Editing metadata is not something someone is going to spend the hours doing, especially at the pay rate ($0).
Admittedly this probably won't help you personally, as it relates to released music, but Musicbrainz Picard (downloadable here http://musicbrainz.org/doc/PicardDownload) does a pretty amazing job of tagging music files properly for you. It uses some kind of audio fingerprinting tech so it's basically encoding independant.
I recently bought an iPhone (and a Macbook Pro) and was faced with the reality that I wouldn't be able to use Amarok with the phone as I did my Rockboxed iPod Nano (sigh) and that my music would need to be tagged properly for iTunes to behave. Picard handles it nicely.
Of course, it doesn't allow my iPhone to play vorbis files (that was my primary music format), or make iTunes any less of a slug. But that's a different matter entirely...
I suspect the issues and devices (cablecard etc.) you're describing are US-specific. It's not becoming irrelevant in the rest of the world (at least not for any of the reasons you mention).
I'm using MythTV with 2 DVB-C cards and decoding pay channels without trouble. I'm currently using a softcam setup with a pay card (Irdeto 2 encrypted signal), but have used official Irdeto 2 and Viaccess CAM modules with success.
I've been using MythTV for the past 4-5 years, and am generally very happy with the product and the service I get from it.
"Oh my god, thanks for opening up an old wound! Last time I looked at the cable guide on my television 2/3rd of it was this horrid and annoying ad space, and then there was room for 2 or maybe 3 lines of guide data. The stupidity of it made me want to scream. I have been a Tivo subscriber for a long time now and never have to deal with it, thank goodness."
I think newer tivos have started injecting some ads in the guide haven't they?
And how many premium/protected channels can MythTV handle again?
MythTV has no issues with my protected TV channels.
I'm talking about DVB-C with Irdeto2 encryption, in Denmark for what it's worth. I have used a setup with an official Irdeto CAM module and now use a softcam setup (the Irdeto CAM burned out, twice).
I can't find any 'official' (ie. published on an EU Parliamentary site) version of this proposal. That said I'm no expert in traversing the EU official sites.
Does somebody have a real link to the actual source? I am starting to suspect that this is hot air...
Me too, but that doesn't seem to be what Elton John is upset about here. He seems to be saying that he doesn't like the way the internet is changing the way music is made - from a physical-social activity to either an individual or virtual-social activity.
I have a hard time agreeing with this. Language is a (some would argue *the*) fundamental element of the society we inhabit. It's impossible to abstract from it. Without the word, there is no idea, and as the meaning of the word changes, so does the idea it's associated with.
Ironically, we are tarnishing the image of a system that we hope the Iraqi people to embrace It's also sadly ironic that it makes Bush's constant stating that 'the terrorists are those who hate freedom and democracy' (and other trash to that effect) almost prophetic.
Those countries that have been invaded and demolished by the allies in the name of both those ideals are likely to now be filled with folks who are almost forced to now hate those very things, regardless of their 'true' meaning. It strikes me as an almost sure-fire way of creating a similarly violent reaction.
The examples you mention are somewhat different to the use of cell phones on airplanes. The risk of health damage due to mobile phone usage in general is unproven, and perhaps more importantly, the damage that may be incurred is chronic and, for lack of a better word, boring. Compare that with the well-proven, highly acute (and usually spectacular) damage yielded by a plane crash and you begin to see the difference. While we may eventually be able to reverse or treat the effects of eating meat, the effects of being fatally injured in a plane crash are unlikely to be treatable any time soon.
In addition, while I don't recall seeing phones in plane armrests, we are talking about allowing an activity that offers no benefits while creating an undefined risk of causing catastrophe. While mobile phone usage makes a great deal of sense in normal use due to practicality, the presence of a phone *in your armrest* is surely at least as practical and sure not to endanger human life.
I agree entirely that, in general, potential danger is not a valid reason to ban a thing / activity. I also agree that risk is always present - indeed, planes can and do crash for reasons other than interference from mobile phones. This is just a case where valid testing is highly dangerous (to potentially many) and unethical and thus there is very little research or data to base a sound decision on. Where stakes are this high, and certainty this low, it is most certainly a reasonable and moderate approach to err on the side of caution.
How about the other side of this coin? Are all the players that will ever be released now registered and their keys noted?
I ask since I assume a new player necessitates a new keyset, and thus a new player won't be able to play releases older than the date of it's release / key-generation + validation.
I admit I haven't looked at the spec sheets on the next gen video disks so I'm not sure if / how this issue is covered./drdaz
In all honesty I wasn't thinking about who would produce coke... But I guess that the decision would need to be made whether to do business with those folks if there is no way of doing it locally. Some of the drug war budget could be used on making sure the working conditions down there are in order I suppose./me shrugs
Make no mistake, clean sources would drastically improve safety. Of course it wouldn't fix everything; I believe that the vast majority of the perceptible ill effects of drug use are caused by its social setting. I believe that legalisation would improve this situation and possibly curb abuse. In doing so, it should negate the need for nervous system reconstruction lessons...
I'd wager that there are a bunch of studies on the relationship between addiction and social environment.
"the length and the media campaign really does not make a difference. The fact still stands, the vast majority of Americans will support anti-drug laws."
I didn't get my point over properly then. The media campaign and all the hysteria surrounding drugs and their usage is the *reason* that the vast majority support prohibition. Drugs are a minority interest - if you remove the media and the anti drugs 'education' only the minority who actually use them have any real interest in them. Nobody else would care. Why would they? The only reason Joe Average has to care about drugs is the Hollywoodesque horror presented to him on the news every night.
"I am not to sure that the relevance is missing. Any parent of child between 10 and the end of high school has to have that in the back of their mind. That is a large population."
That's exactly right, but it is the media which has made those parents fearful. It is prohibition which keeps drugs available to underage children since there is no way of regulating the distribution of drugs to minors under prohibition.
"Not to mention that you have the real question of today by politicos of both parties: "Why would I ever want to commit political suicide and stop this stupid war on drugs?""
That's a tough one, and it would require an equally massive media campaign to undo the brainwashing the drug war propaganda has achieved. If that was accomplished, it wouldn't be political suicide anymore, it would be the obvious move:-).
"I wonder if drug crime would plummet?"
I'm fairly certain that alcohol related crime dropped when alcohol prohibition was repealed. When I speak of drug related crime I think of two things mainly:
1) Addicts who steal to maintain their habit 2) Drug gang related violence
Prohibition causes the price of drugs to inflate massively. Evidence from the Dutch heroin project (giving out pure heroin to registered addicts) shows a drop in both crime committed and the appearance of new users.
Once you offer users a legal source for drugs, evidence shows users will take the legal option. As a result, the gangs cannot profit from drug sales, removing the associated violence.
"we have crime that involves booz (not just DUI) and cigs."
There is a black market I'm sure, but it doesn't compare in any way to the illegal drugs black market.
"THere would still be an illegal side with kids under 18"
This is also probably true, but kids will always want to do things they aren't allowed to do. Through legalisation, we can limit the channels through which drugs can be purchased in a similar way to alcohol. The model used for alcohol doesn't work perfectly, there are ways around it, but it's a lot better than no control at all IMHO.
"there will be no way in my lifetime that kids under 18 will be allowed to smoke dope legally on the streets."
I don't support underage drug use, nor do I think drugs should be available to kids. That's one of the main reasons I support legalisation.
"I could walk into a store any time I want to purchase them removes some hoops I'd have to jump through making them even more attainable. So, are they just as attainable now than if they were legal? Not necessarily."
There is a great deal of evidence which suggests that drug seeking activity is highly stimulating to the drug user and is a major part of the illegal drug experience. Sort of like foreplay I guess... If you legalise, you take a great deal of the excitement/coolness out of drug use. Nobody is saying that obtaining drugs would be less convenient without prohibition than it is now. As stated in TFA, there is high demand, and as such there will be supply. If you want it you can buy it.
"How many recreation alcohol consumers kill children, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters each year?"
I'm sure lots of drunks kill others every year. What's your point?
"Did the right to dominion over their own bodies also include a right over someone else's?"
No it didn't, and I'm quite certain the law doesn't see it that way either. I don't see anybody here suggesting murder be legalised.
"The problems go much deeper than whether or not legalize. Drugs are glamourized in a sense and this would be the case whether they were legal or not. Music, movies, television all play a part in it."
Drugs are glamourized through a lot of channels. The current anti-drugs education does just that IMHO. Again, however, the legalisation of drugs would clearly reduce their cult status. It's very much a case of forbidden fruit - the fact that we aren't allowed to take these drugs makes them much more interesting.
"However, most people are not hooked on alcohol as quickly as they are with crack and meth."
Conversely, withdrawl from alcohol can easily be fatal. Aside from barbiturates (sp?), no other drugs' withdrawl symptoms are fatal in and of themselves. As it happens, the most addictive drug known to man is legal - nicotine. There are numerous studies which demonstrate addiction to nicotine occurs more rapidly than any of the illegal drugs such as heroin or crack.
"If they were, I'd think it would be reasonable to outlaw alcohol again."
It didn't work last time, and there's absolutely no reason to believe it would help now.
"Personally, I don't want to be around these drugs. I made that choice in my life and I feel I am better for it."
I respect that and I'm glad you are content as you are. What comes next, however I don't respect:
"Legalize them and you shove them in my face and"
You already said that drugs are glamourised in the media. Horror stories of drug related crime abound. Stories like this garner your attention. Could drugs be pushed any harder in your face? I don't particularly like drinking alcohol, but I'm willing to entertain the idea that others do. I don't hate them for it, nor do I think they should be criminalised for it.
You, on the other hand, think that people who don't believe as you should be criminals. What you write suggests you are scared by the threat of drugs and drug users, and I am going to guess that this is because your knowlegde of both is non-existent. We all fear what we do not understand. The information you need is out there (e.g. harm-reduction sites, pubmed), and the only way you can stop being scared is to understand what scares you.
"make them even more attainable so kids who might have never done it think hey, its legal maybe I should try it."
Illegal things are, generally speaking, more interesting to kids. If you are so intent on screaming about the poor children, it might be worth considering that the prohibition environment may make drugs more attractive to those children.
"Has anyone thought that having them outlawed may actually deter some people?"
If somebody wants to do drugs, their illegality does not deter them. Similarly, legalising drugs would not force people who don't want to take drugs into a drug-
"3. Prohibition was sponsored by a very loud minority. Drug laws are from the majority. A mostly quiet minorty wants to legalize drugs."
I think that the reason the majority support drug prohibition is the massive media campaign they've been subjected to over the last 70 or so years. I think without the anti-drugs campaign the majority don't have any opinion on drug usage since it is entirely irrelevant to their existence. This is even more true if drug prohibition is lifted, since drug related crime plummets...
Oops! HTML formatting:-| Reposted with linefeeds here:
"However: if I'm going to pay for your hospitalization because you abused of drugs, then I get to regulate *something*, I don't know what but if I pay for you I must get something in return."
This is where the taxation comes in... The government can make *stacks* of money from legalization through taxation. Through taxes, the end of the multi-billion dollar drug war (the amount of money spent on fighting drugs annually is quite shocking), coupled with the reduction in harm through education, you'd likely end up paying significantly less in tax.
So you wouldn't have to pay for anything.
"*Oh yeah, I said "subsidize": how do you think the real junkies (you know, the ones without a job or a life) are going to pay for their fix? Right, they will NOT. Guess who'll end up paying."
Heroin addicts, taken out of the criminal environment, can contribute to a workplace and society in just the same manner as anybody else. There is plenty of data from Holland to illustrate this. Believe it or not, junkies are also human beings. Those without jobs and lives often want jobs and lives, but given their situation can obtain neither. Also, not all drugs are as intoxicating as alcohol, and not all addicts are as 'disabled' as alcoholics.
"However: if I'm going to pay for your hospitalization because you abused of drugs, then I get to regulate *something*, I don't know what but if I pay for you I must get something in return."
This is where the taxation comes in... The government can make *stacks* of money from legalization through taxation. Through taxes, the end of the multi-billion dollar drug war (the amount of money spent on fighting drugs annually is quite shocking), coupled with the reduction in harm through education, you'd likely end up paying significantly less in tax.
So you wouldn't have to pay for anything.
"*Oh yeah, I said "subsidize": how do you think the real junkies (you know, the ones without a job or a life) are going to pay for their fix? Right, they will NOT. Guess who'll end up paying."
Heroin addicts, taken out of the criminal environment, can contribute to a workplace and society in just the same manner as anybody else. There is plenty of data from Holland to illustrate this. Believe it or not, junkies are also human beings. Those without jobs and lives often want jobs and lives, but given their situation can obtain neither. Also, not all drugs are as intoxicating as alcohol, and not all addicts are as 'disabled' as alcoholics.
"Not to mention the permanent damage that a drug like opium or heroin can do to a person."
I'm glad you don't mention it, because I suspect you have no idea what that damage would be given a clean supply and good education.
"Another problem is this: if narcotics were legalized, who would end up being the distributors? Likely the cartels and networks of dealers that have been selling it illegally for years."
What makes you think so? Is all alcohol now produced by the folks who supplied the US with alcohol under prohibition? You might be interested to know that many of the so-called bad drugs are available on prescription, at vastly lower prices than the black market.
"Even if they did play fair and there way governmental oversight, the damage to the user would still be there."
I thought you weren't going to mention it? The net damage to users would be reduced massively due to clean supplies and education. Not to mention the reduction of damage incurred by frequenting an unfriendly, criminal environment in order to obtain drugs.
"Furthermore, testing narcotics for purity, etc is somewhat time-consuming and actually consumes a portion of the drug, which would raise the costs phenomenally"
I'm quite certain that the quality control methods used to ensure the standard of pharmaceuticals now is quite effective. Time-consuming? Oh no! Consumes a portion of the drug? Who cares? When it's produced for pennies per kilo, it really makes no difference.
"It's just generally a bad idea to open this all up so a few people can legally mess with their own heads."
It's obviously a better idea to spend billions on keeping those few who want to mess with their heads criminal. Note that the few people who you refer to are messing with their heads today despite the illegality.
Slashdot Mirror
feee yeah
This is insightful? If it is, I have no idea why...
Editing metadata is not something someone is going to spend the hours doing, especially at the pay rate ($0).
Admittedly this probably won't help you personally, as it relates to released music, but Musicbrainz Picard (downloadable here http://musicbrainz.org/doc/PicardDownload) does a pretty amazing job of tagging music files properly for you. It uses some kind of audio fingerprinting tech so it's basically encoding independant.
I recently bought an iPhone (and a Macbook Pro) and was faced with the reality that I wouldn't be able to use Amarok with the phone as I did my Rockboxed iPod Nano (sigh) and that my music would need to be tagged properly for iTunes to behave. Picard handles it nicely.
Of course, it doesn't allow my iPhone to play vorbis files (that was my primary music format), or make iTunes any less of a slug. But that's a different matter entirely...
I suspect the issues and devices (cablecard etc.) you're describing are US-specific. It's not becoming irrelevant in the rest of the world (at least not for any of the reasons you mention).
I'm using MythTV with 2 DVB-C cards and decoding pay channels without trouble. I'm currently using a softcam setup with a pay card (Irdeto 2 encrypted signal), but have used official Irdeto 2 and Viaccess CAM modules with success.
I've been using MythTV for the past 4-5 years, and am generally very happy with the product and the service I get from it.
"Oh my god, thanks for opening up an old wound! Last time I looked at the cable guide on my television 2/3rd of it was this horrid and annoying ad space, and then there was room for 2 or maybe 3 lines of guide data. The stupidity of it made me want to scream. I have been a Tivo subscriber for a long time now and never have to deal with it, thank goodness."
I think newer tivos have started injecting some ads in the guide haven't they?
No problems with this on MythTV.
And how many premium/protected channels can MythTV handle again?
MythTV has no issues with my protected TV channels.
I'm talking about DVB-C with Irdeto2 encryption, in Denmark for what it's worth. I have used a setup with an official Irdeto CAM module and now use a softcam setup (the Irdeto CAM burned out, twice).
So what's your point again?
I can't find any 'official' (ie. published on an EU Parliamentary site) version of this proposal. That said I'm no expert in traversing the EU official sites.
Does somebody have a real link to the actual source? I am starting to suspect that this is hot air...
Fraud.
No, the Boston Garden closed following the 1994-1995 NBA season. They now play here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TD_Banknorth_Garden
The trouble is there's a strong link between what's fed to the public in the media and what politicians appear to be about.
Me too, but that doesn't seem to be what Elton John is upset about here. He seems to be saying that he doesn't like the way the internet is changing the way music is made - from a physical-social activity to either an individual or virtual-social activity.
I have a hard time agreeing with this. Language is a (some would argue *the*) fundamental element of the society we inhabit. It's impossible to abstract from it. Without the word, there is no idea, and as the meaning of the word changes, so does the idea it's associated with.
Those countries that have been invaded and demolished by the allies in the name of both those ideals are likely to now be filled with folks who are almost forced to now hate those very things, regardless of their 'true' meaning. It strikes me as an almost sure-fire way of creating a similarly violent reaction.
The examples you mention are somewhat different to the use of cell phones on airplanes. The risk of health damage due to mobile phone usage in general is unproven, and perhaps more importantly, the damage that may be incurred is chronic and, for lack of a better word, boring. Compare that with the well-proven, highly acute (and usually spectacular) damage yielded by a plane crash and you begin to see the difference. While we may eventually be able to reverse or treat the effects of eating meat, the effects of being fatally injured in a plane crash are unlikely to be treatable any time soon.
In addition, while I don't recall seeing phones in plane armrests, we are talking about allowing an activity that offers no benefits while creating an undefined risk of causing catastrophe. While mobile phone usage makes a great deal of sense in normal use due to practicality, the presence of a phone *in your armrest* is surely at least as practical and sure not to endanger human life.
I agree entirely that, in general, potential danger is not a valid reason to ban a thing / activity. I also agree that risk is always present - indeed, planes can and do crash for reasons other than interference from mobile phones. This is just a case where valid testing is highly dangerous (to potentially many) and unethical and thus there is very little research or data to base a sound decision on. Where stakes are this high, and certainty this low, it is most certainly a reasonable and moderate approach to err on the side of caution.
At least to begin with, try searching for 'pidgin + gaim'.
How about the other side of this coin? Are all the players that will ever be released now registered and their keys noted?
/drdaz
I ask since I assume a new player necessitates a new keyset, and thus a new player won't be able to play releases older than the date of it's release / key-generation + validation.
I admit I haven't looked at the spec sheets on the next gen video disks so I'm not sure if / how this issue is covered.
In all honesty I wasn't thinking about who would produce coke... But I guess that the decision would need to be made whether to do business with those folks if there is no way of doing it locally. Some of the drug war budget could be used on making sure the working conditions down there are in order I suppose. /me shrugs
Make no mistake, clean sources would drastically improve safety. Of course it wouldn't fix everything; I believe that the vast majority of the perceptible ill effects of drug use are caused by its social setting. I believe that legalisation would improve this situation and possibly curb abuse. In doing so, it should negate the need for nervous system reconstruction lessons...
I'd wager that there are a bunch of studies on the relationship between addiction and social environment.
"the length and the media campaign really does not make a difference. The fact still stands, the vast majority of Americans will support anti-drug laws."
:-).
I didn't get my point over properly then. The media campaign and all the hysteria surrounding drugs and their usage is the *reason* that the vast majority support prohibition. Drugs are a minority interest - if you remove the media and the anti drugs 'education' only the minority who actually use them have any real interest in them. Nobody else would care. Why would they? The only reason Joe Average has to care about drugs is the Hollywoodesque horror presented to him on the news every night.
"I am not to sure that the relevance is missing. Any parent of child between 10 and the end of high school has to have that in the back of their mind. That is a large population."
That's exactly right, but it is the media which has made those parents fearful. It is prohibition which keeps drugs available to underage children since there is no way of regulating the distribution of drugs to minors under prohibition.
"Not to mention that you have the real question of today by politicos of both parties: "Why would I ever want to commit political suicide and stop this stupid war on drugs?""
That's a tough one, and it would require an equally massive media campaign to undo the brainwashing the drug war propaganda has achieved. If that was accomplished, it wouldn't be political suicide anymore, it would be the obvious move
"I wonder if drug crime would plummet?"
I'm fairly certain that alcohol related crime dropped when alcohol prohibition was repealed. When I speak of drug related crime I think of two things mainly:
1) Addicts who steal to maintain their habit
2) Drug gang related violence
Prohibition causes the price of drugs to inflate massively. Evidence from the Dutch heroin project (giving out pure heroin to registered addicts) shows a drop in both crime committed and the appearance of new users.
Once you offer users a legal source for drugs, evidence shows users will take the legal option. As a result, the gangs cannot profit from drug sales, removing the associated violence.
"we have crime that involves booz (not just DUI) and cigs."
There is a black market I'm sure, but it doesn't compare in any way to the illegal drugs black market.
"THere would still be an illegal side with kids under 18"
This is also probably true, but kids will always want to do things they aren't allowed to do. Through legalisation, we can limit the channels through which drugs can be purchased in a similar way to alcohol. The model used for alcohol doesn't work perfectly, there are ways around it, but it's a lot better than no control at all IMHO.
"there will be no way in my lifetime that kids under 18 will be allowed to smoke dope legally on the streets."
I don't support underage drug use, nor do I think drugs should be available to kids. That's one of the main reasons I support legalisation.
I'm sorry about what happened to your friend.
"I could walk into a store any time I want to purchase them removes some hoops I'd have to jump through making them even more attainable. So, are they just as attainable now than if they were legal? Not necessarily."
There is a great deal of evidence which suggests that drug seeking activity is highly stimulating to the drug user and is a major part of the illegal drug experience. Sort of like foreplay I guess... If you legalise, you take a great deal of the excitement/coolness out of drug use. Nobody is saying that obtaining drugs would be less convenient without prohibition than it is now. As stated in TFA, there is high demand, and as such there will be supply. If you want it you can buy it.
"How many recreation alcohol consumers kill children, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters each year?"
I'm sure lots of drunks kill others every year. What's your point?
"Did the right to dominion over their own bodies also include a right over someone else's?"
No it didn't, and I'm quite certain the law doesn't see it that way either. I don't see anybody here suggesting murder be legalised.
"The problems go much deeper than whether or not legalize. Drugs are glamourized in a sense and this would be the case whether they were legal or not. Music, movies, television all play a part in it."
Drugs are glamourized through a lot of channels. The current anti-drugs education does just that IMHO. Again, however, the legalisation of drugs would clearly reduce their cult status. It's very much a case of forbidden fruit - the fact that we aren't allowed to take these drugs makes them much more interesting.
"However, most people are not hooked on alcohol as quickly as they are with crack and meth."
Conversely, withdrawl from alcohol can easily be fatal. Aside from barbiturates (sp?), no other drugs' withdrawl symptoms are fatal in and of themselves. As it happens, the most addictive drug known to man is legal - nicotine. There are numerous studies which demonstrate addiction to nicotine occurs more rapidly than any of the illegal drugs such as heroin or crack.
"If they were, I'd think it would be reasonable to outlaw alcohol again."
It didn't work last time, and there's absolutely no reason to believe it would help now.
"Personally, I don't want to be around these drugs. I made that choice in my life and I feel I am better for it."
I respect that and I'm glad you are content as you are. What comes next, however I don't respect:
"Legalize them and you shove them in my face and"
You already said that drugs are glamourised in the media. Horror stories of drug related crime abound. Stories like this garner your attention. Could drugs be pushed any harder in your face? I don't particularly like drinking alcohol, but I'm willing to entertain the idea that others do. I don't hate them for it, nor do I think they should be criminalised for it.
You, on the other hand, think that people who don't believe as you should be criminals. What you write suggests you are scared by the threat of drugs and drug users, and I am going to guess that this is because your knowlegde of both is non-existent. We all fear what we do not understand. The information you need is out there (e.g. harm-reduction sites, pubmed), and the only way you can stop being scared is to understand what scares you.
"make them even more attainable so kids who might have never done it think hey, its legal maybe I should try it."
Illegal things are, generally speaking, more interesting to kids. If you are so intent on screaming about the poor children, it might be worth considering that the prohibition environment may make drugs more attractive to those children.
"Has anyone thought that having them outlawed may actually deter some people?"
If somebody wants to do drugs, their illegality does not deter them. Similarly, legalising drugs would not force people who don't want to take drugs into a drug-
"3. Prohibition was sponsored by a very loud minority. Drug laws are from the majority. A mostly quiet minorty wants to legalize drugs."
I think that the reason the majority support drug prohibition is the massive media campaign they've been subjected to over the last 70 or so years. I think without the anti-drugs campaign the majority don't have any opinion on drug usage since it is entirely irrelevant to their existence. This is even more true if drug prohibition is lifted, since drug related crime plummets...
Oops! HTML formatting :-| Reposted with linefeeds here:
"However: if I'm going to pay for your hospitalization because you abused of drugs, then I get to regulate *something*, I don't know what but if I pay for you I must get something in return."
This is where the taxation comes in... The government can make *stacks* of money from legalization through taxation. Through taxes, the end of the multi-billion dollar drug war (the amount of money spent on fighting drugs annually is quite shocking), coupled with the reduction in harm through education, you'd likely end up paying significantly less in tax.
So you wouldn't have to pay for anything.
"*Oh yeah, I said "subsidize": how do you think the real junkies (you know, the ones without a job or a life) are going to pay for their fix? Right, they will NOT. Guess who'll end up paying."
Heroin addicts, taken out of the criminal environment, can contribute to a workplace and society in just the same manner as anybody else. There is plenty of data from Holland to illustrate this. Believe it or not, junkies are also human beings. Those without jobs and lives often want jobs and lives, but given their situation can obtain neither. Also, not all drugs are as intoxicating as alcohol, and not all addicts are as 'disabled' as alcoholics.
"However: if I'm going to pay for your hospitalization because you abused of drugs, then I get to regulate *something*, I don't know what but if I pay for you I must get something in return." This is where the taxation comes in... The government can make *stacks* of money from legalization through taxation. Through taxes, the end of the multi-billion dollar drug war (the amount of money spent on fighting drugs annually is quite shocking), coupled with the reduction in harm through education, you'd likely end up paying significantly less in tax. So you wouldn't have to pay for anything. "*Oh yeah, I said "subsidize": how do you think the real junkies (you know, the ones without a job or a life) are going to pay for their fix? Right, they will NOT. Guess who'll end up paying." Heroin addicts, taken out of the criminal environment, can contribute to a workplace and society in just the same manner as anybody else. There is plenty of data from Holland to illustrate this. Believe it or not, junkies are also human beings. Those without jobs and lives often want jobs and lives, but given their situation can obtain neither. Also, not all drugs are as intoxicating as alcohol, and not all addicts are as 'disabled' as alcoholics.
"Not to mention the permanent damage that a drug like opium or heroin can do to a person."
I'm glad you don't mention it, because I suspect you have no idea what that damage would be given a clean supply and good education.
"Another problem is this: if narcotics were legalized, who would end up being the distributors? Likely the cartels and networks of dealers that have been selling it illegally for years."
What makes you think so? Is all alcohol now produced by the folks who supplied the US with alcohol under prohibition? You might be interested to know that many of the so-called bad drugs are available on prescription, at vastly lower prices than the black market.
"Even if they did play fair and there way governmental oversight, the damage to the user would still be there."
I thought you weren't going to mention it? The net damage to users would be reduced massively due to clean supplies and education. Not to mention the reduction of damage incurred by frequenting an unfriendly, criminal environment in order to obtain drugs.
"Furthermore, testing narcotics for purity, etc is somewhat time-consuming and actually consumes a portion of the drug, which would raise the costs phenomenally"
I'm quite certain that the quality control methods used to ensure the standard of pharmaceuticals now is quite effective. Time-consuming? Oh no! Consumes a portion of the drug? Who cares? When it's produced for pennies per kilo, it really makes no difference.
"It's just generally a bad idea to open this all up so a few people can legally mess with their own heads."
It's obviously a better idea to spend billions on keeping those few who want to mess with their heads criminal. Note that the few people who you refer to are messing with their heads today despite the illegality.