Not that I don't agree that it's a massive conflict of interests, but I imagine that the money the government spends taking care of cancer patients far outweighs the money collected from tobacco taxes.
Printable View
Not that I don't agree that it's a massive conflict of interests, but I imagine that the money the government spends taking care of cancer patients far outweighs the money collected from tobacco taxes.
Well that's not true. People who use drugs are not socially acceptable. As you point out yourself they go to prison. Society has made a clear statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Well, that's what's up for debate. I think it would be disasterous. The health issues and costs would be astronomical, and if you think we have a drunk driving problem now, wait until we get stoned drug users driving. And the loss of productivity at jobs, and you would still have drug related crime because as I said before drugs would be even more expensive than they are now. I think most politicians agree with that. And how can you morally legalize heroin knowing that a certain percentage of people would over dose? So if you can't legalize all drugs, you still will have drug gangs. It won't go away.Quote:
There are much, much worse things for society. A ludicrously large prison population, gang war over drug-dealing territroy and an enormous money-pit beurocracy to try (and fail) to control the sale of drugs spring to mind. I would trade all those things for easier access to Puff the Magic Dragon for some college kids any day.
I take them at the honor of their word, and say yes. But smoking has not been reduced since the huge taxes have been added. In the end it's just another opportunity to increase government revenue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evi
No, the government has made a clear statement. Society and government, even in a represenative democracy, are not the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The problem with these laws is that nobody can enforce them. Case in point: I live in a fairly small, very conservative prarie town with a fairly small number of young people. I have never seen a gram of cocaine in my life, but if I had the time, the money or the inclination, I could be the proud owner of a bale of it within a week, and that comes from a plant that dosn't even grow above the tropic of cancer (or possibly capricorn, whichever is the northern one). If the authorities can't stop coke from pouring across the border, they have no chance with a plant like marijuana which can be (and is) grown in a backyard without too much trouble. We do have stoned people driving all over the place, and the laws against drugs haven't done much to stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Drugs would not be more expensive if they were legal, they would be cheaper. It's always less expensive to produce somthing if you don't have smuggle it across the border and hide it from the police; and even if the drug lords can produce their product more cheaply than the government, the government could sell theirs at a loss and drive the drug gangs out of business, and still spend less money than their current failed attempts to make them go away (and at the cost of far fewer dead policemen).
It's not like we haven't encountered situations like this before; we have almost a test-tube case: the Prohibition. When alcohol was banned, the price immediately shot up to about 10 times what it was before and was of far worse quality. Consumption was barely lower than what it was before. The authorities responded by trying to arrest all the bootleggers and, it must be admitted, had some noteable successes, but ultimately they failed. When alcohol was made legal again, consumption temporarily spiked, but then went back down to about what it was before (the same phenomenon occured in Holland when marijuana was legalized, by the way). The bootleggers, unable to compete with the government's lower prices and lack of sulphur in the product, folded. There is no reason to think that the same thing wouldn't happen with any other drug.
There may as well be some benefit to it. This way, the government isn't insensitively restricting people's rights (as some here seem to think abolishing smoking would do), but are managing to get something tangible from the practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The government has a lot to consider on this issue. People want to smoke for 30 years and then cash in on all the healthcare neccessary in later life . . . it strikes me as people wanting to do what feels good to them and skipping out on the consequences (at least trying, the health problems will come regardless).
Why should everybody pay so that some can have the right to actively, consciously destroy their bodies/health?
Do more people want legalized drugs than want to keep drugs illegal? Ugly sentence, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Which alcohols did the government produce?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
It was produced privately but generally sold at government stores, if I'm getting it right. It's entirely possible that I'm thinking of Canada. In any case, the industry was legal and government regulated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
Well, Joe, you're a young guy and your social circles are probably more accepting to this. But in the social circles and family I go around it is completely different. Anyone that is a drug user is looked down at as a low life, and while I can't say that I know any addicts, they would probably be excluded. And while I don't know of any at work, I'm sure if it was common knowledge that we had a committed drug user, addict or not, he would probably be let go at the earliest opportunity. So I think you're wrong. Amongst adults, it is not socially acceptable. I urge you young people out there to not get involved in drugs. It will come back to ruin your life.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I beg to differ. If you sell drugs, over time you will get caught and you will go to prison. We have lots of them in jail.Quote:
The problem with these laws is that nobody can enforce them.
Why are cigarettes so expensive as i pointed out. There are people now smuggling cigarettes into high tax areas. So crime has not gone away.Quote:
Drugs would not be more expensive if they were legal, they would be cheaper. It's always less expensive to produce somthing if you don't have smuggle it across the border and hide it from the police; and even if the drug lords can produce their product more cheaply than the government
Are you kidding? They would then be inducing people to take drugs. Never will happen.Quote:
the government could sell theirs at a loss and drive the drug gangs out of business,
You didn't respond on whether it would be morally acceptable to legalize all drugs like heroin, knowing that some will over dose. How can that ever happen? And if you can't legalize heroin you still will have gangs and terroitory fights.
Well make a choice. I'll take the ODs, (which happen anyway, and which can be helped) over the wars (which can't and won't).Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I'll tell you what, you try and grow your own tobbacco and build your own processing plant without the government knowing about it and see if you can still afford to sell cigarettes on the black market for cheaper than in the stores. In fact, don't bother, you wont' be able to. I know because if it was possible, it would already be happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Not before you have sold a lot of drugs you won't. You will never nail all of the dealers, no matter how hard you try or how much money you put into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I used to think that legalizing drugs (and prostitution for that matter) was a good idea because these activities could be regulated and maybe that would prevent someone from paying for bad "products."
But I've gotten older and I agree with Virgil --- when you reach a certain age, it's not socially acceptable to do drugs on a regular basis and more than likely it will catch up with you. And so if you must experiment, research the drugs and their effects and what happens to people who do them (don't do herion, crack or crystal meth because apparently one use of these and you've thrown it all away).
Peace
I'm not picking on you Shalot, but I just had to say this. I always have to laugh when some one uses the elocution, "he's experimenting with drugs." As if that person is performing a scientific experiment for the betterment of man. Hahaha. With controls and according to the scientific method. He's getting high. He's getting his jollies. It's no different than mental masterbation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalot
yeah, you're right. you made me laugh out loud on that one. but I guess what I meant with that phrase "experimenting with drugs" is just that sometimes teenagers do drugs just to have the experience or to be cool or whatever. But it's just so dangerous and if they're going to go into it (with the intention of stepping right the hell out of it) they should know that with some of those substances there is no return. But that is just my uninformed opinion on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Could someone give me an example of mental masturbation (using literature) that doesn't involve any references to drugs or drug use? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I've heard that phrase mental masturbarton more than once and I just w ant kind of a list of the activities or intellectual games etc that could be considered "mental masturbation") :lol:
Why, what are you planning to do?!?
Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to know what mental masturbation is. ;)
"experiment" intr.v.
1. To conduct an experiment.
2. To try something new, especially in order to gain experience: experiment with new methods of teaching.
From the American Heritage Dictionary
my two cents (after reading the original question and skimming the responses):
Smoking is becoming very highly restricted in the US (I don't know about other countries) primarily because of the immediate discomfort secondhand smoke brings. Drinking in many states, from what I understand, is also limited to the indoors...you can't just walk around with a drink in your hand, or even just walk around drunk. You can get arrested. If you go into a bar, you accept that you will be around drinkers, and if it is a bar that allows smoking, you accept that you will be around smokers. It is a tad disappointing that there seem to be fewer and fewer places for smokers to take a smoke break outside of their home. (I'm not a smoker, I'm just imagining if people decided that my bright clothing was detrimental to health and I suddenly could only wear it in my home and in certain places how sucky it would be...)
I'd like to thank everyone for their contributions and would like to highlight couple of issuest:
- I am not suggesting that there should be a world-wide ban on smoking and/or drinking.
- However, I am simply wondering why people's attitude towards smoking is so agitated while it is relaxed towards alcohol. In my opinion, the immediate effects of drinking are far worse than those of smoking (I wholeheartedly agree with the points Evi has made in her post).
- Why is it OK to advertise alcohol but not cigarettes?I guess people don't decide smoking or drinking is detrimental to health on their own but base these 'assumptions' on medical evidence. If those claims were to be supported by medical evidence, would you still be willing to wear bright colours in public?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannanigan
But I don't have to breath into my lungs the color of your clothing. The analogy doesn't fit. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannanigan
So after the first time they smoke pot, it's no longer an experiment. OK. What about the other million times?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9