PDA

View Full Version : Legalising And Taxing Drugs



AD90
01-31-2010, 07:44 AM
Hopefully this goes OK.

I think it would be in all Government's best interest to legalise and tax drugs. I'm not just talking about Marijuana. I'm not talking about all the substances.

The fact of the matter is that drug addicts are going to get their "Fix" one way or another. And I don't see how the Government should just stand idly by as their citizen's take these substances without any proper hygiene or sterilisation, in a lot of cases.

Not only would this improve the cleanliness and safety of taking drugs, but it would put a nice wad of cash in the Government's pockets (all they seem to care about).

I know this actually happening is like Hell freezing over because of the stupid conservative and politically correct world we live in these days.

I know that the US is finally legalising Marijuana in some states, which will hopefully open the door to other states and eventually countries.

Thoughts?

For those interested. I've never taken any illicit drugs in my life, so this is not a selfish plea for myself. This is just my opinion on the subject.

jacknife737
01-31-2010, 08:30 AM
I think demographically speaking, the legalization of marijuana is inevitable.

This may be anecdotal evidence, but i don't know anybody under the age of 30 opposed to legalization. Most either outright support it or don't care.

AD90
01-31-2010, 08:37 AM
Yeah, same here.

Even older people for me, also.

I find it amazing that it's taken this long for them to finally realise how stupid it was to make it illegal in the first place.

Paint_It_Black
01-31-2010, 10:46 AM
I find it amazing that it's taken this long for them to finally realise how stupid it was to make it illegal in the first place.

Oh, there were plenty of reasons. Just perhaps not quite the altruistic ones we are meant to believe.

Legalizing drugs would be a bit of nightmare to get right, but in general I agree with you.

AD90
01-31-2010, 10:57 AM
Even if they got it 100% right with no flaws, it wouldn't pass because of the morale dilemmas the people who pass the bill would have.

Llamas
01-31-2010, 11:01 AM
Drugs are dangerous in two ways:
1) to the person who is doing them.
2) to other people when they have to acquire them illegally.

If drugs were legal, the only person they would hurt is the person who takes them. And the drug user would then be responsible for harming others, just as they are when they use guns or get shitty drunk.

I'm generally opposed to making things illegal that really only harm the person who uses them. Drugs aren't meant to be used to harm others, so I don't see why they're illegal. However, legalizing really scary shit like heroine and meth scares the shit out of me. I do NOT like the idea that that kind of stuff would be readily available to the public, with no worries of legality.

AD90
01-31-2010, 11:06 AM
Yeah. I see where you're coming from and I wouldn't ever advocate drugs, except maybe Pot as it's the least harmful (usually). But people who have been brought up well and have a good head on their shoulders should be smart enough to say no.

I'm off the non-caring opinion that if someone dies from a drug overdose that it's their own fault, and no sympathy should go to them as it was stupid decision the very first time they did. Maybe I'm just a heartless bastard with no sympathy. But their stupid mistake led to their death.

I forgot to add the idea of having free rehab sessions as the money you pay for the product, which they would most likely hike up, would pay for the sessions.

They could either be mandatory or optional.

Llamas
01-31-2010, 01:25 PM
Yeah. I see where you're coming from and I wouldn't ever advocate drugs, except maybe Pot as it's the least harmful (usually). But people who have been brought up well and have a good head on their shoulders should be smart enough to say no.

I'm off the non-caring opinion that if someone dies from a drug overdose that it's their own fault, and no sympathy should go to them as it was stupid decision the very first time they did. Maybe I'm just a heartless bastard with no sympathy. But their stupid mistake led to their death.

I forgot to add the idea of having free rehab sessions as the money you pay for the product, which they would most likely hike up, would pay for the sessions.

They could either be mandatory or optional.

I'm for the legalization of pot. I hate pot and am anything but a pothead, but it's no more dangerous than alcohol, and there's no reason it should be illegal.

We say people should be able to stay away from stuff... but people have weak moments, and it's really scary to think that if a 99% smart, good person has a moment of weakness and is surrounded with readily available shit like heroin... it's just scary as hell. I'm not saying that having it illegal is the best option, but I don't know what is. And it makes me more comfortable knowing that I'm probably not gonna run into it if it's illegal.

I used to be of the non-caring opinion about people who got into drugs... til a good friend of mine got caught up in it and had her life destroyed. I don't mean to personalize something political, but I can't help it. I can't think of it objectively when it's so not an objective thing.

T-6005
01-31-2010, 02:39 PM
I can't remember who made the point a few years back, but drugs and driving.

Until there's a workable roadside test for any drug they're considering, I'm against its legalization.

Paint_It_Black
02-01-2010, 02:37 AM
Drugs are already readily available. I don't hang around with shady types at all, yet I'm certain I could get anything I really wanted within a week. My point is just that being illegal is not really much of a hindrance to obtaining. The illegality does not seem to be much of a deterrent either. I've never known anyone to say the only reason they don't do drugs is because they are illegal. If they were legal you would certainly have more exposure to them, I suppose, but I am not certain how much of an increase in use that would lead to.

I expect the usage would go up at least a little if drugs were legal, but at the same time I suspect that fatalities related to drug use would drop considerably. And wouldn't organized crime become almost nonexistent? Compared to what we have now, anyway.

And T, people already use drugs and drive. I'm just not sure how much this would jump if they were legal.

AD90
02-01-2010, 06:18 AM
No, I know. It was more from a health stand point.

Beevis
02-25-2010, 10:50 AM
As an experienced, retired drug addict... I would agree with legalising drugs. Weed in particular! Our government is in need of tax revenue and we need to reduce crime. I never ever met anyone who got so stoned that he "blacked out" only to wake up to the fact that he beat his wife or kids or killed someone in a traffic accident. More likely he fell asleep on his parents couch with a bag of chips in one hand and a slinky in the other. If government decriminalises drug posession we would most certainly reduce crime and overcrowding in our prison systems.

Apathy
02-25-2010, 11:11 AM
If all drugs, including the harder ones were legalized it would result in more people being exposed to and/or trying drugs. There's no way you can say that shitloads more people wouldn't be trying cocaine/heroin/meth etc if it were legal. That is a very bad idea, as these drugs are potentially life destroying. I understand all of the support for legalizing marijuana, but everything else? Terrible, horrible idea.

Al Coholic
02-25-2010, 12:17 PM
It's a two sided coin. I can tell you I'd would do LOTS more cocaine if it were cheap, legal, and readily available. Like, fucking TONS of it. And it would HAVE to be so cheap that it wouldn't be lucrative to sell drugs illegally. That's the whole point.

I don't think it would work. In fact I think it would be a catastrophe. Narcotics are heavily addictive, and if they're commonplace, marketed, and advertised usage will sky rocket. Increasing the number of addicts. Which increases the amount of crime. Making the whole crime aspect kind of a wash. Yeah, you removed competing dealers to some extent but insteead you have more addicts turn to prostitution and roberry.

And believe me, usage would skyrocket. The lobbyists in this country manage to do whatever they like. Think about legitimate buisnesses that routinely fuck over the American people. Oil. Weapons. Investment banking. Imagine a heroin lobby. Believe me, they'll get the job done. There's something very sinister about an organized billion dollar corporation marketing a drug that ruins peoples lives, their families, and in some cases entire cities. And making bank. Atleast with street dealers, there's no lobby, there's no marketing department. There's no public relations headquarters and investors/company stock to worry about.



As far as economics go, it would be fine with marijuana. A great new industry that supports other industries, like shipping, farming, and junk food. However, with narcotics, you'll have addicts spending everything they have, and other industries will suffer. Marijuana users don't smoke themselves out of their house and posessions. Crackheads do.

IamSam
02-26-2010, 12:29 PM
Would you really want somebody using a hallucinogenic to be driving?

Didn't think so.

RageAndLov
02-27-2010, 10:04 AM
If all drugs, including the harder ones were legalized it would result in more people being exposed to and/or trying drugs. There's no way you can say that shitloads more people wouldn't be trying cocaine/heroin/meth etc if it were legal. That is a very bad idea, as these drugs are potentially life destroying. I understand all of the support for legalizing marijuana, but everything else? Terrible, horrible idea.

This is what it all boils down to and why drugs should stay illegal.

chicapowerpunk
02-27-2010, 06:07 PM
:confused:Well the legalization of drugs is a loss for drug traffickers,i suposse

Jesus
03-01-2010, 01:57 AM
If all drugs, including the harder ones were legalized it would result in more people being exposed to and/or trying drugs. There's no way you can say that shitloads more people wouldn't be trying cocaine/heroin/meth etc if it were legal.

Doesn't have to be that way though, hardly any young person does cigs anymore... even though it's readily available. Could even argue that part of the attraction lies in the illegality.


It's a two sided coin. I can tell you I'd would do LOTS more cocaine if it were cheap, legal, and readily available. Like, fucking TONS of it. And it would HAVE to be so cheap that it wouldn't be lucrative to sell drugs illegally. That's the whole point.
Why? Virtually all products sell above their marginal costs, with cigarettes taking the lead. If it's legal (and thus employs people) and taxed governments tend to crack down on illegal activity more. And the companies that make and sell drugs legally also have an 'incentive' to make sure the government stops illegal drugs.



I don't think it would work. In fact I think it would be a catastrophe. Narcotics are heavily addictive, and if they're commonplace, marketed, and advertised usage will sky rocket. Increasing the number of addicts. Which increases the amount of crime. Making the whole crime aspect kind of a wash. Yeah, you removed competing dealers to some extent but insteead you have more addicts turn to prostitution and roberry.

And believe me, usage would skyrocket. The lobbyists in this country manage to do whatever they like. Think about legitimate buisnesses that routinely fuck over the American people. Oil. Weapons. Investment banking. Imagine a heroin lobby. Believe me, they'll get the job done. There's something very sinister about an organized billion dollar corporation marketing a drug that ruins peoples lives, their families, and in some cases entire cities. And making bank. Atleast with street dealers, there's no lobby, there's no marketing department. There's no public relations headquarters and investors/company stock to worry about.

All fair points, but I think advertising for it should be banned for exact those reasons. Although this might raise the profits of the companies selling drugs though, as plenty of real world examples show.

Omni
03-01-2010, 02:58 AM
I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but there are a few drugs that you can't really OD on, and probably aren't as addicting as crack, heroin, and meth. Wouldn't it make sense to legalize those?

And as far as hallucinogenic drugs like shrooms and lsd are concerned, I guess they'd have to be treated in the same respect as alcohol. Legal age of purchase 21-25, develop a roadside test, etc.

Al Coholic
03-02-2010, 01:59 PM
Doesn't have to be that way though, hardly any young person does cigs anymore... even though it's readily available. Could even argue that part of the attraction lies in the illegality.


Why? Virtually all products sell above their marginal costs, with cigarettes taking the lead. If it's legal (and thus employs people) and taxed governments tend to crack down on illegal activity more. And the companies that make and sell drugs legally also have an 'incentive' to make sure the government stops illegal drugs.



All fair points, but I think advertising for it should be banned for exact those reasons. Although this might raise the profits of the companies selling drugs though, as plenty of real world examples show.

Why would it have to be cheap? Because if it were more expensive than the street drugs, your only customers would be those afraid to buy it from street dealers. Junkies will just get what they can afford. Then you have kids trying it for fun, getting addicted, and getting drugs illegally where its cheaper. That actually plays into drug dealers hands - the legitimate narcotic companies did all the legwork of getting you addicted, and they just sell more drugs.

Advertising can't be banned. You can make illegal TV and radio ads, and maybe battle their lobby against print. Though there's a very, very blurry line with that. Is anything written down print? Whatta bout flyers? Signholders? biased pamphlets? And you're forgeting about the most effective form of advertising:

Word of mouth. People will tell their freinds, they'll get curious, etc. Everything that happens today, except now all they have to do is drive to the store. Atleast in the old days a lot of people were scared shitless of bad neighborhoods and sketchy drug deals. Now the clerk greats you with a smile and gives you and your freinds the hooch in a "thank you for shopping at drugmart" bag. Are you fucking kidding?

chicapowerpunk
03-02-2010, 05:40 PM
I'm all for it if and only if they lower income tax. And council tax. And VAT. And they could ramp up the price of cigs while they're at it. I hate smoke.

Well cigarretes is a drug = alchol=Marijuana=Sex...
Only Sex,alchol & cigarrets are legal & i hate smoke too;)i hate to drink:)

amandabenami
03-02-2010, 07:21 PM
legalizing drugs? i dont think so. i don't want to experience too much car accidents on streets and see naked people walking the streets while i am with my todd. The government is not that desperate for additional taxes.

mario_spaghettio
03-17-2010, 12:12 AM
As a daily marijuana user, I WILL NEVER BUY TAXED and TAINTED WEED FROM THE US GOVERNMENT. Legalize it but keep the government's dirty hands off it.

wheelchairman
03-17-2010, 02:05 AM
You don't think a federal regulatory body like FDA for weed would be a good idea?

In the hypothetical and unlikely instance it is legalized.

mario_spaghettio
03-17-2010, 02:45 AM
You don't think a federal regulatory body like FDA for weed would be a good idea?

No, I don't want the fda near my weed

Al Coholic
03-17-2010, 02:00 PM
That sounds trolly and suspicious. Elaborate. What is your concern? It's a plant. Like, the FDA regulates tomatoes. And they're pretty good. I've had regulated and unregulated tomatoes. They're pretty much the same.

And ofcourse, if it's legal, you can grow your own.

mario_spaghettio
03-17-2010, 04:37 PM
The fda will regulate the thc content. No thanks to watered down weed that's probably tainted with chemicals. If you can grow your own, fine, but they will not allow that. They want the tax money.

wheelchairman
03-17-2010, 09:18 PM
I would imagine that if the FDA were responsible for such a thing they would check for consistency. This might mean less THC I guess, but I would imagine the situation would be comparable to alcohol.

Growing your own however is not guaranteed by legalization. It's legal in Holland, except its illegal to grow or import marijuana. Meaning that by legalizing marijuana they actually increased crime*. Goddamn that's dumb.

*That's hyperbole, I just think it was really really dumb on the part of the Dutch government.

For Real
03-17-2010, 09:53 PM
Drugs, illicit street drugs... like someone once said, "it shows you the heaven without showing you the hell"

Physiologically, they are heavy metals/toxins - NOT good.

Just don't do them.

_____________________________
"There's no high like the Most High" ~author unknown

wheelchairman
03-17-2010, 10:42 PM
Yeah I once had a friend who OD'ed from marijuana. He puked and then fell asleep. It would've been scary had it been something like vodka that would've killed him...

For Real
03-17-2010, 10:49 PM
sarcasm? :rolleyes:

Marijuana is an all-natural plant, not to be lumped into the classification of street drugs made with God-only-knows what. Sure, it's illegal, and most folks should stay away from that one too, however, there are those ones who definitely benefit from it - hyperanxious/jittery-jattery types and of course cancer patients on chemotherapy.

vodka? well it too can be a toxin in large quantities, though I don't think a heavy metal toxin, but over time it like any alcohol used persistently and heavily can cause cirrhosis of the liver. Like most people with a 1/2 a brain know - the key is moderation

wheelchairman
03-18-2010, 12:04 AM
Not quite sarcasm, I'd just call it cheeky.

My point was that if you drink too much vodka in a sitting you will die. If you smoke too much weed in a sitting, you will get really dizzy and sick, you will probably puke, and you will definitely pass out.

This is of course beginners facts. Anyone over 20 probably already knows this. but that's what worries me. If I were to have a son or daughter, the idea of him/her being part of the youth drinking culture (which where I live, starts at 15), would terrify the daylights out of me. Most people here are in good responsible hands, when I was 15 and drank waaaay too much vodka, my friends had the good sense to call the emergency line.

Not that I would want my child to be a stoner, but if it was left at that, the risk of him dying would be 0.

And it's not about personal health. This wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States#Cr iminalization_.281900s.29) seems to suggest that the ban of marijuana had something to do with Mexican emigration in the early 20th century. I guess it makes sense, however it goes against all the stoner theories about Big Paper or Big Rope corporations or whatever pulling the strings. Anyways I'm digressing, my point is that when you mention the medical benefits its irrelevant.

Otherwise we'd ban cigarettes. Despite the tobacco industries' claims that cigarettes prevent alzheimers (right on!). We'd probably ban all sorts of things based on that criteria.

However that'd make us more pretentious douchebags than our society already is. Its bad enough smokers get so much flack these days because people are pussies.
"don't you know that's bad for you?"
"No...I didn't. I live under a rock and can't read."

This trend against smokers is spreading though. I suppose that before people minded their own business, but once second hand smoke was discovered it allowed people to vent their judgemental juices against those poor-smelling folks who enjoy tobacco. However now it seems more and more common to judge fat people based on this premise. (It's been 20 years, no one even remembers how to mind their own business I guess). So anyone whose overweight seemingly has to put up with society's judgment. It's pathetic. And its disgusting really.

Anyways I'm really digressing. My point is that your point doesn't make sense. I just really hate this, and love to rant about it. It doesn't really address anything you say (the part about smokers and fat people) but its sort of topical.

Btw, cocaine is all natural. That's a stupid argument as there is a huge fucking difference between it and weed. I'll take a room with a stoner over a room with a coke-head any day. Even if the coke-head is usually really really really nice and overly talkative most of the time.

T-6005
03-18-2010, 12:17 AM
Um, fuck dudes, stop treating the effects of pot as uniform.

Just because you feel relaxed doesn't mean everyone does.

I get a few tokes and I get paranoid. Don't think I'm the only one.

It's fine that you get relaxed and stupid. Just don't assume that your drug affects everyone the same way.

WebDudette
03-18-2010, 02:34 AM
Okay, but what are you getting at? The fact that some people may get paranoid when they smoke it is not a reason to keep it illegal. In fact, how paranoid would smokers really be if it was legal? I suppose not all the paranoia is rooted in the legality of it though. But I mean a lot of people don't like the effects alcohol has on them, so they don't drink it.

I'm not a big fan of pot and probably wouldn't smoke it any more then I do now if it were legalized, but I do support the legalization of it. Granted, THC levels will probably be regulated, just like alcohol, but whatever.

If they develop a road test for it, I am pro legalization of shrooms as well. Nothing I experienced on shrooms was nearly as intense as the trip I had on salvia, and it's legal.

Most other things are a slippery slope. I know lots of people who have done coke a few times, enjoy it, and may do it again given the chance. But I am sure a lot of people get hooked and it just ruins there lives. Then again, alcohol has the same potential.

Jesus
03-18-2010, 04:00 AM
This trend against smokers is spreading though. I suppose that before people minded their own business, but once second hand smoke was discovered it allowed people to vent their judgemental juices against those poor-smelling folks who enjoy tobacco. However now it seems more and more common to judge fat people based on this premise. (It's been 20 years, no one even remembers how to mind their own business I guess). So anyone whose overweight seemingly has to put up with society's judgment. It's pathetic. And its disgusting really.

Since when did you turn libertarian (don't follow the trend of most marxists ending up libertarian :(, from one 'extreme' to another).

Having a welfare state has consequences. Fat people lead to more costs, only a small part of it is offset by the fact that they die younger and thus receive less pensions. So obviously society is going to have a negative point of view of it.

I do agree that social stigmatizing is wrong, but at the same time I think the other extreme of it just being a personal choice (and we should just mind our own business) is equally wrong. Because if you look at the figures obesitas affects lower income groups disproportionally. So the constraints of less time to cook, less income to buy healthy food etc are more important than it being just a simple personal choice. So I think it's more of a social justice issue and does deserve society's attention. Obviously a middle class dominated society will try stigmatizes more and will try to dismantle the welfare state a bit in response to it (like sicknesses related to obesitas shouldn't be covered etc), but I don't think you are doing lower income groups a benefit by just ignoring the issue.

wheelchairman
03-18-2010, 10:02 AM
Nah I ain't gonna end up a libertarian, in as much that I despise the ideology. However it is the stigmatizing I do dislike.

The issues brought up in Denmark (where the welfare state was created decades before people cared about second hand smoke OR obesity). And while I can see the logic in the state running an information campaign to fight this (or even very correctly, offering free services to quit smoking). I think it starts to suck when smoking in bars becomes illegal. However our current government is quite typical in that instead of trying to fight the issue in a logical manner, they do it in an easy manner.

Recently our liberal government raised the sales tax on cigarettes, making them roughly 0.40€ more expensive. (This isn't going to make anyone quit. If you smoke a pack a day, you're only paying 12€ more a month). That would be an added tax aimed at the lower classes. The same was done with foods, where there is discussion on raising the sales tax on fatty or unhealthy foods. (You'd think a liberal government would do something like lower the sales tax on healthy foods then, or even both would be better).

It really just seems to me that the information campaigns against smoking or obesity have failed, so instead of accepting that people want to smoke or eat fatty foods despite the really obvious, common knowledge that its bad for you, the government isn't happy with that, has to reach everyone.

Besides the WHO defines health as also including mental health. And I believe Danes are happiest with a beer, a hot dog, and a cigarette.

Thi, being paranoid is a fairly common reaction to weed. That still is a lot better than being around someone on coke. Their emotional swings are a lot more unpredictable and erratic. Anyways the effects of weed on people of course varies, as alcohol on people does too. (angry drunks vs. silly drunks), there are general trends of course but I'm not sure what your point is. That paranoid potheads are a menace to society? (Somehow I doubt you would be.)

Jesus
03-18-2010, 10:48 AM
It really just seems to me that the information campaigns against smoking or obesity have failed, so instead of accepting that people want to smoke or eat fatty foods despite the really obvious, common knowledge that its bad for you, the government isn't happy with that, has to reach everyone.

Yeah but you can inform people all you want, if they don't have the time and money to make healthy food it aint going to work. I simply don't see personal choice as the main factor of increasing rates of obesity, if it was you'd notice obesity rates rising equally fast among different income groups and this simply isn't the case.

It's like saying everybody knows education is important, and then when kids of poor households in increasing rates don't opt for higher education claim that it's their own choice (instead of the social surroundings, tuition fees etc).

wheelchairman
03-18-2010, 11:17 AM
Eh I get where you are coming from, and it makes perfect sense in a non-Scandinavian welfare state. Of course if this is the case, increasing taxes on fatty foods most likely won't affect the prices of fast-food significantly. (Also unfortunately in Denmark, fast food is too expensive to eat on a daily basis if you're on a small income.)

The issue then would be how could the government encourage lower class citizens to eat less fast food. Increasing the taxes on it just seems cruel in this case. (And impractical.)

mario_spaghettio
03-18-2010, 01:45 PM
libertarianism is the only ideology that makes sense. Live and let live. It's not my responsibility to fix the problems of others. It's hard enough making a way for yourself let alone picking up the mess of others. Liberalism is a mental illness.

wheelchairman
03-18-2010, 04:20 PM
If Libertarianism made sense, more governments would institute it....

To my count there have been far more communist governments than libertarian ones. And no government so far has forced it upon individuals to solve the problems of other individuals. Although from what I understand of libertarianism, the option is available through charity.

So what you say don't really make sense.

mario_spaghettio
03-18-2010, 04:39 PM
And no government so far has forced it upon individuals to solve the problems of other individuals. Are you kidding? They do it through excessive taxation and entitlement programs

mario_spaghettio
03-18-2010, 04:41 PM
Although from what I understand of libertarianism, the option is available through charity.

So what you say don't really make sense.key word being OPTION. Nothing wrong with helping others, but it should not be forced through taxation and government programs. I feel like I just walked into 1984 or something. Is this The Offspring forum or the Twilight Zone?

jacknife737
03-18-2010, 05:08 PM
Yes, because social welfare is totally the same thing as totalitarianism.

wheelchairman
03-18-2010, 05:52 PM
Are you kidding? They do it through excessive taxation and entitlement programs
I live in Denmark and pay 38% taxes. I don't find it excessive at all, living here is awesome. There's like no real crime. The government exists for the betterment of society, not the individual.


key word being OPTION. Nothing wrong with helping others, but it should not be forced through taxation and government programs. I feel like I just walked into 1984 or something. Is this The Offspring forum or the Twilight Zone?

The Offspring are a pretty liberal group it seems, at least that's what Noodles' posts here seem to reflect.

Anyways you didn't really address anything I said, like how no government has ever been libertarian because that'd be so irresponsible...

It's like anarchists claiming Somalia is an example of anarchism. Good choice bro.

mario_spaghettio
03-18-2010, 07:49 PM
I live in Denmark and pay 38% taxes. I don't find it excessive at all, living here is awesome. There's like no real crime. The government exists for the betterment of society, not the individual.
Big brother has you brainwashed. Maybe they'll start taking 60% for the betterment of society? Maybe they'll just take 100% and provide for you what they feel you need? There's like no real crime in the US either if you only count the parts that are predominantly white.............like Denmark.

mario_spaghettio
03-18-2010, 07:58 PM
Yes, because social welfare is totally the same thing as totalitarianism.the more control government has the closer it becomes to totalitarianism

wheelchairman
03-18-2010, 09:38 PM
Big brother has you brainwashed. Maybe they'll start taking 60% for the betterment of society? Maybe they'll just take 100% and provide for you what they feel you need? There's like no real crime in the US either if you only count the parts that are predominantly white.............like Denmark.
Oh I see. If we got rid of all the minorities we'd have no crime right?

And saying someone's brainwashed is not a retort. In fact so far you have no retorts it seems.


the more control government has the closer it becomes to totalitarianism

Except when the government is called a democracy and has elections. But hey, who needs definitions. :)

WebDudette
03-18-2010, 10:00 PM
He's a troll, right?

soniyajack
03-18-2010, 10:10 PM
Legalizing drugs could stop street gang members from making money selling them. It could possibly stop some gang shootings over drug money. Let the govt. bring truck loads to them for free. They can all overdose. If drugs are free in the U.S. it could put Columbia import of illicit drugs into the United States to a hault. There would be no profit for them. Marijuana is more harmful then many believe.

jacknife737
03-18-2010, 10:27 PM
I actually don't quite buy the argument that legalizing drugs will reduce crime. Criminal organizations exist because they want to make money outside of the regular legal means: take away that illegality of the substance they deal in, and they'll just continue to produce and sell drugs (ie, like bootleg cigarettes which still involves a high degree of violent criminal acts), or they'll simply move on to other illegal means to produce an income like gambling, stealing, ect. I worded this all very awkwardly, but i'm sure you'll get my point.


the more control government has the closer it becomes to totalitarianism

You crazy boy.

mario_spaghettio
03-18-2010, 10:28 PM
Oh I see. If we got rid of all the minorities we'd have no crime right?

And saying someone's brainwashed is not a retort. In fact so far you have no retorts it seems.



Except when the government is called a democracy and has elections. But hey, who needs definitions. :)Elections? The government props up a couple of talking heads and tells you to take your pick. LOL

mario_spaghettio
03-18-2010, 10:31 PM
I actually don't quite buy the argument that legalizing drugs will reduce crime..I agree..........

mario_spaghettio
03-18-2010, 10:32 PM
Oh I see. If we got rid of all the minorities we'd have no crime right?If the US got rid of minorities there would be significantly less crime. That's not racist, it's fact. I'm in no way suggesting we do this, but I always get a kick out of Northern Europeans from countries that are 99% white comparing their crime rates with the US.

mario_spaghettio
03-18-2010, 10:39 PM
Marijuana is more harmful then many believe.It's less harmful actually

Moose
03-19-2010, 12:01 AM
i don't know if we'd have less crime or more crime...


...but i just think a different part of the population would fill in the blanks that you take out...i guess you can argue about the percentage of crime that would exist...

...but in this world...there will always be rich and poor, the good and bad...the comfortable and desperate.


...i suppose circumstances and will dictate the rest.

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 12:47 AM
I actually don't quite buy the argument that legalizing drugs will reduce crime. Criminal organizations exist because they want to make money outside of the regular legal means: take away that illegality of the substance they deal in, and they'll just continue to produce and sell drugs (ie, like bootleg cigarettes which still involves a high degree of violent criminal acts), or they'll simply move on to other illegal means to produce an income like gambling, stealing, ect. I worded this all very awkwardly, but i'm sure you'll get my point.

Well simply put, if you make smoking weed legal, then less people who smoke it will get fines, or whatever. It's not going to eliminate criminal organizations, it would hopefully remove a lucrative income I guess. I think they'd rather focus on money-drugs like coke anyways though.


Elections? The government props up a couple of talking heads and tells you to take your pick. LOL
Bush propped up Obama?


If the US got rid of minorities there would be significantly less crime. That's not racist, it's fact. I'm in no way suggesting we do this, but I always get a kick out of Northern Europeans from countries that are 99% white comparing their crime rates with the US.
That's not a fact, that's called speculation. If it were a fact you could prove it. You could switch it around and say that crime is not indicative of culture or race, but of social class. Seeing as there is crime in homogenous societies as well. (Even high amounts of it, depending...shockingly on the level of development of that society.)

But to believe what you are saying means you have to have ignored stuff like the news for the past twelve months. You know...with all the wall-street stuff. Also you'd have to be wholly ignorant of people like..John Gotti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gotti)...

It's just dumb really.

mario_spaghettio
03-19-2010, 01:02 AM
key word being OPTION. Nothing wrong with helping others, but it should not be forced through taxation and government programs. I feel like I just walked into 1984 or something. I KNEW IT! A MUST READ(especially for Danes) http://www.rense.com/general79/brave.htm

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 01:58 AM
I started it and all I got was that some British ex-cop was surprised to find that Denmark is not the UK. Some things I agree with (Danish arrogance) while others just seemed bizarre paranoia. (Oh no, a health-insurance card, heaven forbid!)

Mario, if you can't bring up a single point against anything I said. (And I've given plenty of examples as to why everything you've said is wrong.) I really don't see a need to continue this debate.

Especially since your source now seems to be the anecdotal tale of an ex-cop from England living in Denmark.

Llamas
03-19-2010, 05:00 AM
If the US got rid of minorities there would be significantly less crime. That's not racist, it's fact. I'm in no way suggesting we do this, but I always get a kick out of Northern Europeans from countries that are 99% white comparing their crime rates with the US.

This is so incredibly stupid. I live in a country that's 99% white, and the crime here is INSANE. It's much higher than where I'm from in the US. The difference is not white people or minority percentages... it's knowing how to control it and keep it in check.

And did you know that the top 10 countries in the world for lowest rates of crime are in Africa, or near India?? Heyyyy those countries are FULL of minorities! How can they possibly have the lowest crime rates without WHITES there?? :-O (In order: Burkina Faso, Mali, Syria, Cambodia, Yemen, Myanmar, Angola, Cameroon, Vietnam, Bangladesh)

T-6005
03-19-2010, 09:21 AM
That list is somehow bizarre.

mario_spaghettio, the difference between the countries you named and the United States is not so much the lack of minorities, but rather the government providing a social safety net for its citizens through taxation.

It's not an absolute relationship, but in general the existence of a well-thought out form of societal support coincides with a lower crime rate. Which *gasp* requires taxation.

Oxygene
03-19-2010, 09:39 AM
isn't this mario guy the 311 turd?

Crime is a question of nurture, not nature.. you think the Obama girls are gonna be jacking car stereos?

Jesus
03-19-2010, 10:22 AM
libertarianism is the only ideology that makes sense. Live and let live. It's not my responsibility to fix the problems of others. It's hard enough making a way for yourself let alone picking up the mess of others. Liberalism is a mental illness.
I never understand how US libertarianism is supposed to work, if they argue that governments are corrupt, totalitarian, have distributed wealth, picked winners and losers etc. Then how can they at the same time justify the current distribution of wealth as a starting point for a libertarian society.


This is so incredibly stupid. I live in a country that's 99% white, and the crime here is INSANE.

Yeah but those are Eastern Europeans, they don't count as whities ;).


And did you know that the top 10 countries in the world for lowest rates of crime are in Africa, or near India?? Heyyyy those countries are FULL of minorities! How can they possibly have the lowest crime rates without WHITES there?? :-O (In order: Burkina Faso, Mali, Syria, Cambodia, Yemen, Myanmar, Angola, Cameroon, Vietnam, Bangladesh)

That's reported crime. They get those low numbers by have virtually no functioning police departments and stats agencies to be honest.

mario_spaghettio
03-19-2010, 12:28 PM
This is so incredibly stupid. I live in a country that's 99% white, and the crime here is INSANE. It's much higher than where I'm from in the US. The difference is not white people or minority percentages... it's knowing how to control it and keep it in check.

And did you know that the top 10 countries in the world for lowest rates of crime are in Africa, or near India?? Heyyyy those countries are FULL of minorities! How can they possibly have the lowest crime rates without WHITES there?? :-O (In order: Burkina Faso, Mali, Syria, Cambodia, Yemen, Myanmar, Angola, Cameroon, Vietnam, Bangladesh)Because most people in those countries do not report crime and the police are corrupt.

Edit; what Jesus said

mario_spaghettio
03-19-2010, 12:37 PM
isn't this mario guy the 311 turd?

Crime is a question of nurture, not nature..I agree, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of black parents in the US do not nurture their children properly.

Llamas
03-19-2010, 12:37 PM
Yeah but those are Eastern Europeans, they don't count as whities ;).
I'm not in Eastern Europe :P


That's reported crime. They get those low numbers by have virtually no functioning police departments and stats agencies to be honest.
This is fair. I didn't consider this. I thought the list seemed weird, but I'd imagine that Mexico and countries in South America would be even "better" then.

Gays commit much less crime than straights. The US needs more gays.

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 12:39 PM
I agree, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of black parents in the US do not nurture their children properly.

Again not a fact. and despite your claims of not being racist, all you've done is link race with bad behavior and poor parenting.

For Real
03-19-2010, 03:01 PM
whoa, how did this thread get to be about crime and racism and stuff?

back to topic please (i'm enjoying reading all the different angles ;)), which is "Legalising And Taxing Drugs"

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 03:38 PM
Fuck you you braindead moron.

For Real
03-19-2010, 04:15 PM
:eek:

Excuse me? Well, I'm not the one doing drugs - therefore NOT braindead, you moron!

For Real
03-19-2010, 04:19 PM
:mad:

And ANOTHER thang: Dude, you soooo do NOT want to talk to me like that, 'cause I will go OFF on your ass without blinking an eye and without a consience! Just ask the peeps on the RHCP board circa '02-'05.

Besides, it wouldn't look very good for you if a sexy lady like me gets up your ass!!!

So WATCH it!!!

Llamas
03-19-2010, 04:28 PM
Totally ipunk.

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 04:35 PM
Totally stupid. Go off on me. I'll just not read it. But hey if you don't want to come off as a braindead moron don't post things like this in the middle of a discussion:


"totalitarianism" - that is too big of a word for tonight which is my "Friday" night, 'cause, SURPRISE, I am off tomorrow! yayyayayayay can u say "sleep in"???

sleepsleepsleepsleepsleepsleeepsleeepslepeslepslep s ZZZZZZZZXxxxxxxxxzzzzzzzz

I'm drunk all the time, yet the 3 living brain cells I have know that you're dumb as shit.

For Real
03-19-2010, 04:44 PM
Totally stupid. Go off on me. I'll just not read it. But hey if you don't want to come off as a braindead moron don't post things like this in the middle of a discussion:



I'm drunk all the time, yet the 3 living brain cells I have know that you're dumb as shit.


Whatever. I have since deleted that message since it interrupted your highly intelligent druggy thread. :rolleyes:

And tell you what, when you acquire AT LEAST 7 more brain cells for a total of 10, then you may call me "dumb", because until THEN, I am sure you will need your 3 brain cells for MULTIPLYING THEMSELVES so that you will have enough brain cells for some god dam SELF love, because what you are doing is called PROJECTING. You may be smart, but you are LACKING someTHING which causes you to PROJECT crapola onto good and decent folks like MOI!!!

Oh, and you MUST have read "it", else you wouldn't have answered "it". Talk about dumb as shit.

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 04:50 PM
I was talking about your ripping into me. I wasn't going to read that. Not your previous post.

Then you sent the PM and tricked me.

For Real
03-19-2010, 04:55 PM
What?

Dude, you ripped into me FIRST.

And, you sent me a PM, to which I responded (and to which you had BETTER keep in the PM area, or else!!, 'cause that's why they call them PRIVATE messages! so do NOT try me)

Jeesh........

IamSam
03-19-2010, 05:25 PM
Good troll is good.

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 05:44 PM
It's a dude. Only a dude would have an anime girl in their avatar.

For Real
03-19-2010, 05:45 PM
*fly on wall*

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 07:08 PM
Stop writing PMs. If I don't reply it means I don't want to. The creepy flirting, the lame insults, the strange logic. It's weird, ipunk. Go troll chatroulette.

For Real
03-19-2010, 07:45 PM
hmm'kay lemme see if i got this right - you insult ME first and foremost by saying "fuck you, etc." then I get back in your face. and I PM you the same insult, then YOU get hurt (with the sad face thingy) because you apparently can't seem to take what you dish out, so next (out of the goodness of my heart) I PM you back explaining this dysfunctional thing between you and me and also throw in something to help make you feel better. Alrighty, sooooo NOW you are POUTING, because evidently NOBODY has ever stood up to you before! But I am different. I won't be abused, and I also don't like abusing others even when they're asking for it.

so you can ignore me, and I'll do likewise. 'kay?

(troll = no apparent reason for being on board? well that is not me 'cause I DO have a reason)

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 07:47 PM
Stop talking to me.

For Real
03-19-2010, 07:53 PM
just ignore me, it's really not that hard

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 07:53 PM
Alrighty, sooooo NOW you are POUTING, because evidently NOBODY has ever stood up to you before!

I just noticed this. Why do people believe these things to be true? Does everything have to be a David and Goliath fight where you're the underdog? wtf?

Is it because I've been here a long time and have a lot of posts? Wouldn't that just increase the odds of people 'standing up to me'. This is the internet, why would you believe someone would be intimidated by post count and longevity? Is that like the e-body-building or something?

In conclusion, what's wrong with you, you weird little chimp-fucker?

For Real
03-19-2010, 07:55 PM
blah blah blah blah blah

here we go with the insults again (that you always seem to START)



*soooo IGNORING you*

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 08:05 PM
Still ignoring me weirdo?

For Real
03-19-2010, 08:07 PM
Okay I will answer some...


I just noticed this. Why do people believe these things to be true? Does everything have to be a David and Goliath fight where you're the underdog? wtf?

I don't know. Why don't you ask The Offspring - they might know, given that they used a similar scenario in their "Defy You" video - which is pretty cool, I might add. :cool:


Is it because I've been here a long time and have a lot of posts? Wouldn't that just increase the odds of people 'standing up to me'. This is the internet, why would you believe someone would be intimidated by post count and longevity? Is that like the e-body-building or something?

I never noticed all that about you until you pointed it out.


In conclusion, what's wrong with you, you weird little chimp-fucker?

okay, back to *ignoring* you........

Al Coholic
03-19-2010, 08:10 PM
http://www.srhspa.org/SRHSTA/Theatre_Board_files/drkblu_circle_arrows.png


Not that I'm against it though. It can be semi interesting sometimes.

Although I'm getting really really tired of the "this threads derailed, lets close it" practice. It's like closing a Mcdonalds because a fight broke out in the parking lot. Nah, you remove the person that started the fight. In this case, it's a 15 year old boy formely known as ipunk. Then later on the Mcdonalds resumes doing what it was intended for.

For Real
03-19-2010, 08:13 PM
*glares*


Oh, i c

"semi" interesting...

hmmm.

bye.

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 08:21 PM
I never noticed all that about you until you pointed it out.





So if this is true, why would you assume that no one stands up to me? Because I called you dumb as shit?

That's some dumb as shit logic.

For Real
03-19-2010, 08:25 PM
*sighs*

sweetheart, are you drunk?

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 08:28 PM
Assuming you're the guy who posted as iPunk, that's a stupid question for someone whose been here so long.

For Real
03-19-2010, 08:30 PM
oh whatevah!

go swallow a torch!

*BOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!*

Al Coholic
03-19-2010, 08:43 PM
And ANOTHER thang: Dude, you soooo do NOT want to talk to me like that, 'cause I will go OFF on your ass without blinking an eye and without a consience! Just ask the peeps on the RHCP board circa '02-'05

What kind of faggot thinks it's cool to cite that he was popular on some message board,




AFTER 2001?


I was on the Rancid board in the LATE NINETIES, and a regular in the Bad Religion chat room from about 97-00. I don't feel a need to tout it, but I was part of this scene before it got run over by a bunch of 15 year olds like you. I'm one of the originals. I wAs 0nE oF ThE fIr$t PpL 2 UsE AlTeRnAtInG CaPs lIkE ThIs. That's why all my theads got so much attention and then everyone copied me. I was there before built in smileys and different color font. All we had was fucking times new roman and text smilies like this:
>:-O
That one means angry. I built those fucking places, don't try and tell me you're old skool.

Llamas
03-19-2010, 08:44 PM
I find it interesting how this incarnation of ipunk started its time here posting like a normal person... and then gradually, over time, moving toward bannable troll-like qualities. I didn't mind it this time until these last few days.

Al Coholic
03-19-2010, 08:50 PM
Weird, I don't find that interesting at all.

For Real
03-19-2010, 08:51 PM
i am not a faggot, nor an ipunk

I am a GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A girly-girl.

And don't ban me for taking up for myself. You all have picked fights with me just so I would say stupid stuff just so you would have a reason to ban me just to keep me quiet.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh hhh

For Real
03-19-2010, 08:53 PM
What kind of faggot thinks it's cool to cite that he was popular on some message board,




AFTER 2001?


I was on the Rancid board in the LATE NINETIES, and a regular in the Bad Religion chat room from about 97-00. I don't feel a need to tout it, but I was part of this scene before it got run over by a bunch of 15 year olds like you. I'm one of the originals. I wAs 0nE oF ThE fIr$t PpL 2 UsE AlTeRnAtInG CaPs lIkE ThIs. That's why all my theads got so much attention and then everyone copied me. I was there before built in smileys and different color font. All we had was fucking times new roman and text smilies like this:
>:-O
That one means angry. I built those fucking places, don't try and tell me you're old skool.

uuuummmpppfffff!

somebody rescue me, i am in over my head!!!! help!! help!!

For Real
03-19-2010, 08:54 PM
I find it interesting how this incarnation of ipunk started its time here posting like a normal person... and then gradually, over time, moving toward bannable troll-like qualities. I didn't mind it this time until these last few days.

please don't ban me, I am not a troll, I swear it

Al Coholic
03-19-2010, 08:56 PM
Wait a minute, this person is clearly ignorant to the fact that llamas is not a mod. No way it's ipunk, cause ipunk knows better.

My apologies.

For Real
03-19-2010, 08:58 PM
apology accepted. yeah, I don't know any better.


*yay* i get to stick around! :)


thank u! thank u!

wheelchairman
03-19-2010, 09:20 PM
Wait a minute, this person is clearly ignorant to the fact that llamas is not a mod. No way it's ipunk, cause ipunk knows better.

My apologies.

I don't think its ipunk either. Definitely think its a dude though.


i am not a faggot, nor an ipunk

I am a GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A girly-girl.

And don't ban me for taking up for myself. You all have picked fights with me just so I would say stupid stuff just so you would have a reason to ban me just to keep me quiet.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh hhh

However this is true ipunk. Except without typos.

Al Coholic
03-20-2010, 11:42 AM
I don't think its ipunk either. Definitely think its a dude though.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Because I was being really sarcastic, and I'm positive you'd catch that. But this doesn't sound sarcastic, so...?

wheelchairman
03-20-2010, 12:13 PM
Didn't ipunk always have typos, or am I mixing him up with someone else?

If For Real ain't ipunk, its definitely some other dude. Totally a dude's idea of a chick.

Llamas
03-20-2010, 12:28 PM
I don't think ipunk had typos. ipunk's typing style was incredibly similar to what this guy's current style is.

For Real
03-20-2010, 01:26 PM
wrong-o

I am a girl-who's-playing-a-guy-who's-playing-a-girl.

:D

Alison
03-20-2010, 05:50 PM
Didnt ipunk always say some spanish words too? And always talked about things being sexy. Or something.

IamSam
03-20-2010, 05:57 PM
I honestly can't believe this is still going on.

Al Coholic
03-20-2010, 06:30 PM
I honestly can't believe this is still going on.

I KNOW R?IFHT? CUZ ITS SO OBVIOUSLY IPUNK.








Or is it? I mean, slight variations in spelling and word use could imply that the user is making only the easiest effort to differentiate from its old accounts, or that the same person might not type exactly the same from month to month. OR it could be a completely new and extremely unlikely coincidentally similar person.


I saw we open a thread in tour talk and talk about it for 3 days. We just have to remember to end each post with "Offspring come to ______" so it doesn't get closed.

Al Coholic
03-20-2010, 06:32 PM
By the way, if marijuana is legalized, why wouldn't it be legal to grow it yourself? It's perfectly fine to make your own beer, as long as you don't sell it. How could a plant be legal to smoke but not to grow?

mario_spaghettio
03-21-2010, 06:18 AM
The government would make it highly illegal to grow your own because they couldn't tax it.

Al Coholic
03-21-2010, 10:38 AM
That doesn't seem likely, and impossible to really enforce. The amount of time and equipment that growing your own marijuana takes is costly enough that there should still be a huge market for privately grown bud. Especially since it's got to be cheaper than what dealers have for this all to even work(or atleast competative).

How many people make their own tobacco? Their own tomatoes? Sure, some people brew their own beer but it's a considerable investment in time and equipment, as compared to just buying a case/keg. I don't think anyone does it to save money.

mario_spaghettio
03-21-2010, 02:41 PM
At this point we're all speculating, which really goes nowhere. I am 100% for legalization providing we are allowed to grow our own.

Oxygene
03-23-2010, 09:17 AM
I agree, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of black parents in the US do not nurture their children properly.

The fact of the matter is majority of US parents do not nurture their children properly.. wether or not they are or aren't black is just fine tuning :D

AD90
03-28-2010, 10:06 AM
My poor, poor thread.

Moose
03-29-2010, 01:29 PM
if this hasnt been mentioned yet...come november, cali is gonna vote on the legalization of weed.


you can grow it yourself up to 25 sq feet, and carry up to an ounce on you i believe.


you cant smoke and drive, or drive under the influence of it...you cant smoke it in front of children...

you must be 21 years or older...

they are also giving the right for taxes on it...obviously...


california will save an estimated 200 million just ridding themselves of the criminal portion of marijuana...trials, lawyers, jail time, etc...that alone saves them 200 million...not to mention the millions potentially made through taxes...


...it almost makes too much sense.

bronc_28
04-19-2010, 11:22 PM
of course none of this matters now, in order to keep health care costs down, there's no way it'll ever happen.

thanks to Gov't Health Care, it no longer only effects you, since other taxpayers may be subsidizing your health care coverage, it behooves the State to control what goes into your body.

ad8
04-20-2010, 05:10 AM
of course none of this matters now, in order to keep health care costs down, there's no way it'll ever happen.

thanks to Gov't Health Care, it no longer only effects you, since other taxpayers may be subsidizing your health care coverage, it behooves the State to control what goes into your body.
........???

AD90
04-21-2010, 07:28 AM
I don't know if that was specifically directed at me or just a general statement. But we've had Universal Health Care for a long, long time.

Unfortunately it seems our Health system is up shit creek.