Anti-Ivory Groups Take Aim at WA, IA & CA (Mammoth Included) + Fed Update

bakofried said:
Without permitting and registration, you can't put the onus of distinguishing pre-ban ivory from illegal ivory on a beat cop.
Click to expand...

This is the biggest problem I see with bans like the federal one. It puts the onus on the owner of the material to prove the it is legal ivory or the owner is assumed guilty. It says in the regulation that the material is assumed illegal until the owner of it proves it is legal. I thought that in the USA I was assumed innocent until proven guilty.

We are not talking about beat cops here we are talking about either trained state and federal wildlife agents. These guys are supposed to know the difference between a bobcat and a lynx, a black bear and a grizzly. Ivory is not different, they could print out the identification sheets from the USF&W website, carry jewelers loupes. It's not that hard.
 
ncrockclimb said:
I read this whole thread and sincerely considered the pro-ivory position. In short, I find it to be puerile and totally lacking in substance. Based on the response to this thread, I am not alone.

Much of the discussion about “property rights” and the disjointed ramblings about liberty sound eerily similar to the US pro-slavery movement in the 1860. I am totally unmoved by “hardship” that a total ban will place on those that own ivory. Selling and trading ivory, regardless of the source, indirectly supports poaching and the global ivory industry

I am not a fan of the current administration, but I 100% support their work on this issue. I totally support a total ban on the sale and trade of ivory.
Click to expand...

You bring in slavery.... that's humorous and of course that would apply to your "property rights" argument. It all boils down to the reality of the situation and that reality is that more than likely the African elephant will be extinct in 50 to 100 years in the wild based on their lifespan and banning ivory will not impact that reality one bit. The people who were slaves in the US were never in danger of becoming extinct due to poaching. The Africans who are doing the poaching are doing it to survive and they will continue to do it. It is a high risk game and a ban just increases the value and the willingness to take the risk. All you have to do is look at drug trafficing in the US and see how "banning" something works. The use of ivory is embedded in the culture of folks in China and Southeast Asia and a US ban will impact that zero. So what's the point? ....if only one elephant is saved.... right. But you are entitled to your views as I am regardless if I agree with them.

You appear to be a rock climber based on your BF handle. What would you think if the government banned climbing and caving due to health and safety reasons?
 
AVigil said:
"The United States is the world's second-largest retail market for elephant ivory products, behind only China, a new study says.

The study, published today by British-based conservation group Care for the Wild International (CWI), makes the claim based on investigations of thousands of retail outlets in 16 American cities between March and December 2006 and March and May 2007."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080505-us-ivory.html


"The United States is the second-largest market for ivory in the world after China. Though some ivory items can be traded legally, contraband products have made their way to American customers who have no way of knowing their origin. "
http://www.ibtimes.com/illegal-ivory-trade-us-authorities-target-american-auction-houses-1656750

cq2mz8u.jpg



So who is second then? And what number does the USA fall on if not second then where?

China far outpaces the USA in Ivory for sure.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem, all of those say the US is 2nd in the world in the consumption of "ivory" not "illegal ivory" if we were the 2nd largest consumer in the world of illegal ivory those quotes would have said that. You can't make that leap, the people that wrote those quotes did not and you can't either.
 
My use of the work "puerile" was not meant to be insulting. It is simply how I perceive the arguments being presented by the pro-ivory crowd. Based on the response to this thread, I am in the majority. The glaring holes in their arguments and the suspension of logic required to reach their intended conclusion make it difficult for me to find any less biting words to use instead.
 
ncrockclimb said:
My use of the work "puerile" was not meant to be insulting. It is simply how I perceive the arguments being presented by the pro-ivory crowd. Based on the response to this thread, I am in the majority. The glaring holes in their arguments and the suspension of logic required to reach their intended conclusion make it difficult for me to find any less biting words to use instead.
Click to expand...

The holes are equally glaring on the "majority" side as well, and have invoked emotion at least as often.
Being in the majority does not equal being right either...remember how the majority were in favour of slavery (to use an example someone else used along the way ;)) ?

As for suspension of logic, the more someone deeply cares about an issue, the less logically they look at it.
Things like hunting, guns, drugs, knives, as well as anything which involves cuddly animals or adorable children is ripe for throwing logic out the window.
 
leghog said:
Then if an executive order it only applies to the executive branch and their regulations. EO 13648 bans nothing. It is not as "federal ban" as you say. It seeks to assist foreign nations in combatting the trafficking of what is already illegal and to reduce the already illegal trade of exotic animal parts in the USA.


Executive Order 13648 on Combating Wildlife Trafficking:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to address the significant effects of wildlife trafficking on the national interests of the United States, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The poaching of protected species and the illegal trade in wildlife and their derivative parts and products (together known as "wildlife trafficking") represent an international crisis that continues to escalate. Poaching operations have expanded beyond small-scale, opportunistic actions to coordinated slaughter commissioned by armed and organized criminal syndicates. The survival of protected wildlife species such as elephants, rhinos, great apes, tigers, sharks, tuna, and turtles has beneficial economic, social, and environmental impacts that are important to all nations. Wildlife trafficking reduces those benefits while generating billions of dollars in illicit revenues each year, contributing to the illegal economy, fueling instability, and undermining security. Also, the prevention of trafficking of live animals helps us control the spread of emerging infectious diseases. For these reasons, it is in the national interest of the United States to combat wildlife trafficking.

In order to enhance domestic efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, to assist foreign nations in building capacity to combat wildlife trafficking, and to assist in combating transnational organized crime, executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall take all appropriate actions within their authority, including the promulgation of rules and regulations and the provision of technical and financial assistance, to combat wildlife trafficking in accordance with the following objectives:

(a) in appropriate cases, the United States shall seek to assist those governments in anti-wildlife trafficking activities when requested by foreign nations experiencing trafficking of protected wildlife;

(b) the United States shall promote and encourage the development and enforcement by foreign nations of effective laws to prohibit the illegal taking of, and trade in, these species and to prosecute those who engage in wildlife trafficking, including by building capacity;

(c) in concert with the international community and partner organizations, the United States shall seek to combat wildlife trafficking; and

(d) the United States shall seek to reduce the demand for illegally traded wildlife, both at home and abroad, while allowing legal and legitimate commerce involving wildlife.

Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established a Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking (Task Force), to be co-chaired by the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Interior, and the Attorney General (Co-Chairs), or their designees, who shall report to the President through the National Security Advisor. The Task Force shall develop and implement a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking in accordance with the objectives outlined in section 1 of this order, consistent with section 4 of this order.

Sec. 3. Membership. (a) In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Task Force shall include designated senior-level representatives from:

(i) the Department of the Treasury;

(ii) the Department of Defense;

(iii) the Department of Agriculture;

(iv) the Department of Commerce;

(v) the Department of Transportation;

(vi) the Department of Homeland Security;

(vii) the United States Agency for International Development;

(viii) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;

(ix) the National Security Staff;

(x) the Domestic Policy Council;

(xi) the Council on Environmental Quality;

(xii) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

(xiii) the Office of Management and Budget;

(xiv) the Office of the United States Trade Representative; and

(xv) such agencies and offices as the Co-Chairs may, from time to time, designate.

(b) The Task Force shall meet not later than 60 days from the date of this order and periodically thereafter.

Sec. 4. Functions. Consistent with the authorities and responsibilities of member agencies, the Task Force shall perform the following functions:

(a) not later than 180 days after the date of this order, produce a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking that shall include consideration of issues relating to combating trafficking and curbing consumer demand, including:

(i) effective support for anti-poaching activities;

(ii) coordinating regional law enforcement efforts;

(iii) developing and supporting effective legal enforcement mechanisms; and

(iv) developing strategies to reduce illicit trade and reduce consumer demand for trade in protected species;

(b) not later than 90 days from the date of this order, review the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime of July 19, 2011, and, if appropriate, make recommendations regarding the inclusion of crime related to wildlife trafficking as an implementation element for the Federal Government's transnational organized crime strategy;

(c) coordinate efforts among and consult with agencies, as appropriate and consistent with the Department of State's foreign affairs role, regarding work with foreign nations and international bodies that monitor and aid in enforcement against crime related to wildlife trafficking; and

(d) carry out other functions necessary to implement this order.

Sec. 5. Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking. Not later than 180 days from the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), in consultation with the other Co-Chairs of the Task Force, shall establish an Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking (Advisory Council) that shall make recommendations to the Task Force and provide it with ongoing advice and assistance. The Advisory Council shall have eight members, one of whom shall be designated by the Secretary as the Chair. Members shall not be employees of the Federal Government and shall include knowledgeable individuals from the private sector, former governmental officials, representatives of nongovernmental organizations, and others who are in a position to provide expertise and support to the Task Force.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable domestic and international law, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof, or the status of that department or agency within the Federal Government; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (the "Act"), may apply to the Advisory Council, any functions of the President under the Act, except for that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Secretary in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Administrator of General Services.

(e) The Department of the Interior shall provide funding and administrative support for the Task Force and Advisory Council to the extent permitted by law and consistent with existing appropriations.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/01/executive-order-combating-wildlife-trafficking






The resulting National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking only bans the commercial import and export (excepting antique ivory) of African elephant ivory and restricts the interstate sale of new African (1990 and newer) and Asian (1975 and newer) elephant ivory. It directs Executive Branch agencies to act administratively to:

•Prohibit Commercial Import of African Elephant Ivory: All commercial imports of African elephant ivory, including antiques, will be prohibited.

•Prohibit Commercial Export of Elephant Ivory: All commercial exports will be prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, certain noncommercial items, and in exceptional circumstances permitted under the Endangered Species Act.

•Significantly Restrict Domestic Resale of Elephant Ivory: We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document.

•Clarify the Definition of “Antique”: To qualify as an antique, an item must be more than 100 years old and meet other requirements under the Endangered Species Act. The onus will now fall on the importer, exporter, or seller to demonstrate that an item meets these criteria.

•Restore Endangered Species Act Protection for African Elephants: We will revoke a previous Fish and Wildlife Service special rule that had relaxed Endangered Species Act restrictions on African elephant ivory trade.

•Support Limited Sport-hunting of African Elephants: We will limit the number of African elephant sport-hunted trophies that an individual can import to two per hunter per year.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...y-combating-wildlife-trafficking-commercial-b

Although, in reality one can still non-commercially import antique ivory items.


I have absolutely no problem with any of the above.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everyone else I have talked to reads this thing much the same way I do. It will make it illegal to sell any item with white ivory that was legally bought. It puts the onus on the owner of the object to prove it is pre-act ivory. The burden of proof is so high as to make it impossible to prove. They are expecting to see certificates that do not exist, never existed and were never required. Some feel it was done on purpose to make these regs. look innocuous to the casual viewer but really put a stop to sales of any white ivory within the US. That's a problem for many of us.
 
So all you need to do is wait 100 years and keep your receipt in terms of resale. Sounds so simple.
 
stabman said:
The holes are equally glaring on the "majority" side as well, and have invoked emotion at least as often.
Being in the majority does not equal being right either...remember how the majority were in favour of slavery (to use an example someone else used along the way ;)) ?

As for suspension of logic, the more someone deeply cares about an issue, the less logically they look at it.
Things like hunting, guns, drugs, knives, as well as anything which involves cuddly animals or adorable children is ripe for throwing logic out the window.
Click to expand...

True. Although I am more on the "pro" side, rare for me as I tend to dislike any sort of government restrictions) my "arguments" rely heavily on my emotions and feelings regarding the issue.

Mark tends to have the most logical arguments in this thread by far, actually.
 
B34NS said:
I still don't see how this legislation violates any existing property rights.

I could see if I was in the commercial space I'd be sweating.
Click to expand...

Government Bullies Mom & Pop Businesses Over Ivory
Your activism is why the federal government is taking its time publishing the regulation we expect will alter or revoke the Special Rule on African Elephants that allows pre-ban ivory to trade in the United States. Unfortunately, non-government organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and the Wildlife Conservation Society have been busy with a PR campaign against ivory. They are continuing to lobby both the federal government and many individual states for an ivory ban.
We are already seeing the results, and they are worse than expected. Agents from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation hit at least 2 vendors at the Pier Antique Show on November 22-23 in New York City.
The government has long maintained that they don’t care about small time ivory owners. Instead, they want to catch and prosecute international criminal syndicates and terrorists to stop elephant poaching. So who were the kingpins that were busted in New York City?
Their first criminal mastermind was a lady of 72 years selling jewelry to supplement her Social Security income. Based in the Carolinas and in New York only for this show, the jewelry maker was stung by an undercover NYDEC agent who asked her questions about a necklace and earing set that she marked as containing beads from mammoth ivory. After freely identifying the ivory from long extinct animals, the NYDEC agent flashed his badge and others swooped in to search her entire collection. In total they seized two necklace/earing sets, a bracelet, a pin, and a set of earrings. She explained that she didn’t know about the New York law, and that she bought the mammoth beads used to make jewelry at least 8 years ago. She made the other jewelry with scrap ivory that she had for much longer than the mammoth beads. The agents didn’t care. The government seized $1400 worth of jewelry and issued a summons to appear i n court for violating the NY State Ivory Ban.
The second villain was a folk art dealer from New York. He also described NYDEC treating him like a drug dealer. His contraband – a couple of sets of “teethers” – crudely carved whale bone or ivory sticks made by sailors in the 1800s for babies to chew on when cutting their teeth. As with the senior citizen jeweler, agents seized what they believed to be ivory and issued the folk art dealer a summons to appear in court. He estimated the seized teethers to be worth about $250.00.
After the show, the folk art dealer and his wife contacted all of their elected officials to find out what they did wrong. His state representative warned him that he needs a lawyer because he faces a $5000 fine if convicted of dealing illegal ivory. When he asked about getting a license to sell ivory in accordance with New York law, he was advised that he could submit an application, but all of the applications to sell elephant ivory just sit in a pile on someone’s desk in Albany without further action.
This kind of government heavy-handedness is what we warned people about when the President’s Advisory Council started talking about imposing an ivory ban in March 2013. Instead of going after Chinese smugglers and criminal syndicates, the government is persecuting the most vulnerable and least culpable citizens in zealous pursuit of ivory ban enforcement statistics. No living animal was helped by this, but innocent small businesses will be crushed.
Fight back now, before it’s too late.
Rob Mitchell

It's safe to say that you probably want to stay away from New York or New Jersey with knives that have what might look like ivory handles. I would say it's a good reason for everyone to stay away from New York and New Jersey knife shows.
 
Mark Knapp said:
Adam, do you recognize the difference between this and the articles you listed?
Click to expand...

You mean the ones from the Dept of Justice and from the National Fish and Wild life articles?

Mark you do understand that article you are praising states

"Japan’s ivory is routed from across East
Asia, including through China, Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan,
140 and significantly the United States, which had the second highest frequency after China 141."

I did not make that up...
 
Mark Knapp said:
Here's the problem, all of those say the US is 2nd in the world in the consumption of "ivory" not "illegal ivory" if we were the 2nd largest consumer in the world of illegal ivory those quotes would have said that. You can't make that leap, the people that wrote those quotes did not and you can't either.
Click to expand...

I did not make this up ....

"Japan’s ivory is routed from across East
Asia, including through China, Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan,
and significantly the United States, which had the second highest frequency after China ."

They are not talking about legal ivory routed from america to Japan...are they?
 
I have never enjoyed the idea of using statistics as master and commander. I am glad you like the study Mark.

We are second in the world, for seizures, as AVigil pointed out in post #403. Mark has already explained how the U.S. F&WS states those numbers are statistically insignificant when compared to the illegal ivory trade and foreign seizures.

A few are having a real hard time figuring out how we can be number two in the world for illegal ivory seizures (as reported), and statistically insignificant consumers of ivory on the international scale (U.S. F&WS). We are not the problem any which way you try to slice the issue.
 
ncrockclimb said:
My use of the work "puerile" was not meant to be insulting. It is simply how I perceive the arguments being presented by the pro-ivory crowd. Based on the response to this thread, I am in the majority. The glaring holes in their arguments and the suspension of logic required to reach their intended conclusion make it difficult for me to find any less biting words to use instead.
Click to expand...

I didn't do a count, but I don't think you are in the majority. Where are the holes and suspension of logic? Where is the credible research that supports the pro-ban line of thought?
 
AVigil said:
You mean the ones from the Dept of Justice and from the National Fish and Wild life articles?

Mark you do understand that article you are praising states

"Japan’s ivory is routed from across East
Asia, including through China, Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan,
140 and significantly the United States, which had the second highest frequency after China 141."

I did not make that up...
Click to expand...

Yes I understand that, like I said, I do not "like" an article depending on weather or not it supports my argument. I judge it on it's merits. I have not gotten a chance to read it yet but I will. If I find in the end that it does not support my argument, I will still like it for it's merits. I might also rethink the way I feel about working with ivory. We will see.
 
Given your position, what would you consider "credible research"? No one is saying that US's share of the illegal ivory trade is the main problem. The main problem is that ivory, worldwide, is considered a valuable commodity and that value is causing an extinction event.

Ban supporters, like US Fish and Wildlife and individuals like me, feel that banning the trade of ivory here will depress prices slightly, lead to other similar trade bans and make the material less appealing worldwide.

Those opposing the ban feel that banning the trade of ivory feel that it will increase the price. Both can't be right. Who do we ask? Socialogists, economists? You guys feel the Fish and Wildlife are lying, so they clearly don't know anything.

Is this situation like Prohibition, or is it like whaling? Which model better applies, and why?


Mark, you have a special problem in that the ban should probably not apply to obviously mammoth ivory, which is likely to be a defensible position with Fish and Wildlife. Unfortunately, you'd have to part with the rest of the pro-ivory lobby to make that work, and they will string you up for it. Which is too bad.


In terms of grandma's brooch, grandma can likely get the piece authenticated today, if she really wants the government involved in her probate. Otherwise, not every little thing needs to be held up to government scrutiny. The ban is trade, after all. It would take an unusual reading of law to subject willed objects - especially among family members - as trade. This objection just doesn't appear to be something that will cause any sort of wide spread injustice.
 
"The illicit market is likely to have been significant in the relatively recent past: a seizure of 7.2 tons in Singapore in 2002 included 42,000 hankos. Even today, however, there is at least some illicit ivory activity; between 1998 and 2010, 77 seizure incidents were reported at Japanese ports and airports, 138 although the majority of Japanese seizures consist of worked rather than raw ivory. Japan’s ivory is routed from across East Asia , including through China, Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan,and significantly the United States, which had the second highest frequency after China."

This paragraph says in the years between 1998 and 2010 (a span of 12 years) there were 77 seizures of mostly worked ivory (these hankos, small ink stamps) The ivory went mostly through China, and second through the US and then the rest of the countries. So at least 39 of those shipments went through China, at least one each went through Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan. That leaves a maximum of 30 of these shipments to Japan that could have gone through the U.S. The report did not go into how much weight that amounted to, but it did say it was primarily these hankos. I have seen pictures of hankos, they can't weigh over a half ounce each.

The report does not say that the US was second behind China in overall seizures. Only that it was second to China in the years of 1998-2010 of shipments to Japan. The report also says the overall shipments to Japan in resent years is pretty insignificant if you look at the maps that show current trade routes.

Somebody tell me if I didn't read this thing right, tell me if I am wrong, but tell why I am wrong, back it up with stats. RedLynx, how do you read this?

I would also like to say that from my reading of the other two ETIS reports, I learned that the US is by far the overall leader in the world in numbers of seizures, that's why I think we are doing a good job keeping the stuff out of this country. It's very important to note that though we lead the world in numbers of seizures, we are way at the bottom in terms of total pounds of ivory seized. That's because what people are bring here, and through here, are trinkets, jewelry and apparently these hankos.

I'm sorry Adam, I don't really think this supports your argument. What is it specifically in your other two articles did you want me to read, I'm happy to do it.
 
I would just like to generally remind everyone that we didn't get to this point just because of China's emergence. The East and West have been systematically exterminating elephants and other animals for centuries. Just because it wasn't "poaching", doesn't mean that there was any sort of stewardship, ethics or rationality. The majority of the legal ivory contributed massively to the present situation. I have a hard time looking at a piece of 1960s ivory and pretending it has nothing to do with the present problem.
 
Mark Knapp said:
"The illicit market is likely to have been significant in the relatively recent past: a seizure of 7.2 tons in Singapore in 2002 included 42,000 hankos. Even today, however, there is at least some illicit ivory activity; between 1998 and 2010, 77 seizure incidents were reported at Japanese ports and airports, 138 although the majority of Japanese seizures consist of worked rather than raw ivory. Japan’s ivory is routed from across East Asia , including through China, Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan,and significantly the United States, which had the second highest frequency after China."

This paragraph says in the years between 1998 and 2010 (a span of 12 years) there were 77 seizures of mostly worked ivory (these hankos, small ink stamps) The ivory went mostly through China, and second through the US and then the rest of the countries. So at least 39 of those shipments went through China, at least one each went through Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan. That leaves a maximum of 30 of these shipments to Japan that could have gone through the U.S. The report did not go into how much weight that amounted to, but it did say it was primarily these hankos. I have seen pictures of hankos, they can't weigh over a half ounce each.

The report does not say that the US was second behind China in overall seizures. Only that it was second to China in the years of 1998-2010 of shipments to Japan. The report also says the overall shipments to Japan in resent years is pretty insignificant if you look at the maps that show current trade routes.

Somebody tell me if I didn't read this thing right, tell me if I am wrong, but tell why I am wrong, back it up with stats. RedLynx, how do you read this?

I would also like to say that from my reading of the other two ETIS reports, I learned that the US is by far the overall leader in the world in numbers of seizures, that's why I think we are doing a good job keeping the stuff out of this country. It's very important to note that though we lead the world in numbers of seizures, we are way at the bottom in terms of total pounds of ivory seized. That's because what people are bring here, and through here, are trinkets, jewelry and apparently these hankos.

I'm sorry Adam, I don't really think this supports your argument. What is it specifically in your other two articles did you want me to read, I'm happy to do it.
Click to expand...

If everything is accurate Mark, it appears that the shipments that succeed in making it into the U.S. are a small amount relative to the overall amount. I am curious if the maximum amount of 30 shipments possible in the U.S. are ones that are reported and seized, or if some of those are ones that, statistically speaking, made it through. Although how that would be determined I have no idea.

I have to confess ignorance on the term "hanko," I haven't heard that one before.

There's a lot of info flying around in this thread.

I find myself wishing we could do some kind of trial to see the effects of a full on ban in the U.S. Of course this is real life so such trials are unrealistic. But mostly, we have people that feel if it is banned here, it would be devalued (likely true.) The question is whether it would be devalued enough for certain parties to cease poaching, for the most part. It's very hard for me to say. Perhaps someone else could say with a reasonable degree of certainty.

On the flip side, the less there is and the harder it is to move, the more perceived value increases. So there's that. The 400 billion a year industry of drugs wouldn't be the titan industry it is today if the drugs weren't illegal (which is not to say I advocate legalizing all drugs, although for the most part, I do say live and let live on that subject, as long as you can provide for your own rehab. That's all I will say about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top