chomp my root Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Leave him be, Chomp, his twisted logic is there for all to see. Fair one bruv. ETA: should have said harsh...............but fair Edited February 11, 2014 by chomp my root 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodside Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I'm guessing that on a thread entitled 'Should Weed Be Legal ?' and we're talking about 'hard' drugs you've read the last couple of pages at least and seen how the debate has moved. Which bit don't you understand ? 'These state drug emporiums will no doubt be built and staffed round the clock by good samaritans only too happy to provide a service for the sterling hard working user. They'll be more than happy to meet all expectations, more smack Sir, suit you Sir.' ^^^ This bit, youve still not explained whatever point you were trying to convey. As for blanco, fake fags and booze making up 25% of the market??? Maybe in the trampy circles you move in but I havent even heard of anyone purchasing either of those things in many years. Im banging my head against a brick wall here so im going to stop arguing with idiots. Anyone who seriously believes that taking an industry worth £billions each year out of the hands of criminals and into government hands is not going to make the country money is an idiot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 'These state drug emporiums will no doubt be built and staffed round the clock by good samaritans only too happy to provide a service for the sterling hard working user. They'll be more than happy to meet all expectations, more smack Sir, suit you Sir.' ^^^ This bit, youve still not explained whatever point you were trying to convey. As for blanco, fake fags and booze making up 25% of the market??? Maybe in the trampy circles you move in but I havent even heard of anyone purchasing either of those things in many years. Im banging my head against a brick wall here so im going to stop arguing with idiots. Anyone who seriously believes that taking an industry worth £billions each year out of the hands of criminals and into government hands is not going to make the country money is an idiot. It might make the country money but think of all the lives it will destroy in the process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodside Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 It might make the country money but think of all the lives it will destroy in the process. Where is your evidence for this? They sell tennents soupy in the shops but ive never been tempted to buy a can, the argument that it will encourage more people to take drugs is absolute bullshit, drugs have never been more readily available than they are now. I remember as a teenager it was easier to get a bit of hash than get a drink as the dodgy geezer up the flats didnt give a f**k what age you were, finding a shop that would serve you or someone to go in for you was a much more difficult affair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 'These state drug emporiums will no doubt be built and staffed round the clock by good samaritans only too happy to provide a service for the sterling hard working user. They'll be more than happy to meet all expectations, more smack Sir, suit you Sir.' ^^^ This bit, youve still not explained whatever point you were trying to convey. As for blanco, fake fags and booze making up 25% of the market??? Maybe in the trampy circles you move in but I havent even heard of anyone purchasing either of those things in many years. Im banging my head against a brick wall here so im going to stop arguing with idiots. Anyone who seriously believes that taking an industry worth £billions each year out of the hands of criminals and into government hands is not going to make the country money is an idiot. My point was that even if the drugs can be manufactured cheaply, the infrastructure of staffing these establishments will have to be met too. There'll have to be medical and security people who the users would have to effectively pay for to make the service more or less cost neutral. On the issue of cost, nobody seems keen to stick their neck out and guestimate a cost, which makes sense, theres so many things to consider apart from staffing, there's tax, the secure storage and transportation of the drugs and of course the cost of the drugs themselves (which I suspect will be more than people think, purely because the government (in this case the NHS I would imagine) couldn't be seen to be buying crap and the companies who produce it will rip the government off, as companies do across government contracts generally). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) 'These state drug emporiums will no doubt be built and staffed round the clock by good samaritans only too happy to provide a service for the sterling hard working user. They'll be more than happy to meet all expectations, more smack Sir, suit you Sir.' ^^^ This bit, youve still not explained whatever point you were trying to convey. As for blanco, fake fags and booze making up 25% of the market??? Maybe in the trampy circles you move in but I havent even heard of anyone purchasing either of those things in many years. Im banging my head against a brick wall here so im going to stop arguing with idiots. Anyone who seriously believes that taking an industry worth £billions each year out of the hands of criminals and into government hands is not going to make the country money is an idiot. Anybody that keeps banging on about how much money the government is going to make by regulating drugs but can't produce 1 solitary figure to back it up is quite clearly a fucking idiot. All that headbanging has turned you into a frothing imbecile Edited February 11, 2014 by blanco 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodside Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 My point was that even if the drugs can be manufactured cheaply, the infrastructure of staffing these establishments will have to be met too. There'll have to be medical and security people who the users would have to effectively pay for to make the service more or less cost neutral. On the issue of cost, nobody seems keen to stick their neck out and guestimate a cost, which makes sense, theres so many things to consider apart from staffing, there's tax, the secure storage and transportation of the drugs and of course the cost of the drugs themselves (which I suspect will be more than people think, purely because the government (in this case the NHS I would imagine) couldn't be seen to be buying crap and the companies who produce it will rip the government off, as companies do across government contracts generally). Im not suggesting government run centres where people get smack for free, more an amsterdam coffeeshop kind of affair, privately owned but heavily taxed. Its pie in the sky as I cant see it happening any time soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 frothing imbecile 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodside Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Anybody that keeps banging on about how much money the government is going to make by regulating drugs but can't produce 1 solitary figure to back it up is quite clearly a fucking idiot. All that headbanging has turned you into a frothing inbecile Aye keep going on about figures and putting up smiley faces, your really winning this one pal. Where am I going to get these figures from, the institute of imaginary scenarios, how about you give me some figures instead? Ones that prove how stopping spending millions trying to halt the billions made in the drug trade and instead taking control of said trade would lose the country money? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Still with figures for hypothetical worlds 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 this thread is fantastic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 this thread is fantastic Did you grow your own? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Still with figures for hypothetical worlds Have you surpassed your daily quota from your alcohol dealer today? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Did you grow your own? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Are my figures posted earlier being roundly ignored then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Have you surpassed your daily quota from your alcohol dealer today?What are you slavering about now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) How can you not know what the rrp will be? You claim that drugs will be cheaper and street dealers will be greatly undercut. How much will it cost to produce, package, distribute and market the drugs and what amount of duty will the government levy on these products? ETA, be very specific Well, this has grown arms and legs somehow, but lets address it head on. How do I know? Basic business acumen. Have you ever heard of the term Economies of Scale? You know, the idea that buying materials in bulk can elicit discounts? Right, following me? Well, guess what, large pharmaceutical companies have developed economies of scale in the production of drugs. It's a hugely profitable industry for everyone involved, mostly because the barriers of entry are so high in terms of R&D. It is the gold standard by which industries are judged in terms of a strategic fit model. Currently illicit drugs do not require R&D, and Pfizer could produce heroin at an astonishingly cheap cost, they actually already will, given substances that are very similar to heroin (or are heroin) are used as painkillers in hospital. So they can focus on just producing it. Which they can do for almost nothing, ditto with the packaging. They won't need to, or be allowed to, market it. Similar to tobacco companies, then. So they can produce drugs like ecstasy, for example, at the same minuscule cost of producing paracetamol. You could pay a fiver a pill for paracetamol from some street dealer or pay 20p for 36 in Asda. Of course it's feasible that an individual or a small group of people can take on a Multinational corporation and produce things at a cheaper price. Just like wee Jock Pooplong McPlop who cleans the public toilets in Aberdeen can produce better consumer electronics than Apple. Maybe the St. Mirren under 19 team have the capability to produce more barrels of oil equivalent than Exxon Mobil. I kinda like the bizarre nature of the world you propose to be honest, it sounds fun. Of course I think that pricing should take into account the possibility of dealers undercutting them with vastly inferior products. It's absolutely not an argument about legalisation though, we should present people with the option of consuming safe products but we can't force them to take it. Some people buy cheap illegal vodka that makes them blind. I wouldn't imprison them for it, it's just stupidity on their part. Yes I drink alcohol, because I like the taste of beer. So yes, of course I'm contributing to the drinks trade. I also make my own. Since you're drawing comparisons, should it be legal to make your own heroin? Let me guess - that's irrelevant. But my point is you can't possibly put alcohol (or cannabis, or caffeine) in the same bracket as heroin or crack. There is clearly an argument for prescribing heroin as there is evidence from other countries that it can work. I'm not convinced with the "legalise all drugs" argument though. If a legal heroin centre can wean junkies off it then it can only be beneficial, but who would go to such a place to take ecstasy, cocaine, crystal meth? Unless the medical staff hand out glowsticks on the way in then I don't think it's the kind of atmosphere the people who want to take these recreational substances are looking for. I think, eventually, that would be permitted. But alcohol has been part of our society for millenniums, I think it's more than reasonable to propose that for the initial stages of legalisation the most sensible approach would be one of some control. Of course, the common argument against legalisation is "but there will be heroin besides our snickers bars!!!1111" so I find it highly amusing they are now criticising my sensible alternative. You object to too much control, but you just like the current system of imprisonment? Er, right. But it's an excellent comparison, your holier than thou attitude to those who "take drugs" is absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical. You take drugs. A very dangerous drug too, some people might like the "taste" of ecstasy, a less harmful drug, but because that's a choice you haven't taken yourself you would imprison those who do? And what kind of person does that make you, exactly? It's entirely feasible, and safe, to sell ecstasy in night clubs with limited control. It would be in a safe dosage, and I would permit in the early stages to have at least one medical professional available and for all users who have taken it to be marked as a precaution. Eventually, it would become fairly standard because it is not a dangerous drug. Hmmm so you're speculating like tbe rest of us. The prosecution rests its case ! Er, as opposed to making statements of fact about a policy that hasn't been implemented yet? I'm "speculating" with reference to the facts we have available. Which is different to you because you are not doing it with reference to any facts. Sorry, had to come back for a second pop. Surely the cessation of the 'war on drugs' will pay for it, never mind the cost, even if you don't know what it would be and if all the hard working 9 to 5 working drug users play by the rules. So, wait, I'm being criticised for not knowing the full cost of legalisation? You can't be fucking serious, right? Such a thing is not knowable, to anyone, it can be reasonably predicted, but it can't be known. Your last point is one you've made a few times (even though nobody else ever mentioned 9-5) but it's one that remains as irrelevant as the time it was first made. We should be providing people with an option to consume a safe product, we should not be imprisoning people for the crime of consumption. If some people choose, against all human instinct, to consume illegal unsafe products when safe products are available then fine. There's nothing more we can do, really. But saying it is an argument against legalisation is like saying that we should ban knives, in case people stab themselves with it. Edited February 11, 2014 by Supras 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Empty rhetoric. Until prices are established it's all purely hypothetics/speculation/guesswork.According to you and the like, one of the failures of the 'war on drugs' is that it costs billions per year. How much is this legislation programme going to cost to set up and maintain in comparison?I'll tell you - you don't have a clue. And all that money spent so that it makes a slight dent in the amount of gear that dealers punt just now. Brilliant. This "slight dent" is something that you've made. It will be an enormous blow to the current criminal network. I toyed with the idea of producing a breakdown of the major costs associated with the war on drugs (and how significantly less burden prisons would in itself far outweigh the cost of a few medical facilities and staff) but I feel this article does it in more depth than I could on a forum: http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/Economics-briefing.pdf Can't be bothered reading 13 pages? Yeah, that's why I'm making you look like an arse here. I just know far more than you. On the issue of cost, nobody seems keen to stick their neck out and guestimate a cost, which makes sense, theres so many things to consider apart from staffing, there's tax, the secure storage and transportation of the drugs and of course the cost of the drugs themselves (which I suspect will be more than people think, purely because the government (in this case the NHS I would imagine) couldn't be seen to be buying crap and the companies who produce it will rip the government off, as companies do across government contracts generally). I could, but it would be idiotic and pointless. This veers into the bizarre a bit, but given the government currently spends billions on drugs for the NHS I don't think they'll have much of a problem with quality control. Do you know what happens if a pharmaceutical produces faulty drugs that kills patients? Lawsuits. But this rarely happens because these are large companies with rigorous quality management systems, and the drugs aren't that hard to make. Anybody that keeps banging on about how much money the government is going to make by regulating drugs but can't produce 1 solitary figure to back it up is quite clearly a fucking idiot. All that headbanging has turned you into a frothing imbecile It's clear that legalisation will reduce costs, I can scarcely make this any clearer than I already have, but it's not the reason I support legalisation. There was an "economic argument" over maintaining slavery in the US. I disagree with the war on drugs because it is fundamentally wrong, on a human level, and imprisons people for the mere crime of consumption. It also forces drug users to consume unsafe products, it causes untold harm and misery across the world (no more acutely than in Mexico currently) and in decades to come we will have to explain to our children as to why we were so fucking stupid to allow this monstrosity to continue for so long. Are my figures posted earlier being roundly ignored then? Well, I looked at them anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Still with figures for hypothetical worlds We're the 9/10s throwing themselves at you in #marbs you fucking raving fantasist 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 We're the 9/10s throwing themselves at you in #marbs you fucking raving fantasist Oh my... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.