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

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 




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).


More data please. Who sells the stuff? How much govt intervention in selling?




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by userid1
 




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).


More data please. Who sells the stuff? How much govt intervention in selling?


Why not make it like most States do with liquor - that way the State gets a "piece of the action" as well? In this case however, the Feds grow and supply, States open pot "ABC" stores and both fed and state taxes are applied to each transaction.

1 - Uniform product for all.
2 - Little or no competition (just as there is little bootleg liquor now)
3 - Severely depresses gang and cartel economies and associated activities
4 - Attendant savings to the taxpayer on a local, State, and Federal level in law enforcement budgets compared to present efforts.
5 - Home or approved areas for consumption (Amsterdam-esque)
6 - Same/similar penalties as currently enforced for liquor (age, DUI, etc)
7 - Same penalties as currently on books (or harsher) for private production and distribution/sales to encourage consumption from "legal" outlets.
8 - Increase penalties for possession/distribution of coke, meth, heroin, etc. Make sure it's a real poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

The idea here is that we'll *never* stop drug usage - it's been around since long before we were a society (peyote anyone?), but we *might* be able to control it to a degree - which would be far superior to our achievements so far.

Just musing...



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 




Why not make it like most States do with liquor - that way the State gets a "piece of the action" as well? In this case however, the Feds grow and supply, States open pot "ABC" stores and both fed and state taxes are applied to each transaction.


I agree, and you have given a very complete list of arguments for state involvement. And for this to ever overcome the current opposition to it, and for it to ever pass any vote, you will have to show some benefits to the people, which your list does. I'd bet that half the politicians privately agree with you, but won't admit it publicly because it would be political suicide.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Well, to be honest, America is supposed to be about personal choice whether you like it or not. If you want a finely controlled environment where as the government will say what you can or cannot do then go to Singapore, that place is very strict with drugs and they do it well, damn well!

This is the difference America is supposed to bring to the table (but severely lacks because of our # politicians and policies) but we don't even know what it feels like to be ...wait for it...FREE.


So let me ask you, is America supposed to be free? or isn't it? If so, why can't I take drugs? If not, then what is America supposed to be?
edit on 5-9-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

So let me ask you, is America supposed to be free? or isn't it? If so, why can't I take drugs? If not, then what is America supposed to be?
This is a fallacy. We're not Free nor were we ever Free to do all that we pleased. We were Free to persue our own rights when they did not interfere with others. The arguing poing over taking drugs is who are you adversely affecting when you take them?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


When a crime is committed against others then that crime will have its consequences, will it not?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 



reply to post by mishigas

Well, to be honest, America is supposed to be about personal choice whether you like it or not. If you want a finely controlled environment where as the government will say what you can or cannot do then go to Singapore, that place is very strict with drugs and they do it well, damn well!


I think you should examine your idea of "freedom". It is a little bit undisciplined, imo. For example, Free Speech does not mean unrestrained speech. Limiting drugs is a societal choice, not one addressed by the Constitution. Society imposes many rules for the safety and security of it's members, and that does not translate into loss of "freedom".


This is the difference America is supposed to bring to the table (but severely lacks because of our # politicians and policies) but we don't even know what it feels like to be ...wait for it...FREE.

So let me ask you, is America supposed to be free? or isn't it? If so, why can't I take drugs? If not, then what is America supposed to be?


And why can't I drive 90mph in a school zone when school lets out for the day? Why can't I light up in a hospital operating room? We are not FREE! It's all an illusion! America lies!

You're being silly, aren't you? Slow day at work?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

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


If I can buy regulated and cheaper drugs at a store, how is that going to help dealers make more money?
This is the most convoluted conversation I have ever read and it really seems like you know nothing about drugs at all.
Ending prohibition helped bootleggers how?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 



No, we're not free, not currently. I completely agree with that statement but it doesn't mean we weren't meant to. You can't say there are version of freedom like disciplined and undisciplined, either you are free or you are not. America was meant to be a free society where the federal government took off their shoes and got checked at the front door of each and every state, which drew it's power from the people).

You want to talk about illusions? Why can't you drive 90mph in a school zone? those are statutes and regulations and you chose to play by those rules (through contract) and you can opt out of those rules any time you want but that is another topic altogether so why don't you get off the whole: this-system-is-a-matrix, thing.

You're now bringing up new topics to support old arguments that you've lost but won't admit to, please move on.
edit on 5-9-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 



reply to post by mishigas

No, we're not free, not currently. I completely agree with that statement but it doesn't mean we weren't meant to. You can't say there are version of freedom like disciplined and undisciplined, either you are free or you are not.


There most certainly are differing definitions of freedom, and until you accept that you will always be arguing from a fantasy land viewpoint.


You want to talk about illusions? Why can't you drive 90mph in a school zone? those are statutes and regulations and you chose to play by those rules (through contract) and you can opt out of those rules any time you want but that is another topic altogether so why don't you get off the whole: this-system-is-a-matrix, thing.


You are losing the argument (you've already lost, actually) and so you are resorting to personal attacks. You're so easy to baffle. Part of that is your green, unripe, unformed ideas of topics such as freedom.

Your answers to my questions are incomplete and unsatisfactory. Please try again. Give it some thought beforehand, OK? Weak answers like "those are statutes and regulations and you chose to play by those rules (through contract) and you can opt out of those rules any time" won't cut it. I throw your answer right back at you by saying drugs are also regulated by laws. See how silly your answer is?


You're now bringing up new topics to support old arguments that you've lost but won't admit to, please move on.


See what I mean?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


You really don't understand.. It's not a matter of intimidation. It's a matter losing demand. When pot (the drug that the mexican cartels are bringing in the most) is decriminalized people will grow their own or buy from mom and pop shops where the environment is safe and friendly.

Hypothetically. Would you rather buy weed from hippies that let you hang out and are super friendly or thugs that are packing weapons.

I think you are intentionally not "getting it" so you don't have to concede and can say I'm naive when I actually understand it completely and you can grasp it.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Except these cartels from mexico's main import is pot.
They go where the money goes they aren't dealing here because it's fun.
Legalize the drugs the market gets flooded by the thousands of independent growers/dealers driving the price way down and making it economically unfeasible for these mexican drug dealers to spend the money crossing the border and traveling with the drugs.

Are you really having a hard time understanding what I'm saying. I've answered everything you have asked.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 




If I can buy regulated and cheaper drugs at a store, how is that going to help dealers make more money?
This is the most convoluted conversation I have ever read and it really seems like you know nothing about drugs at all.
Ending prohibition helped bootleggers how?


Not my fault that your debating power ends at throwing insults. If you cannot grasp a concept, it's best you stay out of the discussion. That doesn't foster conversational debate.

Seriously, I have never read a response from you that does not include an insult. Why are you so bitter? Never mind; I really don't care. I won't be responding to you on ATS anymore since I don't feed trolls.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


This is exactly what I've been saying but he literally refuses to understand.
He has a number of complete b.s. arguments.

Decriminalize drugs, cheaper drugs flood the market so people will go to the non cartel option every time once the only thing they have to offer (the price) is matched by safer options.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


lol, saying that doesn't make it so. Simply go read back and you'll see.

Yes this is the system we're playing in, everybody is playing this system and it isn't viable that everybody opts-out so we must find a resolution that everybody can agree upon, hey I have an idea...how about the CONSTITUTION?

You couldn't accept the fact that you were wrong about Ron Paul and some insane thought that he wanted to legalize drugs. I explained to you that he didn't and why you were so strongly involved in that particular train of thought, you just couldn't handle the truth so you wanted to bring up new topics and bury the truth.

This is easily resolved, Ron Paul doesn't want to legalize drugs, he is for limited federal power, priority states rights and personal liberties. Let me say this again, the federal government does NOT have the power to dictate and/or infringe on our personal liberties.

If you don't like this system, I'll happy wave you goodbye at the airport when you leave for Singapore (an example of a well controlled government with heavy consequences for drug use and even spitting on the floor).



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas


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


This is why I think you are literally un American. You put forth this beautiful philosophy and then tack on "that I disagree with." Essentially saying " I want more control on things other people do, even though it doesn't effect me."

So you must be afraid you will start using coke and heroin if they are decriminalized.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 



reply to post by mishigas
You really don't understand.. It's not a matter of intimidation. It's a matter losing demand. When pot (the drug that the mexican cartels are bringing in the most) is decriminalized people will grow their own or buy from mom and pop shops where the environment is safe and friendly.


Many people grow their own now. Mom and Pop shops are flammable. If you don't think iintimidation will occur, you're wrong. At the least, the cartels will become the mom and pop shops. I don't want those types in the neighborhood.


I think you are intentionally not "getting it" so you don't have to concede and can say I'm naive when I actually understand it completely and you can grasp it.


I think you live in a fantasy land. I've already stated my position on pot, so why do you continue to bring it up? Why don't you address real drugs? Tell me all about why you think it's OK to let a 12 year old huff paint.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 



Originally posted by mishigas


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


This is why I think you are literally un American. You put forth this beautiful philosophy and then tack on "that I disagree with." Essentially saying " I want more control on things other people do, even though it doesn't effect me."

So you must be afraid you will start using coke and heroin if they are decriminalized. .


No, drug use doesn't affect me. My younger brother is dead, having been robbed and murdered by 2 crackheads. And you, in your infinitely trolling manner, can only say stupid sh*t like "So you must be afraid you will start using coke and heroin if they are decriminalized". You're an asshat.

And there is no beauty in that philosophy. Setting no boundaries is a mark of cowardice, a leader who has abdicated his responsibilities.

UnAmerican? You are the one who wants to destroy America. You're the one who wants to legalize pedophilia. You're the racist traitor.

I'm done with you.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


U mad?
I'm glad you are quitting (very palin-esque of you)

I was making a point, you got it I guess and it was easier for you to fly over the edge than concede.
So if there is no concern that you will start doing drugs if they were decriminalized then why do you think that anyone else will start.

Also, racist traitor, make pedophilia legal? What are you talking about you nutcase? That must be the natural liberal hatred inside of you that corrupts all your thoughts. You probably sincerely believe that liberals want stuff like that.
edit on 5-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


I don't think it's ok for 12 year old's to huff paint.
but paint isn't illegal now so I don't know what point you are trying to make.





top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join