Netherlands

[Said1]

Well, I happen to live in Amsterdam, the place where there's no junkies in the streets, where prostitution has become much safer for the prostitutes (instead of the rest of the world. And whether your approve it or don't: it's the oldest job in the world and it won't dissapear, so why not make it safer for everybody). And about drugs: YOU have a major drugsproblem, while our people use way less drugs than the rest of Europe and the United States. Our drugspolicy is a major succes, without junkies dying in the streets.

Are Amsterdam's drug policies similar to what the Uk's have been in the past? Meaning heroin, and other highly addictive drugs are given to addicts via perscirption, at the expense of the tax payer. Could you provide some sort of policy example with repsect to highly addictive drugs such as heroin, cocaine, spray paint etc.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Are Amsterdam's drug policies similar to what the Uk's have been in the past? Meaning heroin, and other highly addictive drugs are given to addicts via perscirption, at the expense of the tax payer. Could you provide some sort of policy example with repsect to highly addictive drugs such as heroin, cocaine, spray paint etc.

It looks alot like the British drug policy. Drug addicts are helped by perscripting drugs in a lesser amount each time, until they are off of it. This policy helped alot of addicts and also decreased the percentage of drugrelated crimes. This also worked in other cities.

 

[manu1959]

Well, I happen to live in Amsterdam, the place where there's no junkies in the streets, where prostitution has become much safer for the prostitutes (instead of the rest of the world. And whether your approve it or don't: it's the oldest job in the world and it won't dissapear, so why not make it safer for everybody). And about drugs: YOU have a major drugsproblem, while our people use way less drugs than the rest of Europe and the United States. Our drugspolicy is a major succes, without junkies dying in the streets.

And about the history of slavery: the Netherlands abolished it earlier than the US did, without fighting a civil war.

civil war was about states rights not slavery

 

[Blashyrkh]

civil war was about states rights not slavery

With the most disputed states right being slavery.

 

[Annie]

With the most disputed states right being slavery.

You do not understand the concept. The real war was fought over whether or not states could secede under the constitution. If the South would have acquiesced, slavery under Lincoln would have continued. No joke.

 

[freeandfun1]

With the most disputed states right being slavery.

HONK!

Wrong!

It was about states' rights in general. Slavery was just ONE of many issues. The civil war is what led to a more intrusive federal government and in all reality was not over slavery at all. Lincoln didn't issue the emancipation proclamation until 22 September 1862 and it didn't go into effect unitl 1 January 1863. The civil war began 12 April 1861. If it were about slavery, then why did Lincoln wait nearly 2 years before issuing the emancipation proclamation?

 

[Blashyrkh]

You do not understand the concept. The real war was fought over whether or not states could secede under the constitution. If the South would have acquiesced, slavery under Lincoln would have continued. No joke.

OK I believe that. But why do most people (at least here) think that slavery was at least a big issue in the war?

 

[Blashyrkh]

HONK!

Wrong!

It was about states' rights in general. Slavery was just ONE of many issues. The civil war is what led to a more intrusive federal government and in all reality was not over slavery at all. Lincoln didn't issue the emancipation proclamation until 22 September 1862 and it didn't go into effect unitl 1 January 1863. The civil war began 12 April 1861. If it were about slavery, then why did Lincoln wait nearly 2 years before issuing the emancipation proclamation?

OK, but this only proves my point in post #19

 

[Annie]

OK I believe that. But why do most people (at least here) think that slavery was at least a big issue in the war?

YOU are not MOST people here. sorry

 

[Blashyrkh]

YOU are not MOST people here. sorry

No I know, but that doesn't answer the question.

 

[Annie]

No I know, but that doesn't answer the question.

Nope. You didn't comprehend the answer. Most Americans, including blacks are very aware of what the Civil War was actually about. The real end of slavery was an unintended consequence. Read the Gettysburg Address-it ended slavery ONLY in the states that had seceeded, thus unenforceable without victory over the larger issue.

 

[freeandfun1]

No I know, but that doesn't answer the question.

Because the politically correct nazi's have decided that sounds like a better reason to have fought the war? I don't know. Uneducated I guess.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Because the politically correct nazi's have decided that sounds like a better reason to have fought the war? I don't know. Uneducated I guess.

So you think being politically correct is very bad thing?

 

[Annie]

So you think being politically correct is very bad thing?

Why are you not responding to my response, but going after the red herring you think will lead where you want?

 

[Blashyrkh]

Nope. You didn't comprehend the answer. Most Americans, including blacks are very aware of what the Civil War was actually about. The real end of slavery was an unintended consequence. Read the Gettysburg Address-it ended slavery ONLY in the states that had seceeded, thus unenforceable without victory over the larger issue.

I'm glad I know this now, I was obviously wrong.

 

[Annie]

I'm glad I know this now, I was obviously wrong.

Glad to oblige. It's the same I'd like to see in the history forum.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Good thing the US saved you isn't it?

We are indeed very thankful for you stepping in at a crucial time. But you can't use it forever...

 

[freeandfun1]

So you think being politically correct is very bad thing?

It is when you re-write history only to meet a political agenda. Hence the term "politically" correct.

 

[freeandfun1]

The Netherlands abolished it earlier than the US did

You did? According to THIS article, it is still a major problem in your country and tied to your brothels....

And according to THIS from Wikipedia, slavery was not ended until.... OMG! 1863! The SAME year as the USA. OMG! Could you be wrong - AGAIN?

Main article: History of the Netherlands Antilles

Both the Leeward (Christopher Columbus, 1493) and Windward (Alonso de Ojeda, 1499) island groups were discovered and initially settled by the Spanish. In the 17th century, the islands were conquered by the Dutch West India Company and were used as bases for slave trade. Only in 1863 was slavery abolished.

Granted, this article is discussing the Netherland Antilles, but any quick search will show you that the government did not end slavery in all Dutch lands until 1863.

I know that in 1814 The King of the Netherlands officially terminates OFFICIAL Dutch government participation in the African slave trade, but until 1863 it was legal for Dutch citizens to own and trade slaves.

Also, I like how you so easily gloss over the centuries that your country was the largest slave trading nation in the world. You easily forget the Dutch West India Company and their more than two centuries of slave trading.

The US became a nation in 1776, less than 100 years later, we ended slavery. The Netherlands began trading slaves around 1630 and private ownership and trading of slaves continued until 1863. That is more than 200 years - twice as long as the USA.

You have some balls don't ya?

 

[Blashyrkh]

You did? According to THIS article, it is still a major problem in your country and tied to your brothels....

And according to THIS from Wikipedia, slavery was not ended until.... OMG! 1863! The SAME year as the USA. OMG! Could you be wrong - AGAIN?



Granted, this article is discussing the Netherland Antilles, but any quick search will show you that the government did not end slavery in all Dutch lands until 1863.

I know that in 1814 The King of the Netherlands officially terminates Dutch participation in the African slave trade, but until 1863 it was legal for Dutchmen to own and trade slaves.

Also, I like how you so easily gloss over the centuries that your country was the largest slave trading nation in the world. You easily forget the Dutch West India Company and their more than two centuries of slave trading.

The US became a nation in 1776, less than 100 years later, we ended slavery. The Netherlands began trading slaves around 1630 and continued until 1863. That is more than 200 years - twice as long as the USA.

You have some balls don't ya?

Also,

Well, according to this site slavery wasn't abolished in the US until 1865.
http://www.historicaldocuments.com/13thAmendment.htm

We are not proud of having been the world's largest slavetrading nation. And trafficking of people, or modern slavery is a large problem, but not only in our country. Because of its geographical position, with the world's third (after Singapore and Shanghai) largest port, Rotterdam, the Netherlands is an ideal place on the route.