|
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
|
+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.
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
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
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+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. Your habit of inserting emotive words into discussions in order to insult tell me that you have learned that from your friends on talkback radio or Sky News. Try not to be a parrot, it really is embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
|
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? 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 Yes the law is not going to stop EVERYONE from getting it and it never will but it DOES act as a deterrence and it stops a lot of people from getting it even if they desire it. When there is a cost to something and potential ramifications, people ALWAYS think twice and for most people that is enough to dissuade them from sourcing and using drugs. Secondly, the cost of legalizing drugs will eventually exceed many fold the current cost of law enforcement. Demands for health services will increase, demands for mental health services will increase, suicide will increase, other health related issues will increase, dependence on welfare will increase, the cost to families and the community will increase, crime will increase, assaults will increase, homicides will increase, and so on and so on. It will be a terrible can of worms that is better left unopened. No legalization is a good idea. Even the use of Marijuana, a soft gateway drug to the harder substances is known to cause Schizophrenia and other mental illness. We have enough problems without adding to them...
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ScoMo is an embarrassment lol Trying to start legislation to force companies to work in a certain manner. Joke. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xScoMo is an embarrassment lol Trying to start legislation to force companies to work in a certain manner. Joke. -PB le free market strikes again
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xScoMo is an embarrassment lol Trying to start legislation to force companies to work in a certain manner. Joke. -PB What legislation?
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xScoMo is an embarrassment lol Trying to start legislation to force companies to work in a certain manner. Joke. -PB le free market strikes again Australia is step by step becoming a Nazi state.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xScoMo is an embarrassment lol Trying to start legislation to force companies to work in a certain manner. Joke. -PB le free market strikes again Australia is step by step becoming a Nazi state. Oh Muz, chill bro. You are losing the plot and engaging in silly hyperbole and over sensationalizion. It appears that anything slightly to the right of Shorfused Marxism, is now akin to Nazism. Australia dodged a bullet at the last election bro. The quiet Australians aren't buying from the elites anymore. .
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
That's all fair enough Muz. Mr Morrison declared he was working on legal measures to outlaw the "indulgent and selfish practices" of protest groups who tried to stop major resources projects.The Prime Minister warned of an "insidious" danger to the economy if the targets grew to include gas projects, abattoirs or airlines."Now, we will take our time to get this right. We will do the homework and we're doing that right now. But we must protect our economy from this great threat," he told a resources industry meeting in Brisbane. Not many people are going to disagree with that. we have all had enough of some rent a crowd protestors gluing themselves on roads as well. Isn't this why we all voted for ScoMo to begin with?
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
The PM is actually talking about Anarchists here who are sabotaging businesses because they don’t like them such as Mining companies, or any other business like Banks or in their supply chain just because they are doing business with companies they don’t like. People’s right to protest is all well and good and necessary in a democracy but not when it places some other small businesses like cafes and restaurants in financial peril because they are selling meat dishes and vegans don’t like it or when a Dairy Farmer or farmer is held to ransom by vegan demonstrators who have entered private property to demonstrate and hinder this private family enterprise which is probably struggling to stay afloat even. We can all agree that demonstrating is fine but not when it completely shuts down a CBD or brings traffic to a stand still where people can’t go about their normal business, where couriers and Uber drivers can’t operate, and which costs business millions of dollars in losses. These activities are a public nuisance and have a financial cost on businesses, workers, and contractors and other every day people going from one pay check to the next. It also places a terrible strain on emergency vehicles like ambulances trying to get to a patient or take a patient to a Hospital Emergency Unit. A situation that can even cost lives. These anarchists even assault passers by just because they are wearing a suit. The PM is correct to look at laws to hinder such financial sabotage and skullduggery! This is why he is our PM.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Those flaming Greenies causing all these fires. Good thing Barnaby was right, those that perished clearly should have voted for the Nats. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ScoMo ringing the cops about Angus Taylor lol -PB
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThose flaming Greenies causing all these fires.Good thing Barnaby was right, those that perished clearly should have voted for the Nats. -PB The level of retardation displayed in that recent bushfire debate is symbolic of the inherent fucking idiocy displayed by the electorate that both were believed without question.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
I can't wait for the uproar when ABC and co figure out that some of those sporting clubs were gun ranges. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI can't wait for the uproar when ABC and co figure out that some of those sporting clubs were gun ranges. -PB And there it is lol -PB
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI can't wait for the uproar when ABC and co figure out that some of those sporting clubs were gun ranges. -PB I can't wait for rusty to try and spin this one.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI can't wait for the uproar when ABC and co figure out that some of those sporting clubs were gun ranges. -PB I can't wait for rusty to try and spin this one. Shooting is a sport. Then we have a debate about what's a sport and what isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Federal Liberals have pork barrelled alot of football facilites in NSW.
Good job Bridget.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI can't wait for the uproar when ABC and co figure out that some of those sporting clubs were gun ranges. -PB I can't wait for rusty to try and spin this one. Shooting is a sport. Then we have a debate about what's a sport and what isn't. Oh I know and I totally agree, but that's not how our media portray gun related stuff in this country. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI can't wait for the uproar when ABC and co figure out that some of those sporting clubs were gun ranges. -PB I can't wait for rusty to try and spin this one. Shooting is a sport. Then we have a debate about what's a sport and what isn't. Oh I know and I totally agree, but that's not how our media portray gun related stuff in this country. -PB I’m just saying how this debate can be derailed from the real issues :)
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI can't wait for the uproar when ABC and co figure out that some of those sporting clubs were gun ranges. -PB I can't wait for rusty to try and spin this one. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-1-billion-cost-of-pork-barrelling-revealed-20180117-h0judh.htmlFairfax Media analysis of seven years of pork barrelling by both Labor and Coalition governments shows. both parties shamelessly reward their own constituents and the seats in which they have the most to lose. The Coalition learned their trade from Labor, who awarded 40 per cent of $568 million in grants to marginal seats they held before they lost the 2013 election. I cant wait for sydneyfc1987 to try and spin this one
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI can't wait for the uproar when ABC and co figure out that some of those sporting clubs were gun ranges. -PB I can't wait for rusty to try and spin this one. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-1-billion-cost-of-pork-barrelling-revealed-20180117-h0judh.htmlFairfax Media analysis of seven years of pork barrelling by both Labor and Coalition governments shows. both parties shamelessly reward their own constituents and the seats in which they have the most to lose. The Coalition learned their trade from Labor, who awarded 40 per cent of $568 million in grants to marginal seats they held before they lost the 2013 election. I cant wait for sydneyfc1987 to try and spin this one 40% is not 70% and Ros Kelly lost her job last time this happened you clown. (But if it helps yes Labour are also guilty.)
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Ahhh the old "labor do it too so its not newsworthy" argument.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI can't wait for the uproar when ABC and co figure out that some of those sporting clubs were gun ranges. -PB I can't wait for rusty to try and spin this one. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-1-billion-cost-of-pork-barrelling-revealed-20180117-h0judh.htmlFairfax Media analysis of seven years of pork barrelling by both Labor and Coalition governments shows. both parties shamelessly reward their own constituents and the seats in which they have the most to lose. The Coalition learned their trade from Labor, who awarded 40 per cent of $568 million in grants to marginal seats they held before they lost the 2013 election. I cant wait for sydneyfc1987 to try and spin this one 40% is not 70% and Ros Kelly lost her job last time this happened you clown. (But if it helps yes Labour are also guilty.) The 40% only refers to funds allocated to marginal seats, whereas the 70% refers to ALL seats. As if the percentage difference mattered anyway.. If Labor are “also guilty” , then those responsible should be identified and held to account. If they got away with it scot free, then so should Bridget Mckenzie. Its going to require holistic reform across ALL parliament not just singling out MPs because they are conservative.
More fake news.
|
|
|
|