What are your unpopular opinions? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
hidetheelephants said:
This is the unpopular opinion thread. I have not argued for all drugs to be legalised. To expound on "and for the likes of cannabis etc legalise it and tax it", legalisation should be lead entirely by safety and harm reduction, there does seem evidence in favour of legalising cannabis and mushrooms, more equivocal for ecstasy, lsd and other synthetics like mcat. Cocaine, heroin, synthetics like fentanyl should not be legalised. For the last sentence; the drugs are there, prohibition is pointless, harmful and costs money. Piss tests and punishment for positive tests have encouraged users to use drugs that either are not tested for or have a short metabolic half life, these are very often more dangerous than the drugs they were consuming before.
Okay but if you see the effect that Spice or Monkey Dust has on people you may change your mind. Both of these drugs are legal and are not deemed dangerous.
Vice crimes gives criminals a vocation which mostly keeps them out of the way of ordinary law abiding people.
People in the drug trade are criminals, their money making skill usually isn't chemistry, logistics or retail it is a willingness to break the law and ability to get away with it.
If you decriminalize the drug trade these people don't go legit, and those that do won't stick with it for all that long.
They will go find new ways to make money breaking the law which could include theft, robbery, fraud, arms dealing, kidnapping, extortion etc.
It's currently fairly easy to avoid crossing paths with a drug dealers by not buying drugs. You can't avoid the harm caused by arms dealing just by not buying weapons and it's very difficult to completely avoid the risk of being robbed, defrauded, extorted or kid napped, so the less people out there doing that the better.
It's a shame we have to throw those people most likely to suffer addictions to the wolves to keep ourselves safe but it's pretty affective.
People in the drug trade are criminals, their money making skill usually isn't chemistry, logistics or retail it is a willingness to break the law and ability to get away with it.
If you decriminalize the drug trade these people don't go legit, and those that do won't stick with it for all that long.
They will go find new ways to make money breaking the law which could include theft, robbery, fraud, arms dealing, kidnapping, extortion etc.
It's currently fairly easy to avoid crossing paths with a drug dealers by not buying drugs. You can't avoid the harm caused by arms dealing just by not buying weapons and it's very difficult to completely avoid the risk of being robbed, defrauded, extorted or kid napped, so the less people out there doing that the better.
It's a shame we have to throw those people most likely to suffer addictions to the wolves to keep ourselves safe but it's pretty affective.
andym1603 said:
Okay but if you see the effect that Spice or Monkey Dust has on people you may change your mind. Both of these drugs are legal and are not deemed dangerous.
Neither are legal for sensible reasons.e-honda said:
If you decriminalize the drug trade these people don't go legit, and those that do won't stick with it for all that long.
They will go find new ways to make money breaking the law which could include theft, robbery, fraud, arms dealing, kidnapping, extortion etc.
You're taking a reasonable point, that drug dealers aren't going to magically stop being criminals, and extrapolating it well beyond reality; the drug trade is worth an estimated £10bn a year, they are going to struggle to find even a small fraction of that in those other areas. Even the crime du jour, blackmailing gullible people who take dick pics, is worth perhaps a tenth of one percent of that. A proportion of them will continue their life of crime, but with much less money with which to buy influence and accomplices and most of those other criminal endevours being easier to detect they will end up in jail. Others will go straight because the money's better, entry level drug mules are not living on Park Lane.They will go find new ways to make money breaking the law which could include theft, robbery, fraud, arms dealing, kidnapping, extortion etc.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Friday 31st May 02:12
e-honda said:
You can't avoid the harm caused by arms dealing just by not buying weapons
I'm pretty sure Tony Blair said that Labour had eradicated gun crime in the UK by making the possession of hand guns illegal so anyone buying, selling, or possessing a hand gun is jolly naughty and should apologise pretty swiftly.Housing benefit. It should be scrapped.
Why? Market forces. Rents would fall due to lack of affordability. That would make some landlords have to sell up. House prices would drop do to increased availability.. Housing as an asset class would be less attractive - money would flow into startups, maybe - increase productivity, innovation etc... Wages may have to raise making employers again look at increased productivity and investing in their businesses....
I'd hesitate to call myself left wing (or any kind of wing to be honest) but taxing everyone to give money to the rentier class to allow the lower payed to be able to live in their buildings at inflated rents whilst working for companies also owned by similar people who then don't have to pay an actual living wage (including living costs) seems a little inequitable... And it probaby stifles innovation and productivity.
Why? Market forces. Rents would fall due to lack of affordability. That would make some landlords have to sell up. House prices would drop do to increased availability.. Housing as an asset class would be less attractive - money would flow into startups, maybe - increase productivity, innovation etc... Wages may have to raise making employers again look at increased productivity and investing in their businesses....
I'd hesitate to call myself left wing (or any kind of wing to be honest) but taxing everyone to give money to the rentier class to allow the lower payed to be able to live in their buildings at inflated rents whilst working for companies also owned by similar people who then don't have to pay an actual living wage (including living costs) seems a little inequitable... And it probaby stifles innovation and productivity.
captain_cynic said:
This in spades.
At first I thought the guy might have a genuinely unpopular opinion and gave him the benefit of the doubt, then he fell back on the "it was just a joke (but not remotely funny)" trope and proved he was just a troll, and not a good troll at that.
Possibly unpopular opinion... People who try to claim other people don't get their jokes are the ones with no sense of humour. It isn't the comedian who decides what's funny, it's the audience. Right up there with "If I told a joke on this forum I'd be banned", I've a fairly offbeat and dark sense of humour myself but if you're one bad joke away from getting banned you really should look at how you communicate with other people.
Oh God, the overthinkers are here, lighten up dude. At first I thought the guy might have a genuinely unpopular opinion and gave him the benefit of the doubt, then he fell back on the "it was just a joke (but not remotely funny)" trope and proved he was just a troll, and not a good troll at that.
Possibly unpopular opinion... People who try to claim other people don't get their jokes are the ones with no sense of humour. It isn't the comedian who decides what's funny, it's the audience. Right up there with "If I told a joke on this forum I'd be banned", I've a fairly offbeat and dark sense of humour myself but if you're one bad joke away from getting banned you really should look at how you communicate with other people.
The thread doesn't come with provisos or stipulations on content, trollery is welcome, nay encouraged.
it's about unpopular opinions, whether serious or lighthearted.
v9 said:
Countdown said:
I think a person is an addict if they would struggle to give something up, and get grumpy if they're forced to. Just because you "only do it in moderation or rarely" doesn't mean you're not addicted.
With the greatest respect, I don’t think you quite understand what the term means in a clinical context. If you forced me to give up sleeping I’d be more than a little grumpy, but I’m not addicted to sleep. bodhi said:
Trying to put your political opponent in jail on fairly spurious charges that wouldn't have been brought against anyone else in the country ain't a great look and is closer to banana republic stuff rather than democracy.
/Hides
That’s not unpopular it’s simply incorrect in the case you’re clearly alluding to./Hides
Not many banana republics use a jury of 12 peers that the defence team get to help select btw.
djc206 said:
bodhi said:
Trying to put your political opponent in jail on fairly spurious charges that wouldn't have been brought against anyone else in the country ain't a great look and is closer to banana republic stuff rather than democracy.
/Hides
That’s not unpopular it’s simply incorrect in the case you’re clearly alluding to./Hides
Not many banana republics use a jury of 12 peers that the defence team get to help select btw.
Please note I have no dog in that particular fight, as my choice would be none of the above. However trying to imprison your political adversary over an admin error is not good.
bodhi said:
They'd be more than ok with the judge presiding over the case donating to the head of the banana republic and their daughter being a major fundraiser for them however.
Please note I have no dog in that particular fight, as my choice would be none of the above. However trying to imprison your political adversary over an admin error is not good.
I like your posts, bods, but IMO you're way off with this. It was not an 'admin error', nothing of the sort. Nobody is 'trying to imprison' the orange one, in fact, that is very unlikely to happen. So what if the judge's daughter fundraises? She's not the judge. How could any judges serve on any cases? There would be constant conflicts. Please note I have no dog in that particular fight, as my choice would be none of the above. However trying to imprison your political adversary over an admin error is not good.
The system worked well in this case. Both sides chose the twelve jurors, who took the job seriously, asked for relevant parts of the evidence to be read to them again, and they unanimously agreed on 34 counts.
The guilty man had the opportunity to testify in his own defence. He declined.
bodhi said:
djc206 said:
bodhi said:
Trying to put your political opponent in jail on fairly spurious charges that wouldn't have been brought against anyone else in the country ain't a great look and is closer to banana republic stuff rather than democracy.
/Hides
That’s not unpopular it’s simply incorrect in the case you’re clearly alluding to./Hides
Not many banana republics use a jury of 12 peers that the defence team get to help select btw.
Please note I have no dog in that particular fight, as my choice would be none of the above. However trying to imprison your political adversary over an admin error is not good.
Just because Trump's supporters have said it over and over and over again, doesn't make it true. if it was THAT easy to manipulate the US Justice system do you not think Trump himself would have tried to manipulate it? i mean when he asked the Ukrainian president for evidence against Biden, or when he asked the Georgia SoS for "11,000 more votes"....?
paulguitar said:
The guilty man had the opportunity to testify in his own defence. He declined.
Not only that, he said his Lawyers warned him that if he testified he'd be done for perjury. Let's just work that through; his OWN lawyers are telling him he's too much of a born liar to testify in his own defence.Bugger me sideways with a small aubergine - his OWN Lawyers are calling him an inveterate liar who can't control himself, are they also part of the Deep State conspiracy?
21st Century Man said:
otolith said:
21st Century Man said:
I reckon all these things should be lumped together at the same age. Sex, marriage, voting, driving, drinking, smoking etc. It seems daft that there can be a range from say 14 to 21 for different things that in terms of maturity, responsibility, self determination etc aren't too different.
Different consequences, to themselves and others, and differently enforceable, though. Apparently it's legal to be married as young as 12 with parental consent
https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/12-year-olds-...
https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/12-year-olds-...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff