Joke on Twitter gone bad...

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[PartyJaeger]

trust, me it would be worse, i doubt machines are capable od various forms of declination

Didn't think I would ever say this, but your posts would probably make more sense if you wrote in your native language and then made a machine translation. Google translate is a good one.

And we all know how "great" machine translations are...

[Mysthalin]

They do protect the majority (the people who can handle their alcohol) by imposing fines and jail time for the assault. We have strict drinking & driving laws to punish the minority who can not make responsible decisions.

So what, exactly, is wrong with punishing disorderly behaviour when the defendant is on drugs - same way you punish disorderly behaviour when the defendant is on alcohol?

Prohibitive laws have, again and again, proven to be ineffective in stopping people from imbibing on whatever substance is deemed illegal. It would make significantly more sense if the drugs were legalized and then appropriately regulated from an official standpoint - ensuring that the quality goes up, it becomes less accessible to those most likely to imbibe (as selling it illegally, over time, would become far less worth it than just getting a license and selling it over-the-counter), and a certain tax revenue is made from the sale of the drugs. Furthermore, you could divert police attention from dealing with drug dealers to something more useful - like preventing murder, rape and robbery to happen.

It's worked out alright in Holland thusfar. At least, to my knowledge, it's not the crime and poor health capital of Europe with dopeheads shooting people at random and flooding the hospitals to cure their various ailments.

[nikomas]

What myst says makes perfect sense...

I still will never take any drug ban seriously while tobacco is free for everyone, at least not the "it's harmful for you" argument people oh so love... last time I checked weed wasnt honestly much more harmful that that, or have things changed recently?
Heh, to be fair, it's not like drug dealers spent millions and billions lobbying in favor of weed, I suppose that's the main difference.

[Smokaz]

What I dont get is the rational argument for why alcohol and smoking is legal while so many other substances aren't. If mankind ever reaches the point where rational argument supercedes cultural repetition, its either going to be most things allowed or nothing allowed.

[smurfORnot]

because next logical step after smoking pot is injecting heroin in your veins and starting to steal so you can feed your newly wild urges! Then window to rape and sodomy is open.

[tank130]

So what, exactly, is wrong with punishing disorderly behaviour when the defendant is on drugs - same way you punish disorderly behaviour when the defendant is on alcohol?

Prohibitive laws have, again and again, proven to be ineffective in stopping people from imbibing on whatever substance is deemed illegal. It would make significantly more sense if the drugs were legalized and then appropriately regulated from an official standpoint - ensuring that the quality goes up, it becomes less accessible to those most likely to imbibe (as selling it illegally, over time, would become far less worth it than just getting a license and selling it over-the-counter), and a certain tax revenue is made from the sale of the drugs. Furthermore, you could divert police attention from dealing with drug dealers to something more useful - like preventing murder, rape and robbery to happen.

It's worked out alright in Holland thusfar. At least, to my knowledge, it's not the crime and poor health capital of Europe with dopeheads shooting people at random and flooding the hospitals to cure their various ailments.

I actually agree with legalizing minor drugs like marijuana tbh.

The problem with your theory is that while stating prohibiting a substance does not work, reality also proves that selling it legally doesn't work either.

Alcohol being the best test subject: While being illegal from 1920 to 1933, people still found a way to get it, abuse, and kill others under it's influence.

We then made it legal and people still  get it, abuse it, and kill others under it's influence. So legalizing it failed just as hard as making it illegal.

The only way to truly limit the abuse is to make the penalty to do so massively deterrent. There will still always be a minority who will abuse it, but we have morons that kill themselves and others everyday regardless of what we do.

Seriously think about this for a second.
Image this - you are pulled over for drunk driving. Legal limit is .08. You blow over .08. The law states if you blow over .08 you must subject yourself to a blood test to confirm. If the blood test also confirms over .08, you are shot dead on the spot.

Would you risk drinking and driving? Even if you think the law is bullshit, there is no way any reasonable human is going to take that chance. And guess what - 99.99% of all alcohol related vehicles deaths are snuffed out. The people who break the law are snuffed out to. Before long, there is no such thing as drinking and driving.

If you have ever lost a close person to you because of someone drinking and driving, you will completely agree with this law.

You risk it now because you can probably get a lawyer to find a loop hole to get you off. Worst case scenario you loose your license, but that's after a year or so of wasting tax dollars on court rooms and probably a court appointed lawyer.


Bottom line is massively increasing the penalty for breaking the law will be the only way to deter people from harming others.

[smurfORnot]

you know that in some eastern country's there is very little crime,because they have enormous penalty's,like,you steal,you loose an arm for it etc.   

[Tymathee]

you know that in some eastern country's there is very little crime,because they have enormous penalty's,like,you steal,you loose an arm for it etc.   

and some of those same countries sponsor terrorism against other countries, committing world crimes.

[Unkn0wn]

you know that in some eastern country's there is very little crime,because they have enormous penalty's,like,you steal,you loose an arm for it etc.   

Haha, yea why don't we go ahead and put the death sentence on every crime then? I'm sure that would cut crime by 900%!

[smurfORnot]

did I say that I support this kind of law anywhere?

and some of those same countries sponsor terrorism against other countries, committing world crimes.

yes,and what does that have to do with how they deal with crime?

[Unkn0wn]

Why bring it up if you know it's stupid anyway? Just stating the obvious?

[smurfORnot]

because tank said this.

Bottom line is massively increasing the penalty for breaking the law will be the only way to deter people from harming others.

[PonySlaystation]

you know that in some eastern country's there is very little crime,because they have enormous penalty's,like,you steal,you loose an arm for it etc.   

Just because official figures are low does not mean that there is low crime.

[smurfORnot]

simply put,who do you think that will steal more,guy who will spend few nights in jail or guy that will lose his arm afterwards?

Just because official figures are low does not mean that there is low crime.

and you know this from first hand source?

[Mysthalin]

Except harsh penalties are proven, statistically, to be rather poor at actually preventing crime. Look at the USA and it's death penalty - it still fosters a far larger crime rate than other, comparable countries such as the UK.

The only thing excessively harsh penalties ensure is the fact the perpetrators take better measures to ensure they're not caught - if the crime is worth it (or, in the case of drunk driving - you're unable to make a rational decision) - they'll still do it as long as they think they can get away with it. Look at the Soviet Union of all places. Technically, stealing from the government and giving bribes could very easily land you in Siberia - however, since everyone was doing it, it wasn't really all that enforced, with the system focusing more on what you say about the current government.

Of course, I am not saying "do not punish perpetrators" - penalties do have a deterring effect, even if it is negligible if overly excessive - and people do need to pay the consequences for their actions. But don't be naive in thinking that you can cure the problems by just treating the symptoms - e.g. arresting drug users and drug peddlers. And if it's a "terminal illness" so to say - might as well reap some economic benefit out of it instead of crying foul and blindly flailing at it with a stick.

[smurfORnot]

dunno about uk,but from what I have heard from people that live in UK or were there,it's quite dangerous to hang in many neighborhoods or however they call em. And it's even worse if you are kid.

[DarkSoldierX]

Except harsh penalties are proven, statistically, to be rather poor at actually preventing crime. Look at the USA and it's death penalty - it still fosters a far larger crime rate than other, comparable countries such as the UK.

You of all people should know that that hypothesis is hard to prove especially when you try to use that alone as the main factor for evidence, when you know there are hundreds of other factors in the equation that impact crime rate, and also that the death penalty is rather rare.

[PonySlaystation]

and you know this from first hand source?

Police forces in less developed countries are often frowned upon because they are corrupt and only cater to the nobility. Just like in western countries before WW2.

[Tymathee]

and you know this from first hand source?

I do, if no one reports the quite out of fear or because they're being paid off or corrupt cops, the figures are lower than they should be.

[smurfORnot]

but are they higher than in western country's?