“The opiod addiction is the driving force. Criminals need guns and addicts need drugs.” – ATF Special Agent Sarah O’Reilly in Feds cracking down on illegal guns in Western Pennsylvania [via wxpi.com]
“The opiod addiction is the driving force. Criminals need guns and addicts need drugs.” – ATF Special Agent Sarah O’Reilly in Feds cracking down on illegal guns in Western Pennsylvania [via wxpi.com]
You mean that other crime drives violent crime including that perpetrated with firearms? Someone call madden to have him explain it!
YOU SEE THAT! THE GUY GETS THE DRUGS, SHAKES THE TACKLE, THEN BOOM! HE’S GONE.
Hopefully she got a high-level promotion for such a keen observation!
She protects her keen observation, and her identity, with cop shades.
DID ANYBODY ACTUALLY WATCH THE VIDEO?
What are illegal guns? There is NO SUCH THING.
There are only guns in the possession of honest responsible citizens and in the possession irresponsible idiots & criminals. Get the criminals off the street, educate the idiots and move on.
You see when people are involved in drugs and violent crime, there’s a high likelihood that they acquire guns or are familiar with people who have guns or saw a movie with guns in it that one time.
End the war on drugs and most crimes like this would disappear. Holland now gives addicts heroin under medical supervision as its cheaper than paying for police and prisons
https://news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-netherlands-do-addicts-complain-about-free-government-heroin
This speaks the Pollyanna/”Give us our pot” crew.
I have no real problem legalizing most recreational pharmaceuticals.
What I refuse to do is to pay for someone else’s recreational pharmaceuticals, or abuse of same.
Call me heartless, but it’s not my fault you got addicted, nor should it be my problem.
NAILED IT … +1 !!!
I’d reconsider that point if they pay for my recreational ammo. Not their fault I got addicted to target shooting
Yeah, me too.
I go to meetings. Hi, my name is Joe, and I’m an ammo addict. . .
It all started so long ago, I was young at the time, most people are at that age. . .
I remember at first shooting ammo with friends, then buying more ammo, hiding large purchases of ammo from my government. I knew I really had a problem when I started making ammo, so I went and got a license to MANUFACTURE AMMO FOR SALE from the ATF $35, “Registration” with the U.S. State Department’s ITAR office [no benefit to me, but I got to give them the same info, or less, that I gave the ATF, plus a check for $ 2075]. . .
LOL!
Hi, my name is Ing, and I’m an ammo addict, too.
I feel like my stash is never enough. I don’t have enough money to keep up, and I’m always wanting more. I spend all my time thinking about how to score my next box of cartridges… I even bought an Evil Black Rifle just so I could have an excuse to stockpile another caliber.
Hi, Ing. Welcome. I’d ask ‘how many days has it been’ but me and your sponsor just saw you at the range so you don’t have to say.
Keep working the steps man. Remedial action drills, Instructor Zero heel slide-racking, etc.
One day at a time brother.
Hi, I am Glenux.
I am an ammo addict.
it started with my first pop gun.
Cork was my “gateway round”.
It was free and had unlimited firing times.
Then I worked my way up to cap guns.
They went BANG.
The caps got expensive so I had to start steeling
other my brothers’ lunch money.
But then when I got old enough, I upgraded to my
BB guns and Pellet Guns.
And that is what really launched me into a life of crime.
I found all kinds of stuff to shoot with my BB guns.
Then I just went downhill after that.
Now with the ammo for real guns,
I’ve evolved into a real hoarder.
I think I have more ammo than I will ever live to shoot.
But then again, the FOURTH OF JULY is coming soon.
Who needs fireworks when you have ammo?
Joe and Ing, I’m glad you are able to admit your problem and it’s affected on your friends and family.
However we cannot help with your condition. The only cure is to convert to liberalism, given the severity of the mental condition known as liberalism we advice against treatment as it usually is worse than your current addiction
In light of this, shoot straight and stay armed
Thank you Duke.
We’ll trade ya prayers.
Do the math: a kilogram of coke in Bogota is worth less than $1k, pure and uncut (much less than 1k). At the Mexican side of the US border it’s worthb $10k. On the US side it’s worth $100k, and that’s if you don’t cut it.
Eliminate prohibition and coke would be so cheap there would be no need to steal or receive subsidies to purchase it.
Ditto with heroin. End prohibition and the stuff would be of negligible cost.
No profit, no gang. No gang no crime. End prohibition and everyone wins.
Yeah, EVERYTHING out of Columbia is addictive: Coffee, chocolate, cocaine, senioritas . . .
I wasn’t agreeing with you. If you make drugs cheaper, more people will die from them. Subsidize people watching t.v. and you will have people dying of “couch potato disease”.
Drugs IMPAIR. No two ways about it. You might like the way they impair, or think it’s an enhancement to your existence, but you cannot claim that you are not impaired while using them (and sometimes long after).
Plus, MAKING DRUGS TAKES TIME. That time is measured in human lives. If people need to be compensated for their time, they will only do more and more to make it worth their while or they will quit. If drugs are cheap, they will need to sell more of them to be adequately compensated. It would behoove them to get as many people on them as possible, including kids. And that my friends, is where you get hunted.
Exactly. Every human population on earth has a “carrying capacity” for people who are prone to becoming addicts. Rigid enforcement of drug laws are of little use in altering this population because addictive predispositions are largely a function of natural selection. That said, the political aspect of “wars on drugs” is obvious. Simply put, cops, politicians, and social workers, need addicts the same way addicts need drugs.
Personally, I don’t think getting high should be illegal. If drugs were decriminalized drug companies could make a lot of money producing drugs that get you high without causing the physical damage drug abuse causes. Getting high should be seen as a lifestyle choice, the consequences of which—like incurring too much debt or being unable to maintain relationships—are wholly the responsibility of the individual.
Why not just send them to Holland? It’s gotta be cheaper than all that heroin.
And the Dutch deserve them.
People who couldn’t afford to buy dope would continue to kill for it.
Legal marijuana in Colorado costs hundreds of dollars an ounce.
Most dopeheads don’t have that kind of money lying around.
Your idea won’t work unless the government gives out free dope to anyone over the age of 9 who wants it.
Adult only free distributions will only drive youths to kill to get dope.
that hasn’t happened anywhere drug policy was liberalized. people are certainly killing each other for drugs now under prohibition however.
No body is killing anybody for drugs. Its the profiteers doing the killing. The drug lords, smugglers, and dealers who use drugs to make money. Those organizations and entities aren’t going anywhere. They will find a wanted/needed commodity that isn’t available through legitimate channels (to include CHEAP drugs/cigarettes/laborers etc) and continue in their operations. Some organizations that are exclusively tied to drug economics MAY dry up. But, believing that these problems will go away with legalizing drugs is a fantasy. Drugs are a good place to draw the line because it affects every aspect of our society (productivity, quality of performance, insurance, health care, concern for one’s children, etc) in a net negative despite a narrow band of possitive effects that drugs provide.
“But alcohol is worse!” You might say. Yep,…. so are french fries, sugar, and cars. Like I said, the line has to be drawn somewhere and right now its drugs, and rrasonably so.
After Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, “The number of drug related deaths has reduced from 131 in 2001 to 20 in 2008.”
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4554
We have a case-study on liberalized drug laws with a population of 10 million people over the last 16 years in Portugal. Arguably the most relevant statistic today is overdose death rate. Portugal is 0.3 per 100,000. US is 16.3.
Fudds make the same argument for firearms related deaths. No guns=fewer gun deaths.
Portugal also has twice as many cops per capita and executes as many criminals, not per capita but TOTAL, as the U.S. They also charge criminals for drug offenses at a rate 7 times that of the U.S. If anything, our enforcement is weak compared to Portugal.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Portugal/United-States/Crime
Then you need to ask yourself why legal marijuana costs hundreds an ounce. There is really no practical reason that the market couldn’t support itself and be regulated at a similar price point to alcohol.
The State of Colorado used the old “Tax abd Regulate” argument to sell the decriminalization of pot. That’s where the cost comes in.
And if potheads could grow it their backyards or the Toledo window box it would cost anything.
Ya. Happy little industrious farmers. How would they do at work, like being a train engineer?
That’s ok, don’t hurt yourself, we already know that too.
If you buy the opioids from the same Tasmanian farms that Perdue Pharmaceuticals buys its raw opium, a day’s doses of heroin will end up costing lest than a pack-a-day cigarette habit currently costs in NYC.
The profits being ripped out of the hide of addicts are unbelievable, and they’re going to some few people disproportionately. I’m done with that. I want an annual check from Perdue and the NYPD pension fund, to me not some government that will waste it, or I’m going all-in for legalization……
The average smoker in Colorado goes through 3 oz/year, or 1/4 oz/month. Cost can be between $40-$100 per quarter ounce, depending on strain and whether it is medical or retail (which is heavily taxed.)
Cannabis users are not driving crime.
No, but they are stimulating the living hell out of the snack food industry.
The Netherlands has been doing this for years and years now. They are a small country and this approach works for them to some degree.
That’s beyond silly. Are you smoking something right now?
New problems would begin if all drugs, not just pot, were legalized coast to coast which no one wants to pay for. And everything would need to be legalized or that would be the new Thing to sell.
Heroin at convenience stores OK ? Because that’s what you will get, not just MJ.
Ready for the addicts who don’t work and their kids without Anything?
Think addicts won’t steal to buy drugs or are we to provide the stuff for free to them?
But oh yeah we’ll empty the jails, pay off the DEA, and bankrupt gangs who will get regular jobs. Perfect plan!
Try and think about the bigger picture.
Typical scaremongering drivel. The drug war is barely four decades old, the country managed just fine without it.
Legalizing drugs will not stop the addiction to drugs. Further, how likely is it that folks like El Chapo will suddenly go legitimate over night and be willing to conform to zoning laws, employee benefits, safety regulations, taxes, etc… Further, if this was all overseen by the government, it would be something like the DMV, only with a bunch of wasted dirtbags instead of angry drivers. Holland is a mostly homogeneous society with a tiny population compared to the US. Consider the amount of abuse that already exists with government programs here, now add addiction into that mix.
Many, many points. Currently people with illegal drug addiction habits may be sent to jail. People who have this habit may be afraid to seek help because of said consequences. People want drugs so they use drugs. They are already illegal, and that obviously hasn’t stopped people from taking them. And I’m sure if you wanted to get some illegal drugs, you would know where to go. What does that mean? Thew law isn’t what makes people decide if people want to use drugs. Like Ron Paul said, “If heroin was legal tomorrow I still wouldn’t use it!” Decriminalizing drugs would remove the underground market for it. The criminals wouldn’t need to protect their merchandise with force because now it can be insured and they can call the authorities. The people who are unfortunate enough to use them can now seek help without being thrown in jail. Taxes from the industry can also be used for treatment, and people can be reasonably sure they aren’t using drugs cut with rat poison by their thug of choice. Legalization also does not make something moral.
Her statement might be obvious to most TTAG readers.
Consider, however, she was talking to a TV reporter. Explicitly stating the connection is probably a good idea. I’m actually glad it’s now “on the record” that criminals want and will get guns.
And the good citizens from W. PA just need to sit there unarmed and take it while the Feds “protect” them.
HOW’S ABOUT THIS
You let the good citizens of W. PA fend for themselves people on opioids stealing guns will thin out quickly.
Of course the only reason the addiction is the driving force is that our elected officials have decided it is in their best interest to sustain the black market for both illegally and legally produced pharmaceuticals.
smart and attractive. we have a unicorn gentlemen. then again, none of us have been in a relationship with her either.
Well duh…there’s an uptick in breakins in my neighborhood. And lots of stupid druggies looking to get SHOT.
The major cost of all legal recreational drugs is taxes. A $35 bottle of scotch is about $25 in tax. The internet says tax in Washington state makes black market drugs cheaper. I don’t use so no practical knowledge.
Doing the same thing for almost 90 years to prohibit marijauna while paying for more and more police, prisons etc just seems pointless. Portugal and Holland did the maths and it’s cheaper to supply a decreasing number of addicts than to jail them for life. I wouldn’t mind my tax rate going down.
And dummies need dumb.
The Commissioner of the City of Baltimore Police Department made a pretty astute observation the other day when he opined that the drug trade drives the horrendous murder rate in “Charm City”. With “revolving door” justice, those imprisoned for the unlawful carry of a firearm have the choice of either going to prison for a short stretch or being defenseless against being gunned down by a member of a rival drug gang. I know which option I’d choose.
“Criminals need guns and addicts need drugs and Feds need both.”
FIFY, beyotch.
The ATF… When dog hating commies decide to go major league.
They can never say anything right or smart because they chose long ago that they are not on the side of the American people.
Drug users can’t be responsible. That is the problem. They like to DUI. This a free society. Not an anarchist one. That is why we have responsibility and accountability. If we make drugs legal, can we then shoot addicts on sight when they steal from us???
So much idiocy in one post. Self-defense laws do not have sub-sections on drug use, nor will they change when the failed drug war is finally abolished.
I would like to hear your distinction between free and anarchist societies. That’s going to be good.
With freedom comes responsibility. In modern times that is. However in the anarchist time in America, that being the Old West, you really could shoot a person who was stealing from you. The good old days!!!!
And back then you could get intoxicated on anything. No body cared. Unless you were a thief. Then you were shot on sight!!!
So how does the wild west “anarchist” practice of shooting thieves have anything whatsoever to do with drug use?
The imbeciles who believe that the opioid crisis would vanish if only the U.S. enacted Scandinavian style anything goes drug legalization, are either ignoring or too dumb to recognize that the initial cause of the opioid addiction epidemic sweeping the nation is legal prescription opioids like OxyContin.
Many addicts transition from legal to illegal drugs because a daily fix of heroin is considerably less expensive than a daily supply of a prescription opioid.
No doubt their counter argument will be that the government should provide addicts their drug of choice free of charge.
Comments are closed.