Burglars

[paradidle]

Yes. People always want to get high, or take mood altering substances; it's a fact of life. It's obvious to anyone who's studied the effects of various drugs that alcohol is amongst the most harmful drugs out there, and yet it's entirely legal for anyone aged 18 or over to take as much as they like. In fact alcohol profoundly affects my life- I can't remember the last day that I didn't drink enough to have an effect on my overall demeanour. I'm not exactly worried, since it hasn't yet caused me to endanger my job or my marriage, but I'm just as much of a drug user as many people who use marijuana or even heroin on a regular basis.

I don't want to get high, I have never wanted to take mind altering substances, Im happy the way Iam. I dont need them. It's a fact that people take drugs but not the way you put it - "always want to get high". Show my "linkage" to where you obtained this info from...

Yes- the reason being that successive governments have been arrogant enough to think that their directives can overcome basic human nature. If people want to take drugs they will; if they don't then they won't. It's not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that cannabis will be legalised in my lifetime. If it is, I still won't take it, because I've discovered that for me, the downsides outweigh the benefits.

If Heroin was legalised tomorrow, I'd be in no hurry to go out and try it.

If you think that the only reason that drugs are banned is because the government is trying to "overcome basic human nature" you need a reality check and some pills for your paranoia. If you honestly can't see why the legalisation of drugs is wrong, there would be no point explaining myself.

No, I can understand words fine. It seems in fact that you can't use them effectively so you're reduced to parroting a government campaign. As nichomach has already said, the woman in the picture was a user of crystal meth, a form of nastily refined amphetamine (just as crack is a refined form of cocaine). Amphetamines in and of themselves are not in any way harmful if used correctly, in fact amphetamine derivatives are prescribed to controll Attention Defecit and Hyperactivity Disorder.

They are presribed drugs, hence they are given certain dosages because too much is detrimental to your health no matter how refined it is. The point is she obviously got addicted to the stuff and it ruined her life. You are telling me the fact that the drug she used was "refined amphetamine" which was not cocaine, makes it all better? And I really didnt want a science & chemistry lesson.

Right, so the cause of 75% of burglaries is irrelevant to a discussion of burglary. Sorry, yeah, I guess I'm not as clever as I thought I was

Lets see, the topic of discussion is how to protect urself from burglary, using reasonable force and the laws that go with it. Thats what the topic started off with. The point I was making, is that when an intruder steps foot in my house, I dont give a rats A*s about why they are intruding, where they have come from, what drugs they are taking and they pay for them. I dont care that there is a 75% chance that the guy Im hitting over the head with a crow bar is a crack fiend. You can talk all you want about why burglarys are commited, but bottom line, that person knows right from wrong. They are stepping outside of the law.

Before the person became a drug addict, they knew the risks invloved, it ruins life, probably causes extreme debt (hence resort to crime), adds to petty crime etc...

If u legalised these drugs, this country would fall on its a*se. It doesnt take a r*tard to figure out why probably 90% of all countries in the world have such drugs banned.

Where?

Your words:
"why not point the finger where the blame for all drug related burglary really lies- with the government. Since IIRC 75% of burglaries are drug related (I.E. they are carried out by drug users with habits to pay for), pretty much 75% of them could be prevented if you simply legalised all drugs."

And that will prove what exactly?

Oh nothing much...just thought I would bring the stereotyping subject, as you have still not provided any resources as to where u got this info from regards the 75% bit. You could be right there tho, Im not disagreeing with you.

I know you WROTE THAT IN YOUR POST, I'm saying that they should just give up. The government has failed to control drug smuggling for 30 years. Obviously it's because they just haven't been trying hard enough isn't it?

Define "Control". Show me links as to where you prove me wrong.

Yeah, that image was created to convey a serious anti-drugs message

Rich :¬)

It's called irony.

You can use all the smilies you want to try and belittle me, they dont scare me. I have not once took the p*ss, made you feel small or offended you once during this debate, yet you were the 1st to do it.

Keep it up!

[Rave]

I don't want to get high, I have never wanted to take mind altering substances, Im happy the way Iam. I dont need them. It's a fact that people take drugs but not the way you put it - "always want to get high". Show my "linkage" to where you obtained this info from...

Well, I stated it a bit baldly, fair enough not every single person wants to take mood altering substances. I'd say that the majotiry of adults in this country drink alcohol, and hence do take a mood altering substance. If you don't, then good luck to you.

If you think that the only reason that drugs are banned is because the government is trying to "overcome basic human nature" you need a reality check and some pills for your paranoia. If you honestly can't see why the legalisation of drugs is wrong, there would be no point explaining myself.

Yeah, well that's a really great argument isn't it? 'If you can't see why you are wrong, then there's no point me explaining myself'. Yeh well genius, if it's so obvious why drugs are wrong, then it won't take long to explain why will it? Indulge me.

They are presribed drugs, hence they are given certain dosages because too much is detrimental to your health no matter how refined it is. The point is she obviously got addicted to the stuff and it ruined her life. You are telling me the fact that the drug she used was "refined amphetamine" which was not cocaine, makes it all better? And I really didnt want a science & chemistry lesson.

Well if you're not interested in learning, why get involved in the debate? The point is that if you take these drugs in a controlled, prescribed fashion, they are safe. If you take them in an uncontrolled fashion, they are not- as the woman in your pictures discovered to her cost.

Lets see, the topic of discussion is how to protect urself from burglary, using reasonable force and the laws that go with it. Thats what the topic started off with. The point I was making, is that when an intruder steps foot in my house, I dont give a rats A*s about why they are intruding, where they have come from, what drugs they are taking and they pay for them. I dont care that there is a 75% chance that the guy Im hitting over the head with a crow bar is a crack fiend.

And neither does the law.

You can talk all you want about why burglarys are commited, but bottom line, that person knows right from wrong. They are stepping outside of the law.

Actually, if your burglar is on crack, as I understand it, there's a good chance they don't know right from wrong, since it's a drug that's famous for screwing with people's minds. I've never said that you shouldn't hit them over the head as a result though.

Before the person became a drug addict, they knew the risks invloved,

Humans are born with an intrinsic knowledge of drugs and the risks involved are they?

If u legalised these drugs, this country would fall on its a*se. It doesnt take a r*tard to figure out why probably 90% of all countries in the world have such drugs banned.

WELL IF IT'S SO OBVIOUS THEN, EXPLAIN TO ME IN ONE PARAGRAPH WHY EXACTLY DRUGS ARE BAD MMMMKAY. I'M OBVIOUSLY A RETARD AND I NEED IT EXPLAINED IN WORDS OF ONE SYLLABLE. THANKS.

The next a burglar jumps through my window, i will not get angry with them, bcos its not their fault. i will ring up Tony Blair and ask him to get the burgalr out of my house! Thats what it sounds like your saying, bcos you actually did write it!

Where?

Your words:
"why not point the finger where the blame for all drug related burglary really lies- with the government. Since IIRC 75% of burglaries are drug related (I.E. they are carried out by drug users with habits to pay for), pretty much 75% of them could be prevented if you simply legalised all drugs."

Yeah that follows

Oh nothing much...just thought I would bring the stereotyping subject, as you have still not provided any resources as to where u got this info from regards the 75% bit. You could be right there tho, Im not disagreeing with you.

Well, this reckons 70%, not far out:

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/crime/audit/drug.htm

Define "Control". Show me links as to where you prove me wrong.

Well, it's not easy, because the government would never admit that it's obviously losing the war on drugs, even though I'm sure I've come across statitstics in the past that say that customs manage to intercept only about 10% of drugs entering the country.

During the course of my investigations, I discovered that my comments about crack may have been unfounded. Here's what drugscope has to say on the subject:

Does Crack drive users to commit crime?
Such ideas are another version of the drugs cause crime belief. It has been argued elsewhere that whilst a small but significant proportion of drug users do have problems of dependency (including some 'crack' users) that may require hundreds of pounds per week to finance - some of which is acquired through criminal activities - many of these people will have been involved in crime before using drugs. It is, therefore, not as simple as 'crack' or other drugs causing or driving users to commit crime. The belief that drugs can cause users to do all sorts of questionable things is a common thread in the history of how drugs and users have been represented and is primarily rooted in the exaggerated 'power' that drugs have consistently been believed to hold over users.

Is Crack instantly and inevitably addictive?
It is frequently believed that the use of certain drugs will bring about instant and / or inevitable addiction within users. During the late 80's and early 90's, 'crack' cocaine was regarded in this way by many (heroin has also been portrayed in this manner). Some portrayals in the media at that time reflected the belief that 'one try' was all it would take to bring about addiction. This, however, is simply not true. Research has consistently shown that many of those who use 'crack' do so on an irregular basis - which hardly reflects the archetypal pattern of addicted use. The reality is that it may take months of use before a user reaches a state of dependent use.

Well, fair enough. Having experienced psychological addiction to both cigarettes and alcohol though, I can say that neither is easy to deal with. Having had Obsesive Compulsive Disorder since I was about 5, I can't really complain about anyone else's mental problems.

It's called irony.

You can use all the smilies you want to try and belittle me,

I'll just use facts to belittle you, I think.

I have not once took the p*ss,

I personally call putting words into my mouth taking the p1ss, but no matter, I can deal with it.

Rich :¬)

[kushtibari]

Actually, if your burglar is on crack, as I understand it, there's a good chance they don't know right from wrong, since it's a drug that's famous for screwing with people's minds. I've never said that you shouldn't hit them over the head as a result though.

Rich :¬)

They still know right from wrong, its just that the desire for more crack overcomes any other instinct. The desire becomes so strong that people that would normally lack the 'bottle' to do a burglary will get involved.

Probably the worst drug for removing an individuals realisation of right and wrong is valium. Most addicts will use valium to reduce the cravings for heroin or crack. The major drawback to valium is that they will do almost any crime without realising what they are doing. The second phase of valium use is that in almost every case they will not remember what they have done afterwards.

[Byatt]

I don't want to get high, I have never wanted to take mind altering substances, Im happy the way Iam. I dont need them. It's a fact that people take drugs but not the way you put it - "always want to get high". Show my "linkage" to where you obtained this info from...

What about if someone offered you an experience of complete inner peace and outward benevolence toward the world?

"No thanks, I'm happy in my world of closed minded fear, I'm off back to my room to sit on the internet for hours"

You're missing the point completely here, and that point is that you are not everyone - yes, you may not see the potential enjoyment in drugs, be they hard or otherwise, but the majority of folks do - you're a student, you should have noticed the fact that most of your compadres drink alcohol.

I'm also like a reason why drugs are bad, mmkay - it's interesting that rave is interested in your pov, but you've paid little or no attention to his. I'm sure this isn't because you haven't got a clue.

My experiences have all been entirely positive (bar after effects!) and legal, and haven't changed me into anything other than a more tolerant and open minded person - clearly this is unacceptable and not beneficial to the nation as a whole.

Seriously though, which is better - to be addicted and dependent on a dealer who makes his money from your addiction, or to be addicted and having to get your drugs from a government approved agency, who should be able to notice your habit (or better, advise you on exactly what you're taking, and what it may or may not do) and begin to offer help? It's by no means a perfect solution, but it's far better than the former, in my opinion

The whole notion of making drugs illegal is that it stops people taking them and therefore prevents addiction, the differences in this thread are arising because you think this works, and we're fairly certain it doesn't, be it through personal experience or prior knowledge, or just general (justified) cynicism regarding ANY government policy!

[RVF500]

Rave, hold onto what's left of your hair, I'm about to agree with you again.

Whilst working in Zurich (indulge me for a moment) I was told of a program in which addicts, once enrolled, were given their fix in a controlled environment i.e. a doctors surgery, where they were assured of clean stuff and sterile utensils. The net result of this is that there was no real market in heroin any more. The addicts were getting thier fix of clean drugs on the 'NHS' if you like, so didn't need to pay exhorbitant prices for a bag of baking soda with some heroin in it.

Now, the addict was still an addict. They weren't entitled to turn up any old time and get high but were administered the drugs at a level that kept them from going over the edge. The result was that they cleaned up their acts in most cases (still addicted though) and began to filter back into society, get jobs etc. Not smack old ladies over the head for their pension money outside the post office. Once in the program then the medics/social bods could begin to work on the root cause, the addiction. Once you have someone in a controlled environment and feeling safe then you can approach the demons. No point howling that they shouldn't have become addicted in the first place. That will solve nothing. Remove the market and you remove the reasons people become addicted.

Why don't we do that here? Because the tabloids would have a field day. They would froth at the mouth and get large numbers of the general populace on board to froth in unison with them. Net result, the govt will potentially lose votes. That is why they govt in this country won't do it. They don't have the balls. It's much easier to pass more laws to criminalise than it is to remove the root cause of criminality.

That said, I won't be sitting an intruder down to discuss the way they came to such a pass as to feel they need to rob my home. Nope it's the blunt object and the kick in the knackers etc. for them. Because at that point in time they won't be wanting a heart to heart just the contents of the wife's jewelery case. Or worse.

[paradidle]

What about if someone offered you an experience of complete inner peace and outward benevolence toward the world?

"No thanks, I'm happy in my world of closed minded fear, I'm off back to my room to sit on the internet for hours"


Seriously though, which is better - to be addicted and dependent on a dealer who makes his money from your addiction, or to be addicted and having to get your drugs from a government approved agency, who should be able to notice your habit (or better, advise you on exactly what you're taking, and what it may or may not do) and begin to offer help? It's by no means a perfect solution, but it's far better than the former, in my opinion

So what you're saying is that drugs would be okay if they were legalised and kept under control by government agencies? Why would the government legalise and control something that would START habits in the first place of which they have been trying to prevent? What a load of crap. Why don't you just legalise murder or something, it's on the same scale. "legalise murder, then people wont feel the need to do it". Drugs harm and kill people, murder is exactly the same.
Legalising something that already causes so many problems in our society would just be wrong. Im not going to give you facts about why drugs are bad, surely you've read things in the media etc. People die from it, people have altered personalities that affect the people around them, simple as. If you can't understand why they are wrong I suggest you go look.

I feel sorry for the guy who sits on the net for hours in his/her "closed minded fear"...

I'll just use facts to belittle you, I think

Im still waiting for them...

Having experienced psychological addiction to both cigarettes and alcohol though, I can say that neither is easy to deal with. Having had Obsesive Compulsive Disorder since I was about 5, I can't really complain about anyone else's mental problems.

Forgive me for saying this, I do not want to hurt your feelings.

Given that you have just confessed that u were/still are addicted to ciggarettes and alcohol, having your OCD condition, dont you think your opinion on this is slightly biast? ...ie...invalid?

Sure you can say what u think, Im all for freedom of speech. Though i have the right to disagree, I think you are living in an idealistic word. I think you are trying to impose your opinion on others bcos you have/had a problem.

I am all for "finding the cure" to crime but there are so many factors involved. But anyway, I think there is no reasoning on this. We could go on forever, like Elvis.

Meh, its Christmas, Everyone have a happy Christmas!!

[Byatt]

So what you're saying is that drugs would be okay if they were legalised and kept under control by government agencies? Why would the government legalise and control something that would START habits in the first place of which they have been trying to prevent?

First of all - who are these people that will suddenly go out and become users/addicts purely because the drug becomes legal? Are you seriously suggesting that a significant number of people will go "OMG HARD DRUGS ARE LEGAL NOW, LET'S GO!"? Even if they did, you could make it so that over the counter was done in such a way that the consequences and risks were made blatantly obvious - not the case now!

The whole reason you legalise is so that you can regulate and monitor existing users, and make sure anyone who is a potential user knows the risks - it's not like the illegality is any sort of barrier for obtaining or using at the moment. It's not a case of whether it's right or wrong to legalise something harmful - it's a case of being pragmatic about the usage of drugs and how to make sure usage causes as little harm as possible.

Drugs harm and kill people, murder is exactly the same.

Yes, murder is EXACTLY the same. Murder is the crime of causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill them, or with intent to cause them grievous bodily harm (cheers wikipedia).

Quite how you intend to draw an equals sign between the two is beyond me, but of course, I'm very stupid, which is why you won't tell me any of the justifications behind any of your opinions. Cue giant rolleyes smiley.

Legalising something that already causes so many problems in our society would just be wrong. Im not going to give you facts about why drugs are bad, surely you've read things in the media etc. People die from it, people have altered personalities that affect the people around them, simple as. If you can't understand why they are wrong I suggest you go look.

So, even if legalisation alleviates the problems caused by having the distribution of drugs in the criminal sphere, we shouldn't do it. You've completely missed the point - drugs can do an awful lot more harm in an environment where they are illegal, unregulated (this means no quality control also) and (by consequence) expensive.

[paradidle]

It's not a case of whether it's right or wrong to legalise something harmful - it's a case of being pragmatic about the usage of drugs and how to make sure usage causes as little harm as possible.

Im addicted to playing with Anthrax. Its not a case of whether is right or wrong to legalise something knowing it harms myself and others and can kill - it's a case of being pragmatic about the usage of this substance and how to "make sure" usage causes as little harm as possible.

yep. I totally agree!

First of all - who are these people that will suddenly go out and become users/addicts purely because the drug becomes legal?

Why do people take drugs?

One reason often heard from people using drugs is that they do them to feel good. For real, it does feel good because most drugs act directly on the "pleasure center"--the limbic system--in the brain . it can be considered recreational use. Some might light up a cigarette at a party. They might not consider themselves a "smoker," but they do it to feel good or to "look cool." Someone might smoke pot at their friend's house because they think it could be fun. The problem? Drugs don't care what the reason is. The same effects can occur whether you're drinking to have fun or drinking to forget a problem, whether you're doing drugs to see how they feel or doing them to be one of the crowd.

People do drugs to change the way they feel. Often they want to change their situation. If they're depressed, they want to become happy. If they are stressed or nervous, they want to relax, and so on. By taking drugs, people often think they can be the person they want to be. The problem? It isn't real. You haven't changed the situation, you've only distorted it for a little while.

I can think of at least one HUGE group of people (Clue: they account for 13 million of the total UK population. Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=6)that this may appeal to. Lets see if you can work it out.

Following are some of the reasons people say they do drugs to feel good or change the situation:

1. Because they want to fit in.
No one wants to be the only one not participating. No one wants to be left out. So sometimes they make bad decisions, like taking drugs, to cover-up their insecurities. They don't think about how drugs can isolate you from your friends and family. They forget to look past that one party to see how things could turn out. Or maybe they just don't see the people around them who aren't using drugs. Need to know how to say no??? Go here. Need a little support? Go to the message boards.

2. Because they want to escape or relax.
You'll hear a lot of people saying things like "I'm so stressed, I need to get messed up!" or "Drugs help me relax" or whatever. What they're really saying is "Drinking or doing drugs is just easier than dealing with my problems or reaching out for help." The thing is, the problems are still there when they come down--and not only do they still have to deal with it, they have to deal with it when they're not 100% and feeling guilty or even worse when they're not thinking straight.

3. Because they're bored.
Lots of people turn to drugs for a little excitement because they say there's nothing else to do but watch the same Simpsons' rerun for the tenth time or hang out at the Burger King. But people who make these kinds of decisions usually find out that drugs are ultimately really a waste and painful. Drugs don't change the situation, and they just might make it worse.

4. Because the media says it's cool.
Even though there's an antidrug ad on every minutes and more rock stars and ball players than you can shake a stick at tell you to stay away from drugs, the truth is the entertainment world still manages to make drugs appear very attractive. Kind of like how they encourage people to be really skinny even when they say anorexia is bad. Or when they say you should be super muscular but steroids are bad. But if you're wise, you'll understand that the entertainment world is not the real world, and basing your life on these messages is superficial.

5. Because they think it makes them seem grown-up.
This is one of the weirdest reasons. Think about it…Why would an adult want to use drugs? Probably for many of the same reasons you would consider. The reality is that the most grown-up people out there aren't users. They're too busy living their lives to bother with stuff, like drugs, that will interfere.

6. Because they want to rebel.
Sometimes people turn to drugs not so much for themselves, but to make a statement against someone else, such as their families or society in general. Somehow taking drugs makes them outlaws or more individual. The problem is taking drugs, ultimately, robs these people of their ability to be independent, because it makes them dependent--on drugs and their drug connections.

RAVE take Heed. I think you are getting confused about where to draw the line from individualism/freedom and common sense.

7. Because they want to experiment.
It's human nature to want to experiment. Trying things out helps you decide if they're right for you. But it's also human nature to avoid things that are obviously bad for you. You wouldn't experiment with jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge.. The point is, there are a zillion better things to experiment with sports, music, dying your hair, seeing bad movies, eating spicy food...

Why are drugs bad?

What do drugs do to your body in the short term?

Every drug is different, but the general idea is, they interfere with your nervous system's basic functions. Sometimes they alter your muscles and how they function too. That's why people feel different--their brains and nerves and muscles have been juggled around, making them have sensations they aren't used to.

Besides making you feel different and playing around with your nerves and brain synapses, almost all drugs can make it tougher to sleep. Some cause major weight gain, some cause unhealthy weight loss. Your eyes get all glassy and bloodshot, your heart races, sometimes you get diarrhea. Some drugs like glue or butane can cause immediate death. Cocaine, ecstasy and meth can give even healthy people a heart attack on the spot.

On a more cosmetic note, most any drug out there will make your hair and skin much less healthy, and many will make you break out--not just on your face, but on your body. Smoking pot can make your teeth yellow, kind of like cigarettes. Oh, and we've never been able to figure out where the myth that drugs make your sex life better came from...while they might make you believe you're on top of the game, in fact, they generally interfere with, ahem, performance.

What do drugs do to your body in the long term?

It all depends on the drug. Using drugs over and over for a long period of time can cause lots of medical problems, from lung cancer (pot) to liver problems (alcohol) to big time brain damage (ecstasy, alcohol).

In other words, every drug is different, but all the long term effects aren't good. Besides the physical drawbacks, drugs cause major long term brain issues. Depression is a serious problem for many addicts. Also, they can really hurt people--telling lies, stealing money for drugs, sometimes even getting violent with people they love. Their biggest ambition becomes getting high, instead of setting high goals. And so on, and so on.

Now take note. If you legalise these drugs, and have the government (Of which some of you on here severly hate) regulate it, drug users are still not gonna want someone controlling their habit. Like Rave said, people want "freedom". Whats to stop from resorting to crime to fund their habits?

Quick Question: If DVD's were drugs, and were once Illegal, then became legal, in theory, according to some of you, the counterfit/pirate DVD's(Drug dealers - drugs - drug users etc...) would dissapear. But wait wait, they havent. I wonder if the same would happen in the drug world...

I mean I know DVDs do not harm people, they are quite harmless...

So, even if legalisation alleviates the problems caused by having the distribution of drugs in the criminal sphere, we shouldn't do it. You've completely missed the point - drugs can do an awful lot more harm in an environment where they are illegal, unregulated (this means no quality control also) and (by consequence) expensive.

Can you prove that making Class A drugs legal will eradicate underworld dealing of drugs? Remember Byatt, most of the drugs we are talking about are addictive. SO addictive, that whats to stop a user who desperatly needs his/her fix paying the government £x when he/she could their fix from Joe Bloggs for cheaper?


Anyways I got some useful info from here:

http://www.freevibe.com/drug_facts/why_drugs.asp

But there are tons of google results out there that will help educate some of us on here.

I cant be arsed going on about this anymore becos we have completely jump from the original topic. Anyone disagrees with me? pm me.

Those who say they need drugs to cope with everyday life, feel better, or to enjoy themselves, I pitty you. You need help. There are better ways of coming off the drugs than to legalise every substance out there.

Im just one happy camper!

[RVF500]

The program I mentioned earlier didn't (as I understand it) actually legalise drugs. Dealing was still an offense. The junkies weren't charged for their fix so the crime element of trying to support their habit was removed. There was simply no need to rob someone as it wasn't costing them anything. The dealers moved on as it was no longer cost effective to operate. No where does this say anything about a blanket legalisation.

The effect this would have on crime such as burglaries would be immense if 75% of burglaries are down to junkies trying to fund a habit. Plus being faced by some crazed junkie at 2:00 am in your hallway would be a less likely proposition. This would of course release more police to persecute motorists. But keep your baseball bat handy for the 25% of non-junkie burglars.

So where do I actually stand on all of this? Should drugs be legalised? No, but the law should be more focused on the cause rather than the effect. Take out the dealers and the supply line rather than forever haul in the same smackheads time and again. Radical methods to get control of the situation I do support. Should burglars lose their rights the moment they enter someone else's home? Yes, it's a conscious decision taken with total disregard of the rights of the victim or the pain they will cause. Often burglars will vandalise a home for the hell of it while they are there. Sentancing should be more severe too. A beating from an angry homeowner followed by a jail term that lets them out as a pensioner should have some positive affects on re-offender figures. Plus think of all the jobs created by having to have more prisons to hold them

[Zathras]

Plus think of all the jobs created by having to have more prisons to hold them

ooh, and the increase in taxes to pay for it all too...

[Byatt]

Loads of stuff with some reasoning! Huzzah.

OK, cease fire - you've actually justified what you were saying and pointed out the holes in the idea, rather than just ranting - nice one.

The solution obviously only works if govt sources are either *the* source or by far the cheapest option (not too hard to do, maintain hard line stances on non licensed dealers and their costs are still too high to compete) - and it's still not ideal - as you point out the freedom issue could still cause problems - people wouldn't like the lecture they got every time they tried to obtain any drug - but paying lots more otherwise might certainly put them off.

I'm also still not convinced that a properly educated public (be they young or old) would be naive enough to not be able to say no - but my main point is that the illegality isn't enough of a barrier to stop it at the moment for the vast majority of the yes sayers, and that legalisation wouldn't trigger a mass proliferation of hard drug use - I simply don't believe the population is that stupid (possibly very naive on my part, but still).

Where we differ is in the belief that a properly thought out system of legalisation could reduce drug related deaths and crime (whilst also paying for itself) - I do, you don't. Anyway, enough.

[RVF500]

Since when did GB need an excuse to raise taxes? If my tax pounds was keeping these off the street then it would be money well spent. As opposed to a tribe of Guardianista outreach/5-a-day supervisors which we currrently have our tax pounds spent on. The public service ranks have swelled by around 800 000 under this govt. Get rid of that lot and you break even and have scum bags where they belong. In fact you may even be able to put money into education and health too.

But then what would the govt do without those 800 000 secured votes? Talk about buying votes.

[BEANFro Elite]

Well, I stated it a bit baldly, fair enough not every single person wants to take mood altering substances. I'd say that the majotiry of adults in this country drink alcohol, and hence do take a mood altering substance. If you don't, then good luck to you.



Yeah, well that's a really great argument isn't it? 'If you can't see why you are wrong, then there's no point me explaining myself'. Yeh well genius, if it's so obvious why drugs are wrong, then it won't take long to explain why will it? Indulge me.



Well if you're not interested in learning, why get involved in the debate? The point is that if you take these drugs in a controlled, prescribed fashion, they are safe. If you take them in an uncontrolled fashion, they are not- as the woman in your pictures discovered to her cost.



And neither does the law.



Actually, if your burglar is on crack, as I understand it, there's a good chance they don't know right from wrong, since it's a drug that's famous for screwing with people's minds. I've never said that you shouldn't hit them over the head as a result though.



Humans are born with an intrinsic knowledge of drugs and the risks involved are they?



WELL IF IT'S SO OBVIOUS THEN, EXPLAIN TO ME IN ONE PARAGRAPH WHY EXACTLY DRUGS ARE BAD MMMMKAY. I'M OBVIOUSLY A RETARD AND I NEED IT EXPLAINED IN WORDS OF ONE SYLLABLE. THANKS.




Yeah that follows



Well, this reckons 70%, not far out:

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/crime/audit/drug.htm



Well, it's not easy, because the government would never admit that it's obviously losing the war on drugs, even though I'm sure I've come across statitstics in the past that say that customs manage to intercept only about 10% of drugs entering the country.

During the course of my investigations, I discovered that my comments about crack may have been unfounded. Here's what drugscope has to say on the subject:



Well, fair enough. Having experienced psychological addiction to both cigarettes and alcohol though, I can say that neither is easy to deal with. Having had Obsesive Compulsive Disorder since I was about 5, I can't really complain about anyone else's mental problems.



I'll just use facts to belittle you, I think.



I personally call putting words into my mouth taking the p1ss, but no matter, I can deal with it.

Rich :¬)

RAVE: Professional ESSAY for a post writer, has my respect for this very reason.

[bouncin]

hey guys do u remeber how i said earlier in the thread how my nan was mugged and had her arm broken.

when the guy found out who it was he had mugged he turned himself into police and refused bail pmsl.

he only lived 2 streets away from her and knows what my family were goin to do to him.

i find it comical because now he is goin to be put in prison with the worst behaved members of the family

He was a heroin addict who had spent all the money he took.

[RVF500]

The above post points out the validity of a programme where junkies get their fix from the govt. Our misguided, and none too bright, mugger wouldn't have been thumping bouncin's nan if he didn't have to fund his habit. Mind you, the fact that he faces a bit more summary justice once inside won't cause me any lack of sleep

[Grm]

Interesting thread and one I agree with wholeheartedly.

Below is an article from our local newspapers website;
http://www.blackpooltoday.co.uk/view...e=Results.aspx

A few years ago my girlfriends house was burgled, the lad in the article is one of those who burgled her house. Quite frankly, if someone breaks into my house, I should be able to del with them as I please... of course, I'm not just looking for an excuse to wield my samurai sword at some scumbag

I have to say, that i know the lad who did that. He aslo stole a bike from me, when i was 9 years old. He's now in prison, and hopefully will get everything he deserves. It wasnt him who robbed that house, but it was a friend of his. He was framed for that robbery, but who gives a ****. He was a theiving prick always has been, always will be.