A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Marlow wrote:Which brings me to my (not-so-secret) revelation to prove ONCE AND FOR ALL (as if I needed to) that I'm stark raving mad: yes, I'm all for destroying all alcoholic and tobacco products forever! Not even kidding. So yes, I've lost the major debate in this regard also.
If you agree with me, that legalizing Meth and Heroin ect. WILL lead to more use of these deadly drugs, then it is problematic to do so. IMO not so much that people will die, if you're hell bent on killing yourself with drugs no one can stop you, but druggies steal and rob, or worse, to support their habit and when they do, it is now, MY business. Some may suggest giving druggies their drugs free to advert crime. That would lead to the government creating and supporting a bunch of Zombies, which I am against.
If pot cigarettes were sold next to the tobacco products, they would be no more expensive than standard cigarettes (majority of the price being the tax). Amphetamine and cocaine production is also not very expensive, nor are the opiate products (the same as poppy seeds). You just gave another very good argument for the legalization.
Marlow wrote:Which brings me to my (not-so-secret) revelation to prove ONCE AND FOR ALL (as if I needed to) that I'm stark raving mad: yes, I'm all for destroying all alcoholic and tobacco products forever! Not even kidding. So yes, I've lost the major debate in this regard also.
If you agree with me, that legalizing Meth and Heroin ect. WILL lead to more use of these deadly drugs, then it is problematic to do so. IMO not so much that people will die, if you're hell bent on killing yourself with drugs no one can stop you, but druggies steal and rob, or worse, to support their habit and when they do, it is now, MY business. Some may suggest giving druggies their drugs free to advert crime. That would lead to the government creating and supporting a bunch of Zombies, which I am against.
If pot cigarettes were sold next to the tobacco products, they would be no more expensive than standard cigarettes (majority of the price being the tax). Amphetamine and cocaine production is also not very expensive, nor are the opiate products (the same as poppy seeds). You just gave another very good argument for the legalization.
So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts, that's what I fear. I cant be for something that makes more zombies.I may be wrong.
It is possible that there could be a few more "zombies" but not likely. There was no spike in number of users when the Netherlands legalized it. There also would be more funds available for prevention and treatment (sales tax and savings from enforcement and incarceration).
SQUACKEE wrote:If you agree with me, that legalizing Meth and Heroin ect. WILL lead to more use of these deadly drugs, then it is problematic to do so. IMO not so much that people will die, if you're hell bent on killing yourself with drugs no one can stop you, but druggies steal and rob, or worse, to support their habit and when they do, it is now, MY business.
I don't know about that. The main reason why drug addicts steel and rob is because of the lack of affordability and availibility. You don't hear stories about alcoholics and smokers stealing and robbing. My belief is that if drugs were legalized, the increased use would be greatly offset by the elimination of drug related crime and the unburdening of our criminal justice system. Taxpayers would have to spend less money incarcerating people and the government would be able to tap another revenue stream, so it's a win-win situation. Those are the main reasons why Prohibition was repealed.
SQUACKEE wrote:So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts?
That's the crux of the matter. If you can walk into any drug store ( ) and buy cocaine, heroin, PCP, Ecstasy, Meth, etc. over the counter, I believe will have MANY more drug-related problems than we do now. I'm guessing Pego says, no, we won't. My answer seems intuitive AND obvious AND logical, but I guess Pego would say the same. Stalemate.
SQUACKEE wrote:So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts?
That's the crux of the matter. If you can walk into any drug store ( ) and buy cocaine, heroin, PCP, Ecstasy, Meth, etc. over the counter, I believe will have MANY more drug-related problems than we do now. I'm guessing Pego says, no, we won't. My answer seems intuitive AND obvious AND logical, but I guess Pego would say the same. Stalemate.
The only difference is that your response is "I believe", "intuitive", i.e. a speculation (neither "obvious", nor "logical"), while mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).
SQUACKEE wrote:So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts?
That's the crux of the matter. If you can walk into any drug store ( ) and buy cocaine, heroin, PCP, Ecstasy, Meth, etc. over the counter, I believe will have MANY more drug-related problems than we do now. I'm guessing Pego says, no, we won't. My answer seems intuitive AND obvious AND logical, but I guess Pego would say the same. Stalemate.
The only difference is that your response is "I believe", "intuitive", i.e. a speculation (neither "obvious", nor "logical"), while mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).
I thought the Dutch experiment went south? If pego is correct, then I am all for legalization as I am pro-drugs mostly, except the truly evil ones.
Anything can be abused and I wonder what the death rate is on junk foods-Marlow, too much sugar and fat leading to diabetes and heart disease? We have already started making them illegal- see trans fat and super sized soft drinks.
Pego wrote:It is possible that there could be a few more "zombies" but not likely. There was no spike in number of users when the Netherlands legalized it. There also would be more funds available for prevention and treatment (sales tax and savings from enforcement and incarceration).
Pego is right that the Netherlands is the best argument for legalizing some drugs. When my wife flew for TWA she went into a small shop and asked a Coke, and they rolled out a line for her. She did not use it.
When I was in Nepal back in the 70's during my Peace Corps days the drug scene was pretty open. Pot plants grew wild everywhere. Restaurants in Kathmandu had 'No Hashish Smoking' signs. And it didn't seem like that big of a deal, except for the spaced-out foreigners hanging around Phewa Tal (Lake) in Pokhara.
Pego wrote:mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).
The Dutch?! Been there, seen that. Cannabis is also against the law there and harder drugs moreso.
wiki wrote:The drug policy of the Netherlands officially has four major objectives: To prevent recreational drug use and to treat and rehabilitate recreational drug users. To reduce harm to users. To diminish public nuisance by drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighbourhood). To combat the production and trafficking of recreational drugs.
Pego wrote:mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).
The Dutch?! Been there, seen that. Cannabis is also against the law there and harder drugs moreso.
wiki wrote:The drug policy of the Netherlands officially has four major objectives: To prevent recreational drug use and to treat and rehabilitate recreational drug users. To reduce harm to users. To diminish public nuisance by drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighbourhood). To combat the production and trafficking of recreational drugs.
I guess their policy with drugs is similar to our policy with tobacco. The government does all sorts of things to discourage people from smoking cigarettes, but it still taxes tobacco and strictly controls its production and distibution.
My point was that contrary to your "intuitive" claim, loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use. The Dutch have by far the most liberal drug laws in EU. That is a fact, whether you've been there or not. Here is a paragraph from Wiki comparing the drug users numbers.
In the Netherlands 9.5% of young adults (aged 15–34) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level of Finland (8%), Latvia (9,7%) and Norway (9.6%) and less than in the UK (13.8%), Germany (11,9%), Czech Republic (19,3%), Denmark (13,3%), Spain (18.8%), France (16,7%), Slovakia (14,7%) and Italy (20,9%) but higher than in Bulgaria (4,4%), Sweden (4,8%), Poland (5,3%) or Greece (3,2%).[27][28] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.30%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[28] The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is together with Poland, France, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic the lowest of the EU.
Pego wrote:loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use.
The Dutch have always been soft on drugs, so when they loosened the laws, of course there was no change. In the USA a loosening of the law (notice that even they have laws against its use) would begin usher in a great change in usage as many more young people would experiment with its use as older people publically role modeled it use. Is that what you really want?
Pego wrote:loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use.
The Dutch have always been soft on drugs, so when they loosened the laws, of course there was no change. In the USA a loosening of the law (notice that even they have laws against its use) would begin usher in a great change in usage as many more young people would experiment with its use as older people publically role modeled it use. Is that what you really want?
Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law. Middle-aged people who are married with children and good jobs might be restrained by drug laws, but not young people. My guess is that young people in college settings are no more restrained by drug laws than the general polulation is by speeding laws.
jazzcyclist wrote:Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law.
Your post, your view. Certainly not my experience.
When you were a young man, serving in the Navy and going through college, I would venture to guess that you were in settings where drugs were prevalent and easily accessible on many occasions, perhaps even at parties where people were doing them right in front of you. Be honest, was fear of being arrested the reason you didn't take a hit? Like you I've never done drugs, not even weed, but fear of the law was never the thing holding me back on those occasions where folks were doing drugs right in front of me.
EDIT: At worst case, there would be a marginal increase in drug use if they were legalized, but IMO that downside would be far, far, far outweighed by the upside of elimination of drug related crimes, unburdening the criminal justice system and increasing tax revenues.
jazzcyclist wrote:Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law.
Your post, your view. Certainly not my experience.
When you were a young man, serving in the Navy and going through college, I would venture to guess that you were in settings where drugs were prevalent and easily accessible on many occasions, perhaps even at parties where people were doing them right in front of you. Be honest, was fear of being arrested the reason you didn't take a hit? Like you I've never done drugs, not even weed, but fear of the law was never the thing holding me back on those occasions where folks were doing drugs right in front of me.
It is true that fear of the law is almost non-existent in stopping drug use, that is a fact and I like facts! My only concern is to not encourage more use of horribly destructive drugs by making them cheap and legal, should I be called a mad man?
jazzcyclist wrote: EDIT: At worst case, there would be a marginal increase in drug use if they were legalized, but IMO that downside would be far, far, far outweighed by the upside of elimination of drug related crimes, unburdening the criminal justice system and increasing tax revenues.
jazzcyclist wrote: EDIT: At worst case, there would be a marginal increase in drug use if they were legalized, but IMO that downside would be far, far, far outweighed by the upside of elimination of drug related crimes, unburdening the criminal justice system and increasing tax revenues.
To quote pego, you know this how?
Nobody KNOWS these things. All any of us can do is offer specualtion and conjecture based on history; in particular American alcohol consumption trends and Prohibition, tobacco use trends and Dutch drug use trends and its legalization in the Netherlands.
jazzcyclist wrote:When you were a young man, serving in the Navy and going through college, I would venture to guess that you were in settings where drugs were prevalent and easily accessible on many occasions, perhaps even at parties where people were doing them right in front of you. Be honest, was fear of being arrested the reason you didn't take a hit? Like you I've never done drugs, not even weed, but fear of the law was never the thing holding me back on those occasions where folks were doing drugs right in front of me. EDIT: At worst case, there would be a marginal increase in drug use if they were legalized, but IMO that downside would be far, far, far outweighed by the upside of elimination of drug related crimes, unburdening the criminal justice system and increasing tax revenues.
I went to college at Drug Central in 1969 and then was commissioned in the Navy as Viet Nam waned (another Drug Paradise). In both milieux, drugs were considered pandemic, which in actual fact meant that about 15-20% of the populations were 'regular' (every week) druggies. I was friends with many of them (despite my growing disapproval, as I saw its effects), but the VAST majority of people I knew, even just in passing, where NOT into drugs. And yes, many simply weren't interested, but as we talked about the usage, virtually all said the same thing: they were not worth the consequences of being busted. I had no interest in them, but most of my non-using friends were definitely fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about. The stakes were simply too high to experiment more than once or twice and then breathe a heavy sigh of relief that they were not caught, resulting in not trying it again.
Precisely! We are are giving opinions based on our own Nature and Nurture. My experiences have irrevocably driven me to my views today. Others' experiences differ. C'est la vie.
Precisely! We are are giving opinions based on our own Nature and Nurture. My experiences have irrevocably driven me to my views today. Others' experiences differ. C'est la vie.
I'll say my last piece, 2 points.
In your long response to jazzcyclist you list reasons why you did not succumb to the drug culture. Fear of the law is not one of them, which has been our position all along.
No, our differences are not based on "Nature and Nurture." We have evidence from a long history of different kinds of prohibitions, while yours is based on your deep dislike of drugs by your own declaration a few posts earlier when you declared you would burn all alcohol and tobacco products. You are entitled to your passion, but it is just your passion nonetheless.
Marlow wrote:I went to college at Drug Central in 1969 and then was commissioned in the Navy as Viet Nam waned (another Drug Paradise). In both milieux, drugs were considered pandemic, which in actual fact meant that about 15-20% of the populations were 'regular' (every week) druggies. I was friends with many of them (despite my growing disapproval, as I saw its effects), but the VAST majority of people I knew, even just in passing, where NOT into drugs. And yes, many simply weren't interested, but as we talked about the usage, virtually all said the same thing: they were not worth the consequences of being busted. I had no interest in them, but most of my non-using friends were definitely fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about. The stakes were simply too high to experiment more than once or twice and then breathe a heavy sigh of relief that they were not caught, resulting in not trying it again.
You're obfuscating Marlow.
1) Were the folks who mentioned fear of getting busted at Stanford or in the Navy?
2) Was fear of getting busted the primary reason you didn't try drugs at Stanford or were you like me, a person who refused to be bullied by peer pressure and saw no point in taking on a vice that would potentially bring very bad consequences?
3) If there were friends of yours who you claim were "fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about" but afraid of the legal consequences of doing drugs, why did they all "experiment once or twice"?
Pego wrote:You are entitled to your passion, but it is just your passion nonetheless.
The fact that you previously said you were 'offended' by something I said means that you too take it personally. I see zero difference between the two of us; we're just on opposite sides of the same coin.
jazzcyclist wrote:You're obfuscating Marlow. 1) Were the folks who mentioned fear of getting busted at Stanford or in the Navy? 2) Was fear of getting busted the primary reason you didn't try drugs at Stanford or were you like me, a person who refused to be bullied by peer pressure and saw no point in taking on a vice that would potentially bring very bad consequences? 3) If there were friends of yours who you claim were "fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about" but afraid of the legal consequences of doing drugs, why did they all "experiment once or twice"?
1) Both 2) The latter - we were 'afraid' of the consequences. The potential price was too high. 3) Same reason Odysseus wanted to hear the Sirens' song.
Marlow wrote: I see zero difference between the two of us; we're just on opposite sides of the same coin.
That's the way I see it too. Marlow, by his own admission, opposes the libertarian philosophy of governance in favor of the nanny-state model which means that historical evidence and statistics regarding Prohibition and the Netherlands aren't needed for him to defend his point of view. I respect the fact that he admits that he's a nanny-stater a whole lot more than folks who want to control or eliminate the vices that adults can legally indulge while at the same time claiming to be small-government, laissez-faire conservatives.
jazzcyclist wrote:which means that historical evidence and statistics regarding Prohibition and the Netherlands aren't needed for him to defend his point of view.
Prohibition failed because alcohol consumption was grandfathered into our culture. Drug use isn't (yet). Historical evidence is just that, historical. It's predictive properties are highly suspect. And yes, I am very much a Nanny-stater for one simple reason: too many people have PROVEN their inability to make good choices, and by that I do not mean the choices I want them to make, I mean the choices that don't tend to ruin themselves and those around them.
jazzcyclist wrote:which means that historical evidence and statistics regarding Prohibition and the Netherlands aren't needed for him to defend his point of view.
Prohibition failed because alcohol consumption was grandfathered into our culture. Drug use isn't (yet).
But remember that cigarettes have always been legal in this country too, and yet cigarette use among Americans has steadily declined over the last 50 years, and there are fewer teenage smokers per capita today than at any point in our lifetimes. That's because as soon as people began to realize that cigarettes were bad for you, and the government began to agressively educate the American people on their downside, young became increasingly reluctant to take up this vice, and cigarette smoking was no longer the cool thing to do. This proves that through education, people can be discouraged from trying new vices even when they're legal.
It's not just the Netherlands. Portugal decriminalised possession and use a decade ago, allowing them to address the real issue in a less fraught environment. Doesn't seem to create a magic environment with unicorns grazing but certainly hasn't created the downfall of civilisation.
Pego wrote:Your analogy is preposterous and borders on offensive. I am done here.
I am vehemently against anything that 'enables' people to hurt others - (
Drugs don't enable people to hurt others, they may be a contributing factor in some cases but it isn't the drugs that hurt people and in the case of most recreational drugs it is the opposite
Recreational drugs are in many cases a contributing factor to people getting on with each other.
our football clubs were banned from European competition
Fuelled by alcohol and club rivalry there wasn't a weekend that went by without people being injured and killed in the riots.
Eventually alcohol was banned in stadiums and everyone searched before they went in, so fans started taking ecstasy instead !! No more riots people were too busy being happy and loving each other.
The influence of the magic pills spread beyond the confines of the thriving club scene. In 1991 and 1992, Ecstasy began to permeate into other walks of life. As more and more people discovered it, the national mood seemed to lift. Protestant and Catholic kids were hugging each other in the clubs in Northern Ireland. Amazingly, arrests for football violence dropped by 22% that year. It was never really confirmed, but many fans said this was because Ecstasy had replaced beer as the drug of choice on the terraces. Rival gangs were meeting in the clubs, taking tablets and calling truce.http://www.ephidrina.org/ecstasy/britain.html
When i first started going to clubs in London in the early 90's EVERYBODY took ecstasy (i mean everyone), and clubs were totally mixed, gay, straight, black white, rich, poor, there would be people of all walks of life making friend with each other. One of the reasons that we have relatively good race relations and acceptance of homosexuality (only 16% are opposed to marriage or civil partnerships, marriage will become legal in the next year and there are no major politicians who oppose it) is because there is a whole generation of people who spent their formative years taking ecstasy dancing and making friends with people from all walks of life.
Of course i know people for whom taking drugs became a problem but for everyone of them i know 100 who took recreational drugs at the weekend had an amazing time, made friends for life, had their eyes opened to all kinds of new people and experiences and gut up on Monday morning and put in a productive week at work
For someone with no personal experience of drugs to pontificate that drugs 'enable people to hurt others' shows contemptible ignorance
Marlow wrote:So those are good things that people enjoy . . . not able to control their own (destructive) desires.
I know you're a teetotaler, but have you ever had a drink?
People (including me) doing plenty of stupid stuff when we're sober. Why would anyone intentionally put themselves (and others!) MORE in "harm's way" (not necessarily physical)?
Because it's fun and the fun FAR out ways the negatives (well in my old age that isn't so try anymore, i can't cope with the hangovers )
Pego wrote:It is possible that there could be a few more "zombies" but not likely. There was no spike in number of users when the Netherlands legalized it. There also would be more funds available for prevention and treatment (sales tax and savings from enforcement and incarceration).
More importantly it severs the link between drugs and crime. US prisons are bursting with people locked up for minor drug offences or crimes committed in order to get drugs. If drug consumption was decriminalised (you can still go after suppliers, just not for possession or small time dealers) the trillions that could be spent on treatment and education would be a real War on Drugs.
Pego wrote:loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use.
The Dutch have always been soft on drugs, so when they loosened the laws, of course there was no change. In the USA a loosening of the law (notice that even they have laws against its use) would begin usher in a great change in usage as many more young people would experiment with its use as older people publically role modeled it use. Is that what you really want?
Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law. Middle-aged people who are married with children and good jobs might be restrained by drug laws, but not young people. My guess is that young people in college settings are no more restrained by drug laws than the general polulation is by speeding laws.
Mump, Does it surprise you that we see the world from diametrically opposed perspectives, given our somewhat disparate life experiences? I can't think of two people LESS alike on this forum than you and I, but ya know what, bro, you're OK!
) and buy cocaine, heroin, PCP, Ecstasy, Meth, etc. over the counter, I believe will have MANY more drug-related problems than we do now. I'm guessing Pego says, no, we won't. My answer seems intuitive AND obvious AND logical, but I guess Pego would say the same. Stalemate.
)