Billionaire President

Originally posted by dadudemon
Weeeeeelllllll...there's really no difference between what he's suggesting on the "sin-tax" and what is actually happening, now.

eh, maybe

I'm not against an extra tax on things like fast food or tobacco or alcohol because of the increased risk of cost associated with health care, and if the taxes were set up like that I'd be fine.

Simply saying "we are going to tax something that is legal just because we don't like it and want to control your behaviour", imho, is different both in theory and practice.

Originally posted by inimalist
eh, maybe

I'm not against an extra tax on things like fast food or tobacco or alcohol because of the increased risk of cost associated with health care, and if the taxes were set up like that I'd be fine.

Simply saying "we are going to tax something that is legal just because we don't like it and want to control your behaviour", imho, is different both in theory and practice.

I'm fine with laws being based, logically, on science.

For instance, I would be okay with alchohol being outlawed and MJ being made legal, based on the science of "health and safety."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack

"Overall, alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack...

For overall harm, the other drugs examined ranked as follows: crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine/speed (23), cannabis (20), GHB (18), benzodiazepines (15), ketamine (15), methadone (13), butane (10), qat (9), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7), buprenorphine (6) and magic mushrooms (5)."

We could set the threshold at 20 and below. 🙂

setting a line at any point has nothing to do with science, and such scales are anthropic based on various measures of harm, The Lancet had several simialr ratings based on various health professions, and alcohol never scored worse than heroin.

besides, the government has no right to regulate what I put in my body, even if it is 100% fatal

I don't really support a sin tax. I am in favor of local communities trading without much oversight. For instance when talking about weed legalization, many dream of "tax revenue", I dream of "trading it among individuals as one might do with produce you grew in a garden"

Why would anyone in their right mind do that?

To be a nice, contributing member of the community? It would certainly do wonders to improve relations with your neighbors.

F*ck that. Anomie is where it's at.

Originally posted by inimalist
setting a line at any point has nothing to do with science,

Maybe I do not understand that real point you're trying to make, there, because it's very obvious that "has nothing to do with science" is very much wrong. What you said above would insult many people involved in that various branches of pharmacology and psychology. 😆

We could get into a philosophically layered discussion about this and actually end up going nowhere, if you want to.

Based on your past postings on this topic, I think you are trying to say that the lines drawn would be arbitrary and extremely biased. That's still very much wrong as you could still come up to logical, medical conclusions and set a line at a tolerance/damage level. That's how pharmaceuticals are handled. Why should schedule I and II (A, B, and C, in the UK) be any different?

By that scale some pharmaceutical grade drugs would have to be more regulated or even banned.

Originally posted by inimalist
and such scales are anthropic based on various measures of harm,

Yes, a measure of how humans interact with each other is going to be...anthropic. But I'd prefer a more apt term: social.

Humans are a rather social species.

Measuring how drugs change those social interactions is a good way to measure how drugs change those social interactions. 😆

Additionally, we can get philosophical about this and say silly things like, "all science is anthropic."

Originally posted by inimalist
The Lancet had several simialr ratings based on various health professions, and alcohol never scored worse than heroin.

Ah. I get where you're coming from, now.

Originally posted by inimalist
besides, the government has no right to regulate what I put in my body, even if it is 100% fatal

This assumes that the government already isn't doing so when it most certainly is.

Dropping the 'line' to all of those items rated as a 20 or below is a huge gigantic leap into liberal drug legislation. You prefer complete freedom when that's not going to happen any time soon.

Edit - As of right now, that "line" is not a line but an almost random dot of tolerance magnitude in society based on various reasons of bias, industry, or even religion. We need something more based in science and way less random. Setting a scientific threshold is much better than the systems* we have in place, now.

*legislation

Originally posted by King Kandy
To be a nice, contributing member of the community? It would certainly do wonders to improve relations with your neighbors.

Originally posted by King Kandy
To be a nice, contributing member of the community? It would certainly do wonders to improve relations with your neighbors.

That's a pipe dream.

*rim shot*

Thank you, I'll be hear all night...and forevers. 🙁

I do share your sense of community, however. I would love to live in a pure communisitic society.

That seems realistic to me. I already trade garlic, onions etc without any taxation, among many who also grow. I know many people who would definitely grow weed if it was legal so I see no reason this couldn't be extended.

Why would you give weed away for free to random strangers when you can sell it for money (and people will pay said money)?

They aren't random strangers, they are good friends of your neighborhood.

So you mean, give weed to your friends. Alright... people do already do that, I agree.

I guess when you said "communities" I assumed you were talking about like, county's or cities. Not... the dude living down the street from you. My mistake.

Nah its fine.

What i'm trying to say is, I think if it was legalized, it should primarily be done by individual growers going "under the radar" with their own circle of friends and neighbors. I don't think it would be best handled in some kind of very regulated way like how state liquor stores operate.

Why do you think, ooc?

Cheaper product (since less profit is expected)
Close knit group (I favor a strong, mutually supportive community)
Self regulating (because everyone is able to see the growing process, there is no need to fear pesticides or the like)

Makes good contributions to potlucks, parties, all manor of community events.

What about the big cities?

There could be clubs. (or, more likely, the law could just be drafted by the cities themselves and thus vary according to their needs).

Originally posted by King Kandy
There could be clubs. (or, more likely, the law could just be drafted by the cities themselves and thus vary according to their needs).

If I'm not mistaken, the early colonial charters had similar accomodations for the bartering concepts you mentioned. "British coin" was not really feasible.