Decriminalisation of drugs... your thoughts?

[CLUBMEDhurst]

From the beginning, Anslinger conflated drug use, race, and music. “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men,” he was quoted as saying. “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

https://timeline.com/harry-anslinger-racist-war-on-drugs-prison-industrial-complex-fb5cbc281189

 

[Taylor]

Don't let the US incarceration stats on inmates for drug possession fool you, a huge chunk of those were pled down from trafficking quantities to possession.

It doesn't fit the narrative though.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Don't let the US incarceration stats on inmates for drug possession fool you, a huge chunk of those were pled down from trafficking quantities to possession.

It doesn't fit the narrative though.

Huge chunk?????

Care to elaborate how such a conclusion was reached?

Which narrative are you referring to?

 

[Power Raid]

How would the decriminalisation of drugs intertwine with employment laws?

Directors face CRIMINAL charges for work place accidents.

We know some drugs can’t be detected well before the symptoms of drug use have passed. Tiredness, memory and concentration loss, depression, irritability etc.

So directors and employers face CRIMINAL liability for something they can’t control?

Do we just repeal all health and safety laws, to create an equal playing field? Life’s cheap right?

 

[Power Raid]

Oh and hopefully we implement drug testing for welfare.

If workers have to be drug free, then so to those looking for work.

 

[Deliverance]

Yeah, I never had a single class about it at school, and I only left year 12 in 2014.

That's s**t from the school. Did you have Health classes year 7-10?

 

[Rob R]

How would the decriminalisation of drugs intertwine with employment laws?

Directors face CRIMINAL charges for work place accidents.

We know some drugs can’t be detected well before the symptoms of drug use have passed. Tiredness, memory and concentration loss, depression, irritability etc.

So directors and employers face CRIMINAL liability for something they can’t control?

Do we just repeal all health and safety laws, to create an equal playing field? Life’s cheap right?

Same as we test at road accidents, if someone is involved in an accident that causes an injury at work they get tested for drugs and alcohol and if they test positive and are shown to have contributed, they face charges and are open to legal claims by the company and injured parties.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Power Raid a lying hypocrite as usual

 

[Power Raid]

Same as we test at road accidents, if someone is involved in an accident that causes an injury at work they get tested for drugs and alcohol and if they test positive and are shown to have contributed, they face charges and are open to legal claims by the company and injured parties.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

The difference is where the criminal liability sits in the work place vs the road.


If a person takes drugs, has an accident due to the longer term issues of drugs like fatigue and a loss of concentration......killing themselves or others......but tests negative. It is considered just an accident.

If the same circumstance occurs in the work place, the directors and employer faces jail time and a criminal conviction. Whilst the druggie walks away, without penalty assuming they aren’t the statistic.


So do we repeal our work place safety laws?

 

[Taylor]

You're responsible for the consequences of your own choices and actions except when someone else is paying you.

 

[Power Raid]

Power Raid a lying hypocrite as usual

Great post

Can you provide more detail? As it is difficult to respond to your emotion.......other than, are you feeling OK?

 

[Power Raid]

Same as we test at road accidents, if someone is involved in an accident that causes an injury at work they get tested for drugs and alcohol and if they test positive and are shown to have contributed, they face charges and are open to legal claims by the company and injured parties.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I should add, that insurance companies have real issues proving drug and alcohol was the cause of an accident.

So the same issue is faced by directors and employers who face criminal liability for work place accidents.

First they must prove a person was on drugs, then prove the drugs were a cause and then lastly explain how and why their drug and alcohol testing regime failed. Otherwise they face criminal prosecution.

So having no state support re drugs, means employers further exposed to criminal liability and face a greater burden in civil liabilities of unfair dismissal by sacking people they suspect are a risk to avoid jail time.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Great post

Can you provide more detail?

You're pro-decriminalisation then later pro-testing everybody. So you're lying about at least one of those things. You're full of crap.

Your insincerity is a constant on this board. You bury it in long-winded paragraphs of s**t and don't get called out enough.

As it is difficult to respond to your emotion.......other than, are you feeling OK?

I'll feel better when you're off the electoral roll.

 

[Power Raid]

You're pro-decriminalisation then later pro-testing everybody. So you're lying about at least one of those things. You're full of crap.

Your insincerity is a constant on this board. You bury it in long-winded paragraphs of s**t and don't get called out enough.



I'll feel better when you're off the electoral roll.

I’m not pro-decriminalising

And I’m not pro testing everyone

And I’m not on the electoral roll


That’s 3 wrong out of 3!

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Oh and hopefully we implement drug testing for welfare.

If workers have to be drug free, then so to those looking for work.

Why?

Studies from OS where similar bullshit policies have been implemented have been a a waste of time. Puts paid to the ol' Dole bludgers = druggies trope beloved by rightwing haters of welfare recipients. I dips me 'at to anybody that can maintain a drug habit on Nostart

 

[Deliverance]

So, hypothetically, if drugs are decriminalised. What age should we allow people to start buying/using them? 16, 18, 25? And why?

 

[Power Raid]

Why?

Studies from OS where similar bulls**t policies have been implemented have been a a waste of time. Puts paid to the ol' Dole bludgers = druggies trope beloved by rightwing haters of welfare recipients. I dips me 'at to anybody that can maintain a drug habit on Nostart

Why?

Because someone on the dole should be looking for a job. They should put themselves in the best position to be provided job offers. Many if not all jobs require people to be drug free.

How can one morally accept a job, knowing they are putting lives at risk and placing criminal liability on their employers?

Would you hire someone a risk jail time, for some drug fkd moron, just to give them a fair go?

 

[Power Raid]

Oh and I’m not anti drugs but pro self responsibility

 

[RobbieK]

Oh and I’m not anti drugs but pro self responsibility

Can you please explain how you can be "not anti-drugs" while simultaneously maintaining that they should remain illegal?

 

[Power Raid]

Can you please explain how you can be "not anti-drugs" while simultaneously maintaining that they should remain illegal?

Simple

Drugs are a personal choice and I support people making their own choices responsibly.

I support people’s choice to euthanasia without safeguards or waiting periods. Attesting to my pro choice stance.



Pro choice needs to be balanced out with responsibility, as does the courts and even the police do.

Drugs should be illegal for a variety of reasons. Employment health and safety laws, road safety, raising children in a safe family environment, responsibilities that come with Medicare, responsibility to have a job and support one’s self etc.

That doesn’t mean don’t use drugs. It just means be responsible, be discrete and the law won’t impact you in a material way, if at all.

It does however provide a tool for the state to intervene when things are getting out of hand. It allows medical experts to get involved for those that want help. Or simply time out for those that don’t.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Why?

Because someone on the dole should be looking for a job. They should put themselves in the best position to be provided job offers. Many if not all jobs require people to be drug free.

How can one morally accept a job, knowing they are putting lives at risk and placing criminal liability on their employers?

Would you hire someone a risk jail time, for some drug fkd moron, just to give them a fair go?

Get off the gobbkledygook juice. So much stigmatizing nonsense in one post

 

[Power Raid]

Get off the gobbkledygook juice. So much stigmatizing nonsense in one post

Stigmatising? Please provide detail

Please re read my post, you are extrapolating things in your head.

 

[Power Raid]

I wonder what the correlation is between those who want to legalise drugs and those that take drugs. I dare say, self interest and the need to feel accepted by society is a big driver.


I also note, not one druggie has responded to the question "would you, as an employee hire a druggie and face criminal prosecution and jail time?" or "should we repeal work place safety laws?"

Essentially the logic is:
It's OK to hold employers criminally responsible for someone else's (a druggie) actions
but not OK to hold druggies criminally responsible for their own actions

hmmmm druggie logic

 

[RobbieK]

I wonder what the correlation is between those who want to legalise drugs and those that take drugs. I dare say, self interest and the need to feel accepted by society is a big driver.


I also note, not one druggie has responded to the question "would you, as an employee hire a druggie and face criminal prosecution and jail time?" or "should we repeal work place safety laws?"

Essentially the logic is:
It's OK to hold employers criminally responsible for someone else's (a druggie) actions
but not OK to hold druggies criminally responsible for their own actions

hmmmm druggie logic

Not anti-drugs but continually using a pejorative term to refer to drug users? Hmm.

I don't drink alcohol. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. I have never taken any recreational drugs. I think drugs should be decriminalised. It wouldn't change my life one bit either way but the evidence is clear that it is the better approach from a societal perspective.

The WHS concerns are not more serious than those relating to alcohol. No one thinks that people who are seriously impaired, for whatever reason, should be working in roles in which that impairment creates unacceptable risks. If someone has enough of any substance in their system that they are no longer able to function to a tolerable level then they should face consequences. This is not the insurmountable issue you are trying to present. Just as there are thresholds for alcohol intoxication, there would also be thresholds for other substances.

The vast majority of drug use is not problematic. Someone having trace amounts of marijuana or MDMA or an opiate or whatever in their system is not necessarily impaired to any meaningful extent. In some cases someone might be more productive (microdosing LSD being an example that immediately comes to mind).

I have been an employer, I have employed a variety of people that I knew took a variety drugs. For the most part this drug use was purely recreational and it never impacted their ability to work. Within my experience the only drug that was ever abused in a problematic way and impaired someone to the extent that it impacted on their ability to work and required my action was alcohol. I'd much rather that person have been taking the occasional MDMA tablet for a party than to have been a struggling alcoholic.

Particular substances are neither good or bad. Anything can be taken to dangerous extremes, more or less anything can also be taken to a level of moderation that poses no threat to anyone. No one arguing for deciminalisation thinks that all substance use is unproblematic, no one thinks that there is no need to ensure that thresholds are in place to ensure that an individual's drug use does not exceed acceptable limits when they are operating a vehicle or are working.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Stigmatising? Please provide detail

Please re read my post, you are extrapolating things in your head.

Your lack of self awareness is breathtaking.