They both fail on the basis of the lack of perfect information.

In few places in this country do things get close to your myth - yes, your myth is the real myth. The myth doesn't even hold true with the idea that selling drugs is easy money; like any legal business, it has to be worked at; and like any legal business the more you extend yourself into the market the greater the chance of everything coming crashing down.

(There is the occasional person who does get to make lots of money very quickly via drug dealing - but such people are the exception, and extra dosh always comes with extra risk).

[worm]

Drug dealers ARE business people.

Edited December 20, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Some daft raggie twat who gets high off his product and uses the dole to score some more is not a business man Neil.

As I said, you're perpetuating a myth that drug dealers are in the main business people; they aren't, they're in the main f**kwits!

Comprende?

Yes, I comprede that, as usual, you don't have a frigging clue what you're talking about.

Any publican gets "high off his own product", and no one sees that as disqualifying them as business people. Of course tho, any publican or drug dealer who regularly over-indulges in their own product isn't going to be able to remain in business very long.

As for "uses the dole to score some more", what you have there is nothing different to someone shopping in Tescos buying the BOFOF offers, not someone who runs a corner shop. For a start, any "businessman" who blows their float is not a businessman, and dole money certainly isn't enough of a float to buy a quantity that'll make a reasonable wedge. So your man was not a 'drug dealer', he was simply someone buying a bit extra to make a few quid selling it on to his mates.

There are f**kwits in all walks of life. I happen to know of one who goes around falsely telling people he's an academic.

Edited December 21, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

Any publican gets "high off his own product", and no one sees that as disqualifying them as business people. Of course tho, any publican or drug dealer who regularly over-indulges in their own product isn't going to be able to remain in business very long.

[worm]

As for "uses the dole to score some more", what you have there is nothing different to someone shopping in Tescos buying the BOFOF offers, not someone who runs a corner shop. For a start, any "businessman" who blows their float is not a businessman, and dole money certainly isn't enough of a float to buy a quantity that'll make a reasonable wedge. So your man was not a 'drug dealer', he was simply someone buying a bit extra to make a few quid selling it on to his mates.

Edited December 21, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

The majority of drug dealers don't make a profit. Ergo, they are not more likely to be succesful business men. They are more likely to be kids of the underclass pissing about with crime pretending to be business men.

The dole or their job funds their habit from which they deal a certain amount to others - that's not a business man, it's a clueless wannabe prick.

The clue for why your experiences differ to mine is very clearly expressed with your last words there. You obviously hang out with clueless pricks, while I haven't done.

[eFestivals]

No Neil, that means that he's not a business man. He's definitely a dealer as he deals drugs.

Is that singular individual all drug dealers, or just one of them?

[worm]

The clue for why your experiences differ to mine is very clearly expressed with your last words there. You obviously hang out with clueless pricks, while I haven't done.

[worm]

Is that singular individual all drug dealers, or just one of them?

Edited December 21, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

No Neil, you were generalising drug dealers and portraying them as business men. I merely pointed that fact out to you and gave you one example that is representative of the vast majority.

But is it "representative of the vast majority", sand how do you know?

In regard to this we both only have personal experiences to go on (if you're referring to any US research it ain't worth shit over here) - because the research around these things is very limited, and just as with sex surveys you can't believe the results anyway.

And while I've experienced the sort of very low-level dealer you talk of, they account for less than 20% of the drugs trade. Those types are not really 'dealers', they're merely regulars at getting their mates a bit of what they're getting for themselves. They're primarily consumers, not sellers.

But anyway, the sorts of f**kwits you refer to are not the types who end up as legitimate businessmen. It stands to reason that those who fail at making drug dealing profitable aren't going to do any better when there's all the same things to do and more within a legitimate business.

There are however proper legit businessmen at the top of the tree - I've met bankers, accountants, solicitors, even the director of a blue chip. And Howard. Howard is the exception, he made shit loads from drugs but was a shit legit businessman all the same.

[worm]

But is it "representative of the vast majority", and how do you know?

[jump]

This thread makes me want to watch The Wire again.

[worm]

In regard to this we both only have personal experiences to go on because the research around these things is very limited, and just as with sex surveys you can't believe the results anyway.

And while I've experienced the sort of very low-level dealer you talk of, they account for less than 20% of the drugs trade.

[eFestivals]

Yes. It's well established knowledge that drug dealers are in the main underclass kids wanting to be glamorous gansters. It's a world-wide phenomenon wherever there is poverty. How I know is an irrelevance.

Ahhhh, so what you mean is that it's you with the myth.

People of all classes take drugs; that means, because of the illegality of the drugs world, people of all classes need to also be selling drugs. People stick to their own.

People get into doing it it NOT because they want to be glamourous gangsters, but because of the need of supply of others. If you're the guy amongst your friends with a contact that regularly sells, then it's exceedingly likely that you'll sort out a mate or three. That's the 'in' for the vast majority who go on to become regular dealers, as research has discovered.

Would any dealer worth his salt give "underclass kids wanting to be glamorous gansters" a leg-up via them, supplying that kid with drugs to sell on? Not unless they're a f**kwit on the swift path to gaol. A dealer lives or dies - well, not quite: goes to jail, or not - via their associates.

As I've already said, the difference here is one of f**kwits or not. The myth is that they're all f**kwits. The reality is that some - well, at least one - go on to become Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[worm]

Ahhhh, so what you mean is that it's you with the myth.

[worm]

People get into doing it it NOT because they want to be glamourous gangsters, but because of the need of supply of others. If you're the guy amongst your friends with a contact that regularly sells, then it's exceedingly likely that you'll sort out a mate or three. That's the 'in' for the vast majority who go on to become regular dealers, as research has discovered.

Edited December 21, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

No, I mean that it's well established knowledge that drug dealers are in the main underclass kids wanting to be glamorous gangsters.

That's the only myth being spouted around here.

Drug dealers are generally temporary, petty suppliers as a direct reflection of the demands at the low level of distribution. The higher up the level of distribution, the less dealers there are.

Hooray! Something correct at last!

That doesn't translate into all of those temporary suppliers being f**kwits tho, or underclass kids, or wanting to be glamourous gangsters.

If the majority were f**kwits then the system doesn't work. It works precisely because they're NOT f**kwits or attracted by some supposed glamour. It works because they're together enough to make it work.

None of that of course means that there's no f**kwits. But there's also f**kwits working in banks - that's why we're all financially f**ked - and they get to class as businessmen as well.

[worm]

That's the only myth being spouted around here.

Edited December 21, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

It's a fact bonnie lad. A fact proven by science.

The only proven fact is that they're 'casual' dealers.

It's not proven that they're f**kwits or attracted by gansta glamour. That's something you've made up from your own prejudices.

But you wouldn't be the same if you didn't make it up out of nothing. It's all that you do.

Unlike the mythical bullshit you were spouting about them being business men.

buying product and selling it on makes them very much businessmen.

But anyway, I wasn't saying they were businessmen while selling drugs, I was saying that many go on to be successful legitimate businessmen. Because many do.

Interesting theory, but sadly incorrect. The facts show that this is precisely what's going on.

yeah, that's right. Any business can run successfully while being run by only f**kwits.

You have no facts, you only have your fantasies and prejudices.

No, what does translate into these temporary suppliers being f**kwits is the fact that they are no good at business. Mainly, because they're impressionable wannabe gangsters who believe in the myth.

A f**kwit who is not good at business does business for only a short time.

And in nearly 30 years of mixing with dealers at all levels I've encountered just one instance where there was a threat of violence. If you think the majority of the drugs trade habitually operates with threats of violence - which it would do if full of wannabe gangstas - you're off your trolley.

It works on trust and not threats. It could not work on threats, which you'd know if you knew the first thing about the drugs trade. Which sharp-suited legit millionaire do you think is gonna put up the seed money for a deal if they're dealing with a thug with a gun who could just take that money from them?

That's the score at the top of the chain, and the same scenario exists all the way down the chain. A person can't successfully do illegal business with the desperate, they can only do it with those they trust implicitly.

Edited December 22, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

The only proven fact is that they're 'casual' dealers.

[swede]

It's proven that they aren't succesful business men. The majority are small time crooks who can't earn a living from it. This was point one.