Drugs' relationship to crime

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • netsecurity

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Oct 14, 2011
    4,201
    48
    Hancock County
    More than 60 Percent of Males Arrested in 2011 Used Drugs, Federal Survey Shows | CNSNews.com

    The feds say 60% of male criminals are on drugs, in an obvious attempt to justify the war on drugs, despite widespread opposition to it. The report includes Marijuana, a drug that stays in your system for up to 30 days, and which is legal in some (16) states. Obviously there are flaws in their logic, and they didn't even account for alcohol, presumably because it isn't as evil as "drugs" like marijuana.

    But the thing I want to discuss is HOW the police make arrests. Do they patrol looking for crime, and then stop the criminals in the act? Very, very rarely would someone commit a crime when a cop is visible, so that doesn't happen much. But I know what does happen A LOT--police stop cars for "speeding" (more likely for some sort of profiling--I used to have long hair, so I know how they operate), and then perform search and seizures, specifically looking for drugs. This is how cops make most arrests I'm sure. They can't catch someone in the act of crime that involves a victim, so they spend their time carrying out the war on drugs, by harassing and detaining innocent citizens.

    So it is no surprise that more than half of the men they arrest are using drugs, because that is who they police are trained to seek out. They can't find evidence of a real crime unless it already happened, but the one bit of evidence that police can find reliably is drugs. I'm sure the police feel good about their (illegal?) search and seizures, because they assume every drug user is a current or future felon.

    A second argument I'll bring up, is that it is human nature to seek pleasures of the mind with plants and drugs, especially in the college years for men. Not coincidentally, more testosterone driven young men are probably arrested for misbehaving, unrelated to their drug usage. It should be considered then that it is possible that half of the entire male population from the ages of 18-24 are "on drugs". So what we have is a penal system that fails to acknowledge the nature of man, and is arresting America's youth en masse based on the philosophy of the war on drugs, which makes a false presumption, and self fulfilling prophecy, that all drugs are a sign or symptom of crime (which is only true when you make drug users criminals).
     

    netsecurity

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Oct 14, 2011
    4,201
    48
    Hancock County
    I wonder how many of them were arrested on drug charges.

    To me, only a report that only focused on violent felons would be meaningful, and even then it wouldn't mean what they want it to mean, which is that drugs are the heart of all societies' crime. I am sure that felons would have an even higher rate of drug use, not because drugs are the problem, but because humans seek drugs when they are unhappy or stressed--and who could be more troubled than a violent felon?
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    I bet 100% of those males were in the possession of a penis when arrested so we should ban those as well.
     

    strahd71

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    2,471
    36
    wanatah
    If they were all killed during the commission of their crimes the problem would be solved

    I read the article before this post and really couldnt understand the point. Doesnt everyone know that a lot if drug users commit crimes to sustain their crimes? None of this is new.

    Got no problem with the OP posting this for discussion just not sure why this report was in the news

    In answer to OP's question i think arrest are made by luck and dispatch calls. Someone see's someone doing such and such. Not to bash leos but the cant be everywhere all the time nor are they mind readers so knowing where the next crime is going to be is out..... sometimes they seem more like janitors they just get the lucky job of cleaning up the messs
    Jake
     
    Last edited:

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    I personally want to know how these stats were obtained. Is drug testing mandatory, in these states, after an initial arrest? I would have an issue with that if this information was collected for a reason not due to health.
    And for the record, I'm not the biggest fan of drug users.
     

    strahd71

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    2,471
    36
    wanatah
    I personally want to know how these stats were obtained. Is drug testing mandatory, in these states, after an initial arrest? I would have an issue with that if this information was collected for a reason not due to health.
    And for the record, I'm not the biggest fan of drug users.

    once they are arrested are drug tests off limits? i dont know i've never been arrested and not a lawyer or leo....

    jake
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    once they are arrested are drug tests off limits? i dont know i've never been arrested and not a lawyer or leo....

    jake

    In Indiana you can't do that unless there is a medical reason justifying it. Remember a person arrested, is "suspected" of a crime, and has not yet been proven to be guilty. They should still retain a good portion of the their rights. Now after conviction, there is obviously a lil more leeway.
     

    strahd71

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    2,471
    36
    wanatah
    In Indiana you can't do that unless there is a medical reason justifying it. Remember a person arrested, is "suspected" of a crime, and has not yet been proven to be guilty. They should still retain a good portion of the their rights. Now after conviction, there is obviously a lil more leeway.

    ok that makes sense, i assumed that it would just be an automatic part of gathering evidence for their case.

    i wonder how vague the medical reason can be? is something like "i suspect that "john doe" is on something because he resisted arrest, is not cooperating etc. so we need to do a drug test just to make sure for his safety" of course. is that how it works?

    jake
     

    mydoghasfleas

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Nov 19, 2011
    1,082
    38
    Undisclosed
    It might have said that only 40% of males arrested were not arrested because of drug crimes.

    I never trust statistics because whom ever gathers the numbers can skew it to look how they want it to look.

    If drugs werent illegal, there may be a near 60% reduction in crime (I just revealed something else based on that statistic) Then more effort could be put into crime with actual victims. Free people shouldnt be locked up for harming themselves.
     

    strahd71

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    2,471
    36
    wanatah
    It might have said that only 40% of males arrested were not arrested because of drug crimes.

    I never trust statistics because whom ever gathers the numbers can skew it to look how they want it to look.

    If drugs werent illegal, there may be a near 60% reduction in crime (I just revealed something else based on that statistic) Then more effort could be put into crime with actual victims. Free people shouldnt be locked up for harming themselves.

    i got mixed emotions on the victim-less crime point of view. as soon as some one starts committing theft, burglery, muggings etc. to feed their drug habits its no longer victimless is it?

    now if some one is able to keep their job and support their habit and not drive while under the influence or put the public at risk ( for example a pharmacist high at work is not a victimless crime ) then i agree with you.

    interested in other opinions on this

    jake
     

    mydoghasfleas

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Nov 19, 2011
    1,082
    38
    Undisclosed
    i got mixed emotions on the victim-less crime point of view. as soon as some one starts committing theft, burglery, muggings etc. to feed their drug habits its no longer victimless is it?

    now if some one is able to keep their job and support their habit and not drive while under the influence or put the public at risk ( for example a pharmacist high at work is not a victimless crime ) then i agree with you.

    interested in other opinions on this

    jake

    Theft, muggings, and burglerys have victims. Driving while drinking is already illegal, so I would imagine that driving while on a hallucinogenic would be as well.
     

    strahd71

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    2,471
    36
    wanatah
    so when is drug use a victimless crime? i'm not arguing with you, just curious about your statement of "Then more effort could be put into crime with actual victims"

    i dont like how the war on drugs has been played out for sure, people in prison for life for selling marijuana because of the 3 strikes rules and etc. i'm somewhere in the middle i guess

    jake
     

    cobber

    Parrot Daddy
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    Sep 14, 2011
    10,284
    149
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    once they are arrested are drug tests off limits? i dont know i've never been arrested and not a lawyer or leo....

    jake

    To get a test, you need a warrant. To get a warrant, you need PC.

    In driving offenses, sure, but in practically no other case are you going to get a judge to issue a warrant simply to go fishing.
     

    rw496

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 16, 2011
    806
    18
    Lake County
    When I think of the war on drugs my mind automatically turns to the harder drugs such as crack and heroin. Anyone who has experienced a family member hooked on one of those can attest to how horrible the addiction is. In that sense, the family members are victims. I have seen many users crying wasting away to nothing unable to kick the habit, so in that sense they are vicitms of their own addiction. Marijuana is what it is and will most likely be legal before very long. We shouldn't just catagorically say the war on drugs is a waste and victimless.
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    When I think of the war on drugs my mind automatically turns to the harder drugs such as crack and heroin. Anyone who has experienced a family member hooked on one of those can attest to how horrible the addiction is. In that sense, the family members are victims. I have seen many users crying wasting away to nothing unable to kick the habit, so in that sense they are vicitms of their own addiction. Marijuana is what it is and will most likely be legal before very long. We shouldn't just catagorically say the war on drugs is a waste and victimless.

    In that case, Oxycontin should be illegal to. I've never seen a person prescribed it not turn into a zombie if on it any time at all.
     

    mydoghasfleas

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Nov 19, 2011
    1,082
    38
    Undisclosed
    When I think of the war on drugs my mind automatically turns to the harder drugs such as crack and heroin. Anyone who has experienced a family member hooked on one of those can attest to how horrible the addiction is. In that sense, the family members are victims. I have seen many users crying wasting away to nothing unable to kick the habit, so in that sense they are vicitms of their own addiction. Marijuana is what it is and will most likely be legal before very long. We shouldn't just catagorically say the war on drugs is a waste and victimless.

    I understand that view totally. If however it was my loved one in trouble, I would not think locking them up with others of their own ilk, or worse, would be anything close to a viable answer, and would make recovery even less likely. But if they violate someone else something would have to be done to protect others from them.

    But we wouldnt put the non violent mentaly handicap in with the prison population and thinking we would be "helping them"
     
    Top Bottom