Current Affairs and Politics

Richard Branson: "War on drugs a failure, decriminalise now"

View Poll Results: Is Cannabis a safe drug?
Yes. Legalise it 8 0.00%
Yes but don't legalise it 1 0.00%
In moderation 5 0.00%
Only when drinking beer 0 0%
Nope 2 0.00%
Not really. I got Schizophrenia 1 0.00%
should Dero13 not start threads 5000001 100.00%
Voters: 5000018. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Tools
Vital +

Registered User

Vital's Avatar
Joined
Jul '02
Times thanked
< 80
Posts
5,878

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618 View Post

um, there are 35 MILLION hectares of Corn grown in the USA and increasing. That's about 90% of the size of France.

I'd be surprised if the holy weed was planted out at even 0.5% of that - including hydroponics and backyard set ups (especially given that the majority of homes in America don't even have Aussie style fenced off back yards ...

How much do you think an ouce of corn costs?
Vital +

Registered User

Vital's Avatar
Joined
Jul '02
Times thanked
< 80
Posts
5,878

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

As if the demand for drugs is inelastic! Coke goes up in price, so people switch to alternatives!

So you're saying demand for drugs, on the whole, is inelastic because people can always switch between different types of drugs? Coke is too expensive so I'll buy weed or acid instead.
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,597

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vital View Post

So you're saying demand for drugs, on the whole, is inelastic because people can always switch between different types of drugs? Coke is too expensive so I'll buy weed or acid instead.

No, if demand is affected by price change, that is elastic. And I don't get your quote about corn.
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861
so you are saying that your economic knowledge is superior to those economics professors then?
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/09C94C0F1B9799F5CA2574DD0081E770/$File/alcohol-4.pdf

Here is a piece from the Alcohol working group on the most effective methods of preventing alcohol related harm. Restricting the availability and supply of alcohol topped the list as the most effective while education and persuasion was the least effective.

Education and persuasion in a western, developed country is a crock of shit and a waste of time as far as reducing drug related harm is concerned
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,597

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618 View Post

so you are saying that your economic knowledge is superior to those economics professors then?

It is you who say it.
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861
ok, I say it then -> I'll trust the opinion over professors of economics when it comes to the inelastic demand for drugs over yours.

They are experts, you are not.

therefore, the demand for drugs is inelastic.
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,597
Wow, you couldn't respond to the question personally? Are you a price-sensitive consumer at Woolworths or Coles? I can provide links to a sociological professor at Sydney uni who could tell you.
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa21 View Post

I can't bear the stupidity anymore. Fewsion & buffed - re read the thread again. we're telling you the same things over and over. we're showing you evidence. I don't understand how you can continue to refute it just because you don't like the sound of it? Unfortunately, that's not how evidence/statistics/research works.

Provide us with research to support why you think you're right and I'll listen.

This is the research you provided.........i'm being kind even allowing you to call it reasearch.


"From a health perspective, let’s say it was your sister with the drug problem and she really wanted to stop. Every relative would want her to go to a counselor or health professional rather than be picked up by the police. The criminal justice system is stigmatizing, if your sister was to go to jail the stigma will always hang over her… when finding a boyfriend, getting a job, renting a place. Making sure people are not irretrievably damaged is very important"

This is a quote from Alex Wodak.

If it was my sister, i would ask her to go and seek help. After the 5th time, i would probably get on with my life and leave her to get on with her's and if she got caught, then great, it would probably save her life because that's the point at which most addicts need to get to in order to grow a fucking brain. And that's the point...........if an addict had any regard for his or her own family, then it would be very easy to convince them to stop or seek help. But most of the time, family intervention is not enough, so what's left?.........arrest
Davomaxi +

No. Money Down!

Davomaxi's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 1,019
Posts
7,315

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/09C94C0F1B9799F5CA2574DD0081E770/$File/alcohol-4.pdf

Here is a piece from the Alcohol working group on the most effective methods of preventing alcohol related harm. Restricting the availability and supply of alcohol topped the list as the most effective while education and persuasion was the least effective.

Education and persuasion in a western, developed country is a crock of shit and a waste of time as far as reducing drug related harm is concerned

Ok so restricting the availability and supply of drugs is the most effective policy yes? Therefore might be a bit easier doing that when the market share of drugs are legalised and highly regulated, rather than taking on the criminal underworld who control all the drugs, and just happen to be 100x larger than the police.

It's widely known that Australia in particular has a big binge drinking problem, it's part of our culture. It's a different beast to tackle. However smoking for example is not the same, and I'm betting that smoking related harm has taken a huge hit due to education.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianwil1976 View Post

I killed all my family because they wouldn't suck my dick.

Medium Rurrrr!

See my blog http://ecentreofexcellence.blogspot.com.au/
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi View Post

Ok so restricting the availability and supply of drugs is the most effective policy yes? Therefore might be a bit easier doing that when the market share of drugs are legalised and highly regulated, rather than taking on the criminal underworld who control all the drugs, and just happen to be 100x larger than the police.

It's widely known that Australia in particular has a big binge drinking problem, it's part of our culture. It's a different beast to tackle. However smoking for example is not the same, and I'm betting that smoking related harm has taken a huge hit due to education.

I wouldn't call it education, it's just mass media marketing that attempts to de-normalise and change smoking behaviour over time by creating a negative perception of smoking. It's about making less 'cool' and attaching an anti-social stigma to it as well as a health stigma.

That's why i'm against decriminalising drugs..........i think shame based campaigns work
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861
the alcohol prohibition in America was a complete failure

(a) Drinking went up, liver disease went up, complications due to bad quality liquor (blindness etc) went up
(b) Organised crime was given a golden ticket, to the point where they controlled the teamsters union, police forces, Las Vegas, and even became implicated in the deaths of JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby and Martin Luther King.

the elephant in the room, buffed, how about defending prohibition if you want to be intellecutally honest?
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
austraboy +

I like toast

austraboy's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 146
Posts
912

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/09C94C0F1B9799F5CA2574DD0081E770/$File/alcohol-4.pdf

Here is a piece from the Alcohol working group on the most effective methods of preventing alcohol related harm. Restricting the availability and supply of alcohol topped the list as the most effective while education and persuasion was the least effective.

Education and persuasion in a western, developed country is a crock of shit and a waste of time as far as reducing drug related harm is concerned

Did you actually read that paper?

Yes ban on sales is the most effective in the countries where it is implemented i.e.
Afghanistan
Brunei
India (only Gujarat, ban on sale)
Iran
Kuwait
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
UAE (only Sharjah)
Yemen


Researching the above countries is the only way they can assess the effectiveness of a ban on sales. The average person in those countries can't afford to buy alcohol in a black market situation so of course people are not drinking. If that was to happen in Australia, the outcomes would be very different. Much more similar to the US when prohibition occurred.

All the other effective methods related to Regulating the physical availability of alcohol.

You can only regulate if you have control. When something is illegal you cannot regulate it.
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861
Gujarat is similar to Tamil Nadu - sale is not banned but instead highly regulated through government bars. You need a government issued permit. Tourists can normally organise one via the better hotels, and citizens can plead their case on an individual basis.
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
Davomaxi +

No. Money Down!

Davomaxi's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 1,019
Posts
7,315

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

I wouldn't call it education, it's just mass media marketing that attempts to de-normalise and change smoking behaviour over time by creating a negative perception of smoking. It's about making less 'cool' and attaching an anti-social stigma to it as well as a health stigma.

That's why i'm against decriminalising drugs..........i think shame based campaigns work

Right so if the goverment ran 'shame based' campaigns then that would fix the drug problem? Rightio what a shame they haven't thought of that yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianwil1976 View Post

I killed all my family because they wouldn't suck my dick.

Medium Rurrrr!

See my blog http://ecentreofexcellence.blogspot.com.au/
BumblingBee +

is a dick

BumblingBee's Avatar
Joined
Jul '04
Times thanked
< 2,936
Posts
13,937
should try it for murder too
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi View Post

Right so if the goverment ran 'shame based' campaigns then that would fix the drug problem? Rightio what a shame they haven't thought of that yet.

who's talking about fixing the problem? your solution won't fix it and neither will mine. it has clearly worked as far as smoking is concerned and it would probably work for alcohol too if alcohol advertising was banned.

All i have seen from those who support decriminalisation is 'prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S'. That's a weak as piss argument on which to base a fundamental shift in public policy
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Something is inelastic when there are no substitutes and there are plenty of substitutes in the drug-market, particularly if the majority of the users of illicit drugs do so recreationally and are not defined as "addicts".

Here you are using an argument in favour of decriminalisation/legalisation. If there is a (more freely available) substitute for alcohol such as ecstacy, then people will switch to it instead (substitution has been demonstrated to occur in US states that have legalised medical marijuana) and we will see a decrease in alcohol related anti-social/violent behaviour (which has already been demonstrated in practice for well over 10yrs now at dance parties), and since few recreational drug users are addicts, then we won't have an increase in health related issues arising from increased ecstacy abuse, and since ecstacy has fewer long term detrimental health effects than alcohol, then all those people that reduce their alcohol intake will experience a general improvement in long term health outcomes. Imagine if ecstacy was available to domestic violence fuckheads that beat up their kids and wives? It would probably solve a lot of shit in society, and it actually was used successfully for marriage counselling in the 1970s

So decriminalisation is better for the health system and its better for the justice system, and MDMA in particular makes people less violent towards each other, which is good for society in general. It would save literally billions of dollars to the taxpayer over the long term, but you guys can't even come up with a single reason why you think it should remain illegal except "drugs are bad mkay". ??
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
BumblingBee +

is a dick

BumblingBee's Avatar
Joined
Jul '04
Times thanked
< 2,936
Posts
13,937
good point didj, nobody has really touched on the positive usage of these 'illicit' drugs
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,662
Posts
12,223

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

who's talking about fixing the problem? your solution won't fix it and neither will mine. it has clearly worked as far as smoking is concerned and it would probably work for alcohol too if alcohol advertising was banned.

All i have seen from those who support decriminalisation is 'prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S'. That's a weak as piss argument on which to base a fundamental shift in public policy

Good grief dude. You skim read posts for specific words and disregard all the rest don't you?
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post


All i have seen from those who support decriminalisation is 'prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S'. That's a weak as piss argument on which to base a fundamental shift in public policy

a weak as piss argument?

it was a grand social experiment conducted over many years with a sample of millions of people. It is a better argument than any of the right wing theory pieces you subscribe to.

What something modern?

Let's look at Northern Mexico and places like Juarez, where drug violence is so out of control that even the Mexican army won't go near certain areas.

Want to know how Mexico and the US government could stop this violence overnight? By setting up government meth labs in Puerto Rico and selling the shit through drug stores.
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
walkdogz +

Registered User

walkdogz's Avatar
Joined
Mar '08
Times thanked
< 510
Posts
7,170
The 'problem' is crime and addiction. Regular occasional users without an addiction do not matter. Alcoholics can be treated, not shamed into the cracks of society and/or driven into a life of crime. Normal drinkers are free to enjoy a drink. Most peoples choice of drug and regularity of usage is dictated by their preference and their life situation, not because of illegality. That doesn't stop an addict unfortunately, and they are, or should be, the focus of the drug problem. But atm gangs and dealers are, as well as regular otherwise law abiding citizens.
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

who's talking about fixing the problem? your solution won't fix it and neither will mine. it has clearly worked as far as smoking is concerned and it would probably work for alcohol too if alcohol advertising was banned.

All i have seen from those who support decriminalisation is 'prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S'. That's a weak as piss argument on which to base a fundamental shift in public policy

Your solution seems to be the maintenance of the status quo and that has been clearly demonstrated to be a complete and utter failure. Your claim that punishment acts as a deterrent has been disproven time and time again, and from personal experience i can say that i've met literally hundreds of people over the yrs who were recreational drug users but have voluntarily decreased their usage as they got older, but none of them has ever cited "fear of getting busted" as a reason. None. Nada.

Why do you think recreational drugs should remain illegal anyway? What purpose does it serve? Humans have been using some form or other of mind altering substances for recreational purposes for many thousands of yrs. It was only in the last 1500yrs or so once religous zombie robots came to power that doing fun stuff was demonised. I don't understand what has gotten into you the last 12mths or so buffed. You used to tell everyone about your gang bang bender trips to Ibiza and now you are carrying on like a born again christian extoling the virutes of a clean living and boring as fuck lifestyle.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
austraboy +

I like toast

austraboy's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 146
Posts
912

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

who's talking about fixing the problem? your solution won't fix it and neither will mine. it has clearly worked as far as smoking is concerned and it would probably work for alcohol too if alcohol advertising was banned.

All i have seen from those who support decriminalisation is 'prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S'. That's a weak as piss argument on which to base a fundamental shift in public policy



erm how about these arguments to add to that list of "prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S'.. You know the ones we've all been writing about.

1. Reduce the burden on jails and the courts system.
2. Reduce crime elements associated with having a drug black market. Gangs etc.
3. Give other countries such as Mexico and Colombia a cash crop. Instead of having essentially civil wars.
4. Stops the spending of billions of dollars on the war on drugs. Instead drugs can be taxed and revenue can be raised.
5. Addiction is treated as a health issue. Money from the war on drugs could instead be spent on hospitals.
6. Purity of drugs is controlled. Kids are no longer consuming laundry detergent.
7. Police have more time to concentrate on other things.
8. Being in jail has a tendency to lead towards drug use for drugs such as heroin. Less people in jail, potential for less users.

Do you want more arguments? Or am I wasting my time because you won't actually read past the emoticon.
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by walkdogz View Post

The 'problem' is crime and addiction. Regular occasional users without an addiction do not matter. Alcoholics can be treated, not shamed into the cracks of society and/or driven into a life of crime. Normal drinkers are free to enjoy a drink. Most peoples choice of drug and regularity of usage is dictated by their preference and their life situation, not because of illegality. That doesn't stop an addict unfortunately, and they are, or should be, the focus of the drug problem. But atm gangs and dealers are, as well as regular otherwise law abiding citizens.

This is an excellent point that is pretty much always ignored (or denied) by the conservatives. Anti-drug campaigners always say "oh look at all the problems caused by alcohol and tobacco" and then assume that an entirely new section of the population will become addicts as a result of decriminalisation and therefore, drug addiction rates will massively increase. This is complete garbage. Alcohol is freely available now, so why am I, and the vast majority of society, not alcoholics? If MDMA becomes freely available, why would I suddenly become an addict? I won't because I don't want to be, just like the vast majority of everyone else in society.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,597

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude View Post

Here you are using an argument in favour of decriminalisation/legalisation. If there is a (more freely available) substitute for alcohol such as ecstacy, then people will switch to it instead (substitution has been demonstrated to occur in US states that have legalised medical marijuana) and we will see a decrease in alcohol related anti-social/violent behaviour (which has already been demonstrated in practice for well over 10yrs now at dance parties), and since few recreational drug users are addicts, then we won't have an increase in health related issues arising from increased ecstacy abuse, and since ecstacy has fewer long term detrimental health effects than alcohol, then all those people that reduce their alcohol intake will experience a general improvement in long term health outcomes. Imagine if ecstacy was available to domestic violence fuckheads that beat up their kids and wives? It would probably solve a lot of shit in society, and it actually was used successfully for marriage counselling in the 1970s

So decriminalisation is better for the health system and its better for the justice system, and MDMA in particular makes people less violent towards each other, which is good for society in general. It would save literally billions of dollars to the taxpayer over the long term, but you guys can't even come up with a single reason why you think it should remain illegal except "drugs are bad mkay". ??

dbb referenced a paper which argued that the War on Drugs is failing because the demand for drugs is price-inelastic. That is not true because our experience would show that recreational users of drugs have plenty of drug substitutes (yes I know alcohol is a drug but it is legalised) available, or they are not addicted to drugs and don't need to find the next fix if they can't afford raised drugs prices. I'd be careful arguing this though, as you'll be accused of thinking you're superior to two economics professors.

I've only raised alcohol in this thread though for one reason, that is because it shows that decriminalising or legalising/regulating the substance has had little to no effect on reducing the negative externalities associated with its use and abuse. Though I follow your reasoning, in reality, I doubt it has any merit whatsoever when governments are forming their drugs policies. It sounds nothing different to the typical munted chat with a pill-head at a festival. I've not heard the view espoused before, "alcohol is terrible, let's decriminalise MDMA and other drugs to improve our health outcomes by avoiding alcohol related problems and issues". Despite that being a roundabout way of solving a problem, it's also not even assured of working given that governments would probably, or at least could sell pills and other drugs at higher prices than are currently available.
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by austraboy View Post



erm how about these arguments to add to that list of "prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S'.. You know the ones we've all been writing about.

1. Reduce the burden on jails and the courts system.
2. Reduce crime elements associated with having a drug black market. Gangs etc.
3. Give other countries such as Mexico and Colombia a cash crop. Instead of having essentially civil wars.
4. Stops the spending of billions of dollars on the war on drugs. Instead drugs can be taxed and revenue can be raised.
5. Addiction is treated as a health issue. Money from the war on drugs could instead be spent on hospitals.
6. Purity of drugs is controlled. Kids are no longer consuming laundry detergent.
7. Police have more time to concentrate on other things.
8. Being in jail has a tendency to lead towards drug use for drugs such as heroin. Less people in jail, potential for less users.

Do you want more arguments? Or am I wasting my time because you won't actually read past the emoticon.

1. I would think that there are very few people in jail in Australia for possession/use
2. Asian Gangs and Bikie gangs who control the distribution of drugs in Australia are also involved in most other forms of organised crime as well, so i don't see how it will reduce the net number of 'gangs' involved
3. I don't care what happens to Mexico and Columbia, that's their problem
4. Bullshit argument that could be applied to any issue
5. Are you serious.......the same way that money from alcohol and cigarette tax has built new hospitals in the last 10 years......sarcasm intended
6. That's a benefit?
7. Like what......parking fines?
8. See comment on point 1 above
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,597

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude View Post

This is an excellent point that is pretty much always ignored (or denied) by the conservatives. Anti-drug campaigners always say "oh look at all the problems caused by alcohol and tobacco" and then assume that an entirely new section of the population will become addicts as a result of decriminalisation and therefore, drug addiction rates will massively increase. This is complete garbage. Alcohol is freely available now, so why am I, and the vast majority of society, not alcoholics? If MDMA becomes freely available, why would I suddenly become an addict? I won't because I don't want to be, just like the vast majority of everyone else in society.

Could you clarify for me why you think the War on Drugs has been an abject failure? Is it because people are still doing drugs and they're not afraid of getting caught and so it's not even working as a disincentive? If that's a "yes" for these questions then I think your analysis falls short.

There are also several reasons why decriminalisation or legalisation would be problematic. As you say, not everyone is, or will become an addict. But people binge drink, people still have a drug-fuelled bender and they're not alcoholics or addicts. There's a lot of middle ground in between your dichotomy of addict or recreational user that you haven't defined. Even if it were made freely available, at what price would the drugs be sold so as to eliminate the black market supply of drugs?
TrainsPillsBreaks +

Registered User

TrainsPillsBreaks's Avatar
Joined
Apr '09
Times thanked
< 22
Posts
444

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

Education and persuasion in a western, developed country is a crock of shit and a waste of time as far as reducing drug related harm is concerned

Every international study disagrees with you, unsurprisingly, because you are stupid and talk out of your arse.
TrainsPillsBreaks +

Registered User

TrainsPillsBreaks's Avatar
Joined
Apr '09
Times thanked
< 22
Posts
444

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

1
3. I don't care what happens to Mexico and Columbia, that's their problem

Ok so in other words you don't actually believe the side of the arguement you are favouring and you are an overall piece of shit? Cool sorted, finally.
gonefishin +

Registered User

gonefishin's Avatar
Joined
Mar '11
Times thanked
< 391
Posts
1,633

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

All i have seen from those who support decriminalisation is 'prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S'. That's a weak as piss argument on which to base a fundamental shift in public policy

You are so full of it mate, what's the big satisfaction in talking out your arse on an internet forum? fox news much?

that goes for fewsion also bunch of pelicans you two
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,597

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin View Post

that goes for fewsion also

Good from you.
macc4 +

i don't have cat, it died

macc4's Avatar
Joined
Jan '08
Times thanked
< 1,209
Posts
12,423

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude View Post

religous zombie robots

this
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrainsPillsBreaks View Post

Every international study disagrees with you, unsurprisingly, because you are stupid and talk out of your arse.

your profile pic disagrees with you........what sort of loser wears a munted pic as a badge of honour? are you 17?
horst +

Registered User

horst's Avatar
Joined
Sep '02
Times thanked
< 414
Posts
5,445
Yo! more topic less ad hominem (personal attacks)

Last edited by horst: 30-Jan-12 at 11:07pm

dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861
Media Player
YouTube
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Could you clarify for me why you think the War on Drugs has been an abject failure? Is it because people are still doing drugs and they're not afraid of getting caught and so it's not even working as a disincentive? If that's a "yes" for these questions then I think your analysis falls short.

There are also several reasons why decriminalisation or legalisation would be problematic. As you say, not everyone is, or will become an addict. But people binge drink, people still have a drug-fuelled bender and they're not alcoholics or addicts. There's a lot of middle ground in between your dichotomy of addict or recreational user that you haven't defined. Even if it were made freely available, at what price would the drugs be sold so as to eliminate the black market supply of drugs?

The "war on drugs" is a dismal failure because despite the billions of dollars of taxpayer money, court and associated legal costs that has been spent, illicit drug use rates are at an all time high (no pun intended).


edit: the mere fact that you need me to clarify that for you highlights your complete lack of understanding of the entire topic. If you maintain that you even have the right to an opinion on the topic then you are admitting that your opinion is shrouded in ignorance.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)

Last edited by didjeridude: 31-Jan-12 at 10:16am

Davomaxi +

No. Money Down!

Davomaxi's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 1,019
Posts
7,315

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

2. Asian Gangs and Bikie gangs who control the distribution of drugs in Australia are also involved in most other forms of organised crime as well, so i don't see how it will reduce the net number of 'gangs' involved

So if a huge chunk of drug money was cut out of Australia's biggest gang's income for example, you think that would not diminish their numbers at all? How are they going to finance all their members tatts and cool motorcycles if they don't have enough money? What planet are you living on?

Are you like Sauron and have a massive all seeing eye or something? It seems that you instantly know everything about everything through your personal experience and that of your friends. And if your backseat quarterback view is opposed by people who have actually worked in the field for some time and have in depth published studies, they're just dismissed as being 'full of shit'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianwil1976 View Post

I killed all my family because they wouldn't suck my dick.

Medium Rurrrr!

See my blog http://ecentreofexcellence.blogspot.com.au/
sd88me +

Registered User

sd88me's Avatar
Joined
Sep '08
Times thanked
< 72
Posts
986

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

1. I would think that there are very few people in jail in Australia for possession/use
2. Asian Gangs and Bikie gangs who control the distribution of drugs in Australia are also involved in most other forms of organised crime as well, so i don't see how it will reduce the net number of 'gangs' involved
3. I don't care what happens to Mexico and Columbia, that's their problem
4. Bullshit argument that could be applied to any issue
5. Are you serious.......the same way that money from alcohol and cigarette tax has built new hospitals in the last 10 years......sarcasm intended
6. That's a benefit?
7. Like what......parking fines?
8. See comment on point 1 above

dude you just buried the last gram of credibility u had in this discussion with that reply.
u've basically just dismissed everything as 'pfft' and 'shit'.

what else do gangs do besides drugs? real estate? everything they are involved in revolves around drugs including guns, extortion etc
AKA - http://soundcloud.com/samakasam
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861
well, before the Prohibition made the Mafia and the Irish teamster gangs filthy stinking rich, they relied on extortion, shakedowns, protection rackets and prostitution.
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
walkdogz +

Registered User

walkdogz's Avatar
Joined
Mar '08
Times thanked
< 510
Posts
7,170
All small change compared to illicit drug supply.
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi View Post

So if a huge chunk of drug money was cut out of Australia's biggest gang's income for example, you think that would not diminish their numbers at all? How are they going to finance all their members tatts and cool motorcycles if they don't have enough money? What planet are you living on?

Are you like Sauron and have a massive all seeing eye or something? It seems that you instantly know everything about everything through your personal experience and that of your friends. And if your backseat quarterback view is opposed by people who have actually worked in the field for some time and have in depth published studies, they're just dismissed as being 'full of shit'.

are you serious? what makes you think that gang members don't have 'normal' jobs like the rest of the population? The head of the Hells Angels was working in middle management at the RTA
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd88me View Post

dude you just buried the last gram of credibility u had in this discussion with that reply.
u've basically just dismissed everything as 'pfft' and 'shit'.

what else do gangs do besides drugs? real estate? everything they are involved in revolves around drugs including guns, extortion etc

The claimed benefits are a joke.

'reduce the burden on jails and the court system'........that's what jails and the court system are there for. If we want to reduce burden, then abolish most driving penalties

Talking about giving Mexico cash crops to avoid civil wars.........why do i care what happens in mexico and if they are at civil war or not?

My responses to his post were glib because each of his points were weak as piss..........
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861
Mexico is in a civil war between drug lords and the Mexican state.

Legalise and tax these drugs in America (make them take free in Puerto Rico) and the Mexican civil war goes away.

The only losers would be the privatised mega prisons in the USA, which need people in there on minor drug offenses to avoid going bankrupt.
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
walkdogz +

Registered User

walkdogz's Avatar
Joined
Mar '08
Times thanked
< 510
Posts
7,170
You idiot. Driving penalties are there to protect others. You have a really deformed, illogical view of the world if you favour the punishment of people for putting substances into their body and at the same time want 1 tonne projectiles less regulated.
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by walkdogz View Post

You idiot. Driving penalties are there to protect others. You have a really deformed, illogical view of the world if you favour the punishment of people for putting substances into their body and at the same time want 1 tonne projectiles less regulated.

then why do we need to pick up after people who put substances into their body? On the hand civil libertarians advocate being able to do whatever they want and on the other, they expect society to pick up after them when they overdose or develop an addiction
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,753
Posts
14,861
if you taxes the Holy Weed, there would be billions of dollars of extra revenue, and billions of dollars of law enforcement savings, enough to put hundreds of millions of dollars into "picking up after addicts" and stil have billions of dollars left over to subsidise middle class welfare (baby bonus, child allowance, negative gearing, private education subsidies etc)
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
big eddie +

Got soju?

big eddie's Avatar
Joined
Jan '03
Times thanked
< 15,518
Posts
50,035

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed View Post

then why do we need to pick up after people who put substances into their body? On the hand civil libertarians advocate being able to do whatever they want and on the other, they expect society to pick up after them when they overdose or develop an addiction

You mean like we do now anyway?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotamangina View Post

I hate it when you're right and I'm not.

Weinertron +

random shoutbox generator

Weinertron's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 931
Posts
3,648
lol @ people still arguing with buffed
Fuck Everything Forever
buffed +

Registered User

buffed's Avatar
Joined
Mar '03
Times thanked
< 172
Posts
15,144

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie View Post

You mean like we do now anyway?

yeah but we're saying it's not ok to do it.......there may be no difference to you, but i think there is to society at large.
Reply

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Posting Rules

+
    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts