- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A suggestion to make the world a better place (for EG)
A suggestion to make the world a better place (for EG)Follow
Nothing about weed, heh. haters
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Nothing about weed, heh. haters
One would have to hope and sort of pharmaceutical appeal on a jocular note would include such a substance, though in the end I suppose we can only wish leprosy upon the source of the vexation and take note of the matter of such great importance within ourselves or something like that.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
This is silly. People will be made aware of the risk. If you drink a bottle of Jack Daniel's a day and end up with liver cancer, you can't sue them. If you start smoking today, and try to sue tobacco companies in 20 years time when you get cancer, you won't win either.
These cases worekd because people started smoking in the 50s when tobacco companies were telling them it was actually good for their health.
These cases worekd because people started smoking in the 50s when tobacco companies were telling them it was actually good for their health.
There have been class action suits where the period ended in 2001. Meaning you simply had to start smoking light cigarettes before 2001 in order to get in on the money grab. And there's quite a bit of money to be had. Even if everyone doesn't win many will still try and it still costs money and ties up the courts to try the case. Then, of course, there are the appeals.
Oh and the reason that people don't sue JD for cirhosis is because, oddly, alcohol doesn't have the stigma attached to it that smiking does. Now I wonder where newly legalized opiates would fall on that stigma scale?
(You should also be aware that the govt in the UK tends to have a slightly different system and rejects the tobacco cases more quickly that in the US, from what I understand.)
I've never heard of the "stigma scale" beeing a decisive factor in compensation cases, but I'm not as familiar with the Amrican judicial system as I am with the British one.
Still if prescription drugs are legal and can't be sued for (eventhoguh their abuse might cause great harm), the same will apply to prescribed heroin/cocaine.
Still if prescription drugs are legal and can't be sued for (eventhoguh their abuse might cause great harm), the same will apply to prescribed heroin/cocaine.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
I've never heard of the "stigma scale" beeing a decisive factor in compensation cases, but I'm not as familiar with the Amrican judicial system as I am with the British one.
Not in the cases, but in the number of people willing to attack a segment of industry. Via lawsuit or local laws.
Quote:
Still if prescription drugs are legal and can't be sued for (eventhoguh their abuse might cause great harm), the same will apply to prescribed heroin/cocaine.
Oh right, NO ONE is suing Merck.
Can't we "wake up' to the fact that people take illegal drugs and just think it's stupid? I'm in that camp. No, I don't want to reward your dumbass behavior that endangers both yourself and others with my tax dollars, and that's not because I don't want you to kill yourself, I just don't want to be crossing the street on my way back from a massage when you stab me because you're hallucinating.
Not only is it "not moral", it's ****-poor planning, but I suppose you acknowledged already that it is not a viable solution. We can barely deal with the abuse of legal substances we have, and you want to increase the variety?
Not only is it "not moral", it's ****-poor planning, but I suppose you acknowledged already that it is not a viable solution. We can barely deal with the abuse of legal substances we have, and you want to increase the variety?
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Not only is it "not moral", it's ****-poor planning, but I suppose you acknowledged already that it is not a viable solution. We can barely deal with the abuse of legal substances we have, and you want to increase the variety?
No, I don't want to increase the variety.
I want the government to take the second most profitable industry in the world out of the hands of criminals.
I want drug-taking to stop funding terrorism, people traficking, private militias, and civil wars.
I want people who choose to take drugs to take "clean" drugs that won't harm anymore than they should. I want them to have real treatment available. I want the governemnt to keep a record of who takes what. I want my (18 year old) kids to be able to buy cannabis without being asked if he wants some charlie with that.
And I also want the government to stop spending billions of dollars on a pointless and ineffective "war on drugs" that does nothing to halt supply, or demand. I want drugs to be cheaper, if not free in the form of presciption, so that addicts dont have to commit crime to get their fix.
I want my kids ot get a proper education on the subject, via, for exemple, trips to the local rehab center.
I want drug-users to be recognised as having a mental health problem, not a criminal one.
Basically, I want teh drug industry to be institutionalised in order to minimise and control its negative effects, instead of pretending its not there and leaving it all in the hands of professional criminals.
God you're scary.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Pipe dreams.
Oh, extremely workable. Good luck with that.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Pipe dreams.
Oh, extremely workable. Good luck with that.
Bah. It's a lesser of two evil I'm proposing. And one which is less hypocritical, costly, and counter-productive then the system we have in place now.
A system which does what exactly? Send addicts in jail, cost billions of dollars each year, funds criminal gangs and terrorism the world over and... yet the price and availibility of drugs everywhere is falling.
Cool.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
yet the price and availibility of drugs everywhere is falling.
Wow, drugs don't even adhere to the basic precepts of supply and demand!
And the rest of your post was pure conjecture based on what you hope will happen. Drugs are dreeeeemy! They'll make the world dreeeeeemy! Wheeeeeee! You have fluffed off any arguments that point out that in both human and financial costs it could be much worse than it is now.
bah, double.
Edited, Aug 14th 2006 at 4:38pm EDT by Eske
Edited, Aug 14th 2006 at 4:38pm EDT by Eske
Quote:
Bah. It's a lesser of two evil I'm proposing. And one which is less hypocritical, costly, and counter-productive then the system we have in place now.
::skeptical::
Sometimes I really want to get premium just for that one...
EDITED: several times due to severe incompetence.
Edited, Aug 14th 2006 at 4:35pm EDT by Eske
Edited, Aug 14th 2006 at 4:36pm EDT by Eske
Celcio wrote:
Wow, drugs don't even adhere to the basic precepts of supply and demand!
And the rest of your post was pure conjecture based on what you hope will happen. Drugs are dreeeeemy! They'll make the world dreeeeeemy! Wheeeeeee! You have fluffed off any arguments that point out that in both human and financial costs it could be much worse than it is now.
And the rest of your post was pure conjecture based on what you hope will happen. Drugs are dreeeeemy! They'll make the world dreeeeeemy! Wheeeeeee! You have fluffed off any arguments that point out that in both human and financial costs it could be much worse than it is now.
You're an idiot.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
I'm an idiot.
FTFY.
No, you shut up!
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
No, youshutup! Bad!
Did he mess on the rug again?
Red said
Its an opinion that is as unpopular as any I can think of, but one I totally agree with. It seems to me that the people who disagree with the 'legalisation' ( I would prefer decriminalisation) of all drugs, spout the same arguments. The ones about kids taking drugs, easier availiability etc. without wanting to see the obvious. ie. drugs are already easily availiable, kids are already taking them.
In other words the people who want to keep drugs illegal, are happy to keep on pursuing a policy wich has no merit, and to date, has had no discernible effect on reducing recreational drug usage, and may in fact, have actually encouraged the growth in useage. But, as usual, it is these same people who want to keep the situation as is, who are swayed by the 'propaganda' surrounding the issue, rather than studying the 'evidence', ie. the 'facts'.
Quote:
No, I don't want to increase the variety.
I want the government to take the second most profitable industry in the world out of the hands of criminals.
I want drug-taking to stop funding terrorism, people traficking, private militias, and civil wars.
I want people who choose to take drugs to take "clean" drugs that won't harm anymore than they should. I want them to have real treatment available. I want the governemnt to keep a record of who takes what. I want my (18 year old) kids to be able to buy cannabis without being asked if he wants some charlie with that.
And I also want the government to stop spending billions of dollars on a pointless and ineffective "war on drugs" that does nothing to halt supply, or demand. I want drugs to be cheaper, if not free in the form of presciption, so that addicts dont have to commit crime to get their fix.
I want my kids ot get a proper education on the subject, via, for exemple, trips to the local rehab center.
I want drug-users to be recognised as having a mental health problem, not a criminal one.
Basically, I want teh drug industry to be institutionalised in order to minimise and control its negative effects, instead of pretending its not there and leaving it all in the hands of professional criminals.
I want the government to take the second most profitable industry in the world out of the hands of criminals.
I want drug-taking to stop funding terrorism, people traficking, private militias, and civil wars.
I want people who choose to take drugs to take "clean" drugs that won't harm anymore than they should. I want them to have real treatment available. I want the governemnt to keep a record of who takes what. I want my (18 year old) kids to be able to buy cannabis without being asked if he wants some charlie with that.
And I also want the government to stop spending billions of dollars on a pointless and ineffective "war on drugs" that does nothing to halt supply, or demand. I want drugs to be cheaper, if not free in the form of presciption, so that addicts dont have to commit crime to get their fix.
I want my kids ot get a proper education on the subject, via, for exemple, trips to the local rehab center.
I want drug-users to be recognised as having a mental health problem, not a criminal one.
Basically, I want teh drug industry to be institutionalised in order to minimise and control its negative effects, instead of pretending its not there and leaving it all in the hands of professional criminals.
Its an opinion that is as unpopular as any I can think of, but one I totally agree with. It seems to me that the people who disagree with the 'legalisation' ( I would prefer decriminalisation) of all drugs, spout the same arguments. The ones about kids taking drugs, easier availiability etc. without wanting to see the obvious. ie. drugs are already easily availiable, kids are already taking them.
In other words the people who want to keep drugs illegal, are happy to keep on pursuing a policy wich has no merit, and to date, has had no discernible effect on reducing recreational drug usage, and may in fact, have actually encouraged the growth in useage. But, as usual, it is these same people who want to keep the situation as is, who are swayed by the 'propaganda' surrounding the issue, rather than studying the 'evidence', ie. the 'facts'.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
did we forget that it's politics that runs the land and not logic.
yes, I think Vulcans would legalize drugs.
yes, I think Vulcans would legalize drugs.
Kelvyquayo wrote:
yes, I think Vulcans would legalize drugs.
You can do it, but no Vulcan would choose to anyway
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:
Who's EG?
Yeah.
Quote:
Who's EG?
Basics people, basics.
Oh, I've always seen that as lower case with periods (e.g.). I thought you meant EvilGnomes. 
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
It was a crap play on words. I meant both. I read evilgnome's post about topics which are important but not mainstream, and I thought this was a good exemple (e.g.).
Sorry.
Anyway, I think the problem is a lot of people see word "legalisation" and think of selling drugs over-the-counter sale at the supermarket.
Which is obviouly not the case.
There would have to be a proper regulatory framework around it. Of which I havent got all the details, obviously.
I can't present facts, because apart from that study in Switzerland I linked, there haven't been any serious study or long-term experiment on the subject. It's not a vote-winner, for sure. Especially in the US at the moment.
But I still think it's the lesser of two evil, and that combined with serious education and rehabilitation, it can dampen the negative impact of drugs in society and in the world in general.
Sorry.
Anyway, I think the problem is a lot of people see word "legalisation" and think of selling drugs over-the-counter sale at the supermarket.
Which is obviouly not the case.
There would have to be a proper regulatory framework around it. Of which I havent got all the details, obviously.
I can't present facts, because apart from that study in Switzerland I linked, there haven't been any serious study or long-term experiment on the subject. It's not a vote-winner, for sure. Especially in the US at the moment.
But I still think it's the lesser of two evil, and that combined with serious education and rehabilitation, it can dampen the negative impact of drugs in society and in the world in general.
Recent Visitors: 246
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (246)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A suggestion to make the world a better place (for EG)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC