They lost the war on drugs

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › They lost the war on drugs

1 | ... | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ... | 45

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1544403 30-Apr-2016 10:32

joker97: In Singapore 500g of this stuff will incur a mandatory visit to the hangman.

Not saying good or bad, I don't know the ethical answer to this.

Yet somehow, Canada will not degenerate into a lawless and morally corrupt society. There will be a short term minor increase in consumption probably. Then it will settle down and continue the current situation of 90% of the country happily not smoking it.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1544404 30-Apr-2016 10:43

Rikkitic:
riahon:

I am sure the after effects of decriminalisation (which I conceded will most like occur in my lifetime) will be felt in the same way lowering the drinking age has had. Yay for that brilliant idea!

Stupid people will make stupid decisions......probably over a joint.

So your mind is already made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts? Decriminalisation can't make things worse than they already are, and all indications are that it will make them better. Try reading some of the data posted on this thread. Oh, wait, your mind is already made up.

Wind down the personal addressing every time someone disagrees with you. It adds zero information to a discussion. It frequently derails it. You got one sentence of opinion all good, and three sentences of personal something.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1544491 30-Apr-2016 13:34

I respect your opinions but I don't see it that way. I'm not attacking the poster, I am attacking the irrationality of the position being taken. Isn't this part of any debate? This poster did not present any arguments but simply repeated the 'marijuana bad' mantra. I advised looking at some of the real data that has been posted here on the subject. I also pointed out (yet again) that criminalisation hasn't achieved the stated goal and the alternative has not yet been tried, so no-one can say definitively whether it would improve things or not.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1544562 30-Apr-2016 17:38

Rikkitic:

I respect your opinions but I don't see it that way. I'm not attacking the poster, I am attacking the irrationality of the position being taken. Isn't this part of any debate? This poster did not present any arguments but simply repeated the 'marijuana bad' mantra. I advised looking at some of the real data that has been posted here on the subject. I also pointed out (yet again) that criminalisation hasn't achieved the stated goal and the alternative has not yet been tried, so no-one can say definitively whether it would improve things or not.

How has criminalisation affected murders, rapes, assaults, bank robberies,and every other offence under the Crimes Act? There will always be those that defy the laws. So criminalisation is not a fail. Its the norm for any offence. Saying the criminalisation of drugs is a fail, is a fail in itself.

Irrationality. So a post that does not agree is irrational?

Real Data. Take global warming as one example. You can look at a pro view and see that its clearly the case. Look at an anti view, its also as compelling. So there is no real data. its the opinion of the viewer as to what has most value.

Tye alternative has in fact been tried, alcohol. How has that done?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1544563 30-Apr-2016 17:39

Rikkitic:

I respect your opinions but I don't see it that way. I'm not attacking the poster, I am attacking the irrationality of the position being taken. Isn't this part of any debate? This poster did not present any arguments but simply repeated the 'marijuana bad' mantra. I advised looking at some of the real data that has been posted here on the subject. I also pointed out (yet again) that criminalisation hasn't achieved the stated goal and the alternative has not yet been tried, so no-one can say definitively whether it would improve things or not.

And I dont think you had gzt's post or responded

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1544606 30-Apr-2016 19:51

I don't think we need to continue further with that one. It has been said. No reason to derail the topic any further.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1544675 30-Apr-2016 22:31

There was a comment much earlier about recreational substances being addictive because of the dopamine boost effect. I suspect scientifically it is not entirely dopamine but let's take it from there anyway.

There is kind of something missing in this analysis.The reality is the vast majority of recreational substance users are using these things for enhancement purposes.

I think there is every reason to 'ban' a bad enhancer when safer alternatives are available.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1544681 30-Apr-2016 23:00

How do you compare the effects? How do you decide what is an acceptable alternative for something else? The users might have something to say about this. Or they might just turn to the illegal market for the thing that is banned, in which case you are right back where you started.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1544922 1-May-2016 16:45

Let's look at methamphetamine aka 'p'. There are a ridiculous number of people using it recreationally.

I have asked a few very politely why they use it and the overwhelming majority say they use it because it increases their performance in social interaction. It is not uncommon to see groups of people who have used the drug engaged in intense and animated social interaction.

Ie; not unlike getting together for a cup of tea.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons people use it. For instance in a professional context I would guess there are people using it for productivity and this does not usually end well.

None of these people really think clearly about where they are obtaining the drug, the conditions of its manufacture, and the safety of the product.

In the case of methamphetamine if there was a safer form easily available and tailored for each purpose then I am sure none of these people would buy illegal black market manufactured product.

So in this case the objection is the health effects on users and damaging effects of illegal manufacturing. So it is the illegal and unsafe manufacture which is 'banned' and if safe product is available then virtually nobody will buy or illegally manufacture the black market stuff anyway.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1544944 1-May-2016 17:42

That makes sense. I am no expert on amphetamines but I do know there are different kinds and I think the way they are taken also has something to do with the risk involved. Crystal meth is probably the worst. A problem is that chronic abusers can become erratic and violent. Apart from any crimes they commit to get the drug, just the way it makes them behave can be a risk to society. I think (don't really know) that oral use of drugs like benzedrine and dexedrine probably causes less social harm so might qualify as acceptable alternatives in a decriminalised society.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1545144 2-May-2016 09:06

Rikkitic:

I respect your opinions but I don't see it that way. I'm not attacking the poster, I am attacking the irrationality of the position being taken. Isn't this part of any debate? This poster did not present any arguments but simply repeated the 'marijuana bad' mantra. I advised looking at some of the real data that has been posted here on the subject. I also pointed out (yet again) that criminalisation hasn't achieved the stated goal and the alternative has not yet been tried, so no-one can say definitively whether it would improve things or not.

ALL people are irrational... get over it.

Regarding "hasn't been tried"... Marijuana was not controlled until the early 20th century (at one point, hemp was a major NZ export), so one could argue that legalization/decriminialization *has* been tried. And that criminalization was introduced *because* at the time it was expected to control problems related to the free use of cannabis. A rational person would go back to the enactment of those laws, find out the reasons for them, and explain why they don't apply today. Personally, I can't be bothered. My irrational brain says that (just like the laws against marijuana use) it isn't worth the effort.

An incidental thought... given the widespread use of marijuana back in the 1970s, I believe (irrationally, without checking the facts) that the majority of people in NZ have at least tried it. i.e. the majority believed, at some point in their lives, that using marijuana was a good idea.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1545179 2-May-2016 09:27

frankv:

Regarding "hasn't been tried"... Marijuana was not controlled until the early 20th century (at one point, hemp was a major NZ export), so one could argue that legalization/decriminialization *has* been tried. And that criminalization was introduced *because* at the time it was expected to control problems related to the free use of cannabis. A rational person would go back to the enactment of those laws, find out the reasons for them, and explain why they don't apply today. Personally, I can't be bothered. My irrational brain says that (just like the laws against marijuana use) it isn't worth the effort.

Different time, different problems. It hasn't been tried in the context of today's world. I suspect, given the irrationality of people, that criminalisation had less to do with controlling any problems but everything to do with politics, fear, vested interests, and so on. That seems to be the way these things often go.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#1545360 2-May-2016 13:08

Prohibition is such an expensive failure, I no longer see the point of it ... 'drugs' have always been used, will always be used. Prohibition seems to support an entire ecosystem of illegal activity, propped up by the high value and clandestine nature of prohibited drugs.

Are we wise to continue spend up large on ultimately ineffective enforcement of prohibition law?

Or should we spend money on dealing with harm resulting from drug use?

Mike

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1545382 2-May-2016 13:52

MikeAqua:

Prohibition is such an expensive failure, I no longer see the point of it ... 'drugs' have always been used, will always be used. Prohibition seems to support an entire ecosystem of illegal activity, propped up by the high value and clandestine nature of prohibited drugs.

Are we wise to continue spend up large on ultimately ineffective enforcement of prohibition law?

Or should we spend money on dealing with harm resulting from drug use?

I dont see the issue

Everything that is prohibited, has lawbreakers. Murder, rape, assaults, robbery. This means that every single criminal law is a failure. They aren't. The drug laws are no different. The war on drugs is just a political statement made decades ago by a politician. This just happens to be the flavour of the moment, nothing more

testha

116 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#1545582 2-May-2016 20:15

tdgeek:

MikeAqua:

Prohibition is such an expensive failure, I no longer see the point of it ... 'drugs' have always been used, will always be used. Prohibition seems to support an entire ecosystem of illegal activity, propped up by the high value and clandestine nature of prohibited drugs.

Are we wise to continue spend up large on ultimately ineffective enforcement of prohibition law?

Or should we spend money on dealing with harm resulting from drug use?

I dont see the issue

Everything that is prohibited, has lawbreakers. Murder, rape, assaults, robbery. This means that every single criminal law is a failure. They aren't. The drug laws are no different. The war on drugs is just a political statement made decades ago by a politician. This just happens to be the flavour of the moment, nothing more

Lol, you cant be serious.

Every crime you mention leaves another person hurt or even worse dead. This has nothing to do with the wrong criminalization of drug use that is mostly a mental health issue.

Who do I hurt when I smoke a joint on my deck after a long day? Do I deserve to go to prison for doing so? What about drinking a beer instead?

1 | ... | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ... | 45