Posted on 07/08/2002 7:56:44 PM PDT by Djarum
Think First!
You think.
And while you're at it, "next time, before posting..." try actually reading the post you're responding to.
I never said laws against robbing banks give incentive to rob banks. I said laws against stealing.
Of course if we were free to just take what we want from others, there would be no business for bank robbers.
Laws against stealing which artificially inflate the price of the prohibited object is what causes or gives incentive to a person to rob banks.
The idea that prohibiting some substance means gangsters can profit from illegal sale of it, and therefore those who make it illegal are responsible for the situation is an infantile argument.
Guess we should make murder legal so we don't inflate the profit of being a hit man.
I wish it were that easy ;)
What a waste! Black market...insane profits.
Legal...$1.95. Illegal...$50.00.
Whole lot of "brain power" being wasted somewhere.
Who is the direct, unwilling victim if someone wants to toot coke?
The friends and family members who get ripped off and whose lives are made miserable by the never ending travails of their strung out loved ones.
The employer whose got a crack head who doesn't show up the day after payday, whose performance is compromised..the Health Insurers and everybody who has to pick up the tab for these coke heads who are busy turning themselves into useless crispy critters...creditors who don't get paid and have to hire collection agencies...for all the automobile owners who had their windows smashed out for a quarter on their dashboard....etc. etc etc.
The victims of coke heads are endless.
Jorge: Laws against stealing, a bankrobber's best friend.14
I never said laws against robbing banks give incentive to rob banks. I said laws against stealing.
Laws against stealing include laws against stealing from banks, Duh! Think First man.
The laws against stealing are irrelevant to the fact that the object would be just as valuable if there were no laws against stealing it. Now, if there are laws against a prohibited substance those laws do make the substance worth more money. Black market economics 101.
The idea that prohibiting some substance means gangsters can profit from illegal sale of it, and therefore those who make it illegal are responsible for the situation is an infantile argument.
They, the government are partially responsible and they know it. They are the facilitators. Did you never read the documentation of alcohol prohibition. No person initiated force in exchanging money for alcohol. It was an exchange among consenting adults.
Guess we should make murder legal so we don't inflate the profit of being a hit man.
It's obvious to any adult that murder is the initiation of force. Yet you, talk about being infantile! What's even scarier is you seem to have attracted a peanut-cheering gallery.
Maybe if the government would get out of it altogether, quit providing free health care and other social services to drug users, quit giving food stamps and housing, etc, and let employees get fired by their employers if they aren't competent to do a job. The government allows people to fail by providing a safety net they never have to leave.
The government allows people to fail by providing a safety net they never have to leave.
That's a good observation: the government facilitates failure.
It's how parasitical politicians and self-serving bureaucrats justify their unearned paychecks and usurped power.
... to say nothing of the friends and family of those killed or jailed in the War On (some) Drugs.
The employer whose got a crack head who doesn't show up the day after payday, whose performance is compromised...
This is a problem of truancy, not coke toking. There are people who toke but show up for work (and, do a good job) and there are those who quit work, or do shoddy work, who don't toke.
the Health Insurers and everybody who has to pick up the tab for these coke heads who are busy turning themselves into useless crispy critters...
This is a problem of insurers making no distinction between coke heads and non-coke heads. If non-tokers didn't have to pay the premiums of tokers, this objection would vanish.
creditors who don't get paid and have to hire collection agencies...
This is a problem of debtors, not tokers ... again there are tokers who pay their bills, and non-tokers who don't. Are you able to separate these issues?
for all the automobile owners who had their windows smashed out for a quarter on their dashboard...
This is a problem of burglars, not tokers. Again there are burglars who don't toke, and tokers who don't steal.
The victims of coke heads are endless.
The victims of the War On (some) Drugs are also ... and one of them is the Bill of Rights.
So, we return to the question:
Who is the direct, unwilling victim if someone wants to toot coke?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.