«12. . .865866867868869870871. . .2,1812,182»
Which is still less than the expense of imprisonment. I don't feel that my tax money should be used to pursue a method of action multiple Parliamentary reports have found to be self-destructive to the nation's finances, especially when the state is running such a high deficit. There's a nice Guardian article I read a few months ago about the subject (ah, found it) -> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/01/ministers-war-on-drugs-policy-british
You can only rehab the willing. Sure, a segment of those who need it voluntarily drop in on NA meetings. or realize there is a problem and have the insurance to cover a rehab program. But there are going to be those who get high and do something really really stupid or do something really really stupid to get high. And wind up behind bars where their time is focused on rehab.
Greetings....
You quoted an editorial piece (also known as an opinion piece) to back your position. I am not interested in another opinion, I have plenty of my own. Verifiable facts and figures work a lot better.
Putting that error aside for the moment, you are comparing apples and oranges. Great Britain has a national health system that covers things like drug addiction and rehab. So far the United States managed to avoid that plague.
Personally, I really do not give two hoots over what someone else puts in their body. It is none of my business and none of anyone else's business. But that status exists right up to the point that substance in their body (or lack of that substance) begins to effect the rest of us. At that point it becomes everyone's business.
But another thought comes to mind. Are you suggesting that when a drug user is caught with his gun out, knocking over a liquor store that user should be sent to rehab instead of jail? Tell me you are not suggesting that the penalty for a criminal act like robbery, assault, theft, burglary, etc should be mitigated in anyway by whether or not the perpetrator was high or going through withdrawal.
Post self-deleted by Remmerria.
See what the article cites:
Firstly, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/30/punitive-drug-laws-are-failing-study on the effectiveness of punitive drug legislation, and secondly, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report on the benefits of legalisation
Did I ever say that? Did I ever imply that robberies should be unpunished? I've always been advocating for reform regarding the consumption of drugs (which is why I quoted myself above) and simply, I don't feel that a larger governmental apparatus using ever-greater public funds should be built to imprison nonviolent offenders rather than treat them for what the Home Office and multiple think tanks, even in the Americas, has found to be a medical rather than law-enforcement issue.
That's better. I stopped reading when I figured out someone was going to tell me what to think. But you are still missing the point. The authors of the repoprt sure did. Hard drug users commit lots of crimes to support their habits. There was no reference or projection of the cost of these crimes to the victims. Nor did they discuss the cost of prosecuting and punishing addicts committing crimes to support their now legal habit.
The only time a drug user needing treatment is going to come to the attention of the authorities is after they crash their car, get caught stealing, kill someone during a robbery, etc, etc, etc. By that time it is also a criminal matter. So doing it your way we still have to pay for putting them through the criminal system, pay for punishment and then add the cost of rehab to that price tag.
There is no way that is a cost saving move. (Sounds a little like Obama telling us what a swell deal Obamacare was going to be.)
I still do not see why we taxpayers should pick up the tab of someone's bad choice. Where is the personal responsibility on the person that screwed up? I really need to hear why the taxpayers need to be picking up the tab on any medical bills resulting from incredibly bad personal decisions.
Ok, so we have drug addicted people committing crimes to support their habit. First you say those people need to do the time for their crime. But then, in the same paragraph you tell us drug offenders need to be dealt with as a medical problem. You cannot have it both ways.
Perhaps you are referring only to people that have not been caught breaking the law[1] (yet)? Should offenders who's only offense is simple possession be taken straight to rehab? Is this a voluntary ride or is this like a mental hold?
If that is the case, I am not seeing a lot of deterrence factor here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Other then simple possession and/or use laws.
The faith that some Americans have in the British National Health Service is astonishing. The United States also has government hospitals - the county hospitals and so on. Why do you assume that British government hospitals are any better? Whether it is drug addiction treatment or anything else the "NHS" is not the place to go. As for the United States - after years of getting better drug abuse has got worse in recent years, like the decline in the fertility rate, it is a sign in the collapse of hope - people think the future is going to bad (very bad) and they are correct.
Foreign Invasion Force Takes On Small Farming Community
LEGISLATION PENDING
The Issue
Taking advantage of your limited military capacity, the remote nation of Wezeltonia has invaded one of your distant overseas territories, the Bald Eagle Isles. They claim sovereignty over the islands, despite The United States Personified's colonialists having lived there for generations. An emergency meeting has been convened to discuss the matter.
The Debate
"We should never have allowed our military to become this pathetic," sighs Anne-Marie Barnes, your only Military Advisor. "It's an open invitation for invasions. If we're going to protect our shores against this enemy we need a show of strength - gather what resources we have and send them to protect the Bald Eagle Isles. Time is of the essence!"
This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
"I was never trained for this!" wails Private Buy Hanover, knock-kneed and rosy-cheeked. "If we go to full scale war with Wezeltonia we're sure to lose, I just know it! Couldn't we try, uh, 'dip-low-mah-tic relations'? A little talk over tea and biscuits goes a long way! Then no one will need to go to w-w-war. Ahem. War."
Accept
"Let's not let national pride blind us to the facts," argues Sophie Steele, an amateur historian. "I mean, those islands are practically next door to Wezeltonia, it's not unreasonable to assume they might want to claim them. Where's the benefit in wasting billions of Dollars on protecting a handful of colonials anyway? There's nothing there but grass, mud, and Bald Eagle farms."
Accept
"Those 'colonials' are proud, legal citizens of the Epitome of The United States Personified, moron," says William Han, fully bedecked in a suit fashioned after the national flag. "And they deserve to be protected! A slight against one of us is a slight against all of us! We've gotta show those Wezeltonians we mean business! If you take over the factories, institute an emergency draft, and get as many battleships and fighter jets out there as possible then we might stand a chance! No expense is too costly for the lives of The United States Personified's sons and daughters!"
Accept
The Government Position
The government has indicated its intention to follow the recommendations of Option 1.
Dismiss This Issue
My first chance to choose the head first early American trait in war. Charge ahead with an ill prepared army!
So Spain now has a law on the books to charge search engines and aggregation sites for the use of snippets from news articles. The law has no way for journalism companies to opt out of the charges. The aggregation site Google News shuts down its service stating that there are no advertisements on the site and therefore Google makes no revenue from the use of the snippets; they closed a loosing venture. Once closed a double digit drop in article traffic was observed:
https://gigaom.com/2014/12/16/traffic-to-spanish-news-publishers-plummets-after-google-move/
Now Spain is considering the development of a law to force companies to keep their aggregation sites running so that news site can implement the charges:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/15/force-google-news-to-stay-in-spain-newsp
I guess the next logical step is to keep the site running and turn off the aggregation algorithm so that nothing is displayed on the site. This story is kind of ridiculous.
Hi!
Hi!
So far it all makes sense. Can't imagine why companies are not falling all over themselves to invest in that country. But that leads to another question. What is to keep google from simply closing all assets in Spain and hosting the site somewhere out of Spain's reach?
Yeah, that's not going to work. If the company is gone, what does Spain have in mind? Drag Google's News Service back inside their borders, kicking and screaming every inch of the way?
There is nothing logical about any of these steps. However, there is a business opportunity here for someone that wants to set up a search engine in some financial haven with no extradition to Spain.
True for Google, especially with its about 90% market share in Europe. They could probably close all Spanish assets and the Spanish people will still go to Google through the other European webpages or through the US webpage.
Europe is a bit too well-connected to just flout Spanish law. I expect that the Spanish authorities would have a friendly neighboring EU country seize Google assets. Closing shop in Spain (at least for Google News) seems like a rational move to me.
The EU has to sign off it first, don't they? However, that may be nothing more then a rubber stamp, so... yeah.
I say good for Google, if Spain wants to be a prick, I'm sure Google has the power and finances to be a dick right back.
I agree with the above comment. Maybe a poll?
Already had one in the works when I saw your post. I find it difficult to find reasons to support Spain's position.
Also, the NS World Fair starts today: 
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=316018
Take some time to participate or peruse the activities. Join some the IRC lecture halls. It is a good time to get to know some players outside of our region and the general state of NationStates as a whole.
Is it me or is the WA dead :o
no in vote or current resolutions
I read a bit of the link you posted. Have you been in on something like that before? Is there sort of a n00b guidebook or anything?
I do not believe there is one place to go for a guidebook to all of the things at the fair however general guides for new players can be found on the forums: forum.nationstates.net
Say that you are interested in the NS Sports thing for the fair, then click into the NS Sports category and the top pinned threads are general questions and guidebook meant for beginners. Usually the top threads in each category are guidebooks of sorts.
I more direct link to the NS World Fair: http://s15.zetaboards.com/NSWF3/index/
SA, in general I would say that the holidays are a time when less proposals are submitted to the WA due to holiday activities and such.
I would say this is a good thing, my stats will quit getting messed up for a while
About the poll. I don't think jumping parties in mid-term is anything that can be enforced with the exception of holding a special election so the scum sucking traitor can run under the new party. The fact is the person holding the office will vote for and support whatever floats their boat regardless of what label they are wearing at the time.
What I would like to see is something that forces the fatherless child to immediately refund all donations to his or her campaign. That includes paying fair market value for any goods and services contributed toward the election. Failing to repay that debt within 30 days of the next election would forever exclude the waste of space from ever running for any public office again.
Jumping parties once someone is in office is a betrayal of those that worked hard and/or gave to support their party. It also betrays people that supported the candidate in the primaries.
It really doesn't matter which party that is. Anyone that does that has no honor and no place in the government.
From your mouth to God's ears.
LMAO! Im using the Conservative theme, and it changes the nation destriptions to kind of funny ones,
example:
Democratic Socialists becomes Hell
Iron Fist Consumerists becomes Champions of Commerce
«12. . .865866867868869870871. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
