DescentBB

TC, I'd like to point out that the Mexican drug cartels are also supplying drugs to Europe and who knows where else. How much in comparison to the US market I don't have a handle on but lets not indict America as the only country buying from the cartels.

The fix is simple, yet oh so hard. Either people quit using the stuff and drive the bastards out of business, or we make drugs a legal product that is regulated and properly sourced by legitimate producers. Black markets aren't known for following the law, or above killing people and competitors to get control of a market. The illegal market is driving this violence, drug addicts are creating the market. Take it or leave it.

Spidey wrote:When I was young, weed was 20 bucks an ounce, and nobody* was killing anyone to dominate the market…all of the effort to win the “drug war” has caused the price to skyrocket, and only after it became so ludicrous did people start killing other people to have the market.

also, when we were young, cheap dirt weed was the only produce being moved. Once cocaine and amphetamine and heroin started getting into the mix, both the risks and the cash rewards skyrocketed.

Most of the people I know who smoke have been boycotting weed from south of the border ever since that stupid Paraquat BS.

most of my acquaintance get domestic grown, too, but.......a quick info check will show how much of that grow is controlled by Mexican cartels.

Vision, I would have gave you credit, if you had said something like…there is more working here than just the war on drugs. And that is a given.

You can’t simply apply market forces to illegal products, if that were the case simple supply and demand would require that the more players in the game producing & selling would lower the price, not increase it as you stated.

Another market force would say that quality must go up, over time…simply take your computer for example…the one you are using now is far better than the one you were using 10 years ago…at a fraction of the price.

I’ve been in business 23 years now…I understand market forces pretty well.

Now, if I could just start killing off my competition……

...........................................

And JFTR an ounce of regular Columbian run of the mill weed with stems and seeds that you don’t need, goes for something like 3 bills an ounce on the street here in Philly.

Spidey wrote:You can’t simply apply market forces to illegal products, if that were the case simple supply and demand would require that the more players in the game producing & selling would lower the price, not increase it as you stated.

What difference does it make if it is legal or illegal? Business is business. Here, chew on this.

Spidey wrote:Another market force would say that quality must go up, over time…simply take your computer for example…the one you are using now is far better than the one you were using 10 years ago…at a fraction of the price.

Compact Discs never never got better or went down in price and there were certainly market forces in play. In fact, if we are just talking audio media, quality has gone down over time. Just look at that audio compression thread you started. If you compare the cost of CDs vs the cost of compressed audio formats, then match that to the amount of data lost in compression, we are all paying waaaay too much for compressed formats. If my mp3's are 1/10 the size I want to pay 1/10th the cost since I have 1/10 the data.

Somewhere in here there is a joke about the RIAA being like the Mexican drug cartels.

This dicussion is stupid. this is about criminals. Drugs are illegal. Their manufacture AND their use. The only example that is accurate is the mob and prohibition in the 20s. Funny I don't seem to remember the president blaming americans for the mob killing each other to supply an illegal substance back then. They just went after the mob shutting them down. If Mexico was serious about stopping this problem, go in and solve it with the military in force.

vision wrote:Just look at that audio compression thread you started. If you compare the cost of CDs vs the cost of compressed audio formats, then match that to the amount of data lost in compression, we are all paying waaaay too much for compressed formats. If my mp3's are 1/10 the size I want to pay 1/10th the cost since I have 1/10 the data.

All things being equal, most technology becomes more valuable when it is smaller. My laptop is easily less than 1/10 the size of my desktop, but that makes it more valuable, not less. Mp3's take a small quality hit, just like how my laptop is a little slower than my desktop, but I still do almost all of my work on my laptop because of its convenience.

In the case of music, most of the money goes toward paying off the intellectual property before the physical medium even comes into play.

CUDA wrote:this is about criminals.

This is about the government turning people into criminals. And that's turned out to be a very disastrous abuse of governmental power.

Jeff250 wrote:

vision wrote:Just look at that audio compression thread you started. If you compare the cost of CDs vs the cost of compressed audio formats, then match that to the amount of data lost in compression, we are all paying waaaay too much for compressed formats. If my mp3's are 1/10 the size I want to pay 1/10th the cost since I have 1/10 the data.

All things being equal, most technology becomes more valuable when it is smaller. My laptop is easily less than 1/10 the size of my desktop, but that makes it more valuable, not less. Mp3's take a small quality hit, just like how my laptop is a little slower than my desktop, but I still do almost all of my work on my laptop because of its convenience.

In the case of music, most of the money goes toward paying off the intellectual property before the physical medium even comes into play.

CUDA wrote:this is about criminals.

This is about the government turning people into criminals. And that's turned out to be a very disastrous abuse of governmental power.

This is about people in charge of failing bureaucracy's like the War on Drugs program, who want to continue to collect a paycheck, all the while adding billions more to the countries debt.

CUDA wrote:this is about criminals.

This is about the government turning people into criminals. And that's turned out to be a very disastrous abuse of governmental power.

Thats kind of a weak argument. The government doesn't turn people into criminals. The government passes laws deemed best for society. Sometimes legislated by its leaders, sometimes by the people themself. People chose to violate those laws and therefore make themselves criminals. In our society we have laid out a groundwork of parameters of what is acceptable for our laws. Some laws meet those parameters and are allowed to stand, others do not, and are not.
But the government does not make its people criminals.

What Jeff is saying (I think) is that the government made a perfectly normal human condition illegal, and what CUDA says is essentially correct as well…so…the question is…

Which is worse.

1. Legislating away someone’s rights.

2. Reclaiming those rights.

Spidey wrote:What Jeff is saying (I think) is that the government made a perfectly normal human condition illegal,

what normal human condition are we referring to?? laws are legislated for the protection of society as a whole. is it a normal human condition to want to Murder some one, or is it as little as breaking the speed limit or Jaywalking? drinking alcohol is legal. drinking too much alcohol is not.

The normal human condition “I’m” referring to is…the desire for pleasure.

And you have something with the drinking rules…very common sense…why not apply them to recreational drugs?

I’m not totally convinced that drug use is a disease, but it sure does make more sense to me treating it as one…than a crime.

Drug addiction (including to alcohol) is certainly a disease. But it's far from clear to me that alcohol/drug use in general is.

I’m addicted to Glucotrol, and breathing…

CUDA wrote:This dicussion is stupid. this is about criminals. Drugs are illegal. Their manufacture AND their use. The only example that is accurate is the mob and prohibition in the 20s. Funny I don't seem to remember the president blaming americans for the mob killing each other to supply an illegal substance back then.

you wouldn't have.....the President was on the take from the bootleggers. They put him into office......

CUDA wrote:This dicussion is stupid. this is about criminals. Drugs are illegal. Their manufacture AND their use. The only example that is accurate is the mob and prohibition in the 20s. Funny I don't seem to remember the president blaming americans for the mob killing each other to supply an illegal substance back then. They just went after the mob shutting them down. If Mexico was serious about stopping this problem, go in and solve it with the military in force.

That's because it was easier for our cops to do. The mob was operating in country and the FBI had no qualms about raiding every little speakeasy and still joint. Now, if you want to send our troops south of the border to kick butt and take names, that might work like it did with the mob back in the twenties too. It's already technically a war, so why not actually declare one and go fight it ourselves and get it done right? And I'm serious too. This BS has gone on long enough. But be prepared to raise our debt even more if we do decide to fight these bastards on their soil.

Even easier TC, why not just put troops on the boarder with orders to shoot and kill. I guarandamtee you that the flow of illegals and drugs would dry up in a matter of days.

Or at least slow considerably. I'd certainly be amused by the image of a bunch of lightly armed drug runners suddenly having to face off against an armored cavalry and airstrikes.

woodchip wrote:Even easier TC, why not just put troops on the boarder with orders to shoot and kill. I guarandamtee you that the flow of illegals and drugs would dry up in a matter of days.

you paying for this coverage, at public expense, of a 1400 mile Southern border alone? How about troops to cover ports of entry and that 2100 miles of Northern Border. Oh, and Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico? Where to draw the line? Back to your intended coverage(I presume) limited to the Mexican/US border......wanna guess the cost for that one?

But…spending is good…right?

I'm sure the $$ given to Solyndra and Fisker could have paid for most of that fence

Decreasing drug supply would only increase the profit motive for cartels to commit heinous crime to deliver their product.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Even easier TC, why not just put troops on the boarder with orders to shoot and kill. I guarandamtee you that the flow of illegals and drugs would dry up in a matter of days.

you paying for this coverage, at public expense, of a 1400 mile Southern border alone? How about troops to cover ports of entry and that 2100 miles of Northern Border. Oh, and Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico? Where to draw the line? Back to your intended coverage(I presume) limited to the Mexican/US border......wanna guess the cost for that one?

Wanna guess the cost those drugs are creating in health issues, crime and money flowing into Mexico from the sales? Wanna guess the cost the illegals have on our welfare system alone? Here's just a small indication:

"For example, in Pennsylvania, taxpayers payed a $45.3 million tab for emergency health care for illegal aliens. Texas spent $677 million. Border hospitals were burdened $189.6 million in uncompensated emergency medical costs for illegal immigrants during 2000 alone. Two-thirds of births in Los Angeles county hospitals are to illegal aliens. "

"Nearly twice the number of immigrants and children born in the United States are on Medicare or are uninsured, compared to U.S. citizens. The cost of treating uninsured illegal immigrants in hospitals and clinics is $4.3 billion a year."

So once again Slick, nice try at deflection.

Spidey wrote:But…spending is good…right?

if something is to be gained, long-term. That has yet to be shown, in this case.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Even easier TC, why not just put troops on the boarder with orders to shoot and kill. I guarandamtee you that the flow of illegals and drugs would dry up in a matter of days.

you paying for this coverage, at public expense, of a 1400 mile Southern border alone? How about troops to cover ports of entry and that 2100 miles of Northern Border. Oh, and Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico? Where to draw the line? Back to your intended coverage(I presume) limited to the Mexican/US border......wanna guess the cost for that one?

Wanna guess the cost those drugs are creating in health issues, crime and money flowing into Mexico from the sales?

you are aware that most of the marijuana grow sites for domestic consumption in the US are on US soil, so a border fence accomplishes little?

"For example, in Pennsylvania, taxpayers payed a $45.3 million tab for emergency health care for illegal aliens. Texas spent $677 million. Border hospitals were burdened $189.6 million in uncompensated emergency medical costs for illegal immigrants during 2000 alone. Two-thirds of births in Los Angeles county hospitals are to illegal aliens. "

a stong argument for the legalization and thus incorporation into our insurance and healthcare economy ON THE BOOKS.

So once again Slick, nice try at deflection.

deflecting nothing, and enjoying the ease of having you illustrate the benefits of immigration status adjustment.

callmeslick wrote:
a stong argument for the legalization and thus incorporation into our insurance and healthcare economy ON THE BOOKS.

Ah, so once the illegals attain citizenship all those costs magically disappear...how?
It's logic like yours is the reason the country is now approaching 17 trillion in debt.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
a stong argument for the legalization and thus incorporation into our insurance and healthcare economy ON THE BOOKS.

Ah, so once the illegals attain citizenship all those costs magically disappear...how?

they don't disappear, but will be lowered dramatically. Just the fact that they will be covered by social service programs will allow for the hospitals to document and recover SOMETHING in most cases, rather than have a bunch of folks chasing a zero return situation.

It's logic like yours is the reason the country is now approaching 17 trillion in debt.

no, it's largely unfunded legislation, and two wars not being paid for that did that. Go ahead and decieve yourself all you want, but most of us get it.

AH the 17 trillion in debt is Bush's fault.
Your such a good Democrat

woodchip wrote:Even easier TC, why not just put troops on the boarder with orders to shoot and kill. I guarandamtee you that the flow of illegals and drugs would dry up in a matter of days.

Well, we could make drugs legal, tax them like any substance, and use the proceeds to pay for guarding the border to keep out the illegal cheaper bootleg stuff that will invariably show up as does in any market with competition. Might even keep out the illegals themselves as a bonus.

CUDA wrote:AH the 17 trillion in debt is Bush's fault.
Your such a good Democrat

He sure contributed a pretty big slice of the debt pie.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/us ... president/

CUDA wrote:AH the 17 trillion in debt is Bush's fault.
Your such a good Democrat

did I say that? No, of course not, but you want to beat the stupid Democratic party line BS for all you can, even when you know better. The unfunded wars and unfunded legislative mandates were voted on by both parties, so both share the blame. What doesn't really enter in is the concept of 'liberal politics', which was what was inferred.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:AH the 17 trillion in debt is Bush's fault.
Your such a good Democrat

did I say that? No, of course not, but you want to beat the stupid Democratic party line BS for all you can, even when you know better. The unfunded wars and unfunded legislative mandates were voted on by both parties, so both share the blame. What doesn't really enter in is the concept of 'liberal politics', which was what was inferred.

You blamed it on two unfunded wars, blaming it solely on bush's shoulders, you never made any inferrence of obama's part in that debt. Such honesty on your part. Keep spouting your party line and ignoring their fault in anything

CUDA wrote:You blamed it on two unfunded wars

partly.

blaming it solely on bush's shoulders

no, that would be your doing. I never mentioned Bush at all. As noted earlier, both parties approved that fiscal debacle.

you never made any inferrence of obama's part in that debt

because, beyond deficit spending to pull the nation out of a recession, which is prudent policy, accepted by most all economists, he hasn't really contributed much. The claim that he has is essentially typical right-wing repeating of lies that suit their purposes.

Such honesty on your part. Keep spouting your party line and ignoring their fault in anything

I think I've pretty well established which of us has been dishonest. Shame on you.

Yes yes I'm a liar you keep spouting that. Wont make it true. And your such a paragon of virtue with your half truths and distortions. You blamed it on bush and two unfunded wars. What you have said in previous threads has no bearing to what you just posted.so your half truth is just that.

CUDA wrote:You blamed it on two unfunded wars, blaming it solely on bush's shoulders, you never made any inferrence of obama's part in that debt. Such honesty on your part. Keep spouting your party line and ignoring their fault in anything

Sure Obama's contributed to the debt, but it's only 16.8 percent of the total. Bush contributed a whooping 47.2 percent of the total, most of it war spending and hence not productive to our country's economy, unless you're a defense contractor I guess. He's king.

cuda.. are you married to slick?

now, hold on just a minute.........

hey, I gotta wonder, seeing as he argues as much as an old wife.. ;P

All right, Ferno, you home wrecker...

Notice slick gets to be the husband.