you want to condone drug use then crack on, you clearly are not aware of the implications of drug supply.
I neither condone nor condemn it - but I am pragmatic and grown-up about the fact that our punitive approach simply hasn't worked, and never will.
I would address the illegality and issues caused by the supply being entirely owned and controlled by criminals, by decriminalising drugs and treating problem use and addiction as a medical issue as opposed to a criminal one; plenty of strong evidence from Portugal to suggest that it works.
MGarbutt1986 wrote:
you want to condone drug use then crack on, you clearly are not aware of the implications of drug supply.
I neither condone nor condemn it - but I am pragmatic and grown-up about the fact that our punitive approach simply hasn't worked, and never will.
I would address the illegality and issues caused by the supply being entirely owned and controlled by criminals, by decriminalising drugs and treating problem use and addiction as a medical issue as opposed to a criminal one; plenty of strong evidence from Portugal to suggest that it works.
I neither condone nor condemn it - but I am pragmatic and grown-up about the fact that our punitive approach simply hasn't worked, and never will.
I would address the illegality and issues caused by the supply being entirely owned and controlled by criminals, by decriminalising drugs and treating problem use and addiction as a medical issue as opposed to a criminal one; plenty of strong evidence from Portugal to suggest that it works.
it is criminal, simple. lock the users up, no users, no market. Society has become far too soft, which is why the country is going down the drain.
bren2k wrote:
I neither condone nor condemn it - but I am pragmatic and grown-up about the fact that our punitive approach simply hasn't worked, and never will.
I would address the illegality and issues caused by the supply being entirely owned and controlled by criminals, by decriminalising drugs and treating problem use and addiction as a medical issue as opposed to a criminal one; plenty of strong evidence from Portugal to suggest that it works.
it is criminal, simple. lock the users up, no users, no market. Society has become far too soft, which is why the country is going down the drain.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
it is criminal, simple. lock the users up, no users, no market. Society has become far too soft, which is why the country is going down the drain.
Or end the criminality by decriminalising and regulating the market, cutting off funding to mafias and warlords, and reducing our prison population and the costs associated with that.
MGarbutt1986 wrote:
THEY ARE ILLEGAL, simple, should we decriminalise drink driving?
THERE ARE NO SUCH THING AS RECREATIONAL DRUGS.
Should we criminalise alcohol though? Do you think there is such a thing as SOCIAL DRINKING.
it is criminal, simple. lock the users up, no users, no market. Society has become far too soft, which is why the country is going down the drain.
You are the Daily Mail and I claim my £5.
I don’t think you’re getting it. There’s a reason why drink driving is illegal. Because it can affect other people. A drink driver can crash into other people.
Someone snorting a particular substance doesn’t affect anybody else anymore than alcohol or cigarettes do. The effects you cite such as fuelling other crimes through the funding of OC or terrorism can be entirely avoided by decriminalising and regulating it. It also makes it safer for everyone involved. In the same way as decriminalising alcohol or prostitution has made those industries far safer for everybody involved in areas where that has happened.
Either way you can’t lock up millions of people so it’s a moot point.
In terms of sport and WADA bans, it’s not a moral reason or because it’s illegal that athletes receive bans. It’s because most illegal drugs also contain performance enhancing elements.
And let’s not pretend that the RFU is taking the approach they are for any reason other than avoiding negative publicity with big bans for some of its players. They are still haunted from the media furore around the Dallaglio affair and do not want a repeat of it.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
words fail me, the idiots have taken over the asylum, be calling for "accidental rape" next.
THE LAW IS THE LAW, shoot the feckers as far as I am concerned.
But surely the concept that some laws are not fair, good or sensible and so should be changed, isn’t so hard to grasp.
We’ve done it loads of times. There are so many examples, I barely know where to start... how about the Witchcraft Act of 1542? Or our civil sodomy laws before the decriminalisation of homosexuality? Going in the other direction, ‘we’ once invaded China to force them to allow us to sell opium there; was that okay because we didn’t have any meaningful drug laws until 1916? Did all the millions of people in the US who ignored the Volstead Act of 1919 similarly deserve to be shot?
You don’t think there are any bad laws?! You must be on a wind-up!
But surely the concept that some laws are not fair, good or sensible and so should be changed, isn’t so hard to grasp.
We’ve done it loads of times. There are so many examples, I barely know where to start... how about the Witchcraft Act of 1542? Or our civil sodomy laws before the decriminalisation of homosexuality? Going in the other direction, ‘we’ once invaded China to force them to allow us to sell opium there; was that okay because we didn’t have any meaningful drug laws until 1916? Did all the millions of people in the US who ignored the Volstead Act of 1919 similarly deserve to be shot?
You don’t think there are any bad laws?! You must be on a wind-up!
Edit - Slavery, for feck’s sake.
If you want to condone criminality that funds terrorism and fuels prostiution, off you go. I suppose copied Dvd's are OK too?
It is time people rook responsibility for society, and tried to improve it. But kids and old people seem incapable of doing so. let us just all let society to collapse, it'll be reet.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
If you want to condone criminality that funds terrorism and fuels prostiution, off you go. I suppose copied Dvd's are OK too?
It is time people rook responsibility for society, and tried to improve it. But kids and old people seem incapable of doing so. let us just all let society to collapse, it'll be reet.
MY country is being messed up by liberals.
My position is that some laws are beneficial and some are not and that I’m willing to take a different view depending on the specific law and the implications of changing it - so reductio ad absurdum doesn’t apply. You appear to be saying that all laws (i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and limit it to modern democratic states hereafter) are inherently good - which frees us to ridicule your position by extrapolation.
The Volstead Act gave organised crime in the US a massive boost, and was a huge factor in the evolution of the American Mafia. Prohibition fuelled criminality and enriched criminals, and the ‘war’ against drugs has done much the same.
MY world is being messed up by idiots, if it is any consolation.