Unbelievable
Posted by: JamieWednesday on 13 November 2006
Drugs and human rights
Not only a potential legal precedent but surely a precedent for every prisoner to be allowed what they had outside..?
Not only a potential legal precedent but surely a precedent for every prisoner to be allowed what they had outside..?
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Fisbey
Quite simple.
It is making a huge assumption that everyone is the same and understands/percieves things the way you do. Not everything is black and white....
You're not Mick Parry are you?
It is making a huge assumption that everyone is the same and understands/percieves things the way you do. Not everything is black and white....
You're not Mick Parry are you?
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by dave brubeck
Even simpler, and this is not an assumption:
People who do something wrong must expect repercussions as a result of their behaviour. If they didn't do it in the first place, there would be no issue.
..and that is not a Parryism, that is a fact.
People who do something wrong must expect repercussions as a result of their behaviour. If they didn't do it in the first place, there would be no issue.
..and that is not a Parryism, that is a fact.
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Fisbey
A fact as you see it - see above post.
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Bruce Woodhouse
Dave
I cannot believe your post is compatable with having met drug users other than through the pages of the Daily Mail.
Drug users are victims too. I'm not absolving them of responsibility but it still needs to be said.
Bruce
I cannot believe your post is compatable with having met drug users other than through the pages of the Daily Mail.
Drug users are victims too. I'm not absolving them of responsibility but it still needs to be said.
Bruce
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by dave brubeck
Bruce
Incorrect assumption. I know people who have had their lives ruined. And I know the lucky ones who survived relatively unscathed. I may even be one of them. In most cases drug users are only victims of their own poor judgement. I stand by my comments.
Incorrect assumption. I know people who have had their lives ruined. And I know the lucky ones who survived relatively unscathed. I may even be one of them. In most cases drug users are only victims of their own poor judgement. I stand by my comments.
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Bruce Woodhouse
Dave,
I respect your certainty, just cannot share it. Lets agree to differ and leave it at that.
Bruce
I respect your certainty, just cannot share it. Lets agree to differ and leave it at that.
Bruce
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by dave brubeck
Bruce. Agreed. We must share a toke some time and talk it over. Dave.
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by JamieWednesday
Ahhh. All friends. Nice.
However, the issue still remains. Why should illegal drug dependency be treated differently from other addictions/dependencies. E.g Alcohol/solvent abuse. That's what I really don't get and I don't udnerstand how the Government and thereby us as the taxpayers can get round it? In a Nanny State, determined to equalise as much as possible even if equality means reducing average standards as opposed to increasing them, how can they justify a payment to drug addicts suffering withdrawal but not alcoholics?
However, the issue still remains. Why should illegal drug dependency be treated differently from other addictions/dependencies. E.g Alcohol/solvent abuse. That's what I really don't get and I don't udnerstand how the Government and thereby us as the taxpayers can get round it? In a Nanny State, determined to equalise as much as possible even if equality means reducing average standards as opposed to increasing them, how can they justify a payment to drug addicts suffering withdrawal but not alcoholics?
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by andy c
specific addictions should be treated specifically, according to the individuals involved. So how come all got the deal???