"Break the laws of economics"? They don't have to do that. Just figure out ways to market the drugs that remain illegal. Maybe they'll sell candy-flavored methamphetamine to kids to increase sales, who knows?
"Freedom means that what you do ain't nobody's bidness but yours."
No. That's anarchy. That's selfish hedonism. That's amoral individualism. That's a "screw you I got rights" attitude.
In a society, what you do affects others. People have the right to decide how they will live together as a group, and the environment in which to raise the next generation.
"By the way, over one third of Americans have used marijuana, and 12% have used in in the past year. Not sure what stinky crack you pulled 6% from, but I have my suspicions."
Have ever used marijuana? A useless statistic. 12% have used marijuana at least once in the past year? Who cares?
I consider a marijuana "user" to be one who smokes marijuana regularly -- at least once a month. That's 6%.
"They're determined by the laws of supply and demand"
Baloney. Parents and greedy legislators artificially increased the price of cigarettes to "discourage underage use". But you're saying they wouldn't do that with marijuana.
"But if criminalizing perfectly legal handguns, rifles, and shotguns would have exactly the same effect in reverse, you'd oppose that, too."
I'd oppose it because I don't consider that to be a reasonable regulation. Plus your promises are as hollow as the promises made for the federal AWB.
And they're not doing that now, because? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Maybe they'll sell candy-flavored methamphetamine to kids to increase sales, who knows?
In which case they're spending more on marketing, they're spending more on R&D, and they're certainly spending more on evading the law enforcement resources which no longer are allocated to fighting illegal marijuana. Your assertion that legalization of part of a black market has no effect on the remaining black market is absurd on its face.
No. That's anarchy.
"Anarchy" means "no law." Anarchy means that people can do things that actually do infringe the rights of others with no legal consequence.
That's selfish hedonism. That's amoral individualism.
Even if this were true... selfish hedonism is a crime? We should lock people up for individualism?
That's a "screw you I got rights" attitude.
That's right. Screw you, I got rights. If you think it's wrong for people to assert their rights to do as they choose, you're welcome to try to convince them of that. You're welcome to lay out your arguments and hope you're persuasive. You are not welcome to use force to stop them from doing what they have a right to do. That's kind of the whole definition of "rights".
In a society, what you do affects others. People have the right to decide how they will live together as a group, and the environment in which to raise the next generation.
So if "people" decide that they want to lay punitive, punishing taxes on red meat, or limit political speech, or require all citizens to have a government-monitored camera in their bedrooms, that's just fine with you, as long as "people" think that's the environment in which they want to raise the next generation? Do you have any concept of individual rights that does not flow from the collective?
I consider a marijuana "user" to be one who smokes marijuana regularly -- at least once a month. That's 6%.
I see. So if a person goes to a party every month or so and smokes marijuana, he's not a marijuana smoker. Tell me, is your last name Clinton, by any chance?
By the way, 17% of those aged 18-25 have used marijuana in the past month. How small must a minority be before it forfeits its rights?
Baloney. Parents and greedy legislators artificially increased the price of cigarettes to "discourage underage use". But you're saying they wouldn't do that with marijuana.
No, I'm not, and never did. "Parents and greedy legislators" may well impose taxes on marijuana... I hope they do; if we must have taxes, consumption taxes do about as little damage as it's possible for a tax to do. What I've said, and continue to say, and will continue to say, and which you will most likely continue to ignore is this: black markets are so inflationary that excise taxes can be made extremely high without making black markets price-competitive. As is the case with alcohol. As is the case with tobacco. Taxes on both are very, very high -- my state's tax on distilled spirits is $21.30 per gallon, the highest in the country, and yet I do not see shady tequila dealers standing on street corners hawking their wares while armed thugs keep lookout from the doorways. This, despite the fact that such dealers would not have to worry about production, merely smuggling and distribution. Even with only that to worry about, even without needing to pay state taxes that in some cases run as high as 108%, they cannot compete on price with the perfectly legal (and state-run) liquor stores.
I'd oppose it because I don't consider that to be a reasonable regulation.
You don't consider it a reasonable regulation? That's your only objection to mass confiscation of guns, that it wouldn't be expedient? Where are your principles? Where are your ethics? How did your parents fail you so, that you have no concept of "right" and "wrong" beyond "whatever works?" And how dare you call yourself a conservative?