What case exactly are you trying to make? Gangsters make money in more ways than selling drugs. Then you can't say anyone, buying any drugs, is somehow magically funding some mega cartel.
Seriously with this kind of thing going on, how could anyone want to do drugs and make life a living Hell for other people by funding these bastards?
Have you honestly totally forgotten about the prohibition? I suggest you look at the figures again if you're not sure.
It's legal status is what funds the gangs, not the inclination to consume narcotics. I'm seriously glad i'm not a brainwashed, upstanding citizen, for my concience's sake.
Cheesecat - I buy my drugs from supermarkets. I like a nice glass of wine or cider with my dinner, and thankfully since it's been legalised i've not had to fund a single criminal. Except for maybe the entire gvmt... But i'm pretty sure the extra £££ in the treasury are in marginally better hands than that of the bootleggers.
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:What case exactly are you trying to make? Gangsters make money in more ways than selling drugs. Then you can't say anyone, buying any drugs, is somehow magically funding some mega cartel.
I have friends from TJ that have told me some fairly nasty firsthand stories about what the drug gangs are doing down there. If you think people buying drugs these people smuggle into this country aren't funding what they're doing and aren't helping people be murdered by them, you are totaly kidding yourself.
Orki wrote:
Have you honestly totally forgotten about the prohibition? I suggest you look at the figures again if you're not sure.
It's legal status is what funds the gangs, not the inclination to consume narcotics. I'm seriously glad i'm not a brainwashed, upstanding citizen, for my concience's sake.
Cheesecat - I buy my drugs from supermarkets. I like a nice glass of wine or cider with my dinner, and thankfully since it's been legalised i've not had to fund a single criminal. Except for maybe the entire gvmt... But i'm pretty sure the extra £££ in the treasury are in marginally better hands than that of the bootleggers.
Let's assume for a moment drugs become legal. Do you think these people, who sew victim's faces onto soccer balls, among other ways of torture and murder, are going to suddenly be model businessmen? Do you really think that they'll gracefully give up a lucrative market? These people are worse than the bootleggers ever thought of being.
Orki wrote:
Have you honestly totally forgotten about the prohibition? I suggest you look at the figures again if you're not sure.
It's legal status is what funds the gangs, not the inclination to consume narcotics. I'm seriously glad i'm not a brainwashed, upstanding citizen, for my concience's sake.
Cheesecat - I buy my drugs from supermarkets. I like a nice glass of wine or cider with my dinner, and thankfully since it's been legalised i've not had to fund a single criminal. Except for maybe the entire gvmt... But i'm pretty sure the extra £££ in the treasury are in marginally better hands than that of the bootleggers.
Let's assume for a moment drugs become legal. Do you think these people, who sew victim's faces onto soccer balls, among other ways of torture and murder, are going to suddenly be model businessmen? Do you really think that they'll gracefully give up a lucrative market? These people are worse than the bootleggers ever thought of being.
I just laughed so hard. Please excuse me while I regain my composture.
If presented with a button that, when pressed, would kill someone I don't know, but would give me a million pounds, I would probably press it at least once. Hence I continue to use drugs.
The Dreadnote wrote:If presented with a button that, when pressed, would kill someone I don't know, but would give me a million pounds, I would probably press it at least once. Hence I continue to use drugs.
Chrysaor686 wrote:That's akin to saying: 'I'm glad I don't pay taxes so that I'm not funding the military slaughter of civilians in the middle east'.
Actually, it's nothing like that. The government spends your taxes on war. You(not you specifically ) spend your pocket money on drugs.
OP: People are too selfish to care that the money they spend on drugs may mean suffering for others. I hope you're learning a lesson here, Relapse.
Unless they grow their own. Then, I guess, they're styling. Pot should be legal at the very least.
Yea if you buy from the more peaceful local grower types more or just have your own, thats the way to go as opposed to intentionally supporting the Los Zetas
Chrysaor686 wrote:That's akin to saying: 'I'm glad I don't pay taxes so that I'm not funding the military slaughter of civilians in the middle east'.
No the government sent over United States Marines not Chaos Space Marines (which aren't real btw).
I wasn't interested in "the box" since they basically stole the idea from a really old episode of the twilight zone. Now that I've seen the preview I couldn't help but notice that the box itself looked almost identical to the one in the TZ episode. Cool idea but I think the subject was properly covered over the course of the episode.
Back on topic: Legalizing illegal substances would solve some problems (and no doubt cause others) but I wouldn't be surprised if the cartels had lobbyists in their pockets making sure that the laws stay the way they are. We are, after all, their best customers.
Orki wrote:
Have you honestly totally forgotten about the prohibition? I suggest you look at the figures again if you're not sure.
It's legal status is what funds the gangs, not the inclination to consume narcotics. I'm seriously glad i'm not a brainwashed, upstanding citizen, for my concience's sake.
Cheesecat - I buy my drugs from supermarkets. I like a nice glass of wine or cider with my dinner, and thankfully since it's been legalised i've not had to fund a single criminal. Except for maybe the entire gvmt... But i'm pretty sure the extra £££ in the treasury are in marginally better hands than that of the bootleggers.
Let's assume for a moment drugs become legal. Do you think these people, who sew victim's faces onto soccer balls, among other ways of torture and murder, are going to suddenly be model businessmen? Do you really think that they'll gracefully give up a lucrative market? These people are worse than the bootleggers ever thought of being.
I just laughed so hard. Please excuse me while I regain my composture.
*ahem*
Nah,sorry. This could take some time...
*snigger*
Why did you find it funny? Is the mention of torture and murder for some reason hilarious to you? Because the comparison between the Cartels and the gangs of the 1920s/30s isn't that bad, as they ran empires based around the sale of illegal substances, but whereas the Mobsters killed off or bribed their enemies, the Cartels almost always kill them, and their families or freinds, which is why half of Mexico is currently under seige by the military.
And to clarify we're talking about the sale of Illegal Narcotics, not Alcohol, which is legal.
It's funny, because it sounds like this person thinks somehow, if you were to ever buy drugs, from anyone, anywhere, your money is magically making its way to some evil drug cartel. I guess if someone decided to buy some cannabis from their resident old hippy guy, he must be some secret mole for the cartels, just like every other casual ganja grower.
I thought bear stromtroopers were the good guys. If you were a little crying girl and needed some protection, you can't go wrong with a bear armed for..er..bear?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:It's funny, because it sounds like this person thinks somehow, if you were to ever buy drugs, from anyone, anywhere, your money is magically making its way to some evil drug cartel. I guess if someone decided to buy some cannabis from their resident old hippy guy, he must be some secret mole for the cartels, just like every other casual ganja grower.
Odds are the resident old hippy guy bought from someone who bought from a cartel.
Yeah, well, people who do heroin and cocaine probably don't even care where their next meal or drink of water comes from, let alone their choice of crack.
It is probably impossible to go through life without buying, at some stage, something whereby those involved in it's manufacture or distribution aren't treated in some gakky way.
Clothing, jewelery, food and even energy often come from sources where child labour, brutal and dangerous working conditions and in extreme cases slavery and torture are all comonplace.
The Mexican, and other, cartels are certainly a nasty bunch and even if legalising the drugs they produce were to stop their involvement they would just move onto something else even more distasteful such as child prostitution or modern slavery (they probably are into this gak anyway). Now I appreciate that many of those involved feel forced into it either by extreme poverty and circumstance or are literaly forced, but there are also a huge number who do so willingly because of the potential to earn huge sums of money regardless of the moral implications.
I'm not suggesting we shouldn't care or not try to do something about the situation, but getting on your moral high horse because you dont buy drugs which exploit Mexicans when it is likely that you are wearing clothes which exploit Indoniesians, jewelry which exploits Indians and power your house with coal energy which exploits South Americans seems a little daft to me.
Monster Rain wrote:You do see the difference between wearing clothes and doing drugs, don't you?
As in, one is required by law in order to leave the house...
Obviously!
My point is that equaly bad things happen to people who are involved in the manufacture and supply of prefectly legal goods, surely this should be veiwed with more distain than those involved in the production of illegal goods?
Monster Rain wrote:You do see the difference between wearing clothes and doing drugs, don't you?
As in, one is required by law in order to leave the house...
Obviously!
My point is that equaly bad things happen to people who are involved in the manufacture and supply of prefectly legal goods, surely this should be veiwed with more distain than those involved in the production of illegal goods?
I don't know about more disdain, but certainly it's something worth thinking about.
Monster Rain wrote:You do see the difference between wearing clothes and doing drugs, don't you?
As in, one is required by law in order to leave the house...
Actually you are only required to have your lower genitals covered to leave the house (both sexes) (at least in Texas)... If someone wanted to strut around in a thong, or olive leaf more power to them....
I don't grow my own aspirin and there isn't a Mexican aspirin cartel.
Given the right climate, it's not hard to grow heroin and cocaine.
My wife was telling me a number of local councils in Japan had to eradicate a bunch of poppy plants which had seeded themselves in the flower beds around the town hall.
I used to grow poppies in my garden in Richmond, though I never tried to make heroin from them.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Yeah, well, people who do heroin and cocaine probably don't even care where their next meal or drink of water comes from, let alone their choice of crack.
Well pretty obvious you have no experience with people who do drugs.
I can't believe people still believe those old "drugs fund terrorism" ads they ran after 9/11. In some cases, yeah Afghani opium and FARC cocaine is paying for terrorist organizations. But to say anyone who does drugs is funding terrorism is stupid.
For everyone who feels better about this because they don't do any narcotics, how do you feel that American made guns are the actual weapons doing the killing down there? By supporting liberal gun laws so the cartels can purchase guns, aren't you also in a way supporting their crimes?
IMO legalization is the only answer. Obviously this opens a whole host of other problems and will never happen, but if you cut the funding from these organizations, where could they go next for their funding? Bootleg DVD's? Prostitution? The only reason these cartels are so big and disgustingly brutal are because we the American people make them so. If we didn't hoover up half the world's cocaine and changed the draconian marijuana laws, the cartels would be drastically reduced in power. The key to combating drugs is education and rehabilitation, not incarceration and war. But thats just my 2 cents.
squilverine wrote:It is probably impossible to go through life without buying, at some stage, something whereby those involved in it's manufacture or distribution aren't treated in some gakky way.
Clothing, jewelery, food and even energy often come from sources where child labour, brutal and dangerous working conditions and in extreme cases slavery and torture are all comonplace.
The Mexican, and other, cartels are certainly a nasty bunch and even if legalising the drugs they produce were to stop their involvement they would just move onto something else even more distasteful such as child prostitution or modern slavery (they probably are into this gak anyway). Now I appreciate that many of those involved feel forced into it either by extreme poverty and circumstance or are literaly forced, but there are also a huge number who do so willingly because of the potential to earn huge sums of money regardless of the moral implications.
I'm not suggesting we shouldn't care or not try to do something about the situation, but getting on your moral high horse because you dont buy drugs which exploit Mexicans when it is likely that you are wearing clothes which exploit Indoniesians, jewelry which exploits Indians and power your house with coal energy which exploits South Americans seems a little daft to me.
Coal is mined in the US we are the freeking OPEC of coal. What are you on about?
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Yeah, well, people who do heroin and cocaine probably don't even care where their next meal or drink of water comes from, let alone their choice of crack.
Well pretty obvious you have no experience with people who do drugs.
You're so incredibly wrong, but I completely understand. I was overgeneralising for my own entertainment.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Yeah, well, people who do heroin and cocaine probably don't even care where their next meal or drink of water comes from, let alone their choice of crack.
Well pretty obvious you have no experience with people who do drugs.
You're so incredibly wrong, but I completely understand. I was overgeneralising for my own entertainment.
Slightly over-topic, but it needs explaining: Someone mentioned that in Texas only one's lower genitals needed concealing. How many sets of genitals do people in Texas have?
Nurglitch wrote:Slightly over-topic, but it needs explaining: Someone mentioned that in Texas only one's lower genitals needed concealing. How many sets of genitals do people in Texas have?
If they had to cover their upper genitals they'd have to wear hats as well.
Nurglitch wrote:Slightly over-topic, but it needs explaining: Someone mentioned that in Texas only one's lower genitals needed concealing. How many sets of genitals do people in Texas have?
Where did you think they got the idea for the Centarui from?
Like all things, everything is more in Texas!(except our modesty)
Nurglitch wrote:Slightly over-topic, but it needs explaining: Someone mentioned that in Texas only one's lower genitals needed concealing. How many sets of genitals do people in Texas have?
It's not the number of them, they are just much larger than other peoples'.
Orki wrote:
Have you honestly totally forgotten about the prohibition? I suggest you look at the figures again if you're not sure.
It's legal status is what funds the gangs, not the inclination to consume narcotics. I'm seriously glad i'm not a brainwashed, upstanding citizen, for my concience's sake.
Cheesecat - I buy my drugs from supermarkets. I like a nice glass of wine or cider with my dinner, and thankfully since it's been legalised i've not had to fund a single criminal. Except for maybe the entire gvmt... But i'm pretty sure the extra £££ in the treasury are in marginally better hands than that of the bootleggers.
Let's assume for a moment drugs become legal. Do you think these people, who sew victim's faces onto soccer balls, among other ways of torture and murder, are going to suddenly be model businessmen? Do you really think that they'll gracefully give up a lucrative market? These people are worse than the bootleggers ever thought of being.
I just laughed so hard. Please excuse me while I regain my composture.
*ahem*
Nah,sorry. This could take some time...
*snigger*
Just to see how funny they thought it was, I talked to the Mexicans I work with about the situation. Alot of them say it's our fault their country is so jacked up because of the drug demand in this country, and they didn't see the humor in it that you do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:It's funny, because it sounds like this person thinks somehow, if you were to ever buy drugs, from anyone, anywhere, your money is magically making its way to some evil drug cartel. I guess if someone decided to buy some cannabis from their resident old hippy guy, he must be some secret mole for the cartels, just like every other casual ganja grower.
I don't think that. It's just that a lot of people in this country are wrapped up enough in their selfishness to not care that the money they're spending on drugs go to the cartels who are murdering a lot of people in drug wars in Mexico.
Curiously Canada produces enormous amounts of marijuana, and yet we don't have heavily armed shadow-gov'ts conducting civil wars in the streets... I blame the US for not demanding enough sweet BC hydro.
I get it from my dealer, and I couldn't honestly care less.
If I get it from the mexican cartels, do you think I care? Nada, senor.
Worry about yourself and your family and friends. If you really think that I care that you think I'm a bad person for "funding murderous cartels' then you mind as well go kill yourself, because there would be one less ignorant donkey-cave that I deal with on a day-to-day basis.
Orki wrote: Have you honestly totally forgotten about the prohibition? I suggest you look at the figures again if you're not sure.
It's legal status is what funds the gangs, not the inclination to consume narcotics. I'm seriously glad i'm not a brainwashed, upstanding citizen, for my concience's sake.
Cheesecat - I buy my drugs from supermarkets. I like a nice glass of wine or cider with my dinner, and thankfully since it's been legalised i've not had to fund a single criminal. Except for maybe the entire gvmt... But i'm pretty sure the extra £££ in the treasury are in marginally better hands than that of the bootleggers.
Let's assume for a moment drugs become legal. Do you think these people, who sew victim's faces onto soccer balls, among other ways of torture and murder, are going to suddenly be model businessmen? Do you really think that they'll gracefully give up a lucrative market? These people are worse than the bootleggers ever thought of being.
I just laughed so hard. Please excuse me while I regain my composture.
*ahem*
Nah,sorry. This could take some time...
*snigger*
Just to see how funny they thought it was, I talked to the Mexicans I work with about the situation. Alot of them say it's our fault their country is so jacked up because of the drug demand in this country, and they didn't see the humor in it that you do.
My apologies. I should've made it crystal clear to you. I find the violence associated with the problem utterly abhorrent.
I found your total inability to grasp my point however, very funny indeed.
You are unfortunately a prime example of why education is so important, and evidently sorely lacking.
I've only heard Health Education teachers and grandmothers put it that way.
"I don't want you out doing pot with those nogoodnik friends of yours!"
OP: This guy is the solipsistic type I was referring to earlier. Most of the time they grow out of this sort of attitude. The really sad cases don't.
Just an FYI, I had to google the word "solipsistic", haha.
I'm confused, I'm a grandmother for saying a general phrase? Not sure about what you were trying to get at.
Grow out of what attitude? I take care of myself. Others were saying I was the REASON those cartels killed people. As if they're positive that my drugs come directly from that cartel, and aren't from any other portion of the world. That's a close minded view.
I'm not "solipsistic" which, apparently is where I can't fathom that I am ever wrong, which I don't believe it true.
What I was getting at is that with everything that I have to do on a day-to-day basis, I don't have time to worry that my actions are affecting something that doesn't pertain to me at all, and will most likely never affect me.
Nurglitch wrote:Curiously Canada produces enormous amounts of marijuana, and yet we don't have heavily armed shadow-gov'ts conducting civil wars in the streets... I blame the US for not demanding enough sweet BC hydro.
Maybe the US should be getting more of there weed from Canada instead of Mexican Cartels after all everyone knows "BC bud is the best". Plus it could create more jobs in Canada (another reason why grass should be legalized ).
I've only heard Health Education teachers and grandmothers put it that way.
"I don't want you out doing pot with those nogoodnik friends of yours!"
OP: This guy is the solipsistic type I was referring to earlier. Most of the time they grow out of this sort of attitude. The really sad cases don't.
Just an FYI, I had to google the word "solipsistic", haha.
I'm confused, I'm a grandmother for saying a general phrase? Not sure about what you were trying to get at.
Grow out of what attitude? I take care of myself. Others were saying I was the REASON those cartels killed people. As if they're positive that my drugs come directly from that cartel, and aren't from any other portion of the world. That's a close minded view.
I'm not "solipsistic" which, apparently is where I can't fathom that I am ever wrong, which I don't believe it true.
What I was getting at is that with everything that I have to do on a day-to-day basis, I don't have time to worry that my actions are affecting something that doesn't pertain to me at all, and will most likely never affect me.
I was referring more to the lack of empathy on your part. I have a sneaking suspicion that you would feel differently about this issue if the roles were reversed with you living in TJ where the bullets are flying and someone else living up in the US funding the people that are destroying your country. Your statement wasn't "I don't think that my pot use funds drug wars" it was "Even if it does fund the horror in the Mexican bordertowns I don't give a gak" which is kind of indefensible. It's a fethed up situation and there's a lot more to it than the stoners in the US. I'd be lying if I said that I never smoked the chiba. The real crime is that either the Mexican or US governments could stop it if they really tried.
Yeah, and the solipsistic thing wasn't supposed to be it was just the best way to describe a rather self-centered worldview, to which you are certainly entitled.
I've only heard Health Education teachers and grandmothers put it that way.
"I don't want you out doing pot with those nogoodnik friends of yours!"
OP: This guy is the solipsistic type I was referring to earlier. Most of the time they grow out of this sort of attitude. The really sad cases don't.
Just an FYI, I had to google the word "solipsistic", haha.
I'm confused, I'm a grandmother for saying a general phrase? Not sure about what you were trying to get at.
Grow out of what attitude? I take care of myself. Others were saying I was the REASON those cartels killed people. As if they're positive that my drugs come directly from that cartel, and aren't from any other portion of the world. That's a close minded view.
I'm not "solipsistic" which, apparently is where I can't fathom that I am ever wrong, which I don't believe it true.
What I was getting at is that with everything that I have to do on a day-to-day basis, I don't have time to worry that my actions are affecting something that doesn't pertain to me at all, and will most likely never affect me.
I was referring more to the lack of empathy on your part. I have a sneaking suspicion that you would feel differently about this issue if the roles were reversed with you living in TJ where the bullets are flying and someone else living up in the US funding the people that are destroying your country. Your statement wasn't "I don't think that my pot use funds drug wars" it was "Even if it does fund the horror in the Mexican bordertowns I don't give a gak" which is kind of indefensible. It's a fethed up situation and there's a lot more to it than the stoners in the US. I'd be lying if I said that I never smoked the chiba. The real crime is that either the Mexican or US governments could stop it if they really tried.
Yeah, and the solipsistic thing wasn't supposed to be it was just the best way to describe a rather self-centered worldview, to which you are certainly entitled.
Its just I don't worry about things that don't pertain to me. I don't live in mexico.
The "If you were in their shoes" argument is irrelevant. I'm not, and I'm sure if I was in that situation I'd have enough sense to get the feth out.
I just don't like being generalized as the "hippy pot-smoker who now is responsible for the deaths that the drug cartels cause"....haha.
And yeah, I really don't care if the weed that I get through my dealer, who gets it from another guy, who gets it from another guy, who then could have possibly gotten it from a drug cartel is waaaay too vague and insignificant on my part for me to care.
Sorry if I sound rude or anything, I'm not trying to be, just speaking my mind.
I get it from my dealer, and I couldn't honestly care less.
If I get it from the mexican cartels, do you think I care? Nada, senor.
Worry about yourself and your family and friends. If you really think that I care that you think I'm a bad person for "funding murderous cartels' then you mind as well go kill yourself, because there would be one less ignorant donkey-cave that I deal with on a day-to-day basis.
I thought weed was supposed to calm you down... maybe you should go do some now.
Most of the marijuana I smoke comes straight from Colorado, my LSD is synthesized locally, my psylocybin is grown locally, and my amphetamines are government regulated, as is any OxyContin or any other opioid I consume. I've learned not to snort cocaine, as it's incredibly addictive and is priced at a rate that's way too high for me to afford (I've blown upwards of 300 dollars worth of cocaine in a single day). Cocaine is just about the last big import from south of the border (aside from possibly mescaline and DMT, neither of which are consumed in great numbers). Most drug dealers have come to realize that importing a drug from a state within their own country is exponentially easier than dealing with international relations, especially considering that the marijuana grown here is generally grown to a higher standard and they stand to make more profit off of it.
I'm not saying that I'm morally incorruptable or that I lead the life of some transcendant ascetic (none of us can manage that), but you definitely shouldn't peg all drug users to be ignorant bastards with no compassion or semblance of intelligence. Fate weaves an intricate web, and none of us are completely immune to negative results of our actions, no matter how far down the line they may be.
Drug use does not equal antisocial criminality. If the United States ceased it's activity in the war on drugs, and conceded that legalization is truly the correct option, then the vast majority of these violent cartels would be brought down, no matter how much they undercut prices. The situation would be contained, at the very least. The vast majority of us do not want to be criminals. Less than 10% of the people I know that consume drugs partake in other criminal activity. Even if relief from this constant threat of the law comes at a price, it's a price well worth paying to the majority of people.
Illegal drugs fund crime overwhelmingly almost to the exclusion of all other forms of crime. Its easy ,hard to catch and your addicts become your slave. Why would anyone make a comment that its preposterous that they (cartels) recieve the money. Drugs have completely undermined our country . Think that wont happen here think again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If its grown or made here your giving money to bad guys here which is worse and you are undermining us by helping to create more addicts.
That wasnt your point . You were making a sarcastic remark about USA. Thats your problem. My comments are not hyperbole theyre fact. So what other insults do you have?
Karon wrote:The "If you were in their shoes" argument is irrelevant. I'm not, and I'm sure if I was in that situation I'd have enough sense to get the feth out.
I think they do as well, which leads to half of the US complaining about how Mexican Immigrants are destroyig their nation.
You still havent explained what your sarcastic remark meant. What does hyperbole have to do with a sarcastic remark about my country (drugs/country). You answered my question by making a completely different point. I suspect you wont attempt to answer it.
I don't know. I keep hearing the "legalizing it will solve all our problems", but I don't really see how. I look at it in the same manner as pharmaceuticals. Those are legal but regulated. There's still a black market and crime associated with them. Are we going to treat cocaine as a perscripction drug? Who perscribes it, and for what? Or do we make it over-the-counter like alcohol? We still have folks getting addicted, we still have the crime associated with folks looking for their next score. Maybe we cut the cartel violence out of the equation, maybe not. Like another poster said, it's not like these gangs are just going to disappear. There will still be a black market for these drugs if they're regulated at all, the market (might) just be smaller. If the same gangs are fighting for a smaller, more competitive market why wouldn't we see an UPTICK in drug violence?
How is legalizing Heroin and Cocaine and other similar drugs not substituting one problem for something worse?
Alcohol is legal and school kids can get ahold of it. It scares me quite a bit thinking that kids could much more easily get substances that are far more addictive if drugs were legal.
There are enough problems now with teenagers becoming alcoholics without putting more things on the market that can do worse things to them than beer.
1-UP wrote:I don't know. I keep hearing the "legalizing it will solve all our problems", but I don't really see how. I look at it in the same manner as pharmaceuticals. Those are legal but regulated. There's still a black market and crime associated with them. Are we going to treat cocaine as a perscripction drug? Who perscribes it, and for what? Or do we make it over-the-counter like alcohol? We still have folks getting addicted, we still have the crime associated with folks looking for their next score. Maybe we cut the cartel violence out of the equation, maybe not. Like another poster said, it's not like these gangs are just going to disappear. There will still be a black market for these drugs if they're regulated at all, the market (might) just be smaller. If the same gangs are fighting for a smaller, more competitive market why wouldn't we see an UPTICK in drug violence?
Because you don't regulate it, barring your usual sin tax to fund public education on why this gak is bad for you. Same gak we do for alcohol and cigs.
How is legalizing Heroin and Cocaine and other similar drugs not substituting one problem for something worse?
Alcohol is legal and school kids can get ahold of it. It scares me quite a bit thinking that kids could much more easily get substances that are far more addictive if drugs were legal.
There are enough problems now with teenagers becoming alcoholics without putting more things on the market that can do worse things to them than beer.
You'll forgive me in thinking that mass murder ranks somewhat above a few people getting addicted to a drug they'd likely be doing anyway. It's not like it's very hard for kids to get their hands on drugs these days anyway. I had classmates with their own grow-ops, along with others who had their very own coke habits. What legalizing drugs and subjecting them to taxation and FDA standards does is to lower costs and decrease the risks of using them, meaning that addicts are no longer inhaling ground-up glass, and can afford to stay off the streets while still supporting a drug habit.
1-UP wrote:I don't know. I keep hearing the "legalizing it will solve all our problems", but I don't really see how. I look at it in the same manner as pharmaceuticals. Those are legal but regulated. There's still a black market and crime associated with them. Are we going to treat cocaine as a perscripction drug? Who perscribes it, and for what? Or do we make it over-the-counter like alcohol? We still have folks getting addicted, we still have the crime associated with folks looking for their next score. Maybe we cut the cartel violence out of the equation, maybe not. Like another poster said, it's not like these gangs are just going to disappear. There will still be a black market for these drugs if they're regulated at all, the market (might) just be smaller. If the same gangs are fighting for a smaller, more competitive market why wouldn't we see an UPTICK in drug violence?
Because you don't regulate it, barring your usual sin tax to fund public education on why this gak is bad for you. Same gak we do for alcohol and cigs.
There's quite a few regulations on cigarettes and alcohol in place - age you can purchase, where you can purchase, when you can purchase, when you can use, etc, where you can use, etc. What sort of rules get put in place for crack?
Will a vendor be obligated to not sell to a jonesing fiend like a bartender is obligated to not sell to an intoxicated individual?
Waagh!Balzsmasha! wrote:You still havent explained what your sarcastic remark meant. What does hyperbole have to do with a sarcastic remark about my country (drugs/country). You answered my question by making a completely different point. I suspect you wont attempt to answer it.
You claimed that drugs are undermining US society, Kilkrazy responded with a cliche about the quality of the US. As with any statement of sarcasm, this should be taken as a non-sequitur with respect to an argument.
Regardless, you seem to be confused with respect to the difference between fact and opinion. To state that something abstract is being 'undermined' is not a factual claim.
How is legalizing Heroin and Cocaine and other similar drugs not substituting one problem for something worse?
Alcohol is legal and school kids can get ahold of it. It scares me quite a bit thinking that kids could much more easily get substances that are far more addictive if drugs were legal.
There are enough problems now with teenagers becoming alcoholics without putting more things on the market that can do worse things to them than beer.
You'll forgive me in thinking that mass murder ranks somewhat above a few people getting addicted to a drug they'd likely be doing anyway. It's not like it's very hard for kids to get their hands on drugs these days anyway. I had classmates with their own grow-ops, along with others who had their very own coke habits. What legalizing drugs and subjecting them to taxation and FDA standards does is to lower costs and decrease the risks of using them, meaning that addicts are no longer inhaling ground-up glass, and can afford to stay off the streets while still supporting a drug habit.
Look at the stats for teen age alcoholism and the damage it does. Alcohol isn't hard for kids to get, and the idea I get from people posting here that want legalized drugs is to make them as easy to get as alcohol. I lived in a crack house for 6 months and had several classmates that used drugs . I have a real good idea from first hand knowledge what drugs do to people, and it's worse than alcohol.
1-UP wrote:I don't know. I keep hearing the "legalizing it will solve all our problems", but I don't really see how. I look at it in the same manner as pharmaceuticals. Those are legal but regulated. There's still a black market and crime associated with them. Are we going to treat cocaine as a perscripction drug? Who perscribes it, and for what? Or do we make it over-the-counter like alcohol? We still have folks getting addicted, we still have the crime associated with folks looking for their next score. Maybe we cut the cartel violence out of the equation, maybe not. Like another poster said, it's not like these gangs are just going to disappear. There will still be a black market for these drugs if they're regulated at all, the market (might) just be smaller. If the same gangs are fighting for a smaller, more competitive market why wouldn't we see an UPTICK in drug violence?
Because you don't regulate it, barring your usual sin tax to fund public education on why this gak is bad for you. Same gak we do for alcohol and cigs.
There's quite a few regulations on cigarettes and alcohol in place - age you can purchase, where you can purchase, when you can purchase, when you can use, etc, where you can use, etc. What sort of rules get put in place for crack?
Probably similar rules to smoking and/or drinking. Hell, DUI laws and such don't specify alcohol per se anyhow, just adapt existing laws and go from there. And there's still far less regulation than prescription drugs, as you originally argued. Of course, I'd be all for legalizing the sale of any sort of recreational pharmaceutical, so the point is a bit moot...
Will a vendor be obligated to not sell to a jonesing fiend like a bartender is obligated to not sell to an intoxicated individual?
False analogy, as it's still perfectly legal to sell alcohol to a "jonesing" alcoholic (and also legal to sell to someone who's already drunk, if my bar tab has anything to say about it). A more apt comparison would be selling cocaine to a fiend who's on the edge of OD'ing.
My mate got jumped randomly at a skate park in early April. 2 Blokes basically pummelled him to near death with a cricket bat and jack hammer, as he was getting into his car. He came away with 2 broken ribs, a broken neck, and most of his face being broken. He couldn't even remember what happened, all because his girlfriend was in serious debt with a local drug lord, and owed him over £8,000 for cocaine. He didn't even know anything about it. He never saw her again after that..
TheFirstBorn wrote:My mate got jumped randomly at a skate park in early April. 2 Blokes basically pummelled him to near death with a cricket bat and jack hammer, as he was getting into his car. He came away with 2 broken ribs, a broken neck, and most of his face being broken. He couldn't even remember what happened, all because his girlfriend was in serious debt with a local drug lord, and owed him over £8,000 for cocaine. He didn't even know anything about it. He never saw her again after that..
Well I didn't laugh at all about this
That sucks. Like really. How'd they know to come for him though? They didn't want to hurt a girl or something? it's her debt...
How is legalizing Heroin and Cocaine and other similar drugs not substituting one problem for something worse?
Alcohol is legal and school kids can get ahold of it. It scares me quite a bit thinking that kids could much more easily get substances that are far more addictive if drugs were legal.
There are enough problems now with teenagers becoming alcoholics without putting more things on the market that can do worse things to them than beer.
You'll forgive me in thinking that mass murder ranks somewhat above a few people getting addicted to a drug they'd likely be doing anyway. It's not like it's very hard for kids to get their hands on drugs these days anyway. I had classmates with their own grow-ops, along with others who had their very own coke habits. What legalizing drugs and subjecting them to taxation and FDA standards does is to lower costs and decrease the risks of using them, meaning that addicts are no longer inhaling ground-up glass, and can afford to stay off the streets while still supporting a drug habit.
Look at the stats for teen age alcoholism and the damage it does. Alcohol isn't hard for kids to get, and the idea I get from people posting here that want legalized drugs is to make them as easy to get as alcohol. I lived in a crack house for 6 months and had several classmates that used drugs . I have a real good idea from first hand knowledge what drugs do to people, and it's worse than alcohol.
Okay, so you had an addiction that you couldn't handle. I've had friends who've managed their drug habits without moving into a crack house. On the other hand, I've had friends drink themselves to death far more than classmates have done with their harder drug habits. Anecdotes make for crappy evidence.
And still, what someone chooses to drink, stick in their arm, shove up their nose, or inhale is their own choice, and it's their own damn fault for killing themselves with it. On the other hand, being killed because a Cartel hitman needed your car is not precisely something you chose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote:
TheFirstBorn wrote:My mate got jumped randomly at a skate park in early April. 2 Blokes basically pummelled him to near death with a cricket bat and jack hammer, as he was getting into his car. He came away with 2 broken ribs, a broken neck, and most of his face being broken. He couldn't even remember what happened, all because his girlfriend was in serious debt with a local drug lord, and owed him over £8,000 for cocaine. He didn't even know anything about it. He never saw her again after that..
Well I didn't laugh at all about this
That sucks. Like really. How'd they know to come for him though? They didn't want to hurt a girl or something? it's her debt...
Dead people and cripples don't pay bills. People that're scared that you're going to kill their friends and family, however...
TheFirstBorn wrote:My mate got jumped randomly at a skate park in early April. 2 Blokes basically pummelled him to near death with a cricket bat and jack hammer, as he was getting into his car. He came away with 2 broken ribs, a broken neck, and most of his face being broken. He couldn't even remember what happened, all because his girlfriend was in serious debt with a local drug lord, and owed him over £8,000 for cocaine. He didn't even know anything about it. He never saw her again after that..
Well I didn't laugh at all about this
That sucks. Like really. How'd they know to come for him though? They didn't want to hurt a girl or something? it's her debt...
She was there when it happened. They'd obviously been watching from there vehicle. She did a runner after the event, and due to the lack of information or witness's at the event, at which there was several who didn't come forward, the case was just closed.
See what I mean? Drugs are just universally bad. Nothing good can come from drugs. Well, if horse was legal.....
Just kidding, I could care less either way. My uncle's a serious crack guy, and the rest of the family just ignores him entirely. Oh, and he's my uncle by marriage, which means we don't need to take any responsibility for him
1-UP wrote:I don't know. I keep hearing the "legalizing it will solve all our problems", but I don't really see how. I look at it in the same manner as pharmaceuticals. Those are legal but regulated. There's still a black market and crime associated with them. Are we going to treat cocaine as a perscripction drug? Who perscribes it, and for what? Or do we make it over-the-counter like alcohol? We still have folks getting addicted, we still have the crime associated with folks looking for their next score. Maybe we cut the cartel violence out of the equation, maybe not. Like another poster said, it's not like these gangs are just going to disappear. There will still be a black market for these drugs if they're regulated at all, the market (might) just be smaller. If the same gangs are fighting for a smaller, more competitive market why wouldn't we see an UPTICK in drug violence?
The reason that there is a black market for prescription pills is because they are not readily available for the public's consumption. Do you think that people would pay the ridiculously inflated price of a drug dealer if they could get the government pricing? Absolutely not. Also, notice how there is absolutely no presence of underground alcohol sales. I'm sure you understand why. It is readily available, and loosely controlled. There are still illegal sales that supercede the restrictions placed on alcohol (adults buying alcohol for minors), but there is no black market for such a readily available drug. Once you place such heavy restrictions on a drug, and only make it available to the select people who are deemed worthy of consumption, then that opens up an illegal market for said drug.
Take a look at California, for example. Even though marijuana is available via prescription, the requirements for a prescription are so loose that quite literally anyone can acquire one. The decriminalization of marijuana in California has put a stop to virtually all underground sales of the drug. Drug dealers realize that they cannot compete with such a large, dominant, and completely legal market, and so they have conceded. With a gradual phasing in of other illicit drugs, you are bound to see the same results. There may be an increase in drug-related violence, but the vast majority of those affected will be the violent criminals who are attempting to take control of the market. For all intents and purposes, they will wipe themselves out if they don't realize that they cannot compete with an open, legal market.
Alcohol has more adverse effects than any illicit drug. I won't spend my time going into any of that unless you truly want me to, but suffice to say that once other drugs are made legal, the illegal activities commited as a result of those drugs will even out with the illegal activities/deaths/accidents/damages caused by alcohol, because quite a few people use it as a legal placeholder for more beneficial drugs (or they don't want to be deemed 'immoral' or 'criminal' for consuming illegal drugs).
Also, keep in mind the potential that legalizing drugs has for ending our economic depression. A ridiculous number of jobs would be created, practically out of thin air. Tax-free revenue would basically become non-existant. Descrimination against personal drug use in other workplaces would be cut considerably. All spending would feed back into the community, instead of feeding into criminal activity.
First of all, I occasionally smoke a little marijuana. I find it settles my stomach and makes it easier to sleep (I'm a terrible insomniac). I have been buying from the same guy for about 15 years, and I know where he gets his stuff from: Farms in Canada. That's why when the DEA found and shut down a major tunnel under the American-Canadian border he had trouble filling orders for a month or so, and prices temporarily soared. The particular strain he sells (Northern Lights) was originally developed in the horticulture labs at the University of Washington, and when I was in high school was still grown at the UofW -- they shut down that operation around '96. So I'm not particularly concerned about my vices funding terrorism. Because I'm about 99.9% my vices only fund dirty old hippies. But even if I were living in the southwest and buying Mexican ditch weed directly from the cartels, I'd still find this argument ludicrous.
Look around your house. If you're an average American, your house is filled with cheap consumer goods. Goods manufactured on the other side of the planet, often in China. China, where a brutal, totalitarian government forces its citizens to work under grueling conditions for minimal pay. Where quitting your job is a crime. Where forming a union is a crime. Where standing up for your rights is a crime.
All of us, every single one of us, is guilty of looking the other way while billions suffer under despotic regimes that are funded by kickbacks paid by American corporations, all to keep us rolling in cheap consumer goods. Where is your conscience on that? It doesn't take much research to find the connections between American consumption and tyranny, slavery, despotism, and endless violence.
If you're American, you're an evil unto this world. Make your peace with that, or shut up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chrysaor686 wrote:The reason that there is a black market for prescription pills is because they are not readily available for the public's consumption. Do you think that people would pay the ridiculously inflated price of a drug dealer if they could get the government pricing? Absolutely not. Also, notice how there is absolutely no presence of underground alcohol sales. I'm sure you understand why. It is readily available, and loosely controlled. There are still illegal sales that supercede the restrictions placed on alcohol (adults buying alcohol for minors), but there is no black market for such a readily available drug. Once you place such heavy restrictions on a drug, and only make it available to the select people who are deemed worthy of consumption, then that opens up an illegal market for said drug.
Take a look at California, for example. Even though marijuana is available via prescription, the requirements for a prescription are so loose that quite literally anyone can acquire one. The decriminalization of marijuana in California has put a stop to virtually all underground sales of the drug. Drug dealers realize that they cannot compete with such a large, dominant, and completely legal market, and so they have conceded. With a gradual phasing in of other illicit drugs, you are bound to see the same results. There may be an increase in drug-related violence, but the vast majority of those affected will be the violent criminals who are attempting to take control of the market. For all intents and purposes, they will wipe themselves out if they don't realize that they cannot compete with an open, legal market.
Alcohol has more adverse effects than any illicit drug. I won't spend my time going into any of that unless you truly want me to, but suffice to say that once other drugs are made legal, the illegal activities commited as a result of those drugs will even out with the illegal activities/deaths/accidents/damages caused by alcohol, because quite a few people use it as a legal placeholder for more beneficial drugs (or they don't want to be deemed 'immoral' or 'criminal' for consuming illegal drugs).
Also, keep in mind the potential that legalizing drugs has for ending our economic depression. A ridiculous number of jobs would be created, practically out of thin air. Tax-free revenue would basically become non-existant. Descrimination against personal drug use in other workplaces would be cut considerably. All spending would feed back into the community, instead of feeding into criminal activity.
Oh my god, so QUOTED FOR TRUTH.
Phillip Morris, largest cigarette manufacturer in the world, is a despicable company in many ways. But they are moral paragons compared to the Columbian cartels. Phillip Morris also has already registered trademarks for several brands of marijuana cigarettes. You know, just in case it becomes legal. Because if you have the means to grow, process, package and distribute tobacco, you can do the same with marijuana (the two crops are nearly identical). If marijuana was legalized and regulated just as tobacco is, then the black market for marijuana would die overnight. Because the cartels can't compete with Phillip Morris.
Wouldn't the world be a better place if Phillip Morris was in charge of the drug trade, rather than Juan Escobar? Obviously so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:Look at the stats for teen age alcoholism and the damage it does. Alcohol isn't hard for kids to get, and the idea I get from people posting here that want legalized drugs is to make them as easy to get as alcohol. I lived in a crack house for 6 months and had several classmates that used drugs . I have a real good idea from first hand knowledge what drugs do to people, and it's worse than alcohol.
Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol. I know when I was in high school it was much, much easier to get weed and acid than whiskey and beer.
After all, drug dealers don't card check like convenience stores do.
How is legalizing Heroin and Cocaine and other similar drugs not substituting one problem for something worse?
Alcohol is legal and school kids can get ahold of it. It scares me quite a bit thinking that kids could much more easily get substances that are far more addictive if drugs were legal.
There are enough problems now with teenagers becoming alcoholics without putting more things on the market that can do worse things to them than beer.
Look at the stats for teen age alcoholism and the damage it does. Alcohol isn't hard for kids to get, and the idea I get from people posting here that want legalized drugs is to make them as easy to get as alcohol. I lived in a crack house for 6 months and had several classmates that used drugs . I have a real good idea from first hand knowledge what drugs do to people, and it's worse than alcohol.
Okay, so you had an addiction that you couldn't handle. I've had friends who've managed their drug habits without moving into a crack house. On the other hand, I've had friends drink themselves to death far more than classmates have done with their harder drug habits. Anecdotes make for crappy evidence.
And still, what someone chooses to drink, stick in their arm, shove up their nose, or inhale is their own choice, and it's their own damn fault for killing themselves with it. On the other hand, being killed because a Cartel hitman needed your car is not precisely something you chose.
I should have been clearer. I wasn't using drugs, it was some really crappy circumstances in my life at the time that saw me living in the crack house. The time there gave me good opportunity to observe the people there and compare to things I had learned about drug use earlier.
The stats for teen alcoholism are far more than anecdotes as are the fact that a lot of drugs are far more addictive than alcohol. It's also a fact that if drugs are as easy to get as alcohol, you'll have teens using them more often. It's not a good combination and I think it will lead to some serious problems that are far worse than what is going on now.
It goes beyond the addiction problem to the potential for chromosome damage and children of users being born with some serious problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:
[Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol. I know when I was in high school it was much, much easier to get weed and acid than whiskey and beer.
After all, drug dealers don't card check like convenience stores do.
You haven't been to too many school dances or parties, then?
Gailbraithe wrote:First of all, I occasionally smoke a little marijuana. I find it settles my stomach and makes it easier to sleep (I'm a terrible insomniac). I have been buying from the same guy for about 15 years, and I know where he gets his stuff from: Farms in Canada. That's why when the DEA found and shut down a major tunnel under the American-Canadian border he had trouble filling orders for a month or so, and prices temporarily soared. The particular strain he sells (Northern Lights) was originally developed in the horticulture labs at the University of Washington, and when I was in high school was still grown at the UofW -- they shut down that operation around '96. So I'm not particularly concerned about my vices funding terrorism. Because I'm about 99.9% my vices only fund dirty old hippies. But even if I were living in the southwest and buying Mexican ditch weed directly from the cartels, I'd still find this argument ludicrous.
It is strange but no less than the concept of a gateway drug is. Which is to say, both are strange arguments from generally the same sources.
Besides being literally impossible to know where every level of commerce takes place, it is easy enough to conclude that the simple idea that a person is funding death, falls short of explaining many factors concerning the full picture. That picture would look a lot like monkeys getting wasted, but it would mainly be a schematic beyond that one focal point.
Look around your house. If you're an average American, your house is filled with cheap consumer goods. Goods manufactured on the other side of the planet, often in China. China, where a brutal, totalitarian government forces its citizens to work under grueling conditions for minimal pay. Where quitting your job is a crime. Where forming a union is a crime. Where standing up for your rights is a crime.
This is also a strange argument.
All of us, every single one of us, is guilty of looking the other way while billions suffer under despotic regimes that are funded by kickbacks paid by American corporations, all to keep us rolling in cheap consumer goods. Where is your conscience on that? It doesn't take much research to find the connections between American consumption and tyranny, slavery, despotism, and endless violence.
We consume too much, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Now... seriously think about what would happen to our economy without that level of consumption. Not to say that we should sustain it, just that presenting consumption as an entirely good/evil concept is lacking clarity where much is needed. There isn't as clear an alternative/s as your suggestions would assume.
If you're American, you're an evil unto this world. Make your peace with that, or shut up.
No. Wrong. I could go into semantics on this point but I am not an academic and find the whole argument ridiculous. I am a United States citizen and beyond recognizing our problems as a whole, this type of conversational framing does little to promote serious discussion.
The American people demand TACOS!!! So says Wrex.
Phillip Morris, largest cigarette manufacturer in the world, is a despicable company in many ways. But they are moral paragons compared to the Columbian cartels. Phillip Morris also has already registered trademarks for several brands of marijuana cigarettes. You know, just in case it becomes legal. Because if you have the means to grow, process, package and distribute tobacco, you can do the same with marijuana (the two crops are nearly identical). If marijuana was legalized and regulated just as tobacco is, then the black market for marijuana would die overnight. Because the cartels can't compete with Phillip Morris.
I agree, even if I doubt your suggestion as to the instantaneous nature of such a solution. Even noting that gangs would inevitably make up for lost profits in other ways (probably shifting more problems into a southern context, a non-U.S. context), does not cast much doubt onto the solution on the whole.
I do not automatically extend this same concept to that of drugs beyond marijuana, which will always have some form of black market, as almost every good does and always will do.
Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol. I know when I was in high school it was much, much easier to get weed and acid than whiskey and beer.
After all, drug dealers don't card check like convenience stores do.
That really depends on the high school and area in question, even if the general idea is sound. Besides that point, if a minor wants alcohol they can get alcohol but the penalties (the reputation) of harder substances, and the manner in which they are distributed create a contrast that is very clear to see. There is an argument to be had over the manner in which a substance such as marijuana should be promoted. It might be okay for pot to be sold legally but is it okay when posters of pot getting someone laid (insert brand here) start getting pasted everywhere? Does doubling, or tripling on the enticement to drugs amount to a 'less healthy' society?
I don't think an ad talking about smoking pot and getting laid is a particularly negative addition to our culture, some would definitely disagree on that point. I would really be interested in seeing what connections can be drawn (with science!) between increased use of marijuana and the overall achievement of high school/college level students. You can bet your bottom dollar that the second pot is available in a store, not only will a large part of weekend consumption continue, there will also be a rise in sales overall. More, more, more. More alcohol, more pot, more smokes, more snacks. How long that would last is the only serious question. Where the lack of change occurs is also another good question.
Relapse wrote:I should have been clearer. I wasn't using drugs at the time, it was some really crappy circumstances in my life at the time that saw me living in the crack house. The time there gave me good opportunity to observe the people there and compare to things I had learned about drug use earlier.
The stats for teen alcoholism are far more than anecdotes as are the fact that a lot of drugs are far more addictive than alcohol. It's also a fact that if drugs are as easy to get as alcohol, you'll have teens using them more often. It's not a good combination and I think it will lead to some serious problems that are far worse than what is going on now.
It goes beyond the addiction problem to the potential for chromosome damage and children of users being born with some serious problems.
And yet it's still the person's choice to become an addict (albeit a stupid choice), just as it's a choice to become an alcoholic. As MTV and the WBC have wonderfully demonstrated, people have an unfortunate right to act like idiots.
As for chromosomal damage, that's more an argument for inexpensive access to reliable screening technology and birth control, but that's neither here nor there.
Gailbraithe wrote:
All of us, every single one of us, is guilty of looking the other way while billions suffer under despotic regimes that are funded by kickbacks paid by American corporations, all to keep us rolling in cheap consumer goods. Where is your conscience on that? It doesn't take much research to find the connections between American consumption and tyranny, slavery, despotism, and endless violence.
Indeed, but proving that those connections are causal is far, far more difficult.
And hey, let's not forget that there is a large difference between a group of people being upset about the suffering caused to it, directly or indirectly, by some of its members and the same group caring about suffering caused to others, directly or indirectly, by some its members.
Gailbraithe wrote:
If you're American, you're an evil unto this world. Make your peace with that, or shut up.
If the use of cheap consumer goods necessarily makes one an 'evil', then just about everyone on the planet is evil. An implication that essentially neuters your critique.
Relapse wrote:I should have been clearer. I wasn't using drugs at the time, it was some really crappy circumstances in my life at the time that saw me living in the crack house. The time there gave me good opportunity to observe the people there and compare to things I had learned about drug use earlier.
The stats for teen alcoholism are far more than anecdotes as are the fact that a lot of drugs are far more addictive than alcohol. It's also a fact that if drugs are as easy to get as alcohol, you'll have teens using them more often. It's not a good combination and I think it will lead to some serious problems that are far worse than what is going on now.
It goes beyond the addiction problem to the potential for chromosome damage and children of users being born with some serious problems.
And yet it's still the person's choice to become an addict (albeit a stupid choice), just as it's a choice to become an alcoholic. As MTV and the WBC have wonderfully demonstrated, people have an unfortunate right to act like idiots.
As for chromosomal damage, that's more an argument for inexpensive access to reliable screening technology and birth control, but that's neither here nor there.
The fact remains that there is a huge problem with teen alcoholics. The earlier someone begins drinking in life, the better the chance there is of them becoming an alcoholic. The same will be true with drugs as easily obtained as alcohol.
Explain a bit more your statement about screening for chromosome damage. Are you saying that people that use drugs should be screened before having babies? If so, the statement is pointless because someone undiciplined enough to become an addict is more than likely going to be popping out babies, screened or not.
Gailbraithe wrote:
If you're American, you're an evil unto this world. Make your peace with that, or shut up.
If the use of cheap consumer goods necessarily makes one an 'evil', then just about everyone on the planet is evil. An implication that essentially neuters your critique.
Agreed. Also, the use of consumer goods actually feeds a rather large amount into the American tax system, which funds social programs and international aid which is good.
The statement in red outlines the belief of a world class extremist. Just pointing that out for future reference.
Gailbraithe wrote:All of us, every single one of us, is guilty of looking the other way while billions suffer under despotic regimes that are funded by kickbacks paid by American corporations, all to keep us rolling in cheap consumer goods. Where is your conscience on that? It doesn't take much research to find the connections between American consumption and tyranny, slavery, despotism, and endless violence.
We consume too much, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Now... seriously think about what would happen to our economy without that level of consumption. Not to say that we should sustain it, just that presenting consumption as an entirely good/evil concept is lacking clarity where much is needed. There isn't as clear an alternative/s as your suggestions would assume.
I think you're taking away the wrong message here. I am not presenting consumption as entirely good or evil -- it is the OP who is doing that. I'm only saying that consumer goods consumption is connected intimately to despotism in many forms, in the exact same way that drug consumption is connected to black market crime and violence. Thus if one is going to damn all drug users for the violence of Columbian cartels, then one must also logically damn all Wal-Mart customers for the slavery inherent in the Chinese system of labor.
The point I was trying to make is that if you're going to say "I am seriously glad I don't do drugs for my conscience's sake" you also need to say "I am seriously glad I don't buy anything made with Chinese parts for my conscience's sake," or you're a hypocrite.
Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol. I know when I was in high school it was much, much easier to get weed and acid than whiskey and beer.
After all, drug dealers don't card check like convenience stores do.
That really depends on the high school and area in question, even if the general idea is sound.
CASA, the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, has done a national survey every two years since 1992, and has consistently found that teens have readier access to illegal drugs than legal ones. And the thing that has made that become more true over time is not stricter drug enforcement, but stricter commercial enforcement of card check.
Legal, licensed sellers who rely on maintaining a good standing within the community are much easier to regulate than black market operators who are disposed towards shooting the regulators. When states started strongly enforcing age limits on alcohol and tobacco sales, the Southland Corporation (owners of the 7-11 franchise) did not start shooting at the undercover agents who came into their stores, and they did not flee the scene and spend the next week hiding in their grandmother's basement. They sent out a memo to their store employees saying "Card check or its your job and a $5,000 fine." And sure enough, it became much harder for teens to get cigarettes in every state where age limits were actually enforced.
Gailbraithe wrote:
CASA, the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, has done a national survey every two years since 1992, and has consistently found that teens have readier access to illegal drugs than legal ones. And the thing that has made that become more true over time is not stricter drug enforcement, but stricter commercial enforcement of card check.
Legal, licensed sellers who rely on maintaining a good standing within the community are much easier to regulate than black market operators who are disposed towards shooting the regulators. When states started strongly enforcing age limits on alcohol and tobacco sales, the Southland Corporation (owners of the 7-11 franchise) did not start shooting at the undercover agents who came into their stores, and they did not flee the scene and spend the next week hiding in their grandmother's basement. They sent out a memo to their store employees saying "Card check or its your job and a $5,000 fine." And sure enough, it became much harder for teens to get cigarettes in every state where age limits were actually enforced.
Are you talking drugs here, or alcohol? I don't know about how easy it is for teens to get legal drugs, but from the stats on teenage alcoholics and anyone who went to high school in this country can tell you, alcohol is easy to get for teens.
Gailbraithe wrote:I think you're taking away the wrong message here. I am not presenting consumption as entirely good or evil -- it is the OP who is doing that. I'm only saying that consumer goods consumption is connected intimately to despotism in many forms, in the exact same way that drug consumption is connected to black market crime and violence. Thus if one is going to damn all drug users for the violence of Columbian cartels, then one must also logically damn all Wal-Mart customers for the slavery inherent in the Chinese system of labor.
I suppose so, it is a greater stretch than the original argument, at least IMO, and in that way it is similarly strange.
The point I was trying to make is that if you're going to say "I am seriously glad I don't do drugs for my conscience's sake" you also need to say "I am seriously glad I don't buy anything made with Chinese parts for my conscience's sake," or you're a hypocrite.
That depends an awful lot on what is meant on both sides of a conversation. I don't feel either statement is sound, nor does one suggest the need for the other, in a necessary sense.
CASA, the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, has done a national survey every two years since 1992, and has consistently found that teens have readier access to illegal drugs than legal ones. And the thing that has made that become more true over time is not stricter drug enforcement, but stricter commercial enforcement of card check.
Which would suggest that legalizing and regulating some illicit substances, could be considered a great idea. I happen to agree with that, even if it still depends on the actual areas in question, aside the concept of the whole. Could some communities be impacted negatively, where others are positively? Your ass, bet it.
Legal, licensed sellers who rely on maintaining a good standing within the community are much easier to regulate than black market operators who are disposed towards shooting the regulators. When states started strongly enforcing age limits on alcohol and tobacco sales, the Southland Corporation (owners of the 7-11 franchise) did not start shooting at the undercover agents who came into their stores, and they did not flee the scene and spend the next week hiding in their grandmother's basement. They sent out a memo to their store employees saying "Card check or its your job and a $5,000 fine." And sure enough, it became much harder for teens to get cigarettes in every state where age limits were actually enforced.
As one would assume the outcome to be. It is a clean idea but one that could be considered rough around the edges, even if it is polished like piano keys in the center.
Gailbraithe wrote:
CASA, the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, has done a national survey every two years since 1992, and has consistently found that teens have readier access to illegal drugs than legal ones. And the thing that has made that become more true over time is not stricter drug enforcement, but stricter commercial enforcement of card check.
Legal, licensed sellers who rely on maintaining a good standing within the community are much easier to regulate than black market operators who are disposed towards shooting the regulators. When states started strongly enforcing age limits on alcohol and tobacco sales, the Southland Corporation (owners of the 7-11 franchise) did not start shooting at the undercover agents who came into their stores, and they did not flee the scene and spend the next week hiding in their grandmother's basement. They sent out a memo to their store employees saying "Card check or its your job and a $5,000 fine." And sure enough, it became much harder for teens to get cigarettes in every state where age limits were actually enforced.
Are you talking drugs here, or alcohol? I don't know about how easy it is for teens to get legal drugs, but from the stats on teenage alcoholics and anyone who went to high school in this country can tell you, alcohol is easy to get for teens.
I'm talking about alcohol and tobacco. Both of which are sold out of brick and mortar stores by tax-paying, honest citizens. The kind of people who are easy to regulate, because they don't shoot regulators.
Please note that my argument is not and has never been that alcohol and tobacco are difficult for teens to come by, only that illegal drugs are easier to get. The average teen requires about 24 hours to get alcohol, while that same average teen only needs one hour to get weed. Because often the weed dealer attends school with them, and one is rarely more than an hour away from an opportunity to score.
Your mileage may vary. In some areas the enforcement of age limits on legal drugs is lax, making it easier for teens to get them, just as some areas are "dry" and illegal drugs are simply harder for anyone to get because there is no local drug trade.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I think you're taking away the wrong message here. I am not presenting consumption as entirely good or evil -- it is the OP who is doing that. I'm only saying that consumer goods consumption is connected intimately to despotism in many forms, in the exact same way that drug consumption is connected to black market crime and violence.
No, the relationship isn't the same. In one case we're talking about direct funding of criminal activity through the purchase of illegal substances. In the other we're talking about a state which creates a set of legal conditions that allow a certain set of business practices to thrive. Refusing to buy Chinese goods would endanger the profitability of Chinese businesses, but it wouldn't necessarily alter the behavior of the Chinese state; which is not intrinsically connected to private industrial or commercial concerns. Even in a state as corrupt, and overbearing as China.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Thus if one is going to damn all drug users for the violence of Columbian cartels, then one must also logically damn all Wal-Mart customers for the slavery inherent in the Chinese system of labor.
You really shouldn't throw the word 'slavery' around when it isn't applicable, it cheapens the concept. Working conditions in China are certainly poor for the majority of the people there, but the population is hardly enslaved in the sense that they are owned by the state, the wealthy, or any other entity.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that if you're going to say "I am seriously glad I don't do drugs for my conscience's sake" you also need to say "I am seriously glad I don't buy anything made with Chinese parts for my conscience's sake," or you're a hypocrite.
Even if we assume that your contention regarding the relationships in question is true, we still don't arrive at a hypocritical conclusion because it is possible to make a moral distinction between causing harm to ones countrymen, and causing harm to otherwise random people.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I'm talking about alcohol and tobacco. Both of which are sold out of brick and mortar stores by tax-paying, honest citizens. The kind of people who are easy to regulate, because they don't shoot regulators.
Please note that my argument is not and has never been that alcohol and tobacco are difficult for teens to come by, only that illegal drugs are easier to get. The average teen requires about 24 hours to get alcohol, while that same average teen only needs one hour to get weed. Because often the weed dealer attends school with them, and one is rarely more than an hour away from an opportunity to score.
Your mileage may vary. In some areas the enforcement of age limits on legal drugs is lax, making it easier for teens to get them, just as some areas are "dry" and illegal drugs are simply harder for anyone to get because there is no local drug trade.
I understand the point you're trying to make here, but what will happen is there obviously will be more places to get drugs and it will be even easier for more teens to obtain them. Obviously not a good scenario.
For every corner store there is more than likely many, many, many drug dealers. It really depends on how you define 'drug dealer' but the idea that stores replacing dealers would create more access, is flimsy at best. This all assumes that stores would in fact replace dealers, which is also a bit flexible, although, not particularly flimsy.
If large scale legal business can do anything, it can take a ton of money out of the pockets of the black market. You don't need to shut it down (which is probably impossible), just the ability to effectively disincentive the process of selling pot illegally. I have seen no information to suggest that teens even make up the largest part of the illegal pot market, and I would be surprised if it were in fact the case.
As soon as the illegal market loses it's largest share, you will see the beginning of a massive loss of profit, probably over the course of 6-12 months.
If you're American, you're an evil unto this world. Make your peace with that, or shut up.
So much imperious, arrogant demonization in one little sentence.
Genius.
He hates himself dude. He's projecting.
Whatever the case...
The only drugs you are allowed to do are the ones that the lobbyists and government decide you can. Heroin is illegal, Oxycontin is not. And we all know how hard it is to get your hands on Oxys if you looking, am I right?
Wrexasaur wrote:For every corner store there is more than likely many, many, many drug dealers. It really depends on how you define 'drug dealer' but the idea that stores replacing dealers would create more access, is flimsy at best. This all assumes that stores would in fact replace dealers, which is also a bit flexible, although, not particularly flimsy.
If large scale legal business can do anything, it can take a ton of money out of the pockets of the black market. You don't need to shut it down (which is probably impossible), just the ability to effectively disincentive the process of selling pot illegally. I have seen no information to suggest that teens even make up the largest part of the illegal pot market, and I would be surprised if it were in fact the case.
As soon as the illegal market loses it's largest share, you will see the beginning of a massive loss of profit, probably over the course of 6-12 months.
There is always going to be someone willing to sell drugs to kids, as was stated earlier. If some of the statements here are true, it seems it's fairly organized within the schools themselves in some areas. The stores will only add another source along with the dealers already selling to kids.
Wrexasaur wrote:For every corner store there is more than likely many, many, many drug dealers. It really depends on how you define 'drug dealer' but the idea that stores replacing dealers would create more access, is flimsy at best. This all assumes that stores would in fact replace dealers, which is also a bit flexible, although, not particularly flimsy.
If large scale legal business can do anything, it can take a ton of money out of the pockets of the black market. You don't need to shut it down (which is probably impossible), just the ability to effectively disincentive the process of selling pot illegally. I have seen no information to suggest that teens even make up the largest part of the illegal pot market, and I would be surprised if it were in fact the case.
As soon as the illegal market loses it's largest share, you will see the beginning of a massive loss of profit, probably over the course of 6-12 months.
There is always going to be someone willing to sell drugs to kids, as was stated earlier. If some of the statements here are true, it seems it's fairly organized within the schools themselves in some areas. The stores will only add another source along with the dealers already selling to kids.
I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.
Hey Phrxis and Monster Pain, you guys want to knock off the gross character assassination, or should I just sit here and proclaim from my perch that the two of you are mindless nationalist, unthinking zealots for America who are completely blind to even the possibility that there could be anything rotten in Denmark?
America does evil. Proclaiming that I hate myself and my parents failed because I can recognize that my country is not a Perfect Bastion Of Holy Goodness And Perfection only makes the two of you jackasses. Trolling jackasses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.
Why? What possible rationale is there to believe that? What is it about marijuana that is in any way different than tobacco? That makes no sense at all.
Gailbraithe wrote:Hey Phrxis and Monster Pain, you guys want to knock off the gross character assassination, or should I just sit here and proclaim from my perch that the two of you are mindless nationalist, unthinking zealots for America who are completely blind to even the possibility that there could be anything rotten in Denmark?
America does evil. Proclaiming that I hate myself and my parents failed because I can recognize that my country is not a Perfect Bastion Of Holy Goodness And Perfection only makes the two of you jackasses. Trolling jackasses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.
Why? What possible rationale is there to believe that? What is it about marijuana that is in any way different than tobacco? That makes no sense at all.
It wasn't my point, jack. I was clearing up someone else's point for another poster.
And I am for legalizing pot, beeteedubs.
Though for someone who claims to smoke occasionally, I'd think you'd be able to cite a few significant differences betwixt pot and cigarettes.
Gailbraithe wrote:Hey Phrxis and Monster Pain, you guys want to knock off the gross character assassination, or should I just sit here and proclaim from my perch that the two of you are mindless nationalist, unthinking zealots for America who are completely blind to even the possibility that there could be anything rotten in Denmark?
First they would have to actually engage in character assassination, though I think you pretty well covered the quota for this thread right there.
Gailbraithe wrote:
America does evil. Proclaiming that I hate myself and my parents failed because I can recognize that my country is not a Perfect Bastion Of Holy Goodness And Perfection only makes the two of you jackasses. Trolling jackasses.
Well, you do love your hyperbole, I guess that's something. Not a good thing, but a thing nonetheless.
Monster Rain wrote:Though for someone who claims to smoke occasionally, I'd think you'd be able to cite a few significant differences betwixt pot and cigarettes.
I can't think of any that have any bearing on the point in question. You can smuggle cigarettes onto a campus just as easily as joints. That's the relevant characteristics to this question: size and weight. If kids can buy tobacco and booze from a store and then smuggle them onto campus and sell them there but don't, then what possible reason would there be to believe that would magically change if the product was marijuana.
Gailbraithe wrote: If kids can buy tobacco and booze from a store and then smuggle them onto campus and sell them there but don't,
I don't know what campuses you've been on, but both of those thing occur all the time. Hell, I knew some guys that paid for their own recreation by acting as unofficial middlemen between liquor stores and underage customers.
Gailbraithe wrote:
If you're American, you're an evil unto this world. Make your peace with that, or shut up.
If the use of cheap consumer goods necessarily makes one an 'evil', then just about everyone on the planet is evil. An implication that essentially neuters your critique.
Agreed. Also, the use of consumer goods actually feeds a rather large amount into the American tax system, which funds social programs and international aid which is good.
The statement in red outlines the belief of a world class extremist. Just pointing that out for future reference.
Actually, US international aid is one of the lowest among developed nations, which was discussed in the thread on giving aid to the Pakistan floods.
That doesn't make all Americans evil, of course.
I think most Americans only do what a lot of us would do if we had the opportunity. Americans were brought up in that style of living, so it seems completely natural to them. Also it is difficult in the USA to live a European or Japanese lifestyle. For example, towns are very spread out and there is almost no public transport, so you need a car just for basic living.
My brother gleefully sold up his house in London for a massive profit, moved to Eugene, Oregon and is living the American dream, with a four bedroom house for a family of two, watching six NFL matches a week on cable, and so on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waagh!Balzsmasha! wrote:You still havent explained what your sarcastic remark meant. What does hyperbole have to do with a sarcastic remark about my country (drugs/country). You answered my question by making a completely different point. I suspect you wont attempt to answer it.
It's a fair question, and here is my response.
You made a claim that the USA has been completely undermined by drugs. What might that mean?
Increasing crime rate
Corruption of the political and legal processes
A declining economy
Inability to find healthy recruits for the armed force
Spreading poverty
Reducing educational attainment
What evidence is there that any of these things are happening in the USA? What evidence is there that drugs are causing it?
There doesn't appear to be any such evidence, so your statement looks very over the top.
Gailbraithe wrote:
If you're American, you're an evil unto this world. Make your peace with that, or shut up.
If the use of cheap consumer goods necessarily makes one an 'evil', then just about everyone on the planet is evil. An implication that essentially neuters your critique.
Agreed. Also, the use of consumer goods actually feeds a rather large amount into the American tax system, which funds social programs and international aid which is good.
The statement in red outlines the belief of a world class extremist. Just pointing that out for future reference.
Actually, US international aid is one of the lowest among developed nations, which was discussed in the thread on giving aid to the Pakistan floods.
I don't think I ever compared the US's international aid to other nations'.
And Americans individually gave a gak ton of money to Haiti, so take that as you will.
Wrexasaur wrote:For every corner store there is more than likely many, many, many drug dealers. It really depends on how you define 'drug dealer' but the idea that stores replacing dealers would create more access, is flimsy at best. This all assumes that stores would in fact replace dealers, which is also a bit flexible, although, not particularly flimsy.
If large scale legal business can do anything, it can take a ton of money out of the pockets of the black market. You don't need to shut it down (which is probably impossible), just the ability to effectively disincentive the process of selling pot illegally. I have seen no information to suggest that teens even make up the largest part of the illegal pot market, and I would be surprised if it were in fact the case.
As soon as the illegal market loses it's largest share, you will see the beginning of a massive loss of profit, probably over the course of 6-12 months.
There is always going to be someone willing to sell drugs to kids, as was stated earlier. If some of the statements here are true, it seems it's fairly organized within the schools themselves in some areas. The stores will only add another source along with the dealers already selling to kids.
I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.
Perhaps, but the stats on teen alcoholism show that kids are able to get the stuff in fair amounts. I think the same would be true for legalized drugs.
Gailbraithe wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:Look at the stats for teen age alcoholism and the damage it does. Alcohol isn't hard for kids to get, and the idea I get from people posting here that want legalized drugs is to make them as easy to get as alcohol. I lived in a crack house for 6 months and had several classmates that used drugs . I have a real good idea from first hand knowledge what drugs do to people, and it's worse than alcohol.
Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol. I know when I was in high school it was much, much easier to get weed and acid than whiskey and beer.
After all, drug dealers don't card check like convenience stores do.
That only applies for drug dealers and people who have bought from them previously. I'm 16, and I can't really go around on the street asking to buy marijuana off of people, I would have to find out about a reputable one from some of m freinds, then contact him, then arrange a meeting place, whereas all it would take for me to get hold of alcohol, is to walk downstairs and take it out of the cupboard...
It's easier for me to get hold of alcohol than weed.
Goliath wrote:That only applies for drug dealers and people who have bought from them previously. I'm 16, and I can't really go around on the street asking to buy marijuana off of people, I would have to find out about a reputable one from some of m freinds, then contact him, then arrange a meeting place, whereas all it would take for me to get hold of alcohol, is to walk downstairs and take it out of the cupboard...
It's easier for me to get hold of alcohol than weed.
You're also a Brit. We were discussing American teens.
Gailbraithe wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:Look at the stats for teen age alcoholism and the damage it does. Alcohol isn't hard for kids to get, and the idea I get from people posting here that want legalized drugs is to make them as easy to get as alcohol. I lived in a crack house for 6 months and had several classmates that used drugs . I have a real good idea from first hand knowledge what drugs do to people, and it's worse than alcohol.
Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol. I know when I was in high school it was much, much easier to get weed and acid than whiskey and beer.
After all, drug dealers don't card check like convenience stores do.
That only applies for drug dealers and people who have bought from them previously. I'm 16, and I can't really go around on the street asking to buy marijuana off of people, I would have to find out about a reputable one from some of m freinds, then contact him, then arrange a meeting place, whereas all it would take for me to get hold of alcohol, is to walk downstairs and take it out of the cupboard...
It's easier for me to get hold of alcohol than weed.
When I was 16 it was easier to buy weed than alcohol. This is, of course, different to 'getting hold' of things, but stealing is wrong. If your parents don't mind you taking their booze that's different.
Goliath wrote:That only applies for drug dealers and people who have bought from them previously. I'm 16, and I can't really go around on the street asking to buy marijuana off of people, I would have to find out about a reputable one from some of m freinds, then contact him, then arrange a meeting place, whereas all it would take for me to get hold of alcohol, is to walk downstairs and take it out of the cupboard...
It's easier for me to get hold of alcohol than weed.
You're also a Brit. We were discussing American teens.
It's ridiculous to discuss it in the first place.
Different areas are going to have different availability of different things. That said, why wouldn't similar issues in the UK be applicable to the discussion? That was a little dismissive and rude, IMHO.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.
Why? What possible rationale is there to believe that? What is it about marijuana that is in any way different than tobacco? That makes no sense at all.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Though for someone who claims to smoke occasionally, I'd think you'd be able to cite a few significant differences betwixt pot and cigarettes.
I can't think of any that have any bearing on the point in question. You can smuggle cigarettes onto a campus just as easily as joints. That's the relevant characteristics to this question: size and weight. If kids can buy tobacco and booze from a store and then smuggle them onto campus and sell them there but don't, then what possible reason would there be to believe that would magically change if the product was marijuana.
Monster Rain wrote:Different areas are going to have different availability of different things. That said, why wouldn't similar issues in the UK be applicable to the discussion? That was a little dismissive and rude, IMHO.
We were discussing the findings of a survey of American teens living under American laws. Given that the UK has different laws and different factors -- one of the most significant being the absence of large scale marijuana farming inside the UK's own borders, necessitating that marijuana be imported to the UK from the mainland -- one cannot reasonably expect a British teen to have the same experience as an American teen. Goliath was citing his personal experience as an exception to the point I made, but because he's in the UK and the studies I was referencing are of American teens, his experience as a UK teen can hardly be consider an exception.
It is neither dismissive or rude to point out that Goliath's apparent exception is not actually relevant. If we were discussing Islam, and I were to say "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim." and a poster from Syria said "Well, I'm a teen, and everyone I know is Muslim." would you consider that relevant to the point that "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim?" Would you consider it dismissive or rude
I think you're simply labeling my point as dismissive and rude because, absent a real argument, you simply want to attack my character and insinuate that I am dismissive and rude. Which makes you a raging hypocrite.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.
Why? What possible rationale is there to believe that? What is it about marijuana that is in any way different than tobacco? That makes no sense at all.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Though for someone who claims to smoke occasionally, I'd think you'd be able to cite a few significant differences betwixt pot and cigarettes.
I can't think of any that have any bearing on the point in question. You can smuggle cigarettes onto a campus just as easily as joints. That's the relevant characteristics to this question: size and weight. If kids can buy tobacco and booze from a store and then smuggle them onto campus and sell them there but don't, then what possible reason would there be to believe that would magically change if the product was marijuana.
It makes no sense.
I notice that you aren't actually addressing the point at all, and rather you are rudely dismissing my argument.
If there is a relevant characteristic of marijuana that makes it far more likely to be re-sold from legitimate vendors by high schoolers than tobacco, then surely you can identify that characteristic. Facepalming in lieu of an actual point would seem to indicate you have no actual point.
Monster Rain wrote:Different areas are going to have different availability of different things. That said, why wouldn't similar issues in the UK be applicable to the discussion? That was a little dismissive and rude, IMHO.
We were discussing the findings of a survey of American teens living under American laws. Given that the UK has different laws and different factors -- one of the most significant being the absence of large scale marijuana farming inside the UK's own borders, necessitating that marijuana be imported to the UK from the mainland -- one cannot reasonably expect a British teen to have the same experience as an American teen. Goliath was citing his personal experience as an exception to the point I made, but because he's in the UK and the studies I was referencing are of American teens, his experience as a UK teen can hardly be consider an exception.
It is neither dismissive or rude to point out that Goliath's apparent exception is not actually relevant. If we were discussing Islam, and I were to say "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim." and a poster from Syria said "Well, I'm a teen, and everyone I know is Muslim." would you consider that relevant to the point that "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim?" Would you consider it dismissive or rude
I think you're simply labeling my point as dismissive and rude because, absent a real argument, you simply want to attack my character and insinuate that I am dismissive and rude. Which makes you a raging hypocrite.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.
Why? What possible rationale is there to believe that? What is it about marijuana that is in any way different than tobacco? That makes no sense at all.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Though for someone who claims to smoke occasionally, I'd think you'd be able to cite a few significant differences betwixt pot and cigarettes.
I can't think of any that have any bearing on the point in question. You can smuggle cigarettes onto a campus just as easily as joints. That's the relevant characteristics to this question: size and weight. If kids can buy tobacco and booze from a store and then smuggle them onto campus and sell them there but don't, then what possible reason would there be to believe that would magically change if the product was marijuana.
It makes no sense.
I notice that you aren't actually addressing the point at all, and rather you are rudely dismissing my argument.
If there is a relevant characteristic of marijuana that makes it far more likely to be re-sold from legitimate vendors by high schoolers than tobacco, then surely you can identify that characteristic. Facepalming in lieu of an actual point would seem to indicate you have no actual point.
The facepalm was in reference to you asking a question and then asking what the answer I gave was in reference to.
Why would you smuggle cigarettes into a campus anyway? The point is that if you can go to a corner store and buy them it cuts down on the need for underground traffic.
Wrexasaur wrote:For every corner store there is more than likely many, many, many drug dealers. It really depends on how you define 'drug dealer' but the idea that stores replacing dealers would create more access, is flimsy at best. This all assumes that stores would in fact replace dealers, which is also a bit flexible, although, not particularly flimsy.
If large scale legal business can do anything, it can take a ton of money out of the pockets of the black market. You don't need to shut it down (which is probably impossible), just the ability to effectively disincentive the process of selling pot illegally. I have seen no information to suggest that teens even make up the largest part of the illegal pot market, and I would be surprised if it were in fact the case.
As soon as the illegal market loses it's largest share, you will see the beginning of a massive loss of profit, probably over the course of 6-12 months.
There is always going to be someone willing to sell drugs to kids, as was stated earlier. If some of the statements here are true, it seems it's fairly organized within the schools themselves in some areas. The stores will only add another source along with the dealers already selling to kids.
I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.
Perhaps, but the stats on teen alcoholism show that kids are able to get the stuff in fair amounts. I think the same would be true for legalized drugs.
I am not entirely sure what the confusion outside of your point is about but I will attempt to clarify on my point to you, Relapse.
I would rather see and fully expect to see via legalization/regulation, the loss of profits for drug cartels, concerning marijuana. I do not follow the concept of regulation leading to greater access, as regulation would seemingly reduce the availability of a substance. A person can choose to get alcohol for a minor, yet they face some pretty serious consequences if caught. There is no reason to say that some adults wouldn't be willing to purchase regulated substances for a minor illegally, as is the case with alcohol and tobacco. What is important to note, as I have mentioned many times now, is the very reasonable assumption that removing the profit from marijuana out of the hands of cartels equals putting it into the pockets of legitimate businesses. That would be a good thing IMO.
While the access to a regulated substance should be no less than unavailable to a minor, there just aren't serious ways to go about stopping it altogether. A few kids will get pot from a few people, just like a few kids get alcohol from a few people. I personally think that minors become adults at age 18, along with extended responsibility from age 16. That is another subject entirely but it goes to the point of what we are actually talking about when we say kids. Should 16 year old's smoke pot and drink? Meh, no, not really. 18+ though, that is a different story. If I were to say that I actually consider a 19 year old drinking a beer, or a 25 year old that bought them that beer, serious criminals, I would be kidding myself. Even more so if it were a cousin visiting from a country where it was in fact legal to do just that.
It would not surprise me in the least if the majority of underage drinking and promotion of that illegal activity, took place in a format not unfamiliar to a great many people currently going to college. I have seen friends get absolutely trashed (dangerously so) on their 21st birthday, which in my opinion presents a greater threat to our society as a whole. If not a greater threat, it provides an acute pain in our collective backside. I would rather 18 year olds knew that getting trashed as all hell all the time, is a bad idea, and I would prefer if they learned that early. Just my opinion.
Monster Rain wrote:Different areas are going to have different availability of different things. That said, why wouldn't similar issues in the UK be applicable to the discussion? That was a little dismissive and rude, IMHO.
We were discussing the findings of a survey of American teens living under American laws. Given that the UK has different laws and different factors -- one of the most significant being the absence of large scale marijuana farming inside the UK's own borders, necessitating that marijuana be imported to the UK from the mainland -- one cannot reasonably expect a British teen to have the same experience as an American teen. Goliath was citing his personal experience as an exception to the point I made, but because he's in the UK and the studies I was referencing are of American teens, his experience as a UK teen can hardly be consider an exception.
It is neither dismissive or rude to point out that Goliath's apparent exception is not actually relevant. If we were discussing Islam, and I were to say "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim." and a poster from Syria said "Well, I'm a teen, and everyone I know is Muslim." would you consider that relevant to the point that "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim?" Would you consider it dismissive or rude
I think you're simply labeling my point as dismissive and rude because, absent a real argument, you simply want to attack my character and insinuate that I am dismissive and rude. Which makes you a raging hypocrite.
Well you were dismissive and rude.
Check your post.
At no point do you mention that you were discussing American teens, you merely stated "Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol" Can you please point out where it says "US Minors"?
Because otherwise, you were being dismissive and rude, because my experience differs from your own, because mine is relating to current teenagers, whilst yours is relating to teenagers from a few years ago. (as pointed out by your "when I was in high school" which would indicate a few years ago).
Check your own rhetoric before criticising others or being snide about their comments.
I can honestly state that as an American who has spent most of his life as a minor (so far) that it would have been much easier to get alcohol than drugs.
I mean, more people drink than do drugs and far fewer people object to anyone having a drink or two than to that same person doing drugs. That's my anecdotal evidence.
Monster Rain wrote:Why would you smuggle cigarettes into a campus anyway? The point is that if you can go to a corner store and buy them it cuts down on the need for underground traffic.
It's illegal to sell tobacco to minors. The majority of high school teens are minors. Thus if you're a minor then you can't go to a corner store and buy them. Likewise, it marijuana was legalized, it would still be illegal to sell to minors -- the vast majority of pro-legalization proponents favor age restricted sales, and I don't think anyone is arguing that marijuana should be legalized and completely unregulated.
So if the argument against legalization is that having marijuana available at the corner store will make marijuana more accessible to teens than it already is, then why is marijuana already more accessible to teens that the two legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are currently sold in corner stores? Why would anyone assume that marijuana would become easier to obtain if it were sold in corner stores, when the legal drugs sold in corner stores are already harder to obtain?
My contention is that if marijuana were legalized, it would significantly alter the nature of the distribution networks for marijuana sales. The profitability of underground markets would be severely damaged -- adult users are far more likely to buy from the corner store (or marijuana clubs, which seems to be the direction the market is heading) than to deal with shady street vendors and dealers. With the loss of the adult user market, I don't think the teen market is sufficient to make maintaining the black market networks profitable for those who supply the dealers who deal out of the schools. It's simply not a large enough customer base to keep the cartels functioning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote:Well you were dismissive and rude.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and it certainly wasn't my intention, but I don't think a fair reading of my comment support taking offense.
At no point do you mention that you were discussing American teens, you merely stated "Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol" Can you please point out where it says "US Minors"?
And if you continue to follow the conversation, you'll see that the evidence I was referring to is the CASA surveys of American teens.
Monster Rain wrote:Why would you smuggle cigarettes into a campus anyway? The point is that if you can go to a corner store and buy them it cuts down on the need for underground traffic.
It's illegal to sell tobacco to minors. The majority of high school teens are minors. Thus if you're a minor then you can't go to a corner store and buy them. Likewise, it marijuana was legalized, it would still be illegal to sell to minors -- the vast majority of pro-legalization proponents favor age restricted sales, and I don't think anyone is arguing that marijuana should be legalized and completely unregulated.
So if the argument against legalization is that having marijuana available at the corner store will make marijuana more accessible to teens than it already is, then why is marijuana already more accessible to teens that the two legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are currently sold in corner stores? Why would anyone assume that marijuana would become easier to obtain if it were sold in corner stores, when the legal drugs sold in corner stores are already harder to obtain?
My contention is that if marijuana were legalized, it would significantly alter the nature of the distribution networks for marijuana sales. The profitability of underground markets would be severely damaged -- adult users are far more likely to buy from the corner store (or marijuana clubs, which seems to be the direction the market is heading) than to deal with shady street vendors and dealers. With the loss of the adult user market, I don't think the teen market is sufficient to make maintaining the black market networks profitable for those who supply the dealers who deal out of the schools. It's simply not a large enough customer base to keep the cartels functioning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote:Well you were dismissive and rude.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and it certainly wasn't my intention, but I don't think a fair reading of my comment support taking offense.
At no point do you mention that you were discussing American teens, you merely stated "Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol" Can you please point out where it says "US Minors"?
And if you continue to follow the conversation, you'll see that the evidence I was referring to is the CASA surveys of American teens.
Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.
Monster Rain wrote:Why would you smuggle cigarettes into a campus anyway? The point is that if you can go to a corner store and buy them it cuts down on the need for underground traffic.
It's illegal to sell tobacco to minors. The majority of high school teens are minors. Thus if you're a minor then you can't go to a corner store and buy them. Likewise, it marijuana was legalized, it would still be illegal to sell to minors -- the vast majority of pro-legalization proponents favor age restricted sales, and I don't think anyone is arguing that marijuana should be legalized and completely unregulated.
So if the argument against legalization is that having marijuana available at the corner store will make marijuana more accessible to teens than it already is, then why is marijuana already more accessible to teens that the two legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are currently sold in corner stores? Why would anyone assume that marijuana would become easier to obtain if it were sold in corner stores, when the legal drugs sold in corner stores are already harder to obtain?
My contention is that if marijuana were legalized, it would significantly alter the nature of the distribution networks for marijuana sales. The profitability of underground markets would be severely damaged -- adult users are far more likely to buy from the corner store (or marijuana clubs, which seems to be the direction the market is heading) than to deal with shady street vendors and dealers. With the loss of the adult user market, I don't think the teen market is sufficient to make maintaining the black market networks profitable for those who supply the dealers who deal out of the schools. It's simply not a large enough customer base to keep the cartels functioning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote:Well you were dismissive and rude.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and it certainly wasn't my intention, but I don't think a fair reading of my comment support taking offense.
At no point do you mention that you were discussing American teens, you merely stated "Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol" Can you please point out where it says "US Minors"?
And if you continue to follow the conversation, you'll see that the evidence I was referring to is the CASA surveys of American teens.
Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I had ample smokes for the entirety of my high school career, though weed could be difficult to get at times. If they were selling it legally any of my 18+ friends could get me a dimebag any day of the week.
I have found that nearly every store I have been in ID's me if they do not know me as a regular customer. There have been a couple of occasions where I could not buy alcohol because a mate didn't have ID as well, which I found ridiculous. Besides all of that, it is much easier to report an individual for illegal activity if the action is taking place within a specific store and not where any given dealer feels like conducting business.
Nearby there is a corner store that was shut down and heavily penalized for selling alcohol to minors. The fine was nearly enough to shut down that business forever and I am frankly surprised that they had the resources to eventually re-open. Stores getting shut down for selling to minors is not exactly uncommon.
It is certainly more difficult to stop adults from buying substances that are illegal for minors, specifically for the purpose of giving those substances to minors. I do not feel that it would honestly be easier for minors in general to gain access to pot, simply if it were available in a store. It is reasonable to assume there would be much the same problem that is presented by alcohol and tobacco but I have a hard time seeing the possibility as an epidemic of grand proportions.
Depending on your area, drug dealers are no less than walking the streets pursuing their sales. Stores tend to stay in one place, offering the same things from that one location. You don't have to chase down a store for breaking the law, where you would need to in the case of an actual dealer. Stores tend to avoid shooting at each other when business goes wrong, where drug dealers are generally more likely to resort to the use of firearms to resolve disputes. While many pot dealers specifically could be considered middle men, their illegal practices are harder to track and more difficult to punish. I would suggest that the cost involved involved in keeping pot illegal and unregulated, outweighs the potential for a rise in the use of marijuana among teens.
It would be interesting to see whether or not that actually happened, even if I do consider the possibility that a drastic increase seen years on end would be very unlikely. I would guess that an increase could be connected quite strongly with the advertising that would inevitably come with the legalization/regulation of pot. I also see few reasons why that problem could not be addressed when such a situation occurs.
What ways are there to discourage the act of buying drugs for teenagers? Heavy fines, jail time and other forms of direct punishment are the most obvious. I am not entirely sure how effective anything beyond that would be. Does anyone know how effective current anti-pot campaigns are? Would they become more or less effective as pot is legalized, mainly, would advertising from companies selling pot flood the market in a way that necessarily neutralized anti-pot campaigns? Doesn't seem all that unlikely it would in fact be the case.
If a cornershop owner could make a good profit from selling cannabis to adults, and would be very severely punished for selling to minors, how likely would be he to sell to minors?
Kilkrazy wrote:If a cornershop owner could make a good profit from selling cannabis to adults, and would be very severely punished for selling to minors, how likely would be he to sell to minors?
They're punished pretty severely for selling tobacco and alcohol to minors IIRC.
Kilkrazy wrote:If a cornershop owner could make a good profit from selling cannabis to adults, and would be very severely punished for selling to minors, how likely would be he to sell to minors?
It's no trick for teens to get alcohol where fines and punishment can happen. Why would it be any harder to get drugs?
Frazzled wrote:Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.
Follow along:
1. According to the CASA survey the average teen can get marijuana easier than tobacco or alcohol (henceforth legal drugs). The survey is the aggregate of thousands of anecdotal self-reports such as yours, and if we're being reasonable should be considered better evidence than our anecdotes.
1.1 The primary difference is average length of time it takes to procure the drug. 24 hours in the case of legal drugsl, one hour in the case of marijuana.
1.2 The primary reason for this difference is cited as the presence of marijuana vendors (aka dealers) on campus and the lack of alcohol and tobacco vendors.
1.3 A secondary reason for this difference is cited as ever stricter enforcement of age limit policies.
1.3.1 Enforcement varies from city to city and region to region, so YMMV. But that's the danger of anecdotes.
2. Legal drugs are sold in corner stores.
2.1 Marijuana is not.
3. The argument was made that if marijuana was sold in corner stores, then it would be easier for teens to get marijuana.
3.1 It was argued that marijuana would be easier to get on campuses if it were sold in corner stores.
4. I rebutted that if marijuana being sold in corner stores would make it easier for teens to acquire marijuana than it currently is, then legal drugs would currently already be easier to get than marijuana.
4.1 Legal drugs are sold in corner stores. See 2.
4.2 Legal drugs are not currently easier to get than marijuana. See 1.
There is no logical reason to assume that it would be easier for teens to get marijuana if it were legalized and sold in corner stores when it is currently harder for teens to get the stuff that is currently sold in corner stores.
Frazzled wrote:Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.
Follow along:
1. According to the CASA survey the average teen can get marijuana easier than tobacco or alcohol (henceforth legal drugs). The survey is the aggregate of thousands of anecdotal self-reports such as yours, and if we're being reasonable should be considered better evidence than our anecdotes.
1.1 The primary difference is average length of time it takes to procure the drug. 24 hours in the case of legal drugsl, one hour in the case of marijuana.
1.2 The primary reason for this difference is cited as the presence of marijuana vendors (aka dealers) on campus and the lack of alcohol and tobacco vendors.
1.3 A secondary reason for this difference is cited as ever stricter enforcement of age limit policies.
1.3.1 Enforcement varies from city to city and region to region, so YMMV. But that's the danger of anecdotes.
2. Legal drugs are sold in corner stores.
2.1 Marijuana is not.
3. The argument was made that if marijuana was sold in corner stores, then it would be easier for teens to get marijuana.
3.1 It was argued that marijuana would be easier to get on campuses if it were sold in corner stores.
4. I rebutted that if marijuana being sold in corner stores would make it easier for teens to acquire marijuana than it currently is, then legal drugs would currently already be easier to get than marijuana.
4.1 Legal drugs are sold in corner stores. See 2.
4.2 Legal drugs are not currently easier to get than marijuana. See 1.
There is no logical reason to assume that it would be easier for teens to get marijuana if it were legalized and sold in corner stores when it is currently harder for teens to get the stuff that is currently sold in corner stores.
Yes, if you had a friend who was old enough it would be just as easy to get marijuana as it is to get tobacco or alcohol.
Frazzled wrote:Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.
Follow along:
1. According to the CASA survey the average teen can get marijuana easier than tobacco or alcohol (henceforth legal drugs). The survey is the aggregate of thousands of anecdotal self-reports such as yours, and if we're being reasonable should be considered better evidence than our anecdotes.
1.1 The primary difference is average length of time it takes to procure the drug. 24 hours in the case of legal drugsl, one hour in the case of marijuana.
1.2 The primary reason for this difference is cited as the presence of marijuana vendors (aka dealers) on campus and the lack of alcohol and tobacco vendors.
1.3 A secondary reason for this difference is cited as ever stricter enforcement of age limit policies.
1.3.1 Enforcement varies from city to city and region to region, so YMMV. But that's the danger of anecdotes.
2. Legal drugs are sold in corner stores.
2.1 Marijuana is not.
3. The argument was made that if marijuana was sold in corner stores, then it would be easier for teens to get marijuana.
3.1 It was argued that marijuana would be easier to get on campuses if it were sold in corner stores.
4. I rebutted that if marijuana being sold in corner stores would make it easier for teens to acquire marijuana than it currently is, then legal drugs would currently already be easier to get than marijuana.
4.1 Legal drugs are sold in corner stores. See 2.
4.2 Legal drugs are not currently easier to get than marijuana. See 1.
There is no logical reason to assume that it would be easier for teens to get marijuana if it were legalized and sold in corner stores when it is currently harder for teens to get the stuff that is currently sold in corner stores.
Yes, if you had a friend who was old enough it would be just as easy to get marijuana as it is to get tobacco or alcohol.
What are you on about?
See point 1. Do you understand what point 1 means?
It means that if it was just as easy to get marijuana as it is to get tobacco and alcohol then it would have become harder to get marijuana than it currently is.
Have you read the CASA survey? Do you know their methodology? Whether or not the result was qualitative or quantitative? Right now you're expecting us to trust your anecdotal recollection of the survey. One survey among what I presume is a large field of surveys.
As I understand it, Monster Rain (and others) are simply suggesting that while access to marijuana could become more restrictive, it would not stop a great deal of minors from gaining access by means of an adult. I personally do not agree with that.
Adults 18-25 made up the largest portion to report using drugs ever, within the past year, AND within the past 30 days. That is the demographic that will see a significant rise if anything, not that I assume these statistics are rock solid. It would not be surprising to see a jump in drug use amongst 12-17 year old's but it would certainly be surprising if it jumped at the rate I would expect the 18-25 demographic to.
Wrexasaur wrote:As I understand it, Monster Rain (and others) are simply suggesting that while access to marijuana could become more restrictive, it would not stop a great deal of minors from gaining access by means of an adult. I personally do not agree with that.
What I'm suggesting is that it would make marijuana harder to get if there was no longer an illegal market for it, as in there would be less money for the dealers to sell it when anyone could just buy it at the store. For the same reason you don't see people dealing cigarettes and alcohol quite as much as you do other, more illegal substances.
Alright, well, I can't seem to find the full study (I'm not really looking hard, though). However, from what I can see the issues is that some teens state that its easier to get marijuana than alcohol, or cigarettes. However, the percentage of teens stating this appears to be ~40%. As such, this study does not support the idea that alcohol and cigarettes are less readily available than marijuana, only that in some cases that may be true (quantitative studies of qualititative attitudes do not produce definitive results).
Wrexasaur wrote:As I understand it, Monster Rain (and others) are simply suggesting that while access to marijuana could become more restrictive, it would not stop a great deal of minors from gaining access by means of an adult. I personally do not agree with that.
What I'm suggesting is that it would make marijuana harder to get if there was no longer an illegal market for it, as in there would be less money for the dealers to sell it when anyone could just buy it at the store. For the same reason you don't see people dealing cigarettes and alcohol quite as much as you do other, more illegal substances.
Monster Rain wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I had ample smokes for the entirety of my high school career, though weed could be difficult to get at times. If they were selling it legally any of my 18+ friends could get me a dimebag any day of the week.
I think I understand this but the conversation has kind of wrapped over itself a few times. While you believe that overall access to pot by minors will become more limited due to legalization/regulation, at the same time, those same minors will also be able to get pot from a store via an adult illegally; BUT that last point will NOT contribute significantly to the overall consumption of marijuana through pot dealers.
Short: pot dealers will lose business to legitimate businesses, necessarily addressing the point of this entire thread.
Wrexasaur wrote:As I understand it, Monster Rain (and others) are simply suggesting that while access to marijuana could become more restrictive, it would not stop a great deal of minors from gaining access by means of an adult. I personally do not agree with that.
What I'm suggesting is that it would make marijuana harder to get if there was no longer an illegal market for it, as in there would be less money for the dealers to sell it when anyone could just buy it at the store. For the same reason you don't see people dealing cigarettes and alcohol quite as much as you do other, more illegal substances.
Monster Rain wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I had ample smokes for the entirety of my high school career, though weed could be difficult to get at times. If they were selling it legally any of my 18+ friends could get me a dimebag any day of the week.
I think I understand this but the conversation has kind of wrapped over itself a few times. While you believe that overall access to pot by minors will become more limited due to legalization/regulation, at the same time, those same minors will also be able to get pot from a store via an adult illegally; BUT that last point will NOT contribute significantly to the overall consumption of marijuana through pot dealers.
Short: pot dealers will lose business to legitimate businesses, necessarily addressing the point of this entire thread.
Right?
Yes! Yes! For feth's sake, yes!
Thank God and sonny Jesus that Wrexasaur is here to translate my posts!
You say apparently not, bit then post a link that shows the law being significantly stiffened...
Did I miss something?
The fine used to be $25 (first offence) which is peanuts, and that it was increased to $100, however we don't have any evidence of the impact of this on illegal sales to minors. (IMO $100 isn't a lot, actually.)
My idea is that if the fine were $1,000 for a first offence, it would have a considerable deterrent effect. Of course my proposal also lacks evidentiary support at the moment.
Kilkrazy wrote:If a cornershop owner could make a good profit from selling cannabis to adults, and would be very severely punished for selling to minors, how likely would be he to sell to minors?
Wrexasaur wrote:As I understand it, Monster Rain (and others) are simply suggesting that while access to marijuana could become more restrictive, it would not stop a great deal of minors from gaining access by means of an adult. I personally do not agree with that.
What I'm suggesting is that it would make marijuana harder to get if there was no longer an illegal market for it, as in there would be less money for the dealers to sell it when anyone could just buy it at the store. For the same reason you don't see people dealing cigarettes and alcohol quite as much as you do other, more illegal substances.
Monster Rain wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I had ample smokes for the entirety of my high school career, though weed could be difficult to get at times. If they were selling it legally any of my 18+ friends could get me a dimebag any day of the week.
I think I understand this but the conversation has kind of wrapped over itself a few times. While you believe that overall access to pot by minors will become more limited due to legalization/regulation, at the same time, those same minors will also be able to get pot from a store via an adult illegally; BUT that last point will NOT contribute significantly to the overall consumption of marijuana through pot dealers.
Short: pot dealers will lose business to legitimate businesses, necessarily addressing the point of this entire thread.
Right?
Wrex,
I also included harder drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and meth in the conversation on the premise that people here are saying these drugs should be legal also. Other posters are just talking about pot to the exclusion of the other drugs I mentioned. These are the ones I really worry about becoming as easily available to teens as alcohol now is. My 6 months of living in a crack house (not using drugs, just needed a really cheap rent at a realy bad time in my life) gave me a really good insight on how addictive and damaging these drugs are to people and how people get drawn into using this crap.
Gateway drugs are not a myth from what I saw there.
I am quite sure that most involved in this thread were aware that you are referring to drugs collectively. I personally have a problem with lumping all substances into the same concept, beyond the fact that they have an effect on people, of some kind. If you are considering pot a gateway drug, meaning that pot automatically includes addiction to substances further along the line (or in the majority of cases, whatever), then you have effectively shut the conversation down and left it at a point in which people must decide whether they want to agree with you or not. I think that is silly, if it is in fact what you are doing.
It seems reasonable enough to separate pot from the long list of other, harder illicit substances. Where it could be considered unfair to lump tobacco, alcohol, and pot together in a category of 'acceptable substances', it is far from being completely unreasonable. If you simply won't consider substances on an individual basis, this conversation has very few outcomes, most of them no more than limited entirely, by what you think personally. It becomes a matter of hand-waving the differences between various substances out of the conversation, which again, I consider silly.
It would be no less than shocking if the majority of posters in this topic used hard drugs on any sort of regular basis, to the exclusion of perhaps trying some of the drugs mentioned in one form or another. Amphetamine = Adderall for instance, Opium = various forms of pain medication, etc...
There are drugs that I simply do not support for legal, recreational use, but pot is just not among those substances. As far as I understand it, the only reasonable way to make the gateway drug argument make any sense at all, is if the drug itself is only part of the actual problem. By this I mean, the fact that one smoked pot is not the reason an individual moved onto slamming heroin and snorting coke regularly; it is more for the fact that they did so in an environment which offered further substances that were readily available in that environment.
It would make more sense to work with a concept of a 'gateway environment', rather than try to brand a specific drug such as marijuana, as a significant reason individuals would use hard drugs. You are left assuming that people start off with pot, where many would argue that alcohol could be seen as the primary actor in that role. I think that is silly as well, simply because it seems to ignore the main factors involved in the onset of addiction within a large part of our society.
True enough, gateway enviornment is a better term. From what I've seen at parties and the like, it always seemed that people had harder drugs present as well as pot. Before long there would be others that came looking for pot trying out the new stuff, and from personal observation it bacame a habit with some of them.
One of the things that always bothered me about the place I lived was the regular exposure young children had to drugs because of their parents usage. I saw kids of toddler age up to teens sitting in the middle of adults smoking pot, crack, meth and using other drugs.
Gateway enviornment is a very good description for where I was living at the time. It was not uncommon to see people of all ages showing up there looking for drugs or the people living there to go out dealing.
Most people there couldn't get a conversation going beyond how high they'd gotten the night before or how high they were going to get. For a change of pace, there were epic tales of how high they'd gotten a few years before, when they were in high school or college.
I had a conversation about this with a friend of mine who is a volunteer fireman. From the number of accidents he's had to go out to involving drugs or alcohol, he agrees with me that drugs have no business being legalized.
This brings me back to the original point of the thread where I stated that buying cocaine, crack and other similar drugs is basically enabling the cartels to continue murdering and terrorizing people in Mexico and other countries. Some of the posters on the thread have compared prohibition of alcohol to the government outlawing drugs and called for their legalization as a means to stop the cartels.
True enough, gateway enviornment is a better term. From what I've seen at parties and the like, it always seemed that people had harder drugs present as well as pot. Before long there would be others that came looking for pot trying out the new stuff, and from personal observation it bacame a habit with some of them.
One of the things that always bothered me about the place I lived was the regular exposure young children had to drugs because of their parents usage. I saw kids of toddler age up to teens sitting in the middle of adults smoking pot, crack, meth and using other drugs.
Gateway enviornment is a very good description for where I was living at the time. It was not uncommon to see people of all ages showing up there looking for drugs or the people living there to go out dealing.
Most people there couldn't get a conversation going beyond how high they'd gotten the night before or how high they were going to get. For a change of pace, there were epic tales of how high they'd gotten a few years before, when they were in high school or college.
I had a conversation about this with a friend of mine who is a volunteer fireman. From the number of accidents he's had to go out to involving drugs or alcohol, he agrees with me that drugs have no business being legalized.
This brings me back to the original point of the thread where I stated that buying cocaine, crack and other similar drugs is basically enabling the cartels to continue murdering and terrorizing people in Mexico and other countries. Some of the posters on the thread have compared prohibition of alcohol to the government outlawing drugs and called for their legalization as a means to stop the cartels.
Thats the key, pot doesn't lead to harder drugs but since most kids are introduced to pot be people who already do harder drugs they are more likely to try said harder drugs. There's a big difference between pot and crack, one is will quite literally melt your brain and can be incredibly dangerous, while pot is less dangerous then alcohol.
Most of the people I knew that started with pot at some point or another tried more exotic stuff. Now most of them didn't become crack addicts, they all did experiment with other things. Of the people I know that never smoked pot, almost none of them have tried harder drugs.
I know this is from way back but couldn't let it pass.
That's enough coal to supply an average 1.5 gigawatt power plant for a year. The US has 335 gigawatts of coal power in the US. So we are importing about 0.45% of our coal from South America. Put another way, we burned over a billion tons of coal last year so 4.5 million tons is pretty much nothing.
I suggest you look at the figures again if you're not sure.
) spend your pocket money on drugs.
Sophistic nonsense to avoid whats really going on.
it was just the best way to describe a rather self-centered worldview, to which you are certainly entitled. 
