Flaxbourton Red Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 come on admit it everybody is at it, even the leader of the tory party can't deny it why should we continue with the unwinnable war against drugs? Drugs are supposed to be illegal - yet how come when I walk down the street in town I envariably come across the smell of somebody smoking a jazz cigarette? How much crime is linked to drugs? what motivates people to rob houses and grannies? what drives organised crime and funds terrorism? since when did prohibition work? who is losing out on potential taxation? what is methadone and who pays for methadone or subutex? why should middle class politicians admit to taking drugs, then advocate that your children be given a criminal record for something they got away with? what gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 why should middle class politicians admit to taking drugs, then advocate that your children be given a criminal record for something they got away with? I'm all in favour of our European Union loving Lib-Lab-Con politicians being given fatal combinations of illegal substances. Bring it on man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 I agree, drugs should be legalised - if and only if all the tax money gained and police money saved is spent on better quality drugs and alcohol education for kids and real treatment for addicts who bring misery to those around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmabbuttshair Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Good this Flaxy and I'll pinch it if it that's ok? Should be legalized along with prostitution. Take it out of the hands criminals, tax the hell out of it all, which in turn reduces the alleged glamour that goes with it. All sold in proper shops with all the warnings and purity %ages (anyone who's had whizz and finds themselves wandering the streets at 5 in the morning might suggest there's no glamour whatsoever.) Girls involved in prostitution can then work for themselves or form a co-op and most importantly not have pimps, be licensed and health checked regularly. Out of town brothels that punters have to sign in and out of with some sort of ID so they can be traced if any sort of assault etc occurs. Still all this might be considered as some sort of free society where you are considered bright enough to make your own choices, won't be happening any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 come on admit it everybody is at it, I'm not, neither are most people I know even the leader of the tory party can't deny it why should we continue with the unwinnable war against drugs? Because they're unhealthy, life destroying and fund criminal organisations. Drugs are supposed to be illegal - yet how come when I walk down the street in town I envariably come across the smell of somebody smoking a jazz cigarette?Wow, abit of puff. But then, this is the problem with the classifications How much crime is linked to drugs? what motivates people to rob houses and grannies? what drives organised crime and funds terrorism?Why don't you find the figures, I believe 75% if you include alcohol. Alcohol is leagal, has this stopped the problem of alcohol related violence and drink driving? since when did prohibition work? Since the majority don't do drugs an a regular basis who is losing out on potential taxation? not to mention the extra NHS bill. what is methadone and who pays for methadone or subutex?A heroine replacement, paid for by the taxpayer, do you think legalising drugs would lessen this type of treatment then? why should middle class politicians admit to taking drugs, then advocate that your children be given a criminal record for something they got away with? Whoooooooooooo there. They admit to having abit of puff? I'm yet yo see any of them come out with stories about doing various lines in Westminster. They may admit to the most common, but non have said they've tried class A's what gives? Just to clarify, what "drugs" do you want to see legalised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaxbourton Red Posted October 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Just to clarify, what "drugs" do you want to see legalised. what is the point of criminalisation? is making them illegal supposed to stop people taking them? so far prohibition has failed. utterly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Let me change my wording slighty. Do you think Crystal meth should be legal, and in effect promoted by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaxbourton Red Posted October 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Let me change my wording slighty. Do you think Crystal meth should be legal, and in effect promoted by the state. adultery is legal. Is that promoted by the state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94th Minute Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I think its an awful idea, I'm assuming with your knowledge of the widespread use of cannabis already its not the legalization of this that you are looking for. After all what is the point of legalizing something which is already well tolerated by society, and which (i believe) you won't get a criminal record for being in possession of. Therefore without further information I assume you're looking at the legalization of herion and cocaine. Do you know the facts on herion related deaths? These aren't made up of 21 year old, first time users, overshooting at their first time of getting their grubby hands on the stuff.. no; it's experienced users who generally mix with alcohol, benzodiazapines and other CNS depressants. By making these substances legal, by sending the message to the nation that casual use is accecptable we will only push more and more people to the point where they mix to increase the thill. Increase the mixing rates, increase the mortality rates, increase the cost to the NHS. As for your point on adultery being legal, yet not promoted by the state, yes its not, but I'm sure if we saw legistration against it we'd als see a drastic fall in divorces and single parent families (Daily Mail Trademark); why.. because humans like to see themselves as rebelious, but underneath it all we're all cowards, pushing and pushing to the point where we could actually get in trouble. Its for this reason that drug laws need to be kept tight, for those at the extremes of the bell curve, they will use drugs, but it stops the general population pushing before the point it could get dangerous I can see two good reasons for the legalization of drugs 1) Drug impurities are a major factor in the cause of death of drug users. Excluding one case, this has been widely disproved by similarities in mortalilty rates regardless of location. Location being a factor in changing impurities. By legalizing drugs, you could gaurentee a clean supply, would this make any difference to the number of deaths? Highly unlikely 2) Legalilty would naturally bring greater information and research into the dangers of narcotics, greater awareness of the population would reduce 'abuse'. Try typing "narcotic of choice" overdose, into google scolar, theres plenty of research into it, people just ignore it. If you don't believe me, talk to frank I wish I could honestly believe it is just these factors above, the weight of danger supported by scientific proof that makes me so against the legalization of anything stronger than a double expresso coffee; but take a look at any druggie off their face on their poision of choice, do you really want a society with more people like that, just because they can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I think its an awful idea, I'm assuming with your knowledge of the widespread use of cannabis already its not the legalization of this that you are looking for. After all what is the point of legalizing something which is already well tolerated by society, and which (i believe) you won't get a criminal record for being in possession of. Therefore without further information I assume you're looking at the legalization of herion and cocaine. Do you know the facts on herion related deaths? These aren't made up of 21 year old, first time users, overshooting at their first time of getting their grubby hands on the stuff.. no; it's experienced users who generally mix with alcohol, benzodiazapines and other CNS depressants. By making these substances legal, by sending the message to the nation that casual use is accecptable we will only push more and more people to the point where they mix to increase the thill. Increase the mixing rates, increase the mortality rates, increase the cost to the NHS. As for your point on adultery being legal, yet not promoted by the state, yes its not, but I'm sure if we saw legistration against it we'd als see a drastic fall in divorces and single parent families (Daily Mail Trademark); why.. because humans like to see themselves as rebelious, but underneath it all we're all cowards, pushing and pushing to the point where we could actually get in trouble. Its for this reason that drug laws need to be kept tight, for those at the extremes of the bell curve, they will use drugs, but it stops the general population pushing before the point it could get dangerous I can see two good reasons for the legalization of drugs 1) Drug impurities are a major factor in the cause of death of drug users. Excluding one case, this has been widely disproved by similarities in mortalilty rates regardless of location. Location being a factor in changing impurities. By legalizing drugs, you could gaurentee a clean supply, would this make any difference to the number of deaths? Highly unlikely 2) Legalilty would naturally bring greater information and research into the dangers of narcotics, greater awareness of the population would reduce 'abuse'. Try typing "narcotic of choice" overdose, into google scolar, theres plenty of research into it, people just ignore it. If you don't believe me, talk to frank I wish I could honestly believe it is just these factors above, the weight of danger supported by scientific proof that makes me so against the legalization of anything stronger than a double expresso coffee; but take a look at any druggie off their face on their poision of choice, do you really want a society with more people like that, just because they can? You've managed to ignore the biggest argument for legalization - vastly reducing crime and the financial benefits organized crime continues to enjoy from prohibition. Compare heroin OD deaths to killings in drug related gun crime. Compare cost to NHS with cost of enforcement, costs of investigating burglary, robbery, smuggling, organized crime etc. If you think prohibition works I would be interested to hear your explanation for why the rate of problem drug users (addicts or people who commit crime whilst under the influence of drugs) in different countries correlates positively with legal systems and enforcement policies that are stricter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm confused Nibor. Do you really think that crime would magically dissapear? Are you seriously suggesting that criminal gangs would suddenly go straight? As for your mention of other countries, maybe you could find the cost benefits from countries that have a reduced or limited criminal law on drug taking. And flaxy, comparing an inherant human instinct as rather pointless. Shame you didn't answer any of my wuestions, you'd make a great mp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaxbourton Red Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I think its an awful idea, I'm assuming with your knowledge of the widespread use of cannabis already its not the legalization of this that you are looking for. After all what is the point of legalizing something which is already well tolerated by society, and which (i believe) you won't get a criminal record for being in possession of. Therefore without further information I assume you're looking at the legalization of herion and cocaine. Do you know the facts on herion related deaths? These aren't made up of 21 year old, first time users, overshooting at their first time of getting their grubby hands on the stuff.. no; it's experienced users who generally mix with alcohol, benzodiazapines and other CNS depressants. By making these substances legal, by sending the message to the nation that casual use is accecptable we will only push more and more people to the point where they mix to increase the thill. Increase the mixing rates, increase the mortality rates, increase the cost to the NHS. don't agree , poor quality street heroin and unreliable quality of street heroin may or may not lead to mixing with other substances such as benzos or alcohol, a regualar clean consistant supply available from your local pharmacy may even reduce polysubstance taking. but to say decriminalisation is the same as saying "drug taking is acceptable" is just not true. legalisise heroin, make it prescription only, stop the vast monies being squandered on prohibition policing and use this money instead on public health information/treatment. Society changes, what was illegal 35 years ago is now celebrated. This moralising outdated legislation that prohibits drug taking - doesnt work and endangers the very people it is supposed to protect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94th Minute Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 If you think prohibition works I would be interested to hear your explanation for why the rate of problem drug users (addicts or people who commit crime whilst under the influence of drugs) in different countries correlates positively with legal systems and enforcement policies that are stricter. I can't deny that a huge amount of crime is related to drugs, but I do contest that this problems is based purely on the illegality of the substances. I can't say without seeing the data that in the UAE drug related crime is far higher than it is here; although if the image portrayed of the Netherlands if true then marijuana makes people too laid back to commit crime The difference between alcohol and heroin for example is that a black market for alcohol doesn't exist.. if you want to avoid alcohol costs/licensing/laws its very simple to make at home, and as such it would be ridiculous for a litre of cider to be sold on the street corners of SoHo at half the cost in shops Its a concept that I'm not really sure of with the 'legalization of all drugs ever' how will this happen, where will they be sold, who will make a the huge profits? Are we imagining a situation where by they're sold in Tesco and newsagents, or are they prescribed on the NHS (naturally never subsidised by the organisation though) following approval by your GP? Either way I imagine the ideal situation is that the govt tax them at 60% to pay for the trouble it causes? The problem is heroin is a nasty horrible drug, far far more addictive than alcohol, and when people need it, they're going to do anything they need to, to get the cash for it. We're back to crime on the streets. Drug barrons aren't going to roll over easily either, they're still going to undercut the prices in official outlets, people can't undercut them, and as such the market will continue to thrive. Heroin user X isn't going to care about possible impurities, all they want is the maximum high for the minimum cost The only way I see this being practically resolved is if the govt cut any taxes on it, undercutting the dealers bottom line, making it easily accessable to all on a days earnings from beging. I don't dispute the idea is nice in principle, however the only person I can see it benefiting is Timmy Toff who always wanted to try something a bit stronger than cannibis, but was always a bit too scared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94th Minute Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 don't agree , poor quality street heroin and unreliable quality of street heroin may or may not lead to mixing with other substances such as benzos or alcohol, a regualar clean consistant supply available from your local pharmacy may even reduce polysubstance taking. but to say decriminalisation is the same as saying "drug taking is acceptable" is just not true. legalisise heroin, make it prescription only, stop the vast monies being squandered on prohibition policing and use this money instead on public health information/treatment. Society changes, what was illegal 35 years ago is now celebrated. This moralising outdated legislation that prohibits drug taking - doesnt work and endangers the very people it is supposed to protect. I'm sorry, I'm really unsure on your first point, much research has been carried out into deaths caused by heroin overdose, and all have found negligible evidence to suggest poor quality of drugs is a major factor in narcotic overdose, I don't imagine they are cut with benzos. I think it can be said that alcohol taken with heroin is the major cause of death. Public health information is something I've wondered about, how much more is there that we can do? Sure if heroin was legalized, it would make it more acceptable to have media coverage, adverts on the TV, documentaries, all sorts. There would be moral outrage is the BBC showed a scientific one hour documentary on safe heroin use, where as such programs on alcohol are reasonably common place. Just how much impact do they have though? Young people are more than aware drinking 6+ units in one night is bad for your health; it doesn't seem to be stopping the population in its tracks though, does it? Changes in legislation however I'm completely for; the law was surely brought in to protect those at risk of committing substance abuse, and yet its causing them to die at the moment. I believe common police protocol at the moment is not to arrest at the scene of a heroin overdose, as it increases the time before help is seeked; is that a step far enough, should the NHS actively seek to train heroin users in CPR so they can assist when something goes wrong? Is even that a step far enough I find myself constantly coming back to the point, would a legalization actually cure these problems, and maybe its because I'm too closed minded, maybe its because I don't believe heroin can be used for anything but abuse; but I think a legalization is a step too far Whatever the arguement, I'm sure its unarguable that addiction affects people in millions of differing ways, I couldn't say for sure that if you take heroin you would become addicted; no one can.. but just playing the numbers games, as with alcoholics and liver cyrosis, its going to lead to a huge leap in 50 year olds realizing they've thrown their life away in the endless persiut of drug induced happyness. One image from TV that sticks with me clearly is in 'Secret Millionaire' (yes, yes; I am the 'media producer who wants to make the public feel sad's bitch) where a 54 year old with liver cyrosis was sat in a pub, depressed, dying, because he just couldn't stop. I don't think I could bare to see another generation grow up to that. Please don't patronise me, or show your ignorance by saying thats one persons story; its clearly a sizeable statistic Damn, I ballsed up that arguement going for the emotional side.. ahh well *post* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaxbourton Red Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm sorry, I'm really unsure on your first point, much research has been carried out into deaths caused by heroin overdose, and all have found negligible evidence to suggest poor quality of drugs is a major factor in narcotic overdose, I don't imagine they are cut with benzos. I think it can be said that alcohol taken with heroin is the major cause of death. inconsistency in supply i.e. differences in purity leading to a russian roulette and higher risk of unadvertant OD or impure substances being augmented with benzos, alcohol or crack. legalisation will not lead to promotion or increased popularity, who has ever seen an advert for subutex? edit -good reply though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm suprised no one has mentioned Portugal yet. But I may as well let the cat of the bag. However I think when looking at the drugs policy of any other nation, you also need to look at welfare provision, and healthcare system. For example, are there "safety nets" if a drug habbit makes you unable to hold down a job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm confused Nibor. Do you really think that crime would magically dissapear? Are you seriously suggesting that criminal gangs would suddenly go straight? As for your mention of other countries, maybe you could find the cost benefits from countries that have a reduced or limited criminal law on drug taking. No, I don't think crime magically disappears but I do think that when addicts can get drugs legally and cheaply they are less likely to burgle houses and rob to fence stolen goods directly with a dealer for overpriced illicit drugs. Heroin on prescription means smackheads stop breaking into my house. It also means they're getting monitored by a GP and the money saved on enforcement and mopping up the petty crime can help with treatment as I suggested above - which is why in countries with relaxed policy they spend as much, because they spend it where it makes a difference and as a result have less problem users. Criminal gangs won't go straight, they will however have much less money to buy influence, arms and bimmers with so it will be a less attractive lifestyle and over the long term reduce the power and violence of organised crime. I remember seeing a documentary on the Columbian cartels with interviews with ex gangsters. They said the top men loved the USA's war on drugs, it kept the small timers out of their way and pushed up prices on the street. I can't deny that a huge amount of crime is related to drugs, but I do contest that this problems is based purely on the illegality of the substances. I can't say without seeing the data that in the UAE drug related crime is far higher than it is here; although if the image portrayed of the Netherlands if true then marijuana makes people too laid back to commit crime The difference between alcohol and heroin for example is that a black market for alcohol doesn't exist.. if you want to avoid alcohol costs/licensing/laws its very simple to make at home, and as such it would be ridiculous for a litre of cider to be sold on the street corners of SoHo at half the cost in shops Booze cruises? There's a massive market in avoiding duty on alcohol and cigarettes. Look at the whining Customs and Excise estimates on how much they lose to it. Its a concept that I'm not really sure of with the 'legalization of all drugs ever' how will this happen, where will they be sold, who will make a the huge profits? Are we imagining a situation where by they're sold in Tesco and newsagents, or are they prescribed on the NHS (naturally never subsidised by the organisation though) following approval by your GP? Either way I imagine the ideal situation is that the govt tax them at 60% to pay for the trouble it causes? Addictive Class As (the destructive ones like crack, heroin etc) on prescription, at cost. Which is < a tenth the street price. Non addictive recreational drugs that are no more harmful than alcohol and nicotine like cannabis or E - with appropriate age limits under license and taxed a bit - still cheaper than pushers can sell it at. The problem is heroin is a nasty horrible drug, far far more addictive than alcohol, and when people need it, they're going to do anything they need to, to get the cash for it. We're back to crime on the streets. No, see above. Drug barrons aren't going to roll over easily either, they're still going to undercut the prices in official outlets, people can't undercut them, and as such the market will continue to thrive. Heroin user X isn't going to care about possible impurities, all they want is the maximum high for the minimum cost Drug barons can't undercut pharmacies selling at cost. The only way I see this being practically resolved is if the govt cut any taxes on it, undercutting the dealers bottom line, making it easily accessable to all on a days earnings from beging. I don't dispute the idea is nice in principle, however the only person I can see it benefiting is Timmy Toff who always wanted to try something a bit stronger than cannibis, but was always a bit too scared I think a more enlightened approach to drugs law and enforcement and better targeting of resources benefits everybody, addicts, crime victims, authorities - in fact the only people who stand to lose are the evil pushers themselves. Even Daily Mail readers benefit as they have something to be outraged about. The "war on drugs" has been a steadily losing battle for decades. The way to win it is to change strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 However I think when looking at the drugs policy of any other nation, you also need to look at welfare provision, and healthcare system. For example, are there "safety nets" if a drug habbit makes you unable to hold down a job? Drinkers are now being targetted as smokers currently are. The health zealots are already moaning about the number of work days lost to hangovers. This country is getting more and more like a health prison camp by the day. Lots of people can't hold down a job due to alcoholism and that's been the case for hundreds of years - so why are the Government now making it an issue ????!! If someone wants to drink or smoke themselves to oblivion then that's their choice in a free country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Was a big thread on this a few months ago, i think about some bath rugby player....anyone care to dig it up because i dont wanna type again what i already said. Anyhoo, drugs, all drugs like prostitution should be made legal and regulated. I would rather a crack addict go buy his fix or be given it than rob my poor gran and smash up her face to get money to pay his dealer. Its a no brainer, drugs should be made legal, but the gouverment has not the balls to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Look at it another way, people think addictive drugs run by a government monopoly would be a good thing? 1984 anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Look at it another way, people think addictive drugs run by a government monopoly would be a good thing? 1984 anyone? Risky and I see your point, but I don't think the government should be in control of supply etc it should be like any other consumable, just regulate it. IMo its the lesser of two evils. Drug addicts will get their fix either way, so at least tax them for it and turn the opium producers into simple farmers rather the drug cartels, would save trillions of dollah every year and countless lives, I dont see many people dieing over wheat production in the world, maybe if it was illegal there would be no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94th Minute Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 No, I don't think crime magically disappears but I do think that when addicts can get drugs legally and cheaply they are less likely to burgle houses and rob to fence stolen goods directly with a dealer for overpriced illicit drugs. Heroin on prescription means smackheads stop breaking into my house. It also means they're getting monitored by a GP and the money saved on enforcement and mopping up the petty crime can help with treatment as I suggested above - which is why in countries with relaxed policy they spend as much, because they spend it where it makes a difference and as a result have less problem users. Criminal gangs won't go straight, they will however have much less money to buy influence, arms and bimmers with so it will be a less attractive lifestyle and over the long term reduce the power and violence of organised crime. I remember seeing a documentary on the Columbian cartels with interviews with ex gangsters. They said the top men loved the USA's war on drugs, it kept the small timers out of their way and pushed up prices on the street. Booze cruises? There's a massive market in avoiding duty on alcohol and cigarettes. Look at the whining Customs and Excise estimates on how much they lose to it. Addictive Class As (the destructive ones like crack, heroin etc) on prescription, at cost. Which is < a tenth the street price. Non addictive recreational drugs that are no more harmful than alcohol and nicotine like cannabis or E - with appropriate age limits under license and taxed a bit - still cheaper than pushers can sell it at. No, see above. Drug barons can't undercut pharmacies selling at cost. I think a more enlightened approach to drugs law and enforcement and better targeting of resources benefits everybody, addicts, crime victims, authorities - in fact the only people who stand to lose are the evil pushers themselves. Even Daily Mail readers benefit as they have something to be outraged about. The "war on drugs" has been a steadily losing battle for decades. The way to win it is to change strategy. So the main point being that, ignore the original taxation point; make it a service run at cost, (but undoubtedly to the eventual cost of the NHS) just so that all the addicts can get their clean drugs, and not have any need to beat up grannies for the money? Its a hard principle to argue against; but we have to look at whats practically applicable: some limited supply, within government regulated guidelines, to those shown to be appropriate candidates to the program. Its a disaster waiting to happen. The is surely not a moral fibre in your body that thinks its a good idea to give a limitless supply of narcotics to drug addicts, even if it does reduce crime. The addictiveness of these substances has to be noted, the problems to desensitization as well; it means that even ignoring the needs of the individual to hit an increased high every time, there will be a need of greater quantities per given time to sustain their habit. One of the many many reasons that drug addiction is so terrible The NHS surely can't feed peoples desires to be as high as they want for as long as they want; there would be a cut off point and thats where the black market becomes involved again. There would be no policing saved, no one re-educated, just more people needing a fix I don't think I can stress strongly enough that hard A class drugs are not something you can dabble in, they are something that will take over and ruin lives, exceptional will power and character are required to break it; what we can't afford to do is give those who haven't yet dabbled, a chance to get addicted In my mind a very clear distinction has to be made between cannabis and Class A drugs Cannabis is a recreational drug with seemingly little impact on the human body, it is highly reccomended as a pain killer in cases of chronic pain, it holds simalarities to the opiates in its potency against pain without the addictiveness. The fact that this drug hasn't been made available in this country on the NHS, not even just legalised is a travisty! Class A drugs ruin lives, even if you can convince me that it is the most fiscally sensible option in a time of depression, I still don't see it as a just reason to sell the futures of millions, for a bit of extra cash in the budget. After all closing schools would save far more, and the next generation would just be uneducated, not high to the state of incapacitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94th Minute Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 inconsistency in supply i.e. differences in purity leading to a russian roulette and higher risk of unadvertant OD or impure substances being augmented with benzos, alcohol or crack. legalisation will not lead to promotion or increased popularity, who has ever seen an advert for subutex? edit -good reply though Thanks On the point of subutex I think that's a pathway that is already being used or at least investigated with great seriousness. Heroin on prescription to terminally ill cancer patients, for its painkilling and euphoric qualities; though I wouldn't call that legalization in any sense of the work My point was that the legalization could have a good impact in that it would make mainstream advertisement of the dangers acceptable in society; not in a 'Buy Crack' try way, but in the smoking kills/alcohol seriously damages your health type way I can accept that there is no proof either that huge number of people would attempt to access these drugs upon their legality, its just a gut feeling.. that's all, given their notoriety, some people at least would be tempted to try, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 So the main point being that, ignore the original taxation point; make it a service run at cost, (but undoubtedly to the eventual cost of the NHS) just so that all the addicts can get their clean drugs, and not have any need to beat up grannies for the money? Its a hard principle to argue against; but we have to look at whats practically applicable: some limited supply, within government regulated guidelines, to those shown to be appropriate candidates to the program. Its a disaster waiting to happen. The is surely not a moral fibre in your body that thinks its a good idea to give a limitless supply of narcotics to drug addicts, even if it does reduce crime. The addictiveness of these substances has to be noted, the problems to desensitization as well; it means that even ignoring the needs of the individual to hit an increased high every time, there will be a need of greater quantities per given time to sustain their habit. One of the many many reasons that drug addiction is so terrible The NHS surely can't feed peoples desires to be as high as they want for as long as they want; there would be a cut off point and thats where the black market becomes involved again. There would be no policing saved, no one re-educated, just more people needing a fix I don't think I can stress strongly enough that hard A class drugs are not something you can dabble in, they are something that will take over and ruin lives, exceptional will power and character are required to break it; what we can't afford to do is give those who haven't yet dabbled, a chance to get addicted In my mind a very clear distinction has to be made between cannabis and Class A drugs Cannabis is a recreational drug with seemingly little impact on the human body, it is highly reccomended as a pain killer in cases of chronic pain, it holds simalarities to the opiates in its potency against pain without the addictiveness. The fact that this drug hasn't been made available in this country on the NHS, not even just legalised is a travisty! Class A drugs ruin lives, even if you can convince me that it is the most fiscally sensible option in a time of depression, I still don't see it as a just reason to sell the futures of millions, for a bit of extra cash in the budget. After all closing schools would save far more, and the next generation would just be uneducated, not high to the state of incapacitation I'm talking about clean class A drugs on prescription under GP supervision not handing them out on street corner. I didn't say limitless or cost free, I said even at cost the drugs cost less than 10% of the street price and you ignored it. Nobody has a patent on heroin. It is about reducing the number of addicts and problem users not ignoring them like we do now, not saving money. Who brought money into it anyway? I simply stated that the resources needed for the treatment of addicts should be accounted for by cost savings in enforcement. Please don't try and paint this as saving money by letting people get addicted, that is quite clearly a load of daily mail style bollocks. Of course there is a distinction between Cannabis and class A drugs. Please don't imply I haven't made one when I very clearly have. The next generation already have the biggest drug problems that any generation in the UK has ever had thanks to points of view like yours. None, not one single one, of the enforcement strategies or prohibition policies around the ENTIRE WORLD has ever been shown to be in any way successful in reducing the number of problem users. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different results. Prohibition policies that you are advocating are insane and cause far more harm than any of the scare stories you're telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 A Doctor I know wishes more people smoked cannabis than tobacco as cannabis harms the body less. Unfortunately once on cannabis, the body then wants harder drugs and so you're on the downward spiral. According to the authorities every prostitute in Peterborough is on heroin. They take heroin to get through the prostitution and do the whoring to afford the drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Unfortunately once on cannabis, the body then wants harder drugs and so you're on the downward spiral. That is completely and utterly untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaxbourton Red Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 That is completely and utterly untrue. correct this is utter daily mail nonsense, different drugs activate different receptors in the brain, cannabis affects cannabinoid receptors and has no effect on other receptors such as opioid. The gateway drug theory is soley built upon the criminalisation of street drugs, allowing criminal gangs to control supply and have a vested interest in increasing demand, and creating new markets with new drugs, take away their power by undercutting them will result in less interest in increasing demand. This is basic economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 correct this is utter daily mail nonsense, different drugs activate different receptors in the brain, cannabis affects cannabinoid receptors and has no effect on other receptors such as opioid. The gateway drug theory is soley built upon the criminalisation of street drugs, allowing criminal gangs to control supply and have a vested interest in increasing demand, and creating new markets with new drugs, take away their power by undercutting them will result in less interest in increasing demand. This is basic economics. Absolutely correct. I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit i smoke weed from time to time, but ive never touched hard drugs (except magic mushrooms once and never ever again) I don't recall anyone ever getting hurt when i smoke weed either on the contray, im offen in doors watching a film or chating bollox with my mates, not sure i could say the same for the pissheads in town beered up looking for trouble because they are inebriated on alcohol and feel the need to fight. Also i think alcohol leads to hard drugs, not sure how many time im in town of Clifton and i whip my finger across the toilet top in the bogs to find a thin layer of coke, probably 9 out of 10 have had coke snorted off it during the night, but if i was to spark up a joint in any of these places old bill would be called within an instant i epect of i wuold get a kicking my the bouncers, forking makes no sence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 OK folks, logistical question. IF drugs were legalised, would all or just some drugs be legalised? Following on from that, would it be down to private enterprise to sell them or would they be available from chemist's and hospitals etc? If drugs did become legally available, people would try buying the cheapest, sowatering down would become even more rampant by the unscrupulous dealers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 OK folks, logistical question. IF drugs were legalised, would all or just some drugs be legalised? Following on from that, would it be down to private enterprise to sell them or would they be available from chemist's and hospitals etc? If drugs did become legally available, people would try buying the cheapest, sowatering down would become even more rampant by the unscrupulous dealers. In my opinion all this has come about by over taxing cigarettes. It's now cheaper to buy hard drugs than a packet of 20 cigarettes. I'd much rather people be smoking cigarettes than buying wraps of hard drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.