bootleggers and Baptists comes to mind.
the prohibitionist points to the violence among the providers as evidence of the product's dangerous nature, calling for more and harsher laws in regards to the devil's weed or satan's spirits... the harsher the penalties, the stronger the laws, the greater the profits for the guys producing, transporting, and selling it. the greater their incentive to protect their livelihood with more force and less regard for the safety of anybody. it's a symbiotic relationship. police depts get more funding, dealers increase profits.
the prohibitionist points to the violence among the providers as evidence of the product's dangerous nature, calling for more and harsher laws in regards to the devil's weed or satan's spirits... the harsher the penalties, the stronger the laws, the greater the profits for the guys producing, transporting, and selling it. the greater their incentive to protect their livelihood with more force and less regard for the safety of anybody. it's a symbiotic relationship. police depts get more funding, dealers increase profits.
Which is directly attributable to the WoD. How much deadly violence is attributable to the production, transportation and sale of liquor in stores today? How much was there during prohibition?
Exactly...
yep...look at states like Colorado...if you grow and sell it there, it's as harmful as tomatoes
Fortunately, criminal justice legislative reform has widespread bi-partisan support.
It's one of the few issues that hasn't been polarized into open warfare for political gain.
The legislature needs to act before the talk radio pundits turn the issue radioactive.
It's one of the few issues that hasn't been polarized into open warfare for political gain.
The legislature needs to act before the talk radio pundits turn the issue radioactive.
No I am afraid did not back pedal. And as I recall I never said they are violent. What I said was that is that drugs are currently illegal, the sale of narcotics is currently illegal, the use or possession of drugs is also illegal. As far as violence that is involved in the drug trade is concerned I am sure you have read about the street corners in various cities where our friends the Crips, The Bloods, 23rd street, The Posse and various other "clubs" have established territories. As I recall they didn't put in a petition to "own" that area. It was won with AKs and Uzis. So there is a violent element. I have also known of individuals who deal out of their living rooms in a very peaceful manner. Both exist, and one is just as illegal as the other.
again, much of that situation is a result of the prohibition on the sale of drugs, not because of the drugs themselves.
Have you never read the case studies done by medical science? Think of the study that used simian monkeys that were given the choice of food or drugs. They chose drugs until they died. I can't believe anyone is trying to convince me or anyone else that heroin, meth, coke and various other narcotics don't have a negative effect in the individual. Come on folks.... Seriously?
I choose heroin and food! FTW!!!
Who has said they don't have the possibility of having a negative effect? Now count how many people have pointed out that 1) it doesn't always have a negative effect and 2) how many other 'legal' things also have the possibility of being abused.
Your previous statement made no mention of side effects of the drugs themselves, but of the culture that surrounds drugs. As myself and others point out, the culture is not because of the drugs but because of the prohibition on the legal sale of some drugs.
There will always be some drugs that are illegal, and there will always be people who will be addicted to a substance (be it meth, weed, booze, spray paint of any number of other items). But criminalizing things like pot has done little but fill our prisons with non-violent offenders.
Similar threads
