TTIM: Things That Irk Me

[Tesla]

1 minute ago, Moraiwe said:

TTIM: People who are so self-unaware that they join in with the applause when it's directed at themselves.

What if they just wanted to applaud themselves?

[hedaik]

16 minutes ago, Moraiwe said:

TTIM: People who are so self-unaware that they join in with the applause when it's directed at themselves.

https://youtu.be/1jwf_Nv1fd8

[Moraiwe]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

What if they just wanted to applaud themselves?

Irksome level dependant upon situation.  It's the "everyone else is clapping so I should clap" bit that I was commenting on.

[BeardedHeart]

TTIM: My rooftop of my Apartment block in the city being blocked off by Fences and closed because someone decided to be a dick head and throw stuff off the roof. Why should i have to suffer and not enjoy something i pay for as part of my rent because someone else cant use their brain 

[thisphantomfortress]

4 minutes ago, BeardedHeart said:

TTIM: My rooftop of my Apartment block in the city being blocked off by Fences and closed because someone decided to be a dick head and throw stuff off the roof. Why should i have to suffer and not enjoy something i pay for as part of my rent because someone else cant use their brain

We have to pander to the lowest common denominator sadly

[cadete]

20 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

We have to pander to the lowest common denominator sadly

Story of Australia... hence our Liquor Laws.

[Embee]

49 minutes ago, BeardedHeart said:

TTIM: My rooftop of my Apartment block in the city being blocked off by Fences and closed because someone decided to be a dick head and throw stuff off the roof. Why should i have to suffer and not enjoy something i pay for as part of my rent because someone else cant use their brain 

Probably shouldn't have let @KD. on your rooftop then

[BeardedHeart]

5 minutes ago, Embee said:

Probably shouldn't have let @KD. on your rooftop then

Return of Demon_Heart that day 

[cadete]

20 minutes ago, Embee said:

Probably shouldn't have let @KD. on your rooftop then

14 minutes ago, BeardedHeart said:

Return of Demon_Heart that day 

Was his Drinking Party Telsa also in Da House?

 

[Pete Heartspur]

4 hours ago, cadete said:

Story of Australia... hence our Liquor Laws.

And 'Active Support' regulations.

[n i k o]

TTIM: that I've hit my image upload limit. Why is there a limit? 

[Tesla]

1 hour ago, n i k o said:

TTIM: that I've hit my image upload limit. Why is there a limit? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

 

[thisphantomfortress]

TTIM; think of the tax revenue missed. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/more-than-1-billion-of-ice-seized/7168050

 

[Jimmy]

7 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

TTIM; think of the tax revenue missed. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/more-than-1-billion-of-ice-seized/7168050

Was my first thought as well.

We can't have a society that is both free and drug-free. Legalize everything and tax the shit out of it.

[Jimmy]

Seriously, Turnbull has been a small-l liberal his whole life. You want tax reform? The revenue you could make from creating a government monopoly on the legal production and distribution of Marijuana alone would be colossal. It'd create a shit load of jobs as well.

[thisphantomfortress]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Seriously, Turnbull has been a small-l liberal his whole life. You want tax reform? The revenue you could make from creating a government monopoly on the legal production and distribution of Marijuana alone would be colossal. It'd create a shit load of jobs as well.

Plus putting a stoppage to wasted money on "law enforcement"

[malloy]

46 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Was my first thought as well.

We can't have a society that is both free and drug-free. Legalize everything and tax the shit out of it.

I am all for medicinal marijuana, but you can't honestly tell me society would be better off with ice legalised. That shit is the reason why some cunts think the earth is flat. 

The only way I would come close to even considering that it should be legalised is if we went to a full capitalist system with a user pays on pretty much everything. That way the rest of society doesn't have the large burden of paying for peoples shit decisions.

[thisphantomfortress]

2 minutes ago, malloy said:

I am all for medicinal marijuana, but you can't honestly tell me society would be better off with ice legalised. That shit is the reason why some cunts think the earth is flat. 

The only way I would come close to even considering that it should be legalised is if we went to a full capitalist system with a user pays on pretty much everything. That way the rest of society doesn't have the large burden of paying for peoples shit decisions.

I honestly do as an ex user. I wasn't heavily into it just on the weekends because pills were shit when I was in my late teens. I can safely say anyone I know, out of the 50-100 people I knew who used it regularly, who developed a problem developed it because they got caught up pushing it. This got them deeper into it. Have it regulated and offer help to addicts and I can guarentee the crime rates would go down.

[malloy]

1 minute ago, thisphantomfortress said:

I honestly do as an ex user. I wasn't heavily into it just on the weekends because pills were shit when I was in my late teens. I can safely say anyone I know, out of the 50-100 people I knew who used it regularly, who developed a problem developed it because they got caught up pushing it. This got them deeper into it. Have it regulated and offer help to addicts and I can guarentee the crime rates would go down.

From my experience most of the users of drugs (any type) who start pushing tend to do so to create cashflow to feed the habbit.  So the problems are a symptom of a symtpom and not a symptom of a cause as you are trying to argue. 

As an ex user you should know how fucked up people on ice can be. If legalised it will lose its stigma and use will increase. I think society has enough trouble with the effects of alcohol let alone a far more dangerous drug such as ice if it were to become legal and its use even a quarter of what alcohol is consumed.

[Jimmy]

10 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

I honestly do as an ex user. I wasn't heavily into it just on the weekends because pills were shit when I was in my late teens. I can safely say anyone I know, out of the 50-100 people I knew who used it regularly, who developed a problem developed it because they got caught up pushing it. This got them deeper into it. Have it regulated and offer help to addicts and I can guarentee the crime rates would go down.

I don't think it'd seriously increase the rate of use either. Look at the rate that the prevalence of smoking has decreased. It wasn't through making them illegal. It was through education. Sure, you have to attribute some of it to clamping down on advertising, plain packaging etc. But I'd say it's mostly education.

Give people the facts and let them make their own choices.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Jimmy

[Tesla]

31 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Seriously, Turnbull has been a small-l liberal his whole life. You want tax reform? The revenue you could make from creating a government monopoly on the legal production and distribution of Marijuana alone would be colossal. It'd create a shit load of jobs as well.

Why do you need a government monopoly, just tax it.

Fwiw, my position on this is well established at this stage, but I just want to say Colorado has proven everything people like me have been saying forever. It has gone exactly as the proponents thought it would, actually it has gone even better. 

[malloy]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

I don't think it'd seriously increase the rate of use either. Look at the rate that the prevalence of smoking has decreased. It wasn't through making them illegal. It was through education. Sure, you have to attribute some of it to clamping down on advertising, plain packaging etc. But I'd say it's mostly education.

Give people the facts and let them make their own choices.

Tbh without having looked into it too much I think the large taxes and price increases is probably the biggest factor.

[Jimmy]

Just now, Tesla said:

Why do you need a government monopoly, just tax it.

You definitely don't. Was just throwing it out as what would probably be the most profitable option.

[thisphantomfortress]

2 minutes ago, malloy said:

From my experience most of the users of drugs (any type) who start pushing tend to do so to create cashflow to feed the habbit.  So the problems are a symptom of a symtpom and not a symptom of a cause as you are trying to argue. 

As an ex user you should know how fucked up people on ice can be. If legalised it will lose its stigma and use will increase. I think society has enough trouble with the effects of alcohol let alone a far more dangerous drug such as ice if it were to become legal and its use even a quarter of what alcohol is consumed.

Tbh the thing I've always struggled to come to terms with is I only know one guy out of the whole lot that hasn't turned his life around. Most of us just kinda stopped. I suppose this probably skews my views on it.

[Jimmy]

1 minute ago, malloy said:

Tbh without having looked into it too much I think the large taxes and price increases is probably the biggest factor.

I disagree completely.

[Tesla]

4 hours ago, malloy said:

I think society has enough trouble with the effects of alcohol let alone a far more dangerous drug such as ice if it were to become legal and its use even a quarter of what alcohol is consumed.

Do we actually have a problem with the effects of alcohol? Cause we have probably the tightest alcohol laws in the western world yet we still apparently have social problems because of alcohol. I think blaming alcohol is BS.

FWIW, Alcohol is more dangerous than most illegal drugs, ice really isn't that much worse.

The problem is because alcohol is legal, and these other drugs are illegal, combined with the fact people seem to be under the false impression that the role of the government is to protect people from themselves, we end up with people assuming that alcohol is less dangerous than all these illegal drugs based purely on it's legality rather than any facts, when many experts would argue it's not. I find the below graphs, each from a different study hence the different but similar results, quite interesting:

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

TTIM: the constant stream of huge ass fucking spiders at my house. I don't know wtf is going on, been here for about a year and there is like one huge ass spider a week whereas where I used to live you'd get a huge ass spider like this maybe once every 5 years. Seriously I probably had only seen spiders this huge a few times in my life previously, now it's fucking constant. The only explanation I can come up with is that I have a park behind my house and they must be coming from there. Still, it doesn't seem like an adequate explanation, it really is ridiculous.

[strider]

5 hours ago, malloy said:

I am all for medicinal marijuana, but you can't honestly tell me society would be better off with ice legalised. That shit is the reason why some cunts think the earth is flat. 

The only way I would come close to even considering that it should be legalised is if we went to a full capitalist system with a user pays on pretty much everything. That way the rest of society doesn't have the large burden of paying for peoples shit decisions.

Why aren't commercial planes allowed to fly over the poles regularly? 

I'll tell you why

Flat earth and/or hollow earth

 

[NewConvert]

9 hours ago, Jimmy said:

Was my first thought as well.

We can't have a society that is both free and drug-free. Legalize everything and tax the shit out of it.

 

9 hours ago, Jimmy said:

Seriously, Turnbull has been a small-l liberal his whole life. You want tax reform? The revenue you could make from creating a government monopoly on the legal production and distribution of Marijuana alone would be colossal. It'd create a shit load of jobs as well.

 

9 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Plus putting a stoppage to wasted money on "law enforcement"

 

9 hours ago, malloy said:

I am all for medicinal marijuana, but you can't honestly tell me society would be better off with ice legalised. That shit is the reason why some cunts think the earth is flat. 

The only way I would come close to even considering that it should be legalised is if we went to a full capitalist system with a user pays on pretty much everything. That way the rest of society doesn't have the large burden of paying for peoples shit decisions.

 

8 hours ago, malloy said:

Tbh without having looked into it too much I think the large taxes and price increases is probably the biggest factor.

As an older member of this forum I am in full agreement with the legalisation of everything. And most of my peers are as well, although two who work in the health sector would vigorously disagree.

One aspect that I consider that is often overlooked is corruption of the police, political and judiciary by having drugs illegal. I view corruption as one of the major evils in any society as it really corrodes trust in one another and the institutions that are meant to prop up a society. If you could spend some time in Colombia or Mexico or Argentina or Chile as a local you will understand what I mean.

However the problem that I have with tax the shit out of it is that it makes room for organised crime (see above). It also means that the more dangerous users will still commit petty crimes to feed the habit.

I would prefer a twin approach to the issue of drugs: 1) provide a legal avenue to buy and consume drugs at an affordable price 2) if you choose to circumvent the legal avenue then the penal system should be draconian without pity, without mercy.

Let the government create a monopoly manufacturing and distributing drugs. Actually the government does not have to manufacture they could outsource it to a pharma company but the gist is that the government has responsibility of the process from manufacturing through to retailing it. All the drugs would be in plain packaging with a grade of strength rated from 1 to 10. This would ensure that consumers are getting drugs manufactured/produced with stringent lab conditions as you would with any medically prescribed drug as well as consistency. The cost should be enough to cover the manufacturing/production, distribution and health costs. The distribution should enable the user to track what they have been purchasing, how often, etc. Only the user would have access to this information and they could provide the information to health care workers if they wish to do so. Police could only obtain information on drug use through a court order only if investigating major crime such as murder. The government could also set up a health care group that could look at the meta data for drug use. The benefits of this to the user should be clean drugs without adulterations, consistent product, they would be able to control their own use, have a consumption history that they could refer to in the event of health issues presently or in the future. By making it affordable petty crime should be reduced.

Those that continue to manufacture/produce drugs circumventing the legal process would then face mandatory jail time of at least 10 years - even for possession. In violation of human right codes I would also add that some would be restricted to solitary confinement just to make sure that organised crime is pushed away.

As tesla said Colorado and Uruguay are proving the making marijuana legal does not destroy society. However because the sheer range of drugs and the unknown long term effects would mean that society (through the government) has to keep a close watch on this.

Will there be an increase in consumption? Probably and certainly in the beginning but after a year or so numbers would settle. I expect that teens would start experimenting with drugs but by the late 20s early 30s most would have moved on from it. There will be a residual % that will continue to use it for the rest of their lives but society will need to learn to accommodate them and they would need to fit in. Pretty much what happens with tabacco right now.

I am certain that some people who begin using drugs already have issues to begin with and drugs exacerbate their condition. There are people who are quite normal but drugs bring forth their inner demons, and then there are people who drugs are a passing phase and who leave no lasting impact.

As far as ice is concerned, I think that once consistent, quality manufacturing is provided then users will start to calm down. Treatment for those who want to quit it will be easier as well.

Speaking of, given the huge amount of money spent on law enforcement right now, some of that money would be spent on providing better health care for users who want to quit.

There are people  who worry that by making drugs legal it would be a tacit approval by society. I don't believe so and nor does it have to be. by having a government monopoly, there should be no incentive to promote drugs. There won't be a competitive market to produce stronger variety or some other way of inducing people to consume. Education programs would be tailored to suit different regions, users and age groups.

Are there holes in the above? Absolutely: at what age should people be allowed to consume drugs? what happens if a new chemical compound becomes popular overseas and then arrives at our shores? What happens to families that need to cope with people that are heavily addicted (and here I have some personal experience)? Is the proposal above better than what currently is in place?

Finally, a parallel situation existed with gambling. back in the 70s Chinatown was a den of illegal gambling. And quite regularly, armed hold ups would occur with the punters losing $100ks and then having to claim that they were enjoying a cup of green tea. There were organised bus tours for the grannies to travel to north of the border so that they could play poker machines. Once, Crown opened Chinatown became a ghost town with many places shutting down. Punters had a legal avenue to gamble. Once the suburban pokie joints opened, the bus tours ceased and many businesses north of the Murray went bust. Armed hold ups ceased until about 5 years ago when they re-emerged with the pokie venues out in the sticks.

 

 

[thisphantomfortress]

I dunno how many words that was @NewConvert but I agreed with everyone of them 

[Jimmy]

1 minute ago, thisphantomfortress said:

I dunno how many words that was @NewConvert but I agreed with everyone of them 

+1. Nailed my slant on the issue.

Government monopoly on all recreational drugs except Alcohol and Marijuana please. 

[NewConvert]

55 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

I dunno how many words that was @NewConvert but I agreed with everyone of them 

 

52 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

+1. Nailed my slant on the issue.

Government monopoly on all recreational drugs except Alcohol and Marijuana please. 

Thanks guys. As I've mentioned I have had some personal experience with the rough side of drug use and have been thinking a lot about this issue.

[rayv36]

Ice is fucked. It takes 3-5 police officers to subdue someone on ice which means that's 3-5 officers that aren't dealing with more important situations like robbery, domestics etc. Also our hospitals are full of ice-heads off their face because the cops have no where else to put them, imagine what it would be like if ice were legal.

Edited February 15, 2016 by rayv36

[GreenSeater]

1 hour ago, rayv36 said:

Ice is fucked. It takes 3-5 police officers to subdue someone on ice which means that's 3-5 officers that aren't dealing with more important situations like robbery, domestics etc. Also our hospitals are full of ice-heads off their face because the cops have no where else to put them, imagine what it would be like if ice were legal.

Well the "3-5 cops that it takes to subdue someone on ice" could come from the thousands of police officers being wasted on trying (and failing) to stop the flow of drugs through this country and wasting tax money on arresting people with a couple of pills. There's examples of legalization actually working, as Tesla pointed out with Colorado and Uruguay legalising marijuana, as well as Portugal actually legalizing all drugs. http://m.mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.sQQjXVuFY

[Tesla]

1 hour ago, rayv36 said:

Ice is fucked. It takes 3-5 police officers to subdue someone on ice which means that's 3-5 officers that aren't dealing with more important situations like robbery, domestics etc. Also our hospitals are full of ice-heads off their face because the cops have no where else to put them, imagine what it would be like if ice were legal.

This is a weak argument TBH, even if we assume that this '3-5 police offers to subdue someone on ice' is a common occurrence (which it wouldn't be), the problem is that so many police resources go towards dealing with drug crimes, and the other crimes that stem from providing organised crime with such an excellent source of revenue, that there would be a huge amount of spare police resources that providing 3-5 police officers to subdue someone on ice won't be a problem, and they'd still have the time to tackle other crimes more than they do currently.

If anything, police officers will have to be laid off, but I suppose there are a lot of crimes that basically go unpoliced and unpunished currently that policing these might provide work for the police (eg car robberies, house break ins, etc.). Still if the illegality of those offences was actually enforced they'd decrease in occurrence so there could legitimately be a problem of not enough crime happening to justify the current level of police resources.

I think definitely you'll have an issue with an oversupply of criminal lawyers and magistrates/judges if drugs were legalised. Probably a large reason why we are unlikely to see it, most politicians are lawyers, their mates are lawyers, etc., doesn't make a lot of sense for them to put lawyers out of work.

[Tesla]

I'm not going to quote @NewConvert because it's so long, but actually I disagree with a few things.

Firstly, I still don't see the justification for a government monopoly, though I think that's a minor detail anyway tbh.

But I do think if illegal drugs were legalised they should attract an appropriate level of excise tax, given the negative effect on society and costs to our public health system.

I understand the argument that you don't want to make them too expensive as it still creates room for organised crime to be involved (I know more than most people about the level of organised crime involved in the tobacco black market, most people would probably be surprised at how big it is tbh, but it would be nothing compared to the level of organised crime relating to illegal drugs), but the fact is that cheaper drugs are going to lead to more consumption than more expensive drugs, maybe not a lot more since these things have an inelastic demand, but the point is I don't think there is reason to artificially promote a lower price or a higher price as both have side effects, rather just set an appropriate excise tax and appropriate controls on suppliers (plain packaging, no advertising, etc.) and leave the rest to the market.

FWIW, the end result, even if we had ridiculously high unjustifiable excise taxes like we do on tobacco, would be cheaper drugs. People don't realise how cheap they would be if it wasn't for the illegality of them. For example, all the decent legal stimulants that pop up every now and then and gain popularity before the government declare them analogues of speed or meth (and therefore illegal) sell for like $5 a kg, I expect that's probably what the pre-tax cost of speed would be in a world where it's legal to make, meth would probably be more but not much more, overall I think this isn't a bad guide for drugs that would be made in labs (as opposed to ones that are grown/natural). I'm no weed expert, but it seems to me that if anything it's easier to grow than tobacco, so the pre-tax cost of tobacco (cheap as well) is a good guide for what marijuana would cost pre tax. Cocaine, generally requires similar conditions and grows in the same areas as coffee, so the price of coffee is probably not a bad guide. Though I believe cocaine takes up more land to produce since you get very little product from 1 plant, so maybe it would be a bit more expensive, but still something like $50 a kg is my estimate at the maximum pre-tax cost of cocaine in a world where it's legalised, maybe even cheaper.

So even if you slapped on some quite high levels of taxes like we currently have on alcohol and tobacco, they'd still be a lot cheaper. Frankly, I don't think there would be much room for organised crime to compete on a lot of the drugs. Weed they would be able to, but apart from that it will be hard for organised crime. Cocaine has no chance of being supplied by organised crime in a world where drugs are legal, since it can't be produced in Australia and it would make no sense to import it here when the world price is significantly higher. Things like speed, meth, etc. I can't see how the illegal supply of it could be much cheaper than the legal supply of it even with high excise taxes, plus it won't be the same quality even if it was cheaper. So really it's only weed that organised crime has a shot at, and when the police only have to focus on the blackmarket supply of tobacco and weed, they would completely destroy the black market operations.

So you would have cheaper drugs, and greater availability. Add to that, the reason I don't do illegal drugs is that you don't know what kind of poisons or other fucked up shit some bikie cunt has mixed into those drugs. Now if I had access to pure pharmaceutical grade drugs, then I am a lot more likely to use them. So that's a third factor making these drugs more attractive.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that there would be increased consumption (though legalisation of marijuana hasn't really shown that), but so what? Most the negative effects of illegal drugs are due to them being illegal. In regard to individual harm, the truth is they really aren't that fucking bad for you if they're pure, most the danger is from the other shit that they get mixed with by those who supply them. And most the negative effect on society is from the supply of drugs by organised crime, and not from crimes committed by addicts. In other words, increased consumption in a world where these drugs are legal, isn't as bad as the lower level of consumption in a world where they are illegal.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, rayv36 said:

Ice is fucked. It takes 3-5 police officers to subdue someone on ice which means that's 3-5 officers that aren't dealing with more important situations like robbery, domestics etc. Also our hospitals are full of ice-heads off their face because the cops have no where else to put them, imagine what it would be like if ice were legal.

Way back in the 70s you could replace the word 'ice' with 'heroin'. What ever did happen to heroin? But that's beside the point.

My suspicions are that one of the problem with the violent ice addicts is that they are consuming adulterated stuff and/or different strengths. Having a legal process for manufacturing 'ice' would remove the adulterated crap and making the drug of a consistent strength would reduce the shock of having consumed drugs of varying strengths.

However, I do concede that some people will react badly under any circumstance. We know this because not all ice users end up behaving so violently that they need to be physically subdued. So for these people society will need to have diversion programs and if need be incarcerate them.

[rayv36]

58 minutes ago, Tesla said:

This is a weak argument TBH, even if we assume that this '3-5 police offers to subdue someone on ice' is a common occurrence (which it wouldn't be), the problem is that so many police resources go towards dealing with drug crimes, and the other crimes that stem from providing organised crime with such an excellent source of revenue, that there would be a huge amount of spare police resources that providing 3-5 police officers to subdue someone on ice won't be a problem, and they'd still have the time to tackle other crimes more than they do currently.

If anything, police officers will have to be laid off, but I suppose there are a lot of crimes that basically go unpoliced and unpunished currently that policing these might provide work for the police (eg car robberies, house break ins, etc.). Still if the illegality of those offences was actually enforced they'd decrease in occurrence so there could legitimately be a problem of not enough crime happening to justify the current level of police resources.

I think definitely you'll have an issue with an oversupply of criminal lawyers and magistrates/judges if drugs were legalised. Probably a large reason why we are unlikely to see it, most politicians are lawyers, their mates are lawyers, etc., doesn't make a lot of sense for them to put lawyers out of work.

VicPol is understaffed and are taking in mass amounts of recruits, most of their resources go towards counter terrorism and ice. I honestly think if ice were legal there would be a higher incident rate as it is so addictive, legal would mean more people will experiment with it and possibly get hooked on it. I doubt they'd be laying off officers.

A mate of mine works at Fitzroy & Richmond stations and 3 out 4 of his call outs are ice related. Not only do they have to subdue the person on ice they have to baby sit them until they come down, the majority of a 8hr shift is taken up dealing with someone on ice + the paper work that follows. Its a massive drain and frustration among police.

Each to their own, I respect your opinion but I couldn't disagree more.

[NewConvert]

8 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I'm not going to quote @NewConvert because it's so long, but actually I disagree with a few things.

Firstly, I still don't see the justification for a government monopoly, though I think that's a minor detail anyway tbh.

But I do think if illegal drugs were legalised they should attract an appropriate level of excise tax, given the negative effect on society and costs to our public health system.

I understand the argument that you don't want to make them too expensive as it still creates room for organised crime to be involved (I know more than most people about the level of organised crime involved in the tobacco black market, most people would probably be surprised at how big it is tbh, but it would be nothing compared to the level of organised crime relating to illegal drugs), but the fact is that cheaper drugs are going to lead to more consumption than more expensive drugs, maybe not a lot more since these things have an inelastic demand, but the point is I don't think there is reason to artificially promote a lower price or a higher price as both have side effects, rather just set an appropriate excise tax and appropriate controls on suppliers (plain packaging, no advertising, etc.) and leave the rest to the market.

FWIW, the end result, even if we had ridiculously high unjustifiable excise taxes like we do on tobacco, would be cheaper drugs. People don't realise how cheap they would be if it wasn't for the illegality of them. For example, all the decent legal stimulants that pop up every now and then and gain popularity before the government declare them analogues of speed or meth (and therefore illegal) sell for like $5 a kg, I expect that's probably what the pre-tax cost of speed would be in a world where it's legal to make, meth would probably be more but not much more, overall I think this isn't a bad guide for drugs that would be made in labs (as opposed to ones that are grown/natural). I'm no weed expert, but it seems to me that if anything it's easier to grow than tobacco, so the pre-tax cost of tobacco (cheap as well) is a good guide for what marijuana would cost pre tax. Cocaine, generally requires similar conditions and grows in the same areas as coffee, so the price of coffee is probably not a bad guide. Though I believe cocaine takes up more land to produce since you get very little product from 1 plant, so maybe it would be a bit more expensive, but still something like $50 a kg is my estimate at the maximum pre-tax cost of cocaine in a world where it's legalised, maybe even cheaper.

So even if you slapped on some quite high levels of taxes like we currently have on alcohol and tobacco, they'd still be a lot cheaper. Frankly, I don't think there would be much room for organised crime to compete on a lot of the drugs. Weed they would be able to, but apart from that it will be hard for organised crime. Cocaine has no chance of being supplied by organised crime in a world where drugs are legal, since it can't be produced in Australia and it would make no sense to import it here when the world price is significantly higher. Things like speed, meth, etc. I can't see how the illegal supply of it could be much cheaper than the legal supply of it even with high excise taxes, plus it won't be the same quality even if it was cheaper. So really it's only weed that organised crime has a shot at, and when the police only have to focus on the blackmarket supply of tobacco and weed, they would completely destroy the black market operations.

So you would have cheaper drugs, and greater availability. Add to that, the reason I don't do illegal drugs is that you don't know what kind of poisons or other fucked up shit some bikie cunt has mixed into those drugs. Now if I had access to pure pharmaceutical grade drugs, then I am a lot more likely to use them. So that's a third factor making these drugs more attractive.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that there would be increased consumption (though legalisation of marijuana hasn't really shown that), but so what? Most the negative effects of illegal drugs are due to them being illegal. In regard to individual harm, the truth is they really aren't that fucking bad for you if they're pure, most the danger is from the other shit that they get mixed with by those who supply them. And most the negative effect on society is from the supply of drugs by organised crime, and not from crimes committed by addicts. In other words, increased consumption in a world where these drugs are legal, isn't as bad as the lower level of consumption in a world where they are illegal.

I am open to the pricing arrangement including taxation. And through connections in the legal pharmaceutical industry that make medications the cost of producing some of the synthetic drugs would be in the order of cents. I did add that I would expect the whole manufacturing/distribution network, associated health costs would be paid by the consumer. So if the retailer sets up a caravan in a festival to sell drugs then I would expect that the costs would be recouped through the sales of the drugs. Its a bit difficult to speculate as to the correct level of pricing without doing some serious and time consuming analysis far beyond my capacity. Suffice to say that I would like to have the price low enough to prevent organised crime from being involved, low enough to reduce petty crime, high enough to cover costs and high enough to prevent excessive consumption.

Now with regards to how 'bad they are for you' - that is hard to determine. As I've said, for some people it will trigger psychosis and other illnesses but not everyone. The converse is that people with illnesses are drawn to drugs is also true. Then there are the long term effects - such as deformed sperms. This does not matter when you are in your mid 20s but what happens if you want children and then the doctor tells you that the chances of conceiving are small because you sperm count is below normal, and most are deformed. Miraculously you get her pregnant anyway and the child is born deformed because daddy's sperm was deformed. Which is why I want an open system where we can get science and medicine to produce proper long term studies. Volunteers can participate without having to look over their shoulders for cops and doctors would be able to make better assessments.

Will it increase consumption, I think that it would in the first year but after that it would settle into a steady pattern, Young will try anything, hit 30 years settles and consumption reduces.

I would prefer a government monopoly at first because we don't really know the consequences. Government can change policies or instruct the monopoly to modify its behaviour as things emanate or evolve. The monopoly would have its mission statement to be harm reduction - a private company has at its heart to make a profit. If after a decade or so there is scope to privatise some or all of its activities then so be it.

 

 

 

[GreenSeater]

Imagine if they made drugs legal but Sydney still closed down at 1. Lockout laws actually being debated shows just how far from anything like full legalisation in this nanny state we are.

Edited February 16, 2016 by GreenSeater