|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 6, 2015 20:00:42 GMT
Why is it ridiculous?
To me it is ridiculous because the government has some level of responsibility to protect the populace. But if that isn't actually the reason for those laws, what is? Because clearly the best way to deal with organized crime would be decriminalization and legalization, which would starve them of money.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 6, 2015 20:09:58 GMT
Because the only people who would get behind legalizing hard drugs are the people using hard drugs and the people who think they could sell those drugs easier if they didn't have to worry about the police.
Besides, I don't really think the government should have to protect people who put themselves at risk; Lord knows there are a lot of other issues where people are getting the shaft through no fault of their own, I'd rather that gets sorted out before we start talking about protecting people from their own awful choices.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 6, 2015 20:31:19 GMT
So why shouldn't people who want to use these things be allowed to do so? They'd be helping organized crime less if they were buying from legal dispensaries.
I suppose that I'm just focused on the idea of harm reduction and protecting people, especially youth and such whose decision making capabilities are not fully developed.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 6, 2015 20:53:54 GMT
I don't think we should waste our time and resources going out of our way to protect people from themselves when they make bad choices, we shouldn't be obliged to ensure that people aren't going to hurt themselves when they do something illegal.
And I'm not even sure if legalizing hard drugs is even an arguement, because it'll be a cold day in hell before that happens anywhere; a government that tries likely won't succeed, and they'll probably never win another election after trying.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 6, 2015 21:18:54 GMT
I'm asking why it should be illegal in the first place. I mean, I get going "well, you didn't listen to the law, so too bad."
I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from though, as you seen to be saying that the drugs are not banned to protect people but that they should still be banned. I don't understand why they would be banned if not to protect society.
After all, the bans do not seem to work against organized crime.
Unless they do protect society, just not the users?
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 6, 2015 21:28:49 GMT
If we legalized the use of these drugs then there's a good chance that people who wouldn't otherwise use them, for lack of access for example, would use them.
I'm also saying that there's just no way hard drugs would be legalized anyway, so saying that we should is a non-argument. People in general would go apeshit if their government said they were going to make hard drugs legal, and start allowing dispensaries to open that sell cocaine and heroin, I'd put money on any such legislation being shot down, and more likely than not a party that seriously proposed such legislation wouldn't be reelected. Of course, any party that would propose something so politically suicidal would likely be on the fringe anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 6, 2015 21:43:25 GMT
So you are in favour of them for the sake of protecting people, including those who would use if they could but for whatever reason can't, but not for those who have already been hooked on them.
That does make sense.
And yeah, I know that they wouldn't legalize everything... and I wouldn't either. Though I thought there was this place in Spain or the Netherlands where they did this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 6, 2015 21:44:38 GMT
There are places where they've legalized or decriminalized some things, but my understanding is that this just brings a different set of problems.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 6, 2015 21:45:33 GMT
I thought it would. But I wasn't sure.
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Jan 13, 2015 6:11:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 13, 2015 8:16:21 GMT
If this makes more prominent news, I half expect people will start building snowmen named Mohammad just to piss off the Muslims more. Despite the fact that such disrespect is rather sweeping in its scope...
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Jan 13, 2015 10:37:57 GMT
The muslims only have themselves to blame if people do that. The ones who flip out over this sort of thing just need to learn to grow up (this is like if I wanted Nintendo's adverts banning in the mid '90s just because I owned a Sega Megadrive at the time).
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 13, 2015 14:28:15 GMT
I'd believe it, it's apparently un-Islamic to depict any person in any form of visual art. I think I read about a cleric who taught that photography and film were also un-Islamic and ought to be banned.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 14, 2015 19:36:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 14, 2015 19:41:32 GMT
That just sounds like a crap idea.
Not sure if it's any worse than how we dealt with it in our school (which had windows in every classroom facing onto the corridor); turn off the lights and huddle in the corner.
|
|