[Closed] on the verge of agreeing with an american....

I agree with many Americans

The late Sheldon Brown and the late Samuel Langhorne Clemens spring to mind.

However, I lost this guy at 02.56 when he said 'church'.

Unfortunately lots of crime (in the UK at least) is caused by people committing crimes to afford their habit. Legalising their fix won't change their need, or their lack of funds.

Unfortunately lots of crime (in the UK at least) is caused by people committing crimes to afford their habit. Legalising their fix won't change their need, or their lack of funds.

tis a good point...

the god bit i glossed over in an effort to listen to the rest of his argument. he strikes me as the kinda guy who referenced god to appeal to church types instead of one who's wrapped up in the church considering what he's arguing for.

[img] [/img]

How long will it be before big business (i.e. legitimate drug companies) manages to persuade governments to legalise drugs so they can get a slice of the money action?

Seemed an entirely sensible argument to me...Why should a bunch of crooks get rich supplying a product we have no control over. The state may as well benefit and surely gun deaths would fall.

can't fault his argument tbh.
the septic speaketh the truth.

Unfortunately lots of crime (in the UK at least) is caused by people committing crimes to afford their habit. Legalising their fix won't change their need, or their lack of funds

Frankly I don't care how many addicts there are or how much it costs to police the situation and keep the junkies in prison. I'd rather spend money on that than spend money sanctioning their addition in the first place.

If we're going to legalise it and sponsor them to be addicts, then I also want the option of being able to absolve myself of social repsonsibilities.

TuckerUK - Member

Unfortunately lots of crime (in the UK at least) is caused by people committing crimes to afford their habit. Legalising their fix won't change their need, or their lack of funds

2 counters to that- one is that it's only the illegality and difficulty of supply that makes most illegal drugs so expensive. The other is that the immense saving on TWOD could be put in part towards treatment, and that removing the criminal aspect would make it easier for people to seek help.

geetee I would strongly advise you to listen to it he makes some good arguments and points that are hard to [ rationally] counter.
He does not suggest what you mention [sponsoring] in the video.

As he notes no one thinks we can eradicate drugs off the planet [ win the war on drugs] and as we cannot keep them out of prison the main issue prohibition would seem doomed to failure. Rather we should look at doing the least harm
In essence prohibition does not work and we all know
No offence but watch the video

[i]sponsor them to be addicts[/i]

Eh?

Legalising their fix won't change their need, or their lack of funds.

As above - it makes it a lot cheaper.

How about free herion for anyone on a rehab programme?

Has it been tried and proven to be effective elsewhere? Surely that's an (but not 'the': societies are not all equal) acid (no pun intended!) test?

If we do decide to that, I'd support it, but only if we first arrest and charge all users over (say) 25. I think at 25 one should know the difference between right and wrong.

Wow. The guy spoke for 15 minutes and was 100% completely un-waveringly utterly totally right the whole time. (Except for claiming that what happened in the garden of Eden is a matter of historical record.)

then I also want the option of being able to absolve myself of social repsonsibilities.

If you voted for the current government then you already have.

If we do decide to that, I'd support it, but only if we first arrest and charge all users over (say) 25. I think at 25 one should know the difference between right and wrong.

Has it been tried and proven to be effective elsewhere? Surely that's an (but not 'the': societies are not all equal) acid (no pun intended!) test?

[url= https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization ]5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results [/url]

[url= http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/ ]Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal[/url]

for the sake of fairness can we try to remember that not all illicit substance users are scum who break into your grans house and steal her jewellery for their next fix, some are the business men who pay your wages, some are victims of horrendous lives who use it as a coping method.

How come people who talk sense like that only get 15 minutes on a chat show while the people who think a war on drugs is winnable end up running the country and making the rules.

How come people who talk sense like that only get 15 minutes on a chat show while the people who think a war on drugs is winnable end up running the country and making the rules.

Numbers, and money.

People don't like being reasonable and fair, because that means ambiguity and things being both good and bad for various reasons. Therefore making a judgement becomes rather difficult. People would much prefer to think of things in black and white terms cos then it's easy. Black is wrong, white is right, simple.

When you have an easy decision to make it's extremely simple to align yourself with the 'right' people and feel like your conscience is clear. This is especially easy when it's something that doesn't concern you. When it does concern people, they tend to be in denial about it.

Incidentally there's a huge number of extremely intelligent Americans with very profound and useful insight. They don't get much media time unfortunately.

TuckerUK - Member
Has it been tried and proven to be effective elsewhere? Surely that's an (but not 'the': societies are not all equal) acid (no pun intended!) test?

If we do decide to that, I'd support it, but only if we first arrest and charge all users over (say) 25. I think at 25 one should know the difference between right and wrong.

Where has prohibition worked?

And for most people it's a matter of personal freedom. What should it matter what I put into my body if it doesn't affect you?

What should it matter what I put into my body if it doesn't affect you?

Well for many people, it DOES affect others. As anyone who has had an alcoholic parent would testify - for example.

philconsequence - Member

for the sake of fairness can we try to remember that not all illicit substance users are scum who break into your grans house and steal her jewellery for their next fix, some are the business men who pay your wages, some are victims of horrendous lives who use it as a coping method

Well said. I would add that (by far) not all the scum who would break into your grans house to steal her jewellery are illicit substance users either. They're just plain scum (as opposed to "junkie" scum)

Well for many people, it DOES affect others. As anyone who has had an alcoholic parent would testify - for example.

It's about time we had a war on alcohol then. That would solve the problem.

I LOL'd..... as you probably well know prohibition has never worked so Molgrips needs to realize that families of alcoholics pulled the short straw in life. Just like those people who are born into families with wildly psychopathic parents. It's not the States or societies fault.....you just got born in the wrong place at the wrong tine to people with bad genes.....because the universe is a morally neutral uncaring place to be.

and Geetee is 100 percent utterly and totally wrong....to the point that I cannot even begin to be arsed countering it as I hope everyone else knows better.

It's about time we had a war on alcohol then. That would solve the problem.

I LOL'd..... as you probably well know prohibition has never worked so Molgrips needs to realize that families of alcoholics pulled the short straw in life.

Er ok, yes, of course, thanks for calling in, but my actual point was in response to Lifer's libertarian stance - that it doesn't matter what he puts into his body as it only affects him.

Another counter to that position is that a lot of people start doing something then regret it when they find out they are addicted and can't stop. Cigarettes are a good example. That affects a huge number of people other than the smoker, sometimes very severely.

CountZero I think he was being sarcastic.

It's still not up to the state to decide what you put in your body though - I'm pretty sure slamming junkies in prison affects families more than the drugs problem itself. Seeing as how most of the drugs except for alcohol tend to chill people out more - how often do you hear about pot-heads being wildly abusive in public when compared to alcoholics?

It should be treated as a health issue and treated as such, not a criminal issue.

It's still not up to the state to decide what you put in your body though

Hmm, but the state DOES prohibit things that have significantly negative consequences.

Seeing as how most of the drugs except for alcohol tend to chill people out more

Well, the contents of the controlled substances list is another debate - I'd definitely argue for taking a lot of stuff off it.

we all know certain things are bad for you but we cannot make adults eat healthy, take enough exercise or control what goes in to their own bodies
we can advise them and educate them but they are still free to do as they please. The counter point is also that objecting to any of these wont stop them from happening and the evidence suggest neither will making them illegal
It was a good point that if they cannot stop drugs being used in prison what hope is there for stopping them in general society.

Hmm, but the state DOES prohibit things that have significantly negative consequences.

Like what, apart from prescribed medicines?

1/10 downhillers sustain a life threatening injury in whistler compared to 1/1000 skiers. Want to ban that as well?

Are fat people sent to prison?

but the state DOES prohibit things that have significantly negative consequences.

PS the issue is not whether we would wish people to not do it the question is whether making them illegal is effective. The former is a given the later is much harder to

1/10 downhillers sustain a life threatening injury in whistler

That sounds highly questionable. Hospitals must be overflowing.

Are fat people sent to prison?

I didn't say EVERYTHING, I said things, meaning some things.

what was your point?

The point that there is already a precedent for the state prohibiting things that have negative consequences. So you either let people do whatever the hell they want and sod the consequences, or you try and limit the damage as best you can.

I'm not sticking up for the state or for current legislation, just providing a counterpoint to the libertarians.

In the UK before the 70's heroin use to be supplied through regulated Doctors to registered addicts. Legal, cheap and uncontrolled by criminals.

It was too cheap though as addicts increased considerably once into the 60's - but there must be a better way than what we have now.

It was too cheap though as addicts increased considerably once into the 60's - but there must be a better way than what we have now.

As someone studying medical statistics, have you ever thought that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

There was a massive shift in cultural attitudes during the 60's - that probably led to a lot more drug use.

That sounds highly questionable. Hospitals must be overflowing.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Hurtling+down+Whistler+mountainside+fraught+with+danger/7060926/story.html

"Dr. Annie Gareau, an emergency room specialist at the Whistler clinic and co-author of the study, said a general rule of thumb is that one in 1,000 skiers is injured, one in 100 snowboarders, and one in 10 downhill cyclists. That makes downhill mountain biking far more dangerous than skiing and highlights the need for more research on safety equipment and risk avoidance measures, she said."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22656660

At a quick glance 8.5 percent of 1/10 are critically injured.

Much worse than the risks associated with smoking.

Also, I can't think of a single thing other than prescribed drugs than prescribed drugs that are illegal due to health reasons. Even then there are other reasons prescribed drugs are usually illegal to have without a prescription....eg because medics need to control their use in a population to be effective.

I didn't say EVERYTHING, I said things, meaning some things.

Being fat is less healthy than smoking dope. Can we send the fatties to prison please and send armed police to kick in the doors of Cadbury world?

Bwhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaar

Obesity outranks both smoking and drinking in its deleterious effects on health and health costs

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/2/245.long

Right, let's round up the fat ****s and send them to prison.

As someone who regularly deals with the consequence and aftermath of drug and alcohol abuse, I can see both the fors and againsts for legalising all drugs. Alcohol is the drug of choice for most people in our country, probably followed by cannabis which is consumed by the younger generation like my generation once glugged woodpecker cider.
Both are enjoyed by the majority without too many consequences, apart from the eventual health concerns.
However, heroin is a totally different kettle of fish, one or two hits can lead to a lifetime of misery and addiction. Even if it were legalised, addicts would still have huge problems coping with day to day life.
Alcohol does this to a minority who try it, heroin to the majority. There are some very valid reasons for legalising drugs but i would be devastated if in 5 years my 13 year old could try heroin as it was legal.

Yes but it's one of very few that's worse than alcohol. Everything beneath alcohol and tobacco should be totally legal if we're going to have a logical cohesive policy on drugs. I'd love to see someone put Sugar on this graph btw.

[img] [/img]

a general rule of thumb is that one in 1,000 skiers is injured, one in 100 snowboarders, and one in 10 downhill cyclists.

How did she figure that when

The incidence of injuries among all riders couldn’t be determined because mountain operators didn’t share the total number of cyclists.

However, both your statements are sensationalist.

1/10 downhillers sustain a life threatening injury in whistler

At a quick glance 8.5 percent of 1/10 are critically injured.

Based on that particular published research, it would have been more correct to summarise as
"1/10 injuries sustained by riders on the bike park are are threatening to life or limb"
or "8.5% of of the 898 riders surveyed suffered injuries threatening life or limb"

There is a significant difference

I would propose that in place of 'legalising' the controlled substances, governments or administrations take the socially responsible position of regulation.

Thereby, a form of quality control and income generation is realised and the £20 a fix street addicts are not going to be smoking, snorting or injecting some brown substance that could or could not be their panacea.

Distribution would also be regulated through pharmacies for example.

This will require dialogue with the current manufacturers and supply chain of course, which will also require the governments and administrations and middle society to take their heads out of the sand, remove their fingers from their ears and stop going "la la la la la la" as they will need to recognise that it all exists.

In exchange, the current manufacturers, or growers, and their supply chain will be able to receive unlaundered money for their efforts and the taxable revenue would swell public purses and probably reduce the western world debt problems within a few years. This is of course coupled with less strain on law enforcement agencies, health services, social services etc etc.

There will always be some people in every society who are unable to control their behaviour and there will be addicts, in just the same way we have alcoholics and cigarette smokers. For the rest of us, who are able to apply a level of self control and self responsibility, it means that when we want a good night out, quality and safety are assured to an even higher level.

Vote for me! 😉

[url=

cake[/url]