The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It obviously wouldn't deny all medicare - it would deny medicare paying for that specific treatment.
Fortunately, your plan for medicare probably won't happen.
Unfortunately, my wishes for legalization probably won't either...
"I predict your ignore will rival Ben's" - Ecofarm
^ The Poly equivalent of:
"I hope you can see this 'cause I'm [flipping you off] as hard as I can" - Ignignokt the Mooninite
Originally posted by Albert Speer
alright so drugs are legalized and a drug dealer still will sell his drugs... why would he even bother going to the govt to ge a licence and try to compete with corporations when he could just continue selling drugs like he always did? they'll be cheaper than the legal ones just out of the virtue that they wouldnt be taxed.
I don't know. Hardly anyone tries to compete with the tobacco corporations. Why do tobacco companies dominate the tobacco market when someone else could just sell tobacco without getting the tax stamps? Maybe because the taxes aren't high enough to justify the risk of penalties? Of course some people do sell cigs without the taxes, but again, they're a trace fraction of the market.
Originally posted by Ramo
What makes you think societal differences between the US and Portugal are important in this respect?
And the burden is proof is on you, I'm just offering evidence that your claim is bull****. The point remains, the only real situation where drug addicts are treated instead of jailed has not experienced any significant increases in drug abuse.
*sigh*
do you want me to admit it?
Americans aren't as smart as Portuguese. Americans are stupid enough to think just because something is legal, it must be okay.
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I see a string of five posts without Diss contradicting anything
And you want to exclude people who use from getting Medicare. Does that mean you want to allow them out of Medicare taxes?
No, because the medicare money is supposed to go to people who deserve it (on the theory that those who cannot help their ailments have a right to demand treatment from society - something I'm not necessarily supporting, but since it's here we might as well deal with it), so not deserving the money doesn't remove your obligation as a member of society to provide that right.
Originally posted by Atahualpa
Well all this pro-legalization and heavy tax people forget the power of the black market.
If the official price for pot is $50 per gramm and you can get it on the black market for $20, why the heck would you want to buy it officially? (prices are just made up and probably exaggerated)
There is a drug delivering system in place currently that is quite effective and there are prices. If you want to legalize it, you'll have to be cheaper at first until the current delivery net has so many holes it wouldn't be able to repair itself when prices go higher.
And I think making drugs available for cheaper is not really what any government intends.
Also you'll have to get the same level of control to prevent home-grown stuff and control gets even harder when it's legal to smoke pot, because you have to proof that the pot he is smokes is not government pot, so you have to invent some kind of branding and proofing...
It's really NOT that easy!
that's why you don't increase taxes too much.
how many people drink moonshine today? or smoke black market cigarrettes?
Two clarifications. First, a limited number of hard drugs will cause psychotic behavior with normal use. The two I know of off hand are Angel Dust (PCP) and meth.
Replace the word "will" with "can" and you might have offered a factual statement. I've used quite a bit of meth back when I drove for a living and it didn't cause anything other than weight loss and the ability to stay awake longer (saved my life a number of times I'm sure). It doesn't cause psychotic behavior, it's just a stimulant. Staying awake day after day can cause mindgames and I experienced quite a few, but never anything I would characterise as "psychotic". It's not the drug, it's staying awake too long. Pilots used the drug during WWII because it was better than anything else at staving off fatigue. There is a saying, that the Blitzkrieg was fueled by meth, and other than penicillin, probably the most important drug in wartime. Now, I wouldn't doubt in some cases where a person stays awake for days on end they may exhibit behavior we could call "psychotic" but these are not the norm from my experience... Oh yeah, I used PCP once when a friend gave me a joint laced with the stuff without my knowledge (haha) and all I could do was lay down until it wore off. It's basically horse tranquiliser and would never recommend it, but that's my personal taste.
In fact, methamphetamine pyschosis is a well documented result of routine use of that substance, though I would have to get my wife's DSM IV out to get the technical term and she just left so our little girl could get her vaccines.
I used it routinely and never had a "psychotic" episode. Again, the potential problem arises out of using it day after day so the user doesn't sleep for several days (and I used it to ward off sleep for up to 4 days at a time). And even then it comes down to the individual, so it's not some rule written in concrete...
I would ban those, and only those drugs. If you want a benchmark, use alchohol as we have already determined that it represents an acceptable level of societal risk.
Tell that to all the battered women and children.
As an aside, I've never heard of someone coming home and beating their spouse/children after toking pot. It's a stupid habit (pot) but part of being a true libetarian is supporting those things you DON'T approve of.
But you don't approve of meth and want it banned based on individual cases of people who over-used it, i.e., punish the people who don't over-use and don't have "psychotic" episodes because of the people who do. That's immoral... Would you argue that all gun owners should be punished because of those gun owners who use their guns to commit crimes? Ever hear of "mother's little helper"? It's a reference to speed (or meth)...
Americans aren't as smart as Portuguese. Americans are stupid enough to think just because something is legal, it must be okay.
According to the CDC, the proportion of society who use tobacco in the US and Portugal are roughly comparable, using their latest ('90-'92) data. We were about 25% higher, but their numbers were going up and ours down, so the numbers are probably even closer nowadays.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
I'm glad you note that your prices are probably exaggerated... but looking at pot, there is no way the it would be worth it for the black market to undercut the government. I'm sure the government can deliver it to the user AFTER adding a high tax for far less than the 200 bucks or more an ounce that it costs on the Black Market in the US. Granted, people go out of state to buy cigerattes for a few bucks less, but the majortiy of people just pay. It would be difficult for the drug runners to make the kind of profits needed if they got into a price war with the government
He's right. For $10 per gram (Canadian), I can get premium quality weed and have it delivered to my door within 20 minutes of calling a dealer. Its easier and cheaper and more convenient than buying alcohol legally.
Even if they legalize it here in Canada, I'm still going to call my dealer (who is not going to pay taxes) and get it off the black market, rather than going to the "pot store" and get some standardized stuff (Government weed is lousy) and pay taxes on it.
I don't want Government weed. I want weed production and distribution to be set up just like Cigarettes and Alcohol, just with the governmental tax on the end.
"I predict your ignore will rival Ben's" - Ecofarm
^ The Poly equivalent of:
"I hope you can see this 'cause I'm [flipping you off] as hard as I can" - Ignignokt the Mooninite
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I don't want Government weed. I want weed production and distribution to be set up just like Cigarettes and Alcohol, just with the governmental tax on the end.
But don't you think if cigarettes and alcohol could be readily purchased on the black market for less than in the stores (not difficult, since those items are taxed so heavily), it would be better than what we're getting now? Its just that there's no precedent for that, so its not an issue.
The difference being they didn't make a clear-cut choice that increases dramatically the amount of money medicare would have to pay them.
You haven't even shown that pot smokers (or any other group) increase Medicare costs, much less "dramatically".
Actually, even those who HAVEN'T payed medicare taxes can get money from it (and people pay taxes in different amounts). So ANYONE "deserves" it on the basis of they're right to treatment. I'd say it's absurd to make this right extend to problems that are the receiver's own fault.
We all pay Medicare taxes, it's part of the payroll tax. And yet you'd tell people who did pay into it their money is gone because you think they will cost more than other people? Medicare was set up to help the elderly pay for health care, not so you could come along and deny people their benefits after the fact based on some nonsense about them costing the system more. I'd think you would seek a different basis for the program, like setting an average cost and limiting everyone to that average at which point their coverage ends. That would allow pot smokers to get back what they paid in like everyone else (you were concerned with fairness?)and avoid the logic trap you've created by selectively determining which people cost more based on nothing more than your absence of knowledge.
Let me clarify: you can't claim funds to treat something that's your own fault. Clearly it wouldn't affect, say, alzheimer's medication.
How do you know Alzheimers isn't caused by behavior?
I'd love to see the bureaucratic mess you'd need to find out if potential recipients "caused" their illness. Rest assured, your idea will cost us alot more than Medicare as it exists now.
How can it possibly be fair to charge me to pay for your mistakes?
Bingo! It isn't... Nor is it fair to make me pay for your health care regardless of whether or not you made mistakes. Unless my mistake caused your need for care (ala traffic accident), I'm not responsible. But your argument is that your illness is my responsibilty. Based on what rationale? You supposedly didn't make a mistake, therefore your "stellar" behavior obliges me to pay for your health care... But if I make a mistake and need health care, you won't pay for it.
Indulging in behavior that is risky only due to someone else's faults is different from indulging in behavior that is risky through no one else's fault.
Motorists went out on the road, that's risky even if some other motorist hits them.
You cannot be responsible for someone else's actions.
Ahem...you want us to pay for Medicare even if we don't benefit from it. You even called it an "obligation"...
My question was why Berz kept posting stuff
It's a forum where people post "stuff". Since you've posted more stuff than me you should be able to figure that one on your own.
You haven't even shown that pot smokers (or any other group) increase Medicare costs, much less "dramatically".
They don't have to. It's ridiculous, however, to assert that I must pay to treat lung cancer that's his fault.
Why the hell am I arguing against medicare to a libertarian? Why the hell are you defending it?
We all pay Medicare taxes, it's part of the payroll tax. And yet you'd tell people who did pay into it their money is gone because you think they will cost more than other people?
Not all gone. They just won't have things that are their fault, payed for.
How do you know Alzheimers isn't caused by behavior?
It's not fair to assume they caused it when there's no scientific evidence for that. There's massive scientific evidence for the correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
Bingo! It isn't... Nor is it fair to make me pay for your health care regardless of whether or not you made mistakes. Unless my mistake caused your need for care (ala traffic accident), I'm not responsible. But your argument is that your illness is my responsibilty.
I agree, basically, but since getting rid of medicare isn't exactly an option, we have to work on the assumption that society is responsible for at least softening the damage of various natural "disasters".
But don't you think if cigarettes and alcohol could be readily purchased on the black market for less than in the stores (not difficult, since those items are taxed so heavily), it would be better than what we're getting now? Its just that there's no precedent for that, so its not an issue.
Now with drugs its a different story.
imagine a pot growers dreams of making huge amounts of money by increasing productivity and delivering a great product. People also demand cheaper ****.
"I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger
Tweet
Comment