ladajo wrote:I think there may have been a profit side to it. But I can not be sure. I only met them once, and they quickly got the idea that I did not approve of them as human beings. In fact, now that I think of it, I think early on they were trading drugs for sex as I recall. There may have been a money part, but I think it was more getting girls hooked for sex.
They call it "jack balling" (At least around here.) and that is exactly how it is done. I had a friend that used to be a pimp/drug dealer. (Originally from Detroit) He had the gift of gab, and he would find girls walking down the street and sweet talk them into hanging around with him, and then he would push a little beer, or weed, and eventually crack. Once he got them on the crack they were "sprung." He then rented out his little hoes to get money and drugs for himself, 0h, and free sex too.
He was a trip. When he was on a successful bing (plenty of money girls and crack) he would rent a motel room, get two or three crack whores in with promises of dope, give them all little pieces, smoke his big piece, and lecture them all about how the Lord God was looking down on them and that they ought to mend their sinful ways! He would even fill his sermon with Halleluiahs and Amens! Apparently God had put him on the street just to tempt the wicked.
While he was sermonizing them, he would usually make them take off their clothes and indulge whatever fantasy he had. They didn't like it, but they didn't dare leave, because he MIGHT give them another piece of dope.
Yeah, they're sprung.
Your story doesn't seem...believable. Here are my reasons in order that they occured to me. First, I find it difficult to believe based on your previous postings, that you would maintain such an association. I find it unlikely that such a person would find said resources so easily outside of a major city. I also note your incorrect use of terminology, such as the "because he might give them another piece of dope" when dope is a reference to marijuana and doesn't come in pieces or that "jack balling" is a term to mean bullshitting, not seducing young girls.
If I had to guess, I'd say your tale is an extreme exaggeration or a flat out lie, neither of which matter to me.
ladajo wrote:I think there may have been a profit side to it. But I can not be sure. I only met them once, and they quickly got the idea that I did not approve of them as human beings. In fact, now that I think of it, I think early on they were trading drugs for sex as I recall. There may have been a money part, but I think it was more getting girls hooked for sex.
They call it "jack balling" (At least around here.) and that is exactly how it is done. I had a friend that used to be a pimp/drug dealer. (Originally from Detroit) He had the gift of gab, and he would find girls walking down the street and sweet talk them into hanging around with him, and then he would push a little beer, or weed, and eventually crack. Once he got them on the crack they were "sprung." He then rented out his little hoes to get money and drugs for himself, 0h, and free sex too.
He was a trip. When he was on a successful bing (plenty of money girls and crack) he would rent a motel room, get two or three crack whores in with promises of dope, give them all little pieces, smoke his big piece, and lecture them all about how the Lord God was looking down on them and that they ought to mend their sinful ways! He would even fill his sermon with Halleluiahs and Amens! Apparently God had put him on the street just to tempt the wicked.
While he was sermonizing them, he would usually make them take off their clothes and indulge whatever fantasy he had. They didn't like it, but they didn't dare leave, because he MIGHT give them another piece of dope.
Yeah, they're sprung.
Your story doesn't seem...believable. Here are my reasons in order that they occured to me. First, I find it difficult to believe based on your previous postings, that you would maintain such an association. I find it unlikely that such a person would find said resources so easily outside of a major city. I also note your incorrect use of terminology, such as the "because he might give them another piece of dope" when dope is a reference to marijuana and doesn't come in pieces or that "jack balling" is a term to mean bullshitting, not seducing young girls.
If I had to guess, I'd say your tale is an extreme exaggeration or a flat out lie, neither of which matter to me.
Perhaps you are just shocked that I actually DO know what I am talking about.
Betruger wrote: Not just any cost. IE there exists "cheap enough" price range.
The cost of producing a typical high is about $1.00. The PRICE due to illegality is MUCH MUCH higher. Often, it is a price worse than dollars. But that price is set by the WAR, not the drug.
choff wrote:25 Million represents a great deal of political clout if organized. If they insist on merely whining and don't do anything to change the system, the prohibition forces can use this as proof that drugs completely rob people of motivation and will power.
These 25 million are convicted FELONS, and with few exceptions, felons can't vote, at least in VA.
I'll have to give snaps to the elephants on that one though. Make a bunch of enemies, but take away their ability to retaliate politically. Such a deal!!
At what point in time do convicted felons have their voting rights restored? If things continue apace they might have to call off elections for the lack of authorized voters. Does this also disqualify them running for office?
This also means a very large number of people must be aware that they could be arrested. At least they are still allowed to organize. My point is that even if only 2.5 million of these 25 million arrested people regain voting rights, thats still a huge political force.
So it remains, they can't simply rely on sympathetic non users to support their agenda. If the whole lot are unmotivated and incapable of doing anything themselves to oppose the drug war, you have to blame drug usage.
Well let me see. Girls that go into prostitution tend to have been sexually abused as kids. Abused females tend to (the number is on the order of 70%) be the largest cohort of female heroin users.
Why wouldn't exploiters take advantage of those facts? Even if he/she is unaware of them at the conscious level?
As I keep saying - it all goes back to child abuse. And punishing the abused is not going to solve ANY problems. Well except maybe the pimp's problems of finding recruits. And the police's problems of having enough people to oppress for their profit.
Until the Christians of this nation start loving the "sinners" nothing will change. That was why the message when first given was so revolutionary. It is not a common part of human nature to love the sinners. It still hasn't caught on.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
If my reckoning is correct we are near the cusp of that break.
I think D sees the same thing. And it worries him. I'm thrilled.
The energy released will be some ugly though. I hope it is not like France post liberation. I hope it is more like the US post the end of Alcohol Prohibition.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
What about government tactics like pressure on landlords and through the IRS?
In San Diego, juries acquitted dispensary operators. So they're bringing IRS and landlord pressure now rather than prosecution — because of government concern they might not win in court. James Dean Stacy got probation rather than have the government take him to go to trial. [Stacy, who faced up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted of cultivating marijuana, instead is serving two years of federal probation.] But I don't want to taunt the opposition. I realize they can crush me like an ant whenever they want.
ladajo wrote:
As far as perspective on legal/illegal, that was my point. It can be argued either way, and that is why I point out that those that want with criminal tendancy, will probably use criminal means to pursue what they want. If you completely de-regulate it, make it free, and have it in bins on every street corner, what then will be the end result?
Just to make things clear, I am not for making it completely legal TO SELL. So no drugs in stores for me please.
I do not care about moralist or libertarian arguments. The only thing that matters to me it that the war on drugs does not work and costs a lot.
What I would do is to keep drugs illegal for regular stores. Then, make it cheap prescription stuff, so that any kind of illegal drug bussines does not make sense. Why should you pay dealer when you can get it cheap on prescription?
ladajo wrote:
As far as perspective on legal/illegal, that was my point. It can be argued either way, and that is why I point out that those that want with criminal tendancy, will probably use criminal means to pursue what they want. If you completely de-regulate it, make it free, and have it in bins on every street corner, what then will be the end result?
Just to make things clear, I am not for making it completely legal TO SELL. So no drugs in stores for me please.
I do not care about moralist or libertarian arguments. The only thing that matters to me it that the war on drugs does not work and costs a lot.
What I would do is to keep drugs illegal for regular stores. Then, make it cheap prescription stuff, so that any kind of illegal drug bussines does not make sense. Why should you pay dealer when you can get it cheap on prescription?
Ah. So the doctors and pharmacist lobby will clean up?
In any case even that type of regulation does not work well. Look up "Oxycontin diversion".
Basically from what I read most of these drugs are rather unpleasant except for those that need them. You could have them over the counter (as they were before the Feds got involved) and use rates would not skyrocket. Very few people will buy products they don't like.
Most of what you know about drugs is propaganda designed to keep the Drug Warriors in business. Kind of like the whole global warming business. A wallet extraction scheme. It keeps the cartels in business and keeps the police very busy. So busy that they don't have time for regular crime.
Why would that be? Well the Feds give bounties for drug arrests. Think of how that biases law enforcement.
Let be go further. I do not believe in addiction. I believe there are NO ADDICTS. Only people in pain. If you are not in pain drug use has zero attraction.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
ladajo wrote:
As far as perspective on legal/illegal, that was my point. It can be argued either way, and that is why I point out that those that want with criminal tendancy, will probably use criminal means to pursue what they want. If you completely de-regulate it, make it free, and have it in bins on every street corner, what then will be the end result?
Just to make things clear, I am not for making it completely legal TO SELL. So no drugs in stores for me please.
Ah. So the doctors and pharmacist lobby will clean up?
In any case even that type of regulation does not work well. Look up "Oxycontin diversion".
I am really not getting your point here.
With my "proposal", addicts would not need to replace heroin with Oxycontin, because they would be able to get herion on prescription (cheap or even free).
The point is to destroy drug associated crime, not to promote addiction.
Luzr wrote:
Just to make things clear, I am not for making it completely legal TO SELL. So no drugs in stores for me please.
Ah. So the doctors and pharmacist lobby will clean up?
In any case even that type of regulation does not work well. Look up "Oxycontin diversion".
I am really not getting your point here.
With my "proposal", addicts would not need to replace heroin with Oxycontin, because they would be able to get herion on prescription (cheap or even free).
The point is to destroy drug associated crime, not to promote addiction.
Drugs do not promote "addiction". Anything that promotes PTSD (child abuse is the biggie) promotes drug use. Which is why these drugs are safe for over the counter use. People without a pain problem don't like the side effects of taking pain relievers.
Addiction is a myth. A very effective myth. One day - when we wise up - "addiction" will be on a par with Zeus. Both "explain" what they were meant to explain except that both are fiction.
It is not the drugs. It is the pain.
BTW alcohol is some times used for the same reason. And alcohol with all its dangers is over the counter. In fact 95% of the drug "problem" in America is with alcohol. The only drug statistically associated with violence. You know "the violent drunk".
I can't even get D interested in repeating alcohol prohibition. Progress.
I don't have the link handy but in states with liberal med pot laws the incidence of drunk driving declines. And the decline is substantial. On the order of 20% to 30%. Think of all the innocents saved. Think of making the laws even more liberal so we could get that number up to 70% or 80%.
The study noted past research that suggests drivers under the influence of alcohol and marijuana both experience reduced skills and slower reaction times but that those driving under the influence of alcohol are unaware of their reduced skills and actually drive faster and more recklessly than when they are sober. Stoned drivers, on the other hand, seem to know they are stoned and they slow down, increase the distance between them and the car ahead of them and avoid risky maneuvers. The study noted that people who are stoned are also less likely to drive in the first place than people who are drunk.
From the study:
To date, 16 states have passed medical marijuana laws, yet very little is known about their effects. Using state-level data, we examine the relationship between medical marijuana laws and a variety of outcomes. Legalization of medical marijuana is associated with increased use of marijuana among adults, but not among minors. In addition, legalization is associated with a nearly 9 percent decrease in traffic fatalities, most likely to due to its impact on alcohol consumption. Our estimates provide strong evidence that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes.
MSimon wrote:
Drugs do not promote "addiction". Anything that promotes PTSD (child abuse is the biggie) promotes drug use. Which is why these drugs are safe for over the counter use. People without a pain problem don't like the side effects of taking pain relievers.
Addiction is a myth. A very effective myth. One day - when we wise up - "addiction" will be on a par with Zeus. Both "explain" what they were meant to explain except that both are fiction.
It is not the drugs. It is the pain.
BTW alcohol is some times used for the same reason. And alcohol with all its dangers is over the counter. In fact 95% of the drug "problem" in America is with alcohol. The only drug statistically associated with violence. You know "the violent drunk".
I can't even get D interested in repeating alcohol prohibition. Progress.
I don't have the link handy but in states with liberal med pot laws the incidence of drunk driving declines. And the decline is substantial. On the order of 20% to 30%. Think of all the innocents saved. Think of making the laws even more liberal so we could get that number up to 70% or 80%.
ladajo wrote:I think there may have been a profit side to it. But I can not be sure. I only met them once, and they quickly got the idea that I did not approve of them as human beings. In fact, now that I think of it, I think early on they were trading drugs for sex as I recall. There may have been a money part, but I think it was more getting girls hooked for sex.
They call it "jack balling" (At least around here.) and that is exactly how it is done. I had a friend that used to be a pimp/drug dealer. (Originally from Detroit)
For a moralist of your caliber, you have got some interesting friends....
