Isn't this about the time when .. .. (Political) - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Isn't this about the time when .. .. (Political)

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:44 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:That's a strawman and is not a response to my post.

Supply and demand is irrelevant - crack will always be cheaper than coke because the price of crack is a function of the price of coke.


Im not sure what you meant by that first sentence.

You are right about crack being cheaper than coke, of course. I was referring to the overall price of drugs if they were legalized. Making an illegal substance legal will always lower the cost.
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby wrveres » Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:27 am

this has to be the most hypocritical agruement I have ever seen...

Alcohol Kills
Tabacco Kills
So might as well legalize Coke too ....

just so we can be "Fair" ..... 8-o
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31783
(Past Year: 641)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby HOOTIE » Sat Feb 07, 2004 4:17 am

Mookie4ever wrote:Where else (except for repressive religious societies) would Janet Jackson's breast cause such an outrage? Seriously, it was just a flash and it has been front page news for days. The United States is the world's largest per capita consumer of hard core porn and yet is outraged by a little nipple.


MOOKIE you are better then this. Porn can be had by adults. The Super Bowl is on regular tv, during family hours. Many kids watch it. Explain to your kid why her breast was exposed? It's no biggie to you and me, but it is to minors.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
HOOTIE
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 15116
(Past Year: 292)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.

Postby HOOTIE » Sat Feb 07, 2004 4:29 am

AA i hope as a teacher, you never have mentioned your pro drug stance to your class? Btw, who cares if drugs are cheaper? Doesn't mean you won't still become addicted, neglect your kids, steal, and kill for your next high. That's the problem. It's the burden they leave on their kids, society.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
HOOTIE
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 15116
(Past Year: 292)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.

Postby Mookie4ever » Sat Feb 07, 2004 9:25 am

HOOTIE wrote:
Mookie4ever wrote:Where else (except for repressive religious societies) would Janet Jackson's breast cause such an outrage? Seriously, it was just a flash and it has been front page news for days. The United States is the world's largest per capita consumer of hard core porn and yet is outraged by a little nipple.


MOOKIE you are better then this. Porn can be had by adults. The Super Bowl is on regular tv, during family hours. Many kids watch it. Explain to your kid why her breast was exposed? It's no biggie to you and me, but it is to minors.


There is nothing wrong with the human body. Nude beaches are healthy family places in the carribean and Europe. At least we have progressed far enough that my wife can breast feed in public but I still get impatient with some of the intolerant people that we encounter.

It's no biggie for minors to see her breast (the mostly covered breast exposed for a millisecond), it is the reaction to it that the children will absorb.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 257)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:08 pm

Okay, let's see. I'll agree with Cornbread that the legalization should be done in steps.

Mookie - I believe that most "hard" drugs are only hard because of their illegality. Look at cocaine. The men working in Columbia picking it eat it all day long. But it does nothing more to them than a little buzz. So, clearly, there are points that you can take it and it won't hurt you. Right? Then they make cocaine out of it. It becomes more potent - and more dangerous. Partly because the high is stronger and there is more opportunity to get hooked. But mostly because drug dealers cut it with other, mostly unknown, substances. And then they give it to their distributers who also cut it. And on down the line through 10 people or so. By the time it gets to the consumer, it's hardly recognizable. Then the inner city dealers get it, cook it with baking soda, and voila! You've got crack. A faster high (it lasts about 5-10 minutes) which makes it more addictive.

Now what I'm saying is this: if you had a choice between government coke which had been approved by the FDA or some that the guy in the overcoat on the corner was selling, which would you choose? I'd choose the government stuff. And I think the vast majority of people would agree with me. People are smarter than we give them credit for (except Padres fans).

What I'm saying is that I think that a little government competition could drive drug dealers out of business. Which would bring stability to the third world (Afghanistans biggest export is heroin), give our police more time to work on real crime, cut down on real crime (if you can afford heroin by working at McDonalds, would you risk breaking into somebody's house?), cut taxes (around half of our tax money goes to fighting the drug war in one form or another), and people would trust the police more.

wrveres - I believe that you mean that it's an irresponsible argument. There is nothing hypocritical about it.

Hootie - I'll agree with you in that Janet Jackson should have known better and that parents should decide what their children see. However, Mookie is right that our society should learn to relax. In 1920, it was considered scandalous for a man to appear in any public arena other than prize-fighting (with its all-male audience) with his shirt off. Children raised not seeing men with their shirts off were naturally a bit giggly and curious as the first daring shirtless men began appearing on beaches, in magazines, and in movies. Today, because it's what children are raised with, no one thinks of a topless male as a threat to the morality of children. After a similar period with topless women (or even fully nude adults), the children will adjust (a lot faster than their parents, probably), life will go on, and police can go catch real criminals. Remember: children are born naked. They seem to like nothing better than getting naked. It's adults who teach them what parts of their bodies are and are not shameful to expose. A child has no natural guilt about this at all.

Of course, I don't tell any of my students any of this because I'm not their mother. I don't want a nanny government and it would be hypocritical for me to act as one.

Finally - I think that we need to look at prohibition to understand from a historical perspective what we're going through now.

-The saloons went underground and became speakeasies. There were lots of them. The 16,000 saloons in New York City, for example, became (depending on whose estimate you believe) from 32,000 to more than 100,000 "speaks." Unlike the saloons, which were men-only institutions, the speak-easies welcomed women, and the women came.
-Supplying the speakeasies with the necessary beer, wine, and liquor required organization. It was also a crime. Hence, the birth of organized crime. Paying off the local, state, and federal authorities required some organization too—and no small amount of money.
-Due to the outrageously inflated alcohol prices caused by Prohibition, money was no problem. In one year, Al Capone made $60 million (the equivalent of about $2 billion today) in liquor sales alone—a regular Bill Gates.
-Mexico was wet, and Canada was far from dry. The border towns, both north and south, were well supplied with Jos Cuervo and Canadian Club.
-Beer brewing, wine making, and distilling became common practices in the home. An enterprising home brewer could make enough liquid refreshment to give as gifts or even sell. (When selling, of course, one had to be careful: one did not want to be caught by the feds or, worse, by the mob.)
-Grain alcohol was legal when sold for "industrial use only." With the right alterations, however, it became safe to drink and, with the right recipe, occasionally palatable. One could mix up a batch of this in the bathroom; hence, bathtub gin.
-The California grape growers, no longer permitted to make wine, produced a grape juice product known as Vine-Glo. The Vine-Glo literature carefully instructed buyers what not to do, because, if they did those things, they would have wine in sixty days. The demand for grape juice grew dramatically. In 1919, 97,000 acres were devoted to growing grapes for "juice." By 1926, it was 681,000 acres. In 1929, the U.S. government loaned the grape growers money to expand even further.
-Beer with an alcohol content of less than one-half-of-one percent (named "near beer," although many claimed that those who gave it that name were lacking in depth perception) was legal. In order to make it, however, one had to make regular beer and then boil off the alcohol. Every so often, somebody forgot to take that last step and real beer accidentally wound up for sale in speakeasies (Oops).
-All you had to do to stay entirely within the law was get sick. The Eighteenth Amendment only prohibited alcohol for "beverage purposes." Medicinal alcohol was perfectly legal and, for some unknown reason, doctors began prescribing more and more of it during the 1920s. In addition, various elixirs, tonics, and other patent medicines available over-the-counter without prescriptions relied heavily upon the medicinal qualities of alcohol. (Very heavily.)

What happened when alcohol was prohibited is this: Usage went through the roof, the product was inferior, and it gave rise to organized crime.

What's happening today: Usage is very high, the product is inferior, and we've got the second coming of organized crime.

Finally, I'll leave you with this thought: If you look at a chart of the murder rate in the United States, you'll see a big spike every single time that a president promised a "war on drugs" or to get tough on drugs, etc.
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Mookie4ever » Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:59 pm

Your entire position and historically-based analogy relies upon this statement:

Absolutely Adequate wrote:Mookie - I believe that most "hard" drugs are only hard because of their illegality.


I am surprised that an obviously intelligent, articulate person could advance such an uninformed proposition.

Cocaine is intrinsically deadly. Putting aside the harmful psychological effects, coke has many immediate and deadly physiological effects. Recreational use increases heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate and body temperature to a point where heart failure, strokes and respiratory failure is a risk even for those without any previously exhibited predisposition to these attacks. While an overdose of coke puts a person into a coma from which they often never recover.

While filler added to coke by the distributors has its own harmful effects, pharmaceutical cocaine (pure uncut coke) will fry your brain faster.

Comparing alcohol to cocaine is akin to comparing a Big Mac to a dose of arsenic. Sure the Big Mac can kill you but only after years of eating unhealthy food to the point that your organs start to fail you, while the arsenic will kill you in one dose (it was recently decided in an American lawsuit that McDonald's was not responsible for the medical problems of its fat patrons as their condition was more a symptom of an unhealthy lifestyle rather than a product of consuming their food).

So sure there are problems associated with the irresponsible consumption of alcohol, but not the deadly and immediate ones associated with cocaine use. I do not believe that there is a modern western culture that permits/legalizes (much less encourages through the supply of a high-quality government brand) the use of cocaine.

I also do not take with your position that just because something is expensive or hard to do we should not try. I noticed a spike in deaths when Lincoln declared a war on slavery and when the Allies declared war on the Axis. That did not mean that they were not just causes.

You do not have to call it a war on drugs (as I have said I am in favour of legalizing marijuana) but do not condone the use of coke.

As for the expense - with what we know about the physiological effects of cocaine, imagine what kind of an award a court would give to the family of the first kid to blow his mind out on government sponsored coke.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 257)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby MikeeDee » Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:14 pm

Sorry to butt in so late. Being from the netherlands does not make me an expert, but I do have some experience in this matter. In the Netherlands (a country the size of CT with 16 million inhabitants) the results of (partially) legalizing soft drugs have been:
1. Tax income from drugs sales (millions and millions of dollars annually)
2. Ability to focus more on other drugs and drugs related crime
3. Soft drugs are no longer a stepping stone to hard drugs
4. More awareness among the population
5. Prices are lower leading to less drug related crime

As you may know marijuana and hash are only allowed to be sold in designated bars and you're not allowed to carry/possess more than you use. You're also not allowed to grow for other than your own use (4 plants).

I think legalizing soft drugs can be a effective policy. However, the US has other problems that seem a lot more pressing to an outsider like me.
MikeeDee
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1619
Joined: 3 Dec 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby HOOTIE » Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:00 am

Come on guys. A mans breast is not a sex organ. A womens breasts is one. I'm not a proponent of nudist beaches. A society needs to have guidelines and moral values. Being born without clothes doesn't mean we all should be running around naked. Picture Zimmer charging Pedro nude. You guys are sick lol.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
HOOTIE
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 15116
(Past Year: 292)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.

Postby Steve_Bartman » Sun Feb 08, 2004 7:24 am

I just read this whole thread thingee here, and one thing struck me kinda funny. The school teacher who seems to be anti-government, wants the government to regulate "Government Coke" ROFLMAO

So that we could have it in our what? Bars at nite?? We can all just get off at 5pm and go snort our brains out becuase it cheap and legal. It would bring a whole new meaning to "Happy Hour" cus thats all it will last!! can you just imagine a bar full of people on "coke"?

In my opinion, the fastest growing indutstry, should they legalize coke, will be mortuaries. Hell the supply and demand of digging a hole and sticking you're dead butt in the ground should provide 10,000 new jobs easily. Funerals cost will plummet. Tupperware will corner the market on coffins.

but thats ok I guess. what was that other "Caddy Shack" line? oh yeah ..

"The world needs ditch diggers too"
10,000 new ones .. ROFLMAO.


COKE KILLS!!! DON"T TRY AND PRETEND IT DOESN'T .
I KNOW THIS FIRST HAND. TWICE ACTUALLY!!
[color=green][b]"I ain't afraid of no goats"[/b][/color]
Steve_Bartman Beginner
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 29
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Looking for awnsers to the Paranormal, Goats, and Jinxes

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 20:34 hours
(and 88 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact