hoichi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 7,558
- Reaction score
- 340
[
Its safer for the simple fact you and i can go to a legal establishment look at the product we wish, read the lebal, see what the percentage is, and decide if we want to ingest the product made under legal requirments of control and quality or not.
When booze was prohibited you did not know what you were consuming, the quality was not controled. And thus people were ending up blind or dead, not due to the inherent nature of the chemical but due to lack of quality of the product.
You are correct. But having booze legal has allowed the quality of the product people will buy and consume regardless controlled. Ending prohibition only ended the lack of control of the quality of the product and has taken the control of the markef away from criminals to legal bussinesses which it is assumed will folow and obey the law.
Having a chemical prohibited does nothing to the inherent nature of the chemical. Booze is still addicting wether its prohibited or not. And people will consume it wether its prohibited or not.
Not at all. Where have i stated such? But ending prohibition will stop some plms. Yes. Why are you arguing prohibition as it stands has actually solved any of the plms you listed?
Is it working reba?
A q bag of junk could be god knows what
A percocet is a percocet, everything is known and listed the information and quality is controled..an oxycodone milgram is an oxycodone 20 milgram...
anything pushed underground anything, will suffer the same fate, as booze did,as illagal drugs do now.. its not that hard to grasp.
You can ignore the plms of prohibition all you want. Those plms still remain and cartels and criminal orgs still get filthy rich regardless..
Drugs are harmfull thats why they should be legal, controlled, regulated and taxed for the harm they cause..
As it stands with your prohibition the criminals get the loot, the prisons get bult, and its a drain on society...
Control, regulate, and tax...
Is a better option then simply prohibition for prohibitions sake..
If you think its working...
Cool...
Comming from the other side, your nievete i find rather funny..
Alcohol is no longer pushed underground but as you posted, it claims more lives. So, how is that "safer?" I understand there is more quality control of the product but it's use is still abused so how did Prohibition repeal make alcohol use safer?
I]!
Its safer for the simple fact you and i can go to a legal establishment look at the product we wish, read the lebal, see what the percentage is, and decide if we want to ingest the product made under legal requirments of control and quality or not.
When booze was prohibited you did not know what you were consuming, the quality was not controled. And thus people were ending up blind or dead, not due to the inherent nature of the chemical but due to lack of quality of the product.
APeople still die from liver damage and DUI car wrecks and other alcohol-related accidents. Drunks still harm other people by drunken driving, increased aggression (bar fights and domestic violence), and giving birth to fetal alcohol syndrome babies. Alcohol is still illegally sold to minors. The business of alcohol manufacture and sales may be "safer" without Prohibition but it hasn't made things better for all those alcohol-related deaths that you mentioned.
I]!
You are correct. But having booze legal has allowed the quality of the product people will buy and consume regardless controlled. Ending prohibition only ended the lack of control of the quality of the product and has taken the control of the markef away from criminals to legal bussinesses which it is assumed will folow and obey the law.
Having a chemical prohibited does nothing to the inherent nature of the chemical. Booze is still addicting wether its prohibited or not. And people will consume it wether its prohibited or not.
So, make all drug use legal and everything will be roses and rainbows. Right--there was no crime in the world until certain drugs became illegal. Right.
:roll:
I]!
Not at all. Where have i stated such? But ending prohibition will stop some plms. Yes. Why are you arguing prohibition as it stands has actually solved any of the plms you listed?
Is it working reba?
That is correct. But as every single addict and junky knows for all the faults of big pharma there is a quality control in there product.Yet, you complain about big pharma and doctor abuse of drug pushing on the people--and it's legal!
A q bag of junk could be god knows what
A percocet is a percocet, everything is known and listed the information and quality is controled..an oxycodone milgram is an oxycodone 20 milgram...
anything pushed underground anything, will suffer the same fate, as booze did,as illagal drugs do now.. its not that hard to grasp.
You can ignore the plms of prohibition all you want. Those plms still remain and cartels and criminal orgs still get filthy rich regardless..
Drugs are harmfull thats why they should be legal, controlled, regulated and taxed for the harm they cause..
As it stands with your prohibition the criminals get the loot, the prisons get bult, and its a drain on society...
Control, regulate, and tax...
Is a better option then simply prohibition for prohibitions sake..
If you think its working...
Cool...
Comming from the other side, your nievete i find rather funny..