Journeyman said:
Yes, the person actually bringing another way to combat this drug epidemic for discussion is self-righteous, nevermind those who can't do anything better than try to shout people down with "drugs are bad."
Do you have anything of interest to add to the discussion or are you just doing your usual post a sarcastic remark that the majority will appreciate and then ducking out? :
Chispa said:
and you think by making them kosher will lesson the burden on ER’s
Yes.
Chispa said:
especially when in Montreal waiting times from 5 - 12+ hrs taking a year too see a surgeon or get an MRI, etc.? Hospitals are under staff in Quebec, ER & hospital personal are working under great pressure,
What does the current wait times have to do with it unless you are making the assumption that legalizing drugs will increase drug use despite the evidence?
Chispa said:
not adding junkies sucking up on medical services, etc.
Oh, I see, you *are* still making that assumption.
Chispa said:
True anecdotes, studies from Pros., supporting that prohibition is questionable while the other side of the coin claims, au contraire.
Arguments for and against drug prohibition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition
Thank you. Finally, something. I find the arguments stronger on the anti-prohibition side, but at least the wikipedia article doesn't just say "drugs are bad."
Bruce Monkhouse said:
What a load of crap that those who wish to profit from legal drugs spew......so ingesting heroin and then jumping off a building isn't drug-related? Here, for alcohol- related traffic accidents MADD counts it even if your lips just taste a drink less then 8 hours before.
Wow... You really have to try hard to miss that point by that much. Marijuana stays in your system for 1+ week(s). So if someone smokes weed and 2 weeks later is in a car accident, and tests positive for having weed in their system, you are arguing that it should be considered a drug-related death? Do you want accurate statistics so we can find solutions or do you just want solutions that support your current train of thought?
:facepalm: MADD has a very deliberate agenda/mandate to create awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving and to lobby to reduce drinking and driving... you don't think it serves their own agenda to try and count things that are not alcohol-related accidents as alcohol-related accidents? Really? You think its reasonable to have a sip of beer, 8 hours later get in a car accident, and call that a drinking and driving accident?
Bruce Monkhouse said:
One can quote all the feel good drug stories about a country they want but here's the bottom line.... http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-portugal-could-be-europes-next-economic-disaster-2016-08-24 ........if you call a country where drugs are more important then the fact your economy is crashing then enjoy the move. I prefer our children to stay sober and stay in shape for the future.
Wow, and I know you are going to explain to us all how their successful narcotics policies (creating less addicts, less drug-related deaths, less HIV, etc) has caused their economic woes? Because I mean, you wouldn't post something completely random that is not good about their country and try to blame it on their narcotics policies without some sort of.... support?
Bruce Monkhouse said:
I prefer our children to stay sober and stay in shape for the future.
That's nice tugging on the heart strings again. If you really want that, maybe you should unclasp your hands from around your ears put some critical analysis into it. See below, which was already posted but I'm sure you deliberately didn't read it as it might force you to have to put some thought into what you currently believe.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight
Drug use has declined among those aged 15-24, the population most at risk of initiating drug use