|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SoftRevolution
   |
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:30:00 -
[1]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 15/10/2007 15:31:42
Heheheh. Richard "Controversial" Brunstrom. Gotta love him.
My main objection to legalising drugs is that the tax payer foots the bill for methadone, rehabilitation and indeed for the dole.
My "common sense" (common sense just means you haven't thought very hard about something) reaction is that legal drugs = more smack addled subhuman dolewalling scum subsisting at the taxpayers expense which I'm not hugely in favour of.
If I wouldn't have to foot the bill for any of the consequences of drug use becoming widespread I'd be all in favour of it. Mind you, I'd say the same about tobacco and alcohol. Can't see why I have to pay for smokers to get chemo.
I think the real, long-term solution is more anthrax in hero1n.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:11:00 -
[2]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 15/10/2007 20:15:50
 Quote:
Interesting fact: Some police reports estimate that up to 80% of all crime (and 90% of property crime) is drugs-related. Mostly committed by addicts trying to find money to buy their next fix, the rest caused by rival gangs fighting for turf rights.
I already answered this when I made my modest proposal about spiking the supply with anthrax. PROBLEM SOLVED.  I was going to put some sort of [IRONY] tags around that but I've decided if you get annoyed that's your fault for taking obvious wind-up seriously.
Alcohol and cigarettes are already legal. Criminalising them is kind of a moot point... although actually I guess you could see the smoking ban in those terms and I am definitely in favour of the smoking ban.
Whether they'd get licensed for public consumption in this day and age is an interesting question. I suspect not. But like I said, the law on those things is not about to get changed. 70mph motorists pay speeding fines. Fat people... are fat. You're right. For the drain they place on the NHS there should be a special "chips tax".
I think the relationship between doing X and X being a criminal offence is more complicated than simply "If it's illegal people won't do it" (DUH!) but I do think the combination of keeping something socially unacceptable and providing penalties probably does have a deterrent effect with emphasis more on the socially unacceptable part.
I worry that decriminalising drug use would make drug use less of a pariah pastime.
I also worry that the increased convenience it would put drug use into the reach of the casual idiot instead of just the hardcore stupid. Currently you do need to know criminals to obtain drugs by definition. That's extra stigma on using them.
Kids on drugs? Great. All for it. Move them onto the hard stuff so they expire before they can breed. Although that's kind of an argument for legalisation. Hmmm. 
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 23:13:00 -
[3]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 15/10/2007 23:17:59
I'd have to have a look at the figures to comment really. That could be down to any number of oddities in the way such things were recorded and reported. There's been an apparent hike in some of the figures for violent crime over the past 12 months for similar reasons. That sounds way too high to be reliable. Even if it's not I'd still be very wary of just assuming that's simple cause and effect. What would the figures have done if her0in hadn't have been prohibited?
Yes. Legalising drugs would ensure children didn't partake. Just like booze and****s.
Pariah pastime =
Hard drug use is socially unacceptable.
Soft drug use is to a greater or lesser extent depending on the context and the drug itself. You wouldn't light a joint on the bus or walking down the high street. You wouldn't tell your boss you took E. Well. I wouldn't tell mine if I did.
I don't have any particular moral mindset. On a personal level I really do not care what you do. You fall well outside my Dunbar's Number or whatever the term for the number of people you see as human is. It's only a "sin" in my book because I find people voluntarily making themselves useless and then relying on the state to look after them irritating. I dislike drug users because I have found them unreliable and unpredictable to work with. Same goes for drunks, mind you.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 08:59:00 -
[4]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 16/10/2007 08:59:35
Alas, in Britain that goes something like:
4) The Welfare state pays for their housing, food, drugs and provides them with healthcare while they pump out babies like there's no tomorrow.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 03:07:00 -
[5]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 18/10/2007 03:07:45
The Sun is lollerific. News in Briefs is utter genius. They used to pay for the sun at work and I used to only look at the **** on page 3 and then skip to Dear Diedre for the humiliating / titillating sex stuff ("Dear Diedre, I slept with my girlfriend's mum. Should I tell her?") so I generally missed the editorialising. But then I noticed News in Briefs and it ruined page 3 for me. I can't look at Mandy, 22 from Essex without picturing Margaret Thatcher 
I was going for more of a Charles Murray "underclass" thing though. Only as a specific riposte to someone's slightly hopeful notion that legalising drugs would result in whole segments of society Darwin-awarding themselves out of our collective hair.
I'm afraid I'm a bit "third way" on this stuff though. People can be unfortunate and useless human detritus.
|
|
|
| |
|