Author Topic: Awesome Nevada marijuana initiative looking good in the polls! (Read 13826 times)

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #100 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.

That's an idiotic response. The incentive to be able to vote isn't working, either.

280plus · « **Reply #101 on:** October 04, 2006, 05:38:53 AM »

Yes but it doesn't work. If it did our prisons would be empty.

280plus · « **Reply #102 on:** October 04, 2006, 05:51:45 AM »

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. This prohibition causes every bit of the same types of trouble that the prohibition of alcohol did in the 20's and 30's. If these things were legal it would take away the organized crime world's biggest means of income. They ENJOY the fact that it is illegal and have no incentive whatsoever to push for it's legality. They'd all be out of a job. Going to prison is just part of the job description as far as their concerned. There would be far fewer criminal gangs if the victimless crimes were legalized tomorrow. Very few people seem to be able accept that though, so the vicious cycle continues.

280plus · « **Reply #103 on:** October 04, 2006, 05:52:49 AM »

Let me restate, They'd all be out of a VERY LUCRATIVE job.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #104 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.

280plus · « **Reply #105 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?

The Rabbi · « **Reply #106 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?

Because they are poor and uneducated and perceive dealing drugs as a way to overcome those things. At least the poor part.
As for why they are poor and uneducated. I dunno? Bad culture? Forty years of gov't socialism? Take your pick.

280plus · « **Reply #107 on:** October 04, 2006, 10:21:03 AM »

How about they're poor (regardless of how they got that way) and illegal drug dealing is a lucrative way for them to alleviate that problem? If the pimps and the dealers weren't driving the best cars and wearing the best clothes it might not appear to be such a great way to make a living. If all that stuff was legal, there wouldn't even BE pimps and dealers.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #108 on:** October 04, 2006, 10:43:38 AM »

Sure there would, but I know what you're sayin.

280plus · « **Reply #109 on:** October 04, 2006, 10:49:25 AM »

No, I think they pimps and dealers would transmogrify into legitimate business owners, much as the speakeasy props did when prohibition was lifted. You don't see too many liquor store owners shooting each other over territory. I'm sure there are some exceptions to that but not a lot I'd say.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #110 on:** October 04, 2006, 11:09:11 AM »

I know that's what you meant, but those legal pimps and dealers would still be pimps and dealers. Just a matter of semantics.

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.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #111 on:** October 04, 2006, 11:18:57 AM »

ANyone who read Freakonomics would have learned that most drug dealers actually make less than if they worked minimum wage jobs.

280plus · « **Reply #112 on:** October 04, 2006, 11:48:31 AM »

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...

The Rabbi · « **Reply #113 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?

280plus · « **Reply #114 on:** October 04, 2006, 02:56:18 PM »

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.

Firethorn · « **Reply #115 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.

gunsmith · « **Reply #116 on:** October 04, 2006, 07:30:28 PM »

A friend of mine was a dealer and worked full time.
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?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #117 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.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #118 on:** October 04, 2006, 08:13:24 PM »

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.

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.

Sindawe · « **Reply #119 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.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #120 on:** October 04, 2006, 09:06:59 PM »

If they are such wonderful people, why do they risk so much, for themselves and their families, for a moment's fleeting pleasure? That is madness.

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.

Sindawe · « **Reply #121 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?

280plus · « **Reply #122 on:** October 05, 2006, 02:15:27 AM »

I think the horse is dead now...

Tongue

Firethorn · « **Reply #123 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.

280plus · « **Reply #124 on:** October 05, 2006, 03:04:50 AM »

Right, making prostitution illegal only gives the pimp the ability to enslave these girls. What recourse do they have? And, if it wasn't the pimp exploiting them it would be the customer. So either way, the laws as they stand in most states are directly responsible for these girls being victimized. They are protected BY THE POLICE just like any other business enterprise in places where it is legal. Hence the removal of the criminal element.

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.

News:

Author Topic: Awesome Nevada marijuana initiative looking good in the polls! (Read 13826 times)