| | Ryan,
[thanks for the compliment]
I'm not saying that folks do it because it's illegal, I'm saying that its illegality keeps its use rare enough to prevent a broad "market learning." Let's say you created a drug that initially felt even better than heroin, but was just as short-lived of a rush. However, let's say that each time you used the drug, a body part would fall off. Maybe a finger first, but then a whole leg.
Now, do you honestly think that some eloquent, philosophical analysis would be required in order to dismiss the possibility that this drug would acquire competitive market value (against things like marijuana, etc)? Or can you dismiss the possibility outright, because a detailed analysis is not required when purchased products readily cause the loss of limbs?
I know it's not a good argument to say this, but I honestly think you should think about it more (or befriend a heroin-addict). Some things are so in-your-face-self-evident that little or no analysis is required. This isn't about whether there'll be some folks who will choose it -- it is about whether many or most folks will perpetually choose it in the face of much cheaper and better alternatives.
It's like a stuffed elephant without a trunk -- it couldn't ("competitively") compete with the trunked ones. It's like a guitar with missing strings (or no way to tighten the strings in order to tune them) -- it may sound great for a minute or two, but it is "inherently" inferior and couldn't sustain any great market share.
Anyway, I recommended that movie because I've seen things like that in real life (not because "art" can or should replace reality).
Ed
|
|
