America: keepin the brothers DOWN...

[Limeade]

Wait you've been kind of ambivalent in this thread, do you agree or disagree with my post ?

[E-DUBB]

oh no...i agree. LOL.

the woman Flores posted about is off her rockers with what she was saying.

her blame is racist and indirect. i see the point she was TRYING to get at.

me on the other hand, i was explaining the reasons behind drug usage..

and also the era where it became popular within black culture.

[E-DUBB]

oh and my bad for coming off ambivalent...

i try my best to grab both sides of the spectrum..

obviously....im not good at that. LOL.

[Flores]

damn fine discussion. you all make Flores proud

[Limeade]

"strokes beard and twists handlebar mustache."

[cereal foreal]

@ ppl getting mad because they don't know how to operate a search engine

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/...juana-illegal/

Ok so, Flores created this thread over a woman who claims the drug was is racist. What does it take to define the War on Drugs as racist?

Can we all agree that for the Drug War to be defined as racist, the motivation behind the War itself would have to be race related?

In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing’s army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the “differences” seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them, and it was through this that California apparently passed the first state marijuana law, outlawing “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”

In the eastern states, the “problem” was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong’s “Muggles”, Cab Calloway’s “That Funny Reefer Man”, Fats Waller’s “Viper’s Drag”).

Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: “Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

Harry J. Anslinger

Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity — a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn’t be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.

Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. He also promoted and frequently read from “Gore Files” — wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex and… Negroes. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to Anslinger and his Gore Files:

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

The first Drug War Czar stated that the primary reason for outlawing marijuana was racially motivated. Please explain to me how that is NOT considered racist.

Originally Posted by Limeade

This is really very simple, you just go over to a book or a legitimate website and you verify what you are talking about before you put your foot in your mouth.

As for "picking on crack users" well white people and Hispanics are more likely to abuse drugs than African Americans and Asians, how targeting drug users to keep the "brotha" down works is beyond me. It would seem like this is a tactically disadvantageous method. Also more whites use crack cocaine and just about every other illicit drug...

Why is/was crack cocaine punished harder than regular cocaine? Again pretty simple, powder cocaine is one of the oldest drugs in the world and was prevalent in the United States for a hundred years prior to crack cocaine. While it presented problems just like any other drug, it didn't present nearly the amount of problems crack did when it came onto the scene and sent American cities into a panic.

I mean, look at meth, it's mostly done by whites and Asians, it has one of the hardest punishment scales around. Get caught with an ounce or two and that's a federal investigation not a state one.

If this woman really wants to find a solution to the problem then perhaps she should look to the gang problem. Gangs in America are responsible for roughly 80% of the crime. African Americans make up roughly 35% while Hispanics make up nearly 50%.

Replace facts with bullshit and you get a shitty solution.

Where do these gangs get their revenue from? 60% of the revenue that the Mexican Cartels get is from Marijuana; meaning almost 2/3 of their empire (an empire which is more powerful and dangerous than the Mexican government) is from the fact that Marijuana is illegal.

Fact - The primary motivation behind the first Drug Czar's effort on making Marijuana illegal was related to race.


It's pretty simple man. Come on dood aren't you a cop? Do you have a wife or kids? If you do, wouldn't you want your job to be safer? Wouldn't they like to know that you have a better probability of coming home? And would your job be safer if Marijuana was regulated and taxed by the people you protect instead of the gangbangers that you risk your life against? You said it yourself, 80% of crimes are gang related. Would crime go down if gangs lost the ability to rack in revenue from drugs?

I love cops and I love every time I see one in my neighborhood. Cops protect us from criminals that wish to inflict harm on us and/or our loved ones. I would love it even more if there was less violent criminals, and if the cops didn't have to waste time chasing around a nonlethal medicinal herb. It's a win-win situation. Less violent criminals to stop, and more time to do so. HPD has what, 200 Narcotic officers, and 4 Human-Trafficking officers? WHAT?

What's more important; busting a college kid with a joint or taking down an illegal spa that kidnapped and enslaved innocent women? There are more slaves in the world today than there ever was. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Cops and their local business (precinct or whatever) rewarded more if they make a big drug bust than hunting down a violent criminal?

[cereal foreal]

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress — complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.

It was a remarkably short set of hearings.

The one fly in Anslinger’s ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger’s view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people’s minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren’t even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:

Navigating through google is so hard.

[E-DUBB]

Originally Posted by cereal foreal

Can we all agree that for the Drug War to be defined as racist, the motivation behind the War itself would have to be race related?

through the judicial system and prison industrial complex, YES.

when Ron Paul mentioned it during the debate...

people were looking at him sideways. LOL

racism definitely played a part.

i do think this is more of a class warfare issue.

[Limeade]

Originally Posted by cereal foreal

@ ppl getting mad because they don't know how to operate a search engine

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/...juana-illegal/

Ok so, Flores created this thread over a woman who claims the drug was is racist. What does it take to define the War on Drugs as racist?

Can we all agree that for the Drug War to be defined as racist, the motivation behind the War itself would have to be race related?

The first Drug War Czar stated that the primary reason for outlawing marijuana was racially motivated. Please explain to me how that is NOT considered racist.

Wait I thought outlawing Marijuana was based on the fear that hemp would encroach on large paper manufactures profit margins?

Where do these gangs get their revenue from? 60% of the revenue that the Mexican Cartels get is from Marijuana; meaning almost 2/3 of their empire (an empire which is more powerful and dangerous than the Mexican government) is from the fact that Marijuana is illegal.

Cartels are not gangs, they are cartels, thus they do not contribute to the 80% reference I made earlier. Gangs are street level dealers, cartels are the suppliers.

Fact - The primary motivation behind the first Drug Czar's effort on making Marijuana illegal was related to race.

It's pretty simple man. Come on dood aren't you a cop? Do you have a wife or kids? If you do, wouldn't you want your job to be safer? Wouldn't they like to know that you have a better probability of coming home? And would your job be safer if Marijuana was regulated and taxed by the people you protect instead of the gangbangers that you risk your life against? You said it yourself, 80% of crimes are gang related. Would crime go down if gangs lost the ability to rack in revenue from drugs?

Hey I'm all for making my job safer, I see what you are saying, but the bottom line is that the statistical portion of people in prison for Marijuana offenses is extremely low, somewhere in the single digits. Matter of fact, your first weed charge in Texas is almost always met with drug counseling. I meet people with 10+ crack convictions who have never done more than a year in jail. The idea that is perpetuated by some that our prisons are full of people caught with marijuana is not backed up by emperical data.

I love cops and I love every time I see one in my neighborhood. Cops protect us from criminals that wish to inflict harm on us and/or our loved ones. I would love it even more if there was less violent criminals, and if the cops didn't have to waste time chasing around a nonlethal medicinal herb. It's a win-win situation. Less violent criminals to stop, and more time to do so. HPD has what, 200 Narcotic officers, and 4 Human-Trafficking officers? WHAT?

Narcotics is a revenue stream like anything else, the main drugs that are targeted are harder ones. I've never seen a narcotics officer go after a street level weed dealer. Not saying it doesn't happen, but there are bigger fish. Hell even patrol doesn't really focus on people like that, my bone is with crack, coke and meth dealers. Those are the drugs I tend to focus on.

Also it's those narco guys that bust a lot of the cartel guys that sneak those slaves into our country, they do a lot of things that never make the news that significantly reduce the amount of crime in this city. It's the narco guys the lay between the cartels and our city, once the cartels are in this country we are in for a new era of violence. The Zetas are already here, for some reason the news has not or will not focus on what they've done lately in this city. It is only a matter of time before they get ballsy enough to pull the stunts they pull over in Mexico in Texas, they've already started in some areas.

What's more important; busting a college kid with a joint or taking down an illegal spa that kidnapped and enslaved innocent women? There are more slaves in the world today than there ever was. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Cops and their local business (precinct or whatever) rewarded more if they make a big drug bust than hunting down a violent criminal?

We are rewarded for nothing, the seizure of assets like houses and cars bought with illegal earnings is based on any felony and thus not in direct correlation with drugs. Asset forfeiture would be the only "economical gain" I could see coming from any arrest, but that is few and far between.

I can tell you this, I've never got a commendation for a drug bust but I have gotten two for trafficking related offenses, in one case a whole bunch of us found a house where the Mexican Mafia was holding illegal aliens against their will. They were kidnapped and locked in a hot garage, emaciated when we found them. I've also helped recover two girls under the age of 14 who were essentially smuggled in from out of state and forced to prostitute. In each of those cases my superiors and the investigators where happy, none of my dope arrests have garnished much if any attention/appreciation.

Point being is that what's considered "important" seems to fall in line with what the public feels is important, we go after what the people want but we do it in a different way. When I arrest someone for crack [some] people see me taking a guy that needs drug rehabilitation off the street. But this is what I see.

A man that smokes 50 dollars worth of crack a day
A man that has no job to pay for such a habit
A man that must steal/rob to pay for such items
A man that will get maybe a hundred bucks for a 1000.00 TV

350 [minimum] dollars a week, 10 percent return on stolen items = 3500 dollars a week in stolen items. That's dozens of car radios, or multiple home invasions, 10+ stickup robberies or 3 stolen cars.

When I do the math, a man that I put in jail for crack saves multiple people the pain of going through a burglary or a robbery each week he is in jail.

One day Marijuana laws may change, I'm neutral on the subject as it should be up to the people. But other drugs...crack...coke...meth...etc are tearing this country apart. We could legalize them all and the drug dealers would just sell something more powerful, more dangerous or cheaper.

[cereal foreal]

Informative post.


Congress passed the Tax Act. The Drug Czar never brought up hemp when scaring congress. He used racial slurs. His primary reason was race. Sure the cotton industry's primary reason was eradicating hemp, but the push that made it law was racially motivated. The press didn't spread scare tactics about how dangerous hemp was. They informed the white reading public on how Mexicans and Blacks were smoking marijuana; not how some farmers were using the earth's strongest natural fiber.

Why would they sell something more powerful and dangerous if everything is legal?

What happened to the Al Capone related empires when we re-legalized alcohol? They didn't start selling pot and crack. They died out because they lost their revenue. They lost their reason to stay in business.

But if we have a problem where someone is addicted to an addictive substance, what's a better way to solve it; demonize the user and make them hide in a corner uneducated? Or educate the youth so they avoid the same mistakes the older generations made? I don't understand why people avoid spreading the truth about drugs. Instead they want to keep building prisons. I know why judges, drug counselors, jail wardens, pharmacists, the DEA, drug-test producers, parole officers, and etc. want to keep drugs illegal; because they want the collective consciousness of the human society on earth to suffer and limit the growth of knowledge so that they can keep their job. They care more about money than the well being of all of us. They don't want to learn about pot and spread unbiased information. They want money. If they stood for the truth, they would do anything to find out the truth and spread it.


Since you're a cop, do you think that the majority of marijuana problems are prohibition related or health related? How do your peers feel about enforcing a law that was brought about because a racist white guy cared more about money and his racist personality?

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress — complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.

It was a remarkably short set of hearings.

The one fly in Anslinger’s ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger’s view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people’s minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren’t even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:

The medical community was AGAINST the prohibition of marijuana. The law enforcement agency was for it. Their reasoning was racial.

OP, the woman is right. I didn't read her reasoning for it, but regardless these are the facts. Racist white guy used racial slurs in Congress to lobby prohibiting marijuana. Congress voted to prohibit despite the medical community opposing the prohibition of marijuana.

[E-DUBB]

I did not know about any of that. ^^^

Thanks, Cereal. LOL.

[super cirrus]

The Act levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. The Act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana, or cannabis, but it included penalty and enforcement provisions to which marijuana, cannabis, or hemp handlers were subject.

[Limeade]

Originally Posted by cereal foreal

Informative post.

Congress passed the Tax Act. The Drug Czar never brought up hemp when scaring congress. He used racial slurs. His primary reason was race. Sure the cotton industry's primary reason was eradicating hemp, but the push that made it law was racially motivated. The press didn't spread scare tactics about how dangerous hemp was. They informed the white reading public on how Mexicans and Blacks were smoking marijuana; not how some farmers were using the earth's strongest natural fiber.

Why would they sell something more powerful and dangerous if everything is legal?

What happened to the Al Capone related empires when we re-legalized alcohol? They didn't start selling pot and crack. They died out because they lost their revenue. They lost their reason to stay in business.

Absolutely not true, the Mafia adapted. The mafia shifted into more organized racketeering, embezzlement, money laundering, murder for hire, prostitution, extortion and the violent control of unions.The mob never left, the just changed. Criminals are criminals because they want to be, not because they are motivated by some political ideology [such as the urge to proliferate a narcotics because they think it's the right thing to do]

But if we have a problem where someone is addicted to an addictive substance, what's a better way to solve it; demonize the user and make them hide in a corner uneducated? Or educate the youth so they avoid the same mistakes the older generations made?

Tons of education is available, the populace is inundated with information on the subject imo.

I don't understand why people avoid spreading the truth about drugs. Instead they want to keep building prisons. I know why judges, drug counselors, jail wardens, pharmacists, the DEA, drug-test producers, parole officers, and etc. want to keep drugs illegal; because they want the collective consciousness of the human society on earth to suffer and limit the growth of knowledge so that they can keep their job.

Yeah gonna have to stop you there, those jobs don't disappear because marijuana is legalized, if anything they become easier. People are still paroled, judges will still sit over cases, the DEA will still investigate the numerous other drugs on the market, drug counselors will still counsel and jails will still be filled/built..The insinuation that we are all in cahoots to keep the sick dying and the people miserable to get a paycheck is in line with calling us full blown SS Nazis.

They care more about money than the well being of all of us. They don't want to learn about pot and spread unbiased information. They want money. If they stood for the truth, they would do anything to find out the truth and spread it.

You keep talking about marijuana, one of numerous illegal drugs and one of the least penalized. This is hardly substantiating her argument, the fact/opinion that it was initially banned due to racist motives does nothing to weaken one basic premise...that this is still a voting country and that the people still have the power to change any law they want. Even in Cali, it wasn't approved. One day it may, but as of yet the people still don't want it that way. While you may believe that people are brainwashed into thinking it's the a menace to society, I simply have yet to see that.


Since you're a cop, do you think that the majority of marijuana problems are prohibition related or health related? How do your peers feel about enforcing a law that was brought about because a racist white guy cared more about money and his racist personality?

Problems like what, it getting legalized? I think it's more of an issue of the US already having enough on their plate with alcoholism, but that's me.

The medical community was AGAINST the prohibition of marijuana. The law enforcement agency was for it. Their reasoning was racial.

The medical community doesn't dictate laws, there is no "medical" branch of the US government. I see your point, but there lack of approval isn't as essential as you believe it to be.

OP, the woman is right. I didn't read her reasoning for it, but regardless these are the facts. Racist white guy used racial slurs in Congress to lobby prohibiting marijuana. Congress voted to prohibit despite the medical community opposing the prohibition of marijuana.

The woman isn't talking about weed, sorry she is talking about crack. More white people smoke weed than African Americans, she also insinuates that the government specifically up'd the penalty for crack because it is a "black drug" yet she fails to realize/mention that more whites abuse crack cocaine then any other race. She also doesn't mention the the most penalized drugs are abused by whites and Asians and lastly...and this is a big one, do not buy into the hype that the US is throwing marijuana smokers in prison. Matter of fact, the percentage of drug offenders incarcerated overall is going DOWN and not up.

Again, there is no empirical data to back that accusation up, again the percentages are in the single digits and OF THOSE in prison/jail the majority of them are serving time on plea deals where they've agreed to be penalized for possession in exchange for the dropping of their higher charges [that are harder to prove] which is a win win situation for the DA's and courts.

The problem I see is that one group likes their particular drug, the drug they deem harmless and useful. In an attempt to make their preferred narcotic more accessible they attack the entire system. To me this is akin to me liking to speed and thus being totally against any sort traffic laws.

One last thing, if anyone thinks the legalization of drugs will lower crime and dissolve the cartel and gang problem they are extremely naive. Criminals and organized crime existed before the prohibition of drugs and will exist afterwords as well.

[Chopz94]

Originally Posted by Limeade

One last thing, if anyone thinks the legalization of drugs will lower crime and dissolve the cartel and gang problem they are extremely naive. Criminals and organized crime existed before the prohibition of drugs and will exist afterwords as well.

not completely, but drugs appear to be a gangs main source of revenue. what do they have to fall back on if they lose that besides human trafficking and money laundering?

imo it may not completely get rid of the gang problem but would surely put a dent in their pockets

[Chopz94]

portugal is a great example of how decriminalization can help.

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

"Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald, a former New York State constitutional litigator, said during a press briefing at Cato last week.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...riminalization

There is no reliable information about drug use, injecting behaviour or addiction treatment in Portugal before 2001, when general population surveys commenced. The only information about drug use before that time was the indicators on lifetime prevalence amongst youth, collected as part of the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD).
Thorough studies on how the various efforts have been implemented have not been conducted. Thus, a causal effect between strategy efforts and these developments cannot be firmly established.[8] There are, however, statistical indicators that suggest the following correlations between the drug strategy and the following developments, from July 2001 up to 2007:
Increased uptake of treatment.[8]
Reduction in HIV diagnoses amongst drug users by 17%[13]
Reduction in drug related deaths, although this reduction has decreased in later years, and the number of drug related deaths is now almost on the same level as before the Drug strategy was implemented.[8][13] However, this may be accounted for by improvement in measurement practices, which includes a doubling of toxicological autopsies now being performed, meaning that more drugs related deaths are likely to be recorded.[14]
Reported lifetime use of illicit drugs increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin from 0.7% to 1.1%[13] It has been proposed that this effect may have been been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[14] Statistical trends in neighboring Spain and Italy during the same period also suggested an unclear relation between decriminalization and increased drug use, comparatively.[14]
Drug use among adolescents and "problematic" users declined.[14]
Drug-related criminal justice workloads decreased, while the amount of drugs seized increased in quantity.[14]
Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly.[14]

http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib...n_211621_1.pdf

[Flores]

Originally Posted by cereal foreal

Navigating through google is so hard.

That was 80 years ago. when racism was a state policy. Are you saying that modern drug laws reflect that state policy today? We have had nearly 50 years of racists policies aimed at equalizing and making up for treating 'the lesser races' as 2nd class citizens.

have those laws never been changed? For more context, maybe 15-20 years before all that happened, coca-cola still had trace amounts of cocain in it... <shrug>

I have to agree, if people actually cared about the fact stuff is outlawed, it's within our power as a voting populace to change those laws.

The reason people don't is because they believe the MEDICAL community about the health hazards from most illegal drugs.

Now, maybe thats just a more educated reason for doing so, or maybe it's just the politically correct way of calling 'colored folks' stupid, since they clearly aren't smart enough to pay attention to things that are bad for them...

In either case, why is Obama refusing to listen to the community on the issue? I understand he has basically shut down jesse jackson and al sharpton on the issue of legalizing MJ ...

Or maybe thats just his 'white side' coming out?

[Limeade]

Originally Posted by Chopz94

not completely, but drugs appear to be a gangs main source of revenue. what do they have to fall back on if they lose that besides human trafficking and money laundering?

imo it may not completely get rid of the gang problem but would surely put a dent in their pockets

Street level gangs selling narcotics is a relatively new phenomenon which started in the 70s and 80s. Before that gangs made their money off of burglary, auto theft and robbery.

[Chopz94]

Originally Posted by Limeade

Street level gangs selling narcotics is a relatively new phenomenon which started in the 70s and 80s. Before that gangs made their money off of burglary, auto theft and robbery.

lol completely forgot about that.
auto theft would probably be the 3rd most profitable under human trafficking.

[Rangeldx]

do the crime- you do the time- simple as that. if you can't figure it out then maybe jail is the best option- there is no choice but to follow the rules on the inside....hard lesson to learn. don't like the rules- then work to change them the right way