Legalize everything

[Boffer Clock]

To control the masses so the individual can live freely.

Hm, that sounds alot like religion. Wonder why...

[Maltese]

Hm, that sounds alot like religion. Wonder why...

not at all, religion controls the individuals and the control of the masses follows

religion tells you what to do, law tells you not to harm others, that's it.

[Carefoot]

Libertarianism is very flawed, in that it is to provide freedoms to businesses, that they don't need

the freedom to abuse, the freedom to cheat, lie and steal.

the government serves a vital purpose. To control the masses so the individual can live freely.

Not quite.  Cheating, lying and stealing is always going to be regulated in any type of society.  Even in anarchism except some type of karma to catchup to perpetrators.  Do a bit of research on the property and business rights in relation to libertarianism.  Your skepticism is necessary but the scrutiny is ill found.  <3

Expect the concept of corporations to disperse with a libertarian government.  Back to work, cheers for now.

[RomanClock]

haha- no. $10,500,114,009,088(estimated). The world GDP is 54,311,608(estimated). Tax on drugs does not work that way. Good night!

You mean $10 tril US deficit.
And I hope you meant $54 TRILLION and not MILLION.
Also the US GDP is $14 tril
But yea, taxing drugs is a fantasy.

[RevolutionaryClock]

assuming no third parties are being endangered.  No ands ifs or buts.

Bingo. And because this must be insured there has to be oversight and careful planning. All this is extensive, makes efforts at legalization ineffective, and the entire concept impractical.

You mean $10 tril US deficit.
And I hope you meant $54 TRILLION and not MILLION.

yeah that

Libertarianism is the ideal that stays real.

Only if you live with your head up your ass.

[Marlin Clock]

Yeah I gotta agree with Rev.

Also I could swear I saw Rev make the same argument as he did in the last page sometime before.

Maybe I'm going crazy.

[Carefoot]

Bingo. And because this must be insured there has to be oversight and careful planning. All this is extensive, makes efforts at legalization ineffective, and the entire concept impractical.

That comment was directed more at sex than drugs.  But more than half of police enforcement time is squandered on crime that is set in motion due to supply and demand of the illegal underground drug trade.  Imagine having police having half their squads and drug raid teams used to stamp out legitimate crime, do you think quality of life in all inner cities to increase or decrease?

http://leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=26

And all that too. =P

[buttplug]

do you think quality of life in all inner cities

But isn't a large percent of that caused either directly or indirectly to drug use/sale?

[Carefoot]

But isn't a large percent of that caused either directly or indirectly to drug use/sale?

Almost all of it.

So why do we pay to lock people up for this? How often do these people repeat offend?  By making the means of supply longer and with more middlemen because of enforcement, we see much worse conditions for drug users and people who live in poorer communities.

[can of zap]

The idea that legalization creates a market which can be taxed is a fantasy. quote]stoped reading about there.

[RevolutionaryClock]

But more than half of police enforcement time is squandered on crime that is set in motion due to supply and demand of the illegal underground drug trade.

Police work doesn't work that way. The bulk of a police force are patrol officers and they cruise around in their vehicles no matter what. They respond to 911 calls and stop people when they have reasonable suspicion to investigate. All drug laws do is give the officers one more thing they can look for when they enter a situation and acts as another tool for public safety. Contrary to popular belief among circles of critics, drug laws don't take up the patrolman's time and funds like its shown on a pie graph or something. Speaking as an a bit of an authority on the subject, I can tell you that drug laws certainly don't hurt the street cop's ability to do his job.

Imagine having police having half their squads and drug raid teams used to stamp out legitimate crime

The vast majority of departments don't have specialized "drug raid teams" or massive drug crackdown units. Most departments only have a few detectives specialized in drug investigations, usually linked to other legitimate crime. Drug raids are relatively few and far between, often carried out by the department's multi-purpose tactical unit. The only law enforcement agency I'm aware of that has SWAT units which only do drug raids are the DEA and ATF. Both of which actually aren't very large federal agencies.

So why do we pay to lock people up for this?

DRUG CHARGES ALONE ARE USUALLY NOT ENOUGH TO LAND A PERSON BEHIND BARS. Most of the that drugs are involved in someone being incarcerated there are other violent crimes that the offender is charged with. The problem in these poor urban communities isn't that the mean popo are hauling everyone off to jail for smoking weed and crack. Its that there's a social and economic crisis in these areas which needs to be addressed through social reform and aid. Legalizing drugs won't fix broken communities. These are issues that need to be addressed by the legislature. Law Enforcement is only being able to hold the line by removing the most dangerous elements from society in these neighborhoods.

stoped reading about there.

Good job. Thank you very much for letting us know this. You'll be very loved and respected by all here for your wisdom and post quality.

[Maltese]

Yeah I gotta agree with Rev.

Also I could swear I saw Rev make the same argument as he did in the last page sometime before.

Maybe I'm going crazy.

you are going crazy.

[Loki Clock]

Just because it works in Europe doesn't mean it works here. I'm sure we can both agree that while there are plenty of cultural similarities, there are also a lot of differences. Domestic models should be used when possible.

Except that the cultural differences between the eastern and western countries in question don't stand in the way of the following: We're all capitalists and we all use whores for the same purpose.

[RevolutionaryClock]

Except that the cultural differences between the eastern and western countries in question don't stand in the way of the following: We're all capitalists and we all use whores for the same purpose.

This is true, but this isn't really an issue of capitalism- it's just being used by a select few as part of their excuse to legalize it. This is really an issue of public safety and what we can afford not to regulate without considerable repercussions.

[Loki Clock]

This is true, but this isn't really an issue of capitalism- it's just being used by a select few as part of their excuse to legalize it. This is really an issue of public safety and what we can afford not to regulate without considerable repercussions.

I'm saying I don't see any reason it would not work here if it works there, with people who use whores for the same purpose as we would in a capitalist system just like ours. There's no reason it couldn't work just as well. But aside from that, how is prostitution in and of it's self a public safety issue?

[RevolutionaryClock]

But aside from that, how is prostitution in and of it's self a public safety issue?

Uh, STDs?

[zl]

This shows that even in areas where theres a legal answer to something like this, people will still go to an illegal source if its more convenient, expedient, and cheaper.

Well - I wouldn't say that argument applies to everyone.  Stolen ipods are a lot cheaper - and convenient, over eBay - but there still seems to be a market for buying it new, through a company.

I imagine that there would also be a market for prostitutes who are STD-free and drugs that have guarenteed purity.  I don't think legalizing these things would be a tool for ending them - but it would make safer options available for those who wanted them.

It would also pave the way to better care for addicts - because state-funded care for drug abuse sometimes is challenged with - "Why should my tax dollars go towards criminals?"

[RevolutionaryClock]

Well - I wouldn't say that argument applies to everyone.  Stolen ipods are a lot cheaper - and convenient, over eBay - but there still seems to be a market for buying it new, through a company.

Bad example. Stolen iPods have a supply based on new iPods and because of the nature of the technology is a more complex transaction. A better example would be iPods and other cheaper mp3 players but thats still a stretch.

I imagine that there would also be a market for prostitutes who are STD-free and drugs that have guarenteed purity.

There is, but using the situation in Nevada as an example, this does not destroy the illegal market.

It would also pave the way to better care for addicts - because state-funded care for drug abuse sometimes is challenged with - "Why should my tax dollars go towards criminals?"

Sometimes that's a criticism, but it happens anyway. I think if anything it would make funding more difficult because it would then be considered an accepted activity.

[zl]

Bad example. Stolen iPods have a supply based on new iPods and because of the nature of the technology is a more complex transaction. A better example would be iPods and other cheaper mp3 players but thats still a stretch.

You're right.  I wonder, in the Netherlands, is it be cheaper to buy weed illegally? That could be an example of there being two coexisting markets - for the legal and illegal distribution of a substance.

Actually I suppose video games are an example of that as well - a legal market still surviving when a cheaper (or free!) illegal market exists.

There is, but using the situation in Nevada as an example, this does not destroy the illegal market.

Right.

Sometimes that's a criticism, but it happens anyway. I think if anything it would make funding more difficult because it would then be considered an accepted activity.

That...I'm not convinced.  Drinking alcohol here is an "accepted activity" - but that's different from being an alcoholic.

I'd need actual research to be really convinced either way...but we do put a lot of state money into fighting alcoholism and cigarettes.  I suppose I could compare the spending of a "dry county" with a similar area, in terms of money spent on helping alcoholics.  My hypothesis would be that the dry county would have not just less support for alcoholics, but additional punishment and societal disapproval.


Edit:
Not only that, but I imagine that if drugs were legalized, you would have less cases of someone not being brought to a hospital or seeking help for fear of arrest.

[BilliardBall10]

i say taht would work, as long as the bussiness would be monitored, in order to be kept safe, and be chekced, as it would be legal bussiness.
 
still, the taxes, should be lower than the usual tax on other bussiness, and then, they should have high price in order to maintain their work. also the illegally done jobs should be also monitored, or at least tried to be rdeuced by theo ffer of legalising, or at least monitoring on helath safety, and/or check in the way the sys. is acting to see is there is major abuse.
 
in other words, they should legalise drugs, and maybe prostitution, because it could make a safe system for those who wouldl ike no danger of being imrpisoned or chased(at least for using drugs or hookers) and not approach a hospital or a place to get help, in fear of imprisonment?