Harleyman Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Because they've made a choice to use something different. Why shouldn't they be free to make that choice?Silver"] ---------- Post added 18-11-2014 at 09:42 ---------- You understand that the war on drugs in the UK alone costs billions? If it were legal, and taxed, then it would be at worst, a zero sum game, where the tax covers the possible medical costs (not that there are likely to be any for cannabis). So why should the health system which you pay for anyway have to take care of them when their lifestyles finally catch up with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psynuk Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Why would the government have to take on yet another nanny type responsibility to somehow be involved with wastrels, fools and weak minded people who need some kind of drug to escape from reality. The government took it upon itself to become nanny in the first place, well stern admonishing disciplinarian father at least. Either way it's clearly the wrong approach as it's not working, never worked and never will. The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing..... As for the rest of your post, well your a caring soul thats for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korky Kat Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Because one drug is legal and the other isn't and has obvious consequences if caught. Is it the illegality of the drug that makes them attractive to some people ? Some people yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psynuk Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 So why should the health system which you pay for anyway have to take care of them when their lifestyles finally catch up with them? the same could be said for a multitude of activities, sports, jobs etc. Why do users all have to be vagrant out and out none productive members of society in your eyes. What about all the none drug users who are of not paying tax? off to the gulags with them as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) The government took it upon itself to become nanny in the first place, well stern admonishing disciplinarian father at least. Either way it's clearly the wrong approach as it's not working, never worked and never will. The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing..... As for the rest of your post, well your a caring soul thats for sure. By legalizing them and making them available then perhaps young impressionable people who would not ordinarily bother with them would say "Hey! They must be safe to use cos the government says they're now legal" Naivety knows no boundaries ! All the efforts of the schools to educate young people about the dangerous long term effects of drug abuse just gone to waste And you're right. I am uncaring when it comes to junkies. As I said before better to round them up and ship them off to a labour re-education camp. As for the dealers I think we could learn a lesson or two from such countries as Malaysia and Singapore.... ---------- Post added 18-11-2014 at 17:08 ---------- the same could be said for a multitude of activities, sports, jobs etc. Why do users all have to be vagrant out and out none productive members of society in your eyes. What about all the none drug users who are of not paying tax? off to the gulags with them as well? So you equate drug abuse and addiction with lifestyles such as sports and jobs? Most drug and alcohol abusers do end up as vagrants. 75 % the homeless on the streets are there because of that. The wealthy can afford to take care of their addiction at expensive private clinics but the ordinary stiff whose dumb enough to get into that state just ends up as a burden on the already overstrained system Edited November 18, 2014 by Harleyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorbuckle Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 By legalizing them and making them available then perhaps young impressionable people who would not ordinarily bother with them would say "Hey! They must be safe to use cos the government says they're now legal" Just how alcohol is legal, thus safe to use? Despite the fact that the government spends a decent chunk of money on education about the dangers of excessive drinking? Also, as is brought up time and time again, legal drugs, by benefit of being legal, are indeed less dangerous than if they were illegal. If alcohol was illegal it would be even more dangerous because any alcohol you could get hold of could have god knows what in it, by virtue of being unregulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Most drug and alcohol abusers do end up as vagrants. 75 % the homeless on the streets are there because of that. This is a highly questionable statement, complete with a wholly invented statistic. However, it may be rather more useful to consider that the great majority of those who use alcohol and drugs do not end up as vagrants. More usefully still, we might muse on the fact that the illegality of cannabis means that many thousands of otherwise productive, decent and law abiding members of society end up in jail and whose whole lives are blighted as a consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Just how alcohol is legal, thus safe to use? Despite the fact that the government spends a decent chunk of money on education about the dangers of excessive drinking? Also, as is brought up time and time again, legal drugs, by benefit of being legal, are indeed less dangerous than if they were illegal. If alcohol was illegal it would be even more dangerous because any alcohol you could get hold of could have god knows what in it, by virtue of being unregulated. Why would drugs be less dangerous if they were legal? Alcohol certainly isn't less dangerous because it's legal. It's responsible for thousands of road fatalities each year alone. Why add to an existing problem by creating yet another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psynuk Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 ---------- Post added 18-11-2014 at 17:08 ---------- So you equate drug abuse and addiction with lifestyles such as sports and jobs? Most drug and alcohol abusers do end up as vagrants. 75 % the homeless on the streets are there because of that. So why should the health system which you pay for anyway have to take care of them when their lifestyles finally catch up with them? completely, someone who breaks their spine horse riding, playing rugby, someone who becomes a racing driver, or a soldier and gets a permanent injury are they also not a drain on the health service? The lifestyles of a drug addict are going to cost the taxpayer very little in the form of care bills in comparison to a great deal of other 'worthy' folks. The difference is I see them all as humans who might need help (or not) you seem to see some as inhuman scum who need to be purged. reminds me of the ideals a certain Austrian with a small tache... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) This is a highly questionable statement, complete with a wholly invented statistic. However, it may be rather more useful to consider that the great majority of those who use alcohol and drugs do not end up as vagrants. More usefully still, we might muse on the fact that the illegality of cannabis means that many thousands of otherwise productive, decent and law abiding members of society end up in jail and whose whole lives are blighted as a consequence. The majority of homeless have a background of drug and alcohol abuse. The rest either have mental problems of some sort or prison records. This was the result of a widespread survey carried out several years ago. The belief among some that a proportion of these people are just victims of society, people who never drank, never took drugs, law abiding taxpayers and citizens who were made homeless by evil landlords and heartless banks is just pure myth ---------- Post added 18-11-2014 at 17:51 ---------- 10764931]completely, someone who breaks their spine horse riding, playing rugby, someone who becomes a racing driver, or a soldier and gets a permanent injury are they also not a drain on the health service? [/b] The lifestyles of a drug addict are going to cost the taxpayer very little in the form of care bills in comparison to a great deal of other 'worthy' folks. The difference is I see them all as humans who might need help (or not) you seem to see some as inhuman scum who need to be purged. reminds me of the ideals a certain Austrian with a small tache... And the proportion of those highlighted in comparison to alcoholics and junkies dependent on public welfare is....? I wondered when the comparison to Hitler would come up So lets talk about Adolf German youth in the years just before WW2 were the healthiest and fittest in Europe ... that's a fact. Other than that Hitler was probably the most evil person who lived on earth but don't for a moment ever believe that Hitler never did anything good for the German people for a short period of time Edited November 18, 2014 by Harleyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now