[Eran]

Well POD, Portugal and the Netherlands have legalized more drugs than other countries and also have the lowest cocaine street price.

Neither country legalised drugs. Both have merely decriminalised drugs (only Marijuana, in the latter). It is still technically illegal to produce and sell drugs in both countries.

by officially banning gambling, the government does not become obligated to welfare you out of any gambling debts you incur.

Who on Earth said that government allowing gambling is thereby obligated to welfare people out of gambling debts?

If a country has an undifferentiated social safety net, such net would apply to penniless citizens regardless of whether they became penniless pursing legal or illegal activities.

[Rainbow Crow]

There's different approaches to bankruptcy aid in different countries and the moral obligations are separate from, but do influence the formation of, the related policies. If you want to nitpick about things like decriminalization vs. legalization or change the subject then unfortunately it will only be a waste of time to continue this discussion.

[Rei Murasame]

You see, when you win at gambling, they give you tokens. You use the tokens to buy a stuffed animal or something.

Then you take the stuffed animal down the street. There is always a store buying stuffed animals or whatever the prizes are near every Pachinko parlor. The store buys your stuffed animal. The store sells your stuffed animal back to the gambling parlor. Both are typically owned by the same Yakuza group which runs shell companies.

That is correct. But how did you find out about that?

[Rainbow Crow]

I've been to Japan numerous times, talked to people about things that seemed off to me and eventually got to the bottom of the Pachinko parlors. Everyone knows what's going on but they don't condone gambling, therefore it's not their responsibility, so they don't care. The Yakuza guys drive their cars down the sidewalk right past the cops in broad daylight, but steal someone's purse and the cops will kick the s- out of you.

[Rei Murasame]

Fair enough, I applaud your dedication, a lot of people would be confused and not understand how it's working. Since usually the trade-shop scams people are on the lookout for are ones where petty criminals are passing stolen goods, which is a crime.

However, selling a stuffed animal or a statuette is a non-crime, since the Pachinko people gave it to you fair and square.

Another one I assume you noticed is that the Yakuza are not a normal gang, they are problem-solving people who understand social engineering. So for example, if petty criminals are harassing people in the area, sometimes if the Police are not fast enough, the Yakuza will go and beat up the petty criminals and restore order. The Police also will turn a blind eye to that sometimes as well, since they'll see that as 'scum on scum crime', while holding the thought that the Yakuza can do things to people that the Police are not necessarily allowed to do.

For example, you may have heard the urban legend about a certain serial rapist that police were having difficulty tracking down. So the Yakuza dispensed vigilante justice onto him by having a hit-man (or hit-woman, since I guess they had to lure him out with a woman) stick a knife into the guy's back in a dark alley one night, and that was the end of the problem.

[joyUnbounded]

The article you are getting your information from in no way backs up what you are saying. You are essentially drawing your own, illogical and unsubstantiated conclusions. And those conclusion show that you have a very limited understanding of markets and economics. It seems more logical to say that coke cost more in those countries because it is more difficult to smuggle in, not because more people use it.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560270 this is the article for that graph in case anyone who wants to know the actual facts this thing relates too.

[Rainbow Crow]

Another one I assume you noticed is that the Yakuza are not a normal gang, they are problem-solving people who understand social engineering. So for example, if petty criminals are harassing people in the area, sometimes if the Police are not fast enough, the Yakuza will go and beat up the petty criminals and restore order. The Police also will turn a blind eye to that sometimes as well, since they'll see that as 'scum on scum crime', while holding the thought that the Yakuza can do things to people that the Police are not necessarily allowed to do.

For example, you may have heard the urban legend about a certain serial rapist that police were having difficulty tracking down. So the Yakuza dispensed vigilante justice onto him by having a hit-man stick a knife into the guy's back in a dark alley one night, and that was the end of the problem.

They are certainly different from other organized criminals, perhaps most analogous to Italian crime families though it's far from a perfect analogy. Probably because the Italian families are not content to limit the realms of their own power like the Yakuza seem to be. They are somewhere between petty criminals and the law because the law refuses to touch certain things, and it really shouldn't try to touch those things because then you end up in the moral feedback loops I am complaining about here.

I suspect that the romantic view of the Yakuza has to do with the fact that people in Japan seem to accept that some things about people just can't be fixed... in that sense I view them as a very conservative group

[Rainbow Crow]

The article you are getting your information from in no way backs up what you are saying. You are essentially drawing your own, illogical and unsubstantiated conclusions. And those conclusion show that you have a very limited understanding of markets and economics. It seems more logical to say that coke cost more in those countries because it is more difficult to smuggle in, not because more people use it.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560270 this is the article for that graph in case anyone who wants to know the actual facts this thing relates too.

It's true I am drawing my own conclusions from the data since the article focuses on prices in GB and trafficking there... GB is an island. Do you think that Portugal and the Netherlands (not discussed) have similar geography? Am I not allowed to draw my own conclusions from data? I'm not interested in parroting back google translations of Dutch articles that support what I am saying because you might refuse to think for yourself.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well POD, Portugal and the Netherlands have legalized more drugs than other countries and also have the lowest cocaine street price. You are basically suggesting to me that maybe it always had a low street price in those countries, but this is kind of a rabbit hole that I am not willing to go down today since I don't speak Portuguese or Dutch. If you want to look around for yourself though I am sure you will find something, such as the conflicting studies regarding Portuguese legalization.

So, no evidence.

The most likely truth is that legalisation would increase demand in certain areas, thereby increasing the street price. It would also do the exact reverse in other areas. And then do something even more complicated in other places.

To be honest, I don't care if people are high on pot or if they are on some legal drug as long as they don't endanger me or anyone else. If I find that legalisation reduces drug related crime, then I would consider that more important than its effect on street prices or demand or rates of use.

[Rainbow Crow]

No evidence at all besides low cocaine prices in landlocked countries that "decriminalized" recreational drug use

I'm really not expecting to convince the left on this since the numbers challenge one of the underlying misconceptions of liberalism, which is that government can make everything right, even drug use and prostitution. It will take more than a few broken eggs and cheap cocaine to clear that up.

[joyUnbounded]

Fundamental Liberalism believes in a small state with a light touch.

[joyUnbounded]

Pretty sure you're thinking of Socialists.

[Pants-of-dog]

No evidence at all besides low cocaine prices in landlocked countries that "decriminalized" recreational drug use

Evidence means links to sources that can corroborate your claim.

I'm really not expecting to convince the left on this since the numbers challenge one of the underlying misconceptions of liberalism, which is that government can make everything right, even drug use and prostitution. It will take more than a few broken eggs and cheap cocaine to clear that up.

Seriously?

Rather than provide any logic or evidence, you're just going to whine about liberals?

My children make better arguments than this.

[joyUnbounded]

Seriously?

Rather than provide any logic or evidence, you're just going to whine about liberals?

My children make better arguments than this.[/quote]

I know, brilliant isn't it!

[joyUnbounded]

Okay it would appear I don't know how to make a quote thingy, my apologies.

[Pants-of-dog]

Okay it would appear I don't know how to make a quote thingy, my apologies.

Quotes work like this:

You open it like this:

Code: Select all[quote="the other user's name"]

(Remember the quotation marks!)

and close it like this:

Code: Select all[/quote]

Also, don't make more than one post back to back (against the forum rules). Use the EDIT button in the upper right hand corner of your post to modify your last post instead.

[Eran]

No evidence at all besides low cocaine prices in landlocked countries that "decriminalized" recreational drug use

Relevant evidence would have to show much, much more.

It would have to show:
1. Cocaine prices are lower
2. People consume more cocaine
3. Society suffers more harm from cocaine consumption
4. The harm suffered from excess cocaine consumption is greater than that suffered from criminalization

Numbers 2-4, and particularly the last one, would be hard to show.

[Rainbow Crow]

You may have a point with #2 and therefore #4 actually, but I think the fact that cocaine consumption is harmful should be taken as a given....

[Eran]

No, it shouldn't. It depends on quantity and habits. It is possible to abuse cocaine (as well as alcohol, tobacco, chocolate, coffee and video games), but it is also possible to use it responsibly and sustainably.

Further, "harmful" is a very questionable standard. Free people make their own choices regarding the balance of harm and enjoyment. "Harmful" isn't the same as "bad". Doughnut consumption is also harmful. But it isn't necessarily bad, if done in moderation.


Finally, there is little doubt that the cost and harm of the War on Drugs, far far exceed any harm those drugs actually cause to society. Western societies prospered for decades during which Marijuana, cocaine, opium and other drugs were legal, available and widely used.

[Progressive Patriot]

I was thinking to myself how liberals and conservatives seem to have different definitions of tyranny.

To a conservative, tyranny is being told what to do by another.

{ I won’t purport to know what conservatives as a group think that tyranny is, as you do for liberals. However, it seems to me that conservatives shout “Tyranny “ whenever anyone who they disagree with attempts to exercise their rights or goes against them in any way, when we ask that the wealthy pay their fair share, or when others try to get a piece of what they feel they rightly deserve. Case in point, Rand Paul and others called Obama a tyrant for seeking to implement modest gun controls }

To liberals, tyranny seems to be [1] failure. If the system allows you to fail, then that is tyranny. If we look at the seemingly endless parade of protectionist policies that liberals come up with, this seems to me to be an accurate assessment of how liberals define tyranny. Liberals also seem to define tyranny as [2] being prevented from seeking pleasure. Conservative prohibitions against promiscuous sex are the most obvious example of [2], but a more concise example of both elements at play at the same time is the marijuana legalization movement.

{ I assume that you have spoken to a lot of liberals, or read the works of many renowned liberal thinkers in order to ascertain this. However, if you did , it appears that you were not listening very well. Again, I won’t try to speak for all liberals, but I will say, for starters, that no liberals that I know expect that no one will fail. Additionally, in a capitalist economy ( I assume that is what you mean by “the system”) there will be successes and failures, winners and losers. In our free and open society, people have, the opportunity to make choices, set goals, pursue and education, and create a life and a lifestyle for themselves. If anything that is the opposite of tyranny.
However, having said that, there is an element of tyranny in our society. That tyranny comes into play, not when people are allowed to fail, but rather when they are set up to fail. When the cards are stacked against them at the outset. Bishop Willard Mitt Romney infamously said during the campaign that “people are entitled to the most education that they can afford.” That they can afford! When education that’s needed to be successful becomes a privilege , and when the purse strings are held by the plutocrats, that is tyranny. We have tyranny when a powerful minority that control the vast amount of wealth robs people of the chance to be a success, robs them of choices in life, and then leaves them to fend for themselves. Tyranny is when a bunch of prudish men in congress denies women control over their own bodies such as by restricting abortion in the name of morality, then also tried to deny them everything from contraception, to medical care to food stamps and early childhood education and day care. And, tyranny is when religious zealots in and out of congress try tell the rest of us what we should believe and how we should live our lives.}


To wit, I saw an episode of the Colbert Report recently where Steven Colbert suggested that the American Dream is being able to get high on marijuana. Liberals do not merely want to legalize marijuana however; they also want to give unlimited assistance to people who ruin their lives through drug abuse.

{ Humm…now you’re on to something. You have stumbled upon a grain of truth, quite by accident I suspect. Yes I am a pleasure seeker and yes to deny me my bodily pleasures is, as long as no one is being harmed or endangered, in my view tyranny. Why do conservatives want to deregulate everything EXCEPT what people do behind closed doors and the most personal decisions that they make ? Now please excuse me while I prepare the guest list for the orgy that we’re hosting in honor of the summer solstice, and arrange for appropriate” refreshments” We’ll talk more later.