View Full Version : War on drugs
A subject I reckon needs more discussion. Do you support the governments current policy of prohibition on most recreational drugs?
IMO we need to take a much more pragmatic stance on the issue of drugs in our society. God knows all that prohibition has done is make the dealers wealthy and place an unfair load upon the health care system and constabulary. And the users don't seem to have had any problems obtaining the illegal substances either so you could argue the whole approach is failing.
But I guess you could also say if it weren't for prohibition the drug "problem" would be much worse.
Thoughts anyone:confused:
Ban the drugs and treat dealing in exactly the same way as multiple attempted murder. Jail and throw the key away.
Santos L Helper
18 Apr 2002, 11:57
Originally posted by Frodo
Ban the drugs and treat dealing in exactly the same way as multiple attempted murder. Jail and throw the key away.
I hope this applies to cigarette company CEO's too.
I'd like to hear your experience on this subject Frodo, as this is one area I can speak from a research point of view, and from personal experience.......where does your knowledge on the subject come from?
clucas91
18 Apr 2002, 16:36
I believe that dealing drugs is in the same category as attempted murder, these dealers are feeding of the addictions/suffering that their 'customers' experience. Dealers should be locked up for life, if you do that, addicts/recreational users, will fade away. Tougher penalties will see a decrease, but more police are needed to catch dealers or potential dealers.
gPhonque
18 Apr 2002, 17:56
Originally posted by clucas91
I believe that dealing drugs is in the same category as attempted murder, these dealers are feeding of the addictions/suffering that their 'customers' experience. Dealers should be locked up for life, if you do that, addicts/recreational users, will fade away. Tougher penalties will see a decrease, but more police are needed to catch dealers or potential dealers.
Does that include alcohol and tobacco?
If not - why?
clucas91
18 Apr 2002, 18:00
Tobacco could be included. I dont believe that Tobacco companies should be liable for Cancer sufferers how started smoking BEFORE the dangers were made known, however Alcohol just needs more control. While both of these are 'drugs' in essence, they are socially accepted drugs.
I have heard this topic so many times before but I will have my say.
Drugs are here to stay whether we like it or not. Besides, our most popular recreational drug is legal for over 18s.
I don't think long jail sentences, education campaigns or more cops will make all that much of a difference. Where there is a demand there will be suppliers, and at the moment most people have little, if any, problems obtaining most types of recreational drugs.
I believe that with marijuana (In Qld anyway) the answer is simple.
Decrimilalise the possession and growing of small quantities.
I'm not condoning legalisation but certainly take the criminal element out of it. Reasons.
1. Many ordinary people smoke pot (myself not included) and should not be classified as criminals.
2. People should be able to get away with growing small quantities with only small or no fines if caught. Surely that is better than them giving money to the big wigs and plantation owners. Have you ever seen some of these plantations? I used to have to do fieldwork in remote areas, during which I managed to stumble across the odd plantation or two. But what scares the hell out of me is that the some of the plantations out there are well defended against potential raiders. I'm talking as extreme - shotgun traps, spikes and other life threatening or maiming devices. God help the poor unsuspecting hiker, fisherman or poor employ like me if they ever stumble across one of these.
I'm %@# scared that one day I'm going stumble across such a trap and get blasted.
gPhonque
18 Apr 2002, 18:36
Originally posted by clucas91
Tobacco could be included. I dont believe that Tobacco companies should be liable for Cancer sufferers how started smoking BEFORE the dangers were made known, however Alcohol just needs more control. While both of these are 'drugs' in essence, they are socially accepted drugs.
"socially accepted" ????
So if i want to smoke a joint and play a video game, or write a song, or clean the kitchen, it's not "socially acceptable" ?
Are you saying marijuana causes more trouble than alcohol?
And by "trouble", i mean addicts and incidents (car accidents, violence, sexual assault etc) involving the drug.
gPhonque
18 Apr 2002, 18:55
Originally posted by chicken minute
I'm not about to wade into any debate on which drugs should be legal/tolerated. And I might also point out that the below is not my opiion but merely something I'd been told.
One interesting solution I heard was to make possesion and use of illegal drugs an automatic capital punishment.
Sounds drastic? well it is. But if you follow the logic. A couple of druggies get done and summarily executed. The effect would be that no-one, not even hardened addicts would risk automatic death sentence. So no-one wants drugs, so the drug barons would disappear through simple economic rationale. Drug-related crime would cease. Feel sorry for the druggies executed?? Yep, but what about all the druggies who won't OD as a result? It's also a very cheap solution.
And what exactly does that achieve?
Also, i object to you labelling me a "druggie" because i enjoy the occasional spliff.
Do you drink alcohol?
Off with your head!
I'll answer a few questions at once.
Santos, I have been involved with three drug caused deaths. One was the son of a good friend. All three started on marijuana and escalated. The devestation in the families was heart rendering.
Alcohol in moderation is good for health ( eg 2 glasses red wine per day). Excessive alcohol is dangerous but policing it is subjective. Even drink driving laws are a joke as 0.05 to a 240kg regular drinker is hugeley different in effect than 0.05 to a 55kg young lady celebrating her 18th birthday and first drinks (I know it's not a realistic example but the point is there)
Cigarettes should be made illegal.
Poker Machines should be banned.
Seriously, just how dangerous our our popular recreational drugs (heroin excluded)? Can anyone elaborate?
I heard recently Alan Jones (ex F1 racer not redneck) speak about formula one during the 1970's. He stated that about 1 in every 7 drivers that entered F1 ended up getting killed. But they knew the risks and were prepared to take them.
The point I am making is that an element of risk exists in many aspects of our lifes, and so long as an individual is mature enough to be aware of such risks (providing the risk is to the them only) then surely the decision should be left to them.
I think that rather discourage people to use them (which is failing miserably) we make more people aware of the potential dangers. It may not reduce drug taking surely it will minimise the risk of abuse.
Also, lets not forget that not everyone wants to live a life wrapped in cotton wool. Some people like to take risks for thier thrills and as long as they are aware of the risks then it is fine with me. Whether that be climbing Mt Everest, smoking, F1 racing or taking the odd fantasy pill.
Believe me - I am not pro recreational drugs, I just don't want to live in a society where draconian laws override individual choice.
Santos L Helper
19 Apr 2002, 00:43
Frodo, I sympathise and empathise with your losses through drug misuse.
Chicken Minute and Clucas, do you think capitol punishment for murder stopped people getting killed? The obvious answer is NO. Capitol punishment will not deter people from experimenting with illicit drugs, just as it didn't lower the homicide rate.
Now, some facts for you hardliners. 97% of drug related deaths are form Alcohol and Tobacco. That leaves 3% for illicit and prescription (benzodiazepines) drugs. So if we are going to save our society from the real evils of drugs shouldn't we concentrate on the 'real' killers?
Dealers?.........Over 90% of illicit drugs are brought by people from THEIR FRIENDS or people they know. This MYTH of the perverted drug dealer stalking our young people is just that, a MYTH!! It is a shame that people misuse drugs, but 99% of drug users begin using by THEIR OWN CHOICE.
Increased jail sentences will not stop people using illicit drugs, and how do I klnow? Well we've tried it already and prohibition has been the most successful failure ever in 'the war' against drugs.
Yes, I've tried most of these drugs, and I'm not saying it's ok to use them, but common sense is needed, not knee jerk reactions from un-educated people reacting to heresay. Education is our best method to help young people make the right choices for their lives.
Alcohol and Tobacco are the real killers when it comes to drugs. Just because a drug is socially acceptable does NOT make it a safer drug.
Bloodstained Angel
19 Apr 2002, 08:28
Drugs are not the problem - people are the problem.
There is nothing inherently evil or sinsier about any of these substances at all. Its the way peeople choose to use them that is the problem.
Marajuana - a harmless plant that has a number of uses.
Cocaine - A part of everyday life in Latin America for 000's and 000's of years.
Heroin - Still the best pain killer ever invented by man. Any doctor will tell you that it is at least twice as good as morphine.
Ecstacy - Originally invented in 1914 as an appetite suppressant.
Amphetimine - Been around for 100 years or more. Has been used in all sorts of circumstances where people need to stay awake or where people need clear sinuses.
There is absolutely nothing 'evil' or 'bad' about drugs at all - its the way people choose to use them that is the problem.
Heroin is a wonder of modern pharmaceutical science - but nobody meant for the stuff to injected directly into a fit and well persons bloodstream just for the sake of 'getting stoned' !
Similarily - Ancient South American people like the Incas would be aghast at the modern practice of snorting Cociane powder up your nose.
Its just not good enough to say the drug dealers should be locked up and charged with attempted murder blah blah.
Dealers are only there becuase people want to buy drugs off them - its the law of supply and demand people !
There wouldn't be a so-called 'drug problem' if people didn't want to take drugs !
So we have to look into our hearts about this. If we weren't so interested in ingesting these substances, then ther wouldn't be any drug dealers because they wouldn't have any customers.
No use blaming or demonising 'dealers' 'pushers' 'drug barons' "Mr Bigs' or any other such stoopid nonsense like this ridiculous 'war on drugs'
We have ask ourselves some pretty difficult questions - like why do we like drugs so much ?
Why do we take drugs ?
Why do we get ourselves addicted to drugs ?
Its not good enough just to say 'drugs are bad - addiction is a sin and dealers should be locked up and the key thrown away'
The problem starts with us
Its like an old saying I heard a tobacco company executive say a few years ago -
There is nothing inherently evil in a cigarette - its the guy on other end doing all the sucking that is the problem.
I couldn't agree more
cheers
Yeah, I tend to side with BSA on this issue. Demonising the substances is like treating the symptoms and not the cause. Likewise I don't think capital punishment is the answer either - after we find that executing people is not stemming the drug trade what do we do then? Besides capital punishment says a lot about the society that endorses it as well, we would be no better than the worst of the dealers.
Personally, I reckon we need to debate the legalisation of many of the lower impact drugs. Treat them in a similar way that we currently do cigarettes. Warn people about the real dangers and tax the crap out of them too. I don't mean selling them at every deli though, just make them available at a couple of outlets, eg heroin shooting houses.
I have little time or respect for drug abusers, you may think the paragraph above is at odds with that stance but let me tell you what annoys me about the current "war on drugs". The "war on drugs" pushes recreational drugs into a market were they put a big burden on society without giving anything back.
The drug abusers burden our health care system yet they don't pay any taxes to offset that burden.
The cops spend half their lives chasing drug dealers and end up neglecting other aspects of law enforcement.
The dealers get richer yet give back nothing to society.
Drug abusers end up with an inferior product, have a greater risk of overdose or side effects, and are more likely to resort to crime to fund it.
I just can't see recreational drugs disappearing in this "war on drugs", and it is costing us all a heap too.
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Drugs are not the problem - people are the problem.
Can any problem of this world fail to be attributed to 'people' other than natural disasters such as earthquakes?
The 'problem' is addiction and also using addictive drugs for relieving everyday problems. At first Marijuana may bring great stress relief but in time the intensity wears off so a harder drug may be taken...and addiction sets in.
If we were all strong enough to stop at moderate unharmful levels then there would be no problem but most are not that strong.
ps Benzodiazipines causing death!!! I'd like to hear more about that.
gPhonque
19 Apr 2002, 22:41
Originally posted by Frodo
At first Marijuana may bring great stress relief but in time the intensity wears off so a harder drug may be taken...and addiction sets in.
If we were all strong enough to stop at moderate unharmful levels then there would be no problem but most are not that strong.
Really? Where did you hear that?
Do you have figures to show that "most" people are not that strong?
Or are you talking crap?
ps Benzodiazipines causing death!!! I'd like to hear more about that.
ps. Marijuana causing death!!! I'd like to hear more about that.
Docker_Brat
20 Apr 2002, 00:07
Originally posted by Frodo
Poker Machines should be banned.
Thank **** WA is the last haven away from that scourge.
Docker Brat there is nothing wrong with pokies as long as people stay in control. I enjoy going to the pokies once or twice a year, I take my $20 & play till I lose it then I leave, or on the few occasions I win over $100, I take my winnings & run.
I am sick of the majority of peope who enjoy things have them taken away because of a minority of irresponsible people.
Ban pokies because some people abuse them, ban drinking because some people abuse it, ban some breeds of dogs because some morons own them, ban cars because some people are lunatics, the list goes on & on.
It is totally unfair that the, sensible law abiding person, has things they enjoy taken away because of a few morons. :mad:
Santos L Helper
20 Apr 2002, 05:32
Originally posted by chicken minute
I'm sorry that you have known people who have died in drug related circumstances, but there really isn't any evidence at all that cannabis use leads to harder drugs.
Sure 100% of cocaine users have used cannabis before moving on to harder drugs, but that justs shows that cannabis is widely available and that the sort of people who use harder drugs will also try the more easily obtainable drugs. Studies have shown no link between the two.
Indeed cannabis is a lot less addictive than tobacco, as are pretty much all of the hard drugs. It's just that people react differently.
MY own opinion is that pretty much all drugs should be decriminalised to a degree. Although I certainly wouldn't make all of them freely available. If somebody has an addiction, it would be far easier and beneficial for the both the addict and society for any addiction be treated properly without need for criminal activities to feed that addiction or attaching a stigma to that person that drives them underground
I want to know where you found out that ALL cocaine users have used cannabis? I have never tried marijuana, but I've tried coke. If your going to enter into a discussion, at least know what your talking about.
Sweeping generalisations make you look foolish.
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
Sweeping generalisations make you look foolish.
I believe that accusing anyone of 'generalising' is just a put down.
It is clear to me that what they are usually saying is 'in my experience' or ' according to my beliefs'.
Now both situations are fair and reasonable whereas the put down is unreasonable and frankly an unwarranted input to any debate.
I will further add that anyone asking for statistical substantiation of anothers opinion is IMO again only trying one upmanship in a poor fashion. One has a right to form an opinion based on many factors without it having to be irrefutable.
Docker_Brat
20 Apr 2002, 13:27
Originally posted by mantis
Docker Brat there is nothing wrong with pokies as long as people stay in control. I enjoy going to the pokies once or twice a year, I take my $20 & play till I lose it then I leave, or on the few occasions I win over $100, I take my winnings & run.
I am sick of the majority of peope who enjoy things have them taken away because of a minority of irresponsible people.
Ban pokies because some people abuse them, ban drinking because some people abuse it, ban some breeds of dogs because some morons own them, ban cars because some people are lunatics, the list goes on & on.
It is totally unfair that the, sensible law abiding person, has things they enjoy taken away because of a few morons. :mad:
Granted, how many people go out of control?
I don't think we need them here, there has to be somewhere left in Australia where there is a haven from the things.
If people need to play them, there is the casino. I personally don't want to see pubs turned into mini casinos and the live music scene destroyed in favour of the 'entertainment' that poker machines are supposed to be.
sabre_ac
20 Apr 2002, 13:38
In my opinion take 2 approaches to this issue.
Start off with legalizing marajuwana (sp?).
For a few reasons
1.Longterm effects of Pot are not as bad as the long term effects of Alcohol,as pot does not usually leed to dependancy.
2.The effects of Pot are more a relaxant, it does not usually leed to violence nor does it have the effect on judgement Alcohol does (Ie you can drive allot better stoned than you can drunk).
3.It has medical uses and does relieve pain,short term effects dont last long and after all its natural.
The legalisation of this drug wont increase use it will merely put many of the dealers out of work.
Drugs like speed and E's should carry a warning for uses and stricter penalties for dealers.
Herion users should be counceled and sent to a detention center where they can get off the drug.Dealers like murders should be locked away and the key melted.
gPhonque
20 Apr 2002, 14:16
Originally posted by Frodo
I will further add that anyone asking for statistical substantiation of anothers opinion is IMO again only trying one upmanship in a poor fashion. One has a right to form an opinion based on many factors without it having to be irrefutable.
So what you are saying is that it's ok for you to make statements that are completely false?
kuepper
20 Apr 2002, 14:45
Originally posted by Frodo
I will further add that anyone asking for statistical substantiation of anothers opinion is IMO again only trying one upmanship in a poor fashion. One has a right to form an opinion based on many factors without it having to be irrefutable.
So the facts have no place in opinion forming?
If I was to believe the moon was made out of cheese, even though it can be shown factually and statistically it isnt, it is a valid opinion to have anyway?
My take on this issue:
Anything, in moderation is fine, within reason of course - but if you drink to excess 7 days a week, you will harm your body and mind, the same goes for pot, or any other recreational drug.
To say Marijuana is a gateway to other drugs is simplistic at best - I am sure 99.9% of all drug takers have also drank Coca Cola - does that make it a gateway to drug use as well?
Santos L Helper
20 Apr 2002, 16:06
Originally posted by Frodo
I believe that accusing anyone of 'generalising' is just a put down.
It is clear to me that what they are usually saying is 'in my experience' or ' according to my beliefs'.
Now both situations are fair and reasonable whereas the put down is unreasonable and frankly an unwarranted input to any debate.
I will further add that anyone asking for statistical substantiation of anothers opinion is IMO again only trying one upmanship in a poor fashion. One has a right to form an opinion based on many factors without it having to be irrefutable.
Frodo, I'm sorry that I'm able to base some of my opinons on fact. I'll try to base more opinions on fantasy from now on.
To the last three posters.
Distorting a persons post may be smartarsed but is not very useful.
I never said that facts weren't relevant or shouldn't be taken into account. I said, if you'd bother to read my post
I will further add that anyone asking for statistical substantiation of anothers opinion is IMO again only trying one upmanship in a poor fashion. One has a right to form an opinion based on many factors without it having to be irrefutable.
So if you believe that the moon is made of cheese then fair enough, you have that right. And if anyone wants to put any statistical reason up or fact up against that belief then that's fair enough too.
But if all anyone can say to your belief is 'give me some facts or statistics to support your belief that the moon is made of cheese' then they neither refute or contribute. They just callously suggest that you have no right to an opinion without being able to produce some sort of justification acceptable to them.
Well life aint like that, people are allowed opinions per se.
Santos L Helper
20 Apr 2002, 23:44
Originally posted by Frodo
To the last three posters.
Distorting a persons post may be smartarsed but is not very useful.
I never said that facts weren't relevant or shouldn't be taken into account. I said, if you'd bother to read my post
So if you believe that the moon is made of cheese then fair enough, you have that right. And if anyone wants to put any statistical reason up or fact up against that belief then that's fair enough too.
But if all anyone can say to your belief is 'give me some facts or statistics to support your belief that the moon is made of cheese' then they neither refute or contribute. They just callously suggest that you have no right to an opinion without being able to produce some sort of justification acceptable to them.
Well life aint like that, people are allowed opinions per se.
Frodo's gift to us all. How to behave like gentlemen whilst discussing issues.
I have no problem with people posting an opinion, but if you do then be prepared that someone with a differing opinion to tell you that your incorrect. I welcome other people's opinions which may be different to mine and I'm quite prepared to listen and either agree or disagree. To disagree with my opinion does not mean I try to belittle that person, but I'll stand up for my opinions, just like you do.
I also feel that you, Frodo, take the easy way out by trying to belittle me (and others) by narrowing my arguments down to me trying to be a smartarse. It seems to me that this is a smart arses approach.
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
Frodo's gift to us all. How to behave like gentlemen whilst discussing issues.
I have no problem with people posting an opinion, but if you do then be prepared that someone with a differing opinion to tell you that your incorrect. I welcome other people's opinions which may be different to mine and I'm quite prepared to listen and either agree or disagree. To disagree with my opinion does not mean I try to belittle that person, but I'll stand up for my opinions, just like you do.
I also feel that you, Frodo, take the easy way out by trying to belittle me (and others) by narrowing my arguments down to me trying to be a smartarse. It seems to me that this is a smart arses approach.
I like it........touche :)
Sydneyfan
21 Apr 2002, 13:09
Originally posted by Docker_Brat
Granted, how many people go out of control?
I don't think we need them here, there has to be somewhere left in Australia where there is a haven from the things.
If people need to play them, there is the casino. I personally don't want to see pubs turned into mini casinos and the live music scene destroyed in favour of the 'entertainment' that poker machines are supposed to be.
Alas, unfortunately, that's the situation now in New South Wales. Some Publicans complained how Clubs (RSL, Leagues', Workers' Clubs, etc.) were making big money off pokies. Clubs at least are required to spread some of their profits from pokies back to the community, but pubs can keep the profits for themselves. The NSW Government around 5 years let Pubs get Pokies too, now days pool rooms in pubs have become pokie rooms, there's not as many live bands since pubs have realised that the money is better to just slab 50 pokies in rather than have live bands each week. I think the NSW Government has put a freeze on pokies in pubs now, but it's a little too late really.
I heard a few years ago that the State of NSW has something ridiculous like 10% of the world's poker machines, though it's probably more now!
I've just about had enough of you bleeding heart bastards arguing for the legalisation of drugs. What have I ever done to you?
I've had a quite lucrative business in selling drugs over the past thirty years and the last thing I need is some smart A trying to put me out of business. Don't you believe in capitalism and the number one commandment: If it can be demanded it must be supplied? Heresy!
How am I supposed to support my town house in Melbourne, my holiday house in Surfers, my boat, my Benz and the company of beautiful women, if you lefty scum make me irrelevant?
I hope you don't think I'm joking when I say that I know who you are and where you live. It may surprise you to know that I have lots of friends in police forces throughout the world who would be only too happy to help me in this. After all, they have a vested interest too.
gPhonque
21 Apr 2002, 17:49
Originally posted by Frodo
But if all anyone can say to your belief is 'give me some facts or statistics to support your belief that the moon is made of cheese' then they neither refute or contribute. They just callously suggest that you have no right to an opinion without being able to produce some sort of justification acceptable to them.
No - you are the one who is contributing nothing to this discussion other than false statements such as:
originally posted by Frodo
"At first Marijuana may bring great stress relief but in time the intensity wears off so a harder drug may be taken...and addiction sets in.
If we were all strong enough to stop at moderate unharmful levels then there would be no problem but most are not that strong."
Since you have refused to provide statistics to back up your comment, i'll do you a favour:
http://www.mpp.org/common_q.html
I could provide another 1000 links if you wanted to but the figures/findings will be exactly the same, give or take a few percent.
So now that we've partly established that you're full of crap, do you have anything contructive to add to this discussion, or will you again choose to dodge the topic? (in true John Howard style?)
Ah, our resident expert on theories of communication gets a mention. John Howard, the man who thinks government sponsored injecting rooms send a bad message to our youth. You have to listen because this is a man who is so obviously in tune with our youth. It's not as if he's stuck in a 50s timewarp. No, he's completely up to date. Our man in Washington, of whom we're so proud, as he bestrides the world stage, like a colossus. Makes you so proud to be an Australian. The man whose time should never have come.
His thesis is that government decisions only have one interpretation available for the recipients of that message. That interpretation is, um,er, whatever he says it is. So, if the government gives out heroin, then the only interpretation available is that the government is endorsing heroin. Sorry, I must have missed that meeting. I would have thought that another interpretation was available.
Try this on for size. I am young, the government cares enough about me to make it unneccesary for me to steal from oldies at ATM machines. They care enough to make sure I don't become a criminal at age fifteen. They are not pleased when they see sixteen year old pregnant girls sweating and trembling as they hit up in the streets of Footscray. They don't label everyone as losers who don't have the philosophy that John Howard has.
What is that philosophy? If you haven't worked it out yet, this government is hopeless with anything which doesn't involve a bottom financial line. They are a social disaster.
It could be worse though, we could have Costello. Has it occurred to anyone what a pri(k Howard must be to survive in a cabinet with Reith and Costello baying at his heels?
Santos L Helper
22 Apr 2002, 12:00
Skilts, after reading your post I'm pretty sure you want us to bring back Menzies and conscription. That'll sort the kids out. ;)
Santos, I think you should re-read my post, if that's really what you think I was saying.
There is no need to resurrect Menzies, we already have John Howard, the man whose time should never have come.
On the other hand, if we can find Menzies' body at Melbourne General Cemetary, it might be rewarding to exhume him. Even at this late stage, he's still probably got more life in him than Howard.
Santos L Helper
22 Apr 2002, 12:49
Originally posted by skilts
Santos, I think you should re-read my post, if that's really what you think I was saying.
There is no need to resurrect Menzies, we already have John Howard, the man whose time should never have come.
On the other hand, if we can find Menzies' body at Melbourne General Cemetary, it might be rewarding to exhume him. Even at this late stage, he's still probably got more life in him than Howard.
Sarcasm matey. ;) I understood where you were coming from.
On the other hand, if we can find Menzies' body at Melbourne General Cemetary, it might be rewarding to exhume him. Even at this late stage, he's still probably got more life in him than Howard.
And a lot more vision.
Santos L Helper
22 Apr 2002, 22:26
Originally posted by Perrin
And a lot more vision.
This is a joke right? Menzies equalled vision for right wing politics aimed at keeping the 'under-priviliged' just that.
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
This is a joke right? Menzies equalled vision for right wing politics aimed at keeping the 'under-priviliged' just that.
It was a bad joke. Only trying to point out our PM's complete lack of it (for anything other than himself). I was not around for the Menzies era so I don't know a lot about him.
Macca19
22 Apr 2002, 22:44
Originally posted by Perrin
I believe that with marijuana (In Qld anyway) the answer is simple.
Decrimilalise the possession and growing of small quantities.
I'm not condoning legalisation but certainly take the criminal element out of it. Reasons.
1. Many ordinary people smoke pot (myself not included) and should not be classified as criminals.
Marijuana is a lose/lose situation for people who use/grow it. The law says (in SA anyway) that you are allowed to have 2 plants for personal use....yet if you get caught with two plants you get fined anyway. I mean how does that work?? Something cant be legal and illegal at the same time :confused:
Santos L Helper
22 Apr 2002, 22:52
Originally posted by Perrin
It was a bad joke. Only trying to point out our PM's complete lack of it (for anything other than himself). I was not around for the Menzies era so I don't know a lot about him.
No worries mate, I see where your coming from. Sorry I missed the point.
Santos L Helper
22 Apr 2002, 22:54
Originally posted by Macca19
Marijuana is a lose/lose situation for people who use/grow it. The law says (in SA anyway) that you are allowed to have 2 plants for personal use....yet if you get caught with two plants you get fined anyway. I mean how does that work?? Something cant be legal and illegal at the same time :confused:
The word you need to understand is 'decriminalised' rather than 'legal'. Growing any marijuana in SA is not legal, it's just been decriminalised which means you get a fine rather than a conviction.
Macca19
22 Apr 2002, 22:59
Originally posted by RacerX
[B]The dealers get richer yet give back nothing to society.
B]
This is a big misconception in my opinion. Most dealers do not make money. Hell, their arent many dealers per se out there anymore. A large percentage of 'dealers' are simply people you know...your mates. This whole conception that their is this one sneaky guy at every club who pressurizes people into buying and taking these death pills is quite funny (im not saying you think this way btw). The chances are, one person you know is or has been a "dealer" at some time.
Back to my point...most dealers do not make money. To get these drugs, they have to buy these drugs in large quantities first. This means they have to originally pay for them. Most 'dealers' sell these drugs at the same price they buy them, or so that they get a very small profit. I mean...if they jack up the prices of these drugs then noone will buy them as they know that they would be able to get them cheaper somewhere else.
Really the only 'dealers' that make all the money are the "drug lords"....ie. pharmacists from Europe (where the majority of the worlds ecstacy pills originate from) and the like.
Macca19
22 Apr 2002, 23:05
Originally posted by mantis
Docker Brat there is nothing wrong with pokies as long as people stay in control. I enjoy going to the pokies once or twice a year, I take my $20 & play till I lose it then I leave, or on the few occasions I win over $100, I take my winnings & run.
I am sick of the majority of peope who enjoy things have them taken away because of a minority of irresponsible people.
Ban pokies because some people abuse them, ban drinking because some people abuse it, ban some breeds of dogs because some morons own them, ban cars because some people are lunatics, the list goes on & on.
It is totally unfair that the, sensible law abiding person, has things they enjoy taken away because of a few morons. :mad:
ban drugs because some people use them idiotically and end up dead?
Its the same as most things in life.....the minority usually taints it for everyone else so the majority get an unfair label of 'thug' or 'druggie' or 'pokie addict'
Macca19
22 Apr 2002, 23:10
Originally posted by sabre_ac
Drugs like speed and E's should carry a warning for uses and stricter penalties for dealers.
It takes a lot to become a dealer of ecstacy. From my belief, you cant actually be arrested for being caught with a few pills in your wallet. I believe 20 is the number of pills it is to become arrestable.
I mean...all the police would have to do is go to a rave and arrest the 98% of people there that have pills on them. Easy as that. Yet the police do not do this.
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
This is a joke right? Menzies equalled vision for right wing politics aimed at keeping the 'under-priviliged' just that.
Santos, I would agree with you about Menzies in all but two areas.
He was the one who kick-started an emphasis on education in Australia, paving the way for us to be not quite as stupid a country.
He also invested heavily in the development of Canberra. Some would say this was a bad idea, but if we were going to make Canberra the national capital, then we had to do something to prevent us becoming a laughing stock, because it was a country town.
The down side, of course was evidenced by the number of artists and other talented people who felt constrained to leave the country because of the phillistinism fostered by Menzies. What an enigma he was.
Seems not much has changed, judging by the number of people who have had to do the same thing during Howard's reign. He really has achieved his ambition of a return to 50s values.
IMO the development of Canberra as a capital was and is a joke.
The majority of people in the world still believe that Sydney is the capital of Australia and so it should be.
Even Virgin can't justify flying to Canberra.
Briedis
23 Apr 2002, 13:09
For my own personal experience of life I do not believe that smoking dope means that you will end up a "hard" drug addict. In fact, I know probably 15-20 people who smoke dope (not every day, but probably a couple of times a week on average) and NONE of them have ever tried any hard drugs.
The only person I know who uses heroin does not smoke dope, smoke cigarettes, drink or take any other drug. He suffered from schizophrenia and apparently heroin stopped a lot of his problems, which is why he started to use it. These days he is on methodone to try and get off it.
I can't see anything wrong with legalising pot. There are far more important things that our police force could and should be doing instead of busting people for smoking pot.
Also, why do we need to test for drugs such as pot and cocaine in AFL players? These are not performance enhancing drugs. If a player wishes to take these drugs it is a personal matter for that player only and should not be made public. Surely, publicising that a young kid's football hero is smoking dope is unnecessary.
Macca19
23 Apr 2002, 14:56
Originally posted by Briedis
Also, why do we need to test for drugs such as pot and cocaine in AFL players? These are not performance enhancing drugs. If a player wishes to take these drugs it is a personal matter for that player only and should not be made public. Surely, publicising that a young kid's football hero is smoking dope is unnecessary.
Cocaine, Ecstasy and Heroin (a strange one) are on the performance enhancing drugs list.
Briedis
23 Apr 2002, 14:59
Originally posted by Macca19
Cocaine, Ecstasy and Heroin (a strange one) are on the performance enhancing drugs list.
Yes...but why? It's not the AFL's job to police illegal substances. They should just check for steriods and other known performance enhacing drugs and that's it.
Hay Billy
12 May 2002, 17:43
umm, I forget !
The legal/illegal drugs issue is merely a matter of perception. If we were, for example, to suddenly legalise Marijuana and ban alcohol, there'd be an outcry for a while, of course. But 50 years from now, you'd find it impossible to criminalise Marijauna, and there'd be a thriving black market in alcohol.
That's the way it goes. Simple arguments regarding which drugs are the most addictive, which are the most dangerous and so on, are all mixed up in complications regarding what's legal and what isn't, and individual horror stories. How many of us can recount a drink driving death involving someone we know? Or alcoholism?
Hay Billy
13 May 2002, 12:36
Originally posted by RogerC
The legal/illegal drugs issue is merely a matter of perception. If we were, for example, to suddenly legalise Marijuana and ban alcohol, there'd be an outcry for a while, of course. But 50 years from now, you'd find it impossible to criminalise Marijauna, and there'd be a thriving black market in alcohol.
That's the way it goes. Simple arguments regarding which drugs are the most addictive, which are the most dangerous and so on, are all mixed up in complications regarding what's legal and what isn't, and individual horror stories. How many of us can recount a drink driving death involving someone we know? Or alcoholism?
Very good point Roger! I agree