Phanerothyme Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Blessed are the peacemakers. (now all you have to do is keep the maniacs out - oops too late) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 You callin' me a MANIAC ??!!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halevan Posted July 22, 2003 Author Share Posted July 22, 2003 What I am saying is that the pimps and the merchants of death who sentence others to death without trial, deserve the same treatment that they are dishing out to the innocents. They don't have someone in a court of law, people who are not guilty of any crime in the first place before filling them full of illegal drugs, this is premeditated murder. These drug barons do not care who they kill when they distribute this poison, as they have no concience where making money is concerned and if they are prepared to sentence others to death without trial, then they should suffer the same fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by halevan These drug barons do not care who they kill when they distribute this poison, as they have no concience where making money is concerned Now that I have no argument with whatsoever. The drug barons do not have a conscience. If they made more money selling weapons, they would do that too. Many do. But take a step back and ask why the drug barons exist in the first place, and which drugs they supply. They supply, in the main, highly addictive drugs, which - as the tobacco companies have discovered - "lock in" consumers and get them paying regular amounts in for the duration of the addiction. There's no business like repeat business. Dealers satisfy an economic demand. People want to buy drugs of all kinds, and the illegal ones must be supplied by netherworld dealers. The most profitable ones are freebase cocaine, cocaine hydrochloride and diamorphine. Why are they so profitable? because the users, once addicted, will pay anything, and do anything to get the money to pay for their next installment. Now you can try and reduce demand, because that is the only way to reduce supply. But to reduce demand, you really have to understand why people take drugs. And there are as many different reasons for people taking drugs as there are drugs x people. Not all drugs are addictive, and not all drugs are harmful to the person. Trying to stop the supply has two effects. Firstly, if you are successful in reducing supply, then the price of the drug will go up, and users will steal more goods to get the same amount. result - more crime. Secondly by cracking down on supply, users will simply find other methods of obtaining their drug of choice - opening up new networks of supply. and if they are prepared to sentence others to death without trial, then they should suffer the same fate. well our opinions on this are quite clear. Let me put another point to you. By sentencing alleged dealers to death without trial, are we not sinking to their level? Surely we, as law abiding citizens (for the most part), have a responsibility to uphold the rule of law, and the principle of systematic justice through the courts?I think so. The law prohibits the use, sale and production of many drugs. Is it not enough to use the law to stamp out the dealers? You may not think so, and I would agree with you. The drug law as it stands is a mess, and exacerbates the problem more than it solves it. Reform, of some kind or another, is sorly needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halevan Posted July 22, 2003 Author Share Posted July 22, 2003 We are broadly of the same opinion, and I take your point that we must not stoop as low as they are, if an intelligent adult wishes to take drugs, then that is his or her choice. But when certain people use vulnerable members of society to satisfy their own selfish desires, then that! is beneath contempt. and should be punishable by the full weight of the law. These drug barons and pimps, can be likened to political criminals who have emerged from time to time to acuire power, in certain countries of the world I.E. Hitler and his cronies, Mussolini and his, Stalin, to name just a few who had scant regard for human life and indeed tortured and tormented the poor souls who didn't agree with their philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t020 Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by halevan and I take your point that we must not stoop as low as they are, if an intelligent adult wishes to take drugs, then that is his or her choice. Actually it isn't. Since recreational drugs are illegal, people don't have a choice. If you want to live in a country you obide by the laws that govern it. If not, I've heard Hollands nice this time of year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upholder Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Just thought I'd throw this into the debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WORKPLACE DRUG TESTS Drug and alcohol tests could become quite common at work, because increasing numbers of employers believe that substance abuse is the reason for high levels of absenteeism and accidents at work, reveals the Drugscope charity. These conclusions stem from an independent inquiry that has been jointly organised by Drugscope and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which finds that 80 per cent of employers would test workers if substance abuse is suspected to be affecting productivity. For more information visit: http://www.drugscope.org.uk. And this DRUG and alcohol abuse is estimated to cost industry as much as £2.8billion a year. One business in every 25 has conducted tests, while ten per cent of all firms plan to introduce testing during the next year - tests are already used by construction and transport firms. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Looks like Big Blair is watching you. [Edited by Tony Ruscoe - fixed link] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by halevan We are broadly of the same opinion, and I take your point that we must not stoop as low as they are, if an intelligent adult wishes to take drugs, then that is his or her choice. But when certain people use vulnerable members of society to satisfy their own selfish desires, then that! is beneath contempt. and should be punishable by the full weight of the law. Absolutely. It is the nature of these extremely addictive drugs that is being used to enslave blameless individuals. Looking particularly at heroin, this is a painkilling drug. Those who are growing up on 'sink estates', in a culture of anti-achievement and economic hopelessness will quickly find that heroin kills the existential pain of seemingly inescapable bad situation. Once addicted, escape comes in few forms other than death or prison. These drug barons and pimps, can be likened to political criminals who have emerged from time to time to acuire power, in certain countries of the world I.E. Hitler and his cronies, Mussolini and his, Stalin, to name just a few who had scant regard for human life and indeed tortured and tormented the poor souls who didn't agree with their philosophy. Again, I think you've really nailed it. These drugs - crack, heroin, cocaine are tools used by malevolent and greedy individuals to suck money out of vulnerable people, whilst simultaneously slowly killing them with damaging adulterants. Their victims will even steal and mug to give these scumbags money. And this is where I fear our agreement ends. These 'high level dealers' who: hoover untraceable cash out from society and pay no taxes use addictive drugs to shackle their victims into a pattern of crime who have other business interests, namely prostitution of young russian and eastern european women, dealing small arms to the criminal fraternity and political corruption, could have one of their financial legs cut out from underneath them if this government instituted a well planned but very radical reform of the drugs law. By dropping penalties for users, increasing penalties for 'substantial supply', and (most controversially) providing good heroin and clean works for anyone who can prove they are an addict (**** test). Then monitor and control carefully.A small scheme in the runcorn area in the late 80s demonstrated something like an 80% drop in burglaries. It won't be perfect, nothing ever is, but I believe it really could help reduce the crime and the self harm that results mostly from the prohibition of the drugs we are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Originally posted by t020 Actually it isn't. Since recreational drugs are illegal, people don't have a choice. If you want to live in a country you obide by the laws that govern it. If not, I've heard Hollands nice this time of year? Have to disagree with you there. We are free in this country to either obey or break the laws as we see fit. But we are bound by a social contract to accept the judgement of the law if we are apprehended. The thing is that we are self policing. Most people understand that stealing things indisicriminately, or killing etc, make for a crappy place to live, so they don't do it to each other. Laws enshrine those values as oppposed to creating them. The law merely institutes a set of statutory penalties for socially unacceptable behaviour, and ensures fair judgment of the accused. If a law is seen to be unreasonable or unworkable, people tend not to obey it (speed limits, cannabis, getting drunk in pubs, eating mince pies). And often unworkable or unreasonable laws are not upheld by the police either, leading to de facto decriminalisation. So some laws can be broken more easily than others. Some laws should never be broken, and many should be repealed completely. You have to ask yourself the question - can there be such a thing as a bad law, and if so, is it morally wrong to disobey it? Of course it is illegal, by definition, but illegal does not equal wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t020 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 It does in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.