[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

So...take away the drug money to push them into taking over unions and stealing pension funds?

Shit, I finally get it. You're all about harm reduction. Give the illegal drug trade to the gangs to keep them out of other areas. Brilliant.

Except you say you actually favor legalization. So you favor the HA taking over unions?

Yeah, that's exactly what was typed. Easy to see you in that low paying Timmies job with these fits of brilliance on display.

Exactly what was typed and implied by such.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

No it won't. The violence part of it simply shifts to another product. You're deluded if you think a criminal organization won't shift target right to maintain its revenue with something else. Legalize all you want, but give it up with the reduction of violence nonsense. The end of the prohibition on booze showed the viability of that argument. Criminal organizations moved on.

$1:

The Hells Angels use subordinate "puppet" criminal organizations to commit crimes and advance their interests. This also helps to identify potential new members of the Hells Angels. For example, several members of one of the Manitoba Hells Angels’ support clubs, the Zig Zag Crew, have moved up to become full members. Gang wars in Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario have highlighted the roles played by these associate groups. Manitoba’s Zig Zag Crew and Redlined gangs have been convicted for drug and other crimes in support of the Hells Angels.

Yes. It will. Recruitment and revenue will be reduced.

[andyt]

Legalizing pot won't do that much to harm the HA or other gangs. That's because a recent BC study found that pot production is far less under the control of gangs than the police and media like to make out. My guess is that smuggling pot to the US is where the gangs are big, since that takes some organization. With Washington having legalized, and quite possibly California following suit soon, that will crimp their pot profits quite a bit. And of course the HA are into other crimes. The Longshoremen already seem to be under their control, not in least part to facilitate contraband being smuggled in.

The Mafia infiltrated the Teamsters while all drugs including pot were illegal, so there it must have been worth their while. To say that legalizing pot will result in the HA taking over unions they haven't already is just dumb.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

Shit, I finally get it. You're all about harm reduction. Give the illegal drug trade to the gangs to keep them out of other areas. Brilliant.

Except you say you actually favor legalization. So you favor the HA taking over unions?

Yeah, that's exactly what was typed. Easy to see you in that low paying Timmies job with these fits of brilliance on display.

Exactly what was typed and implied by such.

Nope. Have another tab or get back on the wagon.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

No it won't. The violence part of it simply shifts to another product. You're deluded if you think a criminal organization won't shift target right to maintain its revenue with something else. Legalize all you want, but give it up with the reduction of violence nonsense. The end of the prohibition on booze showed the viability of that argument. Criminal organizations moved on.

$1:

The Hells Angels use subordinate "puppet" criminal organizations to commit crimes and advance their interests. This also helps to identify potential new members of the Hells Angels. For example, several members of one of the Manitoba Hells Angels’ support clubs, the Zig Zag Crew, have moved up to become full members. Gang wars in Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario have highlighted the roles played by these associate groups. Manitoba’s Zig Zag Crew and Redlined gangs have been convicted for drug and other crimes in support of the Hells Angels.

Yes. It will. Recruitment and revenue will be reduced.

No it won't. A new product will replace it. That how business works.

[Curtman]

andyt andyt:

Legalizing pot won't do that much to harm the HA or other gangs. That's because a recent BC study found that pot production is far less under the control of gangs than the police and media like to make out.

Look at your link again. It says that RCMP were unable to prove links to the HA in most cases. It says exactly why the Harper tough-on-crime mandatory minimums don't work.

$1:

Full-patch members seek to insulate themselves from police and rivals by using subordinate members and associate gangs to commit crimes and protect gang assets. Membership is an incremental process over years to test a recruit's loyalty and prevent infiltration by police or rival gang members. Internal Hells Angels records show that photos and information about potential new members are distributed across the country to try to identify unwanted members.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

andyt andyt:

Legalizing pot won't do that much to harm the HA or other gangs. That's because a recent BC study found that pot production is far less under the control of gangs than the police and media like to make out.

Look at your link again. It says that RCMP were unable to prove links to the HA in most cases. It says exactly why the Harper tough-on-crime mandatory minimums don't work.

Uh oh... here comes a bum fight...

[Dayseed]

Is Manitoba aware at all of the Ontario court case R v. Lindsay and Bonner? Long story short, Lindsay and Bonner were full-patch members who showed up in full colours to collect on a debt. The threat used to complete the extortion offence was the wearing of the full-colours.

Justice Fuerst wrote back in 2005: I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that during the time period specified in count two of the indictment, the HAMC as it existed in Canada was a criminal organization. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that both Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Bonner committed the offence of extortion in association with that criminal organization.

Manitoba: Where today is 9 years ago in Ontario...

[Curtman]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Is Manitoba aware at all of the Ontario court case R v. Lindsay and Bonner? Long story short, Lindsay and Bonner were full-patch members who showed up in full colours to collect on a debt. The threat used to complete the extortion offence was the wearing of the full-colours.

Justice Fuerst wrote back in 2005: I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that during the time period specified in count two of the indictment, the HAMC as it existed in Canada was a criminal organization. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that both Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Bonner committed the offence of extortion in association with that criminal organization.

Manitoba: Where today is 9 years ago in Ontario...

Maybe you're right, and the only solution is taking away drug and prostitution markets from them.

But this legislation removes the responsibility of the crown to prove that they are a criminal organization.

[andyt]

$1:

America had experienced a gradual decline in the rate of serious crimes over much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. That trend was unintentionally reversed by the efforts of the Prohibition movement. The homicide rate in large cities increased from 5.6 per 100,000 population during the first decade of the century to 8.4 during the second decade when the Harrison Narcotics Act, a wave of state alcohol prohibitions, and World War I alcohol restrictions were enacted. The homicide rate increased to 10 per 100,000 population during the 1920s, a 78 percent increase over the pre-Prohibition period.

The Volstead Act, passed to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment, had an immediate impact on crime. According to a study of 30 major U.S. cities, the number of crimes increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. The study revealed that during that period more money was spent on po- lice (11.4+ percent) and more people were arrested for violating Prohibition laws (102+ percent). But increased law enforcement efforts did not appear to reduce drinking: arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrests of drunken drivers increased 81 percent. Among crimes with victims, thefts and burglaries increased 9 percent, while homicides and incidents of assault and battery increased 13 percent.[42] More crimes were committed because prohibition destroys legal jobs, creates black-market violence, diverts resources from enforcement of other laws, and greatly increases the prices people have to pay for the prohibited goods...

Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics. Those lessons can be applied to the current crisis in drug prohibition and the problems of drug abuse. Second, the lessons of Prohibition should be used to curb the urge to prohibit. Neoprohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco would result in more crime, corruption, and dangerous products and increased government control over the average citizen's life. Finally, Prohibition provides a general lesson that society can no more be successfully engineered in the United States than in the Soviet Union.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

[andyt]

andyt andyt:

Shit, I finally get it. You're all about harm reduction. Give the illegal drug trade to the gangs to keep them out of other areas. Brilliant.

Except you say you actually favor legalization. So you favor the HA taking over unions?

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yeah, that's exactly what was typed. Easy to see you in that low paying Timmies job with these fits of brilliance on display.

Exactly what was typed and implied by such.

Nope. Have another tab or get back on the wagon.

Sorry, but the logic is clear. You favor legalization, but say it will lead the HA to take over unions and look for other endeavors of crime. Therefore, you must think that these other endeavors will be less harmful to society than the HA dealing pot. You must think that if you have capability of logic whatsoever. Of course it's always possible you're just an idiot and can't think at all.

[Curtman]

andyt andyt:

Sorry, but the logic is clear. You favor legalization, but say it will lead the HA to take over unions and look for other endeavors of crime. Therefore, you must think that these other endeavors will be less harmful to society than the HA dealing pot. You must think that if you have capability of logic whatsoever. Of course it's always possible you're just an idiot and can't think at all.

How about we give them garbage collection revenue instead. End prohibition, and outlaw garbage trucks.

The market will be the same as well. No gangster is going to shoot someone for turf though.


It makes more sense than continuing this madness.

$1:

Courts in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba have found the Hells Angels to be a criminal organization in dozens of individual criminal prosecutions. Hells Angels have a long record of violence in Canada including the murder of two justice officials in Quebec in 1997, a gang war with the Rock Machine in Quebec that resulted in an estimated 150 murders over the course of a decade, and extensive drug trafficking and related crimes in Manitoba.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

Exactly what was typed and implied by such.

Nope. Have another tab or get back on the wagon.

Sorry, but the logic is clear. You favor legalization, but say it will lead the HA to take over unions and look for other endeavors of crime. Therefore, you must think that these other endeavors will be less harmful to society than the HA dealing pot. You must think that if you have capability of logic whatsoever. Of course it's always possible you're just an idiot and can't think at all.

Actually, it was Bart that originally brought up the HA and the unions I merely queried Curtman's rebuttal of it. But, you being a low income coffee slinging junkie that has long since mortgaged your moderate dosage of brain cells, it's easy to see how easy it is for you stray outside the firing arcs.

Obvious junkie is still obvious.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

No it won't. The violence part of it simply shifts to another product. You're deluded if you think a criminal organization won't shift target right to maintain its revenue with something else. Legalize all you want, but give it up with the reduction of violence nonsense. The end of the prohibition on booze showed the viability of that argument. Criminal organizations moved on.

Talk about not having a working brain, now you don't remember what you just wrote. Or, you're a bullshitter along with an idiot.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

No it won't. The violence part of it simply shifts to another product. You're deluded if you think a criminal organization won't shift target right to maintain its revenue with something else. Legalize all you want, but give it up with the reduction of violence nonsense. The end of the prohibition on booze showed the viability of that argument. Criminal organizations moved on.

Talk about not having a working brain, now you don't remember what you just wrote. Or, you're a bullshitter along with an idiot.

Which has zero to do with your assertion that I support the HA moving into unions.

Drop another tab, junkie. The confused bullshit is strong in you tonight...