Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
It's a bit of an ironic twist when I hear people that I know use drugs complain about the influx of Mexicans when the drug users are accomplaces to the cartels in turning Mexico into a warzone that people are fleeing.

We're all accomplices to the cartels. We keep drugs illegal, and give them that source of income. Singling out drug users is unfair.

Because legalizing Marijuana will crumble the cartels..........


Granted Im for the legalization of Marijuana for many reasons, but the cartels get cash from drugs that should definitely be illegal. I mean, no one agrees that making heroin legal would be a good idea, or meth, or whatever else is out there

They've also expanded beyond drug running to general criminal activity. However, lagalization of many narcotics would slam their profitability and ability to take on the Mexican government.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's a bit of an ironic twist when I hear people that I know use drugs complain about the influx of Mexicans when the drug users are accomplaces to the cartels in turning Mexico into a warzone that people are fleeing.

We're all accomplices to the cartels. We keep drugs illegal, and give them that source of income. Singling out drug users is unfair.

Legalising weed is one thing, legalising crystal meth or crack is something else.

Orlanth wrote:
Legalising weed is one thing, legalising crystal meth or crack is something else.

Why?

Why not punish users for the delinquent behavior they engage in after the use, rather than the use?

And if you're going to ban crack, you have to ban cocaine, because this...



...is how you make crack.

Frazzled wrote:They've also expanded beyond drug running to general criminal activity. However, lagalization of many narcotics would slam their profitability and ability to take on the Mexican government.

I lived in a crack house for 6 months, not because I did drugs, but because it was the only place I could afford to live at the time. I saw a lot of stuff going on and got quite an education there.

Believe me, you don't want meth and crack legalized

I went to school with a person, that now works at Amnesty International, who smoked crack she found in a gas station bathroom. She makes more money than I do and works half as many hours.

I'm less worried about the crack than I am about the circumstances that make people give up their lives for it.

I'm happy for her that she survived a very stupid decision. It sounds like she was in a hurry to win a Darwin award by smoking an unknown substance found in the gakker.
I had a fair number of people living around me that were ex college students that got hooked on the stuff and wrecked their lives.

I suspect it was less the crack than the realization that having a degree doesn't get you a job automatically.

Relapse wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They've also expanded beyond drug running to general criminal activity. However, lagalization of many narcotics would slam their profitability and ability to take on the Mexican government.

I lived in a crack house for 6 months, not because I did drugs, but because it was the only place I could afford to live at the time. I saw a lot of stuff going on and got quite an education there.

Believe me, you don't want meth and crack legalized

People who are going to use crack and meth are going to use it whether it is legal or not. To assume that there will be a massive spike in their use just because these substances are no longer illegal is a fallacy.

What we need is good, honest education on the effects of drugs, not the scare tactics which are used in the press and some classrooms now (Here in the UK the newspapers would have you believe that if you use ecstacy you will die instantly), which gives people the information they need to make an informed decision on what they do to their bodies.

As it is you have young people being told that these substances will kill you and are illegal but these other ones like tobacco and alcohol which are just as harmful (and in some cases more harmful) are allowed. Why should a young person believe what you say about the dangers of these drugs when you're lying about the dangers of others, just because the government gets money out of it?

What happened to the topic?

dogma wrote:I went to school with a person, that now works at Amnesty International, who smoked crack she found in a gas station bathroom. She makes more money than I do and works half as many hours.

I'm less worried about the crack than I am about the circumstances that make people give up their lives for it.

I wouldnt try and make an argument using a person as an example, that smoked something she THOUGHT was crack in a bathroom somewhere. Not to mention that she smoked what she thought was crack in the first place. I dont think your really making any good arguments in this thread there Dogma, I think your just posting for the sake of reading what you post

KingCracker wrote:
I wouldnt try and make an argument using a person as an example, that smoked something she THOUGHT was crack in a bathroom somewhere. Not to mention that she smoked what she thought was crack in the first place. I dont think your really making any good arguments in this thread there Dogma, I think your just posting for the sake of reading what you post

The point is that smoking crack doesn't instantly ruin your life. Rather, if crack ruins your life there were probably deeper issues at work than the drug; even given its chemically addictive properties.

I think people have this image of drug users as impoverished social outcasts despite that, many times, they're actually quite well off.

dogma wrote:
The point is that smoking crack doesn't instantly ruin your life. Rather, if crack ruins your life there were probably deeper issues at work than the drug; even given its chemically addictive properties.

I think people have this image of drug users as impoverished social outcasts despite that, many times, they're actually quite well off.

Yeah I think people don't see where you are coming from but I agree entirely.

To put it more bluntly. gak loads of pleasant sensible hard working people without criminal records take drugs.

I don't, I love booze so much I don't need drugs.

Another thing I have noticed, but I think casual drug use is far more common in the UK than the US, my missus was stunned when I told her I had taken LSD, coke etc when I was a teenager, she has never even seen most of them? Again, I am at a loss as to explain why that is.. maybe cos she is middle class and I am from a rougher town.

But I have tried them all, when I was about 15-17 we took all sorts of gak.. As a result, I have no desire to take any more LSD or cocaine, but I know people that do. I know people that dont get arrested, dont do any crazy gak, and go to work all week, but on a Friday and Saturday night like to take gak.

If you work, pay your taxes, and don't go fething ape gak.. frankly I don't care what you take. I think Relapse is being a bit unfair on all the sensible users to brand them as scum bags simply because they might like to take drugs for recreational purposes when the weekend comes around.

At the end of the day, my drug of choice (booze!) is surely responsible for more violence, more death, and more general carnage than anything else. Obviously this is primarily down to the fact it is common as feth, but people who smoke gak or take pills like E or LSD don't seem to be very aggressive when I see them on nights out. The only people who seem to wreck things and start fights for no reason, are primarily drunks, and occasionally coke heads, but the rest of the drugs just dont seem to cause anywhere near that warped needless aggression that booze does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am not saying I agree with Dogmas "legalize everything" stance, but I definitely see his point, and I think a fair case could be made.

mattyrm wrote:
Another thing I have noticed, but I think casual drug use is far more common in the UK than the US, my missus was stunned when I told her I had taken LSD, coke etc when I was a teenager, she has never even seen most of them? Again, I am at a loss as to explain why that is.. maybe cos she is middle class and I am from a rougher town.

One possibility is the comparative social character of each region. Just speaking from personal experience, my super liberal undergraduate school featured more drug use than I've seen anywhere else. Going further, the stories about Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth (inspiration for Animal House) are iconic.

Of course, that's not really a good answer because its basically just another way of saying that American is puritanical.

mattyrm wrote:
I am not saying I agree with Dogmas "legalize everything" stance, but I definitely see his point, and I think a fair case could be made.

I should be clear that I'm not really arguing for total legalization so much as asking ourselves, on a political level, why we make these drugs illegal and what we gain by doing so.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

That article says it all for me.

dogma wrote:
I should be clear that I'm not really arguing for total legalization so much as asking ourselves, on a political level, why we make these drugs illegal and what we gain by doing so.

Indeed, I feel the same then.

The point is, there is certainly a debate there, and both sides could give a strong argument. I don't feel well informed enough to make a decision either way at the present time, but it definitely shouldn't be a case of "NO NEVER EVER NO" as it is now. I think there is a robust argument to be presented by both sides, considering places with extremely liberal drugs laws really do seem to function fine.

Its not like Amsterdam is in ruins because you can feth hookers and snort cocaine with relative impunity. In fact, I fething love the place, I took the missus a couple months back and we had a great time, I don't feel at all uncomfortable wandering around its streets, and I wouldn't say that about half the cities in the comparatively strict US/UK.

In fact, the US isnt even comparatively strict, its fething silly and it proper pisses me off!

We got thrown out of Walmart about 2 years ago because they would not accept my passport as ID, then they wouldn't accept my missus California driving licence because "We know that liquor is for him now!" I was 30 and she was 24.. so then I said "Ok dont you think its a wee bit silly? We are clearly old enough, and I will just leave and sit in the car, and then she can wait 5 minutes and buy it anyway right?" and then the woman kicked off and told us to leave or she would call security.

So we drove to Ralph's and my passport was fine.. feth knows. If its good enough for immigration its good enough for a crate of beer surely?!

And then once they said it wasn't ok because "your height isn't written on that passport" and I said "What, do you think I stole this passport off my identical twin, who has the same face, but is much older and also a midget?!" and they threw me out of there as well... and in San Diego last year they only accept a British passport in fething 75% of the places I tried to drink...

And one redneck doorman in Virginia said "That ain't a passport dude, that's totally fake.. passports are blue!" at which point I pointed out, you know.. British ones aren't.

Anyway I went off on a tangent there, but the point is, I have fething hundreds of ridiculous epic stories involving buying booze as an over 25 in the US...... I think you lot are fething mental on that one frankly.

I bet I could buy a fething Mac-10 pretty easy though!

dogma wrote:I went to school with a person, that now works at Amnesty International, who smoked crack she found in a gas station bathroom. She makes more money than I do and works half as many hours.

That is actually a fairly sordid view of success.

"I work half as hard for twice the pay."
"What do you do?"
"I'm a sponge manager in a charity."

Plenty of people like that. Oxfam in particular is full of them. I don't look at them as high flyers but pond scum.

I have met enough charity worker elite, there are two types, the pond scum and those truly worthy of respect, with very little ground between. The later consist of those who make a fortune outside the charity system then donate their time and (usually considerable) expertise within it.

How about the folks who did not get rich and have never been rich, and work a zillion hours a week out of love for the cause?

I've known a lot more of those than the other two types. They tend to be the backbone of most charitable organizations.

mattyrm wrote:
Its not like Amsterdam is in ruins because you can feth hookers and snort cocaine with relative impunity. In fact, I fething love the place, I took the missus a couple months back and we had a great time, I don't feel at all uncomfortable wandering around its streets, and I wouldn't say that about half the cities in the comparatively strict US/UK.

Amsterdam would lose tons of tourism if marijuana were legalized in, say, London or Paris.

mattyrm wrote:
We got thrown out of Walmart about 2 years ago because they would not accept my passport as ID, then they wouldn't accept my missus California driving licence because "We know that liquor is for him now!" I was 30 and she was 24.. so then I said "Ok dont you think its a wee bit silly? We are clearly old enough, and I will just leave and sit in the car, and then she can wait 5 minutes and buy it anyway right?" and then the woman kicked off and told us to leave or she would call security.

So we drove to Ralph's and my passport was fine.. feth knows. If its good enough for immigration its good enough for a crate of beer surely?!

There's a bar my friends and I used to frequent in college that refused passports because they wanted to keep out the international students. This concern was legitimate, though, because international passports aren't something lots of people really recognize in the US, simply because they just don't see them. The international students that were accustomed to drinking in Europe would pass off their passports even though they knew they were underage.

mattyrm wrote:
Anyway I went off on a tangent there, but the point is, I have fething hundreds of ridiculous epic stories involving buying booze as an over 25 in the US...... I think you lot are fething mental on that one frankly.

I bet I could buy a fething Mac-10 pretty easy though!

The joke is that its easier to buy pot under 21 than booze.

Orlanth wrote:
I have met enough charity worker elite, there are two types, the pond scum and those truly worthy of respect, with very little ground between. The later consist of those who make a fortune outside the charity system then donate their time and (usually considerable) expertise within it.

Are you assuming she has no expertise?

The "pond scum", as you say, generally got where they are explicitly because they were involved in the charity at lower levels and, when offered a better job, they took it.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
I have met enough charity worker elite, there are two types, the pond scum and those truly worthy of respect, with very little ground between. The later consist of those who make a fortune outside the charity system then donate their time and (usually considerable) expertise within it.

Are you assuming she has no expertise?

No, I am assuming that with that expertise get a job in the private sector, if they want to contribute time contribute. After all from your post you imply she doesn't have to put the hours in.

dogma wrote:
The "pond scum", as you say, generally got where they are explicitly because they were involved in the charity at lower levels and, when offered a better job, they took it.

That accounts for a raise, not double salary for half workload.
Like I said big charities attract these leeches. Send out ad campaigns calling for people to donate to saving children/dissidents/tigers etc and as often as not 95% of the monies goes on admin.

Orlanth wrote:
No, I am assuming that with that expertise get a job in the private sector, if they want to contribute time contribute. After all from your post you imply she doesn't have to put the hours in.

I think you underestimate how much she works, its something like 60 hours a week last we spoke. I work about 90, but its all from home so its hard to tell really.

Orlanth wrote:
That accounts for a raise, not double salary for half workload.

Never said "double."

Orlanth wrote:

dogma wrote:The "pond scum", as you say, generally got where they are explicitly because they were involved in the charity at lower levels and, when offered a better job, they took it.

That accounts for a raise, not double salary for half workload.

He said she makes more money and works fewer hours than HE does. Not that her pay was doubled and her workload halved.

Orlanth wrote:Like I said big charities attract these leeches. Send out ad campaigns calling for people to donate to saving children/dissidents/tigers etc and as often as not 95% of the monies goes on admin.

That's a rather disturbing and I daresay irresponsible statement. It's certainly worth checking out any charity you plan to make a significant donation to, to find out how much money actually goes to direct assistance, but 95% on admin is absurd and silly. Even that anti-Kony group with their Youtube videos, which was widely-panned for spending so much on their admin costs and video production, wasn't anywhere near 95%, as I recall.

There are resources out there, by the way, for checking out how charities spend their collected donations. Sites like charitynavigator.org, for example.

Mannahnin wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Like I said big charities attract these leeches. Send out ad campaigns calling for people to donate to saving children/dissidents/tigers etc and as often as not 95% of the monies goes on admin.

That's a rather disturbing and I daresay irresponsible statement. It's certainly worth checking out any charity you plan to make a significant donation to, to find out how much money actually goes to direct assistance, but 95% on admin is absurd and silly.

I wish this were so.

Telephone number salaries and overpaid management (the former hitting the press more clearly) are rife in some charities.

Amnesty is one of the charities known for this.
Sadly I have to resort to quoting Daily Mail on this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358537/Revealed-Amnesty-Internationals-800-000-pay-offs-bosses.html as the Sunday Times article (Feb 2011) cannot be reached without subscription.

Mannahnin wrote:
There are resources out there, by the way, for checking out how charities spend their collected donations. Sites like charitynavigator.org, for example.

Sadly it is easy to mask what a charity is doing, no harder than it is to mask the activities of a bank. Look at this little gem of a quote:

Oxfam
For every £1 given to Oxfam 80p is spent directly on our emergency, development and campaigning work; 11p is spent on support and governance; and 9p is invested to generate future income. Support and governance includes all the other costs associated with running the charity......

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/
http://www.smallcharitydirectory.co.uk/what-percentage-of-donations-go-to-charity

Oxfam appears 80% efficient, if only. How much of the 'emergency, development and campaigning work' actually reaches anyone not an Oxfam employee/grandee, sadly not a lot. In Oxfams case to claim 5% reached the third world recipients would actually be optimistic.

Charity Navigator shows Oxfam America at $78mm in revenue, $59mm spent on programs (78.9%), $5mm spent on admin, $10.6mm spent on fundraising.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4288

Right now you're citing the Daily Mail and slating charities in general very broadly and very badly.

Mannahnin wrote:

Right now you're citing the Daily Mail......

Citing Daily Mail only out of need, as stated the Sunday Times covered the same topic on 20 Feb 2011, but a link is not avialable due to Sundays Times policies. Anyway it indicates the point that Amnesty international is one of the charities that has excessive salaries and payoffs.

Mannahnin wrote:
and slating charities in general very broadly and very badly.

The bad generalisation is to look at the figures from the website you provided and assume that just because the persons leading these organisations handle massive amounts of money and are generally very well paid it means that they are completely above board and scrupulous. Of course spin on monetary percentage statistics is unthinkable, and anyone who thinks otherwise must be a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist
You can cut formal Administrative Expenses to 6.8% by the simple expedient of only counting salaries and expenses of those workers who are purely admin office based a part of the percentage. So say a senior exec paid a lot of money can go to Africa on a jolly, suddenly his salary is part of 'programs', as part of his work technically involves going abroad.

Figures like these are all too easy to massage as to be quite frankly pointless. A better way to sniff out the charity scene is though the charity scene, generally the 'inefficient' charities end up with a fairly consistent rep

Orlanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Right now you're citing the Daily Mail......

Citing Daily Mail only out of need, as stated the Sunday Times covered the same topic on 20 Feb 2011, but a link is not avialable due to Sundays Times policies. Anyway it indicates the point that Amnesty international is one of the charities that has excessive salaries and payoffs.

Right now the evidence you're offering is one of dubious credibility, backing an assertion on your part that 95% of money collected being spent on admin is not uncommon. You don't think these claims put the burden of proof on you?

Orlanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:...and slating charities in general very broadly and very badly.

The bad generalisation is to look at the figures from the website you provided and assume that just because the persons leading these organisations handle massive amounts of money and are generally very well paid it means that they are completely above board and scrupulous.

That's a false and dishonest argument and rather insulting. I'm certainly not doing that. I'm basing the idea that they're generally above board on the ideas that they have to make public disclosures of figures for tax purposes, and independent organizations are looking at their numbers and rating them.

Orlanth wrote:
Sadly I have to resort to quoting Daily Mail on this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358537/Revealed-Amnesty-Internationals-800-000-pay-offs-bosses.html as the Sunday Times article (Feb 2011) cannot be reached without subscription.

So you're claiming that the head of a major international charity (read: corporation) and her deputy, making less than 1 million GBP combined on retirement, are being overpaid?

Orlanth wrote:A better way to sniff out the charity scene is though the charity scene, generally the 'inefficient' charities end up with a fairly consistent rep

Is to rely on your "gut" and what people tell you, which is to say "nebulous bs." Hell, you just told us all that the numbers are easy to massage, and they are, but why should we trust the employees of these groups that can easily massage numbers? What makes them different?

You're not providing evidence, you're arguing "This is what I believe, because this what I believe."

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Sadly I have to resort to quoting Daily Mail on this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358537/Revealed-Amnesty-Internationals-800-000-pay-offs-bosses.html as the Sunday Times article (Feb 2011) cannot be reached without subscription.

So you're claiming that the head of a major international charity (read: corporation) and her deputy, making less than 1 million GBP combined on retirement, are being overpaid?

Yes. You want that money, get it in the private business sector.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:A better way to sniff out the charity scene is though the charity scene, generally the 'inefficient' charities end up with a fairly consistent rep

Is to rely on your "gut" and what people tell you, which is to say "nebulous bs."

Actually its to rely on networking with those who do the legwork. There is a cross culture between the journalist, charity worker and missionary community and to a large extent they look out for each other when working in the developing world. Some names keep on cropping up.

After all how do journalists research stuff, they go out and talk to people. This is no different.

Orlanth wrote:
Yes. You want that money, get it in the private business sector.

Charities are private businesses, for the most part. Public charities are not government bodies and are fully, or primarily, funded by private contributors.

Orlanth wrote:
Actually its to rely on networking with those who do the legwork. There is a cross culture between the journalist, charity worker and missionary community and to a large extent they look out for each other when working in the developing world. Some names keep on cropping up.

After all how do journalists research stuff, they go out and talk to people. This is no different.

Terrible journalists rely on human sources. If your research is either entirely qualitative or entirely quantitative, your research is awful.

People lie just as easily with words as they do with numbers. They do produce both after all.