posted by O-Trap

Oh, sure.  It just seems like some people take it a step further.  They could listen to Fox News or CNN and splice together the news story to form something even more biased and distorted than the story was.

Basically, in goes Fox News, and out comes Daily Wire.  Or in goes CNN and out comes Daily Kos.  Like a really fucked up game of Telephone.

Good comparison. It's interesting to how the followers from both sides seem to get their respective daily talking points each day by lunchtime and then those become the topics they spew about the rest of the day. It's telephone with some mindless groupthink thrown in. 

posted by gut

I think it's hilarious.  Just another planned, political stunt....and, predictably, what people think of it depends on what party they vote for.

I really don't want 4 more years of Trump, but the extreme meltdowns from the Left is something I just don't want to miss out on.

Who would you prefer out of the available choices?

posted by gut

Anyway, I'm listening to Romney and thinking he got it exactly right.  Which, sadly, makes him the ONLY ONE out of some 535 representatives in the House and Senate.  No wonder things are so fucked up.

And, of course, the media makes him into some sort of white knight.  How about what Romney said about Obstruction of Congress - what about every Democrat in the House voting for that?  Crickets.

They will turn on him pretty soon.  He was a racist and sexist 1% in 2012.  For whatever reason he always wants to signal to the left andbe accepted.  Once he votes in line with the GOP agenda, his 15 minutes of being a white knight will turn into dust. 
 

posted by O-Trap

I have a prediction.  This kid is going to be featured in a news story someday that involves the phrase, "He then turned the gun on himself."

If there's ever been a stronger case for recreational weed being legal everywhere, I have yet to see it.

It's incredible how many issues can be resolved in the US by legalizing a plant.  I'd go a step further and say legalizing all drugs would benefit the country than do more harm.  

posted by like_that

It's incredible how many issues can be resolved in the US by legalizing a plant.  I'd go a step further and say legalizing all drugs would benefit the country than do more harm.  

Yea ok.....legal meth, heroin and crack.  Dont see how that could go wrong. 

posted by Spock

Yea ok.....legal meth, heroin and crack.  Dont see how that could go wrong. 

Glad we’re on the same page, then. 

Adam Schiff might be worse than Trump.

First I hear that he may never subpoena Bolton.  Impeachment is over, but nothing prevents you from doing that.

Then today he says they asked for an affidavit, and Bolton refused.  Schiff - "If he's willing to write in a book about it, then why not submit an affidavit?".  Hey, Schiff, why don't you subpoena him, you know, like you've been crying about for the last month?!?

Makes me think it's, again, all political and Schiff really doesn't want to or care about hearing from Bolton.

posted by gut

Adam Schiff might be worse than Trump.

First I hear that he may never subpoena Bolton.  Impeachment is over, but nothing prevents you from doing that.

Then today he says they asked for an affidavit, and Bolton refused.  Schiff - "If he's willing to write in a book about it, then why not submit an affidavit?".  Hey, Schiff, why don't you subpoena him, you know, like you've been crying about for the last month?!?

Makes me think it's, again, all political and Schiff really doesn't want to or care about hearing from Bolton.

He's like Will Ferrell in Old School "we're streaking down to the quad, everyone's coming" and then no one is following him.  Dude, give it a break; it's over.  

Speaking of Adam Schiff, this is a creepily good impression:

posted by like_that

It's incredible how many issues can be resolved in the US by legalizing a plant.  I'd go a step further and say legalizing all drugs would benefit the country than do more harm.  

Yep.
 

posted by Spock

Yea ok.....legal meth, heroin and crack.  Dont see how that could go wrong. 

If any of those are legal, are you going to start using them?  No?  Then why do you think there are other people who are only not using them because they're illegal?

On the plus side, though, we could stop wasting billions of dollars on the "war on drugs."  You're small government, right?  Why wouldn't you want us spending less on something that isn't actually accomplishing anything?
 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

He's like Will Ferrell in Old School "we're streaking down to the quad, everyone's coming" and then no one is following him.  Dude, give it a break; it's over.  

That's about as good a comparison as I can think of.

posted by O-Trap

If any of those are legal, are you going to start using them?  No?  Then why do you think there are other people who are only not using them because they're illegal?

I think it's a given that a not-insignificant number of people will try these drugs (especially coke, acid and pretty much anything not requiring a needle) and a good percentage of them will become addicted.

Also, it appears the Mexican cartels are targeting underage people more (one of those darned unintended side affects!), and also flooding the market with something called tar(?), which is a far more potent concentrate than legally available.  Not to mention the simple fact that the black market is still huge because of the much higher prices resulting from taxes.

I appreciate the good "free market" libertarian arguments, but the reality is key assumptions to the free market theory (such as rational consumers, perfect information, etc) don't actually exist in the real world.  While not all regulations are created equal, you still need regulations in order for "free markets" to operate more optimally.

I'm certainly not opposed to heavy regulations on the hard stuff, given that legalization is still a net-positive. Regulate cannabis like onions (meaning none) and regulate the rest at the appropriate level to minimize chaos. I don't believe there should be heroin vending machines, but I see no reason why someone couldn't go to a clinic and have pure heroin administered by a doctor. I should be able to buy cannabis from a guy at a farmers market without the fear of a boot on my neck.

posted by gut

I think it's a given that a not-insignificant number of people will try these drugs (especially coke, acid and pretty much anything not requiring a needle) and a good percentage of them will become addicted.

I doubt it's a not-insignificant number.  The stuff is so widely available now, and I honestly doubt there is a notable number of people whose worldview doesn't preclude using harder drugs except for because they're illegal.
 

posted by gut

Also, it appears the Mexican cartels are targeting underage people more (one of those darned unintended side affects!), and also flooding the market with something called tar(?), which is a far more potent concentrate than legally available.  Not to mention the simple fact that the black market is still huge because of the much higher prices resulting from taxes.

Sure.  So don't tax, and allow for actual competition.  We're seeing what that looks like with CBD now.  Not that it isn't regulated, of course, but from a price standpoint, competition is doing what it's supposed to.
 

posted by gut

I appreciate the good "free market" libertarian arguments, but the reality is key assumptions to the free market theory (such as rational consumers, perfect information, etc) don't actually exist in the real world.  While not all regulations are created equal, you still need regulations in order for "free markets" to operate more optimally.

Functionally, I think private watchdogs can do whatever regulating is necessary, but frankly, the only regulation I think is necessary is full disclosure.  Effectively, if you sell something to someone, they have the information available to know what's in it.

If Person A wants to buy X, and Person B has X to sell, and both parties have access to the necessary information on what X is, then I don't see why any other regulation or oversight is necessary.  Certainly not forceful regulation or oversight, anyway.

posted by justincredible

I'm certainly not opposed to heavy regulations on the hard stuff, given that legalization is still a net-positive. Regulate cannabis like onions (meaning none) and regulate the rest at the appropriate level to minimize chaos. I don't believe there should be heroin vending machines, but I see no reason why someone couldn't go to a clinic and have pure heroin administered by a doctor. I should be able to buy cannabis from a guy at a farmers market without the fear of a boot on my neck.

Dextroamphetamine salt energy drinks, coming right up as well!  lol

posted by O-Trap

I doubt it's a not-insignificant number.  The stuff is so widely available now, and I honestly doubt there is a notable number of people whose worldview doesn't preclude using harder drugs except for because they're illegal.

I think you're way off.  A majority of people simply won't risk being arrested, or going to shady areas of town, to seek out drugs to "try".  When you legalize it, you take away the risk, the stigma and the inconvenience of getting it.  It's "widely available" to the relatively small percentage of people who'll take the effort and risk to get it.  Look at the explosion in painkillers - why?, because it was relatively safe and easy to get (but still nothing like going down to the corner store).

Sure, people who really want to can find it and get it.  But you're talking about a relatively small pool of potential users.  There's really no reason to think many drugs couldn't have similar usage rates to alcohol, or tobacco for that matter.  The other thing you're ignoring is an increase in usage of harder drugs will allow people not only access, but to see it's possible to function with it and not become addicted.  There's many more reasons people don't do hard drugs than just being illegal, but the more barriers taken down, the more misconceptions are eroded (or replaced by other misconceptions).

Cue the "it hasn't led to an increase in other countries".  But the US is different.  Other countries don't have our problem with alcohol, either.  I'm 100% certain the more drugs you legalize, the more people will use and the more people that will become addicted.  Maybe that's a reasonable trade-off, or maybe you decide to keep poison out of the reach of children.

Have to side with O-trap. I don't buy that there's a significant amount of pent-up demand for the hard stuff stopped by the threat of arrest. If someone wants to do heroin, the possibility of run-ins with the law doesn't make the top-5 list of reasons not to go ahead.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Have to side with O-trap. I don't buy that there's a significant amount of pent-up demand for the hard stuff stopped by the threat of arrest. If someone wants to do heroin, the possibility of run-ins with the law doesn't make the top-5 list of reasons not to go ahead.

You're thinking about it totally wrong.

It's not about whether or not someone "wants" to do heroine, much less the the "want" relative to the "effort".  It's like walking thru a liquor store.  I'm not driving across town, much less an illegal transaction in the 'hood, to try a tequila.  But when it's sitting there on the shelf in front of me?  A lot of people who would not otherwise access it have an opportunity to try it.

Also, if something is available on that store shelf, regulated and FD&A approved and all that, the consumer can assume it's "relatively" safe.  Not like the risk of a "hot shot" or any number of other issues with buying illegal drugs.

The "it's easy & widely available" is, honestly, a bunch of horseshit.  So how about a little experiment - if I give you $100, will you go buy me $50 worth of heroine?  We all know your answer is no, which proves me correct.  Or how guns - if guns were illegal would you just go buy them on the black market?  Easy and widely available, right, so gun laws would have no impact on gun ownership?!?

Lol the new Biden ad about Buttigig (sp?) is 🔥🔥🔥

posted by iclfan2

Lol the new Biden ad about Buttigig (sp?) is 🔥🔥🔥

Can you post a link to that?

posted by BRF

Can you post a link to that?

https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1226189752598171648?s=21

I prefer John Maynard Friedman. 

posted by gut

The "it's easy & widely available" is, honestly, a bunch of horseshit.  So how about a little experiment - if I give you $100, will you go buy me $50 worth of heroine?  We all know your answer is no, which proves me correct. 

*heroin

The answer as asked is no, I would not, as you come off as someone likely to be a narc. The answer to "could I" is absolutely yes, I could purchase heroin from a number of sources. Sadly, children and grandchildren of friends of mine use the shit and would certainly sell me a small amount for a small profit.

posted by gut

Or how guns - if guns were illegal would you just go buy them on the black market?  Easy and widely available, right, so gun laws would have no impact on gun ownership?!?

The statistics are indisputable that gun laws have no negative effect on people likely to commit crimes with guns. Such laws turn the law-abiding into criminals. Period.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Or how guns - if guns were illegal would you just go buy them on the black market?  Easy and widely available, right, so gun laws would have no impact on gun ownership?!?

The statistics are indisputable that gun laws have no negative effect on people likely to commit crimes with guns. Such laws turn the law-abiding into criminals. Period.

Nice strawman wrapped-up in a non-sequitor.  Are you telling me that if guns were banned tomorrow, it would have no impact on ownership now or in the future?  That was the actual point I was making.  People act like nobody follows the drug laws, which is an obvious falsehood.  That fiction keeps being used to justify legalization.  You can't say "let's have an honest debate about drugs" and start-off with that bullshit.

posted by gut

Nice strawman wrapped-up in a non-sequitor.  Are you telling me that if guns were banned tomorrow, it would have no impact on ownership now or in the future?  That was the actual point I was making.  People act like nobody follows the drug laws, which is an obvious falsehood.  That fiction keeps being used to justify legalization.  You can't say "let's have an honest debate about drugs" and start-off with that bullshit.

 

You can't come in with this bullshit either, and then pull the "well don't tell me how it works in other countries, because we are different.  I have no proof of this, but I am gut and I am smarter than everyone.  Case closed on that argument."

I am 100% with o-trap and qcb on this.  I don't think there was be an uptick in people doing hard drugs, because it is no longer against the law.  Especially after a significant time of it being legal. 

posted by like_that

You can't come in with this bullshit either, and then pull the "well don't tell me how it works in other countries, because we are different.  I have no proof of this, but I am gut and I am smarter than everyone.  Case closed on that argument."

 

I am 100% with o-trap and qcb on this.  I don't think there was be an uptick in people doing hard drugs, because it is no longer against the law.  Especially after a significant time of it being legal. 

There have been studies on this.  You can't compare the US to Portugal because of the racial/ethnic/geographical diversity the US has that few other countries have.  I mentioned alcohol as on example.  Use google and go educate yourself (and not the "research" from pro marijuana cites).  I can't help it that I'm Gut and you don't know what you're talking about.

I also mentioned gun laws.  It's FREQUENTLY mentioned that only law abiding citizens obey gun laws.  But, ummm, drugs are different okay?  Drug laws reduce usage.  That is indisputable fact and only people getting their research from High Times think otherwise.

How about another example?  Do you think abortions increased or decreased after Roe v. Wade?  Try using some common sense.