- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sessions " be forewarned: This is a new era. This is the Trump era,”
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:55 pm to MButterfly
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:55 pm to MButterfly
quote:They may try, but the demand for illegal drugs will undoubtedly decrease. And there is no guarantee that they can create an option that can make up for that loss in demand. Not to mention, it's costly to create something.
There is no logic in your end game. You want to legalize all drugs and have the same results. All that will happen is the cartels will create new drugs that are cheaper.
Just look at alcohol post-prohibition. Besides those who make small batches of their own beer, wine, liquor, etc., there aren't many illegal alcohol operations anymore, and if they exist, they are small scale (average moonshiner).
2
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:02 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
And maybe policy can also be tailored around scientific research regarding the lethality and dependency potential. When marijuana and heroine are on opposite sides of those, yet are treated as the same class of controlled substance, then we have just another classic case of the arbitrary and illogical government policies.
Your about description would make opium legal..and many hallucinogens...and cocaine. Lethality and dependence can be unique to the individual..unless any drug that has a potential lethality are banned, etc. That said, I agree that pot should be rescheduled.
What would the guidelines be for determining "natural substances without human involvement? Can you artificially process natural substances under that criteria>
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:04 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Many people would choose the legal, safer options and the demand for illegal drugs will decrease making it a less desirable black market.
No. Simple logic should tell you that there will always be those who can not afford the legal regulated option. They will turn to the streets.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:05 pm to MButterfly
quote:Yeah. Many =/= all.
No. Simple logic should tell you that there will always be those who can not afford the legal regulated option.
quote:Sure, and they already do. But if demand decreases, the black market options decrease as well since it will be less profitable.
They will turn to the streets.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:10 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
They may try, but the demand for illegal drugs will undoubtedly decrease.
Nope. More importantly, you are simply removing road blocks to create more addicts that will ultimately create the largest welfare program ever created!
quote:
And there is no guarantee that they can create an option that can make up for that loss in demand. Not to mention, it's costly to create something.
Every year there is a new drug. Since when does the cartels worry about costs? They take what they want.
quote:
Just look at alcohol post-prohibition
I am looking at a post-prohibition era. It's full of Pot, cocaine, herion.... etc. See the cycle?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:10 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Besides those who make small batches of their own beer, wine, liquor, etc., there aren't many illegal alcohol operations anymore, and if they exist, they are small scale
Thats an invalid comparison. It is quite difficult to make high quality beer, wine or scotch, etc. The is no demand for home made wine or booze. Pot, on the other hand is all genetic. A doofus with the right seed can grow very high quality pot with no more effort than growing a tomato plant. From that high quality pot plant, one can make hash or even hash oil..(Which goes back to my question of the criteria of "natural substances" with no human involvement) How would that be regulated?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:13 pm to Dale51
quote:Of course all substances (even food) impact people differently and are more lethal and dangerous than others.
Your about description would make opium legal..and many hallucinogens...and cocaine. Lethality and dependence can be unique to the individual..unless any drug that has a potential lethality are banned, etc. That said, I agree that pot should be rescheduled.
HOWEVER, lethality (lethal dosage) is determined by a percentage of people that a dosage would be lethal. For example, LD50 is the lethal dosage for half of the population.
But for some drugs, it's far easier to obtain that level of dosage than others. Same dependency.
quote:Well marijuana and mushrooms would be examples of natural substances, whereas PCP wouldn't be. Of course, like alcohol, that doesn't mean humans aren't involved in the process, BUT if they can exist without a human intervention then it's natural.
What would the guidelines be for determining "natural substances without human involvement? Can you artificially process natural substances under that criteria>
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:17 pm to Dale51
quote:Like anything else. Through permits, taxes, fines, and fees, etc. Just like breweries often start with some home brewing then expand into a business with different tiers if regulation. Let's make it a free, but regulated market, like everything else.
How would that be regulated?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:21 pm to AuburnTigers
quote:"federal law enforcement officer"
Now the cops will claim assault for being bumped and off you go to Fed prison.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:21 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Like anything else. Through permits, taxes, fines, and fees, et
Then you are not going to beat the cartels in drug prices.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:22 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
HOWEVER, lethality (lethal dosage) is determined by a percentage of people that a dosage would be lethal. For example, LD50 is the lethal dosage for half of the population.
So the criteria is lethality? How about "almost dead" dose?
quote:
Well marijuana and mushrooms would be examples of natural substances, whereas PCP wouldn't be
How about those "natural substances" that are--undetectably-- purposely altered by banned substances like PCP..bath salts etc? How would that be dealt with?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:23 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Assault is assault. I feel much the same way about hate crimes y. Why is a person assaulting any one of us non-LEO's any different than an LEO, especially given that they are given more power?
I see what you're saying, and I agree a little. However, common people aren't exposed to the same things as cops are on a daily basis. Should we enforce a little more protection/deterrence for LEOs? Maybe.
The fun hypothetical is say someone assaulted the POTUS. Would you want that to be a generic assault charge?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:31 pm to Dale51
quote:Well those two aren't independent.
So the criteria is lethality? How about "almost dead" dose?
But my point is that some substances only have theoretical lethal doses because no one has ever reached that lethal dose level (marijuana), while others have low legal doses (heroin).
The Toxicity of Recreational Drugs
quote:I don't know exactly. But despite there being difficult questions to answer, that doesn't mean we can't answer the easy ones.
How about those "natural substances" that are--undetectably-- purposely altered by banned substances like PCP..bath salts etc? How would that be dealt with?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:32 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Like anything else. Through permits, taxes, fines, and fees, etc. Just like breweries often start with some home brewing then expand into a business with different tiers if regulation. Let's make it a free, but regulated market, like everything else.
So..the individual is basically out of the equation and the government standards, licensing, percentage of active ingredient, regulated inventory and records of all movement of product would be required...just like alcohol?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:38 pm to i am dan
quote:Sure, but that's one of the drawbacks of a job, and all jobs have them.
However, common people aren't exposed to the same things as cops are on a daily basis.
And I can't help but think back this corruption story in Louisiana that I learned of on here.
Video Exonerates Man Set Up By Louisiana Cops And Prosecutors
If he hadn't been exonerated, he would have been severely punished for the false claims of assault against an LEO.
Regardless, they have a lot of leeway with their use of force, and even a natural response to defend and fight back can be construed as assault. Making that even more punishable just doesn't seem like a good idea.
We already have a lot of incarceration; this seems like a step in the wrong direction.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:38 pm to Dale51
quote:Well I prefer no government, but that's a vast improvement compared to where we are now.
So..the individual is basically out of the equation and the government standards, licensing, percentage of active ingredient, regulated inventory and records of all movement of product would be required...just like alcohol?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:54 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Like anything else. Through permits, taxes, fines, and fees, etc. Just like breweries often start with some home brewing then expand into a business with different tiers if regulation. Let's make it a free, but regulated market, like everything else.
How so?? By your schematic for "legal drugs", the government would have more control. They would suddenly be heavily involved with any "legal" drug producer or user, and now have another groups of people to regulate and police.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 3:02 pm to Dale51
quote:Well prohibition and criminlization is the most absolute form of government involvement, in my opinion.
How so?? By your schematic for "legal drugs", the government would have more control. They would suddenly be heavily involved with any "legal" drug producer or user, and now have another groups of people to regulate and police.
Sure, by regulating an industry they are involved, but prohibition and criminlization is absolute control. Telling one what I can and can't do is a lot more controlling.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 3:09 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Sure, by regulating an industry they are involved, but prohibition and criminlization is absolute control. Telling one what I can and can't do is a lot more controlling.
But they don't actually control people with pot laws. It's getting to the point where their priorities have them mostly look they other way...unless pot is found on someone during arrest for other violations. Even with those, the overwhelming majority of pot users fly blind to the police. Advocating for the government to take a closer look and create regulations, licensing, production standards, percent of active ingredient standards, etc, etc, would just allow them to refocus on the issue.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 3:11 pm to Dale51
quote:Then just make it legal with no regulation. But of course, that won't sell, so I prefer regulation to prohibition.
Advocating for the government to take a closer look and create regulations, licensing, production standards, percent of active ingredient standards, etc, etc, would just allow them to refocus on the issue.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News