Features

Bobo Adobo · #51

Actually its a lot better. You can not under-estimate the reaction time of someone raging on an 8 ball. :P

I too think all drugs should be decriminalized. You can kill as many Pablos as you want but the only way really can put em out of business is to make it legitimate. We would have alot more addicts. But addicts are better than blood in the streets up to your anckles.

You think the government would realise that after pulling off a stunt like the alcohol prohibiton.

AChimp · #52

Where's this "blood" that you speak of?

Bobo Adobo · #53

I'm talking about the rediculous amount of violence in the US.

AChimp · #54

Yeah, but not all of the violence is related to drugs. And besides, a drug dealer kills another drug dealer, does anyone really care?

Bobo Adobo · #55

Yes, not All of it is. But If you look at the amount of crime after the prohibition end and the amount that skyrocketed during the 70s-today, you would understand that it is related.

And I don't care if drug dealers die. But nobodys born a drug dealer. legalizing drugs would force them to go legit.

Royal Tenenbaum · #56

Legalizing drugs would also collect all the money for taxes. In terms of Canadian health care costs, it'd probably be like smoking, where the amount of taxes a smoker pays over their lifetime on cigs is far greater than any amount they'd use of health care.

ScruU2wice · #57

Just to play devil's advocate I would like to say I think that legalizin all drugs would be a bad idea. I know people who still take efedra to be better atheletes regardless of the adverse health affects on the heart. They don't know, how bad it is for you they just know that it's so good it's illegal. Know if it was legal they would have far more of it. Similarly legalizing cocaine or heroine would lead to more and more people overusing it.

And legalizing it would take away power to the drug dealers and give more to the heads of the drug industries. I don't know if I want my drug dealers having influence on the government.

Preechr · #58

Y'know... Operating a 3,000 pound vehicle at 70 miles per hour five feet away from someone else doing the same thing in the opposite direction is also very dangerous. That's why we get our government to enforce requirements on folks in trade for the priveledge of using the roads we share. We have to take tests and carry a license, which needs to be renewed regularly and can be taken away at the state's option for any reason.

If the War on Some Drugs stretches out another 10 years, we'll have likely spent another $600 Billion with no more results than we have to show for the hundreds of Billions of dollars we've spent on it so far. Any person that reads this could find and purchase just about any illegal drug they wanted within 48 hours of now if they set out to, without having to actually know a "dealer" ahead of time. How are we any safer from prohibition?

The Some Drug War folks know they're fighting a losing battle. They've hidden the true costs of fighting the war by excluding the costs of incarceration and rehab for the violent potheads, etc... their dragnet snares. We're not to question the costs. We're only supposed to believe the myth that the evil drugs must be fought. With the money we spend fighting the good fight, we could buy most if not all of the world's drugs at the source and dump them in the ocean if we wanted. The goal is decidedly NOT to eleiminate drugs here, folks. They have to lie about the costs of their war, as well as the effects of pot and their goals in the war, to keep us from forcing them to "think of the chiddren" in a more responsible fashion.

Yes, yes... Drug legalization could only mean that at midnight all the heart surgeons and judges... even the president probably... would become crack addicts, and the moon would surely crash into to earth and we'd all die, right? Why does no one consider the option of responsibly legalizing and licensing drug use and sales?

Instead of "cracking down" on every single resident of this country (and most others, actually,) we could focus on enforcement for only those wishing to sell drugs to the public. All that energy being wasted on everyone could be focused on only the "dealers." If drugs were sold to an unlicensed or improperly licensed individual, the dealer would be subject to revocation of their seller's license, fines and jail, with no action taken toward the purchaser.

We already have laws against using alcohol while doing anything you shouldn't do while intoxicated. I promise you that if you left your office right now and were caught raging on PCP, driving down the freeway, ramming into random cars, you'd go to jail. Why would that change after the end of the WOSD? If you commit a crime, you pay the penalty. If you are high when you do it, you face a stiffer sentence. All forms of negligence are already subject to laws. The state of a perp's intoxication is only a sentencing factor.

Want to smoke pot legally? Take a class, pass a test and receive a one-year license subject to monthly visits to or by a counselor. Wanna be a junkie? Herion is a much more dangerous drug, so the license requirements would be higher and the term shorter... and I'd assume you'd have to pre-pay for the rehab you'll need with the license fee as well. If the FDA could figure out a recipe for "safe" methamphetamines, I suppose you could get a tweaker license, too, subject to responsible regulation just like the rest.

None of this is to say employers would be barred from testing for drug use, but I'd bet they'd develop policies for weekend usage. Ricky would likely be in the same position if drugs were legalized. I'm also not suggesting total legalization happen overnight. I don't want the moon to crash into NYC any more than you do... All I'm saying is that the WOSD is simply not working and it never will, so to not consider other options is stupid. Is the best thing we can think of to correct a problem declaring war on it? If so, we might as well all get and stay high now.

In case you're wondering, I don't do drugs and wouldn't if they were legal... Well... maybe the occasional bowl or trip. Not every day, anyways... I just don't appreciate the idea that being in the general area of a pot seed should land me in jail, as if pure-evil radiated from drugs somehow, infecting everything within a certain distance. How can we hope to ever live in a responsible free society when the basis for removing anyone's freedom is that there are things you can be near or touch that we are terrified of? We don't prosecute everyone found near a murdered person, do we? It's not yet even a crime to hold a tool capable of ending someone's life. To make effective laws we can't be too scared to look at crime objectively. The War on Some Drugs is running away from the problem, and I worry that it's main goal is to profit from the suffering of others.

AChimp · #59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Adobo

And I don't care if drug dealers die. But nobodys born a drug dealer. legalizing drugs would force them to go legit.

No it wouldn't. You wouldn't be able to regulate any of it. Instead of being the only source for narcotics, drug dealers would become the wholesalers where you can get CHEAPER drugs than you can in the stores, or "better" drugs that you can't buy in stores.

Same with collecting taxes. These are people who are used to flying below the radar. Bobo already stated that they are already responsible for a lot of violence. Do you think that those people would willingly start paying taxes on their earnings?

Preechr · #60

The violence is a product of drugs' prohibition. To be a drug dealer, you have to be a criminal. Criminals are not good businessmen by nature. The only reason they make money is that the market... the black one... let's them charge exhorbitant prices for their products, and their business model includes theft and other crime as additional sources of income.

Why is it that we can regulate everything else BUT drugs?

Remember, we'll have over $60 Billion per year to spend on this little project, and a lot of ex-drug-warriors to draw upon for labor... and that's not even accounting for the economic effect of NOT wasting all that money prosecuting non-violent minor drug offenders, which will not only eliminate the costs of their arrests and incarceration but also put them back to work at McDonald's or in construction where they can avoid drug screens, which will increase the tax base by itself.

Most of the cost of illicit drugs is shipping & handling, due to the risk involved. Most "dealers" are small-timers that are only trying to offset the expense of their own drug use, and would gladly give it up. They're not the ones driving Lexi and living large. If you're right, and the big wigs try to continue the black market (even IF they can compete with legitimate enterprise, which is doubtful,) they will be easy to catch. We'll have narrowed the field of criminals to watch over extensively.

AChimp · #61

What about supply and demand then? You'd still be relying on drug lords for your shit until you got domestic production up to an acceptable level.

Your legal supply would have a massive pricetag due to it's virtual non-existence. The dealers still come out on top because they are the only ones with enough supply to still sell cheaply, and they won't be paying taxes.

Ant10708 · #62

Most illegal drugs come from outside of the United States and Canada(except BC bud, thank you guys for that

) so regulating it with the drugs being legal would still be hard. It would become like the sweat shops of our modern industries.

The same reason why cigarette selling is popular with oraganized crime rings in the US. They avoid the taxes and still thrive despite competetion from legit businesses.

Preechr · #63

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChimp

What about supply and demand then? You'd still be relying on drug lords for your shit until you got domestic production up to an acceptable level.

Your legal supply would have a massive pricetag due to it's virtual non-existence. The dealers still come out on top because they are the only ones with enough supply to still sell cheaply, and they won't be paying taxes.

Is the better plan to continue the War on Drugs indefinitely, then? Criminalizing behavior doesn't stop it, and in this case, it hasn't even curtailed it. Unless someone makes the personal decision to not do drugs, or they're scared of employer testing, they do drugs. The threat of being caught is not stopping anyone. The only alternatives, short of upping the ante (which won't work,) is regulation and legalization.

Is it the government's job to manage the supply as well? Have they proven themselves successful in that regard so far? Drugs come into this country in boats, trucks and airplanes, just like DVD players and Nike Shoes. The only difference is that the trucks can now be unloaded at a store or a warehouse rather than somebody's basement.

True, the source of the drugs would still be shady folks for a while, but legitimate companies aren't allowed to compete in this industry yet.

As for the mob running a black market on cigarettes, I think that's more prevalent in states like New York, where taxes raise the prices up to close to $5/ pack. Rather than worry that a blackmarket would emerge, I'd ask you what it is the prohibition has already created. Black markets are caused by government sanctions, not free trade. Black markets are free trade, and the most effective form of that is the legal one, not the one where you run a constant risk of jail time.

kellychaos · #64

Yes, it took years for alcohol to bounce back out of the clutches of illegitimate gangster into the hands of businessmen with integrity.

AChimp · #65

I haven't said that the way they're going about it is good. Worrying about penalizing petty abusers is a waste of time, and the same goes for the street corner pushers. You have to go after the head and destroy the source, which of course requires international cooperation. The US isn't exactly the best at making friends, though.

Legitimate companies would NEVER have a supply equal to the drug lords who have access to countless acres of jungle and one of the cheapest labour forces in the world. Or, you'd end up with drug lords starting up legitimate companies and laundering the money, still not paying any taxes.

Your wonderful cash cow has just gone up in smoke and now you've opened the floodgates for people with no personal responsibility to sue you for making it legal and "hurting them."

The only benefit is that tens of thousands of addicts would OD in the first couple of weeks' celebrations, thus removing themselves from the gene pool.

Royal Tenenbaum · #66

"Legitimate companies would NEVER have a supply equal to the drug lords who have access to countless acres of jungle and one of the cheapest labour forces in the world. Or, you'd end up with drug lords starting up legitimate companies and laundering the money, still not paying any taxes. "

But it'd be an issue of quality. Why do people buy a Sony discman when they can go to Chinatown and buy a Sonay for much cheaper? Because Sony is a respectable brand that means quality. Why wouldn't the same be for drugs despite the higher cost for the "good shit?" People can still go buy Moonshine, but they prefer something that they know doesn't have urine in it.

AChimp · #67

Have you read about the crap they were growing in Flin Flon? The current drug lords have already established a reputation, based on the fact that theirs is the only product that people can buy right now.

They have set the bar for the "good shit."

Preechr · #68

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChimp

I haven't said that the way they're going about it is good. Worrying about penalizing petty abusers is a waste of time, and the same goes for the street corner pushers. You have to go after the head and destroy the source, which of course requires international cooperation. The US isn't exactly the best at making friends, though.

*ring*ring*

Hello? Jose the drug lord speaking.

Hello, Jose, this is Juan from the government. While we appreciate all the bribes you have given us over the years, and all the threats and killings have really helped to keep us in line, we regret to inform you that the new Kerry Administration is very friendly and polite, so we will now be friends with them and you, it appears, have to go out of business. Sorry.

Oh, Ok Juan. I understand. There is not much evil people like me can do in the face of an unbeatable power like friendship. Might you have any openings in your government for me? I'm thinking something in security might fit nicely...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChimp

Legitimate companies would NEVER have a supply equal to the drug lords who have access to countless acres of jungle and one of the cheapest labour forces in the world.

If those jungles and that labor supply are so superior for drug production, I'm sure much of it is also for sale... cheap, too, as it's seemingly not so good for much else. There's a reason we're down to only 4% of our own workforce in the farm industry: technology. Superior productivity beats the whip any day, and I'm sure you'd agree evil corporations would do anything for a profit, right? I just don't see the supply/demand problem here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChimp

Or, you'd end up with drug lords starting up legitimate companies and laundering the money, still not paying any taxes.

Isn't that what international conglomerates engaged in legal enterprises supposedly do now? [/sarcasm] Are you saying that the only reason all businesses don't break the law is that they're all run by decent, law-abiding folk, or that tax laws are just unenforceable suggestions? Either way, I think you're giving these criminals more credit than they're due. Their power comes from their illegitimacy: they have a monopoly thanks to the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChimp

Your wonderful cash cow has just gone up in smoke and now you've opened the floodgates for people with no personal responsibility to sue you for making it legal and "hurting them."

Now that's a stretch!

Again, I think we'll be able to work around that... Maybe if the government has to pay some of the kind of lawsuits it allows guys like John Edwards to inflict on private ventures they'll fix their broken system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChimp

The only benefit is that tens of thousands of addicts would OD in the first couple of weeks' celebrations, thus removing themselves from the gene pool.

Maybe so. I'm doubtful that would be a long term problem that would invalidate the gains we achieve by fixing the broken system. I think anyone that wants to do drugs now does, save the folks that are subject to drug testing at work. I doubt those guys would quit their jobs if drugs were legalized... I doubt few people would. I don't believe drug use would "skyrocket" at all, actually... but that's a whole nuther part of the story.

ScruU2wice · #69

We should have pot credit cards and people can get all the pot they want on it. Than people with higher tolerance have a higher limit and we could have bong bars where people can take hits just like they can with alchohol.