nanook 1 #26 March 24, 2009 You are right. It can be applied to that argument. But alchohol was and still is ingrained deeply to our society, whereas drugs isn't. Pulling back will allow a larger part of society to be ingrained in something that is way more dangerous than alchohol. QuoteThe law only determines whether the supplier is a criminal, or not. No, it will change the criminal's behavior. Remember about Prohibition; the bad guys moved to other illegal activities. But now, drugs will be in the picture. It also doesn't mean they will become legal partners. It's more profitable to circumvent tax laws and distribution._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #27 March 24, 2009 What you are not getting is that there is a proverbial dam involved here. Most of the "war" is outside and at the borders. That's where most of the money is going. That's where most drugs are stopped. If we stop the war, there would be a lot more on the streets. Our units of measurements are the tons, not the grams confiscated on the street. Once that crap get cut up and distributed, it's already here. At this level, think of it as retro-War on drugs. Stuff got through, now we have to deal with it at the street level. This is the only level you are seing. QuoteAll that does is raise the cost of what does get to the streets. that's a good thing. Do you want the stuff cheaper so that everybody can get it? For a lot of people, the cost is enough to forgo buying a sample. Not everyone gives out free samples._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #28 March 25, 2009 QuoteThe way I see it as long as there is a demand for a product there will be a supplier. The real question here is who do we want to control the drug market? Black Market or the Government?? Well, we know what happens when the government gets their hands on business. We also know what happens when they tax too much -- look at cigarette smuggling in New York, on the rise because taxes are becoming prohibitive. So, a gram of coke, $100 to Uncle Sam, or does the Cartel just undercut them? Easy choice, the Cartels have billions in their coffers, and they can run a non-bureaucratic enterprise...black market wins again. QuoteRight now the Black Market controls the drug trade and with the Black Market comes wars over the profits. The Gov. just chases after and trys to reduce the drug trade. Indeed, and the current model is ineffective. All we have to do is look at the tobacco settlement. All that money was for states to spend on health-care related initiatives for tobacco illnesses. They pissed that money away, and now they're taxing the sh*t out of cigarettes, a pack in NYC is what...$8/pack now? Black market will win in the end (it just hasn't happened...YET). Now, we legalize just pot for example. Uncle Sam, and local governments tax the hell out of it (how much does an ounce cost today anyway?). As local governments piss that revenue away (in bigger government programs no less), they increase taxes, it's on a drug, easy political target. The cost goes up and up. Now, these cartels set up front companies to ship the sh*t up north, and they've got that business. Once it dies due to cost, they already have the black market network ready to pick up the slack for demand. In practical implementation, it's a lose-lose in the long run. The US does not possess the political or practical will to truly regulate and prudently administer substances like that... Folks like to cite Amsterdam as a shining example of how it is supposed to work, if that truly were the case, they wouldn't be in the middle of a shut-down of several (like half) of the red-light district and clamping down on these "hash" bars.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #29 March 25, 2009 QuoteYou are right. It can be applied to that argument. But alchohol was and still is ingrained deeply to our society, whereas drugs isn't. Pulling back will allow a larger part of society to be ingrained in something that is way more dangerous than alchohol. I have been around a wide variety of drugs. The one that stands out as the *most* incapacitating, and causes the *most* violent, unpredictable behavior, is alcohol. Don't try to tell me marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc are more dangerous."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #30 March 25, 2009 Quotethat's a good thing. Do you want the stuff cheaper so that everybody can get it? For a lot of people, the cost is enough to forgo buying a sample. Not everyone gives out free samples. What are you suggesting here? It seems like you're saying that cost is the only factor limiting many people from becoming addicts, and you make no distinction w/r/t responsible use. To gain some perspective, what do you believe to be the current ratio of responsible vs. irresponsible recreational drug users? How do you project that would change, if at all, if legalization or decriminalization were to occur? .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #31 March 25, 2009 Quote: In Reply To I disagree. Banning is not regulating. Where's the logic in that? Using cannabis as an example While illegal, cannabis is hundreds of dollars per ounce, and millions of people use it regardless of any laws. If legal and taxed it would only fetch a few tens of dollars per ounce. And it would be more regulated. About the same amount of people would smoke it, probably less using The Netherlands (locals not tourists) as an example. And the bottom would fall out of the black market, the people would get what they want, not a cheap substitute for what they desire and hard criminals would lose their incredibly large incomes. make sense?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #32 March 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteI didn't read in the article that legalization would fix the problem - I read that it is the least bad solution (in the opinion of the writer). Countries that have decriminalized certain drugs still have drug problems. The writer asserts that we would have fewer problems with legalization, not none. I don't think it will fix the problem. I believe it will move it. We are talking about some really bad people here, not greedy entrepeneurs. I'm willing to believe that most folks realize that. I think they really do. If not, it's a good opportunity to educate. As you might suspect, my interest in the subject is not motivated by a desire to use currently illegal drugs. Beyond increased drug violence in Mexico and illegal poppy growth for opium and heroin production that is used to fund the Taliban insurgency - (those guys have recognized the market-connections and the positive financial benefits to them of that product), there are direct connections to brutal worlds of sexual slavery and human trafficking, both women and girls and boys. Given that, what do propose as a solution? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #33 March 25, 2009 I don't think there are many people who weren't. Everybody has their ancedote. You are fooling yourself here. There is way more alcohol than there are drugs being used. But if you slice the segment of users, who is worse off? Which is more addicting? Which group has more painful withdrawls?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #34 March 25, 2009 QuoteI don't think there are many people who weren't. Everybody has their ancedote. You are fooling yourself here. There is way more alcohol than there are drugs being used. But if you slice the segment of users, who is worse off? Which is more addicting? Which group has more painful withdrawls? Most addictive? Tobacco, which kills 435,000 Americans per year. And you are only fooling yourself if you think there is a correlation between which drugs are illegal, and which drugs are the most dangerous."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #35 March 25, 2009 QuoteI don't think it will fix the problem. I believe it will move it. We are talking about some really bad people here, not greedy entrepeneurs. Most people who dont deal with these people, like Economist, Rolling-stone, and Wired writers (buying weed from a small-time pusher isn't getting into the belly of the beast here) are concentrating on the product, not the actual people themselves. These guys will just go do something else and ruin some other area of society. Backing away from a problem by legalizing it is like legitimizing bullying because a bunch of wimps are afraid of the the little knocks it takes to stand up to them. Sometimes I get the feeling that the people who are for the legalization-to-avoid-violence types are a bunch of pussies who never fought for anything the believed in in their whole lives The mentality of needing to have "bad guys" is probably what started the "war on drugs". After the fall of communism, there weren't any "bad guys", so the Reagans started the "war on drugs". The problem with the war on drugs is that the American public didn't buy into it. Everyone in America has either used drugs or knows family or close friends that do. If you're that close to the situation, you can see it isn't usually as bad as they make it out to be - sometimes it is (I can name a few friends that ruined their lives with Meth, for instance), but most of the time, it's fine (I can name dozens of friends that smoke Marijuana, and they are doing just fine). So, since the war on drugs was such a dismal failure at fear-mongering, now we have the "war on terrorism". This makes much more sense, since most Americans know no terrorists. And they can kill you. Of course, you're neighbor with the assault rifle in his house can kill you, too, but you know him, he's a good guy, and nothing to be frightened of, right?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #36 March 25, 2009 Prevention of Trafficing in Kind is a program that has been around for a while. big problem in Chinatown. I would have to think about this for a while. As far as I know, there's a department dedicated solely for this but I would have to be truthful in ignorance about this issue. What I know about it deals with what the Navy teaches us as a precautionary tail to what happens to us if we partake in this activity. Awareness programs include CATW: http://www.catwinternational.org/ US govt, G-TIP: http://www.state.gov/g/tip/_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #37 March 25, 2009 QuoteMost addictive? Tobacco Most prolific. I quit smoking. Just walked away. I didn't rob a mini mart for a fix. Not all people who smoke tobacco gets anything. There's not much guarantee that smoking will cost you your job and end up in rehab. There's way too many 70 year old smokers alive._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #38 March 25, 2009 The mentality of needing to have "bad guys" is probably what started the "war on drugs". After the fall of communism, there weren't any "bad guys", so the Reagans started the "war on drugs". _________________________________________________ Leading to the CIA importing drugs to the USA (Iran Contra) At least we got to jump one of their C-130s at Quincy Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #39 March 25, 2009 QuoteWhat are you suggesting here? It seems like you're saying that cost is the only factor limiting many people from becoming addicts, and you make no distinction w/r/t responsible use. Nope. cost is not the only factor. I am saying it is one factor. As far as responsible use, there is nothing responsible about testing product. If you want to take a risk at something call it adventure, but don't call it "responsible". QuoteTo gain some perspective, what do you believe to be the current ratio of responsible vs. irresponsible recreational drug users? How do you project that would change, if at all, if legalization or decriminalization were to occur? There is more "responsible" drug users than irresponsible users. I say 20 to 1. But i believe that these "responsible" people are held back by the stigma of the drug itself and the fear of law. It helps them stay "responsible" Kind of, gives them a reason to enact some control. Now legalise that crap and see the numbers change. Even at 20 to 1, we're talking enough numbers here to still be an epidemic. Rehab companies are going to be rich._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #40 March 25, 2009 QuoteThe mentality of needing to have "bad guys" is probably what started the "war on drugs". After the fall of communism, there weren't any "bad guys", so the Reagans started the "war on drugs". Nope. The crack epidemic was getting too much. The people screamed for action. they got it. QuoteSo, since the war on drugs was such a dismal failure at fear-mongering, now we have the "war on terrorism". Nope. some assholes flew some planes through some buildings and bush decided to act. The govt don't need to make up some bad guys. they will come. There will be a new "War on - -". There is no need for the govt to fill in the hole for drama purposes._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #41 March 25, 2009 QuoteAs far as responsible use, there is nothing responsible about testing product. If you want to take a risk at something call it adventure, but don't call it "responsible". I disagree. I think a majority of regular users are responsible users, and further, would wager that a significant portion are more capable of evaluating "untested product" than some guy who thinks a drug is bad because it's on a list that says "ILLEGAL" at the top. Higher rates of exposure to both the physical qualities and experienced effects allow them to evaluate that far better than you, no? QuoteThere is more "responsible" drug users than irresponsible users. I agree, minus the "quotes". QuoteBut i believe that these "responsible" people are held back by the stigma of the drug itself and the fear of law. It helps them stay "responsible" Kind of, gives them a reason to enact some control. Now legalise that crap and see the numbers change. Even at 20 to 1, we're talking enough numbers here to still be an epidemic. Rehab companies are going to be rich. (1) I disagree, and (2) this blows your argument out of the water. If stigma and fear of law are enough for a person to act responsibly, they still retain the ability to act responsibly without fear of law. Jobs, spouses, kids and a host of other reasons are (I suspect) the primary reason that people act responsibly. In fact, I think that fear of law is VERY low on the list for most who choose to responsibly use. Stigma, perhaps, but that's only because nobody wants to be hassled by the soccer mom that just watched Reefer Madness. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #42 March 25, 2009 QuoteI disagree. I think a majority of regular users are responsible users, You can get arrested for having the stuff on you. You must be single without kids. Quote and further, would wager that a significant portion are more capable of evaluating "untested product" than some guy who thinks a drug is bad because it's on a list that says "ILLEGAL" at the top. Higher rates of exposure to both the physical qualities and experienced effects allow them to evaluate that far better than you, no Doesn't make it responsible. QuoteI think that fear of law is VERY low on the list for most who choose to responsibly use. Have you ever driven around with a dime bag on you or your friends person? Better yet; been pulled over? You go ahead and argue law with them._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #43 March 25, 2009 QuoteIt also doesn't mean they will become legal partners. It's more profitable to circumvent tax laws and distribution. If that was true, Budweiser would be smuggling alcohol today. By moving from a prohibition model to a permission model, the costs of avoiding the system are reduced immensely (from confiscation and incarceration to regulation and taxation). When the distributors do their inherent cost-benefit analysis, they move to legal distribution methods because the costs (and risks) for them are less.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #44 March 25, 2009 Quote Even if you support legalization of drugs, do you really think conditions, such as those found in Mexico, would clear up? Those cartels aren't killing 6000 civilians each year because of government attempts to impede their trafficking. Yeah, just look at how many lives were lost when InBev took over Anheuser last year. They made Al Capone look like an elementary school psychologist.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #45 March 26, 2009 QuoteYou must be single without kids. I don't, nor do I have any interest in using. QuoteYou can get arrested for having the stuff on you. QuoteHave you ever driven around with a dime bag on you or your friends person? Better yet; been pulled over? You go ahead and argue law with them. You're confusing responsibility with legality, and worse yet, you're arguing legality around issues with a very small cross section of all users. It's not a good arguement. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #46 March 26, 2009 QuoteYou're confusing responsibility with legality, and worse yet, you're arguing legality around issues with a very small cross section of all users. It's not a good arguement. Nope, I'm arguing responsibity andlegality can be curbing. I don't know about you, but to me this small cross section is pretty huge in my book. Teenagers are most influenced by these factors. They are more susceptable to addiction._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #47 March 26, 2009 Quote Sometimes I get the feeling that the people who are for the legalization-to-avoid-violence types are a bunch of pussies who never fought for anything the believed in in their whole lives I don't get this line of reasoning. Drugs are illegal. Getting them legalized will require a fight because it's a controversial change to the status quo. And the people doing the fighting will be doing it in support of something they believe is better than what currently exists. So how are they not fighting for something they believe in? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #48 March 26, 2009 QuoteNope, I'm arguing responsibity andlegality can be curbing. Once again, I would wager that most recreational users don't give a fuck about the law, and have little concern with moderate public use. QuoteTeenagers are most influenced by these factors. They are more susceptable to addiction. It is unreasonable to expect that the legalization or decriminalization of drugs for recreational use would extend to teenagers. So regardless of the availability to responsible adults, kids/teens would not be able to use. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #49 March 26, 2009 QuoteOnce again, I would wager that most recreational users don't give a fuck about the law, and have little concern with moderate public use. They may not "give a fuck" but they tend to look over their shoulder. And of course they would have little concern with moderate public use. QuoteIt is unreasonable to expect that the legalization or decriminalization of drugs for recreational use would extend to teenagers. So regardless of the availability to responsible adults, kids/teens would not be able to use It's very reasonable that drugs will be way more available for them to use. Teens smoke and drink all the time._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #50 March 26, 2009 QuoteI don't get this line of reasoning. Drugs are illegal. Getting them legalized will require a fight because it's a controversial change to the status quo. And the people doing the fighting will be doing it in support of something they believe is better than what currently exists. That's fair. But changing a law in Washington doesn't have the same dangers as fighting this problem. I'm not saying that one form of defending your belief is better than the other, I believe that the motivation behind a lot of the legalization is insincere and comes largely from these two groups of people: one group just want their drugs, the other are people who will avoid physical confrontations at any costs. They would rather have this crap on the streets than face it. I do not like to fight. I hate it. But, it is not something that should be considered a reason to not to face an issue. And the most common answer I get from people I have talked to about legalizing is the violence. They would rather have this crap everywhere eating away their community. The police, DEA and U. S Customs didn't start the violence. The criminals took an intentional response to the embargo did._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
