British woman gets death sentence

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Jamieson 90:
What as exactly was going through her head when she thought the words - smuggling - Indonesia - drugs? Did she think this was going to go well? For fucks sake pretty much everyone knows you don't fuck about with drugs in that part of the world.

Some of the Bali 9 caught smuggling heroin into Indonesia claimed they didn't know the packages they were paid to conceal on their bodies and carry through customs contained drugs.

Some people are just that fucking stupid.

Bashfluff:

1. You seem to be pulling the racist card out again, and that's really my whole point. I'm not saying we should go to war. I'm saying that people advocating it wouldn't be going on "our white lives are worth more of theirs"! Which is what you seemed to be implying. I don't like war myself, and I would not usually advocate it.

War is intended to obtain a goal with the acceptance of the human cost involved. To suggest that we go to war (as the person who I was quoting when you responded to me was suggesting at the time, and as they have since withdrawn) is to accept that the human cost is worth the accomplishment of the goal. In this case, it fucking isn't and to suggest that it is is to show a fundamental lack of value for the Indonesian lives that would be lost in the process.

2. I understand that this is how they see these people, this is what is acceptable. I don't give a rat's ass about some obscure pieces of cultural information, and you can stop waving them in my face like they matter. They don't. What matters is how they treat others. That was my point.

but genius, you don't fucking know how they treat people, I have pointed out and others have pointed out that chances are she will not be executed, but you keep on insisting that this one article allows you to pass judgement on a nation and its culture.

Although the definition of First World is a little...unclear, that's the one that we seem to go with most these days. I'm saying that usually people are past this bullshit by the time they grow up and get to be a First World Country. Not ALL the time. But usually they're not going to do things like this.

See the problem with the 'first world' ideology is that it allows you to use terms like 'grown up' in regards to a cultural development. Any difference of opinion, any parallel development are disregarded. This okay, but you cannot conflate moral development with economic development, there may be correlation but not causation.

3. Stop waving your, "I know more about Indonesia than you"...thing in my face. I know enough. I don't know the stupid, inane stuff you do, but I know enough. Okay? Okay.

You don't fucking know enough though. From this one article, you know enough to condemn a law, or the judge, but you don't know the first fucking thing about the country.

As a comparison, according to reporters without borders Australia is a very free nation with regards to speech and expression, however, someone who knew only of the R18 rating debacle would make the claim that it was repressive.

I'm not willing to do that. Please, jump to more assumptions. I'm not for bombing. I'm not for bombing them for touching one woman either. I'm saying I can see where he's coming from. Is that a cardinal sin now? Is empathy equivalent to being the devil now?

I tell him that bombing would be, racist, wrong and insane and you come back with a belligerent and ill informed post defending his position. Empathizing is not wrong. I can Empathize with the Nazis, I can do it with the Taliban. I am good at putting myself in racist evil or insane shoes. What you are doing, what you have displayed is sympathy for his position, a different matter entirely.

And I know I just told you this, but preview your posts before posting, if you don't quote the post properly, you get a bunch of junk letters above your post instead of notifying those who you quoted.

Gold:
Drugs and alcohol use and abuse isn't uncommon among people with bipolar if we find medication ineffective. I myself drank a lot from a young age, because it calmed me down, conversely I'd take some other things to peak me back up when I was very down.

It's not such a big deal unless he's snorting cocaine while cooking heroin to inject as he is popping ecstasy and washing it down with a pint sized mix of the four horsemen.

That said, the idea that it's "responsible use" in these cases is laughable. I just thought I'd mention it's not exactly uncommon.

It's a big deal. Cocaine, amphetamines and other drugs are directly linked to causing people to get an episode. On top of that, they cause physical damage and duress which also contributes to mental instability (coke especially drains people of all their reserves). Then there's circumstantial factors such as forgetting to sleep, getting into fights etc that also contributes to conditions worsening.

Plus many medications needed interact with such drugs either directly chemically or through side-effects. For instance if you take lithium, sufficient hydration is a must to avoid developing lithium poisoning, which is a rotten way to die because it's basically a chemically induced dehydration, so you can drink and drink, while you're still dying of dehydration. And it's serious, even a few hundred milligrams, or in other words one pill, too much can already cause poisoning. Coke makes people forget to drink, and dehydrates you, go figure...


It may be far too common, but it is a big deal. You can live with such a disorder just fine, but if one also starts using drugs, the mental stability and the rest of life all too often goes out the window.

...and then they end up a heap of subhuman trash, abandoned by friends and family, bankrupt, homeless and sobbing in my waiting room that they only want to use and really really need medication. The 'dual diagnosis' cases of both loonie and addict is basically what the centre focusses on, so not like I've not seen that before.

Frission:
Coke isn't Weed. You people know that right? The safety of Marijuana is already debatable, but cocaine is absolutely dangerous and highly addictive.

adamsaccount:
Now i wish this thread would die so everyone can forget that i didnt take my bipolar meds and declared war on indonesia

You're too kind Blab. I would have had the equivalent of an epileptic fit if I had heard this revelation firsthand.

I don't even know what to say about this.

Look Adam, I doubt you're only taking cocaine and I hate to think of what that particular cocktail of drugs is doing to you.

I appreciate the concern but i dont take that many drugs, when i do i enjoy it but im only hooked on to tobacco.

I know the dangers but i just find it far too fun to give up.

What pisses meoff most about the anti drugs people is that they assume that they know how to live life best and want to force that onto everybody else. Left wing or right iwng it makes no differece, Its not friendly advice its a fucking missionary speech that im reading over and over again, here and elsewhere. I've alwyys found drugs enhance my perceptions and as a writer thats valuable, and whats more i enjoy it.

At the end of the day they're not ruining my life, they're enhancing it but even if they were it should be my life to fuck up my way on my choice of substance and if society cant even give me that then i dont really want much more to do with it
Im off to live in a weed farm in the hills.

adamsaccount:
What pisses meoff most about the anti drugs people is that they assume that they know how to live life best and want to force that onto everybody else. Left wing or right iwng it makes no differece, Its not friendly advice its a fucking missionary speech that im reading over and over again, here and elsewhere. I've alwyys found drugs enhance my perceptions and as a writer thats valuable, and whats more i enjoy it

It's quite silly to complain about that when they base themselves on pure fact when saying that, and you've just demonstrated you don't know how to live life responsibly.

adamsaccount:
At the end of the day they're not ruining my life

Oh really? And how are you funding your addiction then if I may ask? How many episodes have you had in the past ten years?

Blablahb:

adamsaccount:
What pisses meoff most about the anti drugs people is that they assume that they know how to live life best and want to force that onto everybody else. Left wing or right iwng it makes no differece, Its not friendly advice its a fucking missionary speech that im reading over and over again, here and elsewhere. I've alwyys found drugs enhance my perceptions and as a writer thats valuable, and whats more i enjoy it

It's quite silly to complain about that when they base themselves on pure fact when saying that, and you've just demonstrated you don't know how to live life responsibly.

adamsaccount:
At the end of the day they're not ruining my life

Oh really? And how are you funding your addiction then if I may ask? How many episodes have you had in the past ten years?

Look im not saying everyone should take drugs. That sort of totalitarian nazi shit is for you and not me.

However those who want to shouldnt be persecuted for it.
I have a happy life thesedays for the mostpart. I dont harm others, i dont force my views on other people, i just whittle away my days grabbing fun where i can. Whether you see me as responsible or not i couldnt give a shit about. Youve demonstrated to me that youre just another facsist using left wing ideologies to force people into towing the line. You said before youd like to forcibly relocate drug users to the countryside. What the fuck?

You can shove youre "facts". Because theyre illegal everyone who takes drugs without being a prison junkie or going to rehab for it is going to fly right under your radar.
My mental health is none of your fucking business so no you may not ask, and i work part time in a music shop and im trying to get into journalism to expose faschism wherever i find it, if it makes the blindest bit of difference.

Im going to live my life the way I damn well think i should

Blablahb:

adamsaccount:
What pisses meoff most about the anti drugs people is that they assume that they know how to live life best and want to force that onto everybody else. Left wing or right iwng it makes no differece, Its not friendly advice its a fucking missionary speech that im reading over and over again, here and elsewhere. I've alwyys found drugs enhance my perceptions and as a writer thats valuable, and whats more i enjoy it

It's quite silly to complain about that when they base themselves on pure fact when saying that, and you've just demonstrated you don't know how to live life responsibly.

It's his life and if he want to live it irresponsibly then that's his damn business. Some people would consider it irresponsible to quit your job, move to the country, and start living a self sustainable lifestyle, but I don't see you speaking out against that. What is it that makes your opinion so valuble that something you deem irresponsible must be accepted by others?
As long as he isn't hurting anybody else, it's absolutely nothing to do with you or your government.
And by hurting I mean hurting, not just challenging social ideals.
And very rarely are anti-drug arguments based on fact, usually they're based on bullshit, sensationalism and misdirection/scapegoating.

Blablahb:

adamsaccount:
At the end of the day they're not ruining my life

Oh really? And how are you funding your addiction then if I may ask? How many episodes have you had in the past ten years?

Well he owns a computer good enough to post on this forum so he's doing better on the money front than 90% percent of the world, doesn't sound like he's ruining his life there. If you're implying he must be a criminal (outside of the fact there are archaic substance control laws) because he does drugs, well that's just ignorant.
How many episodes has he had? Are you implying that he must have mental issues to want to do drugs? Or that people who do drugs regularly overdose?

It doesn't surprise me that drug culture seems to scare you so much, seen as you apparently know nothing about it and the unknown can be very intimidating.

Smeatza:

Blablahb:

adamsaccount:
What pisses meoff most about the anti drugs people is that they assume that they know how to live life best and want to force that onto everybody else. Left wing or right iwng it makes no differece, Its not friendly advice its a fucking missionary speech that im reading over and over again, here and elsewhere. I've alwyys found drugs enhance my perceptions and as a writer thats valuable, and whats more i enjoy it

It's quite silly to complain about that when they base themselves on pure fact when saying that, and you've just demonstrated you don't know how to live life responsibly.

It's his life and if he want to live it irresponsibly then that's his damn business. Some people would consider it irresponsible to quit your job, move to the country, and start living a self sustainable lifestyle, but I don't see you speaking out against that. What is it that makes your opinion so valuble that something you deem irresponsible must be accepted by others?
As long as he isn't hurting anybody else, it's absolutely nothing to do with you or your government.
And by hurting I mean hurting, not just challenging social ideals.
And very rarely are anti-drug arguments based on fact, usually they're based on bullshit, sensationalism and misdirection/scapegoating.

Blablahb:

adamsaccount:
At the end of the day they're not ruining my life

Oh really? And how are you funding your addiction then if I may ask? How many episodes have you had in the past ten years?

Well he owns a computer good enough to post on this forum so he's doing better on the money front than 90% percent of the world, doesn't sound like he's ruining his life there. If you're implying he must be a criminal (outside of the fact there are archaic substance control laws) because he does drugs, well that's just ignorant.
How many episodes has he had? Are you implying that he must have mental issues to want to do drugs? Or that people who do drugs regularly overdose?

It doesn't surprise me that drug culture seems to scare you so much, seen as you apparently know nothing about it and the unknown can be very intimidating.

Thank you mate i appreciate that

Executing this woman would do nothing at all to stop the drug trade in Indonesia. She was allegedly caught with 4.8kg of cocaine. It's pretty obvious that she wasn't going to be able to move this amount herself, but was merely delivering it to a local network that would. However, the criminal organization that produced the cocaine and the organization that distributes the drugs are left untouched and free to find another mule. The police didn't even try to catch the big fish.

Leadfinger:
Executing this woman would do nothing at all to stop the drug trade in Indonesia. She was allegedly caught with 4.8kg of cocaine. It's pretty obvious that she wasn't going to be able to move this amount herself, but was merely delivering it to a local network that would. However, the criminal organization that produced the cocaine and the organization that distributes the drugs are left untouched and free to find another mule. The police didn't even try to catch the big fish.

Well a developement ive heard is that when caught she participated in a sting operation and helped the indonesian police catch the people who made her carry. These 5 people got sentences of between 1 and 5 years each, and then they gave her the death sentence.

Complete fucking lunacy

adamsaccount:

Leadfinger:
Executing this woman would do nothing at all to stop the drug trade in Indonesia. She was allegedly caught with 4.8kg of cocaine. It's pretty obvious that she wasn't going to be able to move this amount herself, but was merely delivering it to a local network that would. However, the criminal organization that produced the cocaine and the organization that distributes the drugs are left untouched and free to find another mule. The police didn't even try to catch the big fish.

Well a developement ive heard is that when caught she participated in a sting operation and helped the indonesian police catch the people who made her carry. These 5 people got sentences of between 1 and 5 years each, and then they gave her the death sentence.

Complete fucking lunacy

Thanks for the update.And yeah, kind of bolsters my point. I wonder why they still gave her the death penalty even after she cooperated?

adamsaccount:
My mental health is none of your fucking business so no you may not ask, and i work part time in a music shop and im trying to get into journalism to expose faschism wherever i find it, if it makes the blindest bit of difference

It's perhaps not so clever to insult me rudely, dodge my relevant questions, and then show us you work an uneducated parttime job, contributing little to society, and leaving many questions as to how one sustains cocaine use on such a meager salary.

All that's showing is that I was right, and drug users are indeed a problem pretty much in every case.

Smeatza:
It's his life and if he want to live it irresponsibly then that's his damn business.

No it's not; most of the damage drugs do is not to that person himself, but to society, making it society's business.

Do you know merely how much costs shopowners have from requiring to hire security in some cases, and having to handle all the stealing and violence from drug users looking to fund their habit?

Smeatza:
If you're implying he must be a criminal (outside of the fact there are archaic substance control laws) because he does drugs, well that's just ignorant.

So funding organised crime and terror groups is no problem in your view? That's alright, but refrain from throwing insults at me because I have a higher moral standard than that mindless selfishness of "I want to do drugs and fuck the rest of society".

I've supplied many rational arguments for my point of view. Try to refute them or accept them, but don't ignore them and insult me because you regard drug use as a positive thing, or think that individual responsibility doesn't exist.

Smeatza:
How many episodes has he had? Are you implying that he must have mental issues to want to do drugs?

Ussually people start doing drugs because of personal problems yes, but in this case, his habit will also affect his mental health. It's not unheard of for stable patients to start using and end up a trainwreck, or rapid-cycling.

He dodged that question, so we can safely assume his cocaine use made him unstable on several occasions.

Smeatza:

If you're implying he must be a criminal (outside of the fact there are archaic substance control laws) because he does drugs, well that's just ignorant.

Actually, "criminal" is a legal term that basically means "someone who's breaking laws"...

I suppose occasional use could be filed under "misdemeanor", but arguing "the law is stupid" isn't going to stand as a defense in court.

adamsaccount:
You are the one ignoring the fact that illegalising drugs creates a huge gap in the market that violent criminals are exploiting to make huge amounts of money to fund more violence and more drug dealing.

That's not true. There's nothing to indicate legalisation removes organised crime from the equation. And that's also been observed too: Like I said earlier, the Dutch semi-legalisation of marijuana failed. The trade is still in the hands of extremely violent organised crime.

So basically there's nothing that can be said in favour of carelessly legalising drug abuse. Not only is there no reason to suspect anything good will come from it, but the limited attempts at it show that it will fail.

adamsaccount:
Im not the one who thinks they have the right to force their ideals on others.

Yes you are. You're arguing you should use drugs unhindered, and burden the rest of society with the consequences. So you're pretty much forcing that on them in that respect.

Also you shouldn't use words of which you don't comprehend the meaning, like for instance fascism.

adamsaccount:
If you have to know yes i have had a manic episode triggered by mdma, this is why i dont do mdma anymore.

So then you'll understand why I argue that you're not entitled to use drugs without any regard for the consequences, you've felt firsthand that there's consequences for yourself, but more importantly for the rest of society.

That counts. Nobody's entitled to living totally carelessly and then expect others to clean up after their mistakes. Especially not in the case of drugs, where there's no other interest to weigh against those damages.

Vegosiux:

Smeatza:

If you're implying he must be a criminal (outside of the fact there are archaic substance control laws) because he does drugs, well that's just ignorant.

Actually, "criminal" is a legal term that basically means "someone who's breaking laws"...

I suppose occasional use could be filed under "misdemeanor", but arguing "the law is stupid" isn't going to stand as a defense in court.

"Episodes" is a very general term so I was trying to find a term that encompassed antisocial behaviour, violent crime, theft, that kind of thing.

Blablahb:
No it's not; most of the damage drugs do is not to that person himself, but to society, making it society's business.

Do you know merely how much costs shopowners have from requiring to hire security in some cases, and having to handle all the stealing and violence from drug users looking to fund their habit?

The vast majority of drug users are not violent, do not steal etc. The vast majority of drug users are regular people like you or me who work, pay their taxes and are responsible citizens. One might argue that it is the prohibition of drugs that causes the extreme, rare behavior you highlight, by forcing the prices up and the market to be unregulated.

Blablahb:
So funding organised crime and terror groups is no problem in your view? That's alright, but refrain from throwing insults at me because I have a higher moral standard than that mindless selfishness of "I want to do drugs and fuck the rest of society".
I've supplied many rational arguments for my point of view. Try to refute them or accept them, but don't ignore them and insult me because you regard drug use as a positive thing, or think that individual responsibility doesn't exist.

It is true that most terrorism and organised crime is supported by the illegal drug market. A market that would not exist if prohibition was not common place in developed western society. The truly awful thing is that it is not the developed western countries that support this massive illegal drug trade that really feel the brunt of the backlash. Countries like Colombia and Mexico are practically ruled by organised crime syndicates thanks to our laws of prohibition. If there were no illegal market (which there wouldn't be if there were a legal one) this organised crime on a massive scale simply wouldn't exist.

Blablahb:
Ussually people start doing drugs because of personal problems yes, but in this case, his habit will also affect his mental health. It's not unheard of for stable patients to start using and end up a trainwreck, or rapid-cycling.

Most people do not start doing drugs due to personal problems, that is completely false. Most people start doing drugs because they have access, and other people are doing them too.
If you have mental health issues, or perhaps even a history/family history of mental health issues, taking any drug that has not been prescribed by a doctor could be a bad idea.

Lets just be clear, there is such a thing as responsible use of drugs. MDMA, marijuana, alcohol and innumerable others can be used responsibly without any negative side affects. The fact you take or have taken drugs does not automatically mean you have problems.

You are facsist in the sense that you think its correct to impose your broken authoritarian values onto everybody.

The logical conclusion of your ideals are to have everyone locked up and then turned into food when they die. Nobody gets to make bad decisions and "burden" society that way, nobody gets to make mistakes, nobody gets to have any fun.

Again you just ignored about 3/4 of my post.

Ive never burdened anyone with my drug use apart from my friends that have to listen to my stoned ramblings. I fully accept the consequences. Because youve seen people who dont you assume were all like that. Its not true. How much government money is wasted thanks to alcoholics? Do you want to ban that too?

How is having 1 city where you can legally buy pot a change in the attitude of most of the world? It isnt.

My idea would be to have drugs available to buy sourced from the state. This completely 100% bypasses violent gangs guarenteed.

Hope you don't mind me chiming in again Adam.

Blablahb:
That's not true. There's nothing to indicate legalisation removes organised crime from the equation. And that's also been observed too: Like I said earlier, the Dutch semi-legalisation of marijuana failed. The trade is still in the hands of extremely violent organised crime.

So basically there's nothing that can be said in favour of carelessly legalising drug abuse. Not only is there no reason to suspect anything good will come from it, but the limited attempts at it show that it will fail.

Do some research on when alcohol was prohibited in the United States.
The Dutch semi-legalisation is a joke, they hardly even attempt to undercut the illegal drug trade. It was an economic decision, not a civil one. In spite of that they did see a rise in illegal street dealers when they introduced the "weed pass" law. One of the reasons it no longer stands.

Blablahb:
Yes you are. You're arguing you should use drugs unhindered, and burden the rest of society with the consequences. So you're pretty much forcing that on them in that respect.

Also you shouldn't use words of which you don't comprehend the meaning, like for instance fascism.

Some imagined consequences, some that are caused by the social stigma itself, many that are blown way out of proportion by sensationalist media. The fact is prohibition is completely counterproductive and it costs a lot of money.
Accusations of fascism are often used with a dramatic flair these days, get used to it.

Blablahb:
So then you'll understand why I argue that you're not entitled to use drugs without any regard for the consequences, you've felt firsthand that there's consequences for yourself, but more importantly for the rest of society.

That counts. Nobody's entitled to living totally carelessly and then expect others to clean up after their mistakes. Especially not in the case of drugs, where there's no other interest to weigh against those damages.

I imagine he knew the potential consequences. Most drug users are aware of the potential consequences of their habbit. But they believe in the freedom to decide what they put into their bodies (and in the case of drugs) the freedom to control how they think.
Consequences for society are minimum, if they exist at all.
Drug use is not always careless.
If you genuinely feel this way, you have to be for the prohibition of unhealthy foods, or you're a hypocrite.

adamsaccount:
You are facsist in the sense that you think its correct to impose your broken authoritarian values onto everybody.

Actually, fascism is only one type of authoritarianism. But I sure as hell agree that calling someone "fascist" packs a whole lot more of a punch than calling them "authoritarian". Too bad it's just a loaded expression and nothing else in this context.

The logical conclusion of your ideals are to have everyone locked up and then turned into food when they die. Nobody gets to make bad decisions and "burden" society that way, nobody gets to make mistakes, nobody gets to have any fun.

No, that's the logical "extreme", not "conclusion". They are not the same thing.

And that's it for my nitpicking, I'm not getting into the entire drug taking debate, I just get all annoyed when people misuse words...

Vegosiux:

adamsaccount:
You are facsist in the sense that you think its correct to impose your broken authoritarian values onto everybody.

Actually, fascism is only one type of authoritarianism. But I sure as hell agree that calling someone "fascist" packs a whole lot more of a punch than calling them "authoritarian". Too bad it's just a loaded expression and nothing else in this context.

The logical conclusion of your ideals are to have everyone locked up and then turned into food when they die. Nobody gets to make bad decisions and "burden" society that way, nobody gets to make mistakes, nobody gets to have any fun.

No, that's the logical "extreme", not "conclusion". They are not the same thing.

And that's it for my nitpicking, I'm not getting into the entire drug taking debate, I just get all annoyed when people misuse words...

All right fair does. Fascism in the way I use it may as well just mean bully. Its an insult to me and not a political stance, which is pretty much the accepted usage these days

Should definetely have said logical extreme, cant argue there

the clockmaker:
[quote="Bashfluff" post="528.399073.16358421"] a

1. We're just going in circles here. I don't want to go to war, and I don't think it would be worth the lives--I never did--so there's no reason to argue about it.

2. TWO assumptions? I don't have only this article. I'm not "passing judgement". Not in the way you probably mean it.

...having a term that says, "Hey, you've been around long enough that we can tell a few things about you, what you've grown out of, and things of that nature" is bad? I think it's useful. You may not like that I separate different countries and don't just say, "Well, it's their country, so I don't have the right to judge," but I do. And have have good basis for doing so. Again with another assumption...I'm not talking about total conformity. I'm talking about BASIC things. Yes, I can. There is a correlation. Never implied there was a causation, but correlation is enough for my point.

3. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasumption time!

Also, as far as issues of free speech go, I would call Australia....moderately oppressive.

4. You said more than that, and I disagree that it would be racist. I think that you'd have to be insane to call it racist, and that's what annoys me so much about what you're saying. It's not ill-informed; you cries of racism are ill informed. You can say I'm ill-informed all you want, but whatever tiny pieces of bullshit information you say I need to know do not matter unless you can point them out to me and tell me how they matter. This generic, "You don't know enough to say X" argument is weak, presumptuous, and inaccurate.

I do display sympathy. I sympathize with him. I understand what he's feeling and why. I feel outrage, condemnation, frustration, contempt, and all of that good stuff, and I feel sorry that he's feeling that shit too. This is a bad situation that should never have come about. You seem to think I agree with him. You keep saying it, even though I keep TELLING YOU I DON'T. But at least do it right. Here's sympathy:

Sympathy, compassion, pity, empathy all denote the tendency, practice, or capacity to share in the feelings of others, especially their distress, sorrow, or unfulfilled desires. Sympathy is the broadest of these terms, signifying a general kinship with another's feelings, no matter of what kind.

adamsaccount:
You are facsist in the sense that you think its correct to impose your broken authoritarian values onto everybody.

I stopped crying out "fascist" when I stopped being a teenager. I can understand wanting to legalize drugs, but screaming out fascist isn't helping. Someone else already pointed that out though.

I've seen the effects of the harder drugs. Heroin can kill within the year. It destroys the mind and body far more quickly than anything else.

There is no such things as being "responsible" with drugs.

Frission:

adamsaccount:
You are facsist in the sense that you think its correct to impose your broken authoritarian values onto everybody.

I stopped crying out "fascist" when I stopped being a teenager. I can understand wanting to legalize drugs, but screaming out fascist isn't helping. Someone else already pointed that out though.

I've seen the effects of the harder drugs. Heroin can kill within the year. It destroys the mind and body far more quickly than anything else.

There is no such things as being "responsible" with drugs.

Disagree. Like i said before the word fascist just means bully in england, and i hate bullies. If you want me to stop pointing them out then no I wont, and it wouldn't make me any more mature.

Sure if you want to prove me wrong by pointing out the technical use of the word then fine but youve got to understand what i mean when i say it.

To your second point absolute fucking bullshit. If you dont think theres such a thing as being responsible with drugs what about all the responsible drinkers/smokers/coffee drinkers/people on medication. All these things are drugs and its just societal hipocracy that makes you discount them when you say the word drugs.

adamsaccount:
/snip

Unless you're smoking 50 packs of cigarettes a day, it won't match what meth does to your teeth in the same amount of time. None of what you listed can reach the life-threatening addiction value of drugs either. You don't automatically die if you take an ounce of a drug, I already know that. They are however in a different order of strength.

Quite frankly, you're in denial if you think they're all in the same category.

To add to other arguments made, the freedom of choice of those addicted to a drug is questionable, since addiction is defined as compulsive by its very nature and addictions in and of themselves curb individual freedom. Likewise, the proposal that addictive drugs should be legalized, regulated and opened to 'free market dynamics' is immediately belied by the recognition that the drug market for an addict is no longer a free market - it is clear that they will pay any price when needing their drug.

I don't believe you actually care about the freedom aspect though. You have an agenda. A pretty obvious one too.

Drug laws must be reworked to minimize harm done to society and individuals, but what you advocate is absolutely reckless.

Frission:

adamsaccount:
/snip

Unless you're smoking 50 packs of cigarettes a day, it won't match what meth does to your teeth in the same amount of time. None of the you listed can reach the life-threatening addiction value of drugs either. You don't automatically die if you take an ounce of a drug, I already know that. They are however in a different order of strength.

Quite frankly, you're in denial if you think they're all in the same category.

To add to other arguments made, the freedom of choice of those addicted to a drug is questionable, since addiction is defined as compulsive by its very nature and addictions in and of themselves curb individual freedom. Likewise, the proposal that addictive drugs should be legalized, regulated and opened to 'free market dynamics' is immediately belied by the recognition that the drug market for an addict is no longer a free market - it is clear that they will pay any price when needing their drug.

I don't believe you actually care about the freedom aspect though. You have an agenda. A pretty obvious one too.

Drug laws must be reworked to minimize harm done to society and individuals, but what you advocate is absolutely reckless.

They are in the same category, that category being mind altering substances. Yes their effects and harmfulness vary in magnitude, i dont dispute that, but fact is on one level they are in the same category.
I dont advocate taking anything addictive, you become a slave to the substance but the point is that this is going to happen (and has been happening for decades) whether there is a legal way of obtaining these substances or not. Legalising something is very different to encouraging it and by all means heroin use should be heavily discouraged because it is intensely destructive.

And about you questioning my motives, well what the fuck are YOUR motives. My agenda is to legalise all drugs i make no qualms about that and the reason i believe this are several.

1. Once someone is hooked on something they need help and throwing them in prison for possession is not helpful to anyone. There are plenty of drugs in prison and its basically a school for criminals

2. Secondly, the violence in south america and the like has reached a point where weve got to change something, and using the same tack weve been using for all of the 20th century quite fucking obviously isnt working.

3. Freedom. Your body is the only thing you truly own and I genuinely believe whatever you think that the freedom to do what you like with it (this extends to abortion too) is absolutely your business and your business alone. I believe this to be self evident.

4. Yes I admit it I would like to take drugs without being a criminal in the eyes of the law

If your questioning my motives on this its probably because you cant fault my arguments as much as you would like and need to attack me in another way.

I mean at least be OPEN to it, instead of spouting "drugs are bad, mmkay, unless society tells you there not" like most of the other fucking zombies on this planet

All i want is for people to think for themselves and be free to act for themselves, short of causing anyone else harm. Fuck "the greater good", its just a means to push ideologies onto people and if there truly is such thing as the greater good (which theyre cant be, we all want different things out of life) then we can go into that once weve got our freedoms sorted out properly.

Smeatza:
Do some research on when alcohol was prohibited in the United States.

Which is a completely broken comparison because alcohol had been ingrained in society for ages, and responsible alcohol use is possible, while responsible drug use is not for most drugs, and extremely hard to do for one or two drugs.

Smeatza:
The Dutch semi-legalisation is a joke, they hardly even attempt to undercut the illegal drug trade. It was an economic decision, not a civil one. In spite of that they did see a rise in illegal street dealers when they introduced the "weed pass" law. One of the reasons it no longer stands.

You've been misinformed. It was the drug shop owners (vast majority of whom are in organised crime) who claimed street dealership had been increased. This was never backed by any reliable figures.

Some measure of increase was to be expected as drug tourists keep coming at first, but this is more than acceptable to be able to combat the disaster that the legalisation was. Over time the tourists will stay away. Also, street dealership in this case doesn't matter; whether someone buys it uncontrolled from organised crime in a shop, or uncontrolled from organised crime in the street, it doesn't make a difference.

Except that the shops are known to cause a nuisance in the neighbourhood they're in, and street dealers cause this far less.

Smeatza:
Some imagined consequences, some that are caused by the social stigma itself, many that are blown way out of proportion by sensationalist media. The fact is prohibition is completely counterproductive and it costs a lot of money.

It would be nice to see some proof of that rather than just empty claims.

For one thing fighting the drug trade is a good idea because it puts away an extremely violent category of criminals who'd otherwise terrorise the streets. Pot barons and other drug criminals are behind some of the most extreme violence in this country. Just a week or two ago, the case started against a few thugs who grew pot. In 2010 they emptied Ak47s on a house of a rival pot dealer, killing his 10 year old son. It's a form of violence almost unheard of.

Smeatza:
I imagine he knew the potential consequences. Most drug users are aware of the potential consequences of their habbit.

No they're not. You've not presented any proof of that, the consequences for society in terms of crime are observed and documented fact, that drug users do not care about what their habit causes is self-explaining because otherwise there'd be no drug trade at all, and stuff like "I'm aware of the consequences" or "But I have it under control" and such excuses are what I hear most from addicts queuing up.

How can you ignore the consequences for society actually? Didn't I bring up the huge crime rate caused by drug users earlier on?

adamsaccount:
You are facsist in the sense that you think its correct to impose your broken authoritarian values onto everybody.

Oh, I see how this is. Everyone who criticises your addiction, unresponsible use of illegal drugs despite your mental state and the consequences for society, is a fascist.

We're done here. It's clear you've got no sensible arguments and aren't interested in serious discussion.

So we can safely conclude: Your drug abuse and addiction are inresponsible because you finance the FARC in Colombia and several other nefarious forms of activity, and you're forcing society to pay for the healthcare expenses caused by your reckless substance abuse.

But by all means keep believing you have a sort of 'freedom' to pump yourself full of drugs and go crazy. Sooner or later you'll run into a wall and realise how wrong you were.

Blablahb:
It would be nice to see some proof of that rather than just empty claims.

For one thing fighting the drug trade is a good idea because it puts away an extremely violent category of criminals who'd otherwise terrorise the streets. Pot barons and other drug criminals are behind some of the most extreme violence in this country. Just a week or two ago, the case started against a few thugs who grew pot. In 2010 they emptied Ak47s on a house of a rival pot dealer, killing his 10 year old son. It's a form of violence almost unheard of.

To me that screams, legalise it and take the money out of those bastards hands.

I think amsterdam is a complete shit hole personally (beautiful city, shame about the people). However this is because it has such a high concentration of users who are just there to get fucked out of their heads. If they could do that in there own country legally they wouldnt be there.

All my arguments are 100% sensible. What youve got to understand is that to me you seem just as twisted and illogical as I probably seem to you.

Believe me one day this whole debate is going to look as outdated as the fucking slave trade and its my side thats going to win, at least in some places. Might take 1 year might take untill the end of western civilization but its going to happen. Eventually your going to be able to ingest whatever you want without the law trying to get you

Blablahb:

Oh, I see how this is. Everyone who criticises your addiction, unresponsible use of illegal drugs despite your mental state and the consequences for society, is a fascist.

We're done here. It's clear you've got no sensible arguments and aren't interested in serious discussion.

So we can safely conclude: Your drug abuse and addiction are inresponsible because you finance the FARC in Colombia and several other nefarious forms of activity, and you're forcing society to pay for the healthcare expenses caused by your reckless substance abuse.

But by all means keep believing you have a sort of 'freedom' to pump yourself full of drugs and go crazy. Sooner or later you'll run into a wall and realise how wrong you were.

No mate its more your willingness to take away peoples freedoms because "YOU KNOW BEST"

Also that bit about me not being a "productive member of society" because i work in a music shop kind of made me hate you a lot. I also work in a charity shop, and im looking for employment writing for the charitable sector. i know its not much but its all im really capable of right now.

Oh yes and theres you trying to get information about my mental health to hit me over the head with

Conclude whatever the fuck you want from this. Im not going to change your mind and dont ultimately give a shit what you think of me or anything else. The sooner you stop posting i nthis thread the better.

adamsaccount:

1. Once someone is hooked on something they need help and throwing them in prison for possession is not helpful to anyone. There are plenty of drugs in prison and its basically a school for criminals

That's why there's clinics and rehabilitation groups. I did say to rework drug laws, but you're suggestion to legalize all drugs will only worsen the problem.

2. Secondly, the violence in south america and the like has reached a point where weve got to change something, and using the same tack weve been using for all of the 20th century quite fucking obviously isnt working.

No disagreement. If we're going on foreign policy though, legalizing all drugs will not make the cartels suddenly disappear. Or legitimize them either since it just means that they'll be competing with whatever "legal corporation" is making those drugs.

EDIT: The violence will still be there and it will only make the police job harder since they will have to distinguish between "legal" and "illegal" drugs. I have the real life example of the ivory trade to illustrate what will quite obviously happen.

Thinking about corporations, who do you think will make these drugs? The government? There would be an outcry for the waste of money, not to mention the moral problems when it comes to literally making people slaves. Private enterprise? It wouldn't be a free market anymore, as I already listed. I also shudder at all the potential abuses and scenarios, from a gigantic legitimized drug dealer. You would need stringent regulations to completely hobble the powers of that industry.

This is my biggest problem with legalizing drugs. It leaves a hole and I'm apprehensive how it will be filled.

If you're also willing to get regular medical checkups to show that you're not completely falling apart, I would be willing. There would have to be tests that might be considered invasive.

We're also having a whole discussion on guns, but those are peanuts compared to legalized drugs. If you use drugs, you can't buy a gun or be ever in possession of a gun. For me, that's final. Otherwise it's just asking for trouble. It's illegal to drink and drive after all. I hope you can agree on that. (I recall you're a brit, so you should be okay with that. I'm too used to arguing with Americans. Are you talking solely about Britain or about the world as a whole? There are certainly very different socio-economic conditions in say, Britain then in France or the U.S)

3. Freedom. Your body is the only thing you truly own and I genuinely believe whatever you think that the freedom to do what you like with it (this extends to abortion too) is absolutely your business and your business alone. I believe this to be self evident.

Hmm. I could say that the freedom to deliberately destroy yourself is a strange freedom, but it's already the case and I was always arguing against the legalization of drugs purely on a pragmatic basis.

Implement an age limit if you want, like with alcohol. If you're of a certain age and you want to do something dangerous, then I won't stop you. It's your life and death.

4. Yes I admit it I would like to take drugs without being a criminal in the eyes of the law

That was the agenda I was accusing you off, although at least you gave several other reasons.

Well, now I gave other arguments. My motives are purely to do what I think would do the less damage to society.

EDIT: It's long, but I would appreciate it if you read and responded to all of this.

Frission:
[quote="adamsaccount" post="528.399073.16361310"]

EDIT: It's long, but I would appreciate it if you read and responded to all of this.

Ok so firstly I dont think changing drug laws is something that you could do overnight and its something that any legislators are going to have to be very careful to get right.

Would legalising lead to an increase in people with drug problems?

Well honestly I think at first there would be a very slight increase in the amount of junkies, but eventually it would settle back down to about the current rate, and then fall for reasons im about to outline. Its not the illegality of say heroin that stops the majority from taking it, its the knowledge of the negative effects. Put a tax on drugs to fund rehab and awareness and eventually yeah it hopefully will fall, with the possible exception of weed, though I see absolutely nothing wrong with weed so dont care about that.

I would propose that the government/health service dispenses addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine, whilst setting a weekly or even daily limit on the amount you could purchase. I dont think its the sort of thing you want to open up to the free market as then instead of drug dealers profitting from misery and addiction its business. In theory you could open up to the free market with severe regulation but I think the health service of the country(which happens to be run by the government where i live) should be in charge of this because, combined with an essential piece of legislation demanding all profits be put back into drug awareness/rehab centres would remove the motive of profit. The prices of these drugs would stay the same. The huge mark up currently put there for the price of illegally smuggling these substances would be put into better drugs awareness and rehabilitation centres. Look at all the violence in south america, think how much all those employees and weapons must cost, then think about all the difference you could make in regards to rehab and awareness with this amount of money.

I (thankfully) dont have the drug knowledge to say what a kilo of heroin costs to grow as opposed to what its sold for on the street but i would imagine the difference in the figures is huge, thanks to the fact it has to be illegally smuggled. Like i said before, the amount of money available for support of junkies would absolutely skyrocket.

For the softer drugs i think they should be sold in free market head shops, , age restricted, again with the tax that would be generated going towards rehab centres. Im not sure where cocaine would fall in this but as it is addictive id say keep it to the health service. Other non addictive things like MDMA, LSD, should be available in head shops, all age restricted and heavily taxed with the taxes going to the same place as previously stated.

Its a little known fact but weed and opium are grown in britain allready for the NHS. If this doesnt fill the demand then import them legally from afghanistan/columbia. Buy direct from the farmers. Cut out the gangs. There will still be violence in the world but this will no longer be a cause

Your point on check ups i 100% agree with and hadnt even considered before.

Once all this is in place there is zero income going towards drugs gangs from that country. Repeat it the world over and they have to find something else to do to fund themselves.

I admit there is a danger that illegally smuggled drugs could undercut legalized drug prices. The government/nhs is going to have to be constantly monitering this and reacting appropriately. However, the cost of illegally smuggling is placing such a huge mark up allready that i believe drugs are pretty much as cheap as drug gangs can make them at the moment, and even if not the the goverment/nhs can easily reduce the price whilst still making a lot of money.

I admit i can only contemplate on britain with any amount of legitimacy as its all i know, but the concepts i believe are global.

Drug driving is already illegal and should obviously remain so.

Got to agree on the gun thing, seems sensible, though im sure we could find some americans to argue that its their constitutional right to go crossbow hunting tripping on acid.

The right to destroy yourself with drugs is one that we allready have, just not legally.
Were it legal the money would fund help to the people who just want to circle around oblivion, nullifying their lives due to depression, hopelessness or whatever the cause.

edit: Forgot to add that drug use should only be allowed on private property.

Hope this makes sense to you.

bloody long isnt it

Blablahb:
It's perhaps not so clever to insult me rudely, dodge my relevant questions, and then show us you work an uneducated parttime job, contributing little to society, and leaving many questions as to how one sustains cocaine use on such a meager salary.

All that's showing is that I was right, and drug users are indeed a problem pretty much in every case.
No it's not; most of the damage drugs do is not to that person himself, but to society, making it society's business.

Do you know merely how much costs shopowners have from requiring to hire security in some cases, and having to handle all the stealing and violence from drug users looking to fund their habit?

So funding organised crime and terror groups is no problem in your view? That's alright, but refrain from throwing insults at me because I have a higher moral standard than that mindless selfishness of "I want to do drugs and fuck the rest of society".

I've supplied many rational arguments for my point of view. Try to refute them or accept them, but don't ignore them and insult me because you regard drug use as a positive thing, or think that individual responsibility doesn't exist.

Ussually people start doing drugs because of personal problems yes, but in this case, his habit will also affect his mental health. It's not unheard of for stable patients to start using and end up a trainwreck, or rapid-cycling.

He dodged that question, so we can safely assume his cocaine use made him unstable on several occasions.

You are being irrational and ignorant. You need to provide facts and citations for your claims.

1. Show the statistics where every drug user is negatively effecting society.
2. I don't know how much cost is incurred from shopkeepers dealing with crime related to drug use. Please let me know.
3. Explain how Organized crime or terrorists, supported by drug trafficking, would survive and flourish if Drugs were legalized and regulated. How does creating other venues for use of a substance help fund organized crime?
4. Show statistics where the majority of people who try drugs become 'Train-wrecks' and develop mental problems.

You haven't haven't supplied a rational argument, not one. You are doing no justice to your point of view. You should be embarrassed to have taken the discussion this far down the slippery slope and I sincerely hope that the first Rational, decent post you make in this thread is in response to this one.

Blablahb:
Which is a completely broken comparison because alcohol had been ingrained in society for ages, and responsible alcohol use is possible, while responsible drug use is not for most drugs, and extremely hard to do for one or two drugs.

Most recreational drugs are ingrained in society and have been since time immemorial. In fact it is prohibition that is out of place in history/tradition. You might notice that in spite of all the anti drug campaigns and war on drugs that most drug use in developed western society has been becoming more wide spread over the past few decades. So even if it wasn't already ingrained on a mass scale (which it is) it soon will be, and nothing prohibition has tried can stop it.
Responsible drug use is possible with most drugs, if they are at a reasonable price, the populous has been reasonably educated on their affects and side affects and their strength is regulated by the government. If you keep people ignorant (using prohibition, war on drugs, and anti-drug propaganda/bullshit) then of course people will use drugs irresponsibly.

Blablahb:
You've been misinformed. It was the drug shop owners (vast majority of whom are in organised crime) who claimed street dealership had been increased. This was never backed by any reliable figures.

Some measure of increase was to be expected as drug tourists keep coming at first, but this is more than acceptable to be able to combat the disaster that the legalisation was. Over time the tourists will stay away. Also, street dealership in this case doesn't matter; whether someone buys it uncontrolled from organised crime in a shop, or uncontrolled from organised crime in the street, it doesn't make a difference.

Except that the shops are known to cause a nuisance in the neighbourhood they're in, and street dealers cause this far less.

I think it is you that has been misinformed. There is a reason it's only the very small, conservative towns and villages that have kept up with the "weed pass" law. The tourists will not stay away because the law no longer stands (it is now optional). It seems you have not kept up to date on the issue over the past 6 months or so.
And like I said the semi-legalisation in The Netherlands was a joke, they legalised the sale of the stuff without legalising the cultivation of it. They did not even attempt to shut down, or even adversely affect the illegal drug trade. Just because the Netherlands got it very very wrong, doesn't mean it wouldn't work when some actual effort is put in.

Blablahb:
It would be nice to see some proof of that rather than just empty claims.

For one thing fighting the drug trade is a good idea because it puts away an extremely violent category of criminals who'd otherwise terrorise the streets. Pot barons and other drug criminals are behind some of the most extreme violence in this country. Just a week or two ago, the case started against a few thugs who grew pot. In 2010 they emptied Ak47s on a house of a rival pot dealer, killing his 10 year old son. It's a form of violence almost unheard of.

The part in bold is so blatantly wrong that it discredits everything you write. The Sandy Hook shooting was nothing to do with drugs, many people of that age died there.
There are roughly 16,000 homicides in the US per year. Unfortunately the government does require law enforcement agencies to publish drug related homicide numbers (hmmmm I wonder why) but estimates tend to be about 1000 per year. That leaves you with 15,000 homicides that were not drug related, yet that kind of violence is unheard of without drugs is it?
Keep in mind the expense the war on drugs takes, and keep in mind the fact that those murders wouldn't happen if prohibition wasn't compulsory (when was the last time an illegal cigarette dealer shot up a Wall Mart?).
There are at least (certainly many many more, I deliberately underestimate the figures, because I can and they are still in my favour) 20 million people in the United States who have used illegal drugs in the past year, yet only 1000 drug related homicides in that time.
Everything in your paragraph is simply propaganda you are passing on from a sensationalist media.

Blablahb:
No they're not. You've not presented any proof of that, the consequences for society in terms of crime are observed and documented fact, that drug users do not care about what their habit causes is self-explaining because otherwise there'd be no drug trade at all, and stuff like "I'm aware of the consequences" or "But I have it under control" and such excuses are what I hear most from addicts queuing up.

How can you ignore the consequences for society actually? Didn't I bring up the huge crime rate caused by drug users earlier on?

You lied about a huge crime rate amongst drug users. It's estimated there are about 10 million casual drug users in the U.S. So you're going to need a crime rate like Somalia if you're wishing to be correct on that one.
You seem to be confusing "documented fact" with "something the papers lied about to make more money."
In any case, people seem to be very well educated and aware of the potential risks of alcohol, so if ignorance is rife amongst drug users (which it's not) it is the fault of those prohibiting them.
You want proof http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=drug+prohibition&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5

Prohibition has failed, at least in the west (where we actually have money to spend on drugs). The only way you can argue against that conclusion and the wealth of evidence there is to support it is by keeping yourself willfully ignorant, which the news media will just love helping you out with.
It's not the blind leading the blind, it's the blind willfully blinding the sighted.

Frission:

Unless you're smoking 50 packs of cigarettes a day, it won't match what meth does to your teeth in the same amount of time. None of what you listed can reach the life-threatening addiction value of drugs either. You don't automatically die if you take an ounce of a drug, I already know that. They are however in a different order of strength.

Quite frankly, you're in denial if you think they're all in the same category.

Well, it depends what we're talking about. Cigarettes are lethal, and the addiction is near unbreakable for millions of people. The harm they've done far outweighs, for example, cannabis.

Regardless of peoples' stances on the issue, the law as it is was formed by outdated prejudices, assumptions and media pressure, not science. I think that's pretty obvious.

Smeatza:
Most recreational drugs are ingrained in society and have been since time immemorial. In fact it is prohibition that is out of place in history/tradition.

Two mistakes there. One, drug abuse is not ingrained in society. Many drugs have existed for only a few years. GHB, the rapedrug, for instance has only been around since 2006, whereas alcohol has existed for millennia. And the ban is because people are harmed by drugs, society is harmed by drugs, and they have no positive effects. That's why it's prohibited.

Smeatza:
Responsible drug use is possible with most drugs, if they are at a reasonable price, the populous has been reasonably educated on their affects and side affects and their strength is regulated by the government. If you keep people ignorant (using prohibition, war on drugs, and anti-drug propaganda/bullshit) then of course people will use drugs irresponsibly.

That's rubbish. You can both ban drugs and have drug education. You're using a false dilemma. Also, thousands of addicts, huge costs and organised crime say that drugs can't be used responsibly. Unless you can refute the existance of those downsides, responsible drug use is impossible.

Don't make the mistake of being predictable and quoting those bullshit statistics that alcohol is supposely worse. Those numbers compare several populations that can't be compared to eachother, and they don't account for per-use damage.

Smeatza:
I think it is you that has been misinformed. There is a reason it's only the very small, conservative towns and villages that have kept up with the "weed pass" law. The tourists will not stay away because the law no longer stands (it is now optional). It seems you have not kept up to date on the issue over the past 6 months or so.

That didn't come up in the discussion so don't get all high and mighty. I'm quite aware of it, and disagree with the idea of undoing the pass decision. Because the drug tourism needs to be stopped. And if that means a few organised crime bosses get less income and sad potheads need to fill out a form before they can get high, so be it.

Smeatza:
The part in bold is so blatantly wrong that it discredits everything you write. The Sandy Hook shooting was nothing to do with drugs

I never even mentioned that and have no idea why you bring it up. I was observing that drugs create a scene around them of hardcore organised crime, that use extreme violence not seen elsewhere. That's why drugs need to be fought, because you're also preventing organised crime with it. I used this shooting as an example, while rival marijuana dealers emptied ak47s on the house of a marijuana dealer, killing his 12 year old son.

Such extreme violence is unheard normally speaking. It's only because of drugs that it happens.

Also you're wrong in your claim that it only occurs because of drugs being illegal. There is not a single reason to suspect organised crime will disappear from the drug trade after the mistake of legalisation has been made. Not only that, but the Dutch experience shows it to be untrue. Pot is legal, yet pot dealer still are organised crime and are extremely violent.

Smeatza:
You lied about a huge crime rate amongst drug users.

So I'm going to rub your nose in proof that you're wrong and I'm right. Here's the Amsterdam policy document about dealing with drug using offenders, which again states the numbers I quoted earlier:
http://www.eenveiligamsterdam.nl/thema%27s/thema%27s/overlast/verslaafde/

Links on the right take you to the document in more detail. Don't accuse people if you're wrong. There's a huge crime rate due to drug users. For Amsterdam alone, some 540 drug users perpetrate about two-thirds of all crime, meaning that 540 people perpetrate more crime than 1,2 million other inhabitants. That's how high crime among drug users is. Care to calculate how overrepresented it makes those drug users in crime rate per capita?

And as they conclude in that document, locking up drug users in a specialised prison for two years for even the most minor of crimes, is a succesfull approach, because it allows forcible detoxing and adressing other problems of drug users.

Blablahb:
snip

Drugs damage society as much as individuals allow it to damage them. But those individuals are allowed to harm themselves however much they'd like. Giving people a criminal record for something that effects their own body is more harmful than just letting them do it. Also, I'd bet the high people feel when they do drugs is a very positive effect.

I can refute some of those downsides actually.

Organized crime is involved with drugs because it's illegal to buy, but there's still a demand for it. There's no reason to ban them in the first place, so all the crime that follows is the fault of the government. Getting rid of prohibition put bootleggers out of business for the most part. Same would happen to drug dealers.

People become addicted to cigaretts and alcohol just as they can get addicted to meth(not a valid comparison, yadda yadda). I've seen people use coke(a supposedly really addictive substance), and still resist the urge to use it if they for some reason need to go without. It comes down to the person using them and if they can be personally responsible with it, aka, responsible drug use.

Shadowstar38:
Drugs damage society as much as individuals allow it to damage them. But those individuals are allowed to harm themselves however much they'd like.

No. Like I said, when society suffers for it, it becomes society's problem. For instance the increased healthcare costs for drug users already make it other people's business. There's no such as a 'right to get high and fuck everybody else'.

Shadowstar38:
Organized crime is involved with drugs because it's illegal to buy, but there's still a demand for it. There's no reason to ban them in the first place, so all the crime that follows is the fault of the government. Getting rid of prohibition put bootleggers out of business for the most part. Same would happen to drug dealers.

However there's no reason to suspect organised crime will disappear if something's legal, and experiments with legalisation have shown that organised crime continues to dominate the drug market anyway.

Shadowstar38:
I've seen people use coke(a supposedly really addictive substance), and still resist the urge to use it if they for some reason need to go without.

Good for them. You know how many of those we see in addict care?

Not always lower class losers either. Often university students, frat boys, the ones who snorted on parties. Then it continues to deal with the stress of their job, and a few years later they discover they're without a wife, without a job, without a nasal septum, and in dire need of help. And I get to throw them out teeth-first when they lose it when they realise the world doesn't revolve around them and they can't get help within five minutes, or threaten people if they get a no on something.

Silvanus:
Well, it depends what we're talking about. Cigarettes are lethal, and the addiction is near unbreakable for millions of people. The harm they've done far outweighs, for example, cannabis.

Most of those claims are based on faulty statistics that compare unequal numbers of users, and unequal methods of use. To name just one example, nicotine doesn't cause mental illnesses, and THC from marijuana does. And if that happens, that person is fucked for life, making cannabis more harmfull by far.

The only real comparable statistics are per-use and per-users compensated, and such numbers don't exist to my knowledge.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked