@Vynjira inflation is a RISE in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.
As far as I am concerned, lauraa33 said that 1 dollar was less valuable in 1960, meaning you needed more money to buy the same thing back then, the exact opposite of inflation. Although I have no idea whether it is true, your argument, which clearly builds on your erroneous response, is a fallacy.
I'm against the war on drugs, but I think the nubers are a bit manipulated. Heroin is 80-90% pure? Than what is brown sugar? And I don't do heroin, but can you get a bag of 80 to 90% pure heroin for 4$? That sounds like the price of brown sugar.
@Ant1Live Thanks for proving my point. To skew your comparison across dictatorships demonstrates your blatant dishonesty. Just like if I were to compare all Theist governments to Nazi Germany.
Until you demonstrate the capacity to have an honest discussion with legitimate criticisms, there is clearly no point in letting you continue to troll this video.
Fact: Some people do drugs. Now which situation is better - All recreational drugs are made legal, and are sold by a qualified chemist who only sells them in safe quantities, and whose business is run according to government guidelines, with people still being taught about the dangers of drugs; OR drugs are kept illegal with dealings still going on underground, dealers can mix their stash with whatever crap they want and sell it to whoever they want, and drug money continues to fund crime?
Well put, like most of their arguments. Personally, I don't do drugs, but so long as I'm not forced to doing them, I really don't care if anyone else does. Besides, we could use the inevitable taxes.
Where the hell do they get these figures? What do they consider a "bag" and who told them it costs $4? Sure you could get $4 in a bag worth of any drug....but it aint much. Typically heroin(and most every illegal drug) is sold in bags worth $20, $50, or $100. No one is selling 4 sacks lol.
I was addicted to heroin from the late 90's til a couple years ago, and that shit is fucking expensive, over $100 a day. Not to mention, it aint 90% pure, or else why would some bags get you 5 times higher?
@SpiderShane1 That's beside the point. They use the same unit of measure (a bag, which they don't specify) for the change in price over the years, so as a whole, heroin has gotten less expensive, even if buying enough to get a fix is still considered expensive.
The gov't utilizes drug awareness campaigns to inform the people about how much fun drugs are. Face it, when you tell someone who is any age but mostly when they are young not to do something, they will do it anyway. If they are never even aware of what not to do, they will not know and will have no desire to do. Thus the awareness campaigns are nothing more than what they purport to be, an awareness campaign to use drugs. So use and abuse america so your gov't can bust you and ruin life.
Although personally, my support for legalization or decriminalization of all substances is rooted more in support of the constitution and believing immoral people should not legislate morality or tell us what we can or can't do with our own bodies, but the best way to shut down prohibitionists is the data Penn and Teller present here. The War on Drugs has increased awareness and profitability of drugs several thousandfold compared to say 1937 (when the first Marijuana Prohibitions began.)
preventing drug related car accidents and reducing over doses nimrod. I hate prodruggies. how bout penn gets a vasectomy done by a surgeon whose just done heroin? no? well y not? mr. i want 2 make addictive reaction-slowing drugs legal 4 any1 2 use @ anytime with no consequences
Preventing alcohol related car accidents and reducing overdoses nimrod. I hate prodrinkies. How about you get a vasectomy done by a surgeon whose just drank? No? Well why not?
Oh, yeah, you do sound that ridiculous. Just because a drug would be available for RECREATIONAL use does not mean it would also be available for professionals too just like, I don't know, alcohol? Do you really think that you would be allowed to DUI suddenly? Please tell me you were just trolling me.
@coreygames They never said we should make drugs legal! They just made a point, quite succinctly, that "The War on Drugs" is an abject failure. It's cost us more than a trillion dollars to make drugs cheaper and easier for EVERYONE to get. If you would pull your head from your rectum and climb down off your High Horse, you might realize just what the man said is absolutely true.. Besides, they're COMEDIANS! I bet you work in government.
Dude, what are you even talking about? My comment is in reply to another comment, half of it is satirizing the original one.
Second, when did I say P&T endorsed legalizing it? That is just a logical conclusion: If all mind altering drugs were legal, there would still be laws against endangering behavior such as intoxicated surgery, driving, contract signing, etc. To think other wise is dumb.
So, detective, how about you delve into your cases just a little bit further before flinging accusations?
@mcallen83 the comparison is still valid though. They're not saying that the war on drugs caused heroin to be so much cheaper, they're just saying that clearly, the war on drugs isn't stopping the supply of heroin, or even making it harder to get..
@agent4844 that's not tru. it is harder 2 get. look at perscription meds, more people do them then heroin and they can f*ck a person up just as bad. y? cuz its easier 2 get.
In this case, inflation is irrelevant. Also does not take into account the reason for it's devaluing due to competition drugs and that it's out of fashion. It would have been less pure with that high value and demand back in the 70's.
@mcallen83 they do make one very good point though: that heroin is extremely cheap and easy to get, and it's easier for kids to get than a six pack of beer, because drug dealers don't care who they're selling them to.
I love P&T but this is a tad dishonest. One of the major reasons behind the significant drop in price and increase in quality is competition creted by the ease with which technological advancements have made in the processing of heroin.
I bet there is some conspiracy theory that the War on Drugs is really to make them cheaper, so that either:
A) Those who started the "war" get drugs, or, knowing the conspiracy theorists,
B) The drugs can be made in secret away from the all-seeing eyes of the NWO and so that they can be shipped to Middle Earth to be exploited by the Reptilians.
What if, instead of arresting the druggies we had the police nominate them for like Addicts Anonymous, or some kind of sensible Rehab program. No prison, just some kind of program that made them kick the habit. That way you'd be hitting both supply and demand.
More importantly, why not decrinimalize non-lethal drugs that have medical benefits, like Marijuana. Don't do the stuff myself, but if something isn't working you need to fix the system. Just how I feel
@TheRealAkaRai The idea was to make it harder to obtain instead its easier to obtain, thus why its not working.
Your trying to claim demand has decreased thus why prices have dropped. However, such a stupid claim ignores that there is competition between drug dealers and being illegal their looking to make it inexpensive to increase their profits to counter the risk factor.
Screaming your wrong won't help either data shows demand increased.
Lastly, your silly argument involving other crimes such as lead in toys not creating crime syndicates. I've already explained that like most of your arguments this is a logical fallacy, however you do not seem to grasp why what your saying is nonsense.
Well a major difference is first that consumers are not arrested for buying lead toys. Consumers are arrested for buying drugs, thus why you can't correlate the two.
So, actually doesn't this video demonstrate that Libertarians should be in favor of the war on drugs if it's so ineffectual as they claim? According to this, it makes drugs easier to get. That's what they say they want, everyone to have access to them. They can't want the government selling the drugs, I know how they don't like the government controlling industries, so they can't want the government selling the drugs.
@TheRealAkaRai That isn't what Libertarians want, they want small government. Meaning less laws. Also, legalization would mean companies selling drugs not the government.
You have no understanding of their argument and you spread a lot of bullshit misinformation.
@Vynjira It's called parody son, look it up. I'm pointing out that the argument provided here is inherently faulty, and if they were true capitalists, they'd be happy about the increase in the quality and decrease of the price of the product, and if they were against drugs they'd be happy about the massive decrease in demand. Win/win. I usually agree with P&T, but the Libertarian arguments about legalizing drugs are generally profoundly dumb, particularly the prohibition argument.
@TheRealAkaRai Its actually not a parody its a strawman argument. Your points are against some bullshit claim that isn't being made by Libertarians.
Its lose/lose because its power to the government at our expense. Its also power to criminals instead of legitimate businesses. Lastly there not for drugs their for freedom to do drugs.
So your argument is again retarded and worthless, because you have no fucking clue what your rambling about.
@Vynjira Sounds like I hit a nerve. You clearly do not know what a strawman fallacy is. I'm directly quoting them, and the argument presented here. According to this, the war on drugs has both decreased demand, while at the same time providing a cheaper, higher quality product for the consumer. Win/win. Unless you're a Libertarian, then it makes you look like an idiot.
@Vynjira First off, they never used the words "freedom" or "the government is taking our money" so hilariously, you're the one mirespresenting the clip. Second, they specifically say (at 14 seconds) "You know, supply and demand." They then say it cost 30 dollars a bag and only contained 5% heroine. They then say as a result of the War on Drugs, it's 4 dollars a bag, and is 80-90% pure. This indicates, by their own words, 600 times lower demand for heroine. Stop being such an idiot bro.
@Vynjira Then why haven't the laws against bootlegging lead to a massive crimewave? I hate the prohibition argument, it's painfully stupid. Most pot enthusiasts will exclaim about how much worse alcohol is. What positive effects have it's legalization had? Alcoholism? Millions killed in drunk driving accidents?
@TheRealAkaRai Bootlegging is largely unenforced. So your argument is worthless.
Legalization reduced the crime rates and the death rates. During prohibition 200 were killed in a single turf war in a single City.
Drunk Driving Deaths have been steadily decreasing since legalization.
Today Drunk Driving accounts for 0.012% of the population per year, compare to the 1% during prohibition. Oh yea a lot less people driving back then too.
@Vynjira Wait a minute, you say that the war on drugs is ineffectual, and that's your argument against it, and then you say my argument is worthless because laws against bootlegging are ineffectual? Dude, it's one or the other, you can't have it both ways. If we follow your logic, there should be crime cartels importing bootlegged liquor and people dying in the streets over it because it's illegal, but they're not, so your argument is patently retarded.
@TheRealAkaRai Your arguing an unenforced law vs a law that was enforced. That is as ass backwards as any argument can be because its a logical fallacy.
@Vynjira Are you honestly trying to pretend bootlegging laws are never enforced? Do I need to pull up the records of people who have been arrested for bootlegging to demonstrate how woefully ignorant you're intentionally being?
@TheRealAkaRai I didn't say never I said largely unenforced. Go read again, and go look at those records because you'll see strict enforcement such as Prohibition caused Crime-waves and Bootleg CDs cause no crime-waves because they remain largely unenforced. Your retarded.
@Vynjira Can I point out how hilarious it is that someone unaware of the difference between "your" and "you're" is declaring someone to be retarded? Good lord, grow up. You said unenforced, period. It's been enforced. Simple as that, you're wrong. Nothing you can say will change that the law has been enforced. Very simply, you're proven totally, completely and utterly wrong in your ridiculous, childish, and painfully idiotic argument.
@TheRealAkaRai You can point it out but I'm not quite sure you wanna point out that someone with spelling issues has proven you wrong.. I'll help u out bra go click see all comments and find "largely unenforced" which shows up 3 times. *Including this one*
'member bra? when I said ur argument was worthless?
Now I should prolly admit that by baiting you, I was able to get you to use more fallacies.. but you made it too easy bra.
@Vynjira So at this point, your (note, no apostraphe or e?) entire argument rests on it being "largely" unenforced? The fact is, when it happens, the law is enforced. However, making it illegal didn't increase bootlegging. You can only enforce a law when it's being violated, silly.
@TheRealAkaRai No, your argument was that bootlegging laws create crime-waves my point was simply that youR ignoring the enforcement of these laws as a factor. To which you continually divert into another argument bra.
@Vynjira "No, your argument was that bootlegging laws create crime-waves" That's the exact opposite of my argument. I note how you're completely ignoring the supply and demand point I've made repeatedly. They're specifically talking about supply and demand, they specifically say SUPPLY AND DEMAND, and demonstrate instead that the demand has decreased to quote "600 times" My argument was that bootlegging laws are as comparable to the war on drugs as prohibition.
Peoples lives are ruined because of the laws in place as well. They even state that the laws aren't to help people only to control usage with supply and demand which they then disprove via the statistics.
They then counter the disproved supply and demand argument with the argument that drug laws only waste our money and limit our freedom.
@Vynjira If bootlegging is a strawman argument, then so is prohibition. They're both laws against alcoholic substances. What about laws against lead toys, is there some secret organization selling toys with lead and shooting people in the face simply because it's been made illegal? How about how in Australia light bulbs that aren't eco-friendly are illegal, that's enforced, why aren't there any light bulb cartels? In San Francisco, meat is now illegal on mondays, any pork cartels? Thought not.
@TheRealAkaRai Bootlegging isn't the strawman I believe I said your supply and demand argument was. Your bootlegging argument is loaded with logical fallacies.
Association Fallacies, Red Herrings (Appeal to consequences and Appeal to ridicule), Composition Fallacies, Generalization Fallacies, and Propositional Fallacies.
I mean your argument is utterly worthless because your trying correlate and then refute the correlations.
@Vynjira The point remains, if your idiotic argument that making something illegal only makes the situation worse, there should have been a dramatic uptick in bootlegging, but on account of your argument being as impossibly stupid as you clearly are, there hasn't. It's a red herring, it would be like arguing that the fact that the Vatican, India, and the Phillipines have some of the world's lowest crime rates, and are three of the most religious countries on Earth, religion decreases crime.
@TheRealAkaRai Oh I like this, after being proved wrong.. you divert back to a strawman argument.
Not only did I not say "making things illegal only makes the situation worse", but I can site why I disagree with such a statement. Murder being illegal for example would not make a situation worse.
Another Red Herring is arguing about an apostrophe (not apostraphe) or its spelling. However, I never diverted the argument in that way.
@Vynjira "However, I never diverted the argument in that " You just did, you need to be more subtle. Remember that post a while back where you intentionally spelled practically every third word wrong? Too obvious. Yet you went right for the bait. Making it illegal to distribute substances that ruin lives and kill people isn't limiting freedom. You still haven't addressed supply and demand, or bootlegging.
@TheRealAkaRai First I admitted when I was baiting, second I never used it as a point to further my argument by calling you retarded for using a red herring. I did address the strawman arguments you made as both retarded and worthless because they are not libertarian views despite your assertions to the contrary.
I don't need to address a strawman argument other than tell you why its not a valid argument which I've done ad nauseum verbatim.
@Vynjira You haven't stated why anything I've said isn't valid. And you haven't simply used the word retarded, you've also called me personally a retard. Important difference bro. I state again, this video only proves that the war on drugs has massively decreased demand. To anyone against drug use, that's good. The side effect is, the quality of the product has massively increased, so the now drastically fewer consumers also get the benefit of a cheaper, higher quality product.
@TheRealAkaRai I did say you personally were retarded, this is why bra.
"Libertarian arguments about legalizing drugs are generally profoundly dumb, particularly the prohibition argument."
Then you proceeded to use a strawman fallacy misrepresenting Libertarians, as well as several logical fallacies in your bootlegging argument while not demonstrating why prohibition argument is profoundly stupid.
Most beer has a "very light effect" too, but you will get drunk is you drink a lot, and you will get high if you smoke a lot of weed ("a lot" is rather relative here). So it doesn't matter how light the effect is, if you want to get stoned on weed (and got enough money), you can. So if you legalize weed, you might as well legalize everything else.
America tried banning alcohol in the 20s up until the early 30s, and it caused a right shitstorm. Nothing to be won there. Your argument is bullshit.
@ronnoceel Thats alot of task to put on something. How is it fair to tax Marijuana smokers alot but its okay to tax Alcohol drinkers a minimal amount?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"taking away our freedom"
Oh please. That old tired Libertarian bullshit?
Libertarians regularly confuse freedom from society (anarchy) with freedom within society. If one was to apply actual logic to Libertarian philosophy, the Bill of Rights becomes unconstitutional because it defines which freedoms will be protected by government, which in turn, restricts the freedom of those that want to deny others their freedom so they can have more economic or social freedom.
The Bill of Rights is what Libertarians base their ideals on. Libertarians aren't against laws, they are against the Government becoming too powerful. The more laws a Government has the more powerful it becomes.
The Bill of Rights declares what laws the Government CANNOT make and not what freedoms we don't have. That is the Libertarian Philosophy, that the Bill of Rights takes power from the Government.
Some people seem to feel safer with more laws, well move to Iraq. They have plenty.
Plenty of people are insane without the use of narcotics, while hardly any people have become insane from drug use. Addicted, but not insane. Alcohol is legal, and there are people who are addicted to that. They aren't as desperate as those addicted to heroin because they can publicly use and purchase their drug. And you're confusing anarchy (no rules) with libertarianism (limited rules). The government should protect us from others, not ourselves.
Crackpot. In order for the government to protect us from other people, they have to protect those "other people" from themselves - or hasn't that reality crossed your microscopic little mind yet.
I'm not confusing anything. Libertarianism bullshit is at its core, freedom from society. Especially the freedom from having responsibility in the form of TAXES. Well without taxes to pay for everything, your society crumbles into dust and shit. This only works for hermits that live in Wyoming.
The government CANNOT protect us from ourselves or other people from themselves. What the government CAN do is find people who are planning on hurting others or who are currently hurting others. If somebody wants to peacefully use drugs, he should. And you are confusing libertarianism (an organized system with more trust put on individuals who do pay taxes) with anarchism (not a form of government at all). It's not freedom from society at all, it's freedom for people within society.
Yo he is makin abig point, what's to stop D-Boys from selling even more product, it's like spening 150,000 on EX pill you end up wit what over 250,000 to 300,000 in profit
How absurd. The law of supply and demand states that price is directly related to demand and inversely related to supply. The more demand for a good or service the higher the price.
So what does low priced heroin really say? It says that demand is low but supply is high. In other words drug producers have had to innovate (like in any enterprise), creating more efficient methods of production to counterract low demand.
When it was legal the demand was higher and the supply was smaller. When it became illegal and there was money to be made, the demand decreased and the supply vastly increased. Now you have so many people willing to get you heroine, that it has far EXCEEDED the demand for it.
this guy needs to be the president
MrDellarobbia 1 day ago
wait, where the fuck can i buy smack for $4? damn
420GanjaGanja 3 days ago
but wasn't 1 dollar less valuable in 1960 than now?
lautaa33 2 weeks ago
@lautaa33 Thus adjusted for inflation.
Vynjira 2 weeks ago
@Vynjira less does not mean more....
kotofu 2 days ago
@kotofu and being adjusted for inflation means being adjusted for the changes in purchasing power of the dollar.
Vynjira 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vynjira inflation is a RISE in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.
As far as I am concerned, lauraa33 said that 1 dollar was less valuable in 1960, meaning you needed more money to buy the same thing back then, the exact opposite of inflation. Although I have no idea whether it is true, your argument, which clearly builds on your erroneous response, is a fallacy.
kotofu 2 days ago
He would make a better president than Obama plus I'm black as well
Tyrone279 4 weeks ago
Probably worth mentioning that the C.I.A. is selling drugs too. This country is so fucked up.
TRicKyDicKy93 1 month ago
I'm against the war on drugs, but I think the nubers are a bit manipulated. Heroin is 80-90% pure? Than what is brown sugar? And I don't do heroin, but can you get a bag of 80 to 90% pure heroin for 4$? That sounds like the price of brown sugar.
TheMalar 1 month ago
@TheSeanoftheBread finally, a smart american. I salute you sir
andyroo2540 1 month ago
why cant he be president?
oGKorz 2 months ago 15
@oGKorz because he's an Atheist.
Vynjira 2 months ago 61
@Vynjira lol
oGKorz 2 months ago
@Vynjira Or in other words, most americans are religiously biased. That's one of many reasons why I want out of this country.
TheSeanoftheBread 1 month ago
@TheSeanoftheBread Good one. Why not to to atheist China or North Korea? It's a shame that the world no longer has the atheist Soviet Union.
Ant1Live 1 month ago
@Ant1Live Thanks for proving my point. To skew your comparison across dictatorships demonstrates your blatant dishonesty. Just like if I were to compare all Theist governments to Nazi Germany.
Until you demonstrate the capacity to have an honest discussion with legitimate criticisms, there is clearly no point in letting you continue to troll this video.
Vynjira 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vynjira The only thing stupider than a politician is an atheist.
Ant1Live 1 month ago
@Ant1Live Right, because Theists do so well in the sciences and math lol.
Keeping in mind that most of the politicians are some denomination of Christianity. Whereas most of the Physicists are Atheists.
Vynjira 1 month ago 6
Comment removed
beefflavouredbolloks 1 month ago
Comment removed
moonfreak1993 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Vynjira
Comment removed
moonfreak1993 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Vynjira
@Vynjira i prefer a badass like this than satanic mofo
amini011 1 month ago
@Vynjira
That aaaaand he's a fucking magician..
BNCcooperative 1 month ago
@Vynjira Rather, he has too much sense of self-worth.
kittenclaws 1 month ago
@Vynjira sadly that is the reason pathetic isnt it
geoffreygreenleaf 3 weeks ago
@Vynjira an athiests would be a better president....
FINOIWolf 3 weeks ago
@Vynjira What does being atheist have to do with it? god aint real he is right
MrFluffyDawg 2 weeks ago
@MrFluffyDawg Since the Cold War, Atheists don't get elected for President in the US.
Vynjira 2 weeks ago
Win. Penn and teller is win.
luxord2654 2 months ago
Fact: Some people do drugs. Now which situation is better - All recreational drugs are made legal, and are sold by a qualified chemist who only sells them in safe quantities, and whose business is run according to government guidelines, with people still being taught about the dangers of drugs; OR drugs are kept illegal with dealings still going on underground, dealers can mix their stash with whatever crap they want and sell it to whoever they want, and drug money continues to fund crime?
PassTheMarmalade1957 2 months ago 3
@PassTheMarmalade1957 Thank you.
artistwithouttalent 2 months ago
Well put, like most of their arguments. Personally, I don't do drugs, but so long as I'm not forced to doing them, I really don't care if anyone else does. Besides, we could use the inevitable taxes.
artistwithouttalent 2 months ago
Now I want a doughnut and some pot....
littlesaffron86 2 months ago
Face it the war against drugs is wrong, also the war against terrorism.
Come on USA this is becoming a patter.
xmenprince 2 months ago
where are penn and teller getting their heroin from? i need that connect.
someoneiswakingup 3 months ago
I don't use drugs, but I felt the impulse to clap after this video.
NightmareGanon 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't know who the hell Doug is, and I certainly don't want anything to do with his nuts.
narutolame 3 months ago
Where the hell do they get these figures? What do they consider a "bag" and who told them it costs $4? Sure you could get $4 in a bag worth of any drug....but it aint much. Typically heroin(and most every illegal drug) is sold in bags worth $20, $50, or $100. No one is selling 4 sacks lol.
I was addicted to heroin from the late 90's til a couple years ago, and that shit is fucking expensive, over $100 a day. Not to mention, it aint 90% pure, or else why would some bags get you 5 times higher?
SpiderShane1 3 months ago
@SpiderShane1 That's beside the point. They use the same unit of measure (a bag, which they don't specify) for the change in price over the years, so as a whole, heroin has gotten less expensive, even if buying enough to get a fix is still considered expensive.
jsgoodfella 3 months ago
@SpiderShane1 4 Sacks lol, I see where you coming from but you missed the point at the end.
9LeafFilms 3 months ago
The gov't utilizes drug awareness campaigns to inform the people about how much fun drugs are. Face it, when you tell someone who is any age but mostly when they are young not to do something, they will do it anyway. If they are never even aware of what not to do, they will not know and will have no desire to do. Thus the awareness campaigns are nothing more than what they purport to be, an awareness campaign to use drugs. So use and abuse america so your gov't can bust you and ruin life.
OverTaxed42Long 4 months ago
WTF are Doug-nuts
EasyExpertVillage 4 months ago 18
@EasyExpertVillage Doug's nuts.
IronreaverVII 3 months ago 2
@EasyExpertVillage a quick way to get the Nostalgia critic to pay attention :P
artistwithouttalent 2 months ago
is he stoned?
he acts like he is stoned.... but usually stoners say smart things
2shae1980 5 months ago
@2shae1980 Nope. He says that he has never done any drugs. I applaud him for that.
JohnTheGray 5 months ago
I am against legalisation, but this is an interesting argument. Will examine the logic here...
Although "freedom" isn't a goal in itself, logic is.
revesvans 5 months ago
"we abuse doughnuts."
drealgrin 5 months ago 40
Although personally, my support for legalization or decriminalization of all substances is rooted more in support of the constitution and believing immoral people should not legislate morality or tell us what we can or can't do with our own bodies, but the best way to shut down prohibitionists is the data Penn and Teller present here. The War on Drugs has increased awareness and profitability of drugs several thousandfold compared to say 1937 (when the first Marijuana Prohibitions began.)
PaulDenton14 6 months ago
to answer penns rhetorical question, a false sense of security for the parent slaves i mean taxpayers
porchmonkey401k 6 months ago
Doughnuts! Thank you penn and teller. First thing im gong to do tomorrow morning.
Sumoto999 6 months ago
e.e
And he seemed so nice in Fantasia.
H1W25K1998 7 months ago
what do you think kills more a year
philipviele 7 months ago
Are all these clips from a TV show? (Clips with white background and Penn, most of the time, swearing)
TheDantheman1997 7 months ago
@TheDantheman1997 Yes. It's called "Bullshit!" It airs on Showtime.
andybpiano 7 months ago
The Government of Canada should ban donuts. And coffee. There is some chronic Timmie's addictions in my town.
awfulsails 9 months ago
preventing drug related car accidents and reducing over doses nimrod. I hate prodruggies. how bout penn gets a vasectomy done by a surgeon whose just done heroin? no? well y not? mr. i want 2 make addictive reaction-slowing drugs legal 4 any1 2 use @ anytime with no consequences
cruelbusiness1984 9 months ago
@cruelbusiness1984
Preventing alcohol related car accidents and reducing overdoses nimrod. I hate prodrinkies. How about you get a vasectomy done by a surgeon whose just drank? No? Well why not?
Oh, yeah, you do sound that ridiculous. Just because a drug would be available for RECREATIONAL use does not mean it would also be available for professionals too just like, I don't know, alcohol? Do you really think that you would be allowed to DUI suddenly? Please tell me you were just trolling me.
coreygames 9 months ago
@coreygames They never said we should make drugs legal! They just made a point, quite succinctly, that "The War on Drugs" is an abject failure. It's cost us more than a trillion dollars to make drugs cheaper and easier for EVERYONE to get. If you would pull your head from your rectum and climb down off your High Horse, you might realize just what the man said is absolutely true.. Besides, they're COMEDIANS! I bet you work in government.
MrInspector 8 months ago
Dude, what are you even talking about? My comment is in reply to another comment, half of it is satirizing the original one.
Second, when did I say P&T endorsed legalizing it? That is just a logical conclusion: If all mind altering drugs were legal, there would still be laws against endangering behavior such as intoxicated surgery, driving, contract signing, etc. To think other wise is dumb.
So, detective, how about you delve into your cases just a little bit further before flinging accusations?
coreygames 8 months ago
Donuts! I knew it was them!
Even when it was the heroin I knew it was them!!!!
Ban donuts!
C0mmanderEddingt0n 10 months ago
BAN DONUTS!
lawrencetimmons94 11 months ago
But that's nothing to do with the comparison.
mcallen83 1 year ago
@mcallen83 the comparison is still valid though. They're not saying that the war on drugs caused heroin to be so much cheaper, they're just saying that clearly, the war on drugs isn't stopping the supply of heroin, or even making it harder to get..
agent4844 1 year ago
@agent4844 that's not tru. it is harder 2 get. look at perscription meds, more people do them then heroin and they can f*ck a person up just as bad. y? cuz its easier 2 get.
cruelbusiness1984 9 months ago
Wait, $4 for how much heroin?
Maddolis 1 year ago
In this case, inflation is irrelevant. Also does not take into account the reason for it's devaluing due to competition drugs and that it's out of fashion. It would have been less pure with that high value and demand back in the 70's.
Love P and T, but this was a bad example.
mcallen83 1 year ago
@mcallen83 they do make one very good point though: that heroin is extremely cheap and easy to get, and it's easier for kids to get than a six pack of beer, because drug dealers don't care who they're selling them to.
agent4844 1 year ago
Wow, that hurt.
TraustiGeir 1 year ago
Legalize, tax, and regulate all drugs.
mcgra8bc 1 year ago
Wow, that's amazing.
I'm gunna start using smack
Manik2Magik 1 year ago 2
I love P&T but this is a tad dishonest. One of the major reasons behind the significant drop in price and increase in quality is competition creted by the ease with which technological advancements have made in the processing of heroin.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi Well, you can tell Penn and Teller about that and they will most likely agree. It's the same thing with Marijuana.
XlPackratlX 1 month ago
I bet there is some conspiracy theory that the War on Drugs is really to make them cheaper, so that either:
A) Those who started the "war" get drugs, or, knowing the conspiracy theorists,
B) The drugs can be made in secret away from the all-seeing eyes of the NWO and so that they can be shipped to Middle Earth to be exploited by the Reptilians.
;D
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
Addendum:
In 2012.
;)
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
What if, instead of arresting the druggies we had the police nominate them for like Addicts Anonymous, or some kind of sensible Rehab program. No prison, just some kind of program that made them kick the habit. That way you'd be hitting both supply and demand.
More importantly, why not decrinimalize non-lethal drugs that have medical benefits, like Marijuana. Don't do the stuff myself, but if something isn't working you need to fix the system. Just how I feel
FNGLHR 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai The idea was to make it harder to obtain instead its easier to obtain, thus why its not working.
Your trying to claim demand has decreased thus why prices have dropped. However, such a stupid claim ignores that there is competition between drug dealers and being illegal their looking to make it inexpensive to increase their profits to counter the risk factor.
Screaming your wrong won't help either data shows demand increased.
Vynjira 1 year ago
Lastly, your silly argument involving other crimes such as lead in toys not creating crime syndicates. I've already explained that like most of your arguments this is a logical fallacy, however you do not seem to grasp why what your saying is nonsense.
Well a major difference is first that consumers are not arrested for buying lead toys. Consumers are arrested for buying drugs, thus why you can't correlate the two.
Vynjira 1 year ago
So, actually doesn't this video demonstrate that Libertarians should be in favor of the war on drugs if it's so ineffectual as they claim? According to this, it makes drugs easier to get. That's what they say they want, everyone to have access to them. They can't want the government selling the drugs, I know how they don't like the government controlling industries, so they can't want the government selling the drugs.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai That isn't what Libertarians want, they want small government. Meaning less laws. Also, legalization would mean companies selling drugs not the government.
You have no understanding of their argument and you spread a lot of bullshit misinformation.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira It's called parody son, look it up. I'm pointing out that the argument provided here is inherently faulty, and if they were true capitalists, they'd be happy about the increase in the quality and decrease of the price of the product, and if they were against drugs they'd be happy about the massive decrease in demand. Win/win. I usually agree with P&T, but the Libertarian arguments about legalizing drugs are generally profoundly dumb, particularly the prohibition argument.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai Its actually not a parody its a strawman argument. Your points are against some bullshit claim that isn't being made by Libertarians.
Its lose/lose because its power to the government at our expense. Its also power to criminals instead of legitimate businesses. Lastly there not for drugs their for freedom to do drugs.
So your argument is again retarded and worthless, because you have no fucking clue what your rambling about.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira Sounds like I hit a nerve. You clearly do not know what a strawman fallacy is. I'm directly quoting them, and the argument presented here. According to this, the war on drugs has both decreased demand, while at the same time providing a cheaper, higher quality product for the consumer. Win/win. Unless you're a Libertarian, then it makes you look like an idiot.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai So you didn't misrepresent P&T's Argument?
"Libertarians should be in favor of the war on drugs... it makes drugs easier to get."
Thats what you said and P&T said the government is taking our money and our freedom which is what Libertarians are against.
Then you wrote...
"They can't want the government selling the drugs"
and I asked why would the government be selling if drugs were legal.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira First off, they never used the words "freedom" or "the government is taking our money" so hilariously, you're the one mirespresenting the clip. Second, they specifically say (at 14 seconds) "You know, supply and demand." They then say it cost 30 dollars a bag and only contained 5% heroine. They then say as a result of the War on Drugs, it's 4 dollars a bag, and is 80-90% pure. This indicates, by their own words, 600 times lower demand for heroine. Stop being such an idiot bro.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai "What are the feds accomplishing by spending our money and taking our freedom?" 1:22
Oh yea they never said freedom or the government is taking our money. Guess you didn't finish the clip numb nuts.
Vynjira 1 year ago
Alcohol being legal doesn't increase crime rates it decreases them.. Prohibition showed a massive increase in crime across the board.
Vynjira 2 years ago 2
@Vynjira Then why haven't the laws against bootlegging lead to a massive crimewave? I hate the prohibition argument, it's painfully stupid. Most pot enthusiasts will exclaim about how much worse alcohol is. What positive effects have it's legalization had? Alcoholism? Millions killed in drunk driving accidents?
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai Bootlegging is largely unenforced. So your argument is worthless.
Legalization reduced the crime rates and the death rates. During prohibition 200 were killed in a single turf war in a single City.
Drunk Driving Deaths have been steadily decreasing since legalization.
Today Drunk Driving accounts for 0.012% of the population per year, compare to the 1% during prohibition. Oh yea a lot less people driving back then too.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira Wait a minute, you say that the war on drugs is ineffectual, and that's your argument against it, and then you say my argument is worthless because laws against bootlegging are ineffectual? Dude, it's one or the other, you can't have it both ways. If we follow your logic, there should be crime cartels importing bootlegged liquor and people dying in the streets over it because it's illegal, but they're not, so your argument is patently retarded.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai Your arguing an unenforced law vs a law that was enforced. That is as ass backwards as any argument can be because its a logical fallacy.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira Are you honestly trying to pretend bootlegging laws are never enforced? Do I need to pull up the records of people who have been arrested for bootlegging to demonstrate how woefully ignorant you're intentionally being?
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai I didn't say never I said largely unenforced. Go read again, and go look at those records because you'll see strict enforcement such as Prohibition caused Crime-waves and Bootleg CDs cause no crime-waves because they remain largely unenforced. Your retarded.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira Can I point out how hilarious it is that someone unaware of the difference between "your" and "you're" is declaring someone to be retarded? Good lord, grow up. You said unenforced, period. It's been enforced. Simple as that, you're wrong. Nothing you can say will change that the law has been enforced. Very simply, you're proven totally, completely and utterly wrong in your ridiculous, childish, and painfully idiotic argument.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai You can point it out but I'm not quite sure you wanna point out that someone with spelling issues has proven you wrong.. I'll help u out bra go click see all comments and find "largely unenforced" which shows up 3 times. *Including this one*
'member bra? when I said ur argument was worthless?
Now I should prolly admit that by baiting you, I was able to get you to use more fallacies.. but you made it too easy bra.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira So at this point, your (note, no apostraphe or e?) entire argument rests on it being "largely" unenforced? The fact is, when it happens, the law is enforced. However, making it illegal didn't increase bootlegging. You can only enforce a law when it's being violated, silly.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai No, your argument was that bootlegging laws create crime-waves my point was simply that youR ignoring the enforcement of these laws as a factor. To which you continually divert into another argument bra.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira "No, your argument was that bootlegging laws create crime-waves" That's the exact opposite of my argument. I note how you're completely ignoring the supply and demand point I've made repeatedly. They're specifically talking about supply and demand, they specifically say SUPPLY AND DEMAND, and demonstrate instead that the demand has decreased to quote "600 times" My argument was that bootlegging laws are as comparable to the war on drugs as prohibition.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai Its a strawman argument.
Peoples lives are ruined because of the laws in place as well. They even state that the laws aren't to help people only to control usage with supply and demand which they then disprove via the statistics.
They then counter the disproved supply and demand argument with the argument that drug laws only waste our money and limit our freedom.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira If bootlegging is a strawman argument, then so is prohibition. They're both laws against alcoholic substances. What about laws against lead toys, is there some secret organization selling toys with lead and shooting people in the face simply because it's been made illegal? How about how in Australia light bulbs that aren't eco-friendly are illegal, that's enforced, why aren't there any light bulb cartels? In San Francisco, meat is now illegal on mondays, any pork cartels? Thought not.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai Bootlegging isn't the strawman I believe I said your supply and demand argument was. Your bootlegging argument is loaded with logical fallacies.
Association Fallacies, Red Herrings (Appeal to consequences and Appeal to ridicule), Composition Fallacies, Generalization Fallacies, and Propositional Fallacies.
I mean your argument is utterly worthless because your trying correlate and then refute the correlations.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira The point remains, if your idiotic argument that making something illegal only makes the situation worse, there should have been a dramatic uptick in bootlegging, but on account of your argument being as impossibly stupid as you clearly are, there hasn't. It's a red herring, it would be like arguing that the fact that the Vatican, India, and the Phillipines have some of the world's lowest crime rates, and are three of the most religious countries on Earth, religion decreases crime.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai Oh I like this, after being proved wrong.. you divert back to a strawman argument.
Not only did I not say "making things illegal only makes the situation worse", but I can site why I disagree with such a statement. Murder being illegal for example would not make a situation worse.
Another Red Herring is arguing about an apostrophe (not apostraphe) or its spelling. However, I never diverted the argument in that way.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira "However, I never diverted the argument in that " You just did, you need to be more subtle. Remember that post a while back where you intentionally spelled practically every third word wrong? Too obvious. Yet you went right for the bait. Making it illegal to distribute substances that ruin lives and kill people isn't limiting freedom. You still haven't addressed supply and demand, or bootlegging.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai First I admitted when I was baiting, second I never used it as a point to further my argument by calling you retarded for using a red herring. I did address the strawman arguments you made as both retarded and worthless because they are not libertarian views despite your assertions to the contrary.
I don't need to address a strawman argument other than tell you why its not a valid argument which I've done ad nauseum verbatim.
Vynjira 1 year ago
@Vynjira You haven't stated why anything I've said isn't valid. And you haven't simply used the word retarded, you've also called me personally a retard. Important difference bro. I state again, this video only proves that the war on drugs has massively decreased demand. To anyone against drug use, that's good. The side effect is, the quality of the product has massively increased, so the now drastically fewer consumers also get the benefit of a cheaper, higher quality product.
TheRealAkaRai 1 year ago
@TheRealAkaRai I did say you personally were retarded, this is why bra.
"Libertarian arguments about legalizing drugs are generally profoundly dumb, particularly the prohibition argument."
Then you proceeded to use a strawman fallacy misrepresenting Libertarians, as well as several logical fallacies in your bootlegging argument while not demonstrating why prohibition argument is profoundly stupid.
Vynjira 1 year ago
Most beer has a "very light effect" too, but you will get drunk is you drink a lot, and you will get high if you smoke a lot of weed ("a lot" is rather relative here). So it doesn't matter how light the effect is, if you want to get stoned on weed (and got enough money), you can. So if you legalize weed, you might as well legalize everything else.
America tried banning alcohol in the 20s up until the early 30s, and it caused a right shitstorm. Nothing to be won there. Your argument is bullshit.
realsceptic 2 years ago
I remember this is the clip that made me support legalization of drugs.
Hjernespreng 2 years ago
Sort of like the war on poverty...huh?
w4kwd 2 years ago
Maybe we can make drugs legal and then just tax like crazy on them. It might fix the economy and the drug problem.
ronnoceel 2 years ago 2
We could make drugs legal, but then tax like 20% on em. That might fix the economy.
ronnoceel 2 years ago 4
@ronnoceel Thats alot of task to put on something. How is it fair to tax Marijuana smokers alot but its okay to tax Alcohol drinkers a minimal amount?
STMARYISLOOSE 3 months ago
"krispy kreams are so good if I told you they had crack in 'em you'd be like 'see i knew something was up"
-Chris Rock
hailmary7283 2 years ago 70
@hailmary7283 honestly, if there were crack in em.... id still eat em
datel3ss 8 months ago
HE IS RIGHT, we must take down the Doughnut companies before they've got us all with their sweet glancy glacing :(
Rainbow Sprinkles KILLS!
mesmashyoudie 2 years ago 47
Haha, perhaps we could get alot cheaper doughnuts in 10 years! :D
Jourei91 2 years ago
Only if their made illegal will they become cheaper..
Vynjira 2 years ago
You might not have noticed, my last post was an reply to mesmashyoudie's post. Somehow YouTube fucked up that thing...
Jourei91 2 years ago
@mesmashyoudie Fuck doughnuts! you could eat them all day and they never fill you up! I can't afford to be eating that yummy-ness all day!
DarkHumorist 1 year ago
@mesmashyoudie
DOUGHNUTS!!!!!!!!
tubevideoguy762 6 months ago
this is correlational rather than causational evidence is not evidence.
But DAAAAAAAAAAMMMMN, what is the economics of dealers? Are they on the Wallmart structure bulkbuy system?
butchdeadlift10 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"taking away our freedom"
Oh please. That old tired Libertarian bullshit?
Libertarians regularly confuse freedom from society (anarchy) with freedom within society. If one was to apply actual logic to Libertarian philosophy, the Bill of Rights becomes unconstitutional because it defines which freedoms will be protected by government, which in turn, restricts the freedom of those that want to deny others their freedom so they can have more economic or social freedom.
Libertarianism is bullshit
Xerock 3 years ago
The Bill of Rights is what Libertarians base their ideals on. Libertarians aren't against laws, they are against the Government becoming too powerful. The more laws a Government has the more powerful it becomes.
The Bill of Rights declares what laws the Government CANNOT make and not what freedoms we don't have. That is the Libertarian Philosophy, that the Bill of Rights takes power from the Government.
Some people seem to feel safer with more laws, well move to Iraq. They have plenty.
Vynjira 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You do not have a right to drugs that make people psychotic. Get the fuck over it you anarchist whore.
Iraq also has lots of guns too, or do you want to pretend escalation never happens in society either?
Xerock 3 years ago
Plenty of people are insane without the use of narcotics, while hardly any people have become insane from drug use. Addicted, but not insane. Alcohol is legal, and there are people who are addicted to that. They aren't as desperate as those addicted to heroin because they can publicly use and purchase their drug. And you're confusing anarchy (no rules) with libertarianism (limited rules). The government should protect us from others, not ourselves.
fivewerehigh 3 years ago
Crackpot. In order for the government to protect us from other people, they have to protect those "other people" from themselves - or hasn't that reality crossed your microscopic little mind yet.
I'm not confusing anything. Libertarianism bullshit is at its core, freedom from society. Especially the freedom from having responsibility in the form of TAXES. Well without taxes to pay for everything, your society crumbles into dust and shit. This only works for hermits that live in Wyoming.
Xerock 3 years ago
The government CANNOT protect us from ourselves or other people from themselves. What the government CAN do is find people who are planning on hurting others or who are currently hurting others. If somebody wants to peacefully use drugs, he should. And you are confusing libertarianism (an organized system with more trust put on individuals who do pay taxes) with anarchism (not a form of government at all). It's not freedom from society at all, it's freedom for people within society.
fivewerehigh 3 years ago
Libertarianism does not mean no taxes, you fool.
FatherTime89 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah you keep up the lie, pal. no one who actually reads your site will buy that shit.
Xerock 3 years ago
do you consider a flat tax to mean no tax or replacing it with sales tax no taxes?
FatherTime89 3 years ago
iraq has less guns per capita than america.
JimmytheWalrus 3 years ago
no the problem is that Iraq doesn't have any laws, or at least they aren't enforced properly.
JimmytheWalrus 3 years ago
Yo he is makin abig point, what's to stop D-Boys from selling even more product, it's like spening 150,000 on EX pill you end up wit what over 250,000 to 300,000 in profit
GhostNative 4 years ago
How absurd. The law of supply and demand states that price is directly related to demand and inversely related to supply. The more demand for a good or service the higher the price.
So what does low priced heroin really say? It says that demand is low but supply is high. In other words drug producers have had to innovate (like in any enterprise), creating more efficient methods of production to counterract low demand.
enapto77 4 years ago 4
When it was legal the demand was higher and the supply was smaller. When it became illegal and there was money to be made, the demand decreased and the supply vastly increased. Now you have so many people willing to get you heroine, that it has far EXCEEDED the demand for it.
Vynjira 3 years ago
If drug prohibition worked the supply would be a lot smaller than the demand and the prices would be high not low.
Assuming they do have too much supply then the fact that there's an overabundance is kind of counter productive to keeping drugs out of the U.S.
FatherTime89 3 years ago
$4 per bag!?!?!?!
That has got to be wrong.
THEoldy 4 years ago
erase lil clip. put the entire whole cap
mamece2 4 years ago
that little clip doesn't really relate things very well at all...
oOoIIoOo 5 years ago