1. Alex says: • Website

   October 2, 2007 at 3:08 am GMT

   ” I can’t say that there unavailability has been any great loss for the intellectual life of humanity, but, in the interest of completeness, I guess I’ll try posting some of them from time to time here.”

   Enough of that kind of talk; keep ’em coming!
2. J says: • Website

   October 2, 2007 at 5:13 am GMT • 100 Words

   ‘Now that “Traffic” is inspiring calls for decriminalizing drugs, Americans need to understand that for the government to merely take a hands-off approach toward drug dealing would do little to cut down on the drug trade’s pervasive violence. To remove the need for the private armies, the police would have to take over their job of protecting cocaine dealers. Somehow, I doubt we are ready to do that.’

   Not true. Decriminalizing drugs would virtually eliminate the drug trade’s pervasive violence, as it did when prohibition ended. Now policemen protect Budweiser and Jack Daniels distilleries, as they should. And rum-running gangsters don’t exist.
3. TGGP says: • Website

   October 2, 2007 at 7:55 am GMT • 100 Words

   Now that “Traffic” is inspiring calls for decriminalizing drugs, Americans need to understand that for the government to merely take a hands-off approach toward drug dealing would do little to cut down on the drug trade’s pervasive violence. To remove the need for the private armies, the police would have to take over their job of protecting cocaine dealers. Somehow, I doubt we are ready to do that.
   When the mob ran bootlegging during Prohibition there was violence galore. After alcohol was legalized the liquor business became as peaceful an industry as any other. Once Miller Brewing Company, Phillip Morris and Pfizer take over the dope industry we can expect them to behave similarly.
4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

   October 2, 2007 at 4:30 pm GMT • 100 Words

   J and TGGP, you two speak as though the only problem with drugs is the violence associated with the trade.

   Are these drug producers going to be given immunity from lawsuits by chronically strung-out addicts ala tobacco companies? And when it’s legalized and congress or state legislatures tax the hell out of it, are these poor users, who likely can’t keep a job to afford their habit, going to just quit because it’s too expensive? There will still be an illegal market for drugs, just as cigarette smuggling rings exist nowadays for a legal product.

   Cocaine, heroin, and meth addicts are a sad bunch of people who effectively cannot function in society. Much worse than virtually any drunk you’ll ever know.

   I’m not suggesting the current “War on Drugs” is the best way to go. But the “legalize it” crowd is thinking about this in a very shallow way.
5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

   October 3, 2007 at 6:09 am GMT • 100 Words

   I remember Penelope Cruz in the Spanish film Belle Epoque. It must’ve come out in the early 90’s. I hate to say this but we’ve stolen two great actors, Cruz & Antonio Banderas, from Spain where they acted in movies far superior to almost anything we produce in this country.
6. Tggp says: • Website

   October 3, 2007 at 12:15 pm GMT • 100 Words

   I am not saying there would be no smuggling as with cigarretes or health problems, as with both cigarretes and alcohol. I am saying it would be far preferable if we had only the problems of cigarrettes and alcohol when it came to drugs, rather than a huge underground industry rife with violence and filling our prisons which contributes to the problem of an alienated and stagnant underclass in our inner cities.
7. Rebekah says:

   January 17, 2011 at 11:56 am GMT • 200 Words

   "And when it's legalized and congress or state legislatures tax the hell out of it, are these poor users, who likely can't keep a job to afford their habit, going to just quit because it's too expensive? There will still be an illegal market for drugs, just as cigarette smuggling rings exist nowadays for a legal product.

   Cocaine, heroin, and meth addicts are a sad bunch of people who effectively cannot function in society. Much worse than virtually any drunk you'll ever know."

   ^ Just commenting on this being said. First of all, I've seen many drunks much worse than I've seen a lot of drug addicts. Alcohol is a dangerous drug that kills many people and ruins just as many, if not more, families than drug abuse does. Also, the issue of costs will be the same as alcohol when it was legalized; the government has taxed it but it's not that hard for the poor to get their hands on a $6 bottle of 5 'o clock vodka. Legalization will be similar to this, but without people sitting in prison for marijuana possession and violent gangs.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS