Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
In this Discussion
Top Posters
- Arkady 5356
- miss annie 5139
- andy 4506
- Ali 3405
- krappyrubsnif 3208
- tosscat 2291
- David 2179
- ADGS 1875
- kreuzkav 1733
- Mirandola 1618
Comments
I agree, it's horrendous round there. I wonder if the new fences will help.
No country has legalized hard drugs"
I would judge each substance using something like Professor Nutt's harm scale. Those with low-harm to the individual would be legalised and sold in a regulated system. Those that are more harmful would be decriminalised for use and possession and prescribed as described above. Portugal and Uruguay have moved in this direction to impressive and famous effect, others are following. Even the global compacts on this issue are now threatened by the enormous amount of evidence from those countries.
You may want to dismiss the argument that even highly-authoritarian, high sanction states have been unable to reduce drug use, though I'm not sure why you would. The murder rates in Jamaica are hardly a useful example - what is the correlation between the high crime rate and decriminalisation? Jamaica has way bigger problems. Indeed can you point to any correlation (let alone causation), anywhere, between high sanctions and low drug use/related crime? Because you'd be the first person to successfully do so.
The sale of cannabis is still illegal in Jamaica. Decriminalising possession of small amounts won't negatively impact the illegal trade, just reduce the prosecution of otherwise innocent people.
I'm only interested in scientific studies, including sociological ones where dealers and users are part of the study. Anecdote and personal experience can be useful, but just as often are highly misleading - as in all things.
Most drug users would rather not buy from criminals and rather go to a doctor, dispensary or coffee shop. Sending them to criminals makes the vulnerable more vulnerable. I was in Colorado last month and California last year, the situation there seems absolutely fine with no issues as far as I could see. People are not openly smoking weed because it is still illegal to smoke it in public. The main point is that Police are not wasting their time busting someone for buying weed and the users now do not have to deal with criminals in order to purchase a bag of dried plants.
As a father of two young children, I would rather that it was all decriminalised because it removes the criminal element i.e. the hoards of drug gangs around N4. Why would that be a bad thing? Also, with legislation is control, currently it is easier for a 14 year old child in N4 to buy drugs than buy alcohol. For the record, I am not in favour of large drug use, like overuse of alcohol it effects society negatively. However, criminalising it just pushes it all underground, it certainly does not stop drug use and is a drain on public resources.
For those of you getting high (no pun intended) and mighty about drug use, if you drink alcohol or coffee you are also drug user but because the government taxes those products you seem to think it is ok...…
There seem to be a lot of opinions on this topic that highlight a naivety.
Hello, we police Finsbury Park station! Please report any activity like this to us by texting 61016 or calling 0800 40 50 40 so we can investigate.
Obviously you have some personal experience and I am pleased for you that things have improved. BUT to take your example, if someone were drinking heavily every day from 13 to the age of 40 would that not also cause similar problems with job prospects, interpersonal skills etc etc? Someone moving across an ocean to improve their high is, if you will forgive me, clearly at the extreme end of the issue. Also, was it not due to the criminality of the weed that you were mixing with people who then may have access to meth etc? Criminalising drugs did not stop you using them but maybe made your situation more taboo and less likely to seek help.
I smoked weed regularly in my younger years, never moved on to anything heavier and had a great time. I would much rather have not been exposed to criminals in order to have my smoke though.
We're still missing the point, the current way of handling drugs i.e prohibition for over 100 years, has failed miserably and there are solid examples around the world where decriminalisation or legislation has worked. They are facts, not opinions. Portugal has seen a massive decrease in drug use and related street crime. People seem to be getting much more emotional about the issue rather than using simple common sense.
Hello, we police Finsbury Park station! Please report any activity like this to us by texting 61016 or calling 0800 40 50 40 so we can investigate.
That is genius: As if you could miss it, they are stood every night in the alley to the park next to the expensive bike parking. Someone should tell the police just to look out for the thing that resembles a low grade knock off The Wire.
Yes @Papa L you are exactly right.
I'm not saying you are doing that Miss Annie - and please don't take that as my point here - but that's how I often see it used.
It's an easy way to discredit someone's right to an opinion, similar to shouting privilege, left wing, right wing etc.
I also suspect that if a term emerged to describe women taking much longer than needed to relate a event about their day whilst going round the houses in their story (femeandering perhaps) the modern humourless world would judge it not okay to use it.
That said people can use mansplain all they want though. Free speech is paramount and in my mind people need to get back to having thicker skins.
“Femeandering”! My word, you are a card, @Ali , and no mistake!
“Thicker skins” my arse! If sexist language is all right, let’s be humourous with racist language too, hmmm? Oh, and let’s not forget all the “humorous” langauge from the ‘70s relating to flids and spazzes.
Yes, free speech gives one the right to expose oneself as an embarrassment to one’s company (I was going to call you a c¥#%, just to test the waters, but then thought better of it).
I feel you might be conflating a number of far more serious things with my post about an innocuous but annoying term 'mansplaining'.
My friends other half died of an OD last year and he kicked a 10 year habit when he realised he would sooner or later be next, i have never heard of a personal tragedy curing a disease.
I like a drink, but i would not drink nail varnish, i also am the type of person to climb things \ run marathons etc. i would not call that a disease either but it is only replacing one high with another.
---
If you want to know the actual reasons behind prohibition read 'Chasing The Scream' which is a massively informative book.
The author also thinks drugs should be legalised (as do i) but that is really not the reason to read the book, the content is fascinating.
I believe that man has been getting high for thousands of years, why stop now.
We need education around what 'DRUGS!' are, more people die now from taking uppers and then taking downers because they don't have a bloody clue on what they are doing or the strength of the pills.
Legalise, educate and let people go out and have fun.
Pills are crazy strong these days. 10 or 15 years back they had maybe 70mg in them. These days they have up to 300mg. But the kids buying them have no idea. It's a gamble.
Saying "drugs are bad, they should be banned" is all well and good. But it doesn't work. It kills people. It gives power to criminals.
If the EU was a female and the UK Government a bloke the later has been mansplaining the former for around two years !
Assuming I understand correctly what mansplaining means and it also shows it will not get you very far.
The use of "Mansplaining" is not innocuous; it's corrosively sexist and denigrating in that it implies that condescending, long-winded, patronising explanations are the speciality of men.
The example to which I responded was actually not mansplaining, as the dictionary definition for that does exclusively apply to men patronisingly explaining to women. I'll apologise to @N4Matt and settle for plain ole patronising - explaining the person's problems to them while also ignoring the person's actual lived experience.
Not going back to edit though. Sorry if I've upset you all chaps (which I use as a total gender neutral).
I do dislike the term mansplaining, but I try not to womoan about it (all not gender specific).