Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[inaluct]

Idea: ban meth and angel dust and heroin and all that shit. Legalize things like LSD and pot.

Bold:  That stuff is actually pretty bad for you.  It'll stay in your system for pretty much your whole life, occasionally causing flashbacks of trips, including bad trips.  Like I said, marijuana's the only thing that doesn't deserve it's status.

Yeah, but 70 percent of LSD users claim to never have had a flashback, psychiatric patients report flashbacks more often than other users, and it's pretty much impossible to overdose on LSD.

And if you like bud so much, what do you think of hash?

[Wiles]

No there aren't. I have quite literally never ever seen that. "doing lines of coke in the locker room"? Cocaine is a Class-A drug. I wouldn't legalise that. Smoking and the beer are both from "some older guy" or irresponsible parents. Thats "the human factor" in action. It's the reason communism struggles and crashes most of the time.
No plan is infallible because its enacted by a fallible species. And the drug lords would sell their produce to pharmaceutical companies for legal profit, so there'd be no need for illegal trading.

Your statement confuses me, in your first post you indicated that drugs shouldn't be illegal, but now you are saying that you wouldn't legalise some of them? And no, I don't beleive the "drug lords" would suddenly become happy law abiding business men. As I stated before, there are still many people who produce and sell cigarettes illegally. These guys are greedy, they've already shown their lack of interest in laws, they're not going to suddenly have a change of heart and let the government cut into their profits.

[GruffyBears]

I said recreational drugs, like hash and LSD and such. I didn't mean the extreme ones like coke and heroin.
I agree with you on the drug lord part though, it would be difficult to convince them. The only way I can think is to allow them as much profit as possible and tax deducts and such.

[inaluct]

Or let Big Tobacco move on to making pot cigarettes and out competing the drug lords.

[GruffyBears]

Or let Big Tobacco move on to making pot cigarettes and out competing the drug lords.

Aha! The boy has a brain for business!

Nicely done, sir. I salute you.

[NFossil]

Well, basically I don't think using drugs to ruin one's own body and put extra burden on the family, the medical system, and possible law enforcement can be seen as liberal right.

[GruffyBears]

Well, basically I don't think using drugs to ruin one's own body and put extra burden on the family, the medical system, and possible law enforcement can be seen as liberal right.

What you mean like cigarettes and beer?

[NFossil]

Well, basically I don't think using drugs to ruin one's own body and put extra burden on the family, the medical system, and possible law enforcement can be seen as liberal right.

What you mean like cigarettes and beer?

Actually yes, I think it's better to ban cigarettes altogether. Like one GTA:SA radio commercial said, "ban smoking everywhere!"  I'm not that sure about beer though.
IMHO everyone is potentially useful to other loved ones, the society, the world, blahblahblah. Forgive me if this sounds offensive, but healthy people should have more potential. If you ruin yourself voluntarily, it would be a loss, and making such behavior easier is not in the society's interest.

[Aqizzar]

Just to make sure the other side of the argument is clear, which I support - people have and should have every right to kill themselves, as quickly or slowly as they want.  If you think smoking should be banned because it's unhealthy, how about soft drinks?  Or fried chicken?  You'll die of Baconators faster than cigars or acid if you consume them at the same nominal rate.

And for the inevitable counter argument that smoking, drugs, etc. poses a health risk to the people around you as well, the answer is simple.  Tough shit.  You do not have a right or promise to a life without risk or inconvenience, and you're sure as hell not going to create it through legislation.

[Zangi]

I said recreational drugs, like hash and LSD and such. I didn't mean the extreme ones like coke and heroin.
I agree with you on the drug lord part though, it would be difficult to convince them. The only way I can think is to allow them as much profit as possible and tax deducts and such.

>.> Am I misunderstanding this?  Part of the point is to give the drug lords less income...  I think?

If drugs can be produced and sold legally.  Lot of legit business people and 'normal' people will move in on the trade.  Enticing and easy enough to grow your own pot in the backyard...
Now if there is quality control, there will be less competition...

In the case of a drug lord, its an adapt to the times or lose situation.  They already have a very very strong drug network.  Supply, manufacturing, distributors and customers.  Its a matter of smacking the people down the list and shape em up for the times or cut em loose. 

Make em distributors more respectable to the public eye.  Like real employees.(Hah)
And the already established pot farms?  Improve em.  Its all about looking good to the public.
And I suppose real stores and manufacturing 'plants' can be set-up too...

There we have it... already years ahead of any other competition... except other equally smart drug lords... Why waste a network you already have?
Also, setting competent people up as the 'front' owners to this new business seems a good idea... just gotta make sure they are under the thumb...  considering there may be some possible legal problems going legit... and/or if the drug lord still has his hands in the illegal pie.

[NFossil]

Just to make sure the other side of the argument is clear, which I support - people have and should have every right to kill themselves, as quickly or slowly as they want.  If you think smoking should be banned because it's unhealthy, how about soft drinks?  Or fried chicken?  You'll die of Baconators faster than cigars or acid if you consume them at the same nominal rate.

And for the inevitable counter argument that smoking, drugs, etc. poses a health risk to the people around you as well, the answer is simple.  Tough shit.  You do not have a right or promise to a life without risk or inconvenience, and you're sure as hell not going to create it through legislation.

Yeah, I guess that does make sense. Each person would inevitably (spelling?) want as much rights as possible. However, when some rules that apply to everyone have to be made, they should cater to as many people's interests as possible, and that probably means reducing everyone's individual right to do others harm, like killing people or smoking in public places. It is not possible to promise a life without risk, but it should be able to reduce the risk somehow.

[Wiles]

Just to make sure the other side of the argument is clear, which I support - people have and should have every right to kill themselves, as quickly or slowly as they want.

Why should they have the right? They are making themselves a burden on the rest of society.

[inaluct]

inevitably (spelling?)

Using IE, huh? Philistine.

Just to make sure the other side of the argument is clear, which I support - people have and should have every right to kill themselves, as quickly or slowly as they want.

Why should they have the right? They are making themselves a burden on the rest of society.

So, why do people have the right to become disgustingly obese? They're a greater burden on society than drug addicts.

[Aqizzar]

This is one area where "majority" opinion has to take a backseat to practicality.  When you press the issue, almost everyone will give similar, self-contradictory answers.  "All drugs should be illegal, and we should be able to make money off drugs and not spend so much controlling them."  "Unhealthy foods and activities should be banned, but not for me because I like them and I'm responsible."

Basically, when it comes to huge questions of personal responsibility vs public good, most people don't really know what they want, much less know what the hell they're talking about or how to achieve those goals.  I support letting people cram down fried tacos and hash because the alternative is demonstrably unfeasible, and trying to force it so is just wasteful, and breeds more problems like overcrowded prisons and so forth.

I wrote a giant, sleep deprived rant about this a while ago.

[inaluct]

And you guys know what?

Drug lords won't evade the taxes, because operating without the looming threat of the DEA hanging over you is cheaper.