 |
| |
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
alright so drugs are legalized and a drug dealer still will sell his drugs... why would he even bother going to the govt to ge a licence and try to compete with corporations when he could just continue selling drugs like he always did? they'll be cheaper than the legal ones just out of the virtue that they wouldnt be taxed. |
I don't know. Hardly anyone tries to compete with the tobacco corporations. Why do tobacco companies dominate the tobacco market when someone else could just sell tobacco without getting the tax stamps? Maybe because the taxes aren't high enough to justify the risk of penalties? Of course some people do sell cigs without the taxes, but again, they're a trace fraction of the market.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
Shawn - quote:
Two clarifications. First, a limited number of hard drugs will cause psychotic behavior with normal use. The two I know of off hand are Angel Dust (PCP) and meth. |
Replace the word "will" with "can" and you might have offered a factual statement. I've used quite a bit of meth back when I drove for a living and it didn't cause anything other than weight loss  and the ability to stay awake longer (saved my life a number of times I'm sure). It doesn't cause psychotic behavior, it's just a stimulant. Staying awake day after day can cause mindgames and I experienced quite a few, but never anything I would characterise as "psychotic". It's not the drug, it's staying awake too long. Pilots used the drug during WWII because it was better than anything else at staving off fatigue. There is a saying, that the Blitzkrieg was fueled by meth, and other than penicillin, probably the most important drug in wartime. Now, I wouldn't doubt in some cases where a person stays awake for days on end they may exhibit behavior we could call "psychotic" but these are not the norm from my experience... Oh yeah, I used PCP once when a friend gave me a joint laced with the stuff without my knowledge (haha) and all I could do was lay down until it wore off. It's basically horse tranquiliser and would never recommend it, but that's my personal taste.
quote:
In fact, methamphetamine pyschosis is a well documented result of routine use of that substance, though I would have to get my wife's DSM IV out to get the technical term and she just left so our little girl could get her vaccines. |
I used it routinely and never had a "psychotic" episode. Again, the potential problem arises out of using it day after day so the user doesn't sleep for several days (and I used it to ward off sleep for up to 4 days at a time). And even then it comes down to the individual, so it's not some rule written in concrete...
quote:
I would ban those, and only those drugs. If you want a benchmark, use alchohol as we have already determined that it represents an acceptable level of societal risk. |
Tell that to all the battered women and children.
quote:
As an aside, I've never heard of someone coming home and beating their spouse/children after toking pot. It's a stupid habit (pot) but part of being a true libetarian is supporting those things you DON'T approve of. |
But you don't approve of meth and want it banned based on individual cases of people who over-used it, i.e., punish the people who don't over-use and don't have "psychotic" episodes because of the people who do. That's immoral... Would you argue that all gun owners should be punished because of those gun owners who use their guns to commit crimes? Ever hear of "mother's little helper"? It's a reference to speed (or meth)...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
*sigh*
do you want me to admit it?
Americans aren't as smart as Portuguese. Americans are stupid enough to think just because something is legal, it must be okay. |
According to the CDC, the proportion of society who use tobacco in the US and Portugal are roughly comparable, using their latest ('90-'92) data. We were about 25% higher, but their numbers were going up and ours down, so the numbers are probably even closer nowadays.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/who/portugal.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/who/usa.htm
So, the Portuguese (their people, their gov't is obviously much more responsible) are no more responsible with drugs than we are.
Last edited by Ramo on 22-07-2004 at 09:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I don't want Government weed. I want weed production and distribution to be set up just like Cigarettes and Alcohol, just with the governmental tax on the end. |
But don't you think if cigarettes and alcohol could be readily purchased on the black market for less than in the stores (not difficult, since those items are taxed so heavily), it would be better than what we're getting now? Its just that there's no precedent for that, so its not an issue.
Now with drugs its a different story.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
Kuci - quote:
The difference being they didn't make a clear-cut choice that increases dramatically the amount of money medicare would have to pay them. |
You haven't even shown that pot smokers (or any other group) increase Medicare costs, much less "dramatically".
quote:
Actually, even those who HAVEN'T payed medicare taxes can get money from it (and people pay taxes in different amounts). So ANYONE "deserves" it on the basis of they're right to treatment. I'd say it's absurd to make this right extend to problems that are the receiver's own fault. |
We all pay Medicare taxes, it's part of the payroll tax. And yet you'd tell people who did pay into it their money is gone because you think they will cost more than other people? Medicare was set up to help the elderly pay for health care, not so you could come along and deny people their benefits after the fact based on some nonsense about them costing the system more. I'd think you would seek a different basis for the program, like setting an average cost and limiting everyone to that average at which point their coverage ends. That would allow pot smokers to get back what they paid in like everyone else (you were concerned with fairness?)and avoid the logic trap you've created by selectively determining which people cost more based on nothing more than your absence of knowledge. 
quote:
Let me clarify: you can't claim funds to treat something that's your own fault. Clearly it wouldn't affect, say, alzheimer's medication. |
How do you know Alzheimers isn't caused by behavior?
I'd love to see the bureaucratic mess you'd need to find out if potential recipients "caused" their illness. Rest assured, your idea will cost us alot more than Medicare as it exists now.
quote:
How can it possibly be fair to charge me to pay for your mistakes? |
Bingo! It isn't... Nor is it fair to make me pay for your health care regardless of whether or not you made mistakes. Unless my mistake caused your need for care (ala traffic accident), I'm not responsible. But your argument is that your illness is my responsibilty. Based on what rationale? You supposedly didn't make a mistake, therefore your "stellar" behavior obliges me to pay for your health care... But if I make a mistake and need health care, you won't pay for it.
quote:
Indulging in behavior that is risky only due to someone else's faults is different from indulging in behavior that is risky through no one else's fault. |
Motorists went out on the road, that's risky even if some other motorist hits them.
quote:
You cannot be responsible for someone else's actions. |
Ahem...you want us to pay for Medicare even if we don't benefit from it. You even called it an "obligation"...
quote:
My question was why Berz kept posting stuff |
It's a forum where people post "stuff". Since you've posted more stuff than me you should be able to figure that one on your own. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
But don't you think if cigarettes and alcohol could be readily purchased on the black market for less than in the stores (not difficult, since those items are taxed so heavily), it would be better than what we're getting now? Its just that there's no precedent for that, so its not an issue.
Now with drugs its a different story. |
imagine a pot growers dreams of making huge amounts of money by increasing productivity and delivering a great product. People also demand cheaper ****.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
You posted stuff with no one else responding to you. |
I made one post I didn't address to anyone and no one responded to it (other than your "inquiry" as to whom I was "debating" when it was clear I wasn't debating anyone), go figure... Shall I go through the thread and identify the posts from people that weren't addressed to anyone specifically to show why your question was inane and hypocritical?
quote:
They don't have to. It's ridiculous, however, to assert that I must pay to treat lung cancer that's his fault. |
Wait a minute, you claimed pot smokers cost Medicare more and now you're changing your argument. How do you know when someone with lung cancer "caused" it?
quote:
Why the hell am I arguing against medicare to a libertarian? Why the hell are you defending it? |
I'm opposed to your desire to deny the people who paid into it their benefits based on your argument. That's not an endorsement of Medicare, it's a rejection of your idea...
quote:
Not all gone. They just won't have things that are their fault, payed for. |
Damn near everything is our fault. How will you know if the diabetes I got from sugar was actually caused by pot?
quote:
It's not fair to assume they caused it when there's no scientific evidence for that. |
You didn't answer my question. And having scientific evidence that smoking can cause lung cancer doesn't mean that was the cause of someone's lung cancer, so you're making an assumption yourself...
quote:
There's massive scientific evidence for the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. |
Not between pot smoking and lung cancer.
quote:
I agree, basically, but since getting rid of medicare isn't exactly an option, we have to work on the assumption that society is responsible for at least softening the damage of various natural "disasters". |
Hell, your idea ain't gonna happen either because most people know the mess it will create with politicians and bureaucrats empowered to take our money for a health care program they can dump us from based on "fault". Why is "society" responsible for what happens to you unless society caused your trouble? Your argument seems to be that you aren't responsible for what people do to themselves (I agree), but you still want to make me responsible for what happens to others based on the notion that if they get hurt through "no fault" of there own, I'm responsible. How did I become responsible?
Btw, you didn't respond to this argument:
quote:
I'd love to see the bureaucratic mess you'd need to find out if potential recipients "caused" their illness. Rest assured, your idea will cost us alot more than Medicare as it exists now. |
Spend more time addressing my arguments and less time worrying about posts that go unaddressed and we'll get somewhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
I'd love to see the bureaucratic mess you'd need to find out if potential recipients "caused" their illness. Rest assured, your idea will cost us alot more than Medicare as it exists now. |
I didn't respond to it because the answer is frickin' obvious: it's my original proposal? If you smoke, you don't get money for lung cancer, if you drink a ton you don't get money for a new liver, etc. Simple rules.
quote:
Hell, your idea ain't gonna happen either because most people know the mess it will create with politicians and bureaucrats empowered to take our money for a health care program they can dump us from based on "fault". Why is "society" responsible for what happens to you unless society caused your trouble? Your argument seems to be that you aren't responsible for what people do to themselves (I agree), but you still want to make me responsible for what happens to others based on the notion that if they get hurt through "no fault" of there own, I'm responsible. How did I become responsible? |
The politicians voted for Medicare
quote:
Wait a minute, you claimed pot smokers cost Medicare more and now you're changing your argument. How do you know when someone with lung cancer "caused" it? |
If they smoked. For details, see the earlier post in this thread.
quote:
I'm opposed to your desire to deny the people who paid into it their benefits based on your argument. That's not an endorsement of Medicare, it's a rejection of your idea... |
People who don't get sick are denied medicare too, and they paid into it... so what?
quote:
How will you know if the diabetes I got from sugar was actually caused by pot? |
a) I don't have an MD, k?
b) there's also the simple rule "if you used pot, no diabetes coverage" (pot causes diabetes?)
quote:
Not between pot smoking and lung cancer. |
I've been talking about tobacco.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
What's your problem? My original question was originally about this post: |
 My problem? You're the one who has this gripe about my post. God only knows why, I sure don't see you "asking" everyone else who they are "debating".
quote:
Which seemed completely random. |
It's directly related to a claim made in the article, hardly "random".
quote:
Why are you getting so distraught about it? |
Sheesh! You're the one obsessed with my post. You don't see me following other people's posts "asking" them why they didn't address it to others in the thread.
quote:
I didn't respond to it because the answer is frickin' obvious: it's my original proposal? If you smoke, you don't get money for lung cancer, if you drink a ton you don't get money for a new liver, etc. Simple rules. |
It's neither simple or obvious. You said no one should get Medicare to pay for their illness if they caused the illness. That will require a massive, intrusive bureaucracy to determine who "caused" their illness and who did not. If you think that's simple, you haven't given much thought to your idea.
quote:
The politicians voted for Medicare |
Politicians voted for slavery too but that didn't oblige Africans to become slaves.
quote:
If they smoked. For details, see the earlier post in this thread. |
Why don't you actually quote the stats to prove your point instead of telling me the proof can be found in the thread, I sure haven't seen it. On the contrary, several people have pointed out the obvious based on common sense - that smokers don't cost Medicare an inordinate amount of money given they typically die sooner. Will you agree that given we all die and will probably use medicare, those that live longer will use Medicare more?
quote:
People who don't get sick are denied medicare too, and they paid into it... so what? |
They aren't denied Medicare, they don't need it. If they need it, they get it - that's why it's a quasi-insurance program. How many people in the Medicare system never use it? If you have auto insurance and don't have an accident, is someone denying you auto insurance?
quote:
a) I don't have an MD, k? |
So you won't know! Bingo... Now, how are you planning on finding out? A massive bureaucracy to investigate the health records and personal habits of 10's of millions of people? Real simple, there Kuci... 
quote:
b) there's also the simple rule "if you used pot, no diabetes coverage" (pot causes diabetes?) |
But sugar can cause it, and sugar is in virtually everything. So no coverage for anyone with diabetes? And how are you going to find out if someone smoked pot, ate fatty foods, drank booze, smoked tobacco, ingested too much sugar, or didn't get enough exercise?
Still think your idea is simple?
quote:
I've been talking about tobacco. |
And you complain about "random" posts? This thread is about pot and you proposed denying former pot smokers Medicare for diseases you claim pot causes. So what are these diseases?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
*sigh*
do you want me to admit it?
Americans aren't as smart as Portuguese. Americans are stupid enough to think just because something is legal, it must be okay. |
According to the CDC, the proportion of society who use tobacco in the US and Portugal are roughly comparable, using their latest ('90-'92) data. We were about 25% higher, but their numbers were going up and ours down, so the numbers are probably even closer nowadays.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/who/portugal.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/who/usa.htm
So, the Portuguese (their people, their gov't is obviously much more responsible) are no more responsible with drugs than we are. |
hmm, CDC seems like a reputable source. Maybe
Does portugal have hard drugs legalized? Why not? Surely there's a reason. Besides political pressure from the U.S. of course.
Perhaps it's a little bit of fear on my part. That is one reason most drug legalization plans do not work. We came close to legalizing pot in my state a couple of years ago. But after an accident that killed 6 teenagers by a girl who tested positive for marijuana, it just wasn't going to happen. Yes we all know the carnage alcohol causes. But as I said, it's fear that prevents these things from being legalized. The streets are already dangerous enough as it is. It has nothing to do with home use. I think a person should be able to take anything they want inside their own home.
And yes the obvious comparison to alcohol comes up. We allow that, despite the carnage on the streets. I wish there was a workaround for that. DUI campaigns have been moderately succesful, but there is still a significant ignorant portion of the population that totally ignores these laws.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
I think I remember when I was a kid you could get an eighth for $20. I'm sure that's not the case anymore. |
nah... thats closer to it...
quote:
Yes most people continue to by these things from their local convenience store or supermarker/drug store. Very few people go to indian reservations. |
and yet people buy looseys all the time which i assume are not meant for individual retail sale.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
albert how much is a canadian dollar? like .5 cents?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
p.s. albert, just cause philly is a cheap ass ghetto doesnt mean it represents the nation. I learned this living in the bay area.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:34
|
|
my point is that drug prices are lower here so drug dealers would charge less on the street than any taxed legal drugs. what does that have to do with a small sample size as philly?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
the looseys thing
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-07-2004 03:38
|
|