Bonzo77 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Uk government? ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 16:34 ---------- I understood, just dont agree. I beg to differ, otherwise you wouldn't be saying things like this: So youre saying free drugs for all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsTrophy Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 From the OP I believe that life sentences are wrong, cruel, costly, ineffective and contradictory. Better to put them to sleep like other animals are treated which is then called humane. Do we have a true life sentence to change? Society cannot accept people who have completed their sentence, yes it really is a life sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I beg to differ, otherwise you wouldn't be saying things like this: So youre saying free drugs for all? [/ My answers were covered in my posts. If not free then competition exists. As you seem to think there would be no competition i concluded you must advocate the drugs being free for all. Ill check in later. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Uk government? Pretty difficult to provide tax levels on weed in the UK. Besides you asked for 'any' government. I provided details of a number of US states (where taxation is set at state level). House prices and general cost of living is higher in London, its not because its illegal to live there. Thats me out. And what has that to do with taxation on drugs? jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I beg to differ, otherwise you wouldn't be saying things like this: So youre saying free drugs for all? [/ My answers were covered in my posts. If not free then competition exists. As you seem to think there would be no competition i concluded you must advocate the drugs being free for all. Ill check in later. Cheers. Heroin would be prescribed to addicts, on the NHS, so it would be free to them. This doesn't mean all drugs will be free, or that you can walk into your GP's office and demand free heroin. Does this concept not make any sense to you at all?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Pretty difficult to provide tax levels on weed in the UK. Besides you asked for 'any' government. I provided details of a number of US states (where taxation is set at state level). And what has that to do with taxation on drugs? jb As my original comment about taxes referred to any uk government past or present i though it was obvious what i meant. Also your reply wasnt an answer to the question posed. What it has to do with the taxation of drugs is that there are several factors that would effect a price point of drugs in particular areas of the us as applys everywhere. The costs you quote may not neccessarily be to do with the legality of it in that state. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 17:14 ---------- Heroin would be prescribed to addicts, on the NHS, so it would be free to them. This doesn't mean all drugs will be free, or that you can walk into your GP's office and demand free heroin. Does this concept not make any sense to you at all?? Your complete concept makes no sense to me as ive said. Carry on giving them methadone if you must but to give them free heroin would be taking the mickey. You can argue the point if you like as im sure youll carry on doing to anyone who might listen but i think ive made my views clear and i cant agree with the legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs. Plough the money into something worthwhile for the population as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Yellow Peril I urge you to read into this subject a bit further, because you are blinkered in your view. Normally, when you are saying one thing (without any facts of figures to back up your point of view) and everyone else says the opposite (complete with facts and figures) you should retreat and rethink. Prohibition costs us money and will not work. The arguments you come up with (pollution of drug supply, increase in black market activity, increase in drug use etc) are the opposite of what has happened in other countries with similar social conditions to our own. I have neither heard anyone use most of the arguments you have put forth, in fact I have heard the opposite to most of them from both abolishionists and prohibitionists. I applaud the vigour with which you have argued you point, a man (figuratively speaking, you may be a woman) should always stick to his beliefs. You have spent a lot of time today discussing this. If you have the time, I would ask you to conduct your own research into the impacts of prohibition. Spend perhaps half hour reading and then see if your position has changed somewhat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Your complete concept makes no sense to me as ive said. You've not explained why it makes no sense. You've tried, but you've continually missed the point! Carry on giving them methadone if you must but to give them free heroin would be taking the mickey. Why would it be taking the mickey? Heroin is cheaper than methadone and less addictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Yellow Peril I urge you to read into this subject a bit further, because you are blinkered in your view. Normally, when you are saying one thing (without any facts of figures to back up your point of view) and everyone else says the opposite (complete with facts and figures) you should retreat and rethink. Prohibition costs us money and will not work. The arguments you come up with (pollution of drug supply, increase in black market activity, increase in drug use etc) are the opposite of what has happened in other countries with similar social conditions to our own. I have neither heard anyone use most of the arguments you have put forth, in fact I have heard the opposite to most of them from both abolishionists and prohibitionists. I applaud the vigour with which you have argued you point, a man (figuratively speaking, you may be a woman) should always stick to his beliefs. You have spent a lot of time today discussing this. If you have the time, I would ask you to conduct your own research into the impacts of prohibition. Spend perhaps half hour reading and then see if your position has changed somewhat? Just because theres only me speaking out about my views and two or three of you with apposing ones on here doesnt neccessarily mean that mine is the minority view in the big scheme, ive taken on board what youve said but im afraid i see no value in what you propose and can think of a negative for every single point thats been made so far. If we had a big vote in the uk id be happy to vote the way i think and dont think id be in the miniority then. Facts can be worded in various ways and figures can be massaged, maybe its yourselves that should have the rethink? I think youre judging all drug users and addicts as respectable people who want to stop and be of value in society, my own point of view is that those ones are very much in the minority and the legalisation or decriminalisation would have negative effects far more reaching than the short term savings that may (and i stress MAY) be gained. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 19:52 ---------- This whole conversation started when someone said on here that there would be less theft,no dealers and a better life for us all in general,i cant see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 [/color]This whole conversation started when someone said on here that there would be less theft,no dealers and a better life for us all in general,i cant see it. Nor can you muster any convincing arguments about why the UK would be so different to other countries that have experienced significant drops in associated crime, hospital admissions, and black market trading in drugs after decrim or legalisation. No-one is claiming it's a silver bullet, just that the harms to society and individuals can be reduced, less money will be wasted on pointless incarceration of non-violent drug users, and the government will enjoy a hike in tax revenue, if drugs are gradually legalised. I'm not pretending it would be simple either, there are a lot of details to work out, and they will need to be different models for different substances. As it stands, current drug legislation makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.