|
JVNO posted:Every public policy option ought to have a purpose or goal, and a metric by which it can be judged as a success or failure. The purpose of prohibition seems to be the elimination of the drug's availability, yet prohibition of various substances has utterly failed in achieving said goal pretty much every time it's ever been tried- and in fact has caused measurable harm in many cases. Is there some other purpose I'm missing? What's the end game here? Do we just keep bad policy because it feels right? Because it makes non-users feel good and superior? I'd love to read an educated analysis of drug prohibition through the years. I was taught that modern drug laws started with an attempt to stamp out the opium trade (an obviously good idea, given what was going on in China and the opium dens here and in Europe), and that they were initially very successful. Then Victorian-era morals led to some serious mission creep in the early 1900s, time passed, then the drug subculture in the 60s happened and the American counterattack put the finishing touches on today's ridiculous status quo. We've gone from forbidding public sale and consumption of substances that literally turn people into indolent wrecks before they eventually wind up in hospital screaming and making GBS threads themselves to death, to throwing people in jail for being addicts. You can't raise two generations of kids with the messaging that junkies are uncool and nobody wants to be like them and not expect us to have problems treating addicts like real people when we encounter them, and I think that has a lot to do with our reluctance to modernize drug laws. Any kind of relaxation on that front is seen as a straight route to Nancy Regan's personal hellscape, which is both unrealistic and really dumb.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
Helsing posted:Try and follow through on your own logic here. I guess we should just legalize and tax anything people could ever conceivably want to use because otherwise there will be a black market. Guns, drugs, hell we had better start taxing and regulating the Ebola market before some mafia entrepreneur starts selling to children -- think of all the taxes we'd be missing out on then! You're smart enough to know that comparing weapons with substances that you, yourself, choose to ingest is completely ridiculous. Legalize, regulate and tax everything, and then use the taxes to fund rehab for when addicts want to get off their drug of choice and need help to do so. If you remove the need for addicts to do criminal acts to support their habit, and remove the need for them to obtain their drug of choice illegally, there's no reason someone can't be a drug user or even addict while still being a productive member of society. Further, if you allow addicts a supply of their drug of choice with known purity/strength/etc., you will vastly, vastly reduce the number of ODs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If you remove the need for addicts to do criminal acts to support their habit You're okay giving unlimited money to an opium addict?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
sliderule posted:You're okay giving unlimited money to an opium addict? Is today Strawman Celebration Day or something? Sweet Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Are you insinuating that someone physically addicted to a powerful substance won't turn to crime to get more when the money runs out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Stretch Marx posted:And you some how didn't buy any. I think there may be hope for us. I'm not PT6A Count Roland posted:Re-read the part where I specifically said I'm not advocating this for Canada, jackass. You're on one hand saying you are not advocating it but you think it is both 'interesting and successful'. If you think it's successful I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a similar program here. PT6A posted:I've been offered cocaine on the C-Train platform in Calgary, and I've been offered cocaine walking down the street in Havana too. Who cares? Legalize it and regulate it to cut off the ties to organized crime as much as possible. Doesn't matter whether it's cocaine, weed or opiates -- making drugs illegal cannot and will not ever work, regardless of the drug in question. You don't need to tell us stories to convince [some of] us of our existing opinions of Calgary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Are you insinuating that someone physically addicted to a powerful substance won't turn to crime to get more when the money runs out? When I was nine my dad forcibly raided my room for change to buy smokes. You bet someone's getting stabbed over something stronger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Are you insinuating that someone physically addicted to a powerful substance won't turn to crime to get more when the money runs out? No, I'm saying drugs would be cheap as gently caress if not for the fact they're illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Legalize, regulate and tax everything, and then use the taxes to fund rehab for when addicts want to get off their drug of choice and need help to do so. If you remove the need for addicts to do criminal acts to support their habit, and remove the need for them to obtain their drug of choice illegally, there's no reason someone can't be a drug user or even addict while still being a productive member of society. Further, if you allow addicts a supply of their drug of choice with known purity/strength/etc., you will vastly, vastly reduce the number of ODs. Look, I agree that we should be legalizing and taxing - drugs are a health problem not a criminal one. That said, even when they are legal, drugs will cost something. Maybe more due to the taxes. Addicts will still resort to crime to support their habit. I'd also say that with regard to being a productive member of society while "addicted" not all drugs are equal. So I'm not sure I support those arguments. I think it's enough to say we shouldn't treat drugs as a criminal problem. PT6A posted:No, I'm saying drugs would be cheap as gently caress if not for the fact they're illegal. Like alcohol and tobacco right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Then tell me- what's the goal of prohibition? How can it be determined to be a success or failure? Clearly I'm not arguing that prohibition of anything and everything is unwarranted. You bring up guns, which is a good point - we have metrics that we use to determine whether such policies have a measurable effect. Rates of gun violence in crime, rates of suicide using guns. You mention car emission standard. Great- another policy for which we have a metric to judge the success of. Experimental drugs? Reasonable regulations and testing standards reduce the chance of a dangerous drug getting to market. Alright, well sorry if I came out the gate a bit aggressively there. For what it's worth I think smart people say stupid things all the time. Or at least I hope that's the case because I say plenty of stupid things in this thread. As to the substance of your point: If you want to argue that the current drug enforcement regime is cruel, unjust or ineffective at its stated goals then you won't get any argument from me. What I'm responding to here is the suggestion that prohibition is some kind of monolithic policy that has to be either accepted or rejected in its entirety. There's no reason to think that. The current approach in which street dealers and users are targeted aggressively while ignoring the social determinants of health and rejecting any kind of comprehensive harm reduction is obviously a bad approach. An alternative approach treating drugs as a public health problem while trying to target large scale criminal organizations would, one hopes, have better results. I'm also not really sure how you can suggest in one post that prohibition of drugs just leads to a black market but then suggest in this post that "[r]easonable regulations and testing standards reduce the chance of a dangerous drug getting to market". Isn't there a contradiction there? How can we simultaneously end prohibition of all drugs while still restricting their sale via "reasonable regulations and testing standards"? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is basically a concession that you agree that some recreational drugs that fail to pass some kind of standard should be illegal to sell. As far as I'm concerned once you concede that the government has -- and should have -- a mandate to prevent fraud and to ensure consumer safety, you've basically bought in to some form of prohibition. The real question then becomes one of implementation: what should be illegal, what should be legal, what's the gray area, what's the best enforcement mechanism, etc.? As for your emphasis on using statistics to drive public policy, I think you're taking a generally reasonable point a bit too far. Should we should use statistics, where appropriate, to check our assumptions and guide our decision making. But since we can't really try blind tests or have control groups when it comes to social policy we can't really use statistics to evaluate social policy in the same way we can use it to evaluate, say, the safety of a new medical treatment. You can assemble two groups of patients, give one a placebo and the other one a cancer fighting drug, and then you can measure the results. But there isn't really an equivalent situation where you take two identical societies, try two different regimes of drug prohibition / legalization, and then compare the results. Now that having been said, we can at least try to learn something from comparing different societies or the same society at different points in time. We won't get precise statistical data in the way we could get from a medical trial, but we might at least learn something. And I'd suggest that what we learn, in the case of drug prohibition, is that while the current system has unquestionably failed, there's no reason to want to return to the 19th and early 20th century approach either. Heroin was first invented in 1874. It was legal up until the first decades of the 20th century, with most of our early laws prohibiting drugs being enacted and subsequently strengthened between about 1908 and 1929. While these drug laws were quite cruel let's think about what was occuring before they were passed: cocaine being put in children's tooth ache drops, laudanum being prescribed to depressed house wives by doctors, heroin being marketed as a "safe" and "non-addictive" alternative to morphine. Given what we now know about how modern day drug companies and doctors collaborate, especially in the USA, to push up drug sales, it really frightens me to imagine what a return to this kind of legal regime would represent. No, we don't have any precise statistics about what would happen, but I'm willing to bet that a world where Monsanto's marketing department gets to sell heroin or cocaine to the masses would be a pretty bad deal for everyone involved other than the drug companies. So if you want to debate whether it should be illegal to possess or even sell some drugs like coke or heroin in small quantities then sure. But these sweeping pronouncements about how anyone supporting cannabis legalization must support generalized prohibition, or claims that the presence of a black-market should be taken to mean that we might as well give up on regulating or prohibiting substances altogether, just doesn't pass muster. The government can and should have a role in regulating the marketplace for dangerous and habit forming substances, and that entails a more nuanced and contextual case-by-case evaluation of drug policy. PT6A posted:You're smart enough to know that comparing weapons with substances that you, yourself, choose to ingest is completely ridiculous. The point I take serious issue with is the call for us to fully legitimize the market for all kinds of dangerous and addictive drugs and to turn it into just another thing that you buy. Should small time users or even dealers of most drugs face serious jail time? Not at all. Should we have comprehensive treatment programs? Absolutely. Should using drugs even be a criminal matter? No, at least not at small levels. But I'm not ready to go back to the early 20th century approach where you can buy heroin at the corner store and companies are free to say literally whatever they want about the products they sell. You should be able to put cocaine in tooth ache drops. You shouldn't be allowed to market heroin as a safe alternative to morphine. Going down the route of "make everything legitimate and then use tax revenue to fix the problems this causes" is more dangerous than some of you seem to realize. It opens up the door for some really heinous kinds of behaviour. Not to mention the fact that "legalize everything" and "regulate" anything are not compatible approaches. If you're suggesting any kind of regulation of drugs then you've already abandoned the idea of total legalization and all we're doing is debating the exact coordinates of the prohibition regime. So the moment you agree that we shouldn't sell drugs to children or that the purity of heroin should be regulated you've already abandoned the hard libertarian position you're espousing, and suddenly you're subject to the same critiques that you were just making about how prohibition will create black markets and higher prices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:When I was nine my dad forcibly raided my room for change to buy smokes. You bet someone's getting stabbed over something stronger. Yeah this is really loving basic. Anyone who advocates wide, regulated distribution of crack cocaine thinking that it will eliminate the crime surrounding crack cocaine usage isn't playing with a full deck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
In only-kind-of-drug-chat, Deepan Budlakoti's case will not be heard by the SCC, which means he will now be deported to a country he's never been to because his parents can't prove that they weren't consular workers when he was born, and also because of a little bit of gun and drug stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Saltin posted:I'd also say that with regard to being a productive member of society while "addicted" not all drugs are equal. Depends. I've seen "functional" cokeheads and lots of definitely not-functional alcoholics. I don't think it's about the substance, so much as how one chooses to use it. Someone who's on opiates for long-term pain management is no less an addict that someone who got started using opiates recreationally (insofar as both are physically dependent), and yet many people who use various forms of pain medication on a long-term basis (including cannabis) are able to be productive. Not to mention: it's not going to increase problems, because I doubt there's a lot of people saying "I'd love to take heroin/cocaine/meth/etc. but the only problem is it's illegal!" I wouldn't touch any of that poo poo if it were legalized. I'm not saying it will solve all problems, but it could well reduce a lot of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Well just to clarify, Helsing, my position is not that prohibition, as a concept, is inherently useless. Just if we accept policy-makers statements that prohibition is ostensibly to 'reduce crime', 'improve health', and 'reduce availability of _____ substance', then by their own metrics drug prohibition has been an abysmal failure at best, and has exacerbated these issues at worst. And if that's the case we have little justification for maintaining the status quo. I did not intend the scope of my comment to extend beyond that. Edit: Reading the rest of your post, you're right in that our ability to do any kind of careful controlled experiment to determine which policy is best is limited. You can't randomly assign people to countries with different regulations and laws, clearly. It's all going to be AB non-experimental designs- but that doesn't make it useless. We can still assess policies before and after implementation by the chosen metrics, and there's no reason to continue a failed policy. Also important side note, I acknowledge that no amount of science or statistics can tell us what our values, as a society, ought to be- only whether we are effective in effecting such a value. If we have decided as a society that drug users are filthy subhumans who should be locked away, then yes, I guess our current system is effective. I just want honesty in the stated intentions and goals. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Uber is going to announce UberWheels for the disabled soon I bet. It has existed for about a year now, it's called Uber Acesss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No, I'm saying drugs would be cheap as gently caress if not for the fact they're illegal. So? What's stopping someone from spending all their savings buying crack? What do you think they will do when their savings are gone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:
This sounds like an argument for decriminalization, not legalization. If you think all drugs are more or less the same with regard to their potential for abuse, we're never going to agree. Some drugs can be taken recreationally, some of them have very addicting natures and should probably be avoided. Are there outliers? Certainly. Some people manage to take more addictive drugs recreationally, but we're talking about society here - not some dude you knew from Edmonton who only did coke on Saturday night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Someone who's on opiates for long-term pain management is no less an addict that someone who got started using opiates recreationally Wrong. Recreational addiction is aided by the fact that it fulfilling a different need than killing pain. This is actually hugely important. Medical users aren't doing it to escape their awful existence, and that means that they won't turn to it whenever their existence is awful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Helsing posted:But I'm not ready to go back to the early 20th century approach where you can buy heroin at the corner store and companies are free to say literally whatever they want about the products they sell. You should be able to put cocaine in tooth ache drops. You shouldn't be allowed to market heroin as a safe alternative to morphine. I think any psychoactive substance should be unavailable for sale to minors except by prescription, and I think that there should be restrictions on marketing them. I'm not a hard libertarian by any means. Luckily, we're already quite familiar with how to do exactly these things due to the widespread distribution of alcohol, cigarettes, over-the-counter and behind-the-counter drugs, or even prescription drugs. Saying we shouldn't criminalize possession or small-time dealing is pointless, because it does nothing to address the criminality associated with production and large-scale distribution, which drives up the costs of these drugs and therefore makes their consumption more socially damaging, to say nothing of the violence that's often involved. That's not to say we should simply allow whomever to sell heroin in unmarked baggies. sliderule posted:So? What's stopping someone from spending all their savings buying crack? What do you think they will do when their savings are gone? The same thing that kept me from smoking three packs a day when I was smoking cigarettes: namely the fact that I didn't really want to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Wrong. Recreational addiction is aided by the fact that it fulfilling a different need than killing pain. This is actually hugely important. Medical users aren't doing it to escape their awful existence, and that means that they won't turn to it whenever their existence is awful. I agree, but it's worth noting that the increase in heroin use in the past 10 years or so is mostly due to people taking painkillers and then landing on heroin when the script runs out. 1/15 people in the US that take prescription painkilers end up at least trying Heroin . Maybe that 1 out of 15 had other factors (not being able to deal) that caused that, but physical addition is physical addiction. The metal aspects are a ying to that yang - which you rightly point out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Wrong. Recreational addiction is aided by the fact that it fulfilling a different need than killing pain. This is actually hugely important. Medical users aren't doing it to escape their awful existence, and that means that they won't turn to it whenever their existence is awful. Then why is addiction to legally-prescribed pain medication fast becoming the leading cause of heroin addiction in the US, I wonder? You have your head in the sand if you don't think medical and illegal drug use have a huge, huge overlap. Saltin posted:This sounds like an argument for decriminalization, not legalization. Of course some drugs are more addictive than others. I only see addiction as a bad thing inasmuch as it affects your life, though, and if we remove the biggest negative consequences of addictions, addicts will be better off for it. Physical dependence on a substance is not in and of itself a horrible thing; it's what that dependence makes you do that's bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The same thing that kept me from smoking three packs a day when I was smoking cigarettes: namely the fact that I didn't really want to. Yes, when I think 'crack user', I think of someone who is capable of both deciding that they don't really want to do crack and also simply stopping of their own volition when reasonable limits are reached.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not to mention: it's not going to increase problems, because I doubt there's a lot of people saying "I'd love to take heroin/cocaine/meth/etc. but the only problem is it's illegal!" I wouldn't touch any of that poo poo if it were legalized. I'm not saying it will solve all problems, but it could well reduce a lot of them. Gonna have to disagree with this point. I've talked to plenty of people who say they would do heroin if they were assured of its composition and potency. Of course those people are less likely to be problem users, and overall I'm in favor of legalizing, regulating and taxing everything. Saltin posted:This sounds like an argument for decriminalization, not legalization. Decriminalization doesn't assure quality standards. You'll still find heroin laced with fentanyl with decriminalization. By legalizing and regulating you have a mechanism to guarantee that products are properly labelled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Then why is addiction to legally-prescribed pain medication fast becoming the leading cause of heroin addiction in the US, I wonder? You have your head in the sand if you don't think medical and illegal drug use have a huge, huge overlap. Can you state what you think the biggest negative consequences of addictions are? Whiskey Sours posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Then why is addiction to legally-prescribed pain medication fast becoming the leading cause of heroin addiction in the US, I wonder? You have your head in the sand if you don't think medical and illegal drug use have a huge, huge overlap. Maybe those people have that factor that I mentioned: desire to escape reality. You really think there's no factor to the overlap between people who need opiates to kill pain and people seeking to fill a void in their life? Yes, prescription opiates are a gateway to heroin, but there is a cause for stepping over that line. It's not just consuming the opiates, it's filling a void.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Wrong. Recreational addiction is aided by the fact that it fulfilling a different need than killing pain. This is actually hugely important. Medical users aren't doing it to escape their awful existence, and that means that they won't turn to it whenever their existence is awful. If we address the underlying issues as to why people turn to illicit drugs in the first place... But thats socialism/communism and clearly evil or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Yes, prescription opiates are a gateway to heroin, but there is a cause for stepping over that line. It's not just consuming the opiates, it's filling a void. It's pretty well documented anthropologically that humans seek out ways to alter conscious. You ever see a kid make themselves dizzy over and over again? lovely life is one reason for rec drug use. It is not the only.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Saltin posted:Can you state what you think the biggest negative consequences of addictions are? If we're talking about a world where drugs are available at reasonable prices, probably the physical damage they do to your body, followed by the decrease in functionality and limitations on what you can do if you have to maintain a certain level of a drug in your system. If cigarettes weren't harming me, I'd definitely start smoking them again, and if higher levels of alcohol use wouldn't harm me and didn't cause hangovers, I'd drink a lot more than I do now. Apart from gambling, which I'm really loving careful about now, those are my only brushes with addiction and/or substance abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
You can get addicted to anything, and it's hard to make broad assumptions about how addictive something is to everyone. I had a harder time kicking my WoW habit back in 2006 than I did kicking my cigarette habit. Heck I had a harder time cutting back on weed than cigarettes (mostly because I had free access to it through much of my undergrad years). Yes there is a meaningful difference between substances which directly drive addiction, and things to which you develop a 'psychological addiction', but one isn't necessarily stronger than another, nor is it automatically worse (withdrawal symptoms notwithstanding!). Edit: Funny, I just noticed I got my SA account the same day I quit WoW. Trading one addiction for another I guess 
PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
WoW and crack, basically just as addictive so sell them both in stores and online, so long as they're labeled. A rational actor would read labels and be informed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Does WoW even qualify as gamer-crack anymore? That poo poo is old- surely the playerbase has shrunk tremendously by now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
You whiners are probably going to start whining about how freemium games take advantage of people and should be banned next, aren't you? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
You might want to pick a better target for your potshot than someone who spent the last two pages agreeing with you. That being said freemium games are pretty lovely and exploitative, as are most micro transaction and DLC heavy games. But If anything *were* to be done I'd suggest restricting the abstraction of currency so that people realize they paid $40 for the loving duff brewery in Simpsons: tapped out. That poo poo is pretty weaselly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think any psychoactive substance should be unavailable for sale to minors except by prescription, and I think that there should be restrictions on marketing them. I'm not a hard libertarian by any means. Luckily, we're already quite familiar with how to do exactly these things due to the widespread distribution of alcohol, cigarettes, over-the-counter and behind-the-counter drugs, or even prescription drugs. There are huge problems with black market cigarettes in some areas and you yourself were just saying that prescription drugs are massively abused. quote:Saying we shouldn't criminalize possession or small-time dealing is pointless, because it does nothing to address the criminality associated with production and large-scale distribution, which drives up the costs of these drugs and therefore makes their consumption more socially damaging, to say nothing of the violence that's often involved. That's not to say we should simply allow whomever to sell heroin in unmarked baggies. If we're still making it illegal to sell heroin in unmarked baggies then you're just describing a slightly different system of prohibition, one that would probably still have many of the problems with the current system. The only real difference here is that you want to make the heroin cheaper so that the people killing themselves with it are less likely to try and steal your stereo. But even this objective is unlikely to be achieved because the model of regulation you just advocated -- selling heroin and crack as though they were cigarettes and alcohol -- includes artificially high prices designed to prevent over use. So what exactly are you saying? If you're suggesting we adopt the cigarette-and-alcohol model then prices won't drop. If we don't adopt the cigarette-and-alcohol model then presumably we are making it legal to sell unmarked baggies of heroin on street corners. Either way I don't think this policy shakes out the way you think it does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You whiners are probably going to start whining about how freemium games take advantage of people and should be banned next, aren't you? Is this a joke? These games are crack cocaine and rake in billions, console games have got nothing on fremium.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
JVNO posted:You might want to pick a better target for your potshot than someone who spent the last two pages agreeing with you. I wasn't targeting you with that comment, rather the other people who think we need to legislate people out of their self-destructive behaviours. Helsing posted:There are huge problems with black market cigarettes in some areas and you yourself were just saying that prescription drugs are massively abused. By and large, "black market" tobacco is just tobacco that isn't properly tax-paid. If that were the biggest problem that were involved with the drug market, I think we'd all be properly thrilled. Further, I don't really care if prescription pills are being abused or not, provided they're being used by adults. The primary negatives that occur are all based around the fact that an addict can't get their hands on more pills affordably once the Rx runs out. If you think that prices for legal drugs would be the same as current street prices, even with quite a lot of taxation, clearly you're not familiar with how much money can be made from smuggling liquor into dry regions. Why are we so eager to save people from their own vices? We should do the most we can to support them if and when they decide to get clean, but that's a decision that an addict must make for themselves and we shouldn't try to force their hand by making their life shittier for them in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Is this a joke? These games are crack cocaine and rake in billions, console games have got nothing on fremium. I know! I think it's an awesome business model, and short of kids spending their parents' money or other forms of billpayer fraud, I don't have any ethical problems with it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
THC posted:The new Liberal government is set to reverse controversial labour laws passed by Stephen Harper's Conservatives in the last Parliament, but the Tories are already signalling they could use their majority in the Senate to block passage of the legislation. Kinder Gentler improved tone tories posted:John Barlow, Conservative MP for the Alberta riding of Foothills, slammed the Liberal move as a "quick end to open and transparent government."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
PT6A posted:I know! I think it's an awesome business model, and short of kids spending their parents' money or other forms of billpayer fraud, I don't have any ethical problems with it at all. This is where all the WoW addicts ended up. Free game, but they slow trickle you with $20 releases here and there, or $50 vanity items, $5 unlocks, $10 skins. Unlocks are overpowered on release so everyone buys them, then they nerf the items in a month or two and rinse/repeat. They are legal sure, but they rank alongside pay day loan places for shady business practices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:56
|
|