Retirement - The bringer of uncertain reactions

First topic message reminder :

When a tennis player decides he or she has had enough and knows that mentally and physically that facing the prospect of training and matches and flying and driving, retirement is the only escape from such a life. Some can do it willingly, others not so willingly. When players retire, it is only then that natural reflection of their accomplishments in the game and much about what they have contributed to the game becomes the centre of focus. Greatness can be defined or simply a care-free sentence as 'Geee wasn't he good, could've done better'

Once the decision is made and retirement is officially on the cards, we wonder, 'How are they going to do it?'

Fairytale ending - Pete Sampras at the US Open in 2002 chose to end his career in the most amazing way possible. Sign off as a champion. Win one last title. Go for the big one. Prove doubters wrong, like a certain Greg Rusedski who before the tournament said that Pete couldn't win another tournament and Greg was dispatched un-mercifully by the man himself. For me only Federer has the ability to end his career in such a way.

Emotional ending - The last hurrah. Jimmy Connors made that amazing run at the US Open in 1991 at the age of 39 reaching the Semi Finals and everyone thought Jimbo was going to do it. Emotions run high. Storybook stuff. No-one told that to Jim Courier who ended his amazing run during that tournament. Andre Agassi at the US Open 2005 lost to a Roger Federer, who to this day recognises his performance as one that he played his 'best' tennis. I thought Andre would retire on a high, but decided he had a last chance in him. He reached the final and he could do it again and even go one better. At the US Open in 2006, Unfortunately he lost in the 3rd round to Benjamin Becker. What then followed was pure and utter emotion and outpour for a guy that was one of the people. Who gave his all, despite the hatred for the game that lurked inside of him. Gustavo Kuerten retired after the French Open 2008 after vowing to only play tournaments that had sentimental value to him. 15,000 people watched him go down to Paul-Henri Mathieu.

I can't fight on anymore ending - Bjorn Borg was one of the first players to speak out against the 'brutal' schedule at the time. The Australian Open at the time was held in December and many top players decided to skip the tournament to recover. In 1981 at Wimbledon he lost to John McEnroe and stormed off before the presentations. He then lost to Big Mac again at the US Open that year in the final and announced his retirement at the age of 26. He made an attempted comeback, but I shall remember him like so many at his peak. Boris Becker decided not to play Wimbledon again after his 1997 Quarter Final defeat to Sampras. He retired in 1999.

Injury ending - So many players have succumb to retiring through injury. Ivan Lendl, Steffi Graff, Justine Henin, Carlos Moya, Mario Ancic, Monica Seles. It is not one through choice and is one that is not pleasent.

Forgotten ending - Marat Safin made it no secret of his desire to retire from the game at the age of 29. Disillusioned with his game and how he was eliminated from tournaments symbolised that he no longer enjoyed the game. His last match was during the Paris Masters when he lost to US Open champion Juan Martin Del Potro.

Disgraced ending - Martina Hingis a 9 time Slam Champion achieving the Career Grand Slam ended her career in disgrace when she tested positive for Cocaine in 2007 after her third round exit at Wimbledon. She retired declaring she had never taken drugs, though she made no fight to clear her name.

How would you like to see your favourite player retire?

Connors played a battle of the sexes match in 1992, not sure if that was an official tour match though.

noleisthebest wrote:Bogbrush,

my "little" brother died from heroine overdose. As an adult. Nole's present age, in fact, 24, and we suspect he started taking drugs before he became an adult.

It's the choice of the stupid, but often young people are vulnerable and succumb to pressures where you and I wouldn't and didn't.

Making drugs illegal is one way of controlling the damage. I often think if they were legal, the problem would very possibly disappear, at least there would not be any drug related crimes such as burglaries, muggings etc.
Then again, you'd have poeple driving drugged and where could that end...
So, it's probably better they stay illegal.

I'm terribly sorry for your loss, sincerely I am. Hoever I must disagree that making them illegal is a way of controlling the damage. In fact by doing so we create a profit margin for criminals who then have a motive to push them on. Also, to "cut" them with garbage, price them so you have to hit old ladies on the head, fund poppy fields for terrorists, all sorts of interesing stuff.

The harm argument is flawed, but as a libertarian the freedom one is big for me. NOT the freedom to harm though, Tenez, so if you hurt someone under the influence I say you get the consequences big time.

legendkillar wrote:Can we try and stay on topic somehow?

C'mon lk, this is a good thing for the forum. We are talking, exchanging opinion and it's got people engaged. That's good for the forum and if just this once we have a madly off-topic thread it's not killing the place. Not every time though, I grant you, but it did get started from Hingis.

Fair point there bb. I don't mind "off" topic, just sometimes people can go beyond and it was sad to read of such a sad experience like NITB. It was intriguing to read the thoughts of posters and how they felt "recreational" use can be somewhat harsh. When Agassi said in his book about taking drugs and getting away with it was sad. Drugs cause more than physical damage and cause a person to lose their morals and self-esteem.

bogbrush wrote:The harm argument is flawed, but as a libertarian the freedom one is big for me. NOT the freedom to harm though, Tenez, so if you hurt someone under the influence I say you get the consequences big time.

You might well be a balanced individual who can use or do drugs, alcohol, gambling, money and other exciting things in our lives without ever abusing them...but then you probably belong to a minority and rules for you might not have been needed. But when you address the masses, unfortunately, there is a need to control substances that can get the worst out of people.

Look at a war environment for instance, we can turn ourselves into beasts and do the most horrible things we woudl never do in normal situations. Drugs can help you turn into that beast without the war environment.

Sure there is a huge side effect of controlling drugs as you mention...but if you think about it, it's already a part of that "beast" showing up.

Same here, NITB, it's sad to hear that.

Tenez, the argument you're advancing is the perfect argument for the nanny state, where the government decides what's good and bad for you and makes many decisions for you and you lose your independence to do things for yourself or make decisions for yourself! Hardly a recipe for a well governed society.

Banning things is the sort of things adults do with children and if that's the policy/action you choose, don't be surprised if the result is that rules are broken regularly. If such a course of action doesn't work that effectively with children, how on earth can such a policy work with grown up adults? It's well documented that drugs policy is a failure in most Western countries, banning certain drugs drives up demand, it doesn't reduce demand.

I repeat the example of Portugal, which has decriminalized most illegal drugs, why has drug usage gone down? Of course governments and people who want to ban drugs don't want to talk about Portugal, ignorance is bliss. It means you can say to people, like you are Tenez and others, that drug usage will go up if you decriminalize and it will become a free for all. There's no evidence that will happen, it's pure speculation that demand will go up, and if that's true, why not in Portugal?

What's far worse JHMarx is making the drugs illegal and then not taxing them and then picking up the tab of the consequences. Treating adults like babies and letting the government make important personal decisions (which affect only those individuals) is a recipe for not only a nanny state but disaster. That's exactly what you got with the current drugs policy in the UK. We can continue with the current policies which are a failure or do something different like in Portugal and reap the rewards of being courageous and bold instead of being cowardly and sensationalist and getting nothing but an expensive NHS bill and many deaths from ignorance to show for it.

People who take drugs excessively need help, they won't get that help through being criminalized. All it does is drive the problem underground and allows it to get worse. They have a problem and it's not a problem which is made better by making them criminals for taking it. No one has addressed why it's fine for out dated laws to remain on the statue books. These laws on drugs don't reflect the reality of actual harm, as I said, you got more chance of dying from riding a horse than taking ecstasy, yet one is illegal and the other isn't. In both situations, the person knows there is a risk and yet one is perfectly legal and the other isn't. A very arbitrary law at best and given this law was passed by hysterical politicians in fear of a hysterical media, how can we honestly say this is a good thing? Surely laws need to be made in a better fashion then by hysterical people in fear of tabloid headlines, in the best interests and best outcomes of all? Pandering to speculation and refusing to accept the facts of the actual harm of a number of drugs is denial of reality, not intelligence and you're certainly not protecting anyone either.

Sorry for the long post and being slightly off topic! There are a range of views on this area (drugs) and it's funny how selective/biased people are, without addressing some key facts/evidence and substituting them with speculation and alarmist tabloid'esque points.

So Bogbrush,

how do you see your favourite player retire?

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The harm argument is flawed, but as a libertarian the freedom one is big for me. NOT the freedom to harm though, Tenez, so if you hurt someone under the influence I say you get the consequences big time.

You might well be a balanced individual who can use or do drugs, alcohol, gambling, money and other exciting things in our lives without ever abusing them...but then you probably belong to a minority and rules for you might not have been needed. But when you address the masses, unfortunately, there is a need to control substances that can get the worst out of people.

Look at a war environment for instance, we can turn ourselves into beasts and do the most horrible things we woudl never do in normal situations. Drugs can help you turn into that beast without the war environment.

Sure there is a huge side effect of controlling drugs as you mention...but if you think about it, it's already a part of that "beast" showing up.

Just so we're clear, I don't take any drugs to affect mood or state of mind, not since I stopped drinking 5/6 years ago. I wasn't an alcoholic or anything like that although I did used to drink excessively. I teach my kids that the great trap of drugs is in giving up accountability for making your own achievement and thet's why they are a degenerate activity. I'm not a fan of drugs.

noleisthebest wrote:So Bogbrush,

how do you see your favourite player retire?

I suppose I'd like Fed to keep playing as long as possible, at least as long as he can roll back the years now and then. I suspect we won't see his like again for a very long time so it'll be a sad day for tennis when he becomes unable to produce one of those "Fed" performances.

luciusmann wrote:Tenez, the argument you're advancing is the perfect argument for the nanny state, where the government decides what's good and bad for you and makes many decisions for you and you lose your independence to do things for yourself or make decisions for yourself! Hardly a recipe for a well governed society.

No. Not at all. I don't even think politicians in most cases are mature and balanced enough to govern us so I am certainly not in favour of any nany state.

Do you think we should not have a law forbidding drink and drive cause we are "adults"? Taking drug is exactly the same problem. It's your mental health and other people's health that is simply veering out of control.

I repeat the example of Portugal, which has decriminalized most illegal drugs, why has drug usage gone down? Of course governments and people who want to ban drugs don't want to talk about Portugal, ignorance is bliss. It means you can say to people, like you are Tenez and others, that drug usage will go up if you decriminalize and it will become a free for all. There's no evidence that will happen, it's pure speculation that demand will go up, and if that's true, why not in Portugal?
----------------------

And do you want to talk about Amsterdam? They have become the city of all addicts of Europe and have just changed the Law again forbidding coffee shops to sell drugs.

They know a thing or 2 about legalising drug.

Tenez wrote:

luciusmann wrote:Tenez, the argument you're advancing is the perfect argument for the nanny state, where the government decides what's good and bad for you and makes many decisions for you and you lose your independence to do things for yourself or make decisions for yourself! Hardly a recipe for a well governed society.

No. Not at all. I don't even think politicians in most cases are mature and balanced enough to govern us so I am certainly not in favour of any nany state.

Do you think we should not have a law forbidding drink and drive cause we are "adults"? Taking drug is exactly the same problem. It's your mental health and other people's health that is simply veering out of control.

I think we must separate the consumption of a drug from the doing of harm under the influence. Obviously the latter is wrong and the perpetrator should be liable in exactly the way had they been sober. We don't ban possession or consumption of alcohol, just killing people while under the influence.
Your own mental health is your own affair. It doesn't bother me at all if other people decide to damage themselves.

Oddly, with Portugal, the government achieved their goal of reducing drug use i.e. controlling people's behaviour, by giving people more freedom. Quite a clever way of social control - if we give people more freedom to take drugs, more of them will act the way we want them to and not take them - more effective than the nanny state and a lot more subtle.
It was just a way of trying to fix a massive health and social problem, rather than an ideological exercise in libertarianism (I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds impressive!)
It's also ironic that some people want freedom from the state to take drugs, but then turn to the state when they need help to come off drugs.

And I thought Agassi's farewell speech was too well-rehearsed and a little cringe-worthy, despite my being a huge Agassi fan. You can say good-bye to the fans without going over-the-top, although that's just his nature I guess.

Libertarianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

A libertarian would never consider that he had the right to mess himself up and then bring the problem to your door to fix.

Your own mental health is your own affair.
------------------
Unfortunately not. That's the key of the problem here. We can all, I mean all of us, lose our self control and let a darken side let loose. Not agreeing with this is simply not knowing oneself.

Alcohol can also be dangerous and it has ruined many families, including children's lives, through road accidents, bankrupcies, divorces and so on. And people affected by it, try to get help cause they know it's something that's stronger than them.

It's more diffciult to ban and I agree it shoudl not be banned because those "ruined" lives through alcohol are still a minority but we are already aware that the problem is spreading and we see a large community of adults being seriously affected by it.

Drugs in general let hell break loose quicker than alcohol and I guess this is why it shoudl be controlled....though I agree there are points (ie alcohol/spliff ) where it's not that clear cut.

"Drugs in general let hell break loose quicker than alcohol and I guess this is why it shoudl be controlled....though I agree there are points (ie alcohol/spliff ) where it's not that clear cut."

Again Tenez, idle speculation. Care to provide some actual evidence that this is the case? What you're doing is no different to what the tabloid press does which has led to the failed drugs policy, with wild speculation that all hell will break loose. Curious that you mention Holland/Amsterdam without explaining why the relaxing the usage of cannabis hasn't worked? There are reasons why it hasn't worked:

a) Holland only legalized one drug, cannabis rather than many drugs. The relaxing of the law only addressed one drug, not the many other drugs people take
b) Anyone, foreigners and Dutch citizens could take cannabis. This was initially fine but it fueled many drug 'tourists' which meant problems mounted over time and caused problems to local people.

Holland is just one example, along with Portugal where they have experimented with relaxing drugs law. I can name you many countries with the same drugs policy you're advocating that have not only failed but is failing to this day. The reason Portugal has been such a brilliant example is because of the way they've drafted the law. It's obvious from your post you don't appear to have researched the law they passed and why it's been successful, instead preying on the example of Holland (which only legalized one drug) where it hasn't worked so well. It's still better than where we are in the UK where drugs policy is a miserable failure.

The points you raise are absurd, using the example of drink driving?! Are you serious? Of course that's illegal, you're endangering other people's lives with your driving under the influence. No comparison with those taking drugs. Also, mental health is only affected if you take certain drugs, like cannabis. Other drugs have limited affects on you're mental health over the long term. If you want to read up on it, look into the countless research which have shown very little side effects/inconclusive effects in the long term.

The entire issue comes down to this, irresponsible people, whether drug takers, gamblers, alcoholics and others will abuse they're right to do something whereas responsible people will not and do things in moderation. Thus because a minority of people abuse their responsibilities to themselves, that means everyone should be punished through banning the said activity, what an absurd way to deal with an issue. Punish the majority because a minority abuse their responsibilities to themselves and their families is illogical. You can't base decision making for an entire country on the wild speculation that all hell will break loose if you legalize drugs. It hasn't happened in Holland or Portugal, so explain why on earth it will happen here, with some actual evidence instead of idle speculation.

I'm glad you researched the law in Portugal JHMarx. The point about Portugal which is so hopeful is that giving more freedom in the correct way, leads to better outcomes for all. You could argue it's clever way of social control but the desired outcome is in everyone's interest, not the government's alone, something which we'd want here too?

There's no logical rigour to that policy, Tenez.

The points you raise are absurd, using the example of drink driving?! Are you serious? Of course that's illegal, you're endangering other people's lives with your driving under the influence.
-----------------------------------

You lack imagination if you don;t see the parallel. It's exactly the same thing, except that you don;t need a car to harm people around you when on drug.

Take the number of people who committed a physical offence in prison and check what's teh percentage of them being on drug while doing so. It's very high I am pretty sure.

Taking drug affects the abusers health and other people around. That's a simple fact.

bogbrush wrote:There's no logical rigour to that policy, Tenez.

Which policy?

How is it the same thing? Are you saying people on drugs kill other people when they are on them? I'm sorry, you clearly haven't met anyone on drugs (vast majority are harmless).

Again, absurd Tenez, the reason those people committed a physical harm to someone else wasn't when they were on drugs, most often it was to fund the drug habit, it's well known, it helps if you know a few things about this subject. The price of drugs becomes higher because the black market needs to give an incentive to smug them into the country so these people get addicted and have to fund it somehow.

You haven't addressed why relaxing drugs policy in Portugal has been successful, I'm still waiting. Hopefully you will read up on it so we can actually debate it instead of speculation on the effects of relaxing the drugs laws. In fact, address why banning is a more effective policy in general than trusting people to be more responsible like in Portugal.

How is it the same thing? Are you saying people on drugs kill other people when they are on them? I'm sorry, you clearly haven't met anyone on drugs (vast majority are harmless).
-------------------------------

The vast majority is harmless but we are 7 billion people on the planet! That's many people.... and the vast majority of those in Prisons are drug users. That is no secret...and that makes many 100 000 if not millions of lives wasted because of drug use.

They're in prison because we crimminalize drug usage!

Of course they will be in prison, if you get caught in possession you're sent to prison, if you're caught dealing in them you do or if you commit crimes to fund the habit you do. Most of them are in prison to fund the habit because drugs cost so much and dealers want their customers to become addicts so they get more money. Those drug addicts won't seek out help because they might be criminalized, so the problem gets worse. By the way, it's not the vast majority, 60% of those in prison are there through drugs.

luciusmann wrote:They're in prison because we crimminalize drug usage!

And you call my points absurd?!?!


By the way, and this coudl be linked to tennis...and more relatedto this topic, did you know that the famous Dr Fuentes and other doping doctors do operate from Portugal now for the very reason that Portugal doesn't criminalise drugs like Spain do now!?!?

Tenez, let's back up a moment.

Imagine if drug use was legal. This is what I (and luciusmann, I suspect) believe would happen:

* People would still use drugs, more or less at the same level as now. There's an argument it would be lower but I'll concede just for now that it could be higher, but lucius would probably disagree there.
* Drugs related crime would drop by 99%. The 1% left would be akin to the drink/driving thing which as you concede already happens with a legal drug and is what happens with illegal drug users now. Gone would be the need to mug people to fund the habit as costs would reduce dramatically.
* NHS costs would fall as people would only consume clean drugs, not cut down with garbage by criminals and the violence would disappear.
* Police/Customs costs would collapse. Absolutely fall through the floor. They would be free to chase down murderers, people traffickers and so on.
* Prostitution would fall as many women would not need to fund an illicit drug habit.
* The Prison population would fall dramatically, relieving the funding crisis. The Court system would also clear up.

Wouldn't that be a good outcome?

I don't see how that's absurd, you'll need to explain that because it makes no sense. I'm still waiting for you to discuss Portugal, but I guess you won't because it doesn't support you're policy of banning drugs!

I wasn't aware of that, why is Dr Fuentes so famous?

Exactly Bogbrush, the outcome would be great. Some people can only see the negative consequences instead of the great outcomes that could be realized with rational debate.

It wouldn't surprise me if we get to see quite a few retirements the next 12-18 months.
Haas?
Blake?
Hewitt?
Ferrero?

It could go faster than planned for Nalby and Davydenko too.

And then there's Fed..it depends on his results. On Topic: he'll say goodbye in Basel (with the title of course ), hopefully not next year, but..

gallery play wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if we get to see quite a few retirements the next 12-18 months.
Haas?
Blake?
Hewitt?
Ferrero?

It could go faster than planned for Nalby and Davydenko too.

And then there's Fed..it depends on his results. On Topic: he'll say goodbye in Basel (with the title of course ), hopefully not next year, but..

Great call! He always says it's a huge event for him, where he wasa ballboy. Many people would think Wimbledon but as Basle come after the last Slam, and we're assuming he goes at a time he's not making the y/e Masters, that would be the perfect venue.

Either that or his back finally gives out one day and it ends all of a sudden. That back is an ongoing problem.

Yeah, Basel it is. He knows there's always an outside chance to win the USO so he won't retire at SW19 (or the OG)
I reckon he'll try to win the Davis cup one day so that 'll be an option too

Imagine if drug use was legal. This is what I (and luciusmann, I suspect) believe would happen:

* People would still use drugs, more or less at the same level as now. There's an argument it would be lower but I'll concede just for now that it could be higher, but lucius would probably disagree there.

The fact it could be higher (consumers) in itslef is a very important point . I cannot imagine people giving up on drugs cause it then becomes legal. On the other end I can easily imagine a few who could try it because it is made readily available and it hasn;t got that criminal stamp on it....and the more likely to be victim of that "friendlier" image are the children.

* Drugs related crime would drop by 99%. The 1% left would be akin to the drink/driving thing which as you concede already happens with a legal drug and is what happens with illegal drug users now. Gone would be the need to mug people to fund the habit as costs would reduce dramatically.

I think that's where we differ quite a bit. Other forms of crime will come up regardless. Alcohol is legal yet we have more and more children Men and women consuming it and it's a serious problem of our societies. Legalising drug woudl make things worse in my view.

* NHS costs would fall as people would only consume clean drugs, not cut down with garbage by criminals and the violence would disappear.

* Police/Customs costs would collapse. Absolutely fall through the floor. They would be free to chase down murderers, people traffickers and so on.

I can see the benefits of legalising drug. I don;t think it would overcome the side effects as mentioned above.

* Prostitution would fall as many women would not need to fund an illicit drug habit.

* Not sure about that at all. I think prostitution has always been ruled by the demand...like all markets and the demand of sex not drugs. Drugs just make the job "easier" I guess.

The Prison population would fall dramatically, relieving the funding crisis. The Court system would also clear up.

Disagree again. Legalising drug doesn;t make a drug user a saint or a normal person. This is based on my very first point which I think people with great theories overlook: There is a very dark side in all of us, call this the "shadow" if we want to remain scientific, and that side will always find a way to express itself.

Ideally, I can agree that everyting shoudl be legal in a perfect world cause in a perfect world we, adults, are responsible people. BUt look around. I don;t want to give too negative an image but we, adults, have messed up the ecology of our planet no end for generations to come. Our polictians start wars on false documents and reasons, the media control the masses' way of thinking for the corporations benefits, the economy can easily go out of control like everything else we do not really control, and no one has the solutions we are facing nor does anyone can foresee the problems we haven't got yet.

It's not a critic of our society, it's just a description to emphasise the fact that we, "the balanced people", are NOT in control of our destinity and the drug addict much less even.

Funny how you mention the media control the masses' way of thinking yet it's exactly the media who want the policy you say is best! You forget to mention that drugs are already banned and the fact the problem is getting worse, not better shows that what you're saying isn't working. So how will more of the same work better?

Also, if you look at actual evidence, tenez, instead of assuming drug consumption will go up, why hasn't it gone up but DOWN in Portugal? According to you it will go up but there's no other country apart from Portugal to look at and it went down, the evidence doesn't support what you're saying. Also, don't bring up Holland, as I said, Holland legalized just one drug and allowed everyone, including foreigners to take it (not the situation in Portugal).

Also, people trying drugs has never been the problem, it's the addicts who are the problem because they commit the crimes. So what if more people try it, they'll try it and leave it (most do). You will have to address why people should believe you over seeing the hard evidence coming from Portugal where consumption has gone down. Why should we believe you because you 'think' it will go up when we got actual evidence which contradicts you? Until you discuss Portugal instead of ignoring it, you're argument looks positively limp. I'll believe the hard evidence (like most people) over what you 'think' because what you think isn't proven: evidence is.

Also, if you look at actual evidence, tenez, instead of assuming drug consumption will go up, why hasn't it gone up but DOWN in Portugal?
---------------------------

Too early to call for Portugal. Plus it's in the corner of Europe no very accessible to all and therefore is not likely to be affected by such law.

The Portugal example would seem to show that people are more willing to disregard their own health when it means they can also defy authority ("It's banned, so I'll do it" vs "It's not banned, there's no point doing it"). Human beings are strange. I'm glad I'm not one.

Tenez, you do actually know the details of the law, don't you? If it was in the centre of Europe it wouldn't matter because of the way the law is drafted, it might help if you read up on it instead of telling us why you 'think' it's not a good example without knowing the details. If you know anything about the drugs trade, Portugal is on the route to bringing drugs into Europe, it's not a remote corner, right in the middle of the drugs trade, just shows how you don't know much about this subject. Too early? Drugs have been legalized for a few years there now. I double checked, they've relaxed the laws for 10 years now, not a few years! If consumption was going to go up, it would go up when it was legalized, not a few years afterwards.

Exactly JHMarx, but according to tenez, legalizing it would lead to a big surge in drug usage, that isn't the evidence coming out of Portugal tenez!

I was looking back on what you were saying earlier Tenez. You clearly are not a lawyer. The reason why consuming drugs is legal is because no one can tell you what you may or may not put in your body. Also, if you have consumed the drugs and there's none of it left, the police/CPS do not have any evidence to prosecute you with. No evidence, no case. Courts proceed on the basis of evidence Tenez, not what police officers or other people like yourself 'think'. Thus consuming drugs is legal, possession illegal.

If we banned fruit and veg, would the population start eating more healthily (albeit illegally?). Wouldn't work with brussel sprouts I suspect.

I want food banned. I mean, there's a guy in the news today suing because he wants a gastric band. He's harming himself and can't be trusted with the stuff. Plus I bet he could hurt small children if he pushed past them in the rush to get to the sweetie counter.

I'm not sure where this thread is going

Well anyway here's my view on when how players retiring.

Obviously we'd all like to see your favourite player retire with a win, but what I really think is, as I said in a similar thread:-

"So as long as you're enjoying it, ignore everyone and keep playing, cause you're gonna be a long time retired. If you don't belive me, just ask Thomas Muster aged 43 and currently world ranked 1006 -"
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mu/T/Thomas-Muster.aspx

I want the gastric band banned. I want the Bonzo Dog Doo-dah Band banned. I want the wedding band banned, wedding banns banned, banners banned and the autobahn bahned.

bogbrush wrote:I want food banned. I mean, there's a guy in the news today suing because he wants a gastric band. He's harming himself and can't be trusted with the stuff. Plus I bet he could hurt small children if he pushed past them in the rush to get to the sweetie counter.

Quite funny but this is a very good example of people not being "in control" (here of what they eat). Much more widespread than we think BB. Look, you and I spend too much time here on v2 and we know we shoudl not. We are addicted to it despite our jobs asking for our time!

Surely it would be better to educate people to be more responsible than banning things, that's the common sense approach.

If you just ban, ban, ban, you end up achieving very little. If you want to see the results of going nuclear and enforcing strict drugs law, look at Mexico and ask yourself if that's what you prefer (almost 3, 000 dead in 2009 in one province alone) or Portugal where drug usage has gone down and more drug addicts are seeking help. I know which one I prefer.

luciusmann wrote:Surely it would be better to educate people to be more responsible than banning things, that's the common sense approach.

Frankly, you fail again to understand the basic of human nature and its pulsions. To "educate" is a nice word....but it doesn;t carry much weight for many people with strong pulsions. Just an example, we "shoudl not drink excessively" yet on Fridays and Saturdays the streets are littered with people having drunk too much behaving the way they (shoudl) regret on Monday. They all knowthey shoudl not drink as much.

How do you educate someone with a strong libido visiting a prostitute? I am listening! LOL!

As you know, the binge drinking problem is unique to the UK, so it's not a problem which affects all European countries.

A lot of your so called 'human nature' home truths are speculative at best, none of grounded in fact, hence why you've not explained why drug usage hasn't gone up in Portugal despite it being legal to take drugs now. Funny that, since according to you, human nature would suggest drug usage would be out of control in Portugal!

Sexual desire is a basic human requirement, taking drugs isn't so there's no point in comparing the two as if they're the same thing, they're not. You should know that. Making something like drugs illegal will not lead to a massive spike in drug usage, that's a fact, until you show an example where legalizing drugs has, you're argument in flawed. Making them illegal has only increased consumption, so why should we remain with a failed policy when there's a policy that works pretty well in Portugal?

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I want food banned. I mean, there's a guy in the news today suing because he wants a gastric band. He's harming himself and can't be trusted with the stuff. Plus I bet he could hurt small children if he pushed past them in the rush to get to the sweetie counter.

Quite funny but this is a very good example of people not being "in control" (here of what they eat). Much more widespread than we think BB. Look, you and I spend too much time here on v2 and we know we shoudl not. We are addicted to it despite our jobs asking for our time!

I'm not addicted and it doesn't cause me issues in my job. If it did I'd stop.

In any case my observation was to show that banning things isn't the answer. You don't get people to behave like adults by treating them like children, and in any case it's a freedom issue. It's none of your business if I want to stuff rubbish into me. It becomes your business if I harm you, but drugs use in a legalised environment carry no more chance of that than me getting in my car.

EDIT: Prostitution should be legal too. What should be illegal is compulsion into prostitution, and the illicit nature of drugs form a big part of that nasty pattern.

bogbrush wrote:You don't get people to behave like adults by treating them like children,

No, But you limit the damage by doing so. THis is why there are laws everywhere, including on drink driving. A bit too much I agree in many cases, but in terms of drugs use and abuse, there si a very good reason for it and no sensible country is going to give in on this any time soon....it seems.

luciusmann wrote:Sexual desire is a basic human requirement, taking drugs isn't so there's no point in comparing the two as if they're the same thing, they're not.

That's where you logic fails really. You can compare sexual desire with a feel good desire for instance. We need both and both can be linked too.

Raping is not a basic requirement no more than drug taking is but in both cases, they are basic instinct requirements which somewhen, somewhere have broken loose and control the man more than the man controls them.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You don't get people to behave like adults by treating them like children,

No, But you limit the damage by doing so. THis is why there are laws everywhere, including on drink driving. A bit too much I agree in many cases, but in terms of drugs use and abuse, there si a very good reason for it and no sensible country is going to give in on this any time soon....it seems.

Again, no evidence Tenez to suggest it limits damage. The 'good reason' you refer to is hysterical tabloid headlines along the lines you've given in your posts of all hell breaking loose. Of course, you know there's no evidence to support you're position apart from your take on 'human nature' which is deeply dubious and without any actual evidence. Again, you make a tenuous link with drink driving which can cause harm to others, taking drugs for your own usage doesn't mean you will harm others unless you commit crimes to fund you're habit.

Portugal isn't a sensible country? Actually, other countries have gone in the direction of Portugal too, so it seems you're the one out of step on this and ill informed on this matter. There's actually more evidence to suggest banning drugs leads to an increase in drug usage, unlike in Portugal where it has gone down. Are you planning on explaining why it hasn't gone up? That's the entire premise of your argument, if you legalize drugs, usage will hit the roof. What if it doesn't? You got no case to stand on. You can't compare sexual desire with r a p e, where you force yourself on someone. Drug usage doesn't mean harming others. R a p e does. This is where you're argument collapses. 'Feel good' is not a basic human desire, according to who? You? You've provided about Nil in terms of evidence, that's why you're case is so weak.

It's well known that it's the USA which puts immense pressure on countries to keep the same draconian drugs laws in place. The same country which has the insatiable appetite for vast amounts of these drugs! They ask other countries to stop the flow of drugs which they can't stop their citizens from wanting, oh, you couldn't make it up!

I'm sorry Tenez, but I am going to insist you provide some actual hard EVIDENCE to support your case instead of coming up with non-sense about your view on human desire or what 'might' happen if we legalize. If you got no evidence, go and find some and then come back and debate. If you got none, admit it instead of coming up with silly situations which are purely speculation. We don't need speculation, we got countries we can look at. Countries which follow your suggestion and have seen an INCREASE in drug usage (not just recently, but progressively upwards since they banned drugs) and countries which have decriminalized drug taking where it's gone DOWN. Until you have got some evidence, then we can debate, otherwise no point in debating with a blagger, it's tedious.

luciusmann wrote: Of course, you know there's no evidence to support you're position apart from your take on 'human nature' which is deeply dubious and without any actual evidence.

Are yuo saying that a drug addict and a rap-ist is like, I hope, you and me and can control their pulsions? You are in effect denying that we can lose control of our instincts and that drugs are certainly helping us lose control over those.

I am sorry but that is not dubious science or anything else. It is been proven many times and is continuously so unfortunately on a regular basis in our societies.

Tenez, stuff is getting mixed up here:

* Having laws on drink driving isn't "treating people like children" because it involves harm. There isn't a law against drinking, just driving while you do it. There shouldn't be a law against drugs, just doing irresponsible stuff while you're doing them. That's consistent.

* The laugh about prohibition is it doesn't work. I'd understand (but still disagree) if it was a choice between legal drugs and a society without drugs achieved by prohibition, but it's actually a choice between legal drugs without criminality and illegal drugs funding international organised crime. I mean, didn't anyone pay attention to 1930's America and what happened then?

You're comparing drug addicts and rap-ists as being the same? Er, I said relaxing drugs laws for all, not solely for the benefit of drug addicts. Now you're getting confused with what's been written. Are you trying to suggest that there's going to be an increase in rap-es because of drug addicts? Oh dear, again, idle speculation with NO evidence. There's a big difference, drug addicts do not necessarily harm anyone but themselves, r a p i s t s do! Those who take drugs lose partially their senses, not all of them. Maybe you should speak to people who've taken it. None of them go loopy indefinitely either, any harm to their mental facilities happens over a number of years. Anyone who has knowledge of this subject would know that. It appears you don't.

We don't need 'dubious science' on this, we got case studies. If your case is so rock solid, why have you provided no evidence and not explained why drug usage has gone down in Portugal? Sorry, WHY? Quite a simple question yet you seem totally incapable of answering it. If it's proven so many times why can't you explain why Portugal hasn't become a nation of drug addicts? Exactly, because the moment you accept drug usage might not increase, you're case collapses. Keep digging.

While you're at it, please provide some countries which have seen drug usage go DOWN since banning drugs. Good luck finding that evidence, you might be looking a long time.

* Having laws on drink driving isn't "treating people like children" because it involves harm. There isn't a law against drinking, just driving while you do it. There shouldn't be a law against drugs, just doing irresponsible stuff while you're doing them. That's consistent.

Why is it different? We could educate people not to drink and drive instead of making it illegal? but we simply apply a rule cause we know some will still do it so we have a way to penalise them, those who don't behave like "adults". I don;t drink and drive because it's dangerous....not because of the law and that is what adults should do. For the same reasons I don't abuse drugs. Laws are there to regulate when a "critical mass" of incidents forces a law upon us all.

* The laugh about prohibition is it doesn't work. I'd understand (but still disagree) if it was a choice between legal drugs and a society without drugs achieved by prohibition, but it's actually a choice between legal drugs without criminality and illegal drugs funding international organised crime. I mean, didn't anyone pay attention to 1930's America and what happened then?.

It's not perfect but I think it the better of 2 evils. The 1930s Acohol prohobition is a very good example cause yes, we tried to deprive people of alcohol despite teh fact it was part of their culture for centuries if not millenium. Also the fact a large part of teh population can drink moderately. Drugs are in a different category as it is not part of the western culture and most people can;t handle it...or at least a big enough number to cast a law on it.

I woudl not put a law on teh south american tribe smoking opium or else to connect with their ancestors... clearly that is part of their culture and have been doing so for centuries.

luciusmann wrote:You're comparing drug addicts and rap-ists as being the same?

I am not saying it is the same, I am just giving examples of when human nature goes "wrong". It;s a very good parallel cause though it's 2 different cases, it comes from basic instincts gone wrong.