Ten years ago today Amy Winehouse died

[tyred]

An immense talent, much missed

 

[Accy cyclist]

A tribute to the dead is always better when their name is spelt correctly in a thread title

I corrected it after reading your post. If editing the thread title allowed me i'd have put

Ten years ago today Amy (sorry Ami) Whinehouse died

 

[Arrowfoot]

I was questioning only your suggestion that following the lead of, among others, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and 18 US states 'would only make it worse'. Any evidence for that?

Sorry for getting it wrong.

Addiction with long term and permanent harm to bodily faculties is documented science for prohibited drugs, including gateway and drugs that are often referred to recreational drugs such as cannabis. Hence criminalisation began in earnest in the early 1970s across the World. Have not seen a single scientific study or a reputable media article saying otherwise.

Portugal, Switzerland etc began to head the other way not based on science but more on other factors such as sharing of tainted needles, high cost of procuring drug leading to criminal activities, prostitution, violence to sustain their habits. I remember the Swiss were concerned with rising HIV spread then. In mathematical terms, instead of 10 resorting to prostitution to sustain their habit, decriminalising it will drop the price and only 2 end up as prostitutes. A devil's bargain.

There was also of pressure from enforcement not to bother with addicts along the lines of nuisance, waste of oxygen, space, resources etc.

I would not consider the US as guiding light in anything social. We are not going to adopt their gun laws despite all 50 states are more liberal than European and the much of the World. countries. New Zealand, after the Christchurch, UK after Dunblane, Australia after Tasmania all led to changes in Law that made it tougher to get guns. I do recall there was widely supported national petition when Dunblane happened.

So the 18 US States is poor choice to support an argument. The lobbying behind decriminalising has commercial interest as evident by the rapid entry of firms Colodrado, the lead state. In Canada, we have a big firm that is going to IPO on something that is detrimental to human health.

In essence those who can handle it can have their fun. Those who can't - too bad as they only end up destroying themselves, their families and their loved ones. The only reason to go down this path is that those who can't handle it are few in numbers and unlike guns, no only harm to others. Darwanism 101.

 

[swee'pea99]

Sorry for getting it wrong.

Addiction with long term and permanent harm to bodily faculties is documented science for prohibited drugs, including gateway and drugs that are often referred to recreational drugs such as cannabis. Hence criminalisation began in earnest in the early 1970s across the World. Have not seen a single scientific study or a reputable media article saying otherwise.

Portugal, Switzerland etc began to head the other way not based on science but more on other factors such as sharing of tainted needles, high cost of procuring drug leading to criminal activities, prostitution, violence to sustain their habits. I remember the Swiss were concerned with rising HIV spread then. In mathematical terms, instead of 10 resorting to prostitution to sustain their habit, decriminalising it will drop the price and only 2 end up as prostitutes. A devil's bargain.

There was also of pressure from enforcement not to bother with addicts along the lines of nuisance, waste of oxygen, space, resources etc.

I would not consider the US as guiding light in anything social. We are not going to adopt their gun laws despite all 50 states are more liberal than European and the much of the World. countries. New Zealand, after the Christchurch, UK after Dunblane, Australia after Tasmania all led to changes in Law that made it tougher to get guns. I do recall there was widely supported national petition when Dunblane happened.

So the 18 US States is poor choice to support an argument. The lobbying behind decriminalising has commercial interest as evident by the rapid entry of firms Colodrado, the lead state. In Canada, we have a big firm that is going to IPO on something that is detrimental to human health.

In essence those who can handle it can have their fun. Those who can't - too bad as they only end up destroying themselves, their families and their loved ones. The only reason to go down this path is that those who can't handle it are few in numbers and unlike guns, no only harm to others. Darwanism 101.

I'll take that as a no, then. There is no evidence that easing up in the War on Drugs makes anything worse. There is, by contrast, a mountain of evidence that prohibition makes things a lot, lot worse, in all sorts of ways.

Sorry for (partially) derailing the thread, and I'll stop now. Amy was an immense talent, and it saddens me every time I hear her wonderful voice. But it wasn't a 'liberal' approach to drugs that killed Amy Winehouse. It was Amy Winehouse. May she rest in peace.

 

[GuyBoden]

I hope that the family don't release her inferior recordings and spoil her legacy.

 

[Chromatic]

I hope that the family don't release her inferior recordings and spoil her legacy.

I hope the papal conclave don't elect a Catholic and that a bear won't shoot in the woods.

 

[CentralCommuter]

I'll take that as a no, then. There is no evidence that easing up in the War on Drugs makes anything worse. There is, by contrast, a mountain of evidence that prohibition makes things a lot, lot worse, in all sorts of ways.

Sorry for (partially) derailing the thread, and I'll stop now. Amy was an immense talent, and it saddens me every time I hear her wonderful voice. But it wasn't a 'liberal' approach to drugs that killed Amy Winehouse. It was Amy Winehouse. May she rest in peace.

You’re not sorry. Just because you say sorry, doesn’t make you sorry in the least.

 

[Profpointy]

You’re not sorry. Just because you say sorry, doesn’t make you sorry in the least.

Now you're just trolling

 

[CentralCommuter]

No I’m not. I just find it a tad disrespectful. Saying ‘sorry, but …’ is just an empty apology.

 

[steveindenmark]

She was fortunate she lasted as long as she did.

A great talent that was cut short by her lifestyle.

 

[swee'pea99]

You’re not sorry. Just because you say sorry, doesn’t make you sorry in the least.

Wow, a mind-reader! That must come in handy. Can you do, like, anyone? Or does it only work with people you've never met and know absolutely nothing about?

 

[CentralCommuter]

I didn’t have to read your mind, I just read your insincere words.

 

[DaveReading]

No I’m not. I just find it a tad disrespectful. Saying ‘sorry, but …’ is just an empty apology.

It is indeed.

Except that the post you are objecting to (and even quoted) wasn't a "Sorry, but ...".

It was an unconditional apology.

Sorry, but it was.

 

[matticus]

No-one can escape the Apology Police!