Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Remember, you're talking about the government controlling aspects of our lives because you don't want private companies getting their hands on addictive substances. While I don't like smoking, cigarettes or what get's pumped into them, who am I to stop anyone else from enjoying that if it's what they want? Furthermore, isn't it the parents job to protect a child and not the governments? I don't get how you think the government should protect us from ourselves...

Also, it's not just cigarettes... I did list alcohol and narcotics, which you ignored, because I'm sure you realize alcohol and other narcotics can produce aggressive individuals.

But, running to the extremes (like you often do), should the government protect us from fast food because in large quantities it could be bad for your health? What about video game addicts - should the government take over those private game companies, like Blizzard, because their business model is solely based around getting played addicted to a never-ending game to make a buck? (Mind you, people get violent over video games.) Should the government manage private companies that produce cleaning chemicals because, if misused, could do harm?

I think your way of thinking is a very, very slippery slope...

That's a losing game imho, mayo.

Just shooting from the hip, but if the gov't runs it, they're going to regulate it. If they're going to regulate it, there will always be someone with good intentions trying to protect people from themselves. The product would get invariably less desirable for any number of possible reasons designed to make it safer (reduced potency, limits on how much one could ingest, limits on when you could acquire it, w/e) and a black market for something less regulated would be born.

Criminals know crime. That's their tradeskill and crime is for what they have an infrastructure and corporate governance in place. Just because you take away their current product doesn't mean they are going to say, "well shucks guys, we had a good run, but I guess it's time to go legit... anyone want to come with me to apply for work at McDonalds?"

I didn't say anything about preventing personal choice. I think that highly addicting drugs with extreme side effects (ex. Meth, Coke, and Opiates) should be either given by perscription or distributed commercially via a heavily regulated system.

You should be able to buy enough coke for personal use, but not to sell to kids at a playground, for example.


It doesn't. However, the government should (and does) protect others from you if you make a shitty choice. We aren't talking about cigarettes or alcohol, we're talking about the most addictive and most destructive substances on the planet.

PS: Is it too hard to just say that you don't want your daughter to be enticed by cigarette corporations to smoke?


Right. However, alcohol and "other narcotics" (I don't even know what this entails, mind elaborating?) don't provide the same endorphin rushes as stimulants like Coke, Nicotine, and the various opiates and thus aren't nearly as addicting.

I'm not discounting them, but you really can't compare the two.


It should warn us about the dangers of fast food and should make advertising to children illegal, mainly because the trifecta of salt, fat, and sugar are incredibly addictive (our bodies are hard-wired to eat as much of these things as we can due to their rarity in nature) and hooking kids to fast food via toys would be the same as having a toy in every pack of cigarettes.

We should also have fast food entirely removed from schools and either introduce a "fat tax" on things like pop or processed foods or give subsidies to lower the prices of healthy food.


Now you're just getting silly.

If corporations had a good track record on this sort of stuff, I'd be completely fine with it. However, addictive products entice children, fill their products with chemicals to increase revenue, and any voice speaking out against these companies is quashed as soon as humanly possible. If anything, the government has to answer to the people while the corporation only answers to their stockholders.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I don't understand what sort of "good intentions" can possibly come out of buying a quarter pound of cocaine.

Wouldn't corporations cut products if it lead to increased revenue? Not to mention that in the real world, buying coke would be an incredible hassle because no matter on who's selling it, the government would regulate the shit out of it anyways.


This is a bad argument and you know it. Why bother fighting crime at all if criminals are just going to adapt? Sure, there will still be criminals out there, but nothing can replicate the tens of billions of revenue that the drug market rakes in. There will be gangs, sure, but they won't be running around with AK-47s and they won't be able to buy half of Mexico's law enforcement anymore.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Now you're just being ridiculous. If it weren't for the black market, no one would be handling cocaine in those quantities except distributors...in fact, even with the black market, the only people holding in those quantities are distributors. The intention of the distributor isn't "I'm going to ruin lives/society by hooking people on drugs." The distributor's intention is "this shit can make me a lot of money." While I agree that the indifference to the consequences of "making money" with that product is troubling, if the product were legal, taxed, and regulated, there would be mechanisms in place to help people who develop a problem. At the moment, our "mechanism" is generally tossing people in jail for having enough blow to get high.
This is not to mention that use will drop if this crap were legalized because the enticement to be a "rebel" and buck the system will no longer exist. It would also restrict access to minors in much the same way our current alcohol infrastructure does. It's not perfect, but it's harder for a kid to get booze than it is to get a dime bag of anything on a street corner.


What do you mean by "cut products?" Most corporations are going to produce any product that fits their business model and is profitable. Many drugs, in case you didn't know, have to be "cut" (mixed with other substances) before use because use of the pure substance will fucking kill you. Right now, if you're buying drugs, you have no way of knowing if they've been properly "cut," what they've been "cut" with or what quantities are involved. If these products were legalized and regulated, standards could be applied to protect the end consumer...which is a small part of "regulating the shit out of it."


I don't entirely agree with Iggy's assessment. Criminals do move onto other endeavors, but only because they don't know how to do anything else...or at least anything honestly. However, not all criminals endeavor to be criminals, and some are involved out of desperation. Creating new legal markets for these individuals to insert themselves into would alleviate both problems.
When Prohibition ended, there weren't rum-runners tooling around with tommy guns shooting up competitors anymore, so there is historical evidence that substance prohibition creates violent crime and repeal of such prohibition ends (or at least sharply reduces) it.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

the government already regulates booze and smokes in having laws saying you have to be a certain age to use them.

whether or not they're effective or enforced properly...

In agreement with this assessment.

Take it easy, you appear to be getting wound up.

You suggested the gov't could involve itself in the manufacture and distribution of any addictive substance and make it cheap enough to drive out competition.

Ignoring all the other problems with that idea, I said if the government is involved as a producer and policy maker in an industry (like drugs in this case), they will fail. Why? Because politicians will run it like a politician would, not someone interested in running a profitable business.

They will come under competition from less refined, unregulated new drugs which you can acquire without any restrictions.

They will come under competition from prescription drugs almost immediately considering Big Pharma isn't going to allow the government to undercut their pills cheap enough that the criminals can't compete. I mean they could just do away with requiring prescriptions (which I'm sure Big Pharma would applaud), but anyone want to guess at the odds on that?

The problem is that the government can't solve these problems by acting as a competitor.

I'm not saying I disagree with your goal, I'm just saying that the method you are proposing is not feasible.[/list]

The point I was trying to make was that when dealing with heavy narcotics, there probably aren't any "good people with good intentions" that would be barred from buying the product due to government regulation, mainly because they're heavy narcotics sold for private use.



We both define "cutting" the same way.

People also cut things to get you addicted to their supply (ex. some dealers cut their estacy, which is nonaddictive, with cocaine so you return to them to get their "special molly" which is actually coke).

My point is that corporations would probably cut their drugs with "harmless' substances if it meant a direct increase in revenue, just like drug dealers now. A dealer gets a kilo of 100% pure coke which can get cut into 5 kilos for 20% pure coke for an exponential increase in profit. The government would be guilty of all of these things, but in some sort of Ron Paul Candyland corporations wouldn't do the exact same things to increase profit as opposed for public safety?

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I said that if these drugs were legalized, they should be heavily regulated by the government, sort of like grain. There's a government-set price for grain and the government pays subsidies to make sure that prices are equal. It wouldn't even have to be cheap enough to drive out competition. IIRC, in Portugal, they sell drugs with a certain sticker that denotes that they're legal. My main point is that these drugs should be sold at the discretion of the government in a heavily regulated process due to the nature of the products involved. You're arguing against a hypothetical that I only brought up as a possible solution.


You mean like that Spice shit or those "herbal blends" that are supposed to simulate getting high off of weed? Those things are such a success that every heavy smoker I know smokes that stuff instead of high-quality dank!


We aren't talking about pills. We're talking about the harder drugs of opium, cocaine, molly, LSD, and meth.


It isn't a competitor in a one-person market.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

It's never a "one-person market." Everyone has a competitor.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I'm the only one in the market of selling my handmade nick-knacks.

There are competitors even in specialty markets. While a consumer may prefer your knick-knacks, they may opt instead for a cheaper Paddywhack because of the price difference.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Do you think that if the government takes away... let's say half of the drug market from the kingpins that prices are going to stay the same?

Not to mention we aren't even arguing anything relevant anymore, which I applaud you for.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I just thought everyone would enjoy a good knick-knack+Paddywhack joke.

I guess that's what I get for throwing you a bone.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste