tdgeek: I see drugs as managed I feel the status quo keeps as it is.

Mischief managed.

tdgeek:

An argumentative tactic?. No. That's your mindset not mine. Not denigration? Disagree as do others here. You denigrate everything. Every country you pick on. Govt. Anyone who is in your way. Disagree with you and it's a put down to your supposed facts. As Mulder says I am not alone. Instead of placing ridicule on an opposers post, put your point forward. You rarely do that.

Obviously I don't agree with your assessment but I don't know how to take this line of the discussion further, and I don't think I should even try. You are entitled to your opinion of me, as you are entitled to your opinion of everything else. But it ain't necessarily so.

freitasm:

tdgeek:

"stop drug induced crime, assaults, driving into someone or property"

I don't really see how legalising drugs will cause less people to use less drugs. If its freely available, more will use it, surely? 

This was a perfect example of a straw man fallacy. You quote something ("stop drug induced crime, assaults, driving into someone or property") but argues about something else ("don't really see how legalising drugs will cause less people to use less drugs").

I am not saying I am against or for one side or another. But the arguments on against are weak.

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

An argumentative tactic?. No. That's your mindset not mine. Not denigration? Disagree as do others here. You denigrate everything. Every country you pick on. Govt. Anyone who is in your way. Disagree with you and it's a put down to your supposed facts. As Mulder says I am not alone. Instead of placing ridicule on an opposers post, put your point forward. You rarely do that.

Obviously I don't agree with your assessment but I don't know how to take this line of the discussion further, and I don't think I should even try. You are entitled to your opinion of me, as you are entitled to your opinion of everything else. But it ain't necessarily so.

 

 

oxnsox:

tdgeek:

roobarb:

Lets generalise;

Any society has it's fair share of idiots, should an activity be banned due to the idiots at the expense of the many?

When that activity is banned, what happens when the cost to society of enforcement outweighs the original offences?

This goes for fireworks, firearms, abortion, drugs ( hard, medicinal and recreational ), alcohol, gambling, religious cults, knives, street racing, the list goes on.

If you cannot enforce a law, then its the same as not having the law

Fair points. I see drugs as managed I feel the status quo keeps as it is.

And whilst I may be able to see there is a benefit in decriminalisation, until we (as a society) are happy that the laws applying to the use and supply of alcohol have acceptable national outcomes, it's currently a stretch too far to think we can rationalise a better result for currently illegal substances.

tdgeek:  

Let's just keep to the topic and respect points raised. If you raise a point I disagree with, that doesn't mean your wrong. Facts and opinions get blurred here, and placing labels on comments isn't cool. It's tantamount to name calling. I could say that voting for National is idiotic, that means I'm calling a number of people here idiots. That's what I take from some of your posts, my observation, not said to flame.

Back to topic. We have an alcohol problem. How will opening shops for various drugs, not add to that. Right now drug using is covert. That's how I see it as managed

I think the lowering of the drinking age was mismanaged and it has changed my own view to some extent. At first I celebrated it because I believe in freedom of choice and 18 year-olds are supposedly adults. In retrospect, I think it should either not have been done at all, or at least done differently, for example a graduated change, like allowing 18 year-olds to buy beer in supermarkets, but not any alcohol elsewhere. I don't know if alcohol abuse, especially amongst the young, is a uniquely New Zealand problem. It seems to occur in many other countries as well, but there may (or may not) be a cultural aspect to it as well. 

I have already stated that I do not advocate a sudden legalisation of all drugs or any drugs. I think there should be trials in small steps to see if it really does make things better or worse or doesn’t make any difference at all. I disagree with the belief expressed by you and others that it will in fact make things worse. You say that you think the current situation already is a form of drug management. I believe it is just keeping the worst aspects hidden from view, but what is occurring out of sight is not management. It is out of control. You cannot convince me that a requirement to test all housing for meth contamination is in any way normal in a healthy society (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/300181/meth-tests-now-'standard'-property-manager). Something is already very wrong here. The drug problem is not being ‘managed’ under the status quo.

I started this thread with the proposition that the war on drugs has been lost. That is why I titled it as I did. I believe that medical marijuana is on the way, as it should be. I think decriminalisation for possession will follow. Eventually marijuana and other drugs will be legalised because the criminal approach will be acknowledged to have been a failure. I think it is going to happen eventually, regardless of how people feel about it. So the real question is how can we best prepare for that and deal with it when it does happen? I don’t think the fiasco with ‘legal highs’ offers a particularly good example. If (some) drugs do become legal, we need to have good procedures in place well in advance to manage the consequences, both good and bad (and I do believe some will be good, like depriving the gangs of a major source of revenue).

I believe the current situation is not ‘management’. It enriches the gangs, promotes crime and creates victims. I think there is a better way. I think it deserves to at least be given a try. Then we will know once and for all whether it really is a better way or not.

Personally it seems to me that I would rather encounter a group of stoners than a group of drunks when out of an evening....

Lets ban booze and legalise weed. Swaps!

Geektastic:

Personally it seems to me that I would rather encounter a group of stoners than a group of drunks when out of an evening....

 

Lets ban booze and legalise weed. Swaps!

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:  

Let's just keep to the topic and respect points raised. If you raise a point I disagree with, that doesn't mean your wrong. Facts and opinions get blurred here, and placing labels on comments isn't cool. It's tantamount to name calling. I could say that voting for National is idiotic, that means I'm calling a number of people here idiots. That's what I take from some of your posts, my observation, not said to flame.

Back to topic. We have an alcohol problem. How will opening shops for various drugs, not add to that. Right now drug using is covert. That's how I see it as managed

 

I think the lowering of the drinking age was mismanaged and it has changed my own view to some extent. At first I celebrated it because I believe in freedom of choice and 18 year-olds are supposedly adults. In retrospect, I think it should either not have been done at all, or at least done differently, for example a graduated change, like allowing 18 year-olds to buy beer in supermarkets, but not any alcohol elsewhere. I don't know if alcohol abuse, especially amongst the young, is a uniquely New Zealand problem. It seems to occur in many other countries as well, but there may (or may not) be a cultural aspect to it as well. 

I have already stated that I do not advocate a sudden legalisation of all drugs or any drugs. I think there should be trials in small steps to see if it really does make things better or worse or doesn’t make any difference at all. I disagree with the belief expressed by you and others that it will in fact make things worse. You say that you think the current situation already is a form of drug management. I believe it is just keeping the worst aspects hidden from view, but what is occurring out of sight is not management. It is out of control. You cannot convince me that a requirement to test all housing for meth contamination is in any way normal in a healthy society (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/300181/meth-tests-now-'standard'-property-manager). Something is already very wrong here. The drug problem is not being ‘managed’ under the status quo.

I started this thread with the proposition that the war on drugs has been lost. That is why I titled it as I did. I believe that medical marijuana is on the way, as it should be. I think decriminalisation for possession will follow. Eventually marijuana and other drugs will be legalised because the criminal approach will be acknowledged to have been a failure. I think it is going to happen eventually, regardless of how people feel about it. So the real question is how can we best prepare for that and deal with it when it does happen? I don’t think the fiasco with ‘legal highs’ offers a particularly good example. If (some) drugs do become legal, we need to have good procedures in place well in advance to manage the consequences, both good and bad (and I do believe some will be good, like depriving the gangs of a major source of revenue).

I believe the current situation is not ‘management’. It enriches the gangs, promotes crime and creates victims. I think there is a better way. I think it deserves to at least be given a try. Then we will know once and for all whether it really is a better way or not.

 

Long post but a good post . I'll reply later with a few brief opinions. I hate typing on this 6Plus phone and your post deserves a proper reply not a quickie

 

 

 

 

Geektastic:

Personally it seems to me that I would rather encounter a group of stoners than a group of drunks when out of an evening....

 

Lets ban booze and legalise weed. Swaps!

MikeB4: I worked too much as the Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, there needs to be better fences at the top of the cliff not less.

Yes I agree - getting evil gangsters to stop throwing our children over the fence at the top of the cliff is a great idea.
Removing the massive profit motive - the size of those profits which has been inflated by the abject failure of the "war on drugs" - is the best way to achieve it. 

Prohibition is demonstrably inefficacious.

loathe:

Prohibition is demonstrably inefficacious.

tdgeek:

loathe:

 

Prohibition is demonstrably inefficacious.

 

As with alcohol. What do you propose?

Treat it for what it is, a societal and health problem, not one of criminal liability.