12
   

marijuana, revisited

 
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Thu 28 Oct, 2010 05:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You are incorrect. One is arguing the drugs and guns are going north. Another is arguing drugs go north, guns go south. No-one has said anything about cartel violence and its causes.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Thu 28 Oct, 2010 05:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Unlike the entirely Enlightened Brits.
Why are so many USAians on this forum zenophobic ?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 28 Oct, 2010 05:15 pm
@Ionus,

The same guy who argued that Arizona shouldn't be so tough on Mexican citizens illegally residing in the state?

Or was he simply worried about American citizens of Mexican heritage?

He know what he is talking about, but that hardly means his words have anything to do with the truth or objectivity.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Thu 28 Oct, 2010 05:16 pm
@H2O MAN,
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4391668//?playlist_id=86856
Quote:
would-legalizing-marijuana-destroy-drug-cartels
Would legalising drink driving stop car manufacturers ? The two are unrelated. Drug cartels would find other drugs to ship, other illegal activities to move into. The infrastructure that supports crime has to demolished... corruption, money laundering, poverty, to name a few.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 28 Oct, 2010 05:18 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Unlike the entirely Enlightened Brits.


Anybody can get guns here if they want to. Not many do because they don't feel the need.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 10:56 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Unlike the entirely Enlightened Brits.
Why are so many USAians on this forum zenophobic ?


Why are you so thin skinned?

Spendius made a caustic comment about Americans, and I responded with sarcasm...that makes me Xenophobic?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 10:59 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Unlike the entirely Enlightened Brits.


Anybody can get guns here if they want to. Not many do because they don't feel the need.


Perhaps I should have used the "Quote" feature but I didn't anticipate such a fast and furious series of postings.

Here is the comment of yours to which I was responding:

"Because he said so. It's all the evidence many Americans trust."

Guns were not under consideration.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 11:08 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Unlike the entirely Enlightened Brits.
Why are so many USAians on this forum zenophobic ?


Out of curiosity, I went back through this thread to determine at what point the discussion veered from whether or not pot should be legal to the evils of America as respects the drug trade between Mexico and the US.

You know what I found?

It was you Ionus who introduced the secondary topic.

Were you being xenophobic or merely anti-American?
Ionus
 
  -1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 02:18 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Were you being xenophobic or merely anti-American?
A proper analysis would have found there are more than those two choices, so you have stuffed up the summary of choice unless you think you are being clever somehow. If I have any other choices, I was introducing an aspect of the drug trade that applies to MaryJ. Smokers of it tend to think of it as harmless, yet there is obvious harm caused by it.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:56 am
@Ionus,
I'm surprised by the result of the vote today, the vote I expected.. the one I didn't want, I mean. Which is to say, I'm not surprised.

I happened to be wondering, on this thread and in my mind, re the ramifications of the various legislations. I knew there were difficulties in the enactment, re my old area, but was for it.
This is annoyingly pissy, re the vote.

But past that, I wonder, re the larger courts, in time. To me, gathering in for it is like going for dandilions. The blossoms are good, but you need the leaves.

Oh, but wait, did you all vote?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 4 Nov, 2010 05:42 pm
Here's why the referendum failed:

TV coverage of the World Series.

All the coverage of youthful pot-heads in San Fran embarrassed or alarmed a significant number of California voters.

Damned kids!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 4 Nov, 2010 05:53 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Smokers of it tend to think of it as harmless, yet there is obvious harm caused by it.


If you go into any A&E department on any nice Sunday afternoon you will see the obvious harm caused by DIY stores. I think you would be hard pushed to find as much blood and gore with the dope-heads.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 4 Nov, 2010 05:54 pm
@Ionus,
Nonsense

The argument had already been made that prohibition of pot led to criminal violence. That there was a dark side to the illegal pot trade was never in question, and, in fact, that is a major reason to support legalization.

For some reason, you felt it was necessary to implicate America in the violence of the illegal drug trade, by introducing the subject of gun sales.

No one discussing the topic of this thread was taking the position that the illegal pot trade was not violent or didn't involve guns --- no matter from where they were obtained.

So, you either provided a meaningless contribution to the discussion or you wanted to make an anti-American point.

I still can't figure out where you stand on the issue, but I can't for the life of me understand how gun sales informs either position.
Ionus
 
  1  
Thu 4 Nov, 2010 07:22 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I think you would be hard pushed to find as much blood and gore with the dope-heads.
Wait till airline pilots can legally use it.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Thu 4 Nov, 2010 07:39 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Nonsense
Garbage.
Quote:
The argument had already been made that prohibition of pot led to criminal violence.
So if someone presents part of an argument that is all you need ? You are easily swayed.
Quote:
That there was a dark side to the illegal pot trade was never in question,
Have you heard of a summary ? Or possibly even a reminder ? Perhaps you think you are the only person for whom all this is written ?
Quote:
in fact, that is a major reason to support legalization.
In fact ??? Oh please...do you always decide you are right and factual or is this a special case ? How about legalising heroin because of the violence associated with it ?
Quote:
For some reason, you felt it was necessary to implicate America in the violence of the illegal drug trade
For some reason ? Perhaps the reason was that it was already the topic. Were we talking about Europe ?
Quote:
by introducing the subject of gun sales.
It was introduced by Osso, but dont let facts stop you from making stupid declarations beginning with "in fact.."
Quote:
so, you either provided a meaningless contribution to the discussion
Yeah, that is going to backfire on you...be careful.
Quote:
you wanted to make an anti-American point.
Ask Osso what my reason was when she introduced it.
Quote:
I still can't figure out where you stand on the issue,
I am against addicts. I am for legalising ALL drugs so mindless cretans can die in droves. To do it peicemeal by saying MaryJ is harmless is self-serving bullshit.
Quote:
I can't for the life of me understand how gun sales informs either position.
Then you would do well to read more.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Fri 5 Nov, 2010 10:48 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Why should we ban tobacco? At some stage banning becomes the easiest option. Medical expenses are carried by all of society so they should have a say on who it is spent on...within reason.

By banning tobacco you'd merely transfer some of its medical costs to police, military and criminal and judicial costs just like the prohibition of alcohol did in the United States. That's not necessarily an easier option.

Quote:
Tobacco is a case where people are addicted because it is legal. If it were illegal, it would be easier to prevent people from affecting others with it. The whole basis of society is to provide a common friendly environment. Drugs such as alcohol and tobacco should be banned but it requires one step at a time.


People aren't addicted to tobacco because it is legal. People who use tobacco are addicted to it because of its addictive properties.

In what way would it be easier to prevent people from affecting others with tobacco if it were illegal?

In terms of the ease of preventing people from affecting others with tobacco, its prohibition would be somewhere along the lines that the ease of preventing people from affecting others with alcohol was at when it was prohibited in the US what with murderous criminality being a part of the cost. The costs of prohibiting drugs are not congruent with the idea of society providing a common friendly environment.

In the US the banning of alcohol turned out to be a disastrous failure.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 5 Nov, 2010 11:04 am
It's possible that Io wants to expand the agencies which try to prevent drugs being available. They would expand dramatically if tobacco and alcohol were to be outlawed. (Tobacco has been outlawed in some places.)



Perhaps he works in the industry of drug enforcement or is connected to it. However many "cretans" die if all drugs were legalised we can be sure all the enforcement agencies would die with them.
Ionus
 
  1  
Fri 5 Nov, 2010 06:07 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
By banning tobacco you'd merely transfer some of its medical costs to police, military and criminal and judicial costs
That is why most countries chose to ban it slowly...to phase it out. it seems each generation is producing addicts, though numbers are down on previous users.
Quote:
In what way would it be easier to prevent people from affecting others with tobacco if it were illegal?
For one, passive smoking, especially by children.
Quote:
The costs of prohibiting drugs are not congruent with the idea of society providing a common friendly environment.
I dont see the need to support self destructive behaviour in order to apear friendly.
Quote:
In the US the banning of alcohol turned out to be a disastrous failure.
I am aware of that but it was hardly an effective ban.

I have thought about legalising all drugs and just letting human misery be the limiting factor for the spread and use of drugs. This is very expensive, but with the world poluation exploding, perhaps we should go back to the opium trade days. Isnt that what legalising drugs would do ? Or are we only to legalise the drugs some want and not the drugs others want ? If you register as an addict for a certain drug, then why couldnt the government sell you a clean dose and enable you to live a normal life ? Or die. Either is acceptable.

What is unacceptable is the damage done to society by making drugs illegal, and having people follow the latest drug fashion to be daring. Have yourself declared an addict, have it printed on your licence and buy cheap drugs at the local chemist. Drug induced crime and corruption removed in one hit. But it has to be for all drugs, as people take the latest fashion drugs. Usage of some of the old staple drugs is waning as people discover new trendy ones.

As a sideline, the war on drugs is being won, it is just very expensive and destined to take centuries rather than years.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Fri 5 Nov, 2010 06:11 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
It's possible that Io wants to expand the agencies which try to prevent drugs being available.
I see no reason to expand any agency which still has room for efficiency improvements.
Quote:
They would expand dramatically if tobacco and alcohol were to be outlawed. (Tobacco has been outlawed in some places.)
People want their drug of choice to be legal. As I dont take drugs, I dont care about any of them being illegal or not.

Quote:
Perhaps he works in the industry of drug enforcement or is connected to it.
Or perhaps not.
Quote:
However many "cretans" die if all drugs were legalised we can be sure all the enforcement agencies would die with them.
Good.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 5 Nov, 2010 06:16 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Good.


So you have read On the Beach.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 11:33:39