Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
Ok so I've actually watched it now. And whilst Chandler's allergy argument is ... Questionable ... It is true that some people are more prone to chemical addiction than others (e.g. some people can smoke socially for years and never crave one at any other time, others get hooked on nicotine after just a few times and gave physical withdrawal) but an allergy? Hmmm... Not convinced. The issue is mainly psychological.
The other guy is talking such nonsense it's not even funny. His idea of ramping up the criminal element would simply not decrease levels of drug addiction, at all. He really believes that these people will not take drugs in the first place / stop taking drugs because "its illegal"? ... Really? They don't give a **** whether or not its legal. All his idea would do is place even more pressure on a criminal justice and prison system that's bursting at the seams and costing an absolute fortune as it is. Or worse: taking kids who are dabbling with small time drugs and would stop in their early 20s anyway, slapping them with a criminal record, and all but ensuring that their life will slide downhill INTO unemployment and addiction when they would otherwise have grown up eventually. Utterly ridiculous. Typical toff nonsense. "if daddy is clear that it's naughty then they'll just have to bloody well stop old chap!"
|
SOME people would avoid drugs if they felt the cops were taking it seriously....everyone knows theyre not, people tak edrugs round here in public view like drinking a can of pepsi....so hitchens argument did hold some water....the middle ground is simply to offer more rehabilitation to people whilst in prison....another area never discussed is the number of people high on drugs whilst driving....is there a proper test?