Manatauri Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Saddam was responsible for many deaths. This stopped very quickly after they hanged him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 The reason drug dealers currently exist is because they can make large amounts of money, right? The reason your uncle fred might bring a minivan full of wine back from France is to make a couple of quid, right? If drugs were legally available (in some cases for free on prescription from a GP, heroin for example) and in other cases for a low price from a licensed seller (cannabis) then there would be very little to be made by illicitly dealing it. Your local corner shop won't be cutting the cannabis, it won't be pushing heroin and it won't need to keep a knife or gun in order to ensure that people pay up. What exactly is the downside to allowing adults to decide for themselves whether to smoke weed or not? Would ANYONE be entitled to the right to Free Heroin? If not dealers would supply those that are not entitled to a prescription. Would a GP issue a prescription to ANYONE that wants to try Heroin for the first time? If not dealers could supply that market. Would a GP issue a prescription for Crystal Meth or PCP ? If so do you agree with his decision? If not we once more have room for a dealer do we not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Saddam was responsible for many deaths. This stopped very quickly after they hanged him. Absolutely. But it doesnt stop others repeating similar crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 During the last mid term elections a ballot measure was introduced in California to allow cannabis to be used for recreational purposes. It was defeated by the voters by about 55 percent against and 45 percent for. The argument put forward by those supporting the measure was that legalizing it would eliminate the Mexcian drug smuggling gangs and the wars and killings going on south of the border. The argument made some sense but didn't take into account that it's just not cannabis that these gangs smuggle into the US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 During the last mid term elections a ballot measure was introduced in California to allow cannabis to be used for recreational purposes. It was defeated by the voters by about 55 percent against and 45 percent for. The argument put forward by those supporting the measure was that legalizing it would eliminate the Mexcian drug smuggling gangs and the wars and killings going on south of the border. The argument made some sense but didn't take into account that it's just not cannabis that these gangs smuggle into the US The problem is most of those 'for' never turned up to vote because they were too stoned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Saddam was responsible for many deaths. This stopped very quickly after they hanged him. It would be interesting to find Anti Death Penalty posters that want to argue that he shouldn't have been executed? Anti Death Penalty posters that believe that the Death Penalties at the Nuremberg war trials was wrong? How many Anti Death Penalty types support 'Right to choice abortion' ? (Literal execution of the innocent???) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 No it doesnt. Numerous studies in America show that it actually increases repeated offences. What country you looking at? Exactly how many executed prisoners have risen from the grave to carry out these fiendish post mortem murders then? You are probably looking at the figures for Haiti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 I can recall the Ruth Ellis and James Hanratty executions, I thought that I could never endorse the execution of another human being, but Ian Huntley seriously tests my theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 The problem is most of those 'for' never turned up to vote because they were too stoned! Those "for" were nearly all from the San Francisco area which is composed mostly of the liberal minded population in the state but the rest of the state is not so liberal minded contrary to what many who dont know the state believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 It would be interesting to find Anti Death Penalty posters that want to argue that he shouldn't have been executed? Anti Death Penalty posters that believe that the Death Penalties at the Nuremberg war trials was wrong? How many Anti Death Penalty types support 'Right to choice abortion' ? (Literal execution of the innocent???) Sadaam should have been executed. Death penalities at Nuremberg trials were correct in some instances. Right for abortion- yes, every woman should have this right. But grouping mass genocide with abortion isnt relevant, or would you have all 'murderers' executed? For instance your missus attacks you with a knife tonight and you push her away, she hits her head and dies. Do you deserve to be executed for manslaughter?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.