the_grip on 31/7/2012 at 13:33
Quote Posted by heywood
So you think the drug testing, prison, and alcohol industries are secretly funding the Mexican drug cartels???
I don't think there is anything secret about it, and looking at it from a drug demand problem is irrelevant to the current situation (that demand is relatively inelastic and is not going away regardless of the legality of drugs). The demand is there, but the supply is manipulated because it is an
enormous market to the tune of billions of dollars (I read one estimate is that $25 billion has already been spent this year alone just on the drug war).
The figure is actually much higher when you start considering taxpayer costs. A few years back the total taxpayer cost for keeping pot illegal was somewhere around $45 billion dollars. In my opinion, it would be short-sighted to think that there is no interest in keeping this money flowing - police and border patrols get federal and state grants, etc. etc., this is a HUGE business. If you legalize and commercialize pot (i.e. grow it at home or buy it in a store), all that goes away or is redirected towards proper economic channels and lots of groups lose money that they shouldn't have in the first place. These are the forces that keep drugs illegal, and this causes the drug cartels to receive funding from drug sales (and who knows from where else) and destroy Mexico. The money is MUCH larger than individual drug sales to single drug users.
Even beyond this - do you think that the war on drugs has done anything to solve problems? If so, why are things so much worse for Mexico now than they were 25 years ago or so when Nancy Reagan started all this war on drugs?
zachary1975 on 5/8/2012 at 15:07
Quote Posted by DDL
Well, you'd need convincing evidence that legalising drugs would lead to a significant increase in drug taking. Obviously this hasn't really been tested, but the fact that portugal decriminalised drugs and saw drug taking
decrease..does not lend credence to this hypothesis.
And even then, you'd need to show that the increase in drug use would lead to more social problems than those caused by drug trafficking, drug pushing, drug-related gangland violence, and so on.
Um..if it's a sales tax, and you're not buying the drugs, why is it
your money that goes to the clinics?
Overall, you'd rather funnel all your taxes into fighting a war that shows no signs of being winnable?
You obviously don't understand very well how taxes work. But first off if drugs were legalized you'd here about it less because it was no longer a crime. Secondly, clinics would take tax payer money to build. Third, Just the read one post before my first one, it read, "I wouldn't mind a bit of it now and then". Finally, i'd rather fight a war against something wrong than pay so that the effects spill into public.
zachary1975 on 5/8/2012 at 15:12
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
I can't remember the last time someone who was stoned or tripping went on a crime spree. I can think of plenty of good things regular users of drugs have done, though.
There other drug problems than just that. A story I heard a while back was about these two kids both adopted, one was 8 years and really super smart, the other was 13 and never knew what was going on. The 13 year old was that way because his mom took drugs. There you have it, legalization of drugs equals, more women taking drugs, which equals more birth defects.
Thirith on 5/8/2012 at 15:25
Quote Posted by zachary1975
There you have it, legalization of drugs equals, more women taking drugs, which equals more birth defects.
And where do you take this "A, therefore B" bit from? In the countries where certain drugs are legalised, general evidence does *not* point towards a significant increase in the use of these drugs.
june gloom on 5/8/2012 at 17:17
He doesn't take it anywhere except the dogs barking in his head. It's clear he's got a really strong bias against drugs but his posting style means that he doesn't need drugs to be posting complete nonsense.
Yakoob on 5/8/2012 at 17:32
Quote Posted by zachary1975
There other drug problems than just that. A story I heard a while back was about these two kids both adopted, one was 8 years and really super smart, the other was 13 and never knew what was going on. The 13 year old was that way because his mom took drugs. There you have it, legalization of drugs equals, more women taking drugs, which equals more birth defects.
Perfect example, let's ban alcohol and tobacco next. Also pollution, asbestos and rollerblading, because THINK OF THE (unborn) CHILDREN!
demagogue on 6/8/2012 at 03:37
Except that drugs that cause birth defects are banned. Also pollution (serious pollution like POPs) and asbestos are banned (¬¬) ... and there would be criminal sanctions if you used them. (POPs cause birth defects. I don't think asbestos does, but you don't want it around anyway.)
If pregnant women use drugs or drink, in some states (Wisconsin, South Dakota) there could be sanctions. Really depends on the state. Second hand smoke is a tougher case... In some states there are sanctions for public smoking because of the 2nd hand effects, but not sure private areas, and again depends on the state.
Alcohol & tobacco are banned for people under 18 but not older because there was a social decision if you're over 18 you're allowed to poison yourself since the risk isn't that high. Of course the state is usually more lenient if it's risk to yourself you consent to, versus risks you off-load onto other people without their consent.
Vivian on 6/8/2012 at 16:32
Maybe you guys misheard. Zachary1975 has conclusive proof about the truth! about drugs. They're bad. That kid in that (autobiographical? semi-autobiographical?) story he heard a while back was totally retarded due to drugs. All of the drugs, any drugs, it doesn't matter. They're all basically chemically exactly the same and have exactly the same effect on the metabolism and psychology of the user and/or their unborn kids.
ESPECIALLY this drug:
[video=youtube;k0tMvxV-GC4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0tMvxV-GC4[/video]
