Much like Krokodil in Russia. It's the drug for those who can't even afford the cheap drugs. The results make the results of meth use look like a picnic, but people still use it. Well, until their limbs rot off and they die.
The hardcore abusers would use less toxic drugs if they had a financially viable method of doing so (which decriminalization would provide).
You might be correct, but every major source of statistics from the 20s disagrees with you. Crime in general increased. The murder rate increased each year from the passage of the Volstead Act until the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, where it stood at roughly 10 in 10,000. Following the repeal, it again dropped to levels not seen since before the Great Depression. Rates of public drunkeness and driving under the influence also increased.
I'm not going to bother to provide citations, as they are available readily via Google. From books, to the GPO's statistics on murder rates during that period, to the very public declaration of John D. Rockefeller following Prohibition that it did exactly the opposite of what was intended. Everyone with any amount of credibility disagrees with your assessment regarding the effects of Prohibition.
There's a big difference between knowingly selling a product that has hidden, lethal defects, and one that is lethal (aside from intended use) due to the end-user being criminally stupid.
Accidental deaths of children by firearm are the same as accidental deaths of children by ingesting rat poison. If you don't adequately secure either from access by a toddler, it's nobody's fault but your own.
I equate lack of parental supervision as a sign that natural selection should soon be at work in removing their children from the gene pool.
I don't hate children, I simply think that irresponsible people should be allowed to run their course without interference, thus elevating the quality of the remaining gene pool.
They're simply less democratic, not un-democratic. When the entire system is under arbitrary, un-elected control is when it ceases to be democratic at all.
I'm not arguing that democracy is binary, but that does not change the fact that certain circumstances will end up with a value of zero. Iran currently has a value of zero, because the people have no say in the vote. Those who do not toe the party line are imprisoned or killed with State sponsorship. That makes the elections a sham. Limiting candidacy to felons, or the underaged, or the provably insane, does not make a country un-democratic, it makes it less democratic.
For instance, the US is not a full democracy, but it certainly has democratic elements which are not apparently meaningless to the outcome of the political process. It's not an either-or, and attempting to make it so is disingenuous at best.
No, I am simply relating personal experience. Poor decision-making skills can usually be identified relatively objectively.
I'm not denying a lot of poverty is a result of circumstance. I'm simply saying a great deal of those I have personally dealt with have objectively poor decision-making skills. As a result, they will likely forever remain in poverty.
You would be wrong to lump me in with those "of means." I survive on roughly $12k a year, and live quite comfortably in a decent-sized city. I don't begrudge those with more means, despite being well below the poverty line. I live this way as a result of a mixture of circumstance and my own decisions. You're an AC though, so you probably will never see this response.
No, I'm not. My point was that those who are considered poor for reasons of wealth are frequently plagued with the problem of poor decision-making skills. As a result, they are both poor and broke. As a result, they do not save and will never rise above poverty. Those who are poor and have good decision making skills usually do not remain poor unless they decide they are comfortable where they are.
As the other two replies have said, I most certainly do get to decide which taxes are legitimate and which are not. There may be consequences to those decisions, but those consequences do not prevent me from making them.
The very first election under the system was the only one that qualified as democratic. There is no real choice, because the candidates are controlled strictly in a manner that is not subject to the people. The votes don't matter, because the only candidates are those who will perpetuate the lack of popular control. In practice, it is very little different than electing a dictator for life who has the power to appoint his successor. The dictatorial vote is democratic, but any vote after that is only for show.
The essence of democratic governments is that you may run for office without the consent of the establishment, that people may vote for such a person freely, the candidate is not subject to arrest for running, and there is no governmental sponsorship of vote manipulation. My argument is not about theory or "official" definitions, but about what happens in practice.
Those roads are paid by taxing the gross weight of commercial trailers (the people transporting shipped packages) and by gas taxes (also paid by the people transporting shipped packages). The shipping cost pays for the taxes that fund roads.
The poster almost certainly meant they aren't convinced it doesn't violate the Interstate Commerce Clause, which prevents individual States from creating barriers (i.e. taxes) to imports from other States.
Those retail giants collect taxes from transactions where both origination and destination of the sale are in the same State.
A democracy subject to that control is not a democracy. The ultimate choice in all representatives resides in an unelected body.
Attempting to define that as a democracy renders the term absolutely meaningless. Anything can be termed a democracy as a result, so long as people are allowed to vote. Whether their vote is counted or simply burned is irrelevant at that point.
Just like the right to speak is not the same thing as speech.
A gun is the same thing as speech. The right to own a gun is the same thing as the right to speak. Your original statement was not "A gun is not the same thing as the right to speak."
Your reply changed your original wording from "speech" to "free speech," which was not what I responded to. Having a firearm is the same as speaking, in terms of rights. It is the end expression of the protection.
Slashdot Mirror
Much like Krokodil in Russia. It's the drug for those who can't even afford the cheap drugs. The results make the results of meth use look like a picnic, but people still use it. Well, until their limbs rot off and they die.
The hardcore abusers would use less toxic drugs if they had a financially viable method of doing so (which decriminalization would provide).
Much like the teenage binge drinking rate is almost non-existent in places where it's not a taboo.
Being a taboo makes those who want to rebel interested.
You might be correct, but every major source of statistics from the 20s disagrees with you. Crime in general increased. The murder rate increased each year from the passage of the Volstead Act until the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, where it stood at roughly 10 in 10,000. Following the repeal, it again dropped to levels not seen since before the Great Depression. Rates of public drunkeness and driving under the influence also increased.
I'm not going to bother to provide citations, as they are available readily via Google. From books, to the GPO's statistics on murder rates during that period, to the very public declaration of John D. Rockefeller following Prohibition that it did exactly the opposite of what was intended. Everyone with any amount of credibility disagrees with your assessment regarding the effects of Prohibition.
For 4 decades we've been educating people about the dangers of refined sugars but not prohibiting them. Usage is very high.
That's because of government subsidies for US Sugar Corp and the corn lobby.
They undermine the education by making refined sugars as cheap as possible.
A single injection of Neulasta is $6,000, and you get two a month for many standard chemotherapy treatments.
They'll still develop them, as they have a major captive market in the US.
There's a big difference between knowingly selling a product that has hidden, lethal defects, and one that is lethal (aside from intended use) due to the end-user being criminally stupid.
Accidental deaths of children by firearm are the same as accidental deaths of children by ingesting rat poison. If you don't adequately secure either from access by a toddler, it's nobody's fault but your own.
Unless you're in the Southern Hemisphere. Then it must be anti-clockwise.
Which is too bad, but then the larger part of the voting pool is all for absolving themselves of any responsibility regarding anything.
I equate lack of parental supervision as a sign that natural selection should soon be at work in removing their children from the gene pool.
I don't hate children, I simply think that irresponsible people should be allowed to run their course without interference, thus elevating the quality of the remaining gene pool.
They're simply less democratic, not un-democratic. When the entire system is under arbitrary, un-elected control is when it ceases to be democratic at all.
I'm not arguing that democracy is binary, but that does not change the fact that certain circumstances will end up with a value of zero. Iran currently has a value of zero, because the people have no say in the vote. Those who do not toe the party line are imprisoned or killed with State sponsorship. That makes the elections a sham. Limiting candidacy to felons, or the underaged, or the provably insane, does not make a country un-democratic, it makes it less democratic.
For instance, the US is not a full democracy, but it certainly has democratic elements which are not apparently meaningless to the outcome of the political process. It's not an either-or, and attempting to make it so is disingenuous at best.
No, I am simply relating personal experience. Poor decision-making skills can usually be identified relatively objectively.
I'm not denying a lot of poverty is a result of circumstance. I'm simply saying a great deal of those I have personally dealt with have objectively poor decision-making skills. As a result, they will likely forever remain in poverty.
You would be wrong to lump me in with those "of means." I survive on roughly $12k a year, and live quite comfortably in a decent-sized city. I don't begrudge those with more means, despite being well below the poverty line. I live this way as a result of a mixture of circumstance and my own decisions. You're an AC though, so you probably will never see this response.
No, I'm not. My point was that those who are considered poor for reasons of wealth are frequently plagued with the problem of poor decision-making skills. As a result, they are both poor and broke. As a result, they do not save and will never rise above poverty. Those who are poor and have good decision making skills usually do not remain poor unless they decide they are comfortable where they are.
As the other two replies have said, I most certainly do get to decide which taxes are legitimate and which are not. There may be consequences to those decisions, but those consequences do not prevent me from making them.
The very first election under the system was the only one that qualified as democratic. There is no real choice, because the candidates are controlled strictly in a manner that is not subject to the people. The votes don't matter, because the only candidates are those who will perpetuate the lack of popular control. In practice, it is very little different than electing a dictator for life who has the power to appoint his successor. The dictatorial vote is democratic, but any vote after that is only for show.
The essence of democratic governments is that you may run for office without the consent of the establishment, that people may vote for such a person freely, the candidate is not subject to arrest for running, and there is no governmental sponsorship of vote manipulation. My argument is not about theory or "official" definitions, but about what happens in practice.
Success in politics is due largely or entirely to bribery, in one form or another.
Excessive consumption is a problem with the poor, too.
Most of the really poor people I've known are poor mostly because of their desire to live beyond their means.
I've never had a Customs fee charged on a foreign purchase, though I've never spent more than a few hundred on one.
I bet alibaba.com will be happy as hell to see such a tax pass.
I do not see use taxes as legitimate. They are an end run around the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Those roads are paid by taxing the gross weight of commercial trailers (the people transporting shipped packages) and by gas taxes (also paid by the people transporting shipped packages). The shipping cost pays for the taxes that fund roads.
The poster almost certainly meant they aren't convinced it doesn't violate the Interstate Commerce Clause, which prevents individual States from creating barriers (i.e. taxes) to imports from other States.
Those retail giants collect taxes from transactions where both origination and destination of the sale are in the same State.
A democracy subject to that control is not a democracy. The ultimate choice in all representatives resides in an unelected body.
Attempting to define that as a democracy renders the term absolutely meaningless. Anything can be termed a democracy as a result, so long as people are allowed to vote. Whether their vote is counted or simply burned is irrelevant at that point.
Just like the right to speak is not the same thing as speech.
A gun is the same thing as speech. The right to own a gun is the same thing as the right to speak. Your original statement was not "A gun is not the same thing as the right to speak."
Your reply changed your original wording from "speech" to "free speech," which was not what I responded to. Having a firearm is the same as speaking, in terms of rights. It is the end expression of the protection.
Want to try again?
Iran is a democracy in name only.