oh don't get me started on that, this whole nanny state approach with selling cigarettes behind screen doors, plain packaging, selling packs of 20 because it will cost you more if you want to smoke any amount.
It really isn't a deterrent if people want to smoke,
don't get me wrong....this woman wasn't a victim. She is reaping what she sowed from a lifestyle she chose and knew the risks of.....so these warnings are just an utter waste of time.
It's not a deterrent if people really want to smoke, no, but smoking rates have gone down since these things were introduced (he says, having not checked the stats, but I'm pretty sure that's right).
Smoking is a bit of a weird anomaly in the sense that were it invented now it would probably be made illegal.
Tobacco was discovered not invented but i get what you're saying, but again i think outlawing substances (alcohol, drugs) has only ever led to vast money being spent on battling the illegal trafficking of substances.
Is the only reason you don't do Heroin is because it's illegal?.....No you wouldn't i suspect inject it into your veins even if he was something you could buy from a supermarket.
People go on about the binge drinking mentality in this country, and it is a mentality. So many other countries where alcohol is as freely available as it is in the UK don't have this mentality. And actually a form of de-regulation has in this instance been more successful in tackling it, by allowing bars to stay open longer people aren't inclined to drink more in a shorter period.
Lot of conversations on here about the practicalities of libertarianism in practice, and I think in theory anyway most of us are libertarian about certain things. And i don't see the point of trying to govern what people put into their bodies......the amount of money that goes into enforcing it and the only people that benefit are the dealers and suppliers who make loads of money by taking the risk.
The war on drugs has failed, and it will always fail.
Last edited by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie; 31-10-2016 at 12:36 PM.
You should vape. People who vape look really cool.
NOTE: The location of this post has been moved and the thread title (which was previously Wenger is Leaving) has been manipulated by a notorious pro-Wenger moderator. What was previously a message that contained no profanity and made a comment on a real life event has now been manipulated by a deliberately provocative title. An old and crude propaganda and censorship technique.
I agree but I'm not sure that means they should abandon it and let people go nuts and do what they like (shall we play 'let's guess what NQ thinks about this?'Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie
)
No they don't, and i own a vape pipe....just can't get on with it
As i've said, this is one of those instances where i actually agree with him. It's not a question of letting people go nuts, it's a question of realising that we have no power to stop people doing drugs if they really want to do it. It's not going to create a free for all, because people as i say aren't suddenly going to start taking drugs because they are no longer illegal.I agree but I'm not sure that means they should abandon it and let people go nuts and do what they like (shall we play 'let's guess what NQ thinks about this?'
You are in fact going to get less drug dealers and less drug related crime because people find it harder to make a profit off a legal available substance.
Basically it's the same as previous laws about sexuality, the government is providing moral commentary on your personal/private choices, and unless those choices have a deliberate adverse effect on others it has no business to intervene or enforce.
Last edited by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie; 31-10-2016 at 01:09 PM.
I'm not sure that "people are going to do it anyway" is an argument, you could apply that to anything.
It's not going to create a free for all I agree, and it would solve a lot of problems with drug cartels etc, but it reckon it would significantly increase usage and there would be consequences to that, it's not a crime where only the user suffers although I guess some of that is because of the extortionate price and that problem would potentially be solved by legalisation.
I don't think anyone would get elected on a ticket of legalisation across the board which makes me think most people don't think there should be blanket legalisation.
That's often the problem, people run on platforms of what they think will sell to the electorate rather than what they think are good ideas. In that respect i do understand why Jeremy Corbyn appeals to people, i just think a lot of his ideas are just awful (not all some of them do have merit and a more competent politician could make the sell where he couldn't). A good politician can sell good ideas to an otherwise skeptical public.
I don't see the evidence to suggest that it would increase usage, like I say can you really think of anyone who thinks "i'd love to inject Heroin into my veins but don't want to get into trouble?". Crime occurs with harder drugs because people are committing crime in order to afford the price of the drugs because availability is at a premium.
In Afghanistan an opium field that was controlled by the Taleban was torched.....why?. I'll tell you why, because you have a ready supply of opiate substances to harvest and provide hospitals with morphine and other pain killers....but that might undercut the drugs companies and that couldn't be allowed.
The worst thing that could ever happen to murderous Drug Barons is that their product be made legal, it would drive them out of business.
Interesting...
https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...ing#.y63N0Pqn4
Reply With Quote
