QUOTE(Üsername @ Dec 2 2008, 09:40 AM) [snapback]1473531[/snapback]
The only reason selling cigarettes and booze illegally is smaller is because there is less risk in doing so. There are lots of risks selling hard drugs.
No... it's because they have legal competition. Like I said, who is going to buy drugs that have probably been mixed with paint stripper when they can get safer stuff that probably works better and is cheaper, at the sho pdown the street?
Ever since the start of the War on Drugs, drug purity has increased to high levels and yet the price still stays down. It doesn't seem like "whatever" is causing horrible accidents with users. People are being irresponsible, and govt regulation isn't going to prevent that.
It really has been. Alot of the time when people die from using pills that aren't that dangerous, it's becuase the supplier decided using something he found under the sink would be cheaper than the actual ingredients?
So far all I see is the appropriation of drug money in a different form...
Yeah, it will go to schools hospitals and roads, wich is the same as giving it to the mafia, amirite?
yet I see that even govt regulation won't end the black market for these drugs. If drugs are already at high purity levels and their prices are generally lower each year, no one is going to buy gov't regulated heroin or cocaine or speed.
Okay, first of all, you voted for soft drugs like speed to be legalized, so I don'ot know what you are getting at there.
Anyway, people WILL buy it because the purifty levels will be higher, becuase people aren't mixing it with ink or whatever to make it cheaper.
I don't find anything you said to be rational, duh.
And your idea of "lets keep using the liberal and conservative policies that put us in a financial crisis and a crime epidemic" is rational? Social conservatism and fiscal liberalism have failed miserably, get over them.
The risk of collecting such data is bound to be hacked or released publicly. If people are going to these drug stores, how fucking easy do you think it is for a reporter muckraking his ass to self-righteousness to simply videotape anyone that goes in? Jeez, anyone would know where to look
You can get your kids taken off you if you are an alcoholic or are on pain killers all the time, but even though pharmacies and bottle shops keep sales records like anyone else - people don't use black market alcohol or oxy.
And why would a reporter want to video tape people going in? I very much doubt that public figures take hard drugs, and celebrities wouldn't drive down there and pick it up themselves, so that's an irrelevant argument.
Drugs studies can easily prove that even hard drugs can be taken responsibly in amounts not even worth the time or money, but no one is going to do this. Drug data is going to show that no matter what people have a high tendency of abusing drugs that offers them highs and other escapes from the unfairness of their reality.
I don't know why you are saying this. I'm talking about collecting data to see what age, gender and income group would take the drug, duh.
My point is that if these shops become chains and if the govt wants to look out for how close these shops are to school zones, etcetera... they are going to have to regulate. I know damn well these shops will know how to expand... that's not what I'm worried about. Regardless of the little appeal vitamin shops and GNC's have, the customer base for these drug shops go leagues higher than the formers. I'm doubt they'll spot the turf as much as McDonald's or any fast food chain, however.
Another irrelevant point. Why would they want to open up next to a school in the first place? So if they're not allowed to, they're harldy going to buger all the perks of being a leginimate business just to be able to sell drugs to kids who can't affod them, and still have the "just say no" slogan stuck in their mind.
It makes plenty of sense. Not everyone is scared of repercussions of hard drugs via the govt or their dealers... that is why people still buy hard drugs. The dealers can compete, their drugs are still very pure (at least from the source) and prices are still lower than what many project. If they added unsafe ingredients before and the govt starting ruining their business, they can adapt and still take advantage of the low prices of the pure source.
Yes, because they are supposed to be pure
. And prices won't be lower, becuase then the dealers won't make profit enough to keep selling it illegaly. They sell becuase they want to make money, not te be rebelious and cool, so if they are going to make more money through higher prices, they are goign to sell it legally.
And people who take cocaine are often pretty wealthy, so they do care about what's in their coke.
Don't equivocate. It's a matter of ethics.
haha, what is remotely ethical about butting into other people's business, when they really rather you wouldn't, or about starting drug wars that lower the property value in inner city areas, creating ghettos. And I am the selfish one?
If you want the govt to regulate this stuff, then you have to convince them the people will approve. At least with the War on Drugs the govt is against drugs... if regulated the govt performs two big evils. Not very logical for the govt to regulate now is it?
And is the government not against people getting stuck in train doors and peopel shooting themselves in the eye with a nail gun? Do we put someone in jail is something like that happens to them? No, we don't, just like we shouldn't put drug users in jail for using drugs.
Btw, addictions aren't tangible objects. "Are they your addictions?"...
So? words like that can still be used possesively (ie, "has your headache gotten better
No, most dealers wouldn't even bother with selling the prices the govt put in place for them. No, they'll do as I have explained before speaking on the control they can have with low prices and high drug purity. The black market will continue to thrive. This doesn't seem any less of a problem.
When did I say to raise the prices? We want people to not have to rob people to buy their drugs.
Yours will never happen. I find that even worse. I don't really believe the War on Drugs works nor do I actually support its income just like you, but govt regulation and legalization of all drugs just will not work.
It will work, and has worked for years before the war on drugs started. Was society on the verge of collapsing before the war on drugs? No.
Okay, first off, here's a lesson in logic. Correlation isn't causation. Trends can be influenced by plenty of reasons and in this case the reason for increased homicides cannot be sufficiently blamed on Prohibition and the War on Drugs. These graphs are what swindle the simple-minded. Qualitative research would necessary to find the root of that which causes homicides. Yes, I'm saying your research sucks.
lawl, if you never equate correlation to causation, then all statistics are uselss. Canada's health care may have improved when it was socialized... but lemme guess, something else is probably responsible, and it's just a big coincidence? The same analogy could be used for every statistic ever thought of.
No, it wouldn't. The black market will still thrive and people will still shoot each other for other reasons.
Of course people will continue to shot each other for some reason, but not as many people would do it? By this logic, we should legalize murder, because somewhere, in some place, someone is murdering someone - nevermind that the frequency of murders will decrease.
Regulating drugs would keep the social problems at home evermore, yet perhaps some rehabilitation programs and information resources could perchance help these people.
And aren't rehabilitation programs easier when we can tell the users from the dealers, so none of them are thrown in jail? Would information resources be easier to create when the drugs are legal, so we can study them?
But, yes, the War on Drugs is drawing money away from more important solutions to be found to the same problems. I just cannot logically see govt regulation solving these problems. I hope neither can you.
I only said regulation can solve the problem of people mixing drugs with whatever crap they can find (you seemed to think I was advocating making drugs weaker), and that taxes would cover the rehabilitation programs, rather than trying to tackle the drug problem with not tax revenue whatsoever.
However, we would need to find a solution better than govt regulation to solve the drug problem.
I don't want to "sove the drug problem" becuase incase you didn't pick it up when i said i don't care about drug users, I don't care about the drug problem
, I just thinking making it alot worse by outlawing the drugs is stupid and too expensive, when I could be spending my money on things I want, rather than a warm feeling, knowing that I've just intervened in someones life with my tax dollars.
Oh, and, Mohawk brings up an excellent point. Colombia is a perfect role model for the new USA...
As Mellow said, drugs aren't even legal in Columbia, they just have alot of Coca plants, so the USA would hardly become the "new columbia".
And maybe you should read Mohawks post again, becuase he posted a link wich shows that a government-authorized heroin program for addicts, managed to stop them shooting up in parks, and decreased the crime commited by addicts by a whopping 60%.