0 registered members (),
251
guests, and 3
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics42,323
Posts1,058,596
Members10,349
|
Most Online796 Jan 21st, 2020
|
|
|
Re: Families that refuse to deal in drugs.
[Re: Wilson]
#730786
07/29/13 09:51 PM
07/29/13 09:51 PM
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 653 Illinois
F_white
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 653
Illinois
|
None every family is into drug from shakedown to dealing.
From now on, nothing goes down unless I'm involved. No blackjack no dope deals, no nothing. A nickel bag gets sold in the park, I want in. You guys got fat while everybody starved on the street. Now it's my turn.
|
|
|
Re: Families that refuse to deal in drugs.
[Re: Wilson]
#730833
07/30/13 01:57 AM
07/30/13 01:57 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 93
conopizza
Button
|
Button
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 93
|
Wilson, read this book and then get back to us-- Federal Bureau of Narcotics mob files-- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061363855the answer, as others have said, is precisely NONE. Even talking about it as a "rule" is silly; it was a self-serving myth, that's all. Also, while it's true the "War on Drugs" horseshit made things al around, there have been drug scares-- and lots of "good" white kids/women/professionals-- on dope ever since there was dope to be had: opium especially in later 19th c. and after cocaine and heroin were regulated, then made illegal in the 1910s, those drugs as well... The REAL story that I've not seen explained well are the major U.S. dope players of the 1910s-1920s, when huge coke and heroin $$$ become available for the first time. Arnold Rothstein of course is credited as major heroin trafficker, or financier (who knows), with "Lepke" and Luciano getting in no later than 1930... While the markets expanded with population etc (not to mention blatant CIA encouragement at various points) there's no question 'families' and their antecedents were there from the near start.
Last edited by conopizza; 07/30/13 01:59 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Families that refuse to deal in drugs.
[Re: conopizza]
#730838
07/30/13 02:04 AM
07/30/13 02:04 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,809 Scotland
Camarel
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,809
Scotland
|
Wilson, read this book and then get back to us-- Federal Bureau of Narcotics mob files-- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061363855the answer, as others have said, is precisely NONE. Even talking about it as a "rule" is silly; it was a self-serving myth, that's all. Also, while it's true the "War on Drugs" horseshit made things al around, there have been drug scares-- and lots of "good" white kids/women/professionals-- on dope ever since there was dope to be had: opium especially in later 19th c. and after cocaine and heroin were regulated, then made illegal in the 1910s, those drugs as well... The REAL story that I've not seen explained well are the major U.S. dope players of the 1910s-1920s, when huge coke and heroin $$$ become available for the first time. Arnold Rothstein of course is credited as major heroin trafficker, or financier (who knows), with "Lepke" and Luciano getting in no later than 1930... While the markets expanded with population etc (not to mention blatant CIA encouragement at various points) there's no question 'families' and their antecedents were there from the near start. Wilson was banned ages ago and made stupid comments for the attention clearly. Reminds me of anothere poster...
|
|
|
Re: Families that refuse to deal in drugs.
[Re: jace]
#730843
07/30/13 02:13 AM
07/30/13 02:13 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,534
IvyLeague
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,534
|
None every family is into drug from shakedown to dealing. Then why all the guys being in trouble with captains or bosses for it? I think Bonanno Family did, others in New York and Jersey did not. From what Chicago posters on here are saying Chicago family did not either. You can find examples in virtually every mob family of guys dealing. The rule seemed to be more "Don't deal without permission." A no-drug boss like Castellano didn't like when he found out the Gotti crew was dealing but took drug money off Patsy Conte and the Gambino brothers. Tony Ducks ranted about drugs but then agreed to let two well-known drug traffickers take over the family. Same with Chin, who let Bellomo become acting boss, despite being involved with drug trafficking in the past. Even in Chicago, guys like Fifi Buccieri, Turk Torello, and Rocco Infelise were involved in drug trafficking. Some years ago a raid was done on a bookmaking establishment run by Marco D'Amico and 10 kilos of cocaine was found there.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
|
|
|
Re: Families that refuse to deal in drugs.
[Re: IvyLeague]
#730850
07/30/13 02:18 AM
07/30/13 02:18 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,809 Scotland
Camarel
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,809
Scotland
|
None every family is into drug from shakedown to dealing. Then why all the guys being in trouble with captains or bosses for it? I think Bonanno Family did, others in New York and Jersey did not. From what Chicago posters on here are saying Chicago family did not either. You can find examples in virtually every mob family of guys dealing. The rule seemed to be more "Don't deal without permission." A no-drug boss like Castellano didn't like when he found out the Gotti crew was dealing but took drug money off Patsy Conte and the Gambino brothers. Tony Ducks ranted about drugs but then agreed to let two well-known drug traffickers take over the family. Same with Chin, who let Bellomo become acting boss, despite being involved with drug trafficking in the past. Even in Chicago, guys like Fifi Buccieri, Turk Torello, and Rocco Infelise were involved in drug trafficking. Some years ago a raid was done on a bookmaking establishment run by Marco D'Amico and 10 kilos of cocaine was found there. I agree with everything you've said but did Corallo really have a choice when allowing Amuso And Casso run the family? He was clearly going away for the rest of his life and his original choice Buddy Luongo was apparently killed by Casso and Amuso.
|
|
|
Re: Families that refuse to deal in drugs.
[Re: Turnbull]
#730861
07/30/13 03:16 AM
07/30/13 03:16 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,841 OC, CA
Faithful1
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,841
OC, CA
|
Mafia has been dealing drugs since Day One. Don Vito Cascio Ferro, the Sicilian pezzanovante, spent several years early in the last century in NYC, shaping up the loose Mafia scene into what became the Five Families, and setting up the first of many drug pipelines between Europe and North America. The Mob has always been well-positioned to deal drugs. They have the international connections, the feet-on-the-street to move it, and the brothels, bars, betting parlors, etc., to distribute it. A lot of so-called info on Cascio Ferro is just made up garbage with no basis in reality. You have to be careful where you get material from. Records show that any family had members that were involved in drugs one way or the other.
But some families were less involved than others, like the Chicago Outfit. And wouldn't you agree that the Outfit is one of the families that is least involved today? Most of their business comes from Gambling. From what I have read, Ronnie Jarrett was placed on the hit list and disposed of because he was involved in drug dealing. Your thoughts? There's a story that Ricca banned the Outfit's participation in drugs because his son got involved.
|
|
|
Re: Families that refuse to deal in drugs.
[Re: jace]
#731043
07/31/13 12:28 AM
07/31/13 12:28 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,534
IvyLeague
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,534
|
I have never seen any proof, or even strong indication, that Castellano took any money from drugs off Conte. Or off anyone else. I think that is said about him as way to make him not seem like glamorous, or noble Mafia boss. They even had his home bugged, yet nothing on him taking drug money off Conte. I looked though everything I could on matter there is no evidence of it at all. I think it is a myth that has grown, or that people who feel worried that Mob may get glamorized perpetuate. Gravano testified to that very thing, i.e. how after the takeover Gotti had Gravano approach Conte and demand the "same arrangement" from Conte's drug operation that he had with Castellano. Now, if you want to believe Gravano was lying, go ahead, but I don't think so.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
|
|
|
Re: Families that refuse to deal in drugs.
[Re: IvyLeague]
#731050
07/31/13 01:10 AM
07/31/13 01:10 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,590
jace
Suspended
|
Suspended
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,590
|
I have never seen any proof, or even strong indication, that Castellano took any money from drugs off Conte. Or off anyone else. I think that is said about him as way to make him not seem like glamorous, or noble Mafia boss. They even had his home bugged, yet nothing on him taking drug money off Conte. I looked though everything I could on matter there is no evidence of it at all. I think it is a myth that has grown, or that people who feel worried that Mob may get glamorized perpetuate. Gravano testified to that very thing, i.e. how after the takeover Gotti had Gravano approach Conte and demand the "same arrangement" from Conte's drug operation that he had with Castellano. Now, if you want to believe Gravano was lying, go ahead, but I don't think so. Thanks fo rthat info, I was familiar with it, but good you posted it. Considering Gravano's actions afterwards, and his desperation to avoid prison, I find him hard to believe. I think Conte remeained a target of prosecutors, leading Gravnao to testify as he did.
|
|
|
|