[andyt]

You seem to see it as the lesser evil, since you're so convinced they will, but support legalization nonetheless.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

You seem to see it as the lesser evil, since you're so convinced they will, but support legalization nonetheless.

I'm convinced they will move on not that it's a lesser evil. You'd have to have your head up your ass to think a criminal organization will close the shop up and take up a McJob simply because you legalize pot.

Give your head a shake.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Drop another tab, junkie. The confused bullshit is strong in you tonight...

You still haven't explained how giving organized crime drug revenue keeps our pension safe. Why aren't they going after our pensions now?

There has to be a reason!

[andyt]

I don't at all, and have never argued such. It will impact their income tho, and I doubt there are areas of criminal enterprise that are under-serviced at the moment. Criminals will move into everything they can. Especially white collar crime because it's so poorly investigated and enforced in Canada. The crime gangs already know this, and are hard at it. The HA might try to muscle into areas they aren't currently in, but legalizing pot will still reduce the overall pie of what's available. Legalize and regulate all drugs, and it should reduce gang profits further (not to 0, just reduce).

So, I think if you take away pot profits, it will reduce gang income. I just don't think there are all these unexploited areas that organized crime doesn't get into because they're too busy dealing pot. In fact, quite the opposite, where the profits from pot allow them to fund other criminal enterprises, and draws in more recruits because they are drawn to the profit to be made. It's not all or nothing, despite your previous attempts to argue as such - it's something.

[Curtman]

It will effect their ability to recruit. Anyone who realizes that it's how lots of kids get introduced to a life of crime would realize that.

Crime shouldn't pay, but it does for lots of kids so they make a career of it.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Drop another tab, junkie. The confused bullshit is strong in you tonight...

You still haven't explained how giving organized crime drug revenue keeps our pension safe. Why aren't they going after our pensions now?

There has to be a reason!

I don't argue it will. I'll continue to fire back on your 'legalizing creates a utopia' society where crime ceases and gangbangers take Walmart greeter jobs though.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

I don't at all, and have never argued such. It will impact their income tho, and I doubt there are areas of criminal enterprise that are under-serviced at the moment. Criminals will move into everything they can. Especially white collar crime because it's so poorly investigated and enforced in Canada. The crime gangs already know this, and are hard at it. The HA might try to muscle into areas they aren't currently in, but legalizing pot will still reduce the overall pie of what's available. Legalize and regulate all drugs, and it should reduce gang profits further (not to 0, just reduce).

So, I think if you take away pot profits, it will reduce gang income. I just don't think there are all these unexploited areas that organized crime doesn't get into because they're too busy dealing pot. In fact, quite the opposite, where the profits from pot allow them to fund other criminal enterprises, and draws in more recruits because they are drawn to the profit to be made. It's not all or nothing, despite your previous attempts to argue as such - it's something.

It will reduce income temporarily until they move on. That's what businesses do. They will find another source of income to replace what they lose.

[andyt]

Crime fell when prohibition was repealed. Same deal, tho probably not as drastic with pot. Sure, criminals are always looking to find new areas to get into. Doesn't matter if pot is legal or not,they will do so. After prohibition, organized crime moved into narcotics. It took until the 1870's before that became really big, with the change in culture. And that's the thing, it's the culture that changed and increased demand for this new area, not crime moving into it after prohibition. We don't know how our culture will change in the future. But here and now, one effect of legalizing pot will be to reduce gang income. As well as bringing in a bonanza of taxes - look at the success of Colorado in that regard. That's money that at one time was going to criminals.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I don't argue it will. I'll continue to fire back on your 'legalizing creates a utopia' society where crime ceases and gangbangers take Walmart greeter jobs though.

Reduce crime by reducing revenue and recruitment for organized crime.

Crime isn't going to cease, but giving them revenue from black market drugs that should be tax for the public good is making crime worse.

It's no utopia, its just better than what we have now. We can use the tax to treat addiction, we could build roads. Anything is better than giving it to them and wasting enforcement dollars that don't work.

[stratos]

I have a confirmed Dayseed spoting.

[stratos]

$1:

Reduce crime by reducing revenue and recruitment for organized crime.

By increasing the availability of all drugs to the general public, thus creating a larger population of drug addicts. Great solution

$1:

but giving them revenue from black market drugs that should be tax for the public good is making crime worse.

But your whole stance prior to this statement was that it was for medicinal reasons that you wanted drugs legalized now it's about tax money. I could be way wrong on this but doesn't the drug money eventually get taxed? At some point the money is going to be spent on taxed products so this mythical tax money increase is not there. It's just accounted for later down the line.

$1:

We can use the tax to treat addiction,

This is a nice scheme. Legalize drugs thus creating a larger proportion of addicts that we would now treat off the taxes collected from their drug use. That is true capitalism at its sickest. Create a drugged up society just to tax them so we can then treat them while creating a larger percentage of people supported by the Gov. through peoples taxes. Along with pharmaceutical companies making billions off the production and selling of the drugs along with the medicine to cure the addiction to the drugs that the Government licensed them to make.

[Curtman]

stratos stratos:

Curtman Curtman:

Reduce crime by reducing revenue and recruitment for organized crime.

By increasing the availability of all drugs to the general public, thus creating a larger population of drug addicts. Great solution

There is no shortage now. If you want drugs, you can get them. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

stratos stratos:

Curtman Curtman:

but giving them revenue from black market drugs that should be tax for the public good is making crime worse.

But your whole stance prior to this statement was that it was for medicinal reasons that you wanted drugs legalized now it's about tax money. I could be way wrong on this but doesn't the drug money eventually get taxed? At some point the money is going to be spent on taxed products so this mythical tax money increase is not there. It's just accounted for later down the line.

Where did you get that idea? I have legalized marijuana now. You're highly confused.

stratos stratos:

Curtman Curtman:

We can use the tax to treat addiction,

This is a nice scheme. Legalize drugs thus creating a larger proportion of addicts that we would now treat off the taxes collected from their drug use. That is true capitalism at its sickest. Create a drugged up society just to tax them so we can then treat them while creating a larger percentage of people supported by the Gov. through peoples taxes. Along with pharmaceutical companies making billions off the production and selling of the drugs along with the medicine to cure the addiction to the drugs that the Government licensed them to make.

There is no evidence that drug use or addiction would go up under regulation. There is evidence exactly opposite to that due to better treatment, and having a regulated market that offers it. Dealers don't.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

There is no evidence that drug use or addiction would go up under regulation. There is evidence exactly opposite to that due to better treatment, and having a regulated market that offers it. Dealers don't.

Nor is there evidence of this World you imagine where crime is reduced and the gangs split up and look for real jobs when some drugs are legalized.

[stratos]

$1:

stratos wrote:
Curtman wrote:
but giving them revenue from black market drugs that should be tax for the public good is making crime worse.



But your whole stance prior to this statement was that it was for medicinal reasons that you wanted drugs legalized now it's about tax money. I could be way wrong on this but doesn't the drug money eventually get taxed? At some point the money is going to be spent on taxed products so this mythical tax money increase is not there. It's just accounted for later down the line.


Where did you get that idea? I have legalized marijuana now. You're highly confused.

A quote from you in the Curtman for Pot Head award.

" I advocate regulation of all drugs including ones ive never used. Ending the failed war on drugs and shifting to a health care approach that we've seen work in other places to decrease drug abuse and violence from the black market."

Not sure where the confusion on my part is because the quote I brought over clearly states that you want all drugs regulated as in legalized and the focus on a health care approach. Yet in this thread you are now advocating the same but for taxation purposes.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

stratos stratos:

$1:

stratos wrote:
Curtman wrote:
but giving them revenue from black market drugs that should be tax for the public good is making crime worse.



But your whole stance prior to this statement was that it was for medicinal reasons that you wanted drugs legalized now it's about tax money. I could be way wrong on this but doesn't the drug money eventually get taxed? At some point the money is going to be spent on taxed products so this mythical tax money increase is not there. It's just accounted for later down the line.


Where did you get that idea? I have legalized marijuana now. You're highly confused.

A quote from you in the Curtman for Pot Head award.

" I advocate regulation of all drugs including ones ive never used. Ending the failed war on drugs and shifting to a health care approach that we've seen work in other places to decrease drug abuse and violence from the black market."

Not sure where the confusion on my part is because the quote I brought over clearly states that you want all drugs regulated as in legalized and the focus on a health care approach. Yet in this thread you are now advocating the same but for taxation purposes.

Well I'm not one to defend Curt but, I'm pretty sure there doesn't have to be just one reason for legalization. Do you base every decision you make on just a single reason?