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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 45
11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1524569 2-Apr-2016 12:51
2 people support this post
Send private message

DarthKermit:

 

(Late to the discussion.)

 

Marijuana is just a drug. Like any drug we humans have invented or discovered, it has both positive effects and negative effects.

 

The legal prescription drugs that your doctor doles out also have positive and negative effects.

 

I think the key is to know what you're getting in to.

 

BTW, I've never tried marijuana as I don't smoke and have no interest in smoking anything. NOT because it's illegal.

 

 

 

 

You can eat it.






4598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2089

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1524579 2-Apr-2016 13:10
6 people support this post
Send private message

My intention was not to start a name-calling war, or get all emotional about it. I do have an opinion on it, which is that I would have thought we all learned our lessons on prohibition after Al Capone. I also have a limited second-hand experience with the issue, having had a family member get into very deep trouble over it. I suspect she would have been in a lot less trouble (both in the personal circumstances that led her to that place and where she ended up with the police) if the legal situation had been different.

 

I appreciate that some people feel differently. And I accept that there probably would be some people who would use legalisation as an excuse to go get f***ed up. But frankly, that kind of person is probably already a drain on everyone's resources, so maybe we should just let them get to it. One other theme from the Lancet article that I didn't touch on was that there is also clear evidence that there are many drug users who are not drug abusers - this should also be obvious given that there are many people who are able to drink responsibly too.

 

There is a growing weight of evidence to suggest that overall society is better off with decriminalisation. For example, how much do you think it really costs to make a hit of methamphetamine? If you were manufacturing in an open pharmaceutical framework, I'm betting it would cost cents per pill. How much do you think, by contrast, that it costs in police, lawyers, judges, doctors, insurance, robbery and assault victims, gang murders and so on to deal with the illegal users and the trail of destruction they leave behind?

 

I'm not interested in a name-calling fight. I'm not interested in people who won't budge on their opinions no matter what (and sometimes, I'm one of those people). But unlike, say, the morality or otherwise of bypassing geoblocks, where I'm happy to score cheap points for the fun of the argument, this is an issue that deserves an adult discussion.





iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 679


  Reply # 1524580 2-Apr-2016 13:11
Send private message

And here I thought this thread was an April 1st stirrer... But no-one has called it the joke it seems yet?

Here's my OPINION:

Perhaps I'm Puritan, but drugs (and alcohol excesses) are clearly (in my opinion) a bad influence on health and society in general and have no place a a 'free choice' in a country that has a tax funded public health system. Dangers to the wider community are implicit, as is an increase in dangerous driving and road accidents cause by users with impaired neuron function.

Legalising Cannibis in the 'cafe culture' accessibility is unlikely to have as great an impact, but provides NO benefit to the society as a whole and (like self mutilation) should be actively policed and legislated against, but without an extreme punishment. Jail should be for 'hard' drug peddling, and community service for 'soft' weed production/peddling.

Finally, as nothing we discuss/debate here will change anything in the wider world, perhaps those who feel the laws need changing would do better to raise this with their local MP?

4598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2089

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1524586 2-Apr-2016 13:23
Send private message

PhantomNVD: 

Finally, as nothing we discuss/debate here will change anything in the wider world, perhaps those who feel the laws need changing would do better to raise this with their local MP?

 

 

 

Heh, my local MP is ex-police. I'm pretty sure I already know what he would say if I asked him.





iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1524589 2-Apr-2016 13:37
Send private message

SaltyNZ:

My intention was not to start a name-calling war, or get all emotional about it. I do have an opinion on it, which is that I would have thought we all learned our lessons on prohibition after Al Capone. I also have a limited second-hand experience with the issue, having had a family member get into very deep trouble over it. I suspect she would have been in a lot less trouble (both in the personal circumstances that led her to that place and where she ended up with the police) if the legal situation had been different.


I appreciate that some people feel differently. And I accept that there probably would be some people who would use legalisation as an excuse to go get f***ed up. But frankly, that kind of person is probably already a drain on everyone's resources, so maybe we should just let them get to it. One other theme from the Lancet article that I didn't touch on was that there is also clear evidence that there are many drug users who are not drug abusers - this should also be obvious given that there are many people who are able to drink responsibly too.


There is a growing weight of evidence to suggest that overall society is better off with decriminalisation. For example, how much do you think it really costs to make a hit of methamphetamine? If you were manufacturing in an open pharmaceutical framework, I'm betting it would cost cents per pill. How much do you think, by contrast, that it costs in police, lawyers, judges, doctors, insurance, robbery and assault victims, gang murders and so on to deal with the illegal users and the trail of destruction they leave behind?


I'm not interested in a name-calling fight. I'm not interested in people who won't budge on their opinions no matter what (and sometimes, I'm one of those people). But unlike, say, the morality or otherwise of bypassing geoblocks, where I'm happy to score cheap points for the fun of the argument, this is an issue that deserves an adult discussion.



All sound points. My opinion differs but still good points. The distinction of resonsible drinkers is a good point same would apply to dope smokers. My opinion is that legalising alcohol has failed. It took away Al Capone but it's widespread use has catapulted into major issues. Free choice has affected those that do not indulge. I can see dope bring more expensive so the alternate market will continue. If meth is cheap, hmm, ouch.

I take alcohol as the test case, that's what my opinion is based on, rightly or wrongly. If dope remains illegal, I see it at the moment as managed .

2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1524590 2-Apr-2016 13:43
Send private message

Dairyxox:

 

"...probably spent most of their adult life in prison and unemployed." This is a load of rubbish This stereotype would only apply to a tiny fraction of a percent.

 

 

Wrong. Read Freakanomics... the vast majority of drug dealers are poor, especially the guys at the sharp end in the alleys. There is a small proportion who are wealthy (and rarely go to prison).

 

Bill Hicks:

 

George Bush says ‘we are losing the war on drugs.’ Well, you know what that implies? There’s a war going on…and people on drugs are winning it! Well, what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative mother*truckers on that side.

 

Kinda sad when you lose a war to a bunch of spaced-out zombies. So maybe the people on drugs *aren't* quite as affected as is claimed?

 

Conversely, of course, the "war" on drugs (like every other war), has been a reason for encroaching on the rights of citizens, to the benefit of the Govt & Police.

 

 

 

 


gzt

10191 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1562


  Reply # 1524593 2-Apr-2016 13:50
2 people support this post
Send private message

SaltyNZ:

PhantomNVD: 

Finally, as nothing we discuss/debate here will change anything in the wider world, perhaps those who feel the laws need changing would do better to raise this with their local MP?


 


Heh, my local MP is ex-police. I'm pretty sure I already know what he would say if I asked him.


There was an ex-police officer national party MP in the 90's in favour of decriminalisation. There is room to be surprised. The criminal status of marijuana use and several other common drugs is somewhat pointless.

2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1524594 2-Apr-2016 13:55
One person supports this post
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

How will making it available on every street corner, reduce the number of users and reduce what they do when intoxicated?

 

 

This is head-in-the-sand stuff. It's already available on every street corner.

 

One thing it will reduce is the need to hide from the Police. If, for example, someone rips you off in a drug deal, you'll be able to go to the Police and get them to deal with it, rather than either (a) accepting your position as a victim, or (b) taking retribution yourself somehow.

 

 


13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1524605 2-Apr-2016 14:26
Send private message

frankv:

tdgeek:


How will making it available on every street corner, reduce the number of users and reduce what they do when intoxicated?



This is head-in-the-sand stuff. It's already available on every street corner.


One thing it will reduce is the need to hide from the Police. If, for example, someone rips you off in a drug deal, you'll be able to go to the Police and get them to deal with it, rather than either (a) accepting your position as a victim, or (b) taking retribution yourself somehow.


 



No it's not. To the regular user yes. To the masses that are young, drink, might have a few shared sucks at a gathering it's not. But then, you go to countdown, and buy.buy more. Buy more often. And off course it should be at countdown as its legal. I like free choice but it's not free choice to those who deal with it from others.

Another who denigrates those who don't share the same opinion.



Glurp
8256 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3794

Subscriber

  Reply # 1524607 2-Apr-2016 14:39
Send private message

It's not denigration, it's observation. He is just saying that a problem doesn't go away just because you refuse to see it. I don't disagree with everything you have said here. I think you have made some valid points, especially where the alcohol example is concerned. I do disagree with the conclusions you draw from these. An argumentive tactic, which you employ (so do I), is using extreme examples to make a point. If pot is decriminalised, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone will be able to buy it at Countdown. It is already hard enough just to get tobacco at Countdown, and that isn't even illegal yet.

 

 





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


483 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 286

Trusted

  Reply # 1524610 2-Apr-2016 14:54
2 people support this post
Send private message

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


13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1524626 2-Apr-2016 15:12
Send private message

Rikkitic:

It's not denigration, it's observation. He is just saying that a problem doesn't go away just because you refuse to see it. I don't disagree with everything you have said here. I think you have made some valid points, especially where the alcohol example is concerned. I do disagree with the conclusions you draw from these. An argumentive tactic, which you employ (so do I), is using extreme examples to make a point. If pot is decriminalised, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone will be able to buy it at Countdown. It is already hard enough just to get tobacco at Countdown, and that isn't even illegal yet.


 



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.

Countdown that may appear a stretch but why not? Think about it, why not. It's legal and regulated and packaged. Put them with the ciggies. It's only a recreational drug like alcohol isn't it?

13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1524627 2-Apr-2016 15:14
Send private message

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.

To expand, I see alcohol as enough if a problem, to not extend the boundaries. People will continue to smoke weed that's fine but it's managed. As Tom Petty sung, it's good enough

BDFL - Memuneh
61331 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12077

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1524635 2-Apr-2016 15:23
Send private message

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.





1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 139


  Reply # 1524645 2-Apr-2016 15:28
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 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:



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.