So let me get this straight. You believe that a druggie will be able to buy 6 hits of his drug of choice for $5, AND that said druggie will be able to hold a job in order to earn that $5? If that is truly what you believe, then I have to disagree.
I wasn't talking about crimes committed under the influence
I was.
As for the "raping women and throwing them out windows" crap, you've got a vastly overinflated idea of the power of drugs
It's not crap. . it happened. And according to this guy's record, he has committed violent acts before - always while high. If you have a hard time dealing with that, so be it.
It'd sell at the price determined by the free market... you know, supply, demand, competition, all that sort of thing.
Exactly. And desparate druggies will pay a premium for their high.
I honestly think that Prohibition-related crime disappeared when Prohibition ended.
Way to dance around the question. I see that dealing with the issues is a difficult thing for you.
I'm not your "dear", and my mind isn't blank.
Apparently it is, since you seemed unable to fathom what my original post was all about. You're still struggling with it (or perhaps just being purposefully dense).
Oh, never fear, your record of disagreement with obvious facts is well on display in this thread.
Contrary to your belief that you appear to cherish with a nearly religious intensity, the vast majority of drug users are productive members of society. And as for a reduction in property crimes accompanying the reduction in price that would come with legalization, sheesh, how obvious can you get? Some drug users make enough money to support their habits without resorting to crime. Some do not. If the price drops, the former group will grow larger and the latter group will grow shorter. That's pretty basic economics.
I wasn't talking about crimes committed under the influence
I was.
Unfortunately for you, when you're trying to refute someone you have to refute what he means, not what you mean.
It's not crap. . it happened.
It is crap... because you are using an anecdote to decide policy. Many or even most drug users do not rape and defenestrate. But because you have personal experience with a rare exception, you're willing to subscribe to an insane policy of prohibition... which was fully in place when the aforementioned rape and defenestration occurred, and didn't prevent it.
I bet you find a lot of common cause with the gun grabbers. After all, guns are involved in a lot of crimes, too. Best we should ban them all. Also, cars are used to break the law a lot... and, in fact, cause a heck of a lot more deaths than drugs to. Put them on the banning list while you're at it. Also also, it's a known fact that 100% of violent rapists consume oxygen. We'd better ban that, too. You know, just to be safe.
Exactly. And desparate druggies will pay a premium for their high.
And if the price is above the equilibrium market value, more suppliers will be attracted by the profit potential, causing prices to fall. You know, the way things always work in a free market. Please, help me out here, are you seriously asserting that a black market doesn't result in dramatically inflated prices? Are you able to keep a straight face while you claim that the War on Drugs hasn't made drugs many times more expensive than they'd be in a free market? I mean, you seem like you're serious, but the allegation is so outlandish, so ludicrous, so obviously false that I find it hard to believe that anyone with the intelligence to work a keyboard would buy into it.
Apparently it is, since you seemed unable to fathom what my original post was all about. You're still struggling with it (or perhaps just being purposefully dense).
I'm not dense, purposely or otherwise. Don't blame me if you're unable to clearly put forth your ideas. Exactly what am I misinterpreting? Because it sure seems to me that you're saying that eliminating criminal markets doesn't reduce crime. Have I misunderstood?