Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   High-ranking British politician speaks out about the drug war, calls for mass incarcera.. **RECORD SCRATCH** Hold on, he's ACTUALLY calling them out for failed drug policy? "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class"   (theguardian.com) divider line 77
    More: Hero, Nick Clegg, drug policy, overdose, pity, open society  
•       •       •

4065 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2014 at 3:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-02-09 03:42:01 PM  
What's a record LOL. Are they like vinyls?

/hee hee
 
2014-02-09 03:43:06 PM  
A smart politician. He won't last very long.
 
2014-02-09 03:46:46 PM  
panem et circenses

We've traded our power to effect our government for the illusion of safety, 24 hour news and McDonalds. The endless war on drugs is just another example of political kabuki theater.
 
2014-02-09 03:46:53 PM  
"Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.
 
2014-02-09 03:49:24 PM  
So if what we are doing doesnt work after decades of trying we should try something different.... crazy talk.
 
2014-02-09 03:49:37 PM  
The very fact that they have a *political class* speaks volumes about a society where a bi-racial black Kenyan muslin Sochi-alist illegal immigrant could not become the King of their country.
 
2014-02-09 03:52:03 PM  
Every time someone dies of an overdose, Darwin tips his hat.
 
2014-02-09 03:57:16 PM  

Boojum2k: Every time someone dies of an overdose, Darwin tips his hat.


But only if they don't have any kids.  Darwin is very picky about that point.
 
2014-02-09 04:00:04 PM  

Great Justice: Boojum2k: Every time someone dies of an overdose, Darwin tips his hat.

But only if they don't have any kids.  Darwin is very picky about that point.


Very true, the ones who already had kids just get a sad trombone noise.
 
2014-02-09 04:01:04 PM  

Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.


When judging a policy I would want to know the success rate. In this case a person who cleans up and is drug free after our policies treatment (prison and possibly rehab) would be considered a success when judging the policy. A person who ODs after treatment would be considered a failure when judging the policy. I'm relating this all to US policy as I do not know much about British policy.
 
2014-02-09 04:03:16 PM  

BATMANATEE: A smart  cynical, calculating politician. He won't last very long. made himself irrelevant by triangulating the wrong people.


FTFY.
 
2014-02-09 04:03:18 PM  

BATMANATEE: A smart politician. He won't last very long.


He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.
 
2014-02-09 04:05:00 PM  

iheartscotch: panem et circenses

We've traded our power to effect our government for the illusion of safety, 24 hour news and McDonalds. The endless war on drugs is just another example of political kabuki theater.


That's the Leviathan plan.
 
2014-02-09 04:05:47 PM  

Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.



I agree with you for the most part, but the political classes deal with public policy. If the unintended effects of public policy mess up personal responsibility, the political class should be obligated to notice and fix that.

The part of your statement I disagree with is "There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs." Actually, there is nothing the government can do to prevent EVERYONE from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs. The government can implement laws that regulate strength, purity, and dosage of drugs they actually review. People tend not to OD when they know these things. Some will, but fewer than when people buy from dealers who failed high school chemistry. I am less likely to OD with a pill from a company named Merck than a guy named Mark.

To take an obvious example, beer, wine, and spirits are regulated by the government. People still die in drunk driving accidents. However, relatively few die because they accidentally ingest methanol instead of ethanol. Also, people know that beer isn't going to range between 1 percent and 80 percent ethanol, depending on how much rubbing alcohol it is cut with. When the effective dosage ranges from shot glass to six pack, it's a lot more difficult to prevent an overdose.
 
2014-02-09 04:07:55 PM  

gwowen: BATMANATEE: A smart politician. He won't last very long.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.


gwowen: BATMANATEE: A smart politician. He won't last very long.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.


I said he wouldn't last long, I was just wrong about the smart part. 8-)
 
2014-02-09 04:07:56 PM  
Nick Clegg is right but people don't want reasonable discussion on these kinds of topics.
 
2014-02-09 04:08:36 PM  

Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.


I dunno, by either by treating addiction for drugs with known toxicities at as a disease and allowing doctors to treat that disease by providing controlled quantities of untainted drugs to the seriously addicted, or by allowing free use of drugs which have LD50s measure in kilograms.

Or we could just treat addicts as subhuman scum that we're willing to throw on the scrapheap of life. Then we bill their negligent kin for their corpse's disposal.

Here's an example - Diamorphine (i.e. heroin) from NICE in the UK:  Chronic pain, 5-10 mg regularly every four hours by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection. The dose may be increased according to individual needs. Cost: £23.00 for 100 5mg doses. Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied and sleep 8 hours a day for a total cost to the nation of £1.76, or $2.89 in Jeebus Money per day. Or we could have them out robbing and breaking into folks houses and set expensive, expensive police officers on them.

Stop being a dick. Please.
 
2014-02-09 04:08:56 PM  

Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? ...



Noblesse Oblige.  It is the responsibility of the upper classes to provide for the welfare of the lower classes, in exchange for maintaining an elevated level of privilege.  YMMV.
 
2014-02-09 04:15:27 PM  

Andulamb: What happened to personal responsibility?


WTF is "personal responsibility" in the context of policy discussion? This is not dinner at grandma's, if you don't have anything useful to contribute, keep your mouth shut and let the grownups talk. Even telling everyone to "stop doing that" still requires a media buy and a creative campaign. Throwing up your hands and making us all watch you do it is dumb and you should feel dumb.
 
2014-02-09 04:17:03 PM  

Subliterati: Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied


The overdoses had enough to satisfy a craving, they took more. Functionally it's the same as that guy found hanging in his bedroom with his dick in his hand, they want the feel-good so bad they take irrational risks to do so.
 
2014-02-09 04:20:24 PM  

Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.


You shouldn't use the term "personal responsibility" on such a liberal site like Fark. Farkers will go apeshiat on you. That term is like a crucifix to a vampire.
 
2014-02-09 04:21:21 PM  

mccallcl: WTF is "personal responsibility" in the context of policy discussion?


Generally, it refers to removing government influence over a behavior, and letting the responsible do as they will, and the irresponsible to suffer their own personal outcomes. Wouldn't even require a big media presentation, just a change in political and law enforcement policy. "If you want to do heroin, fine. We won't lock you up or stop you. But if you wreck your body, your liable for the costs, and if you die, you die."

What's your plan?
 
2014-02-09 04:21:56 PM  

Boojum2k: your liable for the costs


you're
 
2014-02-09 04:22:15 PM  

Subliterati: Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

I dunno, by either by treating addiction for drugs with known toxicities at as a disease and allowing doctors to treat that disease by providing controlled quantities of untainted drugs to the seriously addicted, or by allowing free use of drugs which have LD50s measure in kilograms.

Or we could just treat addicts as subhuman scum that we're willing to throw on the scrapheap of life. Then we bill their negligent kin for their corpse's disposal.

Here's an example - Diamorphine (i.e. heroin) from NICE in the UK:  Chronic pain, 5-10 mg regularly every four hours by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection. The dose may be increased according to individual needs. Cost: £23.00 for 100 5mg doses. Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied and sleep 8 hours a day for a total cost to the nation of £1.76, or $2.89 in Jeebus Money per day. Or we could have them out robbing and breaking into folks houses and set expensive, expensive police officers on them.

Stop being a dick. Please.


But, don't you realize how many tanks per day we could buy to store in warehouses because the Army doesn't want or need them for that $2.89?  My God, man; where are your priorities?!?
 
2014-02-09 04:24:09 PM  

Boojum2k: Subliterati: Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied

The overdoses had enough to satisfy a craving, they took more. Functionally it's the same as that guy found hanging in his bedroom with his dick in his hand, they want the feel-good so bad they take irrational risks to do so.




Irrational risks, sure. But often, those risks are unknowable. If I buy moonshine from a guy on the street it might be 60 proof, or 100 proof, or 3 parts methylated spirits. So drinking it is a risk.

I don't drink moonshine, and the reason is I can get my intoxicants from a controlled source, at a consistent quality and concentration.

That's not true with heroin; every new batch the junkie scores could be unknown purity, or cut with any kind of shiat. That part of the risk can only be managed by regulating and taxing legal supply.
 
2014-02-09 04:24:36 PM  
Why isn't 'voting for politicians that will help solve problems for many people at once' ever seen as 'personal responsibility'?
 
2014-02-09 04:28:19 PM  

Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.


Agreed. What he should have said is, "Every time some drug lord orders people killed to protect his drug distribution turf, it should shame our political class."
 
2014-02-09 04:28:32 PM  

gwowen: That's not true with heroin; every new batch the junkie scores could be unknown purity, or cut with any kind of shiat. That part of the risk can only be managed by regulating and taxing legal supply.


Moonshine still exists alongside legal liquor, bootleg cigarettes are a huge deal too. How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin, and why would they when they can still get the cheap shiat from a dealer?
It's not a bad idea, really, worth doing, but it'll help wealthy addicts far more than the poor ones. Possibly better than not doing it, but there's still the law of unintended consequences.
 
2014-02-09 04:30:16 PM  

AdrienVeidt: Why isn't 'voting for politicians that will help solve problems for many people at once' ever seen as 'personal responsibility'?


Because it's almost always "voting for politicians who will force my morality on others, at their expense, rather than me getting off my ass and doing something myself." No personal responsibility involved.
 
2014-02-09 04:32:51 PM  
shame

There's your problem.
 
2014-02-09 04:33:39 PM  

Boojum2k: gwowen: That's not true with heroin; every new batch the junkie scores could be unknown purity, or cut with any kind of shiat. That part of the risk can only be managed by regulating and taxing legal supply.

Moonshine still exists alongside legal liquor, bootleg cigarettes are a huge deal too. How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin, and why would they when they can still get the cheap shiat from a dealer?
It's not a bad idea, really, worth doing, but it'll help wealthy addicts far more than the poor ones. Possibly better than not doing it, but there's still the law of unintended consequences.


I agree, broadly. But here in the UK moonshine isn't really a thing, and bootleg ciggies tend merely to be illegally imported mass produced cigs from elsewhere. A customs issue, but not an increased health risk.

So let's not make perfect the enemy of good. There are still alcoholics dying from drink, but the answer I'd not prohibition.
 
2014-02-09 04:40:30 PM  

Boojum2k: Subliterati: Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied

The overdoses had enough to satisfy a craving, they took more. Functionally it's the same as that guy found hanging in his bedroom with his dick in his hand, they want the feel-good so bad they take irrational risks to do so.


No, that is not how overdoses happen. Street drugs are not clearly labeled or at set doses. People typically OD when they get something much stronger than the "usual" stuff, or when they take drugs in an unusual setting (a strange effect, but real). For example, the recent death of that actor dude with three names was due to him getting heroin mixed with Fentanyl, a much stronger opiate that is legal to use medically in the US (unlike weaker heroin) and which occasionally finds its way into the black market (almost always resulting in a string of ODs).

Really, you know nothing of drugs or health policy in regards to drugs.
 
2014-02-09 04:41:14 PM  

Boojum2k: if you die, you die


Right, so in your mind, drug addiction is not actually a problem. So why think about it at all? What's the difference between what you're suggesting and just not caring? Besides your feelings, which since you're a stranger to all of us, don't matter? Oh, right, if you really didn't care I wouldn't have to look at your stupid words. So why post?

The real answer, I suspect, is because you're a spiteful person that enjoys the suffering of others, and you use your opinion that they deserve it as an excuse so you don't seem like a shiathead. Well, we're on to you, shiathead. I personally don't want to have to keep paying for addicts to die and commit crimes. I live in a major city, not some prairie cabin, and the actions of others effect me personally because they are in close physical proximity.

I see a problem and I try to solve it. Crackheads and junkies are a problem. If you don't think so, then buzz off. Your opinion is as common as dirt, you're wasting all of our time with your bullshiat. Save it for Facebook.
 
2014-02-09 04:41:49 PM  

gwowen: Boojum2k: gwowen: That's not true with heroin; every new batch the junkie scores could be unknown purity, or cut with any kind of shiat. That part of the risk can only be managed by regulating and taxing legal supply.

Moonshine still exists alongside legal liquor, bootleg cigarettes are a huge deal too. How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin, and why would they when they can still get the cheap shiat from a dealer?
It's not a bad idea, really, worth doing, but it'll help wealthy addicts far more than the poor ones. Possibly better than not doing it, but there's still the law of unintended consequences.

I agree, broadly. But here in the UK moonshine isn't really a thing, and bootleg ciggies tend merely to be illegally imported mass produced cigs from elsewhere. A customs issue, but not an increased health risk.

So let's not make perfect the enemy of good. There are still alcoholics dying from drink, but the answer I'd not prohibition.


I'll agree with that. Would probably help some, not change some, and as for the obsessive addicts who will still OD, well as I noted earlier rope and a dick is still legal, pretty much the same way to go out.
 
2014-02-09 04:42:44 PM  
Early on, heroin was an ingredient in patent medicines. The world didn't quit turning. Don't want to get addicted? Don't take it.
 
2014-02-09 04:43:22 PM  
A grown man who does not who owns and control the drug trade and why is sad little man.
 
2014-02-09 04:47:35 PM  

Boojum2k: Great Justice: Boojum2k: Every time someone dies of an overdose, Darwin tips his hat.

But only if they don't have any kids.  Darwin is very picky about that point.

Very true, the ones who already had kids just get a sad trombone noise.


Well, removing the drug addled parent, possibly dropping the sprog in a orphanage, might clean up the meme pool if not the gene pool.
 
2014-02-09 04:47:40 PM  

mccallcl: Boojum2k: if you die, you die

Right, so in your mind, drug addiction is not actually a problem. So why think about it at all? What's the difference between what you're suggesting and just not caring? Besides your feelings, which since you're a stranger to all of us, don't matter? Oh, right, if you really didn't care I wouldn't have to look at your stupid words. So why post?

The real answer, I suspect, is because you're a spiteful person that enjoys the suffering of others, and you use your opinion that they deserve it as an excuse so you don't seem like a shiathead. Well, we're on to you, shiathead. I personally don't want to have to keep paying for addicts to die and commit crimes. I live in a major city, not some prairie cabin, and the actions of others effect me personally because they are in close physical proximity.

I see a problem and I try to solve it. Crackheads and junkies are a problem. If you don't think so, then buzz off. Your opinion is as common as dirt, you're wasting all of our time with your bullshiat. Save it for Facebook.


You spend a lot of time being emotional and very little using critical thinking or reason. You assume motivations beyond Fark Snark and insist on being insulting even after I asked you for a plan, and after I agreed with another's legalization plan due to rational reasons provided. It sounds like you have a personal stake in this, maybe a close friend or family member who suffers from addiction. If that is the case I'm sorry I was offensive, it can be hard for people on either end of that kind of illness and I hope treatment works.
 
2014-02-09 04:54:24 PM  

Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.


with legalization comes safer dosing and less ODing through education. Don't let people figure out dosing. Tell them how much to use safely
 
2014-02-09 04:55:37 PM  

stirfrybry: Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.

with legalization comes safer dosing and less ODing through education. Don't let people figure out dosing. Tell them how much to use safely


Ok, that is also a good point.
 
2014-02-09 04:59:24 PM  

Boojum2k: AdrienVeidt: Why isn't 'voting for politicians that will help solve problems for many people at once' ever seen as 'personal responsibility'?

Because it's almost always "voting for politicians who will force my morality on others, at their expense, rather than me getting off my ass and doing something myself." No personal responsibility involved.


Did you just say that voting involves no personal responsibility?  Or are you asserting that 'random citizen #34,639,761' has more power to affect change within a society than an elected official?  And, you're aware that the politicians that force their morality via law are the same ones preventing productive and benevolent drug policy from being enacted?
 
2014-02-09 04:59:25 PM  

Boojum2k: Moonshine still exists alongside legal liquor, bootleg cigarettes are a huge deal too. How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin, and why would they when they can still get the cheap shiat from a dealer?


Or, you could learn lessons from more enlightened countries, and how they deal with heroin addicts who are unable to kick their habit.

Provide them a safe, private and supervised way to administer their measured dose with a doctor's supervision.

Link
Link

Of course, it would be best for people to not be on heroin, but what purpose does it serve to incarcerate (at cost to the tax payer) those that can't do without it? Will making criminals of them serve anyone's interests?
 
2014-02-09 05:03:16 PM  

AdrienVeidt: Did you just say that voting involves no personal responsibility?


No, I said what I meant. Why don't you go back and reread it and think about if for a while.
 
2014-02-09 05:35:27 PM  

Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.


No, you will never have zero ODs. But if the policy increases the number then that is clearly an issue. And prohibition does increase the risks. It prevents people from seeking assistance and forces them to deal with criminals and prevents any kind of regulation to ensure a safe and consistent supply.
 
2014-02-09 05:45:01 PM  

gwowen: BATMANATEE: A smart politician. He won't last very long.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.


A power-sharing agreement is part of the parliamentary system, it's the American "ideological purity" bullshiat that causes so much retardation in the US.

I assume it was a particularly BAD deal?
 
2014-02-09 05:55:16 PM  

gwowen: BATMANATEE: A smart politician. He won't last very long.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.


Sold out? He is the most successful Lib Dem leader in living memory. He has turned a party from also-rans to people at the heart of government pushing the Lib Dem agenda. The biggest problem is that they are a minority part of the government so shouldn't dominate the policies.
 
2014-02-09 05:58:12 PM  
That's just not fair, subby. The political class doesn't even care when THEY die of a drug overdose...
 
2014-02-09 06:01:33 PM  

Boojum2k: AdrienVeidt: Did you just say that voting involves no personal responsibility?

No, I said what I meant. Why don't you go back and reread it and think about if for a while.


Okay, I have.  You said there was no personal responsibility involved in voting for somebody you don't like.  You're right; that's totally different than what I thought you said.
 
2014-02-09 06:01:41 PM  
There he gives, bringing class into it again.
 
2014-02-09 06:12:03 PM  

Boojum2k: Subliterati: Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied

The overdoses had enough to satisfy a craving, they took more. Functionally it's the same as that guy found hanging in his bedroom with his dick in his hand, they want the feel-good so bad they take irrational risks to do so.


You know how we can tell you are talking out of your hat?  Because the vast majority of OD's are caused by the uneven quality of street drugs.  You get used to one level of "purity" and the next batch is 5x what you have been using and your 'normal' dose is now deadly.  Add in some other cut, like that actor last week, and the results are not favorable.

Users using known purity drugs only OD on purpose since they can take a known, exact dose rather than some guess.

But go ahead, keep telling yourself one of the Big Lies, if it makes you feel better about condeming someone to a grisly death.
 
2014-02-09 06:16:23 PM  

Boojum2k: How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin


Subliterati already pointed out that a 5mg dose of diamorphine costs £0.23 on their National Health Service.
 
2014-02-09 06:23:44 PM  
This concept is pure, unadulterated, bullshiat (with the exception of pot).

Hard drugs have such a high incidence of the users' lives culminating in a morass of uselessness to themselves, their families, and society at large, one could make the argument OD'ing is the best thing that happened to them.  Saying OD cases are due to not knowing the concentration of drugs is pretty weak, considering ODs happen every day when reliable suppliers with consistent concentrations sell the horrid ware of their trade.

Some people are wired to live and work on the fringes of of what society at large considers normal--legalizing hard drugs will only entice more experimental users to dabble, and therefore suck more people into the downward spiral of addiction.

My boss's nephew died after shooting up the same product from the same supplier he had for months.  His issue was the emotional toll his family and his previous actions extracted from his psyche, and his lust for escape from perceived pain.  He was a fragile loser--and so many people in society are unwilling to call a spade a spade we label being weak or scared an illness.
 
2014-02-09 06:30:10 PM  

AdrienVeidt: Boojum2k: AdrienVeidt: Did you just say that voting involves no personal responsibility?

No, I said what I meant. Why don't you go back and reread it and think about if for a while.

Okay, I have.  You said there was no personal responsibility involved in voting for somebody you don't like.  You're right; that's totally different than what I thought you said.


There are really good adult literacy programs out there, they might help you. You have a problem with reading what you imagine instead of what somebody actually wrote.
 
2014-02-09 06:31:36 PM  

Rueened: Boojum2k: How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin

Subliterati already pointed out that a 5mg dose of diamorphine costs £0.23 on their National Health Service.


When it's being packaged and taxes for sale heroin will cost a little more than that.
 
2014-02-09 06:35:20 PM  

Boojum2k: Rueened: Boojum2k: How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin

Subliterati already pointed out that a 5mg dose of diamorphine costs £0.23 on their National Health Service.

When it's being packaged and taxes for sale heroin will cost a little more than that.


This is the NHS, no sale, no taxes.
 
2014-02-09 06:40:35 PM  

Spiralmonkey: Boojum2k: Rueened: Boojum2k: How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin

Subliterati already pointed out that a 5mg dose of diamorphine costs £0.23 on their National Health Service.

When it's being packaged and taxes for sale heroin will cost a little more than that.

This is the NHS, no sale, no taxes.


Um, the original concept presented was "legalize, inspect, and tax." Do you recommended the NHS also supply free drinks and cigarettes to everybody?
 
2014-02-09 07:04:38 PM  

Boojum2k: AdrienVeidt: Boojum2k: AdrienVeidt: Did you just say that voting involves no personal responsibility?

No, I said what I meant. Why don't you go back and reread it and think about if for a while.

Okay, I have.  You said there was no personal responsibility involved in voting for somebody you don't like.  You're right; that's totally different than what I thought you said.

There are really good adult literacy programs out there, they might help you. You have a problem with reading what you imagine instead of what somebody actually wrote.


Hey, I asked you for clarification and you refused to give it, and now you're insulting my reading comprehension.  For a second time, please illuminate me how 'no personal responsibility involved' means 'personal responsibility is involved', and try to do it without insults.  You could also try answering the other, more interesting questions I asked instead of ignoring them entirely.  I'm gonna bet myself a Fudgsicle that you respond as you have so far, because I'm really hankering for a Fudgsicle right now.
 
2014-02-09 07:11:08 PM  

Boojum2k: Spiralmonkey: Boojum2k: Rueened: Boojum2k: How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin

Subliterati already pointed out that a 5mg dose of diamorphine costs £0.23 on their National Health Service.

When it's being packaged and taxes for sale heroin will cost a little more than that.

This is the NHS, no sale, no taxes.

Um, the original concept presented was "legalize, inspect, and tax." Do you recommended the NHS also supply free drinks and cigarettes to everybody?


Methadone is provided free by the NHS via premeasured doses given at pharmacies, there would be no incentive to change the already in place delivery method. Heroin for use in hospitals is already packaged, that small cost is included in costings for drugs. Medicines are not taxed in the UK. So what was your point again?
 
2014-02-09 07:14:47 PM  

AdrienVeidt: Boojum2k: AdrienVeidt: Boojum2k: AdrienVeidt: Did you just say that voting involves no personal responsibility?

No, I said what I meant. Why don't you go back and reread it and think about if for a while.

Okay, I have.  You said there was no personal responsibility involved in voting for somebody you don't like.  You're right; that's totally different than what I thought you said.

There are really good adult literacy programs out there, they might help you. You have a problem with reading what you imagine instead of what somebody actually wrote.

Hey, I asked you for clarification and you refused to give it, and now you're insulting my reading comprehension.  For a second time, please illuminate me how 'no personal responsibility involved' means 'personal responsibility is involved', and try to do it without insults.  You could also try answering the other, more interesting questions I asked instead of ignoring them entirely.  I'm gonna bet myself a Fudgsicle that you respond as you have so far, because I'm really hankering for a Fudgsicle right now.


How am I supposed to explain your imagined contradictions to you? I have no idea what's going in in your head, but it bears no relation to what I wrote. It's like me asking you why you repeatedly state you bugger small children, it's not what you've been saying. So go suck your fudgsicle. Voting for someone with a claim to solve lots of problems isn't taking responsibility for it, it's shunting it off. And yes that applies to the moral guardian types who fight to prevent sensible legalization just as much.
 
2014-02-09 07:23:44 PM  

fickenchucker: This concept is pure, unadulterated, bullshiat (with the exception of pot).

Hard drugs have such a high incidence of the users' lives culminating in a morass of uselessness to themselves, their families, and society at large, one could make the argument OD'ing is the best thing that happened to them.  Saying OD cases are due to not knowing the concentration of drugs is pretty weak, considering ODs happen every day when reliable suppliers with consistent concentrations sell the horrid ware of their trade.

Some people are wired to live and work on the fringes of of what society at large considers normal--legalizing hard drugs will only entice more experimental users to dabble, and therefore suck more people into the downward spiral of addiction.

My boss's nephew died after shooting up the same product from the same supplier he had for months.  His issue was the emotional toll his family and his previous actions extracted from his psyche, and his lust for escape from perceived pain.  He was a fragile loser--and so many people in society are unwilling to call a spade a spade we label being weak or scared an illness.


Countries that have made the sensible move and decriminalized "hard" drugs and seen their usage plummet disagree. Keep swallowing that big hot, steamy load of propaganda, though.
 
2014-02-09 07:31:52 PM  

Alexei Novikov: fickenchucker: This concept is pure, unadulterated, bullshiat (with the exception of pot).

Hard drugs have such a high incidence of the users' lives culminating in a morass of uselessness to themselves, their families, and society at large, one could make the argument OD'ing is the best thing that happened to them.  Saying OD cases are due to not knowing the concentration of drugs is pretty weak, considering ODs happen every day when reliable suppliers with consistent concentrations sell the horrid ware of their trade.

Some people are wired to live and work on the fringes of of what society at large considers normal--legalizing hard drugs will only entice more experimental users to dabble, and therefore suck more people into the downward spiral of addiction.

My boss's nephew died after shooting up the same product from the same supplier he had for months.  His issue was the emotional toll his family and his previous actions extracted from his psyche, and his lust for escape from perceived pain.  He was a fragile loser--and so many people in society are unwilling to call a spade a spade we label being weak or scared an illness.

Countries that have made the sensible move and decriminalized "hard" drugs and seen their usage plummet disagree. Keep swallowing that big hot, steamy load of propaganda, though.


The usage drop is also a good point and reason for legalization.
 
2014-02-09 07:31:53 PM  
 
2014-02-09 07:53:11 PM  
I think what's obvious in this debate is that we must criminalize marijuana.
 
2014-02-09 08:04:52 PM  
So...the term personal responsibility hasn't made it to that side of the pond yet?
 
2014-02-09 08:07:17 PM  

Alexei Novikov: fickenchucker: This concept is pure, unadulterated, bullshiat (with the exception of pot).

Hard drugs have such a high incidence of the users' lives culminating in a morass of uselessness to themselves, their families, and society at large, one could make the argument OD'ing is the best thing that happened to them.  Saying OD cases are due to not knowing the concentration of drugs is pretty weak, considering ODs happen every day when reliable suppliers with consistent concentrations sell the horrid ware of their trade.

Some people are wired to live and work on the fringes of of what society at large considers normal--legalizing hard drugs will only entice more experimental users to dabble, and therefore suck more people into the downward spiral of addiction.

My boss's nephew died after shooting up the same product from the same supplier he had for months.  His issue was the emotional toll his family and his previous actions extracted from his psyche, and his lust for escape from perceived pain.  He was a fragile loser--and so many people in society are unwilling to call a spade a spade we label being weak or scared an illness.

Countries that have made the sensible move and decriminalized "hard" drugs and seen their usage plummet disagree. Keep swallowing that big hot, steamy load of propaganda, though.


You don't like Darwin, do you?  His boss's nephew was nothing more than a culling of the herd.
 
2014-02-09 08:11:37 PM  

Boojum2k: Alexei Novikov: fickenchucker: This concept is pure, unadulterated, bullshiat (with the exception of pot).

Hard drugs have such a high incidence of the users' lives culminating in a morass of uselessness to themselves, their families, and society at large, one could make the argument OD'ing is the best thing that happened to them.  Saying OD cases are due to not knowing the concentration of drugs is pretty weak, considering ODs happen every day when reliable suppliers with consistent concentrations sell the horrid ware of their trade.

Some people are wired to live and work on the fringes of of what society at large considers normal--legalizing hard drugs will only entice more experimental users to dabble, and therefore suck more people into the downward spiral of addiction.

My boss's nephew died after shooting up the same product from the same supplier he had for months.  His issue was the emotional toll his family and his previous actions extracted from his psyche, and his lust for escape from perceived pain.  He was a fragile loser--and so many people in society are unwilling to call a spade a spade we label being weak or scared an illness.

Countries that have made the sensible move and decriminalized "hard" drugs and seen their usage plummet disagree. Keep swallowing that big hot, steamy load of propaganda, though.

The usage drop is also a good point and reason for legalization.


Harm reduction reduces harm. Whodathunkit?

Next, we have to teach the rich that paying employees is how economics works.
 
2014-02-09 08:53:11 PM  
dailyunconstitutional.com
The war on protecting the poppy.
 
2014-02-09 09:43:07 PM  
Well, I don't know if it'd keep people from overdosing, but it couldn't hurt...
 
2014-02-10 01:38:13 AM  

Norfolking Chance: gwowen: BATMANATEE: A smart politician. He won't last very long.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.

Sold out? He is the most successful Lib Dem leader in living memory. He has turned a party from also-rans to people at the heart of government pushing the Lib Dem agenda. The biggest problem is that they are a minority part of the government so shouldn't dominate the policies.


The day after the coalition agreement was signed this was true.

So ... Which Lib Dem promises has he caused to be implemented or influenced? No mansion tax, kept Trident, no local income tax, no banking levy, no uniform minimum wage, no infrastructure bank, no local income tax, no influence on a Education policy (free schools, National Curriculum, tuition fees), parliamentary reform, Post Office in public ownership, no third runway at Heathrow.

All these things abandoned for the Single Transferable Vote which ... did not go well.

So, none of the Lib Dem policies that weren't also Conservative policies. No influence beyond standing next to Cameron at the Olympics.

A power sharing agreement with no power sharing. That's not a win.
Becoming the punch line to every joke about weasel politicians with no principles. That's not a win.
Polling below UKIP. That's not a win.

The forthcoming electoral massacre? That's karma.
 
2014-02-10 10:54:37 AM  
I'm surprised that a high ranking member in British Politics is involved with George Soros' Open Society. Didn't he almost bring the UK to its financial knees in the 1980s when they decided to float their currency and took the short bet with every bit of assets he could scrape together? And his only lament is he didn't have more money to bet against the pound sterling? That is like voting for the people...who had a big hand...in the banking....financial....disaster. Oh right. Timothy Geithner and Andrew Cuomo, Barney Frank just to name a couple off the top of my head. :/ Voting is a responsibility. If you don't do your homework you will get exactly the person you deserve in office

At any rate treat it like alcohol. No point in making criminals of people who harm only themselves. It is a burden to the taxpayer and a burden to society as a whole. Yes it can affect 3rd parties but we have support groups for a legalized addictive drug - alcohol. If my tax money is gonna be spent to resolve this problem I'd rather it be treated as a medical situation that is not only cheaper but much more effective. And decriminalizing it would certainly give people addicted to such drugs options without having to be outcasts and stick to the fringes of society which seems to make it more difficult for them. If crimes against others are committed because of the drugs that is when the criminal justice system needs to step in

Putting the number of OD deaths to 0 is not possible but it doesn't hurt to have that as the goal.
 
2014-02-10 11:25:26 AM  

Elroydb: I'm surprised that a high ranking member in British Politics is involved with George Soros' Open Society. Didn't he almost bring the UK to its financial knees in the 1980s when they decided to float their currency and took the short bet with every bit of assets he could scrape together? And his only lament is he didn't have more money to bet against the pound sterling? That is like voting for the people...who had a big hand...in the banking....financial....disaster. Oh right. Timothy Geithner and Andrew Cuomo, Barney Frank just to name a couple off the top of my head. :/ Voting is a responsibility. If you don't do your homework you will get exactly the person you deserve in office


You do know that shorting a commodity doesn't actually do bad things? If you float a worthless stock at a par of $1000 and I short your stock at $1, my short bet doesn't actually make your stock worthless. Its worthlessness makes it worthless. So, when Soros bet that the British were doing bad things with their currency, Soros's bet didn't make the currency worth less,  Or perhaps you're just repeating some complaint you read somewhere against Soros because you don't like his politics. Which are far more conservative than you might think: Republicans have an imaginary list of things that make people liberal. Which would be fine except that it changes daily.
 
2014-02-10 11:39:30 AM  
SmittyBGKY


So if what we are doing doesnt work after decades of trying we should try something different.... crazy talk.
Same opinion on welfare?
 
2014-02-10 12:37:19 PM  

yakmans_dad: Elroydb: I'm surprised that a high ranking member in British Politics is involved with George Soros' Open Society. Didn't he almost bring the UK to its financial knees in the 1980s when they decided to float their currency and took the short bet with every bit of assets he could scrape together? And his only lament is he didn't have more money to bet against the pound sterling? That is like voting for the people...who had a big hand...in the banking....financial....disaster. Oh right. Timothy Geithner and Andrew Cuomo, Barney Frank just to name a couple off the top of my head. :/ Voting is a responsibility. If you don't do your homework you will get exactly the person you deserve in office

You do know that shorting a commodity doesn't actually do bad things? If you float a worthless stock at a par of $1000 and I short your stock at $1, my short bet doesn't actually make your stock worthless. Its worthlessness makes it worthless. So, when Soros bet that the British were doing bad things with their currency, Soros's bet didn't make the currency worth less,  Or perhaps you're just repeating some complaint you read somewhere against Soros because you don't like his politics. Which are far more conservative than you might think: Republicans have an imaginary list of things that make people liberal. Which would be fine except that it changes daily.


Shorting a currency on a large scale in a very short time can cause a great deal of problems. A lot of his short options were against British banks and when the currency sunk to its actual value the banks had to cough up the difference which was very problematic with the reserve banking system we have today. He made a very risky bet and profited enormously. I just figured he would be a person non gratis as far as the UK is concerned.

I consider him no more a boogey man than the Koch Brothers are to people with leftist leanings
 
2014-02-10 12:41:49 PM  

Elroydb: Shorting a currency on a large scale in a very short time can cause a great deal of problems.



No. It exposes a great deal of problems. The short doesn't cause the underlying problems. If the currency and banks had been sound, Soros would have lost umpteen times his bet.
 
2014-02-10 01:58:25 PM  

yakmans_dad: Elroydb: Shorting a currency on a large scale in a very short time can cause a great deal of problems.


No. It exposes a great deal of problems. The short doesn't cause the underlying problems. If the currency and banks had been sound, Soros would have lost umpteen times his bet.


Right I'm not disagreeing with that. It would have been much easier to absorb those losses over a longer period of time than just one day. Because banks have to meet the pesky withdraw demands from their customers. Nearly sparking rushes on otherwise fairly healthy banks is typically a scenario one would like to avoid if possible
 
2014-02-10 02:06:27 PM  

Elroydb: yakmans_dad: Elroydb: Shorting a currency on a large scale in a very short time can cause a great deal of problems.


No. It exposes a great deal of problems. The short doesn't cause the underlying problems. If the currency and banks had been sound, Soros would have lost umpteen times his bet.

Right I'm not disagreeing with that. It would have been much easier to absorb those losses over a longer period of time than just one day. Because banks have to meet the pesky withdraw demands from their customers. Nearly sparking rushes on otherwise fairly healthy banks is typically a scenario one would like to avoid if possible


I'm not understanding what the complaint is regarding Soros. It's like somebody notices a leak in the dam and runs into the town to alert everyone of the problem. Then, mysteriously, he's to blame when people get wet.

Now, if you want to ban short sales entirely, speak now or forever hold your peace. I can understand the banning of short selling due to the theoretical infinite liability. Or even if you just want to demand much more in the way of collateral. But Soros operated entirely within the financial framework of the day.

What Soros seems to have done was to unmask a lot of Establishment phonies. Hence the persistent animus.
 
2014-02-10 04:17:13 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: A grown man who does not who owns and control the drug trade and why is sad little man.


This is your brain really being far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like...
 
Displayed 77 of 77 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report