Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why is selling coke so bad compared to every thing else?

9 replies to this topic
GeorgeCostanzaTheMovie
  • GeorgeCostanzaTheMovie

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2015
  • Canada

#1

Posted 03 November 2017 - 05:42 AM

This is what I don't get about this game. Why is illegally selling weed, alcohol, drugs, pimping, murdering, kidnapping, protection racketeering, as well as other evil deeds such as burying and innocent person alive in poop and cement and domestic terrorism all ok, but dealing blow? Woah, that's just too far man. 

I guess one explanation is they don't want their own members getting addicted, but if they're selling it to OTHERS, what do they care? Business is business, isn't it?

 

Inb4 I get told I'm not allowed to talk about the plot because some places you just don't go to man.


Steezy.
  • Steezy.

    Dimension Shifter

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2017
  • None

#2

Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:02 AM

If you're referring to the Grove Street Families, Sweet is personally against the usage and distribution of ALL drugs, especially crack cocaine (Weed on the other hand, I'd imagine a different story). The reason why is because it's bad for the streets, and even though they're all criminals, Sweet cares about his hood and he doesn't want his homies to get addicted. (Prime example is Big Bear) Not to mention it'll cause all kinds of problems as well, mostly with the law. Drugs are a very dangerous business, sometimes more so than extortion and regular killing/gang banging. Obviously not everyone agrees with him, since the other Families sets have turned on him, and Big Smoke & Ryder eventually betray him.

I'd say it's just that Sweet has a weird moral code where he can kill and Rob and extort, but drugs are his limit. (Kinda like Vic Vance from VCS)
  • Official General likes this

Am Shaegar
  • Am Shaegar

    Chartered Accountant

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2017
  • None

#3

Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:39 AM

I'd say it's just that Sweet has a weird moral code

 

Nope. There's nothing weird about it. If you read - Crack Epidemic 1980What it was like to be a Los Angeles police officer during the 1980s crack epidemic, then I don't think Sweet has a weird moral code, and his conversation would CLEARLY reflect that sentiment. 

SWEET: All they do is sell yay and ruin the place. No crack ever made a gang tight. We just standing by our principles, homie.

If making money is the only motive behind selling drugs, then you can make it from many other illegal activities, but drugs will destroy your family, your life, and your whole future. Its common sense. 
 

In short,

The plot is based on multiple real-life events in Los Angeles, including the rivalry between the Bloods, Crips, and Hispanic street gangs, the 1980s crack epidemic, the LAPD Rampart scandal, and the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

 

  • Steezy. likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#4

Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:42 PM Edited by Official General, 03 November 2017 - 11:08 PM.

I've always wondered the same thing myself. It was a bit silly for Rockstar to go a bit extreme with that part of the story, because it made Sweet and the Families look like huge living contradictions. It just did not make sense for them to be very much against the trade in hard drugs for reasons to do with morality and good principles - while committing other street crimes, and causing all kinds of reckless violence in their own communities with their murderous gang activities at the same time. I can see what Rockstar were trying to do in creating a distinct character and identity to distinguish the Families and Ballas from each other in the story (good bad gang v bad bad gang scenario), but in my view it was still silly. There should have been a story about rivalry over the crack trade between the gangs, I'd have found that much more interesting and exciting.

@ Steezy

Yeah I agree, I think Rockstar just wrote Sweet to be very different kind of gangsta, still a hardened thug, but one that cared about his community enough to say no to drugs - still a silly idea if you ask me, because he's terrorising the hood with shootouts and drive bys against rival gangs, which in my opinion is way much worse, because people are being killed instantly as a result (even innocents by stray bullets), while drugs is much more of a slow process, and people can still recover from drug addiction and live !

@ Am Shaegar

It is weird for someone like Sweet to be against the crack trade because of morals, because he belongs to a criminal organisation whose primary functioning purpose is engage in illegal activities for financial profit and gain. The main reason in real life why the Bloods and Crips have had deadly gang wars with each other for so long is because of control of the crack trade, so the game should have reflected that, not some far-fetched, near fantasy story about one street gang being morally better than the other at the expense of more money and power. 

  • Evil empire and Steezy. like this

Am Shaegar
  • Am Shaegar

    Chartered Accountant

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2017
  • None

#5

Posted 04 November 2017 - 05:57 AM

It is weird for someone like Sweet to be against the crack trade because of morals, because he belongs to a criminal organisation whose primary functioning purpose is engage in illegal activities for financial profit and gain. The main reason in real life why the Bloods and Crips have had deadly gang wars with each other for so long is because of control of the crack trade, so the game should have reflected that, not some far-fetched, near fantasy story about one street gang being morally better than the other at the expense of more money and power. 

 

I am perfectly cool with this.

As always, I am only trying to counter by offering an explanation based on the in-game information available behind the circumstances such as this, and because of which I don't find Sweet's objection "weird". 

The way I see the use of the term "principles" by Sweet is not really about morality here. It's about protecting your family, since Sweet had already seen the deaths of his moms, homies, and brother under his leadership, and the influence of the Families began to decline further as Ballas started selling drugs. It's not like they were running in profits from other illegal activities either, otherwise the homies would have already gone out of their way to throw Ballas out of business with all kind of weapons like AK's, etc. The gang was at its decline when Carl returned, so it's not really about money, or morals here, as evident from the conversations in the mission 'Cleaning the hood'. Sweet just wanted to concentrate on protecting his turf from anything that could further weaken the gang and ruin them completely, because, according to him - "No crack ever made a gang tight". This decision even resulted into the split of the Family in various "sets", and dealing in drugs would be playing into the hands of Tenpenny, since that's exactly what he wanted in order to throw Sweet out of power and his influence over the decisions that GSF makes. 

When Sweet returns to LS after getting freed from the jail in the mission 'Beat Down on B Dup' we can actually see him smoking crack, because he had seen the hood's condition had worsened so much by the use of drugs already, which further supports his "decision" of staying away from drugs was right. 

GSF is all that Swete had in his life, and I don't expect him to make any compromise just for the sake of financial gains, which is exactly why I don't find him "weird" for his decision about not engaging in drugs.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I'm fine with Rockstar's approach to the story, and Sweet's character as well. Had the game featured only LS, then I guess it'd have been not that difficult to include the gang rivalry like Bloods and Crips, since Rockstar wouldn't have to make CJ leave the hood because the story has to take into account multiple cities vs. just one city. At one point in the story development, they were planning to include multiple protagonists, and I guess that would have allowed Rockstar to focus more on gang rivalry in the LS part of the story. I guess due to some creative, or other compulsions the idea of multiple protags couldn't come to fruition.

  • Steezy. likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#6

Posted 04 November 2017 - 08:30 AM

@ Am Shaegar

Whatever it was, I still thought it was a very stupid take on the script. That family protection theory just don't cut it for me. No matter what explanation is given it, made no sense whatsoever for Sweet to engage in muderous gang violence and other crimes for money, but be totally against the trade in hard drugs, it looked so contradictory. It even felt silly just listening to the anti-crack dialogue between gang members in the cutscenes.

But it's only a game, so I can't to be too hard on Rockstar, the story was still very entertaining enough. On top of that you can still roleplay and pretend that the Families are into hard drugs.
  • Steezy. likes this

Evil empire
  • Evil empire

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010
  • France

#7

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:26 AM

I think Rockstar found the game would be more interesting with the OGF wanting to destroy their enemies' drug business instead of making their own to make a difference with Vice City and didn't find it necessary to justify Sweet's motivations.

 

Given the hard times the OGF cross during the game we can always assume Sweet thinks it would be hard to find reliable drug suppliers and the drug-selling homies would inexorably become addicted to their dope to forget the gang's problems.


KingD19
  • KingD19

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2016
  • United-States

#8

Posted 4 weeks ago

Weed is acceptable for the families just not crack so I don't understand why R* didn't allow weed smoking for CJ in free roam I would love to just chill at the circle on Grove street and smoke with the homies so since I can't do that I'll go and rob the drug dealer with the white hoodie because he not from ganton and take all what he made that day
  • Steezy. likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#9

Posted 4 weeks ago

Weed is acceptable for the families just not crack so I don't understand why R* didn't allow weed smoking for CJ in free roam I would love to just chill at the circle on Grove street and smoke with the homies so since I can't do that I'll go and rob the drug dealer with the white hoodie because he not from ganton and take all what he made that day

 

That's true, the Families are indeed involved in selling weed several scenes and certain bits of dialogue point to this. They should have at least provided a side mission for CJ to deal in weed, and sell to customers. 

 

Actually Rockstar had intended for CJ to smoke weed, but they cut it out at the last moment. There is a mod that actually restores this feature. 

  • Steezy. likes this

KingD19
  • KingD19

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2016
  • United-States

#10

Posted 3 weeks ago

Exactly also crack are suppose to be involved with the other families like temple drive and Seville Boulevard and CJ makes references to smoking in a mission with truth CJ was telling him to put his smoke out and then said "I just don't drive when I'm faded " A lot ideas the scrapped out of gta sa are placed on gta v it's crazy how much more advanced gta sa was suppose to be
  • Steezy. likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users