Reply With Quote
Did you read the report? What parts in it are you having issues with?
So circular reasoning is your solution to this conundrum? How do you know it's "spot on"? If it's something you can know that well as a lay person, what's so impressive about China saying it?I read the report. Its 100% spot on. Thats what makes this funny
Did you read the report? What parts in it are you having issues with?
I've having issues with the fact you think it's 100% accurate. If it's intuitive, China didn't reveal anything. China was basically giving an opinion based on news reports. The research done into the factuality of those reports seems lacking on China's part, and on yours to be quite frank.
Of course. I said earlier that possession for personal use should be treated differently. No one should be locked up for being an addict. Distribution should be punished. I think weed should be totally legal, you should be allowed to grow it like you could grow vegetables and smoke it all day if you want. You can make your own beer and get as drunk as you want, legally. Why not weed? I don't think crystal meth, cocaine and heroin should be legal simply because of the negative effect they have on our society and economy (coke being the lesser evil of the three imo). I think making and selling these things is akin to people doing surgeries without a license to practice medicine - sure the end user could just walk away but cheap procedures are too attractive for that, so you end up with botched procedures and unregulated products entering into the mix, then the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the fall out.
You look at pharmacy, they spend billions to get a drug through the FDA, because it's required before they can do high volume marketing (some non approved drugs can still be sold using the interstate commerce clause, at smaller levels). There's a reason for that, and it's not all driven by the need for federal revenue. The cost/benefit of drug regulation is weighted more heavily on the benefit side as long as we don't let social dogma and religion decide the right course of action. We should use statistics and sound reasoning when making laws (enforcing laws should not even be in question).
So yes, I did address the end user.
So you didnt read the report. I suggest you read it before proceeding further with this nonsense.
Still waiting for you to tell me how you know it's 100% accurate. A report cannot be validated against itself. Reading it or not reading it doesn't change that.
Btw, I did read it. It's rife with references to articles from the Washington post and other news agencies. If it's being reported by our media, how did they expose anything? Show me Chinese media reporting on the atrocities committed by their government.
I realize you're trying to troll but you're doing a poor job of it. No one believes China has any moral high ground and no one wishes to expose human rights violations in the US more than the US media who profits from that exposure. Just another way that capitalism promotes freedom.
Give 3 examples of this. Otherwise you didnt read the report and are doing a piss poor troll job
Sorry. I missed it beneath all of your law and order punitive buul . Drug use is a demand problem, not a supply problem.
no, because according do dmc, if you legalize drugs, all the 18 year old drug dealers will move on to soliciting pros ution and grand theft auto
Alabama's prisons now housed 28,000 prisoners, more than doubling the designed capacity. The health of inmates cannot be safeguarded and infectious diseases including tuberculosis and dermatosis were easily transmitted from one to another. (apr.org, December 16, 2016) The website of Washington Post reported on November 28, 2016 that two policemen were imprisoned for beating a mentally-ill inmate and forging records to cover up their prisoner abuse (www.washingtonpost.com, November 28, 2016). According to a report of the Washington Post website on December 19, 2016, guards at the Los Angeles County Sherriff's Department had beaten and abused in mates. Its former head thwarted a federal investigation into the beatings and other abuses at the Los Angeles County jail system he ran. The probe led to convictions of 20 members of the Sheriff's department (www.washingtonpost.com, December 19, 2016). The Washington Post reported on its website on December 2, 2016 that a guard at New York City's jail complex Rikers Island "savagely" kicked an ailing inmate to death (www.washingtonpost.com, December 2, 2016).
Strawman argument
Let me try: According to Philo, legalizing anything illegal will make hardened criminals suddenly become productive citizens.
talk about a strawman...
it was in your post... if we make drugs legal, where will the easy money be, pros ution and stealing cars/chop shops
btw, the "hypocrisy" do ent contains 17 references to washingtonpost.com.
Now you're moving goalposts. You're trying for the grand slam in debate fallacy Philo.
How does your statement above jive with this one:
"18 year old drug dealers will move on to soliciting pros ution and grand theft auto"
oh, so you brought up where the easy money will be, but weren't making the implication that people would actually move on to those things? got it
my bad
You're too stupid to read before posting.
You cannot police demand.
You quote me after saying something I didn't even infer as if they were one and the same. If you had a leg to stand on you'd not try those kindergarten debate tactics with me.oh, so you brought up where the easy money will be, but weren't making the implication that people would actually move on to those things? got it
my bad
Do you think the prison problem is because too many 18 year old drug dealers are incarcerated? What about 19 year old ones? What's the age limit where it's ok, or do you wish to stick with appeal to emotion?
So? Does everything have to be accomplished through policing.
The "just say no" program worked wonders.
Funny, when guns are discussed liberals scream about supply. When it's drugs liberals scream about demand. Dude gets a gun at a gunshow and liberals want to close the gunshow loophole, never addressing the demand for the guns. They want to ban the sale of this or that, never once addressing the demand. Mention drugs and they want to focus on demand, as if that's easier to solve than demand for guns.
false equivalence. when talking about drug legalization, i'm sure most liberals you talk to would be in favor of strict control and regulation. if the equivalence was "yeah let people buy crack cocaine over the counter" then you'd have a leg to stand onThe "just say no" program worked wonders.
Funny, when guns are discussed liberals scream about supply. When it's drugs liberals scream about demand. Dude gets a gun at a gunshow and liberals want to close the gunshow loophole, never addressing the demand for the guns. They want to ban the sale of this or that, never once addressing the demand. Mention drugs and they want to focus on demand, as if that's easier to solve than demand for guns.
Th'Pussy just said it was a demand problem, not a supply problem. It doesn't matter your drug of choice. Strict control and regulation isn't the same as a ban. Do you think Th'Pussy was saying that demand should be regulated and controlled?
Philo, always with the sideways approach, trying to hedge.
yes, and the anti-gun people you refer to, at least on this forum, are in favor of strict control and regulation on guns, not a blanket ban. same approach with drugs. it's consistent.
but you're just so anxious to go "lol libcucks" that you gloss over it
But the problem is demand, so you want to control and regulate demand? Good luck with that.
Yeah. It's not like there are any examples of regulating controlled substances
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
