|
Post by mouse on Aug 5, 2010 10:06:47 GMT
Would you call a few spliffs every few weeks a fix that is kept under control? i would call it PART of the overall problem..i would call it complicity in the self induced misery of others..complicity into drug related crimes of every description to you it is simply a couple of spliffs...to others it is part of the problem can you not be happy without a few spliffs....
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 5, 2010 13:41:26 GMT
Many people over the years have thought drugs were fun and should be legalized. However, their population keeps reducing itself since death by overdose happens all the time. Hospital emergency room employees can give you a stark description of the joys of drugs. Those addicts who don't kill themselves generally become unreliable, unemployable, totally worthless losers.
I'm for putting the death penalty on drug dealers, drug smugglers, drug lords, and drug farmers.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 5, 2010 14:41:43 GMT
Now there, BA, you lose focus.
It's not a question of whether or not drugs are fun.
If consenting adults want to take drugs they should be able to do so.
In the first place we could drastically reduce the prison population by legalising drugs.
We could control the quality of the supply so that dodgy heroin and crack didn't get out on the street.
We could make money from it by taxing it.
We would also drive the drug barons out of business by undercutting their prices and forcing them to go into different areas of crime.
On top of that, legalisation would mean LESS crime, LESS deaths and serious illness, and LESS cost - human and economic - to society.
It's a win-win situation!
Look at how Prohibition of alcohol ENCOURAGED crime!
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 5, 2010 16:01:40 GMT
Would you call a few spliffs every few weeks a fix that is kept under control? i would call it PART of the overall problem..i would call it complicity in the self induced misery of others..complicity into drug related crimes of every description to you it is simply a couple of spliffs...to others it is part of the problem can you not be happy without a few spliffs.... Well, yes, I suppose. But I don't see why I should try. Me having a few spliffs in my flat by myself does not harm anyone else. It doesn't even harm me, come to that. It is pretty arrogant of anyone else to criminalise me, and say that what I am doing is immoral. I am not able to drink enough to get even mildly drunk (fluid limit - I can't even drink much tea), so cannabis is all I can have, really. I don't complain about what you do for fun: because, whatever it is, it is none of my business. And me having a spliff is none of anyone else's. Drugs are only immoral because they're illegal, and they're only illegal because they're immoral. in the 1800s opium was legal and freely available - at least in Britain - from the chemist. There was not a big drug problem then. The problems only came when it was criminalised. Do you think that prohibition has helped those babies? Don't you think it would be better for mothers to get controlled doses and didn't have to worry about supply or quality? Besides, if the US Govt really cared about the babies of poor mothers, it would not cut social security payments. Terrorism funded by drugs. Only because they are illegal. Who - apart from Govts - really really don't want drugs to be de-criminalised? People who make a lot of money selling them, that's who. Meanwhile, the US Govt is giving life imprisonment to a bloke with MS who had 7 cannabis plants - a really worthwhile use of resourses, that is. BA. Drug overdoses, etc. are from criminalisation. You don't know if what you've got is adulterated or not, or what with. If drugs were not taken blind they would be a lot safer. A couple of months back we had a Police bloke boasting that, due to a few big busts, cocaine was now a lot more dangerous. Is that really something to be proud of? And what do you call a drug dealer (who should be executed)? Someone who passes a joint along to the next person? Someone who gathers money from his mates and goes to buy a couple of oz of grass, and then divides it out when he gets back (this is a common way of buying drugs)?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 5, 2010 22:17:22 GMT
Now there, BA, you lose focus. It's not a question of whether or not drugs are fun. If consenting adults want to take drugs they should be able to do so. In the first place we could drastically reduce the prison population by legalising drugs. We could control the quality of the supply so that dodgy heroin and crack didn't get out on the street. We could make money from it by taxing it. We would also drive the drug barons out of business by undercutting their prices and forcing them to go into different areas of crime. On top of that, legalisation would mean LESS crime, LESS deaths and serious illness, and LESS cost - human and economic - to society. It's a win-win situation! Look at how Prohibition of alcohol ENCOURAGED crime! Lin - I would say disagreement is an understatement. Drugs are poison. I certainly don't agree that letting whacked out drug addicts get high legally would be a good idea. It is a really awfully dumb idea. I can tell you from personal experience as an employer that a cocaine addict becomes a basically worthless human being. They're a burden on their families and society. None of that would change for the better if we were to legalize Cocaine. To the contrary, we would only make it worse because we'd be encouraging a rather large increase in the population of totally worthless human beings. The only intelligent solution is to burn the fields and execute anyone in the supply chain and dealer network. The order should be, "shoot on sight."
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 6, 2010 13:46:10 GMT
am with you on this bush.... wipe out the drug fields.....execute the traffickers.. i find All argumentsa in favour of ilegal drugs being legalised...pie in the sky and isnt taking into acount the human being..weaknesses and frailties now i would legalise canabis...i would be doubtful about it,,,but i would make it legal very reluctently i would also tax it.....though i cant see why canabis is any better for you than cigerettes and they are demonised to the max alcohol i would bring more controls over the sales but herion etc etc ,,wipe out the filds and the growers and the traffickers """Me having a few spliffs in my flat by myself does not harm anyone else. It doesn't even harm me, come to that. It is pretty arrogant of anyone else to criminalise me, and say that what I am doing is immoral. I am not able to drink enough to get even mildly drunk (fluid limit - I can't even drink much tea), so cannabis is all I can have, really. I don't complain about what you do for fun: because, whatever it is, it is none of my business. And me having a spliff is none of anyone else's.""" am totally in disagreement..i wouldnt say say imoral but amoral and cannot see why you think because you cannot drink this gives you licence to do drugs...what is the pressing need to do either? and yes it is our conern..each and every one of us that ends up footing the bill..living with the results it is as much our concern as child abuse..election fraud..violenc..every issue is the concern of every citizen
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 6, 2010 13:50:30 GMT
BA. Drug overdoses, etc. are from criminalisation. You don't know if what you've got is adulterated or not, or what with. If drugs were not taken blind they would be a lot safer. A couple of months back we had a Police bloke boasting that, due to a few big busts, cocaine was now a lot more dangerous. Is that really something to be proud of?
err drugs overdoses are not from criminalisation drugs overdoses are from,,,,,,drugs...it aint rocket science
and if you dont know what your taking then surely you shouldnt be taking anything...simples
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 6, 2010 13:59:02 GMT
And what do you call a drug dealer (who should be executed)? Someone who passes a joint along to the next person? Someone who gathers money from his mates and goes to buy a couple of oz of grass, and then divides it out when he gets back (this is a common way of buying drugs)?
drug dealers range from the wispy haired spotty student to the masion living criminal from the vicious murder....to the pensioner increasing their spendable income all are dealers in violnce,,crime,,misery and abuse...all are guilty...all dealers/sellers come in all shapes and sizes..but all peddle the same wares...and all do it for one simple reason..greed and proffit.. your description of the guy and his mates....oh very touching and very far from every ones reality go tell some kid of 9 in columbia prostituted so poppa can buy drugs... go tell the wife of the farmer gang raped by 20 thugs so her husband got the message about delivering his crop on time get real please and stop living in la la land
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 6, 2010 14:02:00 GMT
oh purlese...the naivety is alarming... just looked at this...sorry if i apear rude or short......but i cant be bothered to write posts out again
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 6, 2010 16:20:18 GMT
People either don't KNOW the difference between ordinary coke and crack or they pretend not to.
I don't support the use of crack but I've used coke quite a few times myself in the past.
I come back to the fact that MOST of the problems with crime stem from the lack of availability of drugs; MOST of the medical problems associated with drug use come from the lack of quality control.
Legalisation would solve both problems.
So too would taking away the reasons WHY people do those things.
Your arguments, dear BA, are exactly the same as the supporters of the prohibition of alcohol used.
History shows pretty clearly that they were wrong on every level!
It didn't help that President Harding was an alcoholic!
|
|
|
Post by o on Aug 6, 2010 16:21:35 GMT
Question to everyone:
If you can imagine for one moment a situation where ALL drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) are forbidden/illegal, but YOU had the power,
Which one(s) would you make legal and why?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 6, 2010 17:00:47 GMT
it would be alcohol...as it has several properties[remembering all other drugs are gone] pain relief knock out wound cleansing social food content can aid heart blood its a drink
pick me up....comes in a huge variety of taste...and strengths
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 6, 2010 17:06:23 GMT
I come back to the fact that MOST of the problems with crime stem from the lack of availability of drugs; ! one could say exactly the same about theft..fraud etc etc you know people are suposed to be able to say no to what they cannot aford.......why fuel adiction why condem ciggys and treat smokers like lepers and yet go down exactly the same road with a different drug
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 6, 2010 17:40:31 GMT
Cannabis is a better pain killer than alcohol. It helps you sleep better as well. (Mind you, morphine is even better).
Cannabis is a good anti nausea drug as well; and can make food better.
And it is a very social drug.
And it comes in lots of tastes and strengths.
You don't get violent if you smoke too much.
You don't die from cannabis poisoning after a (relatively) small amount, like you can with alcohol. (And I like alcohol. Especially whisky.)
And why fuel addiction - why condemn addiction? If addiction's so bad, why don't you let addicts have whatever they're addicted to on prescription? Who's side are you on - the addict or the person making money from them?
Remember - opium was freely available in England in the 1800s, from chemists, in all kinds of propriety medicines (non-prescription). There was not a big opium problem. That only started when it was made illegal, on the back of racist propaganda about white slavers.
Drugs are not evil. They are, if anything, good (ever had anaesthetic?).
Our cats love their drugs.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 6, 2010 18:50:40 GMT
Fortunately Lin, the laws are on my side of the argument.
The real problem is that we haven't had a real war on drugs. We've had a sort of a namby pamby polite hand slap against drugs.
Real wars are shooting affairs. You invade your enemies territory and you shoot your enemies. That's the kind of war on drugs I want to see.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 6, 2010 19:05:59 GMT
What kind of drugs, BA?
Morphine?
You'd be happy to have an operation without anaesthetic?
Or is it just some drugs that you don't like?
Do you think someone should be killed for smoking a joint? Or for passing a joint onto someone else (the next person in the circle - this is called "Distribution" - I said dope smokers were sociable beasts, didn't I?).
I introduced my mother to cannabis - and my brother. I had to force them to take it - trick them, actually - but once they were hooked it was ok. Do you know which of these sentences is not true? But, anyway, do you think we should all be shot (by Marines)? Why, exactly? Because Cannabis is illegal? Why is it illegal? Not because it is dangerous.
And do you think that a life sentence for an MS sufferer for having 7 plants is namby pamby? Do you think that 22% of th US prison population (in 2000 - it will be more now) for drug offences is namby pamby? Or a vile misuse of tax payer's money? Do you really think you're any safer because an MS sufferer is locked up for life?
Mind you, you've got what you want in Mexico. That's going really well, isn't it? Really helping the people there. But they're Mexicans, and there's always more of those, eh?
What drugs do you take?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 6, 2010 22:00:32 GMT
Of course we're talking about illegal drugs: Cocaine (all types), Heroin, Meth, etc.
I don't care about Marijuana. It's only bad because it is a stepping stone to the bad stuff. It's worthless crap but it's not the real problem.
I don't think users should be shot. But their supplies should be removed.
Of course the drug lords and the smugglers are a bigger problem than the street pushers.
I would do it this way. A street pusher gets arrested. I would tell him, "There are three possibilities: 1 - You may be executed, or 2 - you may serve a life sentence, or 3 - you may be released. Of those possibilities option 3 is the least likely because there is only one way that can happen.
In order to be released you must turn in your supplier. You must give us enough evidence to bust him. When he's sitting here in this prison, you can go free.
Every one of them gets the same deal with bigger and bigger dealers pulled in each time. Don't want to turn in your supplier. OK fine.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 7, 2010 8:59:44 GMT
Cannabis is a better pain killer than alcohol. It helps you sleep better as well. (Mind you, morphine is even better). Cannabis is a good anti nausea drug as well; and can make food better. And why fuel addiction - why condemn addiction? If addiction's so bad, why don't you let addicts have whatever they're addicted to on prescription? Who's side are you on - the addict or the person making money from them? . canabis will not clean a wound...so i will stay with alcohol as over all its more benificial than cana bis why on earth should the tax payer found anyones adiction to any drug via precription """If addiction's so bad, why don't you let addicts have whatever they're addicted to on prescription? Who's side are you on - the addict or the person making money from them?"""" i am on neither side..the adict or usser or the person making money...i am against both let them have what ever they are adicted to.....no way..why reward weakness and lack of responsibility..why reward adicts better to clean them up and then hand them the bill for the costs
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 7, 2010 10:05:36 GMT
No, by being in favour of prohibition you're on the side of the person making money out of addiction. Big drug dealers do not want prohibition to be ended. It makes their business too profitable.
Why on earth should the tax payer fund the costs of prohibition? Drugs on prescription would be a lot - a real lot - thousands or millions of times - cheaper.
Remember how drugs were made illegal in the first place - a racist campaign that talked about white slavery (which didn't exist). There was no drug problem before this; the problem - and the cost to the tax payer - was caused by prohibition.
No one seriously says this any more. Because it isn't true.
I don't know why you say cannabis is worthless crap. It's used by cancer patients to ease the nausea of chemotherapy, by people with MS to stop muscle spasm, by people with arthritis to ease the pain. It is used by all kinds of people to ease insomnia. (None of this is backed up by research in the US because the US Govt has refused to fund research, as it is self evident that cannabis is worthless - a really scientific view, that.)
It seems that, for some people, side effects are only acceptable when they are unpleasant (drugs I have taken for arthritis have made me feel sick and really worn out all the time, and have made all my hair fall out and given me eczema);research into cannabis therapy in Britain have concentrated on taking out the "High" - so nausea, eczema, hair loss, are all ok - getting high isn't. I once heard a Doctor talking about people "Suffering from euphoria" - this is the kind of attitude that makes cannabis seem bad.
My arthritis seems to have stabalised since I spent about 18 months smoking a couple of joints every night. That might not have been it - it probably wasn't; but I didn't finish any of the other courses of treatment due to the side effects; I either stopped it myself, or the hospital stopped it. The side effects of cannabis were very pleasant. The stabalisation of arthritis was a pleasant coincidence.
You can use maggots for cleaning wounds. A lot better than alcohol (whisky would be a bit sticky). I don't think that the alcohol used for medicinal cleaning now is all that drinkable.
The only really illegal drug before crack and meth came along was cannabis (I don't know about their status). Heroin cocaine etc all had a medical use. The drugs used for anaesthetic would be illegal if you used them anywhere else.
And I ask again BA - what drugs do you use? You can't just say - not the illegal ones, as all drugs have been illegal at one time, in some places. Coffee? When Bach was writing his Coffee Cantata, coffee was illegal in many countries in Europe; it is only chance that makes it legal in most places now. The same goes for any legal drug. And it is chance, or business interests, that gave illegal drugs their present status.
I don't think the death penalty for dealers is worth arguing about. Arguing in favour of the death penalty for anything puts you past the bounds of rationalism. But I expect you'd use the US's wonderful powers of extradition (backed up with trade agreements) to get them to face trial. What will you do when the US loses most of its power?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 7, 2010 10:28:38 GMT
No, by being in favour of prohibition you're on the side of the person making money out of addiction. ....i will use the large print to answer each point other wise it will get coplicated[so am not shouting in any way] I CANNOT FOLLOW THE REASONING OF THIS..to be against both is not to be in favour of either Remember how drugs were made illegal in the first place - a racist campaign that talked about white slavery (which didn't exist). There was no drug problem before this; the problem - and the cost to the tax payer - was caused by prohibition.WHITE SLAVERY HAS IN FACT EXISTED.... but have never seen it used as evidence or connected to the ilegality of drugs before..please explain I don't know why you say cannabis is worthless crap. It's used by cancer patients to ease the nausea of chemotherapy, by people with MS to stop muscle spasm, by people with arthritis to ease the pain. It is used by all kinds of people to ease insomnia. MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS ARE VERY DIFFERENT ISSUES..ithought we were discussing this only from a recreational ilegal point My arthritis seems to have stabalised since I spent about 18 months smoking a couple of joints every night.WHAT TYPE OF ARTHRITIS DOE YOU HAVE..you didnt say why but only that you smoked You can use maggots for cleaning wounds. .OF COURSE...BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALCOHOL...maggots are not suitible for every wound The only really illegal drug before crack and meth came along was cannabis (I don't know about their status). NOT TOO SURE OF YOUR POINT,, drugs have always been availble all over the world..the ilegalities came about once the trade became associated with crime and criminals by both sellers and ussers I don't think the death penalty for dealers is worth arguing about. Arguing in favour of the death penalty for anything puts you past the bounds of rationalism. I THINK ALL VIEWS ARE ACEPTABLE INCLUDING BEING IN FAVOUR OF the death penalty for traders in broken and destroyes lives i take a number of drugs...every day.all legal[even though i could sell for a good price when younger i did try out a whole variety of drugs..as the young do.... and i do know where canabis has ruined lives..and has been a stepping stone to other drugs
|
|