|
Post by piccione on Apr 2, 2007 22:14:40 GMT
Sands
I’m falling behind. Can’t keep up with your err efficiency....
///.....if there is no supply there will be no demand from NEW drug takers. And if the penalty for doing so is harsh, they will look for their pleasure in other areas, hopefully more positive, creative ones.///
I addressed the issue of /new/ users (in my post about addiction).
///And even those who are not ADDICTED to a specific drug will not simply turn to crime as you so naively think. People are not all as stupid or desperate for drugs as you think.///
Firstly I’m not the one claiming that /all/ smack users resort to crime (you are saying that – in the next para for example). Some find working exceedingly useful for funding their habit (users of stimulants also for increased energy levels at work) although most heroin users, in the long term find it hard to hold down a job, not ‘simply’ because of the heroin use itself, but also because of the life-style they have been forced to lead (health problems due to IV use and street heroin, criminal record etc).
There are some major differences between alcoholics and heroin addicts. First of all alcoholics say they can maintain their existing job and hide their addiction for longer. They also have very different perceptions regarding returning to work after recovery from addiction. This is /mainly/ due to the fact that alcoholics tend to acknowledge psychological problems for their addiction to alcohol, rather than blaming ‘the drug’. This means they ‘accept’ that it’ll take them a long time to fully recover, even after having given up drinking. They also have different aspirations than ex heroin users: Mostly they aspire returning to their professions/jobs they held /before/ alcohol addiction.
Heroin users who have just been through detox/rehab tend to consider themselves ‘cured’, blaming their addiction on a ‘medical’ problem (i.e. /the drug/ was responsible for their addiction, not psychological problems. They are therefore much more positive about immediate return to work after detox, but have far more modest aspirations about the type of job they anticipate to get after having ‘recovered’. But ultimately they tend to relapse more often....
Now these very different perceptions are a direct reflection of the public and political messages given out: Alcohol is a begin drug when used in moderation. If someone abuses it, the cause is a problem within that individual. Heroin, on the other hand, being illegal, is 'bad' and dangerous. It's the drug /itself/ that causes the problem.
///The addict however may well indeed turn to crime to fund his addiction. But another thing you have omitted to say is that they ALREADY do this.///
They are already engaging in illegal activity by obtaining and using the drug Sands, and are therefore excluded from mainstream society. Both these factors lower the threshold for committing other crime to fund the (expensive) habit. That is /exactly/ my point.
If drugs become less readily available they will commit /more/ crime.
/// But as there will be less addicts over the long term , by denying new users the 'pleasure' of this kind of self-abuse, the problem will be kept under control, which it is clearly not now and which will become even worse if these drugs are legalised. Agreed?///
No. I addressed this in my post about the nature of addiction.
|
|
|
Post by piccione on Apr 2, 2007 22:24:35 GMT
Sands
///But locking away all traffickers and sellers for a long period WOULD work if it was meant as a serious policy and done properly. Many sellers would shop the people higher up the chain if they got a much more lenient sentence.///
No they wouldn’t because they’d loose their source of income – and an even /increased/ income if drug policies are further enforced. They take the risk. /Some/ people /always/ will. High sentencing has /never/ put people off committing crime. The direct incapacitation of an /individual/ dealer/supplier is will not put the next/new supplier or dealer off as long as there is the incentive of high profits. Even the /petty/ dealer dealing to fund their habit has a high incentive: being able to buy more heroin.
This cycle can not be broken by harsh policy enforcements Sands. But I have been through all that....
////The only answer is to privatise the drug/crime system.///
And a 'privatized system' would be /less/ corruptible yes…? They’d have it even /easier/ to hide corruption and bribery! Jeez – Sands I say it again (and again…): The illegal trade is worth /billions/ of very flexible money and assets! They are /not/ bound by any legal and bureaucratic processes of how and where that money is spent /because/ they are illegal markets. And you think they will give up in the face of either ‘official’ or privatized enforcement? And you also think that private agents are the better people and will not be corrupted?
///And the prison system should be privatised so that if any released prisoner is drug/crime free after 2 years, the private company gets another big bonus.///
<<<grin>>>
A bigger ‘bonus’ than the multi-billion illegal trade can offer them right?
I tell you what they’d do: They'd manipulate the figures and ‘adjust’ testing procedure and outcomes (as the /Home Office/ already /did/ with the pilots of DTTOs!!) and pocket /both/....
////2. The state alone is not the means to deal with the drugs problem.///
Uhhh I agree! Albeit probably /not/ with /your/ actual ‘meaning’ of that....
|
|
|
Post by piccione on Apr 2, 2007 22:34:05 GMT
////1. Actually wrong. Each separate supplier is a competitor. That's why we have all the gang fights and gun crimes. There is not ONE sole supplier of drugs. That is what a monopoly means.////
The /whole/ trade is illegal. Within this /wholly/ illegal trade you have /illegal/ competitors. Look at the (profit-oriented) corruption within even (some) /legal/ markets e.g. pharmaceutical companies. That gives you only an /inkling/ of the ‘means’ applied by the illegal trade.
///2/3. Wrong again. There are several ways for the drug taker to get access to information about drugs. One of these is via the internet. I am sure it would not take you long to find loads of info about drugs on the web.///
I wasn’t talking about ‘the drug user’. I was talking about the public’s access to illegal activity of official bodies.
I admit I’m out of my depth here Sands. Since you obviously know more, could you supply a link where the drug mafia ‘advertises’ the means by which they push the trade? Do they actually publish weekly ‘casualty’ stats? And furthermore I’d like to see the link where official gov bodies ‘declare’ the profits they gained by having been corrupted.
///There is also word of mouth from friends and (not so friends) and pushers. And most of it is far LESS reliable than government sources.///
Yes that ‘word of mouth’ information is exactly the problem (of illegal supplies) – because there /are/ no ‘official sources’ telling you the exact ‘ingredients’ of a street drug. Because no-one /can/. Not even those in the illegal trade could, since the trafficker doesn’t know what the supplier is going to ‘put into the mix’. Neither does he care - he has done some 'mixing' himself. It’s a matter of trial and error for the end user.
|
|
|
Post by piccione on Apr 2, 2007 22:50:22 GMT
Sands
///You are contradicting yourself now. First you say that the only people who get caught are the small fry. Now you are saying that the rich ones (the the big time) have had their money confiscated. Do you always like to hold both viewpoints at the same time?///
I didn’t say that no ‘bigger fry’ ever got caught. I said it doesn’t matter since there will be knew ones that will follow. It’s the /really/ big fish that matter.
Tell me Sands – how in your great master plan are you actually going to eliminate the international illegal drugs trade – and corruption within ‘official’ (/or/ private) bodies?
///If you have been a drug supplier you have made a fortune out of the misery of other people. A murderer does not always kill for monetary gain.///
Oh so you’re now appealing to the kind heart, ‘good nature’ and compassion of a ruthless, profit-hungry criminal are you?
///Unless you are suggesting that the drugs people are plying their trade for the good of humanity? I hope you are not.///
No /I/ am not suggesting that at all. Hence why I wouldn’t waste my time appealing to their ‘compassion’.
///And if the government can get a 'nice little earner' from these fiends then would you prefer that the poor paid extra taxes instead?///
It’s a matter of the overall cost/gain balance for those ‘poor people’ you are so concerned about Sands. Overall it’s not the middle class electorate who pay the highest price for the criminalisation of drug taking and exclusion.
////I say good for the state if they penalise the drugs people where it really hurts, in their pockets.///
Yes I would agree – if the state /did/ hurt them where it hurts most: Depriving them of the very basis of their profit making – the illegal market.
///As for America why do you suggest that because some people are corrupt in this world we should just fly the white flag?///
Money makes the world go round Sands. I give you some credit and assume you’re being selective rather than naïve. It's got nothing to do with giving up but utilising /realistic/ strategies.
////Britain despite all its faults, is one of the LEAST corrupt countries in the world. That does not mean that we should accept the corruption that exists. It should be rooted out. But when you have everything run by the state you can't do this. We need to get the private companies involved but we also need to make sure that these companies are monitored properly by the state. This is already working in recently privatised industry, where private companies are fined, are forced to keep prices down or have their franchises removed. It is true that I am a cynic but I am also an optimist. I am not a defeatist.////
…on the other hand – I think I’ve just changed my mind. Hang on no you’re being selective again: It’s the corruption that is /obvious/ and directly affects and bothers /you/ you’re so concerned with. Not with corruption /overall/.....
Whereas /I/ on the other hand prefer to be /pragmatic/. I like to work with what we’ve got. I have /accepted/ that humans are corrupted by money -lots of it- /everywhere/. And that it's better to deprive them of the base of that corruptability rather than putting too much faith into their compassion and kind heart.
|
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Apr 4, 2007 10:25:09 GMT
///.....if there is no supply there will be no demand from NEW drug takers. And if the penalty for doing so is harsh, they will look for their pleasure in other areas, hopefully more positive, creative ones.///
<<< I addressed the issue of /new/ users (in my post about addiction). >>>
So you agree with me then?
///And even those who are not ADDICTED to a specific drug will not simply turn to crime as you so naively think. People are not all as stupid or desperate for drugs as you think.///
<<< Firstly I’m not the one claiming that /all/ smack users resort to crime (you are saying that – in the next para for example). >>>
Err no I am not saying that at all. I said they MAY turn to crime.
I did not say they WOULD turn to crime. Why would anyone with lots of money turn to crime?
<<< Some find working exceedingly useful for funding their habit (users of stimulants also for increased energy levels at work) although most heroin users, in the long term find it hard to hold down a job, not ‘simply’ because of the heroin use itself, but also because of the life-style they have been forced to lead (health problems due to IV use and street heroin, criminal record etc). >>>
No. They turn to that lifestyle BECAUSE the effect of the drugs encourage that lifestyle. If drugs free them from all responsibilities and worries and they enjoy that state of mind, then it is most likely they will want it to continue. It is only when they struggle to get those drugs that it becomes a problem to them. By which time it is often too late and they are hooked.
<<< There are some major differences between alcoholics and heroin addicts. First of all alcoholics say they can maintain their existing job and hide their addiction for longer. They also have very different perceptions regarding returning to work after recovery from addiction. This is /mainly/ due to the fact that alcoholics tend to acknowledge psychological problems for their addiction to alcohol, rather than blaming ‘the drug’. This means they ‘accept’ that it’ll take them a long time to fully recover, even after having given up drinking. They also have different aspirations than ex heroin users: Mostly they aspire returning to their professions/jobs they held /before/ alcohol addiction.
Heroin users who have just been through detox/rehab tend to consider themselves ‘cured’, blaming their addiction on a ‘medical’ problem (i.e. /the drug/ was responsible for their addiction, not psychological problems. They are therefore much more positive about immediate return to work after detox, but have far more modest aspirations about the type of job they anticipate to get after having ‘recovered’. But ultimately they tend to relapse more often....
Now these very different perceptions are a direct reflection of the public and political messages given out: Alcohol is a begin drug when used in moderation. If someone abuses it, the cause is a problem within that individual. Heroin, on the other hand, being illegal, is 'bad' and dangerous. It's the drug /itself/ that causes the problem. >>>
Well I don't think that way. To me all drugs are a potential problem, even drugs like caffeine. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't drink tea or coffee.
But drugs like heroin ARE far more dangerous than tea, coffee or alcohol. Most people who drink alcohol do so without it causing any health or social problems. The same can not be said for drugs like heroin. So it IS the drug that is the problem.
///The addict however may well indeed turn to crime to fund his addiction. But another thing you have omitted to say is that they ALREADY do this.///
<<< They are already engaging in illegal activity by obtaining and using the drug Sands, and are therefore excluded from mainstream society. Both these factors lower the threshold for committing other crime to fund the (expensive) habit. That is /exactly/ my point. >>>
But even if drugs are legal people will still commit crime to get the money to pay for drugs. THAT IS /EXACTLY/ MY POINT.
How do you expect a brain dead heroin addict to pay for drugs?
Or are you suggesting the honest, intelligent taxpayer should provide everybody with free drugs now?
<<< If drugs become less readily available they will commit /more/ crime. >>>
NO that is simply nonsense because there will be FEWER addicts, as fewer new people will take up drugs and fewer people will risk using them (as is the case with cigarettes). Why can't you see this obvious logic?
So the number of crimes will go down, the number of addicts will reduce and the authorities will be able to stand a chance of treating them properly. As it is now the authorities have allowed it to get out of hand. And the blame for that falls on all the nutters who suggest that we should be 'soft' on drugs.
/// But as there will be less addicts over the long term , by denying new users the 'pleasure' of this kind of self-abuse, the problem will be kept under control, which it is clearly not now and which will become even worse if these drugs are legalised. Agreed?///
<<< No. I addressed this in my post about the nature of addiction. >>>
Well it must have been really earth shattering because it made absolutely no impression on me.
The logic is there piccione if you take the trouble to think about it.
Reduce supply, increase the penalty if caught and you are bound to reduce the number of new users.
In the last twenty years or so, exactly the opposite has happened in Britain and now we have the worst drugs problem in Europe.
Whodathought it?
There is no more that needs to be said.
|
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Apr 4, 2007 11:02:14 GMT
///But locking away all traffickers and sellers for a long period WOULD work if it was meant as a serious policy and done properly. Many sellers would shop the people higher up the chain if they got a much more lenient sentence.///
<<< No they wouldn’t because they’d loose their source of income – and an even /increased/ income if drug policies are further enforced. They take the risk. /Some/ people /always/ will. High sentencing has /never/ put people off committing crime. >>>
Yes it has. It is obvious if you were only to stop and think about it. The penalty for murder is higher than shoplifting. So how many more ceases of shoplifting are there than murder?
And you argue that the people at the top are NEVER caught and only the minnows get put away.
Yet only yesterday there was a case of exactly this happening.
<<< The direct incapacitation of an /individual/ dealer/supplier is will not put the next/new supplier or dealer off as long as there is the incentive of high profits. Even the /petty/ dealer dealing to fund their habit has a high incentive: being able to buy more heroin.
This cycle can not be broken by harsh policy enforcements Sands. But I have been through all that.... >>>
And you have been shown to be wrong. Even the people at the top are caught and put away if there is any will by the authorities. Sadly we have a weak government who caves in and listens to drugs champions.
////The only answer is to privatise the drug/crime system.///
<<< And a 'privatized system' would be /less/ corruptible yes…? They’d have it even /easier/ to hide corruption and bribery! Jeez – Sands I say it again (and again…): The illegal trade is worth /billions/ of very flexible money and assets! They are /not/ bound by any legal and bureaucratic processes of how and where that money is spent /because/ they are illegal markets. And you think they will give up in the face of either ‘official’ or privatized enforcement? >>>
No the attempted corruption will be the same because people are people are people.
At the moment within the current publis sector system there is NO CONTROL at all. I saw a program on Monday about an open prison where it is all a huge joke.
We need a system where there are independent state inspectors checking on these prisons. At the moment the pathetic bureaucracy, apathy and lack of incentives ensures that drugs are common in this prison.
And what happened to the whistleblower who exposed this charade?
He was put back into a closed prison and given an extra 3 months.
The bloke should have got a medal.
<<< And you also think that private agents are the better people and will not be corrupted? >>>
Only if they are ALLOWED to get away with corruption.
If someone ran a school where teachers beat up their kids every day would you just shrug it off and say the we should just bother to educate our kids or would you expect the controls to be tightened up and the teachers punished?
Or would you just punish the kids (as the government did with the whistleblower) for exposing the truth?
How much time do you need to answer that?
///And the prison system should be privatised so that if any released prisoner is drug/crime free after 2 years, the private company gets another big bonus.///
<<< A bigger ‘bonus’ than the multi-billion illegal trade can offer them right? >>>
A RISK FREE BONUS. Sorry Piciconne but not ALL people are as crooked as you think.
<<< I tell you what they’d do: They'd manipulate the figures and ‘adjust’ testing procedure and outcomes (as the /Home Office/ already /did/ with the pilots of DTTOs!!) and pocket /both/.... >>>
Come now Piccione you are mixing them up with the STATE now. For one thing they would not be able to ADJUST procedures and outcomes because the state would set the parameters and monitor performance. (as with VAT inspectors now).
The big problem we have now is that the state is allowed to manipulate figures in all areas.
Let's suppose a drug addict goes to a prison run by a private company . If he is found to be using (by inspectors - who are regularly and randomly rotated) in that prison then the company is fined heavily. (the stick)
If the addict comes out of jail and doesn't go back in font of the judge within two years then the private company is given a big reward. (the carrot).
But in both cases there is a strong incentive for the system to work.
That'd a detrrent itself.
|
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Apr 4, 2007 11:20:36 GMT
///1. Actually wrong. Each separate supplier is a competitor. That's why we have all the gang fights and gun crimes. There is not ONE sole supplier of drugs. That is what a monopoly means.////
<<< The /whole/ trade is illegal. Within this /wholly/ illegal trade you have /illegal/ competitors. Look at the (profit-oriented) corruption within even (some) /legal/ markets e.g. pharmaceutical companies. That gives you only an /inkling/ of the ‘means’ applied by the illegal trade. >>>
So nothing like a monopoly as you argued.
///2/3. Wrong again. There are several ways for the drug taker to get access to information about drugs. One of these is via the internet. I am sure it would not take you long to find loads of info about drugs on the web.///
<<< I wasn’t talking about ‘the drug user’. I was talking about the public’s access to illegal activity of official bodies. >>>
Well it's often hard to know what exactly you are arguing about but I am sure you try your best.
<<< I admit I’m out of my depth here Sands. >>>
So why not just stop there, then. ;D
<<< Since you obviously know more, could you supply a link where the drug mafia ‘advertises’ the means by which they push the trade?>>>
Did I suggest they did? I think not looking back.
<< Do they actually publish weekly ‘casualty’ stats? >>>
I very much suspect that drug sellers and most other drug takers don't give a toss about who suffers from the trade. That is the concern of hard-working taxpayers and predominately non-drug users.
<<< And furthermore I’d like to see the link where official gov bodies ‘declare’ the profits they gained by having been corrupted. >>
You know so would I.
///There is also word of mouth from friends and (not so friends) and pushers. And most of it is far LESS reliable than government sources.///
<<< Yes that ‘word of mouth’ information is exactly the problem (of illegal supplies) – because there /are/ no ‘official sources’ telling you the exact ‘ingredients’ of a street drug. Because no-one /can/. Not even those in the illegal trade could, since the trafficker doesn’t know what the supplier is going to ‘put into the mix’. Neither does he care - he has done some 'mixing' himself. It’s a matter of trial and error for the end user. >>>
But then again each person is different anyway.
1. In weight
2. In the amount needed to sustain a safe dosage and mixture while still giving satisfaction to the user.
3. In how it affects each person, including side effects.
4. In how addictive it it is to each individual.
There is only one safe dosage.
ZERO.
And that is the message that should be sent out.
|
|
Daz Madrigal
lounge lizard
a Child of the Matrix
Posts: 11,120
|
Post by Daz Madrigal on Apr 4, 2007 11:24:03 GMT
Alcohol can be more easily managed whilst still making the drinker drift unwittingly into addiction of sorts. Thats what happened to me during my stint at the GPO..the work was boring and with long periods in the afternoon to waste plus long breaks, particularly on night shifts when there were Pubs open for Newspaper and Postal Workers.
The biggest difference was the ability of the hardened drinkers to throw large amounts down their necks without falling around on the floor whilst the younger drinkers were much cleverer. In the end you get used to drinking a few pints before work during late shifts and topping it up during the breaks at the nearby Express Club for media hacks and printing workers.
I;d suggest the the vast majority were working every day half-potted..but because they weren't falling around or collapsing on the floor it wasn't considered an addiction.
Thats the biggest difference..there were a minority who used to go with out a drink all week and then binge drink but they were in the minority whereas nowadays they're in the majority. The problem with jobs like the GPO isn't hard work << snigger >> its the sheer incompetence of Nationalised Industry. You can wait for hours waiting for a mail train to turn up and do absolutely nothing in the way of work whatsoever.
Now the result of that is mixed..you have to listen to a lot of tedious people, others bunk off through the railing to the Pub again..others just stand there bored and freezing usually. And that was the problem..the sheer mind numbing boredom of the job...its like anything..meat packing..factory working..Women don't mind it because they gossip and have more camaraderie. For most men you've got the choice between being bored to tears and not working due to stupid nationalised management or..alternatively when the work is organised it either involves putting letters in pigeonholes or throwing parcels into different sacks.
Now when you consider that most of the guys have got through more than a few pints and probably nr. 7/8+ its not surprising that post doesn't arrive when it should.
|
|
Daz Madrigal
lounge lizard
a Child of the Matrix
Posts: 11,120
|
Post by Daz Madrigal on Apr 4, 2007 11:38:44 GMT
I think we have to look at some of the countries that HAVE 'legalised' or made the laws more lenient to really come to any firm conclusions.
Therefore I'd prefer more data from Switzerland and to a lesser degree, Holland. Everything else is mere supposition and presumption.
|
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Apr 4, 2007 11:44:05 GMT
///You are contradicting yourself now. First you say that the only people who get caught are the small fry. Now you are saying that the rich ones (the the big time) have had their money confiscated. Do you always like to hold both viewpoints at the same time?///
I didn’t say that no ‘bigger fry’ ever got caught. I said it doesn’t matter since there will be knew ones that will follow. It’s the /really/ big fish that matter.
But it is also the big fish that do get caught. And you don't just stop policing and pat yourself on the back when you have caught someone big. It is an ongoing campaign. A never ending one.
<<< Tell me Sands – how in your great master plan are you actually going to eliminate the international illegal drugs trade – and corruption within ‘official’ (/or/ private) bodies? >>>
Well first you catch them rather than ignoring them as the UK government does. And when you restrict demand (through heavy penalties and adequate policing) and prices rise then the numbers of user shrink naturally and you concentrate on the hard cases. It worked in Singapore and it can work here. We are an island for Pete's sake so we should be able to patrol our borders. We should also be able to find most home-produced drugs, which the police already know about from their helicopters (but do NOTHING about).
You also forget that there is just as much (if not more) scope for corruption in BANKING (which is also international). Yet we manage to have a PRIVATE system of banking which works pretty well even if we do get people whingeing about the charges. So how did this happen piccione when EVERYBODY is as corrupt and as corruptable as you believe?
///If you have been a drug supplier you have made a fortune out of the misery of other people. A murderer does not always kill for monetary gain.///
<<< Oh so you’re now appealing to the kind heart, ‘good nature’ and compassion of a ruthless, profit-hungry criminal are you? >>>
Only in your wildest diversion of imagination.
///Unless you are suggesting that the drugs people are plying their trade for the good of humanity? I hope you are not.///
<<< No /I/ am not suggesting that at all. Hence why I wouldn’t waste my time appealing to their ‘compassion’. >>>
Well I am glad you have got that silly nonsense out of your system.
///And if the government can get a 'nice little earner' from these fiends then would you prefer that the poor paid extra taxes instead?///
<<< It’s a matter of the overall cost/gain balance for those ‘poor people’ you are so concerned about Sands. Overall it’s not the middle class electorate who pay the highest price for the criminalisation of drug taking and exclusion. >>>
Most honest poor people aren't too keen to pay higher taxes to fund the drug habit of these selfish plonkers.
////Britain despite all its faults, is one of the LEAST corrupt countries in the world. That does not mean that we should accept the corruption that exists. It should be rooted out. But when you have everything run by the state you can't do this. We need to get the private companies involved but we also need to make sure that these companies are monitored properly by the state. This is already working in recently privatised industry, where private companies are fined, are forced to keep prices down or have their franchises removed. It is true that I am a cynic but I am also an optimist. I am not a defeatist.////
<<< …on the other hand – I think I’ve just changed my mind. Hang on no you’re being selective again: It’s the corruption that is /obvious/ and directly affects and bothers /you/ you’re so concerned with. Not with corruption /overall/..... >>>
Yes you do change your mind quite a bit. Unfortunately it is usually over trivial matters rather than from learning sensible lessons.
<<< Whereas /I/ on the other hand prefer to be /pragmatic/. I like to work with what we’ve got. I have /accepted/ that humans are corrupted by money -lots of it- /everywhere/. And that it's better to deprive them of the base of that corruptability rather than putting too much faith into their compassion and kind heart. >>
Wow people are corrupted by money. That's a mindblowing idea.
A pragmatist is someone who accepts practical ideas but you have failed to accept any one of the practical ideas on the subject I have made.
You are not an pragmatist but an idealist. You think that if drugs are all made legal everything will be fine. It is nonsense.
Alcohol is legal. Has that stopped alcohol-related health and crime problems occurring?
Will drug pushers revert to honest careers when drugs are legal?
Will they get 9 to 5 jobs?
Will drug takers stop committing crime when they still need money to pay for legal drugs?
The only intelligent pragmatic approach is to deny people drugs that harm themselves and others.
As you say:
And that it's better to deprive them of the base of that corruptability rather than putting too much faith into their compassion and kind heart.
Illegal drugs are the base of corruptability. Let us deprive the people of them.
|
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Apr 4, 2007 11:56:42 GMT
I think we have to look at some of the countries that HAVE 'legalised' or made the laws more lenient to really come to any firm conclusions. Therefore I'd prefer more data from Switzerland and to a lesser degree, Holland. Everything else is mere supposition and presumption. Well it is not all as cut and dried as that Daz but let's have a quick look at how the lenient policy of drugs in the past has affected Switzerland up to 2005. www.dpna.org/3swissdrubpolicy.htm Alcohol abuse and marijuana use grow at a staggering rate
Switzerland, together with England and Spain, has the highest rate of alcohol and drug use among people under twenty in Europe. This is the effect of the confusing and ambiguous message about drugs in the media and the lack of a clear message against drug use and the belittlement of the harmful effects of drugs. It is also the effect of allowing druggies to use whatever drugs they like. We also know that when the swiss opened up 'the Needle Park' it had to be abandoned as a failure years later - not once but twice. There are now 18,000 heroin addicts on methadone treatment in Switzerland.
|
|
|
Post by piccione on Apr 4, 2007 21:28:19 GMT
////Britain however does not have any land borders with any other soft country. So it should be relatively easy to keep drugs out of the country. But then we have to respect the human rights of all the travellers to and from our country.///
Do you know why approx. 60% of cannabis provided to the UK market is now ‘home grown’?
1. People were fed up with smoking adulterated cr*p. 2. Cannabis –due to its ‘volume’- is far more difficult to smuggle than heroin and coke. In fact some of the adulterants are added (to heroin and coke) to disguise the smell or the ‘original look’.
Also Sands (I repeat): When imported, natural supplies are short, ‘internal’ resources are utilised – i.e. synthetic drugs. It’s /always/ been that way.
What are you going to do about that? Would you prefer people cooking up crystal meth in their kitchens to taking clean supplies of heroin? Are you going to ban all chemicals and other substances used as ingredients as well?
////I see the link you provided was not exactly written from a neutral position, so am I right to dismiss it as airily as you dismiss my sources?////
Hence why I said it gives you an ‘overview of the history’ of CA policy. You can easily check out historical facts can’t you? I /also/ said ‘look it up’. Although I admit that it’s fairly difficult to find even ‘internal’ sources still defending the repressive CA system, since /most/ people have acknowledged that it doesn’t work.
|
|
|
Post by piccione on Apr 4, 2007 21:33:22 GMT
///Maybe you need to use a bit more imagination then Piccy. Try to imagine yourself being locked up for forty years. It is a good start.///
Personally I’d have far too much to lose if I committed /any/ (planned, serious) crime Sands. My costs would far outweigh /any/ benefits. That’s the /major/ difference between me and a ruthless and greedy criminal mind-set....
////Try also to imagine being a heroin addict, which is gradually killing you and destroying your whole life. Imagine the realisation what damage it has done to your body and mind and the hell you face in trying to get back to a decent, normal life. And all because some people wanted everybody to have unlimited access to all drugs.///
I wonder how /you/ would know how a heroin addict might feel, especially in the non-existent scenario you describe. But since you seem to have so much insight tell me: How do you think a heroin addict feels within an illegal market system, where they are being criminalized for their use, have no clean supplies, are forced to commit crime and leave mainstream culture – and suffer the health problems of illegal drug taking?
(This is the rest of the first batch (I think). I’ll answer your later posts over the weekend Sands.)
|
|
|
Post by piccione on Apr 4, 2007 21:46:03 GMT
Daz ///He took hold of the feminist theory that you can give girls guns and toy soldiers whilst equally giving boys dolls and blew it into pieces although for some bizarre reason there are still people who go along with the feminist doctrine. Its Nature not Nurture.//// Well that’s what I said on the Mismatch thread. Although I also said that ‘culture’ is a powerful tool for ‘manipulating’ and overriding some, or many, biological traits, be that with a ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ outcome. Otherwise we would not have the homogenous situation and 'aspirations' we have today. And /some/ behavioral ‘gender equalities’ can indeed be /biologically/ driven behavioral ‘sex equalities’ (e.g. through hormone ‘imbalances’ or changes). Nonetheless feminism and evolutionary psychology/sociobiology never mixed well, to say the least..... /Some/ female/feminist writers at least are honest enough to admit and expose the bias: www.evoyage.com/Evolutionary%20Feminism/FeministAcctsGender.htmSee also Vandermassen’s book “Who is afraid of Charles Darwin?” As for the ‘end result’. That's probably a matter of err 'opinion'.... Here is a blog comment that holds a lot of truth for me: “The great failure of feminism is that it doesn't really tell women what to do with all that 'freedom' and 'equality'. It hasn't really created a new woman, merely women who do what men used to do, which is make enough money and have enough mobility in society to take care of themselves. Feminism hasn't changed how women actually raise children when they do, it suggests that child-rearing is just an arbitrary selection among many. The revolution is in contraception, fertility and virility drugs, but feminism doesn't adequately modify our understanding to prescribe what to do with all that.” cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2006/02/feminism_evolut_1.htmlIn fact I’d go further than that and say that feminism has /downgraded/ many ‘traditionally’ female occupations and traits (for women /and/ for men), whereas on the other hand it has maintained err /some/ female prerogatives that even feminist aren’t prepared to give up. Funny old world....
|
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Apr 5, 2007 10:41:47 GMT
////Britain however does not have any land borders with any other soft country. So it should be relatively easy to keep drugs out of the country. But then we have to respect the human rights of all the travellers to and from our country./// Do you know why approx. 60% of cannabis provided to the UK market is now ‘home grown’? 1. People were fed up with smoking adulterated cr*p. 2. Cannabis –due to its ‘volume’- is far more difficult to smuggle than heroin and coke. In fact some of the adulterants are added (to heroin and coke) to disguise the smell or the ‘original look’. Also Sands (I repeat): When imported, natural supplies are short, ‘internal’ resources are utilised – i.e. synthetic drugs. It’s /always/ been that way. What are you going to do about that? Would you prefer people cooking up crystal meth in their kitchens to taking clean supplies of heroin? Are you going to ban all chemicals and other substances used as ingredients as well? ////I see the link you provided was not exactly written from a neutral position, so am I right to dismiss it as airily as you dismiss my sources?//// Hence why I said it gives you an ‘overview of the history’ of CA policy. You can easily check out historical facts can’t you? I /also/ said ‘look it up’. Although I admit that it’s fairly difficult to find even ‘internal’ sources still defending the repressive CA system, since /most/ people have acknowledged that it doesn’t work. Do I have to repeat that the police already know about many of these cannabis growing attics? Would you not consider that doing the bleeding obvious would be a good way to start? Of course you can rabbit on to your hearts content that 'it doesn't work' but when you have authorities IGNORING what is going on it is not really surprising 'it does not work', is it? If the police never bothered about drivers speeding, it would not take much intelligence to work out that speeding would increase. I say not much but then again maybe it does. I suppose it depends on the individual.
|
|