Gangland Crime in Ireland

hardCopy

IrishAm wrote: »

History, bud.

Now, how do I get rid of the drug dealing(heroin) scum that ravage certain parts of west Dublin?

Maybe Michael D can have a chat with them.

Groups like COCAD seemed have some success with marches on dealers houses back in the day.

Father Damo

Halloran springs wrote: »

Ok I didn't realise but share your gangland stories anyway//

Only if you provide me with silhoutte, baseball cap and make my voice sound like a 15 year old boy whos voice has broken in a very erratic manner.

af_thefragile

Its not the killings that's the problem. Its the drug dealings, stabbing, mugging, theft etc. thats becoming quite a problem.

Unavailable for Comment

Unfortunately, unlike the Gardaí, gangsters haven't had to deal with any real budget cutbacks as yet. It's only going to get worse as the State's resources inevitably dwindle.

Gangland killings should be seen as extrajudicial executions in line with the Offences against the State Act. Using this as a basis the Government could proscribe the gangs in much the same way the IRA or CIRA etc were and make them unlawful organisations. This would give Gardai wide powers to effect investigations and in essence would make even membership of them an offence.

The State has a duty to protect its citizens from danger and if that involves coming down hard on those that flaunt its authority there are not many citizens that would complain.

Boombastic

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

Unfortunately, unlike the Gardaí, gangsters haven't had to deal with any real budget cutbacks as yet. It's only going to get worse as the State's resources inevitably dwindle.

Gangland killings should be seen as extrajudicial executions in line with the Offences against the State Act. Using this as a basis the Government could proscribe the gangs in much the same way the IRA or CIRA etc were and make them unlawful organisations. This would give Gardai wide powers to effect investigations and in essence would make even membership of them an offence.

The State has a duty to protect its citizens from danger and if that involves coming down hard on those that flaunt its authority there are not many citizens that would complain.

Or we could decriminalise the shooting of gangs & their members:cool:

shanered

they make their money of drugs, we should adopt a portugese model of drug decriminisation.
Take the money out of their trade!
And tax the pants of drugs, hopefully put some euros into the revenue, sure the government are not quite that bad at playing the gangster anyways I do believe!

Unavailable for Comment

shanered wrote: »

they make their money of drugs, we should adopt a portugese model of drug decriminisation.
Take the money out of their trade!
And tax the pants of drugs, hopefully put some euros into the revenue, sure the government are not quite that bad at playing the gangster anyways I do believe!

Petrol, diesel and cigarettes are all perfectly legal and yet the smuggling and counterfeiting of all of them are huge revenue sources for Irish gangs.

Anyway even if the State was the sole supplier of drugs in Ireland, which would never happen, I wouldn't feel any better being robbed by a junkie to pay them instead of some dealer scumbag.

gaffer91

af_thefragile wrote: »

Its not the killings that's the problem. Its the drug dealings, stabbing, mugging, theft etc. thats becoming quite a problem.

Why do people think the killings aren't a problem? Ok, these guys are thugs but surely it would be better if they weren't reduced to the drugs trade and killing each other to try and make living in the first place.

As for the muggings and theft, these would drop substantially if drugs were legal as they would be so much more affordable.

Boombastic wrote: »

Or we could decriminalise the shooting of gangs & their members:cool:

Good man.

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

Petrol, diesel and cigarettes are all perfectly legal and yet the smuggling and counterfeiting of all of them are huge revenue sources for Irish gangs.

Anyway even if the State was the sole supplier of drugs in Ireland, which would never happen, I wouldn't feel any better being robbed by a junkie to pay them instead of some dealer scumbag.

Diesel and cigarettes are smuggled because the tax is too high. A closer parallel would be alcohol- despite the high taxes on alcohol, how many people go buying methanol off a dealer? Drugs would be safer and cheaper, with none of the associated killings or incarceration, with more revenue and jobs.

As stated above, legalisation would result in a massive price drop so muggings etc would drop substantially. If people weren't virtually criminalised for being a drug addict by the media and society they would be more likely to seek help to treat their addiction. Also don't make the mistake of equating every drug user with a drug abuser.

af_thefragile

Because killings are still pretty rare in Ireland compared to other countries. And when it comes to mugging, stabbing, stealing, its the innovent people whom this happens to making the streets unsafe in the city. I'ld like to live somewhere i can walk around freely at night (or day) and not get hassled by junkies or worry about getting mugged by thugs... Unfortunately most places in Dublin aren't such places.

Father Damo

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

Petrol, diesel and cigarettes are all perfectly legal and yet the smuggling and counterfeiting of all of them are huge revenue sources for Irish gangs.

Anyway even if the State was the sole supplier of drugs in Ireland, which would never happen, I wouldn't feel any better being robbed by a junkie to pay them instead of some dealer scumbag.

I never get this whole "legalise it to take it away from the gangs" rubbish. I have serious doubts that chemists would associate themselves with the sale of purely recreational durgs such as cocaine or ecstasy.

This means the licence to sell said drugs would, IMO, be given to the same mob who already have a licence to sell our most popular legal drug.

So why is it better to remove 3 euro yokes bought from a dealer who got supplied by Fat Freddie and instead pay 20 quid each to buy them off some wanker who has been selling beer in Fitzsimons or wherever at a ridiculous mark up for years? Id rather fund the gangs than the Charlie Chawkes of his world tbh.

gaffer91

Father Damo wrote: »

I never get this whole "legalise it to take it away from the gangs" rubbish. I have serious doubts that chemists would associate themselves with the sale of purely recreational durgs such as cocaine or ecstasy.

This means the licence to sell said drugs would, IMO, be given to the same mob who already have a licence to sell our most popular legal drug.

So why is it better to remove 3 euro yokes bought from a dealer who got supplied by Fat Freddie and instead pay 20 quid each to buy them off some wanker who has been selling beer in Fitzsimons or wherever at a ridiculous mark up for years? Id rather fund the gangs than the Charlie Chawkes of his world tbh.

Why does it have to be a chemist who sells MDMA? It could just as easily be sold like alcohol is sold in pub, in a licenced premises where the seller might not know the ins and outs of exactly how the drug works on the body, but is aware of its general affects.

People who would move into selling drugs in coffee shop/pub like establishments would be just your average small business entrepreneur. Minimum standards of safety would have to be met- MDMA wouldn't be cut with amphetamines, cocaine wouldn't be cut with baby powder etc making them safer and ensuring the consumer knows what he's buying. They would also be required to rent the premises and pay VAT, thus generating income. Competitors wouldn't be killing each other over the control of supply to the public. Money wouldn't be wasted incarcerating people who supply the drugs.

You also forget that legalisation would result in a decrease in price, even if taxes were put on.

af_thefragile

I wouldn't take alcohol to be a good example for legalizing drugs. If it wasn't "part of the culture" it would have long been illegal. Almost everyone consumes alcohol fairly regularly, many abuse it and many are addicted ro it. It destroys families, relationships, jobs etc.
Image if cocaine or heroin was legal and just as many people did it as they drink booze? Infact when inhaled heroin is far less dangerous substance than alcohol. People know alcohol is a dangerous substance and still do it. Why do you think people won't be doing cocaine or heroin if it was legal, cheap, "safe", readily available with no associated stigma??

Unavailable for Comment

gaffer91 wrote: »

Diesel and cigarettes are smuggled because the tax is too high. A closer parallel would be alcohol- despite the high taxes on alcohol, how many people go buying methanol off a dealer?

I'd say a better example would be counterfeit alcohol. 2011 was the worst year for seizures by customs of counterfeit alcohol so far meaning its use is obviously on the rise. People will take any risks up to and including ingesting methanol to save a few quid.

gaffer91 wrote: »

Drugs would be safer and cheaper, with none of the associated killings or incarceration, with more revenue and jobs.

The gangs would simply undercut the State as they do at the moment with every other taxable luxury and there would be no real shift away. In fact it could be argued that by squeezing the market the State would simply make the gangs more vicious as they scramble for market share.

gaffer91 wrote: »

As stated above, legalisation would result in a massive price drop so muggings etc would drop substantially. If people weren't virtually criminalised for being a drug addict by the media and society they would be more likely to seek help to treat their addiction. Also don't make the mistake of equating every drug user with a drug abuser.

The gangs wouldn't give up though. In the best case scenario they'd see the State as purely monetary competition. In the worst case scenario they'd see it as a rival to be dealt with as any other rival would be. Do you really assume that no gang would bomb a competing chemist or murder State lab workers if their business was being interfered with? Sorry I think you believe those scum have far more morality than they've displayed up until now.

I fully understand the difference between an drug addict and an drug abuser. Frankly it's none of my business what people do in the privacy of their own homes. It's the fact that gangsters keep shoving their business into innocent citizen's homes that bothers me.

gaffer91

af_thefragile wrote: »

I wouldn't take alcohol to be a good example for legalizing drugs. If it wasn't "part of the culture" it would have long been illegal. Almost everyone consumes alcohol fairly regularly, many abuse it and many are addicted ro it. It destroys families, relationships, jobs etc.

So let me get this straight- you think alcohol would be better off illegal? Sure there are problems with alcoholism but having it legal is far better than the alternative of prohibition. Need I remind you what a disaster that was in the USA? The was on drugs is pretty much an exact analogy. Within reason, do you think people should be allowed consume potentially harmful substances?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Image if cocaine or heroin was legal and just as many people did it as they drink booze? Infact when inhaled heroin is far less dangerous substance than alcohol. People know alcohol is a dangerous substance and still do it. Why do you think people won't be doing cocaine or heroin if it was legal, cheap, "safe", readily available with no associated stigma??

Not to underestimate the harm of these drugs but they would still be better off being legal. Pure heroin would be much less harmful in its "pure" as opposed to its street form.

According to a suppressed 1995 WHO report stated that that "occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems". Have a look here.

gaffer91

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

I'd say a better example would be counterfeit alcohol. 2011 was the worst year for seizures by customs of counterfeit alcohol so far meaning its use is obviously on the rise. People will take any risks up to and including ingesting methanol to save a few quid.

Oh come on. As a percentage of alcohol consumed, how much of it was counterfeit?I'd say a practically negligible amount.

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

The gangs would simply undercut the State as they do at the moment with every other taxable luxury and there would be no real shift away. In fact it could be argued that by squeezing the market the State would simply make the gangs more vicious as they scramble for market share.

It wouldn't be worth their while, unless the state placed crazy taxes on drugs, because the insane profit margins would no longer exist.

Even if they did place crazy taxes on drugs, lots of people would still be more likely to buy from a safer, more accessible seller.

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

The gangs wouldn't give up though. In the best case scenario they'd see the State as purely monetary competition. In the worst case scenario they'd see it as a rival to be dealt with as any other rival would be. Do you really assume that no gang would bomb a competing chemist or murder State lab workers if their business was being interfered with? Sorry I think you believe those scum have far more morality than they've displayed up until now.

Gangs probably wouldn't give up crime, but they would give up drug dealing. How many people continued to buy from bootleggers after the repeal of prohibition? Gangs simply turned towards other illegal sources of revenue.

Garda protection could easily be given in the early period of legalised drugs to ensure the safety of the premises if it was a big concern.

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

I fully understand the difference between an drug addict and an drug abuser. Frankly it's none of my business what people do in the privacy of their own homes. It's the fact that gangsters keep shoving their business into innocent citizen's homes that bothers me.

So why do you want to continue the failed policy of drug prohibiton? And how do gangsters shove their business into innocent people's homes? Virtually everyone who takes drugs takes them willingly. Murders of innocent bystanders in cases of mistaken identity and so on are obviously a huge problems but these could be drastically cut down on by legalisation.

ScumLord

af_thefragile wrote: »

I wouldn't take alcohol to be a good example for legalizing drugs. If it wasn't "part of the culture" it would have long been illegal.

It's part of European culture. You have to remember many Europeans drank alcohol over water due to contaminated water and ignorance. Irish people have bought into the drinking legend more and more of late.

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

The gangs would simply undercut the State as they do at the moment with every other taxable luxury and there would be no real shift away. In fact it could be argued that by squeezing the market the State would simply make the gangs more vicious as they scramble for market share.

They simply couldn't compete with legal industrialised grows. Factory setups can massively reduce the cost of production and criminal gangs in converted houses couldn't compete. There's also the quality issue, in every place cannabis is popular and somewhat legal a connoisseur market pops up with people treating it like fine wine.

af_thefragile

Alcohol is a known dangerous substance and again if it wasn't "part of our culture" it would be on the list of illegal substances. The only reason probation doesn't work is because alcohol consumtion is very deeply embedded in our culture and for probation to work, people's mindset regarding alcohol consumption needs to change first. Many countries in middle east where alcohol is not embedded in their culture, its an illegal substance and they do fine. You will always get the few who will go to lenghys to find their booze but its better that a few handful consume a harmful substance than the whole nation widely consumes it.

In some cultures weed is part of it and you'll find most people in these cultures smoke weed. Making weed illegal wouldn't work there.

Thankfully cocaine, heroin, ecstasy etc aren't part of our culture which is why not everyone feels compelled to go to lenghts to buy these substances. Again nothing in small occasional use is harmful. You could also get away with occasionally sipping methanol or paint thinner or anything. Whats dangerous is the addictive nature of these substances. Heroin is a horrible drug and completely destroys the persons life as its very addictive. Cocaine and other stimulants aren't as addictive but if taken regularly like people drink booze, they're gonna have severe consequences. Again you'ld rather have a handful of people cobsuming these substances and gerting addicted to them than have a whole nation regularly consume these substances and getting addicted to it and developing all the long term medical problems of their use, raising the hse costs and all apart from destroying families, jobs, relationships etc.

shanered

How would you think buying a standardised "safer" product bought from the government would be in any way similar to buying a product of a scumbag junkie dealer that was made in dodgy conditions and can have some much more toxic additives then the purer product produced by a then legalised manufacturer.
I'm sure chemists would follow the money and would have no problem producing drugs, I'm also sure there is many recreational drug using chemists that where almost inspired into the trade due to their love of syntetic drugs.
I even know one for example!
I would much prefer my money to be going towards the public purse rather then lining fat freddie's pockets! And I think your being silly saying that you wouldn't.

ScumLord

af_thefragile wrote: »

Alcohol is a known dangerous substance and again if it wasn't "part of our culture" it would be on the list of illegal substances. The only reason probation doesn't work is because alcohol consumtion is very deeply embedded in our culture and for probation to work, people's mindset regarding alcohol consumption needs to change first. Many countries in middle east where alcohol is not embedded in their culture, its an illegal substance and they do fine. You will always get the few who will go to lenghys to find their booze but its better that a few handful consume a harmful substance than the whole nation widely consumes it.

There's a lot of thing illegal in those countries and I think any one of us wouldn't be prepared to live there even if we didn't drink alcohol.

Mance Rayder

af_thefragile wrote: »

Thankfully cocaine, heroin, ecstasy etc aren't part of our culture which is why not everyone feels compelled to go to lenghts to buy these substances.

Unfortunately your wrong here, and that's the problem we have in Ireland. there is a STRONG culture of heroin, ecstasy, hash and coke here.

af_thefragile

Also if gangs give up drug dealings, they'll probably switch to old style theft, robbery, muggings, money laundering etc.

Drug dealers are only a small part of a wider problem which is to do with lack of education, employment, opportunities for these people coupled with some who simply have a anti-social/dissocial personality disorder.

ScumLord

af_thefragile wrote: »

Also if gangs give up drug dealings, they'll probably switch to old style theft, robbery, muggings, money laundering etc.

Would they though? It's easy to take the risks with drugs big profits but robbing is more like work. They won't be able to hold the same power and numbers if they don't have the funding.

Mance Rayder

The fact is that social welfare + drug dealing is a career choice for many here. Ever wonder how your unemployed neighbors drive a 3 year old Audi, and can afford to party all week?

af_thefragile

ScumLord wrote: »

There's a lot of thing illegal in those countries and I think any one of us wouldn't be prepared to live there even if we didn't drink alcohol.

Again its to do with difference with culture. Sure those countries have their problems but they dont have an alcohol problem and people don't complain about a ban on alcohol there.

Mance Rayder wrote: »

Unfortunately your wrong here, and that's the problem we have in Ireland. there is a STRONG culture of heroin, ecstasy, hash and coke here.

Its not a part of the wide/mainstream culture like alcohol is. Its socially acceptable and even encouraged to consume alcohol. Thankfully its not quite the same with drugs although many still do it.

af_thefragile

ScumLord wrote: »

Would they though? It's easy to take the risks with drugs big profits but robbing is more like work. They won't be able to hold the same power and numbers if they don't have the funding.

Given the right circumstances people will do anything for easy money.
The less organised ones will stick to shoplifting and mugging. The more organised ones will look for bigger game. Houses being broken into and furniture/valuables being robbed isn't that uncommon.

Only if drugs were legal, more criminals would be forced to resort to these ways of making their living.

ScumLord

af_thefragile wrote: »

Again its to do with difference with culture. Sure those countries have their problems but they dont have an alcohol problem and people don't complain about a ban on alcohol there.

Because it's forbidden in their religion. In a country where religion is taken too seriously your not going to talk up about sinning. Not a good example at all.

gaffer91

af_thefragile wrote: »

Drug dealers are only a small part of a wider problem which is to do with lack of education, employment, opportunities for these people coupled with some who simply have a anti-social/dissocial personality disorder.

I agree with this and think that if drugs were legalised the government should use a large portion of the new revenue on things like outreach programmes, urban regeneration, council housing and better education and so on in disadvantaged areas.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Given the right circumstances people will do anything for easy money.
The less organised ones will stick to shoplifting and mugging. The more organised ones will look for bigger game. Houses being broken into and furniture/valuables being robbed isn't that uncommon.

Only if drugs were legal, more criminals would be forced to resort to these ways of making their living.

So, your argument against legalising drugs is that gangs won't be able to make money off it? I thought this thread was about gangland crime and by extension how to cut down on it.

You also grossly overestimate how harmful a lot of illegal drugs are. Sure, they're bad but don't believe everything you read in the media or were fed at school.

ScumLord

af_thefragile wrote: »

Given the right circumstances people will do anything for easy money.

True but I don't think the circumstances would be right for many of them. Some criminals are just bad bastards that will be like that no matter what but just as many, if not more see themselves as being forced into the life for purely monitory reasons. If they're not getting the big pay offs the appeal will fade.

Tym

I always find it strange when people compare alcohol to even cannabis, and then it gets ridiculous when people compare it to cocaine and heroine. Yes, alcohol is bad for you, when abused. Just like fatty foods are bad for you when abused, too much excercise is bad for you, and a hundred other things, and yet comparing alcohol to drugs is like comparing a fire to an inferno.

I'd also be worried about the effect of leaglizing drugs:S Is it really a good thing where a society publicly accepts people taking drugs to "Escape" during their free time? At least Alcahol when you have a bit of cop on not to guzzle it down as fast as you can, enhances an experiance and is used both recreationaly and socially, and yet cannabis mellows people out to the extent that they are not contributing to any activitie.

And we have had people killed by crime gangs, people killed in their dozens. Some would call them freedom fighters, or criminals with a cuase, or even terrorists, but they did kill many, many people during the troubles.

You also grossly overestimate how harmful a lot of illegal drugs are. Sure, they're bad but don't believe everything you read in the media or were fed at school.

Yup, we should ignore tales of addiction and death

True but I don't think the circumstances would be right for many of them. Some criminals are just bad bastards that will be like that no matter what but just as many, if not more see themselves as being forced into the life for purely monitory reasons. If they're not getting the big pay offs the appeal will fade.

Eh, if people spend years in crime there's realistically not anything else they can do. They won't have any recent references, very few of the lower criminals have qualifications (or respect for society) and even if they're earning a part-time minumun wage for dealing, then they'll keep it up, as it's seen as easy money.

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

I'd also be worried about the effect of leaglizing drugs:S Is it really a good thing where a society publicly accepts people taking drugs to "Escape" during their free time? At least Alcahol when you have a bit of cop on not to guzzle it down as fast as you can, enhances an experiance and is used both recreationaly and socially, and yet cannabis mellows people out to the extent that they are not contributing to any activitie.

People have sought mind altering substances since the beginning of time and will for as long as humans exist. Sensation seeking is actually not far from the basic human drives.

Also alcohol is one of the drugs which people have the least cop on about! But it obviously much better off being legal. I would also wager that alcohol has destroyed far more lives as a percentage of users than cannabis, MDMA or LSD and the likes.