Drugs

[jblade8]

I recently heard a very convincing argument for the legalization of drugs and decided I would put the ideas to a forum and ask others their opinions. I have never used drugs. I've never smoked. I have, however, consumed alcohol. That is my limited perspective on the idea of mind altering substance. I say this so it's easier to understand my

Comments

[divine_shadow]

Industrial revolution chief. Eli Whitney and the cotton gin. Cotton damages the land you grow it on, requires VAST amounts of pesticide to maintain, and also isn't nearly as diverse in its uses as industrial hemp. Of course we can import the stuff, but said imported hemp has rather large taxes associated with its import. As it stands, because of the taxation, it isn't profitable nor financially feasable TO import industrial hemp for day to day use, even though it is tens of times cheaper to physically produce than cotten. Works out great for Canada, as right now it's their biggest cash crop. Do you honestly think some association well-to-do cotton lobbyists AREN'T going to keep sending kickbacks to their candidates of choice, to outlaw a crop that would most assuredly put them in the poorhouse? It's been going on for years. Southern cotton farmers didn't want any competition. Same reason, as I said, Corn growth is government subsudized while sugar-cane isn't.

Alcohol isn't illegal, because like caffeine it is insanely profitable, and its primary ingrediants come from cash crops we already subsidize like everything else. Wheat, potatos, CORN(the BIG one), hops, etc.

In the United States, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was one of the cornerstone bills that led to the criminalization of cannabis. It was introduced to U.S. Congress by Harry Anslinger, then Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

The act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in marijuana.

And like I said, the THC is marijuana is worthless to the pharmacutical companies as a source of profit, because it is incredibly easy to grow in your own backyard with absolutely NO processing whatsoever. The BIG MUNY pharm companies can't profit off of it, so they don't WANT non-regulated marijuana legalized. You CANNOT regulate something like marijuana the same way you regulate alcohol. You can grow it in a pot in your freaking window, with minimal fertilizer, light and a bit of water. You don't need a personal stil to do so. Like I said, the sales of marijuana cigarettes would be a horribly UNprofitable thing because it's so incredibly easy to do it...which is why it is the cheapest illegal drug available. Stoned out hippies grow fields of it with easy to maintain hydroponic kits. And it isn't physically addictive like nicotine. Philip Morris would go BROKE with the legalization of marijuana. You make something legal, prices PLUMMET.

As for the use of stimulants encouraged by corporations, just look at casinos. They've been known to inject small amounts of human phermones into their air supplies in order to make their customers feel more at home as their money rapidly disappears from their pockets. Why do you think most offices give their employees access to all the free coffee they want? Profit margin. Just talk to any member of management about psychological influence on their lackies. They'll give you a number of simple yet effective means of both medicinal/psychological control over their workers.

Businessmen have been concerned about control of profit since feudalism. It's not some sensationalist conspiracy. It's a plain fact. Look at oil for chrissakes. There;s all this complete bullshit about their being a limited supply, and that's why it's costing so much, yet because oil companies are required by law to share their prices with their compeditors in real time, prices stay insanely fixed, while they ALL have RECORD PROFIT MARGINS. It's an illusion, one that idiotic people are willing to deal with. Look at the entire incredibly corrupt diamond industry. Those crooks at DeBeers would have you think that little shiny rock is worth 1000s of dollars, but that's only because about 2 conglomorates control the entire PLANETs supply of natrual diamonds.

Same story. It's all about profit. People are naturally greedy fucks, and will indeed stifle their OWN profits to make sure no one else does either.

[jblade8]

You keep giving me neat arguments, but not too much proof. It's easy to say that but just because this explanation is simple doesn't mean it's right. Now, I know you can't really get a statement from anyone saying "yes, I received kickbacks from x" but just saying "humans suck, businessmen want money, and politicians are corrupt" doesn't tell me anything. These are heavy claims going off general reasoning. It's like racism. All large business does this because some of big business does it.

You are right that businesses try to make profit. Oil companies show record profit margins, but this is business. That's why they're in the game. They are trying to make money off the sale of oil. If this were a government institution, then we could express outrage, but oil is a consumer product. We're allowed to charge whatever we want, and if people buy it, then they're almost justified in charging that much. And diamonds are actually valuable for other reasons than ornate looking. They're valuable because they're rare, unique, and have physical properties which makes them unmatched in the natural world. Also, even if they weren't useful, we give them value. I mean, people sell what others can't get easily for themselves. I mean, no one needs to buy diamonds, just like no one needs to buy welcome mats or glow in the dark stars.

And yeah, marijuana is easy to grow, but so are some useful plants. Tomatoes, potatoes, and aloe also require minimal effort to grow, but they still sell all of these products commercially.

[divine_shadow]

Erm, like I said, the proof is in the pudding. Go into any book about the history of the cotton gin, Eli Whitney and the massive tax on industrial hemp and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Also refer to the Cotten Lobby. Just like the NRA there IS one. A "kickback" is also known as a campaign contribution. The proof is on any state politician's website. These are not "claims". It's like you're asking for something, but unwilling to accept human nature at its most common. "Corporate Greed" has nothing in common with racism. Take business 101, and ask about "maximizing profit by stifling competition growth" it's all there.

As and for diamonds, no they are not RARE at all. The supply is controlled by exactly one or two international distributors, such as DeBeers who own and operate ALL the mines/imprts/exports. As a matter of fact, vat-grown diamonds are easily just as useful and a hell of a lot cheaper to come by. The ONLY reason the price of diamonds are so high is because the supply is controlled by one or two sources. PRICE GOUGING is very much apparent.

For example, in 1932 the diamond market was on the verge of an international collapse. On the marketing side, De Beers hired advertising firms, starting with N.W. Ayer in the late 1930s, to render axiomatic the idea that diamonds = true love. De Beers and Ayer didn't invent diamond engagement rings but did rescue a fading concept--in 1932 worldwide diamond sales had been only $100,000. Ayer's ploys ranged from planting news stories about newly betrothed celebrities flaunting big rocks to positioning diamonds as heirlooms, preventing the market from being flooded with secondhand goods. (The market for used diamonds is dismal, by the way.) The campaign worked--U.S. wholesale diamond sales increased from $23 million in 1939 to $2.1 billion in 1979. The J. Walter Thompson agency performed a similar miracle in Japan in the 1960s, essentially creating a tradition of diamond engagement rings out of thin air.

Now these vat-diamonds are completely identical to the naked eye. Any JEWELER can't even tell the difference between the two. HOWEVER, because DeBeers has a horribly corrupt hand on the so-called free market, they keep blowing air up peoples' asses, claiming all sorts of nonsense about these, GENETICALLY IDENTICAL substances being somehow inferior to their natural counterparts...even though the natural supply is NOT RARE AT ALL, just controlled by the hands of a few,

As part of De Beers' "Gem Defensive Programme," The Diamond Trading Company has developed instruments, mainly for use by the trade and gemmological laboratories, which according to DTC can detect all "treatments, synthetics and simulants." The DTC also funds educational programmes about treatments that can change the appearance and other properties of diamonds, and lobbies for all diamond treatments and synthetics to be be labeled as such.

According to the DTC, these activities are undertaken in cooperation with leading trade bodies as a means of "ensuring full and accurate information is provided to consumers."So instead of asking for "proof" why don't YOU go out, talk to a few people and do the research yourself.

Any Business major will readily tell you there's not much sense in producing a product that you cannot sell. Comparing the growth of marijuana to tomatos is completely ridiculous, because tomato farmers have nothing to fear from hemp, it is the TOBACCO and COTTON lobbys whom are against it. Don't skirt the issue. And besides, have you TRIED growing tomatos? It's not that easy to do, and certainly not in quantities useful to oneself and an entire family. You need massive quantities of insecticide to control the aphid population, as well as a fertile place to grow it undisturbed. On the other hand, Marijuana is a FLOWER. A LARGE personal supply of the stuff only needs about 16 square feet of WINDOW SPACE to keep a CHAIN SMOKING pot-smoker busy.
You see Jeff, if you want to start an arguement about "Proof" go read a fucking book. There exist plenty on the subject, I'm not writing one here. YOU opened this can of beans, not I. YOU asked for reasons, I'm giving you plenty. If you just wanted an arguement you have one.

[jblade8]

First and foremost, I think it's important that I make one thing very clear: my intent with my rebuttals were not insult you. They were not done to antagonize you. I don't want arguments. I do not want to shout ideas. I do, however, want debate. You're telling me that I'm being lied to by government and big business. I can believe it, but that doesn't mean I will blindly accept it. What if someone said you were lying to me? I'd question them just as much.

At this point you seem to be very upset with me, and I don't wish to debate with you while you are angry. I don't want hurtful words to be thrown around. I probably did not make my intent clear when I started replying, and for that I apologize. I wanted to learn. You said some radical things and I wanted to know where you got these ideas. I figured you wouldn't have just accepted these ideas blindly, and, in that spirit, you would have sought proof when you first heard them. I figured "why do the footwork when someone else already has?" In this mindset I wanted you to tell me what you had found so I could learn.

That is what I intended and if my words illustrated anything aside from that it was a mistake.

Now, I think it's also important that you know I'm swallowing quite a bit of my feelings in order to ensure that I've not hurt you, so I ask you not to take this lightly as, should you say anything malicious, I don't think I'll be able to handle it as well.