A ceasefire in the war on drugs

posted at 5:01 pm on January 6, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

It’s a conversation which seem to keep coming up year after year. Has the “war on drugs” been a complete bust? (If you’ll pardon the pun.) After more than forty years it seems like an increasing chorus of voices are calling for a new approach to a problem where we just don’t seem to be making much progress. But now the Wall Street Journal is getting in on the act, asking, “Have we lost the war on drugs?”

President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in 1971. The expectation then was that drug trafficking in the United States could be greatly reduced in a short time through federal policing—and yet the war on drugs continues to this day. The cost has been large in terms of lives, money and the well-being of many Americans, especially the poor and less educated. By most accounts, the gains from the war have been modest at best…

The decriminalization of both drug use and the drug market won’t be attained easily, as there is powerful opposition to each of them. The disastrous effects of the American war on drugs are becoming more apparent, however, not only in the U.S. but beyond its borders. Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon has suggested “market solutions” as one alternative to the problem. Perhaps the combined efforts of leaders in different countries can succeed in making a big enough push toward finally ending this long, enormously destructive policy experiment.

It’s a rather clinical, emotionless analysis if you read the entire thing, but perhaps that’s the best approach if we’re to have a serious discussion about it. The entire concept of drug legalization – or, at a minimum, decriminalization – seems to be a study in mixed emotions for conservatives. And that may explain, at least in part, why there doesn’t seem to be much movement in either direction on this. On the one hand, the normal libertarian, “keep the government out of my business” tendencies of many Republicans seem like they should find the concept of decriminalization appealing. Further, the idea of the individual accepting personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices rather than having the nanny state dictate their actions certainly sounds like a natural fit for conservatives. And finally, the cost to federal and state budgets for fighting this war – well described in the WSJ editorial – looks like an appetizing potential target for cost cutters.

But there are obviously factors which make this a difficult proposal to sell on the starboard side of the aisle, and perhaps the first – and biggest – is purely ideological. For too many conservatives, it seems as if one of the chief arguments against decriminalization is that it’s something that liberals want, and thus it must, by definition, be a bad idea. Further, there’s that whole “pot smoking hippie” thing. The idea of doing anything to make them happier will drive away Republicans in droves, unfortunately.

And are the arguments I laid out above all that salable among 21st century conservatives? Not all Republicans are small “L” libertarian by nature, particularly those who self identify as social or national defense conservatives. And when it comes to personal responsibility, the counter-argument can quickly be made that those who choose to engage in drug abuse never really face those consequences because societal safety nets not only catch them when they fall, but spread the cost of their rescue out among the rest of us. As to the cost savings, well… that one would be pretty hard to argue with, at least in terms of the raw bills for enforcement and incarceration.

Still, it seems to me that this war has been a losing proposition for some time now and has long since passed the point of being unaffordable. If the regular readers of the Wall Street Journal begin absorbing and considering this message, maybe we can find a way to start climbing out of this hole we’ve dug for ourselves. But in the end, I agree with the basic premise… the war on drugs has been a bust.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

$300 to $400 oz for high quality in most states according to
http://www.priceofweed.com/

Don’t smoke it myself but I have heard this $400 oz price for a few years now. I know some Gov agencies use the $20 oz… but that has got to be from the 60s-70s. Pot prices has been like gas prices, up, up ,up in jumps.

If they legalize and allow home growing of the weed the price will drop to $1 lb

RalphyBoy on January 6, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Actually, the price of cannabis, at least on the west coast and in CO has crashed. In CA, I would not expect to pay more than $225 for top quality cannabis, and that only assumes I don’t know somebody.

And more and more, we all know somebody…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 12:26 AM

And without barriers to entry into the marketplace, what exactly do you think is going to happen to supply?

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 12:14 AM

Supply will expand greatly as will demand.

So, why don’t you tell us, how much of the street price of heroin reflects the risk premium of those in the distribution chain?

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 12:18 AM

Cocaine, sold for around £44 a gram, is one of the less profitable drugs, with a profit margin of around 95 per cent.

Virtually all of Pro-zac’s sales gains this year ”go to the pretax earnings line” because the gross profit margin ”will be close to 95 percent,” Mr. Kaye said.

It may well be true that bureaucrats are as skilled as law enforcement in driving up prices.

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 12:28 AM

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 12:28 AM

Supply will expand greatly as will demand.

There are two problems with that assertion. First is that the penalties for production of narcotics are far more severe than for the possession of narcotics, and are applied to entities (drug companies) that risk their very existence by dabbling in illegal activities. Therefore, the elimination of those penalties will have a far greater effect on supply than on demand.

Second, history disagrees with you. With the repeal of the 18th Amendment, the amount of alcohol consumed in the nation approximately doubled. While that is a fair sized increase in demand, given the attendant crash in prices, it indicates a supply shift far larger than the demand shift.

So, why don’t you tell us, how much of the street price of heroin reflects the risk premium of those in the distribution chain?

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 12:18 AM

Cocaine, sold for around £44 a gram, is one of the less profitable drugs, with a profit margin of around 95 per cent.

Ah, but that is not the question I asked. What I asked was what portion of that price is reflected risk premium. Risk premium, in this case, is what the suppliers, at all levels, must be compensated for, over and above normal market price and economic profits, for their perceived risk of arrest/incarceration, and also their risk of having contracts only enforceable by violence.

Well, legalize, and the risk premium drops to zero; that is, it is no riskier for a firm to sell cocaine to someone recreationally, than it is to sell it to them medically (which firms can do now).

So, how much does medical cocaine sell for? Actually, the legal market for cocaine is warped, by a near monopoly granted to one supplier. However, pure cocaine can be purchased in South America for a couple of bucks a gram. Everything else is simply risk premium.

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 12:52 AM

Therefore, the elimination of those penalties will have a far greater effect on supply than on demand.

A great deal of that will depend on just how free the market is. Can you sell any drugs to any individual? No quality control, no age limit? If you start introducing restrictions then you also introduce an exploitable market.

How do you deal with FDA approval?

How do you deal with lawsuits?

These questions and others have to be answered before you can make any claim regarding how cheap the end product is going to be.

Second, history disagrees with you. With the repeal of the 18th Amendment, the amount of alcohol consumed in the nation approximately doubled. While that is a fair sized increase in demand, given the attendant crash in prices, it indicates a supply shift far larger than the demand shift.

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 12:52 AM

According to the late John Kaplan of Stanford University, the number of addicts increased fivefold. James Q. Wilson states that the British Government’s experiment with controlled heroin distribution resulted in, at a minimum, a 30fold increase in the number of addicts in ten years. Great Britain experimented with controlled distribution of heroin between 1959 and 1968. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of heroin addicts doubled every sixteen months and the increase in addicts was accompanied by an increase in criminal activity as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/18/opinion/18iht-edjoe.t.html

From 1981 to 1992 there was a 60 percent increase in crime, most of it property crime.

Myth No. 3: Legalization would help to eliminate black markets and contain organized criminal activity.

Here again, Dutch experience suggests just the opposite. From 1988 to 1993, the number of organized crime groups in the Netherlands jumped from three to 93.

A 1993 survey by the Dutch National Institute for Alcohol and Drugs reported that drug use among male students aged 12 to 18 had increased by more than 250 percent since 1984.

A 30-fold increase is more than doubling. Hong Kong has 30% of the population addicted.

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 1:27 AM

Hong Kong has had 30% of the population addicted.

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 1:27 AM

Correction.

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 2:08 AM

Mimzey is so profoundly dumb…..

libfreeordie on January 7, 2013 at 2:32 AM

Mimzey is so profoundly dumb…..

libfreeordie on January 7, 2013 at 2:32 AM

Coming from a leftist troll that can only be a compliment.

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 2:45 AM

the war on drugs has been a bust.

Stop trying to take my guns and remove half the gun laws, remove the enormous hurdles for prosecution of drunk driving, THEN I will be widely open to drug legalization. NOT until.

TX-96 on January 7, 2013 at 6:11 AM

Let’s see…put Christianity in a box, grab the guns, and legalize drugs. Marx and Lenin would be proud.

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 7:57 AM

I am all for legalizing drugs, if we allow the drug users to crash, burn and fail on their own. But that never seems to be the case. Liberals are always for destructive behaviors if “society” pays to repair all damage done.

Until the users suffer all consequences, interdict with extreme prejudice.

ROCnPhilly on January 7, 2013 at 8:01 AM

Once again, the Constitutional argument is not presented.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Let’s see…put Christianity in a box, grab the guns, and legalize drugs. Marx and Lenin would be proud.

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 7:57 AM

If your religion is so weak and ineffective it can be put in a box, then you have the problem, not society.

How many swords did Jesus own?
How many guns would he own?

When are you going to apologize for calling Hillary Clinton a liar? Isn’t there something in your religion about not bearing false witness?

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 8:53 AM

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 1:27 AM

A great deal of that will depend on just how free the market is. Can you sell any drugs to any individual? No quality control, no age limit? If you start introducing restrictions then you also introduce an exploitable market.

No. It really doesn’t. All such restrictions will do is affect supply at the margins, keeping firms with the weakest competitive model out of the market. Or are you prepared to argue that restrictions on manufacture of whiskey and tobacco keep many potential suppliers out of the marketplace?

How do you deal with FDA approval?

How does the liquor industry deal with FDA approval?

How do you deal with lawsuits?

Yeah. I forgot that Jack Daniels, InBev and RJR were all frightened out the business because they couldn’t hire enough lawyers.

Oh, wait…

James Q. Wilson states that the British Government’s experiment with controlled heroin distribution resulted in, at a minimum, a 30fold increase in the number of addicts in ten years. Great Britain experimented with controlled distribution of heroin between 1959 and 1968. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of heroin addicts doubled every sixteen months and the increase in addicts was accompanied by an increase in criminal activity as well.

While I have a great deal of respect for the late Dr Wilson, he was wrong, and shamefully so.

First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980

Just about in line with our experience post-prohibition. And from a peer-reviewed journal, to boot.

Second, your point fails to compare the British experience to other nations’ experience during the same time frame, when heroin addiction was exploding. How does their increase in heroin use compare to that of the US during the same time frame, when the US wasn’t distributing legal heroin? Something tells me the US saw similar rates of increase in heroin use.

From 1981 to 1992 there was a 60 percent increase in crime, most of it property crime.

When they phased out legal heroin distribution. Imagine that.

Myth No. 3: Legalization would help to eliminate black markets and contain organized criminal activity.

Here again, Dutch experience suggests just the opposite. From 1988 to 1993, the number of organized crime groups in the Netherlands jumped from three to 93.

You might want to try reading your own sources next time.

The Dutch have not technically legalized drugs

So, it would appear that you and Joe Califano, a drug warrior that helped promise a drug-free America by 1999, BTW, are full of shiite.

Imagine that.

A 1993 survey by the Dutch National Institute for Alcohol and Drugs reported that drug use among male students aged 12 to 18 had increased by more than 250 percent since 1984.

“The figures for cannabis use among the general population reveal the same pictures. The Netherlands does not differ greatly from other European countries. In contrast, a comparison with the US shows a striking difference in this area: 32.9% of Americans aged 12 and above have experience with cannabis and 5.1% have used in the past month. These figures are twice as high as those in the Netherlands.”

Source: Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report September 1997-September 1999, (The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), pp. 7-8.

So, once again Califano is full of shiite. And like a good little Democratic drone, you took the word of a Democratic player for gospel.

You must be so proud…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 9:04 AM

John Galt is wrong.

A number of you have noted it.

I was going to make hay of his argument, but most of you beat me to it.

What stops the cartels, WHO CONTROL THE SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION chains, and who like huge profits from keeping the cost up? Now they’ll have the opportunity to keep those profits (remember people are already conditioned to pay “x” for the drugs) without the inherent risk and maybe a lowered transportation cost (depending on taxes, regulations and other government enforced costs- think gas at the pump price). Do you think if they are now legit businessmen they’ll somehow feel compassionate towards the crack addict and lower costs?

Of course paying a “mule” to transport the cocaine, or a submarine or a plane, will be replaced with all the costs associated with normal transport BUT with the addition of tobacco level punitive taxing. Don’t we all remember the big Tobacco lawsuits? Billions of dollars. A cigarette costs more than a joint damn near! What stops government and lawyers from doing that to the dopers? Isn’t meth and crack far more deadly than cigarettes? How many people get their head caved in by a hammer over cigarette money? (A real case I worked where a grandson embedded a claw hammer into his grandmother’s skull because she wouldn’t give him ten dollars for a crack rock.)

As far as competition. Like I said before, if you think people who settle disputes by beheading dozens of people, including police and mayors, will stop and change their ways because we in America want legal crack/weed/heroin/meth/etc. then WE are the crack smokers!

Further, and I didn’t get into this last night, having the ability to use drug possession as an arrest tool has saved a lot of victims. How? Because dope causes crime and dopers are usually criminals of some type. It is the yin and yang of the doper personality.

When on the street I interacted with thieves, robbers and burglars all the time. I knew what they did for a living on a daily basis. They knew I knew. Catching them actually breaking into your home and stealing your stuff so they could sell it or pawn it for dope money was hard. I did an informal study once and realized even with our best efforts we were catching a burglar once out of fifty crimes he committed.

However, sneaking up on him and catching him with the crack he bought with the money he got by pawning your guns/jewelry/tv is easier to do. What happens then is he sits in jail for a little while, he loads up on his arrests record so someday I’ll actually get him in prison for a little bit. (Burglaries of homes in Florida will get you prison time ONLY after about six offenses. Usually it is probation-probation-probation.) But every day he sits I save a victim. An active felon (and this was from a study by the FBI years ago) commits 180 felonies a year. One every other day. I’ll argue if he is out, he’s committing some kind of crime every day. That is his job! You go to work and fix pipes if you are a plumber, he steals your stuff while you are gone.

Dope is bad. It can kill you and possibly people around you. It most definitely weakens the society as a whole. Takes productive people and makes them non-productive or less productive. Ever hang with a weed-head or some other type of addict? I did for a generation. I watched young kids who were bright become dulled and disinterested in life for the rest of their lives. I watched them get sick. I watched some of them die and I’ve watched them kill others. I’ve watched them destroy their own families and all of their friendships. I watched some, including one young beautiful sixteen year old go from being bright and full of love to dropping to her knees in front of men for a ten dollar rock by the time she was nineteen. And a married mother of two, blonde and outgoing, who decided to try powdered cocaine at a party and in four months ended up a prostitute strung out on crack, stealing from her husband and sister, writing bad checks and being pimped out by a black man. I had that husband and father bring to me a photo of her so I knew what she looked like. He brought a family photo of four people- two parents and two young boys about ten and twelve- smiling, happy, content. He was crying like a baby, unable to speak to me without breaking down. He said they tried it for fun, what could be wrong with that? It didn’t hook him, it destroyed her. (for you libertarians who can’t count that is 1 out of 2. Fifty percent) He said the hardest thing was trying to explain to his kids where there mother went.

That picture had been taken six months earlier…six months.

So don’t have intelligent discussions about possible outcomes and how it would make things better. It bores me.

You want to smoke weed,I get that. But how do you control it? We live in a “your rights end at my nose” closed in society. Heck, if you wanted to grow weed, smoke it and lived on a mountaintop I’d say go for it! As long as when you came off the mountain for supplies- potato chips for the munchies and light bulbs for your grow- you were sober and had your own money. If you drive down stoned and kill my kid walking across the street I’m shooting you dead. No questions, no “it’s only weed maaaannn!”, no lawyers, no feel good counselors, just me, you and my .45 sending you to meet your maker.

That is what a real war on drugs would look like.

archer52 on January 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Stop trying to take my guns and remove half the gun laws, remove the enormous hurdles for prosecution of drunk driving, THEN I will be widely open to drug legalization. NOT until.

TX-96 on January 7, 2013 at 6:11 AM

Whioch enormous hurdles are those? The 4th amendment? The 5th Amendment? The 6th Amendment?

Please, be specific, that we might know the depths of your Constitutional disregard…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM

archer52 on January 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM

What stops the cartels, WHO CONTROL THE SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION chains, and who like huge profits from keeping the cost up?

Economic illiteracy, worthy of the American Left.

Who stops the cartels from keeping the price up? Who stops Jack Daniels from keeping the price up?

Answer: The Market.

Something I shouldn;t have to explain to “conservatives”, and yet someghow I do. As if their respect for a free market is all just an act.

Now they’ll have the opportunity to keep those profits (remember people are already conditioned to pay “x” for the drugs) without the inherent risk and maybe a lowered transportation cost (depending on taxes, regulations and other government enforced costs- think gas at the pump price). Do you think if they are now legit businessmen they’ll somehow feel compassionate towards the crack addict and lower costs?

Explain to me why Merck and InBev will not try to freeze them out of the market with lower prices. Or why La Eme has a competitive advantage in a free market for drugs over Merck and InBev.

Until you can do that, you are demonstrating your ignorance of markets in a rather embarrassing way.

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 9:11 AM

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Touched a nerve, did I?

Vince Foster remains unavailable for comment.

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 9:11 AM

The U.S. has given up on the ‘War on ILLEGAL Drugs’ in exchange for waging a ‘war’ on LEGAL GUN OWNERS!

The list of newly proposed gun legislation is massive & oppressive.

FLASHBACK: Candidate Obama declared his defense of gun rights & gun ownership….NOW they are going after LEGAL gun owners!

506 gun deaths occurred last year in Chicago alone….and Rahm Emmanuel is attempting to tell US, the legal citizens, that WE are the danger & OUR guns must be confiscated, & US who are fingerprinted & a national database be started containing every name of every legal gun owner in America!

More people die every year from violence committed with BARE HANDS…with BLUNT OBJECTS…and with KNIVES…yet these politicians are not interested in dealing with those murders….or the CULTURE of violence they promote & from which they benefit! They are uninterested in dealing with mental illness…they just want to strip the right to bear arms from law-abiding citizens!

HEADLINE THIS MORNING: “MOM SHOOTS HOME INTRUDER, PROTECTS KIDS”…Only one of these 2 individuals ILLEGALLY owned & used a gun – guess which one it was! I’ll give you a hint — It is the DEAD one!

easyt65 on January 7, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Let’s see…put Christianity in a box, grab the guns, and legalize drugs. Marx and Lenin would be proud.

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 7:57 AM

Oh, please.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:13 AM

remember people are already conditioned to pay “x” for the drugs

archer52 on January 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM

And when I think one can’t write anything dumber, you manage this little nugget.

Ten years ago, people were “conditioned” to pay $2000 for a laptop computer. Somehow, Dell didn’t manage to keep that little bit of “conditioning” going.

But we all know that La Eme is smarter than the Dell Corp…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 9:14 AM

You want to smoke weed,I get that. But how do you control it?

archer52 on January 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM

You don’t. It’s called freedom. The market “controls” it.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:16 AM

The GOP needs to lead on this issue- with a Federalist message.

Let the states decide state drug policy, let Feds decide drug policy on federal property and international borders. They can help with inter-state transfer of drug issues if there is trafficking across state line, and then is should only be related to the interstate trafficking investigation and the results should be returned to the state that asked for help for prosecution.

And not all potheads are liberal. You would be surprised how many folks toke up and listen to Rush Limbaugh without feeling like a hypocrite.

Spartacus on January 7, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Until you can do that, you are demonstrating your ignorance of markets in a rather embarrassing way.

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 9:11 AM

All the prohibitionists are ignorant of markets. It is just insane how stupid they are about markets and incentives.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM

For too many conservatives, it seems as if one of the chief arguments against decriminalization is that it’s something that liberals want, and thus it must, by definition, be a bad idea. Further, there’s that whole “pot smoking hippie” thing. The idea of doing anything to make them happier will drive away Republicans in droves, unfortunately.

I think you are confusing moralists for conservatives.

mazer9 on January 7, 2013 at 9:43 AM

All the prohibitionists are ignorant of markets. It is just insane how stupid they are about markets and incentives.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Not insane, if one is a member of the American Left. Their disdain/ignorance of markets is part of their raison d’etre.

But for American conservatives? Shameful…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM

And not all potheads are liberal. You would be surprised how many folks toke up and listen to Rush Limbaugh without feeling like a hypocrite.

Spartacus on January 7, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Why should I? If I’m responsible enough not to drink myself to death or eat myself to death, what makes pot so much more harmful that it needs to be criminalized? Seems rather arbitrary and big-brotherish to me. But they know best right?

mazer9 on January 7, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Let’s see…put Christianity in a box, grab the guns, and legalize drugs. Marx and Lenin would be proud.

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 7:57 AM

Perhaps, as a scholar of Marx and Lenin, you could point out to us where they wrote in favor of drug use and legalization.

Thanks…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 9:47 AM

But for American conservatives? Shameful…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Well, at least we agree on a few things.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Let’s see…put Christianity in a box, grab the guns, and legalize drugs. Marx and Lenin would be proud.

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 7:57 AM

The bible is one of the most violent books in existence and you have to be on drugs to believe any of it.

mazer9 on January 7, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Touched a nerve, did I?

Vince Foster remains unavailable for comment.

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Ducked my quesions, didn’t you?
Hmmm. The armor of your faith seems a little porous today.

I can’t even summon the energy to laugh at you for invoking Vince Foster. Even by the standards of Christianity, you are a hyptocrite of the worst sort.

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 9:58 AM

The Drug War is a bust. Too many people in jail for crimes where no harm is done to other people.

But if certain drugs become free from criminalization, then submission to testing when use is suspected must be mandatory when performing some task where others can be harmed.

Meanwhile, industrial hemp production in the United States (illegal since the late 1930s) should be made legal again. Hemp is illegal to produce in the United States because of its distant relation to THC-laden cannabis sativa. Hemp will not get you high, but because it looks like a plant that will, its management and oversight has been handed off to the bureaucratic dunce cap known as the Drug Enforcement Administration. This is stupid to a mind blowing degree because hemp is not a drug and has no narcotic value whatsoever. And cross-pollination ruins the THC content of cannabis hidden amongst hemp. It was made illegal to protect William Randolph Hearst’s significant investment in timberland used for paper products. Hemp produces much more wood fibre per acre than trees, produces better paper, and is made with fewer obnoxious chemicals.

Falcon46 on January 7, 2013 at 9:58 AM

You don’t. It’s called freedom. The market “controls” it.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Nonsense.
Alcohol, tobacco and countless other drugs are subject to regulation and control.
Freedom is never absolute.

The “market” is not some magic force that defies constraint.

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Alcohol, tobacco and countless other drugs are subject to regulation and control.
Freedom is never absolute.

The “market” is not some magic force that defies constraint.

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Wow, our resident liberaltarian idiot pwned by a known liberal trolltard. That’s pretty brutal.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Wow, our resident liberaltarian idiot pwned by a known liberal trolltard. That’s pretty brutal.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 10:06 AM

When you’re finished doing play-by-play, perhaps you’ll offer a useful comment?

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:09 AM

When you’re finished doing play-by-play, perhaps you’ll offer a useful comment?

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:09 AM

When you’re finished kicking around the Galtian fruitloop, perhaps you’ll actually do something challenging for a change?

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 10:11 AM

How many swords did Jesus own?
How many guns would he own?

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 8:53 AM

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

Luke 22:36-38

And just for you…

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. –Proverbs 1:7

dominigan on January 7, 2013 at 10:13 AM

LEGALIZE ALL OF IT ANY OF IT

Hollywood glamorization and the MONEY the money of the “game” makes drugs cool and alluring to the youth. Those youth don’t find the truth of the drug culture until they are years in and addicts themselves.

You take that away and in a generation or two as the image of the drug culture shifts to addicts and addict whores the allure will die and the shame will return. Take the money out of the game and the game will die. You will never get the commie liberal Hollywood to change their propaganda image of drugs as the gateway to money/women the game, so the only answer is legalization. Not to mention all the new “revenue” that can be generated with “sin taxes” like we have on cigs/alcohol.

It will get worse at first as you work through the current generations that are already propagandized by Hollywood but the ones that followed would see a drastic continuous decrease as the real and true image of drugs become apparent and without the ability to cloud with fleeting images or money/women.

C-Low on January 7, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Nonsense.
Alcohol, tobacco and countless other drugs are subject to regulation and control.
Freedom is never absolute.

The “market” is not some magic force that defies constraint.

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Pure ignorance. Absolutely pure ignorance. Of course they’re subject to regulation and control because governement says so. Controls and regulations were placed upon the market by government, not the market placing it upon itself.

And yes, freedom is absolute.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:18 AM

The bible is one of the most violent books in existence and you have to be on drugs to believe any of it.

mazer9 on January 7, 2013 at 9:49 AM

You are correct that the Bible is violent, after all, it chronicles the human condition based in sin.

And as far as believing it… the Bible continues to be proven correct again and again through archaeological evidence. I suggest you pick up a copy of “Evidence that Demands a Verdict“, by Josh McDowell. He was a lawyer, who liked you disbelieved the Bible, and set out to prove it false… he ended up converting over the wealth of evidence proving it true.

dominigan on January 7, 2013 at 10:18 AM

And yes, freedom is absolute.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Only in the mind of someone who is mentally frozen at five years old. The rest of us know far better.

Go move to a desert island somewhere and quit bothering the folks trying to run a civilized society, which you have no idea how to start, run, or even live in.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM

And as far as believing it… the Bible continues to be proven correct again and again through archaeological evidence. I suggest you pick up a copy of “Evidence that Demands a Verdict“, by Josh McDowell. He was a lawyer, who liked you disbelieved the Bible, and set out to prove it false… he ended up converting over the wealth of evidence proving it true.

dominigan on January 7, 2013 at 10:18 AM

The archaeological record has never proven biblical stories to be correct.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:22 AM

The “market” is not some magic force that defies constraint.

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Well, to the American Left (and unfortunately large numbers on the American Right), it seems like magic. It is not.

But that constraining it is exceedingly difficult, adds to the myth that it is magic. Because if markets (and drug markets in this particular case) are so easily subject to constraint, it must be impossible to get drugs in an American prison.

Oh. Wait…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 10:22 AM

We need to legalize drugs. This war on drugs has cost us our liberty by allowing the government to snoop on us, harrass us and then finally confiscate our property because of a anything goes to get the evil drugs. Not only that but it has corrupted our police forces…if you don’t believe it has then you are simply naive. The amount of drugs coming into this country is astounding…it is going RIGHT past our police force…do you think that is an accident?

PierreLegrand on January 7, 2013 at 10:23 AM

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

Luke 22:36-38

Thanks for the information. I should have been able to figure out that Jesus was packing when he admitted that he didn’t come to bring peace, but to bring a sword to set family members against each other.

And just for you…

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. –Proverbs 1:7

dominigan on January 7, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Backatcha:
“There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.”

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:23 AM

states rights.
let the voters burn themselves out if they want.
and no disability for drug users.

dmacleo on January 7, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Only in the mind of someone who is mentally frozen at five years old. The rest of us know far better.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Freedom is absolute. The moment you place imposed constraints by others, freedom ceases to exist. It’s like pregnancy; you either are, or you’re not. There is no “just a little pregnant” or “a lot pregnant.” Either there is freedom, or there isn’t. That we live in a “relatively” free society does not mean we live in a free society.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Well, to the American Left (and unfortunately large numbers on the American Right), it seems like magic. It is not.

But that constraining it is exceedingly difficult, adds to the myth that it is magic. Because if markets (and drug markets in this particular case) are so easily subject to constraint, it must be impossible to get drugs in an American prison.

Oh. Wait…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Nobody said anything about “easily”.

Regulations and laws are imperfect for sure, but that doesn’t mean we dispense with them and let the “markets” run wild.

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Regulations and laws are imperfect for sure, but that doesn’t mean we dispense with them and let the “markets” run wild.

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Markets don’t run wild. That’s your ignorance talking again. The free market is nothing more than this: the voluntary exchange of property/property rights absent force or fraud. Inherently, both parties benefit in the exchange.

Yes, we should dispense with regulations. Regulations hurt the consumer, driving up prices, denying competition and innovation.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Regulations and laws are imperfect for sure, but that doesn’t mean we dispense with them and let the “markets” run wild.

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM

When the “regulation” leads to very predictable black markets and the very predictable attending consequences, then at very least you have to examine those regulations with an eye towards costs and benefits.

And when doing so, the question then becomes who has the authority to regulate these substances. I can’t find the clause in the US Constitution giving that authority to the USG. Which tells me that the states are the entities that properly hold that authority.

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Yes, we should dispense with regulations. Regulations hurt the consumer, driving up prices, denying competition and innovation.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Proper regulations would occur based on appropriate liability claims.

Companies would self regulate based on their exposure to risk in court settlements against them. This allows them to find the most efficient method to regulate the quality of their product.

But you do not believe in government, so there would be no court and police to uphold these liability claims…

You certainly seem to get it in some places, and then when you get past those, your final solution makes the point moot.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 10:40 AM

*snip* …the voluntary exchange of property/property rights absent force or fraud. Inherently, both parties benefit in the exchange.

Yes, we should dispense with regulations. Regulations hurt the consumer, driving up prices, denying competition and innovation.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Yeah, because people never resort to force or fraud in what starts as a voluntary exchange of goods or services.

But in case they want to, Dante, what method would you use to dissuade them if not through rules and regulations backed up by penalties?

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Prove it.

In any case – hardly supports keeping MJ illegal when alcohol is perfectly legal.

HondaV65 on January 6, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Speaking from long-ago experience, pot can play havoc with one’s sense of the passage of time – making it fluctuate.

Put on some good tunes in the car, have a friend along to distract, and accurately timing yellow lights can become quite a difficult task.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to add legal pot to texting drivers… not good at all.

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM

OK, here’s a poll for y’all.

Please choose one of the following to make completely legal:
——————–

1. Texting/Facebooking/iPhoning and driving

2. Smoking pot and driving

——————

Option 1 or Option 2 – which do you choose?

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Proper regulations would occur based on appropriate liability claims.

Companies would self regulate based on their exposure to risk in court settlements against them. This allows them to find the most efficient method to regulate the quality of their product.

But you do not believe in government, so there would be no court and police to uphold these liability claims…

You certainly seem to get it in some places, and then when you get past those, your final solution makes the point moot.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 10:40 AM

You think courts and police/security can only exist when government exists? or that they can only be instruments of government?

No.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM

When the “regulation” leads to very predictable black markets and the very predictable attending consequences, then at very least you have to examine those regulations with an eye towards costs and benefits.

And when doing so, the question then becomes who has the authority to regulate these substances. I can’t find the clause in the US Constitution giving that authority to the USG. Which tells me that the states are the entities that properly hold that authority.

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Hey JohnGalt23, we’re talking about doing away with the very “war on drugs” that caused the black market in the first place. However, within a legalization framework there is still room for reasonable common sense regulations just as we have for alcohol, etc.

I didn’t even propose which entity is responsible for creating the regulations, simply that some would be appropriate. Perhaps your position has merit. It’s not what I was talking about, though.

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Legalization would cut over half the court cost in the US. And the legal fees for the states have to cover for all three sides usually public defender, judge, prosecutor, and then all their staff support ect… and we still are not into the amount of police cost. The layers of federal police dedicated to drug enforcement hell the state and local police drug enforcement sections dwarf the rest of the detective departments combined. Not to mention SWAT would pretty much be eliminated with no dangerous drug houses to raid.

We are talking billions upon billions of legal and police infrastructure that could be eliminated or redirected back to were it should be CRIME against the producers not crimes that are in reality against the person committing it. Drug are a very self destructive path.

You cannot stop what people want only increase the value of it by limiting its supply. Let it free flow legally via Walgreen and the demand will collapse as the game collapses without the money, resulting in the collapse of the allure and “coolness” Hollywood has propagandized drug association into today. When the only association picture of drugs is the addict the demand will collapse. As long as the association picture of drugs is gangsters with rolls of money and ho’s on each arm the allure will grow.

C-Low on January 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Yeah, because people never resort to force or fraud in what starts as a voluntary exchange of goods or services.

But in case they want to, Dante, what method would you use to dissuade them if not through rules and regulations backed up by penalties?

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I gave you the definition of the free market. I didn’t say that force or fraud don’t exist. That doesn’t mean regulations should be placed on the market. If someone is a victim, then they file suit and seek recompense, just as they do today.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Option 1 or Option 2 – which do you choose?

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM

I could care less. The penalty for driving while doing either should be nothing. The penalty for screwing up while driving should be SEVERE.

I do not believe in speed limits, neither do almost all drivers. Evidenced by the fact that if I drive the speed limit, almost all other drivers are angry around me.

I do believe in speed recommendations, and that when people cause accidents, they should be severely reprimanded.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I see you didn’t address the fact that regulations hurt the consumer, restrict competition and innovation, and drive up prices.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM

I gave you the definition of the free market. I didn’t say that force or fraud don’t exist. That doesn’t mean regulations should be placed on the market. If someone is a victim, then they file suit and seek recompense, just as they do today.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Companies have larger war chests for fighting lawsuits.
You do not believe in government, so who would they bring the suit to for arbitration and enforcement?

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM

That’s just stupid.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Companies have larger war chests for fighting lawsuits.
You do not believe in government, so who would they bring the suit to for arbitration and enforcement?

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

So they have “war chests”. Your point?

They would bring a suit to court, just as they do today. I don’t know why you think courts and arbiters wouldn’t exist without government. Well, maybe because you identify your hobby with your handle.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM

You think courts and police/security can only exist when government exists? or that they can only be instruments of government?

No.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Actually yes. They are a form of government on their own. In order to be effective all persons must be under their domain.

Also, for them to be neutral and thus reliably unbiased in their judgements, they cannot be provided by small groups of people, but supported from all.

Thus, for them to function properly they do in fact come from the whole of a society.

In the end, they are government.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Actually yes. They are a form of government on their own. In order to be effective all persons must be under their domain.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Actually, no.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM

I see you didn’t address the fact that regulations hurt the consumer, restrict competition and innovation, and drive up prices.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM

I don’t believe they invariably do so. But as I said, no regulations are perfect, and if particular regulations do provide protection to consumers and businesses, then it is reasonable to enact them.

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM

They have the power to have more lawyers and the ability to make it cost prohibitive to bring suit against them. If it costs me $10,000 to bring suit against a company to prevail and win the $20.00 they screwed me out of, how exactly does that make self regulation happen? Particularly when a large company can also be the owner of the arbiter, because someone has to provide that arbitration…

They can exist, they just will not be very effective.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I’m for legalization. There would be a minor Darwinian cost up front and then things would settle down.

I think the most vociferous opponents of legalization are people that have never tried – pot, at least – and believe the DOOOOM propaganda and “gateway drug from hell” nonsense that comes out all the time. I grew up in the 80s, and I have a hard time thinking of any of my high school classmates that didn’t try or use pot. If pot was the drug its touted to be then most of my high school friends would be dead or in jail or on welfare living in an alley somewhere – which isn’t the case. Most of them have high paying jobs, many of which are related to the defense industry.

The War on Drugs has been a failure though. Now as when I was a teen, almost any kid can find any type of drug at the high school. That’s not success. Not even moderately close – and how many civil liberties are routinely violated and people killed because the authorities show up at the wrong house in a late night raid (not to mention the $billions spent)? One story that sticks out in my mind is about a charter pilot who picked up a passenger in Mexico using his own plane. Turns out the authorities were tracking the passenger, a narco trafficer. And seized the pilot’s plane, even though he was entirely uninvolved (the pilot was not charged with anything). After $500,000 of legal bills trying to get his plane back, he finally got it back at an auction for $10,000. How is that fair, legal, moral or even constitutional?

Legalize it, tax it, regulate it. Use some of the money for rehab centers.

John_G on January 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Actually, no.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Actually, YES.

you get more retarded by the week it seems.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM

That’s just stupid.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Huh?

Your response isn’t too swift, either.

Elucidate or put a sock in it!

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

They have the power to have more lawyers and the ability to make it cost prohibitive to bring suit against them. If it costs me $10,000 to bring suit against a company to prevail and win the $20.00 they screwed me out of, how exactly does that make self regulation happen? Particularly when a large company can also be the owner of the arbiter, because someone has to provide that arbitration…

They can exist, they just will not be very effective.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Where did you think I was making this as an argument for self-regulation? I wasn’t. I said that if force or fraud took place in an exchange, then the victim could file suit and seek recompense. This is a fact, regardless of any cost/benefit analysis.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Elucidate or put a sock in it!

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Ok.

Your post and thought behind it was stupid.

Better?

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Ok.

Your post and thought behind it was stupid.

Better?

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

It went so far above your head that it didn’t even leave a visible Chemtrail, my friend.

WhIch do you think is more dangerous – 1. Facebooking & driving, or 2. bonging and driving?

Or did you call it stupid because you like to do both?

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Jazz Shaw’s analyses of gun rights issue were so spotty and ungrounded that I have to wonder if he/she/it is doing any better in this subject field. Not being a Libertarian-Doper – or a regular user / abuser of alcohol, for that matter – I haven’t paid close attention to the matter. Except to note our Federal govt can’t do ANYTHING well and when I see / read about DEA agents burning fields and huts in Afghanistan I KNOW something has gone majorly out of control.
That said, to hell with you pot legalization fanatics. Bunch of retards, turning other young minds into mush. The phony pot Rx game here in L.A. Has turned the kids of neighbors and acquaintances into complete drug-addled morons. Their still-developing brains were already saddled with the idiocy of the L.A. School system. They could I’ll afford the damages of drugs. Very soon some pundit will be calling them the lost generation. They are completely worthless.
So the situation is screwed up in every respect. Anybody suggesting giving up or that legalization will make the problem go awat is just an idiot. The problems need a lot more analysis and complex solutions. Especially being tied up with the massive cultural rot and Balkanization we are already undergoing.

For f’s sake, Holland’s even got wise and started banning sales to non citizens. Why must American socialists – Liberal-tarians – insist on our repeating Europe’s failed policies, in trail?

rayra on January 7, 2013 at 11:38 AM

The panicked, sloppy reasoning of the statists has reached a new low:

“we can’t legalize drugs because someone, somewhere, at some point, might get in a car under their influence, and might possibly in some situation hit or injure someone else.”

Guess what? Traffic law already punishes a driver for violating the rules of the road and causing damage/harm. If I’m rear-ended at a traffic light, I frankly don’t care if the poor driver hit me because they were stoned, tired, distracted, took Nyquil, or hated my bumper stickers– they are still at fault. End of story.

This really is like the leftists’ frenzy to ban guns because an irresponsible/insane/ignorant gun owner might go on a rampage, leave his loaded gun out for his kids to find, or accidentally discharge it into his neighbor’s house.

It’s just disappointing that in the case of drug legalization, it’s “conservatives” who are the ones bending over backwards to justify imprisoning their fellow citizens for a harmless personal decision.

bocat on January 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Where did you think I was making this as an argument for self-regulation? I wasn’t. I said that if force or fraud took place in an exchange, then the victim could file suit and seek recompense. This is a fact, regardless of any cost/benefit analysis.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Actually you did make it an argument of self regulation. Remember that with freedom comes personal responsibility. That my friend is self regulation.

You certainly seem to be massively ignorant of your own side of the argument.

Just so everyone knows. Indian tribes, where they had cheifs and several other levels of hierarchy were government free according to Dante.
Some mountain mining town that was so negligible in value and thus lost to the world for hundred years or so where you had to follow certain rules or be thrown out for life was also a supposedly government free enterprise.
Also note that the “wild” west which was immeasurably civilized was so because there was no government, just the people in the areas emulating every aspect of a government.

Dante imagines a world free from government, but with all the accoutrements of government present.

Can someone at least name one long lived non government controlled prospering society so that Dante can have that to fall back on… Someone help the guy out!

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM

The black market for drugs started in the early 19th century with various States outlawing the use of different drugs (opium was a big one, but some coca products and cannabis also are included in these). What non-prescription medicines there were fell under the old poison laws and labeling laws, and this got unified into the food and drug purity acts which had sellers have to put the actual ingredients of products on the products themselves.

To get to the federal level requires the Harrison Stamp Act, the implementation of the opium treaties, and then the Marijuana Stamp Act…controlled substances as we know them are a relatively modern invention and their use was put under regulatory authority and that strictly regulated amounts and proportions. That changed into the controlled substances regime and put even the tiny amounts of things like codeine available OTC out of bounds to the consumer. Throughout it all governments (local, State and federal) have spent huge amounts on PSA, put in bureaucratic controls that up the cost of medical care while restricting or banning the use of some of the most powerful substances (even to those who are terminal patients and in extreme pain).

At each point, with every regulation, with every piece of overhead and with more and more jail space dedicated to these newly minted crimes, the black market has grown. Running alcohol is one thing, and super-charged the old Mafias, but when the profit per ounce goes up with these new substances, you get far harsher characters and systems from societies with fewer social controls or that are unable to control their criminal elements. If you want a black market for something: ban it or make it so costly to get due to the overhead added to it that smuggling of legal goods to avoid controls means a decent profit for the smuggler.

In the modern day there is a tight interconnection between international terrorist organization (al Qaeda, Hezbollah, HAMAS all come to mind) and the new criminal syndicates/mobs/gangs/cartels (from Russia to Mexico to the TBA of South America to Central America to China to Somalia to Albania) that now inter-cooperate in ways that make them more lethal and ruthless over time.

Decriminalizing drugs at the federal level will do zero to stop this. There is a lucrative trade in diamonds, emeralds, gold, and human beings that offer other venues for relatively high profit and illegal sales and as all Nations will not uniformly change laws there will always be market opportunities to exploit globally. In our over-regulated society we also have an over-litigious up-bringing and as they both increase the cost of doing business, perhaps it is time to put individuals on the hook for the behavior, remove the regulations and let simple publication of what these things do and what proportions they are used so that individuals will have means to judge and evaluate what they ingest. The drug laws have proven incapable at stopping addiction, at stopping the expansion of minor crimes to feed drug habits, and at removing the high profit materials from criminal organizations. Apparently government isn’t the answer to this problem… although federalism might offer the experimentation labs that would allow the Nation to see what does work and what doesn’t on the smaller and more local scale so we don’t place grand bets at the federal scale on untried and unproven systems that are meant to alter the way people live their lives.

What we got sure isn’t working and the problem is trying to address this part of human nature and human liberty through the venue of government. There is a role for government to play, yes. Just that this role puts too much power into governments, puts in the requirements for ever larger policing on a national and international scale, and encroaches on our other liberties to try and deal with this problem that is associated with people and human nature. We can see the cost in lives, liberty, freedom and in increasing jail populations multifold over decades, far beyond population growth. If we are tasked to make a more perfect Union, then perhaps it is time to admit that what we have with this just isn’t working out like it was expected to… unless your goal is to put more policing power and authority in government to encroach further into the lives of individuals, that is… then it is working just fine.

ajacksonian on January 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Actually, the price of cannabis, at least on the west coast and in CO has crashed. In CA, I would not expect to pay more than $225 for top quality cannabis, and that only assumes I don’t know somebody.

And more and more, we all know somebody…

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 12:26 AM

-
The link provides info that agrees with you, on the west coast and in Canada prices are lower (below $300 oz).

Could be the loose borders, larger open spaces to grow in, or some other regional situation showing it’s affects.

Legalize it, tax it, regulate it. Use some of the money for rehab centers.

John_G on January 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM

One thing I have always believed to be part of the governments around the world having a problem with legalizing pot is that it is very hard to tax. It’s a damn weed… How do they tax it if it’s legal to grow in the back yard?

Even if they try to keep it illegal to own unless taxes have been paid on it… by the bag/joint/oz… that’d be a hard line to walk considering.

Of course not everyone will want to grow their own, but plenty of people will be growing more then they can use on their own. Seed swapping, marijuana clubs, the window box… even the backyard compost pile.

No commerce, no taxes, and no control. Governments hate that.

Compared to making one’s own beer or wine this stuff OMG easy to home brew.

And I still believe they missed the boat on the whole drug war back in the 60s-70s when they should have legalized pot.

RalphyBoy on January 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

It’s possible conservatives will not like the idea of decriminalizing drugs, but I don’t think it’s because “liberals like the idea.” Most of it comes from a lack of information about drug use. We’ve spent the last forty years hearing how smoking pot leads to snorting cocaine, which leads to heroine. It’s a vicious cycle. But in reality, most pot smokers never smoke anything but pot. And like prostitution, were we to legalize it and remove the overtly criminal aspects of the industry, and tax the living crap out of it, we’d put market controls on it rather than legal ones. Suddenly the cartels would be farmers bring their product to market and we could tax THEM too. We’d turn what is currently a multi-billion dollar organized crime network into something that resembled a real business – that worked on legal principles.

As a conservative and former law enforcement officer, I know the statistics. The truth is that the “war on drugs” actually makes things worse. It might be morally repugnant, but education and general common sense will keep the general liberal masses from over indulgence, and we’ll get to laugh when news reports surface of the parasite class attempting to buy pot with their food stamps. Who knows? Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll all be too stoned to vote in the next election!

eyesights on January 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Then how about we legalize presecription painkillers? I’ve been in a few situations where I really needed them and they were really hard to get because the young kids illegally abusing them were forcing restrictions.

Remove restrictions and it won’t be illegal, and we can all pop Oxy and smoke weed and text and drive and all will be well with the world.

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM

I cannot understand why ANYBODY and EVERYBODY caught either using or selling drugs are not arrested, charged, and convicted of accessory to murder. Anybody that uses or distributes drugs enable the drug cartels, not only in Mexico but in all of central and south America, and extending all over the world. Therefore, distributing and purchasing their products should be an accessory crime to murder, extortion and all the other crimes that drug cartels engage in.

boogieboy on January 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I demand the right to buy a six-pack, a joint and some Oxy at my corner gas station so that I can be in a better mood when I text and drive.

Let the market sort it out. If I hit someone then it will be my fault. As long as my insurance company pays then the market is functioning as intended.

/

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Just so everyone knows. Indian tribes, where they had cheifs and several other levels of hierarchy were government free according to Dante.
Some mountain mining town that was so negligible in value and thus lost to the world for hundred years or so where you had to follow certain rules or be thrown out for life was also a supposedly government free enterprise.
Also note that the “wild” west which was immeasurably civilized was so because there was no government, just the people in the areas emulating every aspect of a government.

Dante imagines a world free from government, but with all the accoutrements of government present.

Can someone at least name one long lived non government controlled prospering society so that Dante can have that to fall back on… Someone help the guy out!

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Always with the intellectual dishonesty and straw men. I guess that’s to be expected from “a stoner ii”. I said that one specific confederation of tribes in one specific period of time was similar to an anarcho-capitalist system, not that the entire history of American Indians was government-free.

This is what you always resort to when you are unable (which is constantly) to discuss a subject intelligently or when confronted with a view that challenges your tiny mindset.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Then how about we legalize presecription painkillers? I’ve been in a few situations where I really needed them and they were really hard to get because the young kids illegally abusing them were forcing restrictions.

Remove restrictions and it won’t be illegal, and we can all pop Oxy and smoke weed and text and drive and all will be well with the world.

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Yep, still clinging to your stupid post.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM

The best of all worlds would be to be an illegal alien – load up on booze and pot and painkillers at Chevron…. boogie down the road…go wire my cash paycheck back to Mexico…. go collect my food stamps and cash my welfare check because I am broke… then hit someone while texting…. be let off by the cops because busting me for having no insurance would violate my civil rights as a Mexican and create federal paperwork… and then to get my injuries treated for free at the hospital and never have to pay because my driver’s license has a false name lifted off my Matricula Consular card.

Life is good!

Whatta country!

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 12:02 PM

I cannot understand why ANYBODY and EVERYBODY caught either using or selling drugs are not arrested, charged, and convicted of accessory to murder. Anybody that uses or distributes drugs enable the drug cartels, not only in Mexico but in all of central and south America, and extending all over the world. Therefore, distributing and purchasing their products should be an accessory crime to murder, extortion and all the other crimes that drug cartels engage in.

boogieboy on January 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

This is a poor example of logic.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Its called DUI or

Driving
Under
the Influence

notice influence doesn’t state alcohol because under the influence of anything even prescription drugs falls under the influence influence definition under the law. Also explains why when pulled over for DUI you have to undergo a Breathalyzer (specifically targeting alcohol because most states the legal blood alcohol level is set so low you can function pass the sobriety test yet be drunk in the eyes of the law, 2 beers in FL or one tall shot), the field test is their to find all the rest under the influence of something.

Anyone who thinks the roads are not full of addict of a variety of drugs just look around. They are usually easily identifiable by missing mirrors, minor dents scraps on the bumpers or sides all from small crashes and simple slow speed hitting stuff. Most working people fix such things on the rare chance they say hit a pole at the gas station pump but addicts just cannot justify separating enough drug money to fix a non required item and besides such oddities happen to them to often to make repair an option.

C-Low on January 7, 2013 at 12:08 PM

This is what you always resort to when you are unable (which is constantly) to discuss a subject intelligently or when confronted with a view that challenges your tiny mindset.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM

My bad, I misunderstood that original statement. Were they thriving and did their society last long? What did they leave the world to remember them by?

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 12:11 PM

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Dumb-tes blithering aside, expect to see a flood of demands for legalizing every drug under the sun to anybody who wants them once we surrender.

Stuff like Oxy will get a bonus because stupid people will think “it was made in a real lab by real scientists, it must be safer to take than stuff like crack”…which they’ll comfort themselves with while downing so many pills they rattle.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Because you are the only person on the planet with any intelligence and self control.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 12:33 PM

When are you going to apologize for calling Hillary Clinton a liar? Isn’t there something in your religion about not bearing false witness?

chumpThreads on January 7, 2013 at 8:53 AM

But, you see, chimp, hillary clinton is a liar. There’s no “false witness” to that.

And, why would you care about what anyone else’s religion says? Are you still trying to play Alinsky’s game; and doing it with people who see what you’re trying to do? Why don’t you try to impress some children with your yammering? Your betters see what you do, understand it better than you and consider you a fool for doing it.

STFU and FOAD.

Solaratov on January 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM

You are correct that the Bible is violent, after all, it chronicles the human condition based in sin.

And as far as believing it… the Bible continues to be proven correct again and again through archaeological evidence. I suggest you pick up a copy of “Evidence that Demands a Verdict“, by Josh McDowell. He was a lawyer, who liked you disbelieved the Bible, and set out to prove it false… he ended up converting over the wealth of evidence proving it true.

Does one really have to “prove the bible false”? It does a good enough job of that all on its own…

That said, even if you believe it, wouldn’t you also believe that God made pot?

mazer9 on January 7, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM

You’re an idiot.

And you’re a quibbler and you’re trying to backtrack on what you said.
What’s the matter? Losing faith in the idiocy of “anarcho/capitalism”? LOL!

As an “anarchist”…you fail. Wanting complete ‘freedom’ from any government…yet whining about the Constitution and how what anyone else does violates your “rights”.
That’s pretty much a standard of the leftists.

Yep…you’re an idiot.

Solaratov on January 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM

This is what you always resort to when you are unable (which is constantly) to discuss a subject intelligently or when confronted with a view that challenges your tiny mindset.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM

I will admit though that I did resort to an attack on the person here to short circuit the argument.

I was wrong to do so at such a short period of debating with you.

I was frustrated with the mimsey retard and her sock pupet method of feigning ignorance on the topic of discussion in order to they could micro post move and attempt to win the argument through frustrating me rather and having any facts on their side.

Courts are a government entity. That is just how it is. In order for courts to have any merit and validity, they have to apply equally to all. Because your anarcho capitalist society must rely on personal contracts, it means that only those who CHOOSE to be part of the court system have equality. There would be multiple courts, and of course this does not get down to the side of enforcing the findings of said court, which would have to be applied by those who have the money to flex their muscles.

Thus, to have a functioning (read thriving) capitalist society (anarcho or otherwise), the entity which I refer to as a court has to cover all parties and have the power to subject all parties to its will. If that is not government, then I fail to see why not. Otherwise the trade would not be free from fraud and force.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Dumb-tes blithering aside, expect to see a flood of demands for legalizing every drug under the sun to anybody who wants them once we surrender.

Stuff like Oxy will get a bonus because stupid people will think “it was made in a real lab by real scientists, it must be safer to take than stuff like crack”…which they’ll comfort themselves with while downing so many pills they rattle.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Always with the statist, central planning argument, and never with a pro-liberty argument. Well done, comrade!

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

This thread is still going? Making a lot of progress I bet.

The libertarians can’t even get along! The anti drug commenters make reasoned points.
The anarcho/liber-o/drug-o’s continue to act like 16 year olds..”Yer a big Poopyhead!”..”No..yer a big poopyhead” “yer wrong”..”No yer wrong.
Rinse and repeat.

This is your brain on drugs.
Speaking of drugs, whats wrong with crack or meth? It’s your body, you have a right to cook some up.
/

Mimzey on January 7, 2013 at 1:10 PM

hillary clinton is a liar.

Solaratov on January 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM

-
…amazing that this is questioned even by her most supportive drones… I always thought that the argument was ‘but those kind of lies don’t matter’. Or the much quicker… ‘so?’

RalphyBoy on January 7, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Mimzey on January 7, 2013 at 1:10 PM

maybe you could consolidate those anti drug reasoned points for us Mimzey.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM

maybe you could consolidate those anti drug reasoned points for us Mimzey.

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM

They have been stated over and over in this and similar threads.

Willful ignoreance, is just that..a conscience effort to ignore anything that doesn’t support an already existing mindset.

To repeat them yet again would be a waste of time. You can’t reason a person out of a position that wasn’t reasoned into in the first place.

Its called brainwashing.
Look at you and Dante…you both think that it should be legal, but can’t agree and just call each other juvenile names and point fingers.
Weird.

Mimzey on January 7, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Mimzey on January 7, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Willful ignorance seems to be you.
Remember all the identical questions you asked and no matter how many times you were told that the costs reflect the risk to the seller you still never understood that?

The anti drug crowd rely 100% on argument to emotion, scare tactics with little factual evidence behind the scare, and amazingly beg for massive huge government to protect us from ourselves while claiming to be conservatives…

Nanny Bloomburg has nothing on you idiots!

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Remember all the identical questions you asked and no matter how many times you were told that the costs reflect the risk to the seller you still never understood that?

The anti drug crowd rely 100% on argument to emotion, scare tactics with little factual evidence behind the scare, and amazingly beg for massive huge government to protect us from ourselves while claiming to be conservatives…

Nanny Bloomburg has nothing on you idiots!

astonerii on January 7, 2013 at 1:39 PM

I remember your claims and rationalizations, but thats all they were.
You offered no evidence that your claims were true.
Questions were asked, and you either deflected or ignored. These are qualities of an argument based on emotions and hope.

Mimzey on January 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4