YouTube Ignores LAPD Cop's First Place Question for Obama About Legalizing Marijuana
WASHINGTON, DC -- "Yesterday YouTube ignored a question advocating marijuana legalization from a retired LAPD deputy chief of police (watch that video above) that won twice as many votes as any other video question in the White House's "Your Interview with the President" competition on the Google-owned site. They did, however, find the time to get the president on record about late night snacking, singing and dancing, celebrating wedding anniversaries and playing tennis."
12 Comments:
that link is dead.
Thanks, it's fixed now. Blogger issue.
This seems to be an important issue that never gets any airtime. I mean, the billions of dollars being spent, the untold numbers behind bars, the violence all over the world. How much is it worth?
drug prohibition is a jobs program
many people profit from it
lawyers among them
they never want to stop the gravy train
The number one beneficiary of our Drug War is NOT the prison guards, attorneys and politicians.
BY FAR the biggest beneficiaries are the organized crime operations that PROVIDE the product at hefty profit margins (to compensate for the high risk prohibition imposes).
People would be stunned to learn that organized crime (all the way down to the street vendors) are the biggest fans of the Drug War.
Richard, the other "number one beneficiary" is the drug users, who CONSUME the product regardless of the consequences, including murder.
They don't want risk (and responsibility) either.
People would be stunned to learn how much drug users (all the way down to the street addicts) fuel the Drug War.
They don't care, although some may feel guilty.
Oh come on, Peak Trader -- drug users have to pay 100 times the free market price to acquire their drugs. For them, legalization makes such drugs affordable, and they don't risk jail time for their vice -- nor do they have to resort to crime to pay for their habit.
You can make the case that drug users are the driving force behind the illegal drug market, but they damn sure are not the BENEFICIARIES of the overpriced market.
Richard, they buy drugs and use them. So, they must be "BENEFICIARIES."
I'm sure, drug users would be happy buying cheaper drugs and avoiding jail. And many wouldn't need to feel guilty anymore.
Why not reward them rather than put them on reward posters?
BY FAR the biggest beneficiaries are the organized crime operations that PROVIDE the product at hefty profit margins (to compensate for the high risk prohibition imposes).
People would be stunned to learn that organized crime (all the way down to the street vendors) are the biggest fans of the Drug War.
Classic bootlegger problem. Those involved in the black market don't want their market legalized. Opens it up to competition, reduces profits.
Check out Prohibition. Who favored keeping Prohibition? Bootleggers and Baptists.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv7n3/v7n3-3.pdf
peak-
that's such a blatantly bad misframing of "beneficiary" it boggles the mind.
let's imagine 2 cases if you are a drug user:
1. the war on drugs is in effect. prices are high, availability is unpredictable, every purchase and use carries serious legal risk, and purity is unpredictable and you run the risk of getting ripped off all the time.
2. drugs are legal. prices are lower, you can buy them at the store, there is no legal risk, and they are made to pharmaceutical grade.
now you claim that in case 1, you are better off?
that's preposterous. you literally could not be more wrong.
the drug war does NOT benefit users in any way. not a single one.
you are so far off base on this one you can't even see the stadium from where you are.
john m-
certainly, the drug lords in south america etc seem to be huge beneficiaries of the price supports created by drug prohibition.
the case for low level drug dealers seems less clear to me. sure, it's a living and maybe even a good one, for a time, but the risks are huge too, especially in an age of mandatory sentencing. i'm not really sure how to weigh the benefits of outsized profits against the risk of 10-20 years, loss of suffrage, and having a criminal record that makes it hard to get a job forever. but i guess you could take a risk adjusted cash flow stream including risk of getting killed or arrested and lost earnings for a lifetime vs higher earnings while you were successful.
i have no idea what numbers to plug into that, but i doubt it's that attractive.
bootleggers had it a bit different. i don't think they faced anything like the arrest %'s or the kind of long term jail that drug dealers do now.
It's Obama and the liberals who wanted three-stikes laws and stiffer penalties for many drugs users, who have filled our prisons and wasted billions of dollars.
Obama it's all your fault !!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home