Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

...

You still don't see the entire scale of the problem.
The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all
the other negative side effects.


And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any
of the positives

E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you
out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of
extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that
shoots at the criminal.


1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what
wealth they have to pay for drugs.
2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with
scoring and enjoying the high.
3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the
car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance
4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to
make sure he's not a threat any more
5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have
my car.
6) The druggie is dead.
7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good
shoot.
Problem solved


It was an example. But I have the impression, it was at least a little
realistic.

BTW: In Germany we don't have 'carjacking'. Didn't know that word, but
heard of such crimes.

The reason is a typical German speciality within the system of civil
laws, because we have a distinction between ownership ('Eigentum') and
possession ('Besitz').
The physical control ('Besitz') doesn't help much, because it is only
possession of a stolen car. To get ownership, you need a special
certificate of ownership ('Kraftfahrzeugbrief') , what is usually stored
in a safe place.
Armed street robbery is not very common here, too. (Actually I don't
know the reason for that.)

Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the
police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these
people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance
drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of
life, what has a value, too.


That's only true in your worst-case scenario
IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs
are
1) hauling off the body to the morgue
2) Autopsy
3) police filing a good shoot report
4) buying ammo to replace what was used.



The term 'cost' is used in economy differently to how the word is
commonly used. 'Cost' means the value of the items used in measures of
currency.

For example the use of a machine belongs to costs, even if the machine
is already paid.

Imagine all the money, the American taxpayer pay. Pile that up in coins.
That is a HUGE pile.

Thats what you have (the American people).

Than you take HUGE caterpillars to grab the money for the military, the
various agencies, the government, schools, wellfare, streets and so forth.

What is left isn't a mountain, but still a hill. This is for the nicer
things.

If you use money from this pile, than the nicer things are reduced,
because that money is spent for something else.

The cost is now not the money spent, but the reduction of things you like.

E.g. a prison adds nothing to pleasure and beauty, but a new - say -
stadium would.

Than the cost of that prison is (besides - say - 10 mio $) one stadium.


Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces
without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your
possibilities are reduced.


And the reverse, is that if there are armed citizens, street scum are
less apt to try to rip off people since the thing they fear the MOST,
ABOVE ALL ELSE, is an ARMED CITIZEN

Actually I think, what they fear most is the pain from having no drugs.
Next is the police and than - maybe - citizens.
Certain drugs reduce the ability to think rational to some extend, what
would make such people act like psychos. There is no way to deal with
such persons in a rational way. You would need to sedate them -maybe-
and take them to a hospital.

Another subject are homeless people. These would possibly fall into your
category, too, even if this is quite unfair.

Homeless people are a threat to the public health, because a person
needs a shelter and occasional possibility to have a shower (or alike).
A homeless person is not a criminal, but could spread diseases, because
the person has to live outside.

The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also
worth to mention.


Change of subject noted


Same with such thing as 'liberties'. Liberties certainly belong to the
nicer things, you like to have.

If you give up certain rights to achieve a certain effect, than this
right, you don't possess any more, belongs to the costs.

If you had to give up the right to - say - ride a horse, than loosing
this right reduces your possibilities. You can say: I never rides
horses, but some people do. So, the 'pain' of others counts, too.

Then income goes into generally wrong canals, because large revenues
are made through means, that are against the society in general. That
income attracts young people and guides them away from useful work
into drug related 'business'. This money feeds the criminals and let
them use that income, to finance other unwanted activities.

E.g. that money enables them, to bribe and corrupt officials,
policemen or politicians. These people can do real damage, if they
don't function like intended.



Don't disagree with you there
Prohibitions of any kind tend to
1) fail badly
2) result in unintended and usually negative side-effects.

Agree with you here, too.


Greetings

Thomas