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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Works for me. I tried taking that test once. I did fine except I didn't know any of the Supreme Court justices (which seems like a strange and oddly specific requirement for that exam). Other than that it seemed like basic "American history/Social Studies" knowledge to me.

P.S. On the subject of drugs, I am of the opinion that the government should just legalize everything and slap a "manufacture/distribution" tax on it all. Could help reduce crime associated with drug cartels and lower the national debt at the same time.

While it would eliminate the small time crime, it wouldn't faze the cartels. These things would be taxed out the wazoo, and the Cartels could still provide a cheaper source than legal. Illegal cigarettes and booze still exist. The difference is the Cartels already have infrastructure and logistics for this stuff.

And under no circumstances should things like Meth, LSD, or Heroin be legalized. That stuff is just so abhorrent it shouldn't, and never will, be legalized here.

I don't think it would be good idea to legalize all illicit drugs (too many safety concerns) but I have no problem with weed being legalized, while I haven't done meth or heroin (so it wouldn't be fair to pass judgment on it) I will say that I haven't found anything abhorrent about LSD in fact

I would say it's a pretty fun way to spend the day.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Works for me. I tried taking that test once. I did fine except I didn't know any of the Supreme Court justices (which seems like a strange and oddly specific requirement for that exam). Other than that it seemed like basic "American history/Social Studies" knowledge to me.

P.S. On the subject of drugs, I am of the opinion that the government should just legalize everything and slap a "manufacture/distribution" tax on it all. Could help reduce crime associated with drug cartels and lower the national debt at the same time.

I'd be fine with that personally, if they also did something like how the FDA approves drugs, just to make sure it's not one of the drugs that kills you 50% of the time or something like that.

Well, it would weed out the dumber individuals of society.

Well the CDC lists this very bad list of side-effects of LSD and other hallucinogens

Elation, depression, arousal, paranoia or panic; impulsive behavior, rapid shifts in emotions; distortions in perception. Increased body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure; nausea; loss of appetite; sweating; dry mouth; jaw-clenching; numbness; sleeplessness; dizziness, weakness, tremors.

High doses: Panic, paranoia, feelings of despair, fear of insanity and death.

Long-term effects: Frightening flashbacks, Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD).

Now while those things aren't particularly dangerous by themselves, in a healthy individual, they are not good states to be in. A person who is hallucinating can do things that are harmful to himself and others and have no control over it. This is far beyond even the effects of alcohol, which causes people to do plenty of horrible things already.

Then you have flashbacks to consider. You don't want someone who normally wouldn't do anything like this, but ends up using it recreationally because its all of a sudden legal, to suddenly have a flashback while he's driving, operating heavy machinery, etc...

Remember that drugs don't just mess you up, but they can, have, and will, make you hurt other people too. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just the user who assumed the risk, but its the people around him who are put at risk too.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Remember that drugs don't just mess you up, but they can, have, and will, make you hurt other people too. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just the user who assumed the risk, but its the people around him who are put at risk too.

Exactly, like the high-on-meth mom that put her baby in the washing machine (guess how that turned out). Or the mother who smoked so much crack that the baby's clothes were saturated by it. Or the dumbasses making hash oil carelessly (oh, I'm gonna use the butane method of making hash, and I'm gonna go into the next room and light up a smoke...) and blowing up the hotel room, injuring people nearby (at least the dumbass who decided to smoke in a butane filled room removed himself from the gene pool).

We had to take the Civics test at my HS, I was one of the only kids in my class who passed... but then again I've been studying for the FSOT and I've been crushing those practice tests as well, so maybe I just have an affinity for civics.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Works for me. I tried taking that test once. I did fine except I didn't know any of the Supreme Court justices (which seems like a strange and oddly specific requirement for that exam). Other than that it seemed like basic "American history/Social Studies" knowledge to me.

P.S. On the subject of drugs, I am of the opinion that the government should just legalize everything and slap a "manufacture/distribution" tax on it all. Could help reduce crime associated with drug cartels and lower the national debt at the same time.

While it would eliminate the small time crime, it wouldn't faze the cartels. These things would be taxed out the wazoo, and the Cartels could still provide a cheaper source than legal. Illegal cigarettes and booze still exist. The difference is the Cartels already have infrastructure and logistics for this stuff..

I have seen this argument before, and it's a bad, bad argument.

Yes, illegal stills operate in the country, especially in states like Virginia where the state owns the entirely of the alcohol market (which is pretty laughable, by the way). The moonshine stills usually seized are small hobby stills, 10 gallons or so - they bust abour 40 or so a year of these. It was big news when they busted a gigantic operation cranking out 8,000 gallons a year over 2 years. 8,000 gallons a year of moonshine is a lot of moonshine.

Jack Daniels makes whisky, and they sell it in cases - 6x 1.75L bottles per case, or about 2.75 gallons per case. They sell about 13 million cases per year, currently. So, about 35 million gallons per year. And that's just one company!

In that scale, the unlawful liquor business doesn't functionally exist. It's a handful of sand on a beach, if that.

Yeah, cartels have infrastructure and logistics for untaxed cigarettes and liquor, but they're competing with fething Walmart.

It's a bad argument.

But Walmart wouldn't be selling these theorized legal drugs like they do with Cigs and Liquor. Even if they were made legal, I'm sure most large companies wouldn't touch anything more controversial than weed. So its still going to be a very limited legal supply.

How many places sell a ready supply of Opium, Morphine, synthetic Marijuana, Cocaine, Codeine, Fentanyl, Amphetamine, Methamphetamine? All of these are legal drugs currently for sale.

Sure, they are Rx only at this point. But businesses are already willing to sell these hard drugs without any hesitation whatsoever.

I want to see wal-mart cocaine sale ads.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agree completely. Students should take a mandatory government and civics class along with a class in macro economics and a semester on business.
These are important for every citizen.

Interestingly this actually was required in Ohio to graduate up until, I think, 2002.

We were required to take government, economics, and public speaking as a part of the requirements. All classes with functional use in the "real world."

How far we've fallen in a short 12 years.

Not in cali, we still require it.
Although Econ and Politics are a semester each.
And I find it funny how you think these are applicabe in the real world. Econnomics at HS level are a joke.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I want to see wal-mart cocaine sale ads.

You’ve never seen that bouncy smiley face until you’ve seen him jacked up on the good stuff...

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Works for me. I tried taking that test once. I did fine except I didn't know any of the Supreme Court justices (which seems like a strange and oddly specific requirement for that exam). Other than that it seemed like basic "American history/Social Studies" knowledge to me.

P.S. On the subject of drugs, I am of the opinion that the government should just legalize everything and slap a "manufacture/distribution" tax on it all. Could help reduce crime associated with drug cartels and lower the national debt at the same time.

While it would eliminate the small time crime, it wouldn't faze the cartels. These things would be taxed out the wazoo, and the Cartels could still provide a cheaper source than legal. Illegal cigarettes and booze still exist. The difference is the Cartels already have infrastructure and logistics for this stuff..

I have seen this argument before, and it's a bad, bad argument.

Yes, illegal stills operate in the country, especially in states like Virginia where the state owns the entirely of the alcohol market (which is pretty laughable, by the way). The moonshine stills usually seized are small hobby stills, 10 gallons or so - they bust abour 40 or so a year of these. It was big news when they busted a gigantic operation cranking out 8,000 gallons a year over 2 years. 8,000 gallons a year of moonshine is a lot of moonshine.

Jack Daniels makes whisky, and they sell it in cases - 6x 1.75L bottles per case, or about 2.75 gallons per case. They sell about 13 million cases per year, currently. So, about 35 million gallons per year. And that's just one company!

In that scale, the unlawful liquor business doesn't functionally exist. It's a handful of sand on a beach, if that.

Yeah, cartels have infrastructure and logistics for untaxed cigarettes and liquor, but they're competing with fething Walmart.

It's a bad argument.

But if drug use was as widespread as alcohol consumption, we would have some major issues. Drunks on their own cause enough car crashes and barfights, now imagine that many crackheads running around going crazy.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I want to see wal-mart cocaine sale ads.

Just imagine 'The People of WalMart' with legal meth in the mix

 DarkLink wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Works for me. I tried taking that test once. I did fine except I didn't know any of the Supreme Court justices (which seems like a strange and oddly specific requirement for that exam). Other than that it seemed like basic "American history/Social Studies" knowledge to me.

P.S. On the subject of drugs, I am of the opinion that the government should just legalize everything and slap a "manufacture/distribution" tax on it all. Could help reduce crime associated with drug cartels and lower the national debt at the same time.

While it would eliminate the small time crime, it wouldn't faze the cartels. These things would be taxed out the wazoo, and the Cartels could still provide a cheaper source than legal. Illegal cigarettes and booze still exist. The difference is the Cartels already have infrastructure and logistics for this stuff..

I have seen this argument before, and it's a bad, bad argument.

Yes, illegal stills operate in the country, especially in states like Virginia where the state owns the entirely of the alcohol market (which is pretty laughable, by the way). The moonshine stills usually seized are small hobby stills, 10 gallons or so - they bust abour 40 or so a year of these. It was big news when they busted a gigantic operation cranking out 8,000 gallons a year over 2 years. 8,000 gallons a year of moonshine is a lot of moonshine.

Jack Daniels makes whisky, and they sell it in cases - 6x 1.75L bottles per case, or about 2.75 gallons per case. They sell about 13 million cases per year, currently. So, about 35 million gallons per year. And that's just one company!

In that scale, the unlawful liquor business doesn't functionally exist. It's a handful of sand on a beach, if that.

Yeah, cartels have infrastructure and logistics for untaxed cigarettes and liquor, but they're competing with fething Walmart.

It's a bad argument.

But if drug use was as widespread as alcohol consumption, we would have some major issues. Drunks on their own cause enough car crashes and barfights, now imagine that many crackheads running around going crazy.

How many more people do you really think would start smoking crack just because it was legal?

 DarkLink wrote:

But if drug use was as widespread as alcohol consumption, we would have some major issues. Drunks on their own cause enough car crashes and barfights, now imagine that many crackheads running around going crazy.

Consuming alcohol doesn't make someone a drunk, and freebasing cocaine doesn't make someone a crackhead.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Works for me. I tried taking that test once. I did fine except I didn't know any of the Supreme Court justices (which seems like a strange and oddly specific requirement for that exam). Other than that it seemed like basic "American history/Social Studies" knowledge to me.

P.S. On the subject of drugs, I am of the opinion that the government should just legalize everything and slap a "manufacture/distribution" tax on it all. Could help reduce crime associated with drug cartels and lower the national debt at the same time.

While it would eliminate the small time crime, it wouldn't faze the cartels. These things would be taxed out the wazoo, and the Cartels could still provide a cheaper source than legal. Illegal cigarettes and booze still exist. The difference is the Cartels already have infrastructure and logistics for this stuff..

I have seen this argument before, and it's a bad, bad argument.

Yes, illegal stills operate in the country, especially in states like Virginia where the state owns the entirely of the alcohol market (which is pretty laughable, by the way). The moonshine stills usually seized are small hobby stills, 10 gallons or so - they bust about 40 or so a year of these. It was big news when they busted a gigantic operation cranking out 8,000 gallons a year over 2 years. 8,000 gallons a year of moonshine is a lot of moonshine.

Jack Daniels makes whiskey, and they sell it in cases - 6x 1.75L bottles per case, or about 2.75 gallons per case. They sell about 13 million cases per year, currently. So, about 35 million gallons per year. And that's just one company!

In that scale, the unlawful liquor business doesn't functionally exist. It's a handful of sand on a beach, if that.

Yeah, cartels have infrastructure and logistics for untaxed cigarettes and liquor, but they're competing with fething Walmart.

It's a bad argument.

I fething hate Virginia ABC stores: gakky hours, stupid locations, and way overpriced.

There are tons of of people with stills and acquiring moonshine is ridiculously easy. The last time I got some, I got it for free too; a truck driver for a fabrication shop that made some stands for a data center I built gave a big bottle of it just for the hell of it... I didn't even ask, he offered it!

Even then, all the stills in Virginia are a drop in the bucket compared to the legitimate whiskey makers and most people rather deal with the stupid ABC stores than risk getting caught buying or making moonshine.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Even then, all the stills in Virginia are a drop in the bucket compared to the legitimate whiskey makers and most people rather deal with the stupid ABC stores than risk getting caught buying or making moonshine.

It's almost like paying a few extra cents in tax per bottle is an acceptable price to pay for most people to remove the possibility of going blind from drinking a bad batch of moonshine.

Funny, that.

 dogma wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

But if drug use was as widespread as alcohol consumption, we would have some major issues. Drunks on their own cause enough car crashes and barfights, now imagine that many crackheads running around going crazy.

Consuming alcohol doesn't make someone a drunk, and freebasing cocaine doesn't make someone a crackhead.

I didn't say you couldn't drink responsibly. I said a lot of people don't, and simply releasing all the drugs for public consumption would cause issues. If drugs are unrestricted, cartels would still probably have plenty of business, because who produces enough cocaine to compete with them? If you only relax drug laws just a little, then there will still be a demand for illegal drugs. This isn't as simple an issue as just "make it all legal and the problem will go away".

Civic test to drugs.....love it

 DarkLink wrote:

I didn't say you couldn't drink responsibly. I said a lot of people don't, and simply releasing all the drugs for public consumption would cause issues. If drugs are unrestricted, cartels would still probably have plenty of business, because who produces enough cocaine to compete with them? If you only relax drug laws just a little, then there will still be a demand for illegal drugs.

The cartels derive most of their income from transit extortion and legitimate business, same as pretty much all organized criminal groups.

 DarkLink wrote:

This isn't as simple an issue as just "make it all legal and the problem will go away".

What is the problem?