ARCHIVED
 BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004  NY, USA
 Posts: 21324 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:16:39 PM
Originally Posted By FeebMaster: Originally Posted By BushBoar: Originally Posted By FeebMaster: Originally Posted By BushBoar: I don't think they're the most powerful organizations (not the plural) on the planet, but they do have a lot of power, a lot of arms, a penchant for extreme violence, and a history of killing people that interfere with business. Also, the pharmaceutical distribution network isn't set up for more widespread distribution, and do you really think that pharma companies like Pfizer, Glaxo, Merck, etc are going to be selling oxycontin and cocaine for recreational use? Your "common sense" would only apply in a vacuum. The real world isn't one. The easing of restrictions would reduce the cartels' power - for a time. But they'll not go down without a fight. They will make sure is sufficient demand for their supply. Why wouldn't they? http://oi50.tinypic.com/2zp8i8n.jpg For the same reason that McDonalds doesn't sell beer and some major grocery chains have stopped selling cigarettes. A company that produces cancer drugs isn't going to want to be associated with junkies and cokeheads, ESPECIALLY because there won't be much money in it. None of those drugs will have patent protection. Someone is going to do it. Maybe Phillip Morris will branch out. You guys are really grasping at straws at this point. I'm not even making an argument against legalization, if you've been paying attention. I'm pointing out that legalization isn't going to be all that many of the proponents think that it will be. |
|
|
ToyCop
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2002 MI, USA
 
Posts: 7839 Feedback: 100% (10) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:17:17 PM
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By BushBoar: For the same reason that McDonalds doesn't sell beer and some major grocery chains have stopped selling cigarettes. A company that produces cancer drugs isn't going to want to be associated with junkies and cokeheads, ESPECIALLY because there won't be much money in it. None of those drugs will have patent protection. So, you're saying that NO American company would manufacture and sell recreational substances that cause cancer, heart disease, strokes, are addicting, cause loss of ability to control one's self, contribute to thousands of auto fatalities every year? Nope, not a single company would dare do that....Not just in the name of profit. Not gonna happen.  Absolutely, there will be some, but I think the stigma that has long been attached to recreational drug use, will cause some companies to take pause and see what happens. It will probably never happen in my lifetime anyway. |
|
|
BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 21325 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:17:48 PM
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By BushBoar: Originally Posted By FeebMaster: Originally Posted By BushBoar: I don't think they're the most powerful organizations (not the plural) on the planet, but they do have a lot of power, a lot of arms, a penchant for extreme violence, and a history of killing people that interfere with business. Also, the pharmaceutical distribution network isn't set up for more widespread distribution, and do you really think that pharma companies like Pfizer, Glaxo, Merck, etc are going to be selling oxycontin and cocaine for recreational use? Your "common sense" would only apply in a vacuum. The real world isn't one. The easing of restrictions would reduce the cartels' power - for a time. But they'll not go down without a fight. They will make sure is sufficient demand for their supply. Why wouldn't they? http://oi50.tinypic.com/2zp8i8n.jpg For the same reason that McDonalds doesn't sell beer and some major grocery chains have stopped selling cigarettes. A company that produces cancer drugs isn't going to want to be associated with junkies and cokeheads, ESPECIALLY because there won't be much money in it. None of those drugs will have patent protection. So, you're saying that NO American company would manufacture and sell recreational substances that cause cancer, heart disease, strokes, are addicting, cause loss of ability to control one's self, contribute to thousands of auto fatalities every year? Nope, not a single company would dare do that....Not just in the name of profit. Not gonna happen. Didn't say that. Can't tell if you're not reading what I'm saying or just being obtuse. Do Pfizer and Merck sell beer? Remember, this is all in response to the argument that the current pharmaceutical distribution network will be used for recreational drugs. |
|
|
ARDestructo
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2009 OK, USA
Posts: 5275 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:21:44 PM
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
They do have a monopoly on cocaine distribution. Also, it's documented that since the restrictions on pseudoephedrine sales started (I am against these BTW), more and more methamphetamine is coming from Mexico - the cartels are making major inroads with that drug. So do the hospitals buy their cocaine from the cartels then since they supposedly have a monopoly? Why do people bother with obtuse, bullshit posts like that? You know damn well I'm talking about a monopoly on recreational use, which they absolutely have. The cartels don't have a monopoly on marijuana. Around here, most weed is grown locally, comes in from Canada, or comes in from other countries. The stuff that comes up from Mexico via the cartels is widely regarded as garbage. I'm being "obtuse" because you seem to think that the Cartel is the most powerful organization on the planet and would continue to be even if we stripped their ability to make an easy profit on illegal drugs away from them. The fact is that if things were legalized you would quickly see their monopoly disappear. There is already an entire distribution network in place that could supply recreational drugs overnight. The cartels will never compete with that. Nobody is going to get cut coke from a street dealer when you can get it pure from Krogers. You even note that by increasing restrictions on pseudoephedrine, it increased the cartels power. It's common sense that reducing restrictions would achieve the opposite effect. I don't think they're the most powerful organizations (not the plural) on the planet, but they do have a lot of power, a lot of arms, a penchant for extreme violence, and a history of killing people that interfere with business. Also, the pharmaceutical distribution network isn't set up for more widespread distribution, and do you really think that pharma companies like Pfizer, Glaxo, Merck, etc are going to be selling oxycontin and cocaine for recreational use? Your "common sense" would only apply in a vacuum. The real world isn't one. The easing of restrictions would reduce the cartels' power - for a time. But they'll not go down without a fight. They will make sure is sufficient demand for their supply. How? They can't force people to want their product. They can't force people to buy it. They're competing in a market, and the government has given them a virtual monopoly on it. If that monopoly is lost, how do you propose that they will magically create a demand for something that can be gotten elsewhere cheaper, at a higher quality? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:22:35 PM
I wonder why we don't legalize drugs. Ooh cus our government would rather waste billions of dollars on law enforcement rather than make billions of dollars on taxing drugs while the legalization of drugs would drive crime down drastically and free up prisons reducing the amount of money wasted in the prison system by incarceration drug offenders.
|
|
|
|
BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 21326 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:29:35 PM
Originally Posted By ARDestructo: Originally Posted By BushBoar: Originally Posted By Top_Secret: Originally Posted By BushBoar: Originally Posted By Top_Secret: Originally Posted By BushBoar: They do have a monopoly on cocaine distribution. Also, it's documented that since the restrictions on pseudoephedrine sales started (I am against these BTW), more and more methamphetamine is coming from Mexico - the cartels are making major inroads with that drug. So do the hospitals buy their cocaine from the cartels then since they supposedly have a monopoly? Why do people bother with obtuse, bullshit posts like that? You know damn well I'm talking about a monopoly on recreational use, which they absolutely have. The cartels don't have a monopoly on marijuana. Around here, most weed is grown locally, comes in from Canada, or comes in from other countries. The stuff that comes up from Mexico via the cartels is widely regarded as garbage. I'm being "obtuse" because you seem to think that the Cartel is the most powerful organization on the planet and would continue to be even if we stripped their ability to make an easy profit on illegal drugs away from them. The fact is that if things were legalized you would quickly see their monopoly disappear. There is already an entire distribution network in place that could supply recreational drugs overnight. The cartels will never compete with that. Nobody is going to get cut coke from a street dealer when you can get it pure from Krogers. You even note that by increasing restrictions on pseudoephedrine, it increased the cartels power. It's common sense that reducing restrictions would achieve the opposite effect. I don't think they're the most powerful organizations (not the plural) on the planet, but they do have a lot of power, a lot of arms, a penchant for extreme violence, and a history of killing people that interfere with business. Also, the pharmaceutical distribution network isn't set up for more widespread distribution, and do you really think that pharma companies like Pfizer, Glaxo, Merck, etc are going to be selling oxycontin and cocaine for recreational use? Your "common sense" would only apply in a vacuum. The real world isn't one. The easing of restrictions would reduce the cartels' power - for a time. But they'll not go down without a fight. They will make sure is sufficient demand for their supply. How? They can't force people to want their product. They can't force people to buy it. They're competing in a market, and the government has given them a virtual monopoly on it. If that monopoly is lost, how do you propose that they will magically create a demand for something that can be gotten elsewhere cheaper, at a higher quality? You've missed a lot in this thread. |
|
|
happycynic
Infidel
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2004 TX, USA
Posts: 26739 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:33:36 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 2:38:01 PM by happycynic]
Originally Posted By BushBoar: For the same reason that McDonalds doesn't sell beer and some major grocery chains have stopped selling cigarettes. A company that produces cancer drugs isn't going to want to be associated with junkies and cokeheads, ESPECIALLY because there won't be much money in it. None of those drugs will have patent protection. Just import them from China like we did back in the day. Good luck suing a Chinese company in America. Edited: Here's how you do it. Create a shell corporation in America that has no assets greater than whatever stock is currently in the warehouse. All the money goes back to the Chinese manufacturer. Pay of the right Chinese official so your Chinese assets are untouchable. Now your only risk is the shell company in America. If that gets sued declare bankruptcy, create a new shell, and repeat the process. For better results have your main North America distribution hubs in Mexico and simply truck your product to major American metropolises. Again, pay off the right Mexican officials and your Mexican assets are also untouchable. |
|
|
ARDestructo
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2009 OK, USA
Posts: 5276 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:48:40 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 3:09:45 PM by ARDestructo]
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
They do have a monopoly on cocaine distribution. Also, it's documented that since the restrictions on pseudoephedrine sales started (I am against these BTW), more and more methamphetamine is coming from Mexico - the cartels are making major inroads with that drug. So do the hospitals buy their cocaine from the cartels then since they supposedly have a monopoly? Why do people bother with obtuse, bullshit posts like that? You know damn well I'm talking about a monopoly on recreational use, which they absolutely have. The cartels don't have a monopoly on marijuana. Around here, most weed is grown locally, comes in from Canada, or comes in from other countries. The stuff that comes up from Mexico via the cartels is widely regarded as garbage. I'm being "obtuse" because you seem to think that the Cartel is the most powerful organization on the planet and would continue to be even if we stripped their ability to make an easy profit on illegal drugs away from them. The fact is that if things were legalized you would quickly see their monopoly disappear. There is already an entire distribution network in place that could supply recreational drugs overnight. The cartels will never compete with that. Nobody is going to get cut coke from a street dealer when you can get it pure from Krogers. You even note that by increasing restrictions on pseudoephedrine, it increased the cartels power. It's common sense that reducing restrictions would achieve the opposite effect. I don't think they're the most powerful organizations (not the plural) on the planet, but they do have a lot of power, a lot of arms, a penchant for extreme violence, and a history of killing people that interfere with business. Also, the pharmaceutical distribution network isn't set up for more widespread distribution, and do you really think that pharma companies like Pfizer, Glaxo, Merck, etc are going to be selling oxycontin and cocaine for recreational use? Your "common sense" would only apply in a vacuum. The real world isn't one. The easing of restrictions would reduce the cartels' power - for a time. But they'll not go down without a fight. They will make sure is sufficient demand for their supply. How? They can't force people to want their product. They can't force people to buy it. They're competing in a market, and the government has given them a virtual monopoly on it. If that monopoly is lost, how do you propose that they will magically create a demand for something that can be gotten elsewhere cheaper, at a higher quality? You've missed a lot in this thread. No I haven't. I've read all 14 pages and I've been active in the last 3-4. I'm seeing arguments like the last one I responded to repeated in full vagueness, alluding to some magical crime product that would continue to exist when a criminalized product is no longer present. Cartels are not magical organizations making money off being bad. If you remove what they make money from, they either find a new product or die. They can't "make sure" there's a sufficient demand for something and compete on a legal level. They have no power to affect or effect demand. |
|
|
jrzy
Brothers In Arms
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2002 PA, USA
Posts: 20704 Feedback: 100% (4) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 3:28:26 PM
Originally Posted By TxLewis: Why because he says so on a message board?Originally Posted By jaholder1971: Oh Fuck me Running... Tell you what: If the Paulbots, Libertarians and other lovers of the worthless stoner freaks want to free the weed, why don't you taking your constant bitching somewhere that might change the laws, like your local fucking politician. Because your crying, whining and diatribes about your lack of freedom to smoke dope ain't doing shit here. Man up. Take the $1000 bet. VThokieshoother seems to put his money where his mouth is. . TXL |
|
|
jrzy
Brothers In Arms
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2002 PA, USA
Posts: 20705 Feedback: 100% (4) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 3:29:54 PM
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: BS, I do understand, and it's not about freedomOriginally Posted By jrzy: Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER: How about lately we look bad enough with out your pushing to have hard drugs legal on this forum?Originally Posted By bcauz3y: How about don't cruise around with your pothead buddy carrying a narcotic that you didn't intend to take. Fucking retards. All hail the mighty drug warrior!! Take it to the demo underground , they like drugs. We get it, every fucking chance you get you push your pro drug agenda. Sad that you don't understand the real subject. Hint: It's got fuck all to do with wanting to do drugs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 3:57:49 PM
Originally Posted By Kriptonic:
I wonder why we don't legalize drugs. Ooh cus our government would rather waste billions of dollars on law enforcement rather than make billions of dollars on taxing drugs while the legalization of drugs would drive crime down drastically and free up prisons reducing the amount of money wasted in the prison system by incarceration drug offenders. NorCal!!!!!......aisle 1!!! |
|
|
ARDestructo
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2009 OK, USA
Posts: 5277 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 4:20:11 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 4:20:48 PM by ARDestructo]
Originally Posted By jrzy:
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
BS, I do understand, and it's not about freedom
Originally Posted By jrzy:
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
How about lately we look bad enough with out your pushing to have hard drugs legal on this forum?
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:
How about don't cruise around with your pothead buddy carrying a narcotic that you didn't intend to take. Fucking retards. All hail the mighty drug warrior!! Take it to the demo underground , they like drugs. We get it, every fucking chance you get you push your pro drug agenda. Sad that you don't understand the real subject. Hint: It's got fuck all to do with wanting to do drugs. Really? Then what's it about? VTHokie has repeatedly offered a $1,000 wager that he'd pop clean on a hair drug test. I could do the same: never even so much as smoked a single joint. But I think the concept of a government deciding it's going to ban a plant or other fairly innocuous substances and then ruining the lives of anyone that runs afoul of such a trivial offense is complete bullshit that has allowed the government to leverage its way into everything, to the cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. For the children, of course. |
|
|
VTHOKIESHOOTER
Foresters do it in the woods كاف
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2000 VA, USA
Posts: 58853 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:06:54 PM
Originally Posted By jrzy: Fine. Here's what we do, I'll send a check for $1,000 to Ed Sr., and you can do the same and I'll gladly submit to the hair test accompanied by any locally respected arfcomer who can verify that I am who I say I am.
Originally Posted By TxLewis: Why because he says so on a message board?Originally Posted By jaholder1971: Oh Fuck me Running... Tell you what: If the Paulbots, Libertarians and other lovers of the worthless stoner freaks want to free the weed, why don't you taking your constant bitching somewhere that might change the laws, like your local fucking politician. Because your crying, whining and diatribes about your lack of freedom to smoke dope ain't doing shit here. Man up. Take the $1000 bet. VThokieshoother seems to put his money where his mouth is. . TXL The ball's in your court. I'm willing and able. Put up or shut up. |
|
|
BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 21337 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 10:17:35 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 10:17:59 PM by BushBoar]
Originally Posted By jrzy: Originally Posted By TxLewis: Why because he says so on a message board?Originally Posted By jaholder1971: Oh Fuck me Running... Tell you what: If the Paulbots, Libertarians and other lovers of the worthless stoner freaks want to free the weed, why don't you taking your constant bitching somewhere that might change the laws, like your local fucking politician. Because your crying, whining and diatribes about your lack of freedom to smoke dope ain't doing shit here. Man up. Take the $1000 bet. VThokieshoother seems to put his money where his mouth is. . TXL While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. |
|
|
happycynic
Infidel
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2004 TX, USA
Posts: 26752 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 10:37:17 PM
Originally Posted By BushBoar: While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. Drug warriors need to come up with a better argument than ad hominem. |
|
|
FeebMaster
Member
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2007 CT, USA
Posts: 4238 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 10:37:56 PM
Originally Posted By happycynic: Originally Posted By BushBoar: While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. Drug warriors need to come up with a better argument than ad hominem. That's going to be difficult. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 10:45:06 PM
Originally Posted By FeebMaster:
Originally Posted By happycynic:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. Drug warriors need to come up with a better argument than ad hominem. That's going to be difficult. Did I tell you you have the most awesome screen-name ever |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 10:51:27 PM
If he was working for Merill Lynch, he should have had the intelligence to hire a decent lawyer and NOT plead no-contest.
It's pretty much always better to pay the $2,000 to a lawyer, plead not-guilty, then have your attorney work something out with the prosecutor. |
|
|
|
arowneragain
Jesus Saves!
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2003 MS, USA
Posts: 47340 Feedback: 100% (20) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 11:04:01 PM
Originally Posted By FeebMaster:
Originally Posted By happycynic:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. Drug warriors need to come up with a better argument than ad hominem. That's going to be difficult. It's for the children! |
|
|
packingXDs
Freedom Stick™ Collector
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2007 TX, USA
Posts: 14111 Feedback: 100% (17) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:27:24 AM
Originally Posted By BushBoar: If you actually go back and read what I've written, I'm not using this as an argument against legalization - I'm just pointing out that the idea that legalization will eliminate the cartels is fantasy. In a way I think it would. Instead of a WOD, we would have a War on Cartels (whom keep attacking legal US Industry). If the Cartels started attacking any legal industry within our country, the backlash from LE to MIL would be of epic proportions. From the businessman directly attacked, to the insurance companies having to make large payouts, to the first responders having to clean up the scene, etc., would all demand that the threat be dealt with. Instead of spending millions on fighting Johnny the Junkie and his ilk; We could use it to wipe the floor with those violent vermin who are truly a cancer on society. At the root of much of the drug violence in the last half century has been organized crime south of the border. However, since there is no legal market competition allowed, the people have been duped into a 'proxy war' against their own countrymen. From production to distribution to consumption, Mereck/RJR would get it done cheaper, safer, and with proper controls over any drug kingpin in Columbia or Mexico.
|
|
|
packingXDs
Freedom Stick™ Collector
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2007 TX, USA
Posts: 14112 Feedback: 100% (17) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:29:22 AM
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Armed incursions? No. Car bombs at factories, warehouses, etc? Truck hijackings? Absolutely. |
|
|
Subnet
Round on the ends and high in the middle.
Life Member
Joined: Apr 2004 OH, USA
Posts: 72622 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:07:21 AM
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By jrzy:
Originally Posted By TxLewis:
Why because he says so on a message board?
Originally Posted By jaholder1971:
Oh Fuck me Running... Tell you what: If the Paulbots, Libertarians and other lovers of the worthless stoner freaks want to free the weed, why don't you taking your constant bitching somewhere that might change the laws, like your local fucking politician. Because your crying, whining and diatribes about your lack of freedom to smoke dope ain't doing shit here. Man up. Take the $1000 bet. VThokieshoother seems to put his money where his mouth is. . TXL While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. You can add me to that list, because I'd gladly make an easy $1,000. |
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 46893 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 7:09:03 AM
Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
I know you don't want to live in a society where certain drugs are sold at Wal-Mart, but in my opinion the financial, human, and freedom costs of the prohibition of some mind altering substances is, and will continue to be, so high that making sure some people's feelings are not hurt by the sight of some mind altering substances being sold in Wal-Mart is no longer a viable reason to continue in the current fashion. Especially when those certain mind altering substances are already sold at many a Wal-Mart, just not from the shelves or the pharmacy, and no one is checking IDs or ensuring QC when they do it. Thanks for your opinion. We disagree. |
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 46894 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 7:11:05 AM
Originally Posted By ToyCop:
I think the government is so bloated that you wouldn't notice. Think of the 100+ government agencies and then your dealings with any of them. I think you will find there is far more excess than you think. DHS and HHS alone are seriously bloated. I disagree. Just because you or I don't interact daily with each agency of government or don't see the workings of a particular agency doesn't mean that it has no utility or that slashing it in half is the answer. |
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 46895 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 7:13:21 AM
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Think very carefully about the following when you're talking about easy accessiblity. It is FAR easier for a high school student to get a joint than a beer. Guess why. In either case it would be the same answer called lack of parental supervision. |
|
|
Ridgerunner9876
Member
Team Member
Joined: May 2009 OH, USA
Posts: 8224 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 7:29:55 AM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Think very carefully about the following when you're talking about easy accessiblity. It is FAR easier for a high school student to get a joint than a beer. Guess why. In either case it would be the same answer called lack of parental supervision. Oh, come on, man. Did that point just sail that far over your head? Are parents with their highschool aged children 100% of the time? The point is that when things are illegal, they're not controled. I would bet that we could reduce the drug use, at least by minors, if it were legalized and controled just like alcohol. |
|
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 46900 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 7:37:35 AM
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Oh, come on, man. Did that point just sail that far over your head? Are parents with their highschool aged children 100% of the time? The point is that when things are illegal, they're not controled. I would bet that we could reduce the drug use, at least by minors, if it were legalized and controled just like alcohol. Apparently my point did. If we legalized these street drugs, their use would go up by all age brackets. In the case of minors, its the parents job to steer them clear of these things. if the teens can readily get and use them, the parents are slipping in their parenting |
|
|
BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 21342 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 8:41:25 AM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 8:45:28 AM by BushBoar]
Originally Posted By happycynic: Originally Posted By BushBoar: While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. Drug warriors need to come up with a better argument than ad hominem. Where's the ad hominem in that post? I'm not making an argument against drug legalization by pointing out that some of its supporters are drug users. I'm simply stating that I believe that to be a fact. That's not ad hominem. Here, I'll help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Furthermore, I haven't argued against drug legalization in this thread - I'm just trying to point out that it won't be the panacea that many here expect it to be. |
|
|
BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 21343 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 8:42:15 AM
Originally Posted By Subnet: Originally Posted By BushBoar: Originally Posted By jrzy: Originally Posted By TxLewis: Why because he says so on a message board?Originally Posted By jaholder1971: Oh Fuck me Running... Tell you what: If the Paulbots, Libertarians and other lovers of the worthless stoner freaks want to free the weed, why don't you taking your constant bitching somewhere that might change the laws, like your local fucking politician. Because your crying, whining and diatribes about your lack of freedom to smoke dope ain't doing shit here. Man up. Take the $1000 bet. VThokieshoother seems to put his money where his mouth is. . TXL While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. You can add me to that list, because I'd gladly make an easy $1,000. I don't doubt you either. |
|
|
arowneragain
Jesus Saves!
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2003 MS, USA
Posts: 47348 Feedback: 100% (20) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 9:10:28 AM
Originally Posted By Subnet:
You can add me to that list, because I'd gladly make an easy $1,000. I honestly don't know if I'd pass or not. About three weeks ago we were working out on an old backroad behind one of the local factories, and come breaktime a car rolled past with the windows down and the smoke was rolling out. That pretty much happens every time I find myself working around the factories around here. I mentioned it to a drug-enforcement acquaintance of mine and he said the factories have asked them to just stay away - if they fired all the druggies, nothing would get done. It's almost an implicit admission that drug addicts can be useful members of the labor force, if not society in general.  |
|
|
SmilingBandit
Damn these electric sex pants!
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2005 NE, USA
Posts: 22663 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 9:38:08 AM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Oh, come on, man. Did that point just sail that far over your head? Are parents with their highschool aged children 100% of the time? The point is that when things are illegal, they're not controled. I would bet that we could reduce the drug use, at least by minors, if it were legalized and controled just like alcohol. Apparently my point did. If we legalized these street drugs, their use would go up by all age brackets. In the case of minors, its the parents job to steer them clear of these things. if the teens can readily get and use them, the parents are slipping in their parenting What makes you so sure? Is it because drugs aren't currently available to anyone who wants them? |
|
|
Ridgerunner9876
Member
Team Member
Joined: May 2009 OH, USA
Posts: 8225 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:15:09 AM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Oh, come on, man. Did that point just sail that far over your head? Are parents with their highschool aged children 100% of the time? The point is that when things are illegal, they're not controled. I would bet that we could reduce the drug use, at least by minors, if it were legalized and controled just like alcohol. Apparently my point did. If we legalized these street drugs, their use would go up by all age brackets. In the case of minors, its the parents job to steer them clear of these things. if the teens can readily get and use them, the parents are slipping in their parenting Do you have any evidence to back up your statement? I've some to back up mine. Alcohol consumption went up during prohibition and down, afterward, as per a couple documentaries I've watched. Crime went up and down with the passing and repealing of the same. There are plenty of studies and surveys that show illegal drugs are easier than alcohol for minors to get. One can extrapolate that, if the drugs were controlled like alcohol, they would be much more difficult for minors to aquire. You're not living in reality if you think parents can keep a teen from doing anything. The raising of the kid is done before they're out and about as teens. You have to teach your kid to want to do the right thing because it's better and not because they're afraid of punishment. That's why I've railed on here before against the folks who think raising a kid is a simple as beating them into submission. Anyone can be made to submit and they'll do what they want when they're not under supervision. Raise a kid to be wise enough to want to do the right thing and they will, regardless of whether parents are present or not. I don't see how you could say that drugs wouldn't behave the same as alcohol wrt availability and legal status. |
|
|
|
Ridgerunner9876
Member
Team Member
Joined: May 2009 OH, USA
Posts: 8226 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:17:13 AM
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By happycynic:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. Drug warriors need to come up with a better argument than ad hominem. Where's the ad hominem in that post? I'm not making an argument against drug legalization by pointing out that some of its supporters are drug users. I'm simply stating that I believe that to be a fact. That's not ad hominem. Here, I'll help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Furthermore, I haven't argued against drug legalization in this thread - I'm just trying to point out that it won't be the panacea that many here expect it to be. We're not saying it will be a panacea. We're saying it will be much better than the current situation. If you're being beaten with a baseball bat, wouldn't you appreciate a change to a whiffle ball bat? |
|
|
|
arowneragain
Jesus Saves!
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2003 MS, USA
Posts: 47351 Feedback: 100% (20) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:18:19 AM
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Oh, come on, man. Did that point just sail that far over your head? Are parents with their highschool aged children 100% of the time? The point is that when things are illegal, they're not controled. I would bet that we could reduce the drug use, at least by minors, if it were legalized and controled just like alcohol. Apparently my point did. If we legalized these street drugs, their use would go up by all age brackets. In the case of minors, its the parents job to steer them clear of these things. if the teens can readily get and use them, the parents are slipping in their parenting Do you have any evidence to back up your statement? I've some to back up mine. Alcohol consumption went up during prohibition and down, afterward, as per a couple documentaries I've watched. Crime went up and down with the passing and repealing of the same. There are plenty of studies and surveys that show illegal drugs are easier than alcohol for minors to get. One can extrapolate that, if the drugs were controlled like alcohol, they would be much more difficult for minors to aquire. You're not living in reality if you think parents can keep a teen from doing anything. The raising of the kid is done before they're out and about as teens. You have to teach your kid to want to do the right thing because it's better and not because they're afraid of punishment. That's why I've railed on here before against the folks who think raising a kid is a simple as beating them into submission. Anyone can be made to submit and they'll do what they want when they're not under supervision. Raise a kid to be wise enough to want to do the right thing and they will, regardless of whether parents are present or not. I don't see how you could say that drugs wouldn't behave the same as alcohol wrt availability and legal status. Every now and then, tc556guy will drop a gem into a thread. Look at what he said (in bold above): In the case of minors, its the parents job to steer them clear of these things This is 100% correct - and reason enough to get our government out of the drug war. It's NOT THEIR JOB to stop kids from using drugs. |
|
|
BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 21344 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:18:51 AM
Originally Posted By arowneragain: Originally Posted By Subnet: You can add me to that list, because I'd gladly make an easy $1,000. I honestly don't know if I'd pass or not. About three weeks ago we were working out on an old backroad behind one of the local factories, and come breaktime a car rolled past with the windows down and the smoke was rolling out. That pretty much happens every time I find myself working around the factories around here. I mentioned it to a drug-enforcement acquaintance of mine and he said the factories have asked them to just stay away - if they fired all the druggies, nothing would get done. It's almost an implicit admission that drug addicts can be useful members of the labor force, if not society in general. Based on the drug test results I've seen from clients, that minute exposure wouldn't cause you to test positive. Let's just say that I've had clients take hair follicle tests and be pleasantly surprised at the results. |
|
|
BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 21345 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:21:02 AM
Originally Posted By arowneragain: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By tc556guy: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Oh, come on, man. Did that point just sail that far over your head? Are parents with their highschool aged children 100% of the time? The point is that when things are illegal, they're not controled. I would bet that we could reduce the drug use, at least by minors, if it were legalized and controled just like alcohol. Apparently my point did. If we legalized these street drugs, their use would go up by all age brackets. In the case of minors, its the parents job to steer them clear of these things. if the teens can readily get and use them, the parents are slipping in their parenting Do you have any evidence to back up your statement? I've some to back up mine. Alcohol consumption went up during prohibition and down, afterward, as per a couple documentaries I've watched. Crime went up and down with the passing and repealing of the same. There are plenty of studies and surveys that show illegal drugs are easier than alcohol for minors to get. One can extrapolate that, if the drugs were controlled like alcohol, they would be much more difficult for minors to aquire. You're not living in reality if you think parents can keep a teen from doing anything. The raising of the kid is done before they're out and about as teens. You have to teach your kid to want to do the right thing because it's better and not because they're afraid of punishment. That's why I've railed on here before against the folks who think raising a kid is a simple as beating them into submission. Anyone can be made to submit and they'll do what they want when they're not under supervision. Raise a kid to be wise enough to want to do the right thing and they will, regardless of whether parents are present or not. I don't see how you could say that drugs wouldn't behave the same as alcohol wrt availability and legal status. Every now and then, tc556guy will drop a gem into a thread. Look at what he said (in bold above): In the case of minors, its the parents job to steer them clear of these things This is 100% correct - and reason enough to get our government out of the drug war. It's NOT THEIR JOB to stop kids from using drugs. I agree with you 100%. The problem is (and once again I'm NOT saying this as a justification for the drug war, because this issue goes way beyond drugs) that today's parents have largely abdicated their responsibilities. They don't pay attention to where their kids go, what they watch on TV, what they do, who they hang out with, etc. |
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15393 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:22:51 AM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 2:22:02 PM by Renegade13B]
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By Subnet:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By jrzy:
Originally Posted By TxLewis:
Why because he says so on a message board?
Originally Posted By jaholder1971:
Oh Fuck me Running... Tell you what: If the Paulbots, Libertarians and other lovers of the worthless stoner freaks want to free the weed, why don't you taking your constant bitching somewhere that might change the laws, like your local fucking politician. Because your crying, whining and diatribes about your lack of freedom to smoke dope ain't doing shit here. Man up. Take the $1000 bet. VThokieshoother seems to put his money where his mouth is. . TXL While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. You can add me to that list, because I'd gladly make an easy $1,000. I don't doubt you either. Do you doubt me? Please say you doubt me. I need some drinking money |
|
|
|
arowneragain
Jesus Saves!
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2003 MS, USA
Posts: 47353 Feedback: 100% (20) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:23:58 AM
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
The problem is (and once again I'm NOT saying this as a justification for the drug war, because this issue goes way beyond drugs) that today's parents have largely abdicated their responsibilities. They don't pay attention to where their kids go, what they watch on TV, what they do, who they hang out with, etc. I agree completely. |
|
|
ARDestructo
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2009 OK, USA
Posts: 5280 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:23:13 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Think very carefully about the following when you're talking about easy accessiblity. It is FAR easier for a high school student to get a joint than a beer. Guess why. In either case it would be the same answer called lack of parental supervision. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I love it when you show up to an argument. Luckily I've learned not to even start with you, but it's entertaining watching some of the bullshit you drop when you show up. |
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 46921 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:53:03 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 1:55:33 PM by tc556guy]
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Do you have any evidence to back up your statement? I've some to back up mine. Alcohol consumption went up during prohibition and down, afterward, as per a couple documentaries I've watched. Crime went up and down with the passing and repealing of the same. There are plenty of studies and surveys that show illegal drugs are easier than alcohol for minors to get. One can extrapolate that, if the drugs were controlled like alcohol, they would be much more difficult for minors to aquire. You're not living in reality if you think parents can keep a teen from doing anything. The raising of the kid is done before they're out and about as teens. You have to teach your kid to want to do the right thing because it's better and not because they're afraid of punishment. That's why I've railed on here before against the folks who think raising a kid is a simple as beating them into submission. Anyone can be made to submit and they'll do what they want when they're not under supervision. Raise a kid to be wise enough to want to do the right thing and they will, regardless of whether parents are present or not. I don't see how you could say that drugs wouldn't behave the same as alcohol wrt availability and legal status. I don't see how its easier for a HS kid to get meth or heroin than booze. if its made legal and they can just buy it off the shelf, obviously thats easier. My parents knew where I was and with whom. if they didn't know the parents, they amde a call to get to know them. It IS possible..if the parents PARENT. Too many parents don't make that effort. I see it all the time. Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Every now and then, tc556guy will drop a gem into a thread. Look at what he said (in bold above): In the case of minors, its the parents job to steer them clear of these things This is 100% correct - and reason enough to get our government out of the drug war. It's NOT THEIR JOB to stop kids from using drugs. Parents can't do it alone though. Society needs to make these substances hard to get by keeping them illegal. Not readily available for anyone to walk in and buy coke, meth, etc off the shelf. |
|
|
TxLewis
WSBPTKT
Life Member
Joined: Mar 2001 TX, USA
Posts: 30569 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:14:23 PM
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By happycynic:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. Drug warriors need to come up with a better argument than ad hominem. Where's the ad hominem in that post? I'm not making an argument against drug legalization by pointing out that some of its supporters are drug users. I'm simply stating that I believe that to be a fact. That's not ad hominem. Here, I'll help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Furthermore, I haven't argued against drug legalization in this thread - I'm just trying to point out that it won't be the panacea that many here expect it to be. We're not saying it will be a panacea. We're saying it will be much better than the current situation. If you're being beaten with a baseball bat, wouldn't you appreciate a change to a whiffle ball bat? Well, Yeah. Unless your the one with the bat...... TXL |
|
|
scotchymcdrinkerbean
Alcohol is my anti-drug
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2003 LA, USA
Posts: 13638 Feedback: 100% (3) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:16:32 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
Do you have any evidence to back up your statement? I've some to back up mine. Alcohol consumption went up during prohibition and down, afterward, as per a couple documentaries I've watched. Crime went up and down with the passing and repealing of the same. There are plenty of studies and surveys that show illegal drugs are easier than alcohol for minors to get. One can extrapolate that, if the drugs were controlled like alcohol, they would be much more difficult for minors to aquire. You're not living in reality if you think parents can keep a teen from doing anything. The raising of the kid is done before they're out and about as teens. You have to teach your kid to want to do the right thing because it's better and not because they're afraid of punishment. That's why I've railed on here before against the folks who think raising a kid is a simple as beating them into submission. Anyone can be made to submit and they'll do what they want when they're not under supervision. Raise a kid to be wise enough to want to do the right thing and they will, regardless of whether parents are present or not. I don't see how you could say that drugs wouldn't behave the same as alcohol wrt availability and legal status. I don't see how its easier for a HS kid to get meth or heroin than booze. if its made legal and they can just buy it off the shelf, obviously thats easier. My parents knew where I was and with whom. if they didn't know the parents, they amde a call to get to know them. It IS possible..if the parents PARENT. Too many parents don't make that effort. I see it all the time. Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Every now and then, tc556guy will drop a gem into a thread. Look at what he said (in bold above): In the case of minors, its the parents job to steer them clear of these things This is 100% correct - and reason enough to get our government out of the drug war. It's NOT THEIR JOB to stop kids from using drugs. Parents can't do it alone though. Society needs to make these substances hard to get by keeping them illegal. Not readily available for anyone to walk in and buy coke, meth, etc off the shelf. Seriously? Do the dealers in your AO make a habit of checking IDs? 'Cause they sure don't seem to care here––-while the stores certainly check 'em when the little tykes try to buy booze and smokes. |
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 46924 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:19:18 PM
Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Seriously? Do the dealers in your AO make a habit of checking IDs? 'Cause they sure don't seem to care here––-while the stores certainly check 'em when the little tykes try to buy booze and smokes. If its on the shelf for sale, it can be picked off by young store employees for sale to under-aged 'friends", the same way they do with booze now, among other methods. We don't need these street drugs out there for sale through regular commercial methods.. |
|
|
ToyCop
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2002 MI, USA
Posts: 7850 Feedback: 100% (10) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:20:35 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy: Originally Posted By ToyCop: I think the government is so bloated that you wouldn't notice. Think of the 100+ government agencies and then your dealings with any of them. I think you will find there is far more excess than you think. DHS and HHS alone are seriously bloated. I disagree. Just because you or I don't interact daily with each agency of government or don't see the workings of a particular agency doesn't mean that it has no utility or that slashing it in half is the answer. Perhaps, but I've seen it firsthand having worked for four different federal agencies. It is, of course, just my opinion. |
|
|
scotchymcdrinkerbean
Alcohol is my anti-drug
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2003 LA, USA
Posts: 13639 Feedback: 100% (3) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:24:21 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Seriously? Do the dealers in your AO make a habit of checking IDs? 'Cause they sure don't seem to care here––-while the stores certainly check 'em when the little tykes try to buy booze and smokes. If its on the shelf for sale, it can be picked off by young store employees for sale to under-aged 'friends", the same way they do with booze now, among other methods. We don't need these street drugs out there for sale through regular commercial methods..  |
|
|
ohiobob
A Tired Man they see no longer cares! & it's TRUE
Team Member
Joined: Aug 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 11931 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:35:10 PM
One day, ONE DAY it will be total anarchy, I am just gonna be pissed off that I miss it
|
|
|
happycynic
Infidel
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2004 TX, USA
Posts: 26764 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:52:00 PM
Originally Posted By BushBoar: Originally Posted By happycynic: Originally Posted By BushBoar: While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. Drug warriors need to come up with a better argument than ad hominem. Where's the ad hominem in that post? I'm not making an argument against drug legalization by pointing out that some of its supporters are drug users. I'm simply stating that I believe that to be a fact. That's not ad hominem. Here, I'll help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Furthermore, I haven't argued against drug legalization in this thread - I'm just trying to point out that it won't be the panacea that many here expect it to be. Which is why I picked my words carefully and said that "drug warriors" need to come up with a better argument. Frankly your position was somewhat ambiguous, but that doesn't change the fact that every time we have a legalization thread a whole bunch of drug warriors pop on to say that everyone who supports legalization is just a doper who wants his drug use to be legal, which is a classic ad hominem. If you're one of the drug warriors, then the statement applies to you. If not, then no. |
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 46935 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 2:56:59 PM
Yup, thats my reaction when you guys claim we should legalize these drugs
Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Seriously? Do the dealers in your AO make a habit of checking IDs? 'Cause they sure don't seem to care here––-while the stores certainly check 'em when the little tykes try to buy booze and smokes. If its on the shelf for sale, it can be picked off by young store employees for sale to under-aged 'friends", the same way they do with booze now, among other methods. We don't need these street drugs out there for sale through regular commercial methods.. |
|
|
BushBoar
Hated Divorce Lawyer
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 21351 Feedback: 100% (24) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 3:02:10 PM
Originally Posted By happycynic: Originally Posted By BushBoar: Originally Posted By happycynic: Originally Posted By BushBoar: While I think that many if not most legalization supporters are habitual recreational drug users (if not addicts), I don't for a second doubt that VTHS is serious about this. It's purely ideological for him. Drug warriors need to come up with a better argument than ad hominem. Where's the ad hominem in that post? I'm not making an argument against drug legalization by pointing out that some of its supporters are drug users. I'm simply stating that I believe that to be a fact. That's not ad hominem. Here, I'll help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Furthermore, I haven't argued against drug legalization in this thread - I'm just trying to point out that it won't be the panacea that many here expect it to be. Which is why I picked my words carefully and said that "drug warriors" need to come up with a better argument. Frankly your position was somewhat ambiguous, but that doesn't change the fact that every time we have a legalization thread a whole bunch of drug warriors pop on to say that everyone who supports legalization is just a doper who wants his drug use to be legal, which is a classic ad hominem. If you're one of the drug warriors, then the statement applies to you. If not, then no. My apologies then - the way that it read was that you were lumping me in as a drug warrior. I'm not, really. At this point I'm rather ambivalent on the subject. To borrow from an analogy used a few posts earlier, to me it's like choosing between getting beaten with a wooden bat versus an aluminum one. I think both options are equally bad for different reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 3:16:11 PM
The idea of legalizing any street drugs is not as easy as alot suggest, as it would bring about many complicated issues and may not solve alot of problems. So legalize all street drugs, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, GHB, LSD and ecstacy. Add to it the penalty would be removed for RX drug possession. In a "free scociety" anyone should be given access to any drug they wish to use, so purchase of RX drugs would be legal too in this argument. So anyone can take anything they want from weed to ecstacy to oxycontin to morphine to xanax, in any combinations they want. Here's something to consider, at least some users have to keep thier use discreet, as it is illegal. So alot of them use at home or parties or whatever. Do some use at work? Sure, but the prohibition on use and possession at least keeps some of the amount of use down at work and in public places. Legalize it and make its use legally acceptable will take away the stigma that at least keeps some people straight at work. Think of the occupations that could see drug use encroaching into the work place. Cops, medical, transportation, construction, power plants etc.
As for the drug producers going legit, do you really think they want this? Sure they would love the law enforcement component taken away. But do you think they want any regulation on their industy and the accompanying taxes. Do you think they want FDA reviews and approvals, corporate taxes and reporting? The drug industry doesnt want to go legitimate any more than government wants to legalize drugs. |
|
|
ARCHIVED
