EPTAlso, misleading title. This is by no means the world's most senseless war, other ones are costing far more and accomplishing far less.
72 hours to end World's most senseless War! - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
Also, misleading title. This is by no means the world's most senseless war, other ones are costing far more and accomplishing far less. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On June 01 2011 04:42 Irrelevant wrote: You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world? That however, is irrelevant (see what i did there?). Painkiller ODs are generally because of suicides, and should not be confused by ODs by mistake. If you OD on painkillers without meaining to kill yourself, you're probably not the sharpest knife in the box to say the least. I don't see how this vote would matter for the US. Since when do UN regulations effect the US? Israel is commiting genocide and torture and have basically commited crime against humanity, which has been condemned by the UN like 50+ times (numbers escape me, but 50+ is safe), but it's blocked by the US veto. UN was heavily against starting the war in Iraq, as there was no reason whatsoever for it, and guess what happened. I really don't see why anyone would think that a UN regulation would change anything. The UN is a paper tiger without any real power, and it's rules are more like thin guidelines with no penalty if broken. That's atleast what I feel about it. | ||
|
Robellicose
England245 Posts
On June 01 2011 04:27 RoosterSamurai wrote: But do you think universal healthcare would be fair if taxpayers were also bearing the burden of an unavoidable increase in hospitalizations due to drug-related sickness? I'm not arguing whether or not regulated drugs are safer, or more dangerous or anything. I just want to know what effect it will take on universal healthcare. And whether or not it is fair for taxpayers to support yet another dangerous vice (first smoking, then alcohol, then hard drugs). I'm not entirely sure about how all this works in the US, but drug abusers in the UK already go to hospitals etc. I believe someone earlier in the thread referenced the Insite experiment - where due to the addicts having access to clean needles, hygiene advice and so forth, the Insite experiment saved the health care system more than it cost: by reducing the level of infection, cross contamination of dirty needles, ensuring that their drugs had not been cut with dangerous substances such as glass and so on that were putting plenty of drug addicts in hospital. I would fully expect the strain on the health services to decrease following any form of licenced sale of drugs - look at alcohol compared to when the US had the prohibition - alcoholics would drink methanol, moonshine and so forth that would put them in far more danger than if they had just had a beer that had been quality controlled by market forces. | ||
|
Slithe
United States985 Posts
On June 01 2011 04:47 Spidinko wrote: Great point. Obviously I'm being facetious. If you could develop a drug akin to cocaine, would you? Since there are other drugs more harmful anyway... Getting rid of cocaine would help. So why not? Because the cost of getting rid of cocaine is so heinous that it's just not practical at all. Our money could be spent in much better ways to achieve the same goals. If we were making significant progress on the war on drugs, then I'd say sure let's keep it up until we've finally smothered out the problem. Based on the current track record, I'd say that's not the case. We should investigate different approaches. The idea of regulation has a lot of evidence supporting it, and on a small scale it seems to work decently. I don't know how effective it may be if we were to try and apply it to the entire USA all at once, but we should certainly investigate the possibility. We can take all that money from the drug war and instead implement a better drug education program that aims to actually inform our youth. We can invest more into rehab clinics that will help people kick the habit for good and become contributing members of society. By boxing out the black market, we can reduce the terrible drug-related crimes and deaths, and gangs/criminal organizations will lose much of their funding. From my perspective, the trade off looks like this. We can save lives by reducing crime and improving drug education, but we may also see an increase in hard drug usage, which could lead to lost lives as well. I can't say for sure that one is better than the other, but I believe that the increased drug usage will not be particularly significant at all. | ||
|
Valeranth
United States100 Posts
On June 01 2011 04:58 Euronyme wrote: That however, is irrelevant (see what i did there?). Painkiller ODs are generally because of suicides, and should not be confused by ODs by mistake. If you OD on painkillers without meaining to kill yourself, you're probably not the sharpest knife in the box to say the least. I don't see how this vote would matter for the US. Since when do UN regulations effect the US? Israel is commiting genocide and torture and have basically commited crime against humanity, which has been condemned by the UN like 50+ times (numbers escape me, but 50+ is safe), but it's blocked by the US veto. UN was heavily against starting the war in Iraq, as there was no reason whatsoever for it, and guess what happened. I really don't see why anyone would think that a UN regulation would change anything. The UN is a paper tiger without any real power, and it's rules are more like thin guidelines with no penalty if broken. That's atleast what I feel about it. Do you happen to live in america? We are not a part of the UN so what they can do to us is very limited and thus their power seems little to us. Either way it would be a start and help many a country save some money by not having so many people in jail / out of work over petty crimes that harmed no one. Maybe if they set some better guidelines on what should make a drug illegal we in the States will follow. NOTE: I do believe there are some drugs that should not be legal, but those drugs should be proven beyond a doubt to cause bodily harm and / or insight rage in the user. | ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
On June 01 2011 01:36 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Thought this was going to be about the Iraq War... Or Israel's illegal occupation of, and expansion upon, Palestinian land... But drugs. Okay, then. Today we declare war on Mountain Dew.  Signed. Victimless crimes filling prisons while the real criminals run free? Unfair. | ||
|
DorN
Germany90 Posts
On June 01 2011 05:06 Valeranth wrote: Do you happen to live in america? We are not a part of the UN so what they can do to us is very limited and thus their power seems little to us. Is this sarcasm or just stupid ? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On June 01 2011 04:58 ampson wrote: The website says the will move towards decriminalization of drugs, but it doesn't say which ones afaik. So I can't support that. IMO, the only acceptable change in drug policy would be the regulation of marijuana, and having it be HEAVILY taxed, similar to cigarettes. Firstly why would it have to be heavily taxed for you to support it? Secondly, you are against decriminalization of harmless hallucinogens like mushrooms and LSD? Perhaps with regulation but nevertheless decriminalized. | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs. It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind. Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14220 Posts
On June 01 2011 01:53 DorN wrote: You shouldnt start to argue here. Just an advice. This Thread will turn into a pro/contra battlefield soon enough. Just have faith in the UN they actually think about more than easy weed. I see what you did there very witty. will touch on your wit little later. Yeah the people who I've at least are simply mixed on it which I find the hardest to justify. some soft drugs I can understand you making the argument for but crack and heroin? whats to stop people from getting worse and worse drugs for people as long as it gives you a high thats new. I disagree entirely with these statements. You can't for once say that theres no controversy on anything because people deny the holocost or that the CIA killed JFK. In countries with less well off governments such as south america drugs have controlled things. Its never been the drug itself which is the problem but all the things that come with it. People suffer under drugs even if they chose to do it to begin with shouldn't we try to prevent suffering even at the cost of our own freedom is the question we should be debating. That Deep wit above references the America war on drugs in south america where we fought the commie rebels that where being funded by and corrupting the country thought drugs. I'm not sure if he ment that or not but I thought it was nice. TL hasn't had a true flame war thread with something that doesn't have to deal with the game itself but I really don't see the point of having a frankly advertiser argument about things. I really hate sites like this beacuse they only spread misinformation up and down every single day and it really hurts the debate as a whole. | ||
|
Thrill
2599 Posts
I may not have slept for X hours but seriously, what kind of bullshit feel-good machine is this?! "Ooo i'm part of something great, i'm saving the world." Uganda - ok, fine, i suppose their cabinet doesn't read the Times and are clueless to what the world thinks so a petition makes sense, but the UN? Wtf? And these time limits? It's just... Wow. | ||
|
Bartuc
Netherlands629 Posts
Hard drugs is not such a smart idea in my personal opinion. | ||
|
Haydin
United States1481 Posts
On June 01 2011 05:06 Valeranth wrote: Do you happen to live in america? We are not a part of the UN so what they can do to us is very limited and thus their power seems little to us. Actually, yes we are. We were a major part of it's founding, and FDR was the one that coined the name "united nations". | ||
|
Morteth
United States59 Posts
One thing I think we can ALL agree upon is that the way things are CURRENTLY handled can be IMPROVED on TREMENDOUSLY. Whether we legalize all drugs, hard and soft, or keep them illegal with certain exceptions, right NOW the roof is leaking, and the leak isn't getting any better. There needs to be solutions to the current way this is all being handled, it just isn't efficient and in the long-term provides NO solutions to anything, just a re-routing of money and arms into illegal and corrupt hands. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On June 01 2011 05:06 Valeranth wrote: Do you happen to live in america? We are not a part of the UN What? o.O Personally, I'm not really a fan of drugs and I'll never understand why people are so adamant about legalizing them, but whatever. Argue whatever viewpoint you want. That's freedom, right? | ||
|
Noro
Canada991 Posts
| ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On June 01 2011 05:38 AIRwar wrote: You people are all idiots. Why? | ||
|
Haato
Mexico81 Posts
Poll: Do you believe in the united nations? No, Leave me alone (11) Yes! They care for human lives around the world and work hard! (7) I'd like to but there's not much they can do (6) I don't expect any lasting outcome out of this or anything done by them (2) It's just a scheme to make a few rich or give political levers! *tinfoil hat on* (1) 27 total votes Your vote: Do you believe in the united nations? (Vote): Yes! They care for human lives around the world and work hard! | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On June 01 2011 05:18 Deadlyfish wrote: Strongly disagree with this. I've lived in Panama for a long time, where drugs are a huge part of everyday life, i've even lost a friend when he committed suicide after starting to use heroin. The drug dealers literally stand outside of the schools selling their shit. We should be as hard on them as possible, and continue the war on drugs. It might be easy to say when you are from a place where you dont even notice drugs, but when you see peoples lives destroyed by it you might change your mind. Decriminalizing drugs? Worst idea ever. How about you look at the benefits instead of just going off your emotions? If you really care about people dying from drugs, then you need to read up on the benefits of decriminalization, or legalization. More lives would be saved from having factory produced drugs when compared to the street garbage so many users are subjected to. If junkies want to get high, they'll get high; and I think its better getting it from the government, then some asshole outside of a school. Also, guess what? That asshole wouldn't be making money. Instead, your government could be making money off users, and put that money to good use, like better schools, libraries, hospitals, whatever. Also, who are you to tell people what they can, and cannot put in their bodies? I think that's very rude and selfish. If you want it banned to prevent more injuries or needless death, then we need to put more effort on education, not the prohibition; seeing as that isn't working at all. Also, so the person above me, your poll is pretty biased. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
because yankees or die?! | ||
| ||
