From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:34 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

 

 

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

 

>> I not only know they're very violent I know why they're violent. If
government made chocolate bars illegal the demand for chocolate bars would
not end and organizations would come into existence to fill that demand.
And the underground Hershey candy company and the underground Nestles candy
company couldn't sue each other in the courts and so would have no way to
settle disputes except through baseball bats and machine guns.


> Come on man nobody is going to kill someone else over a bar of chocolate


>>Of course they will! Chocolate is a multibillion dollar industry and there
is a very strong demand for it that will not disappear just because some
pinhead in government passes a law against it. Legal or illegal whenever
there is a demand for product X, prostitution, drugs, pirate DVDs,
pornography, chocolate bars or whatever, there will always be people willing
to cater to that demand if the price is right.

John we are going to have to disagree on that. A heroin junkie will do
almost anything to get their next fix. so will an alcoholic for that matter
(and if you had said alcohol I would have, of course very much agreed with
you), but Chocolate? Come on man be serious. I know it is a multi-billion
dollar industry and that sure a black market for it would spring into
existence - and at some level criminality would take control. But at the
street level - you will never find chocolate junkies mugging little old
ladies or prostituting themselves for a few dollars (like crack whores do)
to get the bar of chocolate they crave. Just imagining this scenario brings
me to fits of laughter. 

> There are no chocolate deals gone bad.

 

>>Absolutely untrue, there are plenty of chocolate deals that go bad and
when they do the parties involved sue each other, that's why the big candy
companies have hundreds of lawyers on their payrole. But because Meth
dealers are selling a product that somebody in government has deemed illegal
they do not have that option and must resort to what Clausewitz
euphemistically called "diplomacy by other means", that is to say they make
the other party an offer they can't refuse.

 

Sure, in principal we agree - but then on the other hand Methamphetamines
and Chocolate have very different effects on the people who become addicted
to them. The meth head will do almost anything - and they do - they murder,
they steal, they prostitute themselves the whole shebang; chocolate addicts
are not going to start going out and committing street crime in order to get
their fix. And this IS the difference. Again if you had used the example of
alcohol; I would have agreed that the alcoholic would break into a car to
steal a stereo to hawk in order to by their black market possibly
adulterated bottle of moonshine.

 

> I think government has a role to play in enforcing correct labeling and
ingredients

 

>>I pretty much agree with perhaps a few caveats.

Think of it as a reporting function. 

 

  > But not enforce monopolies - as it does with medical & dental practice,
and the drug sector for example.

 

Agreed.

 > A black market degenerates into a cutthroat cartel

True, but the blackness of the market has nothing to do with the nature of
the commodity being transacted, it's black because somebody in government
decided to make it black. Tobacco has killed many orders of magnitude more
people than Meth and all other illegal drugs put together, but the market
for tobacco is not black because somebody in government decided that
particular drug is not illegal; so when tobacco deals go bad they don't
machine gun each other, they sue each other.

Basically I agree. but come on man, Chocolate? The image of the crazed
methhead needing a fix - has some basis in reality. that will never
translate into a chocolate-head behavioral analogue. Other legal drugs
(including Tobacco) are much better examples. But essentially, in broad
strokes I think we are more or less in agreement on this matter. The
government has no business legislating morality or intruding into the
bedroom or the personal lives and habits of people. Most of the people
currently in prison in this country are in prison for non-violent drug
offenses - mostly intent to sell raps. It is a travesty of justice and has
imposed a massive social and human cost on us all. It is stupid policy.

Chris

  John K Clark   

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to