Didnt make an accusation about your character. I just accused you of having a secret agenda or being spaced out at that time. That doesnt relate to your "character".
You accused him of being a "stoner".
"your probably just a stoner with a personal agenda "
No but most junkies are one law away from having complete free access to lethal substances, and your average citizens. As for the rifles, its our right to be able to carry guns; when has it ever been our right to have free access to any lethal substance we desire? Its not.
Nor is it the right of the United States Government to determine what we can or can't put in our bodies if you want to go technical, since its no where deliniated as such in the Constitution that should be a state issue.
Why has all drugs not been legalized completely in any part of the world?
Yeah, trying to say "well other places in the world do it!" isn't an argument for what's correct, simply what's possible. I'm frankly estatic we don't do some things like the majority of europe does them.
Because what you advocate makes no sense what so ever. There is no emotional intervention here. This is from a rational point of view; tell me how legalization WOULDNT simply just prompt a price competition for drugs between government and cartel?
He did tell you, he also provided you with historical evidence, both of which you ignored.
If they were legalized, regulated, and made available similar to how hard alcohol would be then there would be little to no competition.
Legitiamte companies would be attempting to sell these things, much like alcohol was done. These would have to be up to a federally regulated standard, sold in a safe environment of a shop, and are completely legal to have. The free market would dictate a reasonable price, again much like alcohol.
At best the cartel's could try to undercut the competition by making even CHEAPER drugs than the cheapest sold legally, but the amount they'd have to cut down the price to over come the benefits of:
1. Legal to buy
2. Legal to have
3. Safe location to buy
4. Higher standard of production / less chance for extra nefarious substances included
This would likely make it far from lucrative for the cartels to attempt and ratheri diotic to stay in the business.
Even currently look now with alcohol. Sure, in theory, you could still have people making boot legged alcohol and selling it but for the most you don't. You have a few pockets that sell moonshine or make absynth, but its a relatively small minority.
See, Tucker has produced HISTORICAL evidence to the contrary to what you said and logical common sense evidence, both of which you've shrugged away based on....you thinking they're stupid.
Tell me how by stopping the war on drugs cartels will just simply aim more of there market towards the underaged who cannot obtain them legally.
Again, JUST targetting minors is not going to be profitable enough for them to stay in the business as generally minors are far from the most prized customers due to income levels. Not to mention that, much like alcohol and cigs, there will be some local competition from people buying it legally and distributing it to minors (which, as I said, is no different than what currently happens with alchohol and cigs but again has the benefit of at least being a potentially safer product than currently).
I would dare say minors make up a very, very small percentage of the drug cartel's finances and that having them as they're only likely reasonable customer is going to be a revenue negative venture.
And then tell me how the government will intend to stop children obtaining them illegally from cartels; thats right, a new war on drugs!
Same way you deal with people distributing things to minors currently. Arrest them for distributing a banned substance to a minor, and if the items they have are illegal contraband then they can be charged with that as well. No new "war on drugs", no new laws, just the same as we do for other substances. The cartel's won't likely be interested enough at this point though for it to be a large problem.
