45 dead in attack on casino in northern Mexico

[loomer]

The fuck are you talking about? DR3 is that this is not a miss manners forum. It has nothing to do with honesty - that's a different rule entirely.

[evilsoup]

If certain children would be willing to break age-restriction laws and do drugs, then there's a pretty good chance that they'd be willing to break existing laws.

Okay, here's all the arguments I can think of for legalizing drugs:

1. Money - you don't have to sink ridiculous resources into pseudo-wars or elaborate drug stings, you don't have to spend so much money on prisons, and you can tax drugs to the hilt (like with cigarettes).

2. Better quality drugs - I've heard plenty of horror stories about dealers cutting cocaine with rat poison and so on. If these drugs were legal and regulated, this wouldn't happen anything like as much.

3. Less crime - drug dealers kill each other over territory fairly regularly, and plenty of people get caught in the crossfire. If it's legitimate companies selling their competing products through off-licenses (corner shops), that simply isn't going to happen. Some addicts would still commit burglaries; but buying drugs will no longer be a gateway into the criminal underworld, so they'll be less inclined to criminal activity and most of them will have less contact with local criminals (who would be buying the stolen jewels/laptops/whatever), so there would be less opportunity for addicts to commit crimes. Something similar would be true for coerced prostitution: some addicts would still turn to prostitution, but a lot fewer of them would have contact with criminal elements.

4. Rehabilitation - drug recovery is seriously hindered by zero-tolerance laws in many areas. Some of the taxed income from drug sales should go towards treatment.

5. Stop the war - loads of people die every year in the 'war' on drugs, many of them innocent. Paramilitary groups are funded by drugs, and so on.

[Lord Baal]

The fuck are you talking about? DR3 is that this is not a miss manners forum. It has nothing to do with honesty - that's a different rule entirely.

You are right, I'm sorry. I was mistakenly referring to a posting rule, not a debating one.

Now Lord, you are sounding more sensible to me. I have to concede your points as you have put them crystal clear now. And I still thing that prosecution to cartels should still continue, but you sound a hell of a lot more convincing now for some reason.

But do you really think that would work like that? I see rather hard to tax them like that. I mean, is a possibility that something along the lines you describe will work charms, but I'm sure not everyone will follow suit, even when it sounds the most logical way out of this stupid circle of deaths and crime...

[Lord Zentei]

Had I been rude to you? It's not a matter if I can take the heat or not, more like I think we all can share our opinions without the need of being rude to each other.

Around here you don't get to ignore people's posts because they contain flames.

Also this is not a matter where you can say you are absolutely right or wrong, there's no a formula, constants variables that can be easily identifiable, this is a social, humanistic trouble, not the calculation of a formula. I can't say I'm absolutely right on this, you I assure, you aren't either.

Oh, you assure me that I'm not right? Well, that settles it all, doesn't it? I'm sure that you can back that up, right?

If you are not backing up your argument with statistics then you are making assumptions too. Actually, this is not a issue that can be easily quantified as I said, because is something very subjective for every nation, government, culture, family and person, yet you do make assumptions, while you accuse me of making them while I was only trying to figure out your opinion!

You asked for scientific evidence for what was a normative statement. That makes no sense. However, it is a matter of fact that legalization will remove a source of income from organized crime. That is the fact that my opinion is based on, and it has been presented numerous times before now. Moreover, increased competition will reduce retail costs, reducing people's need to commit crime to get their fix, and drugs sold by criminals are more harmful due to the fact that they put additives into them to increase their revenue.

Yes, we can discuss this, as a matter of fact we are doing it. I merely pointed out that in the end there's no a real point or goal in our discussion beyond it's mere existence, because the real decisions are made by governments.

Not using them per se, but I'm very interested in why a person that apparently know nothing about them beyond the reading field (if that's the case) what's to have an environment where in the future it's offspring can buy cocaine or crack as easily as soda or aspirin.

If you find that there's no point in discussing this, then feel free to get lost.

[MKSheppard]

We actually had something like this over on HPCA a while ago; a slight editing of my post on drug legalization:

Legalizing drugs won't magically make things all copacetic in the inner-cities and in Mexico.

There's a few articles which show why they won't dry up:

Quick and dirty example LINK 1
Tl;dr: a former gang member made copies of his gang's books.

LINK 2
Tl;dr: economist gets close access to four years' worth of finances for a street gang.

• Gang Leaders/Officers make $32 to $97 an hour (in 1995 dollars)
• Gang footsoldiers make $2.50 to $7.10 an hour (in 1995 dollars)

If you are a upscale gang leader pocketing close to $100k a year; you can easily take your huge pile of money, buy a laundromat or two, and quickly launder your money and become legit if you so choose. It's what the Kennedys did when bootlegging fell out from under them.

But that essentially leaves everyone else in the gang screwed.

The gang officers really do not have any real marketable skills. You can't just go to a corporate H.R officer and put down on your resume "For five years I handled annual income flows of $500,000 and payroll flows of $150,000." since it was all horribly illegal, and you're probably linked to several drug-related assaults or murders since you were the bagman/director.

At the lowest levels, the foot soldiers took on horrible pay -- less than minimum wage, and a 7% annual death rate to gain the opportunity to become an officer or head their own gang one day. All those years spent building up street cred to move up to being an gang officer aren't transferrable to their resumes.

So they really do not have anywhere else to go in the employment world, other than changing their profession to something that's still illegal:

• Prostitution
• Sex Slavery
• Illegal Alien Importation/Slavery
• Even Harder Schedule I substances (e.g. we legalize pot and cocaine, but PCP is still banned)

That way, their street cred can be transferred and they won't lose out on their multi-year employment investments.

Finally, there's another reason why they won't go legit.

For the footsoldiers, the jobs are pretty easy compared to other entry level jobs. You don't need to spend eight hours a day tending to a deep fat fryer or microwave at McDonalds; or stock the shelves at a supermarket.

You get roughly the same amount of money working as a footsoldier, and the jobs tend to be easier -- like loitering at a street corner to keep an eye on the gang's territory, or sitting around watching TV in a crackhouse as muscle to protect the dealer.

At the higher ranks, it's a lot of money for likewise little effort compared to more conventional occupations.

[Lord Baal]

Lord Zentei, did you even bothered reading my last post? If I "get lost" it would be out of you being idiotically and unnecessarily rude. Yes, here you don't get to ignore other people arguments because they are simply rude idiots, but that's not excuse to being one when obviously the other part is not being rude to you. I know that simply legalizing wont solve anything, sorry if you are deluded and high on your heels that you can't see that and don't even bother on reading other people posts...

[Lord Zentei]

Lord Zentei, did you even bothered reading my last post? If I "get lost" it would be out of you being idiotically and unnecessarily rude. Yes, here you don't get to ignore other people arguments because they are simply rude idiots, but that's not excuse to being one when obviously the other part is not being rude to you. I know that simply legalizing wont solve anything, sorry if you are deluded and high on your heels that you can't see that and don't even bother on reading other people posts...

So now you post more whining about "rudeness" while ignoring my post (even when you acknowledge that it's not permitted), more blanket assertions that you're right (without supporting your claims in any way), and straw-man distortions to boot.

And again you whine that you've not been rude yourself (rest assured that you have). Not that I care that much, mind you - go right ahead. But then you can't complain when I flame you in turn, now can you?

Heh, you managed to cram quite a lot of bull into such a small post didn't you?


Anyhow, my post stands. You have presented your claims, now present your arguments for them, and respond properly to mine.

[Lord Baal]

When I have been rude to you? Exactly how and when and be sure that if true I will apologize to you.

Second, evilsoup made some good arguments and I actually agreed with him, did you notice?

Do you want back up that legalizing all the drugs would not end the the mobs, is simply, the people that now do business with them won't become model citizens out of this. They will turn to other illegal drugs, and then to extortion, kidnapings, sexual slavery and a ton of other crap, as matter of fact they already do that now. Granted, you "ideally" will cut their one of their income sources, but they have a lot more. Also, you simply can't tax a mafia or shut it down.

There's the another point on how much would it cost the drugs on the magical shops of yours? This barring the possibility of a world where companies like the tobacco ones can get their hands on cocaine and crack, do you think they will not use them to boost their revenues? Think again.

Look, I'm not happy with this "war on drug" thing either. It drags on a eternal conflict that have tons of innocent people terrorized, resulting on unnecessary deaths and let's face it, sometimes it feels more like a facade that politics use to be, well, politically correct... but I don't think that legalizing solve anything as easy as it could appear, maybe on the long run it could be a definitely solution, yes, maybe. But we can't simply ignore the machine that it's currently working with it, because they will get a hold on it on any way and when it's not longer profitable enough, they will simply shift to something else.

Also, as to clarify something, what do you exactly call "war on drugs"?

[Lord Zentei]

The gang officers really do not have any real marketable skills. You can't just go to a corporate H.R officer and put down on your resume "For five years I handled annual income flows of $500,000 and payroll flows of $150,000." since it was all horribly illegal, and you're probably linked to several drug-related assaults or murders since you were the bagman/director.

At the lowest levels, the foot soldiers took on horrible pay -- less than minimum wage, and a 7% annual death rate to gain the opportunity to become an officer or head their own gang one day. All those years spent building up street cred to move up to being an gang officer aren't transferrable to their resumes.

So they really do not have anywhere else to go in the employment world, other than changing their profession to something that's still illegal

Yeah, rehabilitation of ex-criminals and creating manageable jobs for them is going to be a key to ensuring the success of any programme. But so is the removal of revenue sources, or why else would anyone change their ways?

Incidentally, one of the other points on your bullet list (prostitution) has advocates for legalization too, and with much the same justifications.

[Lord Zentei]

When I have been rude to you? Exactly how and when and be sure that if true I will apologize to you.

If you can't figure that out, then perhaps you should read the thread again. Not that I really care, I'd rather see you quit whining and back your shit up. Without simply referring to other posters.

Second, evilsoup made some good arguments and I actually agreed with him, did you notice?

Yes, I did. We are of the same position, and some of the points he raised have been raised by me earlier. If you agree with him, what are you yammering at me for?

Do you want back up that legalizing all the drugs would not end the the mobs, is simply, the people that now do business with them won't become model citizens out of this. They will turn to other illegal drugs, and then to extortion, kidnapings, sexual slavery and a ton of other crap, as matter of fact they already do that now. Granted, you "ideally" will cut their one of their income sources, but they have a lot more. Also, you simply can't tax a mafia or shut it down.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. My position is that interdiction is costly and ineffectual, and that legalization removes a revenue source from the mob. I'm not talking about taxing the mob (that doesn't make any sense), but the drug trade itself, i.e. legal traders, exactly like you tax alcohol and tobacco. And "other illegal drugs"? What are you talking about?

There's the another point on how much would it cost the drugs on the magical shops of yours? This barring the possibility of a world where companies like the tobacco ones can get their hands on cocaine and crack, do you think they will not use them to boost their revenues? Think again.

What the hell are you talking about?

Look, I'm not happy with this "war on drug" thing either. It drags on a eternal conflict that have tons of innocent people terrorized, resulting on unnecessary deaths and let's face it, sometimes it feels more like a facade that politics use to be, well, politically correct... but I don't think that legalizing solve anything as easy as it could appear, maybe on the long run it could be a definitely solution, yes, maybe. But we can't simply ignore the machine that it's currently working with it, because they will get a hold on it on any way and when it's not longer profitable enough, they will simply shift to something else.

So we shouldn't continue a pointless war on drugs, because criminals would do something else? That's not exactly my idea of a sterling argument for continuing something.

Also, as to clarify something, what do you exactly call "war on drugs"?

The campaign of prohibition, extreme interdiction and foreign intervention to reduce drug use.

[Lord Baal]

I do will appreciate a less aggressive tone. But if that its far from your reaching then I understand. And I re-read it to see if I had, found nothing. Again, if you what to point out when and where I will apologize. You say you don't care, but still you mentioned it, so you must care at least a little?

I'm not yammering at you (whatever that means) I was actually conceding the points to you (and him).

About other illegal drugs I'm talking about the possibility of legalizing drugs on a case by case basis, starting with the more profitable to the mobs first and then continuing on that order cause I honestly find rather hard to believe that all drugs will be legalized at once. Again you have the point on the removal of revenue source. I do feel that interdiction is costly and ineffective, but UNTIL legalization with a re-education plan as you mention is available it should stands, or the mobs will run around freely, and I'm sure you don't want that either. I don't know if I explain myself good enough here, I'm not saying lets keep it because we won't look anything else, I say let's keep it because it's the only partial solution we have right now, and let's drop it when we have a better, more effective solution.

About the cost, you say that drugs made on legal conditions would be cheaper? I don't think so, drug production now is sustained by forced labor, they don't have to pay licenses of production or any kind of taxes, of course they also sell it at very high prices, but until I see some legal production cost that is an assumption. The other cometary is the flip of the coin (is that how you say it?) Today we have legal companies selling cigarettes and alcohol with a targeting to young people (read teenagers and such) and huge gains besides being highly pernicious products (tobacco mostly). Now do you really want this kind of companies being allowed to commercialize products that are way more addictive and potentially dangerous like cocaine or crack?

You seem to assume that addicts wont steal that much to buy drugs, not as they now do. For most of them, in practice, it will be a mere change of dealers, from a guy on a corner or an alley to a shop or clinic, unless drugs are legalized under very, very thigh constrains. Granted this change is positive on the clean needles and potentially preventing overdoses, but it will cost good money too. To be economically viable it should be sponsored by the government, and how many taxpayers would be happy to support drug addicts instead of their money get used on other issues? If not then, like I said, which price will private corporations put on this?

Let's imagine the war on drugs is not applied, a disaster like the one on this thread could still happen out of internal struggle from rival mafias or anything else. So even when armed interdiction results in collateral damage it's not the only cause, this is one of the reasons why this kind of organizations need to be stopped by force, because even if you take they main source of profit they won't disappear over night and not every one of their members will be willing to receive a reeducation to become a productive member of society.

On war on drugs I meant to the general prosecution of the people involved on drugs production and commercialization, but I was talking more about local (country) enforcement with simple collaboration from agencies like Interpol to catch the ones that pass national frontiers.

Beyond all this, I would like to know, if it's not too invasive or daring to ask, where do you live? I mean in which country? I know it's not Ulthwé Craftworld, because I just come from there!

[Lord Zentei]

I do will appreciate a less aggressive tone. But if that its far from your reaching then I understand. And I re-read it to see if I had, found nothing. Again, if you what to point out when and where I will apologize. You say you don't care, but still you mentioned it, so you must care at least a little?

Quit whining about aggression, and grow some thicker skin. It's your hypocrisy and petulance that I'm pointing out, not that I care about flames directed at me.

About other illegal drugs I'm talking about the possibility of legalizing drugs on a case by case basis, starting with the more profitable to the mobs first and then continuing on that order cause I honestly find rather hard to believe that all drugs will be legalized at once. Again you have the point on the removal of revenue source. I do feel that interdiction is costly and ineffective, but UNTIL legalization with a re-education plan as you mention is available it should stands, or the mobs will run around freely, and I'm sure you don't want that either. I don't know if I explain myself good enough here, I'm not saying lets keep it because we won't look anything else, I say let's keep it because it's the only partial solution we have right now, and let's drop it when we have a better, more effective solution.

Obviously you prosecute illegal activities. That doesn't mean that pointing out that mobs will move to other revenue sources is a valid argument against legalization.

About the cost, you say that drugs made on legal conditions would be cheaper? I don't think so, drug production now is sustained by forced labor, they don't have to pay licenses of production or any kind of taxes, of course they also sell it at very high prices, but until I see some legal production cost that is an assumption. The other cometary is the flip of the coin (is that how you say it?) Today we have legal companies selling cigarettes and alcohol with a targeting to young people (read teenagers and such) and huge gains besides being highly pernicious products (tobacco mostly). Now do you really want this kind of companies being allowed to commercialize products that are way more addictive and potentially dangerous like cocaine or crack?

It's not a question of production costs, but sales costs. If you have interdiction, you make it harder to get the substances to the buyers, that increases prices. Moreover, interdiction makes it harder for small producers to sell their wares, since they don't have the protection the gangs offer. The gangs themselves will tend to use force to eliminate competition in their territories. Incidentally, tobacco and alcohol marketing can be (and frequently is) regulated.

You seem to assume that addicts wont steal that much to buy drugs, not as they now do. For most of them, in practice, it will be a mere change of dealers, from a guy on a corner or an alley to a shop or clinic, unless drugs are legalized under very, very thigh constrains. Granted this change is positive on the clean needles and potentially preventing overdoses, but it will cost good money too. To be economically viable it should be sponsored by the government, and how many taxpayers would be happy to support drug addicts instead of their money get used on other issues? If not then, like I said, which price will private corporations put on this?

People are already having their tax money spent on drug addicts - only they're doing it very inefficiently (specifically, by interdicting the trade, not by supporting the addicts). As for your concern, if the price drops, so do the crimes needed to support addiction. Moreover, if addiction is no longer criminalized, there's more incentive to come forward for support. People's perceptions are obviously a problem, but that's not a valid counterargument against legalization.

Let's imagine the war on drugs is not applied, a disaster like the one on this thread could still happen out of internal struggle from rival mafias or anything else. So even when armed interdiction results in collateral damage it's not the only cause, this is one of the reasons why this kind of organizations need to be stopped by force, because even if you take they main source of profit they won't disappear over night and not every one of their members will be willing to receive a reeducation to become a productive member of society.

That's hardly an argument against legalization either.

[Flagg]

I do will appreciate a less aggressive tone. But if that its far from your reaching then I understand. And I re-read it to see if I had, found nothing. Again, if you what to point out when and where I will apologize. You say you don't care, but still you mentioned it, so you must care at least a little?

Just a heads up before your head rolls, people have been banned for whining about aggressive tones.

[Lord Baal]

Obviously you prosecute illegal activities. That doesn't mean that pointing out that mobs will move to other revenue sources is a valid argument against legalization.

Are you even reading? Like, really trying to understand? Or perahps my english is really bad. I'm not longer all against legalization! Please, step out of your podium so you can hear other people voices over yours....

It's not a question of production costs, but sales costs. If you have interdiction, you make it harder to get the substances to the buyers, that increases prices. Moreover, interdiction makes it harder for small producers to sell their wares, since they don't have the protection the gangs offer. The gangs themselves will tend to use force to eliminate competition in their territories. Incidentally, tobacco and alcohol marketing can be (and frequently is) regulated.

Yeah, because we all know that sales costs are magically separated from the production costs... If you quit interdiction and legalize it you are merely replacing a expense (a indirect one) by another set of direct expenses! Granted, it could be less expensive in the end, but it will not magically make it cheap for everyone.

People are already having their tax money spent on drug addicts - only they're doing it very inefficiently (specifically, by interdicting the trade, not by supporting the addicts). As for your concern, if the price drops, so do the crimes needed to support addiction. Moreover, if addiction is no longer criminalized, there's more incentive to come forward for support. People's perceptions are obviously a problem, but that's not a valid counterargument against legalization.

Again, you keep assuming the drop in prices... while not addressing my point at all. Also how peoples perception is not a valid counterargument? Are you going to implement this on Cybertron where there are not people??? Peoples perception IS A CRITICAL POINT! And a lot of people WONT be happy to realize that it's tax money is being employed on giving cheap drugs to drug addicts. The other option is to charge full price or let private companies run the drugs business, which will keep/create issues on it's own.

That's hardly an argument against legalization either.

Because is NOT against legalization, it is about sustaining prosecution dude!!!! Analise it better.


Well Flagg, I guess I should follow suit then and grow a thicker skin.

However I quit this argue and concede the thing to Lord Zentei then. I don't see you calling me hypocritical and petulant as a valid argument on any ground, and actually I don't know why you call me such things. I'll making him happy and won't give any more opinions on this issue, since he's a truly expert on this things, he has certainly had close encounters with this kind of people and business and lives on a fucking country where it's secretly legalized because it's the main revenue of almost all it's politics..

[Lord Zentei]

Obviously you prosecute illegal activities. That doesn't mean that pointing out that mobs will move to other revenue sources is a valid argument against legalization.

Are you even reading? Like, really trying to understand? Or perahps my english is really bad. I'm not longer all against legalization! Please, step out of your podium so you can hear other people voices over yours....

I already saw that. But your point didn't really serve any other function than as a counter-argument against legalization.

It's not a question of production costs, but sales costs. If you have interdiction, you make it harder to get the substances to the buyers, that increases prices. Moreover, interdiction makes it harder for small producers to sell their wares, since they don't have the protection the gangs offer. The gangs themselves will tend to use force to eliminate competition in their territories. Incidentally, tobacco and alcohol marketing can be (and frequently is) regulated.

Yeah, because we all know that sales costs are magically separated from the production costs... If you quit interdiction and legalize it you are merely replacing a expense (a indirect one) by another set of direct expenses! Granted, it could be less expensive in the end, but it will not magically make it cheap for everyone.

Sales costs are tied to the supply and demand curves. The supply curve is partly constrained by production costs, but also by distribution costs. No-one is advocating magic.

People are already having their tax money spent on drug addicts - only they're doing it very inefficiently (specifically, by interdicting the trade, not by supporting the addicts). As for your concern, if the price drops, so do the crimes needed to support addiction. Moreover, if addiction is no longer criminalized, there's more incentive to come forward for support. People's perceptions are obviously a problem, but that's not a valid counterargument against legalization.

Again, you keep assuming the drop in prices... while not addressing my point at all. Also how peoples perception is not a valid counterargument? Are you going to implement this on Cybertron where there are not people??? Peoples perception IS A CRITICAL POINT! And a lot of people WONT be happy to realize that it's tax money is being employed on giving cheap drugs to drug addicts. The other option is to charge full price or let private companies run the drugs business, which will keep/create issues on it's own.

People's perception is not a valid counterargument because appeal to popular opinion is a logical fallacy. It has bearing on how hard it is to make changes, not on the effects of those changes. And just because a valid solution is hard politically doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it. As for prices, I pointed out why they would fall: interdiction increases the costs of distribution, and interdiction and infighting together reduce competition. And what point am I not addressing? The one where you say that legalized drugs need to be sponsored by government to be economically viable (which you don't show) in the same breath as where you say people will object to supporting drug addicts making reform difficult to implement? Even granting that appeals to popular opinion are valid, that argument refutes itself, if you think about it.

That's hardly an argument against legalization either.

Because is NOT against legalization, it is about sustaining prosecution dude!!!! Analise it better.

If you legalize drugs, you quit prosecuting sales and possession of said drugs pretty much by definition, you know. As for prosecution of crimes in general, I don't see anyone here arguing against that.

Well Flagg, I guess I should follow suit then and grow a thicker skin.

However I quit this argue and concede the thing to Lord Zentei then. I don't see you calling me hypocritical and petulant as a valid argument on any ground, and actually I don't know why you call me such things. I'll making him happy and won't give any more opinions on this issue, since he's a truly expert on this things, he has certainly had close encounters with this kind of people and business and lives on a fucking country where it's secretly legalized because it's the main revenue of almost all it's politics..

WTF?

[Lord Baal]

It's pretty fucked indeed....

I admit it, I have a hell of a personal bias on this subject and I'm not impartial on it on this days out of it. Hence I won't discus this anymore. Have this as an apology for any fucked up argument I presented on this thread so far.

[evilsoup]

Lord Baal, I understand that English isn't your first language, so you may not realise that your complaining about Zentei's 'rudeness' (which I ... haven't really seen in this thread) comes across as very passive-aggressive - a kind of rudeness, in fact.

Also, I didn't pick up that you'd changed your mind on the issue until your last post. This is a generally confrontational board where most members have strongly-held beliefs, so you should explicitly state that kind of thing. With that said: is your position that you now agree that drugs should be legalised, but you don't think that such a change in policy is likely due to public opinion? If that is the case, then I agree with you.

It's not a question of production costs, but sales costs. If you have interdiction, you make it harder to get the substances to the buyers, that increases prices. Moreover, interdiction makes it harder for small producers to sell their wares, since they don't have the protection the gangs offer. The gangs themselves will tend to use force to eliminate competition in their territories. Incidentally, tobacco and alcohol marketing can be (and frequently is) regulated.

Yeah, because we all know that sales costs are magically separated from the production costs... If you quit interdiction and legalize it you are merely replacing a expense (a indirect one) by another set of direct expenses! Granted, it could be less expensive in the end, but it will not magically make it cheap for everyone.

Do you agree that capitalist competition will naturally drive prices down? Yes, there is a minimum price of production and transport, and to some extent taxation will drive up the prices; but current drug prices are far above those production levels. One large reason for this is the lack of competition. The dominant drug dealer will murder or chase off any potential competitors in his area, forming a local monopoly. He then weakens the batches of drugs and jacks up prices to pad his profit margin.

If the drug trade were legalised and regulated, you'd end up with several competitors for over-the-counter narcotics; as regulation enforcement would dictate that all the drugs would be safe, the main thing the companies would be able to compete on would be price (you'd also probably end up with different strength drugs, like you do with beer). This is actually one area where the invisible hand of the free market would work perfectly.

[Lord Zentei]

It's pretty fucked indeed....

I admit it, I have a hell of a personal bias on this subject and I'm not impartial on it on this days out of it. Hence I won't discus this anymore. Have this as an apology for any fucked up argument I presented on this thread so far.

OK, sure. And I just realized what you meant with that point you made to Flagg, which provoked my WTF. I understand that it's not easy to accept legalization of something a corrupt government has been profiting on, but keep in mind that underrmining that income helps undermine said regime's bottom line, right?

[Lord Baal]

Even when I did say I wont be posting here any more I will to clear things up.

Lord Baal, I understand that English isn't your first language, so you may not realise that your complaining about Zentei's 'rudeness' (which I ... haven't really seen in this thread) comes across as very passive-aggressive - a kind of rudeness, in fact.

Didn't know about it, sorry if I sounded like that.

Also, I didn't pick up that you'd changed your mind on the issue until your last post. This is a generally confrontational board where most members have strongly-held beliefs, so you should explicitly state that kind of thing. With that said: is your position that you now agree that drugs should be legalised, but you don't think that such a change in policy is likely due to public opinion?

Yes.

OK, sure. And I just realized what you meant with that point you made to Flagg, which provoked my WTF.

I'm not very good with irony, not even in my own language, maybe I shouldn't try it on another languages!!!

I understand that it's not easy to accept legalization of something a corrupt government has been profiting on, but keep in mind that underrmining that income helps undermine said regime's bottom line, right?

Right.