Rush gets himself in trouble...damn liberals!

Quote from canyonman00:



I strongly disagree. The government will regulate whatever product that is released. And as another writer stated, the pure product will still be desired, available, and illegally sold. If I might use this example.

Dropping of prohibition did not stop the oncoming drug onslaught. The rationale was if you make it legal (alcohol) crime that was associated with it would go down. I would move that crime just shifts to another venue at best. Those who profit in the illegal trafficking will just find the next product.

My cousin has no marketable job skills nor does he have any interest in getting any. Or I should say, none that would allow him the revenue to purchase the desired Range Rover. Thousand dollar suits on McD's cashflow? Not hardly. At 19 he was driving a 928. Custom made clothing was his trademark. He wants to live in a penthouse.

Whenever he's released there'll be a reality check on his horizon. Let's hope it's not with some unsuspecting law-abiding citizen at the end of his 45. :)
More...

Then you have a situation which is not decriminalization, but a govt issued franchise and a black market.

Leave drugs to the free market.

I am not suggesting drug use will cease, but that the crime associated with drug trafficking will. The Beer wars in Chicago ended with repeal.

Your implication is that there are natural criminals among us awaiting an opportunity, your shift to "another next venue". Perhaps there are.

But is that a reason to maintain drug crime legislation, to provide the outlet for those with criminal tendencies so we can identify and imprison them?
 
I would also like to add to my previous about about the social impact of legalization. What I mean by this is that people are still going to be weary of going into Walgreens to buy Cokatal (from my previous post) because lets face it, it would be embarrassing. Just like if prostitution were legal and there was a cathouse located across the street from the mall. Would you want your neighbors, family or friends seeing you go in there? Of course not. This is why people seek to buy things or services in private. The bottom line is whatever drug the gov't legalizes, it will suck. Trust me, just look at all this crap over ephedra. I can't believe they are pulling that shit off the shelves because they say it's too strong. If the gov't allowed for the regulation of cocaine it would be about as strong and effective as 2 aspirin and can of beer. And it would cost a fortune. So no, that would not work. Jimmy the crack dealer will still be going strong because he has the good shit and everyone knows it. Hell, he'll even give you the first bag for free. Who's going to beat that?

And last but not least, it wouldn't be a Mav post if I didn't throw some politics in. The big push on legalization is coming from the left. Yes, I know there is a large number of african americans in prison for dealing and using. And yes, 90% of them support the left if they even vote at all. But it's a really good way to pander to the minorities in this country by saying you want to legalize drugs. It get's a lot of votes, trust me. So that is why this has become a political issue.

But aside from that, like I stated in my previous post, legalization will not, can not, and won't lower crime and solve our dependency problem in this country. If I want to good crack, I'm not going to Walgreens or Walmart, I'm going to Jimmy. And yes, Jimmy carries and gun and probably kills people to move that shit around. Gambling, drugs, prostitution, steroids, you name it man, they aren't going anywhere from the black market. And be honest, would you really buy your pot at Eckard's drug along with your multi-vitamins. No you wouldn't.

But its fun to talk about along with world peace and anything else about an idealistic society that will never reach fruition.
 
Quote from dgabriel:



Then you have a situation which is not decriminalization, but a govt issued franchise and a black market.

Leave drugs to the free market.

I am not suggesting drug use will cease, but that the crime associated with drug trafficking will. The Beer wars in Chicago ended with repeal.

Your implication is that there are natural criminals among us awaiting an opportunity, your shift to "another next venue". Perhaps there are.

But is that a reason to maintain drug crime legislation, to provide the outlet for those with criminal tendencies so we can identify and imprison them?
More...

You are dead wrong, refer to my two previous posts and back it up with facts. You can't get rid of drug crime no more then you can get rid of rape and murder. We do not live in the "Great Society" that you yearn for.
 
Of course people would buy their marijauna from legal venues. If that's what they want why would they be embarrassed to do so?

Maybe there would be hash bars to convene at.

Why should the government regulate it? You are for cutting red tape are you not?

I will defer to your expertise on what the Left desires, but I know that there are prominent conservatives who favor decriminalization, William F. Buckley most notably.
 
Quote from Maverick74:



You are dead wrong, refer to my two previous posts and back it up with facts. You can't get rid of drug crime no more then you can get rid of rape and murder. We do not live in the "Great Society" that you yearn for.
More...

I was not responding to you Maverick74, but to canyonman's

If you can't arrest and imprison people for selling or possessing drugs, then 90% of what consitutes drug crime today would vanish.
 
Quote from dgabriel:

Of course people would buy their marijauna from legal venues. If that's what they want why would they be embarrassed to do so?

Maybe there would be hash bars to convene at.

Why should the government regulate it? You are for cutting red tape are you not?

I will defer to your expertise on what the Left desires, but I know that there are prominent conservatives who favor decriminalization, William F. Buckley most notably.
More...

Come on man, nobody wants to be labeled a pot head. Just like a woman doesn't want to be labeled a whore or a guy an alcoholic. Face it, we label people in society. And yes, people would be embarrassed.

As far as the gov't regulating it, what do you think man, are you nuts? Ever heard of the f*cking FDA. I can't buy ehpedra anymore because its a controlled substance. They are not just going to put pure cocaine on the shelves. Come on man, your smarter then that. The FDA will over see how strong the drug should be and what it's exact chemical makeup should be and one thing I can tell you, it will suck OK. There is no way you will use that shit. And then when you see how much it's going to cost you, you will say forget that, you still have Jimmy's cell phone number on you, you'll call him and he'll be right over with the good shit in 30 minutes.

Listen forget about it, it's not going to work. All it will do is act as an introducing mechanism for young people and weak people. They will buy it in the stores. They will like it a little bit then find out where the good shit is. Will never happen. No way.

As far as republicans supporting this, yes there are some and they won't be getting my vote. God help our children. Our society is so overmedicated as it is, we don't need a country full of deadbeat zombies.
 
It is quite sad to see Americans running around with their heads where the sun don't shine speculating on how to combat the scourge of drugs. I've seen lives of innocent children destroyed by parents who care more about their next fix than their own children.

The answer is simple for anyone who really cares. There are countries, particularly in Asia, that with poverty, underworld gangs, and lack of economic opportunity should be ripe for a thriving illicit drug trade. Yet these very countries have proven that the Death Penalty Works. In many countries in the region the custom forms state in plain English: Warning, Death Penalty for Drug Traficking. And typically you are hanged or shot within a few months - no decade long appeal.

Thanks all - for reminding me once again why I don't want to move back to the states.
 
***Come on man, nobody wants to be labeled a pot head. Just like a woman doesn't want to be labeled a whore or a guy an alcoholic. Face it, we label people in society. And yes, people would be embarrassed. ***

Are you forgetting about the Internet? Mail order crack n' smack beats the current expensively pointless drug war. Even before the Internet, people were embarrassed to buy porn, dildo's and butt plugs- but I'm sure the old seedy 'Adult Book' stores had plenty of customers pre-internet.


***As far as the gov't regulating it, what do you think man, are you nuts? Ever heard of the f*cking FDA.***

The FDA should be dismantled, or at least de-fanged. All drugs could be regulated by competing private regulators. Unregulated drugs would be labeled as such. Competing private regulation, oversight & quality control of foods already exists. Ultra-religious Jews only purchase products endorsed by the Rabbinical councils they trust. There isn't just one symbol marking a product as Kosher, but many competing regulators.

People could choose which private stamps of approval meet their standards....for food and drugs. They should be free to exersise their own free will and judgement without the government acting like our nanny (and middleman, and robber) for every little thing we choose to do with our lives.

Walgreens & narcotics.com could provide the same high quality dope as Jimmy the street dealer. Almost everyone now agrees that ending prohibition of alcoholic beverages was correct. In a few decades, we may look back the same way at the end of narcotic prohibition...
 
Quote from Rearden Metal:

***Come on man, nobody wants to be labeled a pot head. Just like a woman doesn't want to be labeled a whore or a guy an alcoholic. Face it, we label people in society. And yes, people would be embarrassed. ***

Are you forgetting about the Internet? Mail order crack n' smack beats the current expensively pointless drug war. Even before the Internet, people were embarrassed to buy porn, dildo's and butt plugs- but I'm sure the old seedy 'Adult Book' stores had plenty of customers pre-internet.


***As far as the gov't regulating it, what do you think man, are you nuts? Ever heard of the f*cking FDA.***

The FDA should be dismantled, or at least de-fanged. All drugs could be regulated by competing private regulators. Unregulated drugs would be labeled as such. Competing private regulation, oversight & quality control of foods already exists. Ultra-religious Jews only purchase products endorsed by the Rabbinical councils they trust. There isn't just one symbol marking a product as Kosher, but many competing regulators.

People could choose which private stamps of approval meet their standards....for food and drugs. They should be free to exercise their own free will and judgement without the government acting like our nanny (and middleman, and robber) for every little thing we choose to do with our lives.

Walgreens & narcotics.com could provide the same high quality dope as Jimmy the street dealer. Almost everyone now agrees that ending prohibition of alcoholic beverages was correct. In a few decades, we may look back the same way at the end of narcotic prohibition...
More...

Your not getting it. The black market will always make it better and cheaper. If Merck got into the crack business it will cost them a lot more money to research, develope, market and sell the crack. Not to mention all the gov't channels and regulatory procedures. Jimmy just gets his shit off the boat and sells his shit by word of mouth. No overhead cost. Jimmy's got great margins to work with, Merck does not. And let's face it, we all would choose the cheapest outlet and the most potent version of the drug available. As far as the internet goes, yeah you can buy drugs on the internet now and like most things sold on the internet, you get what you pay for and usually less.

Prohibition of alcohol is not the same thing as crack cocaine man come on. Nobody dropped dead after an Amstel Light. Alcohol never should have been made illegal, that was all about a fight over Chicago politics at the time and the Mob controlled city.

And as for your idea of getting rid of the FDA or the regulatory channels that would oversee the drug trade, forget about it. See its the guys on the left that are pushing it, and like the big gov't guys they are, they will only use this as an excuse to create another government agency and raise our taxes. I'm sure they will be able to create another drug union which will act as conduit for political campaign money going into the democratic party.
 
****Your not getting it. The black market will always make it better and cheaper. If Merck got into the crack business it will cost them a lot more money to research, develope, market and sell the crack. Not to mention all the gov't channels and regulatory procedures. Jimmy just gets his shit off the boat and sells his shit by word of mouth. No overhead cost.****

How come Jimmy the moonshine dealer can't compete with Seagrams & Miller brewing co? Look, I'm not talking about legalizing drugs and leaving all the big government crap in place, I'm fantasizing about the ideal Objectivist/Libertarian society.

It's only a fantasy because BOTH Rebublicans & Democrats want to pull us deeper into the muck of statism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top