|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
From one of the UK's most right wing tabloids:
But also:
| Quote: |
| In some areas [of Edinburgh], up to 70 per cent of residents are users and 85 per cent are unemployed. |
Hard drug-use tends to occur in partnership with the poverty trap of state welfare benefits. It's difficult to think of a more socially debilitating government policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S1820803.shtml?cat=565
| Quote: |
Californians have decided not to legalize pot. The ballot issue could have made California the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use. But it went down to defeat, amid warnings that it could bring legal chaos.
If it had been approved, adults could possess up to an ounce of pot and consume it in non-public places. Supporters said it could provide revenue to the state, and reduce drug-related violence in Mexico. As much of the nation saw conservative advances, voters in Massachusetts rejected a chance to cut their taxes.
They defeated a proposal to lower the state sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent. Voters in Colorado defeated an anti-abortion "personhood" amendment. It would have given unborn fetuses human rights in the state constitution. Arizona voters approved a measure banning state and local affirmative action programs based on race, ethnicity or sex.
In Washington State, voters repealed taxes on candy, soda and bottled water. Voters in Illinois approved an amendment allowing future governors to be recalled by popular vote. And in the littlest state, voters chose to keep the longest formal name - opting to stay as Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, instead of just Rhode Island. |
Democracy at work.
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/11/03/obama-administration-cheers-defeat-of-prop-19/
| Quote: |
While President Obama won�t discuss the results of tonight�s brutal election until an afternoon press conference, one part of his Administration already commented on the results of Proposition 19, California�s initiative to legalize marijuana.
Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske issued a two-sentence statement applauding the defeat of Prop 19:
�Today, Californians recognized that legalizing marijuana will not make our citizens healthier, solve California�s budget crisis, or reduce drug related violence in Mexico,� read the statement. �The Obama administration has been clear in its opposition to marijuana legalization because research shows that marijuana use is associated with voluntary treatment admissions for addiction, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness and emergency room admissions.�
Aside from none of that being true, it�s clear that the Obama Administration will continue to stand in the way of marijuana legalization efforts in 2012. The drug warriors are dug in, and will keep their $1 trillion war going at all costs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Hard drug-use tends to occur in partnership with the poverty trap of state welfare benefits. It's difficult to think of a more socially debilitating government policy. |
That's a bit much, linking welfare payments with drug use. Why is it then that countries with better welfare systems such as Germany have lower levels of hard drug use than countries with limited welfare systems such as the USA? And are you saying that rich people don't engage in hard drug use? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S1820803.shtml?cat=565
| Quote: |
Californians have decided not to legalize pot. The ballot issue could have made California the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use. But it went down to defeat, amid warnings that it could bring legal chaos.
If it had been approved, adults could possess up to an ounce of pot and consume it in non-public places. Supporters said it could provide revenue to the state, and reduce drug-related violence in Mexico. As much of the nation saw conservative advances, voters in Massachusetts rejected a chance to cut their taxes.
They defeated a proposal to lower the state sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent. Voters in Colorado defeated an anti-abortion "personhood" amendment. It would have given unborn fetuses human rights in the state constitution. Arizona voters approved a measure banning state and local affirmative action programs based on race, ethnicity or sex.
In Washington State, voters repealed taxes on candy, soda and bottled water. Voters in Illinois approved an amendment allowing future governors to be recalled by popular vote. And in the littlest state, voters chose to keep the longest formal name - opting to stay as Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, instead of just Rhode Island. |
Democracy at work.
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/11/03/obama-administration-cheers-defeat-of-prop-19/
| Quote: |
While President Obama won�t discuss the results of tonight�s brutal election until an afternoon press conference, one part of his Administration already commented on the results of Proposition 19, California�s initiative to legalize marijuana.
Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske issued a two-sentence statement applauding the defeat of Prop 19:
�Today, Californians recognized that legalizing marijuana will not make our citizens healthier, solve California�s budget crisis, or reduce drug related violence in Mexico,� read the statement. �The Obama administration has been clear in its opposition to marijuana legalization because research shows that marijuana use is associated with voluntary treatment admissions for addiction, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness and emergency room admissions.�
Aside from none of that being true, it�s clear that the Obama Administration will continue to stand in the way of marijuana legalization efforts in 2012. The drug warriors are dug in, and will keep their $1 trillion war going at all costs. |
|
My home state let me down yesterday. Well with Prop 19. All the other props turned out how I wanted them to at least. I really don't understand who could vote against pot legalization. People amaze me sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| That's a bit much, linking welfare payments with drug use. |
You're not seriously making the claim that people on benefits aren't likelier to use drugs than those who aren't, are you?
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| Why is it then that countries with better welfare systems such as Germany have lower levels of hard drug use than countries with limited welfare systems such as the USA? |
I merely said it was a tendency. If Germany has lower rates of drug-use than the US, at best this signifies that there are other things besides being a professional couch potato that encourage people to use drugs; it doesn't at all follow that there's no relationship.
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| And are you saying that rich people don't engage in hard drug use? |
Of course not, but overwhelmingly consumers tend to be the idle poor. One of the reasons is that the illegality of drugs means it's very difficult for users to hold down a job. Another reason is that benefits discourage people to look for work, which in turn destroys people's ambition and long-term outlook. Unsurprisingly, many turn to drug and alcohol abuse as a form of escapism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Appropriate since this thread is about baby steps:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018327-503544.html
| Quote: |
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday signed into law a bill that reduces the charge for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction.
Upon signing the bill, however, Schwarzenegger took the opportunity to reiterate his opposition to Proposition 19, the measure that would legalize the growth, possession and distribution of marijuana in California.
The new law does not change the penalties for possession. Currently, carrying up to an ounce of marijuana is punishable by a fine of up to $100; no jail time or probation can be ordered. One key difference, however, is that until now a defendant has been entitled to a jury trial and a defense attorney. By downgrading possession to an infraction, that will no longer be the case.
"In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket," Schwarzenegger wrote in a signing statement.
The new rules go into effect in California January 1, 2011. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rumor is that Arnold backed that to kill Prop 19. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Professor Nutt is in the news in the UK again. You may recall, exactly a year ago, the Gordon Brown government fired Nutt for producing scientific evidence that the danger posed by drugs is grossly overstated. We couldn't possibly legalize drugs, says the establishment, because irrespective of the fact that they are largely harmless, what on earth are we to do with all these superfluous police officers? That would mean that we might have to consider dramatically lowering taxes, thereby encouraging employment in the private sector - and we wouldn't want that, would we? Alternatively, we could keep all our extra officers employed and they could thereby focus their attention on real, serious criminal activity. But the British police are mostly form-filling, paperwork-shuffling layabouts, so having to chase real baddies would prove unpopular, too.
What a sham.
I recently stumbled upon this BBC drugs documentary. It makes the claim that heroin is the most dangerous drug in Britain, on the basis that 700 people die heroin-induced deaths every year. But it also says that there are 300,000 heroin users in Britain, meaning the people who survive taking Britain's "most dangerous" drug outnumber those who die by 429-to-1. How dangerous is that? Well, you're four times likelier to be killed driving. And according to this doctor in Oregon, there are 2.4 million heroin users in the US and 2,000 deaths annually, meaning the unfortunate ones who die are outnumbered by the survivors by 1,200-to-1.
The general public's fear of the Big H is one of the greatest follies of our times. As anyone with just the tiniest acquaintance with medicine knows, heroin (diamorphine) is indistinguishable from its parent drug (morphine) once metabolized. The only real difference is that heroin, pound for pound, is more potent and on balance a superior drug, because 1kg of heroin is equivalent to 3kg of morphine and importing it thereby more efficient. Britain's National Health Service employs diamorphine as an analgesic sedative for cancer-, heart attack- and serious injury-sufferers routinely. My grandmother, when she died of pancreatic cancer, was given the drug. Morphine is simply a painkiller and a cough-supressent. Got chronic diarrhea? Morphine will take care of that, too. Unfortunately, morphine also produces a feeling of dreamlike delerium and euphoria, and we wouldn't want people taking a drug with the specific intention of producing pleasant sensations, would we? That would be terrible. How many perfectly sensible and decent people have been denied access to these wonderdrugs, and suffered unnecessarily, thanks to prohibition I shudder to think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| That's a bit much, linking welfare payments with drug use. |
You're not seriously making the claim that people on benefits aren't likelier to use drugs than those who aren't, are you? |
I don't know if people on benefits are likelier to use drugs. Do you have any figures to show that? What I'm questioning is whether there is a causal relationship.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| Why is it then that countries with better welfare systems such as Germany have lower levels of hard drug use than countries with limited welfare systems such as the USA? |
I merely said it was a tendency. If Germany has lower rates of drug-use than the US, at best this signifies that there are other things besides being a professional couch potato that encourage people to use drugs; it doesn't at all follow that there's no relationship. |
You have no evidence to show that benefits cause drug use. The relationship in Germany and the United States I pointed out above surely indicates that perhaps poverty, not benefits, lead people to drug use. And to categorise everyone on benefits as a professional couch potato is an insult to the many people in the United States and elsewhere who have lost their jobs due to the meltdown of the financial system, something which they had very little control over.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| And are you saying that rich people don't engage in hard drug use? |
Of course not, but overwhelmingly consumers tend to be the idle poor. One of the reasons is that the illegality of drugs means it's very difficult for users to hold down a job. Another reason is that benefits discourage people to look for work, which in turn destroys people's ambition and long-term outlook. Unsurprisingly, many turn to drug and alcohol abuse as a form of escapism. |
I agree that there might be more people on benefits who use drugs, but it is primarily for the first reason you listed above. You drawing a particularly wide arc with your second reason there - it sounds pretty tenuous and ideologically-loaded to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| I don't know if people on benefits are likelier to use drugs. Do you have any figures to show that? What I'm questioning is whether there is a causal relationship. |
There's obviously no causal relationship, and a causal relationship between A and B is very different from a tendency for A and B to occur in partnership. If there was a causal relationship between benefits and drug-use, a dose/response relationship would follow - multiply the amount of benefits in a population by n, and drug-use correspondingly increases by n. This is self-evidently absurd. Drugs & benefits occuring together is a mere tendency
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| You have no evidence to show that benefits cause drug use. |
That wasn't the claim that was made, so having no evidence for it seems natural enough
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| The relationship in Germany and the United States I pointed out above surely indicates that perhaps poverty, not benefits, lead people to drug use. |
Benefits and poverty are related
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| And to categorise everyone on benefits as a professional couch potato is an insult to the many people in the United States and elsewhere who have lost their jobs due to the meltdown of the financial system, something which they had very little control over. |
There are, nevertheless, a great many individuals who can be reasonably characterized as such. Those on benefits who aren't abusing them, who aren't professional couch potatoes, a priori weren't included
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| I agree that there might be more people on benefits who use drugs |
If we were to survey all the countries which have benefits systems, I feel quite certain that a greater proportion of addicts will be observable amongst those who receive benefits than those who do not. A "tendency" for benefits and drugs to occur "in partnership" is all that was claimed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The more I saw this title, the more perturbed I got by the mixed metaphor, until finally I had to say something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
