User Controls
In Druggland ....
-
2017-09-05 at 12:30 PM UTC
-
2017-09-05 at 12:30 PM UTCi'd love to still be living in the 1980s
. -
2017-09-05 at 6:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist pretty much. did you have other ideas
.
1] a few that i can think of ... and hence, the OP.
2] which brings us to a full cricle when i retort by saying if this is really this simple then every lawmaker would have druggs decriminalized already ....
in which you'd retort by saying they did not becos ''the fear of illegal drugs and the crime and effects associated with it give them control. they garner control by playing the hero's and "protecting" everybody from all the exaggerated fear they have instilled in the populations minds concerning the illegal drugs.''
without addressing whether the fear that they, these politicians aroused in us are real and justified and empirical or mere fictions and figments of overly active imaginations.
yeass ...they did try to scare us into thinking that druggs are really bad for the society, dangerous even.
but is what their claiming really true ????
and if not, how is it not dangerous. how a 1st world country like Suisseland, if they are allowed to consume drugs, anykind of drugs, for recreational purposes, would not regress into an abyss of 3rd world countryhood. -
2017-09-05 at 6:53 PM UTCi wouldn't have to wait for the goddamn mail all the time, that's one postiive
-
2017-09-05 at 6:57 PM UTCdrugs are way more dangerous when they are illegal drugs. governments forget to mention that it is prohibition that causes all the problems that they use to scare everyone with, and then use those reasons to justify why they prohibited them in the first place. they totally twist the situation to suit their agenda of using fear to control the population.
. -
2017-09-05 at 7:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist drugs are way more dangerous when they are illegal drugs. governments forget to mention that it is prohibition that causes all the problems that they use to scare everyone with, and then use those reasons to justify why they prohibited them in the first place. they totally twist the situation to suit their agenda of using fear to control the population.
ok, as i know it, some drugs are addictive. lets say we have these addictive drugs legalized, how do we deal with people who use these addictive durggs and became addicted ????? -
2017-09-05 at 7:37 PM UTC
-
2017-09-05 at 7:41 PM UTCermm ... liek coke ???
-
2017-09-05 at 7:48 PM UTCHorrible thread name
-
2017-09-05 at 7:52 PM UTCshooo !!!!
OUTT. OUTTT
badd dogg. -
2017-09-05 at 7:54 PM UTC
-
2017-09-05 at 8:25 PM UTCliek meff ???
-
2017-09-05 at 8:53 PM UTCThe stigmas remain the same. Drug use doesn't inherently go up due to legalization. Make meth legal you aren't going to suddenly find half the country running to tech dispenseries trying to 'finally see what the buzz is all about.'
Fucking tax it, steal more money off the streets and into the govt pocket. Depends on your government at that point how beneficial or detrimental this could be for the populus. -
2017-09-05 at 8:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Fucking tax it, steal more money off the streets and into the govt pocket. Depends on your government at that point how beneficial or detrimental this could be for the populus.
it would be very beneficial financially just from costs saved by law enforcement as well as value of property that is lost or damaged due to drug crime. so insurances would also go down. of course if they did something stupid like taxing the fuck out of it then that benefit would be lost. addicts would still have trouble financing their habit so would go and rob etc to pay for the legal drugs just like they do now for the expensive legal drugs.
. -
2017-09-05 at 9:02 PM UTCHaha. I'm just picturing meth dispenseries loaded with tweakers all fidgeting and pacing about taking hours and hours to make their selections.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-05 at 9:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist it would be very beneficial financially just from costs saved by law enforcement as well as value of property that is lost or damaged due to drug crime. so insurances would also go down. of course if they did something stupid like taxing the fuck out of it then that benefit would be lost. addicts would still have trouble financing their habit so would go and rob etc to pay for the legal drugs just like they do now for the expensive legal drugs.
so how much should meth be charged ???
how much of an income can a meth addict come up with before legal meth becomes a something they cant afford ???? -
2017-09-05 at 9:14 PM UTC
-
2017-09-05 at 9:16 PM UTCi said on the silk road forums years ago that it would be the best idea if addictive drugs were legalized, that they should only be made available via mail order, like the dnm type set-up. that way it would take away the option of buying your certain amount, and then caning it quick and going straight out and buying more. the very earliest you'd be able to get more would be the next day. especially with crack, that stuff is the worst for that. many times i got paid and thought i'd just treat myself to a 20. then 4 hours later i'm skint and going off on the rob, lol.
. -
2017-09-05 at 9:18 PM UTC
-
2017-09-05 at 9:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist i said on the silk road forums years ago that it would be the best idea if addictive drugs were legalized, that they should only be made available via mail order, like the dnm type set-up. that way it would take away the option of buying your certain amount, and then caning it quick and going straight out and buying more. the very earliest you'd be able to get more would be the next day. especially with crack, that stuff is the worst for that. many times i got paid and thought i'd just treat myself to a 20. then 4 hours later i'm skint and going off on the rob, lol.
wont people just buy more with fake email and dropbox addresses ???
