 |
|
|
|
DMX
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 41886 - Threads: 1671
Location: London
|
[Edited by DMX on 23-10-2009 02:53 AM] Quote:
| kimba_lee wrote on 23-10-2009 02:34 AM
Punishing it after it happens, doesn't stop it happening, people don't think of the potential consequences at the time. Its costing an absolute fortune already with all the police resources going into it.
People say education, education, but they have been educating kids on alcohol use since I was at school and it never stops kids trolleying themselves. You didn't drink when you were young, what was it that convinced you not to drink like everyone else, perhaps you hold the secret. lol.
You actually may be happy to know there was a huge hoopla over here because a school instead of teaching kids not to do drugs, put in a program of how to stay safe if and when you do it. People were up in arms saying that they are encouraging drug use yada yada. Not sure what happened with all that really.
Well if you can prove that argument do it. I know personally that if smoking was illegal I wouldn't do it. Not because its illegal really but just because I couldn't be bothered with the hassle.
|
|
Much fewer would smoke if it were illegal because smoking is shit. Let's face it. The drugs which actually do something would be more in demand, as there's a reason to go out of your way to get them. As anybody who's ever missioned to pick-up will attest, even a long trip is worth it if you get a decent pay-off. I can't imagine travelling hours just to get some cigs. 
Regarding booze, I don't think you can "pre-punish" people by assuming they will be guilty. Otherwise you might as well rewrite how the legal system works. Our society should be based around people being allowed to do as they like until the point where they cause harm or sufficient problems for others. Anything other than that smacks of stuff like women wearing burkhas, in case they dare tantalise another man.
http://www.myspace.com/ThisIsPhase2
“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
 23-10-2009 02:53 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
kimba_lee
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 9971 - Threads: 259
Location: Melbourne
|
Quote:
| DMX wrote on 23-10-2009 02:53 AM
Much fewer would smoke if it were illegal because smoking is shit. Let's face it. The drugs which actually do something would be more in demand, as there's a reason to go out of your way to get them. As anybody who's ever missioned to pick-up will attest, even a long trip is worth it if you get a decent pay-off. I can't imagine travelling hours just to get some cigs.
Regarding booze, I don't think you can "pre-punish" people by assuming they will be guilty. Otherwise you might as well rewrite how the legal system works. Our society should be based around people being allowed to do as they like until the point where they cause harm or sufficient problems for others. Anything other than that smacks of stuff like women wearing burkhas, in case they dare tantalise another man.
|
|
Yeah I can't be bothered chasing any drugs personally, if its there I will do it, if not, can't be bothered, haven't had any in years because its just not under my nose like it used to be.
We sort of already do pre punish though. Drink Driving and Speeding laws are prime examples. They are arresting you on the assumption that you could have caused an accident. You get punished at one level for the could have caused an accident part and at another level if you do cause an accident. People can now be arrested for being overly intoxicated I think before they cause any damage but just for being drunk and disorderly. Its just that its a pretty difficult thing to actually follow through, arresting every single drunk person. But I think this is the confusion, people think its ok to be drunk as long as you don't hurt anybody, the message they're trying to get across is that its not ok to get drunk period, that you shouldn't be using the drug to excess at all and this is essentially the problem. If people can't understand that excessive drinking is nuts then how on earth can you teach them that excessive class A's is nuts. Having the drugs illegal makes people in general treat them with a little bit of extra caution than alcohol. Its stupid but it seems to be true.
"A people that values its priviledges above its principles soon loses both." Dwight Eisenhower
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
| 23-10-2009 03:19 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
DMX
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 41886 - Threads: 1671
Location: London
|
Quote:
| kimba_lee wrote on 23-10-2009 03:19 AM
Yeah I can't be bothered chasing any drugs personally, if its there I will do it, if not, can't be bothered, haven't had any in years because its just not under my nose like it used to be.
We sort of already do pre punish though. Drink Driving and Speeding laws are prime examples. They are arresting you on the assumption that you could have caused an accident. You get punished at one level for the could have caused an accident part and at another level if you do cause an accident. People can now be arrested for being overly intoxicated I think before they cause any damage but just for being drunk and disorderly. Its just that its a pretty difficult thing to actually follow through, arresting every single drunk person. But I think this is the confusion, people think its ok to be drunk as long as you don't hurt anybody, the message they're trying to get across is that its not ok to get drunk period, that you shouldn't be using the drug to excess at all and this is essentially the problem. If people can't understand that excessive drinking is nuts then how on earth can you teach them that excessive class A's is nuts. Having the drugs illegal makes people in general treat them with a little bit of extra caution than alcohol. Its stupid but it seems to be true.
|
|
I'm happy for people to be arrested who are drunk AND disorderly, but not just the former.
The quantity question really begs a philosophical answer. Given that I believe people should be able to do whatever they like to themselves (unless they are incapable of making the choice due to mental condition, age etc.), the only point at which you can confront them is when they pose a threat. The speeding scenario fits that as it's only once they get behind the wheel that they would be committing an offence.
We should be in the business of removing things just because some people will never learn. They will soon enough remove themselves from society if they are that bad.
It should be a largely liberal country, with tough punishment for those who cause problems.
http://www.myspace.com/ThisIsPhase2
“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
| 23-10-2009 03:51 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
kimba_lee
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 9971 - Threads: 259
Location: Melbourne
|
Quote:
| DMX wrote on 23-10-2009 03:51 AM
I'm happy for people to be arrested who are drunk AND disorderly, but not just the former.
The quantity question really begs a philosophical answer. Given that I believe people should be able to do whatever they like to themselves (unless they are incapable of making the choice due to mental condition, age etc.), the only point at which you can confront them is when they pose a threat. The speeding scenario fits that as it's only once they get behind the wheel that they would be committing an offence.
We should be in the business of removing things just because some people will never learn. They will soon enough remove themselves from society if they are that bad.
It should be a largely liberal country, with tough punishment for those who cause problems.
|
|
I to believe in there being more freedom of choice as that was the way I was raised and also the philosophy of my senior high school. Responsible freedom, free to do pretty much what you want as long as your prepared to accept the responsibilty of any consequences.
But the problem in wider civilisation is who picks up the bill??
You see this is what I was thinking about the other day in the tobacco thread as well when people complain they are in a nanny state. Its like that because people want the state to pick up the bill for everything. The police, the courts, the hospital bill and then even the prison. If people want more freedom they have to be held responsible for the potential cost, moving towards a more user pays society would inevitably make people think a lot more about their choices in theory. Although if you take an example like health insurance and then look at the US you might question the logic of it. Its definetly something that needs some more thought.
If people don't want the nanny then move out of home, because thats a bit what its like, when your young and you live at home and a parent says while I pay the bills then you live by my rules.
"A people that values its priviledges above its principles soon loses both." Dwight Eisenhower
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
| 23-10-2009 04:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
DMX
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 41886 - Threads: 1671
Location: London
|
Quote:
| kimba_lee wrote on 23-10-2009 04:14 AM
I to believe in there being more freedom of choice as that was the way I was raised and also the philosophy of my senior high school. Responsible freedom, free to do pretty much what you want as long as your prepared to accept the responsibilty of any consequences.
But the problem in wider civilisation is who picks up the bill??
You see this is what I was thinking about the other day in the tobacco thread as well when people complain they are in a nanny state. Its like that because people want the state to pick up the bill for everything. The police, the courts, the hospital bill and then even the prison. If people want more freedom they have to be held responsible for the potential cost, moving towards a more user pays society would inevitably make people think a lot more about their choices in theory. Although if you take an example like health insurance and then look at the US you might question the logic of it. Its definetly something that needs some more thought.
If people don't want the nanny then move out of home, because thats a bit what its like, when your young and you live at home and a parent says while I pay the bills then you live by my rules.
|
|
The drug trade is estimated at some £6.6bn per year. It's the third biggest industry behind only oil and arms! The tax on narcotics is projected to yield between £1-4bn. The cost of policing drug crime is £16bn per year; a figure which would all but vanish if drugs were legal.
That's an awful lot of money to be saved, and would comfortably cover everything (and more) that you listed.
Crime would drop too. The majority of street crime is related to drugs, so you'd automatically cut it in half, at least. That means fewer people in prison too - so we can keep the genuinely dangerous there without having early release schemes to make space for them.
Legalisation and drugs would easily pay for themselves.
http://www.myspace.com/ThisIsPhase2
“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
| 23-10-2009 04:54 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
kimba_lee
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 9971 - Threads: 259
Location: Melbourne
|
[Edited by kimba_lee on 23-10-2009 05:26 AM][Edited by kimba_lee on 23-10-2009 05:27 AM] [Edited by kimba_lee on 23-10-2009 06:01 AM] Quote:
| DMX wrote on 23-10-2009 04:54 AM
The drug trade is estimated at some £6.6bn per year. It's the third biggest industry behind only oil and arms! The tax on narcotics is projected to yield between £1-4bn. The cost of policing drug crime is £16bn per year; a figure which would all but vanish if drugs were legal.
That's an awful lot of money to be saved, and would comfortably cover everything (and more) that you listed.
Crime would drop too. The majority of street crime is related to drugs, so you'd automatically cut it in half, at least. That means fewer people in prison too - so we can keep the genuinely dangerous there without having early release schemes to make space for them.
Legalisation and drugs would easily pay for themselves.
|
|
mmm but you forget you will still have drug related crime, just like we have alcohol related crime and you still will have an illegal trade just like there is still an illegal tobacco trade. I quickly just found this http://www.ias.org.uk/btg/conf0604/papers/godfrey.pdf it says that they spend 12 billion euros on alcohol issues in England in 2000 and thats without crime added, add crime and its 30 billion. I can't seem to quickly find anything on tax revenue though for some reason.
I am not arguing against the legalisation of drugs with you, just questioning the methodology.
edit: I found the tax revenue it seems like it only about 8million pounds in 2006, that seems awefully low.http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/economic_costs_benefits.pdf
edit 2: aghh I get it, it just shows excise and not VAT. And i think it might be 8 billion not 8 million. 
"A people that values its priviledges above its principles soon loses both." Dwight Eisenhower
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
| 23-10-2009 05:19 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may post new threads
You may
post replies
You may post attachments
You
may edit your posts
|
You may delete your posts
HTML code is OFF
BB Code is ON
Smilies are ON
|
|
|
|
|
![[HarderFaster] - Work Hard, Play Harder!](/images/mainbanner_top1.gif)
