er, terrorists aren't actually producing or selling a product that is in great demand are they optional?
Production of terror is big business these days. Follow the money trail. Look at the profits of BRK.A. Look at the profits of oil producers. There is a lot of profit in terror and war, always has been.
Terrorism is not economically driven? Karl Marx would not agree with you on that one. Terrorism is 100% political, and poltics is all about money and economics.
If you're for legalization you ought to have answers for the issues legalization brings up. For example: Would legalization really reduce crime? Many of you have stated this premise as a rationale for legalization. BUT, First of all, wouldn't legalization lead to cheaper drugs, and thus more addicts? For example, crack is a cheaper but more potent version of cocaine. When crack hit the streets, it created an epidemic that greatly increased the number of addicts. Also, as I've asked before, wouldn't legalization thus remove much of the stigma surrounding drugs and thus bring in a new wave of experimenters? Furthermore, wouldn't lowering the price also contribute to inducing more people to try drugs? Finally, basic economic theory is that as the price of a commodity goes down, demand increases. Why wouldn't hard drugs follow this pattern? Second, wouldn't more addicts lead to more crime? Okay, so assuming you agree with the above, we now have more addicts. Drugs may be cheaper, but there are more addicts now who have to commit crimes to support their habits. Not only that, but just because drugs are cheaper does not equal an addict buying the same amount of drugs! If drugs are cheaper, an addict is going to have a huge grin on his or her face because instead of getting one vial of crack for $100 they can now get two for the same price! He isn't going to stop at the one vial! He's a kid in a candy store who can now buy twice as many M&Ms than he could yesterday. So you have crime to support the addict's habit. You also have more drug-induced crimes occuring because there are more addicts. Finally, would the black market for drugs really go away? Supposing legalization occurs and a company like Merck gets into the hard drug business. Let's say it's selling a gram of cocaine for $50. Isn't a black market going to emerge regardless of the price in order to undercut Merck? And wouldn't that black market be driven by the same cartels or producers that exist today? Would the Cali cartel, for example, just decide to call it a day because of legalization? Wouldn't they fight tooth and nail to not only keep their grip on the market share of addicts but to use violence against Merck? They aren't normal businessmen, after all! They are hardened, violent criminals! So wouldn't they go after Merck's board, or labs, or scientists, etc? And wouldn't they also terrorize their addict customers with threats and violence to ensure that they buy the black market drugs? And if it's the US government producing and selling the drugs, why would there not be a situation a la Columbia, with the drug lords assassinating government officials, judges, police, military, etc.? I really can't imagine the cartels throwing their hands up in the air and just giving up their enormous profits without an enormous struggle. Looking forward to your thoughts.
Of course not! I'm too busy to be bothered with such nonsense as a full page post by you. And this one of yours is the last I shall cast eyes upon. I am surprised that you would put 1/2 your day into answering a post that took me 30 seconds to compose.
First off, if they legalize cocaine it wouldnt cost $50.00 anymore. Joe farmer right down the street would start producing it and make money till prices of producing it drop so much he would be better off growing corn. The Cali cartel would most definatley call it a day. Why?? because they aint no more money in it. What you dont seem to understand is that the reason their is money to be made by the cartles is because it is illegal, if it wasnt illegal the Cartel would just be an ordinary farmer just like a farmer in the US. No more voilence as far as the dealer or producer is concerned....
this is nonsense. addicts are not criminals. i suggest you read "our right to drugs" by thomas szasz so you can have an intelligent conversation on the issue. best, surfer
ROFL! It hardly took me 1/2 a day. That it took you 30 seconds is no surprise, however, as it illustrates the lack of detail (or truth) you bother to include in your posts.... As far as my reply being "nonsense," it would appear that my rebuttals left you without any out or excuse. The truth hurts... I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would be an affront to your intelligence.
I respectfully disagree. The amount of money they could potentially lose is so vast I cannot see them going down without a bitter fight, attacking the competition and intimidating the customers to buy exclusively from them.