3 ms·

Unbelievable. You have no problem with wide-scale organized crime networks who engage in brutal acts of terror controlling the drug enterprise, nope. It's the

Unbelievable. You have no problem with wide-scale organized crime networks who engage in brutal acts of terror controlling the drug enterprise, nope. It's the evil capitalist producers exploiting the stupid proles with their advertising. Horrifying. No, the cartels don't have options of using legal protections because the illegal ones are much more effective in terms of securing obedience, and destructive. If your only criterion of a drug's adverse effects is addictive potency, then your criteria are critically flawed and next to worthless. Something not inducing a physical dependence doesn't mean psychological addiction does not exist, though of course I oppose bans on either grounds. Addictive potential is but one factor of many. I'm becoming convinced your opposition to legalization is not at all based on a cost-benefit analysis of the public welfare, but rather on a kneejerk fear of capitalism and voluntary association. Your use of the word "deregulate" as somehow being a scary detriment seems to corroborate this. It's quite disgusting that you denigrate and despise voluntary association between consenting individuals so much that you'd prefer cartels slaughtering and burning villages just so mean scary capitalists with their evil advertising rays of doom don't influence the opinions of the public, whom you clearly regard as morons incapable of critical thought. It is then unsurprising you advocate what you do if that's where you come from.

ethbro 11y ago
... you really took "Honestly, faced with two evils, yes." and ran with it, didn't you? If you want to misinterpret my remarks so I'm a better straw man to argue against, not sure there's much more to discuss.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  My objections are a) there is so much more to a drug than how addictive it is, b) no one said anything about deregulation per se (you can have a regulated legal market), c) your analysis has an implicit anti-capitalistic and snobbish bias against the public to make its own decisions, d) it isn't even true that only huge corporate players will have a hand, especially in drugs that have a very low barrier to entry in cultivating such as cannabis, e) your argument from the ill-defined "medical utility" ignores that illegality hampers medical research to lesser or greater extent, f) you are ignoring regulatory capture is a significant issue in pharma company troubles and g) you clearly do not understand public choice theory. Though I think it's clear you believe in copious use of intervention against individuals and have a hatred or fear of capitalism and free association in order to make such a batshit argument as arguing for cartel violence and regional destabilization because the prospect of corporate profits terrifies you so much. EDIT: Scanning your post history, you make a reference to "the final solution to the capitalist bourgeoise swine". You might have been facetious at that time, but I believe it reflects a general attitude you hold that is spiteful. I hope you at least do not believe in discredited economic doctrines such as tendency for the rate of profit to fall, or labor theory of value. EDIT #2: You also believe that free market players are purely profit-maximizing "with behavior only moderated by applicable government regulations". This is plain false, even by a left-leaning Post-Keynesian analysis. You also again do not understand public choice theory in the slightest and how endogenous regulations emerge by transaction costs and private property (e.g. Coase theorem). You hold a lot of fallacies.

ethbro 11y ago

... you really took "Honestly, faced with two evils, yes." and ran with it, didn't you? If you want to misinterpret my remarks so I'm a better straw man to argue against, not sure there's much more to discuss.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
My objections are a) there is so much more to a drug than how addictive it is, b) no one said anything about deregulation per se (you can have a regulated legal market), c) your analysis has an implicit anti-capitalistic and snobbish bias against the public to make its own decisions, d) it isn't even true that only huge corporate players will have a hand, especially in drugs that have a very low barrier to entry in cultivating such as cannabis, e) your argument from the ill-defined "medical utility" ignores that illegality hampers medical research to lesser or greater extent, f) you are ignoring regulatory capture is a significant issue in pharma company troubles and g) you clearly do not understand public choice theory. Though I think it's clear you believe in copious use of intervention against individuals and have a hatred or fear of capitalism and free association in order to make such a batshit argument as arguing for cartel violence and regional destabilization because the prospect of corporate profits terrifies you so much. EDIT: Scanning your post history, you make a reference to "the final solution to the capitalist bourgeoise swine". You might have been facetious at that time, but I believe it reflects a general attitude you hold that is spiteful. I hope you at least do not believe in discredited economic doctrines such as tendency for the rate of profit to fall, or labor theory of value. EDIT #2: You also believe that free market players are purely profit-maximizing "with behavior only moderated by applicable government regulations". This is plain false, even by a left-leaning Post-Keynesian analysis. You also again do not understand public choice theory in the slightest and how endogenous regulations emerge by transaction costs and private property (e.g. Coase theorem). You hold a lot of fallacies.