What happened when Portugal decriminalised drugs? - The Economist

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But it's not just these issues. They're stance on virtually every issue is backwards, outdated, or anti-science.

Maybe, but they are still safer than the alternative. It makes no difference in my life if some hippies get busted for possession or if Harper thinks Jebus talks to him. The alternative is still way riskier. When Joanna Carroll is the Liberal leader instead of dimwit I will vote for them.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Maybe, but they are still safer than the alternative. It makes no difference in my life if some hippies get busted for possession or if Harper thinks Jebus talks to him. The alternative is still way riskier. When Joanna Carroll is the Liberal leader instead of dimwit I will vote for them.

"Way riskier" in terms of what? The economy? Bwa ha ha ha!! Because the Libs or the NDs will do an even worse job?

• 10 consecutive federal budget surpluses with previous Liberal governments, under Harper, 7 straight consecutive deficits.
• worst record of economic growth of any Prime Minister since RB Bennett and the great depression.
• Under Stephen Harper, household debt has exploded. The average household debt-to-income ratio has risen from $1.31 to $1.64 -- which is where the United States was before the housing market crashed.
• A significant contributor to household debt can be traced to rising housing prices. Mr. Harper's finance minister, Jim Flaherty, helped fuel the housing bubble with his irresponsible introduction of 40-year mortgages with zero down-payment.
• Between 1996-97 and 2005-06, the Liberal government paid $81.4-billion against the national debt.
• Fact: The federal debt in the fiscal year 1996-97 was $562.9-billion. By the time the Liberals left office in 2006, it was reduced to $481.5-billion • In contrast, by the year 2014-15, the Conservatives will have added $176,400,000,000 to the national debt.
Let me say that again, Stephen Harper has added and will add $176,400,000,000 to our debt.
• Fact: The Conservative federal debt in 2008-09 = $457.6-billion.
• Fact: The expected Conservative debt in 2014-15 = $634.0-billion (forecasted).
• Fact: 24% of the total accumulated debt since Confederation was amassed under Stephen Harper, this just since 2008.
This is the real and true economic and fiscal record of the Harper era.

The cons are as backward and hopeless when it comes to the economy as they are with everything else. The fact that anyone believes otherwise just shows how effective the ads (that they spent millions of your money on) have been.

But I suppose you probably meant that it is a risk that the Libs or NDs might not mollycoddle the precious wee babies in the oil industry the way that papa Harper does.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by The Familia

I don't do any drugs whatsoever, but I say legalize it. If someone overdoses on cocaine or meth they must pay 100% of the medical costs to save their lives. Tired of supporting people who make bad decisions. Free will and a free society. People know the risks, so if they want to go ahead and use drugs be my guest. Don't take my hard earned money to save your life after you OD'ed though. I have no sympathy for drug addicts. No one forced them to start, but they cry when they can't stop.

That's a rather simpleton way of looking at things from someone who sounds like they've lived a pretty isolated life. People become addicts for a variety of reasons and even if they want to get off the drugs it's not just as simple as wanting to when you have a physiological addition. With some drugs if you quit cold turkey the withdrawl can literally kill you so you have to be weened off.

You've seen how hard it is for smokers to quit, some of the withdrawl symptoms of these drugs makes quitting smoking look like a walk in the park.

I'm for the complete legalization of weed and the decriminalization of the personal use of the rest of them. Don't criminalize the addiction, help treat the addiction.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

"Way riskier" in terms of what? The economy? Bwa ha ha ha!! Because the Libs or the NDs will do an even worse job?

• 10 consecutive federal budget surpluses with previous Liberal governments, under Harper, 7 straight consecutive deficits.
• worst record of economic growth of any Prime Minister since RB Bennett and the great depression.
• Under Stephen Harper, household debt has exploded. The average household debt-to-income ratio has risen from $1.31 to $1.64 -- which is where the United States was before the housing market crashed.
• A significant contributor to household debt can be traced to rising housing prices. Mr. Harper's finance minister, Jim Flaherty, helped fuel the housing bubble with his irresponsible introduction of 40-year mortgages with zero down-payment.
• Between 1996-97 and 2005-06, the Liberal government paid $81.4-billion against the national debt.
• Fact: The federal debt in the fiscal year 1996-97 was $562.9-billion. By the time the Liberals left office in 2006, it was reduced to $481.5-billion • In contrast, by the year 2014-15, the Conservatives will have added $176,400,000,000 to the national debt.
Let me say that again, Stephen Harper has added and will add $176,400,000,000 to our debt.
• Fact: The Conservative federal debt in 2008-09 = $457.6-billion.
• Fact: The expected Conservative debt in 2014-15 = $634.0-billion (forecasted).
• Fact: 24% of the total accumulated debt since Confederation was amassed under Stephen Harper, this just since 2008.
This is the real and true economic and fiscal record of the Harper era.

The cons are as backward and hopeless when it comes to the economy as they are with everything else. The fact that anyone believes otherwise just shows how effective the ads (that they spent millions of your money on) have been.

But I suppose you probably meant that it is a risk that the Libs or NDs might not mollycoddle the precious wee babies in the oil industry the way that papa Harper does.

Pffft. What does cold hard data have to do with a political discussion?

[AcGold]

With a legitimate hardcore addiction with tolerance and withdrawal there's usually more under the surface and the addiction is a method of coping with serious psychological issues. Rarely do productive normal people turn into meth addicts, it's more often people that have experienced severe trauma or neglect when they were younger. That's not something you can just walk off and tough it out.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

With a legitimate hardcore addiction with tolerance and withdrawal there's usually more under the surface and the addiction is a method of coping with serious psychological issues. Rarely do productive normal people turn into meth addicts, it's more often people that have experienced severe trauma or neglect when they were younger. That's not something you can just walk off and tough it out.

Opiates are a totally different beast. It's now the number 1 problem drug and the original sources for the drug are often totally legal. These are "oxy’s", codeine, and the like.

Had a patient once about 8 or 9 years ago that was on morphine slow release 200mg twice daily for "pain". It started out as a smaller dose the doctor would give him a month at a time. He was always needing early refills because he "lost it" or they "fell down the sink" or something similar every month. So the doctor put him on weekly fills to better control the quantity he was getting. The dose kept escalating as as well as his pain wasn't in control. He was still "losing" them or they were getting "stolen", etc all the time. Finally the doctor put him on daily dispense. This went on for about 6 more months. The doctor got wind he might have been selling some of them so he asked us to witness him taking the morning dose when we dispensed it. The very first day he ended up in emergency with an overdose. He'd never taken them before. They were paid for by the government, and he could sell them to a local dealer for really good money to help supplement his low income.

Another time a guy had a prescription for percocet($5/pill street value) that could be dispensed 70 every week. He actually asked if we could dispense them in 7 bottles of 10.

Then there was the guy who brought in a prescription from the emergency room for percocet. I looked at his pharmanet profile and noted he had 30 tablets dispensed just 2 days prior. I called the doctor and discussed it with him and he cancelled it. When the guy came back he said, and I quote:
" Aw come on man! It's New Year's Eve and I don't even have any beer..."

Keep in mind, if you're on social services or Non Insured Health Benefits (Status) you can make a pretty good income by getting these narcotics. If I get a prescription for 100 tablets a month (that's actually common) that's a cool $500. Even if you're not covered, it only costs maybe $30 in the pharmacy. That's some good margin right there.

I don't know what the solution is, but the problem is exploding in its reach right now and less regulation scares me

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Mr. Harper's finance minister, Jim Flaherty, helped fuel the housing bubble with his irresponsible introduction of 40-year mortgages with zero down-payment.

Good post, but I don't understand this point above. Haven't mortgages since been capped at 25 years, and require minimum 5% down payment?

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Good post, but I don't understand this point above. Haven't mortgages since been capped at 25 years, and require minimum 5% down payment?

Yeah they have since fixed their mistake. But it was a huge mistake at the time and it contributed to the large and unsustainable bubble.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I don't know what the solution is, but the problem is exploding in its reach right now and less regulation scares me

Well yeah, obviously don't just deregulate the sale of prescription pills. I was talking about street drugs not pharmaceuticals, completely legalizing either a bad idea for many reasons obviously.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Well yeah, obviously don't just deregulate the sale of prescription pills. I was talking about street drugs not pharmaceuticals, completely legalizing either a bad idea for many reasons obviously.

The number one street drug in many cities now is prescription opiods. That's what my long winded post was getting at

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by AcGold

With such blatant ignorance it's like he's begging to lose his job. Harpers house is a few blocks away from mine and nobody I know likes him, will be shocked if he's re elected. People that live in the same community as the prime minister don't even like the guy.

You don't appreciate living in the same neighbourhood as royalty? What is the matter with you?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Good post, but I don't understand this point above. Haven't mortgages since been capped at 25 years, and require minimum 5% down payment?

Yes...that 40 year mortgage thing was in place for less than a year. It's pretty irrelevant though, as it's not Canadian money fuelling the craziness right now, it's foreign investment and immigration. Reducing mortgage lengths from 40 to 25 years has literally no effect on housing prices. They continue to rise.

Just as the 2009 budget deficits had everything to do with the global economic crisis and little to do with domestic policies.

[jayswin]

Haha, this is turning into the most disjointed, catch all thread in CP history.

Legalize illicit drugs!
Prescription drugs are a problem!
Economy!
Mortgages are out of control!
That was fixed!
Fixed now, but they used to be broken!
Economy!
Global crisis!
Drugs!

I think some need to read the OP and thread title, otherwise we're going to have about ten different discussions by tomorrow.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by The Familia

I don't do any drugs whatsoever, but I say legalize it. If someone overdoses on cocaine or meth they must pay 100% of the medical costs to save their lives. Tired of supporting people who make bad decisions. Free will and a free society. People know the risks, so if they want to go ahead and use drugs be my guest. Don't take my hard earned money to save your life after you OD'ed though. I have no sympathy for drug addicts. No one forced them to start, but they cry when they can't stop.

That would have to extend to people who drink, eat a ####ty diet, play sports, people who speed while driving ( driving in general) , work in dangerous jobs etc etc... They knew the risks aswell right?


What your suggesting is switching to the Americans previous healthcare system and that just simply does not work.