|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 3, 2024 16:59:34 GMT
Absolutely. I put it like this: Tobacco is legal but I don't smoke. I could buy 100 Benson & Hedges every day if I wanted to, but I don't rush out and do that just because I can. Alcohol is legal but I'm not an alcoholic. I could drink a bottle of Jack Daniels every day if I wanted to, but I don't rush out and do that just because I can. Food is legal but I don't weigh forty stones. I could eat 10,000 calories every day if I wanted to, but I don't rush out and do that just because I can. Most people don't. It's the same with drugs: If heroin, cocaine or cannabis were legalised tomorrow most of us aren't going to suddenly rush out and start taking them just because we can. Of course, there are people who are overweight, alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts or make other unhealthy lifestyle choices. Legality or otherwise has very little effect on those. All that prohibition has achieved is the creation of a criminal black market. So let's stop wasting our time with this and legalise the lot. And put the cash saved into treatment instead. No, it really isn't. Because many, if not all, of those drugs are several orders of magnitude MORE ADDICTIVE for the average person then food, tobacco or alcohol. All The Best Then I can only assume that you're a morbidly obese, chain-smoking alcoholic.
I wish you all the best with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 3, 2024 17:12:01 GMT
3) Landlords have the right, and the duty, to refuse to serve someone they feel has had too much to drink. I know this all too well. As I have a life, there are times when I've actually had too much to drink. Daily? No. But at employers discretion, staff can provide urine samples for testing. And anyone who is unable to perform to the best of their abilities can be fast tracked for testing or sacked. OK, so here's the flaw. If it is not daily, and not mandatory the Employer could face "failure of duty of care" charges for not ensuring other employees were protected from the actions of the stoner. I have seen a CNC machine almost sever someone's arm at the shoulder because the person involved was stoned, and started to clean the machine while it was still running. At the time said person was working as a pair, and they took it in turns to clean the jig down before placing a new component, the other person could easily have been maimed for life because his opposite number was stoned. As it happened the stoned person was the one injured. Not something I would wish on anyone, but far better than letting innocent people get mutilated because a colleague was stoned. There is ONLY one way to ensure that person is NOT stoned when they turn up to work - daily, mandatory testing. If you are not doing that how are you protecting everyone else from the stoners? It is too late by far to run a test when someone has sustained life-altering injuries, especially if they sustained them because of someone else being "under the influence". Can you imagine the kind of insurance premiums companies would have to pay to cover themselves adequately for this scenario? Each such case is likely to result in hundreds-of-thousand of pounds (if not more) in compensation pay-outs. On the flip side. What happens to an employee who refuses to work with someone in a dangerous working environment because they have reason to believe that person's judgement is impaired because they under the influence of drugs? Workers have the right, in law, to refuse to undertake any duty they feel poses an immediate and severe risk to their safety. Sorry, but this has not been thought through at all, not even close. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 3, 2024 17:14:04 GMT
No, it really isn't. Because many, if not all, of those drugs are several orders of magnitude MORE ADDICTIVE for the average person then food, tobacco or alcohol. All The Best Then I can only assume that you're a morbidly obese, chain-smoking alcoholic.
I wish you all the best with that.
Well, that makes no sense. The drugs are MORE addictive to the AVERAGE person - this is a fact you have so far ignored, and now seek to deflect from by weak, sarcastic "playing the man, not the ball". That would imply you know you are losing the debate. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 3, 2024 17:15:19 GMT
One way of drug testing is a hair sample.
It's the method the police use to test their staff.
Doesn't matter if the individual goes clean for a week, opiates show up in the folicle.
And then, it's for the employer to decide what to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 3, 2024 17:22:10 GMT
One way of drug testing is a hair sample. It's the method the police use to test their staff. Doesn't matter if the individual goes clean for a week, opiates show up in the folicle. And then, it's for the employer to decide what to do. How quick are those tests? How cheap are those tests? Who pays for them, the employer or the stoner? Would the result of such a test constitute reasonable grounds for dismissal, especially if the drugs were taken a week before the test? How long does it take for the drugs to permeate the system deep enough to show up in the follicle (if it is not instant the test is useless at safeguarding other employees)? The MUST be a "beyond reasonable doubt" and almost immediate test that is cost effective, and which would stand as evidence in an employment tribunal. Until then your idea is a non-starter, because the employer would be wilfully putting other employees at risk of harm. The other option is, of course, to abolish an duty of care on behalf of the employer - which is what I suspect some of the more right-wing advocates of this idea would love to see. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 3, 2024 17:41:42 GMT
Then I can only assume that you're a morbidly obese, chain-smoking alcoholic.
I wish you all the best with that.
Well, that makes no sense. The drugs are MORE addictive to the AVERAGE person - this is a fact you have so far ignored, and now seek to deflect from by weak, sarcastic "playing the man, not the ball". That would imply you know you are losing the debate. All The Best Don't be daft - I'm simply extrapolating your "logic": In order to become addicted one has to want to try these things in the first place. And even then, addiction is not a given.
Tobacco is legal. I dare say that I could become addicted to it. But I choose not to use it.
Alcohol is legal. I enjoy it, but I'm not an alcoholic.
I need food to survive but I'm not overweight.
You see how this works: People are capable of making sensible choices. Most of us do it most of the time. So your assertion that legalisation will lead to more addiction problems is both illogical and not supported by the evidence from countries that have done it.
And, unless you really are a morbidly obese, chain-smoking alcoholic then you are literally living proof that I'm right.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 3, 2024 17:50:29 GMT
Well, that makes no sense. The drugs are MORE addictive to the AVERAGE person - this is a fact you have so far ignored, and now seek to deflect from by weak, sarcastic "playing the man, not the ball". That would imply you know you are losing the debate. All The Best Don't be daft - I'm simply extrapolating your logic: In order to become addicted one has to want to try these things in the first place. And even then, addiction is not a given.
Tobacco is legal. I dare say that I could become addicted to it. But I choose not to use it.
Alcohol is legal. I enjoy it, but I'm not an alcoholic.
I need food to survive but I'm not overweight.
You see how this works: People are capable of making sensible choices. Most of us do it most of the time. So your assertion that legalisation will lead to more addiction problems is both illogical and not supported by the evidence from countries that have done it.
And, unless you really are a morbidly obese, chain-smoking alcoholic then you are literally living proof that I'm right.
Yes, you are right, people can make sensible choices. It is sensible to consider something safe to use if the government has just spent £Millions legalising it. So some people will think "Oh, its legal now, let's try it" (just like many do with alcohol when they reach 18). Some of the drugs you want to legalise are so addictive they can become so after just a single exposure. That means that after just one try some people will no longer be able to make sensible choices. And all of this ignores the role of Genetics in Addiction; some people are genetically predisposed to become addicted to some substances. That is they have NO CONTROL OR CHOICE about it, after choosing to try what is now declared as safe by the government. Who is to blame when they become addicted? There's an awful lot of science being ignored here just to allegedly save a few £ on the prison system. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 3, 2024 18:01:41 GMT
It is sensible to consider something safe to use if the government has just spent £Millions legalising it... No. We don't consider tobacco, alcohol, skydiving or Formula 1 racing to be safe simply because they are legal. Some of the drugs you want to legalise are so addictive they can become so after just a single exposure. That means that after just one try some people will no longer be able to make sensible choices. No. And all of this ignores the role of Genetics in Addiction; some people are genetically predisposed to become addicted to some substances. Quite possibly. That is they have NO CONTROL OR CHOICE... Nope. If that were true, fat people would have no choice. Who is to blame when they become addicted? They are. There's an awful lot of science being ignored here just to allegedly save a few £ on the prison system... Is there? So how come your argument is based on prejudice and unevidenced subjectivity? |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 3, 2024 18:18:21 GMT
It is sensible to consider something safe to use if the government has just spent £Millions legalising it... No. We don't consider tobacco, alcohol, skydiving or Formula 1 racing to be safe simply because they are legal. Some of the drugs you want to legalise are so addictive they can become so after just a single exposure. That means that after just one try some people will no longer be able to make sensible choices. No. And all of this ignores the role of Genetics in Addiction; some people are genetically predisposed to become addicted to some substances. Quite possibly. That is they have NO CONTROL OR CHOICE... Nope. If that were true, fat people would have no choice. Who is to blame when they become addicted? They are. There's an awful lot of science being ignored here just to allegedly save a few £ on the prison system... Is there? So how come your argument is based on prejudice and unevidenced subjectivity? Loads of people consider tobacco, alcohol, skydiving or Formula 1 racing to be safe. So are you saying addiction is false? Because that is the only way an addict is free to make "sensible choices" - if addiction is in fact not a thing. Most fat people don't choose to be fat, anyone who genuinely thinks that has never been overweight; some are so because of endocrine deficiencies about which they have absolutely no control (my sister had to have her Thyroid chemically destroyed about 8 years ago). Obesity certainly has a genetic predisposition element about it - we would be naive to the point of being wilfully ignorant to think otherwise. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 3, 2024 18:29:27 GMT
Loads of people consider tobacco, alcohol, skydiving or Formula 1 racing to be safe... Then loads of people are fucking idiots. But anyways... So are you saying addiction is false? No, addiction is usually displacement. Because that is the only way an addict is free to make "sensible choices" - if addiction is in fact not a thing... Oh, it's a thing - mostly used to displace another thing. Most fat people don't choose to be fat... No one does. But most fat people "Comfort eat" because... Displacement. ...some are so because of endocrine deficiencies about which they have absolutely no control (my sister had to have her Thyroid chemically destroyed about 8 years ago). Obesity certainly has a genetic predisposition element about it - we would be naive to the point of being wilfully ignorant to think otherwise... That's a medical issue, not an addiction/displacement activity. They are very different things. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 3, 2024 19:12:38 GMT
Daily? No. But at employers discretion, staff can provide urine samples for testing. And anyone who is unable to perform to the best of their abilities can be fast tracked for testing or sacked. And for those of us who have had our offices closed and forced to work from home? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 3, 2024 19:29:13 GMT
Daily? No. But at employers discretion, staff can provide urine samples for testing. And anyone who is unable to perform to the best of their abilities can be fast tracked for testing or sacked. And for those of us who have had our offices closed and forced to work from home? Well that'd just be taking the piss... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2024 0:11:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 11, 2024 6:30:00 GMT
Yet anoither fucking coloured imported and unwanted guest.. But you're not racist. Although you do appear here to presume that he is an immigrant because he is black, which is, errm, racist. Why don't you try posting some crimes by white people too, to even things out a bit? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2024 7:26:44 GMT
Yet anoither fucking coloured imported and unwanted guest.. Although you do appear here to presume that he is an immigrant because he is black, which is, errm, racist. Why don't you try posting some crimes by white people too, to even things out a bit? Tell me when it became racist Andy to point out a fucking criminals colour? And I have posted plenty of crimes carried out by whites. Yet again you tend to ignore those and just concentrate on trying to accuse people of racism.. |
|
