Arilynn

This isn't really fighting. It's a handful of people disagreeing with each other, all in a relatively civil manner. *Start a thread about men's role in the abortion debate or a comparison between Christianity and a belief in UFOs if you want to see a fight.




*By saying "start a thread", I mean "For the love of all that is holy and for the sake of Cristiano's and all our sanity, please never, ever start such a thread!!!1!". Just needed to add that before Cristiano read it.

Gigs

You don't have to eliminate the entire market. That's like saying "If we want to eliminate human caused pollution, we need to eliminate the human race"... while technically true, it ignores that there are things we can do other than that.

Of course. It would do so to a lesser extent if things were legal.

__________________
-
-
"It is the paramount duty of governments and of politicians to secure the wellbeing of the community under the case in the present, and not to run risks overmuch for the future" - JM Keynes

Surreal

Gigs, you're an ass.

__________________

Fade Languish

.....

Chantal

I see your new word is 'hammering'. You systematically disagreeing because you insist I am wrong on everything would be that too, then?

I have not - if you would read, said the cost would mean not doing it all. Not ever. I said the cost may be higher than you seem to think. I said some countries would not do it, in my opinion, and why.

I am not, and was not, saying 'you shouldn't legalise drugs', nor am I praising the 'war on drugs'. I was talking about how hard it would be to organise a legalisation system.

As for other things I said, about drugs trafficking, you immediately decided I was wrong and you knew better. Fine, but it doesn't mean I have to think you're right. However much you hammer away at me. A lot of your arguments are based on pure supposition or biased articles. Which is a shame. I would actually like you to read some information from people with no axe to grind. People outside the US who take a far more global view.

You are advocating getting a supply of drugs (you didn't say which) to people by any means possible, even if it means buying them from criminals, to solve (sorry, 'reduce') the problems from the 'war on drugs'. You don't even seem to register the idea that reforming the sentencing system is another option taken in some countries.

You also think that legalising drugs would hit organised crime hard. I disagree, and said why. I think you have very little grasp of the ramifications of large-scale crime that doesn't involve the US (it exists)because if it's not to do with 'your' goal, on with the blinkers.

Yes, your arguments are interesting, and when it comes down to it, I don't think we are at opposite ends of any spectrum. Just that you think you are some sort of authority and I respectfully doubt that as there are many angles you haven't thought about.

So smooth your hackles (or don't - I don't actually care). It is clearly an Achilles heel for you, all this, and to me too, particularly when it happens to be an area I've had a lot to do with - from a different angle to Fade but interesting that we reach many of the same conclusions.

I think we've figured we aren't going to back down, either of us. So there's no real point in getting unpleasant. Is there?

I can't think there's much else for either of us to say, even, unless of course you want to throw another hissy fit. I threw one yesterday, I admit, because nobody wants people to sneer at their jobs or the arguments put forward by their field and I'm not exactly proud of it. I was also dog tired but that's no excuse for my sarcasm.

However, you continued and so did I. I expect we'll both survive and live to fight another day.

__________________

Decor with a difference
A great new Mediterranean setting
Original, beautiful things for your home
Classy fashion
Contact Ariadne Korda

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Graces/128/198/22

Argent Stonecutter

I've agreed with quite a few things you've said, actually.

I already responded to this one. If someone who is currently part of the illegal drug distribution system chooses to reduce their risk by becoming part of the legal one, I count that as a win... even if it turns out they don't get punished for their previous participation in the business. This doesn't mean "getting a supply of drugs to people by any means possible".

It would reduce their income, and increase the risk they would have to take. Whether that's "hitting them hard" I don't know, but it WOULD reduce their income and increase their risks if they didn't choose to go legit.

I haven't done that either. I've said that I admire people willing to work in law enforcement.

I really think you're reading stuff into my posts I haven't put there. Sorry.

Colette Meiji

Actually the first time you did not say "consider", that changes everything. I agree with the statement when that is added.


(quoted for reference)

Colette Meiji

this is the ultimate true statement in this.

Juan or Momar or Du the Drug supplier simply can not, ever, in a million years with 10000 guns compete with a giant multinational corporation.

Some Cartel trying to compete with Anheuser Busch, Pfizer, Maxwell House ... please .. dream on.

Blackwater will be there advising the local army within a week and all the best land will mysteriously be annexed and then leased for an economic improvement zone.

Colette Meiji

Fade not to downplay your experiences at all, but whether or not drugs are legal there will be significant abuses.

But significant abuses without the criminal aspect could potentially be much easier to manage in the scheme of things.

Fade Languish

I've removed my posts, sorry if that makes the thread confusing for anyone who comes along after.

Chantal

I'm sorry you did that - but I understand completely.

I thought it was all (reasonably) civil for most of the time. You, me, Argent, Gigs, Colette are all coming from very different places so it's not surprising there are frictions.

It is hard to phrase a lot of thoughts on a very controversial topic without sounding too aggressive, too disdainful, too syrupy, too confrontational.

And there will always be those who leap to conclusions about your motives or your character or your background. Tis the nature of the beast called a forum.

So yep, always hard when you really try to explain where you are coming from and put a lot of thought, energy and time into it and get a one-line jeer. But again, the nature of the beast.

I went to bed wishing I'd never got involved in this because a forum has its limits. I kept thinking it would be so good to talk about it with the hand-waving, chuckling, maybe yelling but that possibility of communicating without just words. I write reports for a living but as I've said before, I bore myself at times.

But... that's what we've got. Just words. And a few can really hurt. Maybe they're meant to but I'm an eternal optimist at times (except about there being many solutions to crime).

Thanks, Fade, but also thanks to Argent and Colette because it's good to see other views, other motivations.

I'm hopelessly behind with work after this (my bad) so need to get my act together today, but it's certainly been food for thought.

Argent Stonecutter

I wish you hadn't removed them, and I apologize again for jumping to conclusions.

Surreal

Like Portugal. Decriminalization seems to have worked well so far.

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

Colette Meiji

Fade, I definitely was not dismissing you - sorry if you felt I was.