news & politics:discussion

[Crazyfool01]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

legalise it, regulate it, educate people about it....and tax it.

totally agree ... and ive never done "illegal " drugs 

[lost]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

legalise it, regulate it, educate people about it....and tax it.

The last big thing I can remember going down that road was prostitution in Germany being legalised in 2002.

An unintended consequence is you ended up with these huge mega brothels with lots of money and so they also had big advertising budgets. Like any business they wanted to attract new customers and so one of than ran a huge campaign presenting it as something normal all men did i.e. you've had a hard week at work, on a Friday you don't go down the bar with friends to watch sports you all go down the brothel and bang hookers. As far as I can see the minute something is legal (rightly or wrongly) more people are going to try it

[stuie]

7 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Fix the issues that lead to drug abuse is the only thing people will agree on I would imagine?

Some people just want to have a nice time. 

They don't deserve criminal records.

 

[stuie]

12 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

legalise it, regulate it, educate people about it....and tax it.

Out of reactions, sadly.  I used them all on Barry.

Couldn't agree more.

[stuie]

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

Go see a hooker instead 😜 

That's been legal for ages here 😜 

Great answer. 

I've already said that I don't use drugs and I'm defo not into hookers 🙂 

You'll never convince me that giving a kid a criminal record for having a spliff or a balloon, thereby f**king up their future life is an appropriate course of action when his mate can drink 2 bottles of vodka and get their stomach pumped in A&E and no more is said about it. 

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

Great answer. 

I've already said that I don't use drugs and I'm defo not into hookers 🙂 

You'll never convince me that giving a kid a criminal record for having a spliff or a balloon, thereby f**king up their future life is an appropriate course of action when his mate can drink 2 bottles of vodka and get their stomach pumped in A&E and no more is said about it. 

don't really think this happens anymore does it? If the police catch you with a joint they'll just take it off you i think

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

it's just dumb criminalising it...sell soft drugs with health warnings etc...treat harder drugs like a medical issue, not a criminal issue.

If I could easily go out and get some decent drugs without having to do the whole dodgy dealer thing I would, my liver needs a break from all the booze.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting mass free for all, I'm saying that drugs that are less harmful than alcohol should have regulated sales with warnings.

[kaosmark2]

27 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

legalise it, regulate it, educate people about it....and tax it.

And the tax gains from taxing it will more than cover the costs of doing the rest of it.

[stuie]

5 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

don't really think this happens anymore does it? If the police catch you with a joint they'll just take it off you i think

it depends if you've had previous warnings before, where you are smoking it and the amount you've got in your possession. 

[kaosmark2]

6 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

don't really think this happens anymore does it? If the police catch you with a joint they'll just take it off you i think

Depends what race you are.

[Nobody Interesting]

48 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Well clearly it does because the vast majority won't touch the stuff and a large part of that is driven by the fact its illegal.   Even before it was illegal people the vast majority of people would of identified it as a bad thing because of all the other bans and ignored it.

Have  a read of your own words.

The vast majority will not do it because it is illegal

The vast majority did not do it before it was illegal

So the law has made no real difference.

I am not writing anything now, I am just quoting your words (this and my last reply) that really do show laws make no real difference and indeed that you agree wiht that. Sit back, read what you have written on the matter and see what you think about your own views.

[stuie]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Who takes ownership when the first person dies ?

Who's taking ownership of these?

2. Alcohol-specific deaths in the UK. There were 9,641 deaths related to alcohol-specific causes registered in the UK in 2021, equivalent to 14.8 deaths per 100,000 people. That was 667 more deaths (a 7.4% increase) than in 2020, when there were 8,974 deaths, equivalent to 14.0 deaths per 100,000 people.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/alcoholspecificdeathsintheuk/2021registrations#:~:text=2.,14.0 deaths per 100%2C000 people.

[Nobody Interesting]

46 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I thought you had grown up...  clearly not, still one of the boys..

So thats four of you who just couldn't just stick to debating 😛 

For someone who seems to think they are grown up that is a very childish comment.

Would you like me to go back over the last 48 hours and quote every post where you have personally attacked people - cos there are lots of them.

You even critisise people for ignoring....... when that really is what you should have done with the very brief thread you have chosen to reply to.

[Nobody Interesting]

32 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

legalise it, regulate it, educate people about it....and tax it.

This is probably the best way forward especially as it is shown in numerous countries to make a real difference.

[lost]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Who's taking ownership of these?

2. Alcohol-specific deaths in the UK. There were 9,641 deaths related to alcohol-specific causes registered in the UK in 2021, equivalent to 14.8 deaths per 100,000 people. That was 667 more deaths (a 7.4% increase) than in 2020, when there were 8,974 deaths, equivalent to 14.0 deaths per 100,000 people.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/alcoholspecificdeathsintheuk/2021registrations#:~:text=2.,14.0 deaths per 100%2C000 people.

Canada has just cut safe alcohol consumption to 2 drinks a week and its rumoured the US is going to follow. I can easily see alcohol being viewed like cigarettes are now in a decade.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

You ignored the key bit though 😆 

On purpose I would imagine...

People are hard wired now to drug abuse being a bad thing due to it being criminalised 

I did not ignore any bit, I replied to one paragraph where you contradicted yourself.

You managed to ignore my entire post.

If people are hard wired to avoid illegal drugs how come the same numbers avoided them before they were illegal?

Read your own words, you state one thing then state a different thing. You also do that in replies to others.

What actually is your opinion on the matter - I really have no idea from your numerous contradictory replies on this thread.

[kaosmark2]

34 minutes ago, lost said:

I actually agree with both sides here. Something being illegal definitely dissuades quite alot of people from starting to do it but equally criminalising the people doing it seems a bad solution too. Aside from it affecting their lives anything organised crime can get involved it affects other people in their community too.

I'm not sure what the answer is 🤷‍♂️

I'd say that the main rise that comes from when something is legal comes from being people more confident in the source and the purity. I'm certainly more afraid of putting a random white powder in my body hoping it's what I was after, than I would be about the possession criminal charge.

[Nobody Interesting]

3 minutes ago, lost said:

Canada has just cut safe alcohol consumption to 2 drinks a week and its rumoured the US is going to follow. I can easily see alcohol being viewed like cigarettes are now in a decade.

I am sure it will be - and if we all move to cashless payments, so we all end up using mobile phones to pay, then government can easily track purcha#ses and know when we have reached our limits.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I am sure it will be - and if we all move to cashless payments, so we all end up using mobile phones to pay, then government can easily track purcha#ses and know when we have reached our limits.

and when we go over that limit they will flick a switch and the alcohol repellent drug we all have installed will be released.

[Nobody Interesting]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

Nope, you are missing the point.  Again on purpose because I know your not stupid.

Laughing gas is being viewed through the eyes of a public who have been subjected to a history of drugs being labeled bad.

Your point is pointless.. 

I asked you  a question about your view, please reply to it as I really have no idea what your view is.

I repeat, I did not ignore anything and the only things I do on here on purpose is to try and discuss........ discussion is not to simply state the other sides view is pointless. That is something different all together, as I am sure you are fully aware.

[steviewevie]

more they limit alcohol, more people will find something else.

Edited September 6, 2023 by steviewevie

[Nobody Interesting]

Just now, steviewevie said:

and when we go over that limit they will flick a switch and the alcohol repellent drug we all have installed will be released.

or our mobile payment device refuses to make payment and we cannot get another alcoholic drink.

[Nobody Interesting]

21 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

don't really think this happens anymore does it? If the police catch you with a joint they'll just take it off you i think

Depends on the officer, their knowledge of you and your family and previous incidents.

There are people where we lived  a while ago with police cautions (that stay on record 6 years or longer on full disclosure) simply for being caught smoking weed  - primarily cos of their family links.

[squirrelarmy]

7 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I am sure it will be - and if we all move to cashless payments, so we all end up using mobile phones to pay, then government can easily track purcha#ses and know when we have reached our limits.

They would need itemised receipts. How would they know if I had an alcohol problem or an Aldi middle aisle problem?

[Nobody Interesting]

Just now, squirrelarmy said:

They would need itemised receipts. How would they know if I had an alcohol problem or an Aldi middle aisle problem?

They would find a way. Governments are quite keen to move away from cash use and more and more are pushing mobile payment as a good way forward - they will have reasons for this and those reasons will all too often be to control more.