Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
Gonna jump into this one...I am enjoying this discussion...thought I would throw in my 2 cents and pick a few nits.You can't convince me that the unregulated and free market by itself is going to eliminate 'bad or dangerous drugs', especially since in the legal marketplace, it hasn't eliminated bad or dangerous products.Funny, I don't really see teapots that explode on use (sounds like a bad and dangerous product) on the market. They seem to have been eliminated. There are many products (drugs included) that have been eliminated because they were dangerous or bad, and no laws had to be passed. We just don't see them anymore...so it is easy to dismiss them.Tobacco is clearly a dangerous and deadly drug...I am not too sure of this...I know of people who have lived long lives but still enjoyed tobacco products.If it has been well known for +/- fifty years that tobacco is a bad drug, then why has the free market not eliminated tobacco through mass-individual selection?See above...with use in moderation, it can be an okay drug.Why has only government price control and behavior intervention led to a slowdown of tobacco use?I dislike your use of only...(in fact it is what prompted me to post). I think that is impossible to prove...Are you saying that private people getting the word out about smoking being possible harmful didn't have any affect?In addition, many chronic diseases in innocent bystanders, such as asthma and emphezema, are linked to being around smokers, failing the Libertarian premise of "do no harm to others".Do you have a link to a study that proves this...I haven't seen one yet. Not saying there isn't a link...just haven't seen it proven. Would be interesting to see a conclusive study of such. If you are talking about people around it continuously (parents, workplace) then maybe I have heard of one...but not of incidental exposure.Only government extortion, via the multi-state settlement, outrageous surcharge taxes on sales of cigarettes, and behavioral dictates on where and when a person can smoke have actually managed to lead to a slowdown of cigarette use.First off, has cigarette use actually slown down? Again with the 'only government', Are you absolutely sure that nothing else has? No private individual or organization has done anything to slowdown cigerette use?So which is it? Does the free market really automatically, quickly, and efficiently remove bad drugs from use?Yes. From use (in general)...from anybody ever selling some? No (but neither does making it illegal). You use the term 'efficiently', which do you think was/is more efficient in terms of money (per capita, infaltion adjusted) spent, lives (per capita) destroyed, and level of violence; prohibition of alcohol or how it is now. How about the war on drugs or RC's proposal? hewler
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |