Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

The Wall

View Poll Results: The Wall, for or against?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Go Wall!

    3 27.27%
  • No Wall!

    8 72.73%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 150 of 511
  1. #76
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Well you certainly won't find me supporting the concept of a minimum wage. So on that we agree. However, if one exists, it IS important to respect that law, whether you like it or not. Side note: I predict that over the next half decade most major municipalities and/or states in the US will be voting on various ordinances or referendums to increase minimum wage. Get the fuck out and vote! Side side note: Pay attention to Portland, OR.

    In regards to 'taking our jobs'. To some degree they are. But there is a bigger picture. When Jose mows your lawn for $5/hr, he's helping to hold down the wages for the entire labor market. Perhaps a legal worker is making $10/hr, but if he didn't have to compete with Jose, he could demand $12.
    Why are you against a minimum wage?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  2. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Why are you against a minimum wage?
    I disagree with the concept/theory of the gov't, rather than the market, deciding what things should cost. Especially at the federal level

    I realize that a minimum wage is effective in preventing the exploitation of workers who don't know any better, and are willing to work for sub-standard wages. It corrects potential unfairness in the market. But for my money, I'd rather go after the forces that are creating that unfairness.

    I think the implementation and use of the minimum wage laws have become totally perverted now too.

    The minimum wage doesn't just apply to entry level workers. Let's say the minimum wage is $8 per hour, and you have 10 employees working at that rate, and 2 supervisors making $10/hr. If the minimum wage is raised to $9, you have to do more than just raise the 10 entry level employees. The supervisors want a raise too. Then so does their manager, and their manager, and so on. It moves the whole scale.

    In effect, it becomes a way for the gov't to redistribute wealth, without technically raising taxes.

    Finally this fight for a $15 minimum wage is positively absurd. It's an example of perverting the intent of a minimum wage law and demanding that it provide a "living wage".
  3. #78
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I disagree with the concept/theory of the gov't, rather than the market, deciding what things should cost. Especially at the federal level




    I realize that a minimum wage is effective in preventing the exploitation of workers who don't know any better, and are willing to work for sub-standard wages. It corrects potential unfairness in the market. But for my money, I'd rather go after the forces that are creating that unfairness.




    I think the implementation and use of the minimum wage laws have become totally perverted now too.



    Ok, ok




    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    In regards to 'taking our jobs'. To some degree they are. But there is a bigger picture. When Jose mows your lawn for $5/hr, he's helping to hold down the wages for the entire labor market. Perhaps a legal worker is making $10/hr, but if he didn't have to compete with Jose, he could demand $12.



    Isn't this market forces deciding?




    I mean, "Jose" is already there. Yet if the government "evicts Jose", isn't the government then interfering with market decisions? According to your own logic, the market, and only the market, should decide what things should cost, right?




    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The minimum wage doesn't just apply to entry level workers. Let's say the minimum wage is $8 per hour, and you have 10 employees working at that rate, and 2 supervisors making $10/hr. If the minimum wage is raised to $9, you have to do more than just raise the 10 entry level employees. The supervisors want a raise too. Then so does their manager, and their manager, and so on. It moves the whole scale.




    In effect, it becomes a way for the gov't to redistribute wealth, without technically raising taxes.




    Finally this fight for a $15 minimum wage is positively absurd. It's an example of perverting the intent of a minimum wage law and demanding that it provide a "living wage".



    But I can see where they are coming from. There are many people ("Millions of People") who haven't gotten raises in years because of the similar circumstances you mentioned before regarding that one dude from Bangladesh, was it? You will always be able to find a person on the job market more ready and willing to do any job than any other one already doing the job and for less. You either do it for whatever they want you to, or it's next man up.




    A floor price for a given job helps to combat this phenomenon.




    Corporations want profit, after all. That is the sole purpose of a corporation. Not to be good, not to be evil, but profit. If you can find a person who is willing to do a job for $2 and can do so, say some low skill stuff like cleaning floors, but also higher skill stuff like implementing a database (outsource to India), they will employ the lower cost person always. What's there to stop them?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Isn't this market forces deciding?
    Not really,. Not if those market forces have been tainted by criminal activity. Jose's employer has unfair leverage over him, that depresses his wage artificially. As I said, I prefer to combat the forces that create unfairness in the market place (ie. Illegal Immigration), and then leave the rest up to the market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    If you can find a person who is willing to do a job for $2 and can do so, say some low skill stuff like cleaning floors, but also higher skill stuff like implementing a database (outsource to India), they will employ the lower cost person always. What's there to stop them?
    The question is....why is that person willing to do the job for $2. If it's because they are illegal, underage, in a protected class, or disabled, then there are other remedies for those problems. Employing illegal and underage workers is a crime. As is discriminating against the disabled or other protected classes.

    Or, if a person is just desperate and willing to work for cheap, then that is a symptom of a labor market that has become too competitive. In other words, unemployment is high. That's indicative of much larger economic problems that won't be solved through a minimum wage.

    In a healthy economy, it's an employee's market. Employers compete for talent, and that keeps wages up.

    Again, I realize that the minimum wage sort of works. And ending a minimum wage is not a crusade I'm particularly passionate about. Most part-time entry level jobs that I see advertised in my area already pay well over the federal minimum wage, so it's really a moot policy.

    I could sort of get behind the idea of a minimum wage on the state/municipal level. If workers in those particular communities want to exercise the democratic process and implement a minimum wage...I guess I'm ok with it. however, I do see the potential for perversion as some highly liberal municipalities have already chosen to drastically jack up the minimum wage.

    Like I said, pay attention to Portland, OR. It will be interesting to see how simple things, like the price of a pizza, will be affected as they implement a significant hike to the minimum wage over the next few years.
  5. #80
    I don't want to vote, because there isn't a "couldn't give a fuck" option.

    What's the score?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #81
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Not really,. Not if those market forces have been tainted by criminal activity. Jose's employer has unfair leverage over him, that depresses his wage artificially. As I said, I prefer to combat the forces that create unfairness in the market place (ie. Illegal Immigration), and then leave the rest up to the market.






    The question is....why is that person willing to do the job for $2. If it's because they are illegal, underage, in a protected class, or disabled, then there are other remedies for those problems. Employing illegal and underage workers is a crime. As is discriminating against the disabled or other protected classes.

    Whatever the reason, and you thought of many right there; it's happening right now.


    Not discussing salaries contributes heavily to this as well. But, if the amount of people who can do a job (unskilled) is high, then obviously you have to take whatever they are willing to pay you, because if you don't then somebody else will. It's not as if you can flaunt credentials saying you can do this unskilled job better than somebody else etc. Obviously, more supply than demand drives the prices down, because if Jose is happy with just $2 to do it, you are fucked. The min. wage is just the floor for this, and the fight right now is to make this min. wage a living wage for the area.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Or, if a person is just desperate and willing to work for cheap, then that is a symptom of a labor market that has become too competitive. In other words, unemployment is high. That's indicative of much larger economic problems that won't be solved through a minimum wage.


    In a healthy economy, it's an employee's market. Employers compete for talent, and that keeps wages up.

    What is too cheap?


    Also, employers competing for talent at entry-level jobs? I thought these jobs existed for the sole purpose of employing the unskilled. And the unfortunate who haven't had the opportunity to develop themselves for placement in higher positions, yet still have lives to live.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Again, I realize that the minimum wage sort of works. And ending a minimum wage is not a crusade I'm particularly passionate about. Most part-time entry level jobs that I see advertised in my area already pay well over the federal minimum wage, so it's really a moot policy.

    Good for them, then the federal minimum wage does not apply to them. This should happen naturally in more places.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I could sort of get behind the idea of a minimum wage on the state/municipal level. If workers in those particular communities want to exercise the democratic process and implement a minimum wage...I guess I'm ok with it. however, I do see the potential for perversion as some highly liberal municipalities have already chosen to drastically jack up the minimum wage.

    I do as well. There is perversion everywhere, such as god damn it is $8 for a fucking smoothie in NYC


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Like I said, pay attention to Portland, OR. It will be interesting to see how simple things, like the price of a pizza, will be affected as they implement a significant hike to the minimum wage over the next few years.

    Exactly. Let the long term effects manifest themselves. It already is god damn $8 for a fucking smoothie in NYC anyway.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  7. #82
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't want to vote, because there isn't a "couldn't give a fuck" option.

    What's the score?
    Start giving a fuck and you'll see. Or don't give a fuck, then you will remain not giving a fuck ergo not giving a fuck about the score.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Not discussing salaries contributes heavily to this as well. But, if the amount of people who can do a job (unskilled) is high, then obviously you have to take whatever they are willing to pay you, because if you don't then somebody else will.
    Have you considered that maybe the company doesn't want that guy who's willing to work for cheaper? Maybe there is a reason that guy is willing to take a lower wage. Maybe the company feels that it's worth the extra cost to get a higher quality laborer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    It's not as if you can flaunt credentials saying you can do this unskilled job better than somebody else etc.
    You'd be surprised. At that level you can separate yourself from the crowd pretty easily by doing simple things like showing up on time, keeping your uniform clean, and just having a decent attitude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Obviously, more supply than demand drives the prices down, because if Jose is happy with just $2 to do it, you are fucked.
    How long will Jose be happy with $2? How long before someone offers him $3? You're only fucked if Jose can't job-hop because of his illegal status. That keeps the wage perpetually depressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    The min. wage is just the floor for this, and the fight right now is to make this min. wage a living wage for the area.
    GRRR! Sorry, but this is the most infuriating argument for having a floor. Who says it has to be a living wage? Who says that showing up to the easiest jobs there are entitles you to a livelihood? What if these jobs are staffed by part time college kids, retirees, or someone who is not the primary bread-winner in their household?

    If someone is really so hopelessly unemployable that they can only ever aspire to minimum wage work, for their entire lives, then social welfare programs should help them make ends meet. That's what those safety nets are for. Yet 87% of illegal immigrants are taking a bite out of that pie. So that guy is getting fucked over. That's why I reject MMM's argument that illegal immigrants aren't hurting anyone. Actually, it's a double fuck-over for that guy because the wage he is earning is depressed because of the illegal labor market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Also, employers competing for talent at entry-level jobs?
    Oh hell yes my friend.

    Let's take the company that I work for as an example. We operate a pretty simple operation utilizing entry-level unskilled labor. Basically you take boxes off of an airplane, and put them on a truck. Easy game.

    In one particular city, we were offering a starting wage of $8.50/hour, which is approximately a dollar higher than the federal minimum. We had a real problem meeting our service goals to our customer. Quality was poor. Customer was not happy. The problem was identified as a problem with employee retention. We had very high employee turnover because other companies in the area were offering a better starting wage than we were. Someone might take a job with us, but that doesn't mean we own him for life. He might go to McDonalds over the weekend, see that they're hiring at $10/hr, and next thing you know, he's gone.

    So the people we were able to keep were the people that McDonalds didn't want. Not an awesome situation.

    So, in order to compete for a higher quality of unskilled labor, we now offer a $10 starting wage. And, that trickled up the chain. Lead agents making $10 before now make $12. Supervisors getting $12 before now make $15. And of course, the customer pays a higher price.

    They don't mind paying the higher price, because their quality of service is improved. The company doesn't mind paying the higher wage, because we have less turnover and happy customer.

    Your mistake is assuming that all unskilled labor is created equal. It's not. Employers do compete for good workers.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-28-2017 at 08:52 PM.
  9. #84
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Why would there be more meth heads, would you pick up the habit if they were legal? Do you personally know anyone who would? It's not like them being illegal is stopping any of the current users, I'm not convinced everyone and their mom would immediately start using if they became legal. I'd bet experimenting with them would be less tantalizing for kids, since that would remove much of the mystique surrounding them.
    There would be more meth heads because something previously illegal became legal. Are you suggesting that illegality plays absolutely NO role in deterring behavior? Thats a pretty hard position to maintain.

    I am absolutely against kids "experimenting" with heroin, meth, or any other highly addictive, and dangerous drug. Addictive and dangerous is not rhetoric.

    Drugs are expensive because they're illegal, and a big part of the havoc they wreak is due to their legal status. Users are outcast from society, family ties are broken, mere possession can land you in jail. Good luck getting a job as a junkie, so stealing and burglaries become a viable choice, especially when they're probably even penalized less than merely using drugs. Of course many drugs are dangerous and do have seriously fucked up effects on individuals and society, but a lot of these could imo be alleviated by legalization, or even depenalization.

    https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...ing#.xTvZb2Xss
    https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_har...ction_is_wrong
    Sure. Programs in the US have had good success. Needle exchange programs, for example, tend to reduce ODs and use, in addition to lowering the risk of HIV needle transmission. One reason for this may be that people establish connections with others who can help them through whatever it is theyre going through. If heroin was dirt cheap, you wouldnt need as much money to buy it and you wouldnt necessarily commit property crimes for money.

    But this isnt the whole truth. Hanging my hat on just meth for a moment, the crimes are not always monetary based. In fact, due to the damage meth does to the brain, many of the crimes are done because the guy just cant function anymore.

    Idk if legal status has anything to do with getting a job though. Certainly prior convictions effect that, but being a junkie alone is enough to make a business owner pick someone else.
  10. #85
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm in full agreement that there's a problem, here.

    As I understand it, that 20% is significant, and while illegal immigrants have access to some services, they do not have access to most services.

    Unless you're willing to inject data, here, we can only cite that they pay some taxes, but not all taxes, and that they have access to some public services, but not all.
    Whether or not this amounts to a net gain or net loss to the state has not been demonstrated.
    I can understand that. Schools accept children though. Hospitals dont turn people away. Police and firefighters dont question citizenship before responding to a call. A few states tax based on sales tax alone, and illegals certainly pay that. But those which are payed via paycheck require an actual paycheck.

    BUT, i'll grant you that some illegals do get paychecks. Either their status goes unknown, or they acquire fake identifications (easier than it sounds).
  11. #86
    So I mentioned my own company in my previous post. We take boxes off of planes, and put them onto trucks.

    I mentioned how we adjust our starting wages to the market, and pass the cost on to our customer. We, and that customer pay the market rate necessary to achieve an acceptable level of quality. No more, no less. Let's call that customer, Customer A

    My company also has a contract with another customer, Customer B. Customer B feels that THEY get to dictate the market rate for part time entry level work. And they're opinion is higher than the actual market rate. In addition it is their opinion that even part time entry level workers are entitled to fringe benefits. If the company doesn't offer those benefits, they must pay a premium wage of approximately $5 more.

    In other words, our employees who work on this contract, make some $6-$8 more per hour doing the same job of taking boxes off of planes, and putting them on to trucks, simply because of this Customer's insistence on a minimum wage.

    Company A, is UPS, a profitable company known as one of the best run and most efficient operations in the world.

    Company B, is the United States Postal Service which loses $5 billion annually.

    So who's better at determining the right wage to pay people? The government? or the market?
  12. #87
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Is that really a fair comparison? The work loads seem vastly different to me. It also seems the amount of work required to deliver mail increases exponentially with the amount of mail. Easy to sort and deliver 1 letter, much harder and more costly to sort and deliver 100, and even more to deliver 1,000,000.
  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Is that really a fair comparison?
    It's the most fair comparison there is. My company isn't involved in the delivering of mail. I can't speak for other parts of the supply chain. But at the bulk cargo level, the service we provide to UPS is identical to the service we provide to the Post Office. We're taking boxes off of planes, and putting them on to trucks.

    Yes, the complexity after that probably contributes to the $5 billion losses. However, paying 1.5x the market rate for cargo services is most definitely a factor as well.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-01-2017 at 08:47 AM.
  14. #89
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    There would be more meth heads because something previously illegal became legal. Are you suggesting that illegality plays absolutely NO role in deterring behavior? Thats a pretty hard position to maintain.
    No I'm not suggesting that at all, pretty much every policy change has some kind of impact and consequences, often unforeseen. What I do think is that the usage increasing effect of legalization is probably exaggerated, with Portugal and Holland being good evidence for that. In Portugal after legalization all drug use is down several percentage points, drug related crime and deaths are down, rate of HIV infections is down etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I am absolutely against kids "experimenting" with heroin, meth, or any other highly addictive, and dangerous drug. Addictive and dangerous is not rhetoric.
    I agree completely, drugs can absolutely be addictive and are undeniably dangerous. The causes and mechanisms of addiction however, might be very different to what we're used to believing, as discussed in the Ted talk I linked.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    But this isnt the whole truth. Hanging my hat on just meth for a moment, the crimes are not always monetary based. In fact, due to the damage meth does to the brain, many of the crimes are done because the guy just cant function anymore.
    For sure, there are substances that can cause serious permanent damage. Then again, alcohol can do that, and there are numerous illegal drugs that are objectively less dangerous and harmful than alcohol. It goes without saying that if alcohol was introduced now, it'd be considered a hard drug. If they were legalized, there would be incentive to develop less harmful alternatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Idk if legal status has anything to do with getting a job though. Certainly prior convictions effect that, but being a junkie alone is enough to make a business owner pick someone else.
    I would think junkies and in general drug users with clearly visible signs of continuous or problem use are a minority. You might be surprised for example about opioid use prevalence among medical doctors. Many jobs also have mandatory drug testing, where any kind of use, even a one-time experiment, can completely and permanently block employment. Of course this in some cases warranted, but I would personally no more want my airline pilot to be drunk than stoned or on acid.

    I just see very limited downsides and quite a few upsides with legalizing everything. All or most criminal activities related to drug trafficking gone, probably a decrease in all drug related crime, income from taxation, drug related problems more in the open and easier to deal with, easier control and monitoring related to their sales and product safety, no massive prison populations to maintain and rejected from society etc. etc. I'm a believer.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Start giving a fuck and you'll see. Or don't give a fuck, then you will remain not giving a fuck ergo not giving a fuck about the score.
    Ok, I'll rephrase.

    I would like an option that says "I don't give enough of a fuck to have an opinion either way, yet am still curious to know what the score is."
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  16. #91
    Fine, bollocks to you, I'll mess the poll up by voting.

    Heads, approve
    Tails, disapprove

    It's heads.

    Approve.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #92
    5-2 for disapprove? Faggots.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    No I'm not suggesting that at all, pretty much every policy change has some kind of impact and consequences, often unforeseen. What I do think is that the usage increasing effect of legalization is probably exaggerated, with Portugal and Holland being good evidence for that. In Portugal after legalization all drug use is down several percentage points, drug related crime and deaths are down, rate of HIV infections is down etc.
    I feel like the Portugal situation is somewhat misleading. First of all, they didn't legalize drugs. They decriminalized possession and use. Kind of a big difference. They still enforce the border, and if someone tries to drive over it with 10 kilos of coke in the trunk, they're seriously fucked. It also mentioned in the article that somewhere along the way they implemented a mandatory minimum income. It's silly to think that's not one of, if not THE, major driver here. Decrease poverty, decrease crime. Sociology 101.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    If they were legalized, there would be incentive to develop less harmful alternatives.
    Addicts don't seek out less intense highs.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Of course this in some cases warranted, but I would personally no more want my airline pilot to be drunk than stoned or on acid.
    Ok. If the pilot makes an error, pretty much any error, he'll be immediately tested for traces of illicit substances in his system...including alcohol. So I'm not seeing your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I just see very limited downsides and quite a few upsides with legalizing everything.....no massive prison populations to maintain and rejected from society etc. etc. I'm a believer.
    Again, you're confusing legalization, and decriminalization. If drug use is decriminalized, we still have to do things to prevent drugs from coming in to this country. We'll still have to police and prosecute the producers, traffickers, and distributors of drugs. The "massive prison population" you refer to is a myth.

    In America's federal prison, there are 247 people incarcerated for drug use/possession. Yes, just 247, out of a country of 320 million!!! Drug users in state prisons are a larger population, 46,000. But that's still just 3.5% of the total inmates in the state prison systems. Hardly an epidemic.

    I also suspect that a good portion of those populations are extreme cases. For example, a heroin user gets busted, slapped on the wrist, and sent home. Two weeks later, he's busted again, sent to detox/rehab, and sent home. Then a short time later, he gets busted again.....eventually there comes a point where a judge might lock someone up for their own good.
  19. #94
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I feel like the Portugal situation is somewhat misleading. First of all, they didn't legalize drugs. They decriminalized possession and use. Kind of a big difference. They still enforce the border, and if someone tries to drive over it with 10 kilos of coke in the trunk, they're seriously fucked. It also mentioned in the article that somewhere along the way they implemented a mandatory minimum income. It's silly to think that's not one of, if not THE, major driver here. Decrease poverty, decrease crime. Sociology 101.
    I would say that legalization and decriminalization are exactly the same thing. You're of course completely right in saying that the legalization only applies to possession and personal use, not distribution. The minimum income program most likely has also had an impact, but I see no reason to think it would be the only or even the biggest reason for the change in stats.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Addicts don't seek out less intense highs.
    Maybe not, but I think even addicts would prefer a safer or less addictive high. Or maybe just that there's not too much rat poison in their meth.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Ok. If the pilot makes an error, pretty much any error, he'll be immediately tested for traces of illicit substances in his system...including alcohol. So I'm not seeing your point.
    Are pilots regularly tested for alcohol metabolites in their system? After the error it's kinda late, at least from a passenger's point of view.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Again, you're confusing legalization, and decriminalization. If drug use is decriminalized, we still have to do things to prevent drugs from coming in to this country. We'll still have to police and prosecute the producers, traffickers, and distributors of drugs. The "massive prison population" you refer to is a myth.
    Again, no I didn't. How many drug traffickers do you think would be interested in the business if anyone could buy meth legally?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    In America's federal prison, there are 247 people incarcerated for drug use/possession. Yes, just 247, out of a country of 320 million!!! Drug users in state prisons are a larger population, 46,000. But that's still just 3.5% of the total inmates in the state prison systems. Hardly an epidemic.
    How the hell is drug use even a felony? Anyway, 51.8% of federal prison inmates and 15.7% of state inmates are there for drug offenses. I would call that an epidemic, and one that can be mitigated.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  20. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I would say that legalization and decriminalization are exactly the same thing.
    You would be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Are pilots regularly tested for alcohol metabolites in their system? After the error it's kinda late, at least from a passenger's point of view.
    I actually don't know what specific procedures are in place to test pilots for alcohol, but there are 21,000 flights a day, just domestically, in America, and crashes almost never happen. So I suspect whatever they're doing, is working. Also, don't confuse "error" with "catastrophe"

    My company operates on airports, and we drug/alcohol test people for 'errors' all the time. Many of which are trivial 'mistakes' that any sober person could easily make. Maybe you're driving one of those conveyor belts carts that they use to load baggage into an airplane. Maybe you're in a hurry, don't line it up properly, and scuff the paint on a plane. That's actually a huge deal. Also, our managers are trained in something called "reasonable suspicion", which basically says we can test anyone who merely *looks* like there's a problem. I suspect that the procedures for pilots are even more rigorous.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Again, no I didn't. How many drug traffickers do you think would be interested in the business if anyone could buy meth legally?
    I highly recommend you look a little deeper into the difference between 'legal', and 'decriminalized'. You CAN'T buy meth legally in Portugal, or anywhere in the world. If you get caught possessing it, you're still in trouble, just not alot of trouble. If you get caught selling it, you're still in trouble, alot of trouble.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Anyway, 51.8% of federal prison inmates and 15.7% of state inmates are there for drug offenses. I would call that an epidemic, and one that can be mitigated.
    You're confusing the numbers. What specific drug offenses make up the numbers you've cited? Other than the 247 people the feds locked up for possession, all the rest of that 51.8% is there for manufacture, trafficking, distribution, and sales. Those things would still be illegal if drugs were decriminalized. Those people would still be in jail.

    Your reference above to "buy meth legally" suggests to me that you're envisioning a world where you can walk into the 7-11, and pick up some milk, some bread, a pack of gum, and a vial of meth. That is most definitely NOT what's happening in Portugal, or anywhere in the world. If you're suggesting that would be a "good thing", I think you're out of your mind.
  21. #96
    Can't wait to see all my tax dollars wasted on a pipe dream project.
  22. #97
    It's going to be great, the U.S market is eventually going to collapse... And then we are screwed. Then our "President" and his supporters will have to lay in the bed he made.
  23. #98
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I actually don't know what specific procedures are in place to test pilots for alcohol, but there are 21,000 flights a day, just domestically, in America, and crashes almost never happen. So I suspect whatever they're doing, is working. Also, don't confuse "error" with "catastrophe"
    Well that's all besides the point anyway, which was that I personally don't make a big distinction on substances based on their legal status, but rather their effects. The only major objective property differentiating alcohol from hard drugs is its legal status. We've waged a war on drugs for decades, and it can be argued things have gotten exponentially worse because of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I highly recommend you look a little deeper into the difference between 'legal', and 'decriminalized'. You CAN'T buy meth legally in Portugal, or anywhere in the world. If you get caught possessing it, you're still in trouble, just not alot of trouble. If you get caught selling it, you're still in trouble, alot of trouble.
    I used Portugal as an example to show the possibilities of relaxing drug laws. You can buy several drugs that are illegal in one place legally in another, nowadays even in the US. If drugs were legal, sold by government sanctioned parties, taxed and monitored, purity and safety measured etc. things could be quite a lot better in pretty much every conceivable sense. The only argument against it are either moral or based on a fear of everyone and their mom suddenly starting shooting dope if it ever were made legal. Obviously that's such a controversial idea that no politician would every touch it with a stick. Hell, if I were in politics, I probably wouldn't either.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Your reference above to "buy meth legally" suggests to me that you're envisioning a world where you can walk into the 7-11, and pick up some milk, some bread, a pack of gum, and a vial of meth. That is most definitely NOT what's happening in Portugal, or anywhere in the world. If you're suggesting that would be a "good thing", I think you're out of your mind.
    How would it be worse than now? Or even, how would it be worse? How many current meth addicts do you think are struggling with finding a supplier? Would you pick up meth if it were legal? How many people that have never tried meth (or any other hard drug) you know that would?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  24. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    The only major objective property differentiating alcohol from hard drugs is its legal status.
    I'm shocked that you believe that. Heroin is addictive immediately, alcoholism develops over a longer period of time. You can have a few drinks and still function like a normal human being. One hit of heroin and you become a vegetable. No single drink will destroy your liver, but every shot of heroin risks a life threatening overdose. The 'but it's the same as alcohol' argument has been pretty well debunked.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    You can buy several drugs that are illegal in one place legally in another
    Where exactly is there a legal retail market for cocaine, heroin, or meth?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    If drugs were legal, sold by government sanctioned parties, taxed and monitored, purity and safety measured etc. things could be quite a lot better in pretty much every conceivable sense.
    Huh? When has the government ever proven that it has the ability to run an industry? You're talking about creating a mega-bureaucracy of government regulations regarding street drugs. Can you demonstrate what that would cost, and how tax revenues on drugs would pay for that? What if the price goes up so much that it's just easier for junkies to get "black market drugs". What's stopping the cartels from continuing to ship their product up here, and distribute it at a price that under-cuts the legal retail market?

    Or, forget the black market for a minute. What if the surge in prices suppresses demand? Now you'll have legit businesses failing because of gov't regulations.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    How many people that have never tried meth (or any other hard drug) you know that would?
    You're assuming that a motivation to buy is completely organic. It's not. There's a thing called advertising, and it works. It convinces people that they want or need things that they didn't think they wanted or needed before seeing the advertisement.
  25. #100
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm shocked that you believe that. Heroin is addictive immediately, alcoholism develops over a longer period of time. You can have a few drinks and still function like a normal human being. One hit of heroin and you become a vegetable. No single drink will destroy your liver, but every shot of heroin risks a life threatening overdose. The 'but it's the same as alcohol' argument has been pretty well debunked.
    Your opinion without any factual basis does not constitute a debunk. How much is a hit or a shot of heroin? What is a life threatening overdose? How many days of continuous use creates serious physical withdrawal symptoms?

    http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addictive_Properties

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Where exactly is there a legal retail market for cocaine, heroin, or meth?
    Did someone say there was?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Huh? When has the government ever proven that it has the ability to run an industry? You're talking about creating a mega-bureaucracy of government regulations regarding street drugs. Can you demonstrate what that would cost, and how tax revenues on drugs would pay for that? What if the price goes up so much that it's just easier for junkies to get "black market drugs". What's stopping the cartels from continuing to ship their product up here, and distribute it at a price that under-cuts the legal retail market?

    Or, forget the black market for a minute. What if the surge in prices suppresses demand? Now you'll have legit businesses failing because of gov't regulations.
    Governments all around the world have been doing this for a century with legal drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're assuming that a motivation to buy is completely organic. It's not. There's a thing called advertising, and it works. It convinces people that they want or need things that they didn't think they wanted or needed before seeing the advertisement.
    Oh so if someone started advertising meth, then you'd start?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  26. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Your opinion without any factual basis does not constitute a debunk.
    It's not my opinion. And the factual basis is that there are millions, if not billions, of people in the world who enjoy alcohol without a problem. Do you know any 'social heroin users'? Any "casual crack heads" out there?

    Thanks

    Of the people who sample a particular substance, what portion will become physiologically or psychologically dependent on the drug for some period of time? Heroin and methamphetamine are the most addictive by this measure. Cocaine, pentobarbital (a fast-acting sedative), nicotine and alcohol are next
    Heroin, cocaine, and meth are all more addictive than alcohol.

    In a large, nationally representative sample of US adults, the cumulative probability of transition to dependence was highest for nicotine users, followed by cocaine users, alcohol users and, lastly, cannabis users. - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addi....Ul73dGrm.dpuf
    Again, cocaine > alcohol. This particular study only focused on those four drugs. Heroin and meth were not evaluated, but can you guess where they might rank on this list?

    Findings: MCDA [multicriteria decision analysis] modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals
    That quote goes on to say that alcohol is the most harmful drug overall, because it ranks high in harm caused to others. That's a bit of a loaded stat in my opinion. If coke were more prevalent, there would probably be more people driving cars while on coke. The illegal status of hard drugs tends to lead them to be consumed in private, which obviously diminishes the harm they might cause to others.

    However, if you could buy meth at a convenience store, or swing into applebees for a burger and a line of coke, I suspect the data would be different.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Did someone say there was?
    Isn't that what you've been touting? That drugs are "legal" in some places, and those places don't have problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Governments all around the world have been doing this for a century with legal drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.
    Yeah....and how's that going? I live in a state that holds a monopoly on liquor sales. If you want booze, you buy it from the state. Businesses and private citizens both must buy their vodka from the gov't. Profits from that business fund just 1% of the state's total revenue. https://www.nh.gov/transparentnh/whe...ey-comes-from/

    That's also just part of the story. It only shows money coming in from alcohol use. It doesn't show money going out. Surely there are more traffic patrols needed. Hospitals must be seeing more patients. On and on...you already know all the downsides to alcohol use.

    So it's not clear that legalizing alcohol, and strictly controlling the market, has done any good for the government. So how can you say...
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    If drugs were legal, sold by government sanctioned parties, taxed and monitored, purity and safety measured etc. things could be quite a lot better in pretty much every conceivable sense.
    I've just demonstrated how doing that adds very little, if any economic benefit to the government. What you're saying there is a nice dream, but it's just not the reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Oh so if someone started advertising meth, then you'd start?
    Someone would. Do you really think advertising doesn't work?
  27. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    @hoppy: Legalize even meth, heroin, and cocaine? That'd certainly impact the cartels, but do we really want more meth heads? People high on, or addicted to, meth are crazy. A huge percentage of crimes, from property crimes to homicides, are caused by meth heads. We might be trading one devil for another here
    All of them. I don't necessarily think that would lead to an increase in meth use. If combined with regulation to improve the quality of these drugs and use of the excise tax on them to fund programs to help addicts and improve public health I think you would see a decrease in drug related problems.
  28. #103
    @JKDS

    Another thought is that legalizing drugs will probably lead to more R&D in the industry. Resulting in new and improved drugs that have less harmful effects, we may also inadvertently help the medical field with these discoveries.
  29. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoopy View Post
    @JKDS

    Another thought is that legalizing drugs will probably lead to more R&D in the industry. Resulting in new and improved drugs that have less harmful effects, we may also inadvertently help the medical field with these discoveries.
    Totally disagree.
    What if your dream of R&D efforts producing a highly satisfying high without harmful effects came to fruition? How long would it take before people look for a better high? Four out of five heroin users start with prescription drugs, you know.

    Suppose heroin became legal 20 years ago, and we've been living with it ever since. What are you going to do when the cartels develop fentanyl, which is 50 times more powerful than heroin? The import it illegally, hire gangs to distribute it, sell it cheap to eat up market share, and have the gangs police themselves using street violence.

    You're right back where you started.
  30. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're right back where you started.
    Why would that problem be any different from the original one?
  31. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Why would that problem be any different from the original one?
    It's not. That's my point. Legalizing drugs won't solve the problem.
  32. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's not. That's my point. Legalizing drugs won't solve the problem.
    No, the only problem is caused by the criminality of the substance. If it isn't illegal then none of what you said happens.

    The negatives are the same for what we see with lots of other addictive substances that are legal. Things like being disorderly, committing crime to pay for things. It isn't a perfect solution by any means but the majority of arguments made against it start with the line drugs are bad and never budge.
  33. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    No, the only problem is caused by the criminality of the substance. If it isn't illegal then none of what you said happens.
    What are you not seeing here? In my example, drugs were legal.

    Do you think that means that cartels and gangs just stop operating? Do they all go out and get 'real jobs'? Or will they look for a new way to fund their criminal enterprise? For example...develop, manufacture, and distribute a new drug.
  34. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    What are you not seeing here? In my example, drugs were legal.

    Do you think that means that cartels and gangs just stop operating? Do they all go out and get 'real jobs'? Or will they look for a new way to fund their criminal enterprise? For example...develop, manufacture, and distribute a new drug.
    So cartels become pharmaceutical companies? lol

    Obviously these people continue to operate but market changes dictate that they can't continue to do what they were doing. If you are doing something and making money you don't have immunity to keep on doing that for the rest of your life lol. So if you cut the arse out of any industry it either dies or changes. Now if drug companies are so inept that cartels can produce black market substances at a lower cost to the consumer then 100% this would continue to happen.
  35. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    So cartels become pharmaceutical companies? lol
    Illicit ones, yes, absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    So if you cut the arse out of any industry it either dies or changes.
    We agree. It's not like the cartels have stood pat throughout the now decades-long war on drugs. Tougher law enforcement means higher costs for the cartels. Higher costs means changes. For example, poppy production in Mexico has gone WAY up just in the last few years. No more importing from South America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Now if drug companies are so inept that cartels can produce black market substances at a lower cost to the consumer then 100% this would continue to happen.
    Are the drug companies inept? Or are they just made hopelessly non-competitive by crushing government regulations?

    And the cartels dont' necessarily have to produce at a lower cost. They just need to sell at a lower cost until the customer is addicted.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/02...-epidemic.html
  36. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And the cartels dont' necessarily have to produce at a lower cost. They just need to sell at a lower cost until the customer is addicted.
    At which point they raise their prices and the customers go to buying from the common market.

    Stop. Talking. Shit.
  37. #112
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's not my opinion. And the factual basis is that there are millions, if not billions, of people in the world who enjoy alcohol without a problem. Do you know any 'social heroin users'? Any "casual crack heads" out there?
    Please show me proof that

    "Heroin is addictive immediately"
    "One hit of heroin and you become a vegetable"

    I'm familiar with the risks and harms of heroin, probably quite a lot better than you, having lost a close family member to it. I also know far too many people with serious alcohol problems. By odds alone, I'd bet that one of the doctors that have been treating you in your lifetime have abused opiates.

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/819223

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Thanks
    You're welcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Heroin, cocaine, and meth are all more addictive than alcohol.
    In some sense yes, but as you can see from the chart, they have relatively similar overall addictive qualities.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Again, cocaine > alcohol.
    Ok, I prefer alcohol.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That quote goes on to say that alcohol is the most harmful drug overall, because it ranks high in harm caused to others. That's a bit of a loaded stat in my opinion. If coke were more prevalent, there would probably be more people driving cars while on coke. The illegal status of hard drugs tends to lead them to be consumed in private, which obviously diminishes the harm they might cause to others.
    I would think it's the most meaningful stat. What anyone does without harming others should be their own business.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Isn't that what you've been touting? That drugs are "legal" in some places, and those places don't have problems.
    That is much closer to what I've been "touting", yes. I've never said that those places don't have problems though, just that they've had less problems than before they were "legal".

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Yeah....and how's that going? I live in a state that holds a monopoly on liquor sales. If you want booze, you buy it from the state. Businesses and private citizens both must buy their vodka from the gov't. Profits from that business fund just 1% of the state's total revenue. https://www.nh.gov/transparentnh/whe...ey-comes-from/
    I think the 1% of the total budget in gains is much better than 0%.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's also just part of the story. It only shows money coming in from alcohol use. It doesn't show money going out. Surely there are more traffic patrols needed. Hospitals must be seeing more patients. On and on...you already know all the downsides to alcohol use.
    Where I live alcohol and tobacco are taxed heavily. Government holds a sales monopoly for alcohol over 4.7%. Both tobacco and alcohol provide according to studies a net income for the government, a rather significant one too. And this in a country with single payer universal healthcare. For the society as a whole they are most likely a net loss, but a lot of the burden falls to private companies who have to deal with absences from work due to illness etc. Yet, these costs are there regardless of the legal status of the substances, I think it's much preferable to have at the minimum some tax income to compensate.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I've just demonstrated how doing that adds very little, if any economic benefit to the government. What you're saying there is a nice dream, but it's just not the reality.
    Um nope, don't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Someone would. Do you really think advertising doesn't work?
    How many? Think of all the people who've never done drugs, how many of them really are only stopped by legislation? How many out of a hundred? 50? 10? 0.0001? Then think again about the possibility of a complete dismantling of the illegal drug trade. How many lives would that be worth?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  38. #113
    I'm thinking one of the problems of legalising drugs would actually be the huge amount of people it would put out of work who work in illegal industries & make money doing so. Then you get lots of people not going to prison. Probably a bad thing.
  39. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I'm familiar with the risks and harms of heroin, probably quite a lot better than you, having lost a close family member to it. I also know far too many people with serious alcohol problems.
    So what % of heroin users that you know, have died? What % of alcohol users? If you know 'far too many', I'm guessing they must have a better life expectancy.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    In some sense yes, but as you can see from the chart, they have relatively similar overall addictive qualities.
    The chart looks a little subjective to me, but scroll down, there's another chart that ranks drugs by harmful-ness. Once again hard drugs > alcohol.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I would think it's the most meaningful stat. What anyone does without harming others should be their own business.
    Even if they have no control over it? You don't perceive addicts as 'victims'? At least to some degree?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I think the 1% of the total budget in gains is much better than 0%.
    Not necessarily. If it costs you more in health care, traffic enforcement, etc, and the NET gain is negative....then I would prefer to leave it at 0%

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    For the society as a whole they are most likely a net loss,
    So why would you seek to increase that loss by legalizing more substances?
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    but a lot of the burden falls to private companies who have to deal with absences from work due to illness etc.
    Why does it matter where the burden falls? It's still a burden. And companies will deal with that by raising prices, or by lowering their costs (wages). Who does that fall on?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    How many? Think of all the people who've never done drugs, how many of them really are only stopped by legislation?
    Alot probably. Impossible to count obviously. But you're being especially glib. I'm sure you're smarter than this, so I'm not sure why you keep beating this drum. There are LOTS of ways drug use could permeate a culture if it were more widely available, and the risks associated with its use were diminished.
  40. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I'm thinking one of the problems of legalising drugs would actually be the huge amount of people it would put out of work who work in illegal industries & make money doing so. Then you get lots of people not going to prison. Probably a bad thing.
    Broken window fallacy. Prosperity comes from that which is produced, ultimately. Criminal production is a cost; prisoner consumption is a cost.
  41. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Broken window fallacy. Prosperity comes from that which is produced, ultimately. Criminal production is a cost; prisoner consumption is a cost.
    The prisoner bit is. The other bit isn't. It probably isn't so much a bad thing as a very strange thing that has never really been seen, that kind of assumes the change is much quicker than ever materialises in real life.
  42. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    The prisoner bit is. The other bit isn't. It probably isn't so much a bad thing as a very strange thing that has never really been seen, that kind of assumes the change is much quicker than ever materialises in real life.
    That's good looking out. Criminality is an example of something with benefits that economists have no idea how to assess. In simple terms, it's a cost, but the world is never simple.
  43. #118
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So what % of heroin users that you know, have died? What % of alcohol users? If you know 'far too many', I'm guessing they must have a better life expectancy.
    May I just ask how these are relevant to anything? Is death the only harm that should be considered? And even if it was, does alcohol kill? Does cannabis?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The chart looks a little subjective to me, but scroll down, there's another chart that ranks drugs by harmful-ness. Once again hard drugs > alcohol.
    Thank you for telling me what's in the link I posted. Let's assume for a second that your red herring about there existing some substances more harmful than alcohol has any bearing on this discussion. Compare on that table the harmfulness of alcohol to "hard drugs". Then compare the harmfulness of alcohol to cannabis, LSD, and ecstasy. Which pair are more closely related?

    The point isn't what's harmful and what's not, even though tobacco and alcohol undeniably are among the most harmful. The point is that all of these substances are already available to everyone interested in them. It's about what we're going to do about it. So far we've tried fighting it with everything we got and failed miserably.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Even if they have no control over it? You don't perceive addicts as 'victims'? At least to some degree?
    They are victims in a sense in many cases, sure. So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Not necessarily. If it costs you more in health care, traffic enforcement, etc, and the NET gain is negative....then I would prefer to leave it at 0%
    If then else. Obviously. If you have facts to prove that this is the case always, sure, the argument would not stand. I don't believe that's the case though.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So why would you seek to increase that loss by legalizing more substances?
    There would first have to be an increase, and as we've discussed already many times over, there are far more moving parts in this than that. Among other things this: http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Why does it matter where the burden falls? It's still a burden. And companies will deal with that by raising prices, or by lowering their costs (wages). Who does that fall on?
    The burden would be far far worse if there wasn't any tax income from alcohol and tobacco, and the whole cost would fall on the society. I would even say the situation would be unsustainable.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Alot probably. Impossible to count obviously. But you're being especially glib. I'm sure you're smarter than this, so I'm not sure why you keep beating this drum. There are LOTS of ways drug use could permeate a culture if it were more widely available, and the risks associated with its use were diminished.
    All evidence we have suggests legalizing drugs will not increase and likely will decrease consumption. All evidence we have also suggests criminalizing drugs increases drug consumption and brings a myriad of other problems.

    I don't see how that's glib. There isn't even anything too controversial about the data. You're just basing your objections on abstract fear, somewhat faulty preconceptions and morals. There's no scientific, physical, biological or chemical property that differentiates illegal drugs from legal drugs and intoxicants. Many illegal drugs are less harmful than their legal counterparts. Many legal drugs are as addictive and harmful as illegal ones. Many legal drugs can be and are used recreationally. Many illegal drugs, such as cannabis, lsd, ketamine and ecstasy have promising medical uses. The only real difference is an arbitrary legal status.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  44. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    The point isn't what's harmful and what's not, even though tobacco and alcohol undeniably are among the most harmful. The point is that all of these substances are already available to everyone interested in them. It's about what we're going to do about it. So far we've tried fighting it with everything we got and failed miserably.
    Bolded is monumentally false. "everything we got" would include securing the southern border, over which tons and tons and tons of illicit drugs come into the country. It's like if someone broke into your car every single night. You tried calling the cops, you tried using an alarm, you tried security cameras in your driveway, and many other measures. You can't say you're given it "everything you got" until you try locking your car door at night.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    They are victims in a sense in many cases, sure. So what?
    So who's job is it to seek justice for that victimization? Who's job is it to protect others from becoming victims?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    If then else. Obviously. If you have facts to prove that this is the case always, sure, the argument would not stand. I don't believe that's the case though.
    Now I'm confused. You said....
    For the society as a whole they are most likely a net loss,
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    There would first have to be an increase, and as we've discussed already many times over, there are far more moving parts in this than that. Among other things this: http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock
    Nice link...the fact remains that less than 5% of prison inmates, less than 0.1% at the federal level, are in jail just for possessing drugs. The idea that massive expenditures in the war on drugs would disappear if they were legalized has no basis in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    The burden would be far far worse if there wasn't any tax income from alcohol and tobacco, and the whole cost would fall on the society. I would even say the situation would be unsustainable.
    Ok, but there is tax income from alcohol and tobacco. That doesn't mean we have to apply that standard to every substance there is. If we agree that the net effect is negative, and a burden......why do you support adding ANOTHER burden? If it's your position that it's possible for a burden to become so large it's unsustainable....why would you move toward that?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    All evidence we have suggests legalizing drugs will not increase and likely will decrease consumption. All evidence we have also suggests criminalizing drugs increases drug consumption and brings a myriad of other problems.
    Fake news!!
    Alcohol consumption dropped almost 30 percent at the onset of prohibition. Illegality was a deterrent.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/op...a-success.html

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    There's no scientific, physical, biological or chemical property that differentiates illegal drugs from legal drugs and intoxicants.
    Except for addictive-ness and higher risk of overdose.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Many illegal drugs are less harmful than their legal counterparts. Many legal drugs are as addictive and harmful as illegal ones. Many legal drugs can be and are used recreationally.
    You'll get no argument from me there. I believe the entire psychiatric community are just legalized drug dealers. If that's a problem, we should fix it. We shouldn't just say "fuck it, make everything legal then". You're driving in the wrong direction.
  45. #120
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Bolded is monumentally false. "everything we got" would include securing the southern border, over which tons and tons and tons of illicit drugs come into the country. It's like if someone broke into your car every single night. You tried calling the cops, you tried using an alarm, you tried security cameras in your driveway, and many other measures. You can't say you're given it "everything you got" until you try locking your car door at night.
    ...since a locked car has never been broken into? Building a wall would probably hinder drug trafficking by land from the south, but do nothing about any other direction, nor drugs coming by air, sea, tunnels or manufactured locally. If you think a wall would solve the problem, or even make a significant dent, it's you who's delusional. As long as there's demand there's going to be supply. It's practically impossible to even keep prisons drug free, how on earth do you think it's possible to do for an entire huge country?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So who's job is it to seek justice for that victimization? Who's job is it to protect others from becoming victims?
    There's a massive correlation with drug abuse and social status. Diverting some of that drug war money to welfare, medical and rehabilitation would imo be the best way to help the victims.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Nice link...the fact remains that less than 5% of prison inmates, less than 0.1% at the federal level, are in jail just for possessing drugs. The idea that massive expenditures in the war on drugs would disappear if they were legalized has no basis in reality.
    As has been said many times already, this isn't just about possession charges but all drug related crime. How big is the black market for alcohol in the United States? How many deaths per year by competing alcohol gangs? How about during alcohol prohibition times?

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Ok, but there is tax income from alcohol and tobacco. That doesn't mean we have to apply that standard to every substance there is. If we agree that the net effect is negative, and a burden......why do you support adding ANOTHER burden? If it's your position that it's possible for a burden to become so large it's unsustainable....why would you move toward that?
    That's exactly the point, without taxation alcohol and tobacco would be an enormous financial burden now. By lifting the prohibition on alcohol and starting controlled distribution and taxing of it the problem has been alleviated tremendously. Same can be done for all of the rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Fake news!!
    Alcohol consumption dropped almost 30 percent at the onset of prohibition. Illegality was a deterrent.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/op...a-success.html
    Right. What about after the onset.

    "By the greatest majority of indicators, the biggest drops in alcohol consumption and alcohol problems actually came before national prohibition went into effect. Those drops continued for about the first two years of Prohibition and then alcohol consumption began to rise. By 1926, most of the problems were worse than they had been before Prohibition went into effect and there were a number of new problems -- such as a drinking epidemic among children -- that had not been there before."

    http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Except for addictive-ness and higher risk of overdose.
    As already evidenced by the stats you've also been quoting, alcohol for example is right up there with the big boys in addictiveness, as are a lot of prescription drugs. Overdoses then?

    "Prescription drug abuse causes the largest percentage of deaths from drug overdosing. Of the 22,400 drug overdose deaths in the US in 2005, opioid painkillers were the most commonly found drug, accounting for 38.2% of these deaths."

    http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfac...tatistics.html

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You'll get no argument from me there. I believe the entire psychiatric community are just legalized drug dealers. If that's a problem, we should fix it. We shouldn't just say "fuck it, make everything legal then". You're driving in the wrong direction.
    I hope you'll realize that's a purely emotional response based on fear and morality, not on facts. I used to be passionately against drugs and all for ever harsher measures too.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  46. #121
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    It's more than just the addictive nature of a drug like heroin. It's that your first high is the best, and users tend to keep chasing that first high. They do so by increasing the dose, thereby increasing the chacne of a fatal reaction.
  47. #122
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Are we supposed to "win" the war on drugs?
  48. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Are we supposed to "win" the war on drugs?
    Probably aren't meant to be losing it.
  49. #124
    You people are just talking out of your arses when it comes to drugs. You really haven't got a clue.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    If you think a wall would solve the problem, or even make a significant dent, it's you who's delusional
    One of us is definitely delusional. And you're the one who *imagined* that I would support a wall. You do the math.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    There's a massive correlation with drug abuse and social status. Diverting some of that drug war money to welfare, medical and rehabilitation would imo be the best way to help the victims.
    I would bet a lung that the vast majority of junkies in the USA are already on welfare.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    As has been said many times already, this isn't just about possession charges but all drug related crime. How big is the black market for alcohol in the United States? How many deaths per year by competing alcohol gangs? How about during alcohol prohibition times?
    That's a false narrative. Organized crime, and it's associated violence, was heavily on the rise prior to prohibition. Alcohol just gave them something to do. If alcohol were kept legal, they would have wreaked havoc through stolen goods, prostitution, or gambling.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Right. What about after the onset.
    You mean AFTER a black market had time to develop, and the ways to access it had spread through word of mouth (it's not like they could text each other, or post on craigslist, back then).....yeah, ok, it went up. That's kinda my point. It went down when everyone thought it was gone, and illegal, and had no access to it. As that changed, usage went up. So, what do you think will happen if they started selling 8-balls at Trader Joe's?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    As already evidenced by the stats you've also been quoting, alcohol for example is right up there with the big boys in addictiveness, as are a lot of prescription drugs. Overdoses then?
    You're making my point for me again. Prescription drugs are legal, but tightly controlled. The government decides who can sell them and who can't. Sales are heavily regulated, and taxed, exactly the way you're proposing we do for other hard drugs.

    Yet there is STILL a black market for those substances. There are STILL people going to jail. There is STILL violence. People are STILL getting addicted and abusing the drug. Open any newspaper and you'll find talk about the opioid epidemic, or the opioid crisis in America. That's a drug that is exactly as legal as you're suggesting coke and heroin should be. And it's going poorly.
  51. #126
    I would bet a lung that the vast majority of junkies in the USA are already on welfare.
    Define "junkie", because if you're counting the likes of me, ie stoners who don't take other drugs (caveat - out of habit), then you'd be very much wrong. Well, you would be if we were talking about UK. I would be very surprised if USA, a nation where weed is becoming legalised, had a lower percentage of working people smoking weed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #127
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You people are just talking out of your arses when it comes to drugs. You really haven't got a clue.
    I have 0 personal experience, but I got lots of second hand experience. Including representing the State in drug court proceedings, where people are tasked with bettering themselves instead of going to prison
  53. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I have 0 personal experience, but I got lots of second hand experience. Including representing the State in drug court proceedings, where people are tasked with bettering themselves instead of going to prison
    To be fair, I was grunching, and it was banana's posts standing out to me the most. I didn't really want to single anyone out, but you made me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #129
    To say that drugs should be illegal is to say that the individual's obligations to participate in a better society trump a state's obligations to protect human rights.

    Noone has the right to tell me I must eat brown bread instead of white bread, even though one is clearly better for me than the other. Why the fuck then does anyone have the right to tell me what gasses I may and may not inhale? Tobacco, yes ok, cannabis, no no not that. To control what I inhale, based on the premise that allowing me to get high is bad for society, means that society is more important than the individual. Which means human rights mean fuck all when set against the bigger picture of society.

    If that's what you think, fair enough. But recognise your beliefs for what they are... they oppose human rights for the individual, in favour of social rights for the masses. Don't sit there and pretend to champion human rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #130
    And if you think that it's absurd for me to suggest that me not being allowed to smoke weed is an abuse of my human rights, how would you feel if you were told you can't drink wine? Would that not feel a little bit fucking oppressive?

    Making wine illegal would result in many less people dieing on the roads. It would relieve a lot of stress on the NHS. It would save lives and money. There is a social case for banning wine. So wine drinkers, it doesn't matter if you personally are a responsible wine drinker or not, your obligation to society is more important than your right to drink whatever liquid you choose to ingest. You must stop drinking wine, or continue to be a bad member of society.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #131
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    One of us is definitely delusional. And you're the one who *imagined* that I would support a wall. You do the math.
    Right, it was really a stretch in a topic called "The Wall" in response to your comment about securing the southern border.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's a false narrative. Organized crime, and it's associated violence, was heavily on the rise prior to prohibition. Alcohol just gave them something to do. If alcohol were kept legal, they would have wreaked havoc through stolen goods, prostitution, or gambling.
    Why do you want to give them something to do? According to Ken Burns's documentary Prohibition, the federal government lost $11 billion in lost tax revenue alone during the prohibition. Drug trade is the 2nd largest market on the planet, I don't think that's a good thing. At least make the bastards innovate rather than handing them a business model.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You mean AFTER a black market had time to develop, and the ways to access it had spread through word of mouth (it's not like they could text each other, or post on craigslist, back then).....yeah, ok, it went up. That's kinda my point. It went down when everyone thought it was gone, and illegal, and had no access to it. As that changed, usage went up. So, what do you think will happen if they started selling 8-balls at Trader Joe's?
    I would think it's much more important what the long term effects are rather than some temporary effect. Personally, I don't think anything significant would happen, as nothing negative has happened in e.g. Holland, Portugal, or the US after repealing the prohibition. You have still to demonstrate why something would happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're making my point for me again. Prescription drugs are legal, but tightly controlled. The government decides who can sell them and who can't. Sales are heavily regulated, and taxed, exactly the way you're proposing we do for other hard drugs.

    Yet there is STILL a black market for those substances. There are STILL people going to jail. There is STILL violence. People are STILL getting addicted and abusing the drug. Open any newspaper and you'll find talk about the opioid epidemic, or the opioid crisis in America. That's a drug that is exactly as legal as you're suggesting coke and heroin should be. And it's going poorly.
    Well great if your point has all along been the same as mine, I must have misunderstood!

    So if these things are STILL happening, how's that drug war stuff workin' out for ya? Like I said, it's not like we can ever completely stop any of that as long as there's demand. Those who want drugs will get them where they can get it the cheapest and easiest, unless the underlying issues driving people to narcotics are dealt with.



    In other news: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/2-y...drugs-plummet/
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  57. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Right, it was really a stretch in a topic called "The Wall" in response to your comment about securing the southern border.
    I don't know man, I've only stated my opposition to the wall like nine times in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Why do you want to give them something to do?
    I don't. I want to eradicate them, and put them in jail. It's easier to do that when their activities are crimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I don't think anything significant would happen, as nothing negative has happened in e.g. Holland, Portugal, or the US after repealing the prohibition.
    Again, drugs are not legal in Portugal! They are de-criminalized. That's something you would do if there were unfair, or disproportionate punishments for the lowest level offenders. We don't have that problem in America. Only 247 people are in federal prison for drug possession.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    You have still to demonstrate why something would happen.
    Because it's there. Alcohol consumption nearly doubled from 1935-1945 (AFTER prohibition). Once booze hit the store shelves again, people drank more. If Trader Joes sold 8-balls.....people would buy them.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    So if these things are STILL happening, how's that drug war stuff workin' out for ya?
    It could be going a lot worse. The legality of prescription opiods is part of what's fueling the epidemic. Making more stuff legal would obviously make it worse.
  58. #133
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And if you think that it's absurd for me to suggest that me not being allowed to smoke weed is an abuse of my human rights, how would you feel if you were told you can't drink wine? Would that not feel a little bit fucking oppressive?

    Making wine illegal would result in many less people dieing on the roads. It would relieve a lot of stress on the NHS. It would save lives and money. There is a social case for banning wine. So wine drinkers, it doesn't matter if you personally are a responsible wine drinker or not, your obligation to society is more important than your right to drink whatever liquid you choose to ingest. You must stop drinking wine, or continue to be a bad member of society.
    What about laws which try and keep these substances outside the hands of children?
  59. #134
    @Ong - chill out. No one here is really talking about weed. We're talking about drugs that are highly addictive and basically poison.

    But hypothetically speaking....if the price of weed went up 100x, would you still buy it? Would you smoke as often?

    I'm guessing you wouldn't. Which sort of proves my point. If we suppressed the supply of heroin by strangling the flow coming in from Mexico, we would be doing a hell of a lot to keep drugs off the street.
  60. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    What about laws which try and keep these substances outside the hands of children?
    wontsomebodythinkofthechildren.gif

    Are we talking about 4 year old children? We also need to ensure they don't get their hands on paint. Or 15-y/o "children"? We also need to ensure they don't get their hands on alcohol and lottery tickets.

    I'll tell you this with a high degree of confidence... they aren't many children addicted to heorin, and those that are, well they get taken into care. The laws you speak of exist, they are called child abuse laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    @Ong - chill out. No one here is really talking about weed. We're talking about drugs that are highly addictive and basically poison.
    The right to ingest what one chooses remains the same, regardless of the level of intoxication, or the potential danger. In principle, I am in favour of legalisation of heroin, because to argue that somebody is a criminal for poisoning themself is ludicrous.

    But hypothetically speaking....if the price of weed went up 100x, would you still buy it? Would you smoke as often?
    I'd grow it and be rich. I'd be worth the risk for £15,000 an ounce. Lots of people would grow it too, which, incidentally, would mean the price would crash. Here's the thing with the black market... values are true. It's £150 an ounce for a reason... markets.

    I'm guessing you wouldn't. Which sort of proves my point. If we suppressed the supply of heroin by strangling the flow coming in from Mexico, we would be doing a hell of a lot to keep drugs off the street.
    I'm afraid this is just naive. If you stopped the flow of heroin from Mexico, the only thing you're keepin goff the street is heroin. There are other drugs, and these will increase in demand as a direct consequence of the low availability of heroin. You might be able to stop them taking a particular drug, but you will never stop a junkie being a junkie because people like to get wasted, some people don't give a fuck about the consequences, are there are way too many substances that can cause intoxication than can be controlled.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  61. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    @Ong - chill out.
    Just so you know, I am chilled like 99.9% of the time. I realise I probably don't come across as chilled, because of my tone and manner of debate. But I assure you I am chilled. The only time I'm not chilled is when I'm lacking in weed.

    There's a moral to this story, kids.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The right to ingest what one chooses remains the same, regardless of the level of intoxication, or the potential danger. In principle, I am in favour of legalisation of heroin, because to argue that somebody is a criminal for poisoning themself is ludicrous.
    you're not in favor of legalization. You're in favor of decriminalization. It's different.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'd grow it and be rich. I'd be worth the risk for £15,000 an ounce. Lots of people would grow it too,
    No you wouldn't, and lots of people wouldn't either. If you tried to, you'd be shut down pretty fucking quick by a competitor. And when I say shut down....I really mean shot in the face.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm afraid this is just naive. If you stopped the flow of heroin from Mexico, the only thing you're keepin goff the street is heroin. There are other drugs,
    I think you're being a little naive. Obviously I didn't mean that border agents should be filtering out heroin, but letting cocaine go through. My point is that we'll gain a lot of ground in the war on drugs if we could control who and what comes across the border.
  63. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    No you wouldn't, and lots of people wouldn't either. If you tried to, you'd be shut down pretty fucking quick by a competitor. And when I say shut down....I really mean shot in the face.
    You've been watching too much Narcos. Most people dealing drugs, even the expensive ones, don't get shot in the face.
  64. #139
    Also, the War on Drugs is a waste of fucking money. They spend $50b a year on it in the US and drugs are everywhere ffs.
  65. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You've been watching too much Narcos. Most people dealing drugs, even the expensive ones, don't get shot in the face.
    If there was already a cartel/gang in control of the weed trade in Ong's neighborhood, and Ong decided to enter that market, he'd get shot in the face.

    Most dealers don't get shot in the face, because they are firmly in control of their turf, and they shoot the faces of anyone who tries to encroach.
  66. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    I think you're being a little naive. Obviously I didn't mean that border agents should be filtering out heroin, but letting cocaine go through. My point is that we'll gain a lot of ground in the war on drugs if we could control who and what comes across the border.
    You're missing the point. Not all drugs come from Mexico. Ligter fuel can be a drug, and if you succeed in taking away every potential narcotic except for lighter fuel, then demand for lighter fuel will go up. Because, junkies don't give a fuck what they are taking, so long as it gets them high. If lighter fuel is all they had, they'd lap that shit up.

    You're naive if you think that stopping drugs coming from Mexico will mean less addicts. It will simply mean demand shifting from one product to another.

    No you wouldn't, and lots of people wouldn't either. If you tried to, you'd be shut down pretty fucking quick by a competitor. And when I say shut down....I really mean shot in the face.
    Maybe growing for profit would be dangerous if it were £10k an ounce. But nobody is going to pay that either, so it will never reach that price. This is nonsense to be honest. Guns and weed don't tend to go together, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. If you want to talk about what's not going to happen, fine, let's also talk about stopping people getting high.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    If there was already a cartel/gang in control of the weed trade in Ong's neighborhood, and Ong decided to enter that market, he'd get shot in the face.
    Also, do you realise that this problem of gang control can easily be negated? Legalisation.

    you're not in favor of legalization. You're in favor of decriminalization. It's different.
    I know the difference and I'm in favour of legalisation. I should be allowed to grow and sell weed, perhaps under license but nonetheless without discrimination. Simply being told I can no longer be considered a criminal for possession, that doesn't go far enough, but it's a start.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're missing the point. Not all drugs come from Mexico.
    Tons and tons of tons do. It's no coincidence that poppy production in Mexico has more than tripled over the last 5 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ligter fuel can be a drug, and if you succeed in taking away every potential narcotic except for lighter fuel, then demand for lighter fuel will go up. Because, junkies don't give a fuck what they are taking, so long as it gets them high. If lighter fuel is all they had, they'd lap that shit up.
    Major exaggeration. If lighter fluid produced a high that was anywhere near as satisfying, no one would take the tremendous legal and health risks associated with shooting smack. A few might turn to lighter fluid, but I'll bet a huge number of them would just be sober.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're naive if you think that stopping drugs coming from Mexico will mean less addicts. It will simply mean demand shifting from one product to another.
    Of course there will be less addicts. If you remove the substances that are most addictive....there will be less addiction!
  69. #144
    Major exaggeration. If lighter fluid produced a high that was anywhere near as satisfying, no one would take the tremendous legal and health risks associated with shooting smack. A few might turn to lighter fluid, but I'll bet a huge number of them would just be sober.
    You don't know junkies if you think that they stop seeking a high if they can't get the more traditional drugs. It is not an exaggeration at all. There's a reason legal highs liek Spice and other cannabis substitutes have such demand, despite them being much more dangerous than cannabis. People will seek out what they can get.

    Lighter fuel will indeed get you high. It might not be as satisfying as heroin, but if it's all you have, and you're a junkie, it's a matter of time before you're addicted to lighter fuel.

    Of course there will be less addicts. If you remove the substances that are most addictive....there will be less addiction!
    There will be less heroin addicts, but the number of junkies will remain the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Also, do you realise that this problem of gang control can easily be negated? Legalisation.
    Then what? All the gangs go home? They turn in their guns and stop playing? They all get jobs as stock boys at the cocaine store?

    Nixon declared war on drugs in 1970. Since then, violent crime has gone WAAAY down.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_..._1973-2003.jpg

    The war on drugs hasn't been a total waste
  71. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    Nixon declared war on drugs in 1970. Since then, violent crime has gone WAAAY down.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_..._1973-2003.jpg

    The war on drugs hasn't been a total waste
    The explosion in the prison population starting around 1980 parallels the drop in violent crime almost perfectly. Locking up people ftw.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarc..._United_States

    And since according to you, very few of those people were incarcerated for drug-related offences, it suggests the war on drugs has had very little impact. One dealer goes down, another takes his place.
  72. #147
    Your point was that I'd get shot in the face if I grow weed where cartels operate. My point is that if weed were legal, there would be no cartel operating, because they have no means of profit.

    If all drugs were legal, then the cartels would be fucked. They would have no revenue, and would no longer be able to pay their foot soldiers. Their empire would crumble. Violent crime has gone down in USA? The vast majority of violent crime that is left revolves around control of the narcotic black market. Legalise it, and watch crime fall even further. Well maybe not at first, as all those bad dudes currently profitting from the status quo would no longer have their easy revenue, and would possibly turn to more serious crime. But long term, I don't see how cartels can survive in a world where drugs are legal. They can't compete in an open and free market.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Locking up people ftw.
    Good, that's where violent criminals belong. I've been hearing so much about 'mass incarceration' is an unnecessary expense, and doesn't do anything to solve crime. Well.....there's your data. More criminals in jail = less crime on the street.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    And since according to you, very few of those people were incarcerated for drug-related offences,
    When did I say that?

    What I said was, the number of people in prison whose worst offense is drug use/possession, is microscopic. In other words, we've been successful in catching the right bad guys to have an impact on crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    it suggests the war on drugs has had very little impact. One dealer goes down, another takes his place.
    I wouldn't say it's had little impact. There is certainly a 'balloon effect' to some degree. But crime is down. If drug usage is up, it's because the other side is fighting back with more production, more potent drugs, and cheaper prices. Our war tactics must evolve to counter that. And that means stopping the flow of drugs into this country. Eventually, it will get harder and harder for the bad guys to come up with new ways to get to the market. When that happens, they'll move on to a different market. Let them take their shit to Argentina.

    Or if you want to really attack the source, the cartels, you need Mexico's cooperation. But it doesn't look like that's happening any time soon. THeir corrupt government has overseen a tripling of the poppy production in the last half decade, and is openly fighting against the US's efforts to secure our own border.

    We did it in Columbia. We poured 8 billion into efforts to destroy coca fields and prosecute drug lords. When the poorest of Mexican citizens can't be pushed out of the country and passed off on the US, they'll start demanding reforms, just like the Columbians did

    Then we'll see who wins the war.
  74. #149
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's not. That's my point. Legalizing drugs won't solve the problem.

    It would solve the prison population thing which the US is now known for around the world for starters
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  75. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't see how cartels can survive in a world where drugs are legal. They can't compete in an open and free market.
    What?? Who would they compete with? Are there legit businesses out there with access to poppy crops, and the skills/equipment necessary to process it into heroin?

    If drugs were legalized, it would still be the cartels running shit. They would just operate with immunity from prosecution.

    Of course they would remain competitive. Legalizing drugs would make their lives a shit-ton easier. They already have a monopoly, and you'd be handing them a massive competitive advantage.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •