This is pretty interesting. Though 4 of the top 5 are kind of depressing.

Was better when it was "Truck Nutz for all red blooded Americans" with 4500+votes, but well... that got removed.

Fallen668 wrote:Was better when it was "Truck Nutz for all red blooded Americans" with 4500+votes, but well... that got removed.

That's actually a far more sensible proposal than the Fair Tax.

It's a little disappointing to see so many gonzo ideologies polling so well, particularly the flat tax and small government types, but I suppose you can expect to see that among the footsoldiers of any political movement.

It was interesting to see little on ideas with any political viability and substance. Not that they were there but weren't polling well, but they simply weren't there. This is sounding more and more like a party that doesn't really have any idea why it should be in government.

It was cool to see Palin so far down the list.

#2 (the libertarians) made me chuckle - '...the right to life, the liberty to choose...'


errr, what's your position again??

End the war on drugs... yeah sure, end it by executing anyone found with more than 10g of any illegal drug, and less than taht 10 years prison.
War would be over in a year as there woul dbe no drug users left...

For real.. get with the 21st century, lauch net campaigns, and suck up money from supporters $5 per week like Obama did. He won it because he had the fat cash to portray his message more effectively.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:#2 (the libertarians) made me chuckle - '...the right to life, the liberty to choose...'


errr, what's your position again??

I think that is the point. If a Party embraces Libertarianism, then they have to be liberal in terms of how things are handld. The Liberty To Choose, for me, takes precedence over Right To Life, as I don't feel it is the Governments place to interfere here.

The only people the "Fair Tax" is fair for are those who have the money for investments and the like. Having a national sales tax sounds great... until you realize that the overall tax burden would go up, and weigh more heavily on the lower and middle class. And don't even get me started on how it would affect Tennessee, where we don't have a state income tax... but sales tax is almost 10%. So, to let the country music stars in Nashville keep more of their huge amounts of income, I'd have to tack on another 5 to 10% to my sales tax burden already? Funk that.

Fair Tax is misnamed, and will never be enacted by anyone who wants to secure the middle-class vote. So, sure, go for that, GOP; we'll be sure to welcome your replacement on the national stage warmly.

A flat rate income tax would be fairer than sales tax since it would catch up the huge money that flows to wealthy people from investments.

Maybe you already have that in the USA.

It's a graduated system, higher rates for higher incomes, for just that purpose. BUT... it's victimized and hobbled by loopholes, shelters, and other such dodges.

What I find hilarious is that the fair tax is actually more economically invasive than the current tax code. Unless you're going to put a flat sales tax on all goods and services it really amounts to little more than mass government price control.

Kilkrazy wrote:A flat rate income tax would be fairer than sales tax since it would catch up the huge money that flows to wealthy people from investments.

Maybe you already have that in the USA.

Capital gains have their own taxation system. Earnings from holdings less than a year old are taxed at a rate equivalent to income. If those same holdings are maintained for longer than 1 year they are axed at a maximum of 15%, which is a little under half of the highest marginal income tax bracket.

More or less the same in the UK except our Capital Gains tax rate is much higher. (It used to be 40%, I don't know what it is right now or what the allowances are.)

Cash interest counts as income and is taxed separately.

We also have a tax called National Insurance which is 10% of your salary up to a certain limit then 1% thereafter. This is to pay for social security such as pensions. There is no NI on income from cash or capital investments, only on earned income. A subtle way in which the rich are better off than most workers.

Of course all tax systems are a joke when people can hold the bulk of their wealth in off-shore tax havens like Monte Carlo.

We have the FICA tax, which is pretty comparable to your national insurance tax except it is meant to be partially deferred by the employer. Of course, this actually doesn't happen as most employers simply cut the effective salary of their workers. Especially with regard to small businesses, which tend to be run by egotistical idiots.

"I can't form an s-corp, that would give my employees access to MY hard earned money."

Is interest factored into the taxable value of property over there? I know that's long been a topic of debate in the US, and I'm curious as to how it plays out if other nations are doing it.

Property is assessed for taxes in five different ways depending.

Council Tax is a tax levied on householders regardless of their income or capital investments. It is based on the notional value of your house in the late 1990s, split between eight bands ranging from the lowest to the highest at about £300,000. This ensures that pensioners who happen not to have moved from properties that have become desireable, are taxed at a high rate they cannot afford, while extremely rich people with multi-million pound properties are taxed at the same rate as the average Londoner.

There is a separate system of business rates (council taxes.) There are also corporate taxes (profit and loss) on the changing value of property owned by businesses.

The fourth system is Capital Gains Tax. This assesses the value of a property when it is sold compared to when it was acquired, unless it is your sole residence. This system was recently changed in a way that severely penalised small businesses. It applies to businesses and private individuals who own more than one property.

The final system is Inheritance Tax. This is applied at the rate of 40% to the excess value of any willed property over £250,000 (I am not up to date with the current figure.)

I am confused myself from trying to lay out all this. Mind you, a half bottle of Chilean read wine has not helped.

ya man, end the war on drugs man.

no more police state nazis man, FREEDOME man....

what, i have to go vote?? ah forget that man, i got the munchies. any you guys want waffels?

The way to implement a flat tax is to hit up everyone with the same percentage income tax (lets say 15%).
Then you have to remove all the exemptions and tax dodges so that everyone pays tax.

We have a similar tiered tax system here in Australia. In 5 years time, with the investments I am making the wife and I will be getting full refunds, and will for the rest of our lives.

The politicians don't use it effectively so why the hell should I pay it?

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:The way to implement a flat tax is to hit up everyone with the same percentage income tax (lets say 15%).
Then you have to remove all the exemptions and tax dodges so that everyone pays tax.

That's a regressive tax code which unduly burdens the poor. Forfeiting 15% of a million dollars is far less economically problematic than forfeiting 15% of 30 thousand dollars.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
We have a similar tiered tax system here in Australia. In 5 years time, with the investments I am making the wife and I will be getting full refunds, and will for the rest of our lives.

The politicians don't use it effectively so why the hell should I pay it?

Define effective use. Do you mean effective in that it benefits you directly? Or effective in that it benefits others?

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:The way to implement a flat tax is to hit up everyone with the same percentage income tax (lets say 15%).
Then you have to remove all the exemptions and tax dodges so that everyone pays tax.

There isn't a way to implement a fair tax. There is no rate that is low enough to leave the working poor with enough to eat and and high enough to give government enough money to provide basic services. The system has been tried in a few South American countries, and the result each time was a bankrupted government.

The Fair Tax proposed by libertarians is a little different, because it includes a stipend paid to every citizen each month, that basically negates the tax paid on the first few thousand dollars of income (I think like 8 grand). So it's still a progressive system, albeit one with a much lower tax rate for the rich and very rich. The reduction in taxes paid by the very rich is accounted for either by setting a flat rate that really hammers the middle class, or one that is covered by 'savings in government spending'* or by new sources of revenue as the black market is finally taxed.

* Apparently there is all this waste out there that they can only find and cut once this tax system comes in. Basically they're going to cut welfare and start running huge deficits.
** This one sounds more reasonable and I believed it would happen for a long time, but it's ultimately a crock too. Turns out each time a sales based tax has been brought in the additional revenue projected from taxing the black market is about an order of magnitude greater than what ends up being received. In Australia they projected about an extra 10 billion, and got around one billion. Whoopty do.

We have a similar tiered tax system here in Australia. In 5 years time, with the investments I am making the wife and I will be getting full refunds, and will for the rest of our lives.

The politicians don't use it effectively so why the hell should I pay it?

Are you talking about franked credits on shares? If so, it isn't that you're not paying tax, its that tax has already been paid on the dividend by the company.

dogma wrote:That's a regressive tax code which unduly burdens the poor. Forfeiting 15% of a million dollars is far less economically problematic than forfeiting 15% of 30 thousand dollars.

That isn't what regressive means. Regressive occurs when the poor pay a greater percentage of their income than the rich, if everyone had to cut a cheque for $100 just for being here it'd be a regressive tax. People argue sales taxes are regressive, because although the rate is a proportion of their income, the tax is only levied on consumption income. Poor people spend all their money on consumption goods because they're living paycheque to paycheque, while richer people are able to save and invest.

But a proportionate tax being harder to pay doesn't make it regressive.

I was always of the perception that a regressive tax was defined by its affect on marginal purchasing power. Is there another term for that which I am unaware of?

Hard to take this seriously when they spell "Demo☭rats" with a hammer and sickle.

How about "act like grown ups" as an option?

Hahahaha, you're always such a kidder, KK.

dogma wrote:Define effective use. Do you mean effective in that it benefits you directly? Or effective in that it benefits others?

The government (K-Rudds idiot Labor party) don't give us Jack. At least Howard and the coalition gave us something. But all these means tests and handing out 10 billion to the bogans to buy Wiis and plasma TVs is too much.

I don't care for bogans to be supported by my hard work.
Stuff them.

I have superannuation.
I have life insurance.
I have medical insurance.
I have income insurance.
I have insurance on home and contents (and cars and dog)
I put myself through 7 years and 2 university degrees.


I work too hard and too long and pay out to cover myself and my wife. If someone can't work because they are too dumb or too lazy well then some other idiot can support them. Not me.

END RANT

Oh no! You have to contribute to society!

I doubt you put yourself through 2 uni degrees, not completely.

I know your insurance is not a product of your own effort.

Nor is your superannuation.

But hey, it's all by your own bootstraps right? What a joke.

dogma wrote:I was always of the perception that a regressive tax was defined by its affect on marginal purchasing power. Is there another term for that which I am unaware of?

It's the common form of regressive tax, and is what I described in my reply to your post, and what you didn't describe in yours. But it doesn't matter because it seems we're on the same page now.

I did work throughout both degrees, paying as I went, the insurance covers me for when things go wrong (so I won't need the dole).

I have no problem paying tax if everyone pays it.
Which is why I used to support the flat tax, but if I don't have to pay then I won't.

But all this tax talk is off topic and we need to head it back to the original context of the thread.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I did work throughout both degrees, paying as I went, the insurance covers me for when things go wrong (so I won't need the dole).

I have no problem paying tax if everyone pays it.
Which is why I used to support the flat tax, but if I don't have to pay then I won't.

But all this tax talk is off topic and we need to head it back to the original context of the thread.

Even though you worked through your degree, the cost of the degree itself was about 60% covered by Govt.

@Gonads: Do you really have that little compassion? Not everyone on benefits is lazy or stupid you know. Some may have suffered through illness, bereavement or disability, or cannot get work. You say you get no benefit from paying taxes, so I guess you don't drive on any roads then? And you don't call the police or fire service in an emergency? I could go on, but I think you get the point. A flat tax is a ridiculous idea, why implement something like that to benefit the rich? They don't need helping! Tax the rich spend on the poor, that's what I bloody say.

Cue cries of 'Commie'.

Envy89 wrote:ya man, end the war on drugs man.

no more police state nazis man, FREEDOME man....

what, i have to go vote?? ah forget that man, i got the munchies. any you guys want waffels?

Are you saying you wouldn't want to end the war on drugs? I'm not sure of your point...

captain.gordino wrote:Are you saying you wouldn't want to end the war on drugs? I'm not sure of your point...

I think the point is that their opinions don't matter because they don't vote. Given envy appears to be referencing some kind of hippie/beatnik/pothead amalgam that's rarely seen outside of MAD magazine, I'd guess he's right. Creations of pure fiction rarely vote.

no i would not end the war on drugs (i would actualy try and bam it up a notch)... that would be taking a "well, we cant beat em. so lets join em" approach. i have seen to meny a life ruined by drug addictions.

Envy89 wrote:no i would not end the war on drugs (i would actualy try and bam it up a notch)... that would be taking a "well, we cant beat em. so lets join em" approach. i have seen to meny a life ruined by drug addictions.

Not really. Legalizing some of the softer drugs is more of a "We can't beat 'em this way, so let's try it this way" approach. The main reason drug cartels can generate profit is for the simple fact that their product is illegal; artificially inflating prices while leaving cost relatively constant. Legalize it, regulate it, and that entire issue falls by the wayside.

I'd have every drug legalised. Bye bye massive amounts of funding for organised crime, huge amounts of drug-based crimes and the criminalisation of otherwise law abiding people who smoke a bit of pot. I also think everyone should have the right to mess themselves up in whatever fashion they like.

Envy89 wrote:that would be taking a "well, we cant beat em. so lets join em" approach.

I feel that it would be taking a "we realize that we have no reason to want to beat them even if we could, which is impossible, and we accept that it's none of our business" approach. Just because you legalize it doesn't mean you have to do it yourself, so you're not joining them.

i have seen to meny a life ruined by drug addictions.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that I think that those poor people should be punished further, when they're already in a bad situation. Hard drugs are enough punishment by themselves, and the mild ones like weed don't ruin lives.

And see my grammar guide while you're here, it will make people take your infinitely valid opinions be taken more seriously.

Envy89 wrote:no i would not end the war on drugs (i would actualy try and bam it up a notch)... that would be taking a "well, we cant beat em. so lets join em" approach. i have seen to meny a life ruined by drug addictions.

The focus shouldn’t be on beating something. Drugs are bad because they ruin people’s lives, but somewhere along the way people got fixated on beating the drugs and forgot that it’s really all about stopping those lives being ruined. When a kid gets busted for having pot in his car, it isn’t the pot that’s threatening to ruin his life, it’s the criminal charge.

Abandoning the war on drugs isn’t giving up and joining them, it’s about moving away from supply fixated polices (stopping production and importation of drugs) and moving towards demand based policies (stopping people from wanting to take drugs).

captain.gordino wrote:

Envy89 wrote:that would be taking a "well, we cant beat em. so lets join em" approach.

I feel that it would be taking a "we realize that we have no reason to want to beat them even if we could, which is impossible, and we accept that it's none of our business" approach. Just because you legalize it doesn't mean you have to do it yourself, so you're not joining them.

i have seen to meny a life ruined by drug addictions.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that I think that those poor people should be punished further, when they're already in a bad situation. Hard drugs are enough punishment by themselves, and the mild ones like weed don't ruin lives.

And see my grammar guide while you're here, it will make people take your infinitely valid opinions be taken more seriously.

I completely agree.

There is a theory that people turn to drugs because their lives are already damaged in some way.

For example, long-term unemployed.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a theory that people turn to drugs because their lives are already damaged in some way.

For example, long-term unemployed.

humm yes... and when you go to get a job, but cant because drugs showed up on your drug test.... ahhh the circle of stupidity.

Ok. We have established the fact that drugs are bad for you. They harm your body.
We have also established that it is expensive
And that you become addicted
AND you can go to jail.

Where exactly in the process of rational, right minded, common sense thinking dose all of that sound like a GOOD idea



O ya... right there

I am so stealing that.

Envy89 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a theory that people turn to drugs because their lives are already damaged in some way.

For example, long-term unemployed.

humm yes... and when you go to get a job, but cant because drugs showed up on your drug test.... ahhh the circle of stupidity.

Ok. We have established the fact that drugs are bad for you. They harm your body.
We have also established that it is expensive
And that you become addicted
AND you can go to jail.

Where exactly in the process of rational, right minded, common sense thinking dose all of that sound like a GOOD idea



O ya... right there

The point about people with damaged lives is they probably aren't thinking rationally. That doesn't mean the way to fix them is to ignore the cause of their problems and attack the symptom.

And of course, everyone who ever goes near a controlled subsance instantly becomes addicted and steals their mother's purse to fund their rapidly degenerating problem...

If alchohol was discovered today it'd be a class A drug. I assume not everyone here who's ever had a beer is an alchoholic?

Envy89 wrote:
humm yes... and when you go to get a job, but cant because drugs showed up on your drug test.... ahhh the circle of stupidity.

Ok. We have established the fact that drugs are bad for you. They harm your body.
We have also established that it is expensive
And that you become addicted
AND you can go to jail.

Where exactly in the process of rational, right minded, common sense thinking dose all of that sound like a GOOD idea

Oh, so all people that can't find work are drug addicted? It all makes perfect sense now! That's the problem with the economy! Too much marijuana! Actually, no, that doesn't go far enough. Clearly the issue is that there is too much fun to be had in the world. Physically harmful fun. And fun doesn't matter at all in the pursuit of happiness. Which isn't the sole reason for human existence. And isn't lionized in the Declaration of Independence.

There's a point there though. Long term ilegal drug use negatively impacts your ability to acquire or maintain a job. Long term legal drug use does the same. To follow your example:

*Not all unemployed people take drugs. But those that regularly take drugs have a higher chance of ending up unemployed. Unless your drug is chocolate cake of course...mmmmmmm....cake....

*Interesting side note. Its has been proven scientifically that it is substantially harder to quit smoking than quit heroin, including anecdotally from heroin users themelves.

It's partially the chemical grab that nicotine has on the brain, and partially the fact that heroin use is stigmatized while nicotine use is part of everyday life.

Frazzled wrote:There's a point there though. Long term ilegal drug use negatively impacts your ability to acquire or maintain a job. Long term legal drug use does the same. To follow your example:

*Not all unemployed people take drugs. But those that regularly take drugs have a higher chance of ending up unemployed. Unless your drug is chocolate cake of course...mmmmmmm....cake....

... .

I doubt there's any proof for those assertions, if only because the research methods make it difficult to uncover the data. For instance it's hard to get drug users to come forwards voluntarily.

Of course if people get drug tested at work and are fired when testing positive, obviously that makes they lose their jobs as an effect of drugs. But that is a social construct.

Many service people took drugs therapeutically during wars. In fact I believe the US Air Force still issues speed to pilots. We also have examples of many children on Ritalin to let them stay in school, depressives on various kinds of uppers and downers. These are obviously prescribed drugs though they may be identical to illegal unsubscribed drugs.

Legal drugs may have deleterious side effects and may be addictive.

Are you asserting that an addiction to chocolate cake increases your chances of being unemployed Killkrazy? thats just crazy talk...


I should clarify. I'm referring to more of a hard user of drugs. Hard users of drugs, legal and illegal, generally have a harder time of it. Are you disputing that? Have we not all watched the inevitable Christmas movie where the rocker/singer/music dude rises to the top, but is nearly destroyed by his drug use? Has Walk Hard not shown us all the path of darkness...

Frazzled wrote:There's a point there though. Long term ilegal drug use negatively impacts your ability to acquire or maintain a job. Long term legal drug use does the same. To follow your example:

*Not all unemployed people take drugs. But those that regularly take drugs have a higher chance of ending up unemployed.

Correlation does not imply causation. Does the drug use cause the unemployment, or is it the unemployment which causes the drug use?

So, er do you know any serious drug or alcohol users outside fo Hollywood that are gainfully employed? Last I saw, smoking crack is not exactly the gateway to success.

Frazzled wrote:So, er do you know any serious drug or alcohol users outside fo Hollywood that are gainfully employed? Last I saw, smoking crack is not exactly the gateway to success.

Yeah, actually. I know plenty of fairly well-off tradesmen who are very heavy drinkers. Drugs may not serve to help people become successful, but that doesn't mean they are the actual cause of their problems. People use drugs because they are pleasurable, but they turn to them for that pleasure because they can not find it elsewhere in their lives.

Frazzled wrote:Are you asserting that an addiction to chocolate cake increases your chances of being unemployed Killkrazy? thats just crazy talk...


I should clarify. I'm referring to more of a hard user of drugs. Hard users of drugs, legal and illegal, generally have a harder time of it. Are you disputing that? Have we not all watched the inevitable Christmas movie where the rocker/singer/music dude rises to the top, but is nearly destroyed by his drug use? Has Walk Hard not shown us all the path of darkness...

By hard drug user do you mean someone who uses hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, or someone who uses drugs a lot, like smoking huge amounts of cannabis.

The history of drug use shows many examples of people holding down jobs while being addicted for years to heroin or cocaine.

Drug consumption does not inevitably increase with time in a user. Many health problems associated with drugs are associated with dirty, illegal drugs. Many mental problems are associated with people in pre-existing disorders, who then take drugs to ameliorate their situation.

I'm not saying drugs are totally free of all dangers and problems. OTOH all drugs are not an instant ticket to an inevitable spiral of despair and degradation. What matters is to separate drug related problems caused by social issues from those caused by illegal drugs and from those caused by legal drugs.

BTW in this sizeist age, addiction to chocolate cake probably does harm your employment prospects.

Well we could have had a resonable conversation about drugs, illegal, and legal, but you just had to the radioactive halflife of awesome that is chocolate. Shame on you...

I think we're looking at different time frames. I've not known hard users who could keep it together. They eventually would begin to deteriorate or, well, die.

Envy89 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a theory that people turn to drugs because their lives are already damaged in some way.

For example, long-term unemployed.

humm yes... and when you go to get a job, but cant because drugs showed up on your drug test.... ahhh the circle of stupidity.

Ok. We have established the fact that drugs are bad for you. They harm your body.
We have also established that it is expensive
And that you become addicted
AND you can go to jail.

Where exactly in the process of rational, right minded, common sense thinking dose all of that sound like a GOOD idea

I didn't say it is. Doesn't mean we should punish people for it though. Half the people who get into this stuff in the first place do it for the thrill of doing something illegal anyway.

Frazzled wrote:So, er do you know any serious drug or alcohol users outside fo Hollywood that are gainfully employed? Last I saw, smoking crack is not exactly the gateway to success.

It all depends on your definitions. I know people that use coke, meth or speed most weekends, and manage to turn up for work on Monday. A couple of them earn a lot more money than I do. I know a lot of potheads, I don't know if I'd call them super successful, but they're getting by.

It's not a lifestyle I'd advise anyone anywhere taking, but it isn't all like Trainspotting.

Frazzled wrote:Well we could have had a resonable conversation about drugs, illegal, and legal, but you just had to the radioactive halflife of awesome that is chocolate. Shame on you...

I think we're looking at different time frames. I've not known hard users who could keep it together. They eventually would begin to deteriorate or, well, die.

Taking any kind of medication for years on end usually has some bad side effects whether legal or illegal.

The drug situation in the UK today is split between a smaller number of hardcore addicts and a substantial number of recreational drug users.

The hardcore are usually addicted to heroin, crack, etc. and cause a lot of crime. They are also usually the people with crappy or no jobs, bad employment prospects and weak social networks. This does not mean that drugs cause these ill effects, since there are many reasons why people have crappy jobs and so on, connected with their social background.

The recreational users are people like lots of the young staff in the company where I work. They do ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis, maybe some Ketamine, speed, etc. I doubt they are on Heroin or crack. The use of these drugs is mostly limited to weekends hence the designation of recreational user.

We don't often see recreational users descending an inevitable spiral of degradation. For one thing, they have got social support systems and decent jobs and can pay for their habits. The effect of this is partly to normalise drug use and criminality among recreational users and partly to make a mockery of government publicity campaigns, as users learn from their own experience that they are lies.

In short, the question of drug use and abuse is a complex one and the current policy of dealing with it exclusively through criminal law may not be the best approach.

True on all counts KK

fraz made my point before i could.

not all unemployed are drug users. but having pot show up on a drug test sure dosent help you get a job.



all of the "recreational" drug users that i knew in high school are still either unemployed, or flipping burgers (dose that really count as "Employed" if you are out of high school?)... some of them went on to try other more hardcore drugs, and ended up in prision.


we just need to get all these drug addicts addicted to plastic crack.... that would solve a lot of problems eh?

40K... My anti drug.

Envy89 wrote:fraz made my point before i could.

not all unemployed are drug users. but having pot show up on a drug test sure dosent help you get a job.



all of the "recreational" drug users that i knew in high school are still either unemployed, or flipping burgers (dose that really count as "Employed" if you are out of high school?)... some of them went on to try other more hardcore drugs, and ended up in prision.

Inevitably this still doesn't answer the question of why these people turned to drugs. Narcotics are a manifestation of a problem, not a problem in and of themselves.

Thats your supposition, without a factual basis of support.

Frazzled wrote:Thats your supposition, without a factual basis of support.

As opposed to your position, which is that "drugs prevent you from getting a job." How is that factually supported? By correlation? Please tell me it isn't by correlation Frazz. Because that wouldn't be a real argument.

My point wasn't that I'm right, it was that you might be wrong. There are other ways to interpret the face of reality. Especially given that your's hasn't been grounded in statistical data either. But hey, I'll start us off.

Here you go.

In 2006, according to federal data, drug-related arrests climbed to 1.89 million, up from 1.85 million in 2005 and 581,000 in 1980.

In the time that drug enforcement has gotten more strict the number of drug convictions has climbed, not fallen. Why might that be?

More than four in five of the arrests were for possession of banned substances, rather than for their sale or manufacture.

It certainly isn't because drugs have become more prolifically available, this little piece of data attests to that.

Apart from crowding prisons, one result is a devastating impact on the lives of black men: they are nearly 12 times as likely to be imprisoned for drug convictions as adult white men, according to the Human Rights Watch report.

Hmmm...don't black people have a greater tendency towards poverty than white people? Yes they do.

So despite the assumption that drug use causes poverty, and the aggressive preventative pursuit of it as a casual force, poverty remains ubiquitous amongst a very concentrated, and easily identifiable, group of people. Who also happen to be the primary subject of drug arrests. As attested by:

Her report cites federal data from 2003, the most recent available on this aspect, indicating that blacks constituted 53.5 percent of all who entered prison for a drug conviction.

Even if drugs do cause poverty, and in some limited cases they might, our approach to the issue has hardly been productive. Maybe its about time we changed that approach.

Outside of an illegal activity, please specify which jobs are helped when you take illegal drugs? If one person is denied a job or fired because of a drug test, I've made my point. Now support yours. Outside of college in the real world if you have to take a drug test and fail it you're often out of the job.

Frazzled wrote:Outside of an illegal activity, please specify which jobs are helped when you take illegal drugs? If one person is denied a job or fired because of a drug test, I've made my point. Now support yours. Outside of college in the real world if you have to take a drug test and fail it you're often out of the job.

But why are you out of job for failing a drug test? Is it because the drugs were negatively affecting your performance? Or is it because drug use is frequently a criminal offense? If you have never been convicted of a drug crime why should you be denied employment? If I get a speeding ticket should my employer have the right to fire me?

My point isn't that taking drugs helps you get a job. My point is that drugs are not the primary cause of unemployment, and actually serve as an indicator of larger social inequities which erect class barriers.. Like the assumption that previously existential poverty, and the drug use which frequently accompanies that, is somehow indicative of a person's capacity to perform a task. The data I gave you supports that point.

Athlete.
Fighter pilot, if taking illegal rather than legal Benzedrine. (As I mentioned above, it's given to US pilots legally, for its performance enhancing qualities.)

Seriously though, it's difficult to do research into whether job performance is helped or hindered by taking illegal drugs or whether it doesn't make any difference, because the activity of doing the research would be fraught with legal dangers.

I suspect that in many jobs, indulgence in recreational drug use at weekends has no worse effect than getting drunk.

Frazzled: Outside of an illegal activity, please specify which jobs are helped when you take illegal drugs?

Cab driving, Trucking, any restaurant work especially back-of-house, even accounting and programming during crunch periods
so any occupation were you work 8-14 hours with no breaks, high concentration and little-to-no margin of error
legally obtained stimulates like caffeine and nicotine don't cut it sometimes

Then don't do the job, your clearly not cut out for it...

Sorry guys, but there is no excuse. I'm extremely anti-drugs as a very good friend of mine had a severe nervous breakdown due to 'recreational' drugs use. To all intents and purposes, the guy I know is dead. He is a totally different person, and not in a good way.

Wow what a bunch of misguided druggees I'm arguing with.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Then don't do the job, your clearly not cut out for it...

Sorry guys, but there is no excuse. I'm extremely anti-drugs as a very good friend of mine had a severe nervous breakdown due to 'recreational' drugs use. To all intents and purposes, the guy I know is dead. He is a totally different person, and not in a good way.

Sure there is. Your friend was not emotionally stable enough to use drugs, so he had a breakdown. Many people are not emotionally stable enough to use alcohol, yet it remains legal despite clear correlation to spousal and child abuse. This isn't to say that your friend was a bad person, or that he was somehow personally deficient, only that he made a mistake. That's part of life. Criminalization should focus on the deleterious affects of drugs, not the drugs themselves. DUI laws are a good example of this. As are child and family laws.

Frazzled:
Wow what a bunch of misguided druggees I'm arguing with.

It's all good.
You could always support you views through personal action.
Just never buy anything shipped on a rig, ride in a cab or eat out at a restaurant.
(remember, you can drive a car if you follow that plan)
Then have all the confidence in the world to judge away.
Let me know how misguided I am then.
. . . but really I'm just funning you, no intelligent well educated person would ever see practical value in the use of illegal substances
(unless they were writing a thesis while working a full-time position, but THAT never happens)

1. This way off topic from whatever the topic was.
2. I truly could care less if you fry your brain. Thats your right. Frankly it works out better for me if you do that-more jobs for me. So Smoke Up! Of course that nagging Christian thing probably says something about helping others, I'm sure its related here somehow. Mmm yes time to give to the Salvation Army again.
3. I'll leave it to the docs about whether there is a practical use vs. the cost, but I've seen people destroyed by it too so to me, there's no net positive here.
4. I do not that transportation workers were some fo the first groups heavily tested, as it was felt that drug use would DETRACT from their performance. I'll note there's the certain matter fo the drug sea captain wrecking a certain oil tanker, and the more recent accident cause by someone using drugs.
5. I will say heavy drug use detracts from your ability to get or keep a job, if nothing else failing those drug tests does wonders for your unemployment opportunities.

But again, its your right so smoke that meth up baby!

Frazzled wrote:Wow what a bunch of misguided druggees I'm arguing with.

I never touch anything except alcohol and the occasional cigarette.

Chocolate. You forgot chocolate KK.

No, I'm on a diet.

SINNER! BLASPHEMER! GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!

Kilkrazy wrote:No, I'm on a diet.

Innocence proves nothing.

Anyway, all of this discussion of your chances of getting a job and so forth is completely irrelevant to my original point concerning the fact that drugs shouldn't be illegal, because regardless of how harmful they are, it's your own business, you don't deserve to be punished for punishing yourself, and making it illegal causes more people to do it, worsening the problem.

Furthermore, if we assume that people who are unemployed are more likely to become drug-addicts as I believe someone in the preceding debate was saying, then if the government is spending your money to catch drug-users, more people will become unemployed due to the higher taxes, and then there will be more drug-users for the government to catch, which will necessitate higher taxes.

It's an interesting point, and it would seem to me, living in downtown Calgary, that unemployed people are more likely to become addicted to drugs. That probably explains a lot about our current unemployment problem.

Envy89 wrote:all of the "recreational" drug users that i knew in high school are still either unemployed, or flipping burgers (dose that really count as "Employed" if you are out of high school?)... some of them went on to try other more hardcore drugs, and ended up in prision.

Every single one? That flies in the face of my experience and the experiences of just about everyone I know.

I think it’s likely that you didn’t actually know who was and who wasn’t taking drugs in your highschool. It was probably somewhere around half of all kids, around half of whom were regular users. It’s likely you were only aware of the problem users.

Drugs are bad but the idea that drug use inevitably leads to a life wasted belongs on after-school specials.

Frazzled wrote:3. I'll leave it to the docs about whether there is a practical use vs. the cost, but I've seen people destroyed by it too so to me, there's no net positive here.

I don’t think anyone is arguing illegal drug use is a net positive, just that the extreme claims given in this thread went far to far the other way. People were arguing that drug use always ruined lives, and that’s clearly not true to anyone who’s spent time in and around drug users.

5. I will say heavy drug use detracts from your ability to get or keep a job, if nothing else failing those drug tests does wonders for your unemployment opportunities.

Again, no-one argued otherwise. People were simply saying that heavy drug use was often the result of limited or no access to decent work opportunities.

But again, its your right so smoke that meth up baby!

I’m not sure how you can argue something is a right when it’s illegal. That seems contradictory.

I’m not sure how you can argue something is a right when it’s illegal. That seems contradictory.

Rights are not granted by the government. Everyone has the same rights no matter what. The government can refuse to acknowledge your rights, but they cannot take them away.

captain.gordino wrote:Rights are not granted by the government. Everyone has the same rights no matter what. The government can refuse to acknowledge your rights, but they cannot take them away.

Yeah, I’ve heard that before, and really it doesn’t amount to anything more than argument by pointless redefinition. If government denies that right or fails to protect a right, you don’t have it any more. You can argue all you want about it’s inherent nature, but you don’t have it any more.

I could claim that I have an apple. I could talk all day about my ownership of the apple. If someone took it, I could continue to spend days on end talking about my inherent ownership of the apple, but I don’t have the apple.

There is a distinction between a right and the practical availability of the effect of that right.

For example, slavery is against human rights and illegal everywhere. But there are still many thousands of people in bonded labour and other forms of what amounts to slavery.

captain.gordino wrote:

I’m not sure how you can argue something is a right when it’s illegal. That seems contradictory.

Rights are not granted by the government. Everyone has the same rights no matter what. The government can refuse to acknowledge your rights, but they cannot take them away.

What he said.

Illegal Drug Users!

Ever stopped to consider the impact your habit has on the wider world? Fond of Coke? Can't wait to hit up on Heroin? Depend on Speed to see you through the day?

Try investigating where these come from, and how the growers are treated. I think you'd be surprised. Did you know, for example, that the majority of Heroin comes from Afghanistan, and is grown by local Warlords? Fancy explaining to your local War Widow why you've been funding the Terrorists? No? Lack the balls? Thought so.

It's not worth it guys. Not worth it all.

Except for chocolate cake of course. It is SO worth it...

But Chocs aren't illegals.

Only for Fatties.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a distinction between a right and the practical availability of the effect of that right.

For example, slavery is against human rights and illegal everywhere. But there are still many thousands of people in bonded labour and other forms of what amounts to slavery.

And if we were talking about fundamental rights, freedom from slavery, freedom from political expression, sure thing. Because then even if that right isn't protected, you could be reasonably talking in terms of 'should'.

But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about taking illegal drugs, in a thread where a lot of people involved believe those drugs should continue to be illegal. It makes no sense in that context.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Illegal Drug Users!

Ever stopped to consider the impact your habit has on the wider world? Fond of Coke? Can't wait to hit up on Heroin? Depend on Speed to see you through the day?

Try investigating where these come from, and how the growers are treated. I think you'd be surprised. Did you know, for example, that the majority of Heroin comes from Afghanistan, and is grown by local Warlords? Fancy explaining to your local War Widow why you've been funding the Terrorists? No? Lack the balls? Thought so.

It's not worth it guys. Not worth it all.

Yet another very potent argument for legalisation in my eyes.

dogma wrote:Inevitably this still doesn't answer the question of why these people turned to drugs. Narcotics are a manifestation of a problem, not a problem in and of themselves.

My problem was that I had 3500 point of Tau to paint. Cannabis helps... a lot.

Illegal Drug Users!

Ever stopped to consider the impact your habit has on the wider world? Fond of Coke? Can't wait to hit up on Heroin? Depend on Speed to see you through the day?

Try investigating where these come from, and how the growers are treated. I think you'd be surprised. Did you know, for example, that the majority of Heroin comes from Afghanistan, and is grown by local Warlords? Fancy explaining to your local War Widow why you've been funding the Terrorists? No? Lack the balls? Thought so.

It's not worth it guys. Not worth it all.

Don't do coke, never done heroin. Don't drink alcohol. Just cannabis. I know where it comes from too. I know the guy who grows it. It comes from the good old US of A and if it were legal then the production of narcotics could be regulated to prevent money from being handed off to organized crime and terrorists. Workers would be covered under US labor laws. By making drugs illegal you allow for black markets which don't give a good god damn about human rights (or the safety of their products, the number one cause of death for drug users is contaminate overdose.) . Everything you've mention is good reason to legalize and regulate.

Is it?

Because a work force ripped to it's sweaty tits on E's and Wobbly Eggs is going to be sooooo productive.

Add in the tax on such commodities would be sky high, the illegal supply would not halt. And all you would be doing, without a global legalisation (and that is not going to happen) is make it easier for the crap to circulate.

But hey, because if it was legal, you wouldn't be funding Terrorists or Militants, thats a-ok to do so now yeah! Rock on in the free world!

So you think people are seriously going to drive to the scariest part of town late at night to buy from someone they barely know to purchase a legalized substance? And as far as price goes, I would seriously pay more if I didn't have to worry about the law. Also a pack of cigarettes is ten dollars in New York. Have you heard stories about tobacco smuggling that I haven't? Also, if the same amount of cannabis cost only ten dollars then it would be a substantial price DROP.

Because a work force ripped to it's sweaty tits on E's and Wobbly Eggs is going to be sooooo productive.

Worked retail lately? they already are.

But hey, because if it was legal, you wouldn't be funding Terrorists or Militants, thats a-ok to do so now yeah! Rock on in the free world!

Read my previous post. I help a guy I've known since high school pay rent. The system you advocate allows for black markets to handle drug trading. Seriously you think people are going to buy from the mob when the same product is available for (let's face it the overhead cost of growing cannabis is the same as any other crop) less elsewhere?

Won't be less though. Never in a million years. Legalise it to control it still doesn't mean it's accepted. Ergo, very, VERY high tax rate. The only, and I mean, the only reason illegal drugs are the price they are is because you can't get them anywhere else. Threaten the livelyhood, and BOOM! prices drop, as long as the crop remains.

But like I said, don't you worry your pretty little head about it. Sure, you help some guy pay his rent (I help my friends out too. They have a 2 yr old and Baby Twins) so this suddenly makes your illegal activities which have a substantial negative impact on soceity good and proper yeah? Pull the other, it's got bells on.

Illegal and immoral are two entirely different things. I can live with breaking a pointless socially destructive law. Also please prove that marijuana and marijuana alone has a substantial negative impact on society. Since you stated it as a fact you must be able to back this assertion up, yes?

Damn straight I can.

The Stoners I know struggle to hold down jobs. This means they are constantly trying to ponce money off of friends and family to buy more weed, which is particularly pathetic seeing as the substance is not chemically addictive, the fools just have a habit.

Drug Dealers are rarely nice people, and are usually users themselves, peddling their wares to others to fund their own habit/addiction. Me, I'd have no part in that. I'll people a drink and give them a ciggie, sure, because I both drink and smoke. But seeing as I am anti-narcotics, I will not give them money to go and get stoned off their face. Plus, sustained use of Cannabis has a proven detrimental affect on the psyche. Yes, it does have various medicinal uses, and these could be harnessed in pill form without getting the taker munted.

So why do you use it when there are legal alternatives? And I don't just mean Alcohol. Salvia Extract has much the same affect, without being illegal. Or are you just too damned hip daddio to like, listen to what the man says, man? There is very little justification for breaking a law, regardless of whether you feel it is just or not. Sure, it might not be a bad thing for a man to steal a loaf of bread so his family might eat, but smoking Weed is a different kettle of fish, however you dress it up.

Mad Doc, ever had a beer? Cigarette? I fear you may be straying into the region of hypocracy.

I smoke daily, and I intend to get thoroughly rubbered on the weekend with my Brother to celebrate his 30th. I fail to see the hypocricy.

As long as I smoke outside, I break no law (I'm 28) and I can drink to excess if I wish, no law prevents it. Both of these substances are heavily taxed, meaning any damage I do to myself is arguably paid for in terms of NHS help and that. Indeed, a fair portion of Tobacco related taxes are 'ring fenced' for the NHS.

I do not break the law in enjoying myself. Cannabis and other Drug Users do. Is it any wonder Cocaine, apart from Bolivian Marching Powder, is also known as dill weed Dust?

Salvia does not have the same effect as weed. They are nowhere near the same. And please show how marijuana is "detrimental the psyche." What does this mean? Depression? Mood swings? I recall reading a study a few months ago which found the ONLY long term effect of marijuana use to be decreased aggression. And seeing as the people who were used in the study smoked WAY too much weed (5-6 times a day, or about twice what I smoke in a heavy week) over the course of years, I'm not convinced I'm in any danger. As for employment. I've held down a job since I was seventeen (my parents celebrated my birthday by telling me to find a job or move out, but they did that with all of us) and only recently stopped working so that I could dedicate my time to once again being a full time student. That's seven years (six of which I was also in school) with only about two weeks between jobs. I have never been fired. I don't barrow money, not for anything. And I agree that cocaine is for dickheads. I would never touch the stuff. However, equating it to marijuana is once again apples to oranges.

Drug Dealers are rarely nice people, and are usually users themselves, peddling their wares to others to fund their own habit/addiction. Me, I'd have no part in that.

I agree. That's why I buy from a source I know and if marijuana were legalized I'd buy it from 7-11.

I don't know. Anecdotally of course but the serious potheads I used to know were pretty fried mentally.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I smoke daily, and I intend to get thoroughly rubbered on the weekend with my Brother to celebrate his 30th. I fail to see the hypocricy.

As long as I smoke outside, I break no law (I'm 28) and I can drink to excess if I wish, no law prevents it. Both of these substances are heavily taxed, meaning any damage I do to myself is arguably paid for in terms of NHS help and that. Indeed, a fair portion of Tobacco related taxes are 'ring fenced' for the NHS.

I do not break the law in enjoying myself. Cannabis and other Drug Users do. Is it any wonder Cocaine, apart from Bolivian Marching Powder, is also known as dill weed Dust?

At this point the argument appears to be that illegal drugs should remain illegal because it is bad to use them because using them breaks the law.

Frazzled wrote:I don't know. Anecdotally of course but the serious potheads I used to know were pretty fried mentally.

There’s been a lot of studies, many of which have tied to pot use to schizophrenia and depression.

It’s an extremely difficult thing to establish conclusively. Beyond the problems of separating causation from correlation, the field is so politicised it’s very hard to know whether to trust a study or not. I think the most reasonable answer at this point is that if you’ve got a history of mental problems in your family, don’t take the risk.

From personal experience, of all the people I've known who took drugs in some capacity, two ended up having short hospital stays as a direct consequence of drug use, one of whom is now fine and one of whom now seems to have some diminished capacity. But both of them did a whole lot more than smoke marijuana, and neither was all that well balanced to begin with.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Is it?

Because a work force ripped to it's sweaty tits on E's and Wobbly Eggs is going to be sooooo productive.

Restricting the rights of citizens to do what they want on grounds of economic productivity is irrelevant, and indicates an underlying political philosophy that is extremely unhealthy.

Also, there’s a massive difference between legalising a drug and allowing people to be under its influence at all times. It is presently legal to drink but no workplace tolerates drunkenness. It is silly to claim marijuana or any other drug would work differently.

I suppose the question is: if marijuana was legal, would you suddenly not have the same objections, Mad Doc? It is illegal, but laws are not directly related to morality. (Are parking tickets really a sign of bad moral fiber?)

Yes, many people involved in the production of illegal narcotics are not folk you want to invite to dinner. But that is what happens when a product that is wanted is illegal, bad people get rich supplying it. Organized crime exploded in the US during prohibition because there was a product that many people wanted but could only get from illegitimate sources. If something is so disastrously bad then it is worth the black market. But I really doubt Marijuana is one of those things. How many people do cigarettes and alcohol kill each year? Far more than marijuana.

Should PCP be legal? Crack? Probably not. But there are differences between drugs, they are not one and the same despite what years of after school specials and poorly conceived anti-drug programs have taught many people.

Frazzled wrote:Except for chocolate cake of course. It is SO worth it...

What he said. Even if most chocolate is grown by warlords, it's still worth it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Because a work force ripped to it's sweaty tits on E's and Wobbly Eggs is going to be sooooo productive.

Add in the tax on such commodities would be sky high, the illegal supply would not halt.
But hey, because if it was legal, you wouldn't be funding Terrorists or Militants, thats a-ok to do so now yeah! Rock on in the free world!

Depends on the nature of the work. Beatles made much better music with drugs than without, and look at the musical output of rawk stars who go clean, always produce terrible music afterwards.

Alcohol is heavily taxed and whilst there is a healthy trade in smuggled booze, especially near/in ports/similar most people don't buy/use illegal alcohol as it's far easier to, for example, just go to the local pub to celebrate for example.

And I'd point out that cigarettes have had a far more harmful impact on society than LSD or DMT, no secondary smoke damage from them.

Depends on how you define getting mashed off your nut and driving your car into people. Second Hand Smoke, or Second Hand Idiocy?

Drugs are illegal for a reason. They are harmful to mental health is just one of them.

Read about this Danish study reported here.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/cannabis_psychosis_study/

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Depends on how you define getting mashed off your nut and driving your car into people. Second Hand Smoke, or Second Hand Idiocy?

Drugs are illegal for a reason. They are harmful to mental health is just one of them.

err okay.

Not possibly good reasons though or even fair/just ones. You don't think the huge donations made by chemical firms desperate to develop an artificial and patented version of THC has anything to do with the status of weed ? Really ?

And cocaine was legal for a while, as was the poll tax, slavery, spousal rape etc etc

Well, how long have those companies existed, and how long has Cannabis been illegal?

Regardless of whether you see a law as being just or unjust is irrelevant. What is against the law is against the law. There are ways and means (lobbying) of getting things looked at again.

For example, there are a number of laws I disagree with, but I still obey them.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, how long have those companies existed, and how long has Cannabis been illegal?

Regardless of whether you see a law as being just or unjust is irrelevant. What is against the law is against the law. There are ways and means (lobbying) of getting things looked at again.

For example, there are a number of laws I disagree with, but I still obey them.

And I'd place money there are laws that you blatantly ignore as well as not convieiant or worthy. Ever borrowed or leant a cd/dvd/tape etc ? And I'm sure no-one here has ever indulged in downloading codices/rules etc right ?

I disagree entirely as to whether the view takes of a law being unjust has no relevance to your bowing down to it. Taxation without representation for example. Or giving up your seat for someone of white skin. Or the French actions to do with car clamps.

People do lobby for change of laws all the time.

http://www.pjstar.com/homepage/x601012368/Illinois-crime-falls-by-3-percent

BAM...

key part "attributed partly to tougher drug laws"

now granted, its not much. but its better then nothing.

A drop is a drop.

Of course, we could eliminate Crime altogther by legalising everything.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:A drop is a drop.

Indeed

By now, there can be little doubt that most, if not all, "drug-related murders" are the result of drug prohibition. The same type of violence came with the Eighteenth Amendment's ban of alcohol in 1920. The murder rate rose with the start of Prohibition, remained high during Prohibition, and then declined for 11 consecutive years when Prohibition ended.[2] The rate of assaults with a firearm rose with Prohibition and declined for 10 consecutive years after Prohibition. In the last year of Prohibition--1933--there were 12,124 homicides and 7,863 assaults with firearms; by 1941 these figures had declined to 8,048 and 4,525, respectively.[3] (See Figure 1.)

linky

Of course, we could eliminate Crime altogther by legalising everything.

golf clap.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Depends on how you define getting mashed off your nut and driving your car into people. Second Hand Smoke, or Second Hand Idiocy?

Drugs are illegal for a reason. They are harmful to mental health is just one of them.

Um... wow. You do realize that no one is advocating driving under the influence right? I'm all for the legalization of cannabis, but with use comes responsibility. You wouldn't drive after drinking would you? Hell, if weed were legal, I'd support serious penalties for driving under the influence, same as with alcohol.

Of course, we could eliminate Crime altogther by legalising everything.

"when you criminalize non-criminal acts, you still create real criminals."

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, how long have those companies existed, and how long has Cannabis been illegal?

Regardless of whether you see a law as being just or unjust is irrelevant. What is against the law is against the law. There are ways and means (lobbying) of getting things looked at again.

For example, there are a number of laws I disagree with, but I still obey them.

One means of lobbying for a law to be repealed is to have mass public flouting of it, which challenges the legal system to deal with it.

This is how homosexual rights, anti-segregation and various other laws have got changed.

Has anyone here read Kohlberg’s stages of moral development?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Kohlberg argues there are stages of moral development that people will move through, although most people don’t reach the final stages. One of the key things to take away from the model is the idea that you can get to a stage where certain principles are greater than laws and social norms.

I’m not so sure that ‘I want to get high’ is quite so powerful a principle, but it’s interesting in the context of Grotsnik’s argument that the law is the law and shouldn’t be broken.