| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bishop 5
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
   |
Posted - 2007.10.15 13:38:00 -
[1]
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3061121.ece
This man speaks the truth. Cut the 'dealers' out of the picture, let the government produce them (ensuring there's not cut concrete in it  ) sell it like tobacco and use the billions in profit to help our crap health service.
Never going to happen though as this sort of thing is exactly what governments need to keep 'the masses' in line and in that wonderful state of fear we all know and love.
-------------
meh |
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:00:00 -
[2]
Edited by: ry ry on 15/10/2007 15:03:46
the idea is as old as the hills, but it's just not to ever happen in the UK. the masses are generally too conservative (lower case 'c') for that sort of legislation to be anything but political suicide.
not to sound a **** or anything, but i've (ab)used several people's share of recreational drugs in my time, i've seen a few friends die from drug use and known a few proper* addicts too. personally - and based on what i fink is a fairly concise view of the issue - i think it's a ******* terrible idea to legitimise drug use.
*actual drug addicts rather than tedious students who say they, like, need to smoke weed. man.
|
VorianAtreides
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:05:00 -
[3]
lmfao, they have just put the age for buying tobaccco upto 18, do you really think this idea has any chance atall?
|
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:11:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Xoria Krint on 15/10/2007 15:11:41
Drugs.. Propaganda. End it all and legalize all the drugs. We are human beings for f*ck sake. If we wanna poison our body's.. Well let us.
And for the people that speak against it. And think drugs are just bad and destroy us.
Well let us destroy our self for some generations and if you are right. There will only be anti-drug people on the earth since we others are dead.
Especially Cannabis should be legalized.
Who do i harm when i smoke some pot and watch a good movie with some mates? :\
Why do i have to be a criminal for my drug choice?
|
Micheal Dietrich
Cynical Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:17:00 -
[5]
Wont let me view the page but I've got the general idea from the coments.
Like RyRy I got to watch a friend destroy himself with drugs. Guy can't hold a job now let alone function properly. Catscan revealed holes in his brain. He moved back to Penn with his dad and I haven't seen or heard from him in 5 years and I don't even know if he's alive at this point. I really miss that guy. He showed me how to get drunk and find your way onto the roof of any house.
___________________________
Never Forget, Never Forgive |
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:21:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Wont let me view the page but I've got the general idea from the coments.
Like RyRy I got to watch a friend destroy himself with drugs. Guy can't hold a job now let alone function properly. Catscan revealed holes in his brain. He moved back to Penn with his dad and I haven't seen or heard from him in 5 years and I don't even know if he's alive at this point. I really miss that guy. He showed me how to get drunk and find your way onto the roof of any house.
Well some people can't handle drugs. They get addicted and destroy them self. Its really sad and I have seen it myself aswell.
But the people that can handle the drugs shouldn't be punished for it.
|
Eelis Kiy
Gallente
Revelation Space
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:27:00 -
[7]
They should spend more time and money encouraging people to do something more interesting, worthwhile and rewarding with their lives than bother taking drugs in the first place.
Like play Eve 
|
Lucifer Fellblade
Ore Mongers
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:29:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Wont let me view the page but I've got the general idea from the coments.
Like RyRy I got to watch a friend destroy himself with drugs. Guy can't hold a job now let alone function properly. Catscan revealed holes in his brain. He moved back to Penn with his dad and I haven't seen or heard from him in 5 years and I don't even know if he's alive at this point. I really miss that guy. He showed me how to get drunk and find your way onto the roof of any house.
Well some people can't handle drugs. They get addicted and destroy them self. Its really sad and I have seen it myself aswell.
But the people that can handle the drugs shouldn't be punished for it.
Yeah, if your gonna take that view you might aswell say laws aren't needed at all, because those who are sensible shouldn't be punished for what the idiots do.
Laws are needed, and everybody suffers for the few because of this, it's the way society works and always has, it's not gonna change anytime soon.
------
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:30:00 -
[9]
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.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Cynical Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:37:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Wont let me view the page but I've got the general idea from the coments.
Like RyRy I got to watch a friend destroy himself with drugs. Guy can't hold a job now let alone function properly. Catscan revealed holes in his brain. He moved back to Penn with his dad and I haven't seen or heard from him in 5 years and I don't even know if he's alive at this point. I really miss that guy. He showed me how to get drunk and find your way onto the roof of any house.
Well some people can't handle drugs. They get addicted and destroy them self. Its really sad and I have seen it myself aswell.
But the people that can handle the drugs shouldn't be punished for it.
And the people that say I don't get addicted make me laugh. I'm addicted to watching them secrectly being addicted.
Hell just the other day a vietnam vet I know tried pawning me his camcorder for $10 so he could buy more beer and cigs. I feel bad for what he went through but I ain't gonna support his addictions when I got my own. He doesn't pay jack for housing anyways so he should have the cash but he's just really bad about it.
___________________________
Never Forget, Never Forgive |
|
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:40:00 -
[11]
Legalizing drugs will change nothing when it comes to those who destroy themselves on them, except making it a non-taboo subject with actual options that don't include jail time or the striping of one's rights and ability to get a job. The number of people who abuse a very damaging drug regularly, known as alcohol, greatly outnumbers any other used substance on this planet and they have no issue getting work. Plenty of people destroy themselves and their lives with alcohol, but people find it much more acceptable than those who abuse illegal substances and don't see it as reason to make it illegal. You'd be surprised how much public opinion on the substance has to do with one's ability to find a place within society sober.
It will also greatly decrease crime and many instances of violence, set up a taxable source to institute funded rehabilitation when needed, and allow actual information to be available that doesn't come from someone making money off of the person using. Not to mention opening up a great amount of research opportunities with willing subjects which in many ways could shed great light onto brain function, medical use, and progress towards eliminating inherent risks with many drugs. This all besides the point that the product will be clean.
Now not all drugs should be legalized, as there are many which are too damaging for their effects. But there are plenty of alternatives or just plain clean forms to push users to an actual controlled substances unlike the condition of 'controlled' substances are now in. But in any case there would be an availability that could easily be monitored.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:43:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Eelis Kiy
They should spend more time and money encouraging people to do something more interesting, worthwhile and rewarding with their lives than bother taking drugs in the first place.
Like play Eve
Agree, But drugs help people aswell.
Originally by: Lucifer Fellblade
Yeah, if your gonna take that view you might aswell say laws aren't needed at all, because those who are sensible shouldn't be punished for what the idiots do.
Laws are needed, and everybody suffers for the few because of this, it's the way society works and always has, it's not gonna change anytime soon.
Well.. Let's set up a "drug system" then? If you do stupid things on drugs you are forbidden to use them? Hitting someone when you are drunk = one warning (three warnings and you are forbidden to drink alcohol).
Besides, Alcohol does more damage in a society then Cannabis do in country's where both drugs are legal.
And I don't really wanna see ALL drugs legal since I know some people get into drugs without reading about it first.
LSD (physical addictive only)
Mushrooms (physical addictive only)
Cannabis (physical addictive only)
Amphetamine/*****/Cocain/****** (ehm.. Why are some drugs in the offensive filter?)
truly does destroy your body and makes a tough addiction. But sure. If there is people out there that can use these drugs without getting into trubble. Heck let them use it.
|
Bishop 5
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:45:00 -
[13]
All those who keep saying they know people who have destroyed themselves on drugs; fair play... it's not pretty (my cousin died using ******) but drugs like ****** only become dangerous *because* of the illegality of it. 100% pure ****** has medicinal purpose. The stuff you'll get from 'T-Bone' on the corner of the street will be mixed with anything from washing powder to chalk, THAT'S what makes it dangerous.
Weed... well... we all know about that 
-------------
meh |
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:50:00 -
[14]
Quote:
LSD (physical addictive only)
Mushrooms (physical addictive only)
Never known either of these to have a physically addictive quality.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:52:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Xoria Krint on 15/10/2007 15:51:58
Originally by: Bishop 5
All those who keep saying they know people who have destroyed themselves on drugs; fair play... it's not pretty (my cousin died using ******) but drugs like ****** only become dangerous *because* of the illegality of it. 100% pure ****** has medicinal purpose. The stuff you'll get from 'T-Bone' on the corner of the street will be mixed with anything from washing powder to chalk, THAT'S what makes it dangerous.
Weed... well... we all know about that
This guys knows what he is talking about. But it still makes you very addictive to it and it can make you care more about your ****** addiction then your kids etc.
Erowid about ******
But the addiction ain't that dangerous if the government would accept the cures for
addiction:
Ibogaine
Ibogaine info
|
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:53:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Caid Lemant
Quote:
LSD (physical addictive only)
Mushrooms (physical addictive only)
Never known either of these to have a physically addictive quality.
Everything can be physically addictive. Even Eve 
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 16:05:00 -
[17]
Edited by: ry ry on 15/10/2007 16:06:15
you mean psychologically, surely?
smack is physically addictive, gambling is psychologically addictive. worlds apart.
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 16:06:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Originally by: Caid Lemant
Quote:
LSD (physical addictive only)
Mushrooms (physical addictive only)
Never known either of these to have a physically addictive quality.
Everything can be physically addictive. Even Eve
Eve actually can't become physically addicting because there is never a physical agent that can't be replaced with some other activity. Considering that the effects of most hallucinogens persist in your body for long periods of time and in most cases induce high levels of many normally active chemicals, the effects are quite easy to recreate long after the 'high' has faded without the drug itself. You could call them addictive while the high is peaking, or in the process of... but that's much more psychological than a physical need for the substance. One's body does not go through detox after tripping (when it comes to mushrooms after digestion sure, but that has to do with you eating something verging on poisonous to your digestive system), you could say something about the mind but all in all it's actually just returning to quasi-normal levels.
It's nothing like ******* (blow) or an opioid where the physical reaction in the brain/body can only be replicated by the foreign agent because the reaction is centralized and very extreme. Both mental and physical addiction varies based on the body and mind involved, but there are substances no one can truly deal with alone after becoming physically dependent.
I might have went into too much detail here but meh.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 16:07:00 -
[19]
Edited by: ry ry on 15/10/2007 16:07:38
let the dull over-analysis begin!
|
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 16:11:00 -
[20]
Well I don't know about you guys. But I can get high by playing Eve 
|
|
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 16:22:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Well I don't know about you guys. But I can get high by playing Eve
You can get a high doing anything, the basic autonomy of our brains is based around 'getting high' and chasing those very highs.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Malcanis
High4Life
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 19:24:00 -
[22]
Originally by: SoftRevolution
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.
Your post is based on a single (huge) assumption, which you might do well to verify before advocating mass murder:
Criminalising drugs reduces consumption
Kindly provide some evidence that prohibition reduces consumption. I have yet to see any. You might like to look up how many ****** addicts there were the year parliament was persuaded to criminalise it.
The simple fact that people can easily obtain drugs IN PRISON proves that prohibition simply doesn't work. Think about that: even if our lives were as tightly controlled and lacking in freedom as high security prisoners, people would STILL use drugs.
Many of what people think of as the consequences of narcotics use are actually a consequence of prohibition.
May I take it that you're also in favour of criminalising tobacco products, eating too much, drinking alcohol and owning a car which can do more than 70mph? Currently all of these things are legal choices, provide no logical benefit, and they all cost the UK taxpayer quite a bit of money.
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.
Given how much crime costs the UK taxpayer, I think addiction treatment looks like a bit of a bargain.
Interesting thought: currently anyone can buy drugs, regardless of age or health. Care to speculate what might be different in this situation if people could get pure, clean drugs from a licensed supplier like a registered pharmacist? Do you think it would be easier or more difficult for children, for instance, to get narcotics?
I ask because right now I could take you to places where children of 10 or 12 are mashed on Ketamin.
Prohibition: working as intended...?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:11:00 -
[23]
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. 
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:21:00 -
[24]
Actually when it comes to eliminating the largest portion of the black market, crime will greatly vanish in many places. Not only are you eliminating a non-violent crime, but eliminating the violence that grows from the black market that is created because any given substance is illegal. There are few ways to deal with dispute, theft, and scams when it comes to illegal substances and most of them involved violence or threats of violence. Even over something as little as $900 of good ol' sticky icky, people take drastic action because they have to or they'd be tagged as push over. You can't turn to the law in any situation without endangering yourself, all someone who is holding has is their reputation.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
lofty29
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:27:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Drugs.. Propaganda. End it all and legalize all the drugs. We are human beings for f*ck sake. If we wanna poison our body's.. Well let us.
Problem is that for the first few years you'll get a bunch of kids going 'WEED/LSD/******/SPEED/***** YAY!!11!'. They die and a large % of the population dies. Large sums of money disappear from government funds because of this, and as such, huge economical raeptrain is created.
I still don't think we should be force-fed the whole 'DRUGS ARE BAD!1!1' but I certainly think that yes we are humans and should be free to do as we choose. It's just that it's so hard to sensibly control it any other way.
---
Latest Video : FAT- Camp |
Neon Genesis
The Landed Gentry
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:34:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
LSD (physical addictive only)
Mushrooms (physical addictive only)
Cannabis (physical addictive only)
Enjoying the feeling and wanting to repeat the experience is not the same thing as physical addiction.
I don't think all drugs should be legalised. ****** is a good example, which I don't think should be allowed to fall into public hands. The chief reason being that it's so possible to kill yourself with it, and the physical addiction that comes with it can impair your judgement enough to do just that.
I will personally be very dissapointed however, if cannabis is put back to a class B in Britain. The change to class C is a good thing because it dosn't target those of us who take it in casual moderation, for innocent enjoyment.
_
|
lofty29
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:37:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Neon Genesis
I will personally be very dissapointed however, if cannabis is put back to a class B in Britain. The change to class C is a good thing because it dosn't target those of us who take it in casual moderation, for innocent enjoyment.
It won't go back soon, if ever. It's as easy to get as bootleg DVDs now, and the government know they can't control it. That, and it's as harmful as tobacco pretty much.
---
Latest Video : FAT- Camp |
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:38:00 -
[28]
Quote:
That would be the start of a Big Brother-esque society. First it starts with monitoring us like that, next they won't let us **** without filling out a form
Compared to the current situation where if you're caught with certain substances you end up in jail, loss standing as a citizen, are fined a large deal of money, and aren't allowed to work certain jobs. That to receive any given medication, you must go through two government sponsored officials and every detail is recorded including when you picked them up and what for. Or the fact that your license plates are shot at the majority of intersections you drive through and in many populated areas can now receive infractions from an automated system that recorded you in the act.
Yup, making a workable system for clean distribution of recreational drugs would be the final tipping point towards fascism.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Neon Genesis
The Landed Gentry
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:39:00 -
[29]
Originally by: lofty29
Originally by: Neon Genesis
I will personally be very dissapointed however, if cannabis is put back to a class B in Britain. The change to class C is a good thing because it dosn't target those of us who take it in casual moderation, for innocent enjoyment.
It won't go back soon, if ever. It's as easy to get as bootleg DVDs now, and the government know they can't control it. That, and it's as harmful as tobacco pretty much.
Brown had plans to review the decision, as far as I am aware.
_
|
Malcanis
High4Life
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 21:32:00 -
[30]
Originally by: SoftRevolution
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.
"I do think the combination of keeping something socially unacceptable and providing penalties probably does have a deterrent effect"
I know you do. You already said it in your first post. It's just that all the available evidence points in the other direction. Addiction rates dectupled within 2 years of her0in prohibition in the UK. Or to put it another way: you're wrong.
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.
Another modest proposal? Again, if you're worried about kids buying drugs, it's trivially obvious that prohibition has no deterrent effect on people below the age of criminal responsibility. Slightly less trivially obvious is the situation inherent in it being illegal to sell drugs to anyone. So it's a crime to sell to adults and a crime to sell to children. Therefore drug dealers do both - why not? But if adults could obtain their drugs legally, then dealers would only have children as customers. Not a tenable situation. Arguably, prohibition increases drugs use among children.
"I worry that decriminalising drug use would make drug use less of a pariah pastime.
"
You seem to be stuck in a mindset that using "drugs" is a sin. ie: that it's morally wrong in and of itself to use any drugs (although only the illegal ones - they're illegal because they're wrong, but you seem to think that they're wrong because they're illegal too... see the logic gap?) regardless of the consequences.
Leaving aside the fallacy of treating all drugs as the same, why should eg: smoking cannabis or taking an E on Saturday night be a "pariah" past-time? Does it make Jesus cry? Are kittens killed in producing them?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |