|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 4, 2015 2:22:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 4, 2015 2:27:27 GMT
Oh Jesus... couldn't you have gotten something from somewhere other than WND?
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 4, 2015 2:51:27 GMT
I don't know the source. But it sounds crazy. Would they just make things like that up though?
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 4, 2015 2:56:53 GMT
I wouldn't put it past WND, but this seems to be true, and it wouldn't surprise me if Erdogan pulled a stunt like this.
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Jan 5, 2015 18:26:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 5, 2015 18:51:43 GMT
I don't quite understand his logic either.
I mean, I see what he's says, and yes, banning precursor substances used to manufacture MDMA likely led to the use of other substances that could produce even more dangerous drugs, but...
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 5, 2015 19:00:44 GMT
I do see some of the logic, I admit.
By banning the harmful, but not as harmful as it could be, substance, they forced makers of the illegal drug to move on to using more dangerous substances in the process. Basically, had they not banned the original, that would not have been necessary.
But I'm not sure what else he would have them do, precisely. I can guess.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 5, 2015 19:05:49 GMT
If you ban precursors then the manufacturers are going to find something they can replace it with, and if you ban that then they're going to move onto something else, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 5, 2015 20:18:43 GMT
Ad infinitum... But they might get more damaging.
|
|
|
Bullc**p
Jan 5, 2015 20:28:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by Horsie on Jan 5, 2015 20:28:35 GMT
And? The alternative is to allow criminals access to materials they can use for drugs production.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 5, 2015 20:43:17 GMT
If you are constantly banning the materials required, and it is causing a cycle, than you're doing law wrong, very wrong. You'd think that it would be better to target something else more constant instead.
Maybe make making illegal substances illegal in the first place?
The fact is, I think that the point of these laws is to protect people. But if your attempts at protection are actually resulting in more harm to the people you are trying to protect, it might be time to rethink your approach.
|
|
|
Bullc**p
Jan 5, 2015 20:58:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by Horsie on Jan 5, 2015 20:58:15 GMT
The drugs already are illegal, the idea behind the ban was to make it difficult to get the materials to make those illegal drugs.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 5, 2015 21:02:14 GMT
Well, if it isn't exactly cutting down on the drug production because they just use something else, and more dangerous, then maybe the approach needs to be changed.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 5, 2015 21:58:13 GMT
To what? It's not like they can go back on the ban and just deal with users, because there's always going to be users if there's a supply of drugs.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 5, 2015 22:45:00 GMT
You're asking me to solve the drug problem? Geez...
Don't criminalize the less dangerous parts required to make drugs in cases where something like this is likely. Decriminalize entirely? Some people have suggested this. Decriminalize possession, but criminalize the production and vending. Focus more on that. Decriminalize select less harmful drugs, give them the alcohol treatment.
Several options. But I'd rather not have something criminalized if doing so causes the people we are allegedly trying to protect to end up dead, that is entirely counter productive.
|
|