Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-21-2008, 06:23 PM #22
phiend
IV:XX
 
phiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Event Horizon
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by paint in blood View Post
if thats the case. then we shouldnt do anything to people that do drugs. plain and simple
Doing nothing is the wrong answer. This is what should happen, imo:

Make them legal. Allow them to be sold much like alcohol and cigarettes. Sure some DEA agents lose their jobs, but more jobs are created growing/producing them, packaging, transporting to market, and selling them. This would allow reputable people (think pharmacists) to control their sell instead of less reputable, GREEDY dealers trying to get enough for a fix.
Tax the hell out of them. They will still be cheaper then they currently are. This allows two things to occur. Since the prices aren't as high, crime would have to lower because a crackhead wouldn't need to steal AS MANY tvs to get some rocks. Second, it create a source of income where now there is only a drain. The tax dollars make money, LEO only wastes it. Say what you want, but they spend billions a year so i can't get marijuana, yet I can make a phone call this minute to at least 6 people and have marijuana in less then an hour.
Part of these tax dollars could be used to fund treatment programs for people who currently do not have the money themselves, and can't get access to the money to enter programs.

Last edited by phiend : 01-21-2008 at 06:25 PM.
phiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 01-21-2008, 06:40 PM #23
JcKa
post-Hipster
 
JcKa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UVM/DC
Legalizing it would be stupid. Here's a drug, that within five years, will destroy your mind and body, and you say legalize and attempt to tax/regulate it? That's laughable. All that would do is say it's "Ok" to do this to yourself and would make it easier for people to do it to themselves.

Find a new way to stop it, don't throw money at the problem and act like it's doing something, don't legalize it. The whole "well if you can't beat 'em join 'em" strategy is downright retarded and inapplicable in the illegal narcotics trade.

Last edited by JcKa : 01-21-2008 at 06:43 PM.
JcKa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 06:41 PM #24
scumquat1
My friends call me Scum.
 
scumquat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In the Hole
 has been a member for 10 years
At some point I read a statistic to the effect that something like 2% or 3% (I can't recall the exact #s) of the population had a drug problem in the late 1800s, when most drugs that are now illegal were still legal. After the hugely expensive war on drugs, the % of the population that has a drug problem now is still something like 2% or 3%. What a waste of money.
__________________
A is A. It is what it is.

"Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men." - Ayn Rand.
scumquat1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 06:51 PM #25
Animalm0ther3
The Stig, [])anny, df04
 
Animalm0ther3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cary, NC **WE GOT CUP**
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcKa View Post
Legalizing it would be stupid. Here's a drug, that within five years, will destroy your mind and body, and you say legalize and attempt to tax/regulate it? That's laughable. All that would do is say it's "Ok" to do this to yourself and would make it easier for people to do it to themselves.

Find a new way to stop it, don't throw money at the problem and act like it's doing something, don't legalize it. The whole "well if you can't beat 'em join 'em" strategy is downright retarded and inapplicable in the illegal narcotics trade.
You are again ignoring the issue. It is not whether or not people should do drugs, its what to do to people who do them. The federal government is not endorsing drugs by legalizing it. They aren't advocating anyone to "join em". Wanna stop the illegal narcotics trade? Legalize the trade, and treat the people who are truly sick.
__________________
D Shizzle 924 is a woman.

"Originally posted by so_FLY: i've heard one beer adds .1 to your BAC, so he had 79 beers?"
Animalm0ther3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 06:53 PM #26
ninjarz (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: boston
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcKa View Post
Legalizing it would be stupid. Here's a drug, that within five years, will destroy your mind and body, and you say legalize and attempt to tax/regulate it? That's laughable. All that would do is say it's "Ok" to do this to yourself and would make it easier for people to do it to themselves.
People will do drugs whether they are legal or not, so either way their "mind will be destroyed" like you said. Also, it is "ok" to do this to yourself, it doesn't harm anyone but you. People wouldn't start using hard drugs just because they are legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JcKa View Post
Find a new way to stop it, don't throw money at the problem and act like it's doing something, don't legalize it. The whole "well if you can't beat 'em join 'em" strategy is downright retarded and inapplicable in the illegal narcotics trade.
What? Why would you want to not have them legal when it will save millions and millions of tax dollars. Again, we are not looking for the perfect solution, just the best one.
ninjarz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 06:54 PM #27
JcKa
post-Hipster
 
JcKa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UVM/DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by scumquat1 View Post
At some point I read a statistic to the effect that something like 2% or 3% (I can't recall the exact #s) of the population had a drug problem in the late 1800s, when most drugs that are now illegal were still legal. After the hugely expensive war on drugs, the % of the population that has a drug problem now is still something like 2% or 3%. What a waste of money.
2.7% of our population are cocaine users (at least those that responded to the census) which is somewhere around 8,188,583.92.

According to coordinated drug law enforcement, 48% of cocaine and 24% of heroine are intercepted globally.

From the White House, in 2005 20 million Americans were current (past month) users, ages 12+. That represents 6.5% of today's population.
JcKa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 06:54 PM #28
phiend
IV:XX
 
phiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Event Horizon
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcKa View Post
Legalizing it would be stupid. Here's a drug, that within five years, will destroy your mind and body, and you say legalize and attempt to tax/regulate it? That's laughable. All that would do is say it's "Ok" to do this to yourself and would make it easier for people to do it to themselves.

Find a new way to stop it, don't throw money at the problem and act like it's doing something, don't legalize it. The whole "well if you can't beat 'em join 'em" strategy is downright retarded and inapplicable in the illegal narcotics trade.
As long as there is demand for them, and profit to be made from them, there is no way to stop them. If someone wants them badly enough, someone else will want the money to made badly enough to accept the risk of producing and supplying those that want. Its simple economics.

A couple years ago in my city, a man was arrested for dealing crack on the street. Before the police had even taking him away another man had filled the firsts corner to continue dealing! Read that again. I swear its 100% true.

Ever heard of Al Capone and alcohol prohibition? Did you see the effect that had? Is someone being an alcoholic really worse then 4 guys with tommy guns spraying bullets on your streets? At most, the alcoholic only destroys his life, and his family...with the potential to one day realize his error and change. People with bullets in their face don't have that potential to reconsider their error, which in this case was being on a public street.
Change alcohol to crack or heroin and the rest of the story is the same.
In some countries the penalty for dealing drugs is death. These same countries still have not managed to eradicate drugs. What is more valuable then your life? If even your own life is worth risking, what can you possibly use to deter and stop drugs?
This doesn't even consider that, WHO ARE YOU TO YOU TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD PUT INTO MY BODY? Even if your interest and intent in my well being is stronger then my own, I should be able to decide for myself.
Me Personally, I understand the effects from use, and risks if caught, of marijuana. I am educated on the matter and choose to smoke it. I also am educated on the risks of alcohol, cocaine, and heroin and choice not to use it.
What puts you in a better position then me, to make that decision for me?

Last edited by phiend : 01-21-2008 at 07:03 PM.
phiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:13 PM #29
JcKa
post-Hipster
 
JcKa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UVM/DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by phiend View Post
As long as there is demand for them, and profit to be made from them, there is no way to stop them. Yes, but you can severely cut into their supplies, thus bottlenecking their flow and slowing down the amount that's on our streets. Just because you can't win the war the first day doesn't mean you give up.

If someone wants them badly enough, someone else will want the money to made badly enough to accept the risk of producing and supplying those that want. Its simple economics.

Relevance?

A couple years ago in my city, a man was arrested for dealing crack on the street. Before the police had even taking him away another man had filled the firsts corner to continue dealing! Read that again. I swear its 100% true.

That's amazing. Still doesn't support the logic that if it was legal we'd see less dealers. And that's not a bad thing, at least one was taken away.

Ever heard of Al Capone and alcohol prohibition? Did you see the effect that had?

I've actually researched this issue. Prohibition did an amazing thing for our country. Before prohibition, our hard liquor consumption was insanely high, with similar results being seen in almost all other western countries. After prohibition, our hard liquor consumption dropped incredibly (we traded for beer, which is arguably healthier), while our current western countries maintain an incredible amount of hard liquor abuse and deaths related to drinking.

Is someone being an alcoholic really worse then 4 guys with tommy guns spraying bullets on your streets?

And how do you see legalization eliminating these "4 guys with tommy guns spraying bullets on your streets?"

At most, the alcoholic only destroys his life, and his family...with the potential to one day realize his error and change. People with bullets in their face don't have that potential to reconsider their error, which in this case was being on a public street.

Relevance?

Change alcohol to crack or heroin and the rest of the story is the same.

But not really, considering alcohol has been a regulated industry for hundreds of years.

In some countries the penalty for dealing drugs is death. These same countries still have not managed to eradicate drugs.

When you accept the reality that not all drugs can be eliminated but we can slow them down significantly, you'll be able to see more clearly.

What is more valuable then your life? If even your own life is worth risking, what can you possibly use to deter and stop drugs?

Hrm. Making it illegal to use them, actively trying to cut your access to them, and undermining the structures that deliver you said drugs?

This doesn't even consider that, WHO ARE YOU TO YOU TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD PUT INTO MY BODY?

The government is entrusted to act in the public's best interest.

Even if your interest and intent in my well being is stronger then my own, I should be able to decide for myself.

Move to Antarctica and import your drugs then. Don't do it in someone's community where they don't want that element funding other illegal activities that further undermine society.

Me Personally, I understand the effects from use, and risks if caught, of marijuana. I am educated on the matter and choose to smoke it. I also am educated on the risks of alcohol, cocaine, and heroin and choice not to use it.
What puts you in a better position then me, to make that decision for me?

The interests of society as a whole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animalm0ther3 View Post
You are again ignoring the issue. It is not whether or not people should do drugs, its what to do to people who do them. The federal government is not endorsing drugs by legalizing it. They aren't advocating anyone to "join em". Wanna stop the illegal narcotics trade? Legalize the trade, and treat the people who are truly sick.
I never said endorse, I said "ok".

Legalize the trade? So, instead of cutting off large chunks of narcotic flows, allow them to be trafficked freely without pressure, allow more people access to said drugs, and allow there to be a massive industry federally recognized but not taxed (as you have to realize there is not plausible way to tax someone in such a manner). You're acting as if once you legalize it, people will realize they're bad and stop using. Legalize it, and you're facing explosions of people using, and thus the money you spent preventing, will go to treatment. It won't do anything. At some point you have to choose between two evils: fight the cartels (which provide the junkies) or fight the junkies (which receive from the cartels).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjarz View Post
People will do drugs whether they are legal or not, so either way their "mind will be destroyed" like you said. Also, it is "ok" to do this to yourself, it doesn't harm anyone but you. People wouldn't start using hard drugs just because they are legal.

What? Why would you want to not have them legal when it will save millions and millions of tax dollars. Again, we are not looking for the perfect solution, just the best one.
That's a silly thing to say. Of course it harms me. It harms me on the level of being mugged, it harms me on the level of law enforcement being forced to keep them off my street, it harms me on the level of damage they do to my community, and so forth. Prove that to me, because logic rests on the side that if they're illegal they're far less likely to start using.

Those tax dollars would then go to helping junkies. How is that the best one?

Last edited by JcKa : 01-21-2008 at 07:18 PM.
JcKa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:20 PM #30
Animalm0ther3
The Stig, [])anny, df04
 
Animalm0ther3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cary, NC **WE GOT CUP**
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcKa View Post
The definition of endorse: "back: be behind; approve of; "He plumped for the Labor Party"; "I backed Kennedy in 1960'" - Princeton

Legalize the trade? So, instead of cutting off large chunks of narcotic flows, allow them to be trafficked freely without pressure, allow more people access to said drugs, and allow there to be a massive industry federally recognized but not taxed (as you have to realize there is not plausible way to tax someone in such a manner). You're acting as if once you legalize it, people will realize they're bad and stop using. Legalize it, and you're facing explosions of people using, and thus the money you spent preventing, will go to treatment. It won't do anything. At some point you have to choose between two evils: fight the cartels (which provide the junkies) or fight the junkies (which receive from the cartels).
Uhh, no. State government has the authority to regulate trade, just like they regulate alcohol, cigarettes and everything else sold in the state. Legalizing is NOT endorsing. By that logic the government endorses obesity, excessive world of warcraft playing, driving under the legal limit of intoxication, drinking in the first place, smoking your lungs out, and raising children to be poverty-stricken.

Why fight anyone? Its not a world of cartels and junkies. Its average american citizens who pay taxes like you and me. Drug use is a health problem, and should be addressed like a health problem. Everything these days is picking between two evils. Why not just solve the damn problem with the most logical solution...
__________________
D Shizzle 924 is a woman.

"Originally posted by so_FLY: i've heard one beer adds .1 to your BAC, so he had 79 beers?"
Animalm0ther3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:21 PM #31
ninjarz (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: boston
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcKa View Post
That's a silly thing to say. Of course it harms me. It harms me on the level of being mugged, it harms me on the level of law enforcement being forced to keep them off my street, it harms me on the level of damage they do to my community, and so forth. Prove that to me, because logic rests on the side that if they're illegal they're far less likely to start using.

Those tax dollars would then go to helping junkies. How is that the best one?
You wouldn't get mugged if they were legal, but you may if they were illegal. Law enforcement wouldn't be needed to keep them off the streets. Damage would be less to the community because, since drugs are legal, addicts would not need to go to such extremes as stealing or mugging someone for drugs. Not all of the tax dollars would go to helping junkies either.
ninjarz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:23 PM #32
JcKa
post-Hipster
 
JcKa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UVM/DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjarz View Post
You wouldn't get mugged if they were legal, but you may if they were illegal. Law enforcement wouldn't be needed to keep them off the streets. Damage would be less to the community because, since drugs are legal, addicts would not need to go to such extremes as stealing or mugging someone for drugs. Not all of the tax dollars would go to helping junkies either.
I wouldn't get mugged by a junkie? An addict will still need money if they're legal or not.
JcKa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:25 PM #33
ninjarz (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: boston
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcKa View Post
I wouldn't get mugged by a junkie? An addict will still need money if they're legal or not.
They would be far cheaper, making less muggings.

And way to ignore everything else I said.
ninjarz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:28 PM #34
mynameisjonathon
This is the new sound..
 
mynameisjonathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: TN
 has been a member for 10 years
negatory.
__________________
aim yooler
Rain down, rain down
Come on rain down on me
From a great height
From a great height... height...
Rain down, rain down

http://www.bestpanamacitybeachcondo.com
mynameisjonathon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:30 PM #35
JcKa
post-Hipster
 
JcKa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UVM/DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animalm0ther3 View Post
Uhh, no. State government has the authority to regulate trade, just like they regulate alcohol, cigarettes and everything else sold in the state. Legalizing is NOT endorsing. By that logic the government endorses obesity, excessive world of warcraft playing, driving under the legal limit of intoxication, drinking in the first place, smoking your lungs out, and raising children to be poverty-stricken.

Why fight anyone? Its not a world of cartels and junkies. Its average american citizens who pay taxes like you and me. Drug use is a health problem, and should be addressed like a health problem. Everything these days is picking between two evils. Why not just solve the damn problem with the most logical solution...
Define what legalizing says, because to me it says, "we the government have deemed this suitable for consumption." If you believe drugs are suitable for consumption, I think I'll stop arguing you.

Look at it this way. There's a 1-2 approach. Station one is the drug producers. These people maintain a population that is incredibly small compared to that of the addict population. These people produce the drugs, which are needed by the junkies.

Station two are the significant majority - the users. These people need the cartels to function, which the cartels also need to function respectively, but they greatly outnumber the cartels (by some ridiculous number).

Attack the relatively small number of producers/distributors vs. attempt to attack the dozens of millions of junkies (while simultaneously allowing the flow of drugs to them to not only increase but double in most situations). How do you plan on attacking the problem of junkies while allowing the flow of drugs to increase?

And look at it this way. Guns are a health issue, why should we prevent guns from reaching peoples hands, shouldn't we just focus on treating gunshot victims?
JcKa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:33 PM #36
.FRESH.
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Some countries in Europe have legalized certain types of drugs. They don't have the same problems we do in the states. I think your right Ninjarz, however those drugs that are addicting will contribute to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim96SC2 View Post
Drugs cause addiction. Addication leads to poverty. Poverty leads to crime to get more drugs. You just taxed it but probably broadened the market. You also increase the burdeon on health care costs in doing so.
.FRESH. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:33 PM #37
JcKa
post-Hipster
 
JcKa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UVM/DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjarz View Post
They would be far cheaper, making less muggings.

And way to ignore everything else I said.
Explain how they would be cheaper? People would consume far more, thus making the cost to consume their fix greater. Not to mention you're completely ignoring the reality that drugs aren't burgers. There's no friendly element of "competition" in drugs. They're exploitative in nature from the distribution element, you're not going to see two drug dealers saying "well I'll go to $.99 to beat out that other kid", it doesn't work that way, they'll either kill each other or gang up and jack up the prices. We're talking in drug economics, not corporate economics.

Everything else was ignored because it was irrelevant/illogical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by .FRESH. View Post
Some countries in Europe have legalized certain types of drugs. They don't have the same problems we do in the states. I think your right Ninjarz, however those drugs that are addicting will contribute to:
You're forgetting that the Netherlands, among other countries, share a fraction of the population we have, and are much less urbanized.

And there are still incredible amounts of underground trafficking and organized crime within those countries.

Last edited by JcKa : 01-21-2008 at 07:36 PM.
JcKa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:39 PM #38
ninjarz (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: boston
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcKa View Post
Explain how they would be cheaper? People would consume far more, thus making the cost to consume their fix greater. Not to mention you're completely ignoring the reality that drugs aren't burgers. There's no friendly element of "competition" in drugs. They're exploitative in nature from the distribution element, you're not going to see two drug dealers saying "well I'll go to $.99 to beat out that other kid", it doesn't work that way, they'll either kill each other or gang up and jack up the prices. We're talking in drug economics, not corporate economics.

Everything else was ignored because it was irrelevant/illogical.
Or we could just not have drug dealers talking about killing other people just by making them legal!

The would be cheaper because corporations would mass produce them, which would be way cheaper than a local dealer making them. We are talking about corporate economics if they were legal, not drug economics.

And the other stuff I said wasn't illogical, you just ignored them because I was clearly right...
ninjarz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:41 PM #39
47.magnum
Asleep at the wheel
 
47.magnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Drugs should be legal, I don't do them, but if they were legal they wouldn't be nearly as harmful to society. Have you ever seen a tobbaco deal gone wrong and people dead afterwards, no because all you have to do is stop by the store and pick some up.

There won't be dealers shooting each other up if it's sold at the gas station.

Last edited by 47.magnum : 01-21-2008 at 07:43 PM.
47.magnum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:41 PM #40
mynameisjonathon
This is the new sound..
 
mynameisjonathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: TN
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjarz View Post
Or we could just not have drug dealers talking about killing other people just by making them legal!

The would be cheaper because corporations would mass produce them, which would be way cheaper than a local dealer making them. We are talking about corporate economics if they were legal, not drug economics.

And the other stuff I said wasn't illogical, you just ignored them because I was clearly right...
Yeah, because if you make drugs legal they will turn right into cooperations just like tobaco overnight...

Get real.
__________________
aim yooler
Rain down, rain down
Come on rain down on me
From a great height
From a great height... height...
Rain down, rain down

http://www.bestpanamacitybeachcondo.com
mynameisjonathon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:43 PM #41
JcKa
post-Hipster
 
JcKa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UVM/DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjarz View Post
Or we could just not have drug dealers talking about killing other people just by making them legal!

Excuse me, but "huh?"

The would be cheaper because corporations would mass produce them, which would be way cheaper than a local dealer making them. We are talking about corporate economics if they were legal, not drug economics.

Oh I see, so corporations would now mass produce the drugs at an even higher rate, and naturally, corporations will be more inclined to give you a healthier drug than one thats cheaper and easier to produce. If you'd care to explain how corporations would evolve to start producing narcotics and how the government would effectively regulate them, please, do tell. Because all I can figure is that the people who already control the market will probably continue to control the market, through intimidation, monopolization, and producing/distributing in ways that aren't applicable to regulate.

And the other stuff I said wasn't illogical, you just ignored them because I was clearly right...

Enjoy telling yourself that.
.
JcKa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 07:44 PM #42
Spritz!!!Spritz!!! (Banned)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcKa View Post
They're exploitative in nature from the distribution element, you're not going to see two drug dealers saying "well I'll go to $.99 to beat out that other kid", it doesn't work that way, they'll either kill each other or gang up and jack up the prices. We're talking in drug economics, not corporate economics.
Most definately. Last week, I saw a Circle K Employee stab a guy with a slurpee straw, that worked at the Quickmart, because they offered 6 packs for a ridicolous low price... AND they were always cooled..
Spritz!!!Spritz!!! is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump