40 years, a trillion dollars, zero results.

[The Rabbi]

i don't think i've ever seen anybody claim that everybody would quit using drugs if they were legalized. the claim is that the addiction rate would be reduced (as opposed to eliminated).

Sure. Because we all know if you reduce the price and increase availibility of a commodity then there will be fewer buyers of it. Right?
Where do they teach this stuff???

You turn the trade over to legit businessmen and you'll end up with cleaner and less potent substances (beer and wine sales comprise the largest volume of sales in liquor stores) and you'll also eliminate the associated gang violence.

BTW, are the drug laws the only thing stopping you from stuffing coke up your nose?

That's a fantasy of narco-libertarianism. The social dynamics of, say, crack are not the same as, say, scotch.

 

[G.T.]

Sure. Because we all know if you reduce the price and increase availibility of a commodity then there will be fewer buyers of it. Right?
Where do they teach this stuff???

You turn the trade over to legit businessmen and you'll end up with cleaner and less potent substances (beer and wine sales comprise the largest volume of sales in liquor stores) and you'll also eliminate the associated gang violence.

BTW, are the drug laws the only thing stopping you from stuffing coke up your nose?

That's a fantasy of narco-libertarianism. The social dynamics of, say, crack are not the same as, say, scotch.

The point is, the legality vs. illegality of crack is not what stops most sane people from doing it.

 

[The Rabbi]

You turn the trade over to legit businessmen and you'll end up with cleaner and less potent substances (beer and wine sales comprise the largest volume of sales in liquor stores) and you'll also eliminate the associated gang violence.

BTW, are the drug laws the only thing stopping you from stuffing coke up your nose?

That's a fantasy of narco-libertarianism. The social dynamics of, say, crack are not the same as, say, scotch.

The point is, the legality vs. illegality of crack is not what stops most sane people from doing it.

You've done a study on this?
It doesn't matter because that is merely your opinion, so not superior or inferior to any other opinion. Why do you post here again?

 

[Oddball]

Sure. Because we all know if you reduce the price and increase availibility of a commodity then there will be fewer buyers of it. Right?
Where do they teach this stuff???

You turn the trade over to legit businessmen and you'll end up with cleaner and less potent substances (beer and wine sales comprise the largest volume of sales in liquor stores) and you'll also eliminate the associated gang violence.

BTW, are the drug laws the only thing stopping you from stuffing coke up your nose?

That's a fantasy of narco-libertarianism. The social dynamics of, say, crack are not the same as, say, scotch.

Crack wouldn't exist in any greater quantities than does bathtub gin today.

Still failed to answer the question, though...Are the drug laws the only thing stopping you from doing drugs?

 

[G.T.]

That's a fantasy of narco-libertarianism. The social dynamics of, say, crack are not the same as, say, scotch.

The point is, the legality vs. illegality of crack is not what stops most sane people from doing it.

You've done a study on this?
It doesn't matter because that is merely your opinion, so not superior or inferior to any other opinion. Why do you post here again?

I forgot, you're the moron who had to ask 16-times if I felt some opinions are more valid than others. I said YES every ******* time, but it seems you still had trouble reading that.

But anyways, aside from that ///// there doesn't need to be a study. If you believe in the "free market," then the logic follows that people wouldn't buy en masse a product that would ruin their whole lives. Otherwise, you're saying that the "free market" wouldn't do its job. You can't have these sorts of things both ways.

 

[The Rabbi]

The point is, the legality vs. illegality of crack is not what stops most sane people from doing it.

You've done a study on this?
It doesn't matter because that is merely your opinion, so not superior or inferior to any other opinion. Why do you post here again?

I forgot, you're the moron who had to ask 16-times if I felt some opinions are more valid than others. I said YES every ******* time, but it seems you still had trouble reading that.

But anyways, aside from that ///// there doesn't need to be a study. If you believe in the "free market," then the logic follows that people wouldn't buy en masse a product that would ruin their whole lives. Otherwise, you're saying that the "free market" wouldn't do its job. You can't have these sorts of things both ways.

I had to ask 16 times because you obfuscated every single time. So according to you, some opinions are more worthwhile than others simply because you have a winning personality. But those opinions don't really have more worth because people's opinions of those opinions vary.
Which tells me you haven't thought about the issue for more than 10 seconds.

There are numerous products out there that cause all sorts of harm and people still use them. Maybe they think they will not be harmed and be the exception. Maybe they don't care about events 5, 10, 20 years away.
And currently the drug market is about as "free" as you're going to get. No gov't regulation at all, once you get past the illegal part.

 

[The Rabbi]

You turn the trade over to legit businessmen and you'll end up with cleaner and less potent substances (beer and wine sales comprise the largest volume of sales in liquor stores) and you'll also eliminate the associated gang violence.

BTW, are the drug laws the only thing stopping you from stuffing coke up your nose?

That's a fantasy of narco-libertarianism. The social dynamics of, say, crack are not the same as, say, scotch.

Crack wouldn't exist in any greater quantities than does bathtub gin today.

]

That is a failed assertion. I already said that the dynamics of drug use differ from liquor use. But it is no accident that Marlboro is the most popular cigarette in the world.

 

[G.T.]

I had to ask 16 times because you obfuscated every single time. So according to you, some opinions are more worthwhile than others simply because you have a winning personality. But those opinions don't really have more worth because people's opinions of those opinions vary.
Which tells me you haven't thought about the issue for more than 10 seconds.

There are numerous products out there that cause all sorts of harm and people still use them. Maybe they think they will not be harmed and be the exception. Maybe they don't care about events 5, 10, 20 years away.
And currently the drug market is about as "free" as you're going to get. No gov't regulation at all, once you get past the illegal part.

I didn't obfuscate, you just needed a coach in some god damned reading comprehension. Seriously. I said in three big letters Y-E-S every time. It's obvious, also. Someone who has their ******* doctorate in Math has a more weighty opinion on Proving Triangles than a 2-year old kid who hasn't learned basic algebra yet. What the ****'s your point in asking? It's not a profound question, it's a boring one, sorry to burst your wanna-be-an-intellect bubble.


So, by your paragraph #2, you admit the free markets don't work in a sense that people will still buy un-regulated product that is proven harmful to them? An argument for Government regulation. Unless, you know, the onus of responsibility is on the consumer themselves to make their own decision and have an artery-clogging cheeseburger/ a brain-cell reducing bong hit.

 

[Founder]

...yeah, and we never had a problem back then with darkies mouthing off in public..alas, for the good ol' boys daze..

...stfu, flounder..YOU wouldn't dare to confront someone on their property for 'doing drugs'...you'll get a stinking ******* drug war agent to do your dirty work for you..

...******* idiot..*****..

...the rest of you, have a good day!..

Clearly, a typical Democrat User...Playing the race card every time they are cornered.

 

[Oddball]

That's a fantasy of narco-libertarianism. The social dynamics of, say, crack are not the same as, say, scotch.

Crack wouldn't exist in any greater quantities than does bathtub gin today.

]

That is a failed assertion. I already said that the dynamics of drug use differ from liquor use. But it is no accident that Marlboro is the most popular cigarette in the world.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Also, you failed, again, to answer the question....I suspect purposefully so.

 

[The Rabbi]

I had to ask 16 times because you obfuscated every single time. So according to you, some opinions are more worthwhile than others simply because you have a winning personality. But those opinions don't really have more worth because people's opinions of those opinions vary.
Which tells me you haven't thought about the issue for more than 10 seconds.

There are numerous products out there that cause all sorts of harm and people still use them. Maybe they think they will not be harmed and be the exception. Maybe they don't care about events 5, 10, 20 years away.
And currently the drug market is about as "free" as you're going to get. No gov't regulation at all, once you get past the illegal part.

I didn't obfuscate, you just needed a coach in some god damned reading comprehension. Seriously. I said in three big letters Y-E-S every time. It's obvious, also. Someone who has their ******* doctorate in Math has a more weighty opinion on Proving Triangles than a 2-year old kid who hasn't learned basic algebra yet. What the ****'s your point in asking? It's not a profound question, it's a boring one, sorry to burst your wanna-be-an-intellect bubble.


So, by your paragraph #2, you admit the free markets don't work in a sense that people will still buy un-regulated product that is proven harmful to them? An argument for Government regulation. Unless, you know, the onus of responsibility is on the consumer themselves to make their own decision and have an artery-clogging cheeseburger/ a brain-cell reducing bong hit.

The record of your responses to my simple question is pretty clear. You have no answer.

As for your second paragraph: Free markets work in what they are good at, which is efficient distribution of goods and services. They are not good at inculcating moral values in people or turning sinners into saints. Sorry if you ever thought otherwise.
Of course that is just my opinion and as good as any other, according to you.

 

[Oddball]

Gubmint's role isn't "inculcating values"...That's the tool of leftist authoritarian do-gooder social engineers.

 

[Founder]

We, and the world, have always had drugs. We have had a drug "problem" because certain drugs have been criminalized in the last century. Some of you are very, very ignorant on this subject.

False: The truth is the exact opposite of what you say. What a liar. Singapore and Malaysia have no problem with drugs. Why? Because getting caught with drugs gets you a rope around the neck and hanging with NO appeal. That is only two drug free countries and there are many others. Another User, I presume. PUNISHMENT DETERS.

 

[G.T.]

I had to ask 16 times because you obfuscated every single time. So according to you, some opinions are more worthwhile than others simply because you have a winning personality. But those opinions don't really have more worth because people's opinions of those opinions vary.
Which tells me you haven't thought about the issue for more than 10 seconds.

There are numerous products out there that cause all sorts of harm and people still use them. Maybe they think they will not be harmed and be the exception. Maybe they don't care about events 5, 10, 20 years away.
And currently the drug market is about as "free" as you're going to get. No gov't regulation at all, once you get past the illegal part.

I didn't obfuscate, you just needed a coach in some god damned reading comprehension. Seriously. I said in three big letters Y-E-S every time. It's obvious, also. Someone who has their ******* doctorate in Math has a more weighty opinion on Proving Triangles than a 2-year old kid who hasn't learned basic algebra yet. What the ****'s your point in asking? It's not a profound question, it's a boring one, sorry to burst your wanna-be-an-intellect bubble.


So, by your paragraph #2, you admit the free markets don't work in a sense that people will still buy un-regulated product that is proven harmful to them? An argument for Government regulation. Unless, you know, the onus of responsibility is on the consumer themselves to make their own decision and have an artery-clogging cheeseburger/ a brain-cell reducing bong hit.

The record of your responses to my simple question is pretty clear. You have no answer.

As for your second paragraph: Free markets work in what they are good at, which is efficient distribution of goods and services. They are not good at inculcating moral values in people or turning sinners into saints. Sorry if you ever thought otherwise.
Of course that is just my opinion and as good as any other, according to you.

Brainless. I clearly stated, and this time even gave you an example of my answer, that YES, some opinions are better than others. Yet you still go on and on about how I'm saying the opposite?

The part that makes me giggle is that we're in a thread about drugs, and you clearly are on summmmfin. I dunno what, but it's something




I love how you keep on skirting this free market thing, also. Is this: They are not good at inculcating moral values in people or turning sinners into saints. Sorry if you ever thought otherwise.

TO SAY THAT THESE THINGS SHOULD COME FROM ANYWHERE BUT THE PARENTS?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gubmint's role isn't "inculcating values"...That's the tool of leftist authoritarian do-gooder social engineers.

Plato would disagree with you.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't obfuscate, you just needed a coach in some god damned reading comprehension. Seriously. I said in three big letters Y-E-S every time. It's obvious, also. Someone who has their ******* doctorate in Math has a more weighty opinion on Proving Triangles than a 2-year old kid who hasn't learned basic algebra yet. What the ****'s your point in asking? It's not a profound question, it's a boring one, sorry to burst your wanna-be-an-intellect bubble.


So, by your paragraph #2, you admit the free markets don't work in a sense that people will still buy un-regulated product that is proven harmful to them? An argument for Government regulation. Unless, you know, the onus of responsibility is on the consumer themselves to make their own decision and have an artery-clogging cheeseburger/ a brain-cell reducing bong hit.

The record of your responses to my simple question is pretty clear. You have no answer.

As for your second paragraph: Free markets work in what they are good at, which is efficient distribution of goods and services. They are not good at inculcating moral values in people or turning sinners into saints. Sorry if you ever thought otherwise.
Of course that is just my opinion and as good as any other, according to you.

Brainless. I clearly stated, and this time even gave you an example of my answer, that YES, some opinions are better than others. Yet you still go on and on about how I'm saying the opposite?

The part that makes me giggle is that we're in a thread about drugs, and you clearly are on summmmfin. I dunno what, but it's something




I love how you keep on skirting this free market thing, also. Is this: They are not good at inculcating moral values in people or turning sinners into saints. Sorry if you ever thought otherwise.

TO SAY THAT THESE THINGS SHOULD COME FROM ANYWHERE BUT THE PARENTS?

I am not skirting free market issues at all. I have stated clearly what the role of the free market is.
Values is another issue entirely. If you want to start a thread on where values ought to come from go right ahead.

 

[G.T.]

The record of your responses to my simple question is pretty clear. You have no answer.

As for your second paragraph: Free markets work in what they are good at, which is efficient distribution of goods and services. They are not good at inculcating moral values in people or turning sinners into saints. Sorry if you ever thought otherwise.
Of course that is just my opinion and as good as any other, according to you.

Brainless. I clearly stated, and this time even gave you an example of my answer, that YES, some opinions are better than others. Yet you still go on and on about how I'm saying the opposite?

The part that makes me giggle is that we're in a thread about drugs, and you clearly are on summmmfin. I dunno what, but it's something




I love how you keep on skirting this free market thing, also. Is this: They are not good at inculcating moral values in people or turning sinners into saints. Sorry if you ever thought otherwise.

TO SAY THAT THESE THINGS SHOULD COME FROM ANYWHERE BUT THE PARENTS?

I am not skirting free market issues at all. I have stated clearly what the role of the free market is.
Values is another issue entirely. If you want to start a thread on where values ought to come from go right ahead.

Who brought values into the discussion? You did, by stating that free markets aren't good at inculcating them in people. So stop skirting: what was your point? That *since free markets don't, than "what," exactly, should?> Are you saying drug laws are necessary b/c free markets don't enforce any sort of values, and that some other force should? What force?

This is a discussion board. Don't dance, discuss.

 

[JWBooth]

That is a failed assertion. I already said that the dynamics of drug use differ from liquor use. But it is no accident that Marlboro is the most popular cigarette in the world.

Just because you said it, don't mean dick. Point of fact, because you said it, the odds are that it is a failed assertion.

 

[G.T.]

lol

 

[Oddball]

Gubmint's role isn't "inculcating values"...That's the tool of leftist authoritarian do-gooder social engineers.

Plato would disagree with you.

Plato can kiss my ass...Besides that, I don't believe he's a signatory to the either the DoI, Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution.

Next stupid authoritarian leftist nanny argument?