Posted on 03/02/2007 12:19:12 PM PST by Equality 7-2521
True, you were definitely the closest. Unfortunately, the prize is that you get to stick around and read his posts. I'm going on a "date" with my wife (as much as I hate to post and run).
Have a good one, I have the same thing planned this evening.
See great minds think alike.
Ron Paul is a (very libertarian) Republican Representative from Texas. To Robert, that's probably the worst insult anyone could ever come up with. I'm sure he's offended.
We'll find out if he tattles to the mods.
So you would prefer that there were large well financed rampaging gangs committing all kinds of crimes and drug fiends breaking into people’s homes and robbing them because they don’t have the money to pay for the expensive drugs?
As opposed to what?
Eee-vil pharmaceuticals charging Americans outrageous amounts for recreational drugs while offering them for less around the world? Big Tobacco increasing the amount of THC in marijuana to hook the chilll-drun? Communist socialist tyrannical government taxing the hell out of drugs to finance their social programs?
Gee, letting the gangs make a few bucks doesn't sound so bad after all. At least they spend the money locally on bling-bling and fancy cars.
"committing all kinds of crimes"
Pffffft! What? Aside from the occasional cop and innocent bystander, they mostly kill each other. Good riddance to bad garbage.
"and drug fiends breaking into people’s homes and robbing them because they don’t have the money to pay for the expensive drugs?"
Hey, who wants cheap drugs (besides, of course, the 5% of the population that uses drugs)? Answer: No one. (That's 95% for the math impaired.)
You think parents want cheap drugs? Employers? Big business? Communities? Puh-leeze. Even if the price does drop, a drug using loser scumbag with no money is still gonna steal.
Actually, the author wishes to legalize ALL drugs. You want that?
Phew! I guess I lucked out, huh?
Legalize, but regulate as necessary, all drugs - that would be a rational and lawful policy.
In my opinion.
An alternative lawful (ie., constitutional) policy would be to turn the decision over to the states with a constitutional amendment similar in wording to Section 2 of the 21st amendment.
Not that I (or a necessary majority) would vote for it. But that would be more in keeping with a republic than a "majority rule" straight up or down vote at the national level.
“Big Tobacco increasing the amount of THC in marijuana to hook the chilll-drun”?
If drugs were legalized at least the government could regulate what goes into the drug and who buys it rather then drug dealers selling them to your kids on the street.
“Communist socialist tyrannical government taxing the hell out of drugs to finance their social programs?”
Much of the drugs that are being produced now are being used to fund communist guerrillas in South America as well as fund terrorist organizations. That is must more objectionable to me then a few “Eee-vil pharmaceuticals” making some profit.
“Gee, letting the gangs make a few bucks doesn't sound so bad after all. At least they spend the money locally on bling-bling and fancy cars.”
How many families and people have had their lives ruined because one of them is seduced by the “gang lifestyle” which is only afforded to them from drug profits?
“Pffffft! What? Aside from the occasional cop and innocent bystander, they mostly kill each other. Good riddance to bad garbage.”
Even if the numbers are not staggering there are still many innocent people who need not lose their lives.
“Hey, who wants cheap drugs (besides, of course, the 5% of the population that uses drugs)? Answer: No one. (That's 95% for the math impaired.)”
Well drug dealers and others who draw their power and wealth from high drugs prices certainly don’t want cheap drugs.
“a drug using loser scumbag with no money is still gonna steal.”
To some extent yes, but it would be reduced drastically.
Drugs are legalized. Pharmacies are filled with legalized amphetamines, barbituates and narcotics.
Perhaps. Tobacco is legal and regulated, nicotine is a drug, yet the government does not regulate nicotine content. Not yet, anyways.
Let's say the government does regulate THC content in marijuana. Let's say, for sake of argument, they limit it to 5%.
How long before 10% marijuana is available on the black market? 24 hours?
"are being used to fund communist guerrillas in South America"
Better in South America than North America.
Legalize all drugs in the United States and we'll be the magnet for all drug traffickers. We'll be the world's largest producer of recreational drugs, illegally exporting our cheap and legal drugs to countries where drugs remain illegal (and expensive).
Is that what you want? Some narco-trafficker illegally exporting our "Houston Heroin" or "Pennsylvania PCP" to kids in Europe and Asia? Talk about the Great Satan!
"How many families and people have had their lives ruined because one of them is seduced by the “gang lifestyle” which is only afforded to them from drug profits?"
As I said, they'll turn into exporters. Or they'll sell that 10% marijuana. Or they'll continue to sell to the underage. Or they'll sell prescription drugs like oxycodone. Or any drug not legalized by the government.
I'm sure there were people like you back in the 1920's who said, "Legalize alcohol and the gangs and organized crime will go away. No more murders and high profits."
Anything that would keep the Federal government nose out of places where it has no business would be a great improvement.
“How long before 10% marijuana is available on the black market? 24 hours?”
Why would someone buy expensive black market drugs when they could get much cheaper over the counter drugs with guaranteed better quality?
“Legalize all drugs in the United States and we'll be the magnet for all drug traffickers. We'll be the world's largest producer of recreational drugs, illegally exporting our cheap and legal drugs to countries where drugs remain illegal (and expensive).”
Brittan was a huge opium drug trafficker to China where it was illegal but Brittan was not overrun with gangs and communist revolutionaries.
“Is that what you want? Some narco-trafficker illegally exporting our "Houston Heroin" or "Pennsylvania PCP" to kids in Europe and Asia? Talk about the Great Satan!”
Europe and Asia are going to get their drugs one way or another so I would rather have America getting the profits then the Taliban or FARC who are doing the trafficking now.
“As I said, they'll turn into exporters. Or they'll sell that 10% marijuana. Or they'll continue to sell to the underage. Or they'll sell prescription drugs like oxycodone. Or any drug not legalized by the government.”
Based on “economies of scale” I don’t know how they could compete with US corporations. Even if the gangs can diversify it won’t generate a very substantial income, at least not near what they make now. Moonshines still exist but in far fewer numbers then they did during prohibition.
“I'm sure there were people like you back in the 1920's who said, "Legalize alcohol and the gangs and organized crime will go away. No more murders and high profits."”
The Mob existed before and after prohibition but they are certainly not as powerful as they were during prohibition. I doubt that unsophisticated street gangs will be able to adapt as well as the mobs that did survive and how much of the Mob’s survival is do to the prohibition of drugs?
They did it with medical marijuana in Canada. The government supplied pot was crap.
"Brittan was a huge opium drug trafficker to China where it was illegal but Brittan was not overrun with gangs and communist revolutionaries."
Of course not. The British government was selling it.
"so I would rather have America getting the profits"
"America" will not be getting the profits because "America" will not be selling drugs into countries where drugs remain illegal! Geez Louise. The gangs will be selling to overseas markets illegally. They will get rich.
"I don’t know how they could compete with US corporations."
Read what I posted. The gangs will sell where the corporations cannot.
"The Mob existed before and after prohibition but they are certainly not as powerful as they were during prohibition."
I'd say the drug gangs today are larger, richer, more powerful, and more ruthless than the Mob of the 20's. We legalized alcohol and the underworld got worse, not better. So much for your promises.
And what were your promises again? Let's see. Legalize drugs and ....
A) Addicts won't steal .... well, not as much as they do now.
B) Gangs in South America won't get rich .... but gangs in North America will.
C) Murder will go away .... well, it might be reduced. Maybe.
D) Gangs will go broke .... well, they won't make as much as they used to.
E) Gangs will disappear .... well, they won't be as large as they are now.
Golly. I'm sure glad we can count on those benefits. Maybe. Perhaps. Somewhat. Sorta.
“They did it with medical marijuana in Canada. The government supplied pot was crap.”
The Government would not supply drugs corporations would.
“Of course not. The British government was selling it.”
Why would an American corporation support gangs and communist revolutionaries anymore then the government?
"America" will not be getting the profits because "America" will not be selling drugs into countries where drugs remain illegal! Geez Louise. The gangs will be selling to overseas markets illegally. They will get rich.”
Why not? The British did, so can American corporations, thus making American stock holders rich. American street gangs are dealers not suppliers; they are just the middle men which will become irrelevant not rich. Even if Americans do not sell to other markets and compete with South American communists and Taliban their profits will be dramatically reduced thus limiting their ability to wage war.
“The gangs will sell where the corporations cannot.”
Which will be a very small market, how much moonshine is sold these days? Do you even know where to buy moonshine because I certainly don’t.
“I'd say the drug gangs today are larger, richer, more powerful, and more ruthless than the Mob of the 20's. We legalized alcohol and the underworld got worse, not better. So much for your promises.”
If what you say is true then that was because they moved into the lucrative drug trade when they lost their monopoly on alcohol and could no longer compete in the market.
“A) Addicts won't steal .... well, not as much as they do now.”
They will steal drastically less as their main expenditure will drop drastically in price.
“B) Gangs in South America won't get rich .... but gangs in North America will.”
The Taliban, Farc and others will lose a lot of income due to increased competition and will find it increasingly difficult to wage war and commit terrorism. Street gangs will lose their main source of income and will grow poor not rich.
“C) Murder will go away .... well, it might be reduced. Maybe.”
I don’t think murder will go away but it will be reduced.
“D) Gangs will go broke .... well, they won't make as much as they used to.”
They will lose their main funding and small niches they may be able to fill will not come anywhere near covering what they were able to make with a monopoly on most drugs as they have now.
“E) Gangs will disappear .... well, they won't be as large as they are now.”
Drugs and gangs go together like the Mongols did with horses. Take horses away for the Mongols and they still may have been bloodthirsty barbarians but they would not have the ability to conquer and pillage as they did. They would have been confined to their villages and stuck to sheepherding. Take away the monopoly of drugs from the street gangs and they may still be dirtbags but will lack the ability to cause the damage they do. They would be confined to their neighborhoods and likely have to find some sort of gainful employment.
Gangs may not disappear overnight but overtime I believe they will for the most part. Whatever niches they are able to fill will not be able to support their “gang lifestyle” and overtime they will starve themselves out of business and disappear.
“Golly. I'm sure glad we can count on those benefits. Maybe. Perhaps. Somewhat. Sorta.”
Even if you think the benefits will not be that much of an improvement it will still be an improvement nonetheless.
Correct. If we legalized all drugs, corporations would sell them in the United States. It would be illegal for U.S. corporations to sell drugs to other countries where their use remains illegal.
"Why would an American corporation support gangs and communist revolutionaries anymore then the government?"
I never said they would. Drug traffickers will set up shop in the U.S. to obtain (via purchasing or manufacturing) our legal and cheap drugs, then illegally smuggle those drugs to other countries, making a huge profit.
"The British did, so can American corporations"
This isn't the 1830's. There are international laws against doing so.
"Even if Americans do not sell to other markets and compete with South American communists and Taliban"
Why stay in South America to produce drugs? It's illegal to produce drugs in those countries. Come to America where it's legal. Come one, come all.
"Gangs may not disappear overnight but overtime I believe they will for the most part."
As I said, I bet they said the same thing after Prohibition. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Gangs moved on to something different.
"Even if you think the benefits will not be that much of an improvement it will still be an improvement nonetheless."
Legalize all drugs because there might be a small improvement in those areas? Not worth it. Plus, we haven't even started to discuss the downside of legalizing all drugs, which you've totally ignored.
"This isn't the 1830's. There are international laws against doing so."
Fair enough. Although I think if America really wanted to they could force other countries to legalize even if it would not be prudent.
“Why stay in South America to produce drugs? It's illegal to produce drugs in those countries. Come to America where it's legal. Come one, come all.”
South America is where their revolutionary wars are. It does not have to be legal for THEM to produce in America just like moonshines are not legal now.
“As I said, I bet they said the same thing after Prohibition. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Gangs moved on to something different.”
Could it be that that “something different” was other drugs that are now illegal? I honestly don’t think that the mafia is as powerful as the ones of old who many were descendent from the old ward bosses; their power base is largely gone. Didn’t the old mafia have something to do with Kennedy getting elected? I doubt they have the power to even rig local elections very much.
“Legalize all drugs because there might be a small improvement in those areas? Not worth it.”
More then a small improvement, street gangs and dealers will largely be rendered obsolete.
“Plus, we haven't even started to discuss the downside of legalizing all drugs, which you've totally ignored.”
No we have not but I am more concerned right now with getting dealers off the street.
Drugs are bad! Users are losers! just say NO! Drugs ruin your health!
I had more to say, but I've been drinking bourbon and smoking cigars all day and I feel a little sick. I'll be back after I barf...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.