Should I be jailed for breaking the law?

[shinyhappy68]

The thing about threads like this is that, when it comes to most people who believe drugs should remain illegal, is that, putting forward facts and arguments to the contrary, is highly unlikely to do any good, because most of them are not at all open to reason.

 

Anyone who's good a decent grasp of the reality of the 'drugs on war' knows that it's not actually a complicated issue: the 'drugs on war' is manifestly and obviously insane.

 

The vast majority of the harm attributed to drug use, is in actuality, a direct consequence of the anti-drugs laws.

 

Virtually all the 'arguements' in support of demonising drugs and drug users, are based on prejudice, knee-jerk emotion and have no basis in rationality.

 

Does anyone know of any organisations that are actually trying to do something practical about this- rather than just trying to convince people who are incapable of being convinced?

 

Clearly, the attempt to tackle the problem by pure debate, is failing, has been failing for some time, and, will likely continue to do so.

 

:clap::clap:

[Halibut]

I think I understand now.

 

The governments of just about every civilised country, and their medical advisors, are totally wrong, and druggies know their stuff.

I'm waiting to feel that 'Eureka' thing, but it's just not coming.

 

Spain seem to be doing rather well at the moment actually.

[Mr Bojangles]

Spain seem to be doing rather well at the moment actually.

Aside from the fact that Spain is only marginally a 1st world country, which part of 'just about' don't you understand?

[onewheeldave]

Here's an example of the governments innept approach to drug issues-

 

in reply to the evidence of Portugals decriminalisation of drugs coinciding with a decrease in drug use amongst the young

 

The high-profile campaigners point to the Portuguese experience as evidence that decriminalisation does not lead to an increase in drug use. Portugal became the first European country in July 2001 to introduce "administrative" penalties – similar to parking fines – for the possession of all illicit drugs.

 

The immediate reaction from the Home Office last night was to rule out any such move: "We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities.

 

"Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug-free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer," said a spokesman.

 

i.e. no response to the actual point being raised, just a re-hash of the 'drugs cause harm' line.

 

And a 'decriminalisation is clearly not the answer. 'Clearly'???

 

There's nothing clear there- to me it's clearly the case that the exact opposite is true.

 

Either way, the appropriate response would be to actually address the fact that Portugals decriminalisation has corresponded with a decrease in drug use.

 

and, when it comes to harm, the fact is that most of the harm blamed on drug use, is, in actuality, a result of the anti-drug laws.

 

and the 'untold misery to communities' consists of

 

1. drug overdoses- which are caused by the fact that users cannot obtain uncontaminated produce of rated strength- which is entirely a consequence of the illegality of drugs and consequent lack of regulation

 

2. young family members being sent to jail, when they're done nothing wrong whatseover- simply refusing to toe the line to laws that are manifestly absurd

 

3. the real misery of the consequences of the drug trade being run by criminals who use violence, and, whose produce is entirely unregulated and therefore often containing dangerous contaminents

 

etc, etc

[Mr Bojangles]

. . . . .

2. young family members being sent to jail, when they're done nothing wrong whatseover- simply refusing to toe the line to laws that are manifestly absurd

. . . . .

Are people jailed without being convicted of an offence?

Beause, if they've been convicted of an offence, I think most people would agree that thay have indeed done something wrong - whatsoever.

[onewheeldave]

Are people jailed without being convicted of an offence?

Beause, if they've been convicted of an offence, I think most people would agree that thay have indeed done something wrong - whatsoever.

 

No- in the case of drug offences, most of the people who recognise that our drug laws are nonsense, would maintain that many of those convicted have done nothing wrong whatseover.

 

(Similarly, many of the people who were convicted of offences in Nazi Germany, or communist Russia, had actually done nothing wrong- if a law is wrong, it's OK to break it.).

[Mr Bojangles]

No- in the case of drug offences, most of the people who recognise that our drug laws are nonsense, would maintain that many of those convicted have done nothing wrong whatseover.

 

(Similarly, many of the people who were convicted of offences in Nazi Germany, or communist Russia, had actually done nothing wrong- if a law is wrong, it's OK to break it.).

I'm with you - if you don't agree with a law, breaking it is doing no wrong. Are you really saying that?

 

So burglars who think they have a right to earn a living through burglary (after all, they have no victims - the householders get new gear on insurance) are not doing anything wrong?

[onewheeldave]

I'm with you - if you don't agree with a law, breaking it is doing no wrong. Are you really saying that?

 

So burglars who think they have a right to earn a living through burglary (after all, they have no victims - the householders get new gear on insurance) are not doing anything wrong?

 

Burgaling people is wrong.

 

Burgalry has plenty of victims- insurance is obviously a help, but, some items cannot be replaced- neither does insurance remove the emotional trauma of having your home invaded or the subsequent fear.

[Halibut]

I'm with you - if you don't agree with a law, breaking it is doing no wrong. Are you really saying that?

 

So burglars who think they have a right to earn a living through burglary (after all, they have no victims - the householders get new gear on insurance) are not doing anything wrong?

 

Burglary - breaking into someones home and stealing their stuff - plainly wrong, causes great distress and upset to others.

 

Smoking a joint in the comfort of one's own home - where's the 'wrongness'?

No one else is hurt.

[Mr Bojangles]

Burgaling people is wrong.

 

Burgalry has plenty of victims- insurance is obviously a help, but, some items cannot be replaced- neither does insurance remove the emotional trauma of having your home invaded or the subsequent fear.

But many crimials don't think their crime is wrong - drug users are no different in that respect.