Opinions - War on Drugs debate: let's play a little role-playing game

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

You didn't really get back to this thread, and I think some of the posts were of excellent quality and rather polite, so there really isn't an excuse there other than time constraints.

If you could make an attempt to respond to the 'non cutdown' posts that make valid and reasonable points that would be nice for the communal discourse.

Ya know, I remember responding to your post on that thread. I usually re-read what I've typed and then fix some things, and then post. I found that I was just spitting out most of the same things that I've said a couple hundred times. Ima haf to go back and type that shit up again I guess.

[hh339]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I found that I was just spitting out most of the same things that I've said a couple hundred times.

That's funny, I have noticed this with EVERY COP I HAVE EVER SEEN GOD FUCKING DAMMIT GAAAAAHH. *Counting to 10*

What's up with you guys, you are like fucking answering machines. You keep a little black book with you at all times, with answers to ALL the questions you can't (or aren't allowed to..?) figure out for yourselves? Who the fuck took the dumbest assholes on the planet (not you specifically P) and put them in charge over the ones who can actually think for themselves. Well you probably know the answer to that one...

PO, this is not directed at you personally, I hope you understand that. Neither is it flaming, it's THE SAD TRUTH. But please, please get serious here and think things through, don't answer questions on behalf of the rest of the force, I want YOUR opinions. Even if they suck.

You need some research material PO? I got plenty, and I bet the others around here do to. Are you too programmed, or do you have the common sense to admit that you have been wrong, if the proofs are there right in front of you? If the answer is yes, then maybe I'll just not go and blow my brains out. Give us some hope officer.

This is a place for those who wish to learn and share, and that goes 2 ways.

[vcdman]

Isnt the irony that laws are designed to protect the people from the people...

Therfore removing these laws (or decriminalizing) would allow people to damage themselves and others without much thought or care.

Sure when boundaries are in place people wanna break them,

But having no prohibition against these things would be like letting a 3 year old play unsupervisored in the garage with all those tools etc...

The link is majority of people (or 3 year olds) dont understand the dangers well enough to avoid damagin themselves...

Hence the lawing.

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I just say my piece and be done.

And if someone inconveniently mentions that you've ignored crucial pieces of evidence while saying your "piece" and asks for clarification, does he get it?

"No, man, PO done said his piece. He done."

And hey, man, I'm arguing your side in this thread! Cut a brother some slack! Jackass my foot.

[Twiglet]

Swim used to be big on legalising cannabis.(had crown court trial of 1 joint and he got Not Guilty!)Swim apologises to police for making them look like fools
anyway a weed dealer said swim was wrong to try and help show the obviousness of legalising cannabis, as it was one of the only ways to make a karma free living illegally.
I will clarify, if you just don't want to work in the system your government has set up (for example you believe the system completely sucks) you still need money, and if you grow and sell weed you are doing no-one any harm at all.see- karma free

Reputation Comments on this post:

There are hundreds of ways to make it in this world without doing harm unto others. Selling drugs is not "karma fre...

[Twiglet]

Originally Posted by twiglet

anyway a weed dealer said swim was wrong to try and help show the obviousness of legalising cannabis, as it was one of the only ways to make a karma free living illegally.
I will clarify, if you just don't want to work in the system your government has set up (for example you believe the system completely sucks) you still need money, and if you grow and sell weed you are doing no-one any harm at all.see- karma free

someone gave me negative rep for this.( apparantly it's lazy not karma free)
for a start it's a role playing game!
why can't you come forward and argue your point, instead of sneaking negative rep.
anyway growing weed and selling it, is not lazy, you obviously have never done it and realised the amount of time and effort is needed.
if anyone agrees with me ,please give me rep. back, thanks

Reputation Comments on this post:

haha

[schwing]

This is in response to post #29 but I'm not going to quote because quote inside a quote is confusing to edit... argh.

Grandbaby said: People will still drink and drive, rape, rob, embezzle, murder, etc. Should we legalize those because the laws haven't stopped everyone from doing it?

But actions such as rape, rob, embezzle, murder, etc entails an unwilling victim whereas mature, responsible use of drugs (i.e. well-researched and sensible doses) only results in happily high individuals. The important question here is this: does the use of (currently) illegal drugs always create victims?

Grandbaby said: One joint is the equivalent of something like 4 packs of cigarettes - we're trying to get rid of cigarettes which are a huge problem, do you really think we should add more trouble to the mix?

Huh? Where are you getting your facts from? What do you exactly mean "equivalent"? YOU show me some evidence.


BTW, I can see why you're doing this but if possible, can we stay away from "doing drugs is automatically bad because you're breaking the law" line of arguments? It seems kind of lame when we're trying to argue about merits of such laws.

Let me be "evil": If drug use is so harmful and leads to nowhere but self-destruction, I say legalize them and let the poor bastards take the centre stage for global population control!

Originally Posted by twiglet

someone gave me negative rep for this.( apparantly it's lazy not karma free)
for a start it's a role playing game!
why can't you come forward and argue your point, instead of sneaking negative rep.
anyway growing weed and selling it, is not lazy, you obviously have never done it and realised the amount of time and effort is needed.
if anyone agrees with me ,please give me rep. back, thanks

LOL. I wish I could give you rep points but I can't do that at the moment.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well done.

[toe]

Originally Posted by twiglet

someone gave me negative rep for this.( apparantly it's lazy not karma free)
for a start it's a role playing game!
why can't you come forward and argue your point, instead of sneaking negative rep.
anyway growing weed and selling it, is not lazy, you obviously have never done it and realised the amount of time and effort is needed.
if anyone agrees with me ,please give me rep. back, thanks

You don't have to break the law to make a living without doing harm to others. You make it sound as if your only other choice is to work for the government ("in the system they've set up"). Is it income tax that you are protesting here? If so, I understand. And, frankly I see no reason why a person would break themselves picking blueberries or ringing a bell for Salvation Army if they had the option of selling a weed instead. Without incriminating myself, though, I have to say that the latter really isn't a backbreaker and is more or less socially neutral, neither productive nor destructive. I'm not sure I understand where karma plays into it?

[Twiglet]

Originally Posted by toe

You don't have to break the law to make a living without doing harm to others. You make it sound as if your only other choice is to work for the government ("in the system they've set up"). Is it income tax that you are protesting here? If so, I understand. And, frankly I see no reason why a person would break themselves picking blueberries or ringing a bell for Salvation Army if they had the option of selling a weed instead. Without incriminating myself, though, I have to say that the latter really isn't a backbreaker and is more or less socially neutral, neither productive nor destructive. I'm not sure I understand where karma plays into it?

I was not protesting. it's just i did do a lot to try and help legalise cannabis, and friend says, that it was wrong to do that. as he did not feel government had the right to sell and tax this plant, as they have been against it for so long.he says it's "ours".
sorry, there are other things you can do other than this (grow and sell), but it's for the benefit of this thread,why cannabis should remain illegal.
karma free, don't know why i said that, just your doing no harm

[zera]

The concept that we are going to punish someone with a punishment that does them more harm than the actual transgression is ludicrous, its like executing your three year old for playing with the stove.

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Uh no, jackasses. lol

I just say my piece and be done. If its going to go round and round and just break into a witty cut down fest, well I try to stay away from that these days.

That amounts to simple interjection, absent logical discourse.

I have known you to obfuscate issues when confronted with reason, but while it seems clear that this thread was almost taylor-made to your own interest, I doubt (considering the history of your posts) you will offer anything in the way of REAL contribution, here either.

...of course you could always fall back on the familiar "cry-baby" tactic:

avoid substantive response to the topic while declaring that you are, once again, being treated unfairly.

[Evil GIR]

Oh, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Let's create a generation of addicts so that we can use the money generated by their misery to cure them. Good thinking there, bucko.

People will take drugs, even if you threaten them with the death penalty, though this may cause a drop in uses, there will still be some of them that would stay defiante. Though the death penailty is pointless because if its all about harm reduction then killing someone is going in the wrong direction.

So don't smoke it. That would be the safest bet of all, wouldn't it? Reduce the harm right out of existence.

Thats not the point, its the very laws fault that cause these toxic contaminats to be put in there in the first place. If cannabis was properly regulated then the health risks asociated with it would be reduced. if the laws are supposed to protect people then why allow drugs to be unregulated. when regulation would be safer. Its not as if there ever going to stopp the drug supply, if anything production had done nothing but gone up.

LOL! Using drugs is illegal. Therefore ALL people who use drugs are criminals. That's the winner for the most rediculous [sic] statement I've heard today.

Just becasue something is illigal, dosent mean something is wrong, if the law says its illigal to wear a blue T-shirt on a monday, dose that make all people who break the law bad people ?

Growing pot is a serious crime. That's why there are mandatory sentences for it. What part of that don't you get?

So is rape, but rapists get less time in prision than someone who would grow a plant for there own personal use.

I'd like you to meet some of the "harmless drug users" clogging up our prisons sometime. I'd give you ten minutes alone with some of them before you were crying like a baby and asking for something to stop the bleeding with.

I think most of the drugs users in prision are probably the ones crying like babys trying to hide from bubba.










Back to reality :
This is fun though, I guess this pretend debate proves one thing, thoughs against drugs are probably delusional and no matter what you say, they will allways tell you drugs are bad. No matter what scientific data you have or proff on the subject.

[grandbaby]

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

People will take drugs, even if you threaten them with the death penalty, though this may cause a drop in uses, there will still be some of them that would stay defiante. Though the death penailty is pointless because if its all about harm reduction then killing someone is going in the wrong direction.

People will still drink and drive, rape, rob, embezzle, murder, etc. Should we legalize those because the laws haven't stopped everyone from doing it?

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

Thats not the point, its the very laws fault that cause these toxic contaminats to be put in there in the first place. If cannabis was properly regulated then the health risks asociated with it would be reduced. if the laws are supposed to protect people then why allow drugs to be unregulated. when regulation would be safer.

One joint is the equivalent of something like 4 packs of cigarettes - we're trying to get rid of cigarettes which are a huge problem, do you really think we should add more trouble to the mix?

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

Just becasue something is illigal, dosent mean something is wrong, if the law says its illigal to wear a blue T-shirt on a monday, dose that make all people who break the law bad people ?

If there was a law about blue shirts on mondays there would probably have been a good reason for it. Drug laws are not totally arbitrary, you know. I don't think we need to have people flipping out and on the nod all over the place, driving stoned and all that. You're right, if there was such a crap law it should be opposed, but the war on drugs is as necessary as the war on terror.

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

So is rape, but rapists get less time in prision than someone who would grow a plant for there own personal use.

I don't believe you. Show me some evidence. That's a hell of a statement. I bet rapists get way more time on average than personal growers do.

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

I think most of the drugs users in prision are probably the ones crying like babys trying to hide from bubba.

Huh?










Back to reality :

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

This is fun though, I guess this pretend debate proves one thing, thoughs against drugs are probably delusional and no matter what you say, they will allways tell you drugs are bad. No matter what scientific data you have or proff on the subject.

True. But because they are part of the dominant delusion, they have to be way less rigorous about how they approach things. I hope this li'l debate can continue until we get all the airtight arguments for every situation down. Then we can be lots of fun at straight parties!

*brandishing index finger, drink in other hand* "ANN... anUTHER thing!... "

[Twiglet]

Er, Swim will try and put the other side over- DRUGS ARE BAD (sorry for shouting) theres no scientific evidence for it, it's just a fact.
Cannabis makes you forget what you are saying, and leads you by the hand to hard heroin, and makes you forget what your saying.
swiy may want to have a spliff and then start jacking up loads of smack , but swim does not.
Drugs are bad.

[Evil GIR]

People will still drink and drive, rape, rob, embezzle, murder, etc. Should we legalize those because the laws haven't stopped everyone from doing it?

But the majority of drug users only harm them selfs, I think its there right to give them selfs cancer through smoking. But i also find it strange that Very dangerous drugs such as dactora is legal and people under the influence can easly hurt them selfs becaue of its toxicity.

One joint is the equivalent of something like 4 packs of cigarettes - we're trying to get rid of cigarettes which are a huge problem, do you really think we should add more trouble to the mix?

Its should still be a fundamental right for a grown adult to make up there own choices, If a adult chooses they could drink bleach if they wanted. Its there body, not yours.

If there was a law about blue shirts on mondays there would probably have been a good reason for it. Drug laws are not totally arbitrary, you know. I don't think we need to have people flipping out and on the nod all over the place, driving stoned and all that. You're right, if there was such a crap law it should be opposed, but the war on drugs is as necessary as the war on terror.

I don't believe you. Show me some evidence. That's a hell of a statement. I bet rapists get way more time on average than personal growers do.

Ok maybe not in the uk, but in the USA they have shown a very agressive unfair drugs policy.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/4/131952/261

[Twiglet]

The 2 links go straight to government site.
this is also thread starter but thought it fits in here.
this is a very recent reply from 10 downing st- UK Government, when petitioned by e-mail i am not sure of the figures but will find out and repost.
If you all would like to disect it and help show the error of there ways, we can pick best counter argument and it be sent back to them
Legalisecannabis - epetition reply

13 July 2007
We received a petition asking:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
Details of Petition:
"Prohibition does not work. Any possible dangers the government believes to be involved in the use of cannabis can only increase the need for the government to take the control of it's supply away from criminals and regulate it as alcohol and tobacco are regulated. Add to this the proven medicinal uses of cannabis and it's religious use throughout the world, for which prohibition is illegal under human rights law, and legalisation can be the only logical way forward."

• Read the petition
• Petitions home page

Read the Government's response

Thank you for your petition seeking the legalisation of cannabis.
The Government has no intention of legalising cannabis. In response to the Home Affairs Committee report on The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working? in 2002, we stated that "We do not accept that legalisation and regulation is now, or will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs" and that includes cannabis.
Whilst there is every sympathy for those with debilitating illnesses and chronic pain who are looking to alleviate their symptoms and who may not find adequate relief from existing medication. The Government's view that cannabis is and will remain a controlled, illicit drug for good reasons.
When recommending the reclassification of the drug from Class B to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs asked for it to be clearly understood that cannabis is unquestionably harmful. It has a number of acute and chronic health effects and prolonged use can induce dependence.
Most cannabis is smoked and smoking, in any form, is dangerous. Even the occasional use of cannabis can pose significant dangers for people with mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, and particular efforts need to be made to encourage abstinence in such individuals. The Government believes that it clearly makes sense, on health grounds, for cannabis to remain a controlled drug whose unauthorised production (including cultivation), supply and possession for whatever purpose are and will remain illegal.
The Government understands the reasons for your opposition to the prohibition of cannabis and your support for legalisation of the drug and control of its quality in a regulated way. However, we have concluded that the disadvantages of legalisation would outweigh the benefits.

Legalisation would run counter to the Government's health and education messages. Our message to all - and to young people in particular - is that all controlled drugs, including cannabis, are harmful and no one should take them. To legalise the possession of cannabis for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse.
The Government's objective is to reduce the use of all illegal drugs - including cannabis - substantially, not to encourage increased consumption due to more ready access to increased supply. While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug use, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation.
Among other things, the prohibition on cannabis and many other drugs was introduced by UN Convention specifically for protecting public health and welfare. On the human rights front, it is widely agreed that the law has a function in protecting public health and welfare, including protecting people from the consequences of their own actions - compare, for example, speed limits, seat belts, safety and crash helmets, tobacco health warnings, etc. The Government must balance the rights of individuals on the one hand and the greater public health and welfare considerations on the other.
Whilst the Government has no intention of legalising the use of cannabis in its raw form for medicinal purposes, we have said that we would seek Parliament's agreement to make any necessary changes to the law to enable the prescription of cannabis-based medicine, for the purposes of relieving pain, but not before the granting of product approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
It would not be appropriate for the Government to circumvent or undermine the well-established process attached to the evaluation of the safety, quality and effectiveness of all prospectively prescribable products by the MHRA. It is a process, which is designed to protect public health. Doctors must be confident about what they prescribe. In order to protect public health, the Government faces difficulty in making any changes to the law unless and until we are satisfied that the benefits have been formally established by the statutorily recognised means. This position is supported by the British Medical Association.
__________________

Reputation Comments on this post:

good find

[Twiglet]

Swim thinks cannabis should remain illegal as it seems to increase quality
oh and heavier yielding quicker flowering plants for indoors under lights especially

[beentheredonethatagain]

friends and fiends alike listen I just am as human I am wrong too.

You are my friends as far as My side goes . so If that is so > I then must ask my self a question or three hundred . the down slide in the war is it must end ... period

If the rest of the world would kindly agree, things i would hope less coviction and more honor among neighbors.

I may have my facts backaward its a possibilitly when a man not the Creator in positions that are new or abandoned.

so listen I am not in the political frame of mind , it was last election . so let s move the way forward , PEACE forever.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Getting emotional hehe? Stan likes that humble way of thinking in your post...

[manda]

WHAT ABOUT THE MUTHA FREAKIN' WAR ON CHILD MOLESTERS, MURDERERS, RAPISTS, KIDNAPPERS AND OTHER SCUM OUT THERE STILL WALKING FREE???

Drugs are often blamed for these offenses, but it is not true every time!
Some people are just freakin' sick and need to be killed or imprisoned for life- how come the kid down the road who grew a few plants is doing time and they are still violating?
Doesn't anyone in the government see these crimes as a bigger priority than drugs?

[El Calico Loco]

I'm inspired. We've had the War on Poverty, War and Drugs, and War on Terror, all of which have been smashing successes with no unpleasant side effects. If only we could get some grassroots political support going for a War on Murder...


ECL

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

I'm inspired. We've had the War on Poverty, War and Drugs, and War on Terror, all of which have been smashing successes with no unpleasant side effects. If only we could get some grassroots political support going for a War on Murder...

All based on lies and/or deceptions. From my experience I think you can reasonably assume that if it has "War on..." in the title, it's a scam.

But seriously though, if you take drugs you're a terrorist.

[Pino]

Originally Posted by manda

WHAT ABOUT THE MUTHA FREAKIN' WAR ON CHILD MOLESTERS, MURDERERS, RAPISTS, KIDNAPPERS AND OTHER SCUM OUT THERE STILL WALKING FREE???

Drugs are often blamed for these offenses, but it is not true every time!
Some people are just freakin' sick and need to be killed or imprisoned for life- how come the kid down the road who grew a few plants is doing time and they are still violating?
Doesn't anyone in the government see these crimes as a bigger priority than drugs?

Of course it is not true every time. Most marijuana users aren't serial killers and probably are productive members of our society.

However it is important to accept the fact, people, who are abusing drugs, are willing to break the law for their own pleasure. Maybe their drugs use isn't inherent dangerous, but they are capable of breaking rules in a very egocentric manner. Today, they aren't molesting children, but if they could find a certain pleasing in it, they certainly would.

Every drugs user is a potential child molester or serial killer. So we have to help them, before they will do worse things than using drugs. We have to make them understand, what the consequences can be of their behavior. If we reach them on time, we can keep them on track and let them be productive members of our society. We shouldn't forget, it is a fact most serial killers and child molesters are using drugs. Although it is not the other way around. We could assume, we would find more rapists in a drugs aware population.

[manda]

I'm sorry, I just think that there are greater crimes out there to solve besides small-time drug offenses.

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by manda

I'm sorry, I just think that there are greater crimes out there to solve besides small-time drug offenses.

So big-time drug offenses (I'm assuming that'd be dealing) are worth solving?

[Twiglet]

Originally Posted by manda

I'm sorry, I just think that there are greater crimes out there to solve besides small-time drug offenses.

Yeah like people posting back to back on forums