🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <74799l$t5h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, st...@dds.nl says...
[snip]
> > I now think you credit the PM with too much power :P
> 
> Nah, i'm just using him as a convenient target because i think he's a wanker
> :)  What i meant was basically if the majority party decided on doing that,
> then got the bill through.

OK, then I am afraid you have shot yourself in the foot there my friend. 
Given the overwhelming majority of the present ruling party this is 
exactly the position we are in. There is some degree of fear that this 
"new" Government will use this majority to force issues through, and the 
Queen's veto is no safety net and has not even been highlighted to show 
that Labour could not take advantage of their position. I think this 
shows how useless her veto is.

Both the PM and the Queen are backed by an array of advisors. Advisors  
are the behind the scenes people which often do not change when 
Government does and are the ones who make the decision regardless of the 
Queen or PM appearing to do so.

> But think, just having that figurehead who could theoretically veto something
> makes the government less likely to introduce something ridiculously
> controversial.

Such as what, Poll Tax or joining the European Monetary Union! ;)

> > This is so "I hate Bill Gates cos Windows is full of bugs". Like he wrote
> > it or something!
> 
> Nah nah.  Bill Gates is an amazing businessman, and anyone who claimes to hate
> him gets it from me right on the nose, but this is a whole nother flamewar ;)

No I was merely using him as an example to show that many times the 
person singled out as having power or responsibility does not. Only 
naivety leads to this way of thinking.

You are saying the Queen has this veto right but is actually a decision 
handled by her advisors since she is not qualified to make such 
decisions. They days of Queen's ruling are long gone. 

The same with the PM. He is just the front man. I would compare him with 
a film director taking credit for the work of his immense support staff, 
but a film director is a large part of film making. The PM has a much 
lesser role in governing the country so I would not like to discredit 
film directors. I hope you see where I am coming from now.

> > > whatever else - i don't condone heroin usage, but if someone wants to do it
> > > they shouldn't get in any trouble for that.
> > Heroin usage? OK, let us legalise Class A drugs for suicide since that is
> > what it amounts to.
> 
> Well not necessarily.  There are people out there who can take heroin
> responsibly.  It's less addictive than nicotine.

But there are far many that cannot. Plus there are a number of situations 

where a first time user could die from side effects which could be 
foreseen and treated when prescribed for a medical condition, but I 
cannot see Sainsbury's and Safeway being so careful in who they "sell" it 

to in an open market. ;)

> > But ignoring this obvious conclusion to the poor soul
> > taking the shit, the problem is financing the habit, hence the crime rate
> > related to drug abuse.
> 
> And if it were legalized and could be sold over the counter the crime rate
> related to the black market would disappear.  There would be a greatly

I doubt that. There are many crimes associated with alcoholism and other 
legal drug abuse so why would legalising such a drug cut the crime rate? 

> reduced rate related to people stealing trying to get money for their next
> fix, because it would be cheaper (the main reason why drugs are so expensive
> is because it's a high-risk trade for the drug barons - if that risk was
> gone, there would be no justification to charge so high).  There would be

Unless people would pay it. Plus, the price would have to be high to 
discourage use. I cannot see any benefit in having heroin widely 
available at cheap prices. 

> less drugs on the street which were dud - less rat poison in coke, less
> bicarbonate of soda in ecstasy, a precise measure of how many micrograms were

So you have not seen watered down beer. A legal "drug" tampered with by 
unscrupulous retailers! And how long before the cheapo supermarket brands 

using scrapings from the lab floor or lower quality source materials? It 
happens with alcohol and with cigarettes so why would heroin be any 
different.

> on your tab of acid, and so on.  If people know exactly what they're putting
> inside of themselves, they can prepare for it alot better.  Right now it's

Can you imagine the Government health warning (Surgeon General for our US 

readers) on that one :P

> like buying a bottle of drink which you don't know whether it's 50% alcohol
> or 10% alcohol or if it's even alcohol at all.

Alcohol percentage labelling is a very new concept. Given how long 
alcohol has been available over the counter, do you think all your 
wonderful suggestions will be even considered by the first "legal" drug 
lords?

> 
> This is one of those issues which can drag on longer than warez is bad.  It
> happenned over the space of about 3 months on alt.music.techno a year or two
> ago...  To be honest completely do not understand anyone who is against the
> legalization of drugs.  There are so many positive sides to it - the only

Never heard a good reason for it. Pure and simple. 

The only real argument I have ever heard for legalisation are to enable 
accessible medical treatment for junkies. Surely prevention is better 
than cure and legalisation would provide a much wider problem so I do not 

consider this argument even vaguely valid.

I appreciate your concerns that this topic could make "warez is bad" look 

like a fleeting thought, but since you brought it up, at least say why 
there are any possible benefits in legalisation of drugs. Besides, later 
comments look like we may be here for some time ;) 

Surely we would be far better showing people how to enjoy and enhance 
life without drugs including alcohol and cigarettes that to encourage 
escapism and degradationn into drug addiction. 

BTW, As I write I have a can of Stella in front of me and do smoke so 
don't think I am some prude but I appreciate it would be hippo critical 
to apply my comments only to the more dangerous drugs and even if only in 

Devil's Advocate persona this would be your retort ;)

> argument against it is based in the stigma our society has cultivated over the
> last 75 years or so.

I have never met anyone who is better off after taking heroin or other 
Class A drugs regardless of the price or quality of product. 

I have never taken a Class A drug and not because of any stigma. How many 

times has a society frowned upon an action only for it to become 
commonplace - immigration, abortion, sex, alcohol, homosexuals, lesbians, 

TV, sex/violence in films, pornography etc. I really do not think that 
any "stigma" you believe is attached to drug taking is relevant. It is 
not difficult to get hold of Class A drugs even though they are illegal. 
Many people choose not to take them and I doubt they ever regret that 
decision. Very few people choose not to drink. Until a few years ago very 

few people chose not to smoke. It was legal, it was available, it was 
what everyone did. And you want to place heroin in this same society and 
expect it to be used well?

> 
> > Feel free to expand. What exactly do you see as their good
> > implementation?
> 
> Okay.  Three main things.  The first two i have already said - having a
> publicly elected person with power of veto.  Now obviously it's not perfect,
> but it's better than having a traditional bloodline-based one, and it's alot
> better than having one chosen by the government anyway.

You are stubborn, the "bloodline" veto right is not worth the paper is 
was once written on. 

You prefer we elect one person to have this right. One guy has a bad day, 

get's up late or has a fight with his wife and happens to veto something 
that the rest of the world know should not be vetoed, but who cares that 
is what we want him to do! We want to give *one* person this power. Hmm. 
Don't think so...

> 
> The second thing is the constitution.  I think it's very important that every
> person must have some basic, elementary list of rights which can't be changed
> without alot of legal hoo-hah.	(Damn i must be getting old to say something

Are there not international laws providing basic human rights?

Also, the EC has also been fundamental in establishing many rights for 
member states that would never have come from a constitution and a 
constitution may well have held up or made impossible these very changes. 


Finally who picks what goes in? Not you and me!

[snip]

> And the third thing is the interaction at the state/federal level.  I think
> the US would have splintered a long time ago if it hadn't been for the
> relationship between the states and the union.	States are allowed to have
> their own laws in most things which don't go against the constitution. 
> States all have an equal say in government.  Although the house is made up on
> a by-population basis, the senate is made up of 2 senators from each state,
> meaning a crappy little state in the Midwest has just as much clout as, say,
> NY.  This is a way i could see the EU working.

The EU is very complex at the moment. Plus it wants to remove *all* 
"state" power and centralise. This is obviously not going to happen. Most 

of it seems set up OK. Countries are well represented but it does seem to 

be a case of he who shouts loudest. Plus we have 3 Presidents in the EU!

Besides, most countries have some level of local control (state) that 
does not go against Government (federal). The US is just much bigger 
scale and there is no way that they could hope to successfully implement 
one central system. I think this is far more why it has the system it 
does than any conscious decision about the protection of the citizens.

> > > similar to the Queen in the UK, but at least there is that backup.
> > A backup that is so unlikely to be taken as to be irrelevant.
> 
> But it's there!  That's important.

Not for much longer!

[snip]

> > I wasn't even referring to the latest members or non members. More the
> > long standing EC membership of "whole" countries without internal
> > dispute. Even these countries have many differences which must be
> > overcome before full harmonisation is achieved. At present Germany is
> > determined to take over the finances for the whole of Europe and I do not
> > see this as an advantage to anyone outside of Germany.
> 
> Oh i was comparing the Czech Rep. and the Slovak Rep. from Czechoslovakia to
> Germany/England/France etc from the EU.  They're not making the effort to
> unite - they seem too busy accentuating their differences.

Huh? Europe is one *big* place. Many Eastern European countries are not 
members of the EC and I do not see how their internal squabbles over 
territory relate to the EC's attempt at harmonisation. The EC are trying 
to build one *big* thing from many parts, while Eastern Europe seems to 
take one big thing and make many parts. Then each part wants to become 
part of the growing EC! Maybe they should have skipped a step somewhere 
;)

> 
> > > Which is precisely why a constitution is needed.  Get that down and you have
> > And that wouldn't require 50 years of arguing ;)
> 
> Okay, so what we need is a common enemy for all Europeans so they can unite.
> The English did a good job in the US, maybe they could do it again ;)
> 
> Actually - and just suspend your rationality for a sec here - i've often

OK...

> thought that if some aliens decided to attack the Earth it'd be the number
> one way to get all the countries to unite and mark the start of a proper
> planetary union instead of continuing on with the silly lines on the map. 
> Then of course we'd need an intergalactic menace to unite the Milky Way... 
> Then an interdimensional menace to unite the universe...  Then. . . . :)

Very astute! :)

Interesting. Seems the only way that society will jump to the next stage. 

We have the rather unlikely alien invasion. The increasing common 
asteroid/meteor threats. Un curable disease. The third world war. 

1) Alien invasion ... mass destruction, loss of life
Had to throw in the "unlikely" Alien comment since it looks like "warez 
is bad" all over again so we may as well cover everything that comes up, 
but I want to leave them for another day...
Besides, why would they be hostile? Although, why would they be 
benevolent? 

2) Asteroids ... mass destruction, loss of life
We are only suffering minor problems at present, but history shows that 
we have had some major "hits" so the possibility is quite apparent.

3) Disease ... mass destruction, loss of life
We currently have AIDS, cancer, that one that eat's you alive inside 24 
hours and a few less common ones. Something definitely seems determined 
to wipe us out, or maybe it is just the Natural Selection process trying 
to cull the species a bit. Whatever, this is a current and future 
problem, and each new disease seems to be that bit harder to 
cure/prevent. Take AIDS, what better way to wipe out a species than to 
make reproduction deadly. 

4) Third world war ... mass destruction, loss of life
Although with the break up of Russian Communism, this threat whether 
there or not is somewhat cooler than the cold war, the situation in 
Eastern Europe is an accident wafting to happen. If it does, it will be 
deadly.
Also, with the East/West cold war on ice, the US will turn it's 
benevolent head towards the other super power just to make sure they are 
OK. China is an unknown quantity, and the US might just be able to rub 
her up the wrong way. Still, whether it happens or not, the threat is 
still there, just a little less defined.

5) We keep going as we are until the planet is so f****d up, we cannot 
survive ... mass destruction, loss of life.
Our planet is a dangerous place. Even before we interfered, 
hurricanes, tidal waves, volcanoes and earth quakes have all been cause 
of human disaster. Now our arrogant abuse of the planet has subtly 
changed the order of things, and these natural phenomenon are becoming 
more frequent, more widespread and more destructive. The East coast of 
the US has always been a hurricane target, but if you look at the 
hurricane paths of the last 100 years, you can see how the now travel 
further, and we now have had more dying as the hit the UK on their 
upward path, than ever before. 

You are suggesting what seems a very likely prospect, the threat of 
humans being finally destroyed once and for all will bring us together as 

a species and break down race/cultural barriers. Alien invasion was an 
obvious one, but I thought I'd add what I see as other possibilities to 
the list. 

Whether this new love of fellow man could survive a solution to the 
problem would be another matter but we will assume it does. The human 
race is now as caring for each other as other animals are for members of 
their own species. We are united. Maybe, we can get on with the rest of 
life and all live happily ever after.

I think it is the only way that we will move forward from the current 
level of society. (Yet again we come back to changes in society, I 
remember that one from "warez is bad").

BTW, this opinion that we seem to share on a threat to all mankind being 
required to draw us together seems to be shared by many. Just look at how 

many films today build on this simple concept and no other. I think 
everyone realise just how f****d up we all are and what extremes it will 
take to stop the rot. :)

-- 
Mark