Politics

[mdwest]

It might be time that we re-think whats important to us and what we honor/celebrate..

 

[Woodcarver]

 

[Sabattiboy]

Your calculus does not account for economics. If decriminalized, drugs would become significantly cheaper. The main reason drugs are so expensive is because of the risk to almost everybody in the supply chain - risk of murder by rivals, or imprisonment.

We may find it distasteful to think of these people as such, but they are entrepreneurs who do their version of cost-benefit analysis. Drugs costing pennies on the dollar relative to where they were before will provide very little benefit to them. No more fast boats and cars, no more mansions, no more paying off government officials. Some will still be able to make money, but not like they're making now.

To be sure, it would take years for the economic changes to be realized by the general public. Consider the people in the US who were enriched by alcohol prohibition - La Cosa Nostra in general, and the Joe Kennedy family in particular. Joe got rich boot-legging booze for the mafia, so rich that the parasites spawned from his loins are still reaping the benefits of what he did a century ago. Likewise with the mafia, they became much richer, much more powerful, than they ever would have been if booze had never been outlawed. What does present day California look like without all those rich Chicago mafiosos moving out there in the 40s, 50s, and 60s and influencing politics the way they did?

John Kennedy would probably never have been elected president, nor his brother appointed attorney general. Without the famous assassination of Bobby Kennedy, there is likely no gun control act of 1968. And thus likely no firearms owners protection act of 1986. No JFK as president would likely mean the filthy scumbag Lyndon B Johnson would never have been president, either. Then what does US involvement in Vietnam look like without that POS at the helm?

The last 2 paragraphs are speculation, of course, but it is still easy to see how the course of history would probably have been altered if we'd never had prohibition. To what? Who knows?

Didn't England make safe drugs accessible if one registered as an addict/user decades ago?
Aren't they still dealing with illegal drug trade, use and deaths?

What would the drug trade look like if america made it all legal and allowed the cartels to ship it over and pay tax on it like liquor or tobacco? What would it change?
Well, for one, government handling would probably increase the black market more then it is today.
I guess the next decade will tell on a lot of things.

 

[Woodcarver]

 

[cpr0312]

 

[sgt_zim]

Didn't England make safe drugs accessible if one registered as an addict/user decades ago?
Aren't they still dealing with illegal drug trade, use and deaths?

What would the drug trade look like if america made it all legal and allowed the cartels to ship it over and pay tax on it like liquor or tobacco? What would it change?
Well, for one, government handling would probably increase the black market more then it is today.
I guess the next decade will tell on a lot of things.

Taxation is what's keeping the black market for weed a thing in Colorado. Prohibition and heavy taxation always create black markets. Look at the black market for cigarettes in NYC.

 

[Woodcarver]

 

[Newboomer]

View attachment 469639

Some of my ancestors were here long before any white man and the rest came over on the Mayflower or shortly after.

 

[Wheels]

 

[Ridge Runner]

Some of my ancestors were here long before any white man and the rest came over on the Mayflower or shortly after.

View attachment 469639

As Newboomer has pointed out; guess it depends on one's point of view. The Europeans may have left Europe legally, but ask a Aboriginal American and they may say the Europeans arrived and settled in America for the most part illegally.

There was no (American) Federal Government since the USA wasn't a self governing Republic until after the Revolutionary War. Those who immigrated/settled in this "New World" with a few exceptions owed someone for their passage and had to work to pay off their debt or suffer the consequences. Hence no flag burning during this time period.

#3 You might want to seriously rethink that one. Maybe your ancestors didn't force Aboriginal Americans to conform, none the less they were annihilated or just short of being annihilated by the ever increasing numbers of immigrants arriving into this new country.

It's not just the illegals that are the real problem, also many of those legally immigrating into our country.

 

[Woodcarver]

 

[Woodcarver]

As Newboomer has pointed out; guess it depends on one's point of view. The Europeans may have left Europe legally, but ask a Aboriginal American and they may say the Europeans arrived and settled in America for the most part illegally.

There was no (American) Federal Government since the USA wasn't a self governing Republic until after the Revolutionary War. Those who immigrated/settled in this "New World" with a few exceptions owed someone for their passage and had to work to pay off their debt or suffer the consequences. Hence no flag burning during this time period.

#3 You might want to seriously rethink that one. Maybe your ancestors didn't force Aboriginal Americans to conform, none the less they were annihilated or just short of being annihilated by the ever increasing numbers of immigrants arriving into this new country.

It's not just the illegals that are the real problem, also many of those legally immigrating into our country.

They just got here earlier in history. While obviously there is no written history to tell the story, the first tribes that invaded the north American continent were largely nomadic hunters from all the evidence. Some started settlements and farmed. Those settlements were often raided by the nomads and the people either killed, enslaved, or pushed off their land. The Europeans that came later were better armed and in larger numbers. So they pushed more and further. That was just how it was, all over the world.
Bottom line, to apply today's concepts of not conquering other peoples and seizing their land and property, to yesteryear's need to raid and conquer other lands and peoples, is to ignore the reality of that time in history. It is only the modern version of American Indian that tries to claim this was "illegal". Our ancestors were just as brutal in the raids and conquering done in centuries past as any brutality the last wave of "invaders" did to the peoples scattered around this continent when the Europeans came
As far as the "invasion" of what is now the US and Canada, my family predates both countries. My surname comes from Britain sometime around 1692. Some of my family fought to establish this new Republic. Some of my family were some of those that came earlier and were pushed off the land they took from someone else. I am as "native" to this continent as any person.
The difference today is colonialism is no longer an option. The world has changed in regards to invading other lands. There are (supposed to be) rules to immigrate, to any country. Follow the rules to come into ours, I have no objection. Illegally invade us (the country), we (the country) should repel that invasion; that is in our best interest.

 

[cpr0312]

 

[Sabattiboy]

Until america came along the standard was the spoils go to the victor. It took America and NATO etc to hold these things in check, to a degree.
Now that a group of those living in the land identified as america want to discard the constitution and play by the loudest complainer I would say the doors are open to the victor getting the spoils again.
Corporate raiders live off eating weaker companies that can be destroyed by lawyer defense fees. The stronger always preys in the weaker.
So when america becomes fluid again are the Indians safe on the reservation lands or will the courts give the ultra wealthy their land discarding the rules again? Remember these things happened in the early american years? Yes, you can have Oklahoma until we decide we want that land back. New leaders new rules. Readjust every four years? Who gets shafted out of that policy? The same ones that always get shafted. But hey, it is time for the new old deal.

 

[adzhoo]

Must have

 

[JOHN GRENZ]

 

[JOHN GRENZ]

 

[jpr9954]

 

[Wheels]

Do you think Biden will ever be President.

 

[Wheels]