decline reported in Afghan poppy crop

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I disagree.

We already know that. It's your turn to bring numbers though, unless you want to sound like a blinded fundamentalist.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I disagree that most users are not addicts.

I take drugs regularly, I don't know anyone who is an addict.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


We already know that. It's your turn to bring numbers though, unless you want to sound like a blinded fundamentalist.

I don't really think it's necessary. There are lots of people who don't use drugs, because

a) they are illegal

b) they are too expensive

Do you agree?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't really think it's necessary. There are lots of people who don't use drugs, because

a) they are illegal

No. Very few people choose not to take drugs simply because they are illegal, as demonstrated by surveys. By far the primary factor is concern for health.

b) they are too expensive

I doubt that. Some drugs are expensive but it rarely costs more than twenty bucks to get high, and that would be expensive drugs like heroine or cocaine.
Middle drugs like "pills" would more likely cost you 10 bucks to get you high for a night, and inexpensive drugs like weed can come as low as one buck a dose.

Besides, if price is a concern, legalization can also allow price control, something that prohibition doesn't.

[Ned]

Kid, legalizing drugs would naturally shift the demographics of drug use as prices fell and the criminal element was removed. But Hollywood could be persuaded to make it less glamorous to do drugs just as they once changed sides on cigarettes. I think the outlaw nature of the product has a lot to do with its desirability. Who does drugs is a question beyond economics.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


No. Very few people choose not to take drugs simply because they are illegal, as demonstrated by surveys. By far the primary factor is concern for health.

Maybe, but there are some people. You admit.

I doubt that. Some drugs are expensive but it rarely costs more than twenty bucks to get high, and that would be expensive drugs like heroine or cocaine.
Middle drugs like "pills" would more likely cost you 10 bucks to get you high for a night, and inexpensive drugs like weed can come as low as one buck a dose.

Besides, if price is a concern, legalization can also allow price control, something that prohibition doesn't.

Me personally, I was always afraid to use expensive drugs because I feared getting addicted and having a habit that costed me hundreds of dollars a day. You seem to be talking about only legalizing marijuana. I'm not that opposed to legalizing marijuana, but I still prefer to have it illegal, since other drugs would be illegal anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, legalizing drugs would naturally shift the demographics of drug use as prices fell and the criminal element was removed. But Hollywood could be persuaded to make it less glamorous to do drugs just as they once changed sides on cigarettes. I think the outlaw nature of the product has a lot to do with its desirability. Who does drugs is a question beyond economics.

People still use tobacco to be cool. The price or legality of tobacco really aren't a factor in it's demand in that respect. That's just taste for a product.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Maybe, but there are some people. You admit.

IIRC, that number is below 5% of people who don't take drugs. That's close to a survey's margin of error.

Me personally, I was always afraid to use expensive drugs because I feared getting addicted and having a habit that costed me hundreds of dollars a day. You seem to be talking about only legalizing marijuana. I'm not that opposed to legalizing marijuana, but I still prefer to have it illegal, since other drugs would be illegal anyway.

It doesn't cost hundreds a day. I'd say maybe 80$.

Besides, if you want another example, take alcohol. In Quebec its sale is regulated and controlled by a state monopoly, except for beer and wine, for which stores need a special permit. Taxes come in at 75% of the total price, i.e. alcohol is about 3-6 times more expensive here than it is in places where it doesn't suffer any special taxes.

For instance a cheap bottle of wine is about $10, a 40-ounces vodka $30, etc. Two points: first, that doesn't make most drugs any more expensive than alcohol. Second: people here buy as much alcohol as anywhere else.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


IIRC, that number is below 5% of people who don't take drugs. That's close to a survey's margin of error.

And the price of the drug has something to do with why they do or do not take it either.

It doesn't cost hundreds a day. I'd say 80$ at worse.

Besides, if you want another example, take alcohol. In Quebec its sale is regulated and controlled by a state monopoly, except for beer and wine, for which stores need a special permit. Taxes come in at 75% of the total price, i.e. alcohol is about 3-6 times more expensive here than it is in places where it doesn't suffer any special taxes.

For instance a cheap bottle of wine is about $10, a 40-ounces vodka $30, etc. Two points: first, that doesn't make most drugs any more expensive than alcohol. Second: people here buy as much alcohol as anywhere else.

Now alcohol is one thing that I would definitely buy more of if it were cheaper. I'm sorry, but your argument is just a violation of economic principles and common sense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As to the first part of your argument... I suppose that the total quantity consumed might rise, but the percentage of people who are drug users doesn't.

You mean if you legalize? I'd say the percentage of drug users may increase as well, but who knows... the supply and demand graph only shows that quantity consumed would go up .

[Berzerker]

...

[Kidlicious]

beer taxes

[Berzerker]

Kid

Of course it's immoral according to you, because we don't use the same code. In fact, I don't use one code like you do. I use all of them.

So which code did you use to "justify" punishing people for the actions of others? Islamic Law? Seriously, why is it moral to punish millions of people for the actions of others? Should people who don't use drugs be punished because some of them do horrible things?

You fail to see the connection between the two. When you take drugs you contribute to the problem.

Oh, I see your "connection", its called guilt by association no matter how loose the association. But you ignore this connection when it comes to drugs you like.

It's not just senseless punishment. That's what you want to make it out to be. It's because of drug users that drugs are on the street and drug users do all kinds of horrible things.

No Kid, its immoral punishment. The senselessness is in the belief that waging a drug war significantly reduces consumption and violence. Mafia clans used to have shootouts on city streets over marketshare because booze was banned by people who saw a problem and made it worse. Prohibitionists like to tell us alcohol prohibition was repealed because too many people just wanted their booze. That certainly was a factor but many people saw their communities turn into warzones and the increased violence was the opposite effect predicted by the prohibitionists.

It's just your opinion that the money was squandered.

Kid, don't ever complain about the way I debate. You do exactly what you accuse me of doing.

Ever hear of scarce resources? You seem to think that no matter how many people get thrown in prison there will always be someone to sell drugs, and no matter how many people get hooked on drugs there will always be another worker to take their place.

People are not a scarce resource.

I disagree that most users are not addicts. It's very easy to become addicted to drugs, especially to a degree. And you don't know what Totalitarianism is. You call everyone that.

"To a degree" is meaningless Kid and you're changing the context of what you said...again... I'm "addicted" to news talk but that doesn't mean I run around murdering people. You were talking about actual addiction that reveals itself in certain pathologies - severly hurting other people or oneself. This is why you think drug use/selling is immoral. So of the ~80-100 million people who use drugs, how many commit murder? Less than %1? How many rapists? Less than
%1 etc? Add up all these people and how many are there? Less than %10? The vast majority of people who use drugs are not "addicts" - for many its social, for others its habitual. For some its an addiction that qualifies as immoral by your stated definition.

The media gives us the opposite impression because its little more than a propaganda wing of the government and sex and blood sells. How do you think roughly half of Americans came to believe Saddam was behind 9/11? The same reason you think there are addicts everywhere... Oh yeah, I suggest you read the definition of totalitarianism to see if it mirrors your belief system. You want to make our decisions for us and that is called totalitarianism whether you can admit it or not. And stop making stuff up, I rarely use the term totalitarian.

So if we aren't Libertarians we can't complain about losing our freedoms.

Sure you can, but not without committing the most vile form of hypocrisy. Griping about losing the freedoms you cherish after taking away the freedoms others cherish stinks to high heaven...

Now alcohol is one thing that I would definitely buy more of if it were cheaper.

So you like the booze, huh? Should you be punished because a drunk driver killed someone? Lets see you apply the same standard to yourself.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Now alcohol is one thing that I would definitely buy more of if it were cheaper. I'm sorry, but your argument is just a violation of economic principles and common sense.

Your turn. Now YOU explain why people in Quebec don't drink less than those of France, America, Germany.

The problem with your conception is that "economic" principles are not sufficient to explain everything. There comes a point when people just don't want of a thing anymore, whatever its price is.

If Big Macs costed 10 cents, my body wouldn't need more food than it does right now.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You mean if you legalize? I'd say the percentage of drug users may increase as well, but who knows... the supply and demand graph only shows that quantity consumed would go up .

Did you read my post or you just don't believe it? It's documented that the percentage of marijuana consumers in the Netherlands went from 32% to 27% after the legalization. In other countries where it remained illegal, like Canada, it rose.

Of course, I probably agree with you at a more fundamental level, i.e. that legalization is wishable even if it led to greater consumption. However it really amazes me that so many people involved in the debate are fanatically set against legalization, seeing as how its benefits are a no brainer to anyone who has done some research on the topic.