Let's just ban smoking

[Jacob]

I don't know if it's true, but I'd heard that extortion and racketeering was the big thing for organized crime in East Asia.

Yup, and the specifics of the extortion and racketeering (and other rackets) is a response to the laws and economic incentives that are in place. Same as other crime groups, whether in the favelas of Sao Paolo, the streets of Hong Kong, or anywhere else.

Once business operators have access to legal conflict resolution and police protection, organized crime tend to be squeezed out of those markets (or run the businesses in legal and socially acceptable ways) whether we're talking the sex trade, gambling, panhandling, alcohol or other drugs, counterfeit products or anything else really.

EDIT: where extortion exists on a large scale, it's almost always because the extorted cannot go to the authorities for help (because their business is already illegal, usually, or because the police is complicit with organized crime, or because the victims are marginal and denied policing resources as undesirables).

[Jacob]

I'm not so confident that those melon heads would make a big profit.

Well that's great. I don't know about "those melon heads" specifically, but somebody would. Supply and demand tend to work that way.

But even if they did, what of it?  The Mafia didn't start with prohibition and didn't die when it ended.  What has hurt it was aggressive prosecution by a well organized Department of Justice.  That some criminal will profit and how much should not really alter our judgement.  There is no point where sexual slavery and human trafficking become so lucrative to a class of criminal that we legalize it.  Why would we consider how rich Jimmy Three-Chins becomes because we outlawed something that kills 150,000 people yearly?

Because if Jimmy Three-Chins is going to become rich from us outlawing something that kills 150,000 people yearly, it is unlikely that outlawing it will have much of an impact on the death count (given the four points I listed above). People will still engage in the activity, only they'll do so in a way that enriches Jimmy Three-Chins and which brings with it all the problems that comes with encouraging the profitability of organized crime.

You're right about sexual slavery, of course. There's no point in time where we legalize it, especially based on profitability. However, if the victims of sexual slavery had recourse to official protection and no fear of repercussions from getting help (like deportation, abuse at the hands of officials as criminals etc) and if sex work was legal and regulated (so sex workers had recourse to legal conflict resolution and the protection of the law) then the profit margins of organized crime in that market would shrink considerably without legalizing sexual slavery.

Of course, to what degree the economic effects and the impact on organized crime should be taken into consideration depends on the specifics of the situation.

[Razgovory]

Evidence indicates you are wrong on both sex slavery and the assumption that people who smoke cigarettes will get them anyway.  The Netherlands is country were prostitution is legal, and it is the center of the sex slavery business in Europe.  Rather then eliminate a problem they managed to exacerbate it.  A similar problem occur with drug decriminalization.  The country has become the entrepot of crime.  They are now awash in organized crime.  I think the Crips and the Bloods have branches there.  In the US when alcohol was made illegal, alcohol consumption dropped dramatically.  Some people still got it, but fewer did and they could not drink it as frequently.  A similar situation occurred in the Soviet Union when they restricted access to alcohol back in the 1980's, alcohol related deaths decreased dramatically.  I would expect a similar situation with tobacco.  If we cut lung cancers in half I think it would be okay if Jimmy Three-Chins had a little extra spending money.

[DGuller]

What if it's not Jimmy Three-Chins that profits?  What if it's Two-Bit Jose who just this morning beheaded an entire third grade class from Juarez Elementary because the school bus driver cut him off?

[Razgovory]

Jimmy Three-Chins is no saint.  He was a crazy asshole.  Still that really shouldn't be taken into consideration.  Jimmy would still have been a mobster with out the law on cigarettes, he'd still kill people.  Not opening a potential revenue stream isn't going to really change that.

[DGuller]

Jimmy Three-Chins is no saint.  He was a crazy asshole.  Still that really shouldn't be taken into consideration.  Jimmy would still have been a mobster with out the law on cigarettes, he'd still kill people.  Not opening a potential revenue stream isn't going to really change that.

If the revenue stream is big enough, he can corrupt and undermine the entire system of governance.

[Razgovory]

Not a likely scenario.

[Eddie Teach]

Jimmy Three-Chins is no saint.  He was a crazy asshole.  Still that really shouldn't be taken into consideration.  Jimmy would still have been a mobster with out the law on cigarettes, he'd still kill people.  Not opening a potential revenue stream isn't going to really change that.

If the revenue stream is big enough, he can corrupt and undermine the entire system of governance.

Kill judges, politicians. Maybe build his own jail, that the government agrees not to enter.

[Razgovory]

I think there are decent arguments about allowing cigarettes to remain legal, gangsters overthrowing our government is not one of them.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, it's totally fine as long as it happens to some other country.

[Martinus]

I love it that people still fall into the trap of "debating" with Raz. 

[viper37]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9725176/smoking-bans-public-housing

Stats are compelling.

I approve

[DGuller]

I love it that people still fall into the trap of "debating" with Raz. 

Not the best of timing to drive by troll him.  Raz is actually doing a good job defending his point here.  I still think that Two-Bit Jose is a far bigger asshole than Jimmy Three-Chins, but reasonable people can disagree.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, it's totally fine as long as it happens to some other country.

Okay, but I get to pick the country.

[alfred russel]

A ban on smoking would probably be much more effective than for drugs or alcohol. A cigarette is a drug with a very modest effect--this allows it to be used very frequently in everyday life, which is the appeal. But the effect is so modest that you won't have a speakeasy industry spring up where people break the law once a week to visit underground establishments to smoke a couple cigarettes.