[excon]

Do you expect there will be less OD's because its legal or cleaner needles.

Hello clete:

Both.

The only time the drug warriors told the truth about drugs is when they spoke of the horrors of addiction.. NOBODY wants to be addicted. But, today, there's NO place for an addict to get treatment, unless he has LOTS of money. So, he stays addicted. Might run into a dirty needle and die. Might OD.. Probably will

But, along with legalization, if we made treatment on demand available, in MY VIEW, there would be MORE addicts trying to get OFF drugs,than there would be people trying to get ON them...

Speaking of neophytes trying to get addicted... Do you know anybody who is just chomping at the bit waiting for drugs to be legal so they can try them?? I don't... Everybody I know who wants to use drugs, is USING drugs.

excon

[paraclete]

Ex we can all understand how addicts get addicted and why they stay addicted. This isn't a reason for legalisation and many people get addicted before they appreciate the dangers and consequences, again not a reason for legalisation.

The only people who are treading down the people in the hood who use drugs are the dealers, these are the only people who have an interest is getting people addicted and keeping them addicted. The governments efforts to stamp this trade out is not oppressing the black population or any other population even though there may be unfortunate side effects from law enforcement such as a growing prison population.

It simply comes back to; you do the crime... you do the time

[talaniman]

The governments efforts to stamp this trade out is not oppressing the black population or any other population even though there may be unfortunate side effects from law enforcement such as a growing prison population.

What a crock! Some drugs (alcohol) are legal, some are not (cocain, herion), and if you take the profit motive out of criminal hands, you make dealers poor. Its like the lifting of prohibition took the profit out of the hands of mobsters, and grew a business with liscensing, regulation, and profits.

And you wouldn't target people to go to jail except irresponsible users who hurt people. Equality, fairness, and common sense can work in law making and actually help and not subjugate.

Lol, do you have a law against race mixing Clete? We did, and the fools who support it still exist, while the law has changed.

[paraclete]

No Tal we don't and never had a law against race mixing, we had some stupid people who though the mixed race children should be angloised and removed from the infuences of their parents. We had laws which prevented certain races taking up residence here and we didn't recognise the indigenous people as citizens but all that is behind us.

The phenonemon of dark skinned people being overrepresented in prisons has also been noted here particularly where there are large populations of such people but this is mainly for street offenses and disorderly conduct. We haven't until recently suffered the violence associated with drugs but allowing certain ethnic groups to take up residence here has changed that

We don't believe that further legalisation of addictive substances is a benefit to society, we would like to wean the government off the revenues and remove alcohol and tobacco from the scene too these are heavily taxed and we fear that legalisation of drugs would give the government a tax windfall and entrench the addictive culture even further. Our government at the moment is at war with tobacco so removing drugs from criminal relm and putting it under tax administration doesn't appeal. You see we have realised that allowing alcohol and tobacco has had unintended consequences in the health arena and legalisation of drugs are likely to do likewise

[talaniman]

No Tal we don't and never had a law against race mixing, we had some stupid people who though the mixed race children should be angloised and removed from the infuences of their parents. We had laws which prevented certain races taking up residence here and we didn't recognise the indigenous people as citizens but all that is behind us.

That's sounds like laws against race mixing to me, but don't you think laws should be adjusted according to new facts, or social changes? Or heaven forbid, progress through technology? Applying last centuries solutions to today's circumstances may not be that effective in solving the problem, nor is sticking with something that doesn't work, but has unintended consequences.

[paraclete]

No Tal if you could live here you could mix with whoever you wanted to, even my mother used to tell me if you couldn't get a white girl get an dark one, no, we had what was called the White Australia Policy to keep mainly Asians out. This had stemmed from the influx of Chinese and Pacific Islanders in the nineteenth century and was mainly associated with preventing cheap labour from being imported in a time when the Unions were very powerful. Sort of like where your hispanics get all the low paid jobs, well that sort of thing was seen as undercutting wages and lowering the standard of living, which was the highest in the world at the time

[excon]

Hello again, clete:

Here's another little factoid that won't change your mind. I don't know why..

Although tobacco is legal, nicotine is highly addictive. Even MORE addictive than cocaine or heroine. It's also the most dangerous. In the US, it kills about 350,000 people EVERY year... For comparison sake, pot kills ZERO..

But, this story isn't about pot. It's about tobacco and the serious problem we had in this country. 25 years ago, before we got the truth out of the tobacco companies, fully HALF of us smoked.. That's 150 MILLION of us, and MOST of us died young, my dad included.

Since then, over that 25 year period we managed to reduce those who smoked by HALF. That's 75 MILLION people who don't smoke today. That's 75 million lives saved.

We DID that by simply telling the truth - and, we didn't have to put a single person in jail, either.

There's a DOT in that story. I wonder if you can find it.

excon

[paraclete]

Ex you avoid the obvious nothing new there. Pot creates mental problems, paranoia and schizophrenia and is a lead into hard drugs so you cannot say it doesn't kill anyone they just die from other causes Tobacco is a serious problem, no one denys that and we have done much to reduce addiction here, not by merely telling the truth as you suggest but by taking on the industry with advertising bans, making sure they are not targeting youth as we know they do and more recently with graphic health warnings on packs and soon plain packaging. We understand the health problems and alcohol will be next. So why would we want to legalise drugs and then do it all again.

I saw the dot ex . Here is another . We also know that sometimes people have to be saved from themselves.

Before you strain yourself patting yourself on the back here are some statistics for your consideration Smoking rates in Australia

How many men smoke in Australia?
In 1945 approximately 72% of Australian men smoked.
(1) The rate has been dropping since then.
In 2010 only 16.4% of Australian males (14 years or older) were daily smokers.
(2) The daily smoking rate among males (16 years or older) in NSW was 13.8% in 2010. (3)

What about women?
In 1945 26% of Australian women smoked.
(1) By 1976 this figure had risen to a peak of 33%.
In 2010 the national daily smoking rate among females (14 years or older) of 13.9%.
(2) The daily smoking rate among females (16 years or older) in NSW was 9.8% in 2010.

What about youth?
A 2008 survey of Australian secondary school students found that current (smoked in the last week) smoking rates were 6.9% among boys aged 12 to 17 and 7.7% among girls in the same age group.
The figures peaked at 14.5% for 17 year old boys and 12.7% for 17 year old girls.
Among students in NSW current (smoked in the last 7 days) smoking rates in 2008 were 6.9% among boys and 7.7% among girls aged 12 to 17.
The NSW students figures peaked at 16.7% for 17 year old boys and 14.3% for 17 year old girls.
Since 1984, when the first NSW secondary school survey on smoking was conducted, smoking rates among 12 to 17 year old secondary school students have declined significantly from a high of 20.5%.

Why have smoking rates among the general population declined so dramatically over recent decades?

It is likely that the decline in smoking rates during recent decades has occurred as a result of concerted and sustained government tobacco control strategies such as high tobacco taxes, advertising bans, mass media public education campaigns and smoke-free environments legislation.

Which age groups smoke most?

The highest rates of daily smoking among Australian men (by age) in 2010 were in the 30-39 and 40-49 years age groups (both at 20.2%) and for women, in the 40-49 years age group (18.8%).

What are the smoking rates among indigenous Australians?

Smoking rates among indigenous Australian s are considerably higher than those for the non-indigenous community in every age group.
In 2008, the daily smoking rate among Aboriginal Australians was 47.7%.

[excon]

Ex you avoid the obvious nothing new there. Pot creates mental problems, paranoia and schizophrenia and is a lead into hard drugs so you cannot say it doesn't kill anyone

Hello clete:

HOOEY! Pure HOOEY!!

excon

[paraclete]

Hello clete:

HOOEY! Pure HOOEY!!!!

excon

Take you head out of the sand you're not an ostrich

[excon]

Hello again, clete:

Let me see... If I wanted to know something about flying, I'd ask a pilot - NOT somebody who READS about flying..

Like I said above, factoids aren't something you believe... So, we ain't going to get anywhere here. Bummer.

excon

[talaniman]

No Tal we don't and never had a law against race mixing, we had some stupid people who though the mixed race children should be angloised and removed from the infuences of their parents. We had laws which prevented certain races taking up residence here and we didn't recognise the indigenous people as citizens but all that is behind us.

The phenonemon of dark skinned people being overrepresented in prisons has also been noted here particularly where there are large populations of such people but this is mainly for street offenses and disorderly conduct. We haven't until recently suffered the violence associated with drugs but allowing certain ethnic groups to take up residence here has changed that

We don't believe that further legalisation of addictive substances is a benefit to society, we would like to wean the government off the revenues and remove alcohol and tobacco from the scene too these are heavily taxed and we fear that legalisation of drugs would give the government a tax windfall and entrench the addictive culture even further. Our government at the moment is at war with tobacco so removing drugs from criminal relm and putting it under tax administration doesn't appeal. You see we have realised that allowing alcohol and tobacco has had unintended consequences in the health arena and legalisation of drugs are likely to do likewise

So leave it to the criminals to make money while you save people from their own choice? We tried that and the mobs got rich, and supported other criminal activities, and left bodies every where. Good luck with Prohibition, you will need it. And you should have paid the asians more, not kept them from the country, but then when foreign companies come there and give you low wages, I guess you love it.

QUOTE by paraclete;
Ex you avoid the obvious nothing new there. Pot creates mental problems, paranoia and schizophrenia and is a lead into hard drugs so you cannot say it doesn't kill anyone they just die from other causes Tobacco is a serious problem, no one denys that and we have done much to reduce addiction here, not by merely telling the truth as you suggest but by taking on the industry with advertising bans, making sure they are not targeting youth as we know they do and more recently with graphic health warnings on packs and soon plain packaging. We understand the health problems and alcohol will be next. So why would we want to legalise drugs and then do it all again.

I saw the dot ex . Here is another . We also know that sometimes people have to be saved from themselves.

Tobacco users don't go to jail, and they have a choice, same for alcohol, so decriminalize drugs, take it from the alley to the shelves, tax it like alcohol and tobacco, and give choices, not jail cells.

[paraclete]

So leave it to the criminals to make money while you save people from their own choice? We tried that and the mobs got rich, and supported other criminal activities, and left bodies every where. Good luck with Prohibition, you will need it. And you should have paid the asians more, not kept them from the country, but then when foreign companies come there and give you low wages, I guess you love it.

I don't think you have quite got what I'm saying. Governments make a choice that is what they are there for and ours has made a choice to go along with public opinion and outlaw drugs. We are not talking about prohibition so much as taking an active stance to reduce consumption.
As to paying wages, american companies have for years tried to establish themselves here and pay minimum wages, thinking they could do here what they do there so we don't love it, you see that slave owing mentality has never left, where as our unions said we will not allow you to import cheap labour, to establish slave labour by any other name here and were too successful in their lobbying but then I don't expect you think we should have laws about this sort of thing either
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-1...claims/3892416
This why we don't like asians

Tobacco users don't go to jail, and they have a choice, same for alcohol, so decriminalize drugs, take it from the alley to the shelves, tax it like alcohol and tobacco, and give choices, not jail cells.

Tobacco users are fast becoming pyriahs in our society, just as drug users are pyriahs, there are fewer and fewer places where they can pollute our air legally and one day they just might go to jail for doing it, I have the same objections to pot as I have to tobacco, it stinks and yes the alley might be the only place in the city where you can light up, but I would say don't put the users in jail cells put them in education and detoxification centres, but definitely put the dealers and the pushers in jail. Alcohol consumption has its own problems mostly associated with violence and disorderly conduct and that has been targeted as well.We didn't have these problems until we liberalised drinking hours so the lesson is not lost on us

[celticfc]

Blacks commit crime and break the law they only make thereselves go into prison.and everyone has an opinion on drugs.I agree with paraclete.

[paraclete]

blacks commit crime and break the law they only make thereselves go into prison.and everyone has an opinion on drugs.i agree with paraclete.

Thank you celtic, the liberal agenda doesn't always end in a better society or even a more just one. There is always someone who says I am different because and therefore you should change to accommodate me. Well in this case drug users are being accommodated

[JudyKayTee]

blacks commit crime and break the law they only make thereselves go into prison.and everyone has an opinion on drugs.i agree with paraclete.

Everybody who breaks the law "makes thereselves go into prison." I don't know this is a Black issue.

I do know it's a "who has the best Attorney issue."

[paraclete]

Everybody who breaks the law "makes thereselves go into prison." I don't know this is a Black issue.

I do know it's a "who has the best Attorney issue."

So then the answer is to provide better legal aid

[talaniman]

Or better more fair laws that have NO left, or right agendas.

[TUT317]

Or better more fair laws that have NO left, or right agendas.

There is actually an agenda but the important question becomes, whose or what's agenda?

Therefore, the important question to ask ourselves is, do African Americans choose to 'live part'. Well, in some respects they do. I think we have established there is a good argument for claiming that drug laws may have inadvertently contributed to making many African Americans involved in a particular types of drug being labeled as felons.

These people now have the appropriate label and the appropriate legal weight to reinforce this label. In essence, they are separate and unequal. The law is weighted heavily against them because they choose a particular drug of choice. After all, it was their choice.

A similar type of argument has been rescinded to the political dust bin in the old South Africa. The argument for 'living apart' policy was that if most native South Africans had the choice they would choose to live apart from the white population. This is of course debatable, but there is not doubt that in certain periods of old South African history this would have been part of the normal language. This likely choice ( forced or otherwise) would have had a strong propaganda component behind it.

What was conveniently not stated was that white people in this society will control all the social, political,legal and economic strings. You can live apart and equal, but we will make decisions on how 'equal' will actually be determined in terms of social, political, legal and economic resources.

Herein lies the problem. We can put a good argument for the legal system inadvertently favouring one social-economic group over another. When we have a reality check we realize that this has inadvertently disadvantaged the African American component of society.

However, this only accounts for a legal disadvantage. How do we explain away the other disadvantages that seem to work against the African American component of society. We have explained away the legal aspects, but how do we explain the social and economic aspects?

It is possible that we can use the same 'unintended consequences' argument and in the end this may well suffice. However, it will require more than that to chance things for the better. The first step will be the need to actually admit that this problem exists. To bury one's head in the sand and admit there is no problem is to give tacit approval.

Tut

[talaniman]

There is actually an agenda but the important question becomes, whose or what's agenda?

Therefore, the important question to ask ourselves is, do African Americans choose to 'live part'. Well, in some respects they do. I think we have established there is a good argument for claiming that drug laws may have inadvertently contributed to making many African Americans involved in a particular types of drug being labeled as felons.

These people now have the appropriate label and the appropriate legal weight to reinforce this label. In essence, they are separate and unequal. The law is weighted heavily against them because they choose a particular drug of choice. After all, it was their choice.

A similar type of argument has been rescinded to the political dust bin in the old South Africa. The argument for 'living apart' policy was that if most native South Africans had the choice they would choose to live apart from the white population. This is of course debatable, but there is not doubt that in certain periods of old South African history this would have been part of the normal language. This likely choice ( forced or otherwise) would have had a strong propaganda component behind it.

What was conveniently not stated was that white people in this society will control all the social, political,legal and economic strings. You can live apart and equal, but we will make decisions on how 'equal' will actually be determined in terms of social, political, legal and economic resources.

Herein lies the problem. We can put a good argument for the legal system inadvertently favouring one social-economic group over another. When we have a reality check we realize that this has inadvertently disadvantaged the African American component of society.

However, this only accounts for a legal disadvantage. How do we explain away the other disadvantages that seem to work against the African American component of society. We have explained away the legal aspects, but how do we explain the social and economic aspects?

It is possible that we can use the same 'unintended consequences' argument and in the end this may well suffice. However, it will require more than that to chance things for the better. The first step will be the need to actually admit that this problem exists. To bury one's head in the sand and admit there is no problem is to give tacit approval.

Tut

Very well put, but good luck with getting some to admit to a problem. Fear will keep them blind.