Archive

Thoughts and Opinions

  • Belly35
    Thoughts and Opinions



    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/04/at-least-23-people-killed-in-mexican-border-city-as-victims-hanged-decapitated/?test=latestnews
  • BoatShoes
    1. I think it's time we seriously consider drug legalization. These types of victims don't occur if there is drug legalization.

    2. Mexico seems like just your kind of place Belly. low social spending, low rates of taxation, large gap between the rich and the poor, etc.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1163183 wrote:1. I think it's time we seriously consider drug legalization. These types of victims don't occur if there is drug legalization.
    I don't think it's nearly so cut-and-dry. First off, if you only legalize marijuana and not all drugs (which I don't see happening), you've really not done anything. Then if you are going to heavily regulate and tax (which is more likely), you still have large opportunities for black markets to be cheaper and also offer the latest designer drugs that won't need FDA approval and all that. Yeah, the recreational user would prefer the legal purchase methods, but the drug addict (where the money is) will take the risks on the black market to save their money.

    Ending prohibition might have worked because it was largely accepted culturally and lightly taxed and regulated, relatively speaking. I don't see people tolerating their local Walgreen's dispensing cocaine and heroine
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1163204 wrote:I don't think it's nearly so cut-and-dry. First off, if you only legalize marijuana and not all drugs (which I don't see happening), you've really not done anything. Then if you are going to heavily regulate and tax (which is more likely), you still have large opportunities for black markets to be cheaper and also offer the latest designer drugs that won't need FDA approval and all that. Yeah, the recreational user would prefer the legal purchase methods, but the drug addict (where the money is) will take the risks on the black market to save their money.

    Ending prohibition might have worked because it was largely accepted culturally and lightly taxed and regulated, relatively speaking. I don't see people tolerating their local Walgreen's dispensing cocaine and heroine
    ^That's largely because of the prohibition mindset imposed by the war on drugs. I mean methamphetamine used to be sold over the counter in the U.S. and millions of kids are prescribed to essentially the same thing for ADD. As far as Cocaine goes, having never been a drug user, I'm consistently amazed and how many highly successful people that I encounter that use this drug for recreation. If we were to get passed all of the stigma associated with drug use, I imagine people could get passed the idea of somebody getting a bump of coke at CVS.

    Decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success on nearly every metric.

    And also, for being such a fiscal hawk I can't believe you're not simply outraged at this epic waste of money. I mean you're more concerned about social taboos than throwing money down a rat hole and bringing about the atrocious externalities associated with drug violence?
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1163224 wrote: Decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success on nearly every metric.
    I knew you were going to mention that. You can't assume what works in Portugal will work everywhere, nor do I think it's been long enough to fully reach a conclusion. The Red Light district is another example, although more debateable. There are also examples of failures. It would be reckless and irresponsible to decriminalize in the US tomorrow. We need longer studies and more test cases before you can decide on a path forward in the US.

    Also, I don't go along with the violence argument. I have a far greater risk of being killed by a drunk driver than I do of gang violence over drugs. I'm not advocating prohibition, but there are trade-offs that will come with decriminalization that are not fully understood and being ignored by the legalization crowd.

    Finally, you have to be very careful of attributing crime and violence stemming from poverty to the war on drugs. Crime and violence are common in poverty stricken areas, and right now the drug war is primarily taking place in such areas. So I'm far from convinced that the benefits you believe we'll see won't fall far short of expectations. You are likely wrongly attributing some externalities to illegal drugs, while also ignoring other unfavorable externalities created by legalization.

    And nice strawman argument about welfare and fiscal conservatism. Demanding better results and efficiency does not mean a program is not worthwhile and should be eliminated, and I've not argued for such. I think we can stop pursuing pot users and throwing them in jail and that would make a pretty big dent in the related spending.
  • 2kool4skool
    BoatShoes;1163224 wrote:As far as Cocaine goes, having never been a drug user, I'm consistently amazed and how many highly successful people that I encounter that use this drug for recreation
    Every "successful" person I know has done/does cocaine. If you have any sort of money, and don't do coke on the regular, you can just GTFO because you don't know how to live life.

    As far as marijuana, it's 2012. If you still think smoking a plant should be illegal, while drinking poison that impairs your motor skills and causes aggression shouldn't, you're a moron.
  • 2kool4skool
    gut;1163204 wrote:but the drug addict (where the money is) will take the risks on the black market to save their money
    Dropping the price will eliminate the huge margins, and take the ridiculous money that supplies the power, and drives the violence, out of the equation.

    Let's see how powerful the cartels are when they have a 30% market share at 20% margins, instead of 100% share at 400%.
  • gut
    2kool4skool;1163283 wrote:Dropping the price will eliminate the huge margins, and take the ridiculous money that supplies the power, and drives the violence, out of the equation.

    Let's see how powerful the cartels are when they have a 30% market share at 20% margins, instead of 100% share at 400%.
    Except you're not really going to drop the price, you're going to tax the hell out of it. So the margins are still the same for the cartels. There's still a black market for cigarettes just arbing taxes across state lines.

    I don't remotely see the justification to jump off this cliff, and it's really all or nothing to wipe out the incentives you're talking about. A lot more analysis and study needs to be done before this idea can be realistically debated. It's typical of liberal ideas to assume the only possible outcome is the one they prefer, and none of the expected and unanticipated negative externalities will happen or matter.
  • 2kool4skool
    gut;1163289 wrote:So the margins are still the same for the cartels.
    Zero chance they'd be able to charge anywhere near the same prices they charge currently. Nearly all the cost is associated with risk, and what is basically a monopoly.

    There's still a black market for cigarettes just arbing taxes across state lines.
    And there's how much violence associated with the black cigarette market?

    When you take away the massive profits, it no longer makes sense for people to risk their lives to illegally traffic the substance. It also does away with the ability to use said money to buy and sell politicians/police/etc. and to buy weaponry that makes the Mexican Army jealous.
    I don't remotely see the justification to jump off this cliff
    What are you worried about, that people will start injecting heroin because it's legal all of a sudden? If you want to do drugs, you do them. The government already sucks beyond belief at stopping it.
  • BoatShoes
    2kool4skool;1163281 wrote:Every "successful" person I know has done/does cocaine.
    I agree. To the point where it's patently ridiculous that it's illegal IMHO. Back when I was younger I was a bit more naive about drug use and I had the classic image of people who use these types of drugs as losers, etc.

    But now that I've met people who do it and really so many people who are effective and productive individuals do coke that it blows my mind that there are DEA agents running around trying to stop it considering that there are so many productive and good citizens who use it.

    And, the same goes for Adderall which is basically methamphetamine.

    If half the population started taking adderall I guarantee you'd see GDP climb a percentage point and Body Fat percentage drop nationwide :laugh:
  • believer
    Belly35;1163121 wrote:Thoughts and Opinions

    Hey is this the latest Cinco de Mayo craze I heard someone talking about the other day?

    Marijuana jihad.

    All the more reason to secure our southern border. si senor?
  • gut
    2kool4skool;1163290 wrote:Zero chance they'd be able to charge anywhere near the same prices they charge currently. Nearly all the cost is associated with risk, and what is basically a monopoly.
    If you think the govt is going to make billions off the taxes - something which is often cited as a reason for legalization - that's plenty of opportunity for a black market.

    I never claimed there's violence with the black cigarette market. There never has been. The point was much of this violence/crime occurs in poverty stricken areas, where the drugs are. People are grossly underestimating that confounding factor and overstating the benefit. Although, it would be wrong to say there is no violence in the black market for cigarettes - it often does involve organized crime and gangs. Just because you lower the profits doesn't mean these street thugs are going legit, the crime is just going to go elsewhere. And that's probably the biggest logical fallacy commited by the legalization group. The street level thugs responsible for a lot of the crime aren't going to go get jobs because you make drugs illegal - they aren't raking it in for drugs like you think, most thugs and low-level dealers are living at home with mom making jack squat.

    And, yes, if drugs are easier/safer to get usage and addiction is going to increase - Portugal is a surprising anomaly and that is why it success needs to be replicated several other places before it can be deemed ready for prime time.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1163298 wrote:If half the population started taking adderall I guarantee you'd see GDP climb a percentage point and Body Fat percentage drop nationwide :laugh:
    And a good nationalized dental plan takes care of one of the ugly externalities!
  • Cleveland Buck
    BoatShoes;1163224 wrote:^That's largely because of the prohibition mindset imposed by the war on drugs. I mean methamphetamine used to be sold over the counter in the U.S. and millions of kids are prescribed to essentially the same thing for ADD. As far as Cocaine goes, having never been a drug user, I'm consistently amazed and how many highly successful people that I encounter that use this drug for recreation. If we were to get passed all of the stigma associated with drug use, I imagine people could get passed the idea of somebody getting a bump of coke at CVS.

    Decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success on nearly every metric.

    And also, for being such a fiscal hawk I can't believe you're not simply outraged at this epic waste of money. I mean you're more concerned about social taboos than throwing money down a rat hole and bringing about the atrocious externalities associated with drug violence?
    Completely agree with you, although I'm sure it's for different reasons.

    The federal government has zero authority to regulate any kind of drugs according the law of the land. Not to mention no government has the authority to tell people what they can't put into their own bodies. Legalizing drugs would make prices crash and those rich warlords on the border would have to get jobs. Another example of government creating monopolies.
  • 2kool4skool
    gut;1163488 wrote:Portugal is a surprising anomaly and that is why it success needs to be replicated several other places before it can be deemed ready for prime time.
    So because it doesn't fit with what you expected to happen, it's an anomaly. Got it.

  • majorspark
    Cleveland Buck;1163500 wrote:Completely agree with you, although I'm sure it's for different reasons.

    The federal government has zero authority to regulate any kind of drugs according the law of the land. Not to mention no government has the authority to tell people what they can't put into their own bodies. Legalizing drugs would make prices crash and those rich warlords on the border would have to get jobs. Another example of government creating monopolies.
    At one point we actually thought the federal government needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. And rightfully so. Its really kind of funny. If you take an originalist intent as your interpretation of the constitution its a no brainer. Guys like boatshoes lament that uppity rich people can sniff the white stuff and carry on with their daily lives but can't do so legally because the feds say its a no no. Wail about the costs of federal intervention with drugs, then on the other hand argue the feds power to intervene in nearly every aspect of our lives. Including answering a cell phone call on a rural county road while driving.

    I am not against people telling other people what to do with their own bodies. Just what level of governance via the constitution. And that determines when and where. I reserve the right to join with my local neighbors and restrict prostitutes from walking the streets in front of my house. But I could care less if they set up shop in the desert in Nevada.
  • gut
    2kool4skool;1163568 wrote:So because it doesn't fit with what you expected to happen, it's an anomaly. Got it.
    That's pretty much what an anomaly is, until proven otherwise by being replicated. In other words, until replicated there might be other factors at work explainiing an unexpected outcome. You have no more basis for claiming it isn't an anomaly than I do for it being one. I would take a rational and responsible perspective, you would forge reckelssly ahead. When liberals don't have their head in the clouds they have it in the sand or up their asses, typically.
  • majorspark
    2kool4skool;1163281 wrote:Every "successful" person I know has done/does cocaine. If you have any sort of money, and don't do coke on the regular, you can just GTFO because you don't know how to live life.
    Most of the "successful" people I know never touched the white stuff. Also I have never touched it and never will. Now the green stuff I have partaken of in the past.
    2kool4skool;1163281 wrote:As far as marijuana, it's 2012. If you still think smoking a plant should be illegal, while drinking poison that impairs your motor skills and causes aggression shouldn't, you're a moron.
    I am currently drinking some of this poison and do not feel at all aggressive. Plus my motor skills on the keyboard are stellar.
  • Y-Town Steelhound
    Hmmm....would I rather go to a drug dealer in the middle of the hood to buy drugs or go to CVS? A black market may still exist with legalization but it would be GREATLY reduced as well as the violence that goes along with it. The US government would net about $13 billion a year off of cannabis between the tax revenue and the money saved from not having non-violent cannabis users taking up their jails (about 800,000 people a year and growing). Certainly not huge in the grand scheme of things but not exactly chump change either.

    Marijuana should be the only drug legalized IMO for a number of reasons. It's absurd how many resources are wasted in its prohibition. 13 states have already legalized it for medicinal purposes and let's be honest here....it's not very hard to get a medical card in these states if you know how to play the system right. Therefore we already have somewhat of a legalization in place and there hasn't been any increase in violence or any of the excuses for its prohibition.

    It all comes down to this: The prohibition of marijuana is an 80 year old law based upon 80 year old science and 80 year old ideals. Much like the prohibition of alcohol it does more harm than good when it's illegal.
  • 2kool4skool
    majorspark;1163645 wrote:Also I have never touched it and never will.
    You're not successful. Middle class with 4k posts on a message board doesn't count.
  • majorspark
    2kool4skool;1163795 wrote:You're not successful. Middle class with 4k posts on a message board doesn't count.
    No I watched a movie once when I was growing up back in the 80's, "Less than Zero". The hotel room scene pretty much did it for me. When I saw that using the heavy stuff could result in puffing another man's peter, it was definitely no thank you.
  • Footwedge
    2kool4skool;1163281 wrote:Every "successful" person I know has done/does cocaine. If you have any sort of money, and don't do coke on the regular, you can just GTFO because you don't know how to live life.
    This is nonsense to the nth degree. Sure there are plenty of yuppies from the 80's that fit this description. But come on man. Addiction to coke is rampant and brutal both physically and financially.

    With that said, I do think that all drugs need to be legalized because by far and away the benefits outweigh the risks to the overall society. With that said, I would have OD'd and died 20 years ago...if coke was available at the drug store. No doubt in my mind.
  • 2kool4skool
    Footwedge;1163938 wrote:Addiction to coke is rampant and brutal both physically and financially.
    If you can't handle coke, you can't handle life.
  • majorspark
    2kool4skool;1163963 wrote:If you can't handle coke, you can't handle life.
    Sincerely,

    Len Bias
  • believer
    2kool4skool;1163963 wrote:If you can't handle coke, you can't handle life.
    Sincerely,

    Whitney Houston