Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

I may have misunderstood you before, Kummerspeck.

If you possess more than 2 grams of meth or ecstasy, or cocaine etc, you could be charged and could receive a criminal conviction.

Anything less, as previously stated, is a counselling sesh.

https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/print/ch12s08.php
 
I think we can dispense with the notion that we operate under a system that's identical to decriminalisation in Portugal.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kummerspeck said:
Thank God we have poeple like you in the world who would never collect various lines of thought under umbrellas like PC or SJW to dismiss them.
Click to expand...

I try to limit such applications to instances where the subject as actually expressed views that fall into those categories. You just made my opinions up. Indeed you represented me as having said the opposite to what I actually said.

It’s weak and it’s deceitful. And it seems to be becoming a pattern.
 
Number37 said:
A load of nonsense and misrepresentation
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry at your desperation to twist every single one of my statements to mean, quite often, the literal opposite of what I said. I have no idea what your motivation is for this. Others have been able to understand me quite clearly so I feel confident that it was not that I communicated poorly but that you have comprehended poorly. Every time I reiterated my meaning you have continued to tell me that I am saying something else, so I don't see the point engaging with you on this matter any more. This experience conversing with you has been truly bizare.
 
Kummerspeck said:
Can you please provide the quote/s that support this? You've repeatedly misinterpreted or flat out lied about what other people have posted in this thread and I didn't see anything remotely matxhing your claim this time around.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
RobbieK said:
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry at your desperation to twist every single one of my statements to mean, quite often, the literal opposite of what I said. I have no idea what your motivation is for this. Others have been able to understand me quite clearly so I feel confident that it was not that I communicated poorly but that you have comprehended poorly. Every time I reiterated my meaning you have continued to tell me that I am saying something else, so I don't see the point engaging with you on this matter any more. This experience conversing with you has been truly bizare.
Click to expand...

No idea what this debate is about other than the otherwise sensible N37 adopts the same approach in defending the indefensible on cricket matters - a subject I would add that is far more important than debating mass hysteria delusional beliefs in Harry Potter, Buddha, Jesus or giant purple monsters.
 
RobbieK said:
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry at your desperation to twist every single one of my statements to mean, quite often, the literal opposite of what I said. I have no idea what your motivation is for this. Others have been able to understand me quite clearly so I feel confident that it was not that I communicated poorly but that you have comprehended poorly. Every time I reiterated my meaning you have continued to tell me that I am saying something else, so I don't see the point engaging with you on this matter any more. This experience conversing with you has been truly bizare.
Click to expand...

I made it quite clear, you just don't accept that I think that you arguments are complete nonsense.
They are a mix of the usual fluff, conflation & misrepresentation. They are also littered with the predictable emotive nonsense.
Worst of all you assumed that because I disagreed with you about YOUR IDEA of decriminalisation that I am opposed to decriminalisation.

Your argument has little substance. It appears to be a selection of quotes you found on the internet and together they allegedly make a point.

What is also obvious is that you have not bothered to read beyond the numbers in relation to Portugal.

What is absolutely crystal clear from the Portugal example is that decriminalisation is very limited in what it can achieve.
People like you point to the numbers and say, "wow look at Portugal, decriminalisation is the bomb". You conveniently ignore the reasons behind the numbers.

I think it is really sad that people like you have such a myopic view.

What does decriminalisation do for kids in youth detention? I'll tell you what it does. F all.
What does decriminalisation do for the thousands of kids and the thousands of parents that are fighting drug problems?
What does decriminalisation do for the thousands of drug users that want help to stop their drug use?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bloodied52 said:
No idea what this debate is about other than the otherwise sensible N37 adopts the same approach in defending the indefensible on cricket matters - a subject I would add that is far more important than debating mass hysteria delusional beliefs in Harry Potter, Buddha, Jesus or giant purple monsters.
Click to expand...

You came here just to take a personal swipe at me?
I have spent a fair bit of time over the last 10 years working with indigenous kids in youth detention that have acute drug problems. Decriminalisation is going to do s**t for them.
I have also voluntarily spent a fair bit of time over the last 20 years helping drug users get through the court system for minor drug related offenses.

In the choice between giving people what they need and giving people what they want. I make no apologies for being in the give them what they need camp.
 
Number37 said:
You came here just to take a personal swipe at me?
I have spent a fair bit of time over the last 10 years working with indigenous kids in youth detention that have acute drug problems. Decriminalisation is going to do s**t for them.
I have also voluntarily spent a fair bit of time over the last 20 years helping drug users get through the court system for minor drug related offenses.

In the choice between giving people what they need and giving people what they want. I make no apologies for being in the give them what they need camp.
Click to expand...

N37.... here's a word used rarely on the webby thing, "sorry". No idea what you guys were arguing about but thought that I would tease you about cricket. Had not read the preceding debate. fwiw, I have worked with a pile of Aboriginal people.
 
Number37 said:
You came here just to take a personal swipe at me?
I have spent a fair bit of time over the last 10 years working with indigenous kids in youth detention that have acute drug problems. Decriminalisation is going to do s**t for them.
Click to expand...

I mean, all available evidence shows that a system that includes decriminalisation does help people with drug addictions avoid legal trouble and stop using drugs.
 
After driving around my neighbourhood today, and several interactions with drug users, it occurred to me to mention here that so many drug users are also involved in low level dealing.

If a kid buys a J bag of dope and can sell a quarter of that dope for half of what it cost them, most of the kids I know will do it.

$5 deals of cannabis (barely enough to fill a conepiece in a bong) are not uncommon in my area.

We say we should get tough on dealers but the waters get muddied when you try to differentiate between who is trying to recoup costs and who is actually trying to make money. Are they even different things? Just another aspect of "the war on drugs" I thought I'd throw out there.
 
Kummerspeck said:
I mean, all available evidence shows that a system that includes decriminalisation does help people with drug addictions avoid legal trouble and stop using drugs.
Click to expand...

You and your mate have constantly misrepresented and conflated decriminalisation with other things.
Decriminalisation is limited to a single thing. That thing being no criminality for possession or use.
At one point you and your mate agreed that is what decriminalisation is.
Hard as you and your mate have tried, decriminalisation is NOT ANYTHING else.
You and you mate keep saying, look at Portugal, decrimalisation works.
NOT ONCE have you or your mate acknowledged the things that have been done in Portugal OTHER THAN decriminalisation.

To you, and your mate, these other things may not be important, but IMO they are. In the opinion of many experts it is these other things that have contributed far more to the improved stats than the credit you would heap on decriminalisation.
Things like free needles, the availability of methadone as an alternative & the millions of dollars that is being spent on drug related services.
The work of people in these drug related services are probably the most important thing that has driven the decrease in drug related deaths. There are plenty of doccos on the work these people do. Things like sitting with drug users when they inject to make sure their drug use is safe, pill testing, offering & providing methadone on the spot as a first choice drug, checking back on drug users after a few hours to make sure they are ok.

You said what happens in Portugal is not what happens here. You are wrong. All of those things that I just mentioned happen here.
To you that seems to be irrelevant and the only justification you provide is by the letter of the law possession can still lead to consequences.
As has been mentioned a few times, that is not what happens in practice. Every effort is made to divert people that face court for drug possession to more appropriate services to sort out themselves out. To you that also seems irrelevant, again for no other reason than by the letter of the law possession can still lead to consequences.
 
Cheval said:
After driving around my neighbourhood today, and several interactions with drug users, it occurred to me to mention here that so many drug users are also involved in low level dealing.

If a kid buys a J bag of dope and can sell a quarter of that dope for half of what it cost them, most of the kids I know will do it.

$5 deals of cannabis (barely enough to fill a conepiece in a bong) are not uncommon in my area.

We say we should get tough on dealers but the waters get muddied when you try to differentiate between who is trying to recoup costs and who is actually trying to make money. Are they even different things? Just another aspect of "the war on drugs" I thought I'd throw out there.
Click to expand...

That's part of the argument used against decriminalisation.

It is very difficult to write legislation that can specifically target just drug use and possession for personal use amounts.
When they tried in about 2001 the proposed legislation went down like a lead balloon because the anti-decriminalisation brigade picked apart specific sections of the proposed legislation to show that it would lead to drug dealers getting away with selling drugs by, for example, selling drugs in amounts under the threshold, in the same way that you have outlined.
 
Number37 said:
You and you mate keep saying, look at Portugal, decrimalisation works.
NOT ONCE have you or your mate acknowledged the things that have been done in Portugal OTHER THAN decriminalisation.
Click to expand...
It's getting tiresome addressing you flat out lying like this. I have referred to decriminalisation working withing a system which the other steps are implicit in it, as well as making reference to them.

To you, and your mate, these other things may not be important, but IMO they are. In the opinion of many experts it is these other things that have contributed far more to the improved stats than the credit you would heap on decriminalisation.
Things like free needles, the availability of methadone as an alternative & the millions of dollars that is being spent on drug related services.
The work of people in these drug related services are probably the most important thing that has driven the decrease in drug related deaths. There are plenty of doccos on the work these people do. Things like sitting with drug users when they inject to make sure their drug use is safe, pill testing, offering & providing methadone on the spot as a first choice drug, checking back on drug users after a few hours to make sure they are ok.

You said what happens in Portugal is not what happens here. You are wrong. All of those things that I just mentioned happen here.
Click to expand...
Quote me arguing counter to any argument you're making there
 
Kummerspeck said:
It's getting tiresome addressing you flat out lying like this. I have referred to decriminalisation working withing a system which the other steps are implicit in it, as well as making reference to them.


Quote me arguing counter to any argument you're making there
Click to expand...

You referred to it once, in your previous post.
Your mate kept denying it is disingenuous but both of you have still not acknowledged all the other things that have been done in Portugal despite repeatedly using Portugal as an example of how decriminalisation works. It is disingenuous as I wrote many posts ago.

You will no doubt accuse me of lying again, but you also went as far as to claim that because we don't have decriminalisation that what happens here is a whole lot different to what happens in Portugal. You used the word "identical" to weasel out of what I actually wrote.
 
Number37 said:
You referred to it once, in your previous post.
Your mate kept denying it is disingenuous but both of you have still not acknowledged all the other things that have been done in Portugal despite repeatedly using Portugal as an example of how decriminalisation works. It is disingenuous as I wrote many posts ago.

You will no doubt accuse me of lying again, but you also went as far as to claim that because we don't have decriminalisation that what happens here is a whole lot different to what happens in Portugal. You used the word "identical" to weasel out of what I actually wrote.
Click to expand...
When Robbie and I talk about better funding medical and mental health services, talk about it operating within a system, discuss stigmatisation, what kind of mental gymnastics are you doing to claim that we're not acknowledging other factors?
 
Kummerspeck said:
When Robbie and I talk about better funding medical and mental health services, talk about it operating within a system, discuss stigmatisation, what kind of mental gymnastics are you doing to claim that we're not acknowledging other factors?
Click to expand...

Will be very simple for you to quote where you credited any of those things for the outcomes in Portugal.

The fact that you went to such lengths to differentiate what happens in Portugal with what happens here to champion decriminalisation suggests that you are the one doing mental gymnastics.
 
Number37 said:
Will be very simple for you to quote where you credited any of those things for the outcomes in Portugal.
Click to expand...

It would be, however you're the one who claimed that neither Robbie nor I had discussed them.

Given that the three times I've asked you to provide quotes backing up your claims about things you've said that Robbie and I have posted, I won't hold my breath on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top