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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It's certainly a simple question and I think we all know the answer. A more pertinent question though is "does prohibition reduce the number of addicts, or would another approach work better?" And the answer to that question is "another approach". In effect you are saying that they could become legal drug addicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Like i originally said, idealistic and unrealistic and thats to both answers. You are quoting opinions and supposition as fact. Everything that both answers to my last post have put are purely opinions of how it would maybe be if legalised. Im sorry but i dont share either. No they aren't. They're demonstratably true. It's what's actually happened in Portugal and happened in trials in the UK. You're simply denying reality. And as for the sprained ankle from football,paracetamol overdose and cyrosis from alcohol abuse question then youll not like my answers. The football injury could be covered by insurance if played other than an occasional kick about in the park, with the kids etc. im sure that the insurance wouldnt be high and would be counted as a cost to enjoy the sport like buying a shirt or pair of shorts. The patacetamol overdose could have occured for varios reasons, im sure we can all agree there must have been intent to harm themselves but the cause of the overdose could be many many reasons, some of which would make them "real" victims so entitled to support and treatment. It can occur without intent to harm oneself is one isn't very clever. Cyrosis of the liver if through alcohol abuse doesnt make you a victim. The same arguement as drugs with this one. We all know the risks and take them knowing the risks. You failed to actually answer the question though, although you implied that none of them should receive treatment. You seem happy though to restrict sport to only those who can afford private medical insurance. I suppose you're ignoring the cost to the NHS of an inactive population? I know im coming across as maybe uncaring and unsympathetic but i can assure you its not the case, i have all the time in the world for true victims of any situation. Im a big believer that people should take responsibility for their own actions though and should take consequences on the chin. Using the NHS, a system we all pay for through tax is not a failing in any way to take responsibility. As a society we have decided that medical care free at the point of delivery is a basic right. I happen to agree that it should be. Im afraid i dont see anyone embroiled in drugs as a victim, we are all aware of the risks so cant complain when it doesnt work out well. I don't really care whether we characterise them as victims or not. I'm mainly interested in minimising the harm (to everyone) and cost (to everyone) in the most effective way. One thing i will say is that i think that alot of people that have started taking drugs have done so in the company of other drug users, where it will have been considered more the norm, i think thats where your legalisation and de-stigmatising will get you, i think it will be considered more acceptable and thus the take up would be higher. You're wrong though. But you're clearly not interested in evidence and just want to moralise. I think legalisation would create an open market as ive said. And I've explained why you're wrong. If you are still going to have restrictions as you both seem to be sanctioning now then it will change nothing by legalising it, It would change everything. there will still be a cheaper supply out there Cheaper than free, that you'll have to explain. and people who will still steal to support a habit, Steal in order to pay nothing for free drugs from the state? You're just making up nonsense now. just the chances are that by de-stigmatising and legalising there will be more of them. Demonstrably wrong. I think any money saving that you are proposing would be swallowed up by support for those that choose that path to save overdoses and deaths and to educate them, the cost of that infrastructure would balance any savings i think. You think wrong. The only difference will be that people eventually would judge the users differently and they could use without feeling like they were living out of general societies regulations and thus they could feel better about themselves as they used the filthy stuff. Ahhhh, now you're real feelings come out. You're not interested in reducing harm or the cost to society, you've made a moral judgement and evidence doesn't matter. If they feel subnormal then boo hoo, dont do it then. What's the difference between alcohol and cannabis then? Why should someone who takes cannabis feel sub-normal, but drinking be perfectly acceptable? ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 12:56 ---------- In effect you are saying that they could become legal drug addicts. No, I'm saying that prohibition creates more addicts than the alternative. It wasn't a trick statement or complicated. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 12:56 ---------- 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The simple question is, Would you want your child to become a drug addict ? Simple answer........no Next question please! ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 12:59 ---------- In effect you are saying that they could become legal drug addicts. At the moment they can just as easily become illegal drug addicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Like i originally said, idealistic and unrealistic and thats to both answers. You are quoting opinions and supposition as fact. Nope, I'm posting facts. Do you want the figures themselves? That could take a while, and I have a feeling your mind was made up before you entered the thread, so I didn't deluge you with figures from the outset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Simple answer........no Next question please! Are addicts happy with their situation regarding drug addiction ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Are addicts happy with their situation regarding drug addiction ? How can I answer for all addicts? Maybe some have it under control, maybe some don't. Addiction is a strange illness. Even those who are in great need of help may not realise they require it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Yes i am anti drugs and made no secret about that, i am however openminded enough to listen to facts and trials and answers that were undertaken with no agenda in the first instance, the problem i have is that the research always seems to be done by people with an axe to grind, and thats on both sides of the arguement and the findings and info they gather. Youre entitled to believe things would be better if you like but i happen to not agree, dont know why that offends you so much. The answers to your points where youre not sure what i meant are there in the post, maybe you should read it again. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 13:31 ---------- So you truly believe that free drugs are the answer?! Im sure that the most educationally challenged person could see the statement as ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Yes i am anti drugs and made no secret about that, i am however openminded enough to listen to facts and trials and answers that were undertaken with no agenda in the first instance, the problem i have is that the research always seems to be done by people with an axe to grind, and thats on both sides of the arguement and the findings and info they gather. Youre entitled to believe things would be better if you like but i happen to not agree, dont know why that offends you so much. The answers to your points where youre not sure what i meant are there in the post, maybe you should read it again. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 13:31 ---------- So you truly believe that free drugs are the answer?! Im sure that the most educationally challenged person could see the statement as ridiculous. No it's not. You need to do some research and show us something that proves prohibition is working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 So you truly believe that free drugs are the answer?! Im sure that the most educationally challenged person could see the statement as ridiculous. It's been explained to you several times. Free drugs for diagnosed addicts. Not just 'free drugs for all'. And this refers specifically to highly physically addictive and damaging drugs like heroin. Cannabis on the other hand should be available to purchase in pharmacies to those over 18. Each drug should be controlled in a manner appropriate to it. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 13:42 ---------- For an analysis of how it's working out in Portugal... http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html You won't find any evidence to suggest that the opposite has happened, because it simply hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.