Drugs - the solution

That article quotes sources.

Since I did not expect any other kind of answer from you, I do not want to waste anymore time on the matter, otherwise we shall be arguing all night.
 
Splitlink said:
That article quotes sources.

Since I did not expect any other kind of answer from you, I do not want to waste anymore time on the matter, otherwise we shall be arguing all night.
Click to expand...

I know shame on me for expecting credible sources and a cogent argument.:innocent:
 
Just had another brainstorming idea. I think the word shame triggered it.
How about having in a very public place an area surrounded by see through glass. Free drugs inside painted on the glass. An entry door only, no exit so everyone can see the druggies misbehaving. A door marked re-habilitation leads to another area fronted by glass and a roof. So each stage has a new room and 10% reduction in drug inputs but no exit back into the druggie room.

AND eventually they come out clean to the praise of others.

Halelujah brother
 
Last edited:
If you clicked upon the link for Standard and Poor and browsed their website, then you would know that their rating stands as of May 2015. While the other articles was written in the past, it was predicting the future. Those countires have shown improvements and in most cases worsened. The guy who wrote it obviously could see well in the financial future of those coutnries' economies. Not that the writing wasn't already on the wall.
 
new_trader said:
I disagree, the Denver experience doesn't prove much. Naturally if the Government legalised drugs but then wanted to control the use by replacing the risk premium with a tax, then I agree, the price won't change much, if at all. However, the Government can't be half hearted about what they want. Either legalise it or don't. It wouldn't make sense if they legalised drugs but then tried to prohibit the use through punitive taxes...but then again, that's Government for ya!

You could easily replicate the experience in Denver using any product to prove that Government price controls create a black market. This is observed throughout history. Even recently in Argentina, toilet paper was being sold on the black market.

You would have to ask yourself: Would you deliver 1kg of sugar from point A to point B for the same price as delivering 1kg of cocaine the same distance?

My guess is your answer is no. Either you wouldn't do it at all, or, you would assess the risk of being caught and going to prison and put a price on that risk. You do this all along the chain from producer to consumer and it adds a huge premium to illegal drugs.

There is no way anyone can realistically argue that the price of drugs would not be reduced significantly if they were legalised. There may still be a difference between 'street' price and pharmacy price but both would be a tiny fraction of the illegal price.
Click to expand...

This Survey Says That Marijuana Prices Are Crashing in Colorado
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hat-marijuana-prices-are-crashing-in-colorado

Since last June, the average price of an 1/8th ounce of recreational cannabis has dropped from $50-$70 to $30-$45 currently; an ounce now sells for between $250 and $300 on average compared to $300-$400 last year. More competition and expansion of grow facilities contributed to this price decline, but it is also a natural result for any maturing industry as dispensaries try to find the market’s equilibrium price.
Click to expand...
 
hhiusa said:
My question is even if it is legal, why should we make or allow the drugs to be cheaper?
Click to expand...

Free-market forces generally bring prices down and it is Government intervention via regulation and taxation that artificially raises prices. If the Government wants to prohibit drug use then don’t legalise them. Prohibiting drug use by keeping prices unaffordable for most through taxes or other artificial mechanisms would mean that only the wealthy could afford them. This would defeat one of the main arguments in favour of legalisation of drugs - reduction in crime by addicts who need to maintain an expensive habit.
 
new_trader said:
Free-market forces generally bring prices down and it is Government intervention via regulation and taxation that artificially raises prices. If the Government wants to prohibit drug use then don’t legalise them. Prohibiting drug use by keeping prices unaffordable for most through taxes or other artificial mechanisms would mean that only the wealthy could afford them. This would defeat one of the main arguments in favour of legalisation of drugs - reduction in crime by addicts who need to maintain an expensive habit.
Click to expand...

A drug addict most likely cannot hold a job. How will they afford the drug at any cost? Are we saying that they will rob less because it is cheaper? Why wouldn't they just continue to rob as much and just buy more since it is now cheaper? Who says their consumption will not increase if it becomes cheaper?
 
Of course one solution is to round up all the druggies into camps, where there are no drugs. At least it would put the drug dealers out of business but cost a fortune.
The Muslim solution might be to lop off a limb or two on the first offence.
 
Pat494 said:
Of course one solution is to round up all the druggies into camps, where there are no drugs. At least it would put the drug dealers out of business but cost a fortune.
The Muslim solution might be to lop off a limb or two on the first offence.
Click to expand...


Only solution to drugs is to liberalise it and let people deal with and in their own ****.

Man creates a problem and then tries to solve it. :LOL:


Liberalise drugs and then all those dealers will have to go and find some real work and police can go around helping little old ladies cross the road.


These people didn't go around shooting guns or robbing banks because they could afford their habbit.

Everybody knew they were taking it too.

I wonder if the billions clouded everyone's judgement :cheesy:
 
Atilla said:
......................Only solution to drugs is to liberalise it and let people deal with and in their own ****.............
Click to expand...

What you ignore there is the knock-on effect of drug use/addiction on other people and society in general.

If the legislation is simply to protect people from themselves then I'd be the first to want to dump it. It's not as easy as that though.
 
barjon said:
What you ignore there is the knock-on effect of drug use/addiction on other people and society in general.

If the legislation is simply to protect people from themselves then I'd be the first to want to dump it. It's not as easy as that though.
Click to expand...



Think about what you have just said. I know it's difficult to get rid of the old world and leap out into the unknown but how is the drugs world today, what it is?

After decades of what you and others preach.

If something isn't working look for alternatives. Try new ideas.

Have you read this yet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal


How is it likely to be any different to ciggies causing lung cancer or alcohol with all it's associated problems.


I'm all for the common social good, but this business of making criminals out of innocent civilians and creation of violent rich businessmen respectable isn't one of those great ideas that's working right now.


Be brave. Be bold. Be human. You know what we have now doesn't add up.

Don't be afraid of change. Man up and all that. You old goat! (y)


In fact, if you have any aches or pains, why not try some? You might even get to like it :)
 
Last edited:
Bring back the stocks

:clap:
 

Attachments

  • stocks.jpg
    stocks.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 219
Last edited:
Atilla said:
Think about what you have just said. I know it's difficult to get rid of the old world and leap out into the unknown but how is the drugs world today, what it is?

After decades of what you and others preach.

If something isn't working look for alternatives. Try new ideas.

Have you read this yet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal


How is it likely to be any different to ciggies causing lung cancer or alcohol with all it's associated problems.


I'm all for the common social good, but this business of making criminals out of innocent civilians and creation of violent rich businessmen respectable isn't one of those great ideas that's working right now.


Be brave. Be bold. Be human. You know what we have now doesn't add up.

Don't be afraid of change. Man up and all that. You old goat! (y)


In fact, if you have any aches or pains, why not try some? You might even get to like it :)
Click to expand...

Agree. I'm all for legalisation, just regulate them like anything else.
Let people decide for themselves what they want to put in their bodies.

Alcohol was illegal once... Not everyone that uses drugs is an addict and can't hold down a job, the same way not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic who can't hold down a job.

Problem is purely political and people being afraid of change.
If drug users can get hold of and take drugs as and when they please, why would they, just because its suddenly legal be doing drugs all the time?

Just because you can drink, do you get absolutely ****faced every morning just because you can? No.
Do you smash a few lines of blow in the morning before work? No.. Being legal or illegal changes nothing. Those that are want to do it will do it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pat494
The drugs problem
13 14 15
Replies
290
Views
46K
Pat494
Pat494
H
I became sick after taking Propecia hairloss drug
Replies
0
Views
842
hairyhands
H
JTrader
Is your chart on drugs?
Replies
4
Views
2K
trendie
trendie
BSD
Exercise in a pill
Replies
6
Views
2K
Glenn
Glenn
A
ANX - Hot on Wallstreet Tip
Replies
0
Views
2K
AmexHunter
A
Top