cloward pivens strategy And the riots

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MRinder
...and help me talk some sense into some of these folks.

Like who?

It's a trap lol.. if i name them i get a smack on the wrist. But what the hell. Old Gryphon here thinks the following crimes are victimless.

Prostitution
Gambling
Drug use and distribution

I conceded Vagrancy to him because i am a reasonable person.

But alas, you are the smart one because you can't fix stupid.

originally posted by: MRinder
It hasn't? So busting drug rings and putting drug makers and drug dealers in jail hasn't at least slowed things down a bit?

LOL. Putting the real 'drug makers' in jail would pretty much screw the biggest drug dealers in the United States, the pharmacuetical companies that are pushing doctors to proscribe opioids to as many people as possible. Why do you think there are massive class actions suits being filed?

a reply to: MRinder

I agree with him because I'm a Libertarian and if you want to do drugs, pay for sex and gamble that's your issue, not mine.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MRinder
It hasn't? So busting drug rings and putting drug makers and drug dealers in jail hasn't at least slowed things down a bit?

LOL. Putting the real 'drug makers' in jail would pretty much screw the biggest drug dealers in the United States, the pharmacuetical companies that are pushing doctors to proscribe opioids to as many people as possible. Why do you think there are massive class actions suits being filed?

Oh now i agree with you on Pharmaceutical makers being a large part of the problem, but now you can't think that further legalizing drug dealing is going to help.

Maybe you do. If you do, please make a case for it.

I do think we need to go after the pharmaceutical industry and doctors when they function just like illegal drug dealers.

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
This is Partially done with money, who’s funding BLM? Any chance it’s the same people who are funding the people on the street to pay blacks to loot?

Who is funding the NAACP Legal Defense Fund that bails out activists who are arrested at these protests?

Why, it's celebrities and corporations! The 1%!

And who is doling out their generous donations?

Why, it's George Soros' son, Jonathan! The .000001%!




Do you believe any of them have any intention of ending oppression for black Americans in the 99%? Closing the wealth gap? Are any of them donating all their wealth exceeding the average income for a black American?

Are they telling them the only way to end oppression for black Americans is to oppress white Americans in the 99%?

Soon, we all be utterly oppressed by the 1% -- and the 1% are both white and black.

originally posted by: MRinder
Oh now i agree with you on Pharmaceutical makers being a large part of the problem, but now you can't think that further legalizing drug dealing is going to help.

I don't care if it does or it doesn't, my point is adults should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: MRinder

I agree with him because I'm a Libertarian and if you want to do drugs, pay for sex and gamble that's your issue, not mine.

I am not far off from you in this matter, but you cannot say as Gryphon did that they are victimless crimes. Can you at least agree that each of these activities have victims that are beyond the people who participate in them.

For instance, drug addicts affect their friends and families and the people they steal from to pay for their addiction, many gamblers loose steal to pay for their addiction, and many men/women are trafficked in order for somebody to simply pay for sex.

originally posted by: MRinder
For instance, drug addicts affect their friends and families and the people they steal from to pay for their addiction, many gamblers loose steal to pay for their addiction, and many men/women are trafficked in order for somebody to simply pay for sex.

People drink and run over people in their car but booze and cars are legal.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MRinder
Oh now i agree with you on Pharmaceutical makers being a large part of the problem, but now you can't think that further legalizing drug dealing is going to help.

I don't care if it does or it doesn't, my point is adults should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies.

I dont disagree. So I suppose your logic would lead you to they do what they want until they break another law in order to feed their addictions? Or in the case of sex trafficking we arrest them on the act of sex trafficking, but not in the act of exchanging money for sex.

Is this a correct estimate of your beliefs? If so, I could live with that. There wont really be less crime or need for police is my guess but I would be fine with it.

So in essence, they do what they want with their own bodies until their acts harm or damage someone else.

a reply to: MRinder

You keep equating sex trafficking to legalized prostitution. Sex trafficking mostly exists because prostitution is illegal.

Hell, we have porn, which, for 'artistic' reasons is basically prostitution. The person recording this gives anotehr person money and then has sex with them, it's okay though because it's on camera.

a reply to: musicismagic

Where do I have to go to hear this talk?
I need to google the street address....

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I doubt this "Sex trafficking mostly exists because prostitution is illegal", but i will concede it is possibly true.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So in your scenario of let adults do to their bodies whatever they want then drugs become legal.

So when companies produce better drugs then when people OD there is no suing the drug company, because people did what they wanted and reaped the consequences of their choices?

Given that the drugs are appropriately labeled with warnings of potential addiction, death, etc...

When the pointless War on Drugs ends ... and the government stops interfering, then market forces would take over.

Competition would be applied and the prices of many drugs would plummet thus changing the entire dynamic and economy of the thing.

Also, more than likely, we would see a cultural shift because of the marketplace ... better formulations of drugs, an industry that could help people deal with the addictive/dangerous medical effects?

Remove drugs from the category of "Vice" altogether.

That's not going to happen however. Too much profit in prisons and the whole legal infrasturcture of The War On Drugs.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
When the pointless War on Drugs ends ... and the government stops interfering, then market forces would take over.

Competition would be applied and the prices of many drugs would plummet thus changing the entire dynamic and economy of the thing.

Also, more than likely, we would see a cultural shift because of the marketplace ... better formulations of drugs, an industry that could help people deal with the addictive/dangerous medical effects?

Remove drugs from the category of "Vice" altogether.

That's not going to happen however. Too much profit in prisons and the whole legal infrasturcture of The War On Drugs.

What the hell. Augustus has convinced me. Let's let her rip. Worst case, we kill of a bunch of drug addicts in the process, but they are useless anyway for the most part.. so no loss.

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: Gryphon66
When the pointless War on Drugs ends ... and the government stops interfering, then market forces would take over.

Competition would be applied and the prices of many drugs would plummet thus changing the entire dynamic and economy of the thing.

Also, more than likely, we would see a cultural shift because of the marketplace ... better formulations of drugs, an industry that could help people deal with the addictive/dangerous medical effects?

Remove drugs from the category of "Vice" altogether.

That's not going to happen however. Too much profit in prisons and the whole legal infrasturcture of The War On Drugs.

What the hell. Augustus has convinced me. Let's let her rip. Worst case, we kill of a bunch of drug addicts in the process, but they are useless anyway for the most part.. so no loss.

Drug addiction takes on a different form when you can buy them at the corner store. See cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

LOL, I like where this is going. Nice debate.

So I think addictive drugs could have a highly encompassing warning, ie the beginning of South Park. Like we recommend that nobody in their right mind do these drugs, but do as you wish.

This actually fits my world view quite well.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: Gryphon66
When the pointless War on Drugs ends ... and the government stops interfering, then market forces would take over.

Competition would be applied and the prices of many drugs would plummet thus changing the entire dynamic and economy of the thing.

Also, more than likely, we would see a cultural shift because of the marketplace ... better formulations of drugs, an industry that could help people deal with the addictive/dangerous medical effects?

Remove drugs from the category of "Vice" altogether.

That's not going to happen however. Too much profit in prisons and the whole legal infrasturcture of The War On Drugs.

What the hell. Augustus has convinced me. Let's let her rip. Worst case, we kill of a bunch of drug addicts in the process, but they are useless anyway for the most part.. so no loss.

Drug addiction takes on a different form when you can buy them at the corner store. See cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

Yes, of course, because drug addicts are usually good earners and can buy whatever they want at the Bodega.

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: Gryphon66
When the pointless War on Drugs ends ... and the government stops interfering, then market forces would take over.

Competition would be applied and the prices of many drugs would plummet thus changing the entire dynamic and economy of the thing.

Also, more than likely, we would see a cultural shift because of the marketplace ... better formulations of drugs, an industry that could help people deal with the addictive/dangerous medical effects?

Remove drugs from the category of "Vice" altogether.

That's not going to happen however. Too much profit in prisons and the whole legal infrasturcture of The War On Drugs.

What the hell. Augustus has convinced me. Let's let her rip. Worst case, we kill of a bunch of drug addicts in the process, but they are useless anyway for the most part.. so no loss.

Drug addiction takes on a different form when you can buy them at the corner store. See cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

Yes, of course, because drug addicts are usually good earners and can buy whatever they want at the Bodega.

Many good earners I know drink like fish.

A lot of them used to smoke. /shrug

This seems to be very personal for you ... addict in your family?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: Gryphon66
When the pointless War on Drugs ends ... and the government stops interfering, then market forces would take over.

Competition would be applied and the prices of many drugs would plummet thus changing the entire dynamic and economy of the thing.

Also, more than likely, we would see a cultural shift because of the marketplace ... better formulations of drugs, an industry that could help people deal with the addictive/dangerous medical effects?

Remove drugs from the category of "Vice" altogether.

That's not going to happen however. Too much profit in prisons and the whole legal infrasturcture of The War On Drugs.

What the hell. Augustus has convinced me. Let's let her rip. Worst case, we kill of a bunch of drug addicts in the process, but they are useless anyway for the most part.. so no loss.

Drug addiction takes on a different form when you can buy them at the corner store. See cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

Yes, of course, because drug addicts are usually good earners and can buy whatever they want at the Bodega.

Many good earners I know drink like fish.

A lot of them used to smoke. /shrug

This seems to be very personal for you ... addict in your family?

Seriously? Smoking pot is one thing. Drinking another. But you think meth, heroin, etc addicts are going to be highly successful at earning money legally?

Do you know any meth or heroin addicts?

My family has a history of alcoholism. Luckily, I reigned mine in at an early age. Given my personality of more is always better, I have always had enough sense to avoid more serious drugs because i didnt want to become a hopeless loser.