The most propersous state in the Union .. RIGHT NOW ?

reply to post by Cuervo


Do you think Perry and Paul will get to debate?
I know that the next debate is during some kind of address by the president and I have a feeling that will be pundit fuel. They will probably derail Paul with why are you hear debating rather than serving the people kinda stuff.. I may be paranoid though. I've just seen it mentioned already a couple times.

I really hope Perry and Paul can debate. I want to see Paul marathon debate all the candidates.
He will squash them one by one. Palin and Paul debate would be really funny.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

P.s. If you read my post you would see that taxing and regulating isn't the approach I take. It would regulate itself and it was would just be the governments choice if they want to tax it for money when business begin springing up.

I have to take these ducks one by one...

Self regulating? Druggies are going to make safe drugs? They won't rip people off? Gangs still won't fight each other for territory? More people won't take drugs because there's no prison time, only a fine? People still won't become addicted? Societal problems won't erupt? Theft to support habits won't rise? Kids won't ruin their lives because it's no longer illegal? Lost production costs and medical costs won't explode?

Drug dealer profits will skyrocket since many of their costs of business will disappear. They will thank you profusely for making their lives easier.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

reply to post by mishigas
Now you are starting to make points for me. Ok a kid is huffing paint that he bought legally. How does arresting him (if they even do arrest for this) stop crime other than this kid huffing a completely legal substance?

You're OK with little kids huffing paint? Making it legal makes it OK? That type of thinking is sick and twisted. There goes one more member of society lost forever. When his liver is shot, his teeth have fallen out, he has no ability to think anymore, and he needs constant expensive medical care for the rest of his life -- when he is a walking corpse -- will you be so glib about him huffing paint?

I just can't get over your logic that decriminalizing drugs will make people start using them? I highly doubt there is a person out there that isn't doing drugs solely because they are afraid to break the law. I think generally those type of people don't want to do drugs anyway. You are the one that has the sophomoric position guy.

Believe it or not, penalties are a very potent deterrent against anti-social behavior. If someone only faces a fine instead of loss of freedom, he is much more likely to commit the crime. And those already using will likely overdose. They will still drive under the influence and endanger innocent people. And you call my position sophomoric? Your perspective about non-users not using simply because they don't want to is very naive. Take away the penalty and you take away the inhibition.

reply to post by mishigas


The answer to pretty much all of thsoe is that they will be greatly diminished.

The whole reasons that gangs are in control of the drug trade is because they are faceless organizations just like big business that are hard to prosecute and violent. Decriminalize drugs and the face of drug dealers will take a dramatic change as well.

Also we wont rely on production from outside the country it will be inside the country which runs out the mexican gangs, and greatly lowers the price which lowers crime (like burglary and robbery) because the price drops.

No people who don't do drugs don't do them because they don't want to not because they face jail time, so more people won't do them.

Yes they will still be addicted, so are prescription pain killers and anxiety meds, what is your point? It's none of your business what someone else is addicted to.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

This leads me to believe you don't understand the concept?
Decriminalizing it, doesn't mean the government or businesses can adopt it and start pushing their own. They won't 90 percent of these drugs will still be street drugs, but it will eliminate the need for super hardcore drug runners, with balls of steel, and a car full of guns from being the only ones willing to carry them and sell them and that will eliminate crime to an insane degree.. It will effectively change America to a safer nation.

It convinces me that your idea of the concept is one of a naive high schooler who hasn't seen much of life. There will still be extreme violence in the streets. Do you expect cartel members to just shrug their soldiers and say "Oh well!" when they lose their stream of income. They'll be setting up shop on your street corner within a week. And they'll bring their guns with them, as well as their nasty habits like beheading their competition.

Also as for your "weaker intensity" statement (which proves to me you haven't grasped this concept and are waaay off the mark) marijuana that is legal tends to be way way stronger than what is usually available on the street. Not that what you are saying makes any sense.. no one will be making a "weaker intensity drug" I don't know why they would. That would be defeatist and like continuing the war.

Yeah, I know. Nobody steps on their coc aine before they sell it. You always get 99% pure.

reply to post by mishigas




Seriously? People who already do drugs will overdose when they are decriminalized?
Why seriously.. explain to me why that is. Man.. I'm sorry you are bordering on ridiculous now.
If they are breaking the law to get the drugs and aren't overdosing it isn't because they have some internal regulator of their drug consumption and falls and rises with the law.

And no it isn't that much of a deterrent for drug crimes. People are going to do them if they want them if they are illegal, making them legal isn't going to make people want them more though. Actually probably the opposite will happen.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

reply to post by mishigas


Can you tell me what many many problems these drugs bring that isn't a direct cause of the war on drugs?

Please do it in list form so it is easier for me to refute them.

Make your own bulleted lists. Here's my earlier response:

Have you ever seen a person high on PCP? How can you possibly endorse that poison? Ever seen a 12 year old kid huffing paint? Hey, it's his body, right?

You want to be known as the nation of embalmed zombies walking around in a haze? Not me. And it *WILL* destroy the fabric of our nation. Our society will have just plunged the last spike in it's vein. Once our kids get turned loose on that sh*t it's all over for our future. And don't try any "freedom" argument -- nowhere does the Constitution endorse an immoral, suicidal, genocidal path for us.

Look at the misery alcohol has wreaked on our society, even with taxation and regulation. Hundreds of billions of dollars in medical costs, trillions in lost production, countless families torn apart. Multiply that times 100 for each harmful drug, and we're sunk.

Marketing a weaker intensity dosage won't work. It will never wipe out the market for the real kick-ass mccoy.

And what a perfect way for a government to control the people. Just think of the possibilities!

Now I agree that MJ is a totally different matter. That's another discussion. Every other thing, I'm against.

reply to post by mishigas


Well I will say good luck to them. They will be standing on the corner a lone all day because most people will go to the mom and pop dealer that they know, trust, and love (and cost way less) over some shady gang banger.

You are way wrong on this man.. actually you couldn't be more wrong.

reply to post by mishigas


So now you are just going to start reposting your posts that I already responded to?
Just because you get it back to the bottom of the page doesn't mean I haven't already answered it in full, you just chose to ignore. I will post my original response to this same post of yours, but the tactics you are attempting proves that you have no interest in learning and only arguing your obsolete and refuted opinions.

Now in response to your PCP post.

Yeah.. I have seen someone high on PCP like maybe twice on cops. I would say there are a lot more people doing it, but it only becomes a known when they commit a crime beyond taking the drug. Now you are starting to make points for me. Ok a kid is huffing paint that he bought legally. How does arresting him (if they even do arrest for this) stop crime other than this kid huffing a completely legal substance? I just can't get over your logic that decriminalizing drugs will make people start using them? I highly doubt there is a person out there that isn't doing drugs solely because they are afraid to break the law. I think generally those type of people don't want to do drugs anyway. You are the one that has the sophomoric position guy.


and to your comment:

Originally posted by mishigas

Marketing a weaker intensity dosage won't work. It will never wipe out the market for the real kick-ass mccoy.


I said:

This leads me to believe you don't understand the concept?
Decriminalizing it, doesn't mean the government or businesses can adopt it and start pushing their own. They won't 90 percent of these drugs will still be street drugs, but it will eliminate the need for super hardcore drug runners, with balls of steel, and a car full of guns from being the only ones willing to carry them and sell them and that will eliminate crime to an insane degree.. It will effectively change America to a safer nation.

90 percent of the drugs will still be illegal to legitimately sell in stores and companies just decriminalized. If you get caught with them you don't go to jail, you get a fine.

Also as for your "weaker intensity" statement (which proves to me you haven't grasped this concept and are waaay off the mark) marijuana that is legal tends to be way way stronger than what is usually available on the street. Not that what you are saying makes any sense.. no one will be making a "weaker intensity drug" I don't know why they would. That would be defeatist and like continuing the war.

Originally posted by mishigas
Every other thing, I'm against.

I would figure as much.

I'm sorry you missed out on so much in life and it gave you such a negative uninformed view and understanding of the world. I'll let you be with your opinions. It is pointless to have wasted so much time on you. If you get the chance to go back over our conversation and push your anger aside and actually consider what I'm saying maybe you will get it and can grow.

later.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Do you think Perry and Paul will get to debate?
I know that the next debate is during some kind of address by the president and I have a feeling that will be pundit fuel. They will probably derail Paul with why are you hear debating rather than serving the people kinda stuff.. I may be paranoid though. I've just seen it mentioned already a couple times.

I really hope Perry and Paul can debate. I want to see Paul marathon debate all the candidates.
He will squash them one by one. Palin and Paul debate would be really funny.

I really hope so. Obviously, it's not in any of the other candidates' best interests to debate Dr. Paul as they get their asses handed to them each and every time. I think they will wait until they have some juicy dirt on him then they will bring that up at every debate, as often as they can. It's the only way they'll stand a fighting chance against the guy.

I'm still anxious to see the Democratic debates to see what they are bringing to the table too. If there is a GOP candidate that I like in the primaries (Ron Paul) running against a half-decent leftie, then it will be a choice of who's better than who as opposed to the usual "who's the least of the evils". It will feel funny picking between two candidates I actually like.

reply to post by Clisen33


That's all it amounts to as well. A post because it certainly isn't a thread.

reply to post by mishigas



You twisted the meaning and you know it.
We aren't talking about drug dealers on the street. You were talking about a legal alternative being a weaker drug.
You are so full of it dude.. when i said they wouldn't make a weaker drug and that it would be defeatist you knew I wasn't talking about street drug and you know it. You are trolling, you haven't refuted one point I've made yet somehow continue on with the conversation and make posts. When you can argue on the same level without making smart a** remarks in place of actual points maybe I'll consider continuing.

reply to post by sayiamu


That's because they take in more BIG Federal GOVERNMENT money than they pay out in taxes.

Pigs

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

reply to post by mishigas


Well I will say good luck to them. They will be standing on the corner a lone all day because most people will go to the mom and pop dealer that they know, trust, and love (and cost way less) over some shady gang banger.

You are way wrong on this man.. actually you couldn't be more wrong.

Right....they aren't intimidated by other cartels, gangs, or law enforcement, but just have mom and pop start selling, and they will just give up and go home....

You can't be that naive, can you?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Your entire response endorses and encourages extremely dangerous drug usage. You would allow a 12 year old to inhale paint vapors.

Not a parent alive would agree with you. You are a disgrace to those who should lead and protect our most valuable treasure -- our youth.

It is logical to extend your liberal outlook to include support for incest and pedophilia. Disgusting.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

reply to post by mishigas



You twisted the meaning and you know it.
We aren't talking about drug dealers on the street. You were talking about a legal alternative being a weaker drug.
You are so full of it dude.. when i said they wouldn't make a weaker drug and that it would be defeatist you knew I wasn't talking about street drug and you know it. You are trolling, you haven't refuted one point I've made yet somehow continue on with the conversation and make posts. When you can argue on the same level without making smart a** remarks in place of actual points maybe I'll consider continuing.

And you have NO friggin idea what the govt will do, so stop acting as if you know something. You've shown that you're very naive with your "self-regulating" position. Self regulating?

Absolutely NOTHING will change re gang/cartel involvement in your fantasy world. Self-regulating? Yeah, right! Pablo has your self regulation right here. What you gonna do, make him sign a treaty?

You have avoided the issue of the gangs moving to this new utopia you want to create for them. What makes you think they will stay away? They'll sell heroin to your little sister, get slapped with a --- oooooow --- fine, and continue destroying our nation from within, with your help.

Answer that.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


reply to post by mishigas

And you have NO friggin idea what the govt will do, so stop acting as if you know something. You've shown that you're very naive with your "self-regulating" position. Self regulating?

Absolutely NOTHING will change re gang/cartel involvement in your fantasy world. Self-regulating? Yeah, right! Pablo has your self regulation right here. What you gonna do, make him sign a treaty?

You have avoided the issue of the gangs moving to this new utopia you want to create for them. What makes you think they will stay away? They'll sell heroin to your little sister, get slapped with a --- oooooow --- fine, and continue destroying our nation from within, with your help.

Answer that.

Consider this scenario: Gov't legalizes *just* pot. Now, explain why people would "graduate" (a myth anyway) to coke, meth, or heroin and risk a prison term when they could buy pot legally and just pay a consumer "tax"?

What would this do to gang drug sales?
What would this do to cartel sales? (Think of organized crime efforts during and after Prohibition).

reply to post by mishigas


How many times does it have to be repeated? Ron Paul does NOT want to legalize drugs, he wants the states to decide (not the federal government, per the constitution) whether or not certain personal liberties will be disturbed, you VOTE for legalization or illegality of drugs, Ron Paul WILL NOT DICTATE whether or not you take drugs.

If by some insane situation that it so happened that all 50 states voted FOR drug decriminalization, it is the will of the people-what can you do about that?

reply to post by eLPresidente

reply to post by mishigas


How many times does it have to be repeated? Ron Paul does NOT want to legalize drugs, he wants the states to decide (not the federal government, per the constitution) whether or not certain personal liberties will be disturbed, you VOTE for legalization or illegality of drugs, Ron Paul WILL NOT DICTATE whether or not you take drugs.

If by some insane situation that it so happened that all 50 states voted FOR drug decriminalization, it is the will of the people-what can you do about that?

Well first of all, thanks for making that distinction. I wasn't aware of that RP stance - to make it a states right issue.

Next, I want you to understand that I think MJ is in an entirely different class that ingested/injected drugs. It should be decriminalized asap, and no jail time associated with usage.

But RP still allows personal choice in the matter. He sets no boundaries. That I disagree with.