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  
•       •       •

4056 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 27 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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