You have a point. The last time you heard about gangs killing each other (and sometimes innocent people) was during prohibition. So, in your aside, you sort of re-enforce that fact (if in fact you meant it as an aside).

Although I do not believe anyone should use prohibited substances, I find the whole “reefer madness” approach to drugs to be Orwellian. The thought that if you make these drugs ‘legal’ and then the streets will be littered with addicts is a dream IMO. People will try drugs if they are willing, they will not if they are not willing. Never have I heard of nor seen someone smoking ‘grass’ pull a gun on someone and make them smoke.

This is not to say that we should be scrapping criminal penalties for the use of illegal drugs, but something more fitting should come in to play. Drunk Drivers are regularly let off without much more than a suspension, and a fine. Even when they injure someone, they still get away with minor scars respectively. But getting caught with just over an ounce of the big three will land your butt in the pokey and a whole new girlfriend. That is completely silly.

The entire criminal system really should be overhauled, regardless of crimes involved. There are some that should remain classified as overtly heinous and should be regarded harshly, but a good 90 % of the felony statues should be looked at and re-done. That goes for Murder, sex offenses, violent acts, drugs, drunk driving, etc, etc. Do that, and you will be able to cut prison populations, while keeping the very dangerous behind bars.

Just the 2 cents of someone passing through.

The answer is yes, although you are correct that it is not quite as simple. (For example, intolerance and marginalization of certain classes, e.g., Muslim immigrants, by the dominant political class can undoubtedly create problems that may result in criminal violence.) Nevertheless, criminologists and sociologists (and even economists) have identified wealth/income inequality to be the predominant cause of violent crime like homicide (including gang violence).

All of the places you have mentioned have much deeper and more widespread social welfare programs than the US, lower Gini coefficients, and, surprise, much lower homicide rates (by orders of magnitude). Of course, all are still rank capitalist countries with entirely too much inequality and too little social welfare (hence the ultimately unacceptable violent crime rates in all of them).

I fear your diagnosis and prescription are overly simplistic.

In other words, most homicides can be prevented by moving towards socialism for all (i.e., stabilizing the everyday lives of the poor, as by guaranteeing housing, mental and physical health care, food, etc.), as opposed to socialism for the rich and powerful only (i.e., ludicrously high military expenditures (a means to subsidize business), bailouts of Wall Street, banks, auto corporations, etc.), and it is a conscious decision on the part of the political/corporate class not to do this. Ergo, a choice has been made to have a high violent crime rate instead of a low one.

If Pat thinks they should be, I hope she doesn’t wear diamonds – or cheap (sweat shop) clothing – or use oil – or etc…

I absolutely agree that users of drugs should be educated in the ‘blood’ which each gram costs; but they are no more culpable for it than any consumer of a whole raft of products.

In relation to the ‘legalise’ argument – would you say this is something which is a real possibility over there?

Every thinking person in our state knows this isn’t working. If we could only convince the political class.

On a side note- I can imagine that county governments are going to balk at the prospects of paying to incarcerate these defendants. Shifting from state jail to county jail is going to represent a huge influx of new bodies to feed/house/medicate etc.