Drug prohibition.

Post Reply New Topic

That's not quite right, the baking soda isn't actually an adulterant but is instead used as a reagent in the process of converting snortable cocaine hydrochloride into smokable base cocaine. True freebasing strips out all adulterants (the "cut") and leaves behind pure base cocaine, but it is a more complicated and dangerous process involving precipitation in ammonia and a filtration step using ether. Crack is like the bastard child of freebase cocaine, the process is simplified and it produces a less pure product, with the cut still included in the final rocks. Because smoking is a more efficient form of ingesting cocaine than snorting, less of it is required to produce a high, allowing both for a heavier cut with accompanying higher profit (stepping on it), and for the product to go down market. At the same time, the customer can buy a rock, smoke it, then come right back for another one; crack isn't so much more addictive or powerful as it is convenient and simple, and it didn't require needles which was a big plus in the late 1980's. The term "crack" itself is actually kind of bogus too, it's just an onomatopoeia for the sound the rocks make when smoked that the media preferred to use because it sounded more sinister, on the street it was originally called "ready rock" which IMHO is a much better name.

Very educational. CAN cook crack, CAN use a computer to make a crappy montage, CAN'T use a spell-check to get the first word in the article right. Inspired. And no, people would STILL try to sell on dodgy variants of "Pure" drugs to make money. It might come in official packaging, but that won't stop people. This is why you can still buy dodgy cigarettes and tobacco at a reduced cost with dubious content, despite their legality.

That may be so, but the government will tax drugs higher than other goods just like they do with cigarettes and alcohol because they'd be classified as demerit goods. Therefore, the prices would still end up artificially high, and may even give the criminal gangs an edge as they obviously don't have to pay their taxes.



See above, but even if that wasen't true... You seem to think that these criminal gangs will simply give up making money if one of their products becomes unpopular. If anything, I think crime will increase as they'll have to resort to more theft and the like in order to make the same level of money they would have made on their drugs.



LOL, again, a nice character judgment based on a forum post. Well done, doctor.

I could equally argue that wanting everyone to be able to legally give themselves a nice early grave makes you a sadist.



Good.

Guess they shouldn't have done illegal drugs then, eh?



Wait, what? If police are circling looking for crimes - as they should do, since it's their job and all - and they notice that one area has an above average crime rate, why shouldn't they spend more time checking for crime in that area? As long as a resident of that area isn't doing anything illegal, I don't see why they would be worried about mere police presence. If anything, it'd make them feel safe.

Seems you're just defending crime now.



I responded to that, in a fair and balanced way, in that thread.



Mind linking me to this statement?

And yes, my idea of a perfect world would have no one doing drugs. I don't see why that's any of your concern, or of any relevance to this argument.

BTW, I do like the hypocrisy of you saying my opinions are so bad and that I'm assuming everyone thinks like me, right before you go doing just that

Again: sadist. You're taking joy from inflicting pain on others. Mind your own business.

Your opinions are bad because you take joy from inflicting misery on others. You have no empathy for anyone else. I'm not saying you're assuming everyone thinks like you, I'm saying you have no ability to even start to considering what it's like in someone else's shoes.

Not really, they're breaking the law and they know the consequences. It's their choice, and if they can't deal with it then they shouldn't have done it.

BTW, unless I'm the one actually hauling these guys to prison, I'm not actually inflicting any pain on anyone. Just so you know.



See above on the whole "you're a big bad sadist" bit.

I do have the ability to think from someone else's shoes, actually, and even if I didn't, that's a symptom of AS and this is a f**king AS forum, so I think it's wrong to insult people who can't do that.

However, just because I have that ability, it does not mean I have sympathy for criminals.

I also like how you only gave bogus replies to two of my points. Well done, sir.

You do realize that freebasing isn't the same as smoking, right? One is huffing vapors and the other is actually igniting the substance directly. Both are inhalation methods but different.

When people talk about "smoking" freebases, they mean vaporizing. Crack pipes don't let you burn the crack. This terminology is widely used.

You're complicit in society and agree with the methods used so therefore, you're part of the problem. They're breaking an inherently unjust law.



You don't seem to have the ability and so you should know and respect your limitations if that's what you want to see it as. Work on improving it would be preferable but if you're gonna say that it's a limitation then realize it and acknowledge it rather than getting upset at me for your inability to realize that your position puts people directly in harm and in poverty.

And again, you call them criminals. What are they doing to others? What is the criminality? Getting intoxicated is not a de facto crime nor should it be. And if you were to actually read some studies on prohibition, you'd see that it only leads to more crime and poverty, not any kind of fix for society.

Your other points were absolutely stupid and moot.

Gangs not giving up when it's legalized? Uh..you do realize that the rum runners of prohibition went out of business, right? Either that or some of them went into legitimate business. Crime did not continue and you don't see Budweiser shooting up Coors employees in turf wars. Jim Beam has not put a hit out on Jack Daniels.

Police circling around high crime areas: I already explained it but your response ignores that and instead focuses solely on the first part of police presence and a very sheltered understanding of the police and the law.

Even if I was defending the crimes of druggies as you are, it still would make absolutely no difference to the law, so no I'm not "part of the problem" as you're attempting to claim.

Besides, whether or not you agree with the law is 100% irrelevant. The law is the law. If you break it, you accept the consequences if you get caught. That's the choice you've made.



Oh, internet professor, you're just too good...

Seriously, I know what my own abilities are. You, on the other hand, are judging my whole character through forum posts, and are doing a crappy job at it too.

My position does not put people into poverty. Those peoples' actions put them into poverty. I have no influence over the laws whatsoever, and neither do you.



A criminal is a person charged with and convicted of crime. These people you're going on about who've been thrown in prison for doing illegal drugs are therefore criminals, and as I said before, they chose to break the law and were fully aware of the consequences of doing so.



Yeah but a lot of gangs will also do other things such as robberies, selling pirate DVDs, etc, so if their drugs trade dries up, they'll just do more of that to make up for it.

And, as I said, if drugs were ever made legal, the high level of tax which would be charged on them would still give the criminal gangs a possible market.



What part did I ignore, the part that said it leads to loss of money for criminals getting caught committing crimes?

And I'm done with you. You obviously lack the ability to comprehend what's going on.

Bye bye internet professor!

So anyways, yes. We need to get rid of prohibition and ignore the morons who shout and scream about criminals and fear and all that nonsense.

Had to get the last word in, eh?

So anyways, yes. We need to rid of druggies and ignore the morons who shout and scream about how we should defend criminals and ignore scientific evidence that drugs harm people and all that nonsense.

Since 1) very few anti-prohibitionists claim that drugs are harmless, and 2) the evidence suggests very strongly that prohibition is a total disaster, I suggest it's your crowd that's ignoring the evidence.

.

I've answered those points, if not on this thread then on one just like it which is also currently active, and I really cannot be assed doing it again. Look through the other active drug threads for my response to the scientific evidence part, and look to last page for my view on the prohibition itself.

I'm now done with this worthless argument.