Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Would it matter if I gave an answer to this? You bassicaly told me you are not listening to anything I say?
Show me the quote where I said I wouldn't listen to someone elses idea. Hell use other threads about other topics if it makes it easier. Maybe you are insane because that is what you have told everyone. You bragged about it!
I offered a dialog between both extremes and it seems again you have no interest, maybe proving true your word that you won't consider anything.
I'll assume you are not going to back up anything then also. I think your response was deflection. Hoping no one would notice you ignoring the request for your backing your **** up.
Honestly, are you drinking? I have not said anything about another's aptitude for the English language in some time now, but if you are unable to communicate properly, how are you to be taken with anything other than a grain of salt? Or is it a pound of flesh in prison? I get confused.
The mindset that you have is one of extremes. I wish you well.
No, not drinking. Is it so exreme to stand up against what you see as a wrong course of action? Is it so extreme to stand up for what you think is right? Is it so extreme to think that we dont have a perfect system and some changea to the system is better than throwing out the system? What is so extreme? Or is just extreme to disagree with you?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 04-27-2014).]
I think much of the real world is a "secret" to you. Have a nice day
Really? ? You dont even know me, you hardly even comprend that I feel for the people that fall victom to addiction. But you can some how know what I think? We have a different opinion on drug laws, so we should just accept that we are different. Dont take it so personal.
Show me the quote where I said I wouldn't listen to someone elses idea. Hell use other threads about other topics if it makes it easier. Maybe you are insane because that is what you have told everyone. You bragged about it!
I offered a dialog between both extremes and it seems again you have no interest, maybe proving true your word that you won't consider anything.
I'll assume you are not going to back up anything then also. I think your response was deflection. Hoping no one would notice you ignoring the request for your backing your **** up.
The past few of your posts aimed at me were harsh enough to say you stopped listening. Even this post. Ignoring your questions? I hardly saw one. I have nothing to avoid, what would I loose or gain?
The past few of your posts aimed at me were harsh enough to say you stopped listening. Even this post. Ignoring your questions? I hardly saw one. I have nothing to avoid, what would I loose or gain?
Good luck with your cash cow war on drugs.
I don't do drugs so I don't need to worry about being in your care.
I do of course need to worry how to pay for it though.
Maybe soon people will just stop paying for it. I wonder how far your ideals will go unfunded. I'm certain you will go to work unpaid.
I don't do drugs so I don't need to worry about being in your care.
I do of course need to worry how to pay for it though.
Maybe soon people will just stop paying for it. I wonder how far your ideals will go unfunded. I'm certain you will go to work unpaid.
Why do people think that the "war on drugs"is a money maker? Have you heard of AB 109? Or realignment. AB 109 is a law that was passed a few years ago in California. It was intended to reduce the population of Ca prisons. They already let out the" low level drug offenders and the nonviolent". Yhis has made my life better, but I dont agree with all aspects of the law. The myth that money is made off the backs of "average Joe" recreational drug users is easily disproved in Ca. BUT, I understand that the libritarian view of legalizing drugs must be defended at all cost even if they have to permote racism and lies. Kind of sounds like the democrats.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 04-28-2014).]
Why do people think that the "war on drugs"is a money maker? Have you heard of AB 109? Or realignment. AB 109 is a law that was passed a few years ago in California. It was intended to reduce the population of Ca prisons. They already let out the" low level drug offenders and the nonviolent". Yhis has made my life better, but I dont agree with all aspects of the law. The myth that money is made off the backs of "average Joe" recreational drug users is easily disproved in Ca. BUT, I understand that the libritarian view of legalizing drugs must be defended at all cost even if they have to permote racism and lies. Kind of sounds like the democrats.
If you are the only one that thinks that maybe that should be a hint that there is a problem.
This!!
And the problem is very very rarely "everyone else".
Of course the war on drugs is a money maker. Both on the enforcement investigation end and on the punishment end. There's not a police dept in any large town that hasn't gotten more $$ and hired more policemen. Those extra officers don't work for free--they "make money". The same for county, state, federal, and private run/operated prisions. Each one gets money for every prisoner housed. The war on drugs began around 1980, witha national prison population of around 489,000 total prisoners. By 2007, that population had soared to 2,225,000 prisoners, with over 2/3 being drug related sentences. The 2 biggest private prison companies in the US are Geo Group (Geo-stock pays 6.8% dividend and market capitalization of $2.38 billion) and Corrections Corp of America (CXW-stock pays 6.29% dividend and $3.77 billion market capitalization) and this doesn't include the hundreds and hundreds of paid halfway houses all over the nation.
Each new guard to manage those prisoners makes money and the for-profit private prisons and companies that provide the guards are a multi-billion $$ business. According to most reports, this nation has spent neary $1 trillion on the war on drugs---that $ is being PAID to people (employees) involved in the war on drugs, so yes, it is very much a $ maker. It has become a macro-economy all to itself.
Border patrol seizures have done nothing to make drugs any more difficult to find. Photo: Customs and Border Patrol
Heroin, cocaine, and marijuana are just as available, far cheaper, and more potent than they were at the start of the War on Drugs, according to a new study.
We've known for far too long that the War on Drugs has been a failure, but the statistics reported in the British Medical Journal by Evan Wood, of the University of British Columbia's Urban Health Research Initiative, are astounding. Wood and his team aggregated government drug surveillance data from seven different countries. Between 1990 and 2010, the street price, adjusting for inflation, of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana fell roughly 80 percent. At the same time, the street drugs became much more potent: The average purity of heroin increased by 60 percent, the purity of cocaine increased by 11 percent, and the potency of cannabis increased 161 percent. The story is much the same in Europe and Australia, with street prices dropping and supply remaining stable, despite a huge increase in drug seizures.
Though we've known that weed is stronger than ever, it seems like the trend has extended to other, harder drugs. Motherboard talked to Wood about prohibition versus regulation and what this all means.
MOTHERBOARD: So your report is essentially more data backing up the idea that seizing drugs doesn't work, correct?
Evan Wood: You're right. The price of cannabis has really bottomed out over the last few years and the potency has increased. The same thing seems to be happening to heroin and cocaine, which was seen as the success story the United States was touting in the War on Drugs. When you look at the data though, it's essentially neutral. There's been no gains there in the past two decades. The patterns of supply go up and down but they're not related to anything the government is implementing.
In popular media, seizures are presented as officers with guns and drugs in a brightly lit room, with the implication being that seizing drugs somehow impacts the availability or supply on the street. But there's no economic paper out there that suggests it has any effect. The amount seized is so minuscule compared to the actual size of the supply.
ALL GRAPHS: BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
And that's what you took a look at: Despite all our efforts there's been no cut on the supply side.
To give you a sense of how massive it is, one scientist did a study looking at total bulk weight and size of drugs flowing in from Mexico to the United States and realized that all the drugs needed to supply the U.S. for a year could fit into 60 semi trucks. Well, at Laredo, there's 5.5 million trucks crossing the border every year. It gives you a sense of how difficult a task this is. To even make a dent they need to be at the point where they can pinpoint 60 out of 5.5 million trucks.
You'd maybe expect the supply to stay the same, but why the increase in potency and the drop in price?
One reason is simply that supply has overwhelmed efforts to reduce it. Cocaine or heroin can be cut at a number of stages in the process, but the supply is so great that there's no need to do that anymore. As a result, you have drugs that are much more potent and pure reaching the streets.
Does the sort of free market have anything to do with it? Are there more players in the game now?
In terms of capitalism, when you take down a major drug operation, you create a vacuum. You look at one of the major "successes" of the War on Drugs which was the taking down of the Medellin cartel. When that happened, it opened up the market for other producers to jump in and it diversified the market. You not only had the producers in Colombia trying to move up, but you also had the traffickers in Mexico try to move higher and higher up the ladder and they began producing as well. You also had a lot of the supply moving to neighboring countries in the Andes.
Overall, there are reports that the land being used for coca production has fallen. But others will say that they're using different techniques--they're getting higher yields and using different varieties of plants that can be grown in smaller areas. It's part of the economy there right now, so if you try to take that away, people are going to try to find other ways to stay in the market.
So if seizures don't do anything, is there anything we can do?
We've thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at this problem. We need to think about what are better metrics of success. There's levels of use and there's harmful use, and those are different things. We can look at emergency room reports of drug overdoses, fatal overdoses, hepatitis C transmissions and HIV. These are the kind of outcomes we want to be decreasing and the kinds of things we want to look at when we think about controlling drugs. In Washington, Colorado, and Uruguay, we've seen signs that government is looking at regulation rather than prohibition. Is everyone ready to stop the War on Drugs?
In 1998, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the UN, made a speech in which he said 'I believe we can get to a drug-free world in 10 years." Fifteen years on from there, he's one of the many world leaders advocating for the legalization and regulation of drugs. He's a touchstone for that. At the time, he was reflecting the attitudes of the 1990s. But now, he, and I think a lot of others, have seen the writing on the wall.
People know prohibition is fundamentally flawed and that the outcomes of and consequences of incarcerating millions of people based on drug use has had profound social implications.
Marijuana is one thing, but can you see something like that ever happening with harder drugs?
i can't talk to what the policy options are going to look like in the future but I can say that applying one single policy to a number of different substances, which are so different, is short-sighted to say the least.
In Canada, we've experimented with heroin prescriptions for people who have failed methadone treatment. The outcomes have been incredibly positive. I would not advocate heroin regulation similar to what's happened with cannabis, but much more tight regulation strategies like this have been successful in Switzerland and other countries where it's part of the treatment landscape.
But the letting out people early **** is just that. It is **** . They can't put anymore in so of course they got to let the littlest fish out. That isn't a hard concept. If they keep them all then more prisons need to be made and while they would love that to happen it can't happen as fast as the prison population increases.
It is just a business equation and nothing more.
Not a money maker?? That is freaking hilarious!!!!!!!!
It is a money maker from top to bottom. All at the general expense of Joe taxpayer.
The billion wasted on"THE WAR" Could have and still can be spent on intelligent treatment options.
Prisons should be kept for the violent. Mental hospitals for the mentally ill. Treatment centers for drug abusers.
All of them have their various levels and programs that need to evolve.
At least you can admit it, yes you were wrong. The Gov spends billions on our military, is our military a lost war? California has already let out the recreational drug users AND nonviolent criminals. Dispite of Pokies tantrums and denials, all that is left in California prisons are those that are a danger to the public. So, like I said in Ca the "drug war" is not a money maker for law enforcement. And I dont believe it is anywere else ether.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 04-28-2014).]
At least you can admit it, yes you were wrong. The Gov spends billions on our military, is our military a lost war? California has already let out the recreational drug users AND nonviolent criminals. Dispite of Pokies tantrums and denials, all that is left in California prisons are those that are a danger to the public. So, like I said in Ca the "drug war" is not a money maker for law enforcement. And I dont believe it is anywere else ether.
At least you can admit it, yes you were wrong. The Gov spends billions on our military, is our military a lost war? California has already let out the recreational drug users AND nonviolent criminals. Dispite of Pokies tantrums and denials, all that is left in California prisons are those that are a danger to the public. So, like I said in Ca the "drug war" is not a money maker for law enforcement. And I dont believe it is anywere else ether.
Simply because it's the govt spending the money, doesn't mean no one is making money. Millions of people both on the ground and behind the scenes are making billions of $$ from the war on drugs. It's absolutely impossible in a capitalistic system for anyone to spend $$ without someone else profiting.
Do you think the people selling the police uniforms, the people in the drug testing labs, the construction workers building the prisons, the electric companies that supply the prison utilities, the food sevrice companies that supply the meals, the auto makers making the cars, the policemen in the cars, the guards in the prisons, the bailiffs in the courtrooms, the border patrol agents, the judges, the DEA agents, and politicians etc etc ad nauseum -----------are all working for free? Of course they are not--they (and a lot more) are ALL making money or they wouldn't be doing it.
So of course it's a money maker, just as the military/defense sector is a money maker. Even in peacetime, individuals, corporations, contractors, groups, and soldiers cumulatively make hundreds of billions of $$ if not trillions of $$$$ every single year.
Does govt make $ off of it? No--under our system of govt, they are not supposed to, but every other person involved in it does.
I am still trying to wrap my head around for profit, company owned prisons.
Do we need to legalize everything? I cannot answer that. But having seen the hardships a family goes through because of the fines and penalties of being caught with marijuana, I voted for legalization here in Washington. Yet many of those in law enforcement, correctional officers, or even higher in the legal system help to contribute to the nearly 11,000 alcohol related deaths a year.
The billion wasted on"THE WAR" Could have and still can be spent on intelligent treatment options.
Treatment centers for drug abusers.
All of them have their various levels and programs that need to evolve.
I still think they should be left on their own if we want it legalized. Not possible though. We have too much evolving to do first, and we dont seem to evolve, only de-volve.
I am still trying to wrap my head around for profit, company owned prisons.
Do we need to legalize everything? I cannot answer that. But having seen the hardships a family goes through because of the fines and penalties of being caught with marijuana, I voted for legalization here in Washington. Yet many of those in law enforcement, correctional officers, or even higher in the legal system help to contribute to the nearly 11,000 alcohol related deaths a year.
The 2 biggest are "for profit, company investor/shareholder owned prisons." Geo, a publicly traded company (thru stock shares) is an offshoot of the old Wackenhut Security Corporation. The parent company is G4S Secure Solutions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4S_Secure_Solutions.
quote
Having expanded into providing food services for U.S. prisons in the 1960s, Wackenhut in 1984 launched a subsidiary to design and manage jails and detention centers for the burgeoning private prison market. Wackenhut then became the nation's second largest for-profit prison operator. In April 1999, the state of Louisiana took over the running of Wackenhut's 15-month-old juvenile prison after the U.S. Justice Department accused Wackenhut of subjecting its young inmates to "excessive abuse and neglect."[9] U.S. journalist Gregory Palast commented on the case: "New Mexico's privately operated prisons are filled with America's impoverished, violent outcasts — and those are the guards."[10] He catalogued lax background checks before hiring guards, which led to several alleged cases of guards physically and sexually abusing inmates. In the U.S., Wackenhut has appeared in the federal courts 62 times since 1999,[when?] largely resulting from prisoners' claims of human rights abuses.[10] The company has been accused of trying to maximise profits in its private prisons at the expense of drug rehabilitation, counselling and literacy programs. In 1995 Wackenhut was investigated for diverting $700,000 intended for drug treatment programs at a Texas prison. The GEO Group, Inc. now runs former Wackenhut facilities in 14 states, as well as in South Africa and Australia. Some facilities, such as the Wackenhut Corrections Centers in New York, retain the Wackenhut name despite no longer having any open connection with the company. In 2003, GEO Group changed from a corporate subsidy (WCC) into a fully independent company from Wackenhut.
Healthcare, schools, city dump trucks, .. isnt pretty much everything for profit somewhere along the line or it wouldnt happen? I'm not technically saying it should be, but saying it pretty much is, and how cant it be? Nobody rides for free unless daddy made enough to share for a while.
Healthcare, schools, city dump trucks, .. isnt pretty much everything for profit somewhere along the line or it wouldnt happen? I'm not technically saying it should be, but saying it pretty much is, and how cant it be? Nobody rides for free unless daddy made enough to share for a while.
Yes, they are all money makers. No one rides for free and no one works for free. We're all part Ferengi and follow to some degree, the Rules of Acquisition.
I am still trying to wrap my head around for profit, company owned prisons.
Do you think the Government can do everything better than private business? I dont. Infact I think the Gov screws up more than it helps. So do other people, and some of those people that think they can do a better job than the Gov came up with businesses that they believe are more cost effective and more efficient than what the Gov can do. The private prison industry is one example of the public saying that we can do it better. Are they better? Are they more efficient? Can they do it? Are they successful? AND it could be a union or nonunion issue as well. Those are different debates than this thread is about.
quote
Originally posted by Tony Kania:
Do we need to legalize everything? I cannot answer that. But having seen the hardships a family goes through because of the fines and penalties of being caught with marijuana, I voted for legalization here in Washington.
Hardships that drug adicts and alcohalics put families thru is not a reason to give up on other families and cause more damage with legalization. Pot may or may not be adictive? I dont think it is, so if a person causes hardships on the family to supply the want for pot, that person simply dont give a rats a** about the "family". All that person cares about is geting high. They could not care less about the laws, and they obviuly could not care less about the family as he runs them thru "hardships" to get high. It takes a VERRYselfish person to drag a family thru hard times this way.
quote
Originally posted by Tony Kania:
Yet many of those in law enforcement, correctional officers, or even higher in the legal system help to contribute to the nearly 11,000 alcohol related deaths a year.
They are people too, we have them behind bars in all states for a multitude of different crimes. They break the law they get whats coming to them.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 04-29-2014).]
The low level offenders " recreational drug users" have been removed from prison and the courts have already been letting them loose on some sort of lesser "punishment" or worning for some time now.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Hardships that drug adicts and alcohalics put families thru is not a reason to give up on other families and cause more damage with legalization. Pot may or may not be adictive? I dont think it is, so if a person causes hardships on the family to supply the want for pot, that person simply dont give a rats a** about the "family". All that person cares about is geting high. They could not care less about the laws, and they obviuly could not care less about the family as he runs them thru "hardships" to get high. It takes a VERRYselfish person to drag a family thru hard times this way.
Good post, other than the addictive evil weed end of it. The selfish behavior and putting (fill in the blank) before the well being of the fam is just right on the money (so to speak) whether it is weed, hard drugs, a motorcycle, car, boat anything that is really about self gratification and selfishness and can be anything,,,,,,,, other than his or her responsibilities. With low lifes like that if it is not one thing it is another.
I for one do not support the lowest common denominator as threshold for restricting the majority.
The low level offenders " recreational drug users" have been removed from prison and the courts have already been letting them loose on some sort of lesser "punishment" or worning for some time now.
That's not what he wanted proof of.
Prove this statement:
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
So, like I said in Ca the "drug war" is not a money maker for law enforcement.
The low level offenders " recreational drug users" have been removed from prison and the courts have already been letting them loose on some sort of lesser "punishment" or worning for some time now.
quote
Originally posted by 1988holleyformula:
That's not what he wanted proof of.
Prove this statement:
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
So, like I said in Ca the "drug war" is not a money maker for law enforcement.
What is your "proof" that it is a money maker? I will answer your question directly. Because I dont see how it could be a money maker. I see drug law inforcement as inforcing the law. Change the law (any of our thousands of laws) and "law inforcement" court system and everything else behind the law will change up the priorities.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 04-29-2014).]
Good post, other than the addictive evil weed end of it. The selfish behavior and putting (fill in the blank) before the well being of the fam is just right on the money (so to speak) whether it is weed, hard drugs, a motorcycle, car, boat anything that is really about self gratification and selfishness and can be anything,,,,,,,, other than his or her responsibilities. With low lifes like that if it is not one thing it is another.
Last year, almost a billion dollars worth of cash, cars, boats, real estate, and other property was forfeited to the federal government--most of it labeled as drug-related. And while much of this property was taken from bona fide criminals, critics of the nation's forfeiture laws say that too many innocent people have fallen through the cracks in a system that, until recently, has been far too heavily slanted in the government's favor.
As far as laws and punishment go: voters have decided that that is how they want it to be. I dont agree with all of it, but I do believe that we as Americans have a voice. We can cry on car forums, about how things are or we can organize to put those ideas into law or change laws. For or against drugs. Ca has had several attempts at the ballet box to legalize drugs and they failed. Two States legalized it. That is how America works.
As far as laws and punishment go: voters have decided that that is how they want it to be. I dont agree with all of it, but I do believe that we as Americans have a voice. We can cry on car forums, about how things are or we can organize to put those ideas into law or change laws. For or against drugs. Ca has had several attempts at the ballet box to legalize drugs and they failed. Two States legalized it. That is how America works.
So you agree it a money maker... Because you can't be so out of it that you that you think when I said " no it's not a money maker " followed with a quote from the article I also listed showing how much the government takes in asset forfeiture that I wasn't being sarcastic .
So you agree it a money maker... Because you can't be so out of it that you that you think when I said " no it's not a money maker " followed with a quote from the article I also listed showing how much the government takes in asset forfeiture that I wasn't being sarcastic .
I agree on your direct quote. And that does not mean that I am "out of it". The rest of your post (copy paste) may or may not be true, I wont dispute it. BUT that is how the laws were put in place by the voters either directly at the ballot box or indirectly by voting in politicians who lobbied for the laws. You and I see this from different sides of the issue. I am aganst legalization, you are for it. So we are going to see the facts the way that best fits our perspective and that is a part of our human nature. We may never see eye to eye on this or other issues. I see the fact that law inforcement is not makeing money, they are inforeing the laws. You see the same fact as law inforcement takeing stuff from people and selling it off at auctions and the courts issuing fines. Both are facts. How we inturprit those facts depends on our perspective. I see the auctons as part of the punishment for brakeing the laws. We know there is a price to pay for brakeing the law and we also know part of that price is loosing stuff. That is how the laws are writen. Law inforcement IS NOT just selling stuff behind the backs of the public against the law. They are following the law. You see the auctions and fines and imprisonment as a money maker because of how you see the use of drugs. You see drugs as a property that should not be restricted from the public. The public should have the right to use drugs. The public should have the right to put what ever they want into their body. I do not agree with your perspective. Corect me if I am wrong.
You're wrong. I have never expressed my personal views in this thread, all I've done is show counter point to your extreme. I posted links to articles, some quotes from articles that show countries that have legalized drugs have shown a huge decrease in drug use. The money spent fighting drugs could be much better spent treating people with problems then locking them up. I have posted links to articles that state that the War on Drugs is a failure. There is more demand, more supply, higher quality and cheaper price drugs than ever. You want my opinion. I feel that marijuana is far less harmful to the body than alcohol or cigarettes.. So I do favor legalization of marijuana for adults. There are a lot of people that need alternatives to alcohol to help them relax after a hard, stressful day at work. Marijuana has many proven benefits helping people with stress and anxiety, sleep disorders, eating disorders... The list goes on and on. By classifying marijuana as a drug you force these people to become criminals. They now have to deal with drug dealers who would much rather sell them a harder drug that is more addicting, that makes them more profit than they do on marijuana.
If feel people who do hard drugs need help... Putting them in jail does not help. Drug dealers.... They're just supplying a need, take the profit away and they're gone
We are never going to stop the demand for drugs in this country the best thing the government can do is just go ahead and make money off of it. Look at the millions of dollars that two states have generated for the government ....just think of how much money the government could make off taxes if every state did this instead of wasting billions fighting it.
You're wrong. I have never expressed my personal views in this thread, all I've done is show counter point to your extreme. I posted links to articles, some quotes from articles that show countries that have legalized drugs have shown a huge decrease in drug use. The money spent fighting drugs could be much better spent treating people with problems then locking them up. I have posted links to articles that state that the War on Drugs is a failure. There is more demand, more supply, higher quality and cheaper price drugs than ever. You want my opinion. I feel that marijuana is far less harmful to the body than alcohol or cigarettes.. So I do favor legalization of marijuana for adults. There are a lot of people that need alternatives to alcohol to help them relax after a hard, stressful day at work. Marijuana has many proven benefits helping people with stress and anxiety, sleep disorders, eating disorders... The list goes on and on. By classifying marijuana as a drug you force these people to become criminals. They now have to deal with drug dealers who would much rather sell them a harder drug that is more addicting, that makes them more profit than they do on marijuana.
If feel people who do hard drugs need help... Putting them in jail does not help. Drug dealers.... They're just supplying a need, take the profit away and they're gone
We are never going to stop the demand for drugs in this country the best thing the government can do is just go ahead and make money off of it. Look at the millions of dollars that two states have generated for the government ....just think of how much money the government could make off taxes if every state did this instead of wasting billions fighting it.
LOL, so...exactly what was I wrong about? You just about proved what I just said? And exactly how would you "take away prfit"? Are you saying that you can come up with a way to make drug cartels in Mexico pay your implyed sin tax on drugs? Are you some how going to make legal pot shops force gangs to follow laws and provide cheaper drugs? Will the cartels just start paying terifs to cross the border with the drugs? LOL this is as head in the sand as it gets. Gangs will ALWAYS be selling drugs cheaper than anyone can sell them legally. They dont follow laws, they dont pay the obama care tax, they dont pay imployees they kill their compition they get the drugs practically free by growing it illegally on BLM land and rental properties by other gang members members. It is not about supply and demand, it is about money. The supply is already here, the demand will get larger even if we dont legalize drugs. AND if we do something so stupid as to legalize drugs the demand will grow. Pot shops are a drop in the bucket compared to the drug dealer numbers.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: LOL, so...exactly what was I wrong about? You just about proved what I just said? And exactly how would you "take away prfit"? Are you saying that you can come up with a way to make drug cartels in Mexico pay your implyed sin tax on drugs? Are you some how going to make legal pot shops force gangs to follow laws and provide cheaper drugs? Will the cartels just start paying terifs to cross the border with the drugs? LOL this is as head in the sand as it gets. Gangs will ALWAYS be selling drugs cheaper than anyone can sell them legally. They dont follow laws, they dont pay the obama care tax, they dont pay imployees they kill their compition they get the drugs practically free by growing it illegally on BLM land and rental properties by other gang members members. It is not about supply and demand, it is about money. The supply is already here, the demand will get larger even if we dont legalize drugs. AND if we do something so stupid as to legalize drugs the demand will grow. Pot shops are a drop in the bucket compared to the drug dealer numbers.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.... You can't accept the fact that in countries that have tried it.. It works.
