Drug legalisation

[worm]

I think you'll find quite a majority at the low end of it arent small time crooks but are actually normal people who work normal 9-5 jobs in a variety of professions who deal to their close circle of friends, just to make a few extra quid and sort their mates out.

[jump]

Wouldn't it depend on what you mean by successful business men, if they are making a profit without getting caught seems like a successful business venture to me.

[swede]

As I said, small time crooks.

[eFestivals]

It's proven that they aren't succesful business men. The majority are small time crooks who can't earn a living from it. This was point one.

care to tell me which definition of "businessmen" says that a person is only a businessman if they "earn a living from it"?

The definition is merely that they earn from it - which they do even if they consume the profits themselves.

But that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I'd said which got us here anyway. My point was that such people might go on to be successful legit businessmen - which a quantity very definitely do do.

No, but this effect has been proven in multiple cross-cultural epidemiological studies.......

Bullshit.

That's very definitely not the case with studies within the UK (it might be for the USA, but that's an irrelevance here). They've shown that people become casual drug dealers thru opportunity - knowing the right people - and not anything else.

While some f**kwit might dream of being a "gangsta drug dealer", that doesn't get them access to the product. And the simple fact is that such f**kwits don't generally get access to the product if they have that approach, because such f**kwits take their supplier down with them, and the suppliers know that's the case. Turkeys don't vote for xmas.

Such f**kwits do exist within the drug trade, but they're the minority. But they are the types you get to read about in the Daily Mail - so I'll happily conclude that's your source for your laughable in-depth knowledge. You don't have a f**king clue what you're talking about.

[eFestivals]

As I said, small time crooks.

"crooks" only by the consequence of the thing they're trading in being illegal.

On all other angles they're no less of a businessman (other than in degree) than Philip Green. Mind you, he's also a much bigger crook too from any moral angle!!

[eFestivals]

I think you'll find quite a majority at the low end of it arent small time crooks but are actually normal people who work normal 9-5 jobs in a variety of professions who deal to their close circle of friends, just to make a few extra quid and sort their mates out.

exactly.

They are 'crooks' only because their wares are illegal. From all other angles they're small-time businessmen.

[eFestivals]

I had a bit of a past when I was younger so when I go to festivals and I want some gear Ive got old friends I can ring. These people have careers such as teachers, social workers, work in marketing, ect, some very high up on a good wage so Id hardly call them small time crooks. People have this perception that only "scum" take drugs, recreational drug taking is partaken by lots of people from almost every walk of life, from people on the dole to high paid businessmen, to the self employed. All these people have contacts and will def sort all of their inner circles out through their contacts. I used to do it when I was younger, Ive held a decent job for 12 years now moving through the ranks of my firm, but I never thought of myself as a crook.

You're spot on - and what you say is what UK-based studies of the UK drugs trade have also concluded.

So worm has read f**k all research .... unless his daily read of the Daily Mail counts as valid research.

[swede]

exactly.

They are 'crooks' only because their wares are illegal. From all other angles they're small-time businessmen.

Edited December 22, 2010 by swede

[swede]

You're spot on - and what you say is what UK-based studies of the UK drugs trade have also concluded.

So worm has read f**k all research .... unless his daily read of the Daily Mail counts as valid research.

[worm]

exactly.

They are 'crooks' only because their wares are illegal.

Edited December 22, 2010 by worm

[worm]

I had a bit of a past when I was younger so when I go to festivals and I want some gear Ive got old friends I can ring. These people have careers such as teachers, social workers, work in marketing, ect, some very high up on a good wage so Id hardly call them small time crooks.

Edited December 22, 2010 by worm

[worm]

You're spot on - and what you say is what UK-based studies of the UK drugs trade have also concluded.

Edited December 22, 2010 by worm

[worm]

care to tell me which definition of "businessmen" says that a person is only a businessman if they "earn a living from it"?

The definition is merely that they earn from it - which they do even if they consume the profits themselves.

Edited December 22, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

That's exactly what crook means.

well of course.

But within this discussion it's meaningless - you can't have a sensible discussion about legalising something if the reason for rejecting legalising something is "because it's illegal".

Mind you, that didn't stop Jack Straw saying exactly that on camera when Home Secretary. Which just gets to show what a moron he is ... as well as a hypocrite, as it's well known that he used to smoke dope loads (as revealed by Clarissa Dickson Wright who was at Uni with him).

No they aren't. They aren't making any profit from their wares to purchase more product. They are funded by their job.

They are making a profit from dealing in those wares.

The fact that some might choose to consume their profits (and perhaps more than their profits) doesn't alter the fact of them being businessmen.

Or are you suggesting that a majority of dealers sell at less than they've paid, just so that they can appear 'cool' to their mates?

[eFestivals]

Absolute rubbish!

What he's saying is right wing nonsense! Just because you've got a 'decent' job and are a 'normal' citizen does not lessen the fact that you're executing an illegal operation.

What he's saying is factually accurate.

But I agree - "Just because you've got a 'decent' job and are a 'normal' citizen does not lessen the fact that you're executing an illegal operation".

But that is nothing to do with your claim that the majority of such people are wannabe gangstas.

Say something revelevant to your argument, or admit you've got it wrong. Again.

Daily Mail? Have you heard what he's saying? That because you have an otherwise 'good' job and are 'normal' you're excused from illegal activity.

Just because it's something illegal doesn't make the perpetrator a wannabe gangsta as you've claimed.

The person becomes involved illegality because dealing drugs is something illegal, not because the person is wanting to do something illegal.

[eFestivals]

Semantic bullshit.

PMSL. It's a correct reading of the dictionary - you know, that thing you fail at constantly.

The opportunity you speak of is exactly what is under investigation in epidiomological studies.

"under investigation"????

So now you're referencing unfinished and unpublished research are you? PMSL.

Well, I guess you quoting the uncheckable that's at odds with the research published to date is a new way of you trying to win an argument where you know you've talked out of your arse and spouted only made-up bollox. Amusing, but about as pathetic as it gets.

In a culture outside of relative poverty, there is more opportunity to operate at a profitable level (required for business).

factually wrong. The reverse is the case as any economist will tell you.

It's less likely to entice potential dealers due to the risk associated with getting caught as potentially middle class careers can be wiped out for a history of petty drug dealing.

'can' being the important word here. It's far less true than govt spin would have you believe.

But it's any conviction for drugs that affects things, not dealing. This fact is important - see my next bit below.

In poverty, this risk is nowhere near as real.

true. But for all cases the risk is not considered real, otherwise no one would do it. And the simple fact is that the risk aspect effects the extent of someone's involvement much less than it effects them getting involved in the first place.

The risk for "middle class careers" is from taking drugs, not dealing them - dealing has no greater consequences in most common cases. So if someone had fear of involvement they'd steer well clear of drugs at all levels.

As for everything else, kids 'in poverty' are no less moral than kids in all other walks of life.

But hey, just let your fascist prejudices rule your head. Oh, you already have.

The more you raise the penalties on drug dealing the more poor people you put in prison - a well established and long standing leftist argument!

what's this irrelevance got to do with the price of fish?

Edited December 22, 2010 by eFestivals

[swede]

Who said that crooks meant scum? Crooks means operating outside of the law. Small-time means that the extent of the operation is petty. Ergo, they are small time crooks.

They're small time crooks, regardless of their job. What does being a well paid marketeer have to do with the legality of their operation? Why would a person on the dole operating the exact same operation be any different?

[worm]

I was stating that just because someone likes to take recreational drugs and therefore has to find a way to get them, and will probably get them for their friends, in my opinion, doesnt make them a crook. It doesnt make what they're doing legal, but to call everyone who takes drugs a crook is a joke.

[worm]

Im so glad I dont live in a world like yours were everything is so black and white.

[jump]

Eh? I wasn't on about drug takers, I was on about drug dealers. Crook means someone who organizes an illegal operation, such as dealing drugs. If it isn't legal it's crooked.

[worm]

well of course.

But within this discussion it's meaningless - you can't have a sensible discussion about legalising something if the reason for rejecting legalising something is "because it's illegal".

Edited December 22, 2010 by worm

[worm]

Are you sure as I always took crook to mean someone who lies, cheats and steals and as opposed to someone who does something illegal in general.

[worm]

what's this irrelevance got to do with the price of fish?

[Guest musiclove123]

The thought of going on a night out and buying.....say mdma and knowing it was pure, good stuff and not full of other shite would be great. Then the government can also make sure it is safe to use and put taxes on it like alcohol and tabacco. This would prevent deaths, crime and make them money.It seems like common sense to me

Edited December 22, 2010 by musiclove123

[eFestivals]

Business man means someone who makes profit and can sustain an operation from their business practice.

Which even your f**kwit can.

Otherwise, how is he able to go back to and buy more?

He makes a profit from his dealing. He then decides to - because he can - spend those profits (and perhaps more, from other income) on the product he also deals.

From any angle, he is successfully doing business.

His personal habits outside of that business don't detract from the fact that he's successfully doing business.

But that's all an aside anyway ....

As I said, semantic bullshit.

semantically correct, and not bullshit. It's what some of us do, which you find so confusing.

Anyway, where's this proof of yours that the majority of drug dealers are wannabe gangstas?

That's the part you need to address. But you can't, hence all the diversions.