It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What America could learn from Amsterdam..

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I like Dutch people, i think they are the most laid back society on Earth, Ive been on Holiday with some of them and they are amazing people. America is a different place to Holland, i don't think there lifestyle would be accepted there, i think its cos you like your Churches so much, why not emigrate to Amsterdam and live the life you want?



You have no idea how much i would love to live there. I dont think its so easy though. From what I hear, its a hard thing to do, since so many people want to live there...


[to whomever moved this thread....thanks....at least noone will see it anymore.....]




posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heratix
1 of the lowest drug related crime statistics in the world..so i think they are doing something right


Of course it has a low statistic for drugs, ever thought of why?

Oh yes, it's not a crime if we make it legal.

If they made killing people legal, we'd have a much lower crime rate for muder - still won't stop it from happening though.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Of course it has a low statistic for drugs, ever thought of why?

Oh yes, it's not a crime if we make it legal.


- Actually this is not so.
(In any case they 'decriminalised' possession and use of small amounts of cannabis (only); for personal use only......at the same time very successfully breaking the usual link between the majority of recreational 'users' and the criminal 'market', a 'market' which inevitably and invariably tries to 'push' harder drugs.)

There are plenty of drug laws in Holland and there are still plenty of drugs that are still illegal to possess and take.

......and yet for all that they still have lower instances of Heroin abuse etc etc (which are still illegal).


If they made killing people legal, we'd have a much lower crime rate for muder - still won't stop it from happening though.


- Why do people do this?
Murder verses private recreational (usually soft) drug usage is a ridiculous and total 'non' comparison.

It's so superficial and obviously nonsensical, it isn't as if they completely 'legalised' all drug usage and possession etc etc ,you surprised me there odium.



[edit on 9-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Of course it has a low statistic for drugs, ever thought of why?

Oh yes, it's not a crime if we make it legal.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Actually this is not so.

There are plenty of drug laws in Holland and there are still plenty of drugs that are still illegal to possess and take.

......and yet for all that they still have lower instances of Heroin abuse etc etc (which are still illegal).


Lower instances of heroin (160 per 100,000 compaired to 430 per 100,000(U.S.) however 29% of teens smoke weed and when there is a population of 16million that's a lot of people.

Also look at the laws though and the punishment, that's why they have lower cases of drug abuse then we do or America does. They reform those who get arrested instead of locking them up where they get easy access to drugs.

And they only "tolerate" weed in "zones" in Holland. Outside of those zones it is still illegal.


Originally posted by OdiumIf they made killing people legal, we'd have a much lower crime rate for muder - still won't stop it from happening though.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Why do people do this?
Murder verses private recreational (usually soft) drug usage is a ridiculous and total 'non' comparison.

It's so superficial and obviously nonsensical, you surprised me there odium.


I was using it to show that a change in the law, would destroy the "criminal" statistics of something. Not to compare them against one another, however after BBC2 reported 1/100 people will suffer a severe mental problem from smoking weed and they backed it up with several studies done world over I see a slight problem with it.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020


[to whomever moved this thread....thanks....at least noone will see it anymore.....]


Hmm. seems I am the 3rd person to reply to this since the thread has been moved. Still think nobody will see this in PTS?



Anyway, as far as the point of this post goes, Amsterdam works because the citizens want it to work. The same could not be said for the US. Fact is, more people DONT use drugs in America than DO. I am all for the legalization of certain narcotics as I can see many ways to use the initiative to generate much needed tax money. However, most people in the government dont hold my views and probably will never think this way.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Some people seem to think this another "legalize weed" post....its not. Ive never been in favor of legalizing it. Rather this is about the states ability to govern themselves with out the help of the federal government stepping in, let alone under the guise of "interstate commerce".

Alls Im sayin is that if every state had the right to decide if they wanted to allow "red-light" districts, we would all be better off. Even if the majority of the country doesnt use drugs or prostitutes, there is a LARGE segment that would.

There would also be alot less rapes and abductions. Granted, it wouldnt forever relieve us of these scums, but there would certainly be less. Let the people sastify there urges, and they will behave. Supress them, and you get more Jessica Lunsfords.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
OH, and on a side note...




Hmm. seems I am the 3rd person to reply to this since the thread has been moved. Still think nobody will see this in PTS?



Not one hit untill I made the other post refering to this, so I take credit for anyone seeing it here. But enough of that....This is a good post worthy of discussion...even in this wasteland...



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
There would also be alot less rapes and abductions. Granted, it wouldnt forever relieve us of these scums, but there would certainly be less. Let the people sastify there urges, and they will behave. Supress them, and you get more Jessica Lunsfords.


Really? I thought prostitution was fine in South Africa yet they still have a high case of rape?

In reality, people tend to rape others for the "power trip" not to get "sex". It's not hard to get the second without having to resort to it. Also a lot of rape is done by "friends" or "family members" of the victims so again, it is doubtful if it would help stop such acts.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by spliff4020
There would also be alot less rapes and abductions. Granted, it wouldnt forever relieve us of these scums, but there would certainly be less. Let the people sastify there urges, and they will behave. Supress them, and you get more Jessica Lunsfords.


Really? I thought prostitution was fine in South Africa yet they still have a high case of rape?

In reality, people tend to rape others for the "power trip" not to get "sex". It's not hard to get the second without having to resort to it. Also a lot of rape is done by "friends" or "family members" of the victims so again, it is doubtful if it would help stop such acts.



True, alot are commited that way, but ask yourself, why. Could it be pent up rage and frustration because they are "ugly" and cant get laid on their own. Could it be years of pent up sexual frustration? Could it be a certain level of akwardness when dealing with women?

COuld that be why they chose family members and weak children? I think so. And I think if they had this avenue availble to them from them get-go there would be alot less..

And like Ive said NUMEROUS times allready, this wouldnt end all murders and rapes...But it would GREATLY slow them down. Pyschos are still born everyday, but I think society would be even easier to control with redlights around.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020

And like Ive said NUMEROUS times allready, this wouldnt end all murders and rapes...But it would GREATLY slow them down. Pyschos are still born everyday, but I think society would be even easier to control with redlights around.


I dont think a red light district would do a damn thing about rape. Here are some stats for you.

In 2000, Nevada, which has legal brothels had 860 forcable rapes.

In 2000, Kentucky, which does NOT have legal brothels had 1091 forcable rapes

Factor in population and you see that there is NO differance in wether sex is avaliable or not.

Nevada Rape stats

Kentucky Rape stats

The reasons a person rapes another are as unique and varied as finger prints. However it all boils down to having power over another individual.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Ok, now take Nevada out of the equation and what do you have? No other state that allows it. Now imagine this. Theres some in Nevada, some in Washington, Indiana, and all over. Not everyone has the money to fly to vegas to get their rocks off. To some, Vegas might as well be as far away as Amsterdam....they aint gettin there anytime soon. Thats why I think it should be where ever cities and states want them to be. An hours drive aint nothin....

And, I may be wrong on this but its just MHO, Nevada has HUGE tourist population. Id like to see how the stats break down on that.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020

And, I may be wrong on this but its just MHO, Nevada has HUGE tourist population. Id like to see how the stats break down on that.


As far as how it breaks down, click on the link. Every crime in Nevada is accounted for. As well as Kentucky.

You seem to be missing the point about brothels in Red Light districts. Nevada HAS a red light district and it isnt helping as you claim it would. In fact, if you take into account the population of Nevada and Kentucky, Nevada has a MUCH HIGHER incident of rape. As for the tourist equation, well, I think it is moot. Kentucky has a thriving tourist population as well. We have gambeling less than 20 miles away. The Ky. Derby. Vast hiking and camping areas. And who can forget Kentucky Kindom Six Flags? Its a huge theme Park much like Kings Island.

[edit on 7/9/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Great thread spliff

Found out about this thread because of the "severe" warning of trolling on the ATS home page!

Anyways, If the government wants to legalize anything doesn’t it need to understand public maturity? Too much of anything is bad, be it weed or coc aine, also what is to stop kids from abusing themselves with this? That would potentially destroy their future by killing all their brain cells and they might end up dumber than they would have without it. By making it illegal atleast they understand that it is something dangerous and should most likely stay away from it.
Also if legal we would be justifying the use of narcotics worldwide, many see America as an example, the third world will decide to take on this as another part of "Americanization" and we would end up with another revival of the 70's decadent culture on a global scale.
I feel that Drugs such as marijuana and weed should be strictly monitored, they are dangerous in the long run and that is a fact, abuse of any substance is bad be it vitamins or drugs. But unlike vitamins drugs are not a "required" substance for our body to survive or function properly. Using marijuana as a painkiller is primitive in this day and age and I feel it is a ruse to get high. Will people take marijuana that has no other effect except pain relief, I doubt it!
Ancient Romans took Opium and marijuana to relieve pain, I cant believe that after nearly 2250 years we still need to rely on such primitive remedies for our ailments.

Basically the campaign of legalizing marijuana is an attempt to legalize the use of controlled substances, granted that legislation will not solve drug abuse but through legalizing it we make it all the more deadly on our society. People want marijuana legalized so that they can use it for recreational purposes but I find that to be reflective of that persons character, as anybody who needs to put something into himself to feel as good or better than others is truly as sad individual and this dependence on external remedies for solving social/psychological problems not only effects the person but affects the entire country’s social structure. Society becomes more decadent, more uncontrolled psychological patterns in people and wild moods. This is bad, in the 21st century we need to step forward, we need more scientists, engineers and thinkers in our society not more dazed adolescents that wander through life aimlessly, we can no longer afford to compete in jobs that require manual labor due to overwhelming Asian dominance, we need to develop the intelligentsia in this country and not a social decadence that is typically expected form America by the world. The call for legalizing such substances just to make some people feel more "amused" is absurd to say the least, with all the present avenues of entertainment available to people in this day, the use of drugs for entertainment doesn’t hold water. If a person needs to feel entertained he must have it within himself to have achieved a state of psychological development that external substances should not be required, that is maturity, without which it this law is akin to casting pearls before swine. Once these substances are common place people will look for the next big thing; they would require more amusement, more pleasure and a greater trip. This cycle will go on and on and those people who are addicted to it will be compelled to go in for more dangerous substances that would lead us right back to where we started.

LEGALISATION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES!!



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
however 29% of teens smoke weed and when there is a population of 16million that's a lot of people.


- 29% of Dutch teens.......and ours is?
I don't think we're in any place to complain.

Like I said once before the Dutch have a rising average age of heroin using population (which means addicts are not 'being replaced by younger ones new to the drug) whereas the UK's heroin user population average age is falling (meaning in the UK's case new users are coming into the reckoning driving the average lower).

I think their approach has far better 'outcomes'.


after BBC2 reported 1/100 people will suffer a severe mental problem from smoking weed and they backed it up with several studies done world over I see a slight problem with it.


- Life kills you mate.

The problem is that you could run those kind of studies on practically anything we as people do......if you take it to an extreme.

Booze does this too but you rarely see anyone debate the far higher instances of mental illness and behavioural problems there, do you?

The end point is surely that the vast bulk of people make it though life with some problems but usually nothing too debilitating.

Cannabis has been around since forever it most definitely is nothing new and has been in widespread use since the end of WW2 at least.
Groups (whos' funding, angle etc etc we know little about) showing studies with a marginal propensity towards one condition or another have to take account of the fact that we are not awash with the levels and degree of mental illness their studies indicate we ought to have already.

(........and lets not forget they can also be plain wrong; did you see the scientists that did the report showing ecstasy use leads to depression and mental illness later in life had to retract their findings because they were mistaken?


Scientists at Johns Hopkins University who last year published a frightening and controversial report suggesting that a single evening's use of the illicit drug ecstasy could cause permanent brain damage and Parkinson's disease are retracting their research in its entirety, saying the drug they used in their experiments was not ecstasy after all.

The retraction, to be published in next Friday's issue of the journal Science, has reignited a smoldering and sometimes angry debate over the risks and benefits of the drug, also known as MDMA.

The drug is popular at all-night raves and other venues for its ability to reduce inhibitions and induce expansive feelings of open-heartedness. But some studies have indicated that the drug can at least temporarily damage neurons that use the mood-altering brain chemical serotonin. Some users also have spiked fevers, which rarely have proven fatal.

Last year's research, involving monkeys and baboons, purported to show that three modest doses of ecstasy -- the amount a person might take in a one-night rave -- could cause serious damage to another part of the brain: neurons that use the brain chemical dopamine.

Two of 10 animals died quickly after their second or third dose of the drug, and two others were too sick to take the third dose. Six weeks later, dopamine levels in the surviving animals were still down 65 percent. That led Hopkins team leader George Ricaurte and his colleagues to conclude that users were playing Russian roulette with their brains.

Advocates of ecstasy's therapeutic potential, including a number of scientists and doctors who believe it may be useful in treating post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychiatric conditions, criticized the study. They noted that the drug was given in higher doses than people commonly take and was administered by injection, not by mouth. They wondered why large numbers of users were not dying or growing deathly ill from the drug, as the animals did, and why no previous link had been made between ecstasy and Parkinson's despite decades of use and a large number of studies.


www.cognitiveliberty.org...)



[edit on 9-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
While I find prostitution to be a horrible idea which would be absolutely devastating to poor women's rights (imagine being forced into prostitution at age 18 because you can't support yourself and your parents are kicking you out if you don't!) I do agree with much of your post.
Under certain safeguard which address the material concerns posed by the changes you argue for, the moral objections simply wouldn't hold much water.

Selling is legal. Screwing is legal. Why isn't selling screwing legal? That's how George Carlin has put it. Logically it seems like a difficult question to answer. We do have to realize that there are drawbacks though. We have to realize that there will be a certain backlash against the public perception of women. We have to realize that there is a potential for an increase in STD infection, which grows proportionally to the time between medical exams for the workers. We also have to realize hat organized crime can and will develop and strengthen around an industry like this. If we consider legalizing it, we have to be prepared to deal with all of those things effectively.
Last but not least, we can't kid ourselves that certain crimes wouild be substantially reduced by the legalization of prostitution. It is wrong to prostitute children so young that they can't choose for themselves- I don't think that can be denied and I am certain that we can line up head shrinkers from here to hell and gone to testify that laws protecting them are absolutely valid because having sex at that age, especially against their will for money, is damaging to them. So you can't legalize that and pedophilia will continue to be a problem. Then there is the fact that rape is about control. Many victims know their attackers, and the attacker wants more than just to get his rocks off. The reduction in rape would be relatively small. So while it's still OK to consider legalization, we have to realize that we may not put as much of a dent in certain crimes as we think.

Drugs are a very interesting issue. At least to a certain extent the argument could be made that nothing would change in America if it were legalized- except that people would have to lie a lot less. In my humble opinion, you have to pick and choose the substances and the amounts that will be allowed, and the restrictions placed upon the users. Call me a prude if you want, you'll never get me to agree that meth should be legal in any form or doesage. I grew up around tweakers. They scare and anger me and in a perfect world it would be legal to kill them, because they pose a clear and present danger to those around them.
Marijuana is almost a perfect equal to alcohol in my opinion, with the minor tradeoff that while alcohol is out of your system after a short time, it will rot out several vital organs, while pot is just the opposite in those two regards.
Marijuana probably should be legalized, with restrictions on what mairjuana users can do in general, and what they can do when they are high. I have no problem with a pot smoker driving, making my food, fixing my car, building my house, filling my perscription, whatever as long as he's not high at the time. However, I don't want a pot smoker performing brain surgery on me, defusing a bomb, flying a jet aircraft, or operating a peice of heavy equipment even if he is sober. The things where a very very very minor absent-minded mistake can kill people have to be closed to people who choose to impair themselves, no different from alcohol. Then of course there's medical marijuana to consider- one of the greatest medicinal plants provided to us- illegal because it's not an expensive patent-protected pill that can cause heart attacks or cancer.
I'm not going to go through the laundry list of all drugs, especially since im not familiar with them all. I'm just going to say that legalization is one thing, but they'll still need to be regulated responsibly. In my mind the whole point of legalizing certain things is to bring this stuff out of uncontrolled environments and into safe, respectable establishments.

One more thing to remember is that the Dutch example is not the only exampe. Amsterdam is permissive law gone very pleasantly right. T.J. and Bangkok are the other side of that coin. Its not one of those things you can rush into- you've got to be very careful, very organized, and very good on enforcement to get away with this kind of a thing without turning your society into one big friggin ghetto.

All the same, the general direction of your posts isn't entirely off base. Our laws are too restrictive and I believe a lot of it does have to do with clandestine social engineering (that Marilyn Manson quote is one of my favorites).



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Where I'm from marijuana might as well be legal and the main benefit that I can see is that it frees up court time and jail cells for the real bad guys. I live in 'Vansterdam' and lots of people actually get kind of annoyed when the police go after pot smokers because there are better things the police could be spending their time on.

The only real problem is the gang element and that comes from prohibition. And even if it is decriminalized or legalized up here, that probably won't change. As long as the gangs have the US market, they will still be involved.

Another little known fact about Canada is that prostitution is legal. We have a convoluted set of rules but this is how it breaks down.

Prostitution - Legal if you are over the age of 18
Working in a Licenced (by the city) Escort Business - Legal
Loitering - Legal
Communicating for the Purposes in Prositition in a Public Place - Illegal
Operating a Brothel - Illegal
Pimping - Illegal
Living of the Avails of Prostitution - Illegal, unless you are the prositute or a family member that is being supported by the prostitute
Indecent Acts (sex in a public place) - Illegal
Not reporting your prostitution income to the CRA - Tax Fraud

It is fairly commonplace to see ads in the business personal section of the classifieds. Most of these women even have merchant numbers with Visa and Mastercard. Not a perfect system but at least the women have legal protection and aren't scared of the police.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
sminkeypinkey, what about the fact they reckon as high as 25% of Americans have a mental illness? Isn't that "awash" with it?

Also you hit the nail on the head - we don't know what these drugs can do to people, so how can anyone be pro-legalize when they could be a million times worse (or better)?

And jsut so you know, I myself won't drink alcohol and nobody I know does, or smoke, or take any drugs.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
sminkeypinkey, what about the fact they reckon as high as 25% of Americans have a mental illness? Isn't that "awash" with it?


- Do you think this is confined to the % that smoked a bit of dope?
I'd be surprised if it were so.

I think there's a host of things to take into account and look at before you lay that all at cannabis' door.

......and how come Hoilland isn't a by-word for huge numbers of mentally ill people?


Also you hit the nail on the head - we don't know what these drugs can do to people, so how can anyone be pro-legalize when they could be a million times worse (or better)?


- Well except for the fact that many of these drugs have been around for quite some time.
We do know cannabis is (allowing for the extreme exceptions that can apply to anything) pretty benign.

Even ecstasy which was once referred to as a 'designer drug' and supposedly new in the mid 1980's was actually a widely used and established drug invented in Germany at the turn of the 19th-20th century and used for slimming.


And jsut so you know, I myself won't drink alcohol and nobody I know does, or smoke, or take any drugs.


- I don't smoke myself and I drink rarely......but that doesn't mean I want to impose my way of life on anyone else, especially in terms of what people do in the privacy of their own home or the places they choose to frequent.

I can't help thinking that the approach being used at the moment is far more harmful than would be the case if we followed the Dutch example.

Depriving huge numbers of people and confining them to prison (as the USA does for instance - especially when you consider '3 strikes') just because of the recreational use of cannabis is IMO utterly evil, grossly expensive (on many levels) and a proven failure.

[edit on 9-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Well, first of all I want to say thanks for all of the intelligent responses here. THis thread could have gotten dumped, but the maturity level has maintained a high level. Thanks to all....

Secondly, I want to apologize for posting, pre-coffee yesterday. I tend to be a bit of a grouch in the AM, factor in the no-coffee and a keyboard, and bad things happen....


That being said...............................................


What I am proposing isnt a broad legalization across the board. I dont want coc aine or heroin or any other syntheticaly produced drug "legal", nor do I want prostitutes walking the streets freely. I have a family to, ya know!

I think the pimp and dealer problem would be pretty much eliminated though. Plus, if it was a regulated industry, they could actually receive benefits.

Ive read the crime data concerning vegas, but my point is that vegas is only one place and its very far away. If these things were made locally, i think the effect would be great. All of those lonely "creepy" lookin guys who couldnt get a girl in the last 10 years could suddenly have their choice. That animalistic drive in them would be qwelled. Again, pyschos would still exist, but you cant deny a dramatic reduction woud occur.

Our socitey vests so much importance into sex and sex appeal, yet the majority of us dont fit the bill. Most of us can deal with that, but some snap off.

Also, if I take my kid to a ballgame or let him watch tv every other commerical or billboard is for some brand of beer or vodka. Its state sanctioned peer-pressure. While I would never put a joint in my kids hands, I would like him to know that there are other alternatives for him to "relax" with. My own opinion about pot is like booze. Not till your 21.

I dont drink, and havent in about 5 years. I still smoke, but its lightly. Mostly a before bed toke. Im not a danger, yet I am a criminal. Why shouldnt the millions of smokers in this country have a place where WE can gather, smoke a little and relax. Why am I forced to have to goto a bar, and deal with all the drunken assholes? Why? It aint right.

Alcoholism ruins many families, lives and careers. Marijuana users are not prone to violence. Mix the booze and weed and you may have a problem, but most smokers do just that. Smoke.


Look, alls Im saying is that we, as adults DESERVE a special place where we can get our deviant urges satisfied. You cant supress them. So what is with our hangup? Land of the free? Puhlease.

I give the dutch credit. Theyve figured that we are going to do as we please. Well, fine....Do it over there.....its all kept away from the kids and families. The girls in the windows all have state approved licenses and are checked (i believe) weekly. The government makes bookoo bucks from the taxes and the people seem to have no problem with it.

Im just sick and tired of the federal government trying to save me from myself. Leave me alone! Go pave the streets and secure the borders....the rest we can handle.......



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Heratix
1 of the lowest drug related crime statistics in the world..so i think they are doing something right


Of course it has a low statistic for drugs, ever thought of why?

Oh yes, it's not a crime if we make it legal.

If they made killing people legal, we'd have a much lower crime rate for muder - still won't stop it from happening though.


read the statment please...drug RELATED crime..that means users wont burgle someones house to sell there tv and dvd to the local dealer.
because a coffee shop wont sell weed to someone for a tv or dvd(so that fact in itself takes the money from the blackmarket and users dont have to enter the murky world of underground crime)
and i know for a fact that any1 smoking weed could not even be bothered
to mug an old lady unless they are insidiosly(spelling)evil anyway.
i think alcohol is much worse for crime(especially violent crime).




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join