The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Now, if I, as the greedy business owner, decided that I needed an additional 10% take home pay (to pay for the extra costs like food and gas and kids' education), I would also raise the cost of goods by a % to make sure that the I got mine and the investors got theirs.

or you would find a way to cut other costs elsewhere, which of course then puts pressure on your suppliers' profitability...

Sorry, I never met a profit I didn't like. It indicates a successful business.

Most people don't realize that it is not merely about "greed" it is also about effectiveness. Profits are one way to measure whether a business is doing well or not. There is no point to run a business if it will lose money indefinitely! if you want to give money away, there are plenty of eleemosynary institutions around to help you with that already.

I notice a direct correlation here between how much a person bloviates about what a business "should" do and the lack of real-life experience in actually running a business. Like a "fan" who has never actually played a sport ever, trying to critique athletes who are very good at it for not being even better.

 

[theprofromdover]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Sorry, I never met a profit I didn't like. It indicates a successful business.

That's what Bernie Madoff said.

 

[Rover]

If there were no illegal drugs, then we wouldn't be having gang wars over who controls drug distribution rights in the big cities.

I'm not so sure about this, and here's why. As best I can gather, people who think drugs should be legal envision a scenario where Merck is producing them and then selling it through CVS or Wal-Mart over the counter. The problem I've seen with that is does any respectable company want to be associated with selling heroin? Your example of nicotine is dead on, as RJ Reynolds changed its name and spun off the cigarette division IIRC to Altria or something like that. The brand identify was tainted.

So, what I suspect will happen is drug producing cartels who now control supply will merely incorporate legally and set up shop. As its highly unlikely they'll be setting up a storefront in the middle of town as most places wouldn't zone that anymore than they'd zone a strip club, and since driving while stoned would now have to be a criminal offense users may be reluctant to drive to a place and pick up their product for fear of getting harassed by police, it would probably be a mail order business. That's all well and good, but if you have an addiction who wants to rely on the post office to get you your fix? That would mean people (aka drug pushers) would order large quantities and sell it to their customers at all times of the day and night from their houses...and still fight over territory. In short, not much different than what we have today, only the people producing the stuff would be immune from prosecution.

 

[unofan]

I'm not so sure about this, and here's why. As best I can gather, people who think drugs should be legal envision a scenario where Merck is producing them and then selling it through CVS or Wal-Mart over the counter. The problem I've seen with that is does any respectable company want to be associated with selling heroin? Your example of nicotine is dead on, as RJ Reynolds changed its name and spun off the cigarette division IIRC to Altria or something like that. The brand identify was tainted.

So, what I suspect will happen is drug producing cartels who now control supply will merely incorporate legally and set up shop. As its highly unlikely they'll be setting up a storefront in the middle of town as most places wouldn't zone that anymore than they'd zone a strip club, and since driving while stoned would now have to be a criminal offense users may be reluctant to drive to a place and pick up their product for fear of getting harassed by police, it would probably be a mail order business. That's all well and good, but if you have an addiction who wants to rely on the post office to get you your fix? That would mean people (aka drug pushers) would order large quantities and sell it to their customers at all times of the day and night from their houses...and still fight over territory. In short, not much different than what we have today, only the people producing the stuff would be immune from prosecution.

Driving while stoned is already a crime. It's generally another form of owi/dui/dwi. The bigger issue would be coming up with a test similar to a breathalyzer to show current drug use rather than past drug use. Right now cops and judges don't care since drug use is illegal. But if pot's legalized, people will complain really quickly if they're still being charged because of a joint they smoked two weeks earlier.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

In short, not much different than what we have today, only the people producing the stuff would be immune from prosecution.

wrong wrong wrong again rover!!! gov'ment would get shoveling in the tax $$$

 

[Rover]

Driving while stoned is already a crime. It's generally another form of owi/dui/dwi. The bigger issue would be coming up with a test similar to a breathalyzer to show current drug use rather than past drug use. Right now cops and judges don't care since drug use is illegal. But if pot's legalized, people will complain really quickly if they're still being charged because of a joint they smoked two weeks earlier.

Right, thanks for helping to clarify. As you say its illegal now but I'm thinking people just get charged with possession. Having said that, I don't want to be driving around with people stoned to the bejeezus any more than I want to drive around with people drunk off their @ ss. There has to be something set up to police that and I'm not sure that's been thought through by the decriminalization crowd.

wrong wrong wrong again rover!!! gov'ment would get shoveling in the tax $$$

I liken the legalize drugs crowd to the legalize gambling crowd. If you think these things should all be legal just because you'd like to engage in them, okay. I may disagree but opinions are like..well, you know. The similarities I see is how both advocates try to oversell their position. Like there would be absolutely no downside to making drugs cheaper and more available. On some of these issues perhaps a deeper dive is warranted.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Most people don't realize that it is not merely about "greed" it is also about effectiveness. Profits are one way to measure whether a business is doing well or not. There is no point to run a business if it will lose money indefinitely! if you want to give money away, there are plenty of eleemosynary institutions around to help you with that already.

Careful. The graveyard is littered with businesses that cut costs, increasing profitability, and sailed into a downward spiral. Other metrics are better indications of the health of a business.

See IBM's decision to toss the profit motive out the windows in its move from typewriters in the '70s to PCs in the '80s and services in the '00s. Oh...and there's this other guy:

STEVE JOBS: The Biggest Mistake Apple Made After I Left Was Focusing On Profits Instead Of Products...

"My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products," Jobs told Isaacson. "[T]he products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-products-versus-profits-2011-10#ixzz2LZFcW6xT

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Turns out Friends of Hamas isn't the only shady group that may have given money to Hagel.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/21/15-nefarious-groups-chuck-hagel-may-have-accepted-money-from/

 

[Rover]

Turns out Friends of Hamas isn't the only shady group that may have given money to Hagel.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/21/15-nefarious-groups-chuck-hagel-may-have-accepted-money-from/

Got a big chuckle out of #7 for some reason. Also I noticed The Junior League of Hezbollah was excluded?

 

[walrus]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Right, thanks for helping to clarify. As you say its illegal now but I'm thinking people just get charged with possession. Having said that, I don't want to be driving around with people stoned to the bejeezus any more than I want to drive around with people drunk off their @ ss. There has to be something set up to police that and I'm not sure that's been thought through by the decriminalization crowd.



I liken the legalize drugs crowd to the legalize gambling crowd. If you think these things should all be legal just because you'd like to engage in them, okay. I may disagree but opinions are like..well, you know. The similarities I see is how both advocates try to oversell their position. Like there would be absolutely no downside to making drugs cheaper and more available. On some of these issues perhaps a deeper dive is warranted.

Maine is looking at making 2.5 ounces legal, tax it, 75% into general fund, 10% into substance abuse programs, not sure where the other 15 goes. You can have 6 plants and give it away without compensation

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Pat Buchanan weighs in on a sequester.. You may be surprised...

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2013/02/22/cut-commitments-not-muscle-n1517608/page/full/

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Pat Buchanan weighs in on a sequester.. You may be surprised...

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2013/02/22/cut-commitments-not-muscle-n1517608/page/full/

Pat makes some good points. However, we should remember he's always been signififcantly isolationist. And DOD isn't the only entity playing the old "Washington Monument Game." Everybody's doing it.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Pat Buchanan weighs in on a sequester.. You may be surprised...

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2013/02/22/cut-commitments-not-muscle-n1517608/page/full/

When I've posted this exact line of reasoning...I usually add the point that next to Kansas Germany is arguably the safest place in the world to the fact that the EU's economy is 10x that of Russia and that the cold war is over. Nobody has an answer for it...yet it continues to go on.

"Yet, more than 20 years after the Wall fell, the Red Army went home, East Europe broke free and the Soviet Union fell apart, we have scores of thousands of troops in Europe.

Why? The European Union's economy is 10 times that of Russia. Europe's population is twice Russia's.

Why are we still there?"

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

When I've posted this exact line of reasoning...I usually add the point that next to Kansas Germany is arguably the safest place in the world to the fact that the EU's economy is 10x that of Russia and that the cold war is over. Nobody has an answer for it...yet it continues to go on.

"Yet, more than 20 years after the Wall fell, the Red Army went home, East Europe broke free and the Soviet Union fell apart, we have scores of thousands of troops in Europe.

Why? The European Union's economy is 10 times that of Russia. Europe's population is twice Russia's.

Why are we still there?"

I'm not defending the reasoning that follows, merely explicating it:

We keep troops stationed in Germany as a staging area so that we can move them quickly into the Middle East when / as needed. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't have a similar arrangement in the Phillipines as a staging area for East Asia too.

 

[Rover]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

While Pat's sense of history may be a little skewed (Never heard of Nixon's "Guam Doctrine" but it seems like he abandoned it pretty quick as the US had troops in Vietnam throughout his time in office) he brings up a good point. I can certainly see a situation where you'd keep a couple of main bases in Europe especially to transport to different hot spots in Africa and the Middle East. However, troops stationed as a result of wars long ago (WWII, Korea, etc) need to be sent home. South Korea at this point in time ought to be able to defend itself, and bear the cost of defending itself from North Korea so bring US troops home. I'm not sure if the base closing commission also deals with overseas outposts, but scaling them back is the right idea.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

So, what I suspect will happen is drug producing cartels who now control supply will merely incorporate legally and set up shop. As its highly unlikely they'll be setting up a storefront in the middle of town as most places wouldn't zone that anymore than they'd zone a strip club, and since driving while stoned would now have to be a criminal offense users may be reluctant to drive to a place and pick up their product for fear of getting harassed by police, it would probably be a mail order business. That's all well and good, but if you have an addiction who wants to rely on the post office to get you your fix? That would mean people (aka drug pushers) would order large quantities and sell it to their customers at all times of the day and night from their houses...and still fight over territory. In short, not much different than what we have today, only the people producing the stuff would be immune from prosecution.

Yeah, that's exactly how it takes place in Amsterdam now, right?

I know it's fun for you to use that marvelous brain of yours to make up stuff that you think is reasonable... can you imagine how formidable you might be if you ever tempered your thinking with evidence and data once in awhile?

As Unofan pointed out, driving under the influence laws generally apply to the use of any substance that impairs your ability.

The other main point is that if you are a smoker and want to quit there are lots of services and products available. Not many people want to "legalize" drugs as much as "decriminalize" them so that users can get supplies they know aren't tainted with who knows what additives, and so that dealers no longer make obscenely high profit margins. You also remove the incentive for dealers to give away addictive stuff for free in order to get people hooked. Once drugs are "decriminalized" then it makes it much easier for users to get help and stop using. Cigarette use is declining because of social pressure and health reasons, not because it's illegal.

I don't see gangs involved in drive-by shootings in states where medical marijuana is legal. That kind of undercuts your thesis too.

The point is not that prostitution, drug use, or gambling "should be" legal; it is merely that the costs of making them illegal are too high compared to any putative benefit which generally is also not realized either. Sometimes practicality trumps ideological purity, no?

 

[Rover]

Yeah, that's exactly how it takes place in Amsterdam now, right?

I know it's fun for you to use that marvelous brain of yours to make up stuff that you think is reasonable... can you imagine how formidable you might be if you ever tempered your thinking with evidence and data once in awhile?

As Unofan pointed out, driving under the influence laws generally apply to the use of any substance that impairs your ability.

The other main point is that if you are a smoker and want to quit there are lots of services and products available. Not many people want to "legalize" drugs as much as "decriminalize" them so that users can get supplies they know aren't tainted with who knows what additives, and so that dealers no longer make obscenely high profit margins. You also remove the incentive for dealers to give away addictive stuff for free in order to get people hooked. Once drugs are "decriminalized" then it makes it much easier for users to get help and stop using. Cigarette use is declining because of social pressure and health reasons, not because it's illegal.

I don't see gangs involved in drive-by shootings in states where medical marijuana is legal. That kind of undercuts your thesis too.

The point is not that prostitution, drug use, or gambling "should be" legal; it is merely that the costs of making them illegal are too high compared to any putative benefit which generally is also not realized either. Sometimes practicality trumps ideological purity, no?

Fishy, fishy, fishy, what's up with all the hostility? I'm the one who's still getting over dental surgery and even I'm not this cranky. While I'm more than happy to trade insults with you if you'd prefer, my point on de-criminalizing drugs is a serious one...

First, the experience in Amsterdam is irrelevant. Different place, different culture.

Next what I'm saying on drugs is people really need to think this through. You missed unofan's very good point, which was how do you get people off the road who are driving under the influence of drugs? Do you drug test them at the station but they claim that's from a now legal product they used two weeks ago? Right now these people can be arrested for possession. Take that away and what do you do?

Finally I come back to my point about how violence isn't going away if drugs are legal. In fact, I'm guessing crimes like robbery and the like will go up as drugs become cheaper and more available, hence they'll be consumed more hence the need for more quick cash to purchase them. There's also the issue of how do you restrict the now legal practice of drug dealing? Your neighbor decides to get into the meth business and has people coming over all hours of the day and night. Do you really think a $50 fine for a zoning violation is going to make him refuse a paying customer? Or two dealers move into your neighborhood and compete for customers. Do you think in an industry where people are killed regularly over this stuff these two clowns will suddenly decide to merely take their disputes to the Better Business Bureau?

I have no idea what you think on these questions, but they need to be asked an answered. A long long time ago Abe Lincoln came up with a great quip to the pro slavery crowd, which went somewhat like this "slavery has got to be the only so-called good thing that no man wishes upon himself". Likewise legal drug use will be the only good thing that nobody would wish to have happening next door to them or near their kids school.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

I used to think decriminalization of all drugs was the way to go. Now, I realize it doesn't matter much either way. Severe social scrutiny and known health problems have existed with heroin, crack, and meth use for far longer than tobacco, but people still use them because they're available, powerfully euphoric, and very physically addictive. As long as there are teenagers to get hooked, tobacco use will eventually hit a plateau again. I doubt you'll see the number of "hard" drug users change much with decriminalization. All it does is take some of the pressure off the police force and shift it to the healthcare system, where 60-70% of these people will probably go through multiple detoxes and treatments paid for by taxpayers until they eventually OD.

 

[Rover]

I used to think decriminalization of all drugs was the way to go. Now, I realize it doesn't matter much either way. Severe social scrutiny and known health problems have existed with heroin, crack, and meth use for far longer than tobacco, but people still use them because they're available, powerfully euphoric, and very physically addictive. As long as there are teenagers to get hooked, tobacco use will eventually hit a plateau again. I doubt you'll see the number of "hard" drug users change much with decriminalization. All it does is take some of the pressure off the police force and shift it to the healthcare system, where 60-70% of these people will probably go through multiple detoxes and treatments paid for by taxpayers until they eventually OD.

Hadn't considered the health care angle. Good point. Much like smokers are starting to pay more now, I can envision drug tests at your annual checkup and higher premiums as a result...

Meanwhile, in sequesterland, two good articles. Who did come up with that obamasequester hashtag idiocy anyway?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-20/john-boehners-sequester-gift-to-democrats

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/i-am-officially-confused-by-the-republicans.html

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

I'm not defending the reasoning that follows, merely explicating it:

We keep troops stationed in Germany as a staging area so that we can move them quickly into the Middle East when / as needed. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't have a similar arrangement in the Phillipines as a staging area for East Asia too.

I understand. I don't know the math...but I can't imagine its a better deal to bear the astronomical cost of just staging troops in hundreds of places overseas for generations to garner any value of having them some thousands of miles closer 'just in case'.

In the case of a war today, we would not be fighting someone like Germany or Britain but rather Iraq or Libya. Any movement of troops oversears will not involve a UBoat style attack.