I make specialnote that asof yet juglist* you'venotbeen able to answer my above post.
Junglist* many of us agree that at the moment we're doing more harm than good - that doesn't seem to be the main issue - the main issue here is changing our current approach to SAVE hundreds if not thousands of lives. And the best place to start is at home, then at schools, then in public.
My above post references some of the dangers of legalisation - Although not infallible - I don't think legalisation is the way - I seriously doubt that you can assume crime will drop.
The biggest stat to drop will be from drug users not being arrested for possession!
Anyhow...No need to repeat eveything - Cause I know you're wrong
Slimy, you've sufficiently shown how neolithic you are in your approach to this. The issue is nNOT about saving lives, but reducing the harm done to the community as a whole, if this has a roll on effect to saving lives then so be it, but again, just because you are so inept at comprehension - YOUR APPROACH IS ALL CUDDLY FURRY ANIMALS AND NO SUBSTANCE.
The ONLY place to start is the removal of the legislation which governs the illegality of the substances because prohibition has ALWAYS done more harm than good in the long term.
You make concrete statement about what will be the result, but quite frankly have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA ABOUT THE REAL WORLD. I dont know if there is an organisation like the wayside chapel in NZ, but if you're ever in australia take a visit and see just how bad the situation is, and how it can be made better. The necessary response is NOT to shove it under the carpet and act like the status quo is working.
You've got no idea, and to just say that there are dangers in legislation is moronic at best. Legislation does not mean one thing, with the total disregard of others, it merely means that a better way can and should be found, and the archaic laws (also known as legislation funnily enough) which are in effect today would be rescinded.
Junglist* many of us agree that at the moment we're doing more harm than good - that doesn't seem to be the main issue - the main issue here is changing our current approach to SAVE hundreds if not thousands of lives. And the best place to start is at home, then at schools, then in public.
What on earth do you mean. The current approach has been at home in schools and in public to make statments trying to imply that DRUGS ARE BAD OK. IT HAS NOT WORKED, and your statement shows that you are devoid of original or valid ideas about the best way to tackle the situation. I assure you that deluding yourself that everything is happy and smiley and that things can be changed simply by happy smiley approaches.
You cement my point that i have been making here, as you use it foolishly to back up your own point of view
the main issue here is changing our current approach.
Yes, what you fail to understand though is that the major issues with illicit drug deaths on the streets or in homes etc, have nothing to do with the drug itself, BUT THE IMPURITIES IN THE SAMPLES. The only way to combat this is to regulate the manufacture and quality of these drugs - and to provide treatment and counseling at the point of sale.
My above post references some of the dangers of legalisation - Although not infallible - I don't think legalisation is the way - I seriously doubt that you can assume crime will drop.
How on earth can you think this. If artificially high prices are a function of the black market sale then to remove the black market factor, the consequential drop in price can have no effect other than to reduce the amount of money needed to support a habit - THIS MEANS THAT LESS CRIME WILL NEED TO BE COMMITTED BY THE SAME SMALL POPULATION OF HEAVILY ADDICTED DRUG ABUSERS.
Add to this the corruption of police factor in the whole argument, and the only solution becomes so much clearer. The last 4 police royal commissions have highlighted that drug prohibition has been the driving force behind, and the major cause of police corruption. Surely although the health tolls of prohibition, and the general cost to the community (taxes going to support police targeting users - an un-winnable battle; but also the cost of insurance premiums due to higher claim rates because of B/E; the cost of health care due to impurities in the smaples) of keeping these substances illegal are massive, most of you refuse to admit that the "war on drugs" is fallacious and unwinnable; The corruption of what should be the shining beacon of honesty and ethical behaviour - the police force - is the straw which breaks the camel's back on the issue of prohibition.
As to the people who claim that legalising the substances wont stop people becoming addicted, and that when alcohol was legalised many people abused it - this disregards the fact that people were already abusing them even when they were illegal, and the the act of prohibiting them is for appearances only, because it is unpolicable. Yes people will continue to abuse them, but people were already abusing them, and if the abuse can be mitigated, then use is no problem, for it is not drug use which is the problem, but irresponsible drug abuse.
Slimy, you may think that you're correct, but if you could sell me tickets to whatever trip you've been on that has led you to think this way, i'll buy one, your version of reality is so twisted, it'd be funny to see just how you actually perceive the world..
The worst part of this whole scenario is that i have had far better arguments, with far more substantive support with mentally retarded donkeys than i have with you slimy.
