Zeezeebaba Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 Alas your right.It's only political suicide because you have a couple of generations that have had establishment rhetoric rammed down their throats citing drugs as an evil depraved socially destroying enterprise. And yet social and main stream media is awash with people bigging up their exploits on the vino at the weekend. It's a double standard and vastly hypocritical. But hey that's politics for you, well timed policy promises and rhetoric to fool the gullible into voting one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) Make use of those farms that are sitting redundant, it would be very very easy to set up weed factories, grown hydroponically, there is absolutely zero reason why weed should be illegal when smoking isnt, same goes for any other plant manufacturing facility to make drugs, they manage with tobacco. Class a's are a far more delicate subject, if you didnt know the obvious signs i would bet you wouldnt even notice if someone was on cocaine, unlike someone who is drunk. Of course you would notice a heroin addict on a high, but when was the last time you saw one of them, they dont wander the streets shaun of the dead style, they are smashed out their face in a squat. To be fair most of the alternative drugs are used behind closed doors, trips, e's etc, i dont know the last time someone took an E and they would be secluded to music festivals/raves anyway and if you havent been to Glastonbury of late, it seems little point trying to pretend it doesnt happen. The question has always been, would it encourage more people do it if it was legal, well sadly my life has been flooded with drugs (friends), i never wanted to do it even though any given night it was as available as a pint of beer, so imho, no it wouldnt. Edited April 26, 2017 by Jetpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 26, 2017 Author Share Posted April 26, 2017 Last time I saw a heroin addict high? That'd be me the other week in hospital smashed off my nut on morphine then :lol: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 I was going to say if you have had morphine or codeine or the like all contain Heroin Yes I think making something that addictive legal and accessible would just be disastrous. As for smack heads, see them all the time out of their nut on my walk from the office to Waterloo station each evening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 Yes I think making something that addictive legal and accessible would just be disastrous. But you already have two substances which are highly addictive that are legal, how can you discriminate between them all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 Yes and we all agree that they cause death and strain on the NHS, why would adding something to that list in the name of a few quid make things better? As I mentioned above, starting over, you would ban the lot as it makes no sense to have them - but with a real world hat on you ban them and you commit political suicide, you legalise drugs you commit political suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 That's the point though mate, whether it's legal or not it will still happen. At least if we regulate and tax it the country gains through taxation and the criminal justice system currently at breaking point can breathe a sigh of relief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) Yes and we all agree that they cause death and strain on the NHS, why would adding something to that list in the name of a few quid make things better? As I mentioned above, starting over, you would ban the lot as it makes no sense to have them - but with a real world hat on you ban them and you commit political suicide, you legalise drugs you commit political suicide. So as per previous post and lets just say for arguments sake as we dont know any better, revenue from smoking is 12billion, cost the nhs 6billion, we are net 6 billion in profit from smokers, why not be another 6 billion or more in profit from weed? Or equivalently, how you would you generate 6billion if smoking was banned? I am not condoning drug use, i hate it, with a passion, but, its not a few quid as you put it, the revenue could be vast and "may" sort of the health system, would you or anybody not like to see that? Edited April 26, 2017 by Jetpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 I can see your point, but the numbers are not correct and there are countless knock on effects its not a net financial cost. Anyway, for example a heavy smoker gets rushed to hospital in A&E due to a smoking related issue, they get seen by the doctor and a minute later a healthy living person arrives after being hit by a car and due to delays doesn't make it. Unfortunately any net gain financially does not put the NHS 'one up' the solution is not to increase patient counts and increase funding, its to go the other way and reduce unnecessary patients and reduce costs. I admit I do not know the finances of in from smoker tax and out cost of treating smokers, I would be surprised if it was substantial to make a dent in the countries budgets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 didnt read whole thread but didnt crime rates drop in US states that legalized it, so tax revenue and less wasted on police/anti drug policys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 The numbers i gleaned are online, so i am not sure you can say they are wrong or not correct or accurate, but as a base line, i would say they have to be fairly close. We already have smokers, so throwing weed into the equation wont affect anything as they are already smoking/using tobacco, they are probably already part of the smoking statistics regards revenue and nhs burden. I can appreciate the argument against class a's, but weed, not at all, people even take it medically legally, hell, if it was that bad they wouldnt be advocating the stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 ...Boris has finally arrived: "Benign Islingtonian Herbivore" "mutton-headed old mugwump" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 From BTL in the Guardian. Sums it up pretty well... ---- The election campaign so far: Theresa May: *Squawk* Strong and Stable *squawk* strong and stable *squawk* coalition of chaos. Boris Johnson: ehehehehehe....mugwump.....ehehehehehe. Rest of the Conservatives: I can't comment myself, I agree with whatever Theresa May says, policies will be announced.....soon....maybe. Daily Mail: Death to traitors, destroy the saboteurs, crush the opposition. Rest of media: Farron do you like gay sex? Corbyn are you a terrorist sympathiser and far left Marxist intent on destroying the country? Theresa do you agree that Boris is a very funny man and can you tell us how you stay so stylish on the campaign trail? Rest of the political parties: Hello? We have some actual policy announcements here. Anyone? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Corbyn now refusing to do a TV debate without May. Apparently that makes her weak, but him strong. Yeah okay mate... Who would he be arguing with without her there? Which other main party? Perhaps he should do it anyway but she really should be there, I guess she just feels she's protecting her majority if she doesnt go on as she's afraid people judge her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 27, 2017 Author Share Posted April 27, 2017 I guess he'd be arguing against the LD, SNP, UKIP, PC and the Greens. He knows that to go up alone against the others there could simply split the Left vote between him and TF, which is the last thing he needs right now. Tbh it's a very sensible decision for him not to appear either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 #teammugwump 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 It's all very sad really isn't it, same old shower of s***e. Yet again the bulk of the country will be voting Tory like the sheep they are. Why, well because Corbyn comes across as weak internationally which is a shame because some of his policies domestically sound fair. The Lib Dems errm yeah OK. The leader is a Christian tree hugging leftie with poop box phobia. Basically an ignorant t**t. I really don't know why we bother discussing this foregone conclusion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyZ Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Oh good, we're back to making assumptions about why people vote a certain way. Maybe some people think that the Tories are the best party for the country? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 27, 2017 Author Share Posted April 27, 2017 It's all very sad really isn't it, same old shower of s***e. Yet again the bulk of the country will be voting Tory like the sheep they are. Why, well because Corbyn comes across as weak internationally which is a shame because some of his policies domestically sound fair. The Lib Dems errm yeah OK. The leader is a Christian tree hugging leftie with poop box phobia. Basically an ignorant t**t. I really don't know why we bother discussing this foregone conclusion. So what happened when the bulk of the country voted Labour and Blair came to power? What happened then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Simple mate that was the most Tory labour government ever riding the back of the most dull Tory leader John Major during an economic downturn. It was then reversed for the same reason. The tories are always the same and have become very adept at raping people's wallets whilst making it look like they are doing you a favour. Wealthy people benefit from tory governments. Everyone suffers under labour governments. Rock and hard place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 27, 2017 Author Share Posted April 27, 2017 Far too simplistic view IMHO. I'm not wealthy, but I've done okay under a Tory government. Then again, I also did well under a Labour government, so make of that what you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 (edited) Oh good, we're back to making assumptions about why people vote a certain way. Maybe some people think that the Tories are the best party for the country? People believe what they are fed, people like the status quo. People actually have very little choice in reality. Your vote for say LD or Greens is a wasted vote. Again I reiterate my comment from earlier,we are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils as the others don't have a chance. It's not proportional enough. Edited April 27, 2017 by Zeezeebaba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 27, 2017 Author Share Posted April 27, 2017 It's only a wasted vote if you believe it is. If people bothered to read policies rather than vote for soundbites and/or like their grandparents did, we wouldn't have such a two party system. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 It's only a wasted vote if you believe it is. If people bothered to read policies rather than vote for soundbites and/or like their grandparents did, we wouldn't have such a two party system. We'd have one party and I'd be Supreme Allied Commander of The People's Republic of Stutopia. It would be a green and pleasant land, with a 3 day week and leisure pursuits for one and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Far too simplistic view IMHO. I'm not wealthy, but I've done okay under a Tory government. Then again, I also did well under a Labour government, so make of that what you will. If your referring to Blair that was a Tory government Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.