You are an idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about. You can buy unpackaged cigarettes that come in a big ziploc bag if you know where to get them. I didn’t need to read an article to tell me about that because I have seen it myself, and it’s not a new thing either.
I don’t even care if people buy untaxed cigarettes or if the government charges tax or not, but your whole argument was that legalizing drugs would end the black market while here we have tobacco which was never illegal in the first place and there is a lot of it selling illegally. You shouldn’t start arguments about things you know nothing about.
I think @plinnyc88 is trying to say that regulation creates black markets. All regulations necessarily add costs that can be cut by a black marketeer.
But you desire a tax safety net while, presumably, supporting activities that are not supported by all tax payers.
1 Like
If the requirement to get federal aid is that all tax payers support the causes that people use the money for, there would be no safety net. I did mention that I don’t consider being offended as something that I think counts as harm.
What about having money taken from you to support something you oppose? Let’s say Guy opposes alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and caffeine consumption and legalization. Could your safety net be used to help consumers of those substances who have conceivably been harmed by such consumption? If so, I’d say Guy has certainly been harmed. If not, I’m not sure “safety net” is the proper term.
1 Like
Part of my taxes go towards Trump’s golf excursions. I oppose that. I suppose I am slightly harmed by that financially.
I did give the exception in the post we have been talking about that I do not apply the same ideals towards something like the tax law as I do with social issues.
The hilarity is looking at the size of the black market compared to the legitimate market. You don’t seem to understand scale, capital costs, and productive capacity are inherently more limited in a black market, especially with a legal market in the same products.
Isn’t it easy to avoid such a punishment?
Aside from every member in pharma, all you’re bodybuilding friends who use etc
Uhhh… more like withdrawal symptoms lol
Literature demonstrates stoned driving make you 2x more likely to crash… drunk driving is 20x+ more likely to crash. Yet punishment here for having the slightest trace in you’re system (say you’ve smoked four days ago) is worse than had you blown 0.4 behind the wheel here
The roadside tests in Aus looking for “have you taken drugs 3 days ago” certain appears to be aimed at raising revenue. Though I’m fully on board for measuring impairment in relation to roadside testing. Acts as an adequate deterrent
I don’t abide by the “don’t smoke grass for a few days”, these cases are clogging up the courts, frustrating everyone and people are starting to get off on the basis of how stupid it is
But I will NEVER get behind the wheel whilst visibly impaired, nor will I drive after any amount of booze intake
Absolutely. As long as you bow to mother and father govt above all else, it’s easy to avoid any punishment. This rationale could make death the punishment for jaywalking.
Then we’re just back to sounding (in the real world) like a place America is about to be bombing for humanitarian reasons.
5 grams of cannabis at distribution… lol… even shrooms, that’s enough for 1-2 people… not distribution. You can’t make a blanket statement of “5 grams of everything is distribution”… LSD and Fentanyl are dosed in micrograms, 5 grams of these would most certainly be considered a traffickable quantity. 5 grams of COCAINE… that’s also probably possession with intent to sell if you’ve got that on you in public
Aside from the fact that within the Phillipines, despite usage rates of drugs having declined SLIGHTLY, they haven’t made a dent regarding drug networks/organised crime.
Here’s the problem I have with such harsh punishment, esp with extrajudicial killings (the Phillipines)… innocent civilians get caught up in this shit. Corruption could involve planting evidence, those with agendas against others may dob people in irrespective of guilt
When we look at “what is the happiness index of this country, how safe is it to travel there? etc” when looking at countries that implement these draconian, retarded punishments. They’re typically some of the most corrupt, dangerous countries to travel to, the Phillipines is currently designated to be the fourth most dangerous country in the world… JUST due to the “drug war”… of which has been used as an excuse to justify the murder of many innocent civilians.
Look at womens rights in Saudi Arabia, look at how many of those INNOCENT tend to be caught up in this… look at the rate of religious extremism. No civilised society appears willing to take up these tactics… because it induces far more harm than it does good (in my opinion)
It should be that way, and it is. One should recognise many small time dealers are desperate for then money. Even if found and “beheaded” or whatever, they’re replaceable pawns, the bigger fish will always find someone to do their bidding on the pretence of how enticing money is.
Too harsh,
What about arms dealers, they indirectly kill FAR more than some guy selling pot on the street (zero vs potentially hundreds of thousands)… or do we draw a line at “but… guns… patriotism” (not meaning to be a dick, legitimately asking)
Disagreed, once many make their minds up, they’re going to do D,X,Y etc. Have you extrapolated upon this ideology to any of you’re bodybuilding friends? No judgement from me, I’m just wondering what they’d say if you said “doesn’t the law affect whether you take steroids”… I imagine zero percent of them will say yes.
Well… people like Skyzyz have taken hard drugs, yet still advocate for legalisation. I’ve tried… some things once or twice… never got hooked and never felt the need to compulsively use again. Tried pot laced with PCP (accidentally) once, you don’t see me going out, looking for PCP. I’ve tried ketamine (a while back), you don’t see me going out looking to buy ketamine. Who did I harm? No one…
Wow… the graffiti scene is somewhat different here… we just have a bunch of stupid kids who tag/write on public property. Law enforcement hasn’t managed to deter those tagging property, in cerain neighbourhoods it’s fucking everywhere.
Aside from the fact that the cops in the Phillipines don’t just kill based on knowledge of drug use/distribution, it’s suspicion… the war is largely lawless, and some cops are corrupt. The result is thousands of innocent civilians dead…
You’ve seen enough regarding hardened addicts hooked on highly incapacitating agents. As a teenager were you ever around those that very occasionally took MDMA, those who would sometimes smoke grass etc… these people were able to function fine. Furthermore high functioning alcoholics/addicts do exist.
Talking about crackheads tweaks and H addicts… yes, you’re right… but those who like pot, MDMA, psychedelic drugs and/or substances not particularly addictive you’re argument is a moot one in my opinion. I’m HIGHLY against blanketly looking at all drugs and just saying “drug”… because caffeine, marijuana, MDMA etc isn’t herion…
once again, hard drugs… how many do you know who hold up liquor stores to buy a joint?
Give me some data to back this… any… data…
Well given that over 50% of the populace has tried weed… about 30-40% of the teenage demographic here during schoolies will use MDMA, it’s not exactly a minority, so to say “prohibit, punish” on the basis of those who may even be the minority (pertaining to cannabis)" doesn’t Make sense to me
Well… Look at Portugal (decriminalisation), look at the Netherlands, look at Canada…
Hard drugs is subjective, I don’t consider substances otherwise less addictive/harmful than booze to be “hard”
Hard drugs to me consists of
- ketamine
- benzodiazepines
- opiates
- cocaine/crack
- methamphatemine
- racemic amphetamine
- NBOME (physical harm)
- z drugs
etc
not
- shrooms
- mdma
- lsd
agreed
Agreed, although addiction to MDMA is very difficult to achieve given the effect becomes immeasurable after repeated use.
Sure, but how many innocent civilians get caught in the mix… will those desperate for cash still be willing to deal (almost certainly)
I don’t care… depending on what the distribution is… if he’s distributing a drug known to VERY rare cause any serious complication, death is a stupid punishment… if he’s doling out fentanyl, he’s probably got blood on his hands… in which case I don’t care all that much..
Thought I don’t harbour this ideology
I believe in harm reduction, minimising overdose/death rates. My harsh ideology pertaining to those selling fentanyl is accompanied by the fact that fentanyl is incredibly potent, very easy to OD on, chances are at least one of his clients will die etc.
I find authoritarian parenting from my observations leads to sneak kids who lie a LOT… just wish to throw out this blanket generalisation on the basis of what I’ve observed.
Then ban/execute heavy drinkers, those who sell booze too.
Problem is, countries with such harsh punishments tend to be third world nations steeped in religious extremist/those with dictatorships in place, I don’t think we ought to value/try to idealise these nations… look at how happy the population generally is within these countries, to say “yup, we should be more like North Korea, Saudi Arabia” etc… I think that’s stupid
Given the ability to drive is one that allows an individual to be independent, get to and from work etc… taking that away is a huge deal. Proposing deterrent mechanisms is a semi-decent way to lessen drunk drivers… though if I’ve smoked a joint 16 hours ago and know I could get into trouble, there are certain programs I use that give me the location of drug buses/police set up around the area, this the deterrent mechanism are woefully ineffective.
Sorry… this is terrible (I said this yesterday, I feel the need to reiterate it in case my conveyed ideologies here seem disrespectful to you… I harbour no disrespect)
Yes, but once again it isn’t about “the rules… follow the rules no matter what”… it’s about whether the laws are fair. In countries wherein homosexuality is illegal, it’s easy to just “not fuck guys” even if you’re gay, doesn’t mean we should follow such a law on the basis of “if you follow this you won’t get into trouble”… certain laws, drug prohibition for example, are outdated and need too be reformed. Marijuana, MDMA, LSD etc AREN’T crack cocaine, PCP, ketamine or heroin.
Yeah, yet. Funny thing about dead people. They can’t ever add to the population of the problem again. It scales pretty hard if you think about it.
It’s a thought experiment lol. Very few people are so authoritarian as to actually want the bar for the death penalty to be at “selling a banned substance.”
Edit: Also, if you set the penalty at death, you negate anyone who joins the life with the intent to take care of your loved ones. You can’t do that if you’re dead.
I meant easy to not distribute drugs.
I know 
1 Like
I’ve also found the opposite. I also wasn’t referring to all-Out merciless Tiger parenting.
You keep moving what I say out of context. Anyway, the more we all talk, the more it she’s the need for different societies. I mean there are enough people who do not place importance on drugs.
You keep talking as if I’m simple enough to think only “just follow all and any rules” pr thar “all rules are good”. It comes across disingenuous. You’ve states this along with homosexuality several times already.
You ofc mean the drugs that are illegal right? Obviously if we were to name of things like America’s growing need for caffeine, antidepressants, anti anxieties, and pharmas, that’d be different, right?
1 Like
Drugs don’t need to be a pivotal aspect within society… As a matter of fact they always induce more detriment than good. But I’m a realist, or at least I am being within this convseration… REALISTICALLY, we can’t break up societies (within developed, first world nation) on the basis of “but he smokes pot”, “he enjoys a few beers once every now and then”.
I’m thinking realistically, what can be done… beheadings, societal segregation isn’t rational.
As the prior person mentioned, what about jaywalking, what abuot
What about the law in Texas stating you can’t own more than sex toys? Why not…
In this conversation I am referring to recreational drugs, not pharmaceutical ones you are referring to which are being used in astonishing amounts as you say. I remember reading our in four American women take a psychiatric medication, which i believe is a sign of several things.
Ah. Seems you’ll probably have more drug users than the drug using society will. Although it’ll probably be close if we were to split the country between drug/alcohol/cig users and not. Maybe not as close as I think. Who knows.