Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Founded by Mark Kleiman (1951-2019)
Keith Humphreys, summing up a day-long Chatham House conference on drug policy reform: Â “Demonstrating that the frying-pan is hot does not prove that it would be prudent to leap into the fire.”
Comments are closed.
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.
Hi Mark! I hope you’re having a lovely day, wherever you are. Did you happen to see that piece in the NYT mag this weekend, about the police informant? ‘Cause when I was reading it, I kept wondering if these things get factored into this whole legalization debate. (Really, I’m curious, I’m not trying to snark.) How do you weigh getting rid of corruption and violence v. the likelihood of more addicts?
Of course they do. Any law needs enforcement; no enforcement effort is free of police misconduct and corruption. Enforcement against transactional crimes is worse on those dimensions than enforcement against predatory crimes. That’s one reason to be a minimalist when it comes to drug law enforcement, even if you think - as I do - that having drug laws probably outperforms not having them.
But note that taxes and regulations are also laws, and therefore also need enforcement. Liquor control is among the most notoriously corrupt features of state and local government.
Enforcement against transactional crimes is worse on those dimensions than enforcement against predatory crimes. That’s one reason to be a minimalist when it comes to drug law enforcement, even if you think – as I do – that having drug laws probably outperforms not having them.
I see a paradox in this sentiment. In short, some people wish to trade in drugs; and some other people don’t want this trade to occur. So, the umbrella of activities related to drugs is made out as a dire threat and turned into an array of criminal acts carrying moderate to severe penalties. After having engendered such a social climate around this phenomenon, wanting to have “minimalist” enforcement is incongruous and maybe even absurd, considering that stopping voluntary transactions, in the main, relies on deterrence, which requires that the law show its teeth. Even HOPE relies on that, except that the severity is replaced with swiftness and certainty of some punishment. Maybe, in some society where drugs never established themselves to an appreciable degree, the law enforcement could be largely passive, and simply rely on social mores; but, in the United States?
Mere illegality, with minimal enforcement, forces inefficient production and distribution processes and raises prices severalfold, while preventing marketing. That’s sufficient to greatly reduce the level of abuse. Not at all clear that adding more enforcement does much good.
The primary source of the paradox is this: the rhetoric and persuasion used to portray the gravity of the drug threat isn’t politically compatible with a public strategy of minimalist enforcement to ward off that threat. So when considering the choice between legalization and prohibition, it would be absurd to imagine a prohibition with minimalist enforcement as the actual choice on the table. The serious debate is between prohibition as it largely is now and some sort of conservative, cautious legalization as no doubt it will have to be, given the political realities.
Is there any useful comparison to be made here to the success (or not) of bans on cigarette advertising in reducing consumption?
Mark: “But note that taxes and regulations are also laws, and therefore also need enforcement. Liquor control is among the most notoriously corrupt features of state and local government.”
Yes, it’s a normal day in my town when some bar gets dynamited or some guys get machine-gunned by some guys in dark suits, white ties who are driving a Model T.
Oh, wait - that was during the Prohibition.
Good quote, but what if we’re in the fire already?
Heh, well, as Will Rogers observed, “Prohibition is better than no liquor at all”.
Fearing that there’s fire outside the frying pan doesn’t prove that it’s better to stay in the frying pan.
Perhaps you should send a small volunteer expedition (say, a state, or a small country) to determine if it’s actually fire or whether we’ve been irrationally dooming everyone to stir-fry.
Appropriate book: ‘The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy’, by Albert O. Hirschman