SouthernBelle82
New member
Well you can have it to where the individual prostitutes have to be licensed and if you don't have a license or something you're not a legal prostitute. Now days with porn there's the internet....
marijuana is inherently bad for you.
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Well you can have it to where the individual prostitutes have to be licensed and if you don't have a license or something you're not a legal prostitute. Now days with porn there's the internet....
Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
There are people profiting off the labor of others in a centralized economic system as well.
In a free market economy, however, most economic transactions are voluntary and based on a mutual distribution of some form of value. My employer attempts (that is, success is not assured) to profit from my labor and I profit from either their capital or their profit.
That's not to say that all economic transactions are pleasurable or even sufficient at all times for all people, but it's been clearly demonstrated that both labor and ownership more often get what they want in a market economy when they are free to mutually determine the value of products, services, and labor, as opposed to a centralized economy where this is decided by an outside body.
Many contributors to classical liberal economic and social ideas had some anti-economic establishment or possibly leftist notions in them, including John Stuart Mill and Thomas Paine. But that did not make them advocates for broad-based centralized economic planning as a self-described Communist would want. They were not against private property.
While it's true that you will theoretically take away some of their power, your original assertion was that the drug trade is a form of capitalism and that to end the war on drugs would harm capitalism. In fact, it will assist in the creation of new ways to put capital to use for starting legal private enterprises.
The producers involved in the drug trade are capitalists in a sense, but the industry itself is not equivalent to a free market in other products. Entry to the industry is not free.
The government attempts to prevent all people from operating in that business and the only people who are "allowed" are largely criminal enterprises that have the power to force their way through the system. The exception being the states and localities that have reformed cannabis laws.
If cigarettes were illegal and R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris had to engage in turf war on the street to determine their market share, that would not be a free market either. Alternative tobacco companies would be forced out by the state and by the criminal enterprises.
While there are regulatory burdens for tobacco producing companies that would require some means to enter the market, there is free entry, and thus, there are alternative choices for consumers as to which products they choose, and alternatives for producers (i.e. capitalists) where they wish to commit their capital.
Last edited:
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Yeah, but in regards to taxing their income, it'd be hard to do. Not that I'm for a direct tax on income (neither were the founders), just saying that it'd be hard.
Smoking cannabis evidently does not lead to lung cancer, according to the largest study ever to investigate the question:
"The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. "
nor contribute to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
This is most likely due to the anti-cancer properties of cannoboids :
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/armentano-p1.html
which end up canceling out the effect of the carcinogens.
Last edited:
the cannoboids are in the smoke, if you inhale the smoke you are getting the cannoboids.
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
☝ 〠_〠;573045 said:
Or the fact that marijuana has no tar or nicotine or that many carcinogens in the first place.
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
Sence it dosnt cause harm first hand it should be obvious that it wont cause harm second hand.
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
Im not a fan of it being forced on those who dont want it,but I beleave that a public option should be avalible to those who need it like children,the elderly,the disabled and the poor.
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
No it doesn't. The substance being mistaken for far is actually hash oil resins,which are water soluble .
Topspin
Verified User
I'm going to stick with the MPP study that show's vaporizing eliminates tar and other negative affects of smoking.
evince
Truthmatters
When you have a service which will cause a cost to be infered yet people have a way to recieve it without paying the cost how do you insure the right person pays the bill?
Heres the problem.
Life saving medical care can NOT be refused ANYONE.
Someone pays the cost.
The medical care facility has to absorb the cost, they then pass it on to all other paying patients.
You end up paying for three dees meical care when he has a drunken bender with his idiot friends and gets punched in the face by the he/she he tried to pick up in cheesy bar they went to. His front teeth broken and his nose a throbbing lump of flesh and him screaming like a stuck pig his friends drop him off at the emergency room where they treat him and send him home and then charge every other patient in the hospital for his care in the most expensive area of medicine.
When you force our little boy to buy a healthcare program then he will pay the cost of his care and your care cost will go down. If our little boy can not afford to buy care then we supliment him so that the health care facility does not have to turn arround and force all the other patients to pay for his silly ass.
Yes we end up paying both ways but the little fool doesnt have to use emergency care for his little adventure. The cost for all care will go down when the right person can be charged for the care they recieve instead of spreading the cost to all patients.
Heres the problem.
Life saving medical care can NOT be refused ANYONE.
Someone pays the cost.
The medical care facility has to absorb the cost, they then pass it on to all other paying patients.
You end up paying for three dees meical care when he has a drunken bender with his idiot friends and gets punched in the face by the he/she he tried to pick up in cheesy bar they went to. His front teeth broken and his nose a throbbing lump of flesh and him screaming like a stuck pig his friends drop him off at the emergency room where they treat him and send him home and then charge every other patient in the hospital for his care in the most expensive area of medicine.
When you force our little boy to buy a healthcare program then he will pay the cost of his care and your care cost will go down. If our little boy can not afford to buy care then we supliment him so that the health care facility does not have to turn arround and force all the other patients to pay for his silly ass.
Yes we end up paying both ways but the little fool doesnt have to use emergency care for his little adventure. The cost for all care will go down when the right person can be charged for the care they recieve instead of spreading the cost to all patients.
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
Ok I have no problem with vaporizing.
Topspin
Verified User
I actually haven't tried it yet, might buy one next year.
There aren't any studies I know of that link pot to cancer!!
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
I like vaporizers. There are now studies that say pot fights cancer.
Unrealistic, studies are not being done by any reputable scientific community. Until it is legal we will not have knowledge of the damage that smokers do to themselves. Topper is right, the vaporizer is pretty much the up and coming solution to this problem.
You do know that public insurance is already available to every one of those groups, right?