Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (8607)	1/10/2006 7:21:30 AM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 541326

As a bonus, think how the official economies of Afghanistan, Bolivia and Colombia would suddenly expand, and the savings on policing and paramilitary costs there <g>

To: Dale Baker who wrote (8607)	1/10/2006 11:41:57 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541326

Imagine if ghetto crack dealers no longer made money on the street corner. So there are no illegal drug dealers in the Netherlands? Where do people obtain their drugs? Or is it that have moved up from street sales, to wholesale distribution both domestically, and externally within the rest of the EU? I found this Canadian report related to the Netherlands Drug Policy.. I appears they aren't quite as tolerant of drugs, including marijuana and hashish, as is perceived. parl.gc.ca Also, crack is still illegal in Holland. So I'm not sure if the example you use about no "crack dealers" on the corner is is appropriate. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Instead, it seems to me that the Dutch permit soft drugs, while vigorously prosecuting traffickers of hard drugs. Again, correct me if I'm mistaken. From doing some quick reading, as well as from previous reading, I recall that the Dutch also heavily emphasize de-tox programs to help people kick their habits. I certainly agree that this is an area that the US is lacking (negligent). The social irresponsibility has been 98% enabled in the current system. The point is moot. Would you rather have a drug addict carjacking you for a fix, or sitting on the curb outside a government-authorized drug outlet, too stoned to move? How about having him in a free treatment center, paid for with the budget that used to go for busting petty dealers? I admit, this seems a logical course of action, based upon respect for individuals rights. Would these "gov't authorized outlets" require special legal waivers against civil lawsuits? After all, with the Tobacco litigation, I can hardly see where a "drug outlet" would be able to escape being sued. And what other kinds of drugs can be sold there? Vicadin? Meth? Fentanyl (80 times more powerful than heroin)?? And then isn't there the moral hazard that might be created as drug outlets and drug rehab centers involve in market collusion (since both would be profitable enterprises)? Just some thoughts that are running through my head as we debate this.. Hawk