|
Most countries have drink-driving laws (and these already cover drug driving), so for most purposes it's already dealt with. And being a stoned surgeon is as bad as being a drunk surgeon, I'd say.
Turn up for work - whatever work - unfit through drink or drugs and you will probably lose your job fairly soon anyway, so it makes no real difference in practice.
I'd go further.
What it will hopefully do is remove the criminal element from the equation to an extent: legalise the lot, tax it, open shops selling guaranteed quality goods. The punters get what they already get - but more consistently - and government gets revenue instead of criminals. win - win, from what I can see.
And this is from someone who used to smoke and snort pretty heavily, but gave up both back in the nineties, so I have nothing to gain from this personally.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Aye, I'm being straightforward in my post: I'd like to see the results. If there is no raise of accidents but the criminal part is neutralized then it's a good thing. I'ts one of the topics I can hardly make my mind on: one one side I'm a straight edge - don't smoke tobacco nor pot I drink rarely and very little - and I have a personal low opinion of any substance that lower my wits, on the other I stand and will always stand for freedom: to love, to drink, to smoke, to self-destruct, to own weapons, to move, to think, to speak...
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
It hasn't done any harm to the Netherlands -- except maybe by increasing the amount of "tourists" who come here to spend all their money on legal Mary-Jane.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: What it will hopefully do is remove the criminal element from the equation to an extent: legalise the lot, tax it, open shops selling guaranteed quality goods. The punters get what they already get - but more consistently - and government gets revenue instead of criminals. win - win, from what I can see.
I remember once (mistakenly) taking a stroll through the Mandela Court area of Reading one night. There was a short guy riding round on a pushbike selling his wares. I doubt that he'll ever pay tax - legalising drugs here will just push up his customer base even more.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Not if it's fully legalised: You get a licence to set up a dope farm, package it, and sell it via whatever the equivalent of Tesco in SA is beside the cancer sticks.
Think of it from a punter POV: Tesco with the weekly shopping, or dodgy man on a bike in a "risky" area?
I'm pretty sure most would go for the "reward card points" and a bag of potatoes! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
The criminal gangs will undercut anything legal, they'll do whatever they need to do to keep their "business" going, they're not going to quit without a fight.
On top of that, the criminal gangs will have a much wider selection of gear, legal and illegal. It won't improve anything but it may well make things worse.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: There was a short guy riding round on a pushbike selling his wares. I doubt that he'll ever pay tax - legalising drugs here will just push up his customer base even more.
On the contrary, it will put the little scrote out of business overnight. If his customers can buy what they want in the local off-licence or chemist - why on earth are they going to buy from him?
Quite simply, you don't see people selling cans of lager on the street corner because there's no black market for something that can be obtained from a more trustworthy source.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: On the contrary, it will put the little scrote out of business overnight. If his customers can buy what they want in the local off-licence or chemist - why on earth are they going to buy from him?
What they want? Only if it's legal - for everything else they'll still need him and he'll probably undercut the local off-license and chemist anyway (his suppliers will make sure of that).
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
On that I beg to differ: there is still a lot of alcohol and tobacco black market, at least in Italy. Tax-free they cost half the retail price.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: On that I beg to differ: there is still a lot of alcohol and tobacco black market, at least in Italy. Tax-free they cost half the retail price.
How did the 24 hour continental-style drinking culture work out here in the UK? Stating the obvious: we're not Italy.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
True - but that market is created by the excessive duties. "Sin taxes" are just a watered down approach to prohibition after all.
The way I see it is that prior to the twentieth century, none of these things were anywhere near so much of a problem as they have since become. All drugs were legal yet people barely took "hard" drugs (it was very much a niche thing with wealthy bohemians). You smoked tobacco if you wanted to and drank alcohol if you wanted to and the world didn't stop turning. None of it became massively problematic until the Temperance movement got its way and inadvertently turned it into one of the biggest problems on the planet.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
A little known thing about the temperance movement is that it was heavily funded by none other than John D. Rockefeller. The reason for this is that Henry Ford was expanding the usage of automobiles by huge margins and, originally, the engine of the Model-T was designed to run on ethanol. By making alcohol illegal, the fast growing car manufacturers had no choice but to turn to gasoline. The temperance movement started with a group of angry Kansas church matrons but was made into law with the heavy hand of the oil industry.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
There's a piece on Quora that suggests that that's an urban myth but I'll read up on it when I get the chance.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
Yea, it's pretty much all historical hearsay by now but it makes sense from a business perspective. Due to expanded use of electricity and electric light, the demand for kerosene, a major revenue stream for Standard Oil at the time, was diminishing year-over-year. He couldn't fight back electrical power but he could use shifting national sentiment to drive usage away from 'dangerous and evil alcohol' to 'safe gasoline'.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
It's not just taking drugs "on the job" that is the issue. It's funny, but all my life you could always tell a regular cannabis user. It's something in the way they talk, the deadness in their eyes, their general intellect. Too much prolonged use permanently affects the brain, purely anecdotal but there was no scientific evidence to back it up, and from the back of that is what most of the non-objection from legalising these drugs comes from. It's only now that long-term studies *are* being concluded and the link between prolonged drug use and mental functioning, mental health and so on is coming through...something anyone with two eyes in their head has known for decades (just because evidence is anecdotal doesn't mean it isn't valid). What's probably going to happen though is what happened with cigarettes etc, the government will legalise it before the long-term effects are known and by then it'll be too late.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe this is too generalized. I've known stoners that act as you describe. I've also known ones that went on to lucrative careers. The determining factor seems to be whether they have control of their enjoyment or not - much like alcohol and literally any other drug on the market (anyone have to deal with the spaz-tastic caffeine addict?).
|
|
|
|
|
I've known smokers that haven't got lung cancer, drinkers that haven't lost jobs due to alcohol abuse. I'd never dream of using those cherry-picked examples to downplay or minimilise the danger of those drugs though.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not downplaying any dangers. I'm also not being alarmist. People will use regardless. The only difference is whether you take self-destructive, generally non-violent people and toss them into jail to learn externally destructive behavior. All funded by the taxpayer.
Consider that being self-destructive with alcohol has no legal consequences. As soon as this becomes externally destructive the law steps in with punishment. This makes sense, does not violate free will, and responsibly uses taxpayer money. It would be ludicrous if police broke into your home, arrested you, and put you in jail for sipping a Scotch at the end of the day. What justifies this scenario for marijuana but not alcohol?
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: It's funny, but all my life you could always tell a regular cannabis user.
True. But you can also easily spot regular users of tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, valium or any other substance regardless of its legal status.
Relative levels of damage are hard to quantify. I seriously worry about what Red Bull and its like are doing to the younger generation - diabetes from the sugar; kidney (and possibly brain) damage from the absurd levels of caffeine; cancer-of-the-everything from the taurine; the risk of being clobbered to death by a passing stranger on account of the bloody awful smell of it, etc., etc.. Would I advocate making it illegal? No. Would I advocate making it very clear to the public how dangerous it is? Most definitely!
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: But you can also easily spot regular users of tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, valium or any other substance regardless of its legal status.
Can you? *shrug*
PeejayAdams wrote: Would I advocate making it illegal? No. Would I advocate making it very clear to the public how dangerous it is? Most definitely!
Alas we still don't really know the exact dangers to the public which is the issue. The thing about many legal drugs is that they are fine in moderation (obviously smoking isn't included here, if it was up to me that would be banned too), but if drugs like cannabis are not fine in moderation then they probably shouldn't be legal. And so far the evidence seems to be showing that to be the case. People should also remember that these drugs have got a lot more powerful in recent years than the odd joint you used to have in your parent's garage in 1970.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Can you? shrug
Yes, very easily!
F-ES Sitecore wrote: obviously smoking isn't included here, if it was up to me that would be banned too
Would that make it go away? I suspect it would have the opposite effect simply because it's worked that way with everything else that's ever been banned.
F-ES Sitecore wrote: if drugs like cannabis are not fine in moderation then they probably shouldn't be legal
If we substitute "alcohol" for "cannabis" in that sentence, does the same apply?
F-ES Sitecore wrote: People should also remember that these drugs have got a lot more powerful in recent years than the odd joint you used to have in your parent's garage in 1970.
That's certainly true when it comes to cannabis. The reason for that being that where there used to be a ready supply of relatively mild Middle Eastern resin, the market is now dominated by domestically farmed "skunk" due to stronger customs controls on things coming abroad - yet another unfortunate, unintended and utterly counter-productive consequence of the failed War on Drugs.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: Yes, very easily!
We'll need to agree to disagree on that then. If that forms any part of your argument I have to say it's a very weak argument.
PeejayAdams wrote: Would that make it go away?
No. However even a ban on smoking in public has reduced the number of people who smoke. Banning it entirely would probably reduce that even more. Not to zero, obviously, rape and murder are banned also but they still happen.
PeejayAdams wrote: If we substitute "alcohol" for "cannabis" in that sentence, does the same apply?
Of course, but alcohol is fine in moderation, something backed up by many studies so at least we are fairly certain where we are with drugs like that.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Banning it entirely would probably reduce that even more.
That would be why so very few people take cocaine these days, then.
My entire argument (which has nothing whatsoever to do with how easy it is spot a caffeine freak, by the way) is that banning anything invariably seems to lead to an increase in its consumption. Banning has been repeatedly tried and failed with various substances, so why do we insist on trying the same thing again and again in the hope of getting different results? We all know the definition of insanity, I hope.
Prohibition benefits organised crime, it does not benefit society as a whole.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: That would be why so very few people take cocaine these days, then.
That has no relevance to anything I said. When you typed your initial reply you probably thought "I can't wait until he says that banning it would stop it and then I can drop this zinger!". Did you actually read my reply before saying that nonsense?
PeejayAdams wrote: banning anything invariably seems to lead to an increase in its consumption
Banning smoking in public lead to a decrease. One that has had knock-on health benefits to such as a decreased in smoking-related diseases. So you're wrong. 100% wrong.
PeejayAdams wrote: Prohibition benefits organised crime, it does not benefit society as a whole.
Prohibition does indeed benefit organised crime but you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. As for it not benefiting society....wow.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, valium
The fact that some poisons are easy to get does not mean we need to make others easily available too. I'd actually focus on reducing the use of the "legal" ones. There is absolutely no good coming from any of them.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
