Kiksun

Yes or No?

Voted!!! First time I hear sth new about this ( "back as 3000BC when the Sumerians discovered poppies to make opiates and painted the flower on their cave wall") stupid arrgument - I mean, are we still in that period?? - some of us moved on ... somebody should tell this guy to catch up.. =)

"... Making us criminals ..." sounds not politcorrectly. In Brussels they recommend not to use such words, cos it can offend new citizens of Europe.

For example,
"High crime rate in immigrant suburbs of Paris" sounds not politcorrectly, but
"High index of street activity in immigrant suburbs of Paris" sounds very politcorrectly.

"..make us lazy." Word 'lazy' sounds not politcorrectly, cos (read above). In Brussels they recommend instead of "lazy" use "a person with insufficient motivation" :-)

But anyway, we got the point with "lazy", didn't we??

Your last sentence is great, Kika! Go!

well, lazy is lazy here, whatever the eurobureaucrats want to call it.
its all about being politically correct, but it will end being just stupid and not knowing what we are talking about. tabuing some words is worse than sometimes using them for not correct purposes..
get over it people.

and about this vote.
i agree that people have freedrom to do what they choose to do, i have said it before as well.
but this freedom ends for me when they hurt other people. being under drugs leads to criminal acts, hurting other mentally and physically, so shut the f... up about decriminalizing drugs. how stupid can people be..

on Kadris comment: Amen!!!

Btw, this name thing sometimes work, and sometimes not! hmm..

" ... how stupid can people be..". sounds not politcorrectly. In Brussels they recommend not to use such words, cos it can offend new citizens of Europe, members of Europarliament and some of Europeans. Instead of "stupid" they recommend to use "a person with individual rate/speed of comprehension".


... "to criminal acts," sounds not politcorrectly. In Brussels they recommend not to use such words, cos it can offend new citizens of Europe. Instead of "criminal act" they recommend to use "ethical disoriented occurrence"

".. but this freedom ends for me when they hurt other people..". Clothes hurt naturists, they tell that people were born naked and must all their life be naked. So ... you are still in pants?

I expect that you will not like my opinion here, but the prohibition does not seem to work in itself. It brings with it many added problems to drug use - drug trafficking, prostitution and organized crime (see the period of American alcohol prohibition when organized crime - mafia movements - were at the top of their power). I think there is a lack of intelligent discussion.What I think helps better and is important more than prohibition is education and prevention.

kadri, here I'm serious. Your "so shut the f... up about decriminalizing drugs". YES!

"... see the period of American alcohol prohibition ..."

From 1920 to 1933.

Then will see problems in the U.S.A. during the American Civil War (1861-1865)

Katka, I see your point but the latest studies show that the prohibition and high taxes (or high prices) are the way to lower the consumption. Prevention and information do not work nowadays. I believe in complex approach. Information, prevention and also high taxes for example. I think first of all we should imply "egoism prevention" and then alcohol and drugs and other problems would be solved faster cause people would care more about each other and about the environment. But yes as it shows prohibition works. The decriminalization would give the message that it is OK to use drugs and it would increase the number of users by those who are just afraid of law.

Kika, I agree with your idea of complex approach. But prohibition has not been proven to be an efficient strategy in itself. Criminalization does not seem to send the message that it is wrong to use drugs. Take for instance Slovakia. Smoking and just keeping marihuana is legally prohibited, but you will find very few young people (especially university students) that have not tried it. Actually they would be a rather deviant population nowadays (low in numbers). And you have a legal sanction for this behaviour, nevertheless it has barely any effect on the young people. High taxes sound good in my opinion (can be substantiated e.g. by higher health risk and potentially higher medical expenses incurred on the health system). But I think serious and good research should be done into this topic: What differentiates those people who do not touch drugs irrespective of the external conditions (price, availability, peer pressure, fashion, etc.)? But I am sure that you have better knowledge of this area then me.

But somehow I feel that the question "To legalize or Not to Legalize?" is not the most important one.

foxpox, im even not laughing. and im stil in my pants and i am not a vegetarian and i do use sometimes bad language. so shoot me, you eurobureaucrats and nature lovers. i hope you dont really seriously compare nature lovers with fucked up drug addicts ready to commit murders to get high..

kadri, of course I don't compare nature lovers with drug addicts. Drugs it's nightmare. Too many people who I knew died (the reason - drugs). Too many ...

What I wrote about politcorrectness, of cos it was a joke. But ... when somebody somewhere tell to other people what they CAN tell/speak and what CANNOT, calling it with absurd and ridiculous term "politcorrectness", and people like voiceless slaves follow to it, then it's not funny