Subscribe to the
Drug War Chronicle Newsletter!
Show your support
with a single click
Already have a FastAction account? Log in
By clicking "Log in," I confirm that I agree with the FastAction terms of service and privacy policy.
Show your support
with a single click
Don't have a FastAction account yet? Sign up
By clicking "Sign up," I confirm that I agree with the FastAction terms of service and privacy policy.
Show your support
with a single click
Already have a FastAction account? Log in
By clicking "Log in," I confirm that I agree with the FastAction terms of service and privacy policy.
Show your support
with a single click
Don't have a FastAction account yet? Sign up
By clicking "Sign up," I confirm that I agree with the FastAction terms of service and privacy policy.
Comments
but how effective is the policy in...
But how effective is the policy in intimidating the ill-connected? How much more comfort did it provide for the well-connected?
Bloomberg evidently felt that intimidation of the ill-connected was good for NYC. He spoke of a huge diminution in the intimidation of the well-connected by violence at the hands of the ill-connected. Of NYC being a nicer place to live. But his argument was logically fallacious, and other explanations for the diminution are more credible.
"Intimidation of the well-connected by the ill-connected" is called "terrorism". But the reverse, phenomenon, exemplified by stop-and-frisk, needs an equally scary name. If we're really against terrorism, then *all* sides have to eschew intimidation. And the well-connected side has to take the initiative, because only it is in a position to resort to means other than intimidation.
Is the purpose of laws against violence to *intimidate* people against committing violence? It's a reasonable question to ask. Personally, I feel we should think of such laws as pest control measures, rather than as means of behavior modification. Evidently, however, that's now a minority view. The American people like violence. Subjugation is sexy, too.
The only conceivable purpose of our laws against drug possession is, in fact, intimidation. Those who exploit the Tragedy of the Commons that such laws enable are the only beneficiaries. A crazy situation.
Your numbers are way off,
Your numbers are way off, just saying 1 in 16 = 6.25% and 1 in 50 = 2% – should be 1 in a 1000. Just saying.
Add new comment