Adam smith 101 and drugs

podborski says on Mar 9, 2007, 10:28:

so what? millions of people take drugs, millions drink alcohol, millions take anti-depressants, millions eat greasy food...

as long as they leave me alone, I don't care what they do.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 9, 2007, 10:37:

Please let you congressman know that as the next round of "aid" to colombia will be discussed by congress and the white house in the next year.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Mar 9, 2007, 11:16:

drug culture we are a drug culture but that doesnt make it right. ever seen a guy on meth, weird.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Mar 9, 2007, 11:24:

no I haven't scotty but I believe you!

I just don't believe any of these anti-drug programs work, and in fact I think they have the opposite effect, because the kids who get involved in it are rebellious anyway, and telling them not to do it just proves to them they are in fact acting defiant.

And where do you stop? If people should not be allowed to take drugs, what about all the prescription crap and alcohol? And if it's about health, what about all the crappy food I love?

EVERYBODY knows prohibition didn't work, yet we are still fighting the same old war, enriching the wrong people in the process. IMHO.

BTW, I didn't read the article yet, guess I should. I am a big Adam Smith fan, so I'm thinking I should be in agreement with it?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 9, 2007, 11:27:

It really has nothing to do with Adam Smith's theories. Definitely not the one where he was wrong and markets do not always fix themselves.

I prefer Kenneth arrow for the modern age.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Mar 9, 2007, 11:34:

yeah nothing to do with my man Adam but it makes a good point. If there is demand for something there will ALWAYS be a way to supply it.

Now with designer drugs and chemicals becoming more common, people will just start to make their own drugs in their own homes. So in future are the police going to invade tens of millions of homes to see what people are doing in their basements?

Doesn't anyone see how this will never work?

People want drugs and so people will get drugs. The only question is whether they buy expensive crap on the street, enriching the worst elements of society and promoting violence and crime, or whether they buy legal, high quality stuff enriching governments who can tax the hell out of it.

Obviously it will be the former, c'est la vie.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Mar 10, 2007, 01:35:

Caramba!!!!!!!!!!!! no, I don't usually watch TV; but, in hotel,...WOW!!! LOU DOBBS....just suggesting LEGALIZATION OF COCAINE AND MARIJUANA!

AND, NOW.....LOU DOBBS, ON COLOMBIA AND COOOOOCAINE !

Some say: All things are better in...Medellin! ....Oscar Lopez just says it's better.....LATE!!! (WHERE EVER YOU ARE)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 12, 2007, 08:41:

"Now with designer drugs and chemicals becoming more common, people will just start to make their own drugs in their own homes."

It's interesting you mention that, I have been reading some stories about the meth epidemic in the U.S. Apparently it's out of control in area's of the U.S. that are not too ethnically diverse. This obviously does not get as much media attention as cocaine. Well at least in my area it doesn't. In the case of Meth though the authorities cannot point the finger at other nations, interesting...

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Mar 12, 2007, 09:38:

exactly cali to me the trend is obvious.

And why would dealers bother to run the risk of importing drugs if they can make them?

It won't happen overnight of course, I suppose cocaine still has cachet, probably always will, but I'll bet the pendulum swings to designer drugs over the next few years, more quickly if the DEA is 'successful' in its war on imported drugs.

Fighting a losing battle.

Wonder where the finger will be pointed then? My guess is it will be 'hollywood' and the internet.

Look forward to big pushes for censorship in the near future.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Mar 13, 2007, 07:52:

but Tinto the problem is not the drug...these people have problems that lead them to take drugs. The drug isn't first, IMHO.

I think once again people find it easier to attack the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem, probably because the cause is not so simple, not easy to fix, not easy to put your finger on.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

athensugadawg says on Mar 13, 2007, 20:22:

WELL.... I would rather have a house next door full of cannabis as opposed to a group of goofballs cooking crank. The so-called "War on Drugs" is literally a bust, and it's evident that new approaches and solutions are needed. More power to those that makes a decision to screw up their brains and lives; just do not ask me to pay for it when the party's over...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Mar 14, 2007, 10:24:

any idea how much you are paying in taxes for the war on drugs?

I'll bet it is a small fortune.

And you are also paying to imprison all these people.

It's a farce, but lots of people are making money off it, and the politicians look like they are doing something, and so it goes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Mar 20, 2007, 12:00:

Tinto, I agree with you on the direct/indirect costs which leads me to the question: Why if several studies show that treatment and education is the most cost efficient way to wage the war on drugs. U.S. governments at all levels do try to spend more on treatment.

"podborski", I do notunderstand where censoring 'hollywood' and the internet will reduce the demand on drugs???

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Mar 20, 2007, 16:38:

censoring hollywood (meaning, forbidding any representation of drug use or something like that) won't do anything cali, but it will be how some people in favour of censorship get their foot in the door and set a precedent for censorship.

But it's only an excuse for setting the precedent, then they will try to expand the ability to censor all sorts of behaviours that they don't like.

Next step will be banning representations of sex, drinking and all the other fun things we have have left.

0 funny, 0 helpful.