Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

1-UP wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:

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...

Relapse wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:

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...

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...

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.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Also, notice how there is absolutely no presence of underground alcohol sales. I'm sure you understand why.

States that don't allow alcohol sales on Sunday have small underground markets. Still, I think your point stands.

Ahtman wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:Also, notice how there is absolutely no presence of underground alcohol sales. I'm sure you understand why.

States that don't allow alcohol sales on Sunday have small underground markets. Still, I think your point stands.

Which is a fault of restricting the market. No unreasonable restrictions, no black market.

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.

Laughing Man wrote:

Relapse wrote:

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.

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.

Laughing Man wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

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.

Relapse wrote:

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.

Phryxis wrote:

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?

Edited for drunken crankiness.

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.

Relapse wrote:

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.

Gailbraithe wrote:

If you're American, you're an evil unto this world. Make your peace with that, or shut up.

The Amish?

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.