- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 47,436
- Reaction score
- 20,860
yet sickeningly high fatalities from cow-tipping accidents.
They could always moo-ve.
yet sickeningly high fatalities from cow-tipping accidents.
Having had you explain your perspective, I understand your argument. That doesn't address those that are against the status quo but fail to offer even a shell of an alternative.That might be because the issue isn't being phrased very well. Why are we fighting to legalize drugs (any drugs) and does legalization actually accomplish our goals.
From my perspective, people say that they want to reduce crime and reduce unnecessary incarcerations. All goals that I agree with but then no one actually gets into details on reducing crime and/or incarcerations except to assume that people will automatically transfer into legal jobs at better than subsistence rates. But there's nothing presented to support the automatic transfer to jobs theory.
And while I don't want to speak for anyone else, it makes the legalization push seem less well thought out for those goals.
By contrast, if the goal was that people just don't want to be arrested for doing drugs then that argument is at least logically sound but it's lacks the implication of a higher morality (no pun intended) that pro-legalizers seem to crave (okay, a little pun intended).
Having had you explain your perspective, I understand your argument. That doesn't address those that are against the status quo but fail to offer even a shell of an alternative.
The book isn't about climate change, instead it is about how corporations and ideologues have manipulated public perception of scientific issues over the last 60ish years.
Drug dealers are not dealing drugs because it's a job where both parties are satisfied (To be frank, assassination is a crime where both parties are happy with the transaction. All crimes have 2 happy parties at the end.). Drug dealers are dealing drugs to make money. Absent drug dealing, they still need to make money. Until that issue is answered, I consider the analysis incomplete.
That might be because the issue isn't being phrased very well. Why are we fighting to legalize drugs (any drugs) and does legalization actually accomplish our goals.
From my perspective, people say that they want to reduce crime and reduce unnecessary incarcerations. All goals that I agree with but then no one actually gets into details on reducing crime and/or incarcerations except to assume that people will automatically transfer into legal jobs at better than subsistence rates. But there's nothing presented to support the automatic transfer to jobs theory.
And while I don't want to speak for anyone else, it makes the legalization push seem less well thought out for those goals.
All crimes have 2 happy parties at the end (and of course no parties who can claim injury)? Almost zero murders are "for hire" so why use that example except to ignore the basic fact that selling weed has zero bearing on being a thief or a violent criminal. You can't understand that or just don't want to acknowledge it?
Your archetype seems to be from t.v. and movies. Do you have any studies you can reference that backs up any of your assumptions about who makes up the nation's "dealers"? I don't. But I do have experience in the market (unlike you). My experience says that many folks sell part-time and have other legal sources of income as well. They also come and go, with many of them discontinuing dealer activities regardless of any legal troubles (and most likely because they themselves stopped doing drugs or lost their connection). A long-term regular reliable dealer is a precious commodity.
I'm talking about people that don't support the status quo. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary and potential damaging. In this thread we've had multiple posters talk about how the current situation is broken and then fail to offer any alternatives.But why does supporting the status quo require an alternative?
By the way, we don't need a 100% success rate of turning criminals into middle class workers in order to see the benefits of making a policy change. Sometimes you just take a look at the costs and benefit and decide something isn't worth it. In this case that would be prohibition. Direct those funds toward inner city education if that's what you're worried about. Surely you can agree that education has more potential benefit than a prison sentence?
I'm talking about people that don't support the status quo. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary and potential damaging. In this thread we've had multiple posters talk about how the current situation is broken and then fail to offer any alternatives.
The only one that has criticized a lack of fully vetted alternatives has been you, in your comments about legalization.My mistake, I meant why does not supporting the status quo require that the person also have a fully vetted alternative?
Someone's injured in drug production. It consumes resources that could be allocated to other endeavors. Reducing resource supply eventually leads to increased costs. So, we're all injured to an extent. I can acknowledge your point, I just think it's superficial.
Ah, you're sure that I have no experience in the market? I never sold a little in college? My brothers never sold a little? I don't have long time friends that sold, kidnapped and extorted as part of the game? No one I know was spending cash on expensive items so that rivals wouldn't think he was stacking cash in his house and set him up to get robbed?
I don't have a cousin who did time? Not to stereotype but I am half Jamaican, lol.
None of my business clients got their start in, ahem, less savory industries?
But you're sure I have no experience...:wink:
I didn't even finish the rest of the post, maybe later after you've had a chance to digest that I'm not randomly discussing this subject.
We could just as easily direct funds to education without legalizing anything.
lol at calling what I'm saying superficial when you have to resort to "society" being injured. What metric are you using to show "society" has improved due to prohibition. As for your experience, it seems to contradict your view of who sells drugs in America and how those people will just be worse criminals post-legalization. I don't really need the data I asked you for because it's not my point that requires it. It's yours, since you're the one defying logic. Maybe if you read my entire post you could see that.
Tell me how this reconciles with your first paragraph above.
The poorest, meth-infested trailer parks in the US don't have a fraction of the homicide rateand gun play that goes on in Baltimore, DC, Chicago