The headline makes it sound like they bravely sold the drugs themselves and outcompeted the gangs on their turf… And then you read it and that’s exactly what they did, a sensational but accurate headline, someone got a boner from writing that for sure. Reducing deaths from bad drugs is a noble goal but it’s a really tricky area and rife for abuse so I hope they can stay on the “straight and narrow” even if they did take a bit of a novel route.
They really ought to just kill the illegal drug market by selling themselves and using the profit to fund themselves. Eventually there won’t be an illegal market if they sell it at cost.
This reads like an onion headline
Whats the difference between gangs profiting off selling cocaine and heroin and someone else doing it? Is this not just swapping one gang with another that claims to have better morals?
It’s the difference between having regulated businesses selling addictive drugs via controlled markets and having violent criminal gangs selling the drugs in unregulated markets. The former tends to be less damaging to society as a whole, while still not being great for the individual. Look at alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1920’s. It was a social disaster. Criminal gangs quickly popped up to fill the demand and organized crime became entrenched in a number of areas. When prohibition ended, alcohol went back to a fairly mundane product which is sold by fairly normal companies which don’t regularly engage in mass murder to control a market. Sure, calling Budweiser “beer” might be skirting truth in advertising laws; but, AB InBev isn’t lining it’s competitors up against a a wall and shooting them.
Well, considering they have unofficial blessing from the police, it can bring not only more competition to the market, but competition consisting of people who are more aware of the consequences of their actions. Both will make the product better and cleaner.
The criminalization (and proper enforcement) of certain services ensures that only people with high risk tolerance, or ones who can’t properly realize the consequences of their actions will provide them. In other words, if the only people in drug business are the ones who don’t give a shit, they won’t give a shit about their customers. Even if it means killing them faster.
What’s the difference wl between gangs and stores?
Well now I’m not even sure.
?? This is great but criminals are still profiting because the drugs are bought from the darknet , which come from… criminals
Still a good thing tho
By definition, any group selling illegal drugs is committing crimes.
However, street gangs do other things besides sell illegal drugs; they often engage in violence in their communities.
In addition, these folks are selling pure lab-tested drugs, rather than mixing them with other substances (“cutting”, often with harmful substances) or selling one drug as another (e.g. methamphetamine sold as MDMA), which are common in the street drug trade.
I’d like to question your idea of “street gangs”. A lot of times these are just cocky groups of male friends who trust each other and are trying to get by in a harsh economy. But sure, every single one is violent and there aren’t any honorable people involved, ever. Literally the only dealer I’ve met that actually scared me mostly dealt meth (I was buyin’ weed) and I’m pretty sure he was a cop too
All this to say it’s not a violent business unless you’re a idiot about it. It’s not like TV. People will undercut their prices long before they’ll cut throats.
Cops, at least in the US, are also a violent street gang.
Oh, absolutely. Understatement of the century, they are THE violent street gang. Just look up “40% of cops” or into their origins as slave catching patrols. They exist to keep the economy running by force, disperse protests, and make everyone fear homelessness. With even half of their budgets we could easily eliminate any incentive for crime in this country with better infrastructure.
I don’t think that it’s bad to sell drugs but to say they’re taking money out of the hands of gangs isnt really true, I’d argue it ends up in the hands of even stronger arms at the end of the day. My point, i think, is that a government entity or contractor should be the ones manufacturing and supplying these substances, not international criminals and drug lords, so that they can be properly taxed and funds from these can be used to provide treatment programs, food supply, education or housing , as a few examples
Offering a brick of pure cocaine, and delivering a brick of pure cocaine is criminal, but morally non problematic.
Offering a dose of cocaine, and delivering half cocaine, half stuff you’ve dug out of the bottom of your old lunch box, is equally criminal, but also a dangerous scam.
