[CanadianJeff]

Curt Gunny's got your number give it up.

You failed to understand the article fails to make any point relevant to your prohibition campaign.

I agree with legalizing pot and even I find 90% of your arguments on the site laughable. You may want to think long and hard on why that is.

[Curtman]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Curt Gunny's got your number give it up.

You failed to understand the article fails to make any point relevant to your prohibition campaign.

I agree with legalizing pot and even I find 90% of your arguments on the site laughable. You may want to think long and hard on why that is.

If you can't understand that prohibition fuels gangsterism, then how do you propose we deal with the problem?

Legalization isn't a solution either, regulation is. By taking away their source of income we will remove the profit incentive and neuter their recruitment efforts.

$1:

Many new visible minority immigrant youth from war-torn countries are vulnerable to gang recruitment in part because of a lack of access to school and community participation, an inability to obtain employment and general social barriers, the report says.

"A component of increasing gang violence in the inner city area is tension and conflict between identity groups in the inner city," the report says. "These issues contribute to the instability and unhealthy lifestyles experienced by many youth."

The success of the gangs rests on their ability to generate revenue. Regulation will have a detrimental effect on that, and prohibition inflates it.

This is indisputable truth. If you find it laughable that we continue to assist gangs to prosper with a perverted public health policy then you are a sick individual.

[CanadianJeff]

actually if you had bothered to read the very police report your linking to I would follow similar ideas presented in the report.

These kids follow gangs because they often feel or have some disconnect to a healthy social life or have a lack of good family life. Organizing and maintaining new outreach programs that try to get these youth involved in healthier activities like sports or find them non abusive places they feel are home are the best approach.

I think you don't realize or understand that there is a HUGE difference in youth gangs compared to full scale adult organized crime like the Hells Angels.

[andyt]

Here we go down the usual road. You have to be completely stupid not to realize that drugs are a huge income for gangs, and having bling is in part what attracts kids to gangs - they see gangster as successful vs any other options. Take away a good part of that income by legalization and regulation, and you will reduce the influence and power of gangs.

We'll always have gangs - they were around long before gangs got into drug dealing. Take the Clark Park gang, feeder group for the East End HA. Real animals (one was actually called that because he liked to bit people's ears off) doubtless into all sorts of petty crime. But mostly they were just shitkickers, and a minor inconvenience for Vancouver unless you walked thru Clark Park at night. Now, all those gangs have turned to drugs. The profit motive means they are much better organized and sophisticated, not just shitkickers anymore. Take away a good chunk of their income, you take away a good chunk of their effect on society.


Big diff between gangs that fight for turf just to fight, and those fighting for turf because there's so much money to be make. Big diff on society too. How many judges and cops are corrupted by drug money? We don't seem to want to talk about that, but I doubt that it only happens in Mexico.

[Curtman]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

actually if you had bothered to read the very police report your linking to I would follow similar ideas presented in the report.

These kids follow gangs because they often feel or have some disconnect to a healthy social life or have a lack of good family life. Organizing and maintaining new outreach programs that try to get these youth involved in healthier activities like sports or find them non abusive places they feel are home are the best approach.

I think you don't realize or understand that there is a HUGE difference in youth gangs compared to full scale adult organized crime like the Hells Angels.

There is a bit of difference. Street gangs are the retail arm of black market drugs, the convenience store if you like. Kids follow gangs because they have money and power. If it was any other thing the boy scouts would be way more popular than them.

EDIT: As the article states, there is no police report to read yet. It hasn't been released yet. The article is written by someone who has read it though.

[andyt]

Curt, just admit that even with legalization, we'd still have plenty of youth gangs. And even adult crime gangs. Just, you know, maybe less of each. It won't do much good, since the people you're arguing with can only seem to see things in black and white, but it's worth a try.

[Curtman]

andyt andyt:

Curt, just admit that even with legalization, we'd still have plenty of youth gangs. And even adult crime gangs. Just, you know, maybe less of each. It won't do much good, since the people you're arguing with can only seem to see things in black and white, but it's worth a try.

Absolutely I would agree with that. They have a monopoly on a commodity market currently. Regulation won't eliminate them, but it will be the only successful thing we've tried at reducing them when it happens.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Curt, just admit that even with legalization, we'd still have plenty of youth gangs. And even adult crime gangs. Just, you know, maybe less of each. It won't do much good, since the people you're arguing with can only seem to see things in black and white, but it's worth a try.

There's some irony, Andy. There are no shades of grey when you slide in to unload some bile for shits and giggles. Nuanced discussions are lost on you when you roll in with your usual your way or the highway fare.

This particular line of discussion is not about drugs as much as you and Curt wish to make it. This was purely about Curt rolling it, shitting the bed, and then pouting to be called on it. No shocker really that you as Curt's mop and bucket brigade come in with a cheer and smile to ham-fistedly clean up the mess and only succeed in yet again making a big smear of the situation.

Curt has always linked prohibition to gang violence with a summary that violence and gang activity will suddenly tank when he can sit on the stoop with a fatty between his lips and not have to explain to the kids that he's a crusader like Rosa Parks each time he strikes one up. And yet, it's pure speculation on his part, or anyone's part, what will happen with legalization and gang activity. Will violence go down? Maybe, but by how much is difficult to predict without having the facts on how regulation will work. It really is a pie in the sky outlook to make the very simplistic connection - and I get that simplistic is easiest for you guys as you engage in every kind of logic calisthenic to support your narcissistic wants - that legal pot equals rapidly dropping gang activity.

But please, keep up with the rose coloured outlook as the pair of you glad hand each other on your efforts at social crusading for the good of us all.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

andyt andyt:

Curt, just admit that even with legalization, we'd still have plenty of youth gangs. And even adult crime gangs. Just, you know, maybe less of each. It won't do much good, since the people you're arguing with can only seem to see things in black and white, but it's worth a try.

Absolutely I would agree with that. They have a monopoly on a commodity market currently. Regulation won't eliminate them, but it will be the only successful thing we've tried at reducing them when it happens.

So, that sounds suspiciously like you don't really know what the outcome will be here. Just a guess - a hope more like, that legalization will curb gang activity.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

This was purely about Curt rolling it, shitting the bed, and then pouting to be called on it.

The two issues are inextricably linked. Prohibition supports gangsterism. The article's topic is that what we are doing to combat growth of gangs isn't working.



Is there some part of this graphic that you disagree with?

[Regina]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

This was purely about Curt rolling it, shitting the bed, and then pouting to be called on it.

The two issues are inextricably linked. Prohibition supports gangsterism. The article's topic is that what we are doing to combat growth of gangs isn't working.



Is there some part of this graphic that you disagree with?

There's no prohibition on cigarettes but yet organized crime is involved in that trade. Got an "Adapted" graph for that one?

[andyt]

There's the black and white thinking again. Ban cigs, how much would organized crime be involved then? But I know, reduction doesn't count, has to be elimination of all crime, or we're better off keeping criminals doing 100% of the business.

[Curtman]

Regina Regina:

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

This was purely about Curt rolling it, shitting the bed, and then pouting to be called on it.

The two issues are inextricably linked. Prohibition supports gangsterism. The article's topic is that what we are doing to combat growth of gangs isn't working.



Is there some part of this graphic that you disagree with?

There's no prohibition on cigarettes but yet organized crime is involved in that trade. Got an "Adapted" graph for that one?

It's right there under "Legalize with many restrictions". It's there now, and it used to be at Legalize/Promote. This is favourable to Legalize/Promote and to Prohibition/Gangsterism.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Curtman Curtman:

andyt andyt:

Curt, just admit that even with legalization, we'd still have plenty of youth gangs. And even adult crime gangs. Just, you know, maybe less of each. It won't do much good, since the people you're arguing with can only seem to see things in black and white, but it's worth a try.

Absolutely I would agree with that. They have a monopoly on a commodity market currently. Regulation won't eliminate them, but it will be the only successful thing we've tried at reducing them when it happens.

So, that sounds suspiciously like you don't really know what the outcome will be here. Just a guess - a hope more like, that legalization will curb gang activity.

Do you know the outcome of everything you do. If you're walking down a dark road with what looks like a lot of people out to do you harm, do you try a different road because it might be better, or just keep walking the same old road because you don't know the outcome of walking the new road>

We won't know for sure until we try. But we do know for sure that what we've got is not working. Maybe time to recall the definition of insanity, and try something different.

[Regina]