April 24, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Ok, then on that logic let's legalize crystal meth while we are at it.:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
April 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Looks to me like you are the only one saying things like that.
Cheers
April 24, 2012 at 3:35 pm
I was just being facetious dude.:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
April 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm
You need to add a dash of sarcasm. It is hard to tell sometimes.
Cheers
April 24, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Yep, it's the spice of life!:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
April 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm
There is no question abuse of certain substances lead to brain damage. I don't need to be convinced of that.
(sigh) Bummer, another thing I didn't make clear:
He implied that just a few uses of those drugs is all it would take. I would suppose that the more it was used the earlier the onset - but I don't know that that was said.
My message was intended to be different than 'the regular use of cocain over a period of time' as the article mentioned earlier was talking about. Now that I'm deeply mired in this thread I will mention that cocaine was not on his list of four.
And for context my brother isn't pro-illegal drug use, so the doc wasn't giving a lecture to convince my brother to stop doing something harmful - they were just talking over a beer.
HTH
April 24, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Freddie-304292 (4/24/2012)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (4/23/2012)
I'm not sure I want a law enforcement official suggesting that drugs are acceptable,
I would, the drug laws are terrible, causing way more misery then the drugs themselves. Several police chiefs here in the UK have expressed the opinion that the drug laws should be relaxed. Maybe if more of those on the front line say these laws are pointless, we'll get better laws.
They are pointing out that the current system is broken. Surely everyone on here agrees with fixing a broken system? That's what we're here for, after all
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
April 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (4/24/2012)
jay-h (4/24/2012)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (4/23/2012)
djackson 22568 (4/23/2012)
I'm not sure I want a law enforcement official suggesting that drugs are acceptable, or drinking and driving isn't a big deal when he represents his agency. I'm not sure I want an IT guy working for me talking about SQL Injection not being a big deal, or that every developer he works with is an idiot because they allow SQL Injection. There are some reasonable expectations about how you conduct yourself, and posting in social media is somewhat equivalent to shouting something in the town square.
...
You may not want these things, but there are substantial limits to invasion of private lives you can do in trying to find them out.
I'm slightly confused. I do think that people have a right to express themselves in private. I was saying that the company has a right to have some decent representation of themselves by an employee in public.
I do think opinions on the way the company is run or internal operations are different than wanting to know about a criminal record. As far as family leave, that is definitely not something that should be disclosed to a company without the employee's consent.
Agree. Now this is, I admit, slightly hypocritical, but I do enjoy the DailyWTF, for example. I would never post there, that would IMO be a breech of my professional ethics. I have, for example worked on contracts where there have been seriously sub-optimal processes - the description has been on my CV, the company has not. I'll reveal it if a reference is required, for example, but even then I try to gain an agreement that this goes no further
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
April 24, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Freddie-304292 (4/24/2012)
TravisDBA (4/24/2012)
david.wright-948385 (4/24/2012)
jay-h (4/24/2012)Drugs are not harmless, but crimalization is even worse.
I'm sorry Jay that really doesn't make any sense at all.
It does if you are a user. I'm not assuming Jay is, but that is the classic logic users use.:-D
Actually it makes a lot of sense to me.
Most deaths due to drug overdoses are down to the varying quality of drugs that users are exposed to on the illegal market. A properly controlled supply with percentage strengths on the side, as we have with alcohol, would minimise this risk. Drug dealers don't check users IDs the way bar staff do, making it easier for under-age users to get hold of illegal drugs then on legal ones (such as alcohol and nicotine.) The amount of violent crime directly attributed to the illegal market is very damaging to society, as is putting casual users in prison, making it harder for them to get jobs.
I'm not saying drugs are safe, but I think they could be controlled much better within the law then under the current system (I don't believe in a total free for all, but in proper licensing of their sale, as with alcohol.) They should be taxed. If even half the money raised was put into better drug education we might find the numbers of users going down. If a proportion of the money saved by the police was put into drug treatment centres we could help a lot of people who's lives are blighted by drugs. Addiction should be treated as a medical problem, not a legal one.
I'm not saying drugs are harmless, although many people casually use drugs with little harm, just as many people casually use alcohol with little harm, but the illegal market is making them even more dangerous, IMHO.
Personally, the only recreational drugs i have used are beer, wine, and the odd cigarette. Well, and port and years ago the occasional single malt.
Clearly, drugs are not harmless. I've seen the results. Fact of the matter though is that the "War On Drugs" is a f**kup. Much in the same way any "War" on an abstract noun is going to lead to a massive fail.
One thing we all have in common is that we look at a system and strive to improve it's weaknesses. Drugs policy is a massive fail. It's predicated on a "Moral" view rather than a sensible one - one that considers facts and effective remedies to the problem. The "Moral" view is, they're bad, I shall look down on them. Or if you're in Government - "Big Pharma can make money here, and they pay the bills". Ok we could probably sort addicts cheaper by paying Afghani farmers to grow poppy, to give to registered addicts on prescroption, cheaper than the cost of Methadone etc, which would allow tham to make a living, educate their kids and undermine the Taleban.
But the guy busting a gut has no vote and no lobbying power. Nor, to a large degree the police, let alone the agencies dealing with the true victims of the drug trade.
Now, seriously, anyone here who does not think the system is broken and needs to be refactored?
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
April 24, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Lynn Pettis (4/24/2012)
paul.knibbs (4/24/2012)
david.wright-948385 (4/24/2012)And what of the government: they would be legalising something they know to be harmful.
To be fair here, this is already the case for tobacco and alcohol, both of which cause long-term health problems as well!
Plus, many of the illegal drugs today weren't illegal many years ago.
Aye, Queen Victoria (that's King George's twin sister for the USians - the sequel is not ready yet) used to be partial to a drop of Laudnum (opium in alcohol) and cocaine tincture (for period pains). Indeed Coca Cola originally used to be made with Coca leaves. And Kola nuts. FFS, that must have been a fearsome brew
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
April 24, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Lynn Pettis (4/24/2012)
david.wright-948385 (4/24/2012)
Freddie-304292 (4/24/2012)I don't think we would have a higher proportion of people taking drugs if we legalised them.
So your premise is that your everyday law abiding Joe or Joanne would be no more likely to try them when they're legal even though they have an implicit stamp of approval, and he or she would avoid addiction (isn't coke more addictive than alcohol?) and even if they did try them and give up, they would somehow avoid all long term effects. Hmm.
Just because something is legal does not mean everyone is going to try it.
Quite true. IIRC, in the 60's in the UK they made suicide legal (seriously, apparently it used to be a capitol offence - go figure). Not trying that for a laugh
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
April 24, 2012 at 6:18 pm
jfogel (4/24/2012)
Lynn Pettis (4/24/2012)
I have an idea, let's make all drugs illegal. I'm sorry, I watch TV and some of the side-effects of some drugs are worse than the disease they are supposed to treat.Better living through Chemistry. Yea, right.
"Side effects include blindness, bleeding from all orifices and death though rarely reported"
Hell - look at the potential side effects of Prozac. Knew someone who was on it after a suicide attempt. Side effeccts included "Increased risk of suicidal thoughts". But the list went on. And on. And on ...
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
April 25, 2012 at 1:45 am
I agree the current system of controlling drugs and their effects is not working. But let's be sure any alternative we come up with is going to be better. The current system may be broken, but in my opinion it's a whole lot better than the 'legalise it' option. Rather than "let's try something else", let's come up with something better.
Someone said something along the lines of "how do you know more people will use drugs if they're legalised": are you serious? How can more people NOT use something that's legal, unless some sort of message is promulgated into people's heads before legalisation. "We're making this legal, but you really don't want to try it". Spose that might work... "the power to choose removes the attraction to oppose" sort of thing.
April 25, 2012 at 2:34 am
david.wright-948385 (4/25/2012)
Someone said something along the lines of "how do you know more people will use drugs if they're legalised": are you serious? How can more people NOT use something that's legal, unless some sort of message is promulgated into people's heads before legalisation. "We're making this legal, but you really don't want to try it". Spose that might work... "the power to choose removes the attraction to oppose" sort of thing.
IMHO teenagers--the ones who are most likely to start experimenting with drugs--are partially attracted because they're illegal and thus glamorous. The opposite opinion--namely, that *everybody* would start using drugs if they were made legal--certainly isn't true either, and I'm pretty sure that countries which have relaxed their drug laws (e.g. the Netherlands) are not suffering excessive drug usage as a result.
(Oh, just in case someone thinks I have some sort of vested interest here, I don't drink or smoke and have never tried drugs of any kind! :-)).
April 25, 2012 at 2:54 am
We have a problem in the UK with binge drinking - in effect drinking until you drop. Just about all age groups are affected. Alcohol is legal, so it's possible to do that. It's (a) difficult and (b) expensive to do the same with drugs.
If legalised the first barrier would be removed.
With alcohol you end up with a hangover, cumulative damage to your liver, maybe some cuts and bruises and a few thousand dead brain cells. With some drugs you end up with an altered personality. Neither are good, but surely the latter is worse?
Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 200 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply