Illegal Drugs Sold Via Social Media

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The drug dealer on the corner? He's been replaced by Facebook. Everyone hide your children!

The International Narcotics Control Board also described North America as continuing to be "the world's largest illicit drug market" in 2010; parts of Europe as the homes of industrial scale cannabis factories; and growing poppy cultivation in West Asia.
Click to expand...
 
So where do we hang the shoes from the telephone pole cables to let us know there's one nearby?
 
Zarathustra[H];1038434496 said:
That's what that means?

I was wondering what was up with all the shoes...
Click to expand...

If that's what it means then I have about 20 grow houses in my neighborhood.
 
NickJames said:
If that's what it means then I have about 20 grow houses in my neighborhood.
Click to expand...

You'd think it would be kind of a dumb sign.

I mean, it's not as if the cops can't see shoes hanging from somthing... :p

Why not put up big signs:

"Secret drug den this way" with a big arrow :p

Something like this:

2011782_f520.jpg


or maybe even this:

article-2051872-0E78EDC400000578-431_468x286.jpg


:p
 
I thought that meant that there was a gang, or it represents someone they knew who died.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038434496 said:
That's what that means?

I was wondering what was up with all the shoes...
Click to expand...

When my generation was kids (I'm 40yo) we would toss shoes up on lines just for the hell of it.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Also not true, unless you're talking about ancient Rome. Shoes are thrown on power lines for a number of reasons, there isn't just 1 meaning to it.
Click to expand...

Shoes on power lines makes you think of ancient Rome?

Ancient Roman gangsters probably had different ways of showing their homies are dead, plus I doubt their power lines were shielded well enough, shoes on the power lines might interfere with their TV signal.
 
Vicinity said:
Shoes on power lines makes you think of ancient Rome?

Ancient Roman gangsters probably had different ways of showing their homies are dead, plus I doubt their power lines were shielded well enough, shoes on the power lines might interfere with their TV signal.
Click to expand...

It was a something practiced a long time ago in Italy where the shoes of the dead were thrown up on poles or ropes because the spirits of the dead walk high above ground when they return.
 
North America is continuing to be "the world's largest illicit drug market"
Its the stress man, no more government handouts, everyman for himself. Stress I tell you.:D Other then that I see a free market system with plenty of competition between the legal and the illegal drug market at work. Nothing wrong with using FB as a store front for your business. Any business for that matter, couldn't find anything in the EULA covering that.:D
 
The money this country would save by legalizing and taxing pot is astonishing. I'm not into such things, but damn. It could lower my taxes :)
 
TechLarry said:
The money this country would save by legalizing and taxing pot is astonishing. I'm not into such things, but damn. It could lower my taxes :)
Click to expand...

Selling the legalization of marijuana as a tax break for everyone else who couldn't care less about the issue seems to be a great way to get it done. Has anyone ever actually tried this?
 
TechLarry said:
The money this country would save by legalizing and taxing pot is astonishing. I'm not into such things, but damn. It could lower my taxes :)
Click to expand...
How wrong you are! This is self delusion. There would be no savings, only a redirection of funds. The government hates competitions, so instead of spending billions on the war against drugs, they'd spend billions proteting their assets. Since it would be taxed, the gov't would become your supplier, therefore it would be illegal to grow your own or sell it, that's where the NEW war on drugs would come into existence. The old war would coninue, because foreign cartels would now be seen as competition unless there was an FDA approved pact, and we all know how cartels hate people cutting into their profits, so some would, others would continue the old war. They'd also need to hire farmers, inspectors and all sorts of "specialists" to make sure the product met requirements. Then there's the issue of DWHigh that they'd need to develop methods of enforcing. I could go on & on, but thinking that legalization = government/tax payer savings & such is just a pipe dream.
 
mynamehere said:
How wrong you are! This is self delusion. There would be no savings, only a redirection of funds. The government hates competitions, so instead of spending billions on the war against drugs, they'd spend billions proteting their assets. Since it would be taxed, the gov't would become your supplier, therefore it would be illegal to grow your own or sell it, that's where the NEW war on drugs would come into existence. The old war would coninue, because foreign cartels would now be seen as competition unless there was an FDA approved pact, and we all know how cartels hate people cutting into their profits, so some would, others would continue the old war. They'd also need to hire farmers, inspectors and all sorts of "specialists" to make sure the product met requirements. Then there's the issue of DWHigh that they'd need to develop methods of enforcing. I could go on & on, but thinking that legalization = government/tax payer savings & such is just a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

I am confused by your statements. I am sure if you try really hard you can think of a few products which are taxed yet the industry as a whole is not controlled entirely by the gov't. :rolleyes:

Also, I do not believe anyone thinks cartels would vanish because of this. However, if a product like marijuana was available legally, with high quality, low cost and the risk removed from the equation.....the cartels income from this particular source would be greatly diminished and a new revenue stream would be created for the gov't. Currently drugs only exist as a negative on the balance sheet.

While your scenario certainly is a possible one it is far from the only possible outcome.
 
spinelli said:
I am confused by your statements. I am sure if you try really hard you can think of a few products which are taxed yet the industry as a whole is not controlled entirely by the gov't. :rolleyes:

Also, I do not believe anyone thinks cartels would vanish because of this. However, if a product like marijuana was available legally, with high quality, low cost and the risk removed from the equation.....the cartels income from this particular source would be greatly diminished and a new revenue stream would be created for the gov't. Currently drugs only exist as a negative on the balance sheet.

While your scenario certainly is a possible one it is far from the only possible outcome.
Click to expand...
Key word GOVERNMENT, that's why it won't change in a positive way.
I could see this when discussing the subject over 20 years ago when I still did drugs and thought legalization would be cool, and I haven't seen anything to change what I think in all these years.
Even if the cartels go under, the gov't will become the cartel, and would see home growers as competition. Why? Because they wouldn't be able to tax what they didn't grow & sell. Growing pot would be the equivalent of having an illegal distillery, and that would equal tax evasion, among other things. It will cost a lot to enforce the "legality" of it (i.e maintain absolute control). As for removing the risks...which risks? There's more than just the risk to the user, and the higher the quality, the greater the risks are for others. Sadly people like to argue driving while high vs drunk and it's ridiculous, especially if you're talking high grade pot, impaired ability is impaired ability, and both are capable of plenty of impairment. Have they found a way to determine DWHigh yet? It's not as simple as with alcohol. Having no way to determine that, and not being able to control the flow for taxation purposes is why it hasn't been legalized even though it's been on the table for decades. Law enforcement would still be used for drug enforcement, just a different way. It'd be the same thing, only different. Instead of trying to stop the flow, they'd have to control how and where it flows. Thinking that legalization = everyone will be happy about it and no one will try to circumvent the legal channels is nothing short of naive. And that's what all the "saved revenue" will be spent protecting...their assets. (makes me think of the **AAs for some reason).

They may only exist as a negative on the "balance sheet", but what's the reality? The government's had their fingers in the drug trade for a long time. It won't be all rainbows an roses like you think.
 
mynamehere said:
Key word GOVERNMENT, that's why it won't change in a positive way.
I could see this when discussing the subject over 20 years ago when I still did drugs and thought legalization would be cool, and I haven't seen anything to change what I think in all these years.
Even if the cartels go under, the gov't will become the cartel, and would see home growers as competition. Why? Because they wouldn't be able to tax what they didn't grow & sell. Growing pot would be the equivalent of having an illegal distillery, and that would equal tax evasion, among other things. It will cost a lot to enforce the "legality" of it (i.e maintain absolute control). As for removing the risks...which risks? There's more than just the risk to the user, and the higher the quality, the greater the risks are for others. Sadly people like to argue driving while high vs drunk and it's ridiculous, especially if you're talking high grade pot, impaired ability is impaired ability, and both are capable of plenty of impairment. Have they found a way to determine DWHigh yet? It's not as simple as with alcohol. Having no way to determine that, and not being able to control the flow for taxation purposes is why it hasn't been legalized even though it's been on the table for decades. Law enforcement would still be used for drug enforcement, just a different way. It'd be the same thing, only different. Instead of trying to stop the flow, they'd have to control how and where it flows. Thinking that legalization = everyone will be happy about it and no one will try to circumvent the legal channels is nothing short of naive. And that's what all the "saved revenue" will be spent protecting...their assets. (makes me think of the **AAs for some reason).

They may only exist as a negative on the "balance sheet", but what's the reality? The government's had their fingers in the drug trade for a long time. It won't be all rainbows an roses like you think.
Click to expand...

The risks I mentioned were about purchasing something legally vs illegally. There is inherent risk involved though of course it's variable.

...and no, I do not think legalization would be all roses and rainbows. Not sure what led you to that conclusion. Of course there will be those who try to circumvent regulation, I am not naive. However, if quality product is available legally at reasonable cost with zero risk...obviously those who choose the illegal route would be substantially reduced. For clarification, when I say quality product I am not only referring to top end product. Referring to a product that adheres to some kind of standard. In short, so you get what you pay for.
 
Hah hah mass media at its best. Soon, they can use McDonald's slogan, "billions served", considering how ubiquitous Facebook has become.
 
spinelli said:
The risks I mentioned were about purchasing something legally vs illegally. There is inherent risk involved though of course it's variable.

...and no, I do not think legalization would be all roses and rainbows. Not sure what led you to that conclusion. Of course there will be those who try to circumvent regulation, I am not naive. However, if quality product is available legally at reasonable cost with zero risk...obviously those who choose the illegal route would be substantially reduced. For clarification, when I say quality product I am not only referring to top end product. Referring to a product that adheres to some kind of standard. In short, so you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
Sorry about that, i guess the "we've got another hardcore 'legalization = a perfect world' person here" switch. Probably because the majority of pro-legalization people you talk to have very little common sense and can't see beyond the end of their joint. True that regulated product would be safer, I have a feeling that gov't would limit potency, just like they do with alcoholic beverages because less potent = a) lower impairment for the casual user, or b) more taxes from those who'll buy more to get a greater high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top