Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Portugal drug experiment pays off

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:06 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Portugal drug experiment pays off Reply with quote

The possession and use of any kind of drug was decriminalised in Portugal eight years ago, despite concerns drug use would increase. Instead, usage and the number of drug-related deaths have decreased, and the number of people seeking treatment has risen.

BBC article and news report video.

Further proof of how prohibition is a failure!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:14 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

Largely I would agree.

But I would say, UK society differs from that of Portugal (I'm not an expert, only been once and can only claim one Portuguese friend.) What with our binge drinking and everything-to-excess culture; I wonder what the outcome would be for us...

That said, I still believe in freedom of choice, so at the very least everything short of the hard stuff should be decriminalised completely.

Thumbs Up
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

yuri2085
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:28 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

If 'everything short of the hard stuff' was decriminalised then there would still be a massive drugs trade (coke is class A so it must be hard right) and half the benefits of decriminalisation wouldnt be reaped.


For example it not being (as) profitable to bully and murder and run gangs on the street.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:08 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree.

I would imagine there are more people who use cannabis (for example) regularly than use heroin. If the police (as effective as they are) were left to concentrate on the trafficking & supply of hard drugs instead of mucking about with some pot/grass etc;this would be a net benefit.

Generally, regular user's of cannabis don't burglarise their next door neighbour to pay for their supply... (To my knowledge...)

In short, there may still be a drugs trade, but it wouldn't be as big.

When I say hard drugs, I'm not talking about drugs as they are classified by law, but by their impact on society as a whole. I'm not sure I'd class coke as a hard drug, I don't really know, I'd need more info on the social impact it has, (which I think is quite low compared to, say; crack?)

Thumbs Up
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Hetzer
Super Spammer



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:14 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

pa_broon74 wrote:
I disagree.

I would imagine there are more people who use cannabis (for example) regularly than use heroin. If the police (as effective as they are) were left to concentrate on the trafficking & supply of hard drugs instead of mucking about with some pot/grass etc;this would be a net benefit.

Generally, regular user's of cannabis don't burglarise their next door neighbour to pay for their supply... (To my knowledge...)

In short, there may still be a drugs trade, but it wouldn't be as big.

When I say hard drugs, I'm not talking about drugs as they are classified by law, but by their impact on society as a whole. I'm not sure I'd class coke as a hard drug, I don't really know, I'd need more info on the social impact it has, (which I think is quite low compared to, say; crack?)

Thumbs Up


All the illegal drugs combined have a fraction of the negative impact on society that alcohol does. That's a well established statistical fact.

The bottom line is that no human being has any right whatsoever to dictate to another human being what he may or may not possess and put into his own body. Which is why the relevant laws are held in contempt, and deservedly so.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:58 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree on the point about alcohol, there is a double standard there at the minute.

But by decriminalizing harder drugs (those that cause it's abuser to commit acts of crime to fund their habit) it gets rid of the double standard but not the resultant crime.

Basically, we'd be in a situation where a double standard is removed (an intangable in real terms) but crime remains, where in the case of drug abuse, the cause goes unchallenged.

You're idea about people being able to put what ever they wanted into their bodies is fine in theory, but in practice, if they're funding their habit by helping themselves to your belongings while you're out getting milk at Tesco's; you may feel differently (or not.)

(Yes yes, while you'll doubt extol the virtues of serving up your own brand of justice, I think most folks would prefer not to live in a world where Hezter's Laws rule [ya bass!] Wink )

Thumbs Up
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Hetzer
Super Spammer



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:41 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

pa_broon74 wrote:
I agree on the point about alcohol, there is a double standard there at the minute.

But by decriminalizing harder drugs (those that cause it's abuser to commit acts of crime to fund their habit) it gets rid of the double standard but not the resultant crime.

Basically, we'd be in a situation where a double standard is removed (an intangable in real terms) but crime remains, where in the case of drug abuse, the cause goes unchallenged.

You're idea about people being able to put what ever they wanted into their bodies is fine in theory, but in practice, if they're funding their habit by helping themselves to your belongings while you're out getting milk at Tesco's; you may feel differently (or not.)

(Yes yes, while you'll doubt extol the virtues of serving up your own brand of justice, I think most folks would prefer not to live in a world where Hezter's Laws rule [ya bass!] Wink )

Thumbs Up


Crimes are commited for a variety of reasons, drug dependency being just one (and a very small percentage overall). Shall we ban alcohol because a number of people commit acts of gross violence, citing drunkeness as an excuse? "I punched his face in because I'm an alcoholic and perpetually drunk". As in "I stole because I'm a heroin addict"?

Shall we ban Samurai swords because a handful of people used them in attacks? How absurd would that be?

Oh...hang on...

Preventionism is one of the cancers of freedom and liberty and solves absolutely nothing. Heroin is illegal, but addicts still steal. Then they're punished, if and when they're caught. Illegalising heroin didn't prevent the theft though, did it.

It is immoral to ban something for a majority of responsible people on account of the abuse of that something by an irresponsible minority. Punish the crime, not the alledged cause of it (preventionism). And if something does lead to crime, suck it up for the sake of freedom and liberty. It's a price worth paying.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Raffles
World Chat Champion



Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:52 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hetzer wrote:


All the illegal drugs combined have a fraction of the negative impact on society that alcohol does. That's a well established statistical fact.



Is it?

I don't recall any cases of little old ladies being beaten to a pulp or any shootings, stabbings or drive-bys in order to fund someones next small sherry or single malt.
____________________
A good loser will always be a loser.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:00 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

pa_broon74 wrote:
But by decriminalizing harder drugs (those that cause it's abuser to commit acts of crime to fund their habit) it gets rid of the double standard but not the resultant crime.

If decriminalizing harder drugs then people would be treated rather than treated as criminals. In general people on smack don't want to be, they've ended up in the hole and there isn't really any way out.

Treat drug abuse as a social problem rather than a criminal one.
pa_broon74 wrote:
Basically, we'd be in a situation where a double standard is removed (an intangable in real terms) but crime remains, where in the case of drug abuse, the cause goes unchallenged.

The cause would be challenged (like it is in Portugal and the Netherlands) and the cause would be treated. The current system of imprisoning people and other punishments do not work, there is nothing to suggest that approach will ever work. There is evidence to show that decriminalizing drugs and helping addicts does work. Prohibition is one big failure.
pa_broon74 wrote:
You're idea about people being able to put what ever they wanted into their bodies is fine in theory, but in practice, if they're funding their habit by helping themselves to your belongings while you're out getting milk at Tesco's; you may feel differently (or not.)

On the basis that you can't stop people putting what they want into their bodies, it seems stupid to try. Instead offer people help, support and treatment. This would get to the causes of the problem and so would help to fix the problem.

Go a step further... take the drugs out of the hands of criminals. If hard drugs were given to addicts by the health services then suddenly there would be no incentive or reason for dealers to get people addicted. Then people wouldn't be stealing to fund their drugs habit. No new users, no crimes committed by addicted, that would massively improve the effects of drugs on society.

Prohibition is the cause of lots of the problems associated with drugs.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Hetzer
Super Spammer



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:12 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

raffles wrote:
Hetzer wrote:


All the illegal drugs combined have a fraction of the negative impact on society that alcohol does. That's a well established statistical fact.



Is it?

I don't recall any cases of little old ladies being beaten to a pulp or any shootings, stabbings or drive-bys in order to fund someones next small sherry or single malt.


Probably not, but you do get all of those because people are drunk. Ban alcohol = no more drunk people = no more crimes of criminal damage, violence and murder because of drunkeness.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:15 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

To much to to do a point by point rebuttal.

But...

I never said that alcohol should be banned because drugs are, I merely pointed out that removing a double standard won't solve a real world problem. I've made it clear I'm pro-choice.

However, I'm only pro-choice up to a point. When a person's choices begin to adversely affect society then it needs to be addressed.

On treating drug users instead of criminalizing them, I agree (again) up to a point. I hinted in my first post that the police would be free to address the 'trafficking and supply' of hard drugs. To be clear, I wouldn't necessarily advocate punishment for users except in extreme cases where the 'punishment' would part of the help anyway.

On the topic of taking the trade out of the 'gangster's' hand, making heroin etc available on prescription, I'm sceptical about this. I think there would be a positive effect in the short term, but people being people, I think would fall back into old habits.

For example, (I don't know how this works these days admittedly) but there would still need to be legislation and rules in place for prescribing the erst-while illegal substances. At what point do you draw the line with users, and when that line is drawn and we're not going to supply them with any more heroin etc etc that week; where are they going to go?

I suppose the flip side is this; hetzer points out the problems we have with alcohol which it isn't prohibited. If we didn't prohibit the use of hard drugs (I generalise with that term, only the stuff that makes people do daft things) could the same thing happen?

That was a question, I don't know. But given a fair portion of British society likes get tanked up and the subsequent negative social effects it has, whats to say something similar won't happen if we decriminalize the 'hard' drugs?

Before you take that as my firm view, it is not; it's just another question to which I don't really know the answer.

Finally, on Hetzer's preventionism, perhaps you've read to much into what I said. I'm not a supporter of preventionism; far from it. I am a supporter of compromise, if we're to all get a long, that means compromise, we're not going to get to do everything we want to do. I'm talking about extreme things, not smoking a joint or being married to two people at once, or two guys getting hitched. I'm talking about getting stabbed by some oik because he/she wanted your mobile phone because the cash they'd get would buy their next fix, (the one Boot's denied them because they'd had their quota for that week.)

Thumbs Up
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Hetzer
Super Spammer



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:29 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

Punish the crime, not the alledged cause of the crime. If that = more of the crime, so be it, it's a worthwhile price for freedom and liberty.

Our lives are made a misery by the over-abundance of pointless, immoral and often illegal laws. Can't do this, can't have that. F.U.C.K.O.F.F., who made you cunts god?
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:45 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hetzer wrote:
Punish the crime, not the alledged cause of the crime. If that = more of the crime, so be it, it's a worthwhile price for freedom and liberty.

Our lives are made a misery by the over-abundance of pointless, immoral and often illegal laws. Can't do this, can't have that. F.U.C.K.O.F.F., who made you cunts god?



Mmm...

None of that makes sense...

Nope, I checked again and it doesn't.

Thumbs Up
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:35 - 02 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

pa_broon74 wrote:
But I would say, UK society differs from that of Portugal (I'm not an expert, only been once and can only claim one Portuguese friend.) What with our binge drinking and everything-to-excess culture; I wonder what the outcome would be for us...


Is that "culture" issue with binge drinking a cause or an effect of our controlling legislation?

pa_broon74 wrote:
You're idea about people being able to put what ever they wanted into their bodies is fine in theory, but in practice, if they're funding their habit by helping themselves to your belongings while you're out getting milk at Tesco's; you may feel differently (or not.)


Without the banning the prices would be a fraction of their current level.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Skudd
Super Spammer



Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 05:12 - 03 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

If all drug use was legal, why would someone need to be helped or cured from the use of drugs?
____________________
Famous last words of Humpty Dumpty. " Stop pushing me "
Petty Anarchists look at "1984".............. The Visionary looks at "Animal Farm".
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Fawbish
World Chat Champion



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 07:55 - 03 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

Same way some people would seek help to have a better diet, or do more exercise.



Drugs may be great for the head, but theres no arguement that most are damaging to your body (in some small way at least, depending on method of use, obviously)

It would be the same as eating lots of junk food.
____________________
"Oh....it looks like Average Joe's is forfeiting the match!" - "Yeah, its a risky strategy but lets see if it pays off for 'em Cotton."
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

cestrian
World Chat Champion



Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:42 - 03 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

raffles wrote:
Hetzer wrote:


All the illegal drugs combined have a fraction of the negative impact on society that alcohol does. That's a well established statistical fact.



Is it?

I don't recall any cases of little old ladies being beaten to a pulp or any shootings, stabbings or drive-bys in order to fund someones next small sherry or single malt.


Battered wives, abused children, victims of RTA's caused by drunkenness yada yada yada may disagree with you.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Raffles
World Chat Champion



Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:20 - 03 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

cestrian wrote:


Battered wives, abused children, victims of RTA's caused by drunkenness yada yada yada may disagree with you.


They may well do so but I don't think the parents of these victims would:-

https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/hemsworth-news/39beaten-and-left-to-die39.828900.jp

https://www.fassit.co.uk/toni_ann_byfield.htm

https://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/threecrosses/Death-crash-father-took-drugs-cocktail/article-563373-detail/article.html
____________________
A good loser will always be a loser.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

defblade
World Chat Champion



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:27 - 03 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hetzer wrote:

Probably not, but you do get all of those because people are drunk. Ban alcohol = no more drunk people = no more crimes of criminal damage, violence and murder because of drunkeness.


Yep, that worked well for America. Mafia gained huge power and influence; but did invent hot rods and muscle cars indirectly so not all bad.

Legalise most drugs - they're cheap - and remove most of the side effects on society. You'll still have to manage the problems of the individual user, but at least they will be able to admit their addiction without fear of being criminalised.


OR - ban ciggarettes as well. They're much nastier than a clean supply of most illegal drugs, and effect other people just by being nearby a smoker, but bring in sooooo much tax money.... watch many normal people get involved in organised crime.....
____________________
Honda Varadero 125cc => Suzuki Bandit 650 33bhp => 77bhp =>
BMW K1200R Sport 163bhp Twisted Evil => Aprilia Shiver GT 750 95bhp
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

yuri2085
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:38 - 03 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

raffles wrote:
Hetzer wrote:


All the illegal drugs combined have a fraction of the negative impact on society that alcohol does. That's a well established statistical fact.



Is it?

I don't recall any cases of little old ladies being beaten to a pulp or any shootings, stabbings or drive-bys in order to fund someones next small sherry or single malt.


I didnt bother reading the whole thread because i need a dump but something important that you missed is shootings stabbings and drivebyes arent for money to buy drugs.

These things ocurr because drugs are illegal; drug dealers being on the wrong side of the law tend to be violent and agressive in the way they do business, and will do anything to keep people off their turfs.
Shop owners dont do that.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:04 - 06 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kickstart wrote:
pa_broon74 wrote:
But I would say, UK society differs from that of Portugal (I'm not an expert, only been once and can only claim one Portuguese friend.) What with our binge drinking and everything-to-excess culture; I wonder what the outcome would be for us...


Is that "culture" issue with binge drinking a cause or an effect of our controlling legislation?

pa_broon74 wrote:
You're idea about people being able to put what ever they wanted into their bodies is fine in theory, but in practice, if they're funding their habit by helping themselves to your belongings while you're out getting milk at Tesco's; you may feel differently (or not.)


Without the banning the prices would be a fraction of their current level.

All the best

Keith


On the first point, its moot; we already have that culture in place. As it happens, I agree; I think it is a side effect of the UK Government's fixation with banning stuff and regulating everything else. (More so with the 'legal' drugs available.)

On the second point, I would question that. In terms of the drugs being prescribed, controls will have to be put in place, part of that would be limiting the dosage users where allowed.

I would say the opposite would happen, a user has had their prescribed amount for the week/day/what-ever, so will pay ever more to 'top up' to their required level.

So the NHS has kept them supplied and now, because the state has said they've had enough, they'd be even more desperate so would be prepared to pay even more to top up?

This taken in partnership with the fact the drug would be legal, supply would go right down in the UK (as it wouldn't be profitable to smuggle in) but there would be a very expensive niche market created where demand is strong but supply is weak?

Would addicts eagerly volunteer to be supplied by the NHS/state anyway?

All just supposition mind... Not even my view, just typing out loud.

Thumbs Up
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:10 - 06 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

pa_broon74 wrote:
On the first point, its moot; we already have that culture in place. As it happens, I agree; I think it is a side effect of the UK Government's fixation with banning stuff and regulating everything else. (More so with the 'legal' drugs available.)


Well, we can either keep banning things and making the situation worse, or we can reverse some of these bans, put up with the short term problems (not so much caused by the reverse, but caused by the original change that is being reversed) and improve things.

Personally I would support the reduction in controls aiming for a long term improvement rather for ever increasing controls to try and counteract the problems caused by the previous increases in controls.

pa_broon74 wrote:
On the second point, I would question that. In terms of the drugs being prescribed, controls will have to be put in place, part of that would be limiting the dosage users where allowed.


Why bother with the prescription?

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:30 - 06 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

kickstart wrote:
Personally I would support the reduction in controls aiming for a long term improvement rather for ever increasing controls to try and counteract the problems caused by the previous increases in controls.


I'd agree, but only up to a point. Some things are regulated for good reason. (For the good of the majority and I suppose; to save some people from themselves?)

kickstart wrote:
Why bother with the prescription?


One assumes the idea would be to eventually wean addicts of the drug, convincing the public that legalizing heroin (for example) but not regulating it or providing support for users is going to be a hard sell.

I thought the idea would be to take it out of the hands of criminals, (current views on government not-with-standing.)

Thumbs Up
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:36 - 06 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

pa_broon74 wrote:
I'd agree, but only up to a point. Some things are regulated for good reason. (For the good of the majority and I suppose; to save some people from themselves?)


Good of the majority maybe (but a dangerous idea on its own), but not to save people from themselves (at least not with adults).

pa_broon74 wrote:
One assumes the idea would be to eventually wean addicts of the drug, convincing the public that legalizing heroin (for example) but not regulating it or providing support for users is going to be a hard sell.


Hard sell maybe, but the alternative seems to be controlling everything.

pa_broon74 wrote:
I thought the idea would be to take it out of the hands of criminals, (current views on government not-with-standing.)


So why then control it to push the users back to the criminal suppliers by reducing supply?

With drugs such as marijuana it appears that the biggest danger is from keeping it illegal and pushing users towards criminals for their supplies.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:08 - 06 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote

kickstart wrote:
Good of the majority maybe (but a dangerous idea on its own), but not to save people from themselves (at least not with adults).


What about social responsibility? Or does that not count for anything any more. Is it no longer fashionable to say to a person who is in difficulty; "You need help" for fear of offending someone elses idea of self-determination; even when that self-determination is bought at the cost of other individual's right to safety and security etc etc etc?

kickstart wrote:
Hard sell maybe, but the alternative seems to be controlling everything.


I speak only of the hard drugs, the ones that are highly addicting, that have a high social impact and are obviously not good for the user or the society in which he or she lives.

I don't for example think pot/grass/E and some of the other drugs should be illegal. For the record, I don't think there should be a minimum age for the consumption of alcohol either.

I do think there is room for compromise with some things though.

kickstart wrote:
So why then control it to push the users back to the criminal suppliers by reducing supply?

With drugs such as marijuana it appears that the biggest danger is from keeping it illegal and pushing users towards criminals for their supplies.


It would need to be controlled or all you'd be doing is replacing one drug dealer with another cheaper drug dealer, thus exacerbating the problem. OK, there'd be a reduction in crime in terms of drug trade, (arguably not in user crime.) But the basic problem would still exist and might even increase, you know what folks are like...

In terms of marijuana, legalise it. But stick a minimum age on it (there's my compromise.) You might say; "why a minimum age for blow but not alcohol?"

It's a fine point, a young person approaching a dealer for some pot might be offered harder drugs during the 'sales' process. Not sure you'd get too many folks telling a teen who'd just asked them to buy a bottle cider offering to buy a bottle of vodka for them instead.

If you see what I mean.

Thumbs Up
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 16 years, 267 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.19 Sec - Server Load: 0.37 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 152.84 Kb