Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | ... | 45

gzt

9576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1397


  Reply # 1544403 30-Apr-2016 10:32
Send private message

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

9576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1397


  Reply # 1544404 30-Apr-2016 10:43
Send private message

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.

 
 
 
 


Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software


6808 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3184

Subscriber

  Reply # 1544491 30-Apr-2016 13:34
Send private message

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.





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


11617 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1993

Trusted

  Reply # 1544562 30-Apr-2016 17:38
Send private message

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?

 

 

 

 


11617 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1993

Trusted

  Reply # 1544563 30-Apr-2016 17:39
Send private message

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

9576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1397


  Reply # 1544606 30-Apr-2016 19:51
One person supports this post
Send private message

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

gzt

9576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1397


  Reply # 1544675 30-Apr-2016 22:31
Send private message

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.



6808 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3184

Subscriber

  Reply # 1544681 30-Apr-2016 23:00
Send private message

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.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


gzt

9576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1397


  Reply # 1544922 1-May-2016 16:45
Send private message

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.



6808 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3184

Subscriber

  Reply # 1544944 1-May-2016 17:42
Send private message

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.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


2246 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1069


  Reply # 1545144 2-May-2016 09:06
Send private message

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.

 

 




6808 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3184

Subscriber

  Reply # 1545179 2-May-2016 09:27
Send private message

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.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


3951 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1540


  Reply # 1545360 2-May-2016 13:08
Send private message

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

11617 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1993

Trusted

  Reply # 1545382 2-May-2016 13:52
Send private message

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 


116 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 52


  Reply # 1545582 2-May-2016 20:15
One person supports this post

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 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | ... | 45
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Amazon launches the International Shopping Experience in the Amazon Shopping App
Posted 19-Apr-2018 08:38


Spark New Zealand and TVNZ to bring coverage of Rugby World Cup 2019
Posted 16-Apr-2018 06:55


How Google can seize Microsoft Office crown
Posted 14-Apr-2018 11:08


How back office transformation drives IRD efficiency
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:15


iPod laws in a smartphone world: will we ever get copyright right?
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:13


Lightbox service using big data and analytics to learn more about customers
Posted 9-Apr-2018 12:11


111 mobile caller location extended to iOS
Posted 6-Apr-2018 13:50


Huawei announces the HUAWEI P20 series
Posted 29-Mar-2018 11:41


Symantec Internet Security Threat Report shows increased endpoint technology risks
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:29


Spark switches on long-range IoT network across New Zealand
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:22


Stuff Pix enters streaming video market
Posted 21-Mar-2018 09:18


Windows no longer Microsoft’s main focus
Posted 13-Mar-2018 07:47


Why phone makers are obsessed with cameras
Posted 11-Mar-2018 12:25


New Zealand Adopts International Open Data Charter
Posted 3-Mar-2018 12:48


Shipments tumble as NZ phone upgrades slow
Posted 2-Mar-2018 11:48



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.