|
Post by Naselus on Dec 22, 2004 9:43:05 GMT
It's not so easy to tell if somethings for personal use or not, Will. It's obvious what someone's going to do with a kilo or more, or a quarter of an ounce or less, but two ounces? It's a grey. In Morroco, the going rate for cannabis is roughly a quarter of the price it is here. What's to say someone smuggling 9 ounces of it back isn't just stocking up? The narcotics equivalent of a white van job. Cocaine in Spain (falls mainly on the plane. I know you were all thinking it) is half the price it is here, and when that price is £40 a gram you'd probably start thinking about getting a month's supply at least. And naturally, when you get to those quantities, the price falls even further, and before you know it you're lugging a quarter of a kilo back through Heathrow.
But back to the point. Remember that our own secret service, just like all the others around the world, authorises it's members to fund themselves however they can. This means that MI5 has been known, in the past, to take part in a variety of somewhat dodgy deals, and then flogs the stuff onto the streets of Britain. Shit happens. Your country needs you, or at least your money. The CIA is obviously the worst for it (How do we deal with the Watts riots? Not only are these dissidents black, they might be damned commies! Sell 'em a load of smack, that'll keep 'em quite. We can always just build a big wall round the ghetto.), but crime is as much a tool of state as law. To truly control, you must be running BOTH sides and playing them off against each other. Not that any government has much success with that.
And back to that point again, before I drift off into "Kill the CIA! CIA EVIL" mode. The death penalty is no good for this sort of thing. Prohibition of any kind doesn't work, it just raises the stakes. This means more violent nasty psychopaths earning the money, and in my mind rich nasty psychopaths are generally a bad thing. Compare the number of people killed over alcohol shipments in the US between 1920 and 1935 to ANY other period of time, and you'll see what I mean.
The fact is, people will take these drugs regardless. People will find ways to obtain them, and if those ways are illegal then big deal. How much money does the Cali Cocaine Cartel make EVERY DAY? It's among the most successful businesses on the planet. If coke was legalised, taxed and available to consenting adults, then suddenly the price falls through the floor, the drug lords aren't crooks and the number of people being shot over it disappears completely. No-one wants to have to shoot people, since that's always going to be illegal and messy and it makes people start asking all sorts of questions you don't want to answer. So if they don't have to, they actually won't.
Drug dealers are just enterprising young businessmen. How is what they do any different than what pubs and bars do, really? Alcohol causes more deaths a year than heroin, ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD COMBINED. LSD and Ecstacy barely cause any. Even crack can't kill you particularly easily, aside from the truly horrific affect it has on the lungs, since it's impossible to overdose. The high is so short that by the time you manage to take a second hit, you've already come down.
So I'd remove penalties altogether, pump extra money into informing people of the dangers, legalise and tax the stuff to high heaven, and spread all that extra money around. It's an idea known as the 'Zero Crime Bill' philosophy, in that once you get rid of all the 'harmless' crimes you can actually focus on the ones that REALLY hurt people. The one's where the victim is actually a victim rather than a co-conspiritor.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Dec 22, 2004 17:58:47 GMT
Want to know why? Because the latter are illegal, meaning they are not sold on the scale they could be if they were legal, and because alcohol is sold in massive amounts by those millions of pubs and convenience stores. If you were to look at the statistics, more alcohol is consumed than heroin, ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD combined by far. All of the tests on 'pure' drugs have proven that they still harm people. While making tham pure might make them 'safer', they are still not good! What you all seem to be ignoring here is that drugs do harm people, and its not just the users. How many families have been ripped apart by drug use? You hear the case studies constantly in schools where the parents are interviewed. You're proposing that we legalise this stuff. While it would raise revenue, and make more pure forms of the drugs, drug related crimes would rocket (now heroin can be sold in corner shops and the message is sent out that drugs are okay ), and they would wreak misery on a larger scale than they do already. Its plain stupidity. As far as I can see, the only real alternative to the death penalty for known dealers is life (full life) imprisonment, with no possibility of parole. If they are released, they'll only return to their old trades. Any other sentence is either inneffective or a temporary solution.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Dec 22, 2004 18:14:02 GMT
Er, making a few assumptions there, Will. All of the tests on 'pure' drugs have proven that they still harm people. While making tham pure might make them 'safer', they are still not good! Well you could say that about Anadin or Paracetamol. In truth, practically any drug can be beneficial so long as you don't dose on too much of it. No they wouldn't, because, by definition, people wouldn't need to commit crimes to obtain the drugs in the first place. While I agree that the worst drug peddlers are the lowest form of human life, how do you know with such certainty that they'll go back to it the instant they leave prison? And if the drugs are legalised, it would immediately take away most of the peddlers' business anyway, as most users would prefer to obtain these things legally.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Dec 22, 2004 18:26:53 GMT
You have a point, but anadin and paracetamol aren't addictive (except in a possible few exeptional circumstances). I've never heard of anyone not developing an addiction to, to take an example, heroin after the first few consumptions.
I'm making a reasonably informed assumption. Who would employ an ex drug dealer? No-one I can think of. Therefore they'll be straight back to their old trade to raise an income.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 22, 2004 18:26:55 GMT
Actually, there's not so great a gap as you would believe. There's an ecstacy epidemic, with individual pills now costing a mere pound in clubs. That makes it awfully tempting. I spend £40 on a night out on the piss.
Also, I think you'll find that LSD can't kill you, except incidently or through allergy, all types of Amphetamines are not as bad for you as alcohol, and it's the impurities in heroin that makes it so deadly and adictive. These drugs are nowhere near as bad as you seem to believe.
Also note that it's the impurities in these things, or a simple lack of knowledge about them, that generally results in death. Snorting heroin will put you into a coma and eventually kill you stone dead. No-one explains this in schools, because heroin is just described as 'bad', as if that somehow helps.
Drug related crimes wouldn't rocket. The most common drug-related crime is dealing. If the drug is legal, that means dealing it is too. Hence, no crime. As for your assumption that the moment someone touches any form of narcotic, they instantly become a gibbering criminal mastermind and start stealing from everyone and everything they can... do I really need to point out how absurdly presumptive that is? Drugs crime wouldn't rocket. It's not in the Netherlands, where drugs are accepted as just an unfortunate aspect of society. It's almost impossible to walk around Amsterdam after about half five without being offered everything under the sun, and yet the vast crimewave you speak of somehow past them by. Why do you think that is? Could it be it's not actually a certainty? Could it even be that it's a load of presumptive nonsense?
Oh, and finally:
As far as I can see, the only real alternative to the death penalty for known dealers is life (full life) imprisonment, with no possibility of parole. If they are released, they'll only return to their old trades. Any other sentence is either inneffective or a temporary solution.
Is this a joke? It certainly looks and smells like one. Interesting that you know they'll "return to their old trades" with such certainty. After all, if you decide to sell drugs you're clearly some lower life form, incapable of learning from your mistakes. No parole? Full life? So murderers get ten years, but someone who isn't even directly killing someone gets life? All the dealers are doing is satisfying a demand, Will. People who pin you down and FORCE you to take heroin, for example, deserve punishment. On the other hand, these guys have just seen a market opening and taken it. It's good business sense. I'm frankly suprised at you for being so against it.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 22, 2004 18:32:59 GMT
You have a point, but anadin and paracetamol aren't addictive (except in a possible few exeptional circumstances). I've never heard of anyone not developing an addiction to, to take an example, heroin after the first few consumptions. I have. I've heard lots of them. Heroin isn't as addictive as people think. Crack is. But heroin isn't. And both paracetamol and anadin are addictive, and you're infinitely more likely to overdose on either of them than you are on crack. I'm making a reasonably informed assumption. Who would employ an ex drug dealer? No-one I can think of. Therefore they'll be straight back to their old trade to raise an income. And that's the drug dealers fault how? Because other people aren't willing to hire them (which isn't true, anyway. While it's hard to get a job with a criminal record, drug dealers get a much better time of it that most other criminals. Sales experience, and all that. Plus, they're generally very bright.)? Anyway, as Storm says, with their business gone they wouldn't be criminals. They'd work for some of the companies that DO take ex-cons. Most highstreet stores, for example, couldn't care less if your last job was murdering orphan children in Mozambique.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Dec 22, 2004 18:36:19 GMT
I didn't say that murderers should serve 10 years! I think they should serve their full life (First degree) at least! Your argument is hot air.
Drug dealing of hard drugs should be considered manslaughter. Simply, they are providing stuff that kills gullable people.
*Edit*: Herion is only an example. I was using it as an example for hard drugs (Class A) in general.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 22, 2004 18:40:48 GMT
The people aren't gullable. EVERYONE knows heroin is bad for you. Same with cigarettes. Do you think I'm gullable for buying fags?
Meanwhile, do you think that people can't change? Sounds rather silly, to me. I mean, who doesn't regret what they did when they were young? Every person over the age of about twenty regrets doing something, and there's usually some sort of reason. Cold-blooded mass-murderers aside, I don't think anyone deserves life imprisonment without parole.
You also seem to be trying to dodge the rest of my argument. You're not going to start doing that thing where you quibble over minor issues to avoid losing, are you?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Dec 22, 2004 19:17:29 GMT
I'll try not to quibble over minor issues, but it would help if you would point out the major issues that I'm allegedly not answering.
Gullable isn't really the word. More like stupidity - people would be stupid to take harmful substances for the wrong reasons if they were aware of the health risks. I'd be able to decide if you were stupid if you tell me at what age you started smoking. If it was below adult age, and you knew the risks, I would consider it no more than teenage stupidity, which we are all prone to. If you didn't know the risks I wouldn't make anything of it.
I hate to be blunt about this, and no offence intended, but drug taking, if you know the risks, sounds like stupidity to me.
When you are a direct relative of a deceased drug user, the punishment feels like life without parole. Those responsible should be given a taster.
There are more drug related offences other than dealing, and theft to fund the habit, right? How many other crimes are there that are induced by the consumption of this drug? It is those that would rocket.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Dec 22, 2004 20:44:28 GMT
It's precisely that kind of ignorant attitude that renders intelligent debate practically impossible. It's far too simplistic to say "drugs=BAD". It's just not that black and white.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Dec 22, 2004 21:05:59 GMT
anadin and paracetamol aren't addictive Oh yes they are. All painkillers can be addictive, and to name just one example, Brett Favre, the NFL's top quarterback of the last 10 years, has had an addiction to painkillers, including paracetamol, ever since 1997. He just cannot kick the habit. Such as?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Dec 22, 2004 22:40:09 GMT
I hate to be blunt about this, and no offence intended, but Will your argument is unsupported bullshit and it really shows up your lack of knowledge outside of government Anti-Drugs videos and the news. Naselus, Storm & Modeski have clear examples of actually knowing people who have done and still do drugs, and they are old enough to drink and smoke and have done so. Your arguments centre on hypothetical 'relatives of deceased drug users' and your personal guesswork, which is pretty dubious. Of course if you would actually show us some hard evidence (it seems you've inherited the Mekanik's legacy for making unsupported claims)
Actually Will, seeing as YOU are the one making these claims then I think that if you want to give your argument any credibility then why don't YOU look at the statistics, and see if YOU can find evidence supporting what you say. If so (and I doubt it) then post it in here, along with the source and we'll see.
Basically Will your argument makes it obvious that you don't know anything more about drug users and such than what you've been told on the news or in a classroom. Go out and get some real experience by meeting these people, but of course one of your 'class' wouldn't want to hang around with such 'proles' (ignoring the fact that many high class people like MPs do drugs to relax them or keep them alert with stressful jobs). So if you aren't able or willing go find out about drugs users and such for yourself, try listening to those who already know...
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 22, 2004 22:52:32 GMT
Obviously, Rob, people of his class don't inhale. Just like Clinton didn't (HAH!)
Drug related crimes are:
Theft (would decrease due to lower prices and higher quality) Dealing (would be non-criminal, and actually a respectable job) Gang warfare (dealer-related, would also become non-existant in relation to drugs) Sitting around doing nothing while high (not actually illegal)
That's about it. What other crimes do you think would spring up? Imbezelment? Car theft? Jaywalking (not a crime in this country anyway)?
I don't quite see why you're asking ME to come up with a list of crimes anyway. I'm the one who said that crime would go down, you're the one who pointed to this mysterious crimewave. Do you even understand what heroin does, or how it affects you?
When you are a direct relative of a deceased drug user, the punishment feels like life without parole. Those responsible should be given a taster.
Have you lost a relative to drug abuse, and have you ever had life imprisonment without parole? If not, how exactly do you make these comparisons?
If you lose a relative in a car accident, should the drive involved get life imprisonment? Even if your relative walked out in front of the car of their own free will?
Should bar owners be given life imprisonment in your eyes, Will? They're slowly killing you, after all. Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs, not least because it makes people violent. Heroin doesn't. Heroin makes people become physically weaker, and while under the effects of the drug they're more or less helpless. Does this mean, on top of their un-parolable life sentence sentence for manslaughter, bartenders now have to be charged with conspiracy to incite violence? Would they have to have a nastier cell?
More importantly, since you're backing the relatives of deceased drug users, surely that's a minority group, and you're saying the government should pander to the desires of the smallest minority. But you were dead against such things on the political correctness thread.
Prohibition is a restriction to civil liberties, and it also doesn't bloody work. One in three people have tried drugs harder than pot. That's how effective the laws governing drugs are, and if you impose harder sentencing then the dealers simply charge more for their product, which drives up drug related crime. You've got more dealers, since anyone can do it and you don't need any qualifications, you've got huge amounts of drug-related theft, and the gangs become even more violent because the amount of money has gone up yet further. Great answer to societies ills there, Will. Your solution increases the crimes that mine almost completely eliminates.
Oh, and on the smoking thing, I don't think it matters in the slightest when I started. I've no desire whatsoever to stop. I enjoy smoking. Many people actually do. I'd try and quit if I didn't, and I've never wanted to try. Just because something's bad for you doesn't mean you'll only do it if you're stupid, Will. Sugar does horrible things to teeth, but I get the feeling you probably aren't hoping to lock up the head of Cadbury's and throw away the key.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 23, 2004 0:12:32 GMT
Just a brief reply to illustrate my point.
Ever heard of khat? It's a drug that causes significant problems around Europe, and is takes up a great deal of police time and resources in Scandinavian countries. Not here though, because here, it's one hundred percent legal.
Khat costs about £35 an ounce in Norway. If I were to travel to any of the Asian shops little more than a mile from my house, they'd give me a kilo for the price of a bag of sugar. Including tax.
Intrigingly, for some reason we don't have a rampaging problem with khat-related crime. Norway does. There's gang wars, there's dealers, there's people who steal to feed their habit. On the other hand, over here those problems are strikingly noticable only in their total absence.
Oh, and before you try and claim it's not bad for you, long-term khat use leads to extremely acute paranoid psychosis. Some people commit suicide out of sheer terror after a particularly long habit in Norway. They're frighten that the police might catch them. Again, this problem's being missing in Britain, but it'll surely show up. Won't it?
Oh, and try not to be blunt in arguments over subjects like this, because the blunt answer here is inevitably rather weak. Drug abuse = stupidity. Never going to drink, Will? Going to avoid paracetamol? Or does it strech to anything that's got risks involved? Going to carefully monitor your bloody salt intake because too much gives you heart disease? Never going to drive?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 5, 2005 13:07:23 GMT
Interesting, looking back earlier through this thread, how Will is so vehemently in favour of prisoners taking responsibility for their own behaviour, and yet drug-users shouldn't. For some reason, those with habits are stupid/gullible, and responsibility lies exclusively with the pushers...?
Anyway, closely relating to this discussion of drug abuse, I read an interesting statistic in the Metro the other day. In Worksop, just outside Nottingham, the police have been trying a new initiative for over a year now where, when they have to confront an addict, they make no attempt to arrest them and simply offer them, without ties or conditions, free help and support to fight the habit.
This initiative has been overwhelmingly successful, with the great majority of addicts receiving the offers accepting gratefully. A by-product of this is that drug-related theft and violence in the town has plummeted by 80 (that's eighty) percent.
This is a strong, though not conclusive, indicator that the best way to deal with the drugs problem is not just to keep hitting it as hard as possible.
|
|