Thursday no-brainer....

In

Whoosh ....
--
Steve Parry

http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk

K100RS SE
F650

 

I think the name did it for me, tbh.

That's trigger the twat filter. The post content merely confirmed it.

 

Of course it is. How can you seriously expect hard drugs that will cause an
addict to do anything to get their fix to be legalised?

Why not legalise handguns again? Why not legalise dynamite, c4, rape,
murder, kidnapping - it's because doing any of them would be detrimental to
the health and safetly of people who would rather have nothing to do with
any of it. It's not the actual drugs that I and millions like me despise,
it's the addicts the drugs produce and what the addicts inflict on society.

If the effects of drug taking was simply limited to those participating then
we'd hear virtually nothing off it. It the effect it has on innocent people
that makes it such a big problem. Surely you can understand that?

And unless the government substantially raises unemployment benefit you're
still going to have addicts mugging, stealing, killing people to get money
for their habit. Heroin adddicts can spend thousands a week on a habit and
drug prices are actually pretty low just now.

Unless of course in this new age world you envision herion addicts can hold
down jobs when they are out their heads and thus earn enough to pay for
their drugs?

Cheaper drugs = more users = more zombies wandering the streets out of their
skulls committing crimes = how does that = less drug related crime?

I rest my case.

 

You say that like it's a bad thing. You wanna view it from *my*
perspective.

 

<fx: taps fingers and waits patiently ...>

Is that the best you can do?

I was expecting more, especially as this is your specialist subject.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Why so? That's the problem with this country, too fucking soft when it
matters and too hard when it's not called for.

Speed on a deserted motorway in the dead of night and get jailed for causing
no actual harm , rob some old dear of her pension to pay for smack and you
get community service - what a wonderful world.

 

Do you know many heroin addicts?

legal drugs = less attraction = less users.

Drugs are freely available (I assume more so now than 20 years ago- they
were freely available then). Anyone wishing to try them can; it costs
no more to play around with drugs than get pissed.

If someone gets a taste for an addictive drug and are willing to pay the
price they will become an addict and do the necessary whether the drugs
are 'legally' supplied or not. If the drugs are regulated at least the
price can be controlled and the profits don't finance other crime.

You shouldn't. Go back and do something unusual; think about the issue.

 

AndrewR

Sorry Andrew, but that rubbish. Heroin is toxic in the quantities used for
'recreational' purposes.

Very unusual for you such a illogical connection.

 

Well, we get some pretty fucking spurious arguments on here, but that's one
of the best ones.

Two things; firstly as people are committing these crimes anyway, why does
it matter whether they are committing them to get illegal drugs or legal
drugs? Secondly, plenty of people rob, steal, burgle, defraud and so on to
buy flash cars, expensive clothes and big houses - does that imply that
cars, clothes and homes should be illegal?

You're not in your school's debating society, are you? The things you list
are directly harmful to others, whilst drugs are only _directly_ harmful to
the user.

The secondary effects of anything, whether legal or not, have to be dealt
with seperately. For example, making it harder to buy new cars wouldn't
decrease the number of road deaths, would it?

society.

Yes, but you see, the addict exist anyway and we don't have a way of getting
rid of them. In light of that you have to form a _new_ plan ... such as one
that takes billions of pounds off organised crime and uses it to help people
like the addicts and crime victims.

Yes I can, but that's not the issue we're debating.

For the last time, the point where that argument falls down is around the
word, "still". This problem exists, it's not going to go away if we
continue along the current path. We have to think of a better way of doing
things.

Given your tales of mad drug-addicts killing everyone in their sight to get
money for their fixes, I'd love to see your figures that support the number
of addicts being kept down by the current market value of drugs.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Not much chance for appeal or parole (or god forbid, being wrongfully
committed) if you're dead, is there?

 

But not instantly fatal, right?

The point I was making was about ODs and how difficult it must be to
calculate the correct intake of a drug of unknown purity.

Why is it illogical?

If you wanted to ride a bike 25 years ago you went out and bought a 250cc,
stuck some 'L' plates on and off you went.

Now you have to go through a CBT before you can get on a 125cc and then
theory tests, hazard perception tests, practical test, etc. to get a 33hp
bike.

Why? Because people kept dying on bikes.

People are still dying on bikes ... where do _you_ think we'll be in another
25 years?


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Criminal activities are not funded as such by other crime. It's not a
charity
you pour money in. If it wouldn't generate money itself, it wouldn't be
done.

That's bollocks.

Heroin is not attractive because it's forbidden.

No it wouldn't, it would just shift it.

I strongly suspect not so.

 

I agree. Problem with your masterplan regarding drugs is unlike being pulled
for speeding on a deserted road where a copper can make an informed decision
as to what to do if anything is that some guy working behind the counter of
a pharmacy dishing out smack can't make any kind of judgement as to whether
the person he or she is about to give smack to is going to be a good addict
who will simply go without their drugs until their next giro or whether that
person is going to do anything to get cash to pay for their next fix when
their giro is all spent on drugs.

Why, your other post doesn't address the points I made. Is that perhaps
because no matter how you look at it or try to argue the point, legalising
hard drugs (or even having their distribution controlled by the government)
isn't going to help the real problem with drugs and that's the addicts they
produce and what said addicts will do to fund their habit.

Harsher sentences and more funding to combat dealers will reduce the numbers
regardless of how much cash is out there to be made.

One key difference and that is that the majority wanted legal booze, the
majority do not want legal or more readily available hard drugs. Booze has
it's problems as well but the effects are nothing like those of hard drugs.

Rikki

 

No because it went against what the vast majority wanted. Legalising or
making more readily available hard drugs is the same, against what the vast
majority want.

I suggest you take your own advice there.

 

What about bestiality?

 

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:56:13 -0000, "Rikki"
<> bored us all completely to death with
wittery prose along the lines of:

Should we x-post to aadp?

 

Nope, which is why I said " I'd be all for that so long as the conviction
was solid."

You have to remember how far criminal science has moved on since the last
wrongful hanging over here. Not suggest people are taken out of the court
after being found guilty and strung up 15 minutes later but if you're caught
bang to rights supplying / selling drugs, murdering someone, raping someone,
molesting children then why should you not face the death penalty?

A case not so long ago up here where a guy got released after serving his
"life" sentence for murder and within two weeks of being released had
murdered again - is that what you think is right?

 

They aren't? You don't need money to setup distribution for drugs and to
fund bank robberies?

What, you get some sort of a free grant to setup the enterprises?

So what's your suggestion?

Shift what, the street crime or the NHS load?

Experience to back this up?

 

Show me the history where prohibition has worked.

 

OK, one last time, in BIG letters.

Have you got your finger ready on the screen? Then I'll begin.

THE PROBLEM OF ADDICTS EXISTS WHETHER DRUGS ARE LEGAL OR NOT. WITH LEGAL
DRUGS THERE WILL BE MONEY TO HELP ADDICTS.

Are we clear now?

Harsher sentences cost money as does the funding, obviously. Also, dealers
are the lowest link in the chain. If you still have suppliers and importers
than you _will_ find somebody to sell stuff on for them, irrespective of the
sentences that they might get.

drugs.

You're right, of course, because nobody ever did anything illegal because of
booze, did they?

Hang on! They do! That means, by your own argument, alcohol should be
illegal.

On your earlier point; the majority of people in this country chose not to
do hard drugs, to them it is immaterial whether such drugs are available
over the counter, but that is not the same as them opposing legalisation.
If you're going to say things like, "the majority", then please quote your
sources.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.