|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? So the deterrent factor of tough laws doesn't factor as a discouragement? Taking into consideration that drug money touches every single aspect of society & taking into consideration that anyone can buy anything anywhere they want I'm going to go with that the deterrence of tough laws is significantly over rated. Sorry, but not everyone has access or can get these drugs and are too scared to even try.The law is a useful form of deterrence and always has been. Legalizing just makes access and acceptance of drug addiction and the problems associated with narcotics become more prevalent. Even alcohol which is legal has a cost to society - drink driving, alcoholism, abuse, domestic violence and dependence. By making narcotics legal will mean that the costs to society from narcotics which are by far a lot more severe and serious than alcohol will become the norm. If someone desires something they can get it, your black & white philosophy of blanket criminalisation & prohibition has failed if hundreds of billions of dollars spent per year if require to enforce it. And for the 50 billionth time no one is advocating full legalisation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xhaving visited portugal a few times and relatives living there all the report shows what people see on paper and if you wish to believe its what actually occurs there day to day your dreaming....... We have 2 nephews that are uselessly dependent on coke - they can get it anywhere anytime like everywhere in the world, legal or not its not a good thing to those families involved....you live with your own thieving from you, disappearing for days, having thugs/dealers turn up at your door demanding money owed and threatening to take something of value ie your car or jewelry but worse threaten your family if not getting paid. Would having this substances legal change this behavior ? I don't claim to have any answers but legalising social drugs I don't see will decrease the usage but cause more harm imo, harm that people will chase up the next best illegal substance that most likely will be worse for their well being as ice and other concoctions have damaged many to date. I don't know what it is about these people drawn to such things but a % of humans just can't help being drawn to whats no good for them. By all means we must help them but its a endless revolving door that I don't think anything will change users/drug cartels legalising whatever it will just shift the sand, reduce movement on one or 2 things but increase something else etcetcetc........ Sorry to hear about your nephews. This is an awful situation and I hope your family can help them get out of this cycle of dependency. I agree that legqlization will just make these problems worse and more prevalent.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? So the deterrent factor of tough laws doesn't factor as a discouragement? Taking into consideration that drug money touches every single aspect of society & taking into consideration that anyone can buy anything anywhere they want I'm going to go with that the deterrence of tough laws is significantly over rated. Sorry, but not everyone has access or can get these drugs and are too scared to even try. The law is a useful form of deterrence and always has been. Legalizing just makes access and acceptance of drug addiction and the problems associated with narcotics become more prevalent. Even alcohol which is legal has a cost to society - drink driving, alcoholism, abuse, domestic violence and dependence. By making narcotics legal will mean that the costs to society from narcotics which are by far a lot more severe and serious than alcohol will become the norm.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? So the deterrent factor of tough laws doesn't factor as a discouragement? You're a bloody stereotypical news corp reader. Noone and i mean no one can be this stupid I don't read News Corp. I don't watch TV and I don't read papers. Boy are you a bit simple. Says the guy who basically rehashes the same old clichès. You're views are not your own at all . What cliches? You've lost me I'm afraid. I'm not into cliches, just common sense and facts.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI'll ask the climate warriors on here again my question regarding the response to climate change. Lets assume that climate change is real and lets assume that it is also an existential threat to humanity. If government and industry was to determine that the quickest and most economical way to solve the climate crisis was through carbon capture technology, would you accept these findings, or would you still campaign for renewable? I'm interested to hear your response on both an individual basis, and also how you think the broader environmental lobby would respond? Industry = scientists? -PB Sure why not
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'll ask the climate warriors on here again my question regarding the response to climate change. Lets assume that climate change is real and lets assume that it is also an existential threat to humanity. If government and industry was to determine that the quickest and most economical way to solve the climate crisis was through carbon capture technology, would you accept these findings, or would you still campaign for renewable? I'm interested to hear your response on both an individual basis, and also how you think the broader environmental lobby would respond? Industry = scientists? -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I'll ask the climate warriors on here again my question regarding the response to climate change. Lets assume that climate change is real and lets assume that it is also an existential threat to humanity. If government and industry was to determine that the quickest and most economical way to solve the climate crisis was through carbon capture technology, would you accept these findings, or would you still campaign for renewable? I'm interested to hear your response on both an individual basis, and also how you think the broader environmental lobby would respond?
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? Not in a legal or policy sense. Do you really think legalising drugs will stop people wanting to get high and experiencing a oneness with the earth? You're taking the piss right? A legal or policy sense which I again repeat ad nauseum has completely failed in whatever it set out to achieve. You seem to be stuck on the logic that my opposing point of view & others means that we're advocating 100 percent decriminalisation. Legalising or criminalising it people will always want to alter their consciousness however the literal hundreds of billions of dollars on law enforcement has done sweet fuck all to stem that desire. It's just not true, this is a popular falsehood perpetuated by media outlets and pro drug advocates and is not substantiated in academic literature. Oh so now we have to take note of academic literature? But not the literature on climate debates? K. -PB Sure we must acknowledge academic literature however we should also be suspicious as human beings cant always separate their findings from their ideological longings. But sure, if you can find me a study that proves that a totally lawless society is the best way to fight crime, go nuts. Who is advocating for a totally lawless society lol? You're skipping a bit here russ. -PB But if you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. If you make everything legal then crime will go away. Right? But seriously, do you think that drugs should be decriminalised, and if so to what extent? Should only end user consumption be decriminalised, or do you think that law enforcement agencies should refrain from allocating significant expenditure and resources to continuing the war on drugs against producers, importers, exporters , dealers and criminal cartels? That's not going to happen. Too many vested interests in government for prohibition to continue. Paranoia is the lowest form of debate.
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? Not in a legal or policy sense. Do you really think legalising drugs will stop people wanting to get high and experiencing a oneness with the earth? You're taking the piss right? A legal or policy sense which I again repeat ad nauseum has completely failed in whatever it set out to achieve. You seem to be stuck on the logic that my opposing point of view & others means that we're advocating 100 percent decriminalisation. Legalising or criminalising it people will always want to alter their consciousness however the literal hundreds of billions of dollars on law enforcement has done sweet fuck all to stem that desire. It's just not true, this is a popular falsehood perpetuated by media outlets and pro drug advocates and is not substantiated in academic literature. Oh so now we have to take note of academic literature? But not the literature on climate debates? K. -PB Sure we must acknowledge academic literature however we should also be suspicious as human beings cant always separate their findings from their ideological longings. But sure, if you can find me a study that proves that a totally lawless society is the best way to fight crime, go nuts. Who is advocating for a totally lawless society lol? You're skipping a bit here russ. -PB But if you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. If you make everything legal then crime will go away. Right? But seriously, do you think that drugs should be decriminalised, and if so to what extent? Should only end user consumption be decriminalised, or do you think that law enforcement agencies should refrain from allocating significant expenditure and resources to continuing the war on drugs against producers, importers, exporters , dealers and criminal cartels? That's not going to happen. Too many vested interests in government for prohibition to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
having visited portugal a few times and relatives living there all the report shows what people see on paper and if you wish to believe its what actually occurs there day to day your dreaming....... We have 2 nephews that are uselessly dependent on coke - they can get it anywhere anytime like everywhere in the world, legal or not its not a good thing to those families involved....you live with your own thieving from you, disappearing for days, having thugs/dealers turn up at your door demanding money owed and threatening to take something of value ie your car or jewelry but worse threaten your family if not getting paid. Would having this substances legal change this behavior ? I don't claim to have any answers but legalising social drugs I don't see will decrease the usage but cause more harm imo, harm that people will chase up the next best illegal substance that most likely will be worse for their well being as ice and other concoctions have damaged many to date. I don't know what it is about these people drawn to such things but a % of humans just can't help being drawn to whats no good for them. By all means we must help them but its a endless revolving door that I don't think anything will change users/drug cartels legalising whatever it will just shift the sand, reduce movement on one or 2 things but increase something else etcetcetc........
Love Football
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? Not in a legal or policy sense. Do you really think legalising drugs will stop people wanting to get high and experiencing a oneness with the earth? You're taking the piss right? A legal or policy sense which I again repeat ad nauseum has completely failed in whatever it set out to achieve. You seem to be stuck on the logic that my opposing point of view & others means that we're advocating 100 percent decriminalisation. Legalising or criminalising it people will always want to alter their consciousness however the literal hundreds of billions of dollars on law enforcement has done sweet fuck all to stem that desire. It's just not true, this is a popular falsehood perpetuated by media outlets and pro drug advocates and is not substantiated in academic literature. Oh so now we have to take note of academic literature? But not the literature on climate debates? K. -PB Sure we must acknowledge academic literature however we should also be suspicious as human beings cant always separate their findings from their ideological longings. But sure, if you can find me a study that proves that a totally lawless society is the best way to fight crime, go nuts. Who is advocating for a totally lawless society lol? You're skipping a bit here russ. -PB But if you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. If you make everything legal then crime will go away. Right? But seriously, do you think that drugs should be decriminalised, and if so to what extent? Should only end user consumption be decriminalised, or do you think that law enforcement agencies should refrain from allocating significant expenditure and resources to continuing the war on drugs against producers, importers, exporters , dealers and criminal cartels?
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? Not in a legal or policy sense. Do you really think legalising drugs will stop people wanting to get high and experiencing a oneness with the earth? You're taking the piss right? A legal or policy sense which I again repeat ad nauseum has completely failed in whatever it set out to achieve. You seem to be stuck on the logic that my opposing point of view & others means that we're advocating 100 percent decriminalisation. Legalising or criminalising it people will always want to alter their consciousness however the literal hundreds of billions of dollars on law enforcement has done sweet fuck all to stem that desire. It's just not true, this is a popular falsehood perpetuated by media outlets and pro drug advocates and is not substantiated in academic literature. Oh so now we have to take note of academic literature? But not the literature on climate debates? K. -PB Sure we must acknowledge academic literature however we should also be suspicious as human beings cant always separate their findings from their ideological longings. But sure, if you can find me a study that proves that a totally lawless society is the best way to fight crime, go nuts. Who is advocating for a totally lawless society lol? You're skipping a bit here russ. -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? Not in a legal or policy sense. Do you really think legalising drugs will stop people wanting to get high and experiencing a oneness with the earth? You're taking the piss right? A legal or policy sense which I again repeat ad nauseum has completely failed in whatever it set out to achieve. You seem to be stuck on the logic that my opposing point of view & others means that we're advocating 100 percent decriminalisation. Legalising or criminalising it people will always want to alter their consciousness however the literal hundreds of billions of dollars on law enforcement has done sweet fuck all to stem that desire. It's just not true, this is a popular falsehood perpetuated by media outlets and pro drug advocates and is not substantiated in academic literature. Oh so now we have to take note of academic literature? But not the literature on climate debates? K. -PB Sure we must acknowledge academic literature however we should also be suspicious as human beings cant always separate their findings from their ideological longings. But sure, if you can find me a study that proves that a totally lawless society is the best way to fight crime, go nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? Not in a legal or policy sense. Do you really think legalising drugs will stop people wanting to get high and experiencing a oneness with the earth? You're taking the piss right? A legal or policy sense which I again repeat ad nauseum has completely failed in whatever it set out to achieve. You seem to be stuck on the logic that my opposing point of view & others means that we're advocating 100 percent decriminalisation. Legalising or criminalising it people will always want to alter their consciousness however the literal hundreds of billions of dollars on law enforcement has done sweet fuck all to stem that desire. It's just not true, this is a popular falsehood perpetuated by media outlets and pro drug advocates and is not substantiated in academic literature. Oh so now we have to take note of academic literature? But not the literature on climate debates? K. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xA few points on this; - drug use is still illegal in Portugal (deterrent) - drug use is still considered bad in Portugal. If you get caught you get arrested (deterrent) - carry more than a few grams of drugs can land you can in prison (deterrent) - cultivating and supply of any quantity can land you in prison (deterrent) - the supply of drugs is restricted based on the above factors, which can positively be attributed to the “war on drugs” - there are countries in Europe that treat consumption as a criminal issue and have lower drug prevalence than Portugal, why not use them as case studies? - the paradigm shift from criminality to treatment explains the reduction in overdose, deaths and AIDS, the decriminalisation of end users is the means not the end When you look at the big picture the drug policy of Portugal is not as radical as it seems, it is still based on a model of criminality and deterrence, with some tolerance for end users, especially addicts, and entrenched integration with the health system to promote treatment. Sure there are things that can be learnt from the Portugal model, however given that it still takes overwhelmingly a “war on drugs” approach, sucking up significant public and police resources, doesn’t this support the narrative that criminality and deterrence are vital tools to controlling and limiting overall prevalence?
Yeh not only that but Portugal is a very spiritual and Catholic country. I thought you said spiritual people don't need to use drugs?
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? Not in a legal or policy sense. Do you really think legalising drugs will stop people wanting to get high and experiencing a oneness with the earth? You're taking the piss right? A legal or policy sense which I again repeat ad nauseum has completely failed in whatever it set out to achieve. You seem to be stuck on the logic that my opposing point of view & others means that we're advocating 100 percent decriminalisation. Legalising or criminalising it people will always want to alter their consciousness however the literal hundreds of billions of dollars on law enforcement has done sweet fuck all to stem that desire. It's just not true, this is a popular falsehood perpetuated by media outlets and pro drug advocates and is not substantiated in academic literature. The ultimate goal of police enforcement is to stop all drugs, however at this point as that is not a realistic proposition, the success of the current approach can only be measured in terms of its ability to limit the supply and consumption relative to if we were to do nothing. Since there is not country that completely legalise the production, distribution and consumption of drugs, you can't claim that law enforcement has done "fuck all". Even if you point to the Portugal example, as many pro drug advocates do, you can see that their policies are heavily based around criminalising the acts of production, distribution and possession of drugs, with some tolerance for small amounts, as is the case in Australian and most western countries.
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? Not in a legal or policy sense. Do you really think legalising drugs will stop people wanting to get high and experiencing a oneness with the earth? You're taking the piss right? A legal or policy sense which I again repeat ad nauseum has completely failed in whatever it set out to achieve. You seem to be stuck on the logic that my opposing point of view & others means that we're advocating 100 percent decriminalisation. Legalising or criminalising it people will always want to alter their consciousness however the literal hundreds of billions of dollars on law enforcement has done sweet fuck all to stem that desire. Unlike the absolute & black & white point of view that abolitionists spout like religious doctrine perhaps step back & see that there has to be another way to deal with this. I don't have the answers & I doubt you do either.
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? So the deterrent factor of tough laws doesn't factor as a discouragement? Taking into consideration that drug money touches every single aspect of society & taking into consideration that anyone can buy anything anywhere they want I'm going to go with that the deterrence of tough laws is significantly over rated.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? So the deterrent factor of tough laws doesn't factor as a discouragement? You're a bloody stereotypical news corp reader. Noone and i mean no one can be this stupid I don't read News Corp. I don't watch TV and I don't read papers. Boy are you a bit simple. Says the guy who basically rehashes the same old clichès. You're views are not your own at all .
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I’ve been reading more interesting stuff about Portugal. Apparently their decriminalised treatment based approach was the de facto policy well before was codified in 2001, and an American drug academic stated that they think the downturn in heroin related deaths, diseases etc could be explained by the cyclical nature of drug epidemics. Also worth noting that Czech Republic decriminalises personal use and yet they have the highest rate of cannabis prevalence in Europe.
Not discounting the positives of the Portugal model, I think a treatment based approach is the right one, however it needs a fair whack of justice, police intervention and criminal deterrence as well, to ensure that things don’t get out of control.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xA few points on this; - drug use is still illegal in Portugal (deterrent) - drug use is still considered bad in Portugal. If you get caught you get arrested (deterrent) - carry more than a few grams of drugs can land you can in prison (deterrent) - cultivating and supply of any quantity can land you in prison (deterrent) - the supply of drugs is restricted based on the above factors, which can positively be attributed to the “war on drugs” - there are countries in Europe that treat consumption as a criminal issue and have lower drug prevalence than Portugal, why not use them as case studies? - the paradigm shift from criminality to treatment explains the reduction in overdose, deaths and AIDS, the decriminalisation of end users is the means not the end When you look at the big picture the drug policy of Portugal is not as radical as it seems, it is still based on a model of criminality and deterrence, with some tolerance for end users, especially addicts, and entrenched integration with the health system to promote treatment. Sure there are things that can be learnt from the Portugal model, however given that it still takes overwhelmingly a “war on drugs” approach, sucking up significant public and police resources, doesn’t this support the narrative that criminality and deterrence are vital tools to controlling and limiting overall prevalence?
Yeh not only that but Portugal is a very spiritual and Catholic country. Why doesn't that feature as a critical element in the case study?
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x7 posts in a row, old mate got triggered. +x+xWhy do people take drugs? Why do people wish to alter their consciousness somewhat? Why do people escape from themselves every day in a myriad of ways? People have been doing this sort of thing for about 5,000 years. There is no answer however it's obvious that blanket prohibition has been a complete & utter failure. We are now at the point that without the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of drug money which touches every single financial aspect of all societies & cultures that world's economy would collapse. Because they don't have support and do not lead lives in tune with the spiritual world. There is a reason why Drug and Alcohol abuse is on the rise and it's usually because today's society is a materialistic and non spiritual world which has zero focus on the mental well being of the individual. Science has proven that part of our brains is for spirituality. Today, it's the most neglected body part so people seek a replacement. Ironically enough, experimenting with psychedelics made me a more spiritual and compassionate person. You appreciate the oneness and contentedness in everything. Of course it sounds like utter nonsense if you've never tried it yourself, but I suggest you give it a go Aikhme. You'd be less of a cvnt of a human being. I haven't & probably won't being a family man & all that now however it's interesting that the spiritual imperatives come in many guises. The desire to go beyond the perception of the every day mind is exactly what religion is. Talking to God, Allah, Buddha & the thousands of Gods & Goddess that mankind has created in order to gain a perspective of life, the universe & our own place in it is something that should be considered when we alter our conscience in whatever way that people choose to. What is the desire to get "high" but a similar expression of going beyond the realm of consciousness pretty much exactly the same as a the ancient & modern rituals of religion. Both things can be taken to extremes & both things can be extremely destructive. It is true that spiritual people are calmer, have less stress, are more stoic, more humble, Lol to this. You are they most arrogant, condescending lunatic on the forum. Really! You are so flippant and with a closed mind. So, people who aren't flippant and are spiritual are the arrogant ones now. Wowee.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? So the deterrent factor of tough laws doesn't factor as a discouragement? You're a bloody stereotypical news corp reader. Noone and i mean no one can be this stupid I don't read News Corp. I don't watch TV and I don't read papers. Boy are you a bit simple.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xA few points on this; - drug use is still illegal in Portugal (deterrent) - drug use is still considered bad in Portugal. If you get caught you get arrested (deterrent) - carry more than a few grams of drugs can land you can in prison (deterrent) - cultivating and supply of any quantity can land you in prison (deterrent) - the supply of drugs is restricted based on the above factors, which can positively be attributed to the “war on drugs” - there are countries in Europe that treat consumption as a criminal issue and have lower drug prevalence than Portugal, why not use them as case studies? - the paradigm shift from criminality to treatment explains the reduction in overdose, deaths and AIDS, the decriminalisation of end users is the means not the end When you look at the big picture the drug policy of Portugal is not as radical as it seems, it is still based on a model of criminality and deterrence, with some tolerance for end users, especially addicts, and entrenched integration with the health system to promote treatment. Sure there are things that can be learnt from the Portugal model, however given that it still takes overwhelmingly a “war on drugs” approach, sucking up significant public and police resources, doesn’t this support the narrative that criminality and deterrence are vital tools to controlling and limiting overall prevalence?
Drug use is only illegal if intent to sell. Its treated as a health issue and not a criminal issue It’s still illegal. Punishment is civil rather than criminal, but it is still illegal and you get arrested. Again if you a commercial amount and intend to sell its punishable. Anything else its treated as a health issue . Having friends who live in Portugal is fun. You learn something new when you ask Again it’s illegal and if you get caught you get arrested, you can cop a fine or even community service. Having access to information is fun. You learn something new when you read.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xA few points on this; - drug use is still illegal in Portugal (deterrent) - drug use is still considered bad in Portugal. If you get caught you get arrested (deterrent) - carry more than a few grams of drugs can land you can in prison (deterrent) - cultivating and supply of any quantity can land you in prison (deterrent) - the supply of drugs is restricted based on the above factors, which can positively be attributed to the “war on drugs” - there are countries in Europe that treat consumption as a criminal issue and have lower drug prevalence than Portugal, why not use them as case studies? - the paradigm shift from criminality to treatment explains the reduction in overdose, deaths and AIDS, the decriminalisation of end users is the means not the end When you look at the big picture the drug policy of Portugal is not as radical as it seems, it is still based on a model of criminality and deterrence, with some tolerance for end users, especially addicts, and entrenched integration with the health system to promote treatment. Sure there are things that can be learnt from the Portugal model, however given that it still takes overwhelmingly a “war on drugs” approach, sucking up significant public and police resources, doesn’t this support the narrative that criminality and deterrence are vital tools to controlling and limiting overall prevalence?
Drug use is only illegal if intent to sell. Its treated as a health issue and not a criminal issue It’s still illegal. Punishment is civil rather than criminal, but it is still illegal and you get arrested. Again if you a commercial amount and intend to sell its punishable. Anything else its treated as a health issue . Having friends who live in Portugal is fun. You learn something new when you ask
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSpeaking of the global warming hoax, why is the left actually ignoring the real issue? Over population! Maybe legalizing drugs is a covert plan to kill off billions of people to reduce over population....Mmmm...never though of that before. All good, I'm sure God will send another flood to wipe us clean. -PB Interesting. You need to understand what the main purpose of life is. It is to prepare your spirit for what comes after. We are all in the halfway house. During the old times, Herod ordered the murder of all children aged 2 and under because he was told by a prophet that the Messiah had just been born. The Messiah being the one true King Jesus Christ. So he wanted to kill him to protect his throne. According to scripture 10000 + babies were mass murdered by Herod. Where was God? Why didn't he stop it is YOUR argument. Don't you worry. God was around and he did witness. Those babies achieved their objective. They dies to this world only. They died in His name and therefore, they can be viewed as winning the grand prize or lotto. Spirituality is a complex thing. People are not abandoned to just die. Dieing is just a necessity for fallen man to pass through the prism to their next existence and whatever this entails. I have you debating yourself, I can see myself out now. -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xA few points on this; - drug use is still illegal in Portugal (deterrent) - drug use is still considered bad in Portugal. If you get caught you get arrested (deterrent) - carry more than a few grams of drugs can land you can in prison (deterrent) - cultivating and supply of any quantity can land you in prison (deterrent) - the supply of drugs is restricted based on the above factors, which can positively be attributed to the “war on drugs” - there are countries in Europe that treat consumption as a criminal issue and have lower drug prevalence than Portugal, why not use them as case studies? - the paradigm shift from criminality to treatment explains the reduction in overdose, deaths and AIDS, the decriminalisation of end users is the means not the end When you look at the big picture the drug policy of Portugal is not as radical as it seems, it is still based on a model of criminality and deterrence, with some tolerance for end users, especially addicts, and entrenched integration with the health system to promote treatment. Sure there are things that can be learnt from the Portugal model, however given that it still takes overwhelmingly a “war on drugs” approach, sucking up significant public and police resources, doesn’t this support the narrative that criminality and deterrence are vital tools to controlling and limiting overall prevalence?
Drug use is only illegal if intent to sell. Its treated as a health issue and not a criminal issue It’s still illegal. Punishment is civil rather than criminal, but it is still illegal and you get arrested.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+xA few points on this; - drug use is still illegal in Portugal (deterrent) - drug use is still considered bad in Portugal. If you get caught you get arrested (deterrent) - carry more than a few grams of drugs can land you can in prison (deterrent) - cultivating and supply of any quantity can land you in prison (deterrent) - the supply of drugs is restricted based on the above factors, which can positively be attributed to the “war on drugs” - there are countries in Europe that treat consumption as a criminal issue and have lower drug prevalence than Portugal, why not use them as case studies? - the paradigm shift from criminality to treatment explains the reduction in overdose, deaths and AIDS, the decriminalisation of end users is the means not the end When you look at the big picture the drug policy of Portugal is not as radical as it seems, it is still based on a model of criminality and deterrence, with some tolerance for end users, especially addicts, and entrenched integration with the health system to promote treatment. Sure there are things that can be learnt from the Portugal model, however given that it still takes overwhelmingly a “war on drugs” approach, sucking up significant public and police resources, doesn’t this support the narrative that criminality and deterrence are vital tools to controlling and limiting overall prevalence?
Drug use is only illegal if intent to sell. Its treated as a health issue and not a criminal issue
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
A few points on this; - drug use is still illegal in Portugal (deterrent) - drug use is still considered bad in Portugal. If you get caught you get arrested (deterrent) - carry more than a few grams of drugs can land you can in prison (deterrent) - cultivating and supply of any quantity can land you in prison (deterrent) - the supply of drugs is restricted based on the above factors, which can positively be attributed to the “war on drugs” - there are countries in Europe that treat consumption as a criminal issue and have lower drug prevalence than Portugal, why not use them as case studies? - the paradigm shift from criminality to treatment explains the reduction in overdose, deaths and AIDS, the decriminalisation of end users is the means not the end When you look at the big picture the drug policy of Portugal is not as radical as it seems, it is still based on a model of criminality and deterrence, with some tolerance for end users, especially addicts, and entrenched integration with the health system to promote treatment. Sure there are things that can be learnt from the Portugal model, however given that it still takes overwhelmingly a “war on drugs” approach, sucking up significant public and police resources, doesn’t this support the narrative that criminality and deterrence are vital tools to controlling and limiting overall prevalence?
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIllegal or legal, people will still take them. The threat of jail time and death is clearly not persuading people. -PB So you propose to legalize it and make it easier for a lot more people to take them? It clearly does dissuade people. Just because you are saying people are still taking drugs is no indication in the slightest that tough laws don't act as a dissinsentive to the majority of people because it does. If you make something forbidden, people will want it even more. This is the kind of thing they say in underground fight clubs, and in the safe spaces of liberal universities. It's not actually a real argument. Prohibition has failed so yes it can be considered an actual argument. Golly, are people this stupid? "dear citizens, we have decided to decriminalise drugs, rape and murder because if you make something forbidden people want it more" No sane person is condoning 100% decriminalisation & nor am I. So the allure of 'forbidden fruit' doesn't factor in your understanding of human nature? So the deterrent factor of tough laws doesn't factor as a discouragement? You're a bloody stereotypical news corp reader. Noone and i mean no one can be this stupid No he's worse imo. Tele readers are mostly just close minded. Old mate is the type of person who would have encouraged people to burn Galileo at the sake. Alex Jones comes to mind as well.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|