For those that whine about our drug laws..

[Blarf]

Turning drugs loose on this nation would finish it off in no time. For every person that is a functioning drugger, there are 20 that it would destroy. Stiff penalties is the answer. Just like DUI, that has been all but eradicated due to stiff penalties.

It's probably more the opposite. For every one person who can't handle their drug, there are probably 20 that can.

Stiff penalties for drug users? You must also than ban alcohol. Alcohol is a dangerous, destructive, addicting drug. Someone who gets blind drunk is no different than any other drug user.

[ccbatson]

In the big picture, natural selection will eliminate the worst abusers. Harsh, but true.

[elganned]

elganned, one step closer to an uncivilized society. One more nail in the coffin. What is wrong with people just abiding by the law?

Nothing. Except they don't. Prohibition taught us that lesson, but it seems some folks still don't get it.

It is always yielding to the issue instead of addressing it.

Addressing the issue would be reducing demand. Supply-side solutions don't work unless you reduce demand. C'mon, Sstashmoo. You're savvy enough about economics to know that.

Japan has tough drug laws, do they have a drug problem?

Yes, they do. Read up on it, if you like.

If people here understood there were heavy consequences to pay, we would not have a drug problem either.

It has been shown time and time again that it is not the severity of the penalty which causes deterrence, but rather the odds of getting caught. The higher the odds of getting caught, the more behavior is modified. Stiffer consequences have minimal effect if people think they won't get caught. I submit as an example how well speed limits are obeyed--or not.

Turning drugs loose on this nation would finish it off in no time. For every person that is a functioning drugger, there are 20 that it would destroy.

I have a hot news flash for you: they already are destroying themselves, and the high cost of the stuff leads to ancillary crime to pay for it. If you legalize it, it takes the big profit out of it and maybe some of those poor stiffs can afford their habit without knocking old ladies over the head for their grocery money.

Stiff penalties is the answer. Just like DUI, that has been all but eradicated due to stiff penalties.

The drunk driving laws are not a good example. Severe penalties have reduced the number of drunk drivers, but have had no effect on the number of drunks. Something similar would probably work for "driving stoned", but that won't keep people from getting stoned; they just won't drive. [[Which will be a good thing.)

Look, the economics of vice are simple. People want to do it, so demand is high. Supply is limited because the stuff is illegal. Limited supply + high demand = high prices, meaning big money for the criminals, who are the only ones who will supply an illegal substance. Big money for criminals leads to corruption of law enforcement. It's been demonstrated ad nauseum. Prosecutions for drug crimes also clog up the justice system and the prisons, at enormous expense to the taxpayers.

If it's legalized, then entrepreneurs will enter the supply side of the market; prices will fall, criminal gangs won't make the big profits, and the ever-present danger of corruption in law enforcement is avoided. Plus the courts have fewer cases to hear, and the prisons don't need so many cells or guards, which we can reserve for the violent offenders.

We've spent billions upon billions in the so-called war on drugs, and it's still here, still a problem, and still costing us a ton of money. It just doesn't make any sense. We're pouring sand down a rathole.

Legalize it, tax it, and regulate it.

[johnsmith]

Legalize it, tax it, and regulate it.

By all means, legalize, but do not tax it. I guess you could always grow it to avoid all taxes and regulations though, unless big government would stick their nose in your business for doing that with regulations. So in principal, I'm against any form of tax or regulation on it. The money saved from the so-called "war on drugs" alone would mean less revenue is required for the gov't, which equates to savings, or, more properly, a tax cut for all. No need for another tax when the opposite would be true from fully and unconditionally legalizing it.

[elganned]

No, we'll tax it. We tax alcohol and tobacco, so the precedent has been set. Compared to the exhorbitant price of the stuff on the street right now, nobody will even notice.

The increased revenue from the Doobie Tax, added to what we'd be saving from the war on drugs and the relieved burden on the courts, might even allow us to lower the income tax and pay off the deficit.

[ccbatson]

Taxing it is still government intrusion...true libertarian principles require that it have minimal government involvement ...limited to the protection of the seller/buyer's rights in a contractual relationship.

[Blarf]

Those Penn and Teller guys did a really good episode on how the War on Drugs is bullshit, on their show......called Bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_ZOwtMvvuM

[Sstashmoo]

Yeah, when I am curious about the perfect societal model I reference Penn and Teller. They are showmen, they are celebrities, they are morons.

[Blarf]

Why are they morons?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Why are they morons?"

There is this paradox, a common thread with many that are successful at something. They immediately extrapolate that into they are somehow some great thinker and empowered above all others. Ford had it, Tesla had it, Edison had it. Successful people at what they do, but they make fools of themselves out of their realm. This Penn and Teller have a two bit Vegas magic act. That in no way gives them a teaching spot for others, or qualifies them to set precedence for society. I've listened to the whichever one of them that actually talks, although he makes some good points, there are gaps in his reasoning, gaps from little actual life experience. He should stick to pulling stuff out of his buddy's ear.

[Blarf]

So because they have a Vegas show, their opinions mean nothing, they shouldn't have a show that discusses any issues of any kind, and any valid points they make should be ignored, and they are morons?

You say Penn "makes some good points, there are gaps in his reasoning, gaps from little actual life experience". Reading some of the stuff you have posted regarding our failed hypocritical war a drugs, we can all say the same about you and your reasoning and lack of life experience.

Of course, none of us really know about your life experiences, just like you don't know about any of Penn's life experience [[unless maybe you're his biographer).

[elganned]

Taxing it is still government intrusion...true libertarian principles require that it have minimal government involvement ...limited to the protection of the seller/buyer's rights in a contractual relationship.

You seem to forget that I'm not a libertarian, so "true libertarian principles" have minimal influence on my positions.

Tax it.

[johnsmith]

No, we'll tax it. We tax alcohol and tobacco, so the precedent has been set. Compared to the exhorbitant price of the stuff on the street right now, nobody will even notice.

The increased revenue from the Doobie Tax, added to what we'd be saving from the war on drugs and the relieved burden on the courts, might even allow us to lower the income tax and pay off the deficit.

Sure sounds like a no-brainer doesn't it? In principal though, no new tax. Just because a precedent has been set doesn't make it right.

Those who wish their taxes were higher can make voluntary contributions to the IRS to pay down the nat'l debt here:

Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...publicdebt.htm

Any takers? I didn't think so.

[ccbatson]

John Smith? Or Adam? Well done.

[elganned]

Nice program, johnsmith. Let me know how that all works out for you.

[ccbatson]

The program is for liberal screaming for higher taxes...not freedom loving individualists.

[elganned]

I'm sure they wouldn't turn down a contribution from freedom loving individualists. Why don't you send them a check? Let us know when you do it, so we can all watch the Debt-O-Meter go down a few ticks.

In the meantime, legalize it and tax it. Why would you care? Unless you intend to become a drug-addled stoner, you won't be paying it.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Reading some of the stuff you have posted regarding our failed hypocritical war a drugs, we can all say the same about you and your reasoning and lack of life experience."

When you have buried a close friend from drug abuse and more than one, you come to realize there is a consequence to abuse. This talk about opening the script cabinets and putting it out on the shelves, and "just tax it" is just plotter-pen off the paper cuckoo. The US is made up of the most spoiled and undisciplined people on the planet. Our society would evaporate in no time.

[elganned]

The US is made up of the most spoiled and undisciplined people on the planet. Our society would evaporate in no time.

Like we did with alcohol.

As you'll remember, the day after the repeal of the 18th Amendment we all became falling-down drunks; industry ground to a halt, social systems collapsed, millions died of alcohol poisoning, and the nation plummeted into a black hole of chaos and anarchy.

Only a few dry counties in Utah, Kentucky, and West Virginia remained; they formed a new coalition calledThe United States of We Told You So. The shattered remnants of the rest of the country were eventually absorbed by Mexico and Canada.

Get real.

I am sorry for your loss, but you may have missed the point that the fact that the drugs were illegal didn't save your friends' lives. Actions always have consequences, but that doesn't keep people from acting stupidly. They will act stupidly whether the substance they are abusing is legal or not.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Like we did with alcohol. "

Drinking is very difficult to partake in unnoticed.

Drugs are so easy to grow, transport, conceal, consume etc. It would be nothing like alcohol.

[johnsmith]

Nice program, johnsmith. Let me know how that all works out for you.

How it works out for me? The link was for the folks who wish their taxes were higher. They can lead by example. Interesting that you seem appalled by the idea, yet you want new taxes. Hmm.

In the meantime, legalize it and tax it. Why would you care? Unless you intend to become a drug-addled stoner, you won't be paying it.

That line of reasoning is very fractured.

[johnsmith]

Drugs are so easy to grow, transport, conceal, consume etc. It would be nothing like alcohol.

True, that's why legalization with taxation and regulation won't work. That's why prohibition fails miserably as well.

[Pam]

I don't think drug reform would drastically change the numbers of people with substance abuse problems. Drug use/abuse does not appeal to everyone. Also reform could help if instead of sending addicts to prison, they were offered rehab programs.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote:
In the meantime, legalize it and tax it. Why would you care? Unless you intend to become a drug-addled stoner, you won't be paying it.
Quote: "That line of reasoning is very fractured."

These folks are going on some notion that there will be some that will just destroy themselves, but the rest will be ok. "The rest" will be paying for the medical and rehabilitation costs for people that get in over their heads.

We have legal alcohol, that is enough.

[Pam]

These folks are going on some notion that there will be some that will just destroy themselves, but the rest will be ok. "The rest" will be paying for the medical and rehabilitation costs for people that get in over their heads.

So? Now we are paying law enforcement and jail costs.