JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
0
Venlo
sfjp330- sounds like you're the so-called "Doctor" here. ^^
Please take a moment to review the following.
Here is what the former top Doctor of the USA says...
"Former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders calls for legalization of marijuana"
"Marijuana is not addictive -- not physically addictive anyway," Elders added. "Nobody says that marijuana causes violence. As we know alcohol can cause much more aggressiveness. You aren't as likely to hurt someone from using marijuana as you are from using alcohol."
"I think we consume far more dangerous drugs that are legal: cigarette smoking, nicotine and alcohol," Elders told the New York Times on Friday. "I feel they cause much more devastating effects physically. We need to lift the prohibition on marijuana."
Also, look at what Dr Leslie Iversen of Oxford University's Department of Pharmacology, wrote in his book, "The Science of Marijuana."
"There are many "myths" surrounding marijuana use, such as extreme addictiveness, and links with mental illness or infertility are not supported by science.Cannabis is an inherently "safe drug" which does not lead to cancer, infertility, brain damage or mental illness, and is less harmful than asprin."
Please comment.
Posted in: Latin American leaders question Calif move to legalize marijuana
0
Venlo
Legalization is the most logical option.
Latin American leaders claiming otherwise are just protecting their jobs, because they of all people should understand that the failed approach to drug consumption (plus lax US gun laws) have helped to create the world's most powerful organised-crime syndicates in Latin America.
BOTTOM LINE:
"Drug addiction, like alcoholism & tobacco consumption, is a matter of public health rather than the criminal law."
If California votes in favor of legalization, Latin America would be wise to follow suit (the bottom would anyway fall out of its marijuana business). The drug gangs would still be left with more lucrative cocaine & methamphetamines, but it would become easier to defeat them. Drug-policy reform in the US & Latin America could help tame the drug-related violence associated with illegal drugs.
What the region needs are the following 3 things;
Comments please.
Posted in: Latin American leaders question Calif move to legalize marijuana
0
Venlo
Grafton; why would you say "nonsense?"
In order to enlighten you, let us take the situation in the US as an example...
After decades of the deepening drug war, U.S. surveys show that illicit drug use by American youth has increased year on year. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration admits that hard drugs are just as available, less expensive, and more pure than ever. Hard drug abuse and addiction among the urban poor remain widespread. HIV/AIDS continues to spread most rapidly via injection drug users; meanwhile, the needle exchanges that help stem its spread in every other modern nation remain criminalized in the U.S. A growing number of judges — including several high-level federal judges appointed by Republicans — have gone so far as to refuse to apply drug laws that have grown so Draconian they breach all bounds of fairness.
Opinion polls now show a majority of Americans do not believe the war on drugs can be won. More and more are voicing their opposition and seeking alternatives to punitive prohibition. The drug policy reform movement in the U.S. has grown larger and more diverse, attracting support from the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Society of Criminology, and other professional groups. Not all of these groups support decriminalizing & legalizing drugs, but all of them support a shift away from drug war toward the harm-reducing public health approaches pioneered in the Netherlands.
A key aspect of Dutch drug policy is the notion of market separation. By classifying drugs according to the risks posed and then pursuing policies that serve to isolate each market, it is felt that users of soft drugs are less likely to come into contact with users of hard drugs. Thus, the theory goes, users of soft drugs are less likely to try hard drugs. Possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use has been decriminalized in the Netherlands. The sale of cannabis is technically an offence under the Opium Act, but prosecutorial guidelines provide that proceedings will only be instituted in certain situations. An operator or owner of a coffee shop (which is not permitted to sell alcohol) will avoid prosecution if he/she meets the following criteria:
Separating the markets by allowing people to purchase soft drugs in a setting where they are not exposed to the criminal subculture surrounding hard drugs is intended to create a social barrier that prevents people experimenting with drugs like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, drugs deemed an “unacceptable risk.” Decriminalization of the possession of soft drugs for personal use and the toleration of sales in controlled circumstances has not resulted in a worryingly high level of consumption among young people. The extent and nature of the use of soft drugs does not differ from the pattern in other Western countries. As for hard drugs, the number of addicts in the Netherlands is low compared with the rest of Europe and considerably lower than that in France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category.
For tclh; "the question is about criminal & business involved in legalised(or not)drugs."
The answer is in the "Economist" article;
Crime would have no place in an environment where drugs would be legal. It would be taxed & regulated just like the other drugs, TOBACCO & ALCOHOL.
Posted in: Would legalizing drugs drive the crime out of the business?
0
Venlo
OK people, you make me bust out the Economist article on the benefits of legalizing drugs for the third time over the years in the Japan Today forum. Please make an effort to refute the article, because every time this article is posted, the conversation ends.
Bottom line, it's a discussion killer.
No-one has yet been able to argue against the logic of this article. PLEASE TRY PEOPLE, before this discussion gets thrown into the anals of cyberspace again...
The Economist Magazine, one of the top international weekly business & news magazines in the world, (one of my favorites too, for many years) devoted their cover to the issue of drugs. Here is what they had to say in their March 3, 2009 issue.
"The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs. “Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain." They go on to say many more interesting things. Check it out. "The failure of the drug war has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and “harm reduction” And more... "There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so. What about addiction? That is partly covered by this first argument, as the harm involved is primarily visited upon the user. But addiction can also inflict misery on the families and especially the children of any addict, and involves wider social costs. That is why discouraging and treating addiction should be the priority for drug policy. Hence the second argument: legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly. By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts—a way of making legalisation more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope."
Comments please.
Posted in: Would legalizing drugs drive the crime out of the business?
0
Venlo
Get this all you debating folks.
The Economist Magazine, one of the top international weekly business & news magazines in the world, (one of my favorites too, for may years) recently devoted their cover to the issue of drugs. Here is what they had to say in their March 3, 2009 issue.
"The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.
“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain."
They go on to say many more interesting things. Check it out.
"The failure of the drug war has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and “harm reduction”
And more...
"There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so.
What about addiction? That is partly covered by this first argument, as the harm involved is primarily visited upon the user. But addiction can also inflict misery on the families and especially the children of any addict, and involves wider social costs. That is why discouraging and treating addiction should be the priority for drug policy. Hence the second argument: legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly.
By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts—a way of making legalisation more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope."
What more can I add?
Comments please.
Posted in: How do you feel about legalizing some drugs? What are the pros and cons?
0
Venlo
Get this all you debating folks.
The Economist Magazine, one of the top international weekly business & news magazines in the world, (one of my favorites too, for may years) recently devoted their cover to the issue of drugs. Here is what they had to say in their the March 3, 2009 issue.
"The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.
“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain."
They go on to say many more interesting things. Check it out.
"The failure of the drug war has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and “harm reduction”
And more...
"There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so.
What about addiction? That is partly covered by this first argument, as the harm involved is primarily visited upon the user. But addiction can also inflict misery on the families and especially the children of any addict, and involves wider social costs. That is why discouraging and treating addiction should be the priority for drug policy. Hence the second argument: legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly.
By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts—a way of making legalisation more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope."
What more can I add?
Comments please.
Posted in: Japan going to pot: Celebrity busts and student smokers have authorities in a tizz