America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,018 comments
  • 1,697,889 views
Biggles
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
Click to expand...
Has he?

Oh, Marco. Marco, Marco, Marco...

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio said Tuesday that he will support President Donald Trump's replacement for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg if the person is "qualified and will respect the law as written."
Click to expand...
Uh, Marco? A big chunk of what the Supreme Court is expected to do is respect the Constitution, not law, as it's written, and indeed make decisions on the merits of law as it's written.

Joey D
He's not Richard, but he is Richard's Portuguese cousin! Introducing Ricardo o Libertário.
Click to expand...
:lol:

What?
 
Last edited:
Scaff
– the commissions’ aim is for people to enter treatment voluntarily
Click to expand...

This is how I can tell when people didn’t read the information given. The Czar of this program mentions, in the article I linked a comment to the effect that with drug addicted folks they are addicted, you cannot rely on willpower they must be coerced into treatment. Strangely this matches exactly to the rehab program in the USA I previously linked with a 94 percents success rate as of the Seattle is dying videos making.
Rehabilitation is the important aspect to consider and it’s what’s needed for addicted folks yes, where your point is incorrect is in that it fails to realize in addiction there usually must be intervention. Imo if that’s police intervention as in the case of the American city with an apparently hugely successful program then that’s where it starts.
First get the people off the streets then treat them.
This is what is done in Portugal according to the guy in charge there.
Making the false assumption that addicts will by willpower choose to get treated is not only preposterous, but policies based on that illusory idea are a misunderstanding of the whole program.
Step one keep it illegal (Portugal) step two apprehend offenders.
Last rehabilitate them.
Just decriminalizing is inhumane, and as a Seattle policemen put it is like they are running a concentration camp complete with drug experimentation on the people.
It’s inhumane imo.
 
unnamed.gif
 
Groundfish
This is how I can tell when people didn’t read the information given. The Czar of this program mentions, in the article I linked a comment to the effect that with drug addicted folks they are addicted, you cannot rely on willpower they must be coerced into treatment. Strangely this matches exactly to the rehab program in the USA I previously linked with a 94 percents success rate as of the Seattle is dying videos making.
Click to expand...
For ****s sake.

Ok, this is from the actual Portuguese law...

"In the case of an addicted consumer for whom there is no feasible treatment, or who refuses to accept treatment, the commission may suspend enforcement of the penalty, requiring the consumer to present himself or herself periodically at medical services, with the frequency deemed necessary by such services, with a view to improving his health conditions, and suspension of enforcement may also be made conditional on the acceptance by the consumer of the measures provided for in paragraph 3."

...enforcement is at the descretion of the (non judicial) panel in question, and as has been shown in numerous sources, and repeatedly ignored by you, the panels rarely, if ever enforce it, instead using the clause I have just cited above in its place.

https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/prt/law30_html/portugal_law_30_2000.pdf

They are not ****ing coerced into treatment, as the panels in question know full well that coerced treatment simply isn't as effective.

The degree to which you keep repeating statements that have been shown over and over again to be simply incorrect, and keep relying on a single source that you have to quote mine in order to do it, is now reaching a point in which it can only be assumed that you are now deliberately being missleading.

It's quite simple, you are wrong on this point!

Oh and that web-site you claimed is 'pro-drugs', its one of the leading drug-rehabilitation and abuse prevention charities in the UK, it's a registered charity and has done more work on resolving issues of actual harm from addiction and abuse that you will ever be able to conceive, so wind your neck back in with the deliberately misleading ********.


Groundfish
Rehabilitation is the important aspect to consider and it’s what’s needed for addicted folks yes,
Click to expand...
Zero people have said otherwise.


Groundfish
where your point is incorrect is in that it fails to realize in addiction there usually must be intervention. Imo if that’s police intervention as in the case of the American city with an apparently hugely successful program then that’s where it starts.
First get the people off the streets then treat them.
Click to expand...
Intervenion is not a one size fits all model, and the criminal justice led approach simply doesn't work.


Groundfish
This is what is done in Portugal according to the guy in charge there.
Click to expand...
No, it's not, as numerous sources have shown and you have had to quote mine in order to try and show this. They have not used coercion at all.

You are simply lying about this point now, the following are all from your article.

  • From there, you’re fast-tracked to whatever services you’re willing to accept
  • Our approach is based on respect,” said Goulão. “It’s incremental.
  • Our system works by asking citizens what he can give at that given moment.
  • If he is completely dependent, I cannot appeal through force of will. I have to help him with his limited capacity to make his own choices. And, step-by-step, the ability of the citizen increases.”
  • Portugal created pathways to health that aren’t punitive

Nothing in the article mentioned forced or coerced treatment at all, quite the opposite, so stop lying about it.


Groundfish
Making the false assumption that addicts will by willpower choose to get treated is not only preposterous, but policies based on that illusory idea are a misunderstanding of the whole program.
Step one keep it illegal (Portugal) step two apprehend offenders.
Last rehabilitate them.
Just decriminalizing is inhumane, and as a Seattle policemen put it is like they are running a concentration camp complete with drug experimentation on the people.
It’s inhumane imo.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't impossible and as someone who has suffered from substance abuse in the past, I can tell you categorically you are talking out of your arse.

Decriminalisation is effective, as long as it's combined with a health-led approach to treatment, not a criminal lead one, and that is exactly what Portugal has done, every single cited source, even the one you are now deliberately quote mining from in a repeatedly misleading way, says so.

Once again you are simply wrong and now being nothing more than deliberately misleading.

  • Portugal has decriminalised possession for all drugs. Fact
  • You will not suffer any form of a criminal charge for drug possession in Portugal. Fact
  • You can in theory face a fine or have your positions seized, in reality, this is almost never carried out. Fact
  • The enforcement of this is carried out by a medical-led panel, not a judicial led one. Fact
  • It has been extremely effective in its near twenty years on use in Portugal. Fact.
  • Decriminalisation with a health-led rehabilitation process, as opposed to criminal enforcement-led approach works. Fact

You quite clearly have a neo-con hard-on for applying force to drug users, to such a degree it's utterly absurd and as I have said you are now simply being deliberately misleading in this.
 
Last edited:
NotThePrez
Extremely off-topic, but this was my first thought when seeing this post earlier today:

Click to expand...
That's funny because I was listening to this when I wrote it.



Scaff
For ****s sake.
Ok, this is from the actual Portuguese law...
"In the case of an addicted consumer for whom there is no feasible treatment, or who refuses to accept treatment, the commission may suspend enforcement of the penalty, requiring the consumer to present himself or herself periodically at medical services, with the frequency deemed necessary by such services, with a view to improving his health conditions, and suspension of enforcement may also be made conditional on the acceptance by the consumer of the measures provided for in paragraph 3."
...enforcement is at the descretion of the (non judicial) panel in question, and as has been shown in numerous sources, and repeatedly ignored by you, the panels rarely, if ever enforce it, instead using the clause I have just cited above in its place.
https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/prt/law30_html/portugal_law_30_2000.pdf
They are not ****ing coerced into treatment, as the panels in question know full well that coerced treatment simply isn't as effective.
The degree to which you keep repeating statements that have been shown over and over again to be simply incorrect, and keep relying on a single source that you have to quote mine in order to do it, is now reaching a point in which it can only be assumed that you are now deliberately being missleading.
It's quite simple, you are wrong on this point!
Oh and that web-site you claimed is 'pro-drugs', its one of the leading drug-rehabilitation and abuse prevention charities in the UK, it's a registered charity and has done more work on resolving issues of actual harm from addiction and abuse that you will ever be able to conceive, so wind your neck back in with the deliberately misleading ********.
Zero people have said otherwise.
Intervenion is not a one size fits all model, and the criminal justice led approach simply doesn't work.
No, it's not, as numerous sources have shown and you have had to quote mine in order to try and show this. They have not used coercion at all.
You are simply lying about this point now, the following are all from your article.
From there, you’re fast-tracked to whatever services you’re willing to accept
Our approach is based on respect,” said Goulão. “It’s incremental.
Our system works by asking citizens what he can give at that given moment.
If he is completely dependent, I cannot appeal through force of will. I have to help him with his limited capacity to make his own choices. And, step-by-step, the ability of the citizen increases.”
Portugal created pathways to health that aren’t punitive
Nothing in the article mentioned forced or coerced treatment at all, quite the opposite, so stop lying about it.
No, it isn't impossible and as someone who has suffered from substance abuse in the past, I can tell you categorically you are talking out of your arse.
Decriminalisation is effective, as long as it's combined with a health-led approach to treatment, not a criminal lead one, and that is exactly what Portugal has done, every single cited source, even the one you are now deliberately quote mining from in a repeatedly misleading way, says so.
Once again you are simply wrong and now being nothing more than deliberately misleading.
Portugal has decriminalised possession for all drugs. Fact
You will not suffer any form of a criminal charge for drug possession in Portugal. Fact
You can in theory face a fine or have your positions seized, in reality, this is almost never carried out. Fact
The enforcement of this is carried out by a medical-led panel, not a judicial led one. Fact
It has been extremely effective in its near twenty years on use in Portugal. Fact.
Decriminalisation with a health-led rehabilitation process, as opposed to criminal enforcement-led approach works. Fact
You quite clearly have a neo-con hard-on for applying force to drug users, to such a degree it's utterly absurd and as I have said you are now simply being deliberately misleading in this.
Click to expand...
He's actually quietly flip flopped over to saying that what Portugal is doing is working in Seattle as we were trying to argue all along. Perhaps he's hoping nobody will notice. So much for his saying the two countries aren't comparable.

u-turn-on-the-road.jpg

His argument that Seattle legalising drugs is to blame kind of falls apart because except for marijuana, drugs aren't legal in the state of Washington. All they need to do is provide a proper Portuguese style rehabilitation programme just as the leftists introduced over there, stop throwing them in jail and then putting them back on the streets again with no treatment and results will improve dramatically, just like we've been arguing all along. He's admitted that even his own video proves it as well as the article he posted.

As for the left vs right thing? According to his article, when the right gained power in Portugal they tried to recriminalise all drugs and withdraw funding for rehab, but changed their mind when they saw how well the left-wing policy worked. It shouldn't be about politics but about what works and gets results.
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
I know it's Danish but the name Hüsker Dü makes them look like a band made up of Wisconsin fans.
Click to expand...
I don't know how they lean when it comes to football, but I know the name is supposed to have come from the game.

HuskerDu4.jpg
 
UKMikey
He's actually quietly flip flopped over to saying that what Portugal is doing is working in Seattle as we were trying to argue all along. Perhaps he's hoping nobody will notice. So much for his saying the two countries aren't comparable.
Click to expand...
When there would be no shame at all in saying something like "Oh, I see you're right about that. Thanks for the info".

It's as if the ability to learn new things when given information isn't something to be proud of. :confused:
Learning from information is one of the main reasons I use these forums.
 
sturk0167
It doesn't say anything about our healthcare system.. People here, just do whatever the hell they feel like doing. Not sure they can be reined in.
I know this thread is titled "America", but why are folks here just constantly trashing the country?
Click to expand...


America:

ayne.gif
 
Scaff
Intervenion is not a one size fits all model, and the criminal justice led approach simply doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Unless the Seattle is dying video is a Hollywood fiction, I literally already gave an example of it working at a rate of 94 percent.
Yes, my understanding of Portugal is taken verbatim from the czar (the guy who created Portugal’s program)
I am basing my comments on his explanations given to the Sun Times reporter Who traveled there and interviewed the man.
Above someone commented drugs are illegal in Washington therefore the debacle of Seattle has nothing to do with decriminalization which is absolute poppycock because the existing laws are not enforced due to the local politics there (socialists on city council why am I unsurprised)
 
Groundfish
Unless the Seattle is dying video is a Hollywood fiction, I literally already gave an example of it working at a rate of 94 percent.
Yes, my understanding of Portugal is taken verbatim from the czar (the guy who created Portugal’s program)
I am basing my comments on his explanations given to the Sun Times reporter Who traveled there and interviewed the man.
Above someone commented drugs are illegal in Washington therefore the debacle of Seattle has nothing to do with decriminalization which is absolute poppycock because the existing laws are not enforced due to the local politics there (socialists on city council why am I unsurprised)
Click to expand...
No you are not basing your view on what he said, as I’ve quite clearly pointed out your blatant lies and quote mining in that regard.

That you are still doubling down on these lies is utterly appalling and a direct violation of the sites AUP.

You are not an honest participant in this conversation and quite frankly I see zero reason to trust a word you say, particularly as you can’t even be trusted to be honest in regard to your own sources.
 
Last edited:
Scaff
o you are not basing your view on what he said, as I’ve quite clearly pointed out your blatant lies and quote mining in that regard.

That you are still doubling down on these lies is utterly appalling and a direct violation of the sites AUP.

You are not an honest participant in this conversation and quite frankly I see zero reason to trust a work you say, particularly as you can’t even be trusted to be honest in regard to your own sources.
Click to expand...

Wow. All this because I quoted the creator of Portugal’s program, and made reference to a documentary called ‘Seattle is dying’
about the second city in that video.
My apologies to you if I paraphrased but there’s no dishonesty, here.
Wow.

@UKMikey untrue, it’s not the words of one disgruntled cop, and there’s TONS of info on how the socialist leaders of Seattle make police stand down, so you are mistaken again.
 
Groundfish
Wow. All this because I quoted the creator of Portugal’s program, and made reference to a documentary called ‘Seattle is dying’
about the second city in that video.
My apologies to you if I paraphrased but there’s no dishonesty, here.
Wow.

@UKMikey untrue, it’s not the words of one disgruntled cop, and there’s TONS of info on how the socialist leaders of Seattle make police stand down, so you are mistaken again.
Click to expand...
No you didn’t quote him, you utterly misrepresented what he said.

Despite your claim, for example, at no point does he talk about using coercion. In fact he talks about quite the opposite, as I have directly quoted.

So quit the faux outrage, you made **** up and have been caught out doing so, at least have the balls to own up to it.
 
Groundfish
UKMikey untrue, it’s not the words of one disgruntled cop, and there’s TONS of info on how the socialist leaders of Seattle make police stand down, so you are mistaken again.
Click to expand...
According to the article I quoted it's an opinion piece. No hard data on whether it's working or failing yet.
 
05XR8
Typical question: How can a place be founded, if people were already living there?
Click to expand...
A nation was founded upon occupied land.

"Found," in this sense, refers to the establishment thereof, rather than a supposed discovery.
 
Scaff
No you didn’t quote him, you utterly misrepresented what he said.

Despite your claim, for example, at no point does he talk about using coercion. In fact he talks about quite the opposite, as I have directly quoted.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Look what he said about ‘will’ about relying on ‘will’ copy and pasted here FYI
“If he is completely dependent, I cannot appeal through force of will. I have to help him with his limited capacity to make his own choices. And, step-by-step, the ability of the citizen increases.

He (drug czar) said he HAS TO HELP HIM choose.
Now I read that a certain way, that’s all.
 
Groundfish
Hardly. Look what he said about ‘will’ about relying on ‘will’ copy and pasted here FYI
“If he is completely dependent, I cannot appeal through force of will. I have to help him with his limited capacity to make his own choices. And, step-by-step, the ability of the citizen increases.

He (drug czar) said he HAS TO HELP HIM choose.
Now I read that a certain way, that’s all.
Click to expand...
That quite literally says they will not use coercion, it says they can’t use force of will and that it has to be the individuals own choice!

The mental gymnastics to turn that into coercion are mind boggling, now either English isn’t your first language or your comprehension is very limited.

You've also once again removed the entire second half of the sentence and inserted your own version to change the meaning. How on earth do you not see what you are doing and how utterly dishonest it is, is beyond me. The part that reads ‘make his own choices’ is the exact opposite of coercion!
 
Last edited:
It says APPEAL through force of will, I read his meaning as the person is dependent and they cant choose by will not to become so since they are chemically dependent.
Also it’s similar to the second city in the Seattle video where they take a person whose been arrested and give them a choice-jail or free treatment
They need the drugs so treatment will be chosen the vast majority of the time due to pain of withdrawal symptoms.
As I read the article, it’s saying ok we caught you now we give you a choice fine or we take your stuff or you enter treatment
In all cases according to that piece they are REQUIRED to talk to the DRUG DISSUADERS which might be a version of the Gestapo for all I know, they’re not criminal justice but what are they?
In any case it’s a good program. No ones questioning that it works or that what Seattle does doesn’t work or that the second city in Seattle dying videos policy is a huge success.
You apprehend via law enforcement you give them a choice free treatment or jail.
It’s not decriminalizing because the initial stage is law enforcement enforcing the law.
It’s clear you disagree and that’s fine, no need to get nasty about it.
At this point though I say we end the tiresome back and forth and, hopefully agree that at least both of us want what’s best for the humans wrapped up in chemical dependence, even if we disagree on the best way to help people.
I respect your tenacity, and I personally have enjoyed the spirited debate (before the last bit when you expressed frustration)
Cheers
 
Groundfish
It says APPEAL through force of will, I read his meaning as the person is dependent and they cant choose by will not
Click to expand...
So you didn’t bother to read the rest of the sentence that literally says that it has to be the individuals choice.

It also says they can not appeal through force of will, so you didn’t read the first part either.

How on earth can you not see that you are literally reading the source in such a selective manner that you are changing the meaning of it utterly!

Groundfish
It’s not decriminalizing because the initial stage is law enforcement enforcing the law.
It’s clear you disagree and that’s fine, no need to get nasty about it.
Click to expand...
The definition of decriminalisation says you are wrong, the EU, UN, Library of Congress and your own source says you are wrong.

What qualifies you to correct all of these sources?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
440 441 442
Replies
13K
Views
585K
Scaff
Scaff
Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
Replies
4
Views
346
Blitz24
Blitz24
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
438 439 440
Replies
13K
Views
696K
Fezzik
Fezzik
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
673
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back