Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

A rant about life in Frankfurt

163 posts in this topic

A feisty thread this one. Does Frankfurt have this effect on everyone :doh:

 

Tempted to fan the flames by suggesting some of the contributors should drink less coffee, but instead try this on ZERO TOLERANCE and how it worked in NY (though the economy there probably has something to do with it - but certainly their approach towards drug addicts has been instrumental) ...

 

ZERO TOLERANCE

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Although drugs being illegal is not ideal, it's probably the least worst option.

Sorry to quote again from the article I posted earlier but it seems to fit here.

 

"Scrap the nonsense of trying to obliterate drugs and acknowledge their presence in our society as we have with alcohol and tobacco. Legalization would result in:

 

1. purity assurance under Food and Drug Administration regulation;

2. labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose);

3. obliteration of vigorous marketing ("pushers");

4. obliteration of drug crime and reduction of theft crime

5. savings in expensive enforcement and

6. significant tax revenues.

 

Effort and funds can then be directed to educating the public about the hazards of all drugs. "

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, those are the positives of legalising Class A drugs. Don't you see any negatives? If so, try to list them.

 

Jean-Pierre

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, now I think about it, it's not really fair for me to ignore your points (even though you ignored mine!) and try to get you to post contrary points. I do, however, feel that you are taking an astonishingly one-sided view of the issue. Legalising hard drugs and taxing them heavily will not eradicate (why use the word "obliterate"?) illegal drug supply. Presumably illegal drug supply would be cheaper because it's not taxed.

 

So to tackle the points you've raised:

1. True to an extent, but as I said, illegal activity would undoubtably continue. There is illegal tobacco smuggling now.

2. Labelling concentration does not prevent overdosing. It may reduce it, but I doubt it would make a large impact. Overdosing is usually caused by abstinence and then returning to your original dose without realising that your body no longer has the tolerance it had.

3. Vigourous marketing? What could be a better marketing strategy than seeing all your mates doing drugs? And if you think that the companies who get involved in legal drug trafficking are going to benevolently avoid using marketing which may inadvertently increase the sales of their product, you're a gooey-eyed virgin.

4. Well there certainly would be a reduction in drug crime if drug use is no longer a crime. Just as making rape legal would reduce rape crime.

5. See above for savings in prosecuting rape cases.

6. Oh yes, I like to get tax money on the backs of other people's suffering. If addiction really is an illness (as you suggested) and you're taxing the medication the sufferer needs, let's tax cancer treatments really, really heavily. Oh what a lot of money we've suddenly got. Whoopee.

 

From the sublime to the ridiculous.

 

Jean-Pierre

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it's not really fair for me to ignore your points (even though you ignored mine!

Maybe you could number yours for clarity :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2. Labelling concentration does not prevent overdosing. It may reduce it, but I doubt it would make a large impact. Overdosing is usually caused by abstinence and then returning to your original dose without realising that your body no longer has the tolerance it had.
It would actually, as "true" overdosing is very rare as the LD50 of the addict is prohibitively high. The vast majority of reported heroin overdoses are actually adulterant poisonings or fatal interactions with alcohol or methadone.

 

 

4. Well there certainly would be a reduction in drug crime if drug use is no longer a crime. Just as making rape legal would reduce rape crime.

If a person chooses to take drugs then he is the one injecting into his right arm with his OWN left arm, or visa verse...however with rape he's sticking his dick where it isn't wanted...both pricks...but oh so different!!!

 

 

6. Oh yes, I like to get tax money on the backs of other people's suffering

I for one don't think it is an illness and I would rather see them suffer then the people they make suffer at the moment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ JP: Aren't all those things already happening??

 

 

3. Vigourous marketing? What could be a better marketing strategy than seeing all your mates doing drugs? And if you think that the companies who get involved in legal drug trafficking are going to benevolently avoid using marketing which may inadvertently increase the sales of their product, you're a gooey-eyed virgin
While I am neither gooey-eyed nor a virgin (sorry, boys), I do know that this already takes place. Most people start drinking, smoking, or doing drugs as teenagers because their friends do.

 

From the National Institute on Drug Abuse (US):

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.

 

 

6. Oh yes, I like to get tax money on the backs of other people's suffering. If addiction really is an illness (as you suggested) and you're taxing the medication the sufferer needs, let's tax cancer treatments really, really heavily. Oh what a lot of money we've suddenly got. Whoopee

As a smoker, I know that 70% of the cost of cigarettes is taxes, which are used to fund health care for us folks that can't read 'RAUCHEN STERBT FRÜHER' on each pack that we buy. This system makes sense, because you force those that will be cared for later pay up-front in the form of taxes. Why couldn't the same system work for drugs?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would actually [prevent overdosing],

Really? You surprise me. Aspirin has been labelled for years, but that doesn't seems to "prevent" overdosing.

 

 

If a person chooses to take drugs then he is the one injecting into his right arm with his OWN left arm, or visa verse
I never said they were the same thing. I said if you make something legal then of course you reduce crime. To use another example, making burglary legal reduces "burglary crime". I'm not really sure why I had to clarify that point - it seemed fairly simple to me.

 

 

I for one don't think it is an illness and I would rather see them suffer then the people they make suffer at the moment.

I don't either. But I would rather neither of us sufferred. And I certainly don't want to tax other people's sufferring.

 

Jean-Pierre

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

While I am neither gooey-eyed nor a virgin (sorry, boys), I do know that this already takes place. Most people start drinking, smoking, or doing drugs as teenagers because their friends do.
True, but legalisation would increase availability, increase consumption and therefore increase peer pressure.

With regard to the gooey-eyed bit, I was referring to anyone who thinks that legal drug pushing companies would market their products in a responsible and restrained way - that would be naive. And I know you're not naive either.

 

 

As a smoker, I know that 70% of the cost of cigarettes is taxes, which are used to fund health care for us folks that can't read 'RAUCHEN STERBT FRÜHER' on each pack that we buy. This system makes sense, because you force those that will be cared for later pay up-front in the form of taxes. Why couldn't the same system work for drugs?

Rebecca, you've got a smashing pair of lungs. I would be prepared to forgoe your tobacco tax contributions and pay more income tax, if it meant they were kept in pristine condition, and you had a longer and less smelly life.

 

Jean-Pierre

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really? You surprise me. Aspirin has been labelled for years, but that doesn't seems to "prevent" overdosing.
But I would bet it has reduced it though!!! Which I think was the point.

 

 

I never said they were the same thing. I said if you make something legal then of course you reduce crime. To use another example, making burglary legal reduces "burglary crime". I'm not really sure why I had to clarify that point - it seemed fairly simple to me.

I know what you said! Just taking drugs is a victimless crime, but leads to all the other crimes. Rape, murder, burglary etc aren't. In fact, legalising drugs would probably reduce half of those crimes as well...(reduce not prevent)!!

 

 

And I certainly don't want to tax other people's sufferring

But don't you think they are already paying over the odds for their hit anyway, except the moneys going to the big boys so they can drive round in the sports cars and buy bling.

 

I found this article interesting:

 

http://leap.cc/publications/ellison/wantalldrugs.htm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

had a quick read through this thread... trying to join in and found this comment on page 6

But they don't break into my house and steal my stereo to buy beer.

no but how many of you have seen 4 seven year olds in Germany pushing your car up the road, stealing it. This happened to a mate of mine in Liverpool!!

 

I think most countries have a problem with drug addicts, apart from Holland :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But I would bet it has reduced it though!!! Which I think was the point.
If you scroll up, you will find that was what I said to contradict the assertion that it would prevent overdosing.

 

 

But don't you think they are already paying over the odds for their hit anyway, except the moneys going to the big boys so they can drive round in the sports cars and buy bling.

Now that's true and it's a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think saying "Why should the drug barons make all the profits, let's have some go to the state" is a rational argument. I don't want that kind of blood money. I don't want my government funded by the misery of others.

 

 

Yes, it is an interesting article. There are however two point I'd like to make and I'll number them for those whose can't pick points out of prose.

1. Edward Ellison is pretty much a lone voice among law enforcemet agents. It reminds me of the Intelligent Design debate, where 100 scientists put there name to a document espousing ID. Those who believed in evolution gathered 3000 sgnatures from scientists called either Stephen or Stephanie who did not believe in ID. (I may have the figures slightly wrong - they are from memory)

2. For a man who talks about a "broad debate" he puts forward a remarkably narrow view on the subject. There's no chance that increasing availability will increase use? Sure? There's no chance that no matter how much you educate children they will still try things if they're available? Sure? There's no chance you might open up a Pandora's box which is impossible to shut? There's no chance you might be wrong?

 

Jean-Pierre

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think most countries have a problem with drug addicts, apart from Holland

Hmm, I lived in Amsterdam for 18 months. That statement is rather like saying the only country that doesn't have a problem with torture is Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

 

Jean-Pierre

 

By the way, It's "The Netherlands" otherwise you'll get Heddwen (Kez) all worked up!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you scroll up, you will find that was what I said to contradict the assertion that it would prevent overdosing
We obviously both read the original point differently then:

 

 

labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose);

I read that as it would go some way to reducing overdoses not stopping them all together.

 

 

"Why should the drug barons make all the profits, let's have some go to the state" is a rational argument.
Not on its own perhaps not...but as a contribution to the overall argument..its a fair point.

 

 

I don't want that kind of blood money. I don't want my government funded by the misery of others.

A high percentage of government funding is created by someone elses misery anyway. Alcohol is taxed and some poor kid will be getting beaten to a pulp by his/her drunken father/mother...bet he/she isn't exactly living a misery free life.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A high percentage of government funding is created by someone elses misery anyway.
That's not an argument! Something immoral happens so it doesn't matter if we do more immoral things!

 

 

We obviously both read the original point differently then:

No, we both read it the same. You chose to interpret the word 'avoid' as 'reduce'. I had already pointed out that 'reduce' would have been the correct word to use and now you're trying to tell me that I should have read 'avoid' as 'reduce' in the first place! Gadzooks! Try to admit it if you make a mistake!

 

Jean-Pierre

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, we both read it the same. You chose to interpret the word 'avoid' as 'reduce'. I had already pointed out that 'reduce' would have been the correct word to use and now you're trying to tell me that I should have read 'avoid' as 'reduce' in the first place! Gadzooks! Try to admit it if you make a mistake!
Err...no we didn't!!! I took the original "avoid" as "reduce" and you took it as "stop" and then gave the quote below, which shows clearly what you interpreted avoid as. I never told you what you should have read it as, I said that we may have read it differently.

 

 

Labelling concentration does not prevent overdosing. It may reduce it, but I doubt it would make a large impact. Overdosing is usually caused by abstinence and then returning to your original dose without realising that your body no longer has the tolerance it had.

And as I then stated...of course it would reduce it, no MAY about it..as true overdoses are rare...and most "overdoses" are caused by the mix, so to speak.

 

 

Try to admit it if you make a mistake
That's not an argument! Something immoral happens so it doesn't matter if we do more immoral things

If someone chooses to take drugs...what's immoral about it? And I mean in the grand scheme of things...I don't agree with drug taking...(well not all ;) ) but it's a choice. Based on my previous comments regarding alcohol...having a beer could be classed as immoral to some.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but sometimes it's a good idea to open your eyes and read between the lines.

 

I think most people reading what he said would know he didn't mean it would stop overdoses altogether and would have come to the assumption he meant reduce.

 

It was a genuine misunderstanding. Jus accept it. Don't worry about it. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Someone wants drugs, so they find someone who sells them. Period. There is no harm here, other than the harm to the person taking the drugs (and the user is obviously is unconcerned). I don't want drugs, so I don't buy them. Period. No one tries to talk me out of this position and no one tries to force them on me.

Er, not necessarily true here. Go into one of your local discos (or maybe this kind of thing only happens in my part of the world) and leave your drink half-drunk standing around while you go to the loo. I would seriously recommend you don't touch it again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there a set of dentures in your glass when you come back from the loo, Archie?

 

JP, I can't help observing there seems to be a lack of love in your posts. I had a similiar problem a while back now until the Bishop bought me a jumbo pack of viagra. They soon put a bit of zip back in my life again. I'll send you a couple for you to try. See if they do the same for you. Don't worry, it's perfectly normally for a man approaching 40 to have the odd hiccup now and again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0