Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion
Options

banning legal highs

Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in General Discussion #1
Would you be for or against a ban?

Would you be for or against a ban? 67 votes

Yes
49% 33 votes
No
50% 34 votes
«13

Comments

  • Options
    SemieroticSemierotic Posts: 11,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #2
    All fun should be illegal. Except alcohol, apparently.
  • Options
    CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #3
    I tend to be against banning anything.
  • Options
    Sky_GuySky_Guy Posts: 6,859
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #4
    Is there a point, if people want to do it, they will find a way.
  • Options
    Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #5
    Semierotic wrote: »
    All fun should be illegal. Except alcohol, apparently.

    It does make you wonder if they will end up banning anything that make people fill good /happy.
  • Options
    James FrederickJames Frederick Posts: 53,184
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #6
    Semierotic wrote: »
    All fun should be illegal. Except alcohol, apparently.

    Why not alcohol I would prefer that to be banned over a lot of other stuff.
  • Options
    davordavor Posts: 6,874
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    No, why ban it. People who want to use it they'll find a way no matter what. All drugs should be legalised and taxed heavily. That way it stops drug dealers and criminals from making profits and all the money goes to the people instead. From that money governments can fund social welfare, NHS even drug rehabs if needed. The way how it is now, everyone who wants to use drugs can get it and use it illegally and only criminals profit from it and they put tha money they make from selling drugs into doing more bad things.

    Legalise drugs and use the money for the good things - problem solved.
  • Options
    KookyKatieKookyKatie Posts: 3,031
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #8
    Is 'Yes' a vote for for or against?

    Well, I'm in favour of legalisation. Moreover, there should be further research into psychedelics given that there's a small but growing body of evidence that they possess all sorts of therapeutic potential.

    It's incredible to think that hundreds of millions of people may have suffered unnecessarily from depression, anxiety, PTSD and addiction because government drug policy has been so draconian that research in the area stagnated for decades.
  • Options
    AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #9
    No. We should be following the New Zealand model of regulation.
  • Options
    Sky_GuySky_Guy Posts: 6,859
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #10
    James Frederick wrote: »
    Why not alcohol I would prefer that to be banned over a lot of other stuff.

    They tried that in the US, did not go well.
  • Options
    ResonanceResonance Posts: 16,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #11
    KookyKatie wrote: »
    Is 'Yes' a vote for for or against?

    That's what I was wondering :confused:
  • Options
    supertalksupertalk Posts: 948
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    So it's okay to get as drunk as you want or pollute your body with cigarettes. But you can't get high because the government say so.
  • Options
    The FBIThe FBI Posts: 2,205
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #13
    Strange poll
  • Options
    CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #14
    Aneechik wrote: »
    No. We should be following the New Zealand model of regulation.

    What is that? I've heard people mention it a few times without saying exactly what it is.
  • Options
    Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #15
    I think government would like to ban anything that is fun
  • Options
    JurassicMarkJurassicMark Posts: 12,871
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #16
    :confused: 'Yes' or 'No' are not valid answers to the poll question.
  • Options
    CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #17
    JurassicMark wrote: »
    :confused: 'Yes' or 'No' are not valid answers to the poll question.

    I noticed that too, it's pretty poorly worded.
  • Options
    Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #18
    JurassicMark wrote: »
    :confused: 'Yes' or 'No' are not valid answers to the poll question.

    YES they are

    Its yes for ban
    Its no if your against a ban
    What the have hell is wrong with yes or no answers
  • Options
    victor melvictor mel Posts: 4,963
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #19
    Definitely ban them. They are a nightmare especially in the care of the mentally ill. People are already vulnerable with these it makes the job twice as hard. Especially when there is usually no way to detect them. The usual tests rarely show up legal highs.
  • Options
    JurassicMarkJurassicMark Posts: 12,871
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #20
    Steve_Cardanas wrote: »
    YES they are

    Its yes for ban
    Its no if your against a ban
    What the have hell is wrong with yes or no answers

    No, they are not.

    Ask yourself the poll question, exactly as you have worded it, then answer it either 'Yes' or 'No' and you should realise that it doesn't make sense.
  • Options
    Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #21
    JurassicMark wrote: »
    No, they are not.

    Ask yourself the poll question, exactly as you have worded it, then answer it either 'Yes' or 'No' and you should realise that it doesn't make sense.

    Yes it is damn simple yes for ban, no against how should i fing worded it.
  • Options
    abarthmanabarthman Posts: 8,501
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #22
    I voted YES, but I am against the ban.

    Can someone who was going to YES for the ban now please vote NO in order to to offset my YES?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 816
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #23
    Steve_Cardanas wrote: »
    Yes it is damn simple yes for ban, no against how should i fing worded it.

    Yes for for it and no for no, against it.

    I think :)
  • Options
    JurassicMarkJurassicMark Posts: 12,871
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #24
    Steve_Cardanas wrote: »
    Yes it is damn simple yes for ban, no against how should i fing worded it.

    You have worded it "Would you be FOR or AGAINST a ban?" and 'Yes' or 'No' is not a valid answer to that question.
    It's a bit like tossing a coin and asking someone if it's heads or tails and them answering 'Yes'

    You could have worded it "Would you be FOR a ban?" and 'Yes' or 'No' would have been valid.

    You could have worded it "Would you be AGAINST a ban?" and 'Yes' or 'No' would have been valid.

    You could have kept your wording as "Would you be FOR or AGAINST a ban?" and had 'FOR' and 'AGAINST' as your poll options.
  • Options
    jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #25
    JurassicMark wrote: »
    You have worded it "Would you be FOR or AGAINST a ban?" and 'Yes' or 'No' is not a valid answer to that question.
    It's a bit like tossing a coin and asking someone if it's heads or tails and them answering 'Yes'

    You could have worded it "Would you be FOR a ban?" and 'Yes' or 'No' would have been valid.

    You could have worded it "Would you be AGAINST a ban?" and 'Yes' or 'No' would have been valid.

    You could have kept your wording as "Would you be FOR or AGAINST a ban?" and had 'FOR' and 'AGAINST' as your poll options.
    JurassicMark wrote: »
    No, they are not.

    Ask yourself the poll question, exactly as you have worded it, then answer it either 'Yes' or 'No' and you should realise that it doesn't make sense.
    JurassicMark wrote: »
    :confused: 'Yes' or 'No' are not valid answers to the poll question.

    Only on DS could there be an argument about the (correct) wording of a simple poll.

    It's perfectly clear to me, but you seem determined to overthink it.
  • Options
    too_much_coffeetoo_much_coffee Posts: 2,978
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #26
    davor wrote: »
    No, why ban it. People who want to use it they'll find a way no matter what. All drugs should be legalised and taxed heavily. That way it stops drug dealers and criminals from making profits and all the money goes to the people instead. From that money governments can fund social welfare, NHS even drug rehabs if needed. The way how it is now, everyone who wants to use drugs can get it and use it illegally and only criminals profit from it and they put tha money they make from selling drugs into doing more bad things.

    Legalise drugs and use the money for the good things - problem solved.

    If many currently banned drugs were legalised and regulated then the need for potentially dangerous and unregulated "legal" highs would diminish.

    Legalisation would take huge amounts of money out of the hands of criminals and the tax revenues would benefit all. Much better option IMO
Sign In or Register to comment.