Drugs Debate

Check this out:

at 16, you can drive a car.

at 18, you are responsible for your own actions; can fight for your country; can buy a pack of cigs; and some porn. However, you can't buy alcohol, for another three years.

at 21, you can now buy alcohol.

This seems so @ss-backwards to me. You can fight for your country and go to jail, but you can't drink; you can be tried as an adult and convicted of DUI, though...

There were 40,000 people at the ministry of sound's new year's ever party at the millenium dome, there wasn't a single person there who wasn't on one substance or another. Hell there were dealers to make sure there was no shortage of supply. Are you trying to tell me that the police in Britain had no idea that there would be so many drugs? yet they thought of bringing ambulances, just in case? uhm!

If theres no demand, then you get a shortage of suppliers. I smell fish.

Anyway, drug users are a benefit to society, headlines help sell papers, more police required helps keep public spending to a healthy level, keep employment up, and for the moral people of today to set an example.

TWT, it's hard to argue, it's like trying to describe whats good about a film to someone who has no interest in it. But the more important point is, there is no point, this is going to be ongoing for long period of times and no debate will settle it ( you're much more likely to see peace in the middle east !)

__________________
henry hill - Disclaimer: This disclaimer disclaims any claims that could be claimed from my post.

I think you're misunderstanding me: the have bigger fish to fry. That doesn't mean they don't know about it, it means that they have bigger things to worry about than a few people smoking pot.

I don't see what the argument here is. Yes, there is a demand for it. That goes without saying.

Public spending should be lower, not higher...and any person that becomes a police officer does not become something else. No employment is "kept up" by needing more police offers. I assume that you were joking, though.

No offense, but judging by your last post, you've got to be high. I didn't understand half of what you said.

This is what I mean: Health, School, Emergency services etc. it's all public spending, now if the economy is going into recession, what does the government do? encourage investment to keep up employment, ie. here we dig up roads for no reason and then patch them up again, it all has to be kept at an equilibrium otherwise companies will have to cut costs to keep the same amount of profit and damnit i really cannot be ****ed with an economics lesson.

Let's try again:

TWT, it's hard to argue, it's like trying to describe whats good about a film to someone who has no interest in it.

But the more important point is, there is no point, this [debate] is going to be ongoing for long period of times and no debate will settle it ( you're much more likely to see peace in the middle east !) - ie. drugs aren't going anywhere.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what point you're trying to make about public spending. I really don't. I understand what you mean about describing the supposed benefit of doing drugs to someone who hasn't, though. That just doesn't convince me, that's all. Hey, YOU started this thread; surely you expected a little bit of back-and-forth?

I made a point. Nobody seems to care about MY point.

Actually I expected no one to agree with me at all

It would help if you had done business studies / economics at some stage

Hold on - you're in a different country...

/me goes off to practise rolling...

Uh, I think I understand enough about economics for you explain things to stupid old me. I think you're just sort of stumbling and thinking out loud here. I feel like I'm getting half-formed thoughts and sentences, and I'm sorry if that sounds rude.

Simple economic principle: taking money via taxes and using it to hire more police officers does not create any new jobs at all.

Hey I think everything in society is screwed up But I don't have a clue about what would be a better option!

I think most of our police should be concentrating on muggers on the street - national news : a 19 year old girl got shot for her mobile phone! Jesus! we don't have guns here! this is the start of a crimewave!

We live in strange times, I may make less sense progressively as the night goes on.

what planet you from? yes it does. it generates new employment. What the **** man!

Look man, I like you, I really do, but this kind of thing goes nowhere with me. Chris has proven to be vastly intelligent in the ways of economics and politics and frankly you've got no leg to stand on with a BS statement like that.

On your other point... taking tax dollars generated from the collection of money from the public is not job "creation." It's the spending of public assets.

Job creation is a title more fitting for the private sector, for private business. As a rule governments don't "create" jobs, they fill perceived needs.

Yeah but when they work then they stop taking unemployment benefits which is public asset and give more back in the form of tax, even workers of the government pay tax on their income!

my bad: different countries different ways of operation

/me goes back to the drugs...

Sound economic policy applies to ALL countries with a central government like this. I'm sorry, but no economy stimulation takes place there: why would you assume that they're going to hire someone who is unemployed as a police officer? What you're doing then is forcing the public to put people to work.

Don't forget this: the amount of money in circulation is fixed. If it goes on place, there is always a place it WOULD have gone instead, because no one hides large sums of money in the ground anymore. Hiring more policer officers does not help the economy...it helps fight crime (hopefully). Anyway, all of that is irrelevant, because drug users don't benefit society: they don't create headlines (honestly, how many headlines do you see about drug busts? They're usually focused on bigger events where I come from), and, more importantly, if they "create jobs," is crime a good thing, seeing as how it forces us to hire more policemen?

Woo thank god you reminded me of the original point:

Right ok, Drug busts do not create headlines unless big, but people dying from drugs, opinion polls on drugs, drug user experiences, drugs used to damage status they're everywhere all the time!

Look the point is increase in public spending at this time (going into recession) is good. That's what this educational system has taught me, I even looked it up in last years economics text book just to confirm I wasn't talking crap myself

after our nice debates I think the only conclusion I can come to is that drugs have always been round and always will be some people will like it others not.

drug use here is on the increase.

In Pennsylvania probably true. In Houston VASTLY different story. We have the Gulf of Mexico right here which feeds into the port of Houston and we (Texas) border Mexico. Big headlines on a daily basis. I've got a buddy that flies a blackhawk helicopter out of Hooks airport in Tomball. He does nothing but track illegal planes running drugs and forces them out of the sky. We've got gangs running the stuff all over...it's a very big deal here.

That's pretty amazing. I mean you see films [like Traffic, shutup! Just saying, you do] and you see it and you almost refuse to believe, especially down here in Mount Gambier where there's no real drug lords or anything, no cartels, and you wonder if things like that even ever happen.

And you hear things like that and you realise that they do. At the same time, Mount Gambier is nicknamed "White City". So that's saying something.

I have never been offered anything more than marijuana but I have no desire to do the stuff and so I choose not to. I drink, but not to the point of making myself throw up or something.

If people want to smoke dope or shoot up or snort coke, that's fine. If they want to take acid, good on them. I don't agree with it, but I won't tell them off for it. Mind you, it IS illegal and if they get caught then they SHOULD get in a sh!tload of trouble. But until then, if they want to risk it -- while I think it's stupid of them, to each his own.

Sorry if I missed most of the debate.





PS: TWT, I've been getting half thought out sentances in every debate I've had with Goodf3lla. Just joking GF, ya silly sod.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Oh yeah, I agree. I don't think I'd turn a friend of mine in if I knew they smoked dope now and then or anything like that. That's their risk...but if they got caught, well, they've got no excuse. They took the chance, and I'd support the law's decision to nab 'em.

However, I think if they were heavily into cocaine or heroin, I'd tell someone. I think you'd have to. For me, they'd be playing dice on too big a table for me not to tell someone.

Yes, definitely, if it was extreme.

Wow. We're seeing eye to eye. This seems.....weird.

Hey! Drugs are making headlines:

http://uk.fc.yahoo.com/r/royalwatch.html

Even our Monarchy are doing it!

"Prince Harry, seen in this file photo playing the Eton wall game, is being viewed as a "typical teenager" after it emerged that he had been drinking underage and had taken cannabis. The Queen has backed the way Prince Charles has handled the problems with his younger son. REUTERS "


What an advanced society!

Attachments