Eek, remove Amsterdam, Netherlands from your travel list

Search

Triple digit silver kook
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
13,697
Tokens
I realize society is too messed up to ever think about adopting my approach (all those poor criminals who can't help themselves [sob] [sniff]), but suppose there were a society somewhere that used my approach. Would you be opposed to it?

Drifting further from Netherlands...and gladly since imo the below mentioned country deserves a hat tip.

Your approach is currently being used in Singapore.

- Pack of cigs $11.50 USD

- Bottle of beer drugs $4-8 USD (same price in convenience stores).

- Alcohol is cheaper during happy hour times 5-9pm about half-2/3 price. Even though I drink and it would cost me more $, its better for the country as a whole imo. Their reasoning is instead of most people (that work hours of 7am-5pm) laying around bars all night, stop for a few drinks (most cant afford many more than a few) and have your ass home and well-rested and ready to work the next day.

- Same reasoning is behind the closing times in America (but ours are pretty late during weekdays imo), and Britain pub closing times were implemented during WW2, to get peoples asses off the barstool so they would show up to work with at least half a brain the next day.

- Drugs such as cocaine and pot ???, but considering selling drugs there carries a death sentence, is probably the primary reason spore is the only place overseas I havent been asked to purchase either drug.

- Using drugs such as coke and pot I dont recall what the punishment, but it isnt death, im going to guess its probably a combination of caning, fine, and jail time.

- Commit crimes such as robbery, theft, b&e there to pay for the habit? Sure thing, but those are all caning offenses and also carry jail sentences.

- Choose to murder someone while committing a crime? Well, thats a simple one...death sentence.

- Drunk driving carries fines such as US, but they have considered making caning the punishment. Not a bad idea, since taxis are very inexpensive to use there. Will guess Id drink no more than a couple beers today if I knew Id get caned if had too many more than that and decided to drive.

- Smoking also banned at indoor places such as bars, restaurants, etc. Violators are fined.

Ill say Singapore is doing what you are proposing or they are pretty close.


:aktion033
 

Triple digit silver kook
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
13,697
Tokens
eek, caning is a cheap and very effective method of punishment and i definitely think it would solve alot of americas' crime problems.

obviously what we are doing now here to "prevent" crime isnt working well.

:grandmais
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
PARSONS, you've now seen Mark drop 2000+ words on why he would not endorse Prohibition of the drug alcohol (a drug which he freely used to enthusiastic excess at last year's RxBash) while he continues to endorse Prohibition of a short list of other psychotropic drugs which he himself does not use.


To the Reader at Large we'll note that it was not "I" who met Mark L at last year's RxBash while in his happily intoxicated under the influence of the drug alcohol state. It was former Rx Mod Xpanda, logging time with GAMEFACE.

Mark can continue to pose one day as a RightWing conservative (JoeC) and then pose another day as a alcohol swilling sports capper (Gameface). But to us he'll always be just another One of Us, including his drunken and violent email threats versus other Forum members (DodgingPotHoles)

Raise a glass to Faux Cyber IDs and again, Welcome Back MARK L!
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
The criminal drug cartels of Mexico, Jamaica, Colombia, Afghanistan and the drug dealing street gangs in the USA thank poster "Joe Contrarian" for his active endorsement of 21st century Prohibition.

Without such a policy, they would all be out of the drug business and would have to find some other product or service to fund their criminal enterprises.

Raise a glass to the Empowerment of Criminal Gangs!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Tokens
Woof, Singapore's system looks pretty good but it's still not the same as what I suggested because they have prohibition.

Barman, I agree it's hypocritical to say alcohol is evil and then proceed to get drunk, but I think a prohibition stance can still be defended if it can be shown somehow that alcohol is milder than psychadelic drugs. Note I'm saying "if".

But even if we grant him that much, on the practical side, given the way western society is at the moment, I'm with you on prohibition being both ineffective and silly. I'm curious to see how he responds to my last post.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
DP, Mark himself acknowledges "not being an expert on drugs".

However, "I" am - one of my few areas in life of expertise thanks not only to personal experience but also my working in drug abuse recovery and treatment settings since 1994.

There is no pyshcoactive drug that is more toxic nor potentially lethal than alcohol.

However, the discussion of risks/benefits on any drugs ignores the most pertinent concern when debating the merits of Prohibition.

And that is as posed in my first post within this thread.

The Prohibitionist either directly or by extension endorses the 100% control of a drug market by criminal gangs, cartels and street dealers.

The anti-Prohibitionist calls for the targeted drug(s) to have their production and commercial distribution controlled by legal dealers who are subject to sensible regulations as set out by a combination of business and government.

Mark L endorses the former (market controlled by street dealers, gangs and cartels).

I endorse the latter (market controlled by legal, regulated dealers)
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
Darryl, if I had a teenage son who got in trouble with the law or was into drugs -- anything beyond 'normal' teenage rebellion and self-exploration -- I would look myself in the mirror and admit that I had failed miserably as a parent. Unfortunately, as you say, there wouldn't be much time to turn his life around.

So I would implement a three strike policy. I wouldn't throw him out on the street and allow him find his own way -- that would be cruel and could lead to tragedy. Assuming he struck out, I would send him off to boot camp for a year. There he would learn the values of discipline, decency, respect and self-worth. He would be surrounded by MALE testosterone and his self-esteem would be torn down and then rebuilt back up from scratch -- into a real man. No matter how often he begged me (or my wife), he would not come home. After the full year expired, I would sit down with my wife and son and reevaluate the situation. I would ask him what he's learned, if he agreed with my decision, if he believes he's a better MAN for it etc.

Tough love works. The earlier it is implemented in a child's development, the better. Parents should hurt a child's 'feelings' OFTEN. Throughout the course of a child's life, they should HATE their parents OFTEN. If you never hated your parents at some point in your life YOUR PARENTS DID NOT DO THEIR JOBS.

It's called raising -- NOT LOWERING -- standards and expectations. Both on the micro and macro, as you said the principles need to be consistent and balanced all throughout society.

The role of the mother (the feminine) is develop a child's emotions; the role of a father is to develop a child's character -- balance.

Too much 'compassion' is toxic.

As society has grown more feminine (compassion-uber-alles!) and the role of fatherhood and manhood has been shamefully marginalized, our society has become imbalanced and broken.

Kids need (want) rigid standards and clear expectations or many tragically fall off the tracks. When we raise the bar of expectations, kids meet or exceed them. When we lower them (out of 'compassion') kids live up to those expectations also.

More emphasis on developing character -- less on compassion

So if society decides "kids are going to have sex anyway" and we implement a school curriculum that teaches 10 year olds how to put condoms on bananas, why are we shocked when CHILDREN start having sex at an earlier and earlier age? :ohno:

When I was a boy, I got the strap in school. Today, the school would be sued for "child abuse." When I was a boy, every time the principal entered the room, children stood up out of respect. And my parents taught me to address my elders as Mr. and Mrs.

If Husseini Obambi wins next Nov and stacks the courts with his toxic leftist judges, the country will become even more imbalanced and broken than it already is.

Somewhere along the line, society swung too far LEFT. Today children have no absolutely no respect for authority -- ZERO. They don't have a healthy fear for their parents, teachers, pastors, police...pretty much any authoritative figure, because of the feminization of society.

A kid wears a vile disgusting t-shirt to school -- the principal rightfully suspends him. The ALCU (the left's fav institution) sues the school under the guise of "free speech." Insanity! Since when do CHILDREN have free speech 'rights'? Since when do children have ANY 'rights' at all? :think2:

When we allow liberal elites to control our lives, raise our children, and we adopt their asinine values and counsel ("if it feels good do it"; "follow your heart and you'll always get what you want"; "a woman needs a man like fish needs a bicycle"; compassion-uber-alles etc.), we end up where we are today -- a broken society.

I am obviously very libertarian when it comes to purging leftist GOVERNMENT from our lives, but I am pro-dictatorship when it comes to raising kids and establishing the role a fathers, mothers, pastors, teachers, scout leaders as central authoritative figures.

Society on the micro and macro needs rigid standards and a natural authoritative hierarchy or many people tragically fall off the tracks.

Contrary to the mantra of liberalism (rebellion is virtuous -- "don't trust anyone over the age of thirty"), authority is a good thing. And whatever our education and no matter how 'smart' we may think we are, yes, our elders ARE wiser. We should listen to them attentively because nothing beats real-life experience. The garbage our kids learn in school is 'theory' that rarely has any real life application -- in love, life, relationships, economics, social and moral standards...

The "self-esteem" movement ('feel' good about myself all the time) is a fraud. Note the first word in SELF-esteem. No, you should not "feel good" when you act bad. You should FEEL like shit. and adjust your behavior appropriately.

In a society and culture that idolizes 'youth' and is obsessed with self-gratification, we shouldn't be surprised that we live in a modern age of stupidity.

America needs an enema -- a return to our roots and traditional culture.

Get government and modern 'elites' out of our lives, out of our schools, out our homes, out of the courts and restore our society to the PEOPLE!

PEOPLE are wise and inherently GOOD on the micro. PEOPLE become incredibly selfish and stupid on the MACRO -- ALCU, teacher's unions, government ANYTHING etc.

MOTHERS and FATHERS know how to raise their kids. Pastors and teachers are the best social workers and moral counselors ever invented -- if we just let them do their jobs.

If the PEOPLE don't want same-sex marriage and this dirty standard imposed on society, the courts should not usurp their authority -- as they recently did in MA and CA. If the Boy Scouts of America (one of America's best traditional institutions for developing boys into MEN) rightfully recognizes homosexual behavior as the sin that it is, and therefore don't want gay counselors guiding their young scouts, the courts and the ALCU need to back off! If they don't back off, then people who love America (like you and I) need to rise up and FIGHT THEM! Do not sit on your hands and watch your country disintegrate in front of you.

If the PEOPLE insist on a certain school curriculum in their local communities, or want to hold a prayer service in their school, let not the LEFTIST COURTS in their state capitals and in Washington interfere with their constitutional right to do so.

The courts have overstepped their authority, Washington has overstepped it's authority, special interests and our liberal elites have become society's "moral counselors"...

It is time to TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK -- back into the hands of the wise, righteous PEOPLE, because as the framers rightfully observed, SELF-GOVERNMENT is the ONLY government that WORKS!

Liberals have faith in GOVERNMENT and their special interests; conservatives have faith in PEOPLE. Parents know how to raise their own children than any self-interested government bureaucrat ever will!

Liberals believe 'compassion' and 'feelings' are virtues'; conservatives know wise, righteous rigid standards (moral, social and economic standards) are the only way a society can be self-sustaining and survive.

The former is churning out 'broken' people necessitating massive economic investments in social programs that are bankrupting our country; the later produces a self-sustaining economically and morally healthy (and FREER) society.

WE THE PEOPLE are ALL conservative on the micro in the values we teach our children and how we relate to one another....why can't we all be conservative on the MACRO as well?

Why is liberalism destroying and dividing our country? :think2:
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
PARSONS, you've now seen Mark drop 2000+ words on why he would not endorse Prohibition of the drug alcohol (a drug which he freely used to enthusiastic excess at last year's RxBash) while he continues to endorse Prohibition of a short list of other psychotropic drugs which he himself does not use.


To the Reader at Large we'll note that it was not "I" who met Mark L at last year's RxBash while in his happily intoxicated under the influence of the drug alcohol state. It was former Rx Mod Xpanda, logging time with GAMEFACE.

Mark can continue to pose one day as a RightWing conservative (JoeC) and then pose another day as a alcohol swilling sports capper (Gameface). But to us he'll always be just another One of Us, including his drunken and violent email threats versus other Forum members (DodgingPotHoles)

Raise a glass to Faux Cyber IDs and again, Welcome Back MARK L!

Repeating gossip about what somebody else may have said about whom they thought was maybe somebody else, pretending to be somebody?

Isn't that for lil old ladies?

Just last week you were still fingering me as Joe ...:lol:

Give us a break.... :nono5:
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
its all about money

cigs and alcohol with all the taxes and advertising

all the fines for being intoxicated publically, driving under influence, getting in drunken fights and throw in the drunk tank for a night and pay a fine to get out etc....

and than all the diseases that come with it in which you'll spend your last living dime to live a shitty life in the end fighting cancer or what not

plus all the prevention programs etc....

as for the other drugs prohibition just creates big bloated government programs to give people jobs etc....

pot for instance just would infrindge on the alcohol/cig market

health wise its not even as close as bad and has been shown to have positive affects for elderly

and you don't really need that much to get a high so volume very low not good for mass commercial consumption

cigs have you coming back every 30 min for a puff

and for regular drinkers it can take at least a 3-4 beers to get a buzz

as usual in america and society look no further than the economics and how its slanted towards the big guy and the little guy is of no consequence...to understand why the policies are the way they are
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Tokens
DP, Mark himself acknowledges "not being an expert on drugs".

However, "I" am - one of my few areas in life of expertise thanks not only to personal experience but also my working in drug abuse recovery and treatment settings since 1994.

There is no pyshcoactive drug that is more toxic nor potentially lethal than alcohol.

However, the discussion of risks/benefits on any drugs ignores the most pertinent concern when debating the merits of Prohibition.

And that is as posed in my first post within this thread.

The Prohibitionist either directly or by extension endorses the 100% control of a drug market by criminal gangs, cartels and street dealers.

The anti-Prohibitionist calls for the targeted drug(s) to have their production and commercial distribution controlled by legal dealers who are subject to sensible regulations as set out by a combination of business and government.

Mark L endorses the former (market controlled by street dealers, gangs and cartels).

I endorse the latter (market controlled by legal, regulated dealers)


The above implies that prohibition can't work under any set of circumstances. By "work" I mean reduce consumption to a point that's negligible. In Singapore they've done that apparently.

Endorsing street cartels controlling 100% of a miniscule market might be better than endorsing similar-minded, power-hungry, greedy thugs with either badges or cushy seats in government offices controlling a much larger market.

The "might be" becomes an "is" if you agree that lowering consumption is good for a society, even if it means restricting some people's freedoms. If you don't, then it becomes an "isn't" but then we are looking at a new angle in the debate as it is no longer about who controls the market.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
"Miniscule market"?

The illicit drug trade is estimated to be at least $400 billion per year with at least 1/4 of that in the United States.

The Netherlands and most of Western Europe practice less stringent Prohibition policies than does the United States and their level of consumption for cannabis and other illicit drugs is about half that of the USA.

While the users of toxic and lethal drugs like alcohol and tobacco are given the liberty to make their personal ingestion choices without the spectre of "three strikes and you're dead", the users of a short list of other drugs are told by the Moralist Prohibitionist that the best response to their supposedly unhealthy ingestion choices is years in a prison cage followed by a lifetime with a criminal record.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
MJ gets flapped on non-Topic matters: Repeating gossip about what somebody else may have said about whom they thought was maybe somebody else, pretending to be somebody?

SH: Well I suppose I could have accused Xpanda of being a liar, but she's always struck me as a much more straight shooter than our forum friend Mark L and his use of multiple cyber IDs.

MJ: Just last week you were still fingering me as Joe ...

SH: And you were taking me seriously......heh....Keep comin' back. The sarcasm will become more clear the longer you hang out.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
also to continue alcohol and tobacco by nature much more pratical to the man as far as mass consumption vs. the other drugs

with alcohol and cigs like i was saying consumption is much higher volume wise

so you have tobacco, hop, wheat, barley farmers etc...

and all the other jobs related to it from distributors, transporters, corporate high ups, bartenders, bar owners, cigarette shop owners, advertisers, the list goes on and on

as for pot somebody can grow high quality shit and make a living off of it outta his basement and if these guys don't get caught they getting very good pay for what they do

and they are buying ipods, flat screen tvs....and what not with their drug money
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
[B said:
Mark L Contrarian[/B];5506854]Darryl, if I had a teenage son who got in trouble with the law or was into drugs -- ....blah, blah, blah, another 2000+ words in same thread and none of them addressing his strong support for a drug market controlled by street gangs and cartels who actively market drugs to minors, employ minors in the drug trade and aggressively wage violence against police and civilians...../
That hypocrisy aside, you Hit a Walkoff HomeRun with that post, JoeC!

Sincerely

GAMEFACE
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
For those of us with long experience working with drug abuse recovery and treatment programs, we feel that the more dangerous the drug, the more urgent it is that it's production and commercial distribution be subject to sensible regulation.

The Prohibitionist is willing to have the more dangerous drugs 100% unregulated.

The Reader at Large is thus invited to align themselves with whichever of the above makes more sense to them personally.
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
Barnman is on Ignore -- thank you bblight! So I can't/won't respond to any of his morally bankrupt rants, personal attacks or asinine leftist ramblings...

I will only say this: you don't legalize immoral behavior.

If something is widely recognized as immoral -- and you would never get the argument from the pro-drug crowd that they can be used 'responsibly' or are in any way 'healthy' -- you don't lower the standard and give into the problem. You can develop alternative and better strategies to deal with it, yes, but you don't 'legalize' it.

Seems that the pro-drug crowd is in the minority on this one -- not a single country has adopted the asinine policies the stoners are advocating.

It's all narcissistic theory and IT DOESN'T WORK!

Did we 'win' the war against alcohol?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Tokens
"Miniscule market"?

The illicit drug trade is estimated to be at least $400 billion per year with at least 1/4 of that in the United States.

The Netherlands and most of Western Europe practice less stringent Prohibition policies than does the United States and their level of consumption for cannabis and other illicit drugs is about half that of the USA.

While the users of toxic and lethal drugs like alcohol and tobacco are given the liberty to make their personal ingestion choices without the spectre of "three strikes and you're dead", the users of a short list of other drugs are told by the Moralist Prohibitionist that the best response to their supposedly unhealthy ingestion choices is years in a prison cage followed by a lifetime with a criminal record.

I have not suggested at all that the current US or European consumption level is miniscule. I have offered up Singapore as model to show that prohibition CAN work in certain situations and therefore should not be dismissed AUTOMATICALLY based on the (wrong) assumption that consumption is unaffected by policy.

Note that I am not suggesting that current policy is good. Doing prohibition wrong (like we are doing now) is probably the worst of all worlds, even if doing prohibition right might be the best. Again there's that "might be" with the same implications as in my last post.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
lot easier to do prohibition on a small scale (small country) than say US

and as i've said earlier our economy is very dependent on drug consumption in its current state
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Tokens
Darryl, if I had a teenage son who got in trouble with the law or was into drugs -- anything beyond 'normal' teenage rebellion and self-exploration -- I would look myself in the mirror and admit that I had failed miserably as a parent. Unfortunately, as you say, there wouldn't be much time to turn his life around.

...

Didn't want to cut and paste the whole thing because of length, but congratulations on an excellent post. I think you hit the nail on the head regarding what parenting is about, what the father's role is, and why our current atheist-liberal-feminist society is in a big mess, to put it mildly.

While I don't think you answered my question directly with a yes or a no, I think your answer is "no" because you see the Republican party as the way to get things back on track. I see them as just a milder form of liberals only with different and possibly lesser but still major destructive tendencies.

Society's problems (due to atheism-liberalism-feminism) are like a runaway freight train and the Republican party and their supporters is like a bunch of guys in their underwear trying to slow it down with their teeth.

IMO the only wise way to proceed is to let the train crash and use the interim period to start planning on how to pick up the pieces and what to do next.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,867
Messages
13,574,310
Members
100,878
Latest member
fo88giftt
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com