Stramash Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Iain i think u r missing my point ... i would suggest that significantly more ppl use alcohol than class A drugs ... therefore the cost per "user" of "hard drugs" would be considerably higher !!! and i would suggest (guess) that users of MDMA (is it still a class A) would cost less than users of heroin, crack cocaine etc !! You are absolutely right in that mate. Around 400000 problem drug users. And around 2.5 million problem drinkers so the cost per head a lot higher. The crime cost are a lot higher: property loss, higher insurance premiums etc. But maybe these figures are a good reason for a change in policy? Remember.; the drug costs are for ALL class a drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 You are absolutely right in that mate. Around 400000 problem drug users. And around 2.5 million problem drinkers so the cost per head a lot higher. The crime cost are a lot higher: property loss, higher insurance premiums etc. But maybe these figures are a good reason for a change in policy? Remember.; the drug costs are for ALL class a drugs. agreed 100% mate ... but i think any change is gonna be a long time coming ... too many ppl with vested interests and profits to protect !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodai Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 agreed 100% mate ... but i think any change is gonna be a long time coming ... too many ppl with vested interests and profits to protect !!! That is the truest statement I have heard all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted May 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 agreed 100% mate ... but i think any change is gonna be a long time coming ... too many ppl with vested interests and profits to protect !!! I see profit and opportunity. Imagine the money to be made from selling E or coke legally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweetieBabie Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 I see profit and opportunity.Imagine the money to be made from selling E or coke legally! yeah ... but i was talking about the loss of profits for breweries and tobacco companies .... both of which have a lot of clout with political parties in the UK .... and USA !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted May 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 I doubt that's the reason for not legalising. There's the puritanical aspect and the nanny-state aspect. Drugs would provide a whole lot more revenue than alcohol simply from the savings made from not needing to combat them. Tobacco sales are less likely to be affected. I doubt people would stop smoking to take other drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodai Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 I see profit and opportunity.Imagine the money to be made from selling E or coke legally! No where near as much as prosecuting the dealers and confiscating all his illegal earnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted May 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 No where near as much as prosecuting the dealers and confiscating all his illegal earnings. Sure it is. Because to fine and confiscate, you need an army of law enforcement people. To collect tax on drugs, you only need the Inland Revenue. Unless you think DEA is making a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodai Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 yeah ... but i was talking about the loss of profits for breweries and tobacco companies .... both of which have a lot of clout with political parties in the UK .... and USA !!! The pharmaceutical industry has a big earnings to lose as well. Marijuana alone knock out a major chunk of profits. Why buy Pain killers at $20 a pill when you can get a dime bag for $5? Warning this video is not funny, graphic or sexy in nature, it is informative: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodai Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Sure it is. Because to fine and confiscate, you need an army of law enforcement people. To collect tax on drugs, you only need the Inland Revenue. Unless you think DEA is making a profit. I see your point and I agree that would help a lot. But we would need to see the numbers to really know for sure, and I am positive no government is going to post it's "confiscated money" revenue. So we will never know for sure. The illegal drug industry brings in billions of dollars a year. Not only are the people being prosecuted fined, but all their assets are liquidated and auctioned off as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted May 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 The pharmaceutical industry has a big earnings to lose as well. Marijuana alone knock out a major chunk of profits. Why buy Pain killers at $20 a pill when you can get a dime bag for $5? Warning this video is not funny, graphic or sexy in nature, it is informative: They wouldn't lose anything. They would produce the stuff themselves and sell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted May 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 I see your point and I agree that would help a lot. But we would need to see the numbers to really know for sure, and I am positive no government is going to post it's "confiscated money" revenue. So we will never know for sure. The illegal drug industry brings in billions of dollars a year. Not only are the people being prosecuted fined, but all their assets are liquidated and auctioned off as well. There's no need to worry if it's profitable. If it wasn't, people wouldn't sell it. Big companies would produce clean, quality drugs and sell them in a protected environment. Killing off drug dealers, impure drugs, cutting down on drugs sold to underaged kids. AND providing billions in taxation AND saving billions in the losing battle against illegal drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodai Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 They wouldn't lose anything. They would produce the stuff themselves and sell it. They would lose. Everyone in the world knows how cheap marijuana can be grown and sold. The pharmaceutical companies would never be able to justify over charging as they can for all the other stuff they produce. Vicodin and all the other major pain killers would be easily replaced. They go for about $12 a pill on average and the average person consumes 4-6 a day. $5 of the giggles sticks a day would never cover those profit loses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 I doubt that's the reason for not legalising.There's the puritanical aspect and the nanny-state aspect. Drugs would provide a whole lot more revenue than alcohol simply from the savings made from not needing to combat them. Tobacco sales are less likely to be affected. I doubt people would stop smoking to take other drugs. It is one of the reasons. The alcohol companies are a powerful lobby group. You just need to look at the rave scene of the early 90's; no one was drinking alcohol so club owners turned off the cold taps and quadrupled the price of bottled water. Agree with you on the tobacco companies though. I had a friend working for a major advertising agency back in the 80's; they were commissioned by Benson and Hedges to do a mock up of how cannabis would be marketed. There was apparently thinking that legalisation of marijuana was not far off. It made sense from a production perspective; at that time many breweries were buying their hops in from Scandinavia, leaving vast tracts of former hop growing land in the home counties useless. As hops is from the same family as marijuana the land would have been ideal for growing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 No where near as much as prosecuting the dealers and confiscating all his illegal earnings. A lot, lot, lot more. You have to remember the cost of the police actions, the prosecution and the jail time (if any) What they make back is a minuscule percentage of what they spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodai Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 A lot, lot, lot more. You have to remember the cost of the police actions, the prosecution and the jail time (if any) What they make back is a minuscule percentage of what they spend. Guess I didn't factor that in, but where are you getting your numbers from? How are you so sure? I forgot about the privatized prison industry, all the petty drug dealers fill prisons owned privately that are receiving a ton of government money, shutting those down would be good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Guess I didn't factor that in, but where are you getting your numbers from? How are you so sure? I forgot about the privatized prison industry, all the petty drug dealers fill prisons owned privately that are receiving a ton of government money, shutting those down would be good too. Just investigoogle the cost of the war on drugs, then look for how many stories you see of major cash confiscations. Certainly in the UK it is rare that you see a news story about a substantial gain. In both my last job and this one I work closely with the police - have been to conferences with senior officers of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency; they have told me it is a losing/lost battle. And it's getting worse. Resources are dwindling, cuts are being made. Less busts, more drugs getting through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Guess I didn't factor that in, but where are you getting your numbers from? How are you so sure? I forgot about the privatized prison industry, all the petty drug dealers fill prisons owned privately that are receiving a ton of government money, shutting those down would be good too. That's a good point. Certainly in the US, the private prison industry would vehemently oppose any relaxation of the drug laws nationwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted May 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 They would lose. Everyone in the world knows how cheap marijuana can be grown and sold. The pharmaceutical companies would never be able to justify over charging as they can for all the other stuff they produce. Vicodin and all the other major pain killers would be easily replaced. They go for about $12 a pill on average and the average person consumes 4-6 a day. $5 of the giggles sticks a day would never cover those profit loses. Really? Do you grow your own vegetables? Or do you buy 'em from an overpriced supermarket because it's convenient? How many 'Coffee Shops' in Holland are going out of business because people prefer to grow their own? People like convenience and marketing. How much do coffee beans cost? How much does a frappulattepresso cost at Starbucks? If drugs were produced in easy to take form, in shiny packaging, people would buy it. People pay $10 for water for ****'s sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beej Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 I love drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodai Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Really? Do you grow your own vegetables? Or do you buy 'em from an overpriced supermarket because it's convenient?How many 'Coffee Shops' in Holland are going out of business because people prefer to grow their own? People like convenience and marketing. How much do coffee beans cost? How much does a frappulattepresso cost at Starbucks? If drugs were produced in easy to take form, in shiny packaging, people would buy it. People pay $10 for water for ****'s sake! I underestimated the stupidity of humanity. That is one well proven point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted May 26, 2011 Report Share Posted May 26, 2011 I underestimated the stupidity of humanity. That is one well proven point. that is one thing u should never underestimate .... and if u need reminding just dig out some of GG's old posts !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted May 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2011 As Rob has touched upon it, what about steroids? Why not make them legal too? Instead of buying them from some meathead in a gym, athletes could buy them from licensed shops complete with advice and risks explained clearly. And why stop professional athletes using them? If everyone does it, it's not cheating. If some people don't want to take them, have TWO competitions - a natural and an 'enhanced' competition. I know which one I'd be watching! Who wouldn't want to see superhuman footballers running the pitch length in 4 seconds, jumping 20 feet in the air and volleying a ball that breaks the upright post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodai Posted May 26, 2011 Report Share Posted May 26, 2011 If everyone does it, it's not cheating. If some people don't want to take them, have TWO competitions - a natural and an 'enhanced' competition. I know which one I'd be watching! Who wouldn't want to see superhuman footballers running the pitch length in 4 seconds, jumping 20 feet in the air and volleying a ball that breaks the upright post? I see a lucrative industry here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now