Jesus. So you agree with most of this but still miss the point and still didn't watch the video.
Heroin isn't "in the shadows" and it is very easy to get.
The cyanide pill argument is a strawman, but assisted suicide is legal in many places. And making suicide illegal by any means prevents no one from doing it.
Good day sir.
I just watched the video. This debate isn't over. He makes many valid points, one of which is that legalizing these substances will produce more addicts. It will be easier to obtain and easier for children to get into it and become lifelong addicts. It will reduce the power of cartels and criminals, true. But it will only shift that power to the government, which will in effect become the cartel and the recipient of tax money generated by the sale of heroin, cocaine, etc. The government will then have an incentive to promote the use of destructive substances, and it will have a stake in getting people addicted young because it generates a new revenue flow for them. The government should not be in the business of telling us what we should do or not do to ourselves as long as we aren't harming other individuals. But it should also not be in the business of profiting from the sale of harmful substances. Even if they manage to regulate it so that it is 'safer,' it won't change the fact that it's highly addicting. Of course some people will latch onto this and say "then the government shouldn't be in the business of profiting from cupcake sales either, since sugar and sweets are addicting." That's a logical argument, but where does it end? Will lines be so blurred that safe heroin will be treated no differently that sugary cupcakes?
You say heroin is easy to get. Maybe in slums like Seattle. I don't know where to find it. But I sure as fuck would know where to find it if I could buy it at the local Safeway.
You're all over the map and full of contradictions. Spend a bit more time on this and maybe we can have a decent and informed conversation.
I understand. I wouldn't make a counterattack either when I'm running low on ammunition. Retreating under the guise of superiority is a good move. Anyway it'd be kind of hard to defend the position that the government should be profiting from heroin sales.
When did I say the government should profit from heroin sales. I said it should be legal. You automatically make the leap that the government needs to be involved. Look at the marijuana thread. I'm consistent in my comments regarding taxation. The failed war on drugs has left far more damage in its wake than drugs themselves could ever do. The damage has been immense and the resources wasted vast.
And if you think legal prostitution increases stds then you clearly haven't done your homework. I'd love to see your stats on that. It's legal in many parts of the developed world so you should be able to provide a lot of data showing disease and prostitution going hand in hand. Look at how it's done and the results in places like Australia and Canada.
Person freedom, choice, and liberty is what all this comes down to. I always find conservatives to be caricatures of themselves. They want less government expect whether want it use the force of government to control people and shove their beliefs on others.
If heroin becomes legal the government will tax it, just like they do weed. No amount of arguing or reasoning on your part will change that fact. So you should just accept it as reality. That means the government will be profiting from getting us hooked on heroin and other drugs.
I'll leave the prostitution issue alone for now. But it makes sense that if its out in the open more people are going to be doing it. That hooker you're thinking about banging has been rammed by 20 more sex fiends because she's more visible. You can do the math. And if we're looking to Australia and Canada as examples of what we should become, we might as well mail it in and become a big France. Lets get more degenerate while adversaries like Russia get stronger. How did that work out for Rome?
First you say I'm a libtard now you're saying I'm a conservative. Make up your mind.
Truth is, you're just a fucking idiot. My mind is made up.
Are you still here? Shouldn't you be lubing Damone's rickshaw like a good little knave and preparing to retreat with him out of this thread when his position totally collapses?
Oh I get it. I pointed out that Damone is making you look like the stupid asshole you are, so know I'm Damone's knave.
Except Damone and I aren't pals, associates, friends, or anything else..............it just boils down to you being a stupid asshole.
Go kill yourself, and do the world a favor. The only thing collapsing in this thread is any hint of credibility may have once had.
Your intrusion into the debate amounted to nothing more than patting your internet buddy on the back. You didn't contribute any worthwhile arguments on the subject, which reduces you (in this thread) to one of Damone's henchmen. Your devotion to your leader is admirable. But you really should just stay on the sidelines. Maybe slice oranges and pour Gatorade to help keep your pal in the game?
I was attempting to do you a favor, you stupid son of a bitch. But hey, climb up on the rooftop and shout out what a stupid motherfucker you are - that way everyone will know, not just the people in your immediate vicinity.
Was this a private debate thread? No, it wasn't - once again you prove what a dumb fucking donkey you are. First you say knave, then you say henchmen - you know they aren't remotely similar, don't you?
Should we get you a bullhorn - or perhaps a Mr. Microphone - so you can let even more people know?
You seem to get angered quickly. It's too easy to fuck with you. Fishdick.
You are picking a fight with the wrong person dude.
Jesus. So you agree with most of this but still miss the point and still didn't watch the video.
Heroin isn't "in the shadows" and it is very easy to get.
The cyanide pill argument is a strawman, but assisted suicide is legal in many places. And making suicide illegal by any means prevents no one from doing it.
Good day sir.
I just watched the video. This debate isn't over. He makes many valid points, one of which is that legalizing these substances will produce more addicts. It will be easier to obtain and easier for children to get into it and become lifelong addicts. It will reduce the power of cartels and criminals, true. But it will only shift that power to the government, which will in effect become the cartel and the recipient of tax money generated by the sale of heroin, cocaine, etc. The government will then have an incentive to promote the use of destructive substances, and it will have a stake in getting people addicted young because it generates a new revenue flow for them. The government should not be in the business of telling us what we should do or not do to ourselves as long as we aren't harming other individuals. But it should also not be in the business of profiting from the sale of harmful substances. Even if they manage to regulate it so that it is 'safer,' it won't change the fact that it's highly addicting. Of course some people will latch onto this and say "then the government shouldn't be in the business of profiting from cupcake sales either, since sugar and sweets are addicting." That's a logical argument, but where does it end? Will lines be so blurred that safe heroin will be treated no differently that sugary cupcakes?
You say heroin is easy to get. Maybe in slums like Seattle. I don't know where to find it. But I sure as fuck would know where to find it if I could buy it at the local Safeway.
You're all over the map and full of contradictions. Spend a bit more time on this and maybe we can have a decent and informed conversation.
I understand. I wouldn't make a counterattack either when I'm running low on ammunition. Retreating under the guise of superiority is a good move. Anyway it'd be kind of hard to defend the position that the government should be profiting from heroin sales.
When did I say the government should profit from heroin sales. I said it should be legal. You automatically make the leap that the government needs to be involved. Look at the marijuana thread. I'm consistent in my comments regarding taxation. The failed war on drugs has left far more damage in its wake than drugs themselves could ever do. The damage has been immense and the resources wasted vast.
And if you think legal prostitution increases stds then you clearly haven't done your homework. I'd love to see your stats on that. It's legal in many parts of the developed world so you should be able to provide a lot of data showing disease and prostitution going hand in hand. Look at how it's done and the results in places like Australia and Canada.
Person freedom, choice, and liberty is what all this comes down to. I always find conservatives to be caricatures of themselves. They want less government expect whether want it use the force of government to control people and shove their beliefs on others.
If heroin becomes legal the government will tax it, just like they do weed. No amount of arguing or reasoning on your part will change that fact. So you should just accept it as reality. That means the government will be profiting from getting us hooked on heroin and other drugs.
I'll leave the prostitution issue alone for now. But it makes sense that if its out in the open more people are going to be doing it. That hooker you're thinking about banging has been rammed by 20 more sex fiends because she's more visible. You can do the math. And if we're looking to Australia and Canada as examples of what we should become, we might as well mail it in and become a big France. Lets get more degenerate while adversaries like Russia get stronger. How did that work out for Rome?
First you say I'm a libtard now you're saying I'm a conservative. Make up your mind.
Truth is, you're just a fucking idiot. My mind is made up.
Are you still here? Shouldn't you be lubing Damone's rickshaw like a good little knave and preparing to retreat with him out of this thread when his position totally collapses?
Oh I get it. I pointed out that Damone is making you look like the stupid asshole you are, so know I'm Damone's knave.
Except Damone and I aren't pals, associates, friends, or anything else..............it just boils down to you being a stupid asshole.
Go kill yourself, and do the world a favor. The only thing collapsing in this thread is any hint of credibility may have once had.
Your intrusion into the debate amounted to nothing more than patting your internet buddy on the back. You didn't contribute any worthwhile arguments on the subject, which reduces you (in this thread) to one of Damone's henchmen. Your devotion to your leader is admirable. But you really should just stay on the sidelines. Maybe slice oranges and pour Gatorade to help keep your pal in the game?
I was attempting to do you a favor, you stupid son of a bitch. But hey, climb up on the rooftop and shout out what a stupid motherfucker you are - that way everyone will know, not just the people in your immediate vicinity.
Was this a private debate thread? No, it wasn't - once again you prove what a dumb fucking donkey you are. First you say knave, then you say henchmen - you know they aren't remotely similar, don't you?
Should we get you a bullhorn - or perhaps a Mr. Microphone - so you can let even more people know?
You seem to get angered quickly. It's too easy to fuck with you. Fishdick.
You are picking a fight with the wrong person dude.
Jesus. So you agree with most of this but still miss the point and still didn't watch the video.
Heroin isn't "in the shadows" and it is very easy to get.
The cyanide pill argument is a strawman, but assisted suicide is legal in many places. And making suicide illegal by any means prevents no one from doing it.
Good day sir.
I just watched the video. This debate isn't over. He makes many valid points, one of which is that legalizing these substances will produce more addicts. It will be easier to obtain and easier for children to get into it and become lifelong addicts. It will reduce the power of cartels and criminals, true. But it will only shift that power to the government, which will in effect become the cartel and the recipient of tax money generated by the sale of heroin, cocaine, etc. The government will then have an incentive to promote the use of destructive substances, and it will have a stake in getting people addicted young because it generates a new revenue flow for them. The government should not be in the business of telling us what we should do or not do to ourselves as long as we aren't harming other individuals. But it should also not be in the business of profiting from the sale of harmful substances. Even if they manage to regulate it so that it is 'safer,' it won't change the fact that it's highly addicting. Of course some people will latch onto this and say "then the government shouldn't be in the business of profiting from cupcake sales either, since sugar and sweets are addicting." That's a logical argument, but where does it end? Will lines be so blurred that safe heroin will be treated no differently that sugary cupcakes?
You say heroin is easy to get. Maybe in slums like Seattle. I don't know where to find it. But I sure as fuck would know where to find it if I could buy it at the local Safeway.
You're all over the map and full of contradictions. Spend a bit more time on this and maybe we can have a decent and informed conversation.
I understand. I wouldn't make a counterattack either when I'm running low on ammunition. Retreating under the guise of superiority is a good move. Anyway it'd be kind of hard to defend the position that the government should be profiting from heroin sales.
When did I say the government should profit from heroin sales. I said it should be legal. You automatically make the leap that the government needs to be involved. Look at the marijuana thread. I'm consistent in my comments regarding taxation. The failed war on drugs has left far more damage in its wake than drugs themselves could ever do. The damage has been immense and the resources wasted vast.
And if you think legal prostitution increases stds then you clearly haven't done your homework. I'd love to see your stats on that. It's legal in many parts of the developed world so you should be able to provide a lot of data showing disease and prostitution going hand in hand. Look at how it's done and the results in places like Australia and Canada.
Person freedom, choice, and liberty is what all this comes down to. I always find conservatives to be caricatures of themselves. They want less government expect whether want it use the force of government to control people and shove their beliefs on others.
If heroin becomes legal the government will tax it, just like they do weed. No amount of arguing or reasoning on your part will change that fact. So you should just accept it as reality. That means the government will be profiting from getting us hooked on heroin and other drugs.
I'll leave the prostitution issue alone for now. But it makes sense that if its out in the open more people are going to be doing it. That hooker you're thinking about banging has been rammed by 20 more sex fiends because she's more visible. You can do the math. And if we're looking to Australia and Canada as examples of what we should become, we might as well mail it in and become a big France. Lets get more degenerate while adversaries like Russia get stronger. How did that work out for Rome?
First you say I'm a libtard now you're saying I'm a conservative. Make up your mind.
Truth is, you're just a fucking idiot. My mind is made up.
Are you still here? Shouldn't you be lubing Damone's rickshaw like a good little knave and preparing to retreat with him out of this thread when his position totally collapses?
Oh I get it. I pointed out that Damone is making you look like the stupid asshole you are, so know I'm Damone's knave.
Except Damone and I aren't pals, associates, friends, or anything else..............it just boils down to you being a stupid asshole.
Go kill yourself, and do the world a favor. The only thing collapsing in this thread is any hint of credibility may have once had.
Your intrusion into the debate amounted to nothing more than patting your internet buddy on the back. You didn't contribute any worthwhile arguments on the subject, which reduces you (in this thread) to one of Damone's henchmen. Your devotion to your leader is admirable. But you really should just stay on the sidelines. Maybe slice oranges and pour Gatorade to help keep your pal in the game?
I was attempting to do you a favor, you stupid son of a bitch. But hey, climb up on the rooftop and shout out what a stupid motherfucker you are - that way everyone will know, not just the people in your immediate vicinity.
Was this a private debate thread? No, it wasn't - once again you prove what a dumb fucking donkey you are. First you say knave, then you say henchmen - you know they aren't remotely similar, don't you?
Should we get you a bullhorn - or perhaps a Mr. Microphone - so you can let even more people know?
You seem to get angered quickly. It's too easy to fuck with you. Fishdick.
You are picking a fight with the wrong person dude.
Jesus. So you agree with most of this but still miss the point and still didn't watch the video.
Heroin isn't "in the shadows" and it is very easy to get.
The cyanide pill argument is a strawman, but assisted suicide is legal in many places. And making suicide illegal by any means prevents no one from doing it.
Good day sir.
I just watched the video. This debate isn't over. He makes many valid points, one of which is that legalizing these substances will produce more addicts. It will be easier to obtain and easier for children to get into it and become lifelong addicts. It will reduce the power of cartels and criminals, true. But it will only shift that power to the government, which will in effect become the cartel and the recipient of tax money generated by the sale of heroin, cocaine, etc. The government will then have an incentive to promote the use of destructive substances, and it will have a stake in getting people addicted young because it generates a new revenue flow for them. The government should not be in the business of telling us what we should do or not do to ourselves as long as we aren't harming other individuals. But it should also not be in the business of profiting from the sale of harmful substances. Even if they manage to regulate it so that it is 'safer,' it won't change the fact that it's highly addicting. Of course some people will latch onto this and say "then the government shouldn't be in the business of profiting from cupcake sales either, since sugar and sweets are addicting." That's a logical argument, but where does it end? Will lines be so blurred that safe heroin will be treated no differently that sugary cupcakes?
You say heroin is easy to get. Maybe in slums like Seattle. I don't know where to find it. But I sure as fuck would know where to find it if I could buy it at the local Safeway.
You're all over the map and full of contradictions. Spend a bit more time on this and maybe we can have a decent and informed conversation.
I understand. I wouldn't make a counterattack either when I'm running low on ammunition. Retreating under the guise of superiority is a good move. Anyway it'd be kind of hard to defend the position that the government should be profiting from heroin sales.
When did I say the government should profit from heroin sales. I said it should be legal. You automatically make the leap that the government needs to be involved. Look at the marijuana thread. I'm consistent in my comments regarding taxation. The failed war on drugs has left far more damage in its wake than drugs themselves could ever do. The damage has been immense and the resources wasted vast.
And if you think legal prostitution increases stds then you clearly haven't done your homework. I'd love to see your stats on that. It's legal in many parts of the developed world so you should be able to provide a lot of data showing disease and prostitution going hand in hand. Look at how it's done and the results in places like Australia and Canada.
Person freedom, choice, and liberty is what all this comes down to. I always find conservatives to be caricatures of themselves. They want less government expect whether want it use the force of government to control people and shove their beliefs on others.
If heroin becomes legal the government will tax it, just like they do weed. No amount of arguing or reasoning on your part will change that fact. So you should just accept it as reality. That means the government will be profiting from getting us hooked on heroin and other drugs.
I'll leave the prostitution issue alone for now. But it makes sense that if its out in the open more people are going to be doing it. That hooker you're thinking about banging has been rammed by 20 more sex fiends because she's more visible. You can do the math. And if we're looking to Australia and Canada as examples of what we should become, we might as well mail it in and become a big France. Lets get more degenerate while adversaries like Russia get stronger. How did that work out for Rome?
First you say I'm a libtard now you're saying I'm a conservative. Make up your mind.
Truth is, you're just a fucking idiot. My mind is made up.
Are you still here? Shouldn't you be lubing Damone's rickshaw like a good little knave and preparing to retreat with him out of this thread when his position totally collapses?
Oh I get it. I pointed out that Damone is making you look like the stupid asshole you are, so know I'm Damone's knave.
Except Damone and I aren't pals, associates, friends, or anything else..............it just boils down to you being a stupid asshole.
Go kill yourself, and do the world a favor. The only thing collapsing in this thread is any hint of credibility may have once had.
Your intrusion into the debate amounted to nothing more than patting your internet buddy on the back. You didn't contribute any worthwhile arguments on the subject, which reduces you (in this thread) to one of Damone's henchmen. Your devotion to your leader is admirable. But you really should just stay on the sidelines. Maybe slice oranges and pour Gatorade to help keep your pal in the game?
I was attempting to do you a favor, you stupid son of a bitch. But hey, climb up on the rooftop and shout out what a stupid motherfucker you are - that way everyone will know, not just the people in your immediate vicinity.
Was this a private debate thread? No, it wasn't - once again you prove what a dumb fucking donkey you are. First you say knave, then you say henchmen - you know they aren't remotely similar, don't you?
Should we get you a bullhorn - or perhaps a Mr. Microphone - so you can let even more people know?
You seem to get angered quickly. It's too easy to fuck with you. Fishdick.
You are picking a fight with the wrong person dude.
I'm not angry about it - just a little offended you didn't take my kind advice that you should shut your flapping gums before you dug another 6 feet. Rock bottom is right there, man. Stop digging.
I'm not angry about it - just a little offended you didn't take my kind advice that you should shut your flapping gums before you dug another 6 feet. Rock bottom is right there, man. Stop digging.
He doesn't need to shout. We can all smell the yeasty cunt stench from a mile away.
I'm picking a fight with the wrong person dude. Nah. Damone has left the thread. His stooge seems to have got left behind in the dust.
I didn't really leave the thread. I just didn't see the point of debating someone whose argument boils do using one logical fallacy after another and the basis of the position is basically "because that's what I think".
There is a lot of research on this topic and many well respected and intelligent people have weighed in. There are also many smart people who would argue keeping drug laws where they are, but those people use facts, data, and logic to present their position. Not just yelling louder and using logical fallacies to declare victory.
I'm picking a fight with the wrong person dude. Nah. Damone has left the thread. His stooge seems to have got left behind in the dust.
I didn't really leave the thread. I just didn't see the point of debating someone whose argument boils do using one logical fallacy after another and the basis of the position is basically "because that's what I think".
There is a lot of research on this topic and many well respected and intelligent people have weighed in. There are also many smart people who would argue keeping drug laws where they are, but those people use facts, data, and logic to present their position. Not just yelling louder and using logical fallacies to declare victory.
I'm picking a fight with the wrong person dude. Nah. Damone has left the thread. His stooge seems to have got left behind in the dust.
I didn't really leave the thread. I just didn't see the point of debating someone whose argument boils do using one logical fallacy after another and the basis of the position is basically "because that's what I think".
There is a lot of research on this topic and many well respected and intelligent people have weighed in. There are also many smart people who would argue keeping drug laws where they are, but those people use facts, data, and logic to present their position. Not just yelling louder and using logical fallacies to declare victory.
You're ignoring the argument and focusing on the baiting tactics.
There's no more logical and clearer case of if A then B than the legalization of marijuana in Washington State. When pot became legal in Washington (A), the government pounced on it like an eager cat, swiftly acting to regulate it and tax it (B). Until proven otherwise, it can be inferred from that, that if a state/principality/whatever legalizes heroin and methamphetamine, shops will be set up where it will be sold and taxed.
Now if B then C (if the government taxes meth and heroin, it cannot avoid playing a nefarious role in society)
These newly legalized drugs will have to remain largely unchanged, because their users will demand the high that they are accustomed to (unless the government somehow succeeds in 'improving' the drugs and making the highs better, while at the same time making them safer--not a likely scenario), or they won't buy them. If the government makes the drugs "safer" through regulation (like enforcing manufacturing standards for the drugs sold in shops) but degrades the high in doing so, unsafe versions will still be manufactured by rogue operators, and users will turn to these. These versions will be legal too, because if they're illegal, you've just gone in a circle, back to square one, where you're dealing with an illegal substance.
If the government legalize drugs like meth and heroin, the following scenarios will be possible:
1.) The government will directly involve itself in every aspect of these drugs, from start to finish. They will research and manufacture the drugs, attempting to maintain or improve the high, while making them safer at the same time, and this will set them (or their agents) up as manufacturer, dealer and monopoly of highly addictive substances that are superior to what came before it.
2.) They can authorize the manufacture by private individuals, of safer, regulated versions of the drugs that will invariably have a degraded high, and put them out to compete with the stronger drugs offered by rogue elements, and tax both, making them a profiteer of both regulated and unregulated meth and heroin. By allowing the unregulated versions to be sold also they will making money from deadly drugs sold by third parties.
3.) They can fully legalize it, not meddle or involve themselves in it all, but profit from it by taxing it, making them not much different than organized crime. None of these scenarios is good.
The weed experiment is in its infancy. But weed is tame. It doesn't turn people psycho (like meth does) or into corpses (the work of heroin). So the state (or its agents) will have to become the primary manufacturer, dealer and monopoly, creating drugs with better highs so that people won't turn to original versions of the drugs. Or they will have to face the consequences of the reality that they are profiting from the sale of deadly substances to their citizens by allowing third parties to operate. Their purpose in this endeavor, even if not intended, will become to hook the population. And because there is a vast amount of money to be made, these changes will not be rolled back very easily if later on down the road we wind up with a society of addicts and decide we've made a big mistake. Much easier to overthrow a cartel than a powerful, entrenched government. This looks like a dangerous road.
Every part of this argument is logical. The only real data you've thrown out was from the experiment in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalized. That data is not very helpful in determining how legalization might look. In fact it's completely irrelevant. Legalization and decriminalization are nowhere near the same. Until you address the glaring problem of what role the government will play in legalization and the impact that will have on society, your position is weak, bordering on untenable.
I'm picking a fight with the wrong person dude. Nah. Damone has left the thread. His stooge seems to have got left behind in the dust.
I didn't really leave the thread. I just didn't see the point of debating someone whose argument boils do using one logical fallacy after another and the basis of the position is basically "because that's what I think".
There is a lot of research on this topic and many well respected and intelligent people have weighed in. There are also many smart people who would argue keeping drug laws where they are, but those people use facts, data, and logic to present their position. Not just yelling louder and using logical fallacies to declare victory.
You're ignoring the argument and focusing on the baiting tactics.
There's no more logical and clearer case of if A then B than the legalization of marijuana in Washington State. When pot became legal in Washington (A), the government pounced on it like an eager cat, swiftly acting to regulate it and tax it (B). Until proven otherwise, it can be inferred from that, that if a state/principality/whatever legalizes heroin and methamphetamine, shops will be set up where it will be sold and taxed.
Now if B then C (if the government taxes meth and heroin, it cannot avoid playing a nefarious role in society)
These newly legalized drugs will have to remain largely unchanged, because their users will demand the high that they are accustomed to (unless the government somehow succeeds in 'improving' the drugs and making the highs better, while at the same time making them safer--not a likely scenario), or they won't buy them. If the government makes the drugs "safer" through regulation (like enforcing manufacturing standards for the drugs sold in shops) but degrades the high in doing so, unsafe versions will still be manufactured by rogue operators, and users will turn to these. These versions will be legal too, because if they're illegal, you've just gone in a circle, back to square one, where you're dealing with an illegal substance.
If the government legalize drugs like meth and heroin, the following scenarios will be possible:
1.) The government will directly involve itself in every aspect of these drugs, from start to finish. They will research and manufacture the drugs, attempting to maintain or improve the high, while making them safer at the same time, and this will set them (or their agents) up as manufacturer, dealer and monopoly of highly addictive substances that are superior to what came before it.
2.) They can authorize the manufacture by private individuals, of safer, regulated versions of the drugs that will invariably have a degraded high, and put them out to compete with the stronger drugs offered by rogue elements, and tax both, making them a profiteer of both regulated and unregulated meth and heroin. By allowing the unregulated versions to be sold also they will making money from deadly drugs sold by third parties.
3.) They can fully legalize it, not meddle or involve themselves in it all, but profit from it by taxing it, making them not much different than organized crime. None of these scenarios is good.
The weed experiment is in its infancy. But weed is tame. It doesn't turn people psycho (like meth does) or into corpses (the work of heroin). So the state (or its agents) will have to become the primary manufacturer, dealer and monopoly, creating drugs with better highs so that people won't turn to original versions of the drugs. Or they will have to face the consequences of the reality that they are profiting from the sale of deadly substances to their citizens by allowing third parties to operate. Their purpose in this endeavor, even if not intended, will become to hook the population. And because there is a vast amount of money to be made, these changes will not be rolled back very easily if later on down the road we wind up with a society of addicts and decide we've made a big mistake. Much easier to overthrow a cartel than a powerful, entrenched government. This looks like a dangerous road.
Every part of this argument is logical. The only real data you've thrown out was from the experiment in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalized. That data is not very helpful in determining how legalization might look. In fact it's completely irrelevant. Legalization and decriminalization are nowhere near the same. Until you address the glaring problem of what role the government will play in legalization and the impact that will have on society, your position is weak, bordering on untenable.
I'm picking a fight with the wrong person dude. Nah. Damone has left the thread. His stooge seems to have got left behind in the dust.
I didn't really leave the thread. I just didn't see the point of debating someone whose argument boils do using one logical fallacy after another and the basis of the position is basically "because that's what I think".
There is a lot of research on this topic and many well respected and intelligent people have weighed in. There are also many smart people who would argue keeping drug laws where they are, but those people use facts, data, and logic to present their position. Not just yelling louder and using logical fallacies to declare victory.
You're ignoring the argument and focusing on the baiting tactics.
There's no more logical and clearer case of if A then B than the legalization of marijuana in Washington State. When pot became legal in Washington (A), the government pounced on it like an eager cat, swiftly acting to regulate it and tax it (B). Until proven otherwise, it can be inferred from that, that if a state/principality/whatever legalizes heroin and methamphetamine, shops will be set up where it will be sold and taxed.
Now if B then C (if the government taxes meth and heroin, it cannot avoid playing a nefarious role in society)
These newly legalized drugs will have to remain largely unchanged, because their users will demand the high that they are accustomed to (unless the government somehow succeeds in 'improving' the drugs and making the highs better, while at the same time making them safer--not a likely scenario), or they won't buy them. If the government makes the drugs "safer" through regulation (like enforcing manufacturing standards for the drugs sold in shops) but degrades the high in doing so, unsafe versions will still be manufactured by rogue operators, and users will turn to these. These versions will be legal too, because if they're illegal, you've just gone in a circle, back to square one, where you're dealing with an illegal substance.
If the government legalize drugs like meth and heroin, the following scenarios will be possible:
1.) The government will directly involve itself in every aspect of these drugs, from start to finish. They will research and manufacture the drugs, attempting to maintain or improve the high, while making them safer at the same time, and this will set them (or their agents) up as manufacturer, dealer and monopoly of highly addictive substances that are superior to what came before it.
2.) They can authorize the manufacture by private individuals, of safer, regulated versions of the drugs that will invariably have a degraded high, and put them out to compete with the stronger drugs offered by rogue elements, and tax both, making them a profiteer of both regulated and unregulated meth and heroin. By allowing the unregulated versions to be sold also they will making money from deadly drugs sold by third parties.
3.) They can fully legalize it, not meddle or involve themselves in it all, but profit from it by taxing it, making them not much different than organized crime. None of these scenarios is good.
The weed experiment is in its infancy. But weed is tame. It doesn't turn people psycho (like meth does) or into corpses (the work of heroin). So the state (or its agents) will have to become the primary manufacturer, dealer and monopoly, creating drugs with better highs so that people won't turn to original versions of the drugs. Or they will have to face the consequences of the reality that they are profiting from the sale of deadly substances to their citizens by allowing third parties to operate. Their purpose in this endeavor, even if not intended, will become to hook the population. And because there is a vast amount of money to be made, these changes will not be rolled back very easily if later on down the road we wind up with a society of addicts and decide we've made a big mistake. Much easier to overthrow a cartel than a powerful, entrenched government. This looks like a dangerous road.
Every part of this argument is logical. The only real data you've thrown out was from the experiment in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalized. That data is not very helpful in determining how legalization might look. In fact it's completely irrelevant. Legalization and decriminalization are nowhere near the same. Until you address the glaring problem of what role the government will play in legalization and the impact that will have on society, your position is weak, bordering on untenable.
You don't know what a logical fallacy is, do you?
Still waiting for you to actually defend your position or attempt to refute this one. We already know about the failure of the war on drugs.
Forgot to add scenario number 4. government taxes drug sales of approved heroin and methamphetamine shops that are regulated (like liquor stores). But they decide to consider criminal any manufacturing operations that are underground and can't be taxed (making these drugs like Moonshine is to alcohol). So it won't be fully legal, just like alcohol isn't, and you will still have the same crime players running their racket.
If we hand't let the americans living in Tejas talk the US government into going to war to steal it from Mexico, this wouldn't be our problem. It would just be an immigration issue internal to Mexico.
Oh... but some of you don't like history lessons.
Just when I thought you were getting this place dialed in, you go off the reservation with one of the dumbest comments in the history of HH. That's really something when you consider how dumb CollegeDoog proved to be.
Comments
Let the world know.
I'm not angry about it - just a little offended you didn't take my kind advice that you should shut your flapping gums before you dug another 6 feet. Rock bottom is right there, man. Stop digging.
There is a lot of research on this topic and many well respected and intelligent people have weighed in. There are also many smart people who would argue keeping drug laws where they are, but those people use facts, data, and logic to present their position. Not just yelling louder and using logical fallacies to declare victory.
Like with economics and trophy hunting, a bit of time thoughtfully digging deeper into the issues would serve OBK well.
alternet.org/drugs/5-nobel-prize-economists-call-end-failed-war-drugs
There's no more logical and clearer case of if A then B than the legalization of marijuana in Washington State. When pot became legal in Washington (A), the government pounced on it like an eager cat, swiftly acting to regulate it and tax it (B). Until proven otherwise, it can be inferred from that, that if a state/principality/whatever legalizes heroin and methamphetamine, shops will be set up where it will be sold and taxed.
Now if B then C (if the government taxes meth and heroin, it cannot avoid playing a nefarious role in society)
These newly legalized drugs will have to remain largely unchanged, because their users will demand the high that they are accustomed to (unless the government somehow succeeds in 'improving' the drugs and making the highs better, while at the same time making them safer--not a likely scenario), or they won't buy them. If the government makes the drugs "safer" through regulation (like enforcing manufacturing standards for the drugs sold in shops) but degrades the high in doing so, unsafe versions will still be manufactured by rogue operators, and users will turn to these. These versions will be legal too, because if they're illegal, you've just gone in a circle, back to square one, where you're dealing with an illegal substance.
If the government legalize drugs like meth and heroin, the following scenarios will be possible:
1.) The government will directly involve itself in every aspect of these drugs, from start to finish. They will research and manufacture the drugs, attempting to maintain or improve the high, while making them safer at the same time, and this will set them (or their agents) up as manufacturer, dealer and monopoly of highly addictive substances that are superior to what came before it.
2.) They can authorize the manufacture by private individuals, of safer, regulated versions of the drugs that will invariably have a degraded high, and put them out to compete with the stronger drugs offered by rogue elements, and tax both, making them a profiteer of both regulated and unregulated meth and heroin. By allowing the unregulated versions to be sold also they will making money from deadly drugs sold by third parties.
3.) They can fully legalize it, not meddle or involve themselves in it all, but profit from it by taxing it, making them not much different than organized crime. None of these scenarios is good.
The weed experiment is in its infancy. But weed is tame. It doesn't turn people psycho (like meth does) or into corpses (the work of heroin). So the state (or its agents) will have to become the primary manufacturer, dealer and monopoly, creating drugs with better highs so that people won't turn to original versions of the drugs. Or they will have to face the consequences of the reality that they are profiting from the sale of deadly substances to their citizens by allowing third parties to operate. Their purpose in this endeavor, even if not intended, will become to hook the population. And because there is a vast amount of money to be made, these changes will not be rolled back very easily if later on down the road we wind up with a society of addicts and decide we've made a big mistake. Much easier to overthrow a cartel than a powerful, entrenched government. This looks like a dangerous road.
Every part of this argument is logical. The only real data you've thrown out was from the experiment in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalized. That data is not very helpful in determining how legalization might look. In fact it's completely irrelevant. Legalization and decriminalization are nowhere near the same. Until you address the glaring problem of what role the government will play in legalization and the impact that will have on society, your position is weak, bordering on untenable.
If I'm digging in this thread its only to uncover buried weaponry. Better run for your foxhole while you still can.
Forgot to add scenario number 4. government taxes drug sales of approved heroin and methamphetamine shops that are regulated (like liquor stores). But they decide to consider criminal any manufacturing operations that are underground and can't be taxed (making these drugs like Moonshine is to alcohol). So it won't be fully legal, just like alcohol isn't, and you will still have the same crime players running their racket.
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Texas-has-highest-uninsured-rate-high-poverty-4821399.php
Published 1:09 pm, Tuesday, September 17, 2013