So, its looks like world leaders finally have finally seen the light...

Chat Forum

So, its looks like world leaders finally have finally seen the light...

131 posts & 31 voices | Started 12 months ago by Bushwacked | Latest reply from konabunny

Tags:

Pages: « Previous 1…34

Edukator - Member

I think people's personal lives as revealed on or invented for this forum have a lot to do with the validity of their posts, Cougar. When Stoner posts on a thread about wood pellet burners I take more interst in his posts and give them more validity than someone committed to using as much neuclear and fossil fuel produced electricity as possible.

Over doing it on the bike or overdoing it on the bike whilst simulataneously drinking too much combined with other things in your life we don't know about Bushwacked? I've noted people often live in denial of the real causes of the ills in their lives and chose something they can't be reproached for to blame.

Posted 12 months ago #
yunki - Member

brilliant..

failed to make any valid point on topic.. failed miserably to make a valid point on the tangental topic so makes disparaging assumptions about the OPs personal life..

genius..

although you probably quite enjoyed the naif film that you plucked your screen name from.. I would suggest that edukator is a very misleading nom de plume..
(although I would have to agree that people should seriously consider giving up on the dope and all that)

Posted 12 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

Edukator I dont accept you view of the graphs and concur with what cougar says about them. however, even if i was to accept your view, all you have done is show a correlation and not a causal link. You have not proved your point and you have neatly sidestepped the critical issue of facts relating to drugs use in countries that have liberalised their drugs policy. These may be a little bit more important in the context if what happens to drug use when it is decriminalised.
As I said originally the issue is doing least harm- do you rally think this is best achieved with prohibition?

Posted 12 months ago #
Edukator - Member

Whether it's acausal link is equally debatable - I believe it's causal you don't agree, no problem. It was Cougar's graph and intepretation of it I objected to. I continue to disagree with his interpretation and now you, Junkard.

In answer to the last question, yes, Junkyard. There are enough people out of their heads on the roads and pavements without removing laws and measures that reduce the supply of drugs. Restrictions on supply result in higher prices (as any economist will tell you) that is dissuasive in the same way as increasing the price of almost anything reduces consumption - even petrol.

This forum is full of people going public on issues varying from being fat, drinking too much, being anti-depressor dependant, using illegal drugs and being proud of it, having disfunctional relationships, to enjoying riding their MTB. Takes all sorts, eh! I'll admit to being in the last category BTW.

Posted 12 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

I believe it's causal you don't agree, no problem

No it is not a matter of opinion here [well you can believe anything you want actually]you have not proved it because a correlation cannot prove causality. This is not debatable or a matter of opinion

As drunks do all this should we also ban alcohol? No one is saying people on drugs should drive to the forest as fast as they can then crack out the chainsaws but then again neither should a drunkard.
I note you made no reference to the impact of liberalising drugs laws in usage of drugs again.

using illegal drugs and being proud of it

judgemental twaddle. There are far more topics with people discussing which beer or alcohol product they are consuming are they bragging? I am neither proud nor ashamed of my use but you may interpret honesty how you like. You seem to be proud of your energy usage and your wifes cycling should I have a go at these personal outpourings? Did you not talk about drinking wine once as well? IIRC you also said children should have it responsibly as well. it would be better if you stayed a tad more rationale and a little less judgemental seeing as you also choose to do drugs, just legal ones in your country.

Posted 12 months ago #
Edukator - Member

Well go back a couple of centuries when opium use was legal, Junkyard. Opium use at the time was widespread but became marginal when banned.

A good reason not to leglise

Posted 12 months ago #
Edukator - Member

Well if people are proud of being fat, alcohol dependant, out of theri heads on substances whether prescribed or illicit and in disfucnctional relationships then I don't have the same values as those contributors.

Society has values too that are backed up by laws and I'd rather not see laws dropped that protect the people that contribute positively from the destructive behaviour of others.

Posted 12 months ago #
chewkw - Member

£££ + Drugs + Pushers = cull.

Drugs + become addict + self harm + no crime = blame self not others.

Drugs + addict + crime = cull.

Posted 12 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

It may make more sense to compare our current scenario with a neighbouring European country this century with more liberal drug laws than to look at the Opium use in the 1800's.
Thanks for the link showing pissed and stoned people have more accidents at work. If I had argued against this you would have made a great point.
Anyway given

Up to 40 percent of industrial fatalities and 47 percent of industrial injuries are linked to alcohol use and alcoholism
surely you are staying consistent and banning all drugs including alcohol for the safety reasons you mention.

Posted 12 months ago #
Bushwacked - Member

Edukator - you really can't have a good debate can you...

I appreciate your views and can understand what you are saying but you have to remember than not everyone who uses drugs fits into the stereotype you are painting every user with. From what you have said it sounds like you are slightly uneducated on this subject in relation to first hand knowledge, but please correct me if I am wrong.

You'll probably find that the 80 / 20 rule applies here.

However, I'm still not quite sure how my personal situation has influenced a group of ex world leaders to raise this issue, you obviously think it has, otherwise why mention it?

Posted 12 months ago #
Lifer - Member

Edukator - Member

Well go back a couple of centuries when opium use was legal, Junkyard. Opium use at the time was widespread but became marginal when banned.

A good reason not to leglise

Wow, an article which cites itself as the source, and tries to sell you drug testing stuff at the bottom.

Posted 12 months ago #
Cougar - Member

It was Cougar's graph and intepretation of it I objected to

Wasn't my graph. Do pay attention, 007.

Restrictions on supply result in higher prices (as any economist will tell you) that is dissuasive

Assuming the first part is correct (I'm not an economist but it seems reasonable), if you think that a price hike will make hopelessly addicted substance abusers go "oh well, I'll not buy any then" then you really haven't thought this through. How do you think all the council estate heroin junkie scumbags get the money for their drugs? I'll give you a hint, it's not their day job as a bank manager.

Higher prices, good gravy. We'd be better off giving the shit away for free in an all-you-can-inject bazzar, and letting natural selection take its course. Why do you think you can get Methadone free from the NHS now? It's primarily to stop scrotes from mugging old ladies to buy heroin.

Posted 12 months ago #
alpin - Member

there was a report on the radio in germany a few weeks back hailing the statistic that cannabis useage among the under 30s had decreased over the last 18 months.

two reports later they were complaining that the number of hospital admissions had increased amongst exacly the same age group.

Posted 12 months ago #
JacksonPollock - Member

I did my Thesis on this very subject circa 10 yrs ago.

My conclusions then where that the situation was out of control and the 'war' could never be won... good to see that the world leaders are coming round to my way of thinking!

The Govn. at the time had appointed a drugs Czar (Keith Helliewell- A former copper who just happened to be 'on message' with the prevailing govnt. thinking)... If I cast my mind back and think really hard I can actually remember him achieving a great deal...of sweet FA!

To much political rhetoric and posturing to get to the heart of the issue.

Posted 12 months ago #
Edukator - Member

Last week a polce driver ploughed into a group of kids on a pedestrian crossing killing one and injuring the others. He could give no explanation and was not speeding according to witnesses. Europe 1 has just reported that the drug tests have revealed he was "sous l'emprise de stupéfiants". The kid died for only one reason, the police dirver was drugged up.

Many wars are never won but comstant policing limits damage done. There are still three or four thousand people killed on the roads every year dspite all the repression. Does that mean we should stop policing the roads? Of course not. Limititng the supply of drugs and people knowing it's an illegal activity will reduce use because most people are law abiding citizens and are not prepared to pay a fortune for livivng in illegality.

So the next time you see a police vehicle slowly approaching a pedestrian crossing and you think it safe to lead your children across, stop! The driver could be out of his head on drugs.

Posted 12 months ago #
Bushwacked - Member

Edukator - naughty step for talking utter twaddle!

Posted 12 months ago #
GlitterGary - Member

Brilliant troll Edukator I also like the ironic user name. 8/10, good use of graphs and personal attacks.

Posted 12 months ago #
D0NK - Member

Edukator your argument is not against legalisation of drugs it's against dicks getting in cars whilst intoxicated on whatever substance (which I wholeheartedly back). Two entirely seperate issues.

I think it would be a good idea for some CSI types to go into house of commons and a few anti drug legalisation media institutions swab the toilet cisterns take a load of hair (or whatever) samples (anonymously of course) and test for illicit substances find out if there's a greater or lesser prevalance of indicated drug use compared to other work places.

Posted 12 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

Limititng the supply of drugs and people knowing it's an illegal activity will reduce use because most people are law abiding citizens and are not prepared to pay a fortune for livivng in illegality.

Which you can demonstrate by reference to countries that have liberalised their drugs laws and then seen a subsequent increase in drug use etc- you cant as the opposite has happened hence you give us hyperbole like that above about drug coppers killing kids and ignore any reference [ and not commenting on it either] to drunk drivers doing the same in greater numbers.
I am calling troll as well

Posted 12 months ago #
yunki - Member

I am calling troll as well

or wally

Posted 12 months ago #
Edukator - Member

"the opposite has happened"

You can't prove that either, Junkyard. The pro-liberalization arguments based on consumption being higher in France where canabis has not been decriminised is nonsense. Denmark has the same level of consumption of France despite being decriminalised.

You'll also find that in decriminalised does not mean legal. It means that people caught get treatment rather a criminal record and prison sentence. I am against legalisation but in favour of appropriate measures to deal with those caught. Think Portugal rather than Holland.

Posted 12 months ago #
Bushwacked - Member

The level of consumption is irrelevant, show me some stats to qualify that society in any of these countries has declined following a change in the drug laws?

Are you sure that the figures relating to consumption are not more accurate once it becomes more of an open issue?

Posted 12 months ago #
Solo - Member

I haven't been following this particular flame-off, but I think this thread needs a lolcat.

Posted 12 months ago #
Cougar - Member

The level of consumption is irrelevant

+1. You can't compare two countries like for like and draw conclusions based on one difference. There are far, far too many other factors to consider, not least of which is simply cultural differences. China eats more rice than America, for instance; I'm reasonably sure that it's not because the US have stricter rice control laws.

Posted 12 months ago #
konabunny - Member

a drugs Czar (Keith Helliewell...I can actually remember him achieving a great deal...of sweet FA!

To be fair, it was always going to be difficult to repeat the success of "Firestarter".

Posted 12 months ago #