Post by: Guest on September 24, 2006, 05:32:20 PM
-Preacherman
Post by: m1911owner on September 24, 2006, 05:55:30 PM
Post by: Guest on September 25, 2006, 12:31:21 PM
-Preacherman
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 25, 2006, 12:42:27 PM
Post by: wingnutx on September 25, 2006, 12:45:23 PM
Post by: Car Knocker on September 25, 2006, 12:46:13 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 25, 2006, 12:58:14 PM
Quote from: guest1
Anyone who has not heard of this awesome common sense ballot initiative by now, is not politically aware (in my book anyway).
I must not be politically aware because I've never heard of it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 25, 2006, 01:04:10 PM
Brought to you by Sarcasm.
Post by: Werewolf on September 25, 2006, 01:06:10 PM
Quote from: m1911owner
OK... This is different from what's already been litigated in Raich v. Ashcroft how, exactly?
The article appears to indicate that marijuana will be treated almost exactly the same as alcohol in Nevada if the measure passes.I imagine the feds and some other anti-freedom, buttinskie, run other folks lives types, will immediately file for an injunction to halt implementation if the initiative passes.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 25, 2006, 01:17:07 PM
Quote
The initiative's language states it would "permit and regulate the sale, use and possession of one ounce or less of marijuana by persons at least 21 years of age." It also says it would require sellers to be licensed and legal, impose taxes and restrictions on them and increase criminal penalties for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol that causes death or substantial bodily harm.
They can't regulate sellers now. How are they going to be able to do so if this passes? And I don't think the obviously-biased web site's view about how positive the outlook for passage is to be read as gospel.
Post by: Nightfall on September 25, 2006, 01:30:19 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 25, 2006, 01:36:00 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: guest1
Anyone who has not heard of this awesome common sense ballot initiative by now, is not politically aware (in my book anyway).
I must not be politically aware because I've never heard of it.Post by: wingnutx on September 25, 2006, 03:20:15 PM
AZ was a loose cannon when we decided to ignore fed guidelines on the speed limit, and after enough states did it then the fed had to acquiesce.
I realize that is not a perfect example, but I work with what I've got.
Post by: Finch on September 25, 2006, 07:05:01 PM
Post by: Firethorn on September 26, 2006, 02:06:13 AM
Quote from: Finch
Well, this Nevadan will not be voting for it. I have enough of a time dealing with drunk drivers in this town, don't want to deal with stoned ones too!
You don't already? Of course, you may not have heard about the tests showing mj smokers being safer drivers while high. Note that part of the bill increases penalties for driving while intoxicated, no matter what the substance.If I was living there I'd support it. My philosophy: Legalize it, Regulate it, Tax it*. Like alcohol and tobacco. When you totally criminalize something like drugs, you actually loose control of it. Kids here in ND have said MJ is easier to get than alcohol and tobacco.
*Reasonable tax, even a 200% tax like for A&T would be fairly sustainable. $200 a joint would be excessive enough that the .gov would loose tax revenue and allow the black market to continue.
Post by: 280plus on September 26, 2006, 02:30:47 AM
Post by: Guest on September 26, 2006, 08:34:39 AM
Quote from: Finch
Well, this Nevadan will not be voting for it. I have enough of a time dealing with drunk drivers in this town, don't want to deal with stoned ones too!
I'm pretty sure that drinking and driving is already illegal in Nevada.
Post by: ilbob on September 26, 2006, 09:04:05 AM
The feds are not going to allow Nevadans to sell pot, even if this thing passes.
But they cannot force Nevada to pass a law prohibiting anything.
If the feds want to come in and arrest Nevadans for having a few ounces of pot, they will just look silly.
If anything, focusing LE resources on actual dealers instead of users, is likely to be more effective anyway.
Post by: ilbob on September 26, 2006, 09:05:33 AM
Quote from: c_yeager
Quote from: Finch
Well, this Nevadan will not be voting for it. I have enough of a time dealing with drunk drivers in this town, don't want to deal with stoned ones too!
I'm pretty sure that drinking and driving is already illegal in Nevada.Post by: Mabs2 on September 26, 2006, 08:12:52 PM
Quote from: "Firethorn"
you may not have heard about the tests showing mj smokers being safer drivers while high
Got any links?
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on September 26, 2006, 09:06:07 PM
Quote from: wingnutx
It's awesome if I don't want my tax money frittered away trying to coerce people from getting baked.
Bingo.
Post by: gunsmith on September 26, 2006, 09:30:53 PM
& I think weed is a dangerous addictive drug.
THATS WHY IT SHOULD BE LEGAL!.
I bought pot when I was 11, I couldn't buy beer untill I was 18.
If you are against legalizing marijuana then you are for
destroying young people, for slavery, for crime cartels & for illegal aliens committing crime.
That is the price of your irrational war against some drugs.
Post by: Guest on September 27, 2006, 12:22:42 AM
"This is not about me, or how many times I voted." -El Barto
Post by: wingnutx on September 27, 2006, 06:31:28 AM
Quote from: Firethorn
tests showing mj smokers being safer drivers while high.
I don't buy that for a second.
Post by: Sindawe on September 27, 2006, 07:27:13 AM
I recall several studies that support such, done by the California Highway Patrol and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. The gist of the studies indicate the those under the influence of pot are aware of their impaired state and as such take steps to compensate for their intoxication, paying more attention to the traffic around them and their rate of travel. In essence stoned drivers tend to drive like paranoid old women.
I don't have links to the studies on hand, but if I find them I'll post them up.
People should NOT be driving while impaired, for what ever reason be it EtOH, pot, subscription sedatives or fatigue. The scariest state I've ever had to drive under was while severely sleep deprived while working a rotating shift in The Bloodmines of Boulder. Not good when the road ahead looks like a Salvador Dali painting.
IIRC, a similar initiative is due to appear on the Colorado ballots this November, mirroring Denver's recent decrimminalization of marijuana possesion in weights up to one ounce for those over the age of 21. Here is the text of the ballot issue for Colorado:
Quote
BALLOT TITLE: AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 18-18-406 (1) OF THE COLORADO REVISED
STATUTES MAKING LEGAL THE POSSESSION OF ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA FOR ANY PERSON
TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
Summary of Amendment
Under current law, any person possessing one ounce or less of marijuana is guilty of a Class 2
petty offense and is subject to a fine of up to $100. This amendment decriminalizes the possession
of this amount of marijuana for persons 21 and older, making the crime applicable only to people
under 21.
State Revenue
Fine revenue may be reduced since fines would no longer be assessed against adults who
possess one ounce or less of marijuana. However, any change in fine revenue cannot be quantified
because the total number of persons convicted of this Class 2 petty offense is unknown.
Currently, the state only tracks data on petty offense convictions in state court when a person
is also charged with a more serious misdemeanor or felony crime. It does not track data on petty
offense convictions in municipal court. In addition, judges have discretion when assessing fines, not
all offenders are assessed the maximum $100 fine, and some fines go uncollected. As a result, any
reduction in fine revenue for possessing one ounce or less of marijuana cannot be estimated.
State Expenditures
The proposal will not affect state spending. The courts' workload will not be affected
because persons charged with marijuana possession typically appear in state court on other charges.
Similarly, the Department of Public Safety will not be impacted since state law enforcement officers
typically only search a person for marijuana possession after having probable cause that another
offense has been committed. Finally, the Department of Corrections will not be affected because
the penalty for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana does not include incarceration in a state
prison.
Local Government Impact
Since municipal and county governments retain a portion of fines collected for criminal
violations, this amendment will result in a minimal reduction in local government revenue. It is
estimated that the amendment will not impact local government spending for the same reasons it will
not affect state government spending.
Source: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/Bluebook2006.htm
STATUTES MAKING LEGAL THE POSSESSION OF ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA FOR ANY PERSON
TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
Summary of Amendment
Under current law, any person possessing one ounce or less of marijuana is guilty of a Class 2
petty offense and is subject to a fine of up to $100. This amendment decriminalizes the possession
of this amount of marijuana for persons 21 and older, making the crime applicable only to people
under 21.
State Revenue
Fine revenue may be reduced since fines would no longer be assessed against adults who
possess one ounce or less of marijuana. However, any change in fine revenue cannot be quantified
because the total number of persons convicted of this Class 2 petty offense is unknown.
Currently, the state only tracks data on petty offense convictions in state court when a person
is also charged with a more serious misdemeanor or felony crime. It does not track data on petty
offense convictions in municipal court. In addition, judges have discretion when assessing fines, not
all offenders are assessed the maximum $100 fine, and some fines go uncollected. As a result, any
reduction in fine revenue for possessing one ounce or less of marijuana cannot be estimated.
State Expenditures
The proposal will not affect state spending. The courts' workload will not be affected
because persons charged with marijuana possession typically appear in state court on other charges.
Similarly, the Department of Public Safety will not be impacted since state law enforcement officers
typically only search a person for marijuana possession after having probable cause that another
offense has been committed. Finally, the Department of Corrections will not be affected because
the penalty for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana does not include incarceration in a state
prison.
Local Government Impact
Since municipal and county governments retain a portion of fines collected for criminal
violations, this amendment will result in a minimal reduction in local government revenue. It is
estimated that the amendment will not impact local government spending for the same reasons it will
not affect state government spending.
Source: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/Bluebook2006.htm
Post by: lupinus on September 27, 2006, 08:46:51 AM
Do I want to get stoned? Hell no the one and only time I did I hated it and haven't even looked at the stuff since.
But then I don't like smoking, think its stupid and a waste of money. Doesn't mean I want to outlaw it.
Alcohol is ok in measured ammounts, don't like being so drunk I would fall on my face when getting up from the bar seat. But you know what....yeah should be legal.
Do kids get cigs and alcohol now? Sure they do its laughable to think they don't or can't. But I assure you that unless it is from mommy and daddys unlocked liqor cabinate it is ten times easier for a kid to score drugs then it is for him to score cigs or booze.
Regulating it makes legitamet buisnesses sell it because they can, and makes them follow the law to do so because they don't want their license pulled.
Well it ever be totaly regulated? Course not you will always have illegal trafficing just liek you still have illegal trafficing of booze and cigs. Why don't you ever hear about it? Because it is mostly in small enough amounts to make a few quick bucks not build a cartel out of.
Any drug which does not have a good possibility of making someone go crazy or has shown time and agian to ruin communities, drugs like pcp and meth, should be legalized.
Post by: Guest on September 27, 2006, 10:10:49 AM
Quote from: wingnutx
Quote from: Firethorn
tests showing mj smokers being safer drivers while high.
I don't buy that for a second.Post by: wingnutx on September 27, 2006, 10:12:32 AM
Quote from: Sindawe
In essence stoned drivers tend to drive like paranoid old women.
They shouldn't drive either.
Post by: Firethorn on September 27, 2006, 12:47:07 PM
Quote from: wingnutx
Quote from: Sindawe
In essence stoned drivers tend to drive like paranoid old women.
They shouldn't drive either.While stoned, the drivers tended to show a lack of aggression(if the other guy really wants to go, let him), drive the speed limit or even a bit lower, etc...
I'd agree with you Sindawe. It doesn't matter what your impairment is, if you can't meet the standards then you shouldn't be on the road.
On the other hand, I'd love to see a PRT type system going in so people DON'T have to drive to get to most places. The fact that it'd lower petroleum product usage is a side benefit...
Post by: Third_Rail on September 27, 2006, 02:41:10 PM
Post by: lupinus on September 27, 2006, 07:31:00 PM
Quote
They shouldn't drive either.
No they shouldn't. I wish I had a nickle for everytime an elderly person who shouldn't still be behind the wheel either causes an accident or is going down the road 20 mph bellow the speed limit.
Post by: publius on September 27, 2006, 10:32:08 PM
Quote from: m1911owner
OK... This is different from what's already been litigated in Raich v. Ashcroft how, exactly?
In that case, the left wing of the Court, joined by Scalia, held that growing your own cannabis (or building your own machine gun) affects interstate commerce, though the activities themselves are not commerce.This is different because they are actually talking about buying and selling. In other words, it has even less chance of getting past the feds and the New Deal interpretation of the Constitution which is so popular with drug warriors and gun grabbers.
Post by: Firethorn on September 28, 2006, 02:18:30 AM
Less Impaired than alcohol
Impairs less than alcohol, but drivers became more cautious rather than bold as drunks frequently do
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 02:38:51 AM
Quote from: lupinus
Quote
They shouldn't drive either.
No they shouldn't. I wish I had a nickle for everytime an elderly person who shouldn't still be behind the wheel either causes an accident or is going down the road 20 mph bellow the speed limit.Yeah, X is bad but Y is also bad. Therefore we should tolerate X since we're stuck with Y.
So elderly people behind the wheel are a problem. Drunks behind the wheel are a problem. So we're going to make these problems better by doing things that will inevitably result in yet another class of impaired drivers behind the wheel? Hello? I don't really care what the relative differences of drunk vs stoned drivers are. Stoned drivers are a threat to others. This measure will increase the number of stoned drivers.
Post by: lupinus on September 28, 2006, 06:12:43 AM
Just like there will always be those who commit crimes with guns, there will always be those who get behind the wheel when they have no buisness being there. All this is doing is removing a law which shouldn't have been a law in the first place.
Blaming impared drivers on weed, alcohol, or anything else is no different then blaming guns for crimes. If someone wants to get wasted they will, weed isn't exactly hard to find, and if they can't at the moment they can get wasted on plenty of other things. People are already using it, its a stupid law, and you aren't going to have more people behind the wheel impaired then you are now.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: lupinus
You think there isn't already stoned drivers behind the wheel?
Just like there will always be those who commit crimes with guns, there will always be those who get behind the wheel when they have no buisness being there. All this is doing is removing a law which shouldn't have been a law in the first place.
Blaming impared drivers on weed, alcohol, or anything else is no different then blaming guns for crimes. If someone wants to get wasted they will, weed isn't exactly hard to find, and if they can't at the moment they can get wasted on plenty of other things. People are already using it, its a stupid law, and you aren't going to have more people behind the wheel impaired then you are now.
So your solution is to exacerbate the problem?
Just like there will always be those who commit crimes with guns, there will always be those who get behind the wheel when they have no buisness being there. All this is doing is removing a law which shouldn't have been a law in the first place.
Blaming impared drivers on weed, alcohol, or anything else is no different then blaming guns for crimes. If someone wants to get wasted they will, weed isn't exactly hard to find, and if they can't at the moment they can get wasted on plenty of other things. People are already using it, its a stupid law, and you aren't going to have more people behind the wheel impaired then you are now.
Post by: Third_Rail on September 28, 2006, 08:20:22 AM
But tougher laws on people who might break the law? If you're male you might be a rapist and if you're female you might be a prostitute.
Post by: wingnutx on September 28, 2006, 08:43:10 AM
Post by: Mabs2 on September 28, 2006, 11:35:53 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: lupinus
Quote
They shouldn't drive either.
No they shouldn't. I wish I had a nickle for everytime an elderly person who shouldn't still be behind the wheel either causes an accident or is going down the road 20 mph bellow the speed limit.Yeah, X is bad but Y is also bad. Therefore we should tolerate X since we're stuck with Y.
So elderly people behind the wheel are a problem. Drunks behind the wheel are a problem. So we're going to make these problems better by doing things that will inevitably result in yet another class of impaired drivers behind the wheel? Hello? I don't really care what the relative differences of drunk vs stoned drivers are. Stoned drivers are a threat to others. This measure will increase the number of stoned drivers.
Quote
My solution is to punish people for dangerous negligence, not people who may theoretically become negligent in the future.
yes.It really gets on my nerves the double standards I see on these forums when it comes to issues such as this.
"People can cause problems with drugs so it should be illegal!"
"Just because people can cause problems with guns doesn't mean we are too! Don't make them illegal!"
It's one or the other...either you want personal freedom or you don't.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 11:46:23 AM
Quote from: mbs357
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: lupinus
No they shouldn't. I wish I had a nickle for everytime an elderly person who shouldn't still be behind the wheel either causes an accident or is going down the road 20 mph bellow the speed limit.
I never understood this reasoning. It goes:Yeah, X is bad but Y is also bad. Therefore we should tolerate X since we're stuck with Y.
So elderly people behind the wheel are a problem. Drunks behind the wheel are a problem. So we're going to make these problems better by doing things that will inevitably result in yet another class of impaired drivers behind the wheel? Hello? I don't really care what the relative differences of drunk vs stoned drivers are. Stoned drivers are a threat to others. This measure will increase the number of stoned drivers.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2006, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: mbs357
It really gets on my nerves the double standards I see on these forums when it comes to issues such as this.
"People can cause problems with drugs so it should be illegal!"
"Just because people can cause problems with guns doesn't mean we are too! Don't make them illegal!"
It's one or the other...either you want personal freedom or you don't.
Drugs and guns are a very poor analogy. Guns have a positive effect on society that drugs cannot match. Take all guns away tomorrow, and the weak would be helpless against the strong. Take all illegal drugs away tomorrow, and...what negative consequences might there be?
"People can cause problems with drugs so it should be illegal!"
"Just because people can cause problems with guns doesn't mean we are too! Don't make them illegal!"
It's one or the other...either you want personal freedom or you don't.
Post by: Third_Rail on September 28, 2006, 02:56:32 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 04:02:46 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: mbs357
It really gets on my nerves the double standards I see on these forums when it comes to issues such as this.
"People can cause problems with drugs so it should be illegal!"
"Just because people can cause problems with guns doesn't mean we are too! Don't make them illegal!"
It's one or the other...either you want personal freedom or you don't.
Drugs and guns are a very poor analogy. Guns have a positive effect on society that drugs cannot match. Take all guns away tomorrow, and the weak would be helpless against the strong. Take all illegal drugs away tomorrow, and...what negative consequences might there be?"People can cause problems with drugs so it should be illegal!"
"Just because people can cause problems with guns doesn't mean we are too! Don't make them illegal!"
It's one or the other...either you want personal freedom or you don't.
Convicted murderers already have knives so we should go ahead and make it easy for them to get guns too.
Post by: Ron on September 28, 2006, 04:11:15 PM
The end result was smoking dope did not impair their physical ability to operate the vehicle safely. In higher dosages it did influence their judgement and their attention to objects in their peripheral vision.
While I don't recommend it I drove while being a pot head for years (many years ago). My personal expierience is it would have to be some killer sh*t to effect my ability to drive safely.
Post by: lupinus on September 28, 2006, 06:43:07 PM
Relax laws on guns someone might buy one and shoot someone who might not otherwise have been crafty enough to get one. Relax drug laws and someone might get drugs and drive under the influence who might not have otherwise been able to get them.
It is about the freedom to choose what you do to your body.
Saying legalizing drugs will lead to more people driving under the influence is absoloutly no different then saying getting rid of all gun restrictions will raise crime because more people would have access to them.
Post by: zahc on September 28, 2006, 08:03:22 PM
Quote
what negative consequences might there be?
Irrelevant, since you can't take all the drugs away and magically un-addict everyone.
Post by: Firethorn on September 29, 2006, 01:59:23 AM
Quote from: Third_Rail
Massive withdrawl symptoms from people you might not expect?
Don't forget that many of these drugs still have legitimate medical benefits. MJ is an excellent Nausea suppressant and appetite stimulant. Works well for some cancer patients, for example. While not a true painkiller, it can also help some in extreme pain because it puts the user into a state where they just don't care as much. Cocaine is still occasionally used as a painkiller by optometrists. Opium is turned into Morphine and use as a painkiller.Quote from: The Rabbi
Convicted murderers already have knives so we should go ahead and make it easy for them to get guns too.
Rabbi, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're showing a disconnect with most of the rest of us.It appears to me that you associate drug users exclusivly with criminals. We don't. While the abusability of various drugs vary, MJ is our 'poster child' for a reason. In most respects it's comparable to and even better than Alcohol and Tobacco.
I personally believe that legalization* would allow us to finally have a crime rate comparable to Europe. Kids today rate illegal drugs as easier to get than the legal age-restricted two. We'd be defunding various organized criminal institutions. We saw it when prohibition ended, crime dropped like a rock. The WoD has been the biggest infringement on our rights.
Believe it or not, legalization would actually give the government more control over these drugs. Use market forces to drive the drug dealers out of business, keep the product as safe as possible, and use the tax money gained to run treatment centers and give most of the money used to fight the WoD back to the people or use it to clean up violent crime.
*I don't like this 'decriminalization' stuff. If you still outlaw selling it, possessing more than an ounce, etc you're still going to have illegal dealers that you can't really regulate.
Post by: 280plus on September 29, 2006, 02:15:58 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 29, 2006, 02:34:34 AM
Quote from: 280plus
You know, if you thnk about it, if drugs were legalized, both the dealers AND the police would be out of a job. So where is the incentive for either side to legitimize all this?
Why would the dealers be out of a job? If they could offer the stuff at a lower price and with more convenience they would still sell illegally. If you tax the item and let businesses mark it up you create an automatic black market.Quote from: firethorn
Rabbi, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're showing a disconnect with most of the rest of us.
It appears to me that you associate drug users exclusivly with criminals. We don't. While the abusability of various drugs vary, MJ is our 'poster child' for a reason. In most respects it's comparable to and even better than Alcohol and Tobacco.
Actually I think you have the disconnect in not understanding my point. Yes, MJ is the "poster child" for drug legalization just like the happy committed monogamous gay couple is the poster child for same sex marriage. Supporters choose those things because no one would support legalization if the poster child were a pipe head or gay marriage if the poster child were some promiscuous chicken hawk.It appears to me that you associate drug users exclusivly with criminals. We don't. While the abusability of various drugs vary, MJ is our 'poster child' for a reason. In most respects it's comparable to and even better than Alcohol and Tobacco.
And drug use is associated with criminals because people who buy, sell, and use illegal narcotics are breaking the law. Same argument opponents of immigration use.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2006, 03:22:11 AM
Quote from: zahc
Quote
what negative consequences might there be?
Irrelevant, since you can't take all the drugs away and magically un-addict everyone.Post by: 280plus on September 29, 2006, 03:25:10 AM
Thw WOD is a total waste of good money and good manpower that could be MUCH better used elsewhere.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 29, 2006, 04:06:27 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Rabbi, how many guys do you see selling bootleg liquor on the street corner? Organized crime would suffer greatly if suddenly drugs, prostitution and gambling were legal coast to coast. Don't worry, I'm sure they could find other means of support. But then gee, all of a sudden, we got all these cops sitting around with nothing to do. How about we concentrate this newly found mass of policehood and employ them on the remaining criminal activities? Like rape, murder, robbery and other violent crimes that actually involve victims.
Thw WOD is a total waste of good money and good manpower that could be MUCH better used elsewhere.
Actually in my part of the country there are plenty of bootleggers and moonshiners. The reason you don't see more is that moonshine is a very poor substitute for what you buy in the liquor store (or c-store if you're in CA). The liquor companies have spent a lot of money and time developing unique products and advertising them. Ditto with the cigarette makers, even though to me one cigarette is pretty much like the next. Marijuana and opium and cocaine otoh are all commodity products with very little differentiation and of course no brand loyalty. As commodities they get sold by price and obviously the illegal price will be less than the legal price.Thw WOD is a total waste of good money and good manpower that could be MUCH better used elsewhere.
Look at NYC and the illegal cigarette trade there. Because of taxes, cigs in NY are about twice what they are in NC. So people drive to NC, fill up vans with some maximum number of cartons (the max number is because below that it is a midemeanor and above that a felony, so people avoid the felony rap), drive to NY and sell them, often in the open in the subway. The problem is so bad police don't even cite much less arrest illegal cigarette sellers. Why should marijuana behave any differently?
Post by: Third_Rail on September 29, 2006, 06:10:30 AM
Quote
Marijuana and opium and cocaine otoh are all commodity products with very little differentiation and of course no brand loyalty
I disagree. There is very much a brand loyalty; many people around here will pony up extra cash for Dr. Atomic's MJ, ditto Sagarmatha's. As to opium, cocaine, etc. - these have been processed (and actually opium is hard to find) to be pretty much the same. Cocaine on the east coast is the same, give or take, as cocaine on the west coast.
Post by: 280plus on September 29, 2006, 09:36:02 AM
If NY's ciggie tax is more than the market wants to bear that's NY's fault.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 29, 2006, 09:38:48 AM
Quote from: 280plus
But Rabbi, wouldn't you agree that there sure are a lot more illegal drug dealers than illegal bootleggers of alcohol and tobacco? I know I could get any illegal drug I wanted a lot easier and faster than I could bootlegged A or T. I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for the stuff.
If NY's ciggie tax is more than the market wants to bear that's NY's fault.
I'm not so sure about the illegal cigarette bootleggers. That's big business. The alcohol is because it is easy enough to buy better quality stuff legally. Moonshine is nasty. If NY's ciggie tax is more than the market wants to bear that's NY's fault.
My point about NY is exactly that: if the legal channels price the stuff significantly higher than the illegal channels (which will be the case) then you will have every bit as much illegal activity as now.
Post by: 280plus on September 29, 2006, 09:45:55 AM
Post by: Third_Rail on September 29, 2006, 09:47:37 AM
As to "made right here".... well, most MJ I've heard of comes in from Canada or California, at least around here. It's the fact that most big illegal growing operations can bully smaller growers out of selling, the DEA does the same, etc., so that only the big nasty gangs are selling the stuff. That's where the problems are, just like during prohibition.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 29, 2006, 10:48:20 AM
Quote from: Third_Rail
Rabbi - agreed! That is reason why drugs should be legalized on a federal level, then taxation left up to each state. If someone wants to go to state A to buy MJ or whatnot to escape state B's tax (or perhaps state B has banned MJ), then that's fine. I simply dislike federal bans on just items.
As to "made right here".... well, most MJ I've heard of comes in from Canada or California, at least around here. It's the fact that most big illegal growing operations can bully smaller growers out of selling, the DEA does the same, etc., so that only the big nasty gangs are selling the stuff. That's where the problems are, just like during prohibition.
Actually I am told MJ is TN's second or third biggest cash crop.
As to "made right here".... well, most MJ I've heard of comes in from Canada or California, at least around here. It's the fact that most big illegal growing operations can bully smaller growers out of selling, the DEA does the same, etc., so that only the big nasty gangs are selling the stuff. That's where the problems are, just like during prohibition.
Post by: 280plus on September 29, 2006, 11:23:48 AM
Post by: Third_Rail on September 29, 2006, 11:26:47 AM
That aside, the biggest producers are California and Canada, at least for sellers that I've heard of.
EDIT: In 1998, a study was done about cash crops (seen at NORML's website). MJ was America's number four crop at wholesale value. If calculated at the inflated (due to legal issues) price, it's by far the number one crop in the country.
Post by: gunsmith on September 30, 2006, 10:10:08 AM
Illegal aliens are (right now) doing illegal farming
in OUR nat prks and forest spreading pollution
and shooting at people.
an oz of weed is over 400 bucks a pack of smokes is at most 6 bucks...
keeping it illegal is great for crime cartels.
Prohibition gave us the Kennedy dynasty, & NFA... enough allready!
Post by: Third_Rail on September 30, 2006, 10:41:38 AM
Post by: Guest on September 30, 2006, 11:01:53 AM
Quote from: Third_Rail
Must be some good MJ at $400/oz. Half a kilo of decent skunk is $550 around here.
Do they give you a garbage bag to go with it?Thats $4 for 1/8th ounch. Thats less than my parents paid in 1965. I paid $40 for that same quantity when i was in highschool in the early 90s.
Your price $1.5 per gram, the current rate in Washington state is $10+ per gram. (fun link = http://www.marijuanaprices.homestead.com/directory/index.html )
Do you live in Mexico?
Post by: Third_Rail on September 30, 2006, 07:21:03 PM
As to where I live, New England of all places. You'd think things would be more here...
Post by: doczinn on October 01, 2006, 01:58:21 PM
Quote
Marijuana and opium and cocaine otoh are all commodity products with very little differentiation and of course no brand loyalty
Without ever having smoked the stuff, I can tell you unequivocably that at least in regard to marijuana this is completely false. There are many different varieties, and discriminating smokers know what they prefer and will seek it out and even pay a higher price for it. I suspect this also holds true for opium, though cocaine is so processed that any differentiation in the raw material is probably gone in the finished product.
Post by: Third_Rail on October 01, 2006, 03:43:09 PM
Post by: Firethorn on October 01, 2006, 05:35:05 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: 280plus
But Rabbi, wouldn't you agree that there sure are a lot more illegal drug dealers than illegal bootleggers of alcohol and tobacco? I know I could get any illegal drug I wanted a lot easier and faster than I could bootlegged A or T. I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for the stuff.
If NY's ciggie tax is more than the market wants to bear that's NY's fault.
I'm not so sure about the illegal cigarette bootleggers. That's big business. The alcohol is because it is easy enough to buy better quality stuff legally. Moonshine is nasty. If NY's ciggie tax is more than the market wants to bear that's NY's fault.
My point about NY is exactly that: if the legal channels price the stuff significantly higher than the illegal channels (which will be the case) then you will have every bit as much illegal activity as now.
As for illegal being cheaper, I have to ask you, which ends up truly being cheaper and easier:
some guy loads up a backpack/car and attempts to sneak accross the border with it, then sell it on a streetcorner somewhere.
Or
A semi is loaded up with 20 tons of the stuff and driven, completely legally because it's been tested/approved and the reasonable tax paid, to the store where it's placed on the shelves(well, behind the counter).
Post by: The Rabbi on October 02, 2006, 04:56:09 PM
Post by: Finch on October 02, 2006, 07:25:33 PM
Post by: Third_Rail on October 02, 2006, 07:33:57 PM
Finch - would you rather have people in jail for growing and ingesting a plant or for actual crimes like theft possibly resulting from use of drugs? How about the whole "War on (some) Drugs"? I'd take legalization over continued tyranny any day.
To make an analogy...
"What're you in for?"
"I robbed a convienence store and shot the clerk!"
"What about you?"
"Stole a car!"
"You?"
"I... grew a plant and got caught."
Of course, I also think that the age to purchase alcohol should be dropped to 18.
Post by: Firethorn on October 03, 2006, 02:48:05 AM
Quote from: Finch
So nobody thinks that if drugs are legalized crime will increase? Sure, the actual crime of posession and distro will be nil, but what about crimes the result from the sudden rise in drug usage. It would be like dropping the legal age of drinking down to 16. A sudden flood of people who normally would not have used, to start.
I suggest you check out this page about prohibitionFindings:
1. Prohibition didn't measurably drop the drinking rate of alcohol after the first couple years (1920-1933)
Pure alcohol consumed:
2. They showed a marked tendency towards higher concentration versions of alcohol (IE liquer instead of beer)
3. People substituted other, more dangerous drugs
4. Deaths went up, both from alcohol poisonings and murder.
5. Crime went up during prohibition, and came back down afterwards
Murder rate:
Now, think about this. We're seeing the same trends with illegal drugs today as we did with prohibition. Why should the ending of the prohibition on MJ, cocaine, etc have any different effects?
I mean, if they didn't see a huge rise in alcohol consumption when prohibition ended, why should we expect a rise in usage if other drugs are legalized? You see, there is a whole crime industry fed by the prohibition. Since what they're doing is illegal(though highly profitable), they can't depend upon police resources to protect them, the courts to enforce their contracts, etc... So they react to defend themselves. If they're the victim of a crime, they don't dare go to the police. Territory(sales locations) have to be defended. Think about this: In many areas the majority of murders are drug related. Note: I'm including things like gang wars over territory. The majority of theft crimes are drug related.
They substitute Meth for cocaine(I don't think Meth would normally be a replacement for MJ), because Meth is easier to get/make than cocaine. Just like there was a marked preference for hard liquers because liquer was easier to smuggle than beer. So the cost of beer went up around three times as much as liquer. A marked preference towards more compact, eaiser to smuggle forms of drugs dominates in a black market. The downside of this is that more compact drugs are also easier to OD on, and when they adulturate the stuff back down they frequently use chemicals that are nastier than the drug.
Besides, if you drop the price of drugs down, it takes less money to support a habit. Get them on a slower effect drug of constant strength and they're more likely to be able to hold a paying job. Drop the price and you eventually drive the street dealers and producers out of business. While illegal commercial alcohol production still occurs, but it's statistically insignificant. Sure, some people homebrew, but that's like working on your own car or having a garden. Some tobacco smuggling occurs, but it's mostly independent people driving to a different state, buying legal cigarettes, then bringing back across the state line. Sure it's tax evasion, but the product itself is held to the same standards as the legal stuff. It's like buying medicines from canada to avoid high prices.
Ultimately, a treatment center is cheaper than jail/prison. Legalizing and taxing these drugs would drop the usage of the most unsafe versions, and the taxes could go towards helping the nonfunctional addicts and mitigating the harm abusers cause. Organized crime would drop substantially, since their largest profit line would disappear.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 02:52:52 AM
Post by: Third_Rail on October 03, 2006, 09:54:18 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 11:07:21 AM
Quote from: Third_Rail
I don't agree. There is historical widespread use of opium containing products, and it was socially acceptable up until the early 1900s - just a bit later, alcohol was prohibited as well....
There was widespread use of opiates until maybe the 1870s. 1890s at the latest. The country has changed radically since then. And all those people are dead.But even opiates never occupied the same place as liquor, in part because people did not make their opium as poppies are hard to grow in some climates. So while you could maybe make a valid comparison on drugs/alcohol in the 1890s, today it isnt the case.
Post by: Third_Rail on October 03, 2006, 11:17:35 AM
Quote
...as poppies are hard to grow in some climates...
I've seen poppies growing wild from northern Canada to Florida.As for whether it's a valid comparison, you're no longer listening, nor are you giving me the courtesy of researching any of this as well. You're quite obviously set in your ways, which is saddening. In 100 years, if guns are no longer "socially acceptable", you'd be in favor of keeping them banned for the good of the country, based on that widespread use was so very long ago.
I won't be reading, nor posting, in this thread or the other drug-related threads again. I'm wasting my time.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 11:53:33 AM
ATTENTION, ALL POSTERS: The next time you're tempted to compare guns to drugs, put a crack-vial, a dime-bag, or a bottle of Jack in your pocket and take a walk. See how safe you feel. Or make sure the bong is loaded the next time you leave your wife alone in the house. I'm sure it will help her protect herself from home invaders.
The comparison does not work.
Yes, I realize all manner of jokes can be made here.
Post by: wingnutx on October 03, 2006, 11:56:24 AM
Quote from: fistful
ATTENTION, ALL POSTERS: The next time you're tempted to compare guns to drugs, put a bottle of Jack in your pocket and take a walk.
Only if I can stuff a rag in the top and carry a lighter.
Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 12:11:12 PM
All analogies fall apart at some level, but that doesn't mean they're useless on all levels. By definition an analogy compares the similarities of differing things. The guns vs. free speech issue is another common analogy, but you wouldn't want to stick a paper critical of the government in your pocket to defend yourself or choose a rifle as the best tool to pen a novel. Still, both are speficially Constitutionally protected freedoms, both are important in ensuring other freedoms and so forth.
Some gun/drug analogies are bad ones. Others fit. Of those that fit, the most interesting in my opinion is the similarity in the anti-drug and anti-gun argument structure. The basis of each is that individuals cannot be trusted to use [guns / drugs] and so they must be taken away by the government. The reason this is interesting is that often someone might oppose the logic of an anti-gun argument and use the same logic to oppose drugs.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 12:29:34 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 12:37:57 PM
Guns and free speech have their downfalls, but they are also vital to the free society. "Recreational drugs," whether or not you include alcohol and tobacco, we can do without. This doesn't mean we should ban them, but it does mean that the gun comparison is a stretch.
Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 01:14:16 PM
Rabbi, you kidder. Always with your meth and crack.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 01:24:00 PM
Quote from: cordex
Fistful, the comparison is not between guns and drugs, it is between the arguments that are used by those who would prohibit each.
Rabbi, you kidder. Always with your meth and crack.
If you make a comparison, the comparison has to be valid. Comparing guns and drugs, even in the context of legality, is an invalid comparison, for all the reasons that you fail to see.
Rabbi, you kidder. Always with your meth and crack.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 01:43:49 PM
Quote from: cordex
Fistful, the comparison is not between guns and drugs, it is between the arguments that are used by those who would prohibit each.
AAAAAAAAAAH! AND THE ARGUMENT FOR GUN RIGHTS DOES NOT TRANSFER TO DRUGS, BECAUSE THEY ARE A NET NEGATIVE THAT SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED! Guns are good, drugs are bad. Again, that doesn't mean we should outlaw drugs, but the arguments that work for one subject do not work for the other. I can see now why you and Rabbi are having such fun screaming at each other.
Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 03:02:55 PM
Quote
AND THE ARGUMENT FOR GUN RIGHTS DOES NOT TRANSFER TO DRUGS, BECAUSE THEY ARE A NET NEGATIVE THAT SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED!
There are practical considerations of your audience to be sure, but if we're discussing poor logic it can apply to both issues. Especially when it comes to prior restraint. That you and I feel that abolishment of recreational drugs would be a net gain to society is immaterial.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 04:04:29 PM
Post by: wingnutx on October 03, 2006, 05:17:24 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 05:20:44 PM
Quote from: wingnutx
You two are going to drive fistful to substance abuse, and then you'll be sorry.
As long as it's legal substance abuse, that's OK.
Post by: wingnutx on October 03, 2006, 05:28:26 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 06:16:28 PM
Post by: Firethorn on October 04, 2006, 02:28:27 AM
Quote from: Third_Rail
I've seen poppies growing wild from northern Canada to Florida.
I'll give The Rabbi the benefit of the doubt, and simply point out that in a legalized situation, the crops will tend to be grown in ideal locations for maximum profit potentials. IE low labor cost Afghanistan might be a good source. Then again, it wouldn't take too many farms dedicating an acre or so to provide plenty of production, even if greenhoused.Quote from: The Rabbi
There was widespread use of opiates until maybe the 1870s. 1890s at the latest. The country has changed radically since then. And all those people are dead.
But even opiates never occupied the same place as liquor, in part because people did not make their opium as poppies are hard to grow in some climates. So while you could maybe make a valid comparison on drugs/alcohol in the 1890s, today it isnt the case.
But there are many valid comparison points.But even opiates never occupied the same place as liquor, in part because people did not make their opium as poppies are hard to grow in some climates. So while you could maybe make a valid comparison on drugs/alcohol in the 1890s, today it isnt the case.
Don't you think that many people started drinking under prohibition? Do you think that most speakeasies bothered to check age/not sell to minors?
Ways current drug prohibitions are similar to alcohol prohibitions:
1. Mobs -> Gangs
2. Increased Police power and corruption
3. Massive enforcement costs
4. Loss of tax revenue
5. Increased use of more dangerous drugs as compared to an unrestricted market(Liquer -> Meth)
6. Loss of reasonably safe products (Moonshine w/methanol -> drugs cut with unsafe substances)
7. Increased crime due to organized criminal elements defending and attacking territory, enforcing their own brand of justice
How is it not similar, The Rabbi?
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 02:34:07 AM
Quote from: Firethorn
[
Don't you think that many people started drinking under prohibition? Do you think that most speakeasies bothered to check age/not sell to minors?
Ways current drug prohibitions are similar to alcohol prohibitions:
1. Mobs -> Gangs
2. Increased Police power and corruption
3. Massive enforcement costs
4. Loss of tax revenue
5. Increased use of more dangerous drugs as compared to an unrestricted market(Liquer -> Meth)
6. Loss of reasonably safe products (Moonshine w/methanol -> drugs cut with unsafe substances)
7. Increased crime due to organized criminal elements defending and attacking territory, enforcing their own brand of justice
How is it not similar, The Rabbi?
I already covered that above. The position of alcohol in America at the start of Prohibition is in now ways similar to the position of drugs today. That is so for historical and cultural reasons.Quote from: The Rabbi
There was widespread use of opiates until maybe the 1870s. 1890s at the latest. The country has changed radically since then. And all those people are dead.
But even opiates never occupied the same place as liquor, in part because people did not make their opium as poppies are hard to grow in some climates. So while you could maybe make a valid comparison on drugs/alcohol in the 1890s, today it isnt the case.
But there are many valid comparison points.But even opiates never occupied the same place as liquor, in part because people did not make their opium as poppies are hard to grow in some climates. So while you could maybe make a valid comparison on drugs/alcohol in the 1890s, today it isnt the case.
Don't you think that many people started drinking under prohibition? Do you think that most speakeasies bothered to check age/not sell to minors?
Ways current drug prohibitions are similar to alcohol prohibitions:
1. Mobs -> Gangs
2. Increased Police power and corruption
3. Massive enforcement costs
4. Loss of tax revenue
5. Increased use of more dangerous drugs as compared to an unrestricted market(Liquer -> Meth)
6. Loss of reasonably safe products (Moonshine w/methanol -> drugs cut with unsafe substances)
7. Increased crime due to organized criminal elements defending and attacking territory, enforcing their own brand of justice
How is it not similar, The Rabbi?
You could make the same comparison to anything which is currently illegal. Therefore the comparison ceases to have much meaning.
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 03:11:54 AM
Quote
You could make the same comparison to anything which is currently illegal. Therefore the comparison ceases to have much meaning.
Not when you compare crime from the viewpoint of victimization. Who is the victim in a drug deal? Who is the victim in when gambling or prostitution acts are taking place? Yet, because these things are "illegal" (in SOME states)many many people are victimized by the attempts to cover up and control these things. So it was in the alcohol prohibition days. Friggin Kennedys got rich bootlegging. I wonder how many people they victimized along the way. I agree with cordex, the argument over whether guns and drugs can be compared at all is what is moot in this discussion. The fact is the exact same argument is being reacted to in opposite directions by the same people. You will vilify it when it is used to try and make your guns illegal but will embrace it when discussing whether drugs should be made legal. It's all about freedom of choice. Why is the govt making my choices their business? For the children? If I'm not killing or robbing or raping or even pillaging in the neighborhood, why should they be bothering me? Our prisons are chock full of men and women who might have otherwise gone on to live relatively succesful lives if THEY hadn't been victimized by thr govt for THEIR choice to use drugs etc... now they are schooled hardened criminals. So yea, the system we have now is working just fine. 
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 03:31:01 AM
So with drugs, you hand out the needles free, like they're doing anyways, and that gives an opportunity to bring up rehab every time they are seen. The fair tax on the drugs would fund this and also be used to pay for those who DO seek to straighten their lives out. I mean, as it is now, the state funds the ones that need/want to be dried out and can't afford it. Where is THAT money coming from? Not THEIR pockets. Look, if someone is destroying their lives with hard drugs how are we helping by tossing them in jail?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 04:38:55 AM
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 04:55:15 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 05:19:07 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Then there's the felony stuff where loss of voting priveleges comes into play. We have a whole society of people who can never vote. Where is their incentive to become productive citizens in a community where they have no say? Not to mention that a good portion of these people are young (and dumb) so they will NEVER have a say even if th3ey do grow up and straighten out their act.
You make too much of the voting angle. Millions of Americans are productive citizens and never vote. The incentive is being able to live comfortably without going to court and to rehab and to the big house every so often. Or the incentive could be a real desire to go straight and live honestly. Or they want to be with their kids and hold their head up around Mama. Too many morons are voting now, as it is.
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 05:33:54 AM
Quote
Millions of Americans are productive citizens and never vote.
Agreed, but at least they have the opportunity if they choose to. We all know that as young uns a lot of us didn't vote but as the years went by more issues became prevalent in our lives and we began to vote because it started taking on more significance to us. How would it feel to be a never violent 40 something who has come full circle, straightened out his/her act and now wishes to participate in the legislative process but can't because of some drug related or other victimless "crime" he committed as a wee tot? Do you think he might feel a tad embittered? So how do you go about weeding out the morons fist? Anyone who doesn't vote for the same guys as you? 
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 05:35:33 AM
Quote
The incentive is being able to live comfortably without going to court and to rehab and to the big house every so often.
Yea, ok, but so far that "incentive" doesn't seem to work too good.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 05:36:09 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 05:36:31 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Quote
The incentive is being able to live comfortably without going to court and to rehab and to the big house every so often.
Yea, ok, but so far that "incentive" doesn't seem to work too good.Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 05:37:38 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Quote
The incentive is being able to live comfortably without going to court and to rehab and to the big house every so often.
Yea, ok, but so far that "incentive" doesn't seem to work too good.Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 05:38:53 AM
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 05:51:45 AM
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 05:52:49 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 06:12:20 AM
Quote from: 280plus
What incentive to vote? I'm saying they are losing the privelege before they ever have a chance to exercise it. And, in case you haven't noticed, it's the minority populations who are the majority of those in prison for drug offenses or offenses related to drugs. T
Maybe because they deal in drugs to a larger degree than others? And I think it is an issus of socioeconomic class not race. Go to rural areas and the same class of people are getting busted and serving time.
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 06:41:34 AM
Quote
Maybe because they deal in drugs to a larger degree than others?
Ok, why do they do that?
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 08:08:52 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Quote
Maybe because they deal in drugs to a larger degree than others?
Ok, why do they do that?As for why they are poor and uneducated. I dunno? Bad culture? Forty years of gov't socialism? Take your pick.
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 10:21:03 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 10:43:38 AM
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 10:49:25 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 11:09:11 AM
280,
Let's presume that drugs were legal tomorrow, subject only to the same sort of taxes and regulations that burden other sorts of, uh, retail. I doubt the illegal dealers would go straight, or at least not very much. Such people are probably too lazy and have too little patience for keeping up with all the red tape then required of them. Some would simply ignore the laws and get hassled by IRS rather than DEA. Those who made some effort to comply wouldn't be happy with the immediate cuts in their profits from taxes and fees of various kinds. As both kinds began to be squeezed out by the few real businessmen in the crowd, they would find other illegal sources of cash.
I don't know how this affects the debate.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 11:18:57 AM
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 11:48:31 AM
Why do we insist on having criminals in charge of who's selling drugs to whom? Just like criminals are controlling who and what is crossing the border into this country, just like criminals who are controlling whose getting the "illegal" or "banned" weapons in this country...
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Low level maybe but the goal is to work one's way up the ladder, just like any corporation.
Why do we insist on having criminals in charge of who's selling drugs to whom? Just like criminals are controlling who and what is crossing the border into this country, just like criminals who are controlling whose getting the "illegal" or "banned" weapons in this country...
Because by definition laws only affect law-abiding people?
Why do we insist on having criminals in charge of who's selling drugs to whom? Just like criminals are controlling who and what is crossing the border into this country, just like criminals who are controlling whose getting the "illegal" or "banned" weapons in this country...
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 02:56:18 PM
Post by: Firethorn on October 04, 2006, 05:14:40 PM
Quote from: fistful
I know that's what you meant, but those legal pimps and dealers would still be pimps and dealers. Just a matter of semantics.
1. If prostitution was legalized, the pimps would be out of business because prostitutes would be able to use public resources to enforce contracts, just like stores and police when/if somebody assaults them. Just look at Europe and those counties of Nevada where it's legal. Heck, I saw a special recently about a Nevade prostitution business. Safe, efficient and regulated.2. Would you call the guy manning the alcohol store a dealer? The gas station clerk handing out packs of cigarettes? What about a smoke-shop owner? Dealers who stay within legal boundries and sell a legal product can enjoy the benefits of using our legal system and protection of the police. Those who don't face negative consequence of the same. It's a powerful incentive to stay within legal boundries.
Quote
they would find other illegal sources of cash.
But what? If they steal they risk getting shot or going to prison, they can't make any money selling drugs, etc... It's a matter of margins. At least some will end up going straight because there just isn't enough other black markets to absorb them all. Economics being what they are, there's only so much money in other black markets and they're likely already being met by specialists in those markets. IE the former dealers who still want to be criminals will still face a substantial drop in income, to the point where working at a McD's starts looking attractive. Starving black marketers don't attract kids to imitate them.
Post by: gunsmith on October 04, 2006, 07:30:28 PM
He invested his paychecks and some of his ill gotten gains...now he is a criminal defense attny!
He made at least 100 grand in one year on illegal substances! thanks to weed being illegal
we have a lawyer who is setting criminals free.....you get what you vote for , eh?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 07:35:25 PM
Quote from: 280plus
Well, I know plenty of otherwise hard working and law abiding people who have been undercover "outlaws" all their lives due to their choice of recreation. They are forced to maintain contact and deal with the criminal element, sometimes at great personal risk, in order to procure whatever it is they like to indulge in. Meanwhile, they hurt noone.
I think I speak for all on both sides of the debate when I say: Cry me a river.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 08:13:24 PM
Quote from: Firethorn
1. If prostitution was legalized, the pimps would be out of business because prostitutes would be able to use public resources to enforce contracts, just like stores and police when/if somebody assaults them. Just look at Europe and those counties of Nevada where it's legal. Heck, I saw a special recently about a Nevade prostitution business. Safe, efficient and regulated.
Anyone who manages a prostitution business is a pimp, whether legal or not. That is the meaning of the word. While I don't doubt there are prostitutes with the where-with-all to manage their own affairs (pun not intended), those who turn to prostitution usually don't do so out of ambition and a keen grasp of business skill. The prostitutes will be the same girls who are doing it now, and they will work for some kind of pimp, whether legal and "ethical," or not. Quote
2. Would you call the guy manning the alcohol store a dealer?
Of course. That's my point. "Dealer" doesn't imply illegality or shadiness.
Post by: Sindawe on October 04, 2006, 08:53:59 PM
Quote
I think I speak for all on both sides of the debate when I say: Cry me a river.
Actually, you don't speak for all sides in this debate. You don't speak for me. Like 280plus, I've known plenty of hardworking, honorable and otherwise law-abiding people who's choice of chemical joy does not match my own. They have hurt no one in their private pastimes, yet still they've run the risk of criminal prosecution and having their lives ruined should they come afoul of our stupid drug laws.To destroy a person's life for what they do in private within the confines of their own homes is madness. Those who advocate and support such a societal stance are little better than petty tyrants, and deserve naught but the ignoble end too few tyrants meet.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 09:06:59 PM
Again, I'm not arguing for drug prohibition, I'm just saying that I can't work up much sympathy for the people you describe. They should choose a more rewarding form of recreation.
Breaking a gun law might be necessary and noble. Breaking the law to toke some reefer is just choosing an unnecessary risk.
Post by: Sindawe on October 04, 2006, 10:30:23 PM
Quote
They should choose a more rewarding form of recreation.
Are you the final judge of the worthiness of anothers choice of recreation? What value is the "moment's fleeting pleasure" of putting rounds down range and into center of the target? Would it not be better for the "gun nuts" to chose another, more rewarding form of recreation? Say helping children learn to read?Quote
Breaking a gun law might be necessary and noble. Breaking the law to toke some reefer is just choosing an unnecessary risk.
If you would be so kind, please elaborate in this point fistful. Why in your view might breaking a gun law be necessary and noble, while choosing an external source of chemical joy not; provided both are done in a fashion that does not harm another?
Post by: 280plus on October 05, 2006, 02:15:27 AM
Post by: Firethorn on October 05, 2006, 02:23:08 AM
Quote from: fistful
Firethorn, don't assume that I'm against legalization - I'm still making up my mind. And don't take my arguments to prove points I didn't intend them to prove.
I didn't assume anything. I saw your post and had a thought. Today's society has certain images of 'Pimps and Dealers' that have some very negative connotations. I apologize for pissing you off.Quote
Of course. That's my point. "Dealer" doesn't imply illegality or shadiness.
You know, you're right. I think that it was the close proximity to 'pimp' that set me off on that one. And yeah, 'Dealer' doesn't mean illegal. Car dealers, for example.Quote
Anyone who manages a prostitution business is a pimp, whether legal or not. That is the meaning of the word. While I don't doubt there are prostitutes with the where-with-all to manage their own affairs (pun not intended), those who turn to prostitution usually don't do so out of ambition and a keen grasp of business skill. The prostitutes will be the same girls who are doing it now, and they will work for some kind of pimp, whether legal and "ethical," or not.
According to dictionary.com:1. a person, esp. a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer.
2. a despicable person.
6. to exploit.
Saw a special on prostitution. It touched on how prostitution works in areas where it's legal and where it's illegal. In illegal places the Pimps act as 'Managers' as well and frequenly the prostitutes are essentially slaves for the pimps, who will beat them for poor performance. In places where it's legal, you're more likely to get Madams, and the only men are hired security, though I suppose you could still have advertisers as 'pimps' by definition 1. It's a case of, my personal definition has a 'pimp' acting as manager/ruler of a stable of prostitutes, using violence as a means of control(As him, the prostitutes, and the johns can't call the cops).
Legal prostitution is safer and cleaner for everyone involved.
One of my favorite methods for controlling crime like this is to try to defund the criminals. Take away their profit. Well, as long as having a victim isn't part of the process. Organ stealing, snuff films, child porn/molestation, kidnapping, extortion all have victims, so by all means continue sending cops after any who try it.
Post by: 280plus on October 05, 2006, 03:04:50 AM
Quote
Organ stealing, snuff films, child porn/molestation, kidnapping, extortion all have victims, so by all means continue sending cops after any who try it.
I'll just put a big +1 to that...Greed won't take a vacation, it will just find other avenues.
Post by: 280plus on October 05, 2006, 03:08:13 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 05, 2006, 03:10:31 AM
The same can't be said of drugs that one uses for recreation. If marijuana is actually the only cure for one's glaucoma, then risking severe penalties might make sense. And if a person has no dependents, it's pretty much up to them what risks they choose to take. If the people you speak of are in that category, then we probably don't have an argument. But when people depend on you, some risks are just irresponsible. Yes, MLK took risks that eventually hurt his family. Gun rights activists might take those kinds of risks. But these were/are for real issues, not for personal gratification.
Yes, I realize that doesn't mean drugs should be illegal. It does mean that so long as they are, the risks should not be taken lightly. And if you get busted just for a buzz; your fault, you knew the risks.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 05, 2006, 03:12:33 AM
Quote from: 280plus
the laws as they stand in most states are directly responsible for these girls being victimized.
Are they? The law didn't force them into prostitution, did it?
Post by: 280plus on October 05, 2006, 03:22:52 AM