Fluffnik: Your politician has arrived!
Discussion
Bob Ainsworth says, "Legalise it all!"
Bloke's got a point. Whether you're in favour of people having the freedom to do to their own bodies what they please, or not, it's inarguable that the "War on Drugs" or whatever we call it these days is about as effective as Gordon Brown.
Bloke's got a point. Whether you're in favour of people having the freedom to do to their own bodies what they please, or not, it's inarguable that the "War on Drugs" or whatever we call it these days is about as effective as Gordon Brown.
Parrot of Doom said:
I'd rather the matter were decided by scientists, than politicians or the public. Most people have no understanding of drugs or their impact on society, and I imagine they would likely vote against any attempt to legalise their trade or use.
The majority of people I know would vote in favour of legalisation, I recall posting it on here and the vote was something like 15 to 1 in favour.The BMA are in favour as are many senior politicians but the main obstacle appears to be the media.
Hence my liking the referendum option.
Incidentally I don't take drugs, I object to the idiotic failed policy of prohibition.
stitched said:
The BMA are in favour as are many senior politicians but the main obstacle appears to be the media.
Hence my liking the referendum option.
Incidentally I don't take drugs, I object to the idiotic failed policy of prohibition.
Some say the demonising of marijuana in the USA was down to vested interests from big business.Hence my liking the referendum option.
Incidentally I don't take drugs, I object to the idiotic failed policy of prohibition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_...
Halb said:
CommanderJameson said:
Whether you're in favour of people having the freedom to do to their own bodies what they please, or not,
That's the important bit for me. Freedom and the rights and responsibilities that go with it.Once you do stuff to others (rob to feed you habit, get drunk and punch the wife, get stoned and drive into somones house) that's where you should be punnished.
The reason we have lost the war on drugs is simple, we fight with a stick they have an army. They are prepared to kill each other for control and anyone who is in their way we want to understand them, have empathy with them.
people go on about freedom and yet we are all prisoners of this evil trade, theft, violence to feed a habit makes us insecure.
We had lost before we started.
people go on about freedom and yet we are all prisoners of this evil trade, theft, violence to feed a habit makes us insecure.
We had lost before we started.
Bibbs said:
Halb said:
CommanderJameson said:
Whether you're in favour of people having the freedom to do to their own bodies what they please, or not,
That's the important bit for me. Freedom and the rights and responsibilities that go with it.Once you do stuff to others (rob to feed you habit, get drunk and punch the wife, get stoned and drive into somones house) that's where you should be punnished.
Smackhead currently a prolific burglar to feed his habit costs the public thousands of pounds a year, associated medical costs due to spending all his money on smack also costs us thousands.
A daily dose of free heroin doled out by a clinic would cost about a pound a day.
On top of which he is no longer giving the money to gangsters with all the associated crime that causes.
Google Al Capone, without prohibition he would never have existed.
Parrot of Doom said:
I'd rather the matter were decided by scientists, than politicians or the public. Most people have no understanding of drugs or their impact on society, and I imagine they would likely vote against any attempt to legalise their trade or use.
The public are told what to believe by the media who are in turn told what to say by the elite of politics, law, business, finance and the armed forces. All of whom have an interest in maintaining prohibition.Freedom, liberty and the sovereign individual mean nothing to these people. We are merely human livestock.
legalise everything BUT put responsability of consequences onto the users.
get addicted to smack..... YOUR FAULT! not ours!
become an alcoholic.....YOUR FAULT. not ours!
this will mean NO incapacity benefits for addicts..... because its THEIR FAULT!
its about time people where treated like adults and that includes adult responseablitys.
get addicted to smack..... YOUR FAULT! not ours!
become an alcoholic.....YOUR FAULT. not ours!
this will mean NO incapacity benefits for addicts..... because its THEIR FAULT!
its about time people where treated like adults and that includes adult responseablitys.
Edited by dudleybloke on Thursday 16th December 14:57
stitched said:
The majority of people I know would vote in favour of legalisation, I recall posting it on here and the vote was something like 15 to 1 in favour.
The BMA are in favour as are many senior politicians but the main obstacle appears to be the media.
Hence my liking the referendum option.
Incidentally I don't take drugs, I object to the idiotic failed policy of prohibition.
You are wrong:The BMA are in favour as are many senior politicians but the main obstacle appears to be the media.
Hence my liking the referendum option.
Incidentally I don't take drugs, I object to the idiotic failed policy of prohibition.
". . . a Labour spokesman saying Mr Ainsworth's [views] were "not the views of Ed Miliband, the Labour Party or the public"
Whether it was the concept, timing, committment, tactics or levels of investment that was wrong, or all of them, there is no doubt that the war on drugs has been a spectacular failure. All it has done is throw money at the producers. On a conservative estimate, according to Fox, 10% of the population are regular users of cannabis.
I was brought up in the 70s at a time of a limited form of legalisatiion of Class A drugs. The most noticeable result of the WoD has been the ease of availability. All rather ironic. I'm in my 60s and if I wanted hard of soft drugs I could get some within the hour.
We were, evidently, ordered by the USA to follow their lead in the matter (as part of the 'special' relationship) and there was some (considerable?) resistance at the time, especially from the police and medical sides. Thinking back I can remember no real argument put forward, no press campaign or similar. It just happened.
I was never what you would call a user so such things were of little concern at the time so I might have missed it all. But in those days there was no real incentive to bring out new really dangerous drugs. There were amphets, cannabis, LSD and the small group of opiates in 'general' use.
I knocked round with a crowd from an art college and only one of our mob abused, and he was into music (anyone remember John E. King? Thought not.) I had a cousin who was a pop singer whoe hangers-on were a bit spaced out and I was offered LSD - the bloke doing so was gay and whilst I was tempted by the drug, the risks were too high.
But my cousin, despite pots of money, went the way of alcohol for a while and not illegal drugs.
But it has gone way beyond that now. We'll never be able to go back. All we can hope for is to limit the damage of the WoD.
dudleybloke said:
this will mean NO incapacity benefits for addicts..... because its THEIR FAULT!
Not that simple. If they have dependants, you can't abandon them. If you take those dependants from them, you still have to provide for their care.I don't want to live in a society that lets people starve or die.
Never been involved in the drugs scene at all although I knew people at uni who 'dabbled' and experimented a lot.
Wouldn't drugs have reached the same level of proliferation anyway regardless of the WoD? After all its a business system except the advantage is you only really have to make the sale a few times, after that addiction will often take the lead? So regardless of someone trying to stop them or not they still have a market? Arguably without trying to prevent it they would have more money for expansion and new product research.
Not saying if it should be legalised or not as I'm far from qualified to say so.
Wouldn't drugs have reached the same level of proliferation anyway regardless of the WoD? After all its a business system except the advantage is you only really have to make the sale a few times, after that addiction will often take the lead? So regardless of someone trying to stop them or not they still have a market? Arguably without trying to prevent it they would have more money for expansion and new product research.
Not saying if it should be legalised or not as I'm far from qualified to say so.
CommanderJameson said:
Bob Ainsworth says, "Legalise it all!"
Bloke's got a point. Whether you're in favour of people having the freedom to do to their own bodies what they please, or not, it's inarguable that the "War on Drugs" or whatever we call it these days is about as effective as Gordon Brown.
It's just a pity none of them catch good sense 'til they're out of power.Bloke's got a point. Whether you're in favour of people having the freedom to do to their own bodies what they please, or not, it's inarguable that the "War on Drugs" or whatever we call it these days is about as effective as Gordon Brown.
The "War on Drugs" prevents precisely no harm and causes a whole heap whilst doing so, all at massive cost both human and financial.
Regulate quality, charge VAT, sack the Drug Squad.
Win, win, win.
Parrot of Doom said:
dudleybloke said:
this will mean NO incapacity benefits for addicts
I don't want to live in a society that lets people starve or die.why should someone get more than double dole money for having little self control.
its like rewarding them for being addicts.
with less cash they can afford less drugs/drink which will help them cut down.
getting high isnt a human right!
spaximus said:
The reason we have lost the war on drugs is simple, we fight with a stick they have an army. They are prepared to kill each other for control and anyone who is in their way we want to understand them, have empathy with them.
people go on about freedom and yet we are all prisoners of this evil trade, theft, violence to feed a habit makes us insecure.
The mistake was starting the "War".people go on about freedom and yet we are all prisoners of this evil trade, theft, violence to feed a habit makes us insecure.
All the problems you describe are down to prohibition, not that which is prohibited.
spaximus said:
We had lost before we started.
We lost by starting a "War" against ourselves.dudleybloke said:
Parrot of Doom said:
dudleybloke said:
this will mean NO incapacity benefits for addicts
I don't want to live in a society that lets people starve or die.why should someone get more than double dole money for having little self control.
its like rewarding them for being addicts.
with less cash they can afford less drugs/drink which will help them cut down.
getting high isnt a human right!
There are no black and white answers to this.
Balmoral Green said:
It will never happen. This is one of those issues where doing the right thing, the sensible thing, the logical and rational thing, is inconceivable.
It's too much of a political 'ot spud to do what is right.
Might placate the students a bit if you legalise the green though.........It's too much of a political 'ot spud to do what is right.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff