Fluidity : "Your initial post was offensive for anyone with 1/2 a brain... " Gee, I feel very much for you if you've lost half your brain. Didn't anyone tell you that that is likely to happen when one takes up drugs ? freealways
Too bad that principle doesn't hold true for the brain dead poster, for you and Hapaboy have an endless reserve of inane and offensive commentary.
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 shit-eating grin on his face because instead of getting one vial of crack for $100 he 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.
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, DGABRIEL? Your statement is absolutely ridiculous considering what you have posted! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Instead of censuring Fluidity for calling me a "f****n idiot" out of the blue, you instead ridicule my username by insinuating child perversity and lambast me simply, it would appear, because you do not agree with my position. Not only are you the one who started with the insults, but you continue to do so with great relish. I invite all readers of this thread to go over dgabriel's posts and judge for themselves whether or not he is a) acting civilly and in accordance with ETs rules, and b) acting properly as a moderator. ET is a great site, one I recommend to everyone I meet interested in trading. Up until now I have never had a problem with the moderators and indeed have respected their tolerance and posts. But dgabriel is acting very much like a pre-schooler rather than as a moderator. Indeed, would another moderator be kind enough to explain what the qualifications are to be a moderator? Judging by dgabriel's posts and attitude, is it perchance merely to be a drinking buddy of Baron's?
Any of my, what you call, offensive commentary is reserved for drug dealers and the people who hang out with them or, if not, people who think drug dealers are fairly harmless. Now as far as YOUR offensive remark is concerned Dgabriel, any other psychiatrist will confirm that you are likely to have a real medical problem. I won't make things worse for you by mentioning the particular disorder nor will I bother to take things further than this as you most likely have the arse hanging out of your pants so it would be a complete waste of time and energy to pursue such ridiculous allegation in court. In the event you choose not to take some medical counselling I strongly suggest you just remain in the background rather than participating in the conversations as it is clear that your medical condition prevents you from exercising proper judgement. freealways
Now, unless there are a lot more druggies on this site than I think possible, how could possible be that in excess of 70 percent of the voters stated that drug dealling shouldn't be a capital offense ? Is this another case of someone's monkey dilly dallying with the buttons ? freealways
The poll results don't surprise me at all, and I take no umbrage that they are what they are. I have proposed something radical, and radical ideas usually receive knee-jerk reactions and emotional feedback. It's to be expected. And who knows, the arguments for legalization may even make me change my mind. They may even eventually change yours. Thus I wouldn't go as far as to suggest dgabriel would fudge with the poll results, freealways. Besides, as a highly-qualified moderator, model of civility, and epitome of the conduct in ET's forums and threads, the very thought of doing so surely would not even enter his mind.
Well Hapaboy, I am sorry if you have received the wrong impression as I didn't exactly accuse that scion of respectability, apologist for drug dealers and abhorer of capital punishment Mr Dgabriel as it could have just as easily have been anyone of the other people with multiple user names who may have some multiple voting. freealways
>>Besides, as a highly-qualified moderator, model of civility, and epitome of the conduct in ET's forums and threads, the very thought of doing so surely would not even enter his mind.<< Hapaboy am I mistaken there when I say that it looks as if you are doing a bit of bootlicking there or is it the case that you are merely being a bit facetious. freealways
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 shit-eating grin on his face because instead of getting one vial of crack for $100 he 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.