Feel free to share your experiences of people buying black market carts BECAUSE of the regulations on the market (the illegality ‘reg’ being the one I’m consistently talking about).
After all, you were the one that chimed in on me with the ‘boo boo statement.’
LOL. I get to reuse my own thing.
This does not jive with basic reality from anyone that isn’t reading about it on the internet.
already did - there’s more competition among that market, as mentioned above, due to the over-handed regulations imposed by state and local gov. I understand you’re in Ohio and we move in different markets so…
Dude, stop recycling boo boo statements. The fact you’re overlooking is these people tend to be business oriented and want return customers. You’re building a straw man argument…
Source? You’re a facts guy after all.
Boo boo statement #3 (also seems to be internet based). The largest problem thats been broadcasted (and seen from within the industry) is underdosed thc cartridges. This is a smart business move, and economically sound, because the consumer doesn’t have the ability to test potency after obtaining it on the street. So you’re increasing your margins with zero ability to get caught.
Unless you have a potency testing clinic for illegally obtained carts in MA that my area that hasn’t caught up with.
Either way, I’m going to disengage. You chimed in with a bitch way to phrase things when I wasn’t even talking to you. I’m in a relatively sore mood from a personal thing atm, and dont feel the need to go further. Have a good one.
This position is going to be hard to argue against. Are you familiar with all the current evidence? I really doubt it.
Again I am not an expert, but the research seems to point to e-cigs being safer due to the fact that the nicotine is extracted, and many of the harmful chemicals are left behind.
Maybe the fluids they are using are more harmful than chemicals that were left behind in the tobacco?
I am not prepared to say definitively that they are safer, but I will say that I would place a high probability on them being safer (not 100% sure).
Flip’s argument is sound.
While I believe that medicine has caught up to a point where we are MUCH more likely to catch negative effects of things put in our lungs than when cigarettes really took off, that’s just it, it’s an educated guess.
I feel fantastic, and have more ill effects from caffeine than I do nicotine from my ecig, however we simply wont know until theres been a few hundred lifecycles of people vaping the majority of their life. If we dont know what to look for we wont find it, there could very well be some off the wall underlying illness breeding in all of us that vape.
That being said, I’ll take the compound that has no evidence of negative effects over 10 years across hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people; over a cigarette which is guaranteed to decrease your quality of life, while exponentially increasing your chance of an early and painful grave, of every single person that uses.
I’m trying to not humor the black market opinion as much as possible, because, in my 100% honest opinion, it’s a completely seperate issue that has no grounds in the regulated side of the market.
I believe it’s no different than someone buying weed off the black market in a legal state, laced with heroin, dying, then getting the entire industry shut down.
Just my observation bud same source from your claims that noone wants to buy black market carts
Source? Probably not since we’re both clearly going off of experience only difference is I’m not assuming all of this is from you reading shit off the internet and I’m aware we both are coming from different markets with different market structures at play … who knew there was variation out there? Wow
The position of no evidence can convince me is a terrible position.
They can do things like accelerated aging tests, under which more years of use can be simulated.
It’s just bootleg pot vapes. The ones they sell in the store are fine because they are regulated and made with the right stuff.
Legalization would solve this problem outright. Killing a multi-billion dollar industry just deprives people of liberty.
You’re saying that I’m taking the position of ‘I can’t be convinced to change my mind, when presented with appropriate evidence?’ That would be incorrect. I said in my first post here that I can absolutely change my mind. And reverse my position on how the product should be regulated.
Our difference in opinion is not so much the science of the issue as it is of a very basic ‘where should government intervene in personal health issues, and where should it not?’ And it is also about whether we believe the gov should be speculative/potentially proactive in this situation.
As I said before, I’m not in favor of banning the products. I’m actually generally in favor of more legalization, and subsequent regulation, of currently illegal drugs. As for specific regulations, I am for: warning labels, similarly styled to that of cigarette packs, but different messages relating to the fact that the products are under-studied. I’m in favor of vaping being age-regulated. I’m in favor of inspection of the products themselves via an appropriate government agency.
They could. I haven’t seen such a study undertaken. Have you?
There may be evidence out there that would convince me that the dangers of vaping are negligible and should not come with any sort of regulation. I just haven’t seen it. I’m open to reading anything.
Okay, I think we are in agreement. I am of the position that most studies seem to have indicated that vapes are in fact safer than cigs. Is there data missing? Sure, especially real time impact over years and years. That being said, I am convinced that they are safer, as that is what the data points to, but would change my mind if evidence to the contrary was presented.
Well, “recreational” drug use does hurt people, and a lot of them. Drug poisoning is the leading cause of injury death in the United States (see attached figure).
The above figure is just direct users. Since 2006 there have been 150,000 murders in Mexico alone that have been attributed to transnational criminal organizations (TCO) Emphasis on transnational. Homicide and other horrific crimes directly tied to narcotics trafficking are not contained to south of the border. My own state of Texas is witness to this on a daily basis.
Also, why do you think there are droves of desperate migrants fleeing the northern triangle to seek asylum in the U.S.? A significant factor is the unmitigated violence perpetuated by ruthless narcotics traffickers.
DEA and other federal agencies tasked with combating drug trafficking contribute daily at great sacrifice to national and international security. They are not power hungry jack-booted thugs as many pro-decriminalizaton/legalization advocates irresponsibly imply.
You must have missed where he said, “doesn’t hurt anyone else.”
Dat natural selection at work!
You must have missed the rest of my post where I argued that individual drug use fuels the broader phenomenon of violent and exploitative transnational criminal organizations. I would say hundreds of thousands of lives lost and many more shattered constitutes harm to others. I would say the costs to taxpayers and healthcare systems constitutes harm to others. Ergo, the moral choice to use cocaine or heroin, for instance, shouldn’t be limited to one’s individual sphere of concern.
Natural selection? Drug addiction is a public health issue. While drug users should take responsibility for their actions, they are victims of predatory criminal organizations that profit from pushing poison. You are far more callous than the federal law enforcement organizations you ignorantly deride.
This doesn’t convince … why should anyone care what you say?
Because he doesn’t know how to spell “Bismarck.” Duh.
No. I just assumed your primary supporting evidence was the first thing you posted. FWIW, it wasn’t individual alcohol consumption that fueled the growth of organized crime early last century.
Edit: Do you think it’s possible that prohibition is a huge contributing factor in drug poisoning deaths? In crime related to drugs?
I’ve made an evidenced based argument that individual drug use fuels violent transnational criminal organizations and burdens tax payers and healthcare systems. Do you care to address it? I’m under no obligation to establish my credibility. The data speaks for itself. Anyone with a passing understanding of public policy and national security understands that narcotics trafficking is a serious issue that can’t be solved by sophomoric “live and let live” indifference.
Ehh…unless I’ve missed it, you just posted a graph showing numbers of injury deaths. That’s the only evidence I’ve seen.
I agree. I don’t even care that you have none.
That is, the graph you posted that did not refute what was said.
The argument I believe they’re trying to convey is that decriminalization/outright legalization of drugs has proven extremely positive across several countries. It either removes the black market, or severely reduces the footprint of negative consequences regarding it. The majority of this butterfly effect that you’re talking about comes from the fact all of this is illegal, therefore requires the suppliers to take dramatic risks in receiving and supplying said product.
It does both. Removing the need for a black market severely reduces criminality surrounding it and those manufacturers who choose to get into the business legally have no vested interest in killing off their customer base, not to mention they are subject to regulation.
The majority of negative consequences associated with recreational drug use are correlative to it’s legal status.
Try to find a pot dealer in Colorado? If they exist, it’s very small numbers. Why would people go to them when they can just go to the store an buy it?
The question is, should some drugs still be illegal? I think a case can be made regarding the toxicity of certain substances, but that can be squelched by a less toxic alternative that gives the same general desired result.
PCP is an outlier I cannot account for. It’s highly toxic, extremely dangerous and leads to very unpredictable behavior. I would say it’s too toxic to be legal.
Meth? I think there are plenty of safer alternatives that people would take if they were available.