A study I just found, Behind Bars, has this to say about the connection between drug use and violence:
Contrary to conventional wisdom and popular myth, alcohol is more tightly linked with more violent crimes than crack, cocaine, heroin or any other illegal drug. In state prisons, 21 percent of inmates in prison for violent crimes were under the influence of alcohol–and no other substance–when they committed their crime; in contrast, at the time of their crimes, only three percent of violent offenders were under the influence of cocaine or crack alone, only one percent under the influence of heroin alone.
It looks to me like the way to solve this problem is obvious. Since drug prohibition is so effective in combating violence caused by drug use we need to bring back alcohol prohibition. And one other point. I don’t know why they left out all the violent crimes committed by pot heads.
Comments
10 responses to “Under The Influence”
It’s sarcasm guys.
The so-called progressives can’t see that this is the logical consequence of political healthism. I recently enjoyed a very expensive dinner in Chapel Hill (payed for by NGO types who sent the bill to the WHO) in which all and sundry decried the notion that local governments in the US had the option to ban alcohol sales. Naturally, they supported all private and government smoking bans. They saw no contradiction in their positions, because they’re so smart.
I haven’t read the entire 283 page study, but is doesn’t appear to address the fact the far greater numbers of people drink alcohol than partake of crack, cocaine, heroin or pot. So of course, the percentage of violent offenders committing their crime while drunk is greater. It should be noted, 100% of violent offenders had oxygen in their systems when they committed their crimes. When’s the war on O2 start?
Using statistics to support any position is suspect.
Projecting trends based on short term statistics is a basis for disaster.
Example oil price stats, predictions, history.
We have gone through the same process twice in 30 years.
GPE,
As I said. I haven’t found the study I was looking for which was a better statistical study than the one I posted. Its conclusion was that alcohol was the only drug commonly used which is known to increase violence.
The above study was the best I could do on short notice.
When I find the study I’m looking for I’ll do a post.
Do you really need a study to know that people under the influence of alcohol are more violent than potheads and heroin addicts? Haven’t you ever been to a bar or been around drunks?
Heroin addicts who rob do so because they’re too useless to work to make money for their addiction, they rob people when not high because they want to get high.
(One of my best friends turned into a junkie but he never got violent, he was Junkie of the Year for 3 years running, he almost never had his electricity turned off or lost a job because of drugs, he died of an overdose, but he wasn’t violent).
Potheads always mean to get into a fight but they keep forgetting.
Drunks get violent while drunk.
One thing about that silly survey above,
21 percent of inmates in prison for violent crimes were under the influence of alcohol–and no other substance–when they committed their crime; in contrast, at the time of their crimes, only three percent of violent offenders were under the influence of cocaine or crack alone, only one percent under the influence of heroin alone.
Well duh.
I would suggest that there are a hell of a lot more people who do just alcohol than there are people who just do one illegal drug.
People who do illegal drugs generally drink and do more than one illegal drug but people whose favorite drug is legal (alcohol) are less likely to go out and buy some illegal drugs.
And crackheads and methheads also drink. The dealers of those two get very violent but I would suggest it’s more because of the money involved than because of the effects of the drug.
Beer’s cheap. If you invest in six or ten beers, and then someone wrecks your mood and forces you to give them instruction on respect and politeness, well, tomorrow night’s a brand new day.
Good drugs, on the other hand, are spendy. Drop three hundred on a few paper bindles, and no WAY are you going to waste a great buzz on slapping your stupid brother-in-law around for eating your Twixt bar.
I would agree to legalization by Amendment with the following clause: Nothing in this Amendment will ever allow the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branches to pass any law, issue any executive order or regulation, or render a decision that considers the use of any substance administered to a living body as a disability, mitigating circumstance in a crime, or in any way require any other citizen or entity, public or private, to associate with them in any way whatsoever. This shall include any government from disqualifying in any way for any aspect of government business or service an entity that refuses to associate with users of any substance administered to a living body.
In other words, I can refuse to hire addicts of any stripe.
SDN,
I sure hope that includes food and air addicts.
And don’t forget the insulin addicts.
Well maybe that is going too far. Perhaps if the addicts switch from drugs you don’t like to medical cartel approved drugs that serve the same purpose you might have a change of heart.
Class War
SDN,
Let me give it to you straight. Drugs fill receptors in the brain. If those receptors get filled by medical cartel approved drugs you are jake with the law. If you fill them with drugs the cartel makes no profit on you are in for some serious treatment.
Round Pegs In Round Holes