Treat Chicago gangs like terrorists

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Amen.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/24/opinion/granderson-chicago-terror/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Last week, millions watched as an entire city was shut down to look for one guy. Every major news station was covering the pursuit of one guy. We all know the face and relatives of this one guy. And it's all because he is an alleged terrorist. But more American were murdered in the south and west sides of Chicago than there were U.S. servicemen killed in Afghanistan last year, and yet for some reason we don't view those neighborhoods as terrorized.

[decocker 7,198]

so you want a war on gangs to go along with the ever effective war on terror and war on drugs?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If you want to get rid of the gangs, you have to do a few things. The first thing is to eliminate the demand for the drugs that drives the economy of the gangs. Second, you have to provide enough opportunity for the youth to earn a living for themselves and families.

One of the successful ways to deal with prostitution is to go after the johns, instead of the prostitutes. Those sting operations where a decoy finds some guy soliciting for sex, then putting his picture in the local newspaper, pretty much shut down guys cruising the area looking for prostitutes.

Do the same thing for drugs. When some white bread from suburbia cruises into the wrong part of town looking for drugs, you make sure he is stigmatized for the rest of his life. That ####### will end.

You may think the problem is more than that. Maybe. But the inner city neighborhoods don't have the cash flow to support all that drug traffic. I bet a major portion of those customers are coming from the more affluent areas.

Edited April 24, 2013 by The Patriot

[Karee 4,190]

so you want a war on gangs to go along with the ever effective war on terror and war on drugs?

War on terror and war on drugs are completely different. Lots of people want drugs. Not too many want murders.

[decocker 7,198]

War on terror and war on drugs are completely different. Lots of people want drugs. Not too many want murders.

the war on terror creates terrorists. the war on drugs creates criminal addicts. both fail miserably. i'm not talking about public demand, i'm talking about the effects of current policy.

[Karee 4,190]

the war on terror creates terrorists. the war on drugs creates criminal addicts. both fail miserably. i'm not talking about public demand, i'm talking about the effects of current policy.

So you're saying we should stop fighting terrorists because by fighting them we are only creating more?

[GandD 5,966]

So you're saying we should stop fighting terrorists because by fighting them we are only creating more?

That's like any law. If you pass a law and someone breaks it.... you created a criminal.

[decocker 7,198]

So you're saying we should stop fighting terrorists because by fighting them we are only creating more?

wouldn't it be lovely if americans could just declare war on something to make it stop?

Edited April 24, 2013 by val erie

[Karee 4,190]

When I lived in Thailand back around 2003/2004, the PM at the time started a war on drugs. He sent the military out after them. Users/dealers etc. In about 3 months they had killed roughly 2500 people without trial. Turns out most of them had nothing to do with drugs.

Obviously Thailand is not the U.S.

[decocker 7,198]

When I lived in Thailand back around 2003/2004, the PM at the time started a war on drugs. He sent the military out after them. Users/dealers etc. In about 3 months they had killed roughly 2500 people without trial. Turns out most of them had nothing to do with drugs.

Obviously Thailand is not the U.S.

i didn't know we were discussing thailand. did i say thailand's war on drugs? (look i used a question mark!)

[Karee 4,190]

i didn't know we were discussing thailand. did i say thailand's war on drugs? (look i used a question mark!)

And a !

[GandD 5,966]

One of the successful ways to deal with prostitution is to go after the johns, instead of the prostitutes. Those sting operations where a decoy finds some guy soliciting for sex, then putting his picture in the local newspaper, pretty much shut down guys cruising the area looking for prostitutes.

Do the same thing for drugs. When some white bread from suburbia cruises into the wrong part of town looking for drugs, you make sure he is stigmatized for the rest of his life. That ####### will end.

You may think the problem is more than that. Maybe. But the inner city neighborhoods don't have the cash flow to support all that drug traffic. I bet a major portion of those customers are coming from the more affluent areas.

Issues with multiple causes don't exist......

BUT if they did, I'm not sure the "shaming" part of your discussion is true or the DUI's listed in the paper would have a bigger impact on people making a choice to drink and drive. Unless you're saying expanding said shaming would directly correlate to lowering DUIs overall. On the human portion of the argument, that kinda goes against the screwing up, learning a lesson, and moving on model.... cus people are never allowed to move on. On the rational side of the argument and I don't know that I've seen a conclusive study showing this strong of a correlation. I.E. can you end something tied into a low level human need completely through shaming on any level?

If you want to get rid of the gangs, you have to do a few things. The first thing is to eliminate the demand for the drugs that drives the economy of the gangs. Second, you have to provide enough opportunity for the youth to earn a living for themselves and families.

Yeah I agree. Drugs and prostitution are a big part of their funding and I also agree that a lot of that funding is coming from "elsewhere"

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

On the human portion of the argument, that kinda goes against the screwing up, learning a lesson, and moving on model.... cus people are never allowed to move on.

You can't save them all.

[decocker 7,198]

You can't save them all.

ah yes, collateral damage..

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

ah yes, collateral damage..

Nope. Collateral would imply something that was damaged unintentionally. In this case, the individuals are made to pay for the error of their ways, or their inability to meet the standard, as an example to others of what their future could be. Of course, you have to offer an alternate course that is more appealing than the course you are trying to deny the others.