User Controls
Drug legalization thread
-
2020-01-12 at 9:07 PM UTC
-
2020-01-25 at 8:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace How do you think they should be sold. Everything available over 18?
I have always maintained that people should have to get a license to purchase certain drugs. Cheap class and certification fee, then you can buy a limited amount (just so you don't traffic it.)
Say, 2oz of weed a month or something. A 10 strip of LSD monthly. Etc.
This way it makes it scarce and there are little to no second hand sales.
And if any adult can go and get a reasonable monthly supply, no need for an illegal market.
Ya I've been proposing this idea for a while. Naturally if you're abusing the drug, the license could be revoked.
Same would go with alcohol. If you're caught drinking and driving, you lose your alcohol license.
What happens when somebody loses their driver's license?
They lose their job, their girlfriend and their house. End up on their asses with only the bottle as comfort.
What happens when somebody loses their drinking license?
They must go shamefully beg family and friends to buy them booze.
Also I believe drunks would be more fearful of losing their drinking license. -
2020-01-25 at 8:51 AM UTCA driver's license? What next? A license to make toast in my own damn toaster?
Drug and vehicle licenses are for nanny state homosexuals that waste tax money on their fruity Christian values. Die in a fire faggot -
2020-01-25 at 11:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Splam Ya I've been proposing this idea for a while. Naturally if you're abusing the drug, the license could be revoked.
Same would go with alcohol. If you're caught drinking and driving, you lose your alcohol license.
What happens when somebody loses their driver's license?
They lose their job, their girlfriend and their house. End up on their asses with only the bottle as comfort.
What happens when somebody loses their drinking license?
They must go shamefully beg family and friends to buy them booze.
Also I believe drunks would be more fearful of losing their drinking license.
Yep. It also ensures education through testing. Some people are just ridiculously ignorant of what the drugs they're doing actually do. Less so for alcohol and moreso for other drugs tho. -
2020-01-25 at 6:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Yep. It also ensures education through testing. Some people are just ridiculously ignorant of what the drugs they're doing actually do. Less so for alcohol and moreso for other drugs tho.
SO what you want people to have a license for tylenol? that would stop all the overdoses like what Japan does -
2020-01-25 at 6:05 PM UTCno drug should be locked in a cage separated from its familyThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-01-25 at 7:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood SO what you want people to have a license for tylenol? that would stop all the overdoses like what Japan does
Only for drugs which can be abused.
APAP should be by prescription only due to it's low LD50. Surely many people have died trying to get the effects from codeine when they're in extreme pain just to OD on APAP. Pure codeine should be sold over the counter. Abuse potential for codeine by itself is minimal. If you get addicted to codeine, you could go take a course on morphine and get your morphine license.
Under the current system, you get addicted to codeine, you go to the street to buy fent, and you fucking die. -
2020-01-25 at 7:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Splam Only for drugs which can be abused.
APAP should be by prescription only due to it's low LD50. Surely many people have died trying to get the effects from codeine when they're in extreme pain just to OD on APAP. Pure codeine should be sold over the counter. Abuse potential for codeine by itself is minimal. If you get addicted to codeine, you could go take a course on morphine and get your morphine license.
Under the current system, you get addicted to codeine, you go to the street to buy fent, and you fucking die.
Agree. The tax could pay for most of the revovery and education costs as well. It'd lead to safer drug use and a more educated populace. Plus a real education could mean less drug use overall. It works with sex ed, drunk driving, texting while driving, and drinking and smoking, which are all on the decline.
So why not drugs as well? I bet people would be less likely to take opiates if they knew about how it can cause fecal impact, or what the withdrawal actually feels like. People might do less amphetamines if they knew what psychosis could do to you, and they might be more careful about taking psychedelics if they heard some of the real effects of a bad trip.
Overall a more educated drug using population using quality and regulated drugs is a good thing. -
2020-01-25 at 8:35 PM UTCAnd how do you expect society to pay for all these programs and licensing? More taxes? The profits of a legal psychoactive drug market would cover the medical costs but the red tape you propose sounds very expensive.
Government spending is bad -
2020-01-25 at 8:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Agree. The tax could pay for most of the revovery and education costs as well. It'd lead to safer drug use and a more educated populace. Plus a real education could mean less drug use overall. It works with sex ed, drunk driving, texting while driving, and drinking and smoking, which are all on the decline.
Healthcare and Education is not the same thing as regulations.
It would cover the first two but a comprehensive system of drug licensing and monitering is not worth the cost associated with it. -
2020-01-26 at 1:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood And how do you expect society to pay for all these programs and licensing? More taxes? The profits of a legal psychoactive drug market would cover the medical costs but the red tape you propose sounds very expensive.
Government spending is bad
Government is spending way more money on locking up all those people. The cost of administering these programs is negligible in comparison. Fact of the matter is it's not governments job to tell any adults what to put into their bodies. Though if you act like a child, you get your license revoked. Just like with marijuana, alcohol or tobacco taxation, the gov't would actually be making money off this program. You know how many trillions of dollars of drugs are sold on the black market? You'd have to be retarded to think that legalization is going to cost more than prohibition.
Could buy cocaine directly from the colombian gov't and sell it. This would eliminate cartels at the source. You'd not just be saving your own people tax money, you'd be doing the world a favour. Party people wouldn't have to be afraid of the cops. Dealers wouldn't get shot and robbed by their rivals or even by their customers. There's be no more blood. Enough people have died in the war on drugs. It's time to end it. As far as I'm concerned, each and every fentanyl OD is the government's fault as they're the ones with the power to do something, and if it weren't for their laws nobody would be using fentanyl. -
2020-01-26 at 1:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by Splam if you act like a child, you get your license revoked.
I can feel the regulatory agencies cringing already. They would have to work non stop revoking and giving out licenses, oh god the money THE MONEY
There is no way they would ever profit, the systems you would need to control the market in such a way would be impossible to pay for and always be a loss, with minimal positive effect.
Regulations are very expensive and anyone that supports them better have an airtight way to keep it funded besides LOL THE GOVERNMENT CAN PAY FOR IT WITH COCAINE AND HEROIN PROFITS.DMV is responsible for registering vehicles, issuing driver licenses, and promoting safety on California’s streets and highways. Currently, there are 24 million licensed drivers and about 30 million registered vehicles in the state. Additionally, DMV licenses and regulates vehicle-related businesses such as automobile dealers and driver training schools, and collects certain fees and tax revenues for state and local agencies.
The Governor’s budget includes $1.1 billion for DMV in 2017‑18, which is about the same as the estimated level of spending in the current year. About 95 percent of all DMV expenditures are supported from the Motor Vehicle Account (MVA), which generates its revenues primarily from vehicle registration and driver license fees. The level of spending proposed for 2017‑18 supports about 8,300 positions at DMV. -
2020-01-26 at 2:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood And how do you expect society to pay for all these programs and licensing? More taxes? The profits of a legal psychoactive drug market would cover the medical costs but the red tape you propose sounds very expensive.
Government spending is bad
I'm in favor of high taxes in exchange for high social gain. I'm a full out socialist in the actual use of the word. Bernie Sanders is only a democratic socialist and not extreme enough for me. So if the taxes on drugs can't pay for it, everyone else will, yes. Some minor fees can cover licensing and education costs. -
2020-01-26 at 2:02 AM UTCIf America simply socialized its weapons and oil industries no American would be sick or hungry ever again. Legalize and tax drugs? Basically Star Trek tier advancement
-
2020-01-26 at 2:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace I'm in favor of high taxes in exchange for high social gain. I'm a full out socialist in the actual use of the word. Bernie Sanders is only a democratic socialist and not extreme enough for me. So if the taxes on drugs can't pay for it, everyone else will, yes. Some minor fees can cover licensing and education costs.
All those taxes are just gonna go to Israel, goy. -
2020-01-26 at 2:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood All those taxes are just gonna go to Israel, goy.
Not in a socialist system they wont. It'll go to the people. You have higher taxes than we do and you also have accessibility to healthcare that puts your avg lifespan about 10yrs higher than the US. -
2020-01-26 at 2:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood I can feel the regulatory agencies cringing already. They would have to work non stop revoking and giving out licenses, oh god the money THE MONEY
There is no way they would ever profit, the systems you would need to control the market in such a way would be impossible to pay for and always be a loss, with minimal positive effect.
Regulations are very expensive and anyone that supports them better have an airtight way to keep it funded besides LOL THE GOVERNMENT CAN PAY FOR IT WITH COCAINE AND HEROIN PROFITS.
What are you talking about? The drugs are already regulated. We put people who use them in jail. USA spends 81 billion annually on housing inmates. 22% of those inmates are drug related. By legalizing and licensing drugs you free up near 20 billion dollars already from PRISON alone. Now take court cases, investigations, sting operations, appeals, state provided lawyers, etc. The cost isn't only in money. The cost is in HUMAN LIFE as well. With both police officers, drug dealers, and innocents. And not just lives lost, but the amount of damage done by people going to prison to never get a well paying job again etc.
Again you're retarded for thinking that prohibition will cost more then legalization.
Also a lot of welfare money would go directly back to the gov't instead of drug dealers.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-01-26 at 3:02 AM UTCPrisons literally lobby against drug legalization
Its a huge industry in the US and a massive source of near free labor. Basically modern day slavery -
2020-01-26 at 3:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Not in a socialist system they wont. It'll go to the people. You have higher taxes than we do and you also have accessibility to healthcare that puts your avg lifespan about 10yrs higher than the US.
Socialists are the FIRST people to want to help the world and feed all the starving children in Africa. There is no such thing as a non globalized leftist anymore. -
2020-01-26 at 3:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood Socialists are the FIRST people to want to help the world and feed all the starving children in Africa. There is no such thing as a non globalized leftist anymore.
Left =/= socialist.
Also left =/= exclusive international charity givers
Are you drunk?
