|
Install Gentoo posted:We could then say that a very significant proportion of the items and services purchased in the the first world are dubiously consensual at best then; and often straight up nonconsensual. Yes.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Twiin posted:Yes. That would make "is consensual" or "is not consensual" poor boundaries for whether transactions should be legal. Indeed, all transactions in a capitalist society have some level of dubious consensuality by the very nature of the system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:That would make "is consensual" or "is not consensual" poor boundaries for whether transactions should be legal. Indeed, all transactions in a capitalist society have some level of dubious consensuality by the very nature of the system. Yes again. I don't think you can base legal a system on consent without considering exploitation. Should it be legal to sell blood diamonds? Some people think so. I don't. Is the purchase of a blood diamond a consensual transaction? Again, some people think so. I don't. I don't see it as any different than being a pawn shop owner who sells stolen stuff. Should you be allowed to do it? Is it a consensual transaction between the store owner and the buyer off the street?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Do you want it to be legal to sell any kind of drug period or what? That's what 'selling drugs should not be a criminal offense' would tend to indicate. Not without regulation of course, but essentially yes. If you could go to a store and buy OTC heroin and be assured that it had passed FDA requirements for purity, labelling, dosage metering etc., I'm pretty sure the number of heroin-related deaths would plummet. In an ideal world where everybody becomes educated about the drugs they are going to consume, this would be the best way to combat actual crime. Unfortunately, we live in a world filled with idiots who think vaccinations cause autism and smoking pot will either kill you or cure cancer. If the US legalized all drugs, it'd probably be a week tops before some moron teenager tried to get high off of pradaxa or something and bled to death. Until we can reduce the overall stupidity of the nation, the punishment for doing drugs will be worse than the actual effects of the drug.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Not without regulation of course, but essentially yes. If you could go to a store and buy OTC heroin and be assured that it had passed FDA requirements for purity, labelling, dosage metering etc., I'm pretty sure the number of heroin-related deaths would plummet. I think that it should be illegal, for example, to sell drugs that were being cut with something else. And that that should a criminal offense whereas selling clean stuff would not necessarily be. Twiin posted:Yes again. I don't think you can base legal a system on consent without considering exploitation. Should it be legal to sell blood diamonds? Some people think so. I don't. Is the purchase of a blood diamond a consensual transaction? Again, some people think so. I don't. The consensuality of a particular transaction itself isn't contingent on the other stuff involved to get to the transaction or come after it. At least that's what I believe. I also don't believe that mere consensuality is enough to classify something as good or bad: the forced laborer in the diamond mind wasn't doing it consensually, but the greedy businessman who sold that diamond onward to the dealer and the dealer himself were consenting while doing a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The consensuality of a particular transaction itself isn't contingent on the other stuff involved to get to the transaction or come after it. At least that's what I believe. I also don't believe that mere consensuality is enough to classify something as good or bad: the forced laborer in the diamond mind wasn't doing it consensually, but the greedy businessman who sold that diamond onward to the dealer and the dealer himself were consenting while doing a bad thing. So should it be legal for a pawn shop to sell stolen goods to customers in a consensual transaction?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Twiin posted:So should it be legal for a pawn shop to sell stolen goods to customers in a consensual transaction? No. Because legality and consensuality are not identical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I think that it should be illegal, for example, to sell drugs that were being cut with something else. And that that should a criminal offense whereas selling clean stuff would not necessarily be. Good lord you're pedantic. OK, let's sum it up: drugs are, at base, morally neutral. Selling them is currently illegal, but shouldn't be. Child porn, nuclear weapons, and assassinations are, at base, horrifying things that kill and maim people. Selling them should not be legal, but the buying and selling isn't really the crux of it; the issue is that, by joining the transaction, you are becoming a party to those things; the transaction does not stand alone as its own moral unit. The argument you seem to be trying to make is that fraud is morally wrong, selling drugs that are the product of fraud is just the same as buying or selling other things that are morally wrong. However, you're willfully ignoring the actual argument, which is that the very fact that selling the drug is illegal is the greater moral wrong than committing fraud to obtain the drug to be sold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Chitin posted:Good lord you're pedantic. You are the one who hasn't been paying attention to the argument here. You just went and made up your own thing and projected it on other people having a discussion. Refrain from doing that in the future. No one has articulated the "actual argument" you made up here except you, just now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You are the one who hasn't been paying attention to the argument here. You just went and made up your own thing and projected it on other people having a discussion. Refrain from doing that in the future. I know, I was articulating two entirely separate thoughts: one, that you are a pedant, and two, what I just said above.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Chitin posted:I know, I was articulating two entirely separate thoughts: one, that you are a pedant, and two, what I just said above. I'm sorry that you don't like discussions of morality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The consensuality of a particular transaction itself isn't contingent on the other stuff involved to get to the transaction or come after it. At least that's what I believe. I also don't believe that mere consensuality is enough to classify something as good or bad: the forced laborer in the diamond mind wasn't doing it consensually, but the greedy businessman who sold that diamond onward to the dealer and the dealer himself were consenting while doing a bad thing. Install Gentoo posted:No one has articulated the "actual argument" you made up here except you, just now. How else are people supposed to read your argument? You're saying that people who benefit from coercive acts by buying and selling the products created by those acts are morally wrong. It's technically true that the exchange of the product was consensual, but it's a pedantic point to make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:How else are people supposed to read your argument? You're saying that people who benefit from coercive acts by buying and selling the products created by those acts are morally wrong. It's technically true that the exchange of the product was consensual, but it's a pedantic point to make. Some people believe that the consensuality of a transaction is directly related to whether it's morally right or whether it should be banned. I don't (I believe that there's a lot of ways for something to be consensual but morally wrong). It's a thing people disagree on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Makes sense, I suppose. Does consent have any meaning if the transaction is taking place within an immoral/coercive social structure (i.e. it's a forced 'choice')? I'm thinking of a situation like spiking prices for drinking water in a disaster area and arguing that it's perfectly moral to do so because those people ALL CONSENTED TO THE PRICES! ...despite needing clean water to live and having no other ways of getting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Chitin posted:The argument you seem to be trying to make is that fraud is morally wrong, selling drugs that are the product of fraud is just the same as buying or selling other things that are morally wrong. However, you're willfully ignoring the actual argument, which is that the very fact that selling the drug is illegal is the greater moral wrong than committing fraud to obtain the drug to be sold. Except two wrongs don't make a right. If I engage in fraud for the purposes of getting around an unjust law, the fact that my fraud is less bad than the existence of the law is irrelevant, as long as the violation of the law is morally neutral at best (as is the case when selling drugs). Of course it may be that committing fraud may be part of a virtuous act, for example, creating a fake id for a Jew so they can leave Nazi Germany, but that is not the case that we're talking about here. Unless you want to argue that selling drugs to enrich yourself is a moral imperative or a virtuous act in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Selling drugs gained from diversion almost always involves fraud. Just as an aside: People who doctor-shop are not claiming all their different oxy prescriptions to their insurance company. Not that I am saying oxy diversion is totally rad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:26
|
|
|
Babylon the Bright posted:Except two wrongs don't make a right. If I engage in fraud for the purposes of getting around an unjust law, the fact that my fraud is less bad than the existence of the law is irrelevant, as long as the violation of the law is morally neutral at best (as is the case when selling drugs). Of course it may be that committing fraud may be part of a virtuous act, for example, creating a fake id for a Jew so they can leave Nazi Germany, but that is not the case that we're talking about here. Unless you want to argue that selling drugs to enrich yourself is a moral imperative or a virtuous act in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
Babylon the Bright posted:Except two wrongs don't make a right. If I engage in fraud for the purposes of getting around an unjust law, the fact that my fraud is less bad than the existence of the law is irrelevant, as long as the violation of the law is morally neutral at best (as is the case when selling drugs). Of course it may be that committing fraud may be part of a virtuous act, for example, creating a fake id for a Jew so they can leave Nazi Germany, but that is not the case that we're talking about here. Unless you want to argue that selling drugs to enrich yourself is a moral imperative or a virtuous act in and of itself. Why are you limiting this to selling? If I gave it away because I am a nice guy, they'd treat it the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
Babylon the Bright posted:Except two wrongs don't make a right. If I engage in fraud for the purposes of getting around an unjust law, the fact that my fraud is less bad than the existence of the law is irrelevant, as long as the violation of the law is morally neutral at best (as is the case when selling drugs). Why is it irrelevant? If the underlying law (prohibition) is unjust, why is it "wrong" to circumvent it - because it happened to be written down on a piece of paper by some legislators at some point in the past? No one is claiming that drug dealers are particularly virtuous or anything, there's just no reason to consider the act of selling drugs wrong rather than simply illegal until violence is involved. A law does not hold any moral weight beyond the reasoning supporting that law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Why is it irrelevant? If the underlying law (prohibition) is unjust, why is it "wrong" to circumvent it - because it happened to be written down on a piece of paper by some legislators at some point in the past? It's not the circumvention of the law per se that's wrong, it's the fraud. Fraudulently seeking out prescriptions in order to divert drugs to the recreational market is wrong because it casts doubt on those who actually need the drugs to manage pain. This results in suffering people being unable to obtain drugs which could help. If the law preventing you from just buying Oxycontin over the counter in the first place is wrong, it is irrelevant to that act of fraud.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Babylon the Bright posted:Fraudulently seeking out prescriptions in order to divert drugs to the recreational market is wrong because it casts doubt on those who actually need the drugs to manage pain. This results in suffering people being unable to obtain drugs which could help. Blaming people who divert drugs for undertreated pain is idiotic. It's not their fault that the law intimidates some doctors into withholding medication that may relieve suffering. Here in Australia we recently had a tragic case where a man presented to hospital in agony and the doctor decided that he was 'drug-seeking' and turned him away. He died in agony a few hours later from faecal peritonitis: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/doctor-rejected-dying-man-as-an-addict-20110714-1hg54.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Anyone have any links or info about marijuana businesses in CO and WA? Given the unknowns around this issue, I'm very curious how people are getting ready to open businesses selling weed. Because in many ways this is like a gold rush, and the first people to make a good "claim" might benefit wildly in the years to come.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Anyone have any links or info about marijuana businesses in CO and WA? Given the unknowns around this issue, I'm very curious how people are getting ready to open businesses selling weed. Because in many ways this is like a gold rush, and the first people to make a good "claim" might benefit wildly in the years to come. Sorry, only arguments about 'consensual transactions' in this thread. However, I might point out that like any good business opportunity, it carries a lot of risk. Remember, in the eyes of the federal government, you're a drug dealer. Can you go to a bank? Because that's technically money laundering. Sure, the DEA has said that they're not going after small-time users, but when you start a growing co-op and start selling it, you are exactly the type of person they're talking about going after.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Sorry, only arguments about 'consensual transactions' in this thread. Precisely why I'm interested - a true high risk, high reward proposition. Amirite?  But really, someone is going to make a first move under state law, and expose themselves to the Feds. I'd like to read about people trying it/thinking about it.But then, the state governments of both states are kinda in the same both. How does the state of CO accept tax revenue from legal marijuana sales without going against federal law?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
redshirt posted:But then, the state governments of both states are kinda in the same both. How does the state of CO accept tax revenue from legal marijuana sales without going against federal law? That seems like an interesting point. I don't know the answer, but I do recall that Texas has taxes on marijuana already. The idea being that you buy little tax stamps to put on your bags of weed. In that case its more of a tool to be able to pin extra charges on people in possession of a controlled substance. Still the Texas law has been around for a while and technically seems similar. http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/contr_sub/index.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Anyone have any links or info about marijuana businesses in CO and WA? Given the unknowns around this issue, I'm very curious how people are getting ready to open businesses selling weed. Because in many ways this is like a gold rush, and the first people to make a good "claim" might benefit wildly in the years to come. It's not really a gold rush situation anyway since there are a large number of medical pot dispensaries in Washington already. They were also one of the groups vehemently opposing legalization for mysterious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:It's not really a gold rush situation anyway since there are a large number of medical pot dispensaries in Washington already. They were also one of the groups vehemently opposing legalization for mysterious reasons. Different agendas. A healthy recreational marketplace will no doubt eat into the medical market. Just like all the growers in NoCal were against California legalization. Just like I'm sure if you could poll the Mexican cartels, they too would be against legalization. And it certainly is a gold rush environment. If you could stake an early name in this game, who knows how big you could get. All the big breweries started small. Same with cigarettes. If in 20 years marijuana is legal across America (maybe across the Western world), it might be some company that started this year in CO or WA leading the charge (and making billions).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Different agendas. A healthy recreational marketplace will no doubt eat into the medical market. Just like all the growers in NoCal were against California legalization. Just like I'm sure if you could poll the Mexican cartels, they too would be against legalization. I was just joking about "mysterious reasons," that's exactly why they opposed it. My point was that you seem to think there wouldn't be meaningful competition, but that's ignoring existing production and distribution networks. If marijuana was legalized nationally, you'd be going up against the major corporate interests that already have large investments in tobacco growing, rolling machines, etc. I think they could expand to marijuana quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Different agendas. A healthy recreational marketplace will no doubt eat into the medical market. Just like all the growers in NoCal were against California legalization. Just like I'm sure if you could poll the Mexican cartels, they too would be against legalization. Unlikely at best. The reality is if it becomes legal at a federal level, some giant corporation will take over (probably tobacco-related corps if I had to guess). In today's world small companies generally get bought or crushed before they ever hit it big.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Fair points both, above. Wouldn't a better analogue be the microbrewery movement? Many of these beers have achieved a national/international level due to their quality and differentiation to the Big Boys. I can easily imagine a scenario where yeah, Philip Morris or whomever is pumping out swag at high volume, low cost, but then there will be dozens and dozens of companies selling special blends and strains and the like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Unlikely at best. The reality is if it becomes legal at a federal level, some giant corporation will take over (probably tobacco-related corps if I had to guess). In today's world small companies generally get bought or crushed before they ever hit it big. Yeah and when they take over, you can be well set up to be one of their franchises or clients or providers and so on. Getting bought out ain't a bad deal at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Fair points both, above. This is what I imagine will happen, although given a legal environment to do so even PM and RJR would be growing pretty good weed - just not quite as "robust" as the microgrower stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
I imagine for the first decade or a bit less it'll be mostly like craft and micro brews. Stoners today are already pretty distrustful of the establishment in general and would probably take a while to accept a major company selling weed. They'll want bud the same way they got it growing up. Eventually cost, conglomeration, and a new generation of smokers will have everyone buying their favorite brand. Unless Google or Apple start slinging nationally. People eat that poo poo up
RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
That said, this is a new industry. What gives Philip Morris a leg up in it at the start? All I can see is a distribution network and back office operations (marketing, accounting, finance, etc) where they have an advantage. They presumably have ZERO experience growing marijuana, while there are no doubt currently illegal growers with tons of experience AND unique strains that could be patented. The little guys would have a leg up in the actual production of the product. Lets consider both the beer and cigarette industries. In each, large companies buy the ingredients for their products from farmers. Tobacco farmers sell to PM, then PM processes into cigarettes. Some farmer grows barley and hops and sells them to Samual Adams, who turn them into beer. With marijuana, growing is very close to final product. There's not much more to do once the plants are ready to harvest, unless you're talking about pre-rolled joints in a 20 pack, like cigarettes. There's also brand new markets - food products, for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
redshirt posted:That said, this is a new industry. What gives Philip Morris a leg up in it at the start? All I can see is a distribution network and back office operations (marketing, accounting, finance, etc) where they have an advantage. That. Plus this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_International (look in the box on the right) plus this http://investors.pmi.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=146476&p=irol-reportsannual every year. redshirt posted:With marijuana, growing is very close to final product. They own land. They have money. They have labor. They have better science. They lobby better. They just need permission. Why wouldn't they? Though to be clear and avoid an argument, I'm totally for craft weed. I'm sure there will be a variety of niche markets for all kinds of bud the way alcohol is. Its just that massive corporations are just more easily able to flood a market with cheap acceptable product. But we do share a dream. I hope the purchasing remains an experience where you feel more involved in selecting what it is you're getting. I want to talk to the guy with the weed about which weed is which and why. But there will still be cheap commercial product available. edit: thanks wikipedia. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:That. Yeah, I see your point. If it truly becomes commercial, we're talking tens of thousands of acres of marijuana fields across the country. Not an easy opportunity to claim for the small business person. Patents might be where it's at then. The precedent is certainly already in place. And web presence/social media. Will it be legal to sell marijuana in CO and WA online to state residents?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Yeah, I see your point. If it truly becomes commercial, we're talking tens of thousands of acres of marijuana fields across the country. Not an easy opportunity to claim for the small business person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Patents might be where it's at then. The precedent is certainly already in place. And web presence/social media. Will it be legal to sell marijuana in CO and WA online to state residents? It's an academic discussion since the Department of Justice is going to stomp the regulation, production, and distribution aspects in both states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Chitin posted:there's also no reason they couldn't just buy up existing grow operations for their strains and expertise. Yeah, I assume this would happen eventually. But still, it's likely a few of the small time, initial players will succeed and become major companies. It happens in every other industry, and I don't see why this one would be different. Imagine some future world where Snoop Dogg is the spokesperson for Colorado Green, and they sponsor X-sports stars, and there's some kind of music label involved. It's all gonna be huge, man! And not just for existing companies. This is an enormous market waiting to be tapped and there will be many, many new companies and businesses that come into being because of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
more friedman units posted:It's an academic discussion since the Department of Justice is going to stomp the regulation, production, and distribution aspects in both states. Given how the Feds are acting lately, I wouldn't be surprised if weed stays in a semi-legal area(like the Netherlands) in WA and CO except: 1) The Feds will still bust any decent sized grow/import operation. 2) The Feds will sue to keep WA and CO from licensing for marijuana sales. So no one will arrest users, but buying it will be illegal since they can't license anyone to sell it.  i.e. What is the case right now this minute will stay that way for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 01:14
|
|