Forget about what is in your drugs, do you know where they have been?

When I was stationed in Italy one of the guys on the base shipped his personal property home via the Personal Property Office. One of his speakers was forty pounds heavier than the other. He was really very bright.
 
Hashish isn't addictive, and now this man could be executed. Talk about shitholes, this puts Bali on the list.
 
Why isn't it the issue? Hash is not a harmful substance, and my issue isn't with a country being able to make its own laws, but rather those laws being immoral.
 
spidergoat said:
Why isn't it the issue? Hash is not a harmful substance, and my issue isn't with a country being able to make its own laws, but rather those laws being immoral.
Click to expand...
Rules are rules that is how things work.

There are many places that have what most could call immoral laws but if its the law you must realise to break that law brings punishement.

I was thinking today if all drugs world wide were declared legal the world economy would have problems.

By having drugs illegal we create a big business.

Think of the suppliers who benefit from the war on drugs.

Its not only the manufactures or growers or the various middle men in the supply chain but think of the money to fund the law enforcement, the guns, radios, cars, man power, uniforms etc that they need to police drug laws...and then there are the courts and all the players and last but not least the prison system...
It seems so many folk are in prison for drug offences when maybe they should be in hospital getting treatment.

And ironically if not illegal the price of drugs would presumably drop making drug supply much less profitable.

And one wonders if by making drugs illegal is a suitable way to manage the problem.

It would seem a medical problem really maybe even a social problem but the current methods of management dont seem to have a positive effect.

But the law is the law and that results in strange ways of smuggling and punishements that although within the law may be considered harse or even immoral...

Alex
 
spidergoat said:
Why isn't it the issue? Hash is not a harmful substance, and my issue isn't with a country being able to make its own laws, but rather those laws being immoral.
Click to expand...
Immoral eh - well apply for a position on what ever organisation makes Indonesian laws and make your case

Immoral, stupid, inhumane, not addictive, not harmful - ALL non issues

The law has been made - does not have inbuilt out's because of any persons belief in any of the above

Again - their country their laws

I hope ALL those who don't like the laws (any of them) to stay away

Do you think Indonesia will change its laws to attract more tourist?

I don't

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Immoral eh - well apply for a position on what ever organisation makes Indonesian laws and make your case

Immoral, stupid, inhumane, not addictive, not harmful - ALL non issues

The law has been made - does not have inbuilt out's because of any persons belief in any of the above

Again - their country their laws

I hope ALL those who don't like the laws (any of them) to stay away

Do you think Indonesia will change its laws to attract more tourist?

I don't

:)
Click to expand...
That's quite an elaborate way to tell me shut up.
I'm well aware of the limits of my complaint, but my argument stands.
 
spidergoat said:
That's quite an elaborate way to tell me shut up.
I'm well aware of the limits of my complaint, but my argument stands.
Click to expand...
Not at all

It's a effort to show nobody's views, opinions or arguments count other than those who make the laws

Dissent against the laws does happen, as I am sure you are well aware of. In many countries it is actively discouraged but even then does happen

Some countries have de-illegalised some drugs, which in my opinion is downright dumb stupid and if they (the law makers were advised to do so) they were ill-advised

But hey - their country, their rules

:)
 
spidergoat said:
Oh really? I thought the Bali government was monitoring this thread for the latest reaction to the case.
Click to expand...
No idea where you would get that impression from
I doubt they are aware of Sciforum let alone this thread

:)
 
People who make and enforce irrational "laws" end up eating bullets. You can only kill so many of the people you supposedly 'serve' before they take you down.

Factually speaking, there are only 2 ways to deal with 'the drug issue' - prohibition/interdiction and intercession/treatment. Prohibition/interdiction does not work, this has been proven with many failures in many countries for many years. Prohibition has not worked, it is not working and it will not work. Why?

Because it constitutes nothing less than a governments attempt to repeal the law of supply and demand. If you would like factual support for that statement, I suggest a read of "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It" by (Republican) Judge James P. Gray, Temple University Press. His experience as a federal drug prosecutor came in very handy in gathering the data set for this book.

You can outlaw as many things as you want when you are in power. That does not mean your plans are rational, that they will work or that you will be protected forever from the revenge of the citizenry you are persecuting.

No, I do not go to places like you have mentioned, Michael. I prefer civilized countries. :wink:
 
Stoniphi said:
You can outlaw as many things as you want when you are in power. That does not mean your plans are rational, that they will work or that you will be protected forever from the revenge of the citizenry you are persecuting.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your views

Two weird news items have my attention from the past 2 days and while not drugs (are love / sex drugs?) which fit

You can outlaw as many things as you want when you are in power. That does not mean your plans are rational

Indonesia has laws before parliament which would make sex between unmarried couples illegal. Punishment 4 years jail

America is / has / might be going to ban romance between members of Congress and staff

The mind boggles at such stupidity

But having gone of topic on this thread I started please keep it about drugs and don't follow my stupidity :)

:)
 
sideshowbob said:
I'm all for that. Chewing gum is the filthiest habit there is. I wouldn't execute gum-chewers though, just lock them up for life in a cell lined with used gum.
Click to expand...
If they fell against the wall you'd never get them out

:)
 
I used chewing gum as a follow-up tobacco substitute when I quite smoking many years ago. The first substitute was carrots, which worked very well but those (the crunch) were disconcerting to other people around me, so I went to the more commonly accepted chewing gum as a viable alternative. Still use that to calm a tendency towards reflux when I go out running with my dog after breakfast. As with any litter I dispose of used chewing gum responsibly.

Our society so casually endorses routine drug use that we set ourselves up for failure when we choose to try and prohibit or interdict some substance or another. Start the day with caffeine and sugar (coffee, tea energy drink, energy supplement or soda), have some nicotine, alcohol or weed etc later, maybe some more before bed, with or without a sleeping pill. Then start complaining about somebody else consuming a drug that we don't approve of.

Funny how states that have legalized cannabis to one extent or another have seen their opiate problems decline increasingly with the more liberal those deregulations are. The primary motivation behind prohibition and interdiction appears to be what we refer to as a "control issue", usually based on particular powerful persons stated 'moral' or 'ethical' opposition to the particular substance. (Jefferson Beauregard Sessions for instance) Examples are Islamic prohibition on alcohol and Christian prohibition on cannabis.

When you try to justify murder with your moral objection to another persons use of a substance that you do not endorse, you have moved completely off of the moral guidance map as far as many of us are concerned.
 
Stoniphi said:
I used chewing gum as a follow-up tobacco substitute when I quite smoking many years ago. The first substitute was carrots, which worked very well but those (the crunch) were disconcerting to other people around me, so I went to the more commonly accepted chewing gum as a viable alternative. Still use that to calm a tendency towards reflux when I go out running with my dog after breakfast. As with any litter I dispose of used chewing gum responsibly.

Our society so casually endorses routine drug use that we set ourselves up for failure when we choose to try and prohibit or interdict some substance or another. Start the day with caffeine and sugar (coffee, tea energy drink, energy supplement or soda), have some nicotine, alcohol or weed etc later, maybe some more before bed, with or without a sleeping pill. Then start complaining about somebody else consuming a drug that we don't approve of.

Funny how states that have legalized cannabis to one extent or another have seen their opiate problems decline increasingly with the more liberal those deregulations are. The primary motivation behind prohibition and interdiction appears to be what we refer to as a "control issue", usually based on particular powerful persons stated 'moral' or 'ethical' opposition to the particular substance. (Jefferson Beauregard Sessions for instance) Examples are Islamic prohibition on alcohol and Christian prohibition on cannabis.

When you try to justify murder with your moral objection to another persons use of a substance that you do not endorse, you have moved completely off of the moral guidance map as far as many of us are concerned.
Click to expand...

Personally I think "doing" (code for - I don't give a shit what you think I can handle this drug and not get addicted and stay healthy - I'm different to you lot) HEALTH harmful drugs is stupid

I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing ANY drug in private

Just don't bring it into the public

I modify that slightly for sports. I don't understand sports. Yes I can admire the dedication and skills but when a swimmer (my best example of my viewpoint) trains for years and then looses a race by 1/1000th of a second - which would be a wave boost or hinder in a pool - really?

For the adoration kids give to athletes and the athletes do drugs for that 1/1000th of a second, which is totally out of the realm of the years of training - again really?

I would not waste millions doing drug testing in any sport. Keep it on the no go zone sports field go for it

When athletes start dropping dead ideal example to point out to kids the dangers of doing drugs

To be honest though kids do drugs at parties and die and make headlines

But it happens again next week

Part of Darwin's survival of the not stupid :)

:)
 
We have coffee houses, bars and many other public establishments where we can openly obtain and use consciousness - altering substances or experiences. I try not to go places where I am exposed to tobacco smoke, benzene, acetone, airborne stone/concrete/brick/etc dust, diesel smoke....well, you get the idea. I am with you in not wishing to be exposed to bad stuff involuntarily.

Our Native American elders advised us not to take into our bodies that which would make us weak or stupid.

I choose not to compete, but have been extremely athletic my entire life. That level is beyond my comprehension, however, but it is where those folks are at. :smile: Each of us makes decisions that lead to actions that align with the person that we are. What we refer to as "drugs" fall under the "one mans meat is another mans poison" category as well - an aspirin may erase my headache or kill an allergic person. Life is fraught with hazard, and itt is indeed best to be well informed of those hazards. In the end though, it is simply not cost - effective for the government to try and enforce a (arbitrary) value judgement as law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top