"Slomp wanted them to handle customer support because they had better English language skills that he."
US law enforcement is claiming a victory in its 43-year War on Drugs™ after a Dutch man accused of being one of the largest drug dealers on the now-defunct Silk Road online bazaar agreed to plead guilty to a single drug conspiracy charge. Over an 18-month period, the Feds allege, Cornelis Jan Slomp sent 104 kilograms of MDMA, …
"Prosecutors claim Slomp wanted them to handle customer support because they had better English language skills that he."
Just thought it was too good to not be quoted for posterity.
Edit: Damn! Just not quick enough. Gave Stephen 2 a thumbs up, purely for his posting speed.
And as an American, I get to enjoy paying taxes for the investigation, prosecution, and incarceration. Whereas if we simply allowed people to do what they want, the sales would actually benefit the economy, in addition to the savings from not chasing and locking people up.
"....if we simply allowed people to do what they want, the sales would actually benefit the economy, in addition to the savings from not chasing and locking people up." The criminals involved are not the junkies 'doing what they want', they are the people deliberately making a profit illegally from the misery of others. And if you think the hard drugs sold by organized criminals are harmless I suggest you need to do a lot more reading on the social impact of such drugs. After all, it would also be a lot cheaper to simply put all the junkies up against the wall rather than spend public money on rehabilitation programs, needle exchange programs, methadone programs, help groups for junkies trying to get clean, 'awareness' campaigns, and just think of the police and military savings if we just forego the War on Drug dealers and make it a War on Drug users. Simply pass one law - all users and handlers of illegal drugs can be executed by members of the public, no need for a trial - and we can even save extra money on psychopath treatment by making them productive members of society doing 'what they want'! There could even be an economic boost from selling weapons to the psychos to kill junkies with (well, at least until all the junkies are dead). Are you sure arguing on legality on the basis of 'doing what you want' is such a good idea?
"....How many billions is it so far?...." The Police estimate that drugs are a factor in at least half of thefts in the UK, meaning drugs currently cost the UK population about £2.5bn every year in goods stolen in burglaries, muggings, carjackings and pickpocketing. That is just the cost of goods stolen and does not take into account the psychological pain inflicted on people suffering such crimes, nor the cost to all of us through the increased cost of insurance premiums. But why would anyone expect a cluetard like you to actually know anything about the realities of crime? You probably base your whole opinion on the fact Lady Gaga admitted she has used drugs, so you probably think it's cool and 'right on'.
> The Police estimate that drugs are a factor in at least half of thefts in the UK, meaning drugs currently cost the UK population about £2.5bn every year in goods stolen in burglaries, muggings, carjackings and pickpocketing.
Reference please plumpness.
And BTW please have you considered white collar crime also, this may not be impartial but it's at least not written by you <http://www.bdo.co.uk/press/fraud-costs-uk-85.3-billion-per-year>. The URL is not the whole story so feel free to read it all.
"....Reference please plumpness....."
'....Examples of users needing £15,000 to £30,000 a year to fund drug habits have often been given. To make such amounts of money from stolen goods police often suggest multiplying by three – on the basis that stolen goods will fetch about one third of their normal value. There are estimates of around 306,000 heroin and / or crack users in England, with around 200,000 of them in treatment in any one year. That is a lot of theft, burglary, fraud or shoplifting if all are stealing to pay for things. This has led some people to suggest that up to half of all acquisitive crime is drug-related and that the market value of goods stolen involved could be between £2-2.5 billion each year.....' - DrugScope (http://www.drugscope.org.uk/), a rather drug-liberal charity (and from my own observations of others having to feed their habits I'd say the £15-30k figure is low). I could have used the Home Office figure for the total cost of illegal drugs to the UK annually, which is £15bn, but that heaps in a load of other 'costs' such as the costs to the NHS of treating A&E admissions of junkies, costs to the Police of fighting drug crime, etc. The Home Office also put the total cost of all drug-related crime (included organised crime) at £13.9bn, but does not break that figure down into how much is junkies stealing to feed their habits and how much is the organised crime element. But, as your buddy Blowhard Gale seems to have missed, here in pro-Drug War Britian with our 'antiquated' and 'non-liberal' laws, there has been a drop in drug use every year since a peak in about 2004.
"....have you considered white collar crime...." So when the 'cigs and drink are just as evil' schpiel fails, you want to reach for the other Leftie standard mantra, 'think of the Evil Bankers'? Seriously, that's just denial and distraction, like saying we should ignore rape because murder is a much more serious crime. I get it, you like your drugs and your life would be a misery without them, but the rest of us are just not so dependent on artificial highs for their laughs as you obviously are.
here in pro-Drug War Britian with our 'antiquated' and 'non-liberal' laws, there has been a drop in drug use every year since a peak in about 2004.
You mean this publication right here which seems to show a drop in drug use going back far further than 2004, and having precious little to do with being a sadistic motherfucker and smacking people over the head with a stick, and more to do with societal attitudes toward hard drug use?
Yeah, amazing how evidence works. Sorry, but everywhere you look, your war is either being lost, or it's the wrong damned side to be on. Funny how societal disapproval works a shitload better than your sadistic approach to things. Also note that quite a lot of people consider casual cannabis use to be acceptable. I guess not everyone has been taken in by the bullshit and convinced that everything is "DRUGZ".
"....seems to show a drop in drug use going back far further than 2004, and having precious little to do with being a sadistic motherfucker and smacking people over the head with a stick, and more to do with societal attitudes toward hard drug use?...." Oh dear, your research into the War on Drugs seems to have been as lamentable as all your other attempts. The WoD has always included more than men with sticks, it has always included education to ensure the next generation don't grow up as thick and blinkered as you are.
"....Yeah, amazing how evidence works. Sorry, but everywhere you look, your war is either being lost, or it's the wrong damned side to be on...." So if drug use is declining in the UK, where we are pretty full-on with the WoD, that is 'losing'? Ah, now I see how you get so confused in your socio-political outlook - you haven't a clue as to what winning looks like! ROFLMAO!
"....Funny how societal disapproval works a shitload better than your sadistic approach to things...." Oh, I don't know, it probably helps to expose the idiocy of people like you, it probably makes others think about the possible adverse mental effects of long-term drug abuse.
The WoD has always included more than men with sticks,
Reefer Madness? Talk To Frank? "This Is Your Brain On Drugs"? Yeah, "education". Followed by getting the utter shit kicked out of you.
So if drug use is declining in the UK, where we are pretty full-on with the WoD...
These are people being paid to research ways to reduce illegal drug use. Funnily, they seem to think that being a sadistic cunt doesn't work either.
It obviously escaped your attention that the UK Government, off the back of a mandate from the majority...
On a what? Oh please don't make me laugh by mentioning the ABC classification system.
... set the classifications (A,B and C) for illegal 'recreational' drugs, not me.
Oh. You just did. You mentioned the same system that puts marijuana in the same class as amphetamines. Which considers sniffing glue and sleeping pill abuse to be less dangerous than cannabis, and completely fails to include alcohol in there anywhere.
This is the same system which had the ol' mowie wowie dropped to a class C for a little while, until Rupert "Arsehole" Murdoch and the Sun ran a FUD campaign. An independant report recommended that cannabis be decriminalised. The Sun went all full fucking retard. Cannabis went back up to a class B, and that's not FUD? Same publication that still has limited circulation in Liverpool 20-odd years after the Hillsborough disaster, due to their bullshit about Liverpool FC fans. "SOME FANS URINATED ON POLICE OFFICERS" indeed. You think they've changed?
Anybody who has done any actual study into it knows that the UK's drug classification system is a politically motivated fucking joke. Anybody apart from you, it would seem.
While we're at it: http://abolition.e2bn.org/campaign.html
The abolitionist movement for slavery was not as straightforward as you like to think. While a "majority" in government may have voted against it (more for geopolitical than humanitarian reasons), this was not necessarily what everybody else thought. I'm sure you probably think that in the US, it was "The South" who was for slavery and "The North" that was against. Sorry. Wasn't the case.
So thanks for making my point for me there, even if you do seem to think that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
LOL, it was you and your fellow sheeple that introduced the idea that drink and cigs were so bad that the damage of drugs could be ignored...
Where? Where did I say that the damage of drugs could be ignored? You think that because I'm not a sadist that I haven't seen people fuck up? Mostly on alcohol, but also on things like amphetamines, and heroin. None on marijuana, funnily enough.
If it really was about "education", then I'd probably be helping! As it is, as long as drug policy is "hit them with a stick", then fuck drug policy.
He can swap notes on knowing drugs with the other inmates he meets in the prison showers.
Keep showing everyone how much of a bloody-minded sadist you are. How bloody-minded and sadistic most of the hard-line anti-everything-except-alcohol-because-I-like-getting-drunk crowd are.
"Reefer Madness? Talk To Frank? "This Is Your Brain On Drugs"? Yeah, "education". Followed by getting the utter shit kicked out of you."
To be fair, Talk to Frank was pretty good when it started. Informative and honest. I looked again 6 months ago and it appears to have become 'drugs are just bad, ok'.
"You mentioned the same system that puts marijuana in the same class as amphetamines."
Isn't K now Class B or something stupid? Totally idiot system. I don't think anyone who has a clue would cite it as any kind of truism on the dangers.
"...Reefer Madness? Talk To Frank? "This Is Your Brain On Drugs"? Yeah, "education"......" If that's the only bits of the anti-drugs campaigns that penetrated your drug-addled senses then it's no surprise you haven't a clue about the issue.
".....Followed by getting the utter shit kicked out of you...." Which implies (a) you have previously used illegal drugs (and probably still do), and (b) you got caught and presumably convicted, but want to blame what was your fault on The Man. Gosh, I guess you're completely impartial then!
".....These are people being paid to research ways to reduce illegal drug use...." But didn't you stupidly insist there was no 'soft' side to the WoD?
".....Funnily, they seem to think that being a sadistic cunt doesn't work either...." Oh, you just did again! Seriously, inhale less and think more.
"....http://abolition.e2bn.org/campaign.html...." Which says NOTHING about the abolition of slavery being unpopular with the majority. Indeed, it states that the opposition came from the minority directly benefitting from slavery, whilst the majority were educated by an information campaign by the abolitionists to SUPPORT the abolition.
".....So thanks for making my point for me there,...." The only point you are making is that drug abuse has rendered you incapable of reading and comprehending even the websites you try to use as evidence.
"....None on marijuana, funnily enough....." Once again, you are ignoring the organized crime linked to 'soft' drugs and the misery inflicted on the rest of us by junkies stealing to fund not just 'hard' drugs but grass as well. And then there's the medically-proven worsening effect grass has on schizophrenics such as Colin West, a known drug abuser who got high and stabbed his neighbour to death in Tottenham in July 2008. He had a previous conviction for getting stoned and leaving a student in Scotland in need of reconstructive surgery for his face.
"....as long as drug policy is "hit them with a stick", then fuck drug policy...." Once again, all you're showing is just your ignorance. The Home Office spent £1.2bn over the last three years on the educational part of the WoD, but you were probably too stoned to notice.
Matt, you really are massively ignorant about this entire subject. Again: Go and educate yourself by talking to people and gathering a bit of experience, rather than reading crap in the Mail and from whatever internet sources you use to prop up your existing opinions. Maybe enter a conversation with someone who uses recreational drugs without the preconception that they are a thieving junkie, perhaps.
What the hell does it matter that someone you are debating with got busted for drugs? That makes them a junkie? Oh, it doesn't make them impartial? So what? Nor are you. Every point you make is downright absurd. Someone disagrees with you, so you accuse them of being on drugs? Lame.
".....you really are massively ignorant about this entire subject...." I have seen drug users across Europe and as far afield as America, Egypt (yes, even those 'good' Muslims) and India. I have also worked with charities that try to clean up street kids and young adults that have done everything from stealing cars to pick pocketing to selling their bodies for drugs. I have taught computer skills to them in the hope they can keep clean. I have had experience of trying to convince companies to employ such youths and the success rate for the kids staying off drugs and away from crime is less than half. Many of them give in to temptation and steal from their new employers, setting them back on the path of unemployment and wasted lives. I'm betting your 'experience' extends to puffing the odd joint with similarly stupid college buddies from the comfort of your suburban home. So, frankly, there is nothing you can tell me about drugs or the misery they cause, and it is clearly you that knows SFA outside of your tiny circle of the hip'n'trendy.
".....Every point you make is downright absurd...." So absurd, I note, that you were completely unable to post a counter to any of them. This is my surprised face, honest.
".....totally plausible, lambchop....." See, soon as the sheep run into something they can't argue they just try to ignore it. Come back when you've spoken to a twelve-year-old who sold favours to men on the street to fund his habit. And yes, that is an extreme case, but like every junkie I met - every single one - they all started on 'soft' gateway drugs, usually cannabis.
".....nice injection of racism there plumps." Firstly, you ignorant moron, Islam is not a race. Secondly, the point is that many Muslim states refuse to accept that their countries have a drug problem, they insist it is just non-Muslim foreigners. That way, if you get caught abusing drugs somewhere like Saudi, you are also tarred as a 'bad' Muslim. Which means you often don't even get recourse to proper trial but thrown to the mercy of the Mutuwa and the Sharia system. Whiners like Blowhard might like to pause and think that he would probably have had a confession beaten out of him in Saudi, followed by a punishment ranging from lashing to death by beheading, depending on the whim of his 'court'.
See, soon as the sheep run into something they can't
argue verify they just try to ignore it wonder about claims from certain posters.
> Firstly, you ignorant moron, Islam is not a race.
Damn, you are of course correct. I should have said religious bigotry.
> Secondly, the point is that many Muslim states [...] whim of his 'court'.
Arguably true but not pertient to this discussion.
> they all started on 'soft' gateway drugs, usually cannabis
Now some of those inconvenient facts that cause you to rage, from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory#Alcohol_and_tobacco>
Alcohol tends to precede cannabis use, and it is rare for those who use hard drugs to not have used alcohol or tobacco first; the 2005 National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) in the United States found that, compared with lifetime nondrinkers, adults who have consumed alcohol were statistically much more likely to currently use illicit drugs and/or abuse prescription drugs in the past year. Effects were strongest for cocaine (26 times more likely), cannabis (14 times more likely), and psychedelics (13 times more likely). In addition, lifetime drinkers were also six times more likely to use or be dependent on illicit drugs than lifetime nondrinkers.
According to the NIDA, "People who abuse drugs are also likely to be cigarette smokers. More than two-thirds of drug abusers are regular tobacco smokers, a rate more than triple that of the rest of the population."
So, baccy & booze are by far the bigger gateway drugs, 'twould seem. Agreed?
Plumpness nil, rest of the world 2.
".....Now some of those inconvenient facts that cause you to rage....." So instead of trying to deny cannabis is a gateway drug, you instead fall back on the same tired, junkie mantra 'booze and cigs are as bad/worse'. That is just moronic levels of denial. Almost as moronic as the attempt to focus on whether cannabis 'primes the brain' for harder drugs - it doesn't matter if it does or not, the simple fact is hard drug abusers almost universally started with cannabis.
As for tobacco and alcohol, it is often stated that if either was a new discovery and then it is more than likely neither would get government approval in the West. But you just want to focus on them because you know you've lost the argument on drugs.
I notice I've had to add your monicker back in, you keep deleting it.
> So instead of trying to deny cannabis is a gateway drug,
Well, lambchop, if it is, then evidently booze & fags are precursor gateway drugs to cannabis and should be treated as such. Sorry, did you not get that? Read the post again.
> As for tobacco and alcohol, it is often stated that if either was a new discovery and then it is more than likely neither would get government approval ....
blah blah Farmer Knows Best blah blah blah, another plumpish attempt to derail his (inevitably losing) argument to something else.
World 3, plumpo nil.
"....you keep deleting it....." I have to keep trimming the title or the Reg posting mechanism rejects it.
".....booze & fags are precursor gateway drugs to cannabis and should be treated as such...." So you want to deny the known harm of 'soft' gateway drugs by excusing it with the harm caused booze and cigs? That's a bit like saying 'hey, I've shot myself in the left foot, might as well shoot myself in the right foot as well, it's only fair'. I don't deny the harm caused by booze or tobacco, I just don't see why it would be a smart idea to ADD to it by making it booze, tobacco and cannabis (or whatever other junk you lot want to escape your sad reality with) legal. I also would not weep if booze and tobacco were banned, I don't smoke and only drink socially at most, so your attempt at denial and diversion is still not getting you anywhere.
".....World 3, plumpo nil." Once again, your maths is as faulty as your logic. It's like your other claim, 'we are the 99%', another complete denial of the fact you and your views are only popular with a MINORITY, and a really deluded one at that. If your view really did represent that of the majority then cannabis would be legal in all democratic countries, when it is most obviously not. Keep on puffing, it obviously helps you cope with the denial.
> I have to keep trimming the title or the Reg posting mechanism rejects it.
Oh rubbish! See, I've just added it back in and it accepts it just fine. Honestly plumps, what a sorry excuse.
So, World 4, Plumps nil.
> So you want to deny the known harm of 'soft' gateway drugs by excusing it with the harm caused booze and cigs?
No, not excuse it but recognise that the problem is arguably larger in legal drugs and therefore by not recognising that, *you* are excusing the known harm of legal drugs by focusing on the arguably lesser harm of some illegal drugs.
Read this carefully (I'm sure I've said this before, but with you it's like pissing into an ocean of piss, as someone so neatly said): I'm not in favour of drugs, nor against them. I just want a consistent position taken to reflect the harm that they can do to society. Alcohol does a shedload more societal harm than cannabis, let's recognise that then deal with it suitably.
How could this be done? Perhaps by banning the pushing of alcohol - because that's what advertising it is, pushing it. That it happens to be a legal drug does NOT make it any less pushing, nor any more morally defensible.
> [...] of the fact you and your views are only popular with a MINORITY
Once again you assert without proof. And incorrectly, as is your wont.
In 2013, Transform commissioned renowned pollsters Ipsos MORI to gauge the UK public's support for drug policy reform.
The results revealed that over half of the public (53%) support cannabis legalisation (legal regulation of production and supply) or decriminalisation of possession of cannabis. Only 1 in 7 support heavier penalties and more being spent on enforcement for cannabis offences. In addition, the survey showed that around two thirds (67%) support a comprehensive independent review of all the possible policy options (from legal market regulation to tougher enforcement) for controlling drugs.
World 5, lambchop nil.
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative" - J. S. Mill
".....Oh rubbish! See, I've just added it back in and it accepts it just fine. Honestly plumps, what a sorry excuse....." Well, I don't know what cannabrowser you're using, but it's what I get with Chrome, so go have sexual relations with yourself. But I do find it amusing that you consider that a 'score'.
"....No, not excuse it but recognise that the problem is arguably larger in legal drugs and therefore by not recognising that, *you* are excusing the known harm of legal drugs by focusing on the arguably lesser harm of some illegal drugs....." Yeah, so that's an attempt at excusing it then.
".....I'm not in favour of drugs, nor against them....." IMHO that is an obvious lie if only due to your irrational and vehement attacks on the suggestion there might be issues with 'soft' drugs, plus your continual attempts to divert attention from the harm caused by drugs with vacuous excuses about how booze and tobacco are worse. Either that or you're so stoned you just can't think straight.
",....Once again you assert without proof......" Go read the links provided, it clearly states the number of drug users, including cannabis, and clearly shows you are a tiny fraction of huge population, and therefore cannot assert that your views are that of the majority. Would you like me to draw you a picture in crayon so you might understand? Do you need the help of an adult with the long words? I'm sorry if your lack of education and drug-addled senses make you unable to understand the content, but then you're just providing more evidence to back my case.
".....http://www.tdpf.org.uk/campaign/changing-public-opinion...." Ooh, look, more skewed polls with leading questions from the pro-drug crowd - what a surprise! What do you expect when you ask leading questions like 'would you like to see harder punishment for drug crims'? All that shows is that people did not want to make the sentences tougher, not that they wanted to legalize anything or even make the punishments lighter. Indeed, it could be taken completely the opposite way, that 86% are perfectly happy with the current drug laws. Indeed, if you had actually bothered to look at the actual poll data, the very first question was the following options:
'A. The law in the UK should stay as it currently is....' 60% answered yes.
'B. The law in the UK should be changed...." Only 14% answered yes.
'C. An experimental trial of decriminalisation should take place...." Only 21% said yes.
There is then a desperate fudge in D to make the 'decriminalisation' figure look better by adding the positive replies to B and C together as desire for outright decriminalisation! That still only gives 34%, much lower than those saying no to decriminalisation in A.
Now, I know that you have a big problem understanding stats and figures, so I won't waste time taking you through even that simple maths, just take my word for it when I say the MAJORITY wanted the law to remain unchanged, and a much smaller MINORITY of the respondents wanted a change. Now, go be a failure elsewhere.
> but it's what I get with Chrome, so go have sexual relations with yourself
Plumpeh wins again!
> Yeah, so that's an attempt at excusing it then.
Read what I said again plumpo
> vehement attacks on the suggestion there might be issues with 'soft' drugs
Oh dear plumpo, short memory. I never said that. Making things up again?
> Ooh, look, more skewed polls with leading questions from the pro-drug crowd
Very first line of what I quoted included this: "Ipsos MORI". Clueless?
> that 86% are perfectly happy with the current drug laws.
Oh dear again, hold the front page "plumps misread graph!"
> Indeed, if you had actually bothered to look at the actual poll data
read it again lambchop
> desperate fudge in D to make the 'decriminalisation' figure look better
It would be stupid to decriminalise alcohol, which costs billions a year ("Alcohol-related crime costs £11 billion per year (2010-11 costs, England)" - me), far exceeding the damage you quoted ("meaning drugs currently cost the UK population about £2.5bn every year in..." - plumps). Oh wait a minute, alcohol is legal! silly me. And costs so much more... Irrational but lets keep it that way.
> just take my word for it when I say
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA! Trust you?????? HAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA! Plump & Bleaty Knows Best!
World 6, lambchop nil.
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative" - J. S. Mill
Once again, more denial and evasion, not one counter argument, followed by the tired and predictable insistence that alcohol is somehow worse than drugs therefore all drug issues can be ignored. I think the sheeple need a new hymn book, Boring has run out of new bleats to repeat. We need a yawn icon for responding to such non-posts.
Ok, so you've completely failed on the usual druggie 'paradise' of Holland, would you like to try the Czech Republic next? They actually have probably the most liberal drug laws in Europe, where you can walk around with 15g of cannabis without any worries (an amount that would get you arrested as a dealer in most European countries). They also have alarmingly high levels of drug addiction in their Roma people. No coincidence then that Prague is also the pickpocket and also the child prostituition capital of Europe, where the need to fund drug habits is a significant factor in both crimes. Roma children as young as 13 have been sold to brothels in return for drugs. Drugs also fund a large proportion of human trafficking networks that work through the Czech Republic, bringing people from as far afield as Vietnam to work in the semi-legal prostitution market so popular with tourists. There's plenty of refs out there, and since you don't bother to read mine I suggest you go find some of your own for a change. Enjoy!
> predictable insistence that alcohol is somehow worse than drugs therefore all drug issues can be ignored
Naughty plumpo, that's not what I said.
> so you've completely failed on the usual druggie 'paradise' of Holland
You brought up holland, not me. Nor have you justified your original claim, plumps.
> would you like to try the Czech Republic next? They actually have probably the most liberal drug laws in Europe, where you can walk around with 15g of cannabis without any worries
Hmm. From <http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/czech-republic/101127/marijuana-laws>
The Czech Republic once defined illegal drug possession with the legally vague phrase "more than a small amount." In January, a new law took effect quantifying the amount of drugs that equals a misdemeanor offense: possession of less than 15 grams of marijuana, 1.5 grams of heroin, 1 gram of cocaine and 4 tablets of ecstasy, for example, can result in a fine of 15,000 Czech crowns ($830), the average monthly salary in the country. Possessing anything more is considered a felony.
Even though those amounts make Czech drug laws among the most lenient in Europe, officials bristle at the suggestion that the new law has liberalized drug possession.
“Drugs are not decriminalized in the Czech Republic,” said Frydrych. “Possession of drugs is at a minimum a misdemeanor. I personally do not consider the new law to be more lenient.”
"Felony". "Not decriminalised". Being fined. Not the same as "walk around with 15g of cannabis without any worries". Bit dishonest, little fluffy one.
> also the child prostituition capital of Europe
Conflating child prostitution with drug use... oh dear. Poverty may be a factor? No? Ah well.
World 7, plumpywumpy nil
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative" - J. S. Mill
(seriously Matt, if you weren't such an obnoxious and bullheaded, arrogant poster, and maybe tried to consider other people can hold different positions, and not use, let's say politely 'questionable', debating tactics, things might be different. I might not do so much lamb-baiting. I would listen more carefully. People might listen to you more and take your views on board more readily. As it stands you just clog up the forums with squawking red-necked condescension and abuse. You don't gain, neither do we. Why do it?)
".....that's not what I said....." That is EXACTLY the non-point you used and is so often used by druggies trying to push the legalization mantra.
".....Nor have you justified your original claim...." So you still haven't managed to find a responsible adult to read the refs for you then?
".....Felony". "Not decriminalised". Being fined. Not the same as "walk around with 15g of cannabis without any worries". Bit dishonest, little fluffy one....."" You should have read further than the headlines. Not only is the law not enforced, the Czech Republic also has massive levels of corruption, and a small bribe is all that is required to escape conviction. ".....Transparency International, an international organization fighting corruption, publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) Global Corruption Barometer of 2007 reveals that the main source of corruption is the police. The report is based on a scale from 1 to 5, defining 5 as extremely corrupt and 1 as not all corrupt. Accordingly, the category ‘Police’ gets a 3.8 on the scale...."
".....Conflating child prostitution with drug use... oh dear. Poverty may be a factor?....." It certainly is, but since you want to baaaaah-lieve it is the main factor and not drugs I will have to demand you supply some references. In the meantime:
1. "....Trafficked women were frequently offered jobs as models, maids, waitresses, and dancers through employment agencies and then forced into prostitution.....traffickers ensured victims' compliance by confiscating their travel documents and using isolation, drug and alcohol dependence, violence, threats of violence toward the victim or her family, and the threat of arrest and deportation...." - U.S. Dept of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Report on the Czech Republic.
2. "....the prostituion of boys is increasing, apparently connected to a growing drug problem, as many boys become involved in prostitution or pornography to finance their addiction...." EPCAT Global Monitoring Report on the Status of Action Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children - Czech Republic, 1st Edition.
Now go learn something you ignorant sheep.
"......"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative" - J. S. Mill". Wow, quoting someone that's been dead almost 150 years! And that's the best Mill quote you could come up with? I think you need to update your viewpoint into at least the 21st century or do a lot more reading on your Liberal icons. Of course, the Great Liberal God Mill generally talked a load of contradictory male genitalia, including the following which would seem to contradict your whole whining, self-interested bleat for the legalization of 'soft' drugs:
1. "The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people."
2. "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
And one that would seem to be perfect for you!
3. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."
Oops, you've been raped by your own petard again!
So rather than addressing my points, which are that you were wrong (or at least inaccurate) on drug policy in the czech republic, that poverty might be a bigger factor in child prostitution than drugs (as poverty may be the root cause of both drug abuse and said prostitution), and that you deliberately misquoted me, and also attributed to me an opinion about holland that I simply don't hold, and *most importantly*, that your whole attitude might just need being reconsidered for the benefit of everyone, you went straight for the quote. Thereby ironically demonstrating that that quote is not inappropriate, at present. Try to change that?
".....rather than addressing my points...." I see you're still premature, it must be quite a problem for you. That and the blinkered manner in which you leap to trendy conclusions and swallow what you are told is the 'right thing to think'.
"...,which are that you were wrong (or at least inaccurate) on drug policy in the Czech Republic...." Which you did not show at all.
"....that poverty might be a bigger factor in child prostitution than drugs...." Which you did not provide any proof of, and which I subsequently showed to be a false statement. Enjoy! If only you weren't so premature in your declarations of victory, you wouldn't leave yourself looking so stupid.
".... that you deliberately misquoted me....." With your level of confusion, which I can only surmise is due to a long history of drug abuse, I'd be surprised if you can even remember what you posted! Oh, and if you want to maintain I misquoted you, please do show where, otherwise others might think it just more of your usual bleating diversions to hide your denial.
> I see you're still premature / Which you did not show at all / Which you did not provide any proof of / With your level of confusion,
You're not going to change, Matt. I don't believe you can. But it's your choice in the end. Sorry.
"....You're not going to change....." Nope, I am going to continue posting verifiable facts, despite your inability to either read them fully of even vaguely comprehend their contents. I also see that you have not changed and again have posted a fact-free, argument-free, counter-free, personal attack. It's all getting a bit thin this predictable pattern of desperate denial of yours - shriek and bleat at a statement, demand refs, and then when you can't counter you go off on a personal attack. TBH, IMHO you're pathetic.
".....I don't believe you can....." Your opinion would carry a lot more weight if you weren't so busy ignoring the harmful effects of drugs and trying to ignore their association with such organized criminal activity as child prostitution, all so you can have a puff every now and again.
"... But it's your choice in the end....." Yes, it is your choice to live in denial. I'll just stick with facts, thanks.
"....Sorry." No need to apologize, IMHO your parents are the ones to blame.
...but I'm sure ethanol is the only drug these lessons apply to. Yep. Sure. Honest.
Again for those sleeping at the back - attempting to excuse the ADDED problems of drugs by referring to the historic problems of alcohol is like insisting you should shoot yourself in your right foot simply because you've already shot yourself in the left foot. Now, you may be too stupefied by your weed habit to see that, but you'll find that the rest of us - the majority- do see the stupidity of your non-argument.
> The Police estimate that drugs are a factor in at least half of thefts in the UK, meaning drugs currently cost the UK population about £2.5bn every year in goods stolen in burglaries, muggings, carjackings and pickpocketing
"Victims believed the offender(s) to be under the influence of alcohol in around half (47%) of all violent incidents, or 917,000 offences"
"Alcohol-related crime costs £11 billion per year (2010-11 costs, England)"
"Victims believed the offender(s) to be under the influence of alcohol in around half (47%) of all violent incidents, or 917,000 offences" Once again, you are seeking to deny the harm caused by drugs by saying drink is worse. It actually isn't (see below), but you are desperately trying the denial strategy again.
"Alcohol-related crime costs £11 billion per year (2010-11 costs, England)" That's the TOTAL cost, including policing and NHS. As I have already posted, the Home Office figure for the total cost of drug-related crime is £15bn, so about 35% more than that of drink. So BAAAAA yourself, you desperately denialist, blinkered, drug-addled sheep. Please go ask a responsible adult for help before trying to formulate another post.
As I have already posted, the Home Office figure for the total cost of drug-related crime is £15bn, so about 35% more than that of drink.
And bear in mind that "drug related crime" includes the use of the bloody stuff. Oh and the sadistic punishments and imprisonments. All the stuff that wouldn't exist if your war was ended, and all the stuff that would exist tenfold for alcohol if the US govt had got its way circa the 1930s.
But you keep on cherry picking.
"....Oh and the sadistic punishments and imprisonments...." Speaking from experience? What did you expect - everyone KNOWS it's illegal, the penalties are not exactly hidden from public view, so if you went to prison then it's your own stupid fault. Same goes for that cretin SuperTrips.
"....But you keep on cherry picking." LOL, it was you and your fellow sheeple that introduced the idea that drink and cigs were so bad that the damage of drugs could be ignored, so don't start crying now just because that has been debunked.
"What did you expect - everyone KNOWS it's illegal, the penalties are not exactly hidden from public view, so if you went to prison then it's your own stupid fault. Same goes for that cretin SuperTrips."
Users don't go to jail,.Matt. You're just showing your utter ignorance of the subject. As you do with every post and every cut-and-paste citation that you read on the internet somewhere.
How about you just educate yourself?
I don't mean look on Google like you normally do.
I mean actually go and talk to some people who use narcotics, from one extreme to another. Yes, some of it would prop up your preconceptions, but most of it would open your eyes a bit and make you a more rounded individual who could speak from experience, rather than a self-righteous dolt with a search engine.
Maybe smoke yourself a jay and go to a rave or two. And perhaps chill out that utterly dire attitude that you have towards other human beings.
"....Users don't go to jail,.Matt....." Which implies Blowhard is either talking put of his rectum (again), or he was carrying more than 'personal use' allowed, or he was actually caught dealing. Which one do you want to accuse him of?
"....I mean actually go and talk to some people who use narcotics...." I can guarantee I have spoken to more users than you, about a greater variety of drug abuse than you, and probably a wider range of ages too. You can stick your head in the sand as much as you like, you're just living in denial.
None of that crime would happen if you could just buy the drugs from Tesco.
(Or it would become an insignificant problem due to massive increases in tax revenue. More than enough to pay for any associated problems - same way that smoking more than pays for the issues it causes).
It isn't about what's good and bad, its about what can be achieved. They did ban ethanol but it proved too easy to make, difficult to police and generally not what society wanted - it was unenforceable.
That said, it does far more total damage than the "hard" drugs.
Narcotics, however are generally recognised by society as a bad thing. It then becomes possible to control them to an extent. You don't want hard-drugs available on the same level as alcohol. Apart from anything else, unlike narcotics and despite your assertion, I'm pretty sure it isn't physiologically addictive. The addiction is psychological only.
You don't "solve" hypocrisy by sinking to the lowest common denominator. You do what you can and recognise the limitations of what is possible.
Apart from anything else, unlike narcotics and despite your assertion, I'm pretty sure it isn't physiologically addictive. The addiction is psychological only.
Alcohol is incredibly, and physically, addictive. So much so that extreme addicts cannot just stop. They have to come down first, otherwise the shock to the system can kill.
I have known people who are in that boat. It's not a pretty place to be.
Oh god, lambchop, you just don't change. You put up specious arguments and have them blown down again and agian and aggan and agasdfasffff.... And then you come back for another hoofing, spouting more made-up 'facts' and forever distorting what people say.
Nothing changes in your head, no new connections formed, no new neurons fire, the eternality of when the entire clockwork of the universe has run down to utter stillness and silence and you're frozen forever at that point.
"....You put up specious arguments and have them blown down again and agian and aggan and agasdfasffff...." And, yet again, again, you seem unable to actually post any argument, let alone one that could even be considered interesting let alone knock anything down. Please do try a lot harder or just give up, mmmkay?
If we're going on anecdotes, I've seen too many people trashed by the effects of ethanol. But, that's just damned inconvenient for your argument, isn't it?
Never mind that unless you want to turn the world into North Korea, you will not, ever, in a million years stamp out recreational use of drugs. Hell, I bet even the Norks have a problem in that regard.
So keep waging that war. We all love a good war. Especially when it has a total positive benefit of around the square root of fuck all and a massive cost economically and socially. Meanwhile, those few countries that have liberalised their laws, that do not punish, torture and/or kill you for what you choose to put in your body, continue to see drops in the usage of hard drugs. In fact, drops in the usage of all recreational drugs.
But that's just damned inconvenient for the sadistic psychopaths who want a good excuse to fuck someone over, isn't it?
"....I've seen too many people trashed by the effects of ethanol. But, that's just damned inconvenient for your argument, isn't it?...." See? Straight into the 'drink and fags are worse' schpiel. What, is it written on the crack bags nowadays? As I pointed out already, simply stating that alcohol and cigarettes cause health issues does not in any way mitigate the massive harm done by illegal drugs. Major denial.
"....unless you want to turn the world into North Korea...." What, only a despotic dictatorship could ever want to halt the damage done by illegal drugs? But you just said alcohol and tobacco are so bad that you would want to stop them, so you're just Kim il Jong Mk2? And, as you obviously failed to notice, our democratically elected politicians maintain the laws on illegal drugs because they are supported by the majority of the electorate, so it is you and your drug-addled chums that are in the minority.
"....those few countries that have liberalised their laws, that do not punish, torture and/or kill you for what you choose to put in your body, continue to see drops in the usage of hard drugs...." Which 'liberalised' countries do you mean? Maybe Holland, where the official policy has four objectives:
1.To prevent recreational drug use and to treat and rehabilitate recreational drug users.
2.To reduce harm to users.
3.To diminish public nuisance by drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighborhood).
4.To combat the production and trafficking of recreational drugs.
Wow, that doesn't sound like the ringing endorsement of the virtues of hard drugs you insist it is! Oh, and 72% of the organised crime in Holland is still drug-related.
Or maybe Switzerland, which tried a crackdown, then gave in to liberal pressure and started treatment including not just methadone but professionally administered heroin. The result has been that heroin abuse has hit a steady population of long-term addicts, whilst other drug abuse has seen a steady increase in Switzerland over the last thirteen years. For all the anti-Yank rants posted on here by you sheeple, it will no doubt come as a major shock to hear that Switzerland makes more arrests (per capita) for simple possession of cannabis than even the United States. Indeed, the public were so alarmed that the Swiss government could not pass a law to decriminalise cannabis in 2004. The recent austerity measures introduced due to the depression have meant many Swiss have strongly objected to continuing the current spending on the liberal drug program.
"....But that's just damned inconvenient for the sadistic psychopaths who want a good excuse to fuck someone over, isn't it?" But I thought you were arguing FOR the drug dealers?
See? Straight into the 'drink and fags are worse' schpiel.
Because they are.
But you just said alcohol and tobacco are so bad that you would want to stop them
Where? It would certainly be a sensible idea not to take up tobacco as it's bloody addictive and bloody harmful, but where did I mention "wanting to stop" them? Thanks, but I don't want to expand your war even further. It's just not worth it.
And, as you obviously failed to notice, our democratically elected politicians maintain the laws on illegal drugs because they are supported by the majority of the electorate, so it is you and your drug-addled chums that are in the minority.
When slavery was abolished, only a minority of people supported it.
A majority voted to ban gay marriage in California.
In neither case did the baying mob get what they wanted. Sometimes, the minority needs protecting from the tyranny of the majority. Like now. A free country is far more than an X on a ballot paper. Just because it's the best out of a bunch of bad ways of choosing which bastards tell everyone else what to do, doesn't mean that mob rule is suitable for everything.
Ultimately, your war is futile and costing more than it saves, in human life and money. There is no logic to it. However, it does give a few authoritarians a nice erection I'm sure.
Wow, that doesn't sound like the ringing endorsement of the virtues of hard drugs you insist it is!
Where am I endorsing hard drugs?
Oh, and 72% of the organised crime in Holland is still drug-related.
Because. It. Is. Illegal.
Really Matt, learn to stick 2 and 2 together and come up with 4, instead of -1.
Or maybe Switzerland, which tried a crackdown, then gave in to liberal pressure and started treatment including not just methadone but professionally administered heroin. The result has been that heroin abuse has hit a steady population of long-term addicts, whilst other drug abuse has seen a steady increase in Switzerland over the last thirteen years.
Background Heroin-assisted treatment has been found to be effective for people with severe opioid dependence who are not interested in or do poorly on methadone maintenance.
Aims: To study heroin-assisted treatment in people on methadone who continue intravenous heroin and in those who are heroin dependent but currently not in treatment.
Method: In an open-label multicentre randomised controlled trial, 1015 people with heroin dependence received a variable dose of injectable heroin (n=515) or oral methadone (n=500) for 12 months. Two response criteria, improvement of physical and/or mental health and decrease in illicit drug use, were evaluated in an intent-to-treat analysis.
Results: Retention was higher in the heroin (67.2%) than in the methadone group (40.0%) and the heroin group showed a significantly greater response on both primary outcome measures. More serious adverse events were found in the heroin group, and were mainly associated with intravenous use.
Conclusions: Heroin-assisted treatment is more effective for people with opioid dependence who continue intravenous heroin while on methadone maintenance or who are not enrolled in treatment. Despite a higher risk, it should be considered for treatment resistance under medical supervision.
--Christian Haasen, MD, Uwe Verthein, PhD, Peter Degkwitz, PhD and others (2007) Heroin-assisted treatment for opioid dependence [online] Available at http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/191/1/55 [last accessed: April 2014]
Indeed, the public were so alarmed that the Swiss government could not pass a law to decriminalise cannabis in 2004.
Which just shows you what a bunch of FUD can do. You're also guilty of lumping everything together under the umbrella term "DRUGZ" yet again. Fine, so long as you include ethanol in that.
But I thought you were arguing FOR the drug dealers?
"Because they are....." Again, that's just trying to diminish the impact of drugs. It is as stupid as saying 'murder is a worse crime than rape, therefore we should ignore rape'. The relative harm of one does not excuse the other, it's just you want to baaaah-lieve it to be so.
".....When slavery was abolished, only a minority of people supported it....." The abolition of slavery (at least in the Empire) was passed by majority votes in the democratically elected Houses of Parliament with the passing of the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. In the US it was the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, passed by majority vote in (again) the democratically elected Senate (1864) and House of Reps (1865). Now, if as you claim, those had not been popular with the majority, then why were those politicians not replaced at the next election with politicians willing to repeal those Acts and Amendments? So, sorry, but you're wrong again. The majority supported the abolition of slavery, and the majority support the current laws against hard and 'recreational' drugs.
"....Ultimately, your war is futile and costing more than it saves, in human life and money. There is no logic to it. However, it does give a few authoritarians a nice erection I'm sure...." And your statistics and verifiable facts to support that argument are... oh, as usual, you don't have any. All you have is a vague dribbling about erections (something you think about a lot, maybe?).
You then posted that bit form "Heroin-assisted treatment for opioid dependence", which did not disprove anything I posted about how the treatment has maintained a hard-core of long-term heroin abusers. Sorry, but what exactly was your point, that hard-core junkies prefer free heroin to free methadone? Hardly a surprise. It also did not deal with the continued rise in drug abuse in Switzerland, a country held up as an icon of liberal progressiveness. Please do try harder.
"....Which just shows you what a bunch of FUD can do...." So, once again, if you do not agree with someone's arguments (in this case the Swiss Governments) it has to be FUD? Very open-minded of you! Tell you what, since you stated it was all FUD, please do go away and research the debate and show that all the arguments presented against the legalisation of cannabis were FUD as you claim. It should be easy for you if it really was just all FUD, right? Before you do, you may want to also consider that the Swiss also held a referendum on legalising cannabis in 2008 where only 36.7% actually voted for legalisation. So it would appear that the 'FUD' was damn good stuff!
"....You're also guilty of lumping everything together under the umbrella term "DRUGZ" yet again...." Oh puh-leeeeease, that is just pathetic. 'My drug is not a bad drug, alcohol is so much badder'. Yeah, whatever. It obviously escaped your attention that the UK Government, off the back of a mandate from the majority, set the classifications (A,B and C) for illegal 'recreational' drugs, not me. And in the US it was their Government, also off a majority mandate, which set the classifications and punishments for importing such drugs as SuperTrips allegedly smuggled into the US. If you don't like it then you go waste your vote on some minor party politician willing to legalise your drug of choice, and if you should ever get a majority then you can quit whining. Either way, what SuperTrips is charged with is criminal in the States.
For the record, an unashamedly Stalinist totalitarian state is not sufficient to stop, or even very well stem, the production and distribution of illegal drugs. In particular, North Korea has a major meth problem:
So exactly what do anti-drug laws accomplish, if even three-generations-of-punishment-land can't keep people from puffing the bingdu?
Well. Besides destroying respect for the law and for law enforcement officers and costing lots of money and manpower.
Is this really less harmful--in Pyongyang or anywhere else--than encouraging people to know themselves, to know their sources, and to know their drugs, and cultivating a culture of being responsible for one's own actions? Is the strict enforcement of paranoid laws ever a substitute for that?
"....Well. Besides destroying respect for the law and for law enforcement officers and costing lots of money and manpower....." Maybe your view is blocked by the rest of your flock, but the rest of the population don't seem to share your disrespect of the Police for putting drug smugglers and dealers behind bars. And policing any form of crime costs, and in this case much, much less than the cost to the population of drug-related crime. So if, as even Blowhard admits, drug use is reducing, it would seem an effective use of the money as well. There is, of course, no way to calculate the number of lives saved from ruin by the actions of the Police and other parties fighting the WoD, but then that's probably something the pro-drug crowd would rather gloss over.
"....than encouraging people to know themselves, to know their sources, and to know their drugs, and cultivating a culture of being responsible for one's own actions?...." Which is all part of the 'soft' side of the WoD. And it looks like SuperTrips will be finding out plenty about having to take responsibility for his actions. He can swap notes on knowing drugs with the other inmates he meets in the prison showers.
"For the record, an unashamedly Stalinist totalitarian state is not sufficient to stop, or even very well stem, the production and distribution of illegal drugs. In particular, North Korea has a major meth problem"
Given that NK is the world's single largest producer of the stuff (some estimates are as high as 80% of the world's supply), that's not particularly surprising, especially when being off your face takes your mind off being starving.
"our democratically elected politicians maintain the laws on illegal drugs because they are supported by the majority of the electorate"
And ultimately that's why they are illegal. Not because of the harm caused, health or anything else, but simply because a bunch of old voters would have a paddy and threaten to reverse their life-long dedication to a single party should things change.
The sooner they die, the better, really.
"so it is you and your drug-addled chums that are in the minority."
Sorry: If you're going to reply to comments with insults and blind assertions, I thought I'd return the favour. Not everyone who supports legalising drugs is either taking them right now or taking them at all. I know it's hard for you to understand, but some people hold political views not entirely based around their own whims, but based on the rights that they wish everyone to have. It's like you with guns. You might not be a homicidal redneck yourself, but you broadly agree with their desire to legally own firearms.
"Oh, and 72% of the organised crime in Holland is still drug-related."
Well yeah, duh: That's because the drugs aren't legal at the 'business end'. A tolerant policy towards users is not going to decrease organised crime involvement.
" then gave in to liberal pressure and started treatment including not just methadone but professionally administered heroin."
There's a difference? More people died in Scotland last year with methadone in them than heroin. Our current treatment policy kills more people than the drug itself.
Meanwhile, more people died playing football than with MDMA in their system.
Crippling addicts will always find something to be addicted to. Blame their psychology rather than the specific vice. Drug users aren't all addicts, though. The vast majority aren't. The vast majority are reasonable people who would generally prefer not to have to give money to criminals to obtain their vice.
"....Not because of the harm caused, health or anything else, but simply because a bunch of old voters would have a paddy and threaten to reverse their life-long dedication to a single party should things change....." Yeah, I see you're having problems understanding that whole 'democracy' thing as well. Does it comfort you to pretend it's just the old fuddyduddies?
"....That's because the drugs aren't legal at the 'business end'. A tolerant policy towards users is not going to decrease organised crime involvement....." Really? But isn't the first bleat of the sheeple on this subject is always the insistence that legalization of cannabis will stop drug crime? You really need to get your story straight with the rest of the flock.
".....Meanwhile, more people died playing football than with MDMA in their system....." So you've stopped trying to insist your drug (habit) of choice should be legalized because 'booze'n'fags are worse', now you want to excuse the deaths from drugs by comparing it to football? It's not replacement deaths, moron, it's ADDITIONAL deaths. And how many football matches involved a player mugging a grannie to pay for his football boots?
"....The vast majority are reasonable people who would generally prefer not to have to give money to criminals to obtain their vice." You mean the ones you meet. You really need to get out of your tiny circle of the hip'n'trendy and actually learn some facts. Until then you're just another sucker trying to excuse your habit.
Most of the social impact of drugs is not the social impact of the drugs themselves, per se, but of their illegality and the stigma attached to them. Drug users have a harder time finding jobs--not because they are any less able to work, but because people like you think they deserve to be shot. They suffer social isolation--not because they are less able to interact with people, but because many of their would-be friends are people like you who think they deserve to be shot. And these things, in turn, result in many secondary and tertiary forms of unpleasantness, all with their attendant costs, such as underemployment and its effects on health and crime, and the effect on mental health of knowing that millions of holier-than-thou types want them dead.
Alcohol and tobacco provably do more physical and mental harm than marijuana, LSD, psilocybin, or MDMA, and lung cancer, cirrhosis, pancreatic cancer, stroke, heart disease, and drunken violence all inflict immense costs on society. However, because they are widely accepted as normal, their users do not suffer from the effects of being ostracized by their peers and by law enforcement, and their negative consequences are simply accepted as facts of life. We tried ostracizing them, back when people thought the Volstead Act was a good idea. Few people today seriously consider the idea of reviving it. Tell me, have you been to a pub recently?
A good friend of mine died of cardiac arrest on the toilet because he felt like he had something to hide. If he had asked for a sitter--or had some safe, FDA-approved source as opposed to the internet--he would likely be alive today and still be pursuing a chemistry degree.
"....Drug users have a harder time finding jobs--not because they are any less able to work...." Rubbish, they are usually less able to work because drug addiction makes them less able to work. And you seem to be oblivious to the simple fact drug users CHOOSE to be drug users, so - TBH - tough!
"....people like you think they deserve to be shot...." Did I say I thought they deserved to be shot? No, I did not. I merely posted a farcial argument of the cost savings and economic benefits of doing so to show how stupid RegMidnight's argument that legalising drugs would only save the taxpayer money. Where does the moron think all those junkies that steal now for illegal drugs are suddenly going to get money for legalised drugs? The simple truth is they will still commit crimes to feed their habits.
".....They suffer social isolation--not because they are less able to interact with people..." But because their interaction with other people is all to often to steal from them.
"....And these things, in turn, result in many secondary and tertiary forms of unpleasantness...." Well boo-fucking-hoo. What, was it simply too hard for you to understand 'Just say no'?
"....Alcohol and tobacco provably do more physical and mental harm...." And here we go with the usual junkie mantra - 'cigs and drink are worse' - which does not in any way reduce the harm drugs do. Two wrongs do not make a right, so bleating on about tobacco and alcohol in an attempt to justify legalising drugs is just denial.
"...A good friend of mine died of cardiac arrest on the toilet because he felt like he had something to hide...." So he was an idiot? No, seriously, he was stupid enough to get into drugs, then stupid enough not to seek help, and you want to paint that as some great sob story when the truth is his decisions put him there. You can blame society, you can blame inequality (kinda hard if he was doing a degree), whatever you like, but the truth is your friend made all the decisions that put him on that toilet. And then you think it would be a good idea to encourage more people to kill themselves by legalising drugs???? WTF?
"'....Drug users have a harder time finding jobs--not because they are any less able to work....' Rubbish, they are usually less able to work because drug addiction makes them less able to work. "
Matt; User != addict. You just deliberately changed the words to comply with your point. A completely spurious line of argument. So: Bollocks.
"The simple truth is they will still commit crimes to feed their habits."
No they won't. Addiction does not automatically equate to crime. Not everyone who is an addict turns to crime, just as you probably wouldn't start stealing if you can't afford whatever it is that you like to spend your spare money/time on [aside from telling other people how to live their lives. I imagine you might flip out totally if you were deprived of that].
"'.....They suffer social isolation--not because they are less able to interact with people...' But because their interaction with other people is all to often to steal from them."
You're both wrong. Matt is wrong because of the afore-mentioned addict != thief. And the whole social isolation thing is wrong because users surround themselves with peers, at worse. More realistically, MDMA users are out on a Saturday night, having a whale of a time speaking to total strangers (what with it being a pro-empathic drug and all that) and probably more than averagely socially active and outgoing.
I appreciate that you learned most of what you did by watching 80s adverts about heroin, but today's users are not sad junkies sat in grotty squats. Instead they are very much your typical extroverted young-to-middle-age man/woman on the street, with a job and social life.
"which does not in any way reduce the harm drugs do....Two wrongs do not make a right, so bleating on about tobacco and alcohol in an attempt to justify legalising drugs is just denial."
It's not a justification: It's raising the point that our society believes that it is perfectly acceptable to take harmful, mind-altering drugs that are institutionalised (such as caffeine, booze, prescription anti-depressants), but not less harmful ones which are newcomers. Ultimately, the only thing that is really ours in life is our mind and body, and a sizeable number of us believe that other people should generally be allowed to do what they like with them, without the likes of you telling them that they can't because it somehow it offends you.
Loads of real harm is done elsewhere in the world due to Cocaine and Heroin where it is made.
(Strange how America is treating the drug company who got loads of people addicted to Oxycodone. Compared to the amount of resources expended on stuff like this).
Most heroin users in a heartbeat would get a job if the conditions of doing so allowed them cheap clean legal heroin (Or morphine).
Psychedelics are a loose cannon. (Stuff like psychosis can happen with them - very unpredictable and quite unpleasant).
MDMA I dunno whether abusing it too much can seriously affect peoples ability to ever be naturally happy again.
Dexedrine is fine (Good enough for fighter pilots good enough for anybody - less issues than methamphetamine or amphetamine).
GHB is also about as safe as they come (Unless mixed with Alcohol). It was legal for ages. Any problems from it are the same as someone sleeping with somebody else when drunk and then regretting it later. If you have too much you just go straight into a deep sleep (Which looks much worse than it is if it happens out and about). Bodybuilders used to use it for that reason you need to sleep less and more of it is productive. It is used medically still but under another name due to the stigma attached to it.
Anything safer on a balance of probabilities than Alcohol should be legal. (Or Alcohol made illegal again and replaced with a safer alternatives like GHB).
The most obvious thing is if the government decided to start just providing drugs to whoever wanted them. The deficit could be gone overnight. Clean cheap / readily available. Reduce crime. (Without the money then the organised crime would cease to exist and its very rare crime is committed to fund alcohol or tobacco).
Some recent research on the effect of psychedelic use on mental health:
21,967 respondents (13.4% weighted) reported lifetime psychedelic use. There were no significant associations between lifetime use of any psychedelics, lifetime use of specific psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, peyote), or past year use of LSD and increased rate of any of the mental health outcomes. Rather, in several cases psychedelic use was associated with lower rate of mental health problems.
Not exactly loose cannons, from the sound of it.
"> The pharmaceutical amphetamines are obviously safe
This is so stupid I can't believe it."
Is it? I take pharmaceutical methylphenidate hydrochloride every single day with no side effects worth mentioning. In fact they do me a lot of good since I have ADHD-Combined.
> Is it? I take ...
There is no such thing as a safe drug. However, if prescribed and taken correctly one can assume that the pros outweigh the cons on average.
However again, we're not talking about prescribed legal drugs but recreational use, or at least that's how I read the original post.
(I remember seeing a film of a US airman, taken in the sixties when the government was experimenting with (presumably pharma grade) speed to keep them up for long missions. He was trying idly to catch nonexistent butterflies in the air. 'safe' is not a function of how it's produced but how it's taken, in what quantity etc.)
"...if you think the hard drugs sold by organized criminals are harmless I suggest you need to do a lot more reading on the social impact of such drugs."
Well you got an upvote from me, Matt.
I've been there, see that. Up close and personal. Seen the deaths. Seen the crippling. Seen people lose million dollar businesses. Seen families broken up. Seen people go to prison. Seen ambulance and cops more than I ever wanted to.
Hard drugs DESTROY people, their friends and family, not to mention they are ticking time bombs as your coworker or employer or client.
To think other wise shows a profound lack of knowledge and real life experience. In others words, it makes you look like an ignorant git.
And amphetamine users are the worst. Useless waste of spaces at best, dangerous, deadly psychopaths on average.
I had an amphetamine user in my team in one job and it was absolutely brilliant. (Nobody knew other than me). It was not at all obvious but it meant the whole team got lots of pay rises due to him just sometimes deciding to do something overnight for no other reason than something to do. Some people cannot handle them. Other people can and go on to do things that go down in history (Such as Adolf Hitler). No way he can be considered to be useless he did lots of things.
Whilst the family orientated members of the team did nothing the second they left the building.
He never made mistakes and cared about doing the job perfectly (Like I did).
The pharmaceutical amphetamines are obviously safe (Which is why they are used by the Airforce or on the ISS) especially with the safest sleeping pill in combination.
> I had an amphetamine user in my team in one job [and how great he was]
I'm also aware of Erdos, however... my landlord of a while back used speed a lot in the 70's and I can tell you it fucked him up.
And I lived with a druggie, who liked his speed (and his mary-jane and his booze and his E's and his glue - he liked his glue, I think it was a lot of effect very cheaply - and whatever else he could reach) and overdid it one evening, leaving me to spend the night in hospital with him. Nasty bit of work he was. No use to anyone. Just a couple of counterpoints.
> Whilst the family orientated members of the team did nothing the second they left the building.
err, good? Because they shouldn't?
> The pharmaceutical amphetamines are obviously safe
This is so stupid I can't believe it.
In fact your post is so dumb I can only feel it's a bit of an agent provocateur invite for the anti-drug brigade.
"> The pharmaceutical amphetamines are obviously safe
This is so stupid I can't believe it.
In fact your post is so dumb I can only feel it's a bit of an agent provocateur invite for the anti-drug brigade."
Why is it stupid? Amphetamine [incidentally, the plural of amphetamine is amphetamine] is dished out like candy in certain professions and to people with certain issues. Don't judge drugs based on pre-conceptions which cause an instant 'drugs are bad' response.
Most 'drugs' have been used in clinical trials and the effects are fairly well know and accepted. A huge number of them are used for treating various ailments. Hell, even K is being trialled against depression on a wider scale after some initial success.
".... you must have never been invited to any good parties..." Seriously? I have been to many excellent parties, some without even any alcohol. But then I suspect that's because I was partying with people that didn't need drugs to have a good time. Or - more likely in your case - you need your targets to be stoned in order for you to stand a chance of getting laid.
"The criminals involved are not the junkies 'doing what they want', they are the people deliberately making a profit illegally from the misery of others."
And they would be out of a job if the drugs were legalised, and we wouldn't have to pay to catch them, either.
"And if you think the hard drugs sold by organized criminals are harmless I suggest you need to do a lot more reading on the social impact of such drugs."
Sorry... MDMA and cannabis are hard drugs, are they?
As for the social impact: Our streets would be a lot safer if MDMA and cannabis were the drug of choice on a Saturday night, instead of alcohol. MDMA had a history of being used for marriage counselling before being used as a party drug and then being banned by the DEA on the basis of...err...nothing. More people die by falling off horses.
"After all, it would also be a lot cheaper to simply put all the junkies up against"
Yes, because anyone who uses recreation drugs is a junkie, right? Anyone who drinks is an alcoholic, by the same measure? Anyone who puts a quid on the National has a gambling problem?
Most of the reason people are selling illegal drugs is because it's immensely profitable to do so, despite the obvious risks. In order to make more profit, they seek out new customers. This is what eventually leads to schoolkiddies being sold Crack.
What makes illegal drugs dangerous is lack of oversight, in the same way that illegal horsemeat in the food chain is dangerous - you don't know what that shit's been cut with (anything from talc, to rat poison, to sodium hydroixide)
Crystal meth labs and crack wouldn't exist if other drugs were more easily available and the long-term effect in areas where drug possession and use has been decriminalised is a marked _decrease_ in both addiction problems and crimes committed to support them.
The war on drugs has been won - by the people selling the drugs. Everytrhing else is just rearguard action in the afghan and iraqi hills so you can pretend you didn't lose.
".....Crystal meth labs and crack wouldn't exist if other drugs were more easily available...." Major fail. Both drugs are still being sold by gangs in Holland, where cannabis is widely and legally available. The fact that the cannabis lovers still try and push that completely discredited myth is simply too stupid for words. I presume you were too stoned to follow any form of news on the matter?
> Both drugs are still being sold by gangs in Holland, where cannabis is widely and legally available
ref please my wobbly little cotton bud. With quantities and comparative stats to indicate that sales are on par with those countries where cannabis is illegal.
".... reference please?....." Wow, being in the flock really does make you a lazy little sheeple, doesn't it? Research really is beyond you, I assume you were waiting for some minor celeb to tell you what to bleat? You could start here (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drug-misuse-findings-from-the-2012-to-2013-csew/drug-misuse-findings-from-the-2012-to-2013-crime-survey-for-england-and-wales) for the UK figures, which not only show a continued downward trend but also show that you junkies make up a tiny minority, less than 10% of the population, completely destroying the myth you like to peddle about being the voice of the majority.
You can then go look up the European figures here (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats13), which has a whole section on the Netherlands and the UK. Included in that is the fact that, despite the claims of the cannabis lobby that legal weed would mean no hard drugs, Holland has a hard-core of long term cocaine addicts and a big problem with hard drugs in their schools. This is despite the Dutch government having a long history of not co-operating with EU statisticians on the subject, there being no Dutch figures for many years because they would not submit them for scrutiny. One of the big exposers of the Dutch lie is the fact UK school use of cocaine is only 2%, whereas in Holland, despite the easy availability of cannabis, it is 5%. Cannabis use is also higher in Dutch schools, despite there supposedly being controls on people under 18 and access to cannabis.
The Eurostat database also records general crime figures and shows that Holland is not the 'street crime-free paradise' that legalization of cannabis was supposed to make it. There is also another myth busted, that Holland has a lower murder rate than the UK - it does, but not in Dutch cities. Indeed, as the Eurostats show, you were twice as likely to be murdered in Amsterdaam as in London, Edinburgh or Cardiff in the years 2007-2009. And in 2009, whilst robbery (which is theft by threat or use of violence, including muggings) and burglary declined in England, both increased in Holland. Holland also had a higher incidence per capita of drug trafficking (not just international smuggling but illegal possession, cultivation, supply or production), which is an indicator of the involvement of organized crime in drug-related crime. In fact, Holland's per capita incidence (0.0012%) was about 50% higher than the UK's (0.00086%).
So, put that in your bong and smoke it.
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drug-misuse-findings-from-the-2012-to-2013-csew/drug-misuse-findings-from-the-2012-to-2013-crime-survey-for-england-and-wales) for the UK figures
Holland, plumpness, the country *you* raised, not the UK.... oh dear me.
> the fact that, despite the claims of the cannabis lobby that legal weed would mean no hard drugs, Holland has a hard-core of long term cocaine addicts
Meth and crack, plump, like you originally said here: "Crystal meth labs and crack wouldn't exist if other drugs were more easily available...." Major fail. Both drugs are still being sold by gangs in Holland, where cannabis is widely and legally available"
Cocaine <> crack, meth <> crack. Nice try though.
> This is despite the Dutch government having a long history of not co-operating with EU statisticians on the subject,
ref please plumpy
> Holland is not the 'street crime-free paradise' that legalization of cannabis was supposed to make it.
Never said it was. Only asked that you justify your original claim.
> Indeed, as the Eurostats show, you were twice as likely to be murdered in Amsterdaam as in London, Edinburgh or Cardiff
luvverly diversion, plumps. Irrelevant but cute nonetheless.
LOL, I see you're still desperately splitting hairs and avoiding the issues raised.
".....Holland, plumpness, the country *you* raised, not the UK...." LOL, you were so desperate to bleat you didn't bother reading the rest of the post and the Dutch figures before tryping (sic). So, we can add prematureness to your list of failings? You may want to note for future reference that it is considered a more honest approach to provide as much of both sets of figures in a comparison as possible. Not that one would accuse the sheeple of wanting to post half-truths or hiding facts or being anything other than completely honest...... Never! Hmmmm, maybe I should put in sarc tags for the sheeple.
".....Cocaine <> crack, meth <> crack. Nice try though....." Unfortunately for you that was not a nice try at actually reading the data supplied, otherwise you would have read that the EU authority lumps crack in with cocaine in general. They also do have figures with Meph lumped in with amphetamines. Did you actually read any of it before rushing to bleat your denial? Oh, I see the problem - expecting you to read and comprehend and then form your own conclusions when you so obviously prefer your spoonfed ones. Silly me! I also see that, again, you attempt to split hairs in denial rather than admit that cannabis legalization did not reduce the use of 'hard' drugs in the Netherlands, despite one of the key mantras pushed by the pro-drug crowd being that legalization of cannabis will lower drug crime.
What is the point in you demanding references if you haven't got either the ability or intention of reading them?
Sure, but you lose the right to complain when your bus driver ploughs the bus into the back of a big rig at full speed because he was too busy watching unicorns fart rainbows.
Because tripping out in the comfort of your own home is exactly the same as shooting up in the driver's seat of a multiple-ton death machine.
Seriously, why do we have drink-driving laws?
"Sure, but you lose the right to complain when your bus driver ploughs the bus into the back of a big rig at full speed because he was too busy watching unicorns fart rainbows."
No you don't.
There's a big difference between letting people do what they want with their bodies in their own time and letting people drive under the influence, or even be in the workplace while under the influence.
"do some fucking investigating rather than echoing the feds"
You're both a bit wrong here...
The Reg article says he supplied 500g/week of MDMA to "Individual J" in America. From the court docs that are linked to in the article, this appears correct.
Regarding the 104 kg figure, from reading the court docs you can see that this is a headline figure for SuperTrips' total WORLDWIDE MDMA sales through SilkRoad from March 2012 to August 2013. Not just the amount of his total supply to "Individual J".
So The Reg was right to say he sold 104 kg of MDMA, but was wrong to suggest it all went to Individual J.
Of course the CIA is still pushing drugs. That's been the only 'war is profitable' thing to come out of our adventures in Afghanistan. We considered invading Australia for their for their opiates industry but they already sell it to Glaxo so cheap it didn't make any sense not to maintain that. Plus everybody likes koalas, even if they are STD carrying little whores.
"Supertrips must have been sampling his product to be buzzed enough to set foot in the U.S." It does seem a bizarre mistake to make, but then I suspect greed clouded his judgement. Had he actually stopped to think how he was going to get his loot out of the States and back to Holland? He does not seem to have been the sharpest knife in the drawer.
An appeal to all Prohibitionists:
Most of us know that individuals who use illegal drugs are going to get high—no matter what, so why do you not prefer they acquire them in stores that check IDs and pay taxes? Gifting the market in narcotics to ruthless criminals, foreign terrorists, and corrupt law enforcement officials is seriously compromising our future.
Why do you wish to continue with a policy that has proven itself to be a poison in the veins of our once so "proud & free" nation? Even if you cannot bear the thought of people using drugs, there is absolutely nothing you, I, or any government can do to stop them. We have spent 40 years and trillions of dollars on this dangerous farce; Prohibition will not suddenly and miraculously start showing different results. Do you actually believe you may personally have something to lose If we were to begin basing our drug policy on science & logic instead of ignorance, hate and lies?
Maybe you're a police officer, a prison guard, or a local/national politician. Possibly you're scared of losing employment, overtime pay, the many kickbacks, and those regular fat bribes. But what good will any of that do you once our society has followed Mexico over the dystopian abyss of dismembered bodies, vats of acid, and marauding thugs carrying gold-plated AK-47s with leopard-skinned gunstocks?
Kindly allow us to forgo the next level of your sycophantic prohibition engendered mayhem!
Prohibition prevents regulation: legalize, regulate, and tax!
Whilst I don't disagree that that is possible I was referring to the statements made in the article..
"Those who mistakenly believe the anonymity of the Internet ― even on the Deep Web ― shields them from scrutiny are finding out they can't evade detection in cyberspace."
This implies that the miscreant was 'detected in cyberspace' somehow.
Whereas back in reality..
"Slomp began getting the attention of US Customs after they found a DVD case with MDMA stuffed inside, one of over 100 they eventually recovered."
So, detected over TOR (which is what they would just love you to believe) or detected because suspicious packages in the postal system were intercepted.
I would bet a large sum of money that they only found out his online dealings after raiding his crib and getting their hands on his computer - which they discovered the whereabouts of using old-fashioned police work. No cyber involved.
If you're shipping stuff into or out of any country in any quantity at least a few of your parcels will be randomly opened and inspected. Most customs agencies have some sort of metric for how many parcels they inspect per day, so it's kind of their job. But I think a lot of it comes down to customs agents getting bored.
If you've ever been inside a large customs facility you know why they're bored. In 2004 the plane we were carrying new equipment in experienced difficulties that required us to land in Anchorage and wait for another plane instead of just refueling. Myself and an engineer were allowed to sit with the in the warehouse with the crates for the ~30 hours it took to find another appropriately equipped plane. Those customs guys did nothing but open random boxes, take a peek and stick one of those 'Your package has been inspected by US Customs. If you believe the contents of your parcel were damaged during this inspection, or if something is missing please call 1-800-Fuck-You'.
They brought dogs around to some of the packages they had opened and took others to an x-ray machine that must have been enormous because it was fully 300ft away and on the other side of a block wall. That could be where the CIA puts the drugs for export in the boxes for all I know. I do know it was a shitload of boxes and crates they opened though.
The only ones that seemed to really attract then were those with tamper indicators, over fancy locks or the ones with those plastic pyramids on every face except the bottom. Otherwise it was just random. No rhyme or reason, just what ever tickled their fancy. I suspect this guy just ended up on the wrong end of the odds, not through technology.
...is not for its points on drug use by our blue in the face boors above, but in the comprehensive examples of fallacious arguments that any law or philosophy professor would be proud of. I take my hat off to both of you, a fine presentation.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019