Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very[/url] depressing news to me . . . the views of the "mainstream" have continued to diverge more and more from my own views throughout my life . . . and I really don't expect it to get better any time soon.[/quote]
Maybe it wasn't...working? If it was so great, I highly doubt they would up and change it all of the sudden.
All "it" is is letting people engage in the consensual activities that they would like to engage in. That could hardly "not work".
If they were having other sorts of problems--things that I'd also consider undesirable, then those problems should be addressed for what they are.
People come there and die (literally). That's not a problem? It's not a problem for the people who actually live there that don't want to do drugs to have a bunch of zombies walking around and doing stupid $hit constantly? I don't get the "it's all about me" attitude. I have read some of your other posts and do respect your opinion, but it's not just effecting the people who engage in it. It never does.
People come there and die (literally). That's not a problem?
If people are dying as the result of a consensual activity where either (a) the consensual activity is commissioning death, as in assisted suicides, or (b) the consensual activity involves a reasonable chance of death that would be common knowledge (such as skydiving, say, or sexual asphyxiation), and in this case, the deaths are accidental, then no, I have no problem with that. You'd have to talk more about the specific deaths you have in mind.
Quote:
It's not a problem for the people who actually live there that don't want to do drugs to have a bunch of zombies walking around and doing stupid $hit constantly?
What is counting as "stupid $h|t"? As long as no one is directly involved with nonconsensual actions, there aren't property crimes going on, etc., then that shouldn't be a problem. And if there are nonconsensual, direct actions or property crimes occurring, then that's what should be dealt with, not the drug use.
Quote:
I don't get the "it's all about me" attitude. I have read some of your other posts and do respect your opinion, but it's not just effecting the people who engage in it. It never does.
I don't base any restrictions on some vague sense of affecting. I only base them on consent and whether parties are directly involved in the actions in question.
Considering most problems with drugs come directly and indirectly from them being illegal (high costs, organized crime and street gangs, impure products, etc.) legalizing them would be an improvement.
Not saying their wouldn't be any problems, whatever you decide to do, there will be problems that result from it, but considering that junkies will no longer be paying $80 to $300 a day for heroin (where do you think they get the money?) and gangs will not be so obsessed with their little street corner when it is no longer yielding several thousand dollars in drug sales.
]
Who is going to be civially responsible for the deaths in selling the drugs to them. I can see lawsuits jamming the courts how.
I don't base any restrictions on some vague sense of affecting. I only base them on consent and whether parties are directly involved in the actions in question.[/quote]
I see that. I have drug-addicted relatives. I guess, by your theory, I should have written them off the day they started. It tears families apart and is a huge burden on them. So...you can cite "direct involvement", but it NEVER stops at that. Great idea...not realistic. Give me on example of one addicted person not affecting another person. Even a homeless orphan who doesn't have a friend in the world who is addicted affects others. It's not vague at all.
I see that. I have drug-addicted relatives. I guess, by your theory, I should have written them off the day they started.
On my view, it's their choice whether they want to do drugs or not and deal with possible consequences of that.
Quote:
It tears families apart and is a huge burden on them.
Certainly not everyone is going to agree with everyone else's choices and that can end up dividing people in various ways.
Quote:
So...you can cite "direct involvement", but it NEVER stops at that.
What I'm saying is that my legislation stops at that.
Quote:
Great idea...not realistic.
I don't know what "realistic" would refer to there. If you mean it's unlikely that my system would be implemented, I agree. Too many people want to control what people can consent to, and it would take some major social and/or psychological changes to make that not the case.
Quote:
Give me on example of one addicted person not affecting another person.
People "affecting" other people is irrelevant to what I'd legislate. Again, it's too vague and includes too many things that I wouldn't want to prohibit.
Quote:
Even a homeless orphan who doesn't have a friend in the world who is addicted affects others. It's not vague at all.
It's vague because "affect" isn't very well-defined.
Maybe it wasn't...working? If it was so great, I highly doubt they would up and change it all of the sudden.
Well, the article you referenced hardly scratches at the surface of the story.
First of all, the Netherlands has never legalized the production of cannabis, marijuana, ganja - whatever you want to call it. Same with the "magic" mushrooms. There it's sometimes referred to as the "backdoor problem" - that is to say, while the sales of product going out the front door is legal, the production and supply coming in through the back door is not. It's a very halfway-there policy, like I'd mentioned earlier here. Since the production is not legal, it's ripe pickings for organized crime. These same criminals are going to love it if they re-criminalize the whole industry, because it means more money and power for them. They will make a killing. As there is the side of wanting to close down the coffeeshops, there are others in the government who want to legalize it completely - meaning the shops will have legal supply lines.
The other issue in the Netherlands is the so-called "drug tourists" - people who wouldn't be there if the countries where those people come from had the same policies.
There is currently an extremely conservative - at least by European standards - ruling party (the Christian Democrats) in the Netherlands, and this policy has more to do with the enforcement of "morality" rather than trying to stamp out organized crime. These changes are going to do the exact opposite. This isn't a matter of what I think will happen, but what history has shown us time and again.
I don't base any restrictions on some vague sense of affecting. I only base them on consent and whether parties are directly involved in the actions in question.
I see that. I have drug-addicted relatives. I guess, by your theory, I should have written them off the day they started. It tears families apart and is a huge burden on them. So...you can cite "direct involvement", but it NEVER stops at that. Great idea...not realistic. Give me on example of one addicted person not affecting another person. Even a homeless orphan who doesn't have a friend in the world who is addicted affects others. It's not vague at all. [/quote]
within Holland, the drug users directly effect all citizens. How you might ask? they have universal health care, I can see that the related health problems from drug use would start to cost them a small fortune to treat, thus causing the raising of taxes to compensate for the increased medical treatments. This could be a major reason why they are rethinking the legality of drugs that have an adverse effect on ones health. How would this same principal affect us here? Well, when you have members in a health insurance policy that may be heavy drug users, the medical bills get paid out of a huge pot of money that is collected from the membership in that group policy. The ending result for this would be increased payment from members since more money is needed from the group policy to cover the health care of people that are knowingly putting their health at risk and expecting others in the group policy to pay for that health care.
First of all, the Netherlands has never legalized the production of cannabis, marijuana, ganja - whatever you want to call it. Same with the "magic" mushrooms. There it's sometimes referred to as the "backdoor problem" - that is to say, while the sales of product going out the front door is legal, the production and supply coming in through the back door is not.
Any idea what the reasoning was behind that? Seems to me like it should have seemed ridiculous to them when they were enacting the laws about this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
