ForumGarden

Keith W;469657 wrote: Don't patronize me you sanctimonious git

And I don't have to think I did, my post was based on scientific fact not some flight of fancyCome on then, give us a link back to what you're talking about. It may sound like a post "based on scientific fact" to you, but I can't work out which of your hissy fits you mean.

koan;469110 wrote: There are seven good reasons to keep drugs illegal.

Health

Economics and psychosocial arguments

Drug prohibition as a solution to perceived problems of society

Commercial exploitation of addictive drugs

Sell-out and loss of 'counterculture'

Illegal drugs as a pragmatic counterweight to global trade imbalances

Moral and religious

There are nineteen good reasons to legalise drugs.

Moral and Religious

Personal freedom

Crime/terrorism

Prohibition causes more harm than good

Legal Dilemmas

Forbidding drugs can romanticize them

Criminalization increases profits for drug dealers

Economics

Consistency

Health

User cost of drugs increases crime to afford

Racism and unequal enforcement of drug laws

The creation of drug cartels

Effect on producer countries

Same policy for distinctive drugs

Illegal Drug Impurities

Homemade Drugs

Block to research

Legitimate Medical Use of Illegal Drugs

Short explanations of each are available here


This was post 56. Way back when I offered up for grabs what the considered arguments are for both sides to try and keep this from getting emotional.

I've openly admitted that there are seven good arguments against legalising. But there are nineteen good ones for it.

ArnoldLayne;469668 wrote: And the opposite viewpoint has been met with equivalent disdain by yourself and Koan. Its all been met with an air of "no value""viewpoint"? Unsupported "viewpoint"? I can get that listening to the drunks propping up the bar down the road. Viewpoint? Back it up and it turns into something that can persuade people. Opinion is, like Jane Winterton's Pakistani on a train, ten a penny.

One point occured to me today. This is without statistics or facts but I believe Im correct in this.

The reason prohibition was desisted was because everyone was drinking anyway. The cops who were busting up the stills the politicians who enacted the law and Joe Shmo.

Most of society find drugs and drug usage distasteful and generally lack the desire to snort cocaine, cook meth or bang heroin. If society doesnt want it why would the law change ?

Who wants that ?

Very few I suspect.

Nomad;469675 wrote: One point occured to me today. This is without statistics or facts but I believe Im correct in this.

The reason prohibition was desisted was because everyone was drinking anyway. The cops who were busting up the stills the politicians who enacted the law and Joe Shmo.

Most of society find drugs and drug usage distasteful and generally lack the desire to snort cocaine, cook meth or bang heroin. If society doesnt want it why would the law change ?

Who wants that ?

Very few I suspect.


Actually, some religions use psychotropics in their rituals. It's one of the arguments for religious freedom.

koan;469678 wrote: Actually, some religions use psychotropics in their rituals. It's one of the arguments for religious freedom.




Thats not much of an argument as these religions are in the wee minority and wouldnt be taken seriously by society or legislators. (in my opinion)

spot;469674 wrote: "viewpoint"? Unsupported "viewpoint"? I can get that listening to the drunks propping up the bar down the road. Viewpoint? Back it up and it turns into something that can persuade people. Opinion is, like Jane Winterton's Pakistani on a train, ten a penny.


"People are usually more firmly convinced that their opinions are precious than that they are true."

- George Santayana

SnoozeControl;469680 wrote: Think how much fun this discussion could be in real life! Maybe someone can bring it up at the FG meet in January.:yh_bigsmi






Ill bring the crack.





What meeting in Jan. ?:(

Nomad;469681 wrote: Thats not much of an argument as these religions are in the wee minority and wouldnt be taken seriously by society or legislators. (in my opinion)


since when does a minority not have rights?

SnoozeControl;469680 wrote: Think how much fun this discussion could be in real life! Maybe someone can bring it up at the FG meet in January.:yh_bigsmiI'm sure we shall, Snooze. We all get on very well when we meet, speaking from experience.

koan;469684 wrote: since when does a minority not have rights?




I didnt say the minority doesnt have rights :wah:

But majority rules.

Keith W;469685 wrote: Go find it your self

you even quoted a line from it in one of your own postsYou did hear me say I couldn't work out what you were referencing, didn't you? It's an accurate statement. It costs you very little effort to link to it. What was your peremptory phrase? "Answer my question"? Somewhat rude, you'll agree, but it is entirely your own.

Keith W;469691 wrote: Where the hell are your facts?? produce your factsAbout that intolerable racist fool?Winterton became opposition Shadow Rural Affairs Minister in May 2002, and was sacked the next year for telling the following joke at a rugby club dinner:

An Englishman, a Cuban, a Japanese man and a Pakistani were all on a train.

The Cuban threw a fine Havana cigar out the window. When he was asked why, he replied: "They are ten a penny in my country."

The Japanese man threw an expensive Nikon camera out of the carriage, adding: "These are ten a penny in my country."

The Englishman then picked up the Pakistani and threw him out of the train window.

When the other travelers asked him to account for his actions, he said: "They are ten a penny in my country."I assume you're not saying I've posted no facts into the thread.

Nomad;469690 wrote: I didnt say the minority doesnt have rights :wah:

But majority rules.You don't appreciate social diversity?

Nomad;469690 wrote: I didnt say the minority doesnt have rights :wah:

But majority rules.


but the majority ruled that everyone has the right to religious freedom.

Keith W;469696 wrote: If it cost so little effort then go find it your self, you are the one that wants the link

and to save me writing it all out again my observations about Koan apply equally to youYou did hear me say I couldn't work out what you were referencing, didn't you? It's an accurate statement. It costs you very little effort to link to it. What was your peremptory phrase? "Answer my question"? Somewhat rude, you'll agree, but it is entirely your own.

tag teaming again tonight

ArnoldLayne;469706 wrote: Right, I'm off to stick my head out of a train window.

I like tunnels. It takes the pain in my head awayIf you can find a carriage still on the main line that has opening windows, I'll buy you a pint.

Sheryl;469708 wrote: tag teaming again tonight No, Sheryl, tag teaming is when people take shifts, not when they work in concert like this. This is orchestrated harmony.

Keith W;469696 wrote: If it cost so little effort then go find it your self, you are the one that wants the link

and to save me writing it all out again my observations about Koan apply equally to you


So what you're saying is:

revised Keith W. wrote: OK I will probably get chewed out for this but I have had enough, I will try and keep my responce as cleans as possible.

I will now give you my professional opinion of you spot.

You are a self righteous, full of female cow excrement, class a masturbater.

Your right and everyone else is wrong, yeah right

Only your opinion counts and everyones else's doesn't.

I mean how do you clean your teeth in the morning? I mean with your head stuck up you rear end and all?

Stop spouting female cow excrement will ya

Or better still do your self and the world a favor and pull your bottom lip over your head and swallow.

********************************

Apologies, spot excepted, that I have offended by this post, I have just had enough of spot bull?

spot;469699 wrote: You don't appreciate social diversity?


On the contrary, its why I come here. Live and let live my man. My statement was in reference to if society as a rule has no use or desire for umm lets say opium. The law wont get passed. You know that though. Right ?

spot;469710 wrote: No, Sheryl, tag teaming is when people take shifts, not when they work in concert like this. This is orchestrated harmony.


:wah: depends on who's ears are listening.

Sheryl;469715 wrote: :wah: depends on who's ears are listening.


let me guess, Keith's ballad about gendered cow excrement was more pleasing to your ear?

ArnoldLayne;469714 wrote: They havent totally eliminated the slam door trains on my lineI expect they still entertain East Ender hop pickers in dungarees during the hot summer months down your way, too. I'm all for a bit of rustic tradition.

koan;469110 wrote: There are seven good reasons to keep drugs illegal.

Health

Economics and psychosocial arguments

Drug prohibition as a solution to perceived problems of society

Commercial exploitation of addictive drugs

Sell-out and loss of 'counterculture'

Illegal drugs as a pragmatic counterweight to global trade imbalances

Moral and religious How can you say they are both?

There are nineteen good reasons to legalise drugs.

Moral and Religious both?

Personal freedom sacrificed by an increase in crimes being committed against people not addicted to drugs

Crime/terrorism would not faulter one bit...only profits which would lead to an increase in potency and lower the market value

Prohibition causes more harm than good Opinion

Legal Dilemmas Law suites out the ying yang

Forbidding drugs can romanticize them Legalizing drugs can romanticize them

Criminalization increases profits for drug dealers Lowers market value which puts more drugs on the street

Economics True...but hardly worth it...and the government is always trying to find a way to tax people. Our econimics are fine.

Consistency In tolerance levels going up

Health Bad health

User cost of drugs increases crime to afford Always be a lowest common denominator

Racism and unequal enforcement of drug laws Government dealing crack to suburban straight A students lowers racism

The creation of drug cartels and this is good?

Effect on producer countries Can't argue with that, but is definitely not worth it

Same policy for distinctive drugs Tolerance levels sky rocketing

Illegal Drug Impurities Dealers strenuously ensure to keep drugs less of a health risk so as to sustain a sufficient amount of customers...sadly enough it's called business...people don't sell drugs to kill people in a delusional plot to destroy the world(even though they are helping)...they sell them to make money

Homemade Drugs would increase from availability

Block to research Test rats?

Legitimate Medical Use of Illegal Drugs This already happens

Short explanations of each are available here All people who have died from drugs are immoral? What about the people who die from others as a result of them being on drugs?


This is in reference to post 153.

Nomad;469713 wrote: On the contrary, its why I come here. Live and let live my man. My statement was in reference to if society as a rule has no use or desire for umm lets say opium. The law wont get passed. You know that though. Right ?The few minority religions which use psychotropics in their rituals are something I'd hate to see fade from the face of the world. It's a bit like biodiversity, I lament the loss of species as well. Much the same cause, much the same effect.

K.Snyder;469723 wrote: This is in reference to post 156.Good God. Original research, and I missed it. The dilute sewage in which it swam must have obscured my perception for a moment. I do apologise, Snyder, you added greatly to the discussion and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge it.

ArnoldLayne;469676 wrote: What is it ? The language I use ? The wrong words perhaps ?

I HAVE read your arguements, they are not new. I happen to disagree with them. I dont need google, to experience what I have, for me to form an opinion different to yours

ie. Cricket is an awful game, take it off the telly

I dont think so i like it, leave it where it is

Then a discussion can take place using or NOT using a search facility, depending on ones experience or not

Sometimes one can come to a conclusion without the aid of google.

Believe me it is possible.
This is post 156

The post that I claimed is 56 and that you actually link to is, in fact, post 56

koan;469732 wrote: This is post 156

The post that I claimed is 56 and that you actually link to is, in fact, post 56


Yeah I know sorry...

Meant 153.

spot;469725 wrote: The few minority religions which use psychotropics in their rituals are something I'd hate to see fade from the face of the world. It's a bit like biodiversity, I lament the loss of species as well. Much the same cause, much the same effect.




If theyre using psychotropics now then whats the problem ? The argument is whether it could or should be legalized.

spot;469728 wrote: Good God. Original research, and I missed it. The dilute sewage in which it swam must have obscured my perception for a moment. I do apologise, Snyder, you added greatly to the discussion and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge it.


Glad you're finally seeing the light.

K.Snyder;469723 wrote: This is in reference to post 153.


ok. so you wrote 156 then 153 but the actual first posting is 56. What is going on?

ArnoldLayne;469721 wrote: I was taken once with my Grandparents when everything was in black and white. Dont remember it muchThis thread's a bit like that. Black and white, I mean. Not like the real world at all. Of course there's arguments both ways. I'd like to see prohibition ditched simply because it costs so much police time and prison resources, adding far more to the tensions in society than regulated legalization would. I have the example of alcohol prohibition in the US during the twenties to support my view. The problems that generated are still costing society heavily - or has the Mafia become a social club recently?

None of this should get personal. Its discussion people. No reason we cant discuss then leave it behind. Its what adults do.



(not to imply Im adult really)

K.Snyder;469736 wrote: Yeah I know sorry...

Meant 153.


we're cross posting now. the point of my quoting it again is to show that I am completely respectful of the fact that there are 7 good arguments for prohibition and showing people where to find them so we can have a good, reasonable discussion.

why I'm called names when I put up sign boards and give detailed directions...is merely astonishing.

koan;469739 wrote: ok. so you wrote 156 then 153 but the actual first posting is 56. What is going on?


yeah I was thinking of the 56 you posted and mixed it with the 153 by accident...

sorry...try 191.

You know i cant help thinking this article came from 'the sun' basically a comic so why even believe its true?