Legalising drugs

Drowned Out

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Colorado is experiencing the social and financial benefit of legalization:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/new-schools-less-crime-colorado-sees-benefits-of-marijuana-legalization/208751/

It's a no-brainer. It really is.

There is virtually zero resistance to legalization of MJ from the public at this point. Most polls run between 55-75% in favour...it's all bureaucracy and lobbying at this point - I think MJ legalization is fait accompli these days. The point of contention has become legalization of supposed 'hard' drugs...

Maybe all the recent od deaths in Canada will end up advancing the argument for legalization....When we start seeing middle aged suburban parents od'ing on recreational drugs that are laced with a deadly, TOTALLY LEGAL drug (fentanyl), people start to take notice that something is very wrong with the current system. At the very least, drug purity testing kits should be made widely available.

jnimhaoileoin

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Your country may not prosecute for abortion but mine does! As do many others

Most of the examples you give as to why governments don't legalize drugs seem to relate to America, again none would be valid for my country.

jnimhaoileoin

rgambs said:

Objectivism is junk. It is purely idealistic and makes no concessions or adjustments for the practicality of the real world.
It requires complete rationality in all of society and it's participants, and without that complete rationality it doesn't make any sense.
Objectivism rails against altruism but entirely ignores corruption and those who seek to take advantage of others. It relegates government to the role of upholding the law alone, but preaches against virtually all laws aside from those related to violence.
It is junk, but who would expect anything else from Ayn Rand.


Sorry, back to topic now lol

I certainly agree it seems a little unrealistic and impractical in light of an established world order, I just think it's an interesting concept. Have to say Mark Pellegrino articulates himself very well in arguing in its favour, so that even where I disagreed with him I could still see where he's coming from.

I suppose I'm not really asking if such a system could be implemented over night. I'm asking if you see a value to at least certain aspects of it. I expect it finds greater support in America where there seems to be a widespread hostility towards government control and interference

Drowned Out

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Your country may not prosecute for abortion but mine does! As do many others

Most of the examples you give as to why governments don't legalize drugs seem to relate to America, again none would be valid for my country.

Yes they would. The drug war began as a US initiative, and they pressure allied countries to follow suit via aid, trade, and political pressure. Do you really think Ireland is immune to things like corporate lobby groups or drug money corrupting the legal and political systems?

jnimhaoileoin

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Your country may not prosecute for abortion but mine does! As do many others

Most of the examples you give as to why governments don't legalize drugs seem to relate to America, again none would be valid for my country.

Yes they would. The drug war began as a US initiative, and they pressure allied countries to follow suit via aid, trade, and political pressure. Do you really think Ireland is immune to things like corporate lobby groups or drug money corrupting the legal and political systems?

In a word? Yes

Drowned Out

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Your country may not prosecute for abortion but mine does! As do many others

Most of the examples you give as to why governments don't legalize drugs seem to relate to America, again none would be valid for my country.

Yes they would. The drug war began as a US initiative, and they pressure allied countries to follow suit via aid, trade, and political pressure. Do you really think Ireland is immune to things like corporate lobby groups or drug money corrupting the legal and political systems?

In a word? Yes

Ok you win
seriously tho....why would you think that? A one word answer doesn't suffice - it's a far reaching question. Do you think the irish just have that much more integrity than every other western nation?

brianlux

Here in the U.S., we have a huge prison industry that relies heavily on, among other things, incarcerating people for possession of drugs. We have the worlds largest prison industry and legalizing drugs is the last thing that industry wants to have happen. No one should be incarcerated for victimless crimes.

jnimhaoileoin

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Your country may not prosecute for abortion but mine does! As do many others

Most of the examples you give as to why governments don't legalize drugs seem to relate to America, again none would be valid for my country.

Yes they would. The drug war began as a US initiative, and they pressure allied countries to follow suit via aid, trade, and political pressure. Do you really think Ireland is immune to things like corporate lobby groups or drug money corrupting the legal and political systems?

In a word? Yes

Ok you win
seriously tho....why would you think that? A one word answer doesn't suffice - it's a far reaching question. Do you think the irish just have that much more integrity than every other western nation?

I'm not sure if integrity is the word, to be honest we're just quite innocent I think We've been pretty sheltered from the big bad world and we're such a small country that there's a much stronger sense of community. We all feel much closer and genuinely when something terrible happens to an Irish person we all kind of feel it. Equally our politicians aren't just distant figures of power, they're regular people and our electoral system gives us huge control over who gets elected, with money having very little if any weight or influence at all

jnimhaoileoin

P.s. our prisons are state-run, paid for by us and costing us a bloody fortune, so we differ from America in that regard also

Drowned Out

Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part
I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison.
Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...

jnimhaoileoin

Drowned Out said:

Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part
I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison.
Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...

Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know

Drowned Out

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part
I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison.
Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...

Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know

Well good for you guys on both counts

To address one other point I missed in response to dudeman's questions about the state's role in helping addicts....
It is cheaper to provide housing to homeless people than it is to leave them on the streets, according to several recent studies and social experiments.....addicts and homeless people had less emergency room visits (lower healthcare expenses), less arrests (lower police expenses), less court appearances (lower legal expenses), and lower addiction rates (less crime, recovery costs). The knee-jerk for so many is to say 'they did it to themselves; I'm not paying to support their bad habits'....but initiatives like Housing First have shown that you can still value money over people and have the end result be a net benefit to our society.

dudeman

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part
I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison.
Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...

Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know

Well good for you guys on both counts

To address one other point I missed in response to dudeman's questions about the state's role in helping addicts....
It is cheaper to provide housing to homeless people than it is to leave them on the streets, according to several recent studies and social experiments.....addicts and homeless people had less emergency room visits (lower healthcare expenses), less arrests (lower police expenses), less court appearances (lower legal expenses), and lower addiction rates (less crime, recovery costs). The knee-jerk for so many is to say 'they did it to themselves; I'm not paying to support their bad habits'....but initiatives like Housing First have shown that you can still value money over people and have the end result be a net benefit to our society.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

PJ_Soul

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part
I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison.
Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...

Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know

That was awesome that the vote won. I was very happy about that ... But I was so disturbed that it was taken to a vote in the first place. Human rights are not something that should ever be put to a popular vote. Even if 99.9% of the population are against it, it's still a human right and it shouldn't matter how many people don't like it. What if Ireland had voted no?? That would have opened a whole can of worms. If Ireland has any laws about equality and human rights, I don't see how a no vote would have even been legally upheld.

Godfather.

so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them.
I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.

Godfather.

jnimhaoileoin

PJ_Soul said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part
I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison.
Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...

Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know

That was awesome that the vote won. I was very happy about that ... But I was so disturbed that it was taken to a vote in the first place. Human rights are not something that should ever be put to a popular vote. Even if 99.9% of the population are against it, it's still a human right and it shouldn't matter how many people don't like it. What if Ireland had voted no?? That would have opened a whole can of worms. If Ireland has any laws about equality and human rights, I don't see how a no vote would have even been legally upheld.

Does Canada have equal rights for same sex marriages? It's the law in Ireland that any constitutional change must be passed by the people, it's the very essence of democracy and I'm very proud of how we do things here

rgambs

Godfather. said:

so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them.
I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.

Godfather.

It can't be any more stupid then the current system!
If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?

PJ_Soul

jennycoyle said:

PJ_Soul said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part
I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison.
Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...

Haha, we used to, not so much any more! First country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote you know

That was awesome that the vote won. I was very happy about that ... But I was so disturbed that it was taken to a vote in the first place. Human rights are not something that should ever be put to a popular vote. Even if 99.9% of the population are against it, it's still a human right and it shouldn't matter how many people don't like it. What if Ireland had voted no?? That would have opened a whole can of worms. If Ireland has any laws about equality and human rights, I don't see how a no vote would have even been legally upheld.

Does Canada have equal rights for same sex marriages? It's the law in Ireland that any constitutional change must be passed by the people, it's the very essence of democracy and I'm very proud of how we do things here

Yes, Canada has had it for 10 years now (4th country in the world to legalize, 1st outside of Europe), and it was actually put through via the Civil Marriage Act with almost no controversy at all - basically seamless (most provinces had already legalized it in years preceding that Act). Stephen Harper tried to question it when he got power a year after it was legalized, but he was immediately shot down (even he is probably grateful for that in retrospect). It was a logical decision based on Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (not to mention general human decency). It really isn't a debated issue in Canada at all. Everyone just accepted it as the obvious conclusion in a country where people are supposed to have equality.

As for Ireland's law that ALL constitutional changes must be passed by the people..... That's nice that you're all proud of that, but what if people's human rights and their rights to equality are violated by the people's choice??? What then? You all just happily go along while a group of people are being treated unfairly, because the majority of people are bigots?? That doesn't fit with a modern day society at all.

Drowned Out

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them.
I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.

Godfather.

It can't be any more stupid then the current system!
If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?

Right....like I said....even if money is your motivation (instead of people, addiction, homelessness, crime, or any of the related social issues), you can still support these initiatives because they cost less....people are just soooo against 'the welfare state' that they knee jerk past the positives right to their stock answers...it's not enabling their addiction, it's enabling them to live long enough to get clean, and to reduce the burden on our social services. It's an approach that allows addicts to not feel like they're too far gone to be saved, saves lives, and saves money. Most homeless people end up in forced rehab via prison sentences for crimes caused by their homelessness and/or addiction, or hospital stays caused by the same. By providing the basics for them we skip the crime, we skip the prisons and hospitals, and we end up with people entering rehab when they're ready....and we all know the cliche about quitting - you can't until you're ready to....so the forced rehab is a total disaster and waste of money.

jnimhaoileoin

Legalising drugs is one thing, the question of what level of level of aid to provide addicts is somewhat more complicated. As Godfather reasonably pointed out, we could be doing them more harm than good by enabling them and giving no incentive at all to get clean. Then again, is it right for us to just say they've made their bed now they have to lie in it? Maybe it is, in the case of adults who are capable of making their own decisions, is it the role of society or government to take such an active role in the lives of its citizens? Even if we look at it dispassionately, is the cost of rehabilitating these citizens too high or would it actually be of net benefit to the society to have them re-integrated as contributing members?