sharkman Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Ah safety...yes, lets allow the state to make the world safe for everybody.By the way did you happen to notice another 50000 Canadians died from tobacco and booze last year? Shhhhh....maybe no one will notice next year either. And this is the underbelly of illegal drugs that no one wants to talk about. All of the related deaths , diseases and ruined lives/families that spread throughout our population every year. When you see what damage the legal drugs do, it's no wonder we've opted not to decriminalize them. Just say no. Quote
eyeball Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 And this is the underbelly of illegal drugs that no one wants to talk about. All of the related deaths , diseases and ruined lives/families that spread throughout our population every year. When you see what damage the legal drugs do, it's no wonder we've opted not to decriminalize them. Just say no. No, the underbelly no one on your side wants to talk about is that our substance use laws are based on primitive attitudes, not science or medical reasons. "The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary," said Nutt, referring to the United Kingdom's practice of assigning drugs to three distinct divisions, ostensibly based on the drugs' potential for harm. "The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary," write Nutt and his colleagues in The Lancet.Source Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Oleg Bach Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 No, the underbelly no one on your side wants to talk about is that our substance use laws are based on primitive attitudes, not science or medical reasons. Don't believe our substance use laws are based on primitive attitudes..There are no more puritanical law makers...they are long dead - our laws are based on a sense of human loathing and contempt for people..There are people in power who are simply pricks..who might say they don't want the population impaired - but there is no evidence of a will to heal the people...Look at the liberal drug strategy (harm reduction) - that's like putting the dagger in a centimeter at a time instead of plunging it into the heart...the end results is death - with harm reduction the addict stays alive a lot longer and continues to employ those that work in that industry - social workers - doctors - politicals - and other parasistes who blanket themselves under the guise of benevolent social caring. Quote
sharkman Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 And this is the underbelly of illegal drugs that no one wants to talk about. All of the related deaths , diseases and ruined lives/families that spread throughout our population every year. When you see what damage the legal drugs do, it's no wonder we've opted not to decriminalize them. Just say no. And faced with these facts, the typical drug user passes the buck on his dangerous lifestyle and blames the government and the system with similar sentiments such as these: No, the underbelly no one on your side wants to talk about is that our substance use laws are based on primitive attitudes, not science or medical reasons. So if we legalize drugs and update our attitudes, the violence and deaths will disappear? Say, that sounds really neat. Maybe we could legalize all of the sex trade and sex crimes would disappear too. Don't get me started, I'm looking at murder with these new legalize colored glasses. Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 And faced with these facts, the typical drug user passes the buck on his dangerous lifestyle and blames the government and the system with similar sentiments such as these:So if we legalize drugs and update our attitudes, the violence and deaths will disappear? Say, that sounds really neat. Maybe we could legalize all of the sex trade and sex crimes would disappear too. Don't get me started, I'm looking at murder with these new legalize colored glasses. Legalizing the sex trade probably WOULD cause a huge drop in rape/sexual assaults. Everyone, even the socially awkward, the fat and the ugly, could all get some sexual gratification once in a while instead of going crazy from lack of sex. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 1, 2009 Report Posted March 1, 2009 Worry about what legal chemical is raging though the brain of the judge or defence lawyer about to sell you out and jail you for a joint - that's what is truely scarey - I say mandatory drug testing for everyone. Quote
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 So if we legalize drugs and update our attitudes, the violence and deaths will disappear? Say, that sounds really neat. Maybe we could legalize all of the sex trade and sex crimes would disappear too. Don't get me started, I'm looking at murder with these new legalize colored glasses. Hey I'm all for consistency, I'd be just as happy if we spent as much effort criminalizing other dangerous lifestyle vices like smoking and boozing, wouldn't you? In case you hadn't noticed the state is looking at all sorts of things through their new prohibit colored glasses like fat and sedentariness even spanking. Perhaps you've got your glasses on backwards. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Have you read what I've posted about what the community watch group I mentioned? I am not making this up. These are staunch Harper Conservatives, close to your the end of the political spectrum as I recall. These people are invoking the name of Stalin in their op-ed pieces on how to wage a local war on drugs, they're asking people to monitor their neighbours and snitch on one another. They're being advised by the RCMP that the Charter has tied their hands and is stopping anyone from doing anything about the fear that consumes them. Nope, missed it. Perhaps you could post the link again. You have no idea what my end of the political spectrum is, I don't even know myself. I try to deal with issues as I see them at the time, not according to any dogma. I don't really care what label the ruling party of this country wears as long as I feel it acts in my interest. So you have some wingnuts who invoke Stalin who happen to vote Conservative because their particular concerns about public safety. So what, who else are they going to vote for, the Liberals who are on record as putting rehabilitation over public safety? The NDP? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) Nope, missed it. Perhaps you could post the link again.You have no idea what my end of the political spectrum is, I don't even know myself. I try to deal with issues as I see them at the time, not according to any dogma. I don't really care what label the ruling party of this country wears as long as I feel it acts in my interest. So you have some wingnuts who invoke Stalin who happen to vote Conservative because their particular concerns about public safety. So what, who else are they going to vote for, the Liberals who are on record as putting rehabilitation over public safety? The NDP? I've mentioned them in various threads covering this issue. Who do you vote for if you don't mind me asking? I don't see the NDP or Liberals doing anything but sitting on the fence as usual which actually makes them the worst of the bunch in my opinion. Nothing enables authoritarianism faster than just sitting there and letting it get a foothold. Edited March 2, 2009 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 I've mentioned them in various threads covering this issue. Who do you vote for if you don't mind me asking?I don't see the NDP or Liberals doing anything but sitting on the fence as usual which actually makes them the worst of the bunch in my opinion. Nothing enables authoritarianism faster than just sitting there and letting it get a foothold. Nothing enables authoritarianism more than irresponsibility and laxity which creates a situation only authoritarianism can fix. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Nothing enables authoritarianism more than irresponsibility and laxity which creates a situation only authoritarianism can fix. So you believe authoritarianism is a justifiable response to substance use or just gangs? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 So you believe authoritarianism is a justifiable response to substance use or just gangs? It is certainly justifiable when it comes to crime resulting from substance abuse. I'm sure that you and I have different ideas on what constitutes authoritarianism but if you look at history, people like Hitler and Mussolini are generally able to replace more democratic governments when people have lost confidence in their existing system to protect them. If you are not willing to live under some authority, you will eventually wind up living under a lot. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 It is certainly justifiable when it comes to crime resulting from substance abuse. I'm sure that you and I have different ideas on what constitutes authoritarianism but if you look at history, people like Hitler and Mussolini are generally able to replace more democratic governments when people have lost confidence in their existing system to protect them. If you are not willing to live under some authority, you will eventually wind up living under a lot. You and I have different ideas on what constitutes equality. So does the state. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 You and I have different ideas on what constitutes equality. So does the state. As the state and I don't consider marijuana users members of a race, religion, sex or sexual orientation, I suppose you are right. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 As the state and I don't consider marijuana users members of a race, religion, sex or sexual orientation, I suppose you are right. The liberty interest of casual drinkers to engage in their vice is a benefit that the law gives them despite all the known dangers of alcohol. This is denied casual tokers. The reasons for denying this are not supported by scientific or medical evidence. The reasons for denying certain seats to certain persons could not be supported by scientific or medical evidence either. Casual tokers are being denied the same benefit of the law casual drinkers enjoy. OTOH alcoholics are being denied the same protection that drug addicts enjoy. Drug addicts enjoy the protection of laws that prohibit drugs. If alcohol were prohibited alcoholics could then say they are being treated equally but it isn't and that's just unfair. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Wilber Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 The liberty interest of casual drinkers to engage in their vice is a benefit that the law gives them despite all the known dangers of alcohol. This is denied casual tokers. The reasons for denying this are not supported by scientific or medical evidence. The reasons for denying certain seats to certain persons could not be supported by scientific or medical evidence either.Casual tokers are being denied the same benefit of the law casual drinkers enjoy. OTOH alcoholics are being denied the same protection that drug addicts enjoy. Drug addicts enjoy the protection of laws that prohibit drugs. If alcohol were prohibited alcoholics could then say they are being treated equally but it isn't and that's just unfair. Take it up with a Human Rights Commision then. See if they agree. I'll even have to pay part of your legal fees. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Take it up with a Human Rights Commision then. See if they agree. I'll even have to pay part of your legal fees. I think this would also make a powerful argument for protecting an unborn fetus, from alcohol poisoning in this case. These clearly do not benefit from the same level of protection that drug prohibition affords the general population of fetus' from substance use poisoning. A lot of evidence exists that FAS is a contributing factor to criminal behaviour and that up to half the people incarcerated in Canadians prisons have FAS. These are also costing you a fortune. How would a HRC ruling that the Charter be applied equally and that alcohol also be prohibited so that fetus' legally benefit from equal protection interest you? You're correct to point out these issues can drive society in unpredictable directions. Would this outcome make you worry less about your son? By the way I have loved one's that could be just as deeply affected by all this so I understand what you mean about it being a dangerous world out there and like you, I'm only trying to find a way to make it safer. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
capricorn Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 How would a HRC ruling that the Charter be applied equally and that alcohol also be prohibited so that fetus' legally benefit from equal protection interest you? Protecting the fetus to the extent you suggest would never fly in this country. For that to happen would mean the need for legislation to elevate the standing of a fetus to that of a human. The whole thing is nothing less than a minefield. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
eyeball Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) The whole thing is nothing less than a minefield. It would certainly disturb the shit in ways that people probably never dreamed wouldn't it? If a person who sells alcohol to somebody can be found liable if the drinker harms themselves or someone else what about when a state sells alcohol and somebody else is harmed? Given the legislated sub-human status of the fetus and the state's responsibility to protect society would the state be within its rights to abort any that are found to be poisoned by alcohol? Or would that be it's responsibility? Who would benefit? Edited March 2, 2009 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
capricorn Posted March 3, 2009 Report Posted March 3, 2009 It would certainly disturb the shit in ways that people probably never dreamed wouldn't it? That's why no politician wants to go there. Given the legislated sub-human status of the fetus and the state's responsibility to protect society would the state be within its rights to abort any that are found to be poisoned by alcohol? Or would that be it's responsibility? I don't know of any existing Canadian legislation that contains a reference to the fetus. I would not agree that the state should override the wishes of a pregnant woman nor should the state force a woman to rid herself of a fetus it qualifies as sub-standard. The whole concept of state control in this context is fraught with danger. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
eyeball Posted March 3, 2009 Report Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) That's why no politician wants to go there.I don't know of any existing Canadian legislation that contains a reference to the fetus. I would not agree that the state should override the wishes of a pregnant woman nor should the state force a woman to rid herself of a fetus it qualifies as sub-standard. I wouldn't agree with this either but I still think whoever sells the alcohol that causes FAS should be held accountable, and I think people should enjoy equal benefit and protection before and under the law. The whole concept of state control in this context is fraught with danger. Then we should be far more careful about how we let it excersize its control. There is little doubt that one way or another perpetually waging all these the Warz on fill-in-blank(s)-here will result in mutally assured authoritarianism. There is still the issue of equal benefit and protection under and before the laws that govern casual recreational substance use and substance addiction and I think Wilber's suggestion to take the issue up with the HRC is a good one. Of course the rabid stigma and slanderous characterizations the government encourages people to level at certain substance users is just straight up discrimination that is on par with the racial, sexual and religous epithets the Charter deals with very specifically. "the only good druggie is a dead druggie."? If Argus had said nigger or chug could MLW be held accountable by the HRC? Edited March 3, 2009 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
capricorn Posted March 3, 2009 Report Posted March 3, 2009 I wouldn't agree with this either but I still think whoever sells the alcohol that causes FAS should be held accountable, and I think people should enjoy equal benefit and protection before and under the law. By your logic, chocolate bar manufacturers could be held liable in cases of obesity. Then we should be far more careful about how we let it excersize its control. There is little doubt that one way or another perpetually waging all these the Warz on fill-in-blank(s)-here will result in mutally assured authoritarianism. I don't believe in calling anything a war except in the traditional military sense. "War on drugs", "'war on poverty", "war on gangs" etc. are misnomers and the government is the greatest offender in this mischaracterization. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
eyeball Posted March 3, 2009 Report Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) By your logic, chocolate bar manufacturers could be held liable in cases of obesity. An Alberta doctor is calling for the regulation of the commercial weight-loss industry.Source Once this is accomplished I predict it will only be a few short years before some doctor suggests we regulate the weight-gain industry and just like that we'll be in a war against fat. Like I said we're locked in a cycle of pushing and pulling our risk society towards greater authority with each passing day. Outrage and reaction follow each other like cause and effect. I don't believe in calling anything a war except in the traditional military sense. "War on drugs", "'war on poverty", "war on gangs" etc. are misnomers and the government is the greatest offender in this mischaracterization. We'll, if we don't gain some traction on this slippery slope we're all on our kids will be talking about the "war on government". It seems you don't want to go there anymore than I do. Edited March 3, 2009 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Oleg Bach Posted March 3, 2009 Report Posted March 3, 2009 Once this is accomplished I predict it will only be a few short years before some doctor suggests we regulate the weight-gain industry and just like that we'll be in a war against fat.Like I said we're locked in a cycle of pushing and pulling our risk society towards greater authority with each passing day. Outrage and reaction follow each other like cause and effect. We'll, if we don't gain some traction on this slippery slope we're all on our kids will be talking about the "war on government". It seems you don't want to go there anymore than I do. No war please...the war signifys a game that adult boys of privledge play - how about putting the plasitc action figures away and actuyally do the job. First you have to regognize that some cultures look at kindness as a weakness - go preach the gosspel to a new and ambitious Russian immigrant - as you are talking his brother Vladimir will be going though your glove box and duplicating your credit card. Quote
sharkman Posted March 4, 2009 Report Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) I've been catching up on this thread and the commentary reveals that few care about the escalating gang violence that kills and maims so many innocent. It seems we rather care about bickering for the sake of bickering instead. Like I said many pages ago, nothing will change in Canada and the gangs will grow stronger, killing, extorting and enslaving the weak on addictions. As long as we can get our fix, then screw the greater good. Edited March 4, 2009 by sharkman Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.