how bout a poll asking the forum whether or not the government/corporations facilitates drug trafficking and laundering into its own country? a simple yes or no...

An absence of dangerously inferior knockoffs where intellectual property rights are not recognized is hardly likely.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...7/index39.html

The many options in the poll has cover surprisingly little ground.

Two options devoted to government manufacture of drugs is an odd choice (who prefers this?), as is combining highly addictive and dangerous (isn't either one a potential problem?). If I use "drugs" to include "medicines", I don't even see the status quo on that list.

I am unsure what it means to entertain the counterfactual of being in AC while discussing a "war on drugs" -- worse, since it seems that some are adding caveats about restrictions on sale, manufacture, etc. (by regulation or social custom) implying that option A can be equivalent to anything.

They wouldn't have any interest in selling meth of dubious quality because they wouldn't make any money at it. 12 year olds can get booze, yes, but they get quality stuff made by reputable firms. They don't go buy moonshine from some toothless hillbilly.

C: "All drugs should be legal for all to possess, but only government should be permitted to manufacture and sell them."

CRUDEFINDER, dwiele

Heh, fair enough. The parenthetical was more directed to understanding why someone would select those options and why AKSpartan thought to assign them.

good try... unfortunately, it's not a theory, and that consolidated thread circus does not have a poll for that specific question.

+1 to this. I thought ACers say that things would be solved in their society primarily because of profit opportunities and people stepping in to those. Or at least one of their arguments seems to be that profitable opportunities will attract entrepreneurs (and I generally agree with this). Well, unfortunately, that doesn't just happen on the things you'd like to have happen.

Children have preferences too.

ok cool bust out your OP then I guess.

If it were perfectly legal for you to buy both smirnoff in the standard 1.5L bottle as we all know it and billybobs moonshine from a bathtub he's got strapped to the bed of his pickup, which one would you pick?

The purpose of AC isn't to solve every possible problem you could think of.

Why sell meth to 12 year olds? That ****'ll kill em. Heroine is body neutral so they can be functioning junkies well into their old age so id sell that cheap good quality ACland heroine to 12 year olds.

Hopefully im the only one who sees a market in selling heroine to preteens.

I think there's some misunderstanding going on. What I quoted was talking about 12 year olds having access (or more access) to 'hard' drugs, not selecting what quality of drugs the kids could get.

-----

Just looked things over, and I'm confused why you're talking about the quality. That didnt' seem to be the question anywhere, just whether 12yo would have access to the drugs. And if people can use the 'illegality' of selling heroin (sorry [Phil]...) to sell to children and extract rent, that will almost undoubtedly happen (unless you want to undercut one of the main arguments in favor of ACism). That is, if I can buy legally, but then can resell at a higher price, that's profitable. Some people will do so. The manufacturers have nothing to do with this reselling.

wars are for small pricks and lousy politicians

or like my mom used to say, "wars are like farts.. only *******s make them happen."

I would, but I apparently have a different set of criteria I must meet for posting threads. I'd be happy if one of the AC-ists tried the question, though. They can do no wrong.

A - but with taxes and some regulations imo

Not interesting IMO. Who cares whether government does one evil thing when we already know they do thousands of others before breakfast every morning?

Have any drug addicts in your immediate family, or other loved ones? Seen what they go through, and what they do to those they love? Then maybe you'd care who was ultimately facilitating their habit.

Have any diabetics in your family? Who do you blame then? The grocery store? Sugar cane pickers? Or the sugar cube slanger droppin 20 sacks to your fam?

Drugs and guns aren't nearly as dangerous as the people behind them. My choice was a mix of A and B. If there's a one-dose killer type drug out there
I wouldn't mind if the gov shuts it down.. and keeps it for their own devious means

at least half of my immediate family or friends are addicts, more if you count sugar and starches as an addiction. what right do you have to ostracize junkies from society only because you dont happen to agree with their poison of choice?

rofl how the hell did you read that as ostracizing junkies? He's talking about producers/distributors. He’s obviously aware that junkies are also victims.

Hard drug addiction affects others in more ways than merely ‘disagreeing with their poison of choice'. get a clue

Guys, I know my poll sucks, but what did you expect? You can't fit the wide variety of nuanced opinions on this forum into a 10-option pole. But you can get a rough idea of what the forum believes. I made this poll partly to assess forum opinion on the WOD, and partly to see how libertarian the forum is.

I have alcoholics in my family that fit this description. Do they count, or are we only talking about the effects of super scary drugs.