|
Post by aubrey on Dec 23, 2010 6:51:09 GMT
I have paid attention. Most users are also dealers. They share drugs with their friends. It is a technical form of dealing; but you can be sure that if your idea became law it would become the practice to class passing a joint to your friend as dealing ("Distribution," I think it's called).
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 24, 2010 0:07:25 GMT
I don't care about marijuana. That's not the supply chain we need to go after. It is suppliers of heroin, cocaine, and meth that need to receive a fast track death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 24, 2010 14:18:58 GMT
Same deal there. Users will share - distribute the drug amongst themselves.
The rest of your idea would lead to entrapment - pretty police officers asking some "dodgy-looking" geezer if he can get some coke for her. Newspapers get people like that.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 29, 2010 3:13:46 GMT
Aubrey - Your comments are focused on the bottom end of the distribution chain. I'm interested in going after the top end rather than the bottom end.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 29, 2010 19:08:09 GMT
Your method was working your way up, wasn't it?
And the police are always happy to go after the bottom end - look at the huge number of people convicted for possession of cannabis last year.
The way to get to the top end is decriminalisation - that is the one thing they don't want. An all out war, such as the one in Mexico, does not bother them. Decriminalisation would.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 30, 2010 0:18:21 GMT
No Aubrey. Decriminalization would increase the total population of spaced out druggies who can't hold a job and are basically worthless human beings. Creating more drug addicts by design is not a solution. It would simply escalate the problem.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 30, 2010 6:10:50 GMT
You reckon?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 5, 2011 1:52:02 GMT
Aubrey - Thank you for conceding defeat in this debate.
It's good to know that you admit decriminalization would increase the total population of spaced out druggies who can't hold a job and are basically worthless human beings.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 5, 2011 17:58:47 GMT
No, I'm not.
Decriminalisation would not do that. And people who take drugs are not worthless human beings.
Criminalisation has made millions of otherwise useful people pretty much unemployable.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 6, 2011 1:01:52 GMT
I certainly can't see the wisdom of paying a salary to a druggie. I've tried that on several previous occasions and it didn't work.
I could clearly see that the employees were indeed worthless. That was before I discovered they were druggies. Then I knew why.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 6, 2011 17:24:18 GMT
And all the people you have employed and didn't know took drugs?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 7, 2011 19:59:42 GMT
Aubrey - It is true that we did have other worthless employees over the years. Drugs are a likely explanation. Thanks for bringing to my attention.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 7, 2011 22:37:54 GMT
They might not have been. Maybe some of the real high flyers were taking drugs.
I was taking drugs, from time to time, and I kept the company I was working for going for many years; I was the best at what I did, which was cutting out bits of card stuck to sticky bubblewrap. Illegal drugs made no difference to how I worked at all.
The only drugs that did make a difference were legal ones, taken for arthritis. They were horrible.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 21, 2011 1:36:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 22, 2011 10:23:37 GMT
It's not a drug that I'd advise anyone to take.
But the fact remains that prohibition is not the best way of persuading people that it is not a good thing to take. Nor is saying that all other drugs are as bad as Meth.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 22, 2011 22:31:26 GMT
So Aubrey, are you saying you think Meth should be available over the counter without regulation or prohibition? In other words, if someone wants to permanently damage their brain it's their business and not the government's??
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 22, 2011 22:49:21 GMT
Ba are we reading the same post?
Next you'll be claiming that Aubrey is recommending feeding meth to babies. Acknowledging prohibition does not work is not a cry for a drug free for all.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 23, 2011 13:12:46 GMT
So Aubrey, are you saying you think Meth should be available over the counter without regulation or prohibition? In other words, if someone wants to permanently damage their brain it's their business and not the government's?? Why, yes, I am saying that. How astute of you to have noticed. Good grief.
|
|