(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Did you just criminalise alcohol by the back door? Looking at the report which has the scores for the harm system you guys use - alcohol is the only drug that would be affected by this...a score of 60 and over means it;s criminalised, and:
...get me some moonshine.
Alcohol is only rated as the most harmful drug in that study because they have chosen to include 'social criteria' in the rankings: things like drinking-related crime, family breakdown, community issues, the economic costs etc. etc. If you rate drugs
according to how physically harmful they are, alcohol drops to the middle of the rankings, and is overtaken by crack, heroin, and meth. Though it's impossible to say exactly which drugs would be illegal to produce/supply under our Act, it is, I reckon, unlikely that alcohol would be given an OVS higher than 50 as we 1) didn't include the social criteria, and 2) weighted the criteria in the following way: Drug-specific mortality: 1, Drug-related mortality: 0.8, Drug-specific damage to physical health: 0.8, Drug-related damage to physical health: 0.6, Dependence: 1, Drug-specific impairment of mental-functioning: 0.6, Drug-related impairment of mental functioning: 0.4. Alcohol typically scores higher in the "drug-related damage" criteria, which are weighted lower under our system.
(Original post by Jordan-James)
What would you do if you got into power and the majority of skilled workers, businessman, bankers etc all left the country, and you were left with a largely working class population?
It sounds to me as if you're using a very strange definition of 'skilled work'. Banking is skilled work in the same way that correcting a Rubik's Cube is - it may be complex, but it's not particularly useful. Bankers produce services that are generally only useful in a system that relies on banking, thus rendering them defunct in a socialist economy where capital is controlled by the general public. Likewise, I'd need to know how you are defining businessmen before I could comment on whether they'd flee from a socialist economy. Businesses would of course continue to exist under socialism, they'd just be organised democratically, in a way that allowed all workers to profit from the success of the business that employs them.