Is it ever morally justifiable to break the law?

Arbiter

Quote:

---

Flawed logic methinks.

---

I'm glad you ended your post with that statement because that sums up your arguments.

Quote:

---

Drugs are illegal to prevent people from taking them.

---

No kidding...:rolleyes: I realise that may be the intent but it hardly works out that way, does it?

Quote:

---

I realise Once they are taking them, then law has failed them and something should be done about it. That something is going to be to imprison them - if there's no deterrent (i.e. they are just put into rehab and allowed to retain their jobs after blowing thousands in tax payers money in hospital fees) then people are just going to take drugs.

---

News flash...People do keep using drugs. The prohibition of drugs does nothing more than make them more dangerous and turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

Quote:

---

Alocohol has been around for so long that making it illegal would cause riots across the country, so it's effectively not going to happen. But just because we have one substance that can ruin lives, we should legalise others?

---

Two reasons. Drugs should be decriminalised because the government has no right interfering in what people do in the privacy of their own home.
Drugs should be legalised because it effective makes them safer. i.e. less likely to ruin noth their lives and the lives of others.

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

It's as Ben says : some people need laws to control themselves. You can't make exceptions for the individual.

---

We need laws to punish people when they infringe upon the rights of others. No expcetions need to be made. You punish all people who's actions adversely affect others.

Quote:

---

The community elected the government and gave the government the authority to regulate that community. Then it is only normal that they favour the greater good.

---

I do not believe that we elect a government so that it may force the moral whims of a given majority onto a given minority. If that were the case, Society would be perfectly justified in banning homosexuality as it is only a minority.

Quote:

---

To turn things round :
Why should I be punished for not using drugs and suffer the social nuisance from a neigbour that throws parties every evening resulting in high and drunken people getting into trouble, vomit in my front yard, leaving junk everywhere, annoy passers by, make a hell of a noise and generally misbehave at my expense ?

---

I believe you should be protected from those who would cause a public nuisance. You should not have to endure that infringement upon your personal liberty and I would advocate suitable punishment and deterants for this type of behaviour (be there drugs involved or not.

Quote:

---

Why should I suffer from a drunken neighbour that gets in a fight with his wife at 3 am because he's once again to drunk to stand on his own two feet ?

---

This type of behaviour is unnacceptable, drunk or not.

Quote:

---

In that respect I'm glad there are laws and that some things are simply not allowed.

---

These types of behaviour (that you have cited) are unnacceptable but I am not defending them. I am defending an individual's rights to do what he wants to his/her own body as long as he/she does not infringe upon the rights of others. It is then that it becomes unnacceptable.

Quote:

---

Sometimes it pays to be social rather than thinking selfishly about your own wellfare...

---

Perhaps certain individuals within society should stop thinking about how they can dictate the moral behaviour of those for which they have no right to be concerned with. Perhaps society would be a better place for it.

CiberTHuG

Quote:

---

I'm with Simon (from a philosophical point of view, practicly it is impossible).

---

I appreciate your support but I believe that the laws of drug prohibition are a failure both from a philisophical standpoint and in regards to their practical implementation as well.

The last part of your post is what you give up when you join a society.

Don't like it then leave the society.
Democracy by definition favours the majority over the minority. Because if it doesn't, every whim of one person could impede the law making and legislative process indefinately.

It's all about compromise : you give up a bit of your freedom and you get a better society in return.
It's great to see you banging on about private concerns but on the other hand you'd be the first to protest if the state withdraws benefits from you.

Simon, I think making narcotics legal makes sense. I think it is just plain stupid to maintain the status quo. I think from a philosophical point of view, things would be different.

From a practical point of view, people are so incredibly stupid, it is amazing they have gotten as far as they have.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Don't like it then leave the society.
Democracy by definition favours the majority over the minority. Because if it doesn't, every whim of one person could impede the law making and legislative process indefinately.

---

Democracy, or as the US has, Representative Democracy (Republic) is not the best form of government invented by man. No one actually thinks that ('cept maybe you). It is the "best" government we have been able to install on a large scale. But the American version is so grossly flawed it disgusts any intellegent being.

If the government favors the majority over the minority, then the majority can enforce restrictions on the minority that will destroy the life style of the minority.

For example, homosexual and polygamous marriages. These are illegal in most states in the Union. Why? Because the majority doesn't approve. Why should that matter? In what way is the minority upsetting the majority? This goes back to which end of the soft-boiled egg should you crack? Why is there a legal mandate?

As to giving up freedom. Well, that is a completely different topic. But the US has detained a man for a month. Not arrested, not charged, but held him from his life on the suspicion that he might be planning to kill. The government has now extingushed all of his rights. He was a native born American citizen, but he is now being held in an military prision. He is being held without being charged of a crime, and being kept from legal counsel.

Yeah, our "Democracy" is just so reasonable, why argue with it.

Sup CiberTHuG,
I'm not going to argue with you about the current form of democracy being FUBAR. I think most everyone can pick at least 10 flaws off the top of their head in under 10 seconds. I would however, like to know what you consider a better form of Government?

Of all the forms of government, so far this one has worked out the best. I think it is impossible to have a large scale government and keep all of the people happy. Freedom is non existant in it's purest form and has never been a part of the American Culture. A false sense of freedom mabe but no one is really free in a philosophical or pratical sense. For example, they just raised the fine where I am from for not wearing a seatbelt while driving. I was in a car accident once and a seatbelt did far more damage to me that I would have sustaned had I been thrown out of the car ( I realize this is unusual and not normally the case). I have paid 3 tickes so far because I refuse to wear my seatbelt when I am alone in my car. I wear it when there are other people in the car so I don't bounce aroud and hurt them in case of an accident. Where is my freedom. I do not need a big brother to think for me. As far as drugs go. It is fine for them to be legal as long as there are laws in place to prevent one individuals drug use to affect another person. ie automobiles that require a tissue/breath sample to start the automobile.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BG
I would however, like to know what you consider a better form of Government?

---

It is very hard for me to explain. I'm sure others have done a better job. People are so stupid however, that I'm under no delusion that we will ever have a better government than what we have (as pesimistic as that sounds).

A better government would simply legislate ethics, not morality. It would set laws and the presidence from those would govern our lives. We would not need a legislative body to constantly write laws, since everything would be covered by the laws of ethics.

For example, polygamy wouldn't be illegal because we can't find any code of ethics that it breaks. Everyone in the relationship enters the relationship knowning the structure of the relationship. No one has been robed or cheated of any knowledge.

It may be immoral to some, and those may choose to not participate, or to ignore it. I see nothing wrong with someone buying a tract of land and selling the lots to monogamous couples in order to create a monogamous community. That is fine with me. It is open and no one has stolen anything. It is an exchange of private poperty as the own sees fit.

Murder would be illegal not because it is immoral, but because you rob someone of the right to life. You may think that murder is morally sound, perhaps as part of your religious practices. But unless you can find a willing volunteer for sacrifice, we can not accept you taking away that which you have no claim to.

And once you pass a law saying that child explotation is illegal, then you don't have to pass another law saying that child explotation on the internet is illegal (true story of America's Congress).

Quote:

---

I was in a car accident once and a seatbelt did far more damage to me that I would have sustaned had I been thrown out of the car ( I realize this is unusual and not normally the case).

---

You are the expection here. The reason seat belt laws exist are not to protect you, but to protect other motorists and the insurance agencies.

If you were to be thrown from a car and killed, your surviors could sue the other motorist for wrongful death. If you had your seat belt and survived, then they couldn't sue for as much. Same goes for the insurance agency. If you live, then they have to pay less (in most cases).

It isn't fair for the other motorists if you put yourself in more than an acceptable amount of danger.

'Course, the laws should've been written the other way around. If you don't wear a seat belt, and you are in an accident, then you waive your rights to claim insurance or seek compensation for damages.

If you want to ride a motorcycle with no helmet. That is fine. But if you are in an accident, then you assume full responsiblity for personal injury. If another car hits you, they pay the civil penalty for causing the accident, for destroying your bike, for breaking whatever law they may have broken, but they (and their insurance) are no longer responsible for you.

That would be fair.

Agreed

this might be a little harsh, but if you can get away with it, everything is morally justifiable.:p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
OK first of all, I am only talking about the countries that have proper legal systems like the US, UK, etc.... I am not talking about muslim nations where women could be tortured and all

Name any law that u could jusity in breaking...

---

Murder, in self-defense.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
The fact is, no such laws exists. Laws passed are laws that are morally right

---

Not true. Here in NZ there is a law that is broken everysingle day. This law is morally wrong. It was passed in the mid 19th century by the English settlers. The law dictates that NO Moari Women (Moari Being the indigenous Culture of NZ) are allowed to Breast Feed. !!

Now this law is never proscecuted or enforced but it is still on the books as being Law. So as you can see there are some situations where the law is just plain wrong. I would suggest that if you really study the laws of any country you will often find 1 or 2 moronic laws tucked away that everyone has forgotton about and are not enforced.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jmmsbnd007

Murder, in self-defense.

---

But if the justice system works as it should. When the facts are investigated then you will be ruled as acting in self Defense and deemed as (if the situation warrents this of coarse) not having broken the law.

I would just like to address your stance on current laws on drugs.

Firstly, I am 16, and I know of many people who use drugs. Thankfully, not many of them are serious users, and hopefully their lives will not be affected. But the problem lies in when it does affect lives. And it always does so in a negative manner. When people use drugs, even if they start on soft drugs (marijuana) they invariably move up to stronger stuff like cocaine. Once addicted, they often face financial ruin because they will spend any money they have, and even steal to fulfill that addiction, which in turn grows stronger. Drug usage (among teens at least) is rarly/never in the "privacy of their own home". They are destroying their lives, and often dont know better. These people tend to come from troubled homes themselves, having been abused, or watched some other member of their family be abused. These children carry huge emotional baggage, and use drugs as escape. That in turn doomes them for the same fate, as they have little or no ability to mangage money, and being intellectually impaired, take out that frustration on their spouse or kids. The circle is complete.

Of course, thats only one possible scenario, but there are others, equally dismal.

That is why drug laws are more than a constitutional flaw. They are the governments attempt to fight a scourge on society itself.

Also, I disagree with your view that drug laws are ineffective. They might not seem particularlily effective, but being in the possition i am, i can safely say that the situation would be far worse if those laws were not in place. While some kids are rebellious and choose to break the law for the sake of breaking the law (they are usually not the cases pointed out above), others dont break the law, just because it is the law. In addition to the legal part, your argument that government should not interfere in what we do to our own bodies, well it is tought in school (here in Canada anyways) that drugs are bad, and we are educated on the effects they can have on our bodies, out minds, and out lives. The government's goal is to run a healthy society, and that isnt possible with the complete legalisation of drugs (I dont think im in a position to comment on the "medicinal" use of drugs).

While the government may be limiting our freedom by outlawing drugs, that is one freedom that no healthy person should want.

That was exactly my point. Government is responsibly for the entire society. If they pass laws, they do not only affect you, your neighbour and everyone else subject to it, they are also responsible for the consequences of their laws. Therefore they have to look at the broader picture, the future of the society they govern, the possible effects on long term of their laws.

Why, may I ask, does anyone need drugs anyway ? I occasionally smoke a joint but that started after the government allowed it in small doses they deem allright and without harm to the individual. I stick to that law and I smoke every now and then whenever I feel like it but I can just as well go without.
Same with beer : When drunk I do not drive, I try not to bother other people and I often stop when I feel I had enough. I have that selfcontrol.

You have that selfcontrol. Many, many more others however don't have that selfcontrol. And they are also the government's responsability. And thus they try to prevent it by passing appropriate laws. I for one have no problem with it if they ban alcohol and drugs tomorrow completely. If it is for the greater good of society I'll gladly give up a piece of my individual freedom.

It's not because you think it isn't right that the government thinks it isn't right. Their field of vision and their responsability is much broader than yours and that's why they make the laws and not you.

I may be a bleeding hard softie socialist democrat here but I rather live in a society that is safer and healthier than a society where everyone goes about doing whatever he likes. Humans are social animals and can't handle too much freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm

I'm glad you ended your post with that statement because that sums up your arguments.

Let's see shall we?

No kidding...:rolleyes: I realise that may be the intent but it hardly works out that way, does it?

Of course it doesn't work out that way. That's because people like you constantly flaunt these laws. The laws work if people obey them. If they were extremely harshly upheld, you'd be beefing about that as well, complaining you live in a police state. You live in a democracy whereby the minority bends to the majority. You could at least have the decency to do this.

News flash...People do keep using drugs. The prohibition of drugs does nothing more than make them more dangerous and turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

I'm beginning to tire of your sarcasm. Prohibiting drugs does not make them more dangerous. It does not change the chemical composition, nor change the effect they have on the human body.

Drugs people illegal and therfore turning into criminals to acquire drugs is one argument. The otherargument is that they've already broken the law by taking the drugs in the first place. Legalising drugs may simply introduce more people to potentially life ruining substances. Plus, drugs will still cost money and it's moeny that druggies commit crimes for. If they're druggies they're unlikely to have jobs whether drugs are legal or not and therefore they'd still have to acquire money.

Should we therefore allow kids to buy glue to sniff because they enjoy it? That fact that it's dangerous seems to mean little to you. Some kids are smart enough not to stuff glue up their nose, some aren't. Some need to be protected from themselves. See my point now? Just 'cos you're smart enough not to attempt to be Spiderman after two lines doesn't mean everyone else is.

Two reasons. Drugs should be decriminalised because the government has no right interfering in what people do in the privacy of their own home.

Yes they do. They're the government. We have a democracy, we vote for them. If you think you can do it better, nominate yourself as a candidate. If the majority agree with you, you'll do well.

Drugs should be legalised because it effective makes them safer. i.e. less likely to ruin noth their lives and the lives of others.

Bollocks. A drug does not become safer because it's legal (please see comments above). It merely becomes more easily available.

---

nishantp

Quote:

---

When people use drugs, even if they start on soft drugs (marijuana) they invariably move up to stronger stuff like cocaine.

---

Can I ask you where you get this information? Because, statistically, most people who start using cannabis never go on to try harder drugs. Only a small minority do. This argument is standard propagander used by anti-drug campaigners and is not supported by the evidence.

Quote:

---

Also, I disagree with your view that drug laws are ineffective. They might not seem particularlily effective, but being in the possition i am, i can safely say that the situation would be far worse if those laws were not in place.

---

What position is that exactly? Drugs use (in all countries where it has been made illegal) has risen persistantly over the last few decades despite various attempts to crack down on their use. Prohibition has forced prices up (forcing addicts to steal to fund their habit) and pushed control into the hands of unscupulous gangsters who have no concern for the well being of those who use their products. Drugs that were normally not that dangerous before have been turned into killers simply because the government refused to regulate them. How can you say that the drug laws have helped the situation?

Quote:

---

While the government may be limiting our freedom by outlawing drugs, that is one freedom that no healthy person should want.

---

Well there are many people who use drugs on a recreational basis and are perfectly healthy people. They are not addicts and they are not having to commit (other) crimes to fund their use. And they want the freedom to do what they like with their body.

By all means, educate people about the potential dangers of drugs and how to use them safely but don't take away their freedom (when they're not harming anyone else).

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

Why, may I ask, does anyone need drugs anyway ?

---

Why do some people need to get involved with danger sports? Why do people need to go mountain climbing or on exhibitions to the north pole? The answer, of course, is they don't need to do so, they like to do so because they get a kick out of it.

If I want to go scuba diving, I have to do a training course and get qualified. If I want to drive a car, I have to get a license. We don't ban those activities because they are dangerous, we just regulate them. The more dangerous the activity, the more heavilly regulated it is.

And that is what I believe we should be doing with drugs. The more open a drug is to abuse, the more heavilly regulated it needs to be. Thus, cannabis would need little regulation whereas drugs like Heroin would need to be tightly controlled.

What we have at the moment is a situation of zero regulation for illegal drugs. We have exactly the opposite of what needs to be in place to make the use of drugs safer. The drugs market is totally unregulated because it is in the hands of unscrupulous dealers.

All I'm asking for is that drugs are regulated by society in the same way that all other potentially dangerous activities are.

Quote:

---

I may be a bleeding hard softie socialist democrat here but I rather live in a society that is safer and healthier than a society where everyone goes about doing whatever he likes. Humans are social animals and can't handle too much freedom.

---

I think that if the government wants to come along and start stripping people of their freedoms and criminalising them, they've got to be damn sure of two things. Firstly that their activity is a threat to wider society. Secondly that prohibition will actually help the situation.

The first point is questionable (at best) and on the second point, it is clear that prohibition, in the case of illegal drugs, makes the situation far worse.

Arbiter

Quote:

---

I'm beginning to tire of your sarcasm.

---

Look, please don't be offended by the tone of my posts. I just happen to feel very strongly about this particular issue but I don't mean to be derragotory.

Quote:

---

You live in a democracy whereby the minority bends to the majority. You could at least have the decency to do this.

---

I'm sorry but I don't believe that, in a democracy, the moral behaviour of a minority should be dictated to by the majority unless that behaviour is harming society at large. The vast majority of drug users do so on a recreational basis and they pose no threat to socieity at large.

Quote:

---

Prohibiting drugs does not make them more dangerous. It does not change the chemical composition, nor change the effect they have on the human body.

---

I have already explained (in the case of heroin) how drugs are made far more dangerous by prohibition. What exactly are you disputing? All illegal drugs are cut with a whole variety of impurities to bulk them out, some more harmful than others. I would say that alters the chemcal composition.

Quote:

---

Drugs people illegal and therfore turning into criminals to acquire drugs is one argument. The otherargument is that they've already broken the law by taking the drugs in the first place.

---

Yes, but we're attaching the label of "criminal" to people who leave perfectly normal lives and in every other way, are law abiding citizens. Where is the sense in that?

Quote:

---

Plus, drugs will still cost money and it's moeny that druggies commit crimes for. If they're druggies they're unlikely to have jobs whether drugs are legal or not and therefore they'd still have to acquire money.

---

Well, the drugs that people commit crimes for are the more addictive drugs like heroin. I have suggested that this drug should be granted free on prescription to those who register at rehab clinics. This way, they don't have to steal to fund their habit, they can guarantee pure and regulated doses and they will be regulaly in contact with a doctor who can offer them education and the opportunity to go on a rehab program.

Who would pay for this? Well, in my plan, the taxation on softdrugs (like cannabis) would be used to this effect.

Quote:

---

Should we therefore allow kids to buy glue to sniff because they enjoy it?

---

Look, I'm not talking about children here. They need to be considered seperately.

Quote:

---

Bollocks. A drug does not become safer because it's legal (please see comments above). It merely becomes more easily available.

---

Yes it does! It becomes regulated by the government and producing companies can be held responsible for the quality of their product. That combined with education will make drugs far more safer if they are legal.

One thing I consistently see here simon, is that you focus on yourself and you expect others to be able to cope with life as you do.

The trouble with your approach is that you allow and then clean up the mess. If my kid or my wife gets run over by a moron high on drugs who believes that he is invincible, the damage is already done. I've lost my wife/kid and justice afterwards will not bring them back. Too bad you say ? Well, I'd rather see some prevention then. At least I won't lose my dearest and nearest because some nitwit decided to take more than he can handle.

The regulation as it is over here (i.e. allowed in small quantities, for personal use only and not a nuisance on other people) is quite good but then again it hasn't resulted in a decrease of usage, crime and related nuisance. Even better, it has risen because it is now free to use. Simply because many more are taking advantage of the new laws and many want to try it "now that it is legal".

Now for people as myself, we can handle it. But for every me there are 10 idiots that cannot handle it. Sooner or later they'll cause harm and then the damage will be done whereas prevention could've saved lifes and saved youngsters from social problems.

The laws as they stand in Belgium are perfectly fine with me. It still remains to be seen whether people should be allowed to rely on their common sense when using hallucinogetics.

Remember that alcohol kills huge amounts of people each year and alcohol is as much a drug as heroin is.

Quote:

---

Bollocks. A drug does not become safer because it's legal (please see comments above). It merely becomes more easily available.

---

Being heavily involved with the product develpoment team of the tobacco company that I work for I can say that this is completely wrong - there is a HUGE amout of legislation in almost all developed countries around the world regarding the quality of the products that we can sell to the public (in almost all cases this is to the same levels as food and drink).

Samples of ALL products that we make are tested by us and the govenrnments of the countries that we sell to (we run full tests at least once a month, as do most western governments). We ensure that the products that we produce fit well within the limits of the countries that we sell to; if countries do not have limits specified then we use the limits of the neighbouring countries.

I AM NOT saying that the company that I work for (or any other large tobacco company) condones the use of illegal drugs, in fact one the conditions of selling pre-made marijuana cigarettes that THE INDUSTRY said would have to happen before any of the companies considered production is a restricted-seller scheme (so only specially licensed stores can sell them).

[keep my job mode]
Legal disclaimer: Anything I have said here is personal opinion, and may or may not represent the the view of the company that I work for, or any other company within the tobacco industry.
[/keep my job mode]

PS - in my opinion I also believe that this would reduce the move to "harder" drugs, as the shops selling the product would only sell the "soft" ones, which would eliminate the dealer "pushing" other options to the end user. This would also probably significantly reduce the number of illegal sales, as the cost to the end user would be much lower (as well as the quality being much better)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm beginning to tire of your sarcasm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Look, please don't be offended by the tone of my posts. I just happen to feel very strongly about this particular issue but I don't mean to be derragotory.

Hokay. No offense taken, I'm just sure you can discuss/debate/argue more effectively without sarcasm. ;)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You live in a democracy whereby the minority bends to the majority. You could at least have the decency to do this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm sorry but I don't believe that, in a democracy, the moral behaviour of a minority should be dictated to by the majority unless that behaviour is harming society at large. The vast majority of drug users do so on a recreational basis and they pose no threat to socieity at large.

Sorry dude. Whether you believe it or not, that's the way it is. If you don't like it, you can always bog off to Holland (or wherever the local laws fit your particular ideal).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibiting drugs does not make them more dangerous. It does not change the chemical composition, nor change the effect they have on the human body.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have already explained (in the case of heroin) how drugs are made far more dangerous by prohibition. What exactly are you disputing? All illegal drugs are cut with a whole variety of impurities to bulk them out, some more harmful than others. I would say that alters the chemcal composition.

There will always be cheaper versions of drugs even if they're legalised which will be cut with crap and this is what the druggies will buy. Because it's cheaper and they have no money. Same with cut price (fake) branded clothes and mp3 downloading. My word - how did we get back on that topic? :p

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drugs people illegal and therfore turning into criminals to acquire drugs is one argument. The otherargument is that they've already broken the law by taking the drugs in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but we're attaching the label of "criminal" to people who leave perfectly normal lives and in every other way, are law abiding citizens. Where is the sense in that?

Smart serial killers also lead perfectly normal lives besides the obvious. That's why they're so hard to catch. I don't think you'll dispute the sense in labelling them as criminals. To you, taking drugs is no big deal. To them, killing people is no big deal. Should we repeal that law also?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus, drugs will still cost money and it's moeny that druggies commit crimes for. If they're druggies they're unlikely to have jobs whether drugs are legal or not and therefore they'd still have to acquire money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the drugs that people commit crimes for are the more addictive drugs like heroin. I have suggested that this drug should be granted free on prescription to those who register at rehab clinics. This way, they don't have to steal to fund their habit, they can guarantee pure and regulated doses and they will be regulaly in contact with a doctor who can offer them education and the opportunity to go on a rehab program.

Who would pay for this? Well, in my plan, the taxation on softdrugs (like cannabis) would be used to this effect.

Well, I'm pleased you've suggested a method for paying for this that doesn't involve non drug takers. It shows you're reasoning your arguments. I still disagree however. Since we've introduced sex education to schools we've had miles more teenage pregnancies than before- so that clearly failed.

I also strongly disagree that people can just **** their lives up with class A drugs with no regard for other people and then have their rehab paid for. That bites me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should we therefore allow kids to buy glue to sniff because they enjoy it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Look, I'm not talking about children here. They need to be considered seperately.

There are many people out there with the common sense scarcely more developed than most children. These people need looking after just as much - and that's what these laws are for.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bollocks. A drug does not become safer because it's legal (please see comments above). It merely becomes more easily available.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes it does! It becomes regulated by the government and producing companies can be held responsible for the quality of their product. That combined with education will make drugs far more safer if they are legal.

See my comment about teenage pregnancies. In short though, I disagree for the reasons I've stated before. I do not think it's a wise idea to decriminalise drugs. Most people aren't ready for that and wouldn't be able to cope.

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

The trouble with your approach is that you allow and then clean up the mess. If my kid or my wife gets run over by a moron high on drugs who believes that he is invincible, the damage is already done. I've lost my wife/kid and justice afterwards will not bring them back. Too bad you say ? Well, I'd rather see some prevention then. At least I won't lose my dearest and nearest because some nitwit decided to take more than he can handle.

---

Well, despite the fact that most illegal drugs have the opposite effect that alcohol does (i.e. alcohol makes you feel like you can drive better), alcohol is not banned because of the potential for drink driving. Drink driving is the crime and not the act of consuming alcohol itself.

I personally believe that we should come down very hard on drink/drugged drivers, indeed, much harder than we do already. Let's target police recouses to preventing people from causing harm to others and not to people causing harm to themselves. That way, we should be able to prevent more instances like the hypothetical example you describe.

Quote:

---

Now for people as myself, we can handle it. But for every me there are 10 idiots that cannot handle it.

---

You have made this point several times already and I must pick you up on it. Those that take alcohol/drugs and go on to cause a public nusaince or harm others are in a small minority. It is more like the other way round: for every one idiot who abuses, there are ten others who don't.

All I am saying is that we should target those who would harm society at large and not those who are responsible adults.

Quote:

---

Even better, it has risen because it is now free to use. Simply because many more are taking advantage of the new laws and many want to try it "now that it is legal".

---

Well, I know nothing about this situation in Belgium but I know that in Holland, the number of cannabis users has remained largely unchanged and the abuse of hard drugs is the lowest in Europe.

Quote:

---

Remember that alcohol kills huge amounts of people each year and alcohol is as much a drug as heroin is.

---

Yes, I know. Statistically speaking, alcohol kills far more people than Heroin does.

Ruds

It's also legal to erect a tent in the main square of Dunedin if you are going onto the Otage gold fields;)

Wally

Your arguement about moving society if you disagree with it's laws was originally put forward by Kornhauser and lacks some practical applications, i.e what if you can't afford to move from your society etc etc etc.

Simon

Total agreement on the dope leading to heavier drugs thing. This is propaganda.

All

*Rolls up sleeves and then notices a can of beer in fridge.

So the arguement that laws cannot be broken in a society would tend to give crediance to the notion that those who opposed Hitlers regime in Germany were morally incorrect....

That's why I think our laws are perfect. Small amounts at the time so that no-one can get in a state that they become helpless and a nuisance to society.

These restrictions are designed to prevent rather than to clean up the mess.
You say deal with the problem as they have occurred. What about my loss then ? Why should I suffer for the incapabilities of another ?

And this is not hypothetical. I've lost a friend that way.

On the other hand Jello : why should an individual have more rights than any other group in a society ?

Take traffic laws. It's commonly agreed that our traffic laws are adequate i.e. the majority thinks they're allright.
Should we change the law because 1 individual in the country thinks it is his divine right to drive on the other side of the road ?

Arbiter

Quote:

---

Sorry dude. Whether you believe it or not, that's the way it is. If you don't like it, you can always bog off to Holland (or wherever the local laws fit your particular ideal).

---

I think you'll find you're mistaken. If that were the case, we would make homosexuality illegal simply because the marjority don't approve. Obviously that isn't the case.

The advocates of drug prohibition argue not that they have a right to dictate the moral behaviour of the minority but believe that the moral behaviour of the minority adversely affect the majority.

Quote:

---

There will always be cheaper versions of drugs even if they're legalised which will be cut with crap and this is what the druggies will buy.

---

There's no reason to assume this attall. Any legitimate seller of drugs will have to conform to government regulation and safety checks.

People who use drugs aren't (that) stupid. We would prefer to use it as safely as possible. Take alcohol. Why isn't there a huge blackmarket for home brewed alcohol? Two reasons. Home brewers can rarely make it as nice as what you will find inthe shops and you can guarantee that what you find in the shops will be safe and of a certain standard. If it isn't, you can take it back and demand your money back.

Quote:

---

Smart serial killers also lead perfectly normal lives besides the obvious. That's why they're so hard to catch. I don't think you'll dispute the sense in labelling them as criminals. To you, taking drugs is no big deal. To them, killing people is no big deal. Should we repeal that law also?

---

I think it is clear to everybody that if you are a serial killer, you are completely incompattible with society. You must be removed. Since the vast majority of drug users do not harm others in any way, there is no comparison.

What are we saying here? Don't do drugs because it wrecks your life and if we catch you, we'll wreck your life as a punishment?

Quote:

---

Since we've introduced sex education to schools we've had miles more teenage pregnancies than before- so that clearly failed.

---

I would question your logic here. In the UK, we have both the least amount of sex education (being the most reserved about talking about sex) and both the highest teenage pregnancies in europe. We need to talk about it more, nore less.

Quote:

---

I also strongly disagree that people can just **** their lives up with class A drugs with no regard for other people and then have their rehab paid for. That bites me.

---

Look, I don't like the fact that some people seem determined to screw up their lives becomming addicted to hard drugs. If we want to minimise the damage to society at large, we've got to channel it in such a way that it does not damage society. Giving the stuff away in clinics will stop drug related crime. Simple as that. That's got to be worth a few quid hasn't it?

Once we've stopped drug related crime, we can concentrate on dealing with getting people off the stuff.

Quote:

---

In short though, I disagree for the reasons I've stated before. I do not think it's a wise idea to decriminalise drugs. Most people aren't ready for that and wouldn't be able to cope.

---

The main reason why many people wouldn't be able to cope is because there hasn't been enough education out there. The government has been more concerned with telling people not to take drugs rather than teaching people how to take them properly.

Consider paracetemol. That is an extremely dangerous drug. If you take about 4 or 5 times the stated does, it can be leathal. However, most people don't want to die, they just want to take them safely and get rid of their headache. Thanks to the fact that paracetemol users know exactly how concentrated their tablets are and how many to take, the only over doses we here about are deliberate ones. Just imagine how many people would die from them if the doses were unmeasured and people didn't have the appropriate instructions/education?

So, with the appropriate education, people can make an informed choice and use drugs safely (which at the end of the day, is what most users want to do).

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

Should we change the law because 1 individual in the country thinks it is his divine right to drive on the other side of the road ?

---

I am not arguing for letting some individuals express their freedoms at the expense of others. How many times do I need to say that?

What we have in society at the moment is the opposite of that. We have one section of society restricting the freedoms of another section of society above and beyond what is called for to protect their own freedoms. People who are not infringing on the freedoms of others are being criminalised simply for a lifestyle choice they have made.

If the majority of drug users do not cause any harm to others, then it is clearly not a problem intrinsic to drug use. Drug use does not lead to anti-social behaviour. Bad indivuduals do.

We're getting nowhere here are we?

In response to a couple of your points. Homosexuality is not illegal (any more) because most people are falling into the live and let live approach. When the majority want drugs to become legal, they will be.

You say that it's unfair that the majority should dictate to the minority, but then you clearly stated that it's clear to most people that serial killers are not compatible and should be removed. From their minority view point they're doing what they want to do and why shouldn't they being left alone? What you seem to mean is that the minority shouldn't be imposed upon when you're in it, but when you're in the majority that opposed then the minority can get stuffed.

You're also blurring the line between sensible people taking drugs and the idiots taking drugs. You go on about people wanting to take them safely, but your only frame of reference is you. What about the stupid people taking drugs? The one's who WILL drive their car into a bus queue? As Danny says - it's too late then, the damage is done.

Also you state that any legitimate seller of drugs will conform to BS764367 regarding Recreational Pharmaceuticals. People who need a fix will NOT go to a legitimate dealer when they can get it cheaper elsewhere. And if you think they'll go into rehab then you're sadly mistaken. Giving the stuff away in clinics will NOT stop drug related crime. It's a nice idea, but in practice it simply doesn't work like that. People ****ed up on drugs (or alcohol) do not think straight. Again, you only seem to be looking at it from your frame of reference, not the point of view of a brain fried junkie.

Question my logic regarding teenage pregnancies all you wish. In the years since we've introduced sex ed at schools teenage pregnancies have risen. Simple statement, not a lot to question. If the education's wrong (i.e. not enough) then what makes you think it will be done right regarding drugs?

And your final comment doesn't quite hold itself together.

"So, with the appropriate education, people can make an informed choice and use drugs safely (which at the end of the day, is what most users want to do)."

For a start it mentions most users. I don't care about most users. I care about the ones who're going to go mad on it and end up damaging people. But we don't know who they are until they've done it, and then it's too late.

And an informed choice is a daft concept anyway. Look at the number of people who smoke! An informed choice is simply 'don't do it!'. It's bad for you, it can give you cancer, it stinks, it makes you look haggard before you're old and it makes your teeth and nails turn yellow. People still do it. Fortunately (besides passive smoking) the only people it damages are those who smoke.

Someone high on drugs/pissed as a fart can injure/kill/disable/generally inconveniece anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pip

If the majority of drug users do not cause any harm to others, then it is clearly not a problem intrinsic to drug use. Drug use does not lead to anti-social behaviour. Bad indivuduals do.

---

Sorry Simon, but bollocks.

Guns are not, in themselves, dangerous. They need someone to pull the trigger. Should guns be easily available to all and we simply hope that most people are ok with them? Most people probably are, but like **** we want the nutters wandering around with guns. Even normal people do spur of the moment things, which is why there's a cool down period when purchasing a fire arm. If we allow the average person access to things that can potentially cause harm then we are increasing the potential risk to everyone else.

Big mistake.

Nice 'n easy excuses simon but you're forgetting one thing in the equation : common sense.

If everyone (and I mean everyone) has common sense the system you foresee might work but it takes only one lunatic to disrupt the system.
You can only hope and prey that everyone else has the same sense as you have.
I don't want to end up burying dearest and nearest because the system failed to deal with the lunatic.

That's why I think prevention is better than controlled supervision.

I shall start by saying that it is my belief that, where a distinction can be made between use and abuse, social and anti social behaviour, society should endeavour to provide a legitimate outlet for that activity so that as many people as possible can be channelled into useing safely and preventing anti-social behaviour.

Arbiter

Quote:

---

You say that it's unfair that the majority should dictate to the minority, but then you clearly stated that it's clear to most people that serial killers are not compatible and should be removed. From their minority view point they're doing what they want to do and why shouldn't they being left alone? What you seem to mean is that the minority shouldn't be imposed upon when you're in it, but when you're in the majority that opposed then the minority can get stuffed.

---

With regards to serial killers, a distinction cannot be made between social and antisocial behaviour. Killing, by definition, is anti-social. Drug taking, is not. Therefore, since drug taking can be condusive to society, society should accomodate it. The same cannot be said for serial killing.

Quote:

---

You're also blurring the line between sensible people taking drugs and the idiots taking drugs. You go on about people wanting to take them safely, but your only frame of reference is you. What about the stupid people taking drugs? The one's who WILL drive their car into a bus queue? As Danny says - it's too late then, the damage is done.

---

I am saying that most people who use drugs want to use them safely just as most people who drive a car wants to do so safely. Obviously, there will always be idiots who don't give a damn (as there are with cars) but right now, we have a situation whereby people who want to use drugs safely are not able to (or at least, it is not made easy). I am talking about society ensuring that people who want to use drugs safely can do so.

Quote:

---

People who need a fix will NOT go to a legitimate dealer when they can get it cheaper elsewhere. And if you think they'll go into rehab then you're sadly mistaken. Giving the stuff away in clinics will NOT stop drug related crime.

---

I'm sorry but this logic is so badly thought out and is self-contradictory. How can addicts get their drugs cheaper elsewhere when clinics are giving it away free? If they are getting their drug free, why will they need to steal to fund a habit? Your arguments are unfounded and don't make sense.

Quote:

---

Question my logic regarding teenage pregnancies all you wish. In the years since we've introduced sex ed at schools teenage pregnancies have risen. Simple statement, not a lot to question.

---

You're drawing upon an unrelated corrolation. You could also draw a link between the increase in teenage pregnancies and the advent of pop music. Actually, teenage pregancies have risen considerably since Corronation Street started. There must be a link right?

The fact is that sex eductation started in response to an increase in teenage pregnancies. It is still woefully inadequate though.

Quote:

---

And an informed choice is a daft concept anyway. Look at the number of people who smoke! An informed choice is simply 'don't do it!'.

---

But people are making an informed choice. They know the potential consequences of smoking and if they decide to go ahead and smoke anyway, that's up to them.

Quote:

---

If we allow the average person access to things that can potentially cause harm then we are increasing the potential risk to everyone else.

---

Yes, great idea. Let's ban cars because they are potentially harmful. Let's ban kitchen knives because some nutter might use one to go on a killing spree. Let's ban all violence in films because one daft **** might be influenced by it.

Where does it end? There is potential danger to most things in life. With most things, society allows them but regulates them so that the danger is minimised. With drugs, it trys to ban themand achieves nothing but making them more dangerous than they needed to be.

When will society wake up to the folly of prohibition? How many hundreds of thousands of people need to be locked up for doing nothing more than taking a drug?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People who need a fix will NOT go to a legitimate dealer when they can get it cheaper elsewhere. And if you think they'll go into rehab then you're sadly mistaken. Giving the stuff away in clinics will NOT stop drug related crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm sorry but this logic is so badly thought out and is self-contradictory. How can addicts get their drugs cheaper elsewhere when clinics are giving it away free? If they are getting their drug free, why will they need to steal to fund a habit? Your arguments are unfounded and don't make sense.

You're not listening to what I'm saying, or if you are - you can't comprehend. Stop looking at this from your frame of reference!!! There's no answer to WHY they'd steal to fund a habit. They do. They're not thinking straight. To you and me, it's OBVIOUS to go to a clinic to get it free. But people don't. Just because it seems sensible to you and I doesn't mean that everyone will do it. As Danny says everyone needs common sense for what you're saying to become practical.

Why not go completely the opposite to what you're saying. Makes drugs illegal and enforce it. That way there'll be no antisocial druggies killing people, stealing et al. The next question you're going to ask is "Why should we". Answer: to protect the innocent person walking down the street who would get mugged by a junkie. That's why.

If you think something should be made legal just so you can get high, knowing full well that legalising it will increase the numbers of bonkers junkies then you're being just a little selfish.

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

If everyone (and I mean everyone) has common sense the system you foresee might work but it takes only one lunatic to disrupt the system.

---

Can I ask you why drugs are subject to a more exacting standard of safety than anything else? Nothing else (and I repeat NOTHING) in society is expected to be 100% safe. Why are drugs expected to be.

At the end of the day, there is no way, with or without prohibition, to completely eliminate all the casualties of drugs. It is a matter of which way will minimise the danger. Quite clearly, it is legalisation. Study after study has shown this but governments all round the world refuse to face up to the truth and admit that decades of prohibition have not only failed but they've made the situation worse.

Right ... social and anti-social, use and abuse. Are you going to draw the line then ? Are you going to say who is capable of dealing with it ?

There are numerous cases of people who thought that they could deal with things. Sadly they and their victims end up being dead. But still, they were able to cope right ?

How many people claim to be a good driver and in actuality perform poorly if they were to take their driver's exam over again ? How many people have a perfect judgement about themselves, do you think ?

How will you know in advance simon ? Because they say so ?

Here it goes: I can cope with alcohol. Does that mean I won't get drunk enough to become a nuisance ? Not automatically but you don't know that in advance and afterwards the potential damage is done.
If I said I had a drink for you and I claim that you can't handle 3 glasses and you say "bollocks, I can easily handle 5", should I believe you because you say so, because you know yourself ?

What to do if it turns out that you can't cope ? That you turn violent and hit a man in the hospital ? How do you know in advance ?

As for cars and appliances : they have to go through a rigourous testing phase to ensure that people don't get hurt using it normally. Note the last word : normally.

I could turn a kitchen knife into a murder weapon but that's not its function, is it ?
Drugs on the other hand can alter your conscience, you frame of reference in such a way that they create other 'realities' for the user. That is their function. Your perception changes, your judgement changes.

Does judgement or perception change if you hold a kitchen knife ? I doubt it.

Society has a responsability towards its participants : the responsability to ensure peace and protection for everyone.

If you legalise all and leave it up to the common sense of the population the nearest idiot can go wild and take innocents with him.

And just maybe (who knows right) that man might be you. you might find yourself on the road, confused and having ran over someone. And don't say it won't happen because it happens every weekend, in fact every day.

I've lost interest in this.

Bye.

Arbiter

Quote:

---

You're not listening to what I'm saying, or if you are - you can't comprehend. Stop looking at this from your frame of reference!!!

---

I am not only looking at this issue from my frame of reference. I am basing my judgement on having been both personally involved in the drug world and knowing many other who have as well. I am also basing my arguments on the results of studies that I have seen.

Quote:

---

There's no answer to WHY they'd steal to fund a habit. They do.

---

Err...Yes there is an answer (as I've already made clear). Heroin is a very expensive drug and many addicts (especially if they're unemployed) cannot financially support their habit. Currently, they have absolutely no choice but to carry on stealing money or to go cold turkey. For most, the first option is much more desireable (it's the easier option anyway).

Quote:

---

To you and me, it's OBVIOUS to go to a clinic to get it free. But people don't.

---

They don't, currently, because they can't. You cannot get heroin free on prescription anywhere so that is why they don't.

Quote:

---

Just because it seems sensible to you and I doesn't mean that everyone will do it

---

People will do it because a) it's free, b) it's safer and c) they don't have to come into contact with street gangsters to get their fix. There's every reason to use such clinics and absolutely no reason not to. The drug dealers will be put out of business (or else force to operate through legitimate channels). The users of hard drugs won't have anywhere else to go other than to the clinics.

Quote:

---

Why not go completely the opposite to what you're saying. Makes drugs illegal and enforce it. That way there'll be no antisocial druggies killing people, stealing et al. The next question you're going to ask is "Why should we". Answer: to protect the innocent person walking down the street who would get mugged by a junkie. That's why.

---

The above is not just a hypothetical proposition, it is what the government has been trying to do since the sixties. Trying and failing.

Quote:

---

If you think something should be made legal just so you can get high, knowing full well that legalising it will increase the numbers of bonkers junkies then you're being just a little selfish.

---

Another unfounded assumption. The only evidence we have at the moment is from countries like the netherlands whereby taking a softer approach to the use of drugs has drcreased the number of hard drug users (and casualties).

It is those who refuse to tolerate the presense of drugs in society that are being selfish. They don't care if their policies cause more people to die.

Wally

No, we don't know in advance who will go on to abuse a particular freedom but society can take steps to ensure that the right conditions are in place so that the tendancy towards abuse is minimised.

Right now we have a situation that has a high tendancy towards abuse.

Quote:

---

Society has a responsability towards its participants : the responsability to ensure peace and protection for everyone.

---

Yes, and what's the best way to achieve maximum peace and safety for all? To live in a totally controlled police state. Strip away all freedoms and everyone just do what the government wants them to do.

I for one do not want to live in such a society. I feel that as a citizen of a democratic society I have a right to the pursuit of happinness and pleasure to make life worth living. Why should this be a problem if it doesn't harm anyone else?

Your arguments about there being one idiot who can't handle freedom can be applied to anything. If we follow your arguments to their logical conclusion, everything will be banned.

Arbiter

Quote:

---

I've lost interest in this.

---

Why not just admit that you've run out of ill-thought out arguments have have no way of countering the weight of evidence and logic agaisnt you?

And yes, there is evidence. If you want to see it, I will go and dig some out for you (as I've done so many times already in past debates on drugs).

Are you going to tell me that you can make a right judgement when plastered ?

Does your judgement alter when picking up a knife ? How about when taking 3 xtc pills ?

Your libertarian approach results in a stance that says "go ahead, we'll worry about the consequences later".

Well, in a democracy it is my right too to demand that precautions should be taken before anything happens. I don't trust people's common sense so blindly as you seem to do.

If car accidents occur too much then perhaps we should look for safer means of travel. Train, bus, electric guided cars.

Humans are fallible and so is their judgement. Drugs have far too dangerous capabilities to leave it to common sense of the people concerned.

I've seen quite a few people who got their life ruined by drugs. The didn't anything wrong to anyone else but their life ended in tears, suicide attempts and death.
Some of them used physical violence. Some of them simply killed themselves or got in an accident.

Don't tell me that they had it coming. They were impressionable, they tried it or they did it because their friends did it too. A lot of them weren't the responsible adults you claim to be. They thought that they could handle it. They knew everything there was to know (or so they said). Still, some of them are dead, others are scarred for life. If there weren't any drugs they would still be alive today.

I said I'd lost interest, not because I've ran out of thought or ideas but because it's politer than saying what I was thinking. I'm sick to the back teeth of trying to debate something with someone who's already decided what he (and therefore we) should all subscribe to.

I've simply lost interest in this. I like discussing things, I like to see other peoples point of view. I like it when I change my point of view as it means I've learnt something. I do not like it when the people I'm discussing it with sit back, stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to anything being said - prefering to throw up spurious arguments, denounce statements being made as flawed and then advance their own, equally flawed arguements as the only alternative.

Adn so much for your previous statement about not meaning offence... What was the point of your last reply to me? It served only to piss me off.

Weight of evidence against me? Oh, I'm ****ing snowed under mate. Hell, I'd better rush out and lobby my local politician whilst tooting on a dooby! :rolleyes:

Dig out evidence? Yeah, right. More useless figures and 'facts'. I can dismantle your 'facts' as easily as you dismantled mine with farcical comments about coronation street. You'll believe the 'facts' you like and disregard the ones you don't.

Ok, so you like to think about facts?

Fact: I think people who take drugs are dickheads and are leeches on society.

Fact: It's against the law. Whether you like it or not, it's illegal. Tough **** for you eh?

Fact: The government's in power and makes the decisions. Not you. Like it or lump it.

Fact: You've seriously irritated me by getting more and more sarcastic and childish as the debate's gone on and that's a shame.

Fact: I've lost interest in this thread.

I hope to see you in another discussion where you can retain a little more maturity as I've enjoyed the debates until recently.

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

Are you going to tell me that you can make a right judgement when plastered ?

---

The right judgement needs to made before one gets "plastered". Just like when someone goes out for a drink, they make sure they have alternative arrangements for getting home and don't wait until when they leave the pub to decide whether they feel up to driving or not.

Quote:

---

Your libertarian approach results in a stance that says "go ahead, we'll worry about the consequences later".

---

No it isn't. My "libertarian" approach is not about encouraging people to take drugs. It's about not criminalising them for doing so. We need to take preventative measures to prevent people who use drugs from going on to causing anti-social behaviour.

We need to prevent people from abusing others and not from abusing themselves.

Quote:

---

I've seen quite a few people who got their life ruined by drugs. The didn't anything wrong to anyone else but their life ended in tears, suicide attempts and death.
Some of them used physical violence. Some of them simply killed themselves or got in an accident.

Don't tell me that they had it coming. They were impressionable, they tried it or they did it because their friends did it too. A lot of them weren't the responsible adults you claim to be. They thought that they could handle it. They knew everything there was to know (or so they said). Still, some of them are dead, others are scarred for life. If there weren't any drugs they would still be alive today.

---

This is all very sad and I wouldn't say that they had it comming. I would say that they are a casualtiy of the current prohibitive system. It is precisely because of incidents like you have sited that we need to get in place a system that encouarages non-abuse rather than a system that lends itself towards abuse.

We both agree that the mis-use of drugs is something that is bad for both individuals and society in general. I just fail to see how criminalising innocent people is hte answer. A prohibitive system does nothing to encourage proper use. It lends itself to abuse. That is why we need reform.

Arbiter

Quote:

---

I said I'd lost interest, not because I've ran out of thought or ideas but because it's politer than saying what I was thinking. I'm sick to the back teeth of trying to debate something with someone who's already decided what he (and therefore we) should all subscribe to.

---

Yes, I have thought about this subject a lot in the past. It is clear that you haven't.

Quote:

---

I've simply lost interest in this. I like discussing things, I like to see other peoples point of view. I like it when I change my point of view as it means I've learnt something. I do not like it when the people I'm discussing it with sit back, stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to anything being said - prefering to throw up spurious arguments, denounce statements being made as flawed and then advance their own, equally flawed arguements as the only alternative.

---

I have read and digested every point you made. I pointed out the flaws in your arguments but you have not done so with mine. And you accuse me of not listening to your points?

You are just as guity as having preconceived ideas on this subject as I am, it's just that I have thought about my position on the subject for a lot longer than you have.

Quote:

---

Fact: I think people who take drugs are dickheads and are leeches on society.

---

This sums up what underlies your reasoning on this subject.

You simply just don't like drugs and those who take them. I'm glad you finally admit it.

You're never going accept drugs as part of society because you simply don't like them asthetically. No argument or piece of evidence would ever convince you otherwise.

You demonstrate you know little about illegal drugs and wonder why I emply sarcasm in responding to you.

If you are really interested in understanding this topic, let's go back to any particular point you care to name and we shall examine it in detail and find evidence to refute/verify it.

I again appologise for causing offense. I just get would up when so many people are being criminalised for doing no harm to nobody. It is a travesty of modern times and when people start spouting the same old tired arguments again and again (not just you) I lose my patience.

Well ... did you a favour here

Been scouring around dutch sites with reports on soft drug policy in your coveted Holland.
It's not a fairytale as you are willing to let us believe.
Reports speak about : more and heavier use, increased risk in so-called border groups (unemployed youth, immigrants, people in poverty etc), increased connected crime, social problems have risen, cries and demands for help have risen exponentially, a clear link between bad family relations and use/abuse, a wild growth of coffeeshops (legal outlets for drugs), a clear growth in crime surrounding and concerning these coffeeshops, an increased chance for overlapping with hard drugs, combination use (soft and hard) has increased ...

The same has been reported by our government.

Not such a pretty picture eh ...

For the record, I am definitely with Simon on soft drugs. I am not sure about hard drugs, but I am finding Simon's arguments more convincing.