^You're right, it wasn't their poll, it was the associated poll in the article you gave the link to, which is headlined by Alan and Unwin's claim that Corby is guilty.
My apologies.
Printable View
^You're right, it wasn't their poll, it was the associated poll in the article you gave the link to, which is headlined by Alan and Unwin's claim that Corby is guilty.
My apologies.
as opposed to the dope found here?Quote:
Originally Posted by thegent
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
phew!
now we need apologies for the other 46 mistakes you have insisted on foisting upon us
Welcome to the convolutions of ENT's mind.:rolleyes:
The dingo did it!
We're Losing the Drug War Because Prohibition Never Works
By Hodding Carter III. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jul 13, 1989. pg. 1
There is clearly no point in beating a dead horse, whether you are a politician or a columnist, but sometimes you have to do it just the same, if only for the record. So, for the record, here's another attempt to argue that a majority of the American people and their elected representatives can be and are wrong about the way they have chosen to wage the "war against drugs." Prohibition can't work, won't work and has never worked, but it can and does have monumentally costly effects on the criminal justice system and on the integrity of government at every level.
Experience should be the best teacher, and my experience with prohibition is a little more recent than most Americans for whom the "noble experiment" ended with repeal in 1933. In my home state of Mississippi, it lasted for an additional 33 years, and for all those years it was a truism that the drinkers had their liquor, the preachers had their prohibition and the sheriffs made the money. Al Capone would have been proud of the latitude that bootleggers were able to buy with their payoffs of constables, deputies, police chiefs and sheriffs across the state.
But as a first-rate series in the New York Times made clear early last year, Mississippi's prohibition-era corruption (and Chicago's before that) was penny ante stuff compared with what is happening in the U.S. today. From Brooklyn police precincts to Miami's police stations to rural Georgia courthouses, big drug money is purchasing major breakdowns in law enforcement. Sheriffs, other policemen and now judges are being bought up by the gross. But that money, with the net profits for the drug traffickers estimated at anywhere from $40 billion to $100 billion a year, is also buying up banks, legitimate businesses and, to the south of us, entire governments. The latter becomes an increasingly likely outcome in a number of cities and states in this country as well. Cicero, Ill., during Prohibition is an instructive case in point.
The money to be made from an illegal product that has about 23 million current users in this country also explains why its sale is so attractive on the mean streets of America's big cities. A street salesman can gross about $2,500 a day in Washington, which puts him in the pay category of a local television anchor, and this in a neighborhood of dead-end job chances.
Since the courts and jails are already swamped beyond capacity by the arrests that are routinely made (44,000 drug dealers and users over a two-year period in Washington alone, for instance) and since those arrests barely skim the top of the pond, arguing that stricter enforcement is the answer begs a larger question: Who is going to pay the billions of dollars required to build the prisons, hire the judges, train the policemen and employ the prosecutors needed for the load already on hand, let alone the huge one yet to come if we ever get serious about arresting dealers and users?
Much is made of the cost of drug addiction, and it should be, but the current breakdown in the criminal justice system is not one of them. That breakdown is the result of prohibition, not addiction. Drug addiction, after all, does not come close to the far vaster problems of alcohol and tobacco addiction (as former Surgeon General Koop correctly noted, tobacco is at least as addictive as heroin). Hard drugs are estimated to kill 4,000 people a year directly and several tens of thousands a year indirectly. Alcohol kills at least 100,000 a year, addicts millions more and costs the marketplace billions of dollars. Tobacco kills over 300,000 a year, addicts tens of millions and fouls the atmosphere as well. But neither alcohol nor tobacco threaten to subvert our system of law and order, because they are treated as personal and societal problems rather than as criminal ones.
Indeed, every argument that is made for prohibiting the use of currently illegal drugs can be made even more convincingly about tobacco and alcohol. The effects on the unborn? Staggeringly direct. The effects on adolescents? Alcoholism is the addiction of choice for young Americans on a ratio of about 100 to one. Lethal effect? Tobacco's murderous results are not a matter of debate anywhere outside the Tobacco Institute.
Which leaves the lingering and legitimate fear that legalization might produce a surge in use. It probably would, although not nearly as dramatic a one as opponents usually estimate. The fact is that personal use of marijuana, whatever the local laws may say, has been virtually decriminalized for some time now, but there has been a stabilization or slight decline in use, rather than an increase, for several years. Heroin addiction has held steady at about 500,000 people for some time, though the street price of heroin is far lower now than it used to be. Use of cocaine in its old form also seems to have stopped climbing and begun to drop off among young and old alike, though there is an abundantly available supply.
That leaves crack cocaine, stalker of the inner city and terror of the suburbs. Instant and addictive in effect, easy to use and relatively cheap to buy, it is a personality-destroying substance that is a clear menace to its users. But it is hard to imagine it being any more accessible under legalization than it is in most cities today under prohibition, while the financial incentives for promoting its use would virtually disappear with legalization.
Proponents of legalization should not try to fuzz the issue, nonetheless. Addiction levels might increase, at least temporarily, if legal sanctions were removed. That happened after the repeal of Prohibition, or so at least some studies have suggested. But while that would be a personal disaster for the addicts and their families, and would involve larger costs to society as a whole, those costs would be minuscule compared with the costs of continued prohibition.
The young Capones of today own the inner cities and the wholesalers behind these young retailers are rapidly buying up the larger system which is supposed to control them. Prohibition gave us the Mafia and organized crime on a scale that has been with us ever since. The new prohibition is writing a new chapter on that old text. Hell-bent on learning nothing from history, we are witnessing its repetition, predictably enough, as tragedy.
Appeared in the Wall Street Journal Jul 13, 1989. Reprinted with permission. Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc.
Yep..Quote:
Originally Posted by BUGBEAR
I reckon she`s guilty!
You've had to apologize a few times on this thread because your blind support for Corby has destroyed your objectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Its Ok to defend the defendable but continuing to defend the undefendable portrays you in a less than positive light.
Considering you refuse to accept the glaring evidence against her you have Destroyed your credibility resulting in no one taking you seriously.
Coming over like a buffoon really.
Time for a nice cup of tea, a Bex and a good lye down.
Sorry mate, just the way it is.
Oh dear ! AGAIN ! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by terry57
Like I said terry, you talk shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by terry57You've had to apologize a few times on this thread because your blind support for Corby has destroyed your objectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Its Ok to defend the defendable but continuing to defend the undefendable portrays you in a less than positive light.
Considering you refuse to accept the glaring evidence against her you have Destroyed your credibility resulting in no one talking you seriously.
Coming over like a buffoon really.
Time for a nice cup of tea, a Bex and a good lye down.
Sorry mate, just the way it is.
All your opinions come from Duff's book and the guilty verdict of a corrupt court systen in Indonesia
I probably did apologise once or twice if I got it wrong, par for the course, mate.
You and the rest of the Ocker/Indo expat blue-rinse brigade will always stick in your middle class ruts.
I suppose you still believe that 19 Arabs with box-cutters did the 9/11 job too, like it was the "officiall" story that was correct.
Do you think I post to score credits or something, like some of the rest of you back-yard washed up failures?
Sorry mate, ya got me wrong.
I know the difference between shit and clay and you're posting, not shit, but piss, in a little circle with the rest of you Ockers.
Another thing, why are you so keen to ignore the fact that the Oz crime scene is so far up the gov. arse and they up theirs?
You posted knowledgeably about mull and hydro and even the exact price of a deal these days.
Get the info from ya grand-kids or the local boy scouts club, mate?
Nah, ya got it from yer mates.
So don't be such a bloody hypocrite condemning Corby when yer a bloody user yourself.
G'day, ...mate.
Ultimately, this is what it boils down to, doesn't it Ent? You're a drug user and or drug pusher, and the Corby deal frightens you!Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Come on, I need a laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Who did it then?
:smileylaughing:
Dunno, but it wasn't some ragheads who couldn't even fly a Cessna. :mid:
^^Actually, Swill, the converse is true.
The big defence is being put up by those defending Indonesian and AFp and Quantas involvement in the game.
90% of the posts are all saying stuff that some small town bunch are the centre of some major drug import export business.
Get off me back mate!
One big bag of grass got caught accidentally in the whole shipment scene through Indo and there ya have it eh!
The Corby clan done it!!!
Wooowooo!!!
The king pins!!!
Like fwk!
The cops and customs and Quantas and the bloody BIG crim money did it!
Now, who's protecting who, eh?
Got any connections?
Yer bollocks!
No, I don’t think anybody is the Corby’s were at the center of any major international drug smuggling operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
In fact, most everyone is saying the opposite.
They were nothing more than small time drug users that had never been searched going into Bali and had the bright idea of taking 4 keys in to make a tidy little profit that would pay for the trip.
TH
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
ENT, You are really looking like a goose.
Fact not fiction Bro. Thanks for that.
^^So why didn't they do it for every trip they reportedly took to Bali if it was such a bight idea?.
They probably did. Remember the missing $1000. Who is to say they did not? We all know Mercedes loves her weed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
^ ^
With a question like that we now know you are truly trolling.
You complete idiot. :chitown: :dnftt:
Thing is ENT, one can always bullshit a bullshitter but a bullshitter can never bullshit someone who knows what they are talking about.
Your dead mate, game over.
terrry, you're hoist by your own petard.
You flew out with abuse to start with and can't take it when it comes back to ya.
Nothing but abuse is flying across to support many posts on this thread.
Not simply sticking to simple logic.
Go read the thread, "but she's a this or that"
"the whole family are...bogans ...etc"
'"she is mad...''...or ''a slag..".and on it goes.
All junk quoted from more junk published by spinners after an easy dollar on the cheap thriller circuit.
Anyone posting an opposing point of view. free speech, or an honest opinion, gets it in the neck from a bunch of shit kickers for thinking differently.
Not one bit of serious evaluation, just a load of piss taking going on.
The most serious attempt at logic has been the statement,"But she was found guilty.", as if that explains anything.
A few members have tried to break the topic down into manageable pieces to figure out. But,whenever any angle is presented about how the situation evolved from where it stated in Oz, no response. Just a head in the sand attitude hoping the problem of trying to understand government complicity in Oz crime will just go away.
Put it in the "too hard basket" eh?
Don't wanna even think about it or how your precious government is conning you on every day.
You wouldn't even be able to sleep at night if you started thinking about what's really going down.
So this conspiracy in the Australian government goes all the way down to Shapelle Corby, and what happened in Bali going on 8 years ago now?Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Plus what I said before. Of course they had been bringing it in. How can you afford 3 and more trips a year to Bali for a month at a time working as a "hairdresser"?
Terry, Willy and others know just what I am talking about. Once it was in, it was instant gratification.
No worries it had worked the last what 8-12 times. Thats my theory mate. Just as yours is a theory.
Only Shapelle and her family know the truth. Plus all their close friends in both Bali and Oz.
Totally illogical!Quote:
Originally Posted by aging one
Total supposition
It's like trying to emember the missing link when the damn thing doesn't even exist!!
^^^^With an answer like yours we now know you can't think.
Again, name calling and mob philosophy used because you have no logic to back up your statements.
Get over it man, you've been conned by a corrupt government and press who are only now trying to wriggle their way out the trouble they're in.
Ah, but there's a problem there too.
It's the government investigating itself and in the end no one will admit their failures, and the middle aged middle class won't get too upset and can't make it to work in the morning.