| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nuala Reece
Caldari
Starlancers
Insurgency
   |
Posted - 2007.10.15 22:43:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: lofty29
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.
Last time I heard stats on drug related deaths (from a Drugs, Alcohol and HIV Forum meeting in Scotland) they suggested that around 120 people die every year in Scotland from illicit drug use. Out of a population of just over 5 million that's around 0.0024%. Even if legalisation resulted in a tenfold increase in use and resulting deaths (1200 deaths per year, 0.024%) that would still be only half of the deaths the country sees as a result of alcohol use. From my point of view, the death rate from illegal drug use is hugely over played because, in the words of one of the Forum members, 'politically speaking drugs are sexy'. It's for that reason, and people's natural tendency toward conservatism (in England at least) that the evidence in favour of changing drug legislation is frequently ignored in favour of 'common sense' ideas with little or no evidence to back them up.
There's already a good amount of evidence for the economic benefits of at least decriminalising drug use. Other countries have seen overall drug use decrease after a brief increase folowing legalisation or deciminalisation for so-called 'soft' drugs. For 'hard' drugs there's even better evidence - a test study in Liverpool in the early 90's, where addicts were able to get smack on prescription on condition they attended drug counselling regularly, had pretty dramatic results. An area with high levels of crime - theft, violence and prostitution - was virtually transformed as a result of the test. Most of the theft and prostitution was a result of people needing money to fund their habit, money they didn't need once their drugs were free on prescription (gods bless the NHS). The cost on the NHS also dropped becasue the drugs they were using were medical grade rather than street-style cut with brick dust stuff - high quality gear combined with regular medical and counselling contact and more disposable income led to users being much more healthy. It also led to them being able to stabilize their lives, increasing their chances of legal employment and reducing the cost on the benefits system. Dealers had less customers and so moved away, dramatically reducing the level of violence on the streets, and punters went elsewhere allowing locals to feel more safe and have more ownership of their own streets. People were also more likely to get themselves off the drugs than the current preferred method of giving them a significantly more addictive drug as a replacement therapy (methadone).
Basically the evidence available suggests we spend far more money at the moment pursuing the war on drugs, sorry the War On Drugs!, than we would if we, well, smoked a joint and just chilled out dude 
Summary - War On Drugs! is a massive waste of money with very little significant result other than to maintain the staus quo, but a great political tool for scaring people on a local level when they're too smart to fall for the larger scare stories. Until that changes we're pretty unlikely to see any kind of real change to the law towards something that might actually benefit drug users, drug addicts, the health service, the benefits system and society in general.
Starlancers
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/NualaReece/starlancers_ad.avi |
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 23:13:00 -
[32]
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.
|
Darteis Elosia
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 23:56:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Darteis Elosia on 16/10/2007 00:03:03
Edited by: Darteis Elosia on 16/10/2007 00:02:30
Well here is my two cents.
Some drugs are just too freaking dangerous to be allowed. I tried coke and the result was a immediate addiction to that ****. One though would occupy my head when the mood suddenly turned from good to bad; coke. It's dangerous, really dangerous. My life could have been completely ****** over and i could of devoted it to trying to get more of it every day. Luckily, in one way, very tragic, in another, a series of events landed me in hospital for a week and i got professional with the addiction and what had also happen when i was high off it.
Some drugs are simply too dangerous and too powerful for anyone to handle. And even if they live a reasonably normal life with these kinds of drugs, they are always very close to slipping into an addiction that affects everyday life in a very negative way.
I can understand that some people may want to legalize Cannabis. But in all honesty that is how far i believe that the government should legalize drugs. Thats where I'd draw the line anyway for what is supposed to be legal. If people want to try experiment with drugs, fine they do as they like and some people learn best by doing but there is no reason to sanction it. If they want to try, they should be ready to break the law.
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 02:39:00 -
[34]
Quote:
Some drugs are just too freaking dangerous to be allowed. I tried coke and the result was a immediate addiction to that ****. One though would occupy my head when the mood suddenly turned from good to bad; coke. It's dangerous, really dangerous. My life could have been completely ****** over and i could of devoted it to trying to get more of it every day. Luckily, in one way, very tragic, in another, a series of events landed me in hospital for a week and i got professional with the addiction and what had also happen when i was high off it.
Pure *******, used with the proper information and availability, is much less dangerous than you put it off as. Hundreds times more people have put themselves in the hospital or grave with alcohol than have ever come from cut *******. When it comes to the drug's production and distribution methods, it's a whole other story when it comes to those who've died or had their lives ended in non-mortal ways.
--------
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 |
Murukan
Minmatar
Dark Knights of Deneb
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 03:55:00 -
[35]
There is no excuse that weed isn't legal, the only reason right now is because the tobacco companies don't want competition for cigarettes. If you look it the facts, you're more likely to be a big violent ******* when you're drunk than if you're stoned. Maybe petty theft of chips and the like would increase but i would rather be more worried about my chips getting nicked than some drunk guy trying to punch my face in for no reason.
Manlove by Zaphod Jones
|
Skraeling Shortbus
Caldari
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 06:42:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
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?
physiologically speaking tell me that they are not bad for you, because well they are.
Love to the Assault Frigate! |
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 06:44:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Murukan
There is no excuse that weed isn't legal, the only reason right now is because the tobacco companies don't want competition for cigarettes. If you look it the facts, you're more likely to be a big violent ******* when you're drunk than if you're stoned. Maybe petty theft of chips and the like would increase but i would rather be more worried about my chips getting nicked than some drunk guy trying to punch my face in for no reason.
Haha. I want my chips 
|
Mr Friendly
That it Should Come to This
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 07:00:00 -
[38]
Arthur C. Clarke had an interesting idea about hard drugs (just throwing this out there as I favor legalization/regulation/social destigmatization personally).
His idea:
1)make drugs available and free to any adults who wants them.
2)Let them descend into their drug haze and they remove themselves from the gene pool.
3)The non-drug users breed, the drug users do not.
4) ?????
5) profit
__________________________________________________
FOLD. The Ultimate PVP. It really is Us vs. Them.
clicky |
Asian Trader
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 08:09:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Mr Friendly
Arthur C. Clarke had an interesting idea about hard drugs (just throwing this out there as I favor legalization/regulation/social destigmatization personally).
His idea:
1)make drugs available and free to any adults who wants them.
2)Let them descend into their drug haze and they remove themselves from the gene pool.
3)The non-drug users breed, the drug users do not.
4) ?????
5) profit
Its evooolution *singing on the new Korn song*
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 08:59:00 -
[40]
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.
|
|
|
XrayZ
Euphoria Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 10:27:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
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?
damn straight bro!
legaliseeraaaaaa!!!!
*puts on some hippie music and starts rolling*
--------------------------------------
<3 Godlesswanderer } eve-gfx team. |
Darteis Elosia
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 13:35:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Caid Lemant
Quote:
Some drugs are just too freaking dangerous to be allowed. I tried coke and the result was a immediate addiction to that ****. One though would occupy my head when the mood suddenly turned from good to bad; coke. It's dangerous, really dangerous. My life could have been completely ****** over and i could of devoted it to trying to get more of it every day. Luckily, in one way, very tragic, in another, a series of events landed me in hospital for a week and i got professional with the addiction and what had also happen when i was high off it.
Pure *******, used with the proper information and availability, is much less dangerous than you put it off as. Hundreds times more people have put themselves in the hospital or grave with alcohol than have ever come from cut *******. When it comes to the drug's production and distribution methods, it's a whole other story when it comes to those who've died or had their lives ended in non-mortal ways.
I speak from my own experience from it and i think it's extremly dangerous, maybe it's not as bad on your liver as alcohol but it's so addictive it can easily take over someones life. It's just not a question of how many people get into the hospital becuase of it or due to related events. Think of all the people who actually are addicted to it and live their daily lives with angst and agony becuase they are.
You can tone it down as much as you like but i hope you've tried it before you advocate that it's not dangerous.
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 14:06:00 -
[43]
I live in Holland.
Trust me when i say, legalizing sounds nice and all, but it has some serious downsides. 2 'friends' of mine have gone totally out of control in their use of softdrugs and have quit school and job over it. Not good when you're 20.
Paradox V2.0 is recruiting! |
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 14:38:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Caid Lemant on 16/10/2007 14:39:42
Originally by: Darteis Elosia
Originally by: Caid Lemant
Quote:
Some drugs are just too freaking dangerous to be allowed. I tried coke and the result was a immediate addiction to that ****. One though would occupy my head when the mood suddenly turned from good to bad; coke. It's dangerous, really dangerous. My life could have been completely ****** over and i could of devoted it to trying to get more of it every day. Luckily, in one way, very tragic, in another, a series of events landed me in hospital for a week and i got professional with the addiction and what had also happen when i was high off it.
Pure *******, used with the proper information and availability, is much less dangerous than you put it off as. Hundreds times more people have put themselves in the hospital or grave with alcohol than have ever come from cut *******. When it comes to the drug's production and distribution methods, it's a whole other story when it comes to those who've died or had their lives ended in non-mortal ways.
I speak from my own experience from it and i think it's extremly dangerous, maybe it's not as bad on your liver as alcohol but it's so addictive it can easily take over someones life. It's just not a question of how many people get into the hospital becuase of it or due to related events. Think of all the people who actually are addicted to it and live their daily lives with angst and agony becuase they are.
You can tone it down as much as you like but i hope you've tried it before you advocate that it's not dangerous.
It's as dangerous as you let it and in any case it doesn't change the fact that in its pure form many factors that are currently inherent to the drug disappear. Add in a distribution method that isn't purely based around profit and getting buyers addicted and many others disappear. I'm not saying it's fool proof but with the right things instituted the drug would become reasonably safe in comparison to the current situation. Illegality has more effect on the dangers of the drug and addiction than the drug itself in this case.
When it comes to experience, I've seen enough of the stuff in front of me and around me to be able to talk.
--------
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 - 2007.10.16 21:04:00 -
[45]
Originally by: ry ry
let the dull over-analysis begin!
i didn't think they'd listen :(
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 21:08:00 -
[46]
Edited by: ry ry on 16/10/2007 21:10:55
in other news, my elderly neighbour just came round and made me get my girlfriend out of bed to get a frog out of her bedroom*. it's not like we live in a ******* bayou or anything and it's late at night here.
seriously, wtf? this all raises more questions than answers, frankly.
*vik likes animals. a lot.
|
Malcanis
High4Life
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 19:08:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Skraeling Shortbus
Originally by: Xoria Krint
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?
physiologically speaking tell me that they are not bad for you, because well they are.
So is refined sugar. None of your business, really.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
High4Life
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 19:09:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Sokratesz
I live in Holland.
Trust me when i say, legalizing sounds nice and all, but it has some serious downsides. 2 'friends' of mine have gone totally out of control in their use of softdrugs and have quit school and job over it. Not good when you're 20.
And you think this couldn't have happened if they were criminalised too?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Riddaro
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 20:05:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Riddaro on 17/10/2007 20:05:27
Before i start...I havnt read the other posts in this thread and frankly i dont want to, i find the topic of this post quite irrelevant and a tad bit offensive since i work for the long arm of the law, plz devs, lock plz?!?
Send flames VIA ingame to me plz? Real Character is Kydor for your info
|
Nuala Reece
Caldari
Starlancers
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 21:48:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Riddaro
Edited by: Riddaro on 17/10/2007 20:05:27
Before i start...I havnt read the other posts in this thread and frankly i dont want to, i find the topic of this post quite irrelevant and a tad bit offensive since i work for the long arm of the law, plz devs, lock plz?!?
Send flames VIA ingame to me plz? Real Character is Kydor for your info
lol  Lock the thread because you're feeling offended by the things you haven't read? Are you on drugs?
Starlancers
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/NualaReece/starlancers_ad.avi |
|
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 21:53:00 -
[51]
Originally by: ry ry
Originally by: ry ry
let the dull over-analysis begin!
i didn't think they'd listen :(
Kinda hard to listen to when you have nothing to say.
--------
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 - 2007.10.17 22:11:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Sokratesz
I live in Holland.
Trust me when i say, legalizing sounds nice and all, but it has some serious downsides. 2 'friends' of mine have gone totally out of control in their use of softdrugs and have quit school and job over it. Not good when you're 20.
I trust you but I don't agree. I know alot of people that don't do drugs and are over 20 that quited job/school for alot of other reasons; MMORPG's TV shows (Its true, sadly) Love I could add some more but I guess you get the point. I also know people that quited school/job over drugs ofcurse so im not going to defend it THAT much. But I also know people that do so called "light drugs" and do GREAT in both school and work. But atleast let the sick people get Cannabis as medicine but the big corporations wouldn't like that :)
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 22:18:00 -
[53]
to be honest mate, i have lots to say on the subject. unfotunately very little of it's suitable for a forum that is aimed at kiddies and filters the names of most hard drugs.
suffice to say, your supposition that ***** ******* 'isn't dangerous' is laughable to the point of being utterly contemptible.
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 23:53:00 -
[54]
Originally by: ry ry
Edited by: ry ry on 17/10/2007 22:24:28
Originally by: "caid lament"
Kinda hard to listen to when you have nothing to say.
to be honest mate, i have lots to say on the subject. unfotunately very little of it's suitable for a forum that is aimed at kiddies and filters the names of most hard drugs.
suffice to say, your supposition that sustained ******* use 'isn't dangerous if you get good gear' is laughable to the point of being utterly contemptible.
i genuinely doubt you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
If you disagree with the suitability of this thread, why do you continue posting in it? Interesting choice to bump a thread you seem to not want to be a part of, as declared within the thread itself.
I'm also curious when I said it 'isn't dangerous', I've said it would be much less dangerous and in comparison to the current situation, relatively safe - comparison is a key word there. Not to mention a change on awareness about the distribution of the drug that doesn't only exist in an underbelly culture that has no public or legal means of awareness that don't include right stripping consequences. I'm also curious how an explanation from a different view point than yours correlates to not having a clue what I'm talking about.
--------
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 |
Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 00:04:00 -
[55]
Originally by: SoftRevolution
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.
Are you implying that there is a link between poverty, poor housing, poor health and drug use?
Are you suggesting that the incidence of drug use is much more common amongst the poorer section of the community, and possibly realising that folk in bad situations are more inclined to want to get out of it as an escape?
Could you be coming to the conclusion that many folk are mistaking a symptom as a cause?
Or are you just resorting to sweeping generalisations because you read the Mail/Telegraph/Sun too often?
I think the public have a right to know!!
The next revolution won't be televised; it'll be pod-cast. |
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 03:07:00 -
[56]
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.
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 09:10:00 -
[57]
Edited by: ry ry on 18/10/2007 09:15:16
Originally by: Caid Lemant
If you disagree with the suitability of this thread, why do you continue posting in it? Interesting choice to bump a thread you seem to not want to be a part of, as declared within the thread itself.
I'm also curious when I said it 'isn't dangerous', I've said it would be much less dangerous and in comparison to the current situation, relatively safe - comparison is a key word there. Not to mention a change on awareness about the distribution of the drug that doesn't only exist in an underbelly culture that has no public or legal means of awareness that don't include right stripping consequences. I'm also curious how an explanation from a different view point than yours correlates to not having a clue what I'm talking about.
i don't think the thread is suitable for a pc13 computergame forum. why would that stop me from posting? i'd just assumed this thread would have been closed already.
anyway, if you really want to do the ****y internet argument thing, fine. your logic is fundamentally flawed - apparently you're assuming the level of drug use in the population would remain static, whilst it's newfound legal status would ensure that the existing users were protected from the excesses of criminality; which is the cause of the vague and hazy danger you keep mentioning.
this is a little miguided. the majority of ******* users buy off friends or friends-of-friends, who in-turn are dealing to support their own habit. perhaps more importantly, it's an addictive and extremely profitable drug; it's not in a dealer's interests to go round endangering paying customers.
so. assuming users aren't in any immediate danger from their dealer, what exactly is this 'danger'? and more importantly, how would decriminalisation reduce this?
the dangers of coke are all inherent in it's nature. addiciton (and all the many and varied problems this presents), heartattack, endless hours spouting self-absorbed **** to strangers to coked up to even listen to what you're saying. these don't change if you slap a tax on it and start selling it in Tesco Express.
you with me so-far? great.
now we have to make some leaps of logic regarding the possible downsides of legalisation. by legalising hard drugs, the government would effectively be endorsing their use. despite shrill claims to the contrary from internet forum ninjas, this would create an air of social acceptability and - god forbid - safety around a class A narcotic.
Fag packets carry dire warnings of death; your death, the death of those you care about, the death of your unborn baby, and the death of blood flow to your *****. Yet still millions of people happily puff away, cornershops and 24-hour garages do a roaring trade in ciggys, we smoke our little lungs out and everybody is happy.
now suppose the only way to get a packet of****s is by ringing around a couple of mobile numbers, until you find somebody that has some but wants ú40 for a packet of twenty. they're in a pub on the other side of town and there's no way they're coming to meet you so you'll have to make your way to The Swollen Nostril and sullenly nurse a pint till your guy turns up. money is exchanged and you're on your way back to see your mates, only noticing when you get back to the pub that he's clearly smoked three of the cigarettes.
now reverse that. coke is legalised - what happens to the levels of usage?
the percentages legalisation avocates cling to ("OH MORE PLEOPL DEIS FROM DRINK THUN DRUGS LOL") only work in their favour because of the disproportionately larger number of people who drink than take drugs. people who like to do both apparently don't count.
the moment ******* use reached the levels of alcohol use they you'll start to see what you consider to be minor social issues - addicts robbing houses to buy drugs, that sort of thing - become vastly magnified. so the government gets stuck with helping all these newly created junkies get clean, except that costs a fortune, which means
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 09:17:00 -
[58]
[cont] more tax on the bloody coke in the first place.
so now we have a situation where you're making a short-lived addictive substance easily obtainable but prohibitively expensive. can you not see the teeny tiny problem there?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |