Almost everybody does some kind of drug. Sugar, caffeine, cannibus, nicotine, alcohol, "prescriptions." Decriminalize, take the crime and profit out of it, treat the sick. Stop wasting our blood and money on prohibition.

In the United States there is still a high prevalence of firearms, even in areas with some slightly more stringent restrictions. France is not the US is not Germany is not Spain is not Norway. They are more different from one another than Florida and Colorado are. Nevertheless it is possible to compare the countries. Comparing US drug policy with Columbia on its own may be foolish, but when you compare it to all the countries of Europe you are getting a better idea of what works and what doesn't. If decriminalization works in every European country it would be unusual if America was so different it would make things worse. On the other hand, you have been trying to compare Spanish speaking Caribbean islands with mainland USA, so I think you are hoist on your own petard there, I'm afraid.

@Jerykk
thank you for clarifying.

i can agree with many of your points i.e:addictions are destructive,health issues etc.

but there is zero evidence that decriminalizing (not the same as legalizing) is somehow promoting addictive drug usage OR that the user population will increase in response to decriminalization.

in fact,it is quite the opposite.
see:portugal
see:netherlands

users are not criminals.
addicts are not criminals,they are addicted.addiction is an illness not a legal status.

when you create a black market due to policy,violence will ensue,because those involved in that black market have no legal recourse.they are exempt from the legal system to settle disputes since they are engaging in "criminal" enterprise.

take away the criminality and you take away the black market and conversely...the violence.
see:prohibition.

addicts are not criminals....they are addicts.
and as squid alluded to:education is the best prevention.

thank you for your thoughtful reply.

@Jerykk

i am trying to understand your position.
you state you cant regulate addictive substances.
yet we regulate:cigarettes,alcohol.both of these are addictive and both are regulated.

you also infer that if illegal drugs were decriminalized the situation would become far worse.

in relation to what,exactly?
are you positing that if illegal drugs were made legal,illicit drug use would rise? can you provide some evidence to back that up? because i cannot find any...at all.

you appear to actually agree with @SquidCap in regards to the fact that people are going to do what they are going to do but disagree with the idea of regulating the illicit drug trade.

non-regulation=black market=criminality=violence=waste of resources directed towards non-violent citizens doing something they enjoy in the privacy of their own home,with their own body.

so i agree with @SquidCap,i am just unclear where your disagreement lies.
please clarify.

Here's a maverick idea.....

Replace the state-sanctioned tool of pubic school indoctrination/de-education with an 'actual' education miraculously providing a generation with the cognitive framework for problem-solving. Instill in the youth a tangible, effective foundation of critical-thinking skills instead of constantly drilling them with reinforcement of controlled behavior within a fascist police-state-society and preparatory for insertion into the workforce or civil-servitude. At the same time, legalize ALL controlled substances decriminalizing the individual's innate right as a human to do what the fuck they will.

Cocaine is no worse than hundreds of drugs or foods or habit-forming activities for that matter, control is the problem. A corner on the market by the cunts who are running the planet off a precipice for personal gain is the 'actual' problem.

Don't blame the substance, blame the abuse of power and a fiendish addiction to control. Drugs have done as much to create the world we enjoy today as the discovery of fire and using it to cook food. A few assholes want to tell you what the fuck to do with fire and spend billions to train monkeys to back them up....Fuck these enemies of humanity.

There has been a major shift in attitudes to marijuana especially in the last 5 or so years and it's welcomed. Hopefully we can decriminalize it and stop throwing black teenagers in jail for good when they have a roach with them. Seriously this country has a real race problem and it's used drugs to prosecute black people like they really want to.

1. OK
2. Not THESE crimes, the one's I talked about. When violence and drug dealing can happen in front of the police with no repercussion, it's de-facto decriminalized.
3. BULLSHIT. Oakland is not telling anyone they can't hire private security, they do say you can't form a violent gang (which seems to be what you're advocating) even if it's intent is to stop other gang activity. What private institutions are clamoring to come in and solve the crime issues, only to be held at bay by the state? I've never heard of one (and a mob or gang of citizens does not count).
There are numerous legal marijuana dispensaries in Oakland, legalized drug dealers according to the feds....and pharmacies.
What, crime happening on private property is no one's business but the property owner?!? Just wow. Don't know where to go with that mindset...but I might ask, how many slaves do you own?
4. yes, most of the video was shot on private property. Edit: Ok, I noticed it's not mostly on private property. Lot's of crime is, but not this. I was wrong....still...
Private security does not stop this kind of criminal, especially when outnumbered. They document it in hopes the police will do something.
5. yes, I have heard (and disagree with) that complaint. Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks and/or free land grabs), they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them. Never heard of it happening, anywhere. Please give an example.
6. Not for the illegal businesses, which are a large percentage. There are regulations to be sure, but many aren't enforced and they certainly aren't over-regulated as I see it, with small exceptions. Over-regulation did not cause the crime in Oakland, that's just ridiculous and ignorant.
7. Disney is not Oakland...and has not gentrified the surrounding areas. I know someone that lived across the freeway, and it was HIGH crime. They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period. Living in their gated communities is ridiculously expensive and regulated down to the colors you can paint your home or the types of grass you may have in your lawn. It's draconian. They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation.
8. Oakland HAS been high crime with little money, no statist intervention was ever needed. Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street. Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable.
9.Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know. For the portion that does, you could not hire private security that did anything, nor can you for $35 a month. People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?
10. Not what I said, buy your idea is to arm EVERYONE, and everyone can't afford a gun. That does not mean only criminals can afford one, that's terrible comprehension. Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there. Even if guns were cheaper, they can't afford rent and food, so it doesn't help...especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up. ;-} It's not an issue of them being over-regulated that stops most (or any, it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there) from owning one, it's just not.
Because people find ways to pay their bills and fines does not mean they have disposable income to spend on firearms, as you suggest.
Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me. That seems to work for you. That's fine. First I'll ask, how long have YOU lived in Oakland, since you're an 'expert' and I am not (I never claimed to be)? How long did you live in the libertarian utopia you want to emulate?
I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream, but I do think it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing. I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more).
Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it.
Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm. I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree. If I'm wrong about that, we're all in trouble.
And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results. People are inherently difficult to study, we're all freaks. (every mention reminds me of the foundation sci-fi series).
BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think.

#1 I clicked "ignore" after responding to his post. That is what I have no problem with doing.

#2 Bullshit. (sorry but it is) Hundreds if not thousands of people get arrested and prosecuted regularly for drug possession, drug selling, and even drug use. Tell me what's been decriminalized!

#3 The state is doing quite a bit in Oakland, actually, like preventing the private institutions that would solve these problems from arising in the fist place from setting up there (but instead hold failed monopolies over those industries). For example, there are no legalized drug dealers (See bullshit #2). Again, that kind of gang activity happens on a "public" street. It does not happen on private property. And even if it did, it'd be no one's business but the owners'.

#4 If this was even close to true, then it's even more proof of the superiority of private police over "public" law enforcement. Because, like I said, you don't see this kind of thing happening on private property, do you?

#5. Wrong. Businesses will take care of that if given an incentive to move there. Have you not heard of people complaining about (so-called) "gentrification?"

#6. Huh? Really? So, are there no business permits needed to set up a business in Oakland? Do the business owners and residents of Oakland not have to pay taxes? Is there no open carry for law-abiding citizens? (now there will be it seems). Is there no enforced rent control in Oakland? If you don't see any regulations being enforced, then you are willfully ignorant.

#7. There are no gangs at Disney because it is private property and its owners will not put up with something so bad for business as gangs. Disneyland and Google have gentrified the neighborhoods they are in -- they were not always low crime areas as they were before they moved in.

"Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security."

Yeah, those usually go together. The ultimate results of statist interventions are always poverty and crime.

#8 Much of the violent crime happens in the "public" spaces, like the streets. Sure, there are break-ins to private homes, etc. but as you say, the poverty does not let people hire private security, and the "public" police (that have monopolized that industry) are, like you point out, completely useless to the tax-paying residents who live there.


#9 I'd rather I wouldn't have to pay for taxes and pay for my own security than having to give the money to the state in exchange for getting nothing in return. In fact, I'm aware of several security services that are available to people living in the ghetto for as little as $35/month.


#10 So, only gangsters can afford guns now? Maybe it will be cheaper without the gun "permit" costs. Or the restrictions about buying them more cheaply online.

And I highly doubt the peoople in Oakland can't afford guns, given how many guns there are in Oakland. But, for the sake of argument, lets say it's true. If not for the illegality of the drug trade, then gangsters would also not be able to afford guns (the illegality of the drugs is what's driving up the price and, as a result, the profitability of gangsterism). And if it wasn't for the regulations, Walmart would make sure to provide more affordable armaments, just like they do in other states.

I recommend spending just a few minutes inside the Oakland traffic court and you'll see how many "hardworking upstanding people" there are who somehow manage to pay for hundreds of dollars in fines and/or do community service for an equivalent minimum wage to pay for these. You could easily get a gun at Walmart for much less.


"Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland..."

Well, if you think Oakland is a libertarian "dream," then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Having a brother who lived in Oakland for a year does not make you an expert on (or even vaguely familiar with) what a libertarian "dream" place looks like (or even -- as you apparently reveal -- what actually goes on in Oakland).


Just the fact that, as you say, Oakland is rather poor makes it a non-libertarian city at all. A free market society/economy (cronyism is not a free market, so don't even go there) has much less poverty than a 'regulated' one.

Sure, if you go from a state-dependent "economy" to a free market overnight, without having had time to rebuild the private institutions that the state demolished and/or took over and/or monopolized, then, sure you may have a chaotic transition period. That's why a controlled dismantlement is far more preferable to an anarchy that comes about by sudden collapse. But, you have to take what you can get.

(As we may find out first hand) the problem with a government going bankrupt is that, at first, it may seem like a good thing, but it can also bring about a worse repression from the state. Praxeology cannot answer the unknown. It falls more within the realm of thymological prediction/analysis.

I would like to answer some points here....
1.You certainly SEEM to have a problem ignoring his posts, you even responded to them.
2. These 'crimes' have been 'decriminalized' because the police are unable to enforce the laws, decriminalizing nearly everything, at least in practice if not by law.
3. The state doing nothing is what libertarians are all about, so again, in practice this does seem to be the libertarian dream, just not by law.
4. Private security HAS taken over in Oakland. Private security only protects what they're paid to protect, and nothing else usually.
5. To make Oakland 'business friendly' you first need to make if FAR less violent.
6. I can't see ANY regulations being enforced there, what are you talking about with 'over-regulated Oakland'?
7. Oakland is in America, and nearly all of it is 'private property/enterprise' that IS putting up with that. There are no gang shootings (or fewer) at Google and Disney because they are in low crime areas and can afford good private security for themselves, Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security.
8. Wow, you are really stretching there. These things do NOT happen only in public places, most of Oakland is private property and high crime.
9. Where do you get the idea that struggling businesses have the funds to pay for private security? That's simply wrong and insultingly so, as it implies that they have the ability to stop, and a reason to allow the high crime in their area.

10. to the idea that everyone in Oakland should just be armed to reduce crime, is anyone offering the free guns to them? I guarantee you, most hard working upstanding people in Oakland can't afford a gun.

Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland for a year and I visited often, and we lived in S. Berkley for years, almost on the Oakland border...I do know the Oakland of the 80's and 90's (true, I have no personal knowledge of 2000+ Oakland, but it seems the same).

@enoch, you must have your head in your own rectum if you think that Oakland is anywhere close to a libertarian's wet dream. You clearly have no interest in having a real discussion about any of the principles I've outlined for you, and I have little problem ignoring your posts.

If anything, Oakland is more like a statist's dream, right now. The inevitable result of regulations and criminalization of drugs. Drug dealers, pimps, bookies, and such are, in fact, "cronies" of the governmental system due to the fact that their jobs are overpaid by the illegality of these services.

If Oakland decriminalizes all of the above mentioned "services" that these guys provide, then I would grant that the city is, indeed, moving in a libertarian direction. Otherwise, only psychos and low-lifes tend to take those illegal jobs given that they are subject to the precariousness of the whims of the legislators

I don't mind them doing any of the above activities, actually. But shooting guns in the air could be a violation of someone else's property, depending on where the bullets fall or on whom/what. And obviously the state "protectors" are doing nothing about any of these things.

Like I said, let private security take over and these random shootings would be curtailed..

Make Oakland business-friendly, and you will see it become much less violent. A libertarian's "dream" does not look like an over-regulated Oakland.

Private enterprise/private property does not put up with random shooting into the air in the middle of a city. Tell me: Why are there are no gang shootings inside the Google campus? Or at Disneyland?

Why do these things tend to happen only in "public" spaces? Tell me.

That cop heckled by the gangs had zero incentive to risk his life for no gain. Businesses, on the other hand, have the incentive to keep gangs off of their property. And they will find those willing and able (for the right price) to deal with the gangsters in ways the government cronies simply can/will not..

The disgusting thing is that these corps lobby vigorously against any lightening of criminal penalties or pot decriminalization that they think will adversely affect their "revenue stream".

Yo Dystop:
My first state of the union address would include costumes, for starters, worn henceforth and according to level of corruption of current members of congress and senate: Data would be of course mined from our resources (those stalwart ass-grabbers of the distinguished intelligence community we have to thank for the dirt we would dredge and release), IMMEDIATELY,!....every phone call, every email every bit of naked boat-parties and teen-aged Thai prettyboys there for all to see…THEN decriminalize all drugs and release all offenders to their respective ends and relatives so charged in the past 100 years, immediately.
I’d make it mandatory that everyone be able to read and write, and provide the necessary means-
Two chickens in every pot
I’d tell everyone the real reason we’re in Afghanistan and will stay the fuck there is for their Lithium, because the world needs batteries to go with the new technology and to go fuck themselves if they don’t like us protecting their poppy fields from angry 4rth century thugs screaming , “AKBAR!”( i.e., I would disclose the actual motivations behind the current clusterfuck..) Oh, I’d have a monthly picnic on the white house lawn holiday, offer federal monies to female athletics, and outlaw fast food chains, billboard advertising, and landlords (I’d work to return ownership of land acquired through unsavory deals by oil-rich cocksuckers, anyone assoc. with any bank scandal in the last 50 years, etc. to the open market for restricted development based on projected models for our world in 50 years)

Just getting started, I’d fuck shit up is the answer to your question, jump-start the place based on the original doc and maybe get another 100 years out of it..

NMA - Obama was a Stoner has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

TYT: New Marijuana Crackdown Tactic By Obama Admin has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Barack Obama on Marijuana Decriminalization (2004) has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/NMA-Obama-History-with-Marijuana

*related=http://videosift.com/video/TYT-New-Marijuana-Crackdown-Tactic-By-Obama-Admin

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Barack-Obama-on-Marijuana-Decriminalization-2004-1

>> ^PHJF:

Any income to the state will be met or surpassed by a shocking drop in citizen productivity


Haha at first perhaps. But a few years from new we'll find out that, much like European countries with legal or heavily decriminalized Cannabis, the number of users will drop.