Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Alright, Mr. Policeman. (Funny that you chastised me for doing exactly this on a different thread some time back. )
    I remember, but that was for telling someone not to bump a thread, totally different context. :mmm:

    Well, in my case not voting would be worse. As the Lib Dem flyers keep telling me, Labour won this constituency by only 38 votes in 2011, so it's pretty tight.

    Also, Assembly elections use an additional member system whereby every voter gets to cast two votes, one for their constituency and another to express a preference -- the second vote is used to elect 20 members on top of the 40 elected from constituencies and these seats are allocated proportionally, so it's worth voting for that reason, even if one lives in a safe seat.

    (And, I suppose, there's also the fact that, four elections in, we've never had a turnout hit the 50 percent mark, which is just shameful. :getmecoat: I think people in Wales underestimate just how much power the regional government has, which would explain why they don't give a rat's ass about this election but bother with general elections.)
    See above for my edit, I said it wrong.

    Oh yes, proportional voting systems ftw :woo:

    But, still, in a safe seat with a majoritarian system I maintain (even though I got my words muddled first time and failed to make this contention correctly the first time) that not voting would be a rational action (depending, of course, on the extent of the 'safeness' of the seat and the nature of political winds).

    Iirc, there were two referendums on whether the Welsh wanted a Welsh Assembly, the first failed, and the second one only passed by a tiny margin? The Welsh Assembly also has less power than the Scottish Parliament, which could explain the lower importance vis-a-vis the GE.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say the Lib Dems are realistically one of the better political parties, that sadly at the moment have been destroyed by the whole political party system.

    Most voters a centre, despite conservatives centre right and labours centre left trappings Lib Dems policies tend to appeal to most voters. The problem is unless we have a national emergency it will never swing seeing during an election people generally want to see labour or conservatives not win. Most of the time the best way to do that is by voting for the other.

    Remove the whole party system and Lib Dems would surge in power. Most MP's in both the Constervative and Labour party tend to actually lean towards the lib dems in terms of their actual ideals than either of the other two parties.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by AJ KO)
    But, still, in a safe seat with a majoritarian system I maintain (even though I got my words muddled first time and failed to make this contention correctly the first time) that not voting would be a rational action (depending, of course, on the extent of the 'safeness' of the seat and the nature of political winds).
    You should have seen Brian May's take on this during the run-up to the general election. :holmes:

    Iirc, there were two referendums on whether the Welsh wanted a Welsh Assembly, the first failed, and the second one only passed by a tiny margin? The Welsh Assembly also has less power than the Scottish Parliament, which could explain the lower importance vis-a-vis the GE.
    Yes, you recall correctly; 0.6 percent, to be exact. But the turnout for both was pretty abysmal (and even more abysmal for a third referendum held in 2011, on whether the Assembly should have total control of the devolved areas).

    The Scottish Parliament has only acquired more powers quite recently, though. And Osborne has promised to give the Assembly powers over taxation without a referendum. But more to the point, the regional government has complete control over quite a few important areas, including many that I suspect most people think are controlled by Westminster (the idea that there is a single, UK-wide NHS is not helpful in this respect; the Welsh NHS is totally under the jurisdiction of the regional government, as is the Learning Grant which ensures that Welsh students don't pay more than £3 800 in tuition fees anywhere in the UK (you'd think that that would be some motivation for students to vote :moon:)). Health, education, transport, housing, etc. I really don't see why anybody remotely interested in politics with long-term plans to live here would ignore Assembly elections.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ KO)
    I meant in general the argument that the criminalisation of something creates a black market for the supply of that thing can apply equally to the criminalisation of guns as it can to the criminalisation of cannabis.

    The logical conclusion of adopting your stance is that no drugs should be criminalised?


    That depends on your answer to my question above.

    If no, then you can argue that you have to draw the line for criminalisation somewhere, but then the onus is on you to satisfactorily distinguish between the drugs you think should be criminalised, and those that you think shouldn't.

    If yes, then, as you mention, perhaps focus on the decriminalisation/legalisation distinction to justify the logical extension of that stance. Should we adopt a rehabilitative or retributivist system re: drugs policy? Does the current retributivist current work (i.e. is it a deterrent)? Does public opinion support this stance?

    Just my two cents.
    Personally I believe that all drugs should be decriminalised, and the research available suggests that this would actually be the best way to deal with drug abuse, both economically and in terms of public health. But I think reform needs to come one step at a time, because a lot of people, especially older people, have ideas about drugs that are deeply-ingrained from decades of propaganda and overwhelmingly negative experiences (everyone knows people that drink heavily and suffer no negative effects, but most people only know drug users that abuse substances and end up with all sorts of problems, because the functioning drug users tend not to reveal their use). All the evidence in the world couldn't convince these people to part with their views, at least not yet, so I think the best approach is to gradually push for more drug reform - start by simply repealing the Psychoactive Substances Act, then push for cannabis decriminalization. Once people see that the sky isn't falling and the apocalypse hasn't arrived, we can push for further reform and people will hopefully be more receptive.

    So I think I'll focus on the argument that you mentioned - that the line needs to be drawn somewhere. How I'd argue that point, though, I'm not really sure - how do you think people would react to "legal highs only cause 60 deaths per year"? Logically it's a valid point and indicates that this legislation is far too extreme, but I'd imagine people would get very, very upset over a statement like that, even if put more tactfully.

    I'm using my family as a sort of benchmark for this. They've all always been staunchly against drugs, they've all seen people harmed by them in the past, so I think that if my arguments can convince them then they should be able to convince a moderate proportion of the anti-drugs crowd. So far they've been swayed strongly against the Psychoactive Substances Act, although that's largely because of the ambiguity potentially allowing substances like 5-HTP (which they know I use) to be banned, but are tentative at best regarding further reform (although I think my mum supports cannabis decriminalisation?). Either way, it's progress, and it's good to know that people will listen to these arguments. Your earlier point about simply amending the act is relevant here, and I wonder if the Tories proposing such an amendment could sway people back in favour of the act. I might actually do some of my own research to find peoples' opinions on this.

    The legalization/decriminalisation argument isn't going to work in this particular case because psychoactive substances aren't being criminalised by the new act - possession is legal, but importing/exporting/sale/production are to be criminalised. So I want to focus more maybe on the ineffectiveness of the Irish act?

    I'm also thinking of seeking out some former and/or current drug addicts to get their thoughts on the current system. Maybe even people that have seen family members suffer from drug abuse, but I don't want to be insensitive about it, just gather some experiences and thoughts.

    Sorry for rambling a bit, just thinking out loud. But if you (or anyone else) have any more thoughts I'd love to hear them.

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Yeah, I agree. Will most likely be voting for them in the Assembly election next month, because all the other parties on offer are worse. :sad: They sent me a letter asking me to put this in my window:
    Spoiler:
    Show


    I won't. :five: :mwuaha:
    Why not just vote for them, instead of being a party member? :holmes:
    I love the Lib Dems but that's an arse ugly poster, I wouldn't put that in my window either.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Lib dems are safely my second preference. That said I think i'm starting to agree with Dan Finkelstein in that they should just split and join the moderate tories/labour factions. I'm probably an extremist social liberal, but i see labour as a far more realistic method of achieving my ideals, even if they have a useless muppet in charge.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.