The root cause of ALL evil.

[ughaibu]

It's not clear that drugs cause addiction. Alexander's findings with Rat Park are interesting.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n452/a10.html?107

[InfiniteNow]

Everything is an addiction. That's biology. People get addicted to stress, to lack of sleep, to relationships with others, to food... to say that drugs are the root seems a bit short-sighted.

[HydrogenBond]

An analogy to drugs was the use of alcohol before prohibition. Before prohibitions, the women were beginning to organize and use alcohol as the center of their movement toward gaining political power. There had been a tendancy toward too much drinking by many of the men. But in hindsight, most men had to work long hours at scarce and crappy jobs to support large families and found some comfort in drinking.

 

The feminist solution for political power and regaining sabriety in the men was Prohibition. Once prohibition was created the amount of crime increased by an order of magnitude. It provided the fresh life blood for the mafia. This led to corruption, killing, etc. People still drank but now it became more fashionable to drink even more in overpriced underground speak easies. In other words, the law increased the amount of crime compared to what existed before the law.

 

There eventually became a sanity push to repeal prohibition. But those who benefited by the criminal climate created by the law, resisted. Polititians were able to get a lot of mileage out of it. They could pretent to be tough and use criminal methods in the name of the law. This helped get votes. The illogic used was that if you repeal it, all hell will break loose.

 

The reality was that when it was repealed the amount of crime went down, i.e., crime on both sides of the law went down. To me it doesn't take a hundred repetitions of an generic event to draw logical conclusions. But many of the leaders seem either stupid or like their legal criminal status too much to give it up for the common good. It may also have to do with statistics. This blind man's prophesy require a lot of data points since logic and common sense is not important. So what culture has done is add to the list of victimless crimes with maybe the hope that statistics will be able to draw a conclusion. It shows how limp statistics is.

 

I would like to put down the gauntlet. When statistics finally catches on, we need to prosecute tall he legal criminals who are using the limitations of limp science as an excuse to perpetuate their criminal behavior. There is not logical excuse, just limp science and legal criminals.

[TheBigDog]

Crime is cause by society defining laws. Without law there is no crime. The question should not be "what is the cause of crime". The question should be "what causes men to violate the laws they are governed by?"

 

In a perfect system (as I see it) a Constitution puts boundaries on the power of Govenment to enact and enforce laws. Laws are boundaries on the freedom of individuals. Those governed should be in a position to influence both the Constitutional governance of the government, and the nature of legislation that defines the limits of freedom in their society.

 

Because the sensibilities of people are going to vary greatly around the planet and over time, it is important that localities have differences in how they define their Constitution and their laws. And to keep the peace localities must also respect the disparity in their various laws. Understanding that people in one place may have freedoms that are denied in another place, and vice versa.

 

Those countries where the people have no voice in the governance and the laws are where world problems happen. Or where the government is incapable of maintaining law and order. I see the frustration of people in the US with how policies regulate their lives. I can only imagine how frustrated people are living under regimes where they have no voice at all.

 

One of the problems I see in the US is that government is trying too hard to do social engineering through strict enforcement of some laws (drug enforcement primarily). And one of the reasons that we have such a high "criminal" population is because we are constantly finding new ways of turning otherwise harmless acts into crimes. And lack of enforcement of other laws presents what is often seen as implicit tolerance of something, so that even though it is a crime, people do it anyway as though it is not and just get pissed off when they get caught - as thought he law is the problem, not their refusal to obey it.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

Drugs cause an addiction and people are willing to go to any lengths to satisfy that addiction. Moral limits may be further subverted by dillusions not too similar from mental illnesses.

 

Theft type offenses; Drugs require money for payment. …

I believe this analysis is so oversimplified that it is incorrect.

 

The same factors sebbysteiny applies to drugs can be applied to nearly any illicit (black) market product for which an inate or formed physical or psychological dependency exists. For example, when access to food is limited, such as during times of government rationing, people resort to stealing, violence, and murder to obtain it, directly or through a black market.

During prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the US (1920-1933), substantial criminal activity arose involving the illegal manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol. When it (the 18th Amendment) was repealed, these socially troublesome behaviors were substantially reduced.

 

The consensus conclusion reached by this experiment is that, even though alcohol is a drug that contributes to serious social problems, it’s prohibition caused more serious problems than it prevented. Many people believe that the prohibition of other drugs – commonly called “the war on drugs” – likewise causes more problems than it prevents, a claim that is supported by data from jurisdictions that have eased prohibition on these other drugs.

 

Therefore, I believe it is inaccurate and overly simplistic to consider drugs alone to be the leading cause of either crime or evil.

[sebbysteiny]

Crime is cause by society defining laws. Without law there is no crime. The question should not be "what is the cause of crime". The question should be "what causes men to violate the laws they are governed by?"

 

Is is getting into the 'philosophical debate' of 'what is a crime?'

 

I do not wish this to be a philosophical discussion. I want this thread to be a fact finding mission.

 

I want to include all the crimes that we normally view as crimes. This includes acts like genocide even if a regime has created laws for genocide.

 

Robbery, murder, corruption, rape etc are all examples.

 

So instead of discussing 'what is a crime?' I am making catagories of real crimes that society by consensus agrees and trying to find their causes. The philosophical implications or validity of this is not really relavent.

 

There are three things that we really want to find:

 

catagories of crime [incase I have missed some in my first posts];

potential causes;

and reasons why the cause causes the offences of a particular catagory in as much detail as necessary.

 

And one of the reasons that we have such a high "criminal" population is because ...

 

You are probably right. But the levels of crime is not important in this thread: only the causes.

 

It's not clear that drugs cause addiction. Alexander's findings with Rat Park are interesting.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n452/a10.html?107

 

Having read that article in full, I was not overly impressed with their evidence.

 

I found that, at most, it showed that other factors may also be related to drug taking, but nothing that could rule out the addictive power of drugs at all.

 

Contrast that with a person who stalked a friend of mine at University who's life was completely destroyed by heroine.

 

Also, the experiments seemed to me insufficient to rule out other influences.

 

But I guess, my take on the evidence is not really important. What really matters is what the consensus of top scientists think and it seems to me that the consensus is that drugs are addictive. It's been seen so many times that it seems impossible for me to see how to rule otherwise.

 

Everything is an addiction. That's biology. People get addicted to stress, to lack of sleep, to relationships with others, to food... to say that drugs are the root seems a bit short-sighted.

 

Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others - George Orwell.

 

Drugs are addictive. But that isn't even the issue. Addiction to drugs is the number 1 cause of crime; addiction to food is not.

 

Hydrogen Bond.

 

Forgive me, but I was not able to identify the thesis of your post :singer:.

 

It seemed to me like you were talking about potential solutions rather than questioning that drugs are a cause.

 

Drugs cause an addiction and people are willing to go to any lengths to satisfy that addiction. Moral limits may be further subverted by dillusions not too similar from mental illnesses.

 

Theft type offenses; Drugs require money for payment. …

 

I believe this analysis is so oversimplified that it is incorrect.

The same factors sebbysteiny applies to drugs can be applied to nearly any illicit (black) market product for which an inate or formed physical or psychological dependency exists.

 

With respect, no you don't. You seem to be agreeing with this analasys.

 

Your gripe is that you think there are other causes too. I agree. Drugs are not the sole cause of crime. They are, nevertheless, the number 1 cause.

 

When I went to the court of appeal, I heard about 5 cases of grevious bodily harm, theft and murder. All 5 were caused by drug addictions. And the cheif of police in England has recently gone on record as saying that funding drug addictions account for at least 60% of theft offences. I'm extremely surprised it's only as low as that. Some magistrates I have talked to have said it is as high as 90%.

 

However, I have no doubt that there is a no 2 cause and a no 3 cause.

 

You have listed the following as causes: limited access to food; and alcahole. Perhaps you might like to suggest how these causes work and what types of crimes they cause. Also, perhaps a comment on how widespread they are as a cause would be great.

 

I do appreciate the point, however, that prohibition may not necessarily be the best METHOD OF RESOLVING the problems caused by drug addictions.

 

Drugs causes addiction. Addiction requires money. The addiction overrides usual moral limits. Person commits crimes to get money.

 

That's the cause. One can stop this at any stage whether it is by stopping the drugs altogether and therefore stopping the addiction, or by giving free or cheap drugs so that the addiction do drugs does not require money [ie ending prohibation]. Either way, the cause is still the cause.

 

 

So unless anybody objects to the point that 'drugs causes crime' or objects to the conclusions I made in my last post

 

DRUGS.

 

Drugs cause an addiction and people are willing to go to any lengths to satisfy that addiction. Moral limits may be further subverted by dillusions not too similar from mental illnesses.

 

Theft type offenses; Drugs require money for payment.

Violent offences; may be necessary to obtain money but also may be necessary to stop somebody percieved as getting in the way of their addiction.

Murder; addicts are often actually prepared to kill if necessary, the addiction is that strong.

Corruption type offences; no link to drugs.

Anti social behavior; 'high' teenagers may cause disruption but am not convinced drugs is a significant cause of this.

 

Offenses motivated by an extremist ideology; no effects caused by drugs.

 

 

So drugs is a root of most evil but not all.

, we should move onto the next potential cause: genetics.

 

Also, I have a new catagory: gang related / organised violence.

 

Drugs is also a cause of this as a documentary showed that the vaste majority of gangs act as the armed militia of drugs barons. This is certainly the case in South Africa, most American gang violence, el savadoor, the Mafia and others.

[InfiniteNow]

Drugs are addictive. But that isn't even the issue. Addiction to drugs is the number 1 cause of crime; addiction to food is not.

Sebby, can you cite some evidence confirming this statement? While I acknowledge there is a clear and often powerful correlation between crime and drug use, I question your statement that drugs cause it. If you can support this statement, that would prove useful. At present, however, you seem to be arguing based on a spurious relationship, and as we all well know, correlation doesn't prove causation.

 

 

Cheers. :singer:

[Cedars]

So factor number 1 is ....

 

DRUGS.

 

Drugs cause an addiction and people are willing to go to any lengths to satisfy that addiction. Moral limits may be further subverted by dillusions not too similar from mental illnesses.

 

Theft type offenses; Drugs require money for payment.

Violent offences; may be necessary to obtain money but also may be necessary to stop somebody percieved as getting in the way of their addiction.

Murder; addicts are often actually prepared to kill if necessary, the addiction is that strong.

Corruption type offences; no link to drugs.

Anti social behavior; 'high' teenagers may cause disruption but am not convinced drugs is a significant cause of this.

 

 

While drug users do commit crimes, I dont agree with the drugs as a #1 factor.

 

If no one used drugs you would still have criminals.

If drugs were legal you would reduce crime significantly, simply from the drug dealing/using aspect similar to the references to prohibition.

 

 

I appreciate that you have experience with criminals in your profession and for your experience, drugs seem to be a major factor in the creation of a criminal but drug users do not become druggies with the intent of becoming a criminal. And I would also point out those who are dealt within the legal framework are the failures for this particular business (crime).

 

As I understand the motivation of an addict, it begins with a desire/discovery of drugs to feel good/better. The motivation to feel better/different/powerful may be a more motivating factor for crime than drugs. I would say drug use is a side effect of another more relevant issue relating to "what is the mechanism for creating a criminal.".

 

Risk taking behavior (nature) as a motivation. The adreniline rush. The same motivation involved with being a good used car sales man (nuture? or is it nature and charisma). The same adreniline rush a stock broker gets when buying/selling (nature and nuture?). Employee theft. Beating the system and gathering resources for self (desire). Envy. Jealousy. Fear as has been pointed out. Things that can be applied to both the drug using criminal and the non-drug using criminal.

[Boerseun]

I have to plug into BigDog's previous post about laws.

 

The root cause of all evil would be the very definition of evil itself. What is considered to be evil, and why? If you say that it could be drugs, where the drugs lead robbery etc., fine, but now we have to investigate the 'evilness' of robbery. If someone asks you to walk a mile with him, walk two. If someone robs you of your radio, give him your tv too. How to reconcile this?

 

I suppose this justifies a new thread on the matter...