jj@alice.UUCP (03/20/85)
<> In light of the fact that the "consumer" cannot have market information, <> cannot go to a different supplier (in most cases, however parts of <> Ca. are indeed different as regards ONE such substance, but not <> others) the "seller" is at risk of death and/or incarceration, <> and the distribution method is EXPECTED to have significant losses, <> it's clear that the "drug market" isn't anything close to a free <> market. < <Since the majority of this statement is wrong (with the exception of a <degree of risk), I won't bother with it. No, sir, YOU ASSERT (and call your assertions fact) that the majority of this statement is wrong. You quote the popular press for support, and expect me to grant 20/20 credibility, and to ignore the information available for one's own watching. I do not doubt your examples, however, I completely reject your contention that paranoia and fear for one's life aren't part of the job. Without being more specific, let me say that people in law enforcement have much experience with secondary crime caused by the paranoia (leaving out, for the time being, the intent to control a market) related to drug dealing. <> The argument that 1% of drug trafficers are affected by the law <> or organized crime simply ignores the effects of illegality <> completely, when indeed the necessity to avoid publicity and legal <> entanglements is itself a compelling reason to disqualify the drug market as <> even slightly "free". < <A free market does not have "the necessity to avoid publicity and legal <entanglements"? How interesting. Mr. Z's context-free quote is just that, context free. Furthermore, his use of a context-free quote to provide a rhetorical straw man unrelated (in fact opposed) to what was originally said sheds light on his rhetorical honesty and intent. -- TEDDY BEARS NEED SECURITY BLANKETS ONCE IN A WHILE! "... John? Who'd of thought it! ..." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!alice!jj
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (03/22/85)
> > No, sir, YOU ASSERT (and call your assertions fact) that the majority of > this statement is wrong. You quote the popular press for support, > and expect me to grant 20/20 credibility, and to ignore the information > available for one's own watching. I do not doubt your examples, however, > I completely reject your contention that paranoia and fear for > one's life aren't part of the job. Without being more specific, > let me say that people in law enforcement have much experience with > secondary crime caused by the paranoia (leaving out, for the time > being, the intent to control a market) related to drug dealing. You reject my "assertions" because they are from the "popular press" (and media). You then allude to some knowledge that you have but can/will not give us. I assume that I am supposed to know what "the information available for one's own watching" is. I don't. But I do know what facts are available through the various forms of media and news reporting agencies. I can also be pretty much asured of their "credibility". > Mr. Z's context-free quote is just that, context free. Furthermore, > his use of a context-free quote to provide a rhetorical straw man > unrelated (in fact opposed) to what was originally said sheds > light on his rhetorical honesty and intent. > -- If you wantn to call someone a liar, just say it. I don't feel a need to use multisylabic words unless they're necessary. I also don't feel a need to win a debate. I am just trying to enlighten those who will allow them- selves to be enlightened. You do not appear to be one of those people. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***