I get the need to insult. I really do. I'm not really sure how this discussion suddenly spread out to cover all my posts, but I guess that's how you manage your response. That's cool. There is, behind my attempt to push the argument a particular way, a logic to the way the graffiti subculture works. I've been trying to perform that logic here, but I better spell it out now. A logic doesn't mean a justification, by the way. There is no justification, but it is precisely the point that graffiti writers don't want or need to justify themselves to bourgeois culture. In fact, they need graffiti to be beyond justification. It's worthy of explanation, because the paradox is that graffiti needs people like you to oppose it. You are a constituent element of the subculture. That's the thesis here, but you need to understand the subculture to get it. If you could withhold your fairly obvious will to judgment for a second (I encourage you to judge afterwards, sure), I'll try to lay it out for you.

Within graffiti subcultures, there are two criteria of merit: 1) aesthetics (called style) and 2) risk. The first is certainly important, but is somewhat beside the point here. In any case, as in any creative endeavor, from poetry to programming, an aesthetic develops, and it is a tough nut to crack for those not steeped in the practice (the elegance of a program, the fine points of poetics), and there are disputes among practitioners as to aesthetic innovation, quality, etc. It's only important for our purposes to know that there are aesthetic criteria.

More important is the criterion of risk. Put plainly, the higher risk (of being caught, of getting hurt, etc.), the more credit you get within the subculture. In this way, the subculture mirrors the operations of capital precisely. A few definitions first. Generally speaking, the different types of graffiti are arranged in a hierarchy, as follows, moving from most admired to least:

Pieces (these are the fully worked out murals and trains that involve many colors, designs, characters, etc.)
Straight letter fill-ins (these are generally two color operations with stylized letters)
Throw-ups (or throwies), but filled in (two colors, but easier and quicker than straight letters)
Throwies, without fill-in (also called outlines, you use just one color, and can get it done in 5-20 seconds)
Tags (like a signature, quick and easy)
Marker tags (tags done with markers, easy and small)
Etchings and stickers - These remain at the bottom of the hierarchy

There are other consequences here as well, like you can do a straight letter over a tag without causing beef, but putting a tag over a straight letter is automatic war. What's more important is what is implied in this hierarchy. You get credit in the subculture for the perceived risk of the act. Pieces are at the top of the list not only because they are aesthetically more difficult, but because they take longer: they expose you to more risk during their execution. This risk element also jumbles the hierarchy. A writer who has thousands of tags in risky locations (major streets, billboards, etc.) may get more credit within the subculture than a writer who has done four or five more aesthtically sophisticated pieces in relatively isolated locations (aesthtically better, but less prone to risk). The best writers are, of course, those who combine all facets: they are aesthetically sophisticated in their tagging, throwies, straight letters and pieces, AND they are "up," that is, they have a lot of work in risky locations.

What is to be inferred from this organization? That opposition and criminalization are constituent elements of the subculture. Without risk, the culture would have little means of allocating merit, and therefore little incentive. No graffiti writer, no real graffiti writer, wants graffiti legalized. The prohibition produces the risk that drives the subculture. It also has other advantages, like cleaning the walls to allow new work, where going over other writers produces internal conflict. People like you, in other words, are necessary for the subculture to thrive. You're part of it, and that's the interesting paradox to me. If you understand the internal functionings of the graffiti subculture, you would understand this: if graffiti was legalized there would be an initial period where you'd see more, but the whole subculture would wither on the vine and die in a few years, because the risk criterion would evaporate.

In any case, cheers. I'll have to go back to the university that gave me the PhD and inform them that I haven't matured past the 7th grade.