Drugs

[Dapper]

I bet if it were legal and cooked in a lab environment, not in a personal kitchen using makeshift lab equipment there would be a lot less burns.

That souds like something a meth addict couldn't afford.

 

[FoolKiller]

That souds like something a meth addict couldn't afford.

And?

 

[Dapper]

And?

And then they cook it in their kitchen. 💡

 

[FoolKiller]

And then they cook it in their kitchen. 💡

Why wouldn't they just buy it from guys who can cook it safely?

 

[Dapper]

Why wouldn't they just buy it from guys who can cook it safely?

It would be, inevitably, cheaper from the guy in the kitchen because he doesn't have a Phd and he stole the materials. Just a guess.

 

[FoolKiller]

It would be, inevitably, cheaper from the guy in the kitchen because he doesn't have a Phd and he stole the materials. Just a guess.

Mass production = cheaper.

Otherwise your statement would apply to everything we buy from groceries to cars.

 

[Dapper]

Mass production = cheaper.

Otherwise your statement would apply to everything we buy from groceries to cars.

But what you are saying is not making sense. Mass production of meth? Also, no factory will produce it cheaper than a couple batteries and some cold medicine cost.

And here is an actual example of the kind of thing you apparently support, and it cost $60-$70 a gram(as much as illegal drugs):
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...tanding_over_dead_goat_was_high_on_bath_.html

 

[MercilessOne]

Drugs are bad. This is coming from me, who's done a bit of experimenting during the first year or so of college (coke, heroin, meth, estacy, vikes, etc.), and finally realizing how deep and crappy of a hole you can really get yourself into. I've seen some really messed up people who can't go a day without their fixes, a couple of friends are just in and out of rehab due to how serious it's become, and of course, two of my friends who have died from overdose. It's horrible.


Not meaning to contradict myself with the above ramblings... but... if there's one drug that wouldn't a bad idea to be legalized, it should be marijuana. It's the least harmful and could really kickstart our economy. Imagine that stuff taxed? At least here in California anyway (apparent weed capital of the world), and look, there are medical clinics all over the place, and you can get a medical card that prevents you from getting arrested in case you're caught in possession of some. It really is only a matter of time.

 

[Joel]

Not meaning to contradict myself with the above ramblings... but... if there's one drug that wouldn't a bad idea to be legalized, it should be marijuana. It's the least harmful and could really kickstart our economy. Imagine that stuff taxed? At least here in California anyway (apparent weed capital of the world), and look, there are medical clinics all over the place, and you can get a medical card that prevents you from getting arrested in case you're caught in possession of some. It really is only a matter of time.

But as for drugs being bad, why does that mean they should be illegal? Being fat is bad for you, that's not illegal (I should know). Hard drugs come with their own punishment, and the bad effects should outweigh the good to rational people. The biggest benefit I think to it, is that if hard drugs were legal, people with an addiction would be treated like people with an addiction. Not criminals. Why should somebody who uses cocaine or meth in the privacy of their home have to go to jail? They aren't hurting anyone else, just themselves, so why should they be thrown in jail with thieves and murderers? Portugal made drugs legal a few years back, and the difference is that sick people (drug addicts), are treated like alcoholics are; people with a problem. They aren't thrown in jail, but given therapy.

 

[TT3AZ]

Once a drug addict got messed up in his head from using meth etc and tried to rough me up. As said earlyer in the thread, its not only the drugs, its the destructive lifestyle you got to get away from. Many people that takes drugs living a destructive lifestyle, seeing anyone that is negative to drugs as an enemy. But then again, let nature sort this piece of trash out. I dont want them in my society, or at my door begging for nickles just to buy their fixes. Drug addicts that do almost anything to get drugs are the scum of earth, and i have no sympathy for those kind of trash.

If only we could take this in our own hands and sort this people out....

All drug users/addicts pleas feel ofended by my statement.

Second, do you really thinks its healthy to burn styff (marijuana) and inhale it? All stuff that burns damage the lungs. And dont speak about alcohol and ciggarettes, because i dont like those thing either.

Just wait untill you get assaulted by some drug addict trash, that will change your view. I have been assaulted many times by druggies, they had knifes, baseball bats, etc, etc. Those people are readdy to kill you for anything because they dont care about their life, they dont have anything to loose. Second, many drug addicts have psychic problems as well. In my town, about 3 drug addicts stabbed and raped a 8 year old girl for no reason. At the interigation they claimed that they heard "voices". What if this would be your daughter? So yes, all drugs make people sick.

 

[Dennisch]

^^ Everything you mentioned happens without drugs too.

There will always be people with some strange malfunction in their mind. Has nothing to do with drugs.

 

[FoolKiller]

But what you are saying is not making sense. Mass production of meth?

Uh, if it is legal, yes. Or do you look at the legal drugs that we have and say those cigarettes and alcoholic beverages being mass produced is LOL worthy? A still in my house would be cheaper?

Also, no factory will produce it cheaper than a couple batteries and some cold medicine cost.

Cold medicine for illicit use is getting expensive these days in the US. You can only get so much a month, you have to sign for it behind the pharmacy counter, and so to make up a batch of meth they have to pay others to buy the cold medicine too, making Sudafed have a street value of about $30 a box.

Cost should also take into account labor time, safety risks and so forth. What is the dollar value of not blowing yourself up or being able to get a fix by just walking down to the local pharmacy, or wherever it would be sold.

You are making the number one mistake when thinking about legalized drugs, which is still thinking the whole thing will work like it does now, only police won't bust it up. The difference between alcohol processes during and after prohibition was night and day. There is no Al Capone running Jim Beam, or any other criminal elements tied to it. Few people have secret stills or ship stuff in from Cuba. When you talk about legalized drugs imagine it being like alcohol or tobacco. People don't have to make it themselves.

And here is an actual example of the kind of thing you apparently support, and it cost $60-$70 a gram(as much as illegal drugs):
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...tanding_over_dead_goat_was_high_on_bath_.html

$60-$70 a gram? I should get in the export business. I can buy it at a gas station counter, right next to the 5 Hour Energy.

And in this case it is misuse of a normally non-mind altering chemical. On that basis we could ban markers, canned whip cream, Tylenol, etc.

But I have to ask, if people do stupid stuff with legal stuff, sometimes without any stuff, why do you think making illegal stuff legal will suddenly create a new problem? Stupid people do stupid stuff no matter what they are doing.

Legalizing marijuana would actually stop taking money from the economy by cutting back expenses on the War on Drugs.

If only we could take this in our own hands and sort this people out....

You can't volunteer at clinics in Sweden?

Second, do you really thinks its healthy to burn styff (marijuana) and inhale it? All stuff that burns damage the lungs. And dont speak about alcohol and ciggarettes, because i dont like those thing either.

What does that have to do with legalization?

Just wait untill you get assaulted by some drug addict trash, that will change your view. I have been assaulted many times by druggies, they had knifes, baseball bats, etc, etc. Those people are readdy to kill you for anything because they dont care about their life, they dont have anything to loose.

You must live in a horrible neighborhood. I've walked around in an inner city here in Kentucky, New York, Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Hawaii and not run across one violent drug addict. I saw guys that looked scary, but they didn't do anything.

What you described sounded more like areas with gang problems here.

Second, many drug addicts have psychic problems as well.

That is typically why they take drugs. It is a rare instance that the drugs cause the psychological issues, and even then it is usually more likely that the drug triggered an otherwise dormant issue.

In my town, about 3 drug addicts stabbed and raped a 8 year old girl for no reason. At the interigation they claimed that they heard "voices". What if this would be your daughter? So yes, all drugs make people sick.

Correction: Sick people use drugs. Your example there is about as accurate as saying a teenager killed another teenager, and he played video games, so video games make kids become murderers.

 

[TT3AZ]

^^ Everything you mentioned happens without drugs too.

There will always be people with some strange malfunction in their mind. Has nothing to do with drugs.

So you deny that drugs doesnt affect the mind and makes you aggressive etc? Get real man, some drugs mess your mind up way to much.

As i said before, just wait untill that coked up person assaults you

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Legalizing marijuana would actually stop taking money from the economy by cutting back expenses on the War on Drugs.

Doubtful. Any money saved from one department (Police, FBI, ICE, DEA, etc.) would just be pissed away somewhere else...like the IRS.

Cigarettes are over $10/pk in Chicago. Kinda hard to grow your own tobacco, process it, and make it into something you can inhale. Especially if you live in a condo.

Pot, on the other hand, is a weed right? You can grow it on a balcony or porch right? Well, what's to stop people from growing their own instead of paying high prices at the tobacco shop/gas station? Taxes.

If there was a rampant problem with people growing and smoking their own tobacco, you can be damn sure the IRS would shut people down. You'd need permits, licenses, and have to adhere to OSHA and who knows what other regulations. The government will do this in the name of 'safety', yet it will just cause similar problems.

Think legalized pot will be cheap? No...not even close. Remember, cigarettes are over $10/pk in Chicago. Imagine what the taxes would be on a pack of pot.

They'll be expensive. You'll probably need a doctor's note or a 'form' of some sort to buy and do whatever potheads do with pot. This just creates a new market where the old players, gangs/cartels, will adapt and still make money. There will be no decrease in crime and any increased revenues from taxation of pot will be pissed away before it has even been collected (just like tobacco).

Legalized pot, in the minds of many, is a utopian fiction as it would not solve any current problems and may even create new ones.

The question isn't really if pot should or shouldn't be legal, the question is does the government have the 'right' to make my decisions for me. They think yes, which is why we'll all be using bug-zapper light-bulbs in a few years.

 

[FoolKiller]

Doubtful. Any money saved from one department (Police, FBI, ICE, DEA, etc.) would just be pissed away somewhere else...like the IRS.

That depends on how you do it. If you can buy it like cigarettes the tax is part of the sales tax/sin tax and wraps into all the other tax info sent out by the stores. But I firmly believe that you wan't see truly legalized marijuana, or any other drug use without other changes occurring first.

Cigarettes are over $10/pk in Chicago. Kinda hard to grow your own tobacco, process it, and make it into something you can inhale. Especially if you live in a condo.

A plant can be grown in the same size pot as a ficus tree. They grow them like that for displays at the Kentucky State Fair every year. Chicago climate isn't ideal though.

Pot, on the other hand, is a weed right?

Define weed. More like an herb. But mint is a weed too. Very intrusive stuff. I know, I grow my own.

You can grow it on a balcony or porch right? Well, what's to stop people from growing their own instead of paying high prices at the tobacco shop/gas station? Taxes.

Nothing would stop it if it were legalized to the same point as tobacco.

If there was a rampant problem with people growing and smoking their own tobacco, you can be damn sure the IRS would shut people down.

IRS doesn't have that authority. It would fall under an interstate commerce trade issue.

And I do know tobacco farmers that chew/smoke their own. Heck, Kentucky farmers even got together and formed their own brand of cigarettes.

You'd need permits, licenses, and have to adhere to OSHA and who knows what other regulations. The government will do this in the name of 'safety', yet it will just cause similar problems.

OSHA, for home use? Not their jurisdiction. Permits, licenses? I can buy a cow, use its raw milk, or its beef (different kinds of cows, I know) for personal use without USDA inspection. If I have it butchered by a commercial butcher then his work will have to be inspected. But I know people who raise their own food without inspection and are nearly self-sufficient. Heck, I have bought rabbit, chicken, and eggs from them. They offered to split a cow with me. No inspection seals, no government markings, and the way this guy is, if they tried it they may be trying to inspect around flying bullets.

You are applying business regulations to home use. It doesn't work like that. Also, ever heard of a farmer's market? Seen a guy selling fruit on the side of the road? Regulations over-reach, but you took it farther than that in your description. Do you think the USDA or OSHA is knocking on my door to examine my vegetable garden, or all my herbs?

Think legalized pot will be cheap? No...not even close. Remember, cigarettes are over $10/pk in Chicago. Imagine what the taxes would be on a pack of pot.

$3.50 here. The home of Obama would over-tax tobacco.

They'll be expensive. You'll probably need a doctor's note or a 'form' of some sort to buy and do whatever potheads do with pot. This just creates a new market where the old players, gangs/cartels, will adapt and still make money. There will be no decrease in crime and any increased revenues from taxation of pot will be pissed away before it has even been collected (just like tobacco).

Just like what happens when we legalize tobacco, alcohol, and gambling? My state is in the gambling debate now. I hear all about the crime that follows gambling, but when I go to the legal casinos in other states I don't see this over flow of prostitutes and gangsters that you would in backroom casinos.

Legalized pot, in the minds of many, is a utopian fiction as it would not solve any current problems and may even create new ones.

Pot won't be legalized until after government is shrunk. By then your few legitimate fears will mostly be a thing of the past.

The question isn't really if pot should or shouldn't be legal, the question is does the government have the 'right' to make my decisions for me.

Same question, just one is more focused than the other.


But with legalization many changes would have to occur. If you are going to legalize it but over-regulate it to the point where it was better when it was illegal then you have failed to gain from it and have just set yourself up to chase down more problems than you had before.


But you do have to ask, as I know how well that stuff grows in Kentucky (unofficial #1 cash crop), would a pothead take the time to set up a hydroponics system, grow and cultivate, and so on his own when entire farms, with hundreds of acres, could grown, harvest, and sell to market marijuana? You grab a pack of doobies with your munchies, dood!

It grows better here than tobacco. Taxes removed from the equation, it would actually be more profitable than tobacco, soy, or corn.


But the likelihood of it happening is slim. We can't even get industrial hemp farming legalized.

 

[Dapper]

Uh, if it is legal, yes. Or do you look at the legal drugs that we have and say those cigarettes and alcoholic beverages being mass produced is LOL worthy? A still in my house would be cheaper?

Who is talking about cigarettes or alcohol?

Cold medicine for illicit use is getting expensive these days in the US. You can only get so much a month, you have to sign for it behind the pharmacy counter, and so to make up a batch of meth they have to pay others to buy the cold medicine too, making Sudafed have a street value of about $30 a box.

Cost should also take into account labor time, safety risks and so forth. What is the dollar value of not blowing yourself up or being able to get a fix by just walking down to the local pharmacy, or wherever it would be sold.

Despite your argument, it will always be cheaper made by a guy using a 2 liter bottle and a couple hoses. And anyone addicted to the stuff and knows how to do it that way will do it.

You are making the number one mistake when thinking about legalized drugs, which is still thinking the whole thing will work like it does now, only police won't bust it up. The difference between alcohol processes during and after prohibition was night and day. There is no Al Capone running Jim Beam, or any other criminal elements tied to it. Few people have secret stills or ship stuff in from Cuba. When you talk about legalized drugs imagine it being like alcohol or tobacco. People don't have to make it themselves.

Again, who is talking about alcohol?

$60-$70 a gram? I should get in the export business. I can buy it at a gas station counter, right next to the 5 Hour Energy.

And in this case it is misuse of a normally non-mind altering chemical. On that basis we could ban markers, canned whip cream, Tylenol, etc.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Furthermore, you never got my initial point.

But I have to ask, if people do stupid stuff with legal stuff, sometimes without any stuff, why do you think making illegal stuff legal will suddenly create a new problem? Stupid people do stupid stuff no matter what they are doing.

Why do you think I think that?

 

[BrutherSuperior]

OSHA, for home use? Not their jurisdiction. Permits, licenses? I can buy a cow, use its raw milk, or its beef (different kinds of cows, I know) for personal use without USDA inspection. If I have it butchered by a commercial butcher then his work will have to be inspected. But I know people who raise their own food without inspection and are nearly self-sufficient. Heck, I have bought rabbit, chicken, and eggs from them. They offered to split a cow with me. No inspection seals, no government markings, and the way this guy is, if they tried it they may be trying to inspect around flying bullets.

You are applying business regulations to home use. It doesn't work like that. Also, ever heard of a farmer's market? Seen a guy selling fruit on the side of the road? Regulations over-reach, but you took it farther than that in your description. Do you think the USDA or OSHA is knocking on my door to examine my vegetable garden, or all my herbs?

If you work out of your home, or if the authorities think you do, you're in ****.

I'm not sure how owning a business works in KY, but in the Chicago area (Cook County) obtaining a zoning permit for something as simple as renting out an apartment is a royal PITA. Call the city, fill out forms, hear nothing...Call the alderman, put money in an envelope, give envelope of money to the home inspector, rinse repeat.

They call this 'greasing the wheels'.

Now imagine you want to legally run a business out of your garage and do everything by the book. More hoops to jump through and more wheels to grease. This even goes to Farmer's Markets and even the bums on the side of the street begging for change. Yes, you heard that right...bums have to be licensed bums in Chicago. Come visit and you'll see for yourself what it's like in Obama's home town.

I also used to live in San Diego and the 'medical pot' thing out there is an absolute sham. $60 and a visit to a doctor b/c you have headaches and you're legally eligible to purchase, carry, and grow your own pot. There's limits, but since I think pot is disgusting I never really looked into it.

From this 'social experiment' that's been going on in California, you can probably imagine what kind of disaster it would be if this program went nationwide.

Crime didn't go down...it actually went up in the areas where 'medical' pot was sold. Did this lower border crime? Hell no. If you're a Gringo you stayed the hell out of TJ and never ventured south of I-8 if you could avoid it. Did this solve California's budget crisis? Umm...no....not even close.

All the utopian aspects of legalized pot never came to be and show no signs of ever emerging in California.

 

[FoolKiller]

Who is talking about cigarettes or alcohol?

Alcohol is actually a very good comparison to prohibited drugs and the crime that goes with it, as it has been through the prohibited to legal process. For every issue someone raises with legalizing drugs I look at when alcohol prohibition ended and ask myself if there was a similar problem.

Despite your argument, it will always be cheaper made by a guy using a 2 liter bottle and a couple hoses. And anyone addicted to the stuff and knows how to do it that way will do it.

So mass production, market forces, laws of supply and demand, etc don't apply to meth? Or was Henry Ford an idiot in general?

Again, who is talking about alcohol?

See above.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Furthermore, you never got my initial point.

I know they snort this. But it is intended as an oral stimulant. They are misusing the product, same as a guy sniffing markers, or lighters, or God only knows what other OTC things people get their hands on and discover a way to get high with.

And what was your point, since I seem to have missed it.

Why do you think I think that?

Because this whole thing started with you talking about meth addicts getting burns treated from cooking the stuff. I guess bigger problem is the better phrasing, not a new problem.



To describe my entire stance regarding legalizing drugs for people who are afraid it will lead to some kind of problem, I will quote Congressman Dr. Ron Paul from last night.

 

[Dapper]

So mass production, market forces, laws of supply and demand, etc don't apply to meth? Or was Henry Ford an idiot in general?

Since I already showed you one example of a legal form of an illegal drug that cost as much as it's illegal counterpart, and is mass produced as you would like, I see no need to prove you wrong again.

I know they snort this. But it is intended as an oral stimulant. They are misusing the product, same as a guy sniffing markers, or lighters, or God only knows what other OTC things people get their hands on and discover a way to get high with.

First, it isn't sold as an oral stimulant, that is why it is sold as bath salts. Second, it gets used the same way, including desired effect, as its natural counterpart. And, once again, you digress onto things that have nothing to do with the subject.

And what was your point, since I seem to have missed it.

Meth should be illegal, I never said anything about other drugs or markers or tylenol. Several people said everything should be legal, I simply said meth should be illegal. Concerting efforts on drugs that cause problems for not only the user, but the entire communtity seems like a good place to draw the line on what is legal and illegal. Granted I know the negative effects heroin and crack can have on an individual and on a community, but they are much less of a problem in my opinion.

 

[Keef]

But what you are saying is not making sense. Mass production of meth? Also, no factory will produce it cheaper than a couple batteries and some cold medicine cost.

And here is an actual example of the kind of thing you apparently support, and it cost $60-$70 a gram(as much as illegal drugs):
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...tanding_over_dead_goat_was_high_on_bath_.html

This is what he is telling you.

Currently, there is demand for meth. But meth is illegal. Therefore, a black market has formed where people make the stuff in secret. It just so happens that authorities keep tabs on supplies used to make meth, so people can't go buy a kit without looking suspicious. So they make it with whatever tools they have. It is inherently unsafe, and the potential cost of getting caught means that makers ask a very high price for it. Profit must outweigh the risk.

But if it was legal, there would be no black market. Enterprising business people - possibly current meth producers - would start up businesses making meth without fear of authorities. They would be able to get proper equipment. They would be much safer. Buyers would also feel safer, knowing that the meth has been made in a safe way and that they won't get caught for using it. Suddenly they're free to buy more of it. Suddenly the producer sells more of it. Other producers see this success and want a piece of the pie. They jump in to compete, and this competition entices maker A to lower his price even further to keep his market share. Maker B might keep his price the same, but offer a better product.

Suddenly the meth industry is no different than AT&T vs. Verizon, McDonald's vs. Wendy's, Lexus vs. Mercedes. It's profit motivated, competitive, has supply and demand, etc.

I don't know anybody who does meth, nobody who has ever done it, and I've obviously only seen it on TV and in movies. Because of all the drug-free education today (especially from private organizations) the likelihood that meth, as in this example, would become the next Furby is extremely low. Everybody knows meth is bad except math addicts, but the addicts are always there, and that means the demand is always there, and that means that the meth market would probably be a pretty stable one.

Same goes for any other drug out there.

Honestly, the only downside to legalizing drugs would be that action movies wouldn't be ass taboo anymore. Bad Boys 2 would lose a bit of the fun if cocaine was legal.

EDIT: FK, the "bath salts" Dapper was talking about aren't bath salts. It's a nickname for mephedrone.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

But if it was legal, there would be no black market. Enterprising business people - possibly current meth producers - would start up businesses making meth without fear of authorities. They would be able to get proper equipment. They would be much safer. Buyers would also feel safer, knowing that the meth has been made in a safe way and that they won't get caught for using it. Suddenly they're free to buy more of it. Suddenly the producer sells more of it. Other producers see this success and want a piece of the pie. They jump in to compete, and this competition entices maker A to lower his price even further to keep his market share. Maker B might keep his price the same, but offer a better product.

That is a utopian fiction.

Want to know what will probably happen first? Producers & dealers will probably start shooting each other. Next step, someone dies from this new 'legal' meth and the FDA steps in for 'safety' and starts regulating it.

From there, big pharm will be the producer and your local drug store or vitamin shop will be the dealer. This new 'meth' would be safer...but more expensive.

So...you'll have people with crap equipment, poor materials, selling meth to other poor people. And the cycle repeats itself. There will be a retail outlet for those who have some sort of 'permission' to ingest meth and a black market for those who cannot afford or obtain the over the counter stuff. Look to the pot vendors in California...similar is happening.

There will be many unintended consequences if you legitimize something such as meth and none of the perceived benefits of legalizing a drug will come to fruition. It will not happen for 2 reasons:

1. Government screws everything up and ends up costing taxpayers even more $$$
2. Government cannot predict the marketplace.

The 2nd part is really key. So government should either stay 100% out of it or keep things as-is. But in the name of consumer safety and the succulent smell of another possible tax revenue stream, that will never happen.

Here's an exercise I'd like you and everyone who thinks drugs should be legal;

Name one thing that is neither taxed nor regulated in some way shape or form.

Now what makes you think drugs will be any different? Ever have someone take a look at your car, your leaky toilet, fix your deck, or mow your lawn for cash? That's a black market if you think about it. Why did you do it? B/C it was less expensive. Why wouldn't drugs be any different?

 

[Keef]

Want to know what will probably happen first? Producers & dealers will probably start shooting each other. Next step, someone dies from this new 'legal' meth and the FDA steps in for 'safety' and starts regulating it.

The FDA is one of many government agencies that should not exist.

From there, big pharm will be the producer and your local drug store or vitamin shop will be the dealer. This new 'meth' would be safer...but more expensive.

The reason "big business" in general is so dominant in the marketplace is because they're the only ones who can afford to deal with the tremendous burden of government taxation and regulation. This maze of rules has destroyed small business opportunities in all types of business.

There will be many unintended consequences if you legitimize something such as meth and none of the perceived benefits of legalizing a drug will come to fruition.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...are those the unintended consequences you speak of? The benefit of legalizing drugs is the promotion of morality.

1. Government screws everything up and ends up costing taxpayers even more $$$
2. Government cannot predict the marketplace.

The government should not be allowed any hand in the marketplace. It's pretty hard to screw something up when you're not allowed to do it, eh? That fact also invalidates your second reason.

The 2nd part is really key. So government should either stay 100% out of it or keep things as-is. But in the name of consumer safety and the succulent smell of another possible tax revenue stream, that will never happen.

If it doesn't happen under the watch of numerous concerned Americans like myself, FK, Danoff, Omnis, etc, then it will happen when the government collapses from under its own feet and ceases to exist/is taken over by irate citizens with rifles as has happened in numerous Arab countries lately. Have you not bothered to connect any of these dots? If nothing changes, then one ultimate outcome is guaranteed: failure. See; Roman Empire, 27 BC.

Name one thing that is neither taxed nor regulated in some way shape or form.

Literally, nothing. And that's the problem. On an individual level, there is a black market for almost everything where transactions are made with cash and tax is never collected, among other things. At the corporate level, the bosses of the company are responsible for the well being of so many employees that it's just too risky to take shortcuts, so they must abide by the rules. We have a new paint booth at work and I can't even use the air lines in it unless the exhaust fan is on, presumably so I don't suffocate myself while spraying paint with the fan off...somebody out there really thinks I'm that stupid, that I can't hear a 120 dB exhaust fan or feel the 5 mph breeze? Somebody is concerned about all those deaf and blind painters out there, who also can't smell or taste the fumes in the air? Who the hell came up with this retarded "safety" idea?

Anyways, where was I...all the rules that a business owner have to follow cuts into the bottom line drastically. Whether people are safer or not (generally not in my experience, though thoroughly frustrated), everybody loses in the end.

Now what makes you think drugs will be any different? Ever have someone take a look at your car, your leaky toilet, fix your deck, or mow your lawn for cash? That's a black market if you think about it. Why did you do it? B/C it was less expensive. Why wouldn't drugs be any different?

This statement seems to directly contradict all your previous points. In fact...it sounds like you specifically support over-regulation in order to promote strong black markets. What?

People engage in black markets for various things every day, and they do it knowing specifically that what they're doing it illegal in some way, but they don't care. They got their grass cut for cheap and helped the neighbor kid make some money, and the money is not taxed on either end of the transaction. People don't like taxes. People only seem to like regulation when it does not affect them directly, but when it does, boy I'll tell you what, they'll find a way around it lickety split. See; Prohibition, 1920. Miserable failure. Crime went up drastically, because something that used to be legal was suddenly illegal. The catch is that now that it is illegal, the government has to spend a bunch of money to catch, try, and incarcerate people who do the same thing they did yesterday. Because of this threat, activity goes underground (literally in the case of Prohibition), and dealings become very anxious because you never know who might be undercover. People becomes stressed, alert, easily angered. Fights break out because nobody knows who to trust. People just trying to make a living - a living the made perfectly well just a short while before - are suddenly carrying guns to defend themselves against anybody crazy enough to try and steal this now-rare, expensive, and extremely desirable substance (in the case of Prohibition, alcohol). And now you've got a scene that matches up perfectly with the modern black market for drugs.

When prohibition of alcohol went away, so did all these dangerous problems. When prohibition of all these exotic drugs (extremely rare I might add, in relation to alcohol) goes away, so will all of the dangerous problems.

 

[Dapper]

This is what he is telling you.

So, now I have to tell both of you that you two are wrong? Ok, you are both wrong.

For the fun of it, here is another example proving you are wrong. K2 is a synthetic marijuana, mass produced, sold everywhere, and legal in all 50 states, yet it cost MORE than real marijuana. There is empirical proof your theory is wrong, again.

 

[Tesla]

So, now I have to tell both of you that you two are wrong? Ok, you are both wrong.

For the fun of it, here is another example proving you are wrong. K2 is a synthetic marijuana, mass produced, sold everywhere, and legal in all 50 states, yet it cost MORE than real marijuana. There is empirical proof your theory is wrong, again.

Maybe it costs more because the effects are 'better' than real marijuana, or the fact that it is in a higher demand than what can be produced? Remember the triangle - Quality of the product, speed of the maufacturing process, and low cost. You can have two (assuming in this case quality and speed) but you can't have three (cost).

 

[BrutherSuperior]

This statement seems to directly contradict all your previous points. In fact...it sounds like you specifically support over-regulation in order to promote strong black markets. What?

My apologies if I came off that way.

My stance is that you cannot kinda-sorta regulate something. Well, in theory you can...but in practice it does not exist.

A good example would be the regulation of air quality. What are the limits? When is the air 'good enough'? It never is. It can always be cleaner, more animals can be even better protected, every swamp & puddle can be just a little more pure.

It never ends.

Likewise, what and where is the limit of power on the bureaucracy? What happened to the limit of power of the execute and legislative branches? Who gave the power to the Federal Reserve to alter the economic makeup of the country?

There's your problem...

The legalization of pot, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion, and every other 'social' hot button really doesn't mean squat when 1 non-elected judge or 1 non-elected bureaucrat can enact laws, regulations, taxes, and circumvent the constitution and the will of the electorate.

If someone in a nicely air conditioned office can coerce me, you, and everyone into making decisions we'd normally would not make...who really gives a damn about pot?

Government is too big, too inefficient, and too dumb to make decisions for me. If people want pot, they'll get pot. No need to step in and start picking winners and losers while creating new agencies to 'regulate' and 'monitor waste, fraud, and abuse' of pot dispensers.

Either deregulate everything 100% or keep the status quo. Whenever Uncle Sam half-asses something it usually turns out worse than before. And whenever Uncle Sam is looking out for the 'little guy', take a guess who gets bent over?

Get any notices from your bank saying fees are going up and free checking is going away? Have you noticed the fees for withdrawing from an ATM have gone up? How about new fees from your credit cards? Yup, that's the government looking out for you. Hope n' Change knows best.

 

[Keef]

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. It seems we agree almost perfectly . Deregulation will only work if it applies to everything, starting at the top - the Federal Reserve, which is the mechanism by which all resulting over-regulation is "afforded".

So, now I have to tell both of you that you two are wrong? Ok, you are both wrong.

For the fun of it, here is another example proving you are wrong. K2 is a synthetic marijuana, mass produced, sold everywhere, and legal in all 50 states, yet it cost MORE than real marijuana. There is empirical proof your theory is wrong, again.

Maybe it costs more because the effects are 'better' than real marijuana, or the fact that it is in a higher demand than what can be produced? Remember the triangle - Quality of the product, speed of the maufacturing process, and low cost. You can have two (assuming in this case quality and speed) but you can't have three (cost).

QFT. Dapper, just because something is synthetic doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper. Synthetic products are man made. That requires scientist-type people working in a lab to come up with it. Marijuana, a hearty and tough plant that can grow powerfully in some pretty retched environments, requires dirt, water, light, and either a Mexican making a dollar a day or a suburban white hippie stoned out of his mind to take care of the plant. Already we can see that the production cost is in marijuana's favor. That plant is also carried around in little plastic baggies, and there are no multi-million dollar packaging machines sitting in stoner's basement. There is no graphic design team that needs to be paid. No lawyers to handle trademark issues and company liability. There's also the fact that synthetic cannabis is probably more potent - I wouldn't know - and it seems to be generally legal.

Mass-production isn't free, especially compared to a naturally occurring plant. That makes K2 more expensive.

The drug may be more potent, which increases demand for it. That makes K2 more expensive.

The drug is legal, thereby vastly reducing any potential legal backlash on users, which increases demand for it. That makes K2 more expensive.

So there you go, I just listed three fairly obvious reasons why K2 might be more expensive than weed.

 

[Dapper]

What erroneous arguments. 1) Weed bought for smokin is man made, essentially synthetic. 2) Marijuana can be more potent than desired, same with K2, thus, potentcy is not a cause for increased price. And if you are curious, the effects are not better with the fake stuff, furthermore debunking your idea. 3) The only difference in demand between the 2 is the minute population that wants to get high but gets drug tested, military etc. There are your three reasons that are obviously derived from error. Besides, the cost difference isn't even close, some fake pot sells for $40 for a single gram while the premo pot sells for $50 for 3 1/2 grams. It is apparent legal forms of the same drug, 2 listed on his page alone, cost more than their illegal counterpart.

 

[hambone8611]

To grow weed in your basement using 1000 watt metal halide and 1000 watt high pressure sodium light, top dollar soil and ventilation fans on a 3 month cycle that’s 6 weeks vegetation 6 weeks flower, then pay yourself 20 dollars an hour for the time spent tending to your garden factor in a little synthetic fertilizer the power bill and at the end of the experience you will be into it for about 20 bucks an ounce and be able to sell it all day long for 300 an ounce . if it were legal it would still run about 300 bucks because that what people are willing to pay for it. Yes some people would grow their own but not enough to make a difference, just as some people brew their own beer and that has not brought the price of beer down any. [not that I have any firsthand knowledge]

 

[Keef]

What erroneous arguments. 1) Weed bought for smokin is man made, essentially synthetic.

Are you a complete idiot, or do you just enjoy looking like one?

The marijuana typically smoked by everyone and their mother is 100% unprocessed. It is the flowers of the cannabis plant, dried and crushed.

On the contrary, making synthetic stuff requires other stuff. Synthesis is the production of a substance via chemical reactions of two or more completely different substances. The resulting substance will have a different chemical structure than either of the reactants.

You have your choice of chemical and organic synthesis. Organic synthesis can occur in nature. Chemical synthesis does not.

Heroin is synthetic. Cocaine is synthetic. The K2 you keep talking about is synthetic. Even alcohol is synthetic. Smoked marijuana is not synthetic.

2) Marijuana can be more potent than desired, same with K2, thus, potentcy is not a cause for increased price. And if you are curious, the effects are not better with the fake stuff, furthermore debunking your idea.

This is an entirely subjective statement - you seem to know enough about drugs to know that highs vary from user to user, and so are completely subjective. Luckily, I never stated that K2 was stronger, only that it might be stronger.

3) The only difference in demand between the 2 is the minute population that wants to get high but gets drug tested, military etc. There are your three reasons that are obviously derived from error. Besides, the cost difference isn't even close, some fake pot sells for $40 for a single gram while the premo pot sells for $50 for 3 1/2 grams. It is apparent legal forms of the same drug, 2 listed on his page alone, cost more than their illegal counterpart.

So you're saying this is the only drug that users can turn to and still pass drug tests? Sounds like gasoline is the only fuel drivers can turn to and still get to where you're going. I imagine demand has a great deal to do with K2's hefty price. Because it's one of very few legal drugs and has similar effects to weed, demand is probably extremely high, and thus the price is also high. The companies wouldn't jack the price so high if they couldn't sell it at that price - and obviously it is selling or they would be out of business.

EDIT: According to Hambone, weed's price can indeed be very high. I wouldn't know because I don't use it. I've heard stories of people wasting entire paychecks just to get high until the next pay day. Everything I've said so far is assuming K2 is more expensive than real weed, like you've suggested.

 

[hambone8611]

for the record I,m clean and sober nearly five years, just felt that needed to be said