|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 18 2019 20:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2019 19:59 Velr wrote:
They are run by the state, so i guess the state/commune. I highly doubt they are profitable. Which is at the core of why it works imo. When people talk about legalization in the US they are imagining privately owned heroin bars and needles at the dollar store, not state sponsored treatment facilities. Basically legalization and commercialization are synonymous in people's minds over here. This is why I tried to point out with my initial comment that capitalism can't be trusted and it has to be a public project without a profit motive, otherwise the incentive is to make more addicts rather than treat the addiction. Problem was that initial comment lacked the explanation of this comment and the point was missed. And when asked for some context you didn't provide it. Yes private owned drug dispensaries are more interested in keeping you coming back for more. Same way that for profit prisons don't care about rehabilitation because that would mean working to remove your own income supply.
Like I said, I thought it was clear and straightforward and asked what needed to be clarified.
On December 17 2019 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism can't be trusted to handle the production and distribution of substances used to escape it's soul crushing monotony and alienation, that much seems obvious.
Public ownership, operation, and accountability are necessary to arrive at a viable implementation of modernizing drug policy from my perspective.
I didn't think people needed me to explain further how for-profit drug dealers aren't interested in helping addicts kick their addictions.
|
Thing is though, state can regulate known potentially heavily addictive substances up the ass. For instance, rate of consumption per customer; amount sold; customer profiling - aka, genetic profiling or whatever.
The state has more power over companies than you think and companies mostly sell their stuff because of their vision (initially) anyway.
|
On December 18 2019 17:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 17:17 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity. How would decriminalization do anything but that? So the government can now give drugs to addicts but said addicts are free to remain addicts? That people who sell said drugs are still going to sell said drugs (its still a large issue in California that black market selling of pot didn't just go away) but are somehow not criminals anymore? What part of the drug pipeline are we now legalizing?
We are legalizing the part where the government is handing out drugs to those need it for their addiction. With a prescription like other dangerous drugs. That way you cannot get rid of the problem entirely, because someone has to get them hooked in the first place, but you can reduce the profit for it.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
The state has a lot of theoretical power in this domain yes, its apparatus choosing to exercise that regulatory power is another thing entirely.
Plus the people complain a lot too so there’s that.
In my country specifically I don’t think alcohol is regulated enough, and gambling certainly isn’t regulated enough either.
I smoke and drink myself, am quite happy to pay tax out the arse on my smokes. Any time moderate sales taxes are applied to alcohol, or a proposed minimum unit price is brought in people get up in arms about it because their (supposedly) sole glass of wine with a meal will be more expensive.
Despite alcohol having a huge set of both personal and external costs to the country.
I’m perfectly happy to have these things available, I think the next regulatory step would be to ban advertising, especially televisual which already happened with cigarettes a long time ago.
|
On December 18 2019 21:46 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 17:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 18 2019 17:17 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity. How would decriminalization do anything but that? So the government can now give drugs to addicts but said addicts are free to remain addicts? That people who sell said drugs are still going to sell said drugs (its still a large issue in California that black market selling of pot didn't just go away) but are somehow not criminals anymore? What part of the drug pipeline are we now legalizing? We are legalizing the part where the government is handing out drugs to those need it for their addiction. With a prescription like other dangerous drugs. That way you cannot get rid of the problem entirely, because someone has to get them hooked in the first place, but you can reduce the profit for it.
Not to mention that legalization doesn't kill off the black market at all.
Legalized product will be regulated, there will be always be seller with high octane products.
The main problem is that Mexico is run by cartels and that's not going to change unless Mexicans themselves are willing to change.
The wall is needed to protect ourselves against the criminals.
|
The main problem is that Mexico is run by cartels and that's not going to change unless Mexicans themselves are willing to change.
This sounds a little unfair because you seem to be ignoring the fact that those cartels get their money from American buyers.
|
Ah, of course, the flaw is with the mexicans. And not with you providing large amounts of money and guns to the cartels.
Probably a genetic flaw. That happens if you are not part of the master race.
/s
Also, note how you haven't even interacted with the idea that the wall could be ineffectual at what you want it to do. It is just dogma. "The wall is necessary to protect us!" This is obvious and cannot be questioned.
|
On December 18 2019 23:16 zenist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 21:46 Broetchenholer wrote:On December 18 2019 17:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 18 2019 17:17 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity. How would decriminalization do anything but that? So the government can now give drugs to addicts but said addicts are free to remain addicts? That people who sell said drugs are still going to sell said drugs (its still a large issue in California that black market selling of pot didn't just go away) but are somehow not criminals anymore? What part of the drug pipeline are we now legalizing? We are legalizing the part where the government is handing out drugs to those need it for their addiction. With a prescription like other dangerous drugs. That way you cannot get rid of the problem entirely, because someone has to get them hooked in the first place, but you can reduce the profit for it. Not to mention that legalization doesn't kill off the black market at all. Legalized product will be regulated, there will be always be seller with high octane products. The main problem is that Mexico is run by cartels and that's not going to change unless Mexicans themselves are willing to change. The wall is needed to protect ourselves against the criminals.
This has to be sarcasm right?
|
On December 18 2019 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 19:59 Velr wrote:
They are run by the state, so i guess the state/commune. I highly doubt they are profitable. Which is at the core of why it works imo. When people talk about legalization in the US they are imagining privately owned heroin bars and needles at the dollar store, not state sponsored treatment facilities. ...
Haha, I actually allready had written that "your question is so very american" and then decided to delete it again to not potentially stirr up unecessary Drama/back and forths (not from you, I was pretty sure that you would see it that way allready  )..
|
On December 18 2019 23:16 zenist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 21:46 Broetchenholer wrote:On December 18 2019 17:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 18 2019 17:17 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity. How would decriminalization do anything but that? So the government can now give drugs to addicts but said addicts are free to remain addicts? That people who sell said drugs are still going to sell said drugs (its still a large issue in California that black market selling of pot didn't just go away) but are somehow not criminals anymore? What part of the drug pipeline are we now legalizing? We are legalizing the part where the government is handing out drugs to those need it for their addiction. With a prescription like other dangerous drugs. That way you cannot get rid of the problem entirely, because someone has to get them hooked in the first place, but you can reduce the profit for it. Not to mention that legalization doesn't kill off the black market at all. Legalized product will be regulated, there will be always be seller with high octane products. The main problem is that Mexico is run by cartels and that's not going to change unless Mexicans themselves are willing to change. The wall is needed to protect ourselves against the criminals.
If you can buy something safely and legally, why would you want to buy it illegally from unvetted, unregistered, and likely dangerous individuals instead? I'm sure some fraction wouldn't leave their dealer, but it's likely that most people would opt for the former option. There's simply no reason to take on all that extra risk for no reason (since the original reason was that it was outlawed).
Also, it's been discussed extensively how the wall isn't going to protect from criminals.
|
I like to buy my drugs with a side of knifecrime, ratpoison and theft. Its just not the same cool feeling whiteout these ingredients.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On December 19 2019 00:19 Velr wrote:
I like to buy my drugs with a side of knifecrime, ratpoison and theft. Its just not the same cool feeling whiteout these ingredients.
There are some things money can’t buy, for everything else there’s MasterCard
|
On December 19 2019 00:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 23:16 zenist wrote:On December 18 2019 21:46 Broetchenholer wrote:On December 18 2019 17:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 18 2019 17:17 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity. How would decriminalization do anything but that? So the government can now give drugs to addicts but said addicts are free to remain addicts? That people who sell said drugs are still going to sell said drugs (its still a large issue in California that black market selling of pot didn't just go away) but are somehow not criminals anymore? What part of the drug pipeline are we now legalizing? We are legalizing the part where the government is handing out drugs to those need it for their addiction. With a prescription like other dangerous drugs. That way you cannot get rid of the problem entirely, because someone has to get them hooked in the first place, but you can reduce the profit for it. Not to mention that legalization doesn't kill off the black market at all. Legalized product will be regulated, there will be always be seller with high octane products. The main problem is that Mexico is run by cartels and that's not going to change unless Mexicans themselves are willing to change. The wall is needed to protect ourselves against the criminals. If you can buy something safely and legally, why would you want to buy it illegally from unvetted, unregistered, and likely dangerous individuals instead? I'm sure some fraction wouldn't leave their dealer, but it's likely that most people would opt for the former option. There's simply no reason to take on all that extra risk for no reason (since the original reason was that it was outlawed).
Price?
|
On December 19 2019 00:51 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2019 00:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 18 2019 23:16 zenist wrote:On December 18 2019 21:46 Broetchenholer wrote:On December 18 2019 17:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 18 2019 17:17 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity. How would decriminalization do anything but that? So the government can now give drugs to addicts but said addicts are free to remain addicts? That people who sell said drugs are still going to sell said drugs (its still a large issue in California that black market selling of pot didn't just go away) but are somehow not criminals anymore? What part of the drug pipeline are we now legalizing? We are legalizing the part where the government is handing out drugs to those need it for their addiction. With a prescription like other dangerous drugs. That way you cannot get rid of the problem entirely, because someone has to get them hooked in the first place, but you can reduce the profit for it. Not to mention that legalization doesn't kill off the black market at all. Legalized product will be regulated, there will be always be seller with high octane products. The main problem is that Mexico is run by cartels and that's not going to change unless Mexicans themselves are willing to change. The wall is needed to protect ourselves against the criminals. If you can buy something safely and legally, why would you want to buy it illegally from unvetted, unregistered, and likely dangerous individuals instead? I'm sure some fraction wouldn't leave their dealer, but it's likely that most people would opt for the former option. There's simply no reason to take on all that extra risk for no reason (since the original reason was that it was outlawed). Price?
In the model Velr was referencing the price for the purest/highest quality product obtainable in the country is 'free' to the user.
|
If you can get pure coke or meth, why would you ever go for a lower quality product?
Knowing the bought product is the wanted product is so important for people.
The mass legalisation of cannabis is a perfect case study, no?
Does anyone have any numbers on them? If not, I can look them up in regards to "official legal" buys vs "illicit" buys. And how the different kind of obtaining of the cannabis has potentially shifted.
|
On December 19 2019 00:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2019 23:16 zenist wrote:On December 18 2019 21:46 Broetchenholer wrote:On December 18 2019 17:22 Sermokala wrote:On December 18 2019 17:17 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why would legalization mean that you can buy Heroin in the supermarket? There would obviously be a system in place to distribute it to those that need it combined with efforts to get them clean. The free market is not needed for every commodity. How would decriminalization do anything but that? So the government can now give drugs to addicts but said addicts are free to remain addicts? That people who sell said drugs are still going to sell said drugs (its still a large issue in California that black market selling of pot didn't just go away) but are somehow not criminals anymore? What part of the drug pipeline are we now legalizing? We are legalizing the part where the government is handing out drugs to those need it for their addiction. With a prescription like other dangerous drugs. That way you cannot get rid of the problem entirely, because someone has to get them hooked in the first place, but you can reduce the profit for it. Not to mention that legalization doesn't kill off the black market at all. Legalized product will be regulated, there will be always be seller with high octane products. The main problem is that Mexico is run by cartels and that's not going to change unless Mexicans themselves are willing to change. The wall is needed to protect ourselves against the criminals. If you can buy something safely and legally, why would you want to buy it illegally from unvetted, unregistered, and likely dangerous individuals instead? I'm sure some fraction wouldn't leave their dealer, but it's likely that most people would opt for the former option. There's simply no reason to take on all that extra risk for no reason (since the original reason was that it was outlawed).
In a rational market you understand that this food is poisoned and consume something else. In the heroin market you hear that the dealer killed someone and surely it won't happen to you. Gotta get the best high.
|
I think it's obvious such model will not be implemented in the US in the foreseeable future, which is why I don't see the point of giving it a serious consideration.
At "best" you'll have a situation similar to how it is with alcohol in some countries, where you can buy heavily taxed legal alcohol, or potentially dangerous but cheap illegal alcohol.
|
On December 19 2019 01:19 Sent. wrote:
I think it's obvious such model will not be implemented in the US in the foreseeable future, which is why I don't see the point of giving it a serious consideration.
At "best" you'll have a situation similar to how it is with alcohol in some countries, where you can buy heavily taxed legal alcohol, or potentially dangerous but cheap illegal alcohol.
What's being proposed with this sort of legalization (as opposed to the model of Switzerland) is really just cutting out medical professionals/pharmacists (and the street hustlers) as the drug dealers so pharmaceutical drug manufacturers can make more profit, pay their distribution network less, and get more people addicted to their product with no reason to stop.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On December 19 2019 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2019 01:19 Sent. wrote:
I think it's obvious such model will not be implemented in the US in the foreseeable future, which is why I don't see the point of giving it a serious consideration.
At "best" you'll have a situation similar to how it is with alcohol in some countries, where you can buy heavily taxed legal alcohol, or potentially dangerous but cheap illegal alcohol. What's being proposed with this sort of legalization (as opposed to the model of Switzerland) is really just cutting out medical professionals/pharmacists (and the street hustlers) as the drug dealers so pharmaceutical drug manufacturers can make more profit, pay their distribution network less, and get more people addicted to their product with no reason to stop.
I’m not sure if it is or not.
To me being where I’m from, it’s implicit that legalisation would be extremely tightly controlled and not left to the free reins of the free market, if it ever did happen.
As an outsider looking at the US and it’s terrible drug culture, I might have a different initial understanding of what is meant by legalisation if I’m from that culture.
By terrible drug culture I don’t mean people actually doing drugs but the prevailing cultural attitude of ‘if you have a problem we’ll sell you the solution.’ That often isn’t a solution at all.
|
United States15743 Posts
Prediction: Sanders wins the most delegates in the primary and Biden wins the popular vote. DNC tries to suppress Bernie again, DNC basically goes the way of the RNC and gets entirely taken over by Sanders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
