Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[RobbieK]

No. What is inherently more wrong about the act of say, taking MDMA on a night out than drinking on the same night?

Probably less likely to king hit someone on MDMA...

 

[sataris]

Probably less likely to king hit someone on MDMA...

Definitely.

The other issue as well is that alcohol is so common-place in our society that we've forgotten that's its a mind altering substance.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Probably less likely to king hit someone on MDMA...

I'm expecting a response about the Mexican children he seems to have developed a sudden concern for, or some other victim of a drug trade.

 

[sataris]

I'm expecting a response about the Mexican children he seems to have developed a sudden concern for, or some other victim of a drug trade.

I'll tell the family of the guy killed by the drink driver a week or so ago to be grateful it wasn't drugs.

 

[RobbieK]

I'm expecting a response about the Mexican children he seems to have developed a sudden concern for, or some other victim of a drug trade.

While I was a bit flippant with that response, I don't think there is any reason to question Bruce's sincerity about concern for the effect of the drug trade on the source countries. It is a serious economic, social and environmental problem that we in the west who consume drugs really ought to be more mindful of and consider when it comes to our consumption habits (in much the way that we ought to consider not purchasing clothes made in sweat shops or support companies who engage in environmentally damaging practices). Snorting a line of cocaine is not entirely the "victimless crime" that some users would like to make it out to be.

 

[Kummerspeck]

While I was a bit flippant with that response, I don't think there is any reason to question Bruce's sincerity about concern for the effect of the drug trade on the source countries.

You're more generous than I am. Constantly tacking it on as a gotcha-style comment doesn't reek of sincerity to me.

It is a serious economic, social and environmental problem that we in the west who consume drugs really ought to be more mindful of and consider when it comes to our consumption habits (in much the way that we ought to consider not purchasing clothes made in sweat shops or support companies who engage in environmentally damaging practices). Snorting a line of cocaine is not entirely the "victimless crime" that some users would like to make it out to be.

Agree completely.

 

[Number37]

Yes. Why is there a relationship? Because we as a society have decided to make drug use a criminal matter by creating laws against it. We can remove that link of we choose to change the laws.

That is not what I said at all, and you know that.
The relationship between drug use and criminality relates to the crimes that drug users engage in to either feed their habit or as a consequence of the changes in their behavour from drug use.

You are once again trying to conflate issues, or you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters. It is disingenuous.

Property and personal violence crimes are not going to be decriminalised for drug users. You know that. Drug use may be decriminalised, so might drug possession to the extent that it is an amount for personal use.

That is what has happened in Portugal. The entire purpose of decriminalisation in Portugal was to remove the criminality of drug use. It has NOT removed the criminality of other crimes (property, personal violence) committed by drug users.

 

[bedford]

Hey Bruce , I took your advice and deleted my last post , this lot have no idea , so an absolute waste of time debating . I just hope they haven't been through what I have. Goodbye and good luck , I don't wish it on anyone.

 

[RobbieK]

That is not what I said at all, and you know that.
The relationship between drug use and criminality relates to the crimes that drug users engage in to either feed their habit or as a consequence of the changes in their behavour from drug use.

You are once again trying to conflate issues, or you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters. It is disingenuous.

Property and personal violence crimes are not going to be decriminalised for drug users. You know that. Drug use may be decriminalised, so might drug possession to the extent that it is an amount for personal use.

That is what has happened in Portugal. The entire purpose of decriminalisation in Portugal was to remove the criminality of drug use. It has NOT removed the criminality of other crimes (property, personal violence) committed by drug users.

Please point out to me anywhere I have suggested that property crimes or violent actions should be decriminalised.

I have no idea why you are ao intent on constantly misrepresenting what I write.

 

[Number37]

Who is saying that it does? The argument for decriminalisation is to remove the criminality of drug use from the situation so that we can then better engage with drug users in a whole manner of ways from the perspective of it being a health problem to be managed. Criminalising drug use limits us from being able to do that in a range of ways that have been repeated a few times now, but in short it makes it harder for drug users to seek help, for fear of suffering legal consequences, and it limits the extent to which health professionals can help too.

No one is saying that decriminalisation is the solution to the drug problem, we are saying it would remove some barriers that currently exit that limit our ability to engage in the things that are the solution.

I never said anyone suggested that decriminalistion is the answer.
I have twice now stated that even in the best case scenario of decriminalisation, you are still left with a drug user problem.
You have conveniently stepped around that to conflate the issue.

If you are geniunely concerned for the well being of the drug users themselves, then surely it is in their best interests to not be drug users? Yes?

At a community level, it is without question in the best interests of a community that drug use is minimised.
Drug use does not add anything to society.
I can accept that people are inclined to use drugs for whatever purpose they choose. If it was possible for drug users to sit in a corner and take whatever drug they choose I would encourage that. But it's not. Drug use doesn't happen in a vaccuum.
You seem to be content with the idea that decriminalisation is an answer to a very serious drug problem. It isn't and never will be.
It will never be a solution to the drug problem because as I have stated a few times, the drug problem is wholly separate from the criminality problem. Even if no drug user ever committed a crime there are still massive consequences for both the user and the community from drug use.
Drug use only leads to 2 things, death or addiction.

I 100% support people with drug use problems. The have to be afforded the best care that we can give them. It is in everybody's interest for that to happen.
What I will never support is making excuses for people with a drug use problem. The worst thing that we can do for people with addiction (drug, alcohol, gambling) is make excuses for them and give them an easy out.

Making excuses is the best way to describe the rest of your post.

 

[Number37]

Please point out to me anywhere I have suggested that property crimes or violent actions should be decriminalised.

I have no idea why you are ao intent on constantly misrepresenting what I write.

You can't be serious, surely??
You specifically stated that we can decouple drug use from criminality by removing laws against it.
Hooray, drug use is no longer a criminal offense. Problem solved.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I never said anyone suggested that decriminalistion is the answer.

Uh...

You seem to be content with the idea that decriminalisation is an answer to a very serious drug problem.

Drug use only leads to 2 things, death or addiction.

That's just flat out false.

That is what has happened in Portugal. The entire purpose of decriminalisation in Portugal was to remove the criminality of drug use. It has NOT removed the criminality of other crimes (property, personal violence) committed by drug users.

No one has ever suggested removing the criminality of crimes committed by drug users or that it should be part of the decriminalisation process. I mean...what? Where on Earth is that coming from?

 

[RobbieK]

Is there something wrong with you?

I never said anyone suggested that decriminalistion is the answer.

.

You seem to be content with the idea that decriminalisation is an answer to a very serious drug problem.

You can't even stay coherent within a single post. Which one is it?

Even if no drug user ever committed a crime there are still massive consequences for both the user and the community from drug use.
Drug use only leads to 2 things, death or addiction.

Of course there are negative consequences for users and the community from drug use. That is why we should decriminalise drug use, so that rather than waste time and resources treating drug use as criminal, which just creates legal barriers that limit problematic drug users from being able to access to the health services that they need, we can instead maximise our ability to provide the health services that they need.

No one is saying that decriminalisation makes the drug problem go away. We are saying that it makes it easier for us to engage in the kinds of actions that will make a difference. It makes it easier for the health professionals to do their work, it makes it easier for users to seek that help.

I 100% support people with drug use problems. The have to be afforded the best care that we can give them. It is in everybody's interest for that to happen.
What I will never support is making excuses for people with a drug use problem. The worst thing that we can do for people with addiction (drug, alcohol, gambling) is make excuses for them and give them an easy out.

Making excuses is the best way to describe the rest of your post.

If you want to support drug users as much as possible then you should be in favour of decriminalising their drug use so they can access the health services they need without fear of negative legal consequences. Simple as that.

I have no idea where I wrote anything that resembled making excuses for drug users or giving them an easy out. What do you mean by this? I want to make it as easy as possible for drug users to have access to the services they need to help fight their addiction and improve their help. If you have a problem with that then I don't understand how you can say you 100% support people with drug problems

 

[RobbieK]

You can't be serious, surely??
You specifically stated that we can decouple drug use from criminality by removing laws against it.
Hooray, drug use is no longer a criminal offense. Problem solved.

This is your response to me asking for evidence of where I have stated that we should decriminalise violent crimes and property crimes. I can only take this to mean that you can not provide evidence for your claim.

 

[Number37]

If you want to support drug users as much as possible then you should be in favour of decriminalising their drug use so they can access the health services they need without fear of negative legal consequences. Simple as that.

There has never been legal consequences for drug users that choose to access health care services. Any suggestion that there are legal consequences for drug users accessing health services is complete garbage.

 

[Number37]

This is your response to me asking for evidence of where I have stated that we should decriminalise violent crimes and property crimes. I can only take this to mean that you can not provide evidence for your claim.

Nice try.

 

[Kummerspeck]

There has never been legal consequences for drug users that choose to access health care services. Any suggestion that there are legal consequences for drug users accessing health services is complete garbage.

There are any number of cases where emergency care is delayed because of fear of prosecution by the people around a drug overdose victim. Police NSW leaves it entirely up to discretion whether people will be charged with drug offences.

Also:

Fear of prosecution for minor drug use and possession offences has been identified as contributing to the reluctance of some people present at drug overdoses to call an ambulance or use harm reduction services.

 

[RobbieK]

Nice try.

Seriously, direct quote me where I say we should decriminalise violent crimes and property crimes. If you are going to make the claim that I say it then it shouldn't be too hard for you to back it up with evidence.

 

[RobbieK]

There are any number of cases where emergency care is delayed because of fear of prosecution by the people around a drug overdose victim. Police NSW leaves it entirely up to discretion whether people will be charged with drug offences.

Also:

Fear of prosecution for minor drug use and possession offences has been identified as contributing to the reluctance of some people present at drug overdoses to call an ambulance or use harm reduction services.

How is that possible? Number37 said that never happens...

 

[Number37]

Uh...




That's just flat out false.

No one has ever suggested removing the criminality of crimes committed by drug users or that it should be part of the decriminalisation process. I mean...what? Where on Earth is that coming from?

There is a difference between an answer & the answer.

Decriminalisation is not the answer. There isn't one thing that is the answer.

Is decriminalisation an answer?
The drug problem is a whole lot more than the criminality of drug use. The criminality of drug use being a crime to use drugs.
By itself, the only thing decriminalisation addresses is the criminality of drug use. It does not in any way address any of the thousands of other problems associated with drug use.
As I have stated more than once, even in the best case scenario of decriminalisation, you/we/society/drug users are still left with the thousands of other problems associated with drug use.

There is a clear suggestion that decriminalisation is AN answer. It isn't. There is no evidence to support the idea that decriminalisation is AN answer.

To repeat myself. The reason seems obvious. The reason that decriminalisation is not AN answer is because it DOES NOT address the thousands of other problems associated with drug use.

I am fully supportive of decriminalisation. And I always have been. I am also under no illusions about how little things will change even with decriminalisation. That is not to say that I think we should forget about, or ignore the marginal benefit it could potentially bring.
But we have to be realistic. Portugal is a great example of the limitations of decriminalisation.

 

[Number37]

How is that possible? Number37 said that never happens...

Should be easy for you to quote the specific law which creates legal consequences for drug users accessing health services.

 

[RobbieK]

Should be easy for you to quote the specific law which creates legal consequences for drug users accessing health services.

You were just linked to government report that identifies fear of prosecution as a barrier to drug users in crisis accessing health services. Top of page 8.

 

[Number37]

There are any number of cases where emergency care is delayed because of fear of prosecution by the people around a drug overdose victim. Police NSW leaves it entirely up to discretion whether people will be charged with drug offences.

Also:

Fear of prosecution for minor drug use and possession offences has been identified as contributing to the reluctance of some people present at drug overdoses to call an ambulance or use harm reduction services.

1. Police have almost endless discretionary power. That is not anything specific to drug users.
2. The choice to not access health services is not the fault of the health service providers. Unless police are camped in emergency depts looking for drug users who OD'd the health care professionals on duty aren't going to call them first to see if they want to prosecute. That suggestion is completely ludicrous.

 

[Number37]

You were just linked to government report that identifies fear of prosecution as a barrier to drug users in crisis accessing health services. Top of page 8.

You specifically said there were legal consequences for accessing health services.
There are no legal consequences for accessing health care. Any suggestion to that effect is complete nonsense.

 

[RobbieK]

There is a difference between an answer & the answer.

Decriminalisation is not the answer. There isn't one thing that is the answer.

Is decriminalisation an answer?
The drug problem is a whole lot more than the criminality of drug use. The criminality of drug use being a crime to use drugs.
By itself, the only thing decriminalisation addresses is the criminality of drug use. It does not in any way address any of the thousands of other problems associated with drug use.
As I have stated more than once, even in the best case scenario of decriminalisation, you/we/society/drug users are still left with the thousands of other problems associated with drug use.

There is a clear suggestion that decriminalisation is AN answer. It isn't. There is no evidence to support the idea that decriminalisation is AN answer.

To repeat myself. The reason seems obvious. The reason that decriminalisation is not AN answer is because it DOES NOT address the thousands of other problems associated with drug use.

I am fully supportive of decriminalisation. And I always have been. I am also under no illusions about how little things will change even with decriminalisation. That is not to say that I think we should forget about, or ignore the marginal benefit it could potentially bring.
But we have to be realistic. Portugal is a great example of the limitations of decriminalisation.

If you fully support decriminalise because it will bring a benefit to our ability to address problematic drug use then why have you been arguing with us when that is exactly what we have been saying? None of us has said decriminalisarion mqgically solves drug problems, we have just said it gives us better outcomes than the current approach.

You basically created misconceptions of what everyone was saying so you could argue against us, only to state now that you actually agree with what we were actually saying all along. Truly bizarre.