They made quite a bit off booze when it was prohibited
In Aus organised crime is involved with tobacco (blackness market tobacco) given cigs cost 40-50$ Per packet
No, because you can’t figure out the quote function.
So you’re telling me, if we want to bring the crime rate down to 0%, we just have to remove all laws against crime???
holy! you cracked it
All of it. They run marlboro and Miller Lite now.
1 Like
So them being legalized when purity/content is known is more dangerous than people getting it laced with who knows what while funding organized crime and terrorism?
The less dangerous avenue is not doing the drugs.
And that’s from a guy who does some of the drugs.
Thinks saturated fat causes heart disease…You’re in no position to lecture anybody.
I never said the crime rate would be zero. I said organized crime would be financially ruined. Where was the bootlegging empire after the Volstead Act was repealed? Oh, right.
So Altria group is organized crime? Last I checked it’s an above ground, legal corporation that publicly files.
No education, not paid to think, went into a job that takes anyone not crippled, makes crap money. But yeah, lecture away, nobody.
For someone who sees fit to take the tone you have in this thread, this should be a simple answer to arrive at. Yet here I am, explaining basic notions of how the world works to someone who believes the things you do about police work.
If I, the organized (or un-organized) criminal want to sell pot in Maine, I simply offer it at a lower price than what you can get it for legally. The state-mandated taxes create a price floor that the legal distributor cannot go below, but the criminal can.
You’re welcome.
3 Likes
No, decriminalisation (for first/seconod offence for minor possession)
Government mandated programs for addicts (like the Netherlands) is what I perceive to be the answer… guys dealing heroin/fentanyl deserve long stings in prison
If they aren’t breaking the law it’s not crime. It’s kinda in the name.
My money says the bootleggers opened their doors and went back to owning the establishments. Follow the money.
Trans fat does… though I believe it was prohibited in the US
I agree, but government cannot legislate the laws of economics away. So there’s two choices:
- maintain the nanny state, enrich organized crime and terrorists, and make drugs more dangerous to use,
- let people have individual volition, less danger given content and purity are known, and funds go to legitimate above ground enterprise.
Which do you believe is more favorable?
It’s a bit more complicated than that but the saturated fat = heart disease is just bullshit.
Prohibited in certain cities.
End thread
They’re all public and the SEC and the Securities Acts of '33 and '34 were passed shortly thereafter. You can see the public filings. Show me which bootleggers had ownership, beneficial interest, or Board/executive roles. I count zero, but feel free to show me any.
Tell us how saturated fat causes heart disease😂
I believe option 2 all day is more favorable for societal outcomes (even ignoring the loaded options). There’s really no benefit from a societal perspective to legalizing drugs shown to statistically produce bad outcomes, sans legality.
Personally I’d prefer a mix of option 1 and 2.
I like my pot. I don’t trust the masses with heroin. But I’m a simple guy.
Tell us how your thoughts have a modicum of value when nobody has ever paid you to think.
I’d post laughing faces too if I had no answer.