yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Hey youre right, i think things need to change. I think we need to INCREASE fines and sentances to discourage. Not legalise and take the chance that what you think will happen after that actually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Time magazine http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Free drugs for only diagnosed addicts still leaves us with dealers and the problems that go with it. Ive read what you have put in your posts and dont agree with you im afraid. Ive also explained myself in my posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Hey youre right, i think things need to change. I think we need to INCREASE fines and sentances to discourage. Not legalise and take the chance that what you think will happen after that actually does. Because fines and prison sentences (including death) have all been proven to work elsewhere haven't they. Why would you suggest something that is proven not to work? You aren't interested in reducing harm are you. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 13:46 ---------- ""Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does." Read more: Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz2sY89BGqz" But you're not interested in actual evidence, so this won't matter. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 13:47 ---------- You're worried that it would cause more people to use drugs.... Yet look. Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana. Read more: Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz2sY8IzRjO It has the opposite affect. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 13:57 ---------- Free drugs for only diagnosed addicts still leaves us with dealers and the problems that go with it. Ive read what you have put in your posts and dont agree with you im afraid. Ive also explained myself in my posts. No, it doesn't leave us with dealers. Who would they be dealing to? How would they make a profit? You haven't explained at all. And you keep repeating claims that I've now demonstrated are false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Youve demonstrated nothing in my opinion sorry. I think you are failing to see the big picture. Maybe you should explain what the benefits to myself and the non using man on the street would be, i cant see any. Youve said that you dont advocate "free drugs for all" So what are you adocating for non registered addicts? Decriminalisation or legalisation? Decriminalisation would de-stigmatise and ive explained what i believe would happen if that were the case. Legalisation would mean taxation and that would mean there was always a lower cost alternative which to be profitable would mean lower quality drugs and cutting with brick dust etc as a more likely event to compete on price, ive explained my beliefs on that too. Ive also covered the sweet spot you proposed on taxation amounts by the government. I dont see where ive failed to explain what i mean as i keep being accused of doing. You can have your opinion based on the surveys and articles you choose to think are true. I have my opinion too based on what ive seen and experienced. We dont agree and never will. If it comes down to a vote i guess we both know which way we will be voting. Youre encouraging me to rethink and change my mind, im not encouraging you to, im just saying i dont agree with your point of view,sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Free drugs for only diagnosed addicts still leaves us with dealers and the problems that go with it. Ive read what you have put in your posts and dont agree with you im afraid. Ive also explained myself in my posts. I have read through this discussion and you seem to be not understanding a fairly simple concept. There will be less dealers if the prohibition on drugs is ended. How can you even think there will be more? You claim later that because of taxation, criminals will be able to sell drugs cheaper, which is an absurd claim. There is something in business known as economies of scale. A big business buys in bulk and will therefore be able to undercut any price that a sole trader (ie drug dealer) could offer. Do you think that the number of bootleggers increased after the alcohol prohibition in the US was ended? I buy drugs because I like them, mainly cannabis and MDMA. Both are physiologically and psychologically safer than alcohol and tobacco (in fact clinical tests have shown MDMA to have less negative impacts than caffeine!). Moreover, the social impact they have is far less dangerous than Alcohol. No one has ever taken a few too many pills and got angry and killed someone, or got home and beat their wives or children. This does happen with alcohol. These drugs are bought from dealers because that is the only place I can get them. I never buy alcohol from a dealer because I do not have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Maybe you should explain what the benefits to myself and the non using man on the street would be, i cant see any. Maybe you should give us a reason to suggest what benefits the current system has for yourself and the non using man on the street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I have read through this discussion and you seem to be not understanding a fairly simple concept. There will be less dealers if the prohibition on drugs is ended. How can you even think there will be more? You claim later that because of taxation, criminals will be able to sell drugs cheaper, which is an absurd claim. There is something in business known as economies of scale. A big business buys in bulk and will therefore be able to undercut any price that a sole trader (ie drug dealer) could offer. Do you think that the number of bootleggers increased after the alcohol prohibition in the US was ended? I buy drugs because I like them, mainly cannabis and MDMA. Both are physiologically and psychologically safer than alcohol and tobacco (in fact clinical tests have shown MDMA to have less negative impacts than caffeine!). Moreover, the social impact they have is far less dangerous than Alcohol. No one has ever taken a few too many pills and got angry and killed someone, or got home and beat their wives or children. This does happen with alcohol. These drugs are bought from dealers because that is the only place I can get them. I never buy alcohol from a dealer because I do not have to. I think its you thats failing to understand a simple concept whilst reading what you think i put rather than what i actually put. I didnt say dealers would be able to sell drugs cheaper at all ! Dont know where you pulled that from. What i actually said was that dealers would have to compete on price if legalised and taxed at a certain level, thus meaning that to maximise profits the quality would have to go down so the cutting with brick dust etc would increase. Given that you likened dealers to sole traders im sure you have some business knowledge so know what i mean. Id be more likely to make the comparison if they were paying tax . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Instead of discussing how to maintain an addiction wouldn't it be better to discuss how to avoid or end an addiction ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Yes it would. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 15:09 ---------- Maybe you should give us a reason to suggest what benefits the current system has for yourself and the non using man on the street? I think as the current system is already in place and youre offering a vision of what you THINK things would be like if we changed things im quite happy with things as they are and could only advocate increasing fines and sentances. as ive said already i dont share you point of view of what things would be like if we changed the laws in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.