Should Prohibition be Abolished?

SpAcEd OuT

The War on drugs doesn't seem to be working, billions of euros have been wasted over the years on a losing battle, illegal drugs are becoming more and more common as more and more people start to use, one only has to look at the recent EU Report stating that 7.1% of all 15-34 year olds have taken ecstasy, 39% of all 15-16 year olds have used cannabis and that Irish schoolchildren had the highest rate of illegal substance abuse in Europe (second highest when it comes to ecstasy with 5% of all 15-16 year olds admitting to trying the drug)

Because of prohibition generations of young people have been introduced to criminality, because that is where one gets drugs-from the criminal underworld. Our laws actually push our children -our future-into the hands and control of the lowest parts of our society.

People should be free to put whatever they want into THEIR OWN BODIES and free to feel however they want without being branded a criminal.

I have come across a few reasons why I believe that the legalization of currently illegal drugs in this country would be a positive move and how the country would benefit from these actions.

1. People wishing to use drugs could do so without being a criminal

2. Children would not come into contact with the criminal underworld like they do now. Life would revert to a situation where most people would have nothing at all to do with crime.

3. Drug deaths and medical costs would decline radically because drugs would be quality controlled, and not mixed with harmful substances which cause most of the medical problems. Overdoses would be rarer as users would know their correct doses, however like alcohol will not be unheard of.

4. All the money made by drug traffickers would stay in the mainstream of society, and not go to funding other criminal activities.

5. Street crime would virtually disappear, along with its main cause, getting money so an addict can fund their next fix.

6. The growing division in our society between the police and people generally would reverse, as so-called 'victimless crimes' would no longer be illegal.

7. Instead of £$Billions each year going to criminals, governments could collect taxes on drugs sold legitimately through off-licenses, drug stores, pharmacies and liquor stores. You can bet the government would like this! Wake up you politicians out there!

8. A new respect for individual rights would invigorate our society

9. Driving under the influence of any drug would be seen as a serious crime, requiring recompense to the community, even if no one had been hurt.

10. The fascination of drugs to children, part of which is driven by its present illegality and anti-establishmentary disposition, would reduce dramatically. Drugs could be openly discussed, and whilst experimentation would never stop (as it never has with tobacco or alcohol), the interest in the harder drugs in particular would decline, as their 'on the street' illegal connection through drug dealers would cease.

11. Our streets would be safer, with no need for gang wars over drug territories, etc.

Opnions?

JC 2K3

I'd be for legalisation of drugs, but look at the problems the country's having with alcohol, a legal drug. The government doesn't want people to be able to get fúcked up on drugs and possibly cause problems for them.

aidan_walsh

4. All the money made by drug traffickers would stay in the mainstream of society, and not go to funding other criminal activities.

Just like with tobacco, you mean?

9. Driving under the influence of any drug would be seen as a serious crime

Its not now?

10. The fascination of drugs to children, part of which is driven by its present illegality and anti-establishmentary disposition, would reduce dramatically.

Again, just like with tobacco, right?

the interest in the harder drugs in particular would decline, as their 'on the street' illegal connection through drug dealers would cease.

I doubt this. Just as it is now, the affect of the softer drugs will still lead to a desire to experiment with harder drugs.

11. Our streets would be safer, with no need for gang wars over drug territories, etc.

No doubt they'll find something else to fight over.

SpAcEd OuT

Again, just like with tobacco, right?

If you talk to younger people today a lot of them are actually against smoking, the fact that the smoking ban is strongly supported shows this, people would be more aware of the negative effects if something was legalized it was only recently that the mainstream public became aware of the serouis negative effects of smoking on a large scale.


I doubt this. Just as it is now, the affect of the softer drugs will still lead to a desire to experiment with harder drugs.

Disagree, because of prohibition people looking to buy softer drugs off criminals come into contact with harder drugs and dealers influencing them to purchase these hard drugs.

No doubt they'll find something else to fight over.

the point is your taking money away from criminals and putting it back into the state.

Zombrex

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

1. People wishing to use drugs could do so without being a criminal

True, by definiton. I wonder though are we going to legalise all drugs? Including crack cocaine and heroin?

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

2. Children would not come into contact with the criminal underworld like they do now. Life would revert to a situation where most people would have nothing at all to do with crime.

Kinda missing the point if you think the bad thing about children taking hard drugs is that they come into contact with criminals

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

3. Drug deaths and medical costs would decline radically because drugs would be quality controlled, and not mixed with harmful substances which cause most of the medical problems

Doubtful as usage would increase dramatically if legalised, you will get a situation where everyone one a saturday night is taking drugs with alcohol, which is very dangerous in the case of cocaine. With easy access and no moral/legal objections large groups of people will be getting completely off their heads with drugs will be common, just as it is with alcohol now. This will undoubtable lead to huge increase in the health cost of drug taking.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Overdoses would be rarer as users would know their correct doses, however like alcohol will not be unheard of.

Again doubtful, everyone knows the safe limits of alcohol, no one sticks by it. The city streets are littered with people with alcohol possioning. Drug overdoses would be equally as common and equally as dangerous.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

4. All the money made by drug traffickers would stay in the mainstream of society, and not go to funding other criminal activities.

True

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

5. Street crime would virtually disappear, along with its main cause, getting money so an addict can fund their next fix.

What is the state going to give the drugs away for free?

This problem will remain because if you need money for drugs you need money, doesn't matter if they are illegal or not. Alcoholics have been stealing and begging for money since time began. With the increase in usage that legalisation brings, this problem will also greatly increase as the easy access of drugs will make it more likely that people with a problem will continue there addiction.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

6. The growing division in our society between the police and people generally would reverse, as so-called 'victimless crimes' would no longer be illegal.

I would dispute that the division between the police and ordinary folk has much to do with drugs. Maybe the division between drug addicts and the police.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

7. Instead of £$Billions each year going to criminals, governments could collect taxes on drugs sold legitimately through off-licenses, drug stores, pharmacies and liquor stores. You can bet the government would like this! Wake up you politicians out there!

Well as we have seen with both alcohol and cigaretts the money taken from taxes will not be enough to offset the cost to the health service. And with the great increase in usage in drug taking that legalisation would cause this will no doubt rise to alcohol levels as well.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

8. A new respect for individual rights would invigorate our society

Possibly, though I would prefer to see an increase in respect to society. Alcohol already causes huge problems for society as a whole, but the drunk 20 year old on the street at 4am doesn't give a toss about that. I doubt the guy off his head on legal cocaine would either.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

9. Driving under the influence of any drug would be seen as a serious crime, requiring recompense to the community, even if no one had been hurt.

As someone has already pointed out, is it not already? Besides driving under alcohol consumption is a serious crime and it doesn't stop people doing it. What makes you think people wouldn't under legal drugs?

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

10. The fascination of drugs to children, part of which is driven by its present illegality and anti-establishmentary disposition, would reduce dramatically.

Again doubtful, as cigaretts painfully demonstrates. It would be a guarentee that drug usage amoung children would greatly increase as the legal access to hard drugs like cocaine and E becomes easy. No one has a problem getting cigaretts or a few cans on a Friday night. The situation would be exactly the same with legal cocaine or E.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

11. Our streets would be safer, with no need for gang wars over drug territories, etc.

As someone has already pointed out the criminals would just do something else. And there would be a large increase in addicts on the streets without the money to pay for the now legal drugs, which would undoubtable lead to more robbery and begging on the streets.

So far the only argument for legalistation of drugs that isn't complete pie in the sky wishful thinking is that legalisation would cut the feet from under the crimal drug dealers. That is totally correct. But all the other points about it leading to a degrees in children taking drugs and addiction is nonsense as the lessons from alcohol and cigaretts have shown

Zombrex

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

If you talk to younger people today a lot of them are actually against smoking

Maybe if you only talk to young people who don't smoke ...

Its a nice idea but the reality is that both teenage binge dringking, teenage smoking is, and teenage drug taking is on the rise in Ireland, despite countless government education plans and awareness campaigns. There is absolutely no reason to believe that teenage drug taking would drop if it was legalised, in fact it would probably rise dramatically to levels on par with alcohol and cigaretts.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1076620&issue_id=10032

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Disagree, because of prohibition people looking to buy softer drugs off criminals come into contact with harder drugs and dealers influencing them to purchase these hard drugs.

And people wanting to by a beer in the local off licence come into contact with 40% spirits right beside the beer. If hard drugs were legalised people would have the option to buy the hard drugs as easily as the softer drugs. Usage of hard drugs would no doubt increase as people "try them out", just like everyone here has had strong wiskey or vodka.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

the point is your taking money away from criminals and putting it back into the state.

It wouldn't be going to the state it would be going to the drug companies. The taxes from cigaretts and alcohol currently don't meet cost to the health service at the moment, legal drugs would be no different surely?

SpAcEd OuT

Doubtful as usage would increase dramatically if legalised, you will get a situation where everyone one a saturday night is taking drugs with alcohol, which is very dangerous in the case of cocaine. With easy access and no moral/legal objections large groups of people will be getting completely off their heads with drugs will be common, just as it is with alcohol now. This will undoubtable lead to huge increase in the health cost of drug taking.

there hasnt been a dramatic increase in marijuana use in Amsterdam since its been legalized why would it happen here, I am of the opnion that if someone wants to do drugs they can easily get them, why not legalize them, tax them,control the quality so its not cut with dangerous,harmful additives and print out guidlines as to how much to use?

illegalization causes misinformation, harmful additives in drugs,crime and costs billions, honestly I dont see how marijuana,mdma,lsd etc. would be just as costly as cigarettes and alcohol when it comes to the health bill.

Do you not believe that dublin city at night would be a lot safer if a high percentage of the people were on pills or weed for example instead of alcohol?

I mean whats going to cause a garda more trouble, a man that wants to fight with everyone or a man that wants to hug everyone or get philisophical.

dalk

Prohibition doesn't work.

As its an emotive issue, the alternative(s) to prohibition will never be acceptable to the general public.

So prohibition will stay in place.

Catch 22.

Zombrex

dalk wrote:

Prohibition doesn't work.

It depends on how you define "work" ... if prohibition is considered a failure unless everyone is completely drug free I fail to see how getting rid of prohibition and having a free for all attitude to drug taking is a better solution.

You can't beat prohibition over the head with the fact that some people still take drugs and then suggest that a better alternative would be that everyone be free to take drugs.

SpAcEd OuT

Wicknight wrote:

You can't beat prohibition over the head with the fact that some people still take drugs and then suggest that a better alternative would be that everyone be free to take drugs.

seeing as 39% of people aged 16-34 use cannabis and 7.1% of 15-34 year olds use ecstasy I wouldnt say that some people take drugs, a lot of people take drugs, a lot of people get harmed by misinformation because of prohibition, a lot of people get harmed by dangerous chemicals added to illegal drugs because of prohibition, a lot of people come into contact with criminal elements because of prohibition.

America came to the conclusion that alcohol prohibition wouldnt work because of these very same reasons.

dalk

Wicknight wrote:

It depends on how you define "work"

Maybe it would be better defined as very ineffective, rather than not working? Illegal drugs after all are freely available and easily obtained. Its like on Halloween, when you can witness the efficiency of the fireworks ban. When people demand something, someone will supply...

Wicknight wrote:

if prohibition is considered a failure unless everyone is completely drug free I fail to see how getting rid of prohibition and having a free for all attitude to drug taking is a better solution.

Wicknight wrote:

You can't beat prohibition over the head with the fact that some people still take drugs and then suggest that a better alternative would be that everyone be free to take drugs.

You must be mixing me up with someone else, I never mentioned a 'free for all' in regards to illegal drugs, or any alternatives for that matter... I was mearly commenting on the fact that drug abuse is one of these issues that polarizes opinions (like euthanasia or abortion). The 'drug utopians' on one side, with the prohibitionists on the other side. Highly emotive cases of tragic deaths/lives ruined get brought up. The cases against are so tragic that alternatives are not considered. So there is never much middle ground covered...

Zombrex

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

seeing as 39% of people aged 16-34 use cannabis and 7.1% of 15-34 year olds use ecstasy I wouldnt say that some people take drugs

Well I wouldn't clasify 7% of the population trying E as a huge number taking the drug on a regular basis, even if that 7% did it all the time.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

, a lot of people take drugs, a lot of people get harmed by misinformation because of prohibition

Don't know what you mean by this. No one gets harmed by not taking drugs

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

a lot of people get harmed by dangerous chemicals added to illegal drugs because of prohibition,

True, but then again a lot of people get harmed by the drugs themselves.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

a lot of people come into contact with criminal elements because of prohibition.

Again true, but failing to see why we are discussing this again ...

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

America came to the conclusion that alcohol prohibition wouldnt work because of these very same reasons.

Prohibition in America was stopped because the vast majority of people didn't want it. The majority of people in Ireland want hard drugs to remain illegal. Call that hypocracy if you like, but its the way things are. If you get everyone taking and enjoying hard drugs on a regular basis you will get it made legal.

Zombrex

dalk wrote:

You must be mixing me up with someone else, I never mentioned a 'free for all' in regards to illegal drugs, or any alternatives for that matter.

My point was that if the goal is to stop or discourage people taking drugs prohibition works better than legalisation.

SpAcEd OuT

Well I wouldn't clasify 7% of the population trying E as a huge number taking the drug on a regular basis, even if that 7% did it all the time.


I certainly would for a class A drug thats quite a big figure, the 4th largest in Europe while 15-16 year olds in this country are the second highest consumers of ecstasy! so it isnt a small figure in terms of the EU average while 4 out of every 10 people have tried cannabis you cant call that small.


Don't know what you mean by this. No one gets harmed by not taking drugs


misinformation i.e not knowing basic information on dosage,effects, and simple guidelines on what to do and what not to do while on the drug.

you are aware that ecstasy didnt have anything to do with the death of Leah Beats,misinformation killed her,ecstasy didnt make her think she had to drink over 20 pints or whatever in an hour the media did, she died of drinking too much water, ecstasy played no role despite what the media claim perfect example of misinformation.


True, but then again a lot of people get harmed by the drugs themselves. [/B]

A lot of people get harmed due to additives, most over doses happen because of changes in potency if something was controlled with guidelines then less people would harm themselves and users would be more informed.


Again true, but failing to see why we are discussing this again ...


Because of prohibition we are puting normally law abiding citizens in danger, in order to obtain drugs they have to come into contact with criminals, criminals are dangerous and dont take too kindly to people not paying them back on time etc. now do you see why we are discussing this?

Zombrex

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

I certainly would for a class A drug thats quite a big figure, the 4th largest in Europe while 15-16 year olds in this country are the second highest consumers of ecstasy!

Sigh ... :rolleyes:

Its high for an illegal drug, it isn't high for a legal drug. Compared to alcohol and cigaretts it is low. As it ever dawned on people that maybe it is low because hard drugs are illegal in Ireland, and that that figure would rise significantly if hard drugs were legalised.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

so it isnt a small figure in terms of the EU average while 4 out of every 10 people have tried cannabis you cant call that small.

And 10 out of 10 people have tried alcohol (i would imagine) ... with something like E legalised do you not thing the figure will rise significantly?

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

misinformation i.e not knowing basic information on dosage,effects, and simple guidelines on what to do and what not to do while on the drug.

Well the negative effects of drug use (legal and illegal) are well documented, people choose to ignore them. I doubt this will change if they are legalised. How many people you know follow or have even heard of the unit system for measuring alcohol consumption?

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

she died of drinking too much water
, ecstasy played no role despite what the media claim perfect example of misinformation.

You are correct that she died of hyponatremia but she died of drinking too much water because the ecstasy tab she took shut down the part of her brain that controls the sensation of being full. It is very hard to consume too much water, your body tells you to stop to the point of producing pain responses. It didn't in her case because she was on E at the time (actually teh responses were probably there but because of the effect of E on the brain she didn't notice them).

I would also point out that it wasn't "misinformation" to drink plenty of water while on E. It is in fact the correct advice, as dehydration and overheating are very common effects of ecstasy. Nothing she was told or learnt to do in response to taking E was wrong, or mis-information.

What she wasn't told, and what is still not widely reported, is that E stops you recieving warning messages due to pain response, so on E it is possible to drink yourself to death without realising. People should be made aware of this so that they consume water while on the drug but make sure they stop before they consume too much.

Or you know, people could always just not take it.... just an idea

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

A lot of people get harmed due to additives, most over doses happen because of changes in potency if something was controlled with guidelines then less people would harm themselves and users would be more informed.

True, but the drugs themselves are also harmful and deadly, even in pure form .... didn't I just say that??

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

in order to obtain drugs they have to come into contact with criminals

Umm ... maybe a solution would to not buy drugs?

SpAcEd OuT

Its high for an illegal drug, it isn't high for a legal drug. Compared to alcohol and cigaretts it is low. As it ever dawned on people that maybe it is low because hard drugs are illegal in Ireland, and that that figure would rise significantly if hard drugs were legalised.

It shows that a high figure of people take drugs with harmful additives and come into contact with criminal elements unnecessarily, I dont believe weed use has risen significantly in Amsterdam since legalization.


And 10 out of 10 people have tried alcohol (i would imagine) ... with something like E legalised do you not thing the figure will rise significantly?

If it reduces the number of people who take alcohol, it would be a move in the positive direction as it is less damaging to society and would not be as costly in the health sector as alcohol


Well the negative effects of drug use (legal and illegal) are well documented, people choose to ignore them. I doubt this will change if they are legalised. How many people you know follow or have even heard of the unit system for measuring alcohol consumption?

thats my point, negative effects are well documented without basic guidelines, the just say no attitude is still used today instead of telling people how to use drugs safely it merely tells people why not to do drugs and this can be fatal.

the alcohol unit system came into the mainstream too late, the general public merely thought well I have been drinking well over the units for a few years and havent had any problems, why stop now?


You are correct that she died of hyponatremia but she died of drinking too much water because the ecstasy tab she took shut down the part of her brain that controls the sensation of being full. It is very hard to consume too much water, your body tells you to stop to the point of producing pain responses. It didn't in her case because she was on E at the time (actually teh responses were probably there but because of the effect of E on the brain she didn't notice them).

If she was informed she would have known that over 20 pints of water in one hour was excessive, and lethal.



I would also point out that it wasn't "misinformation" to drink plenty of water while on E. It is in fact the correct advice, as dehydration and overheating are very common effects of ecstasy. Nothing she was told or learnt to do in response to taking E was wrong, or mis-information.

Eh yes it was, she wasnt informed that too much water on E can kill you as well was she?



What she wasn't told, and what is still not widely reported, is that E stops you recieving warning messages due to pain response, so on E it is possible to drink yourself to death without realising. People should be made aware of this so that they consume water while on the drug but make sure they stop before they consume too much.

yep backing up my above point, she was misinformed

Or you know, people could always just not take it.... just an idea

you honestly think thats going to work? It hasn't for years and never will.


True, but the drugs themselves are also harmful and deadly, even in pure form .... didn't I just say that??

yes but they would be less harmful if they were controlled do you get my point here? They wouldn't be nearly as harmful or as deadly, making them safer.

Umm ... maybe a solution would to not buy drugs?

Once again, Never going to happen

Zombrex

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

It shows that a high figure of people take drugs with harmful additives and come into contact with criminal elements unnecessarily, I dont believe weed use has risen significantly in Amsterdam since legalization.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

If it reduces the number of people who take alcohol, it would be a move in the positive direction as it is less damaging to society and would not be as costly in the health sector as alcohol

Firstly E is more damaging to the body, including the liver, if taken regularly. To say it would be better for a person to take regular tabs instead of drinking is nonsense. Secondly there is no reason to believe people would even do that if E was legalisted.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

thats my point, negative effects are well documented without basic guidelines, the just say no attitude is still used today instead of telling people how to use drugs safely it merely tells people why not to do drugs and this can be fatal.

Well firstly, most illegal drugs cannot be used safely. Cannabis probably can, but cocaine and E can't, so telling someone the "safe" level of use would be impossible. It is just like cigaretts, all you can say is this is very harmful (stick a label on the box). Secondly, as the unit system with alcohol shows even if a safe level could be measured it would probably be largely ignored.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

the alcohol unit system came into the mainstream too late, the general public merely thought well I have been drinking well over the units for a few years and havent had any problems, why stop now?

If that logic were true you would see a sharp drop off in alcohol binging in younger people who have group up with the unit system In fact you get the opposite, teenagers and young adults binge drink now more than people have ever done.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

If she was informed she would have known that over 20 pints of water in one hour was excessive, and lethal.

She was informed that E can be very dangerous .. she took it anyway ... she died ...

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Eh yes it was, she wasnt informed that too much water on E can kill you as well was she?

Not being informed of something is hardly mis-information. I doubt the people who told her to drink water will on E even knew this could happen. Just like the history of cigaretts has taught us, society doesn't find out the full effects of a pleasure drug until it has killed a few people. It one of the reasons these drugs are illegal in the first place. They are dangerous because it is very hard to discover all the harmful things until they have killed at least one person.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

yep backing up my above point, she was misinformed

You might want to check the definition of "misinformed"

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

you honestly think thats going to work? It hasn't for years and never will.

Its gone to work better than legalisation.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

yes but they would be less harmful if they were controlled do you get my point here? They wouldn't be nearly as harmful or as deadly, making them safer.

And do you get my point that a less harmful drug is still a harmful drug...

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Once again, Never going to happen

Possibly not, but you talk as if someone or something is forcing people to go out and buy drugs. If someone doesn't want to come in contact with the criminal under world all they have to do is not by drugs. It isn't exactly hard ...

SpAcEd OuT

Firstly E is more damaging to the body, including the liver, if taken regularly. To say it would be better for a person to take regular tabs instead of drinking is nonsense. Secondly there is no reason to believe people would even do that if E was legalisted.

thats debatable and most likely a user wouldnt use E as regularly as alcohol because of diminished effects associated with tolerance.




Well firstly, most illegal drugs cannot be used safely. Cannabis probably can, but cocaine and E can't, so telling someone the "safe" level of use would be impossible.

In another topic you argue that there is no safe usage of cannabis,contradicition i see? Many illegal drugs can be used safely pure mdma would be a hell of a lot safer than alcohol! statistics show that for every 100,000 users of ecstasy and for every 100,000 users of alcohol,alcohol kills more people.



If that logic were true you would see a sharp drop off in alcohol binging in younger people who have group up with the unit system In fact you get the opposite, teenagers and young adults binge drink now more than people have ever done.


the binging culture is always going to exist illegal or not might as well assure that what their binging on is significantly less harmful to them and at the same time educate them on the risks of binging.


Not being informed of something is hardly mis-information. I doubt the people who told her to drink water will on E even knew this could happen. Just like the history of cigaretts has taught us, society doesn't find out the full effects of a pleasure drug until it has killed a few people. It one of the reasons these drugs are illegal in the first place. They are dangerous because it is very hard to discover all the harmful things until they have killed at least one person.



You might want to check the definition of "misinformed"

she was told to drink lots of water without being told that drinking too much water can kill you, she was misinformed in the sense that she thought she could drink as much water as she wanted.


Its gone to work better than legalisation.

Weed legalization in Holland has worked a lot better than weed prohibition, rural farmers are making money off growing the crop, a large chunk of crime has disappeared,quality has been controlled making it safer and healthier for users ,people have also been educated on the effects due to legalization oh and there hasnt been a significant rise in the number of drug users in that country since legalization

Zombrex

Anyway ...

Seems to be just yourself and myself discussing this and we are both just repeating the same things. I think legalisation would create more problems than it solves. You disagree, that it will solve a lot of the problems currently assocated with drug use.

Suppose we better wait-n-see what others think......

Uthur

Some points:

a) Drugs users should not be made into criminals. They should be offered
rehab etc.

b) The state shouldn't be in the business of telling us what we put
into our bodies anyway.

c) In a free country a person should be allowed to do whatever they want
so long as they don't hurt other people. Drug users harm no one - except
sometimes themselves.

d) Alcohol and nicotine are very harmful drugs too - but we allow them.
Other harmful substances should be allowed too.

That's my two cents.:D

Zombrex

Uthur wrote:

d) Alcohol and nicotine are very harmful drugs too - but we allow them.
Other harmful substances should be allowed too.

So it doesn't matter that these drugs are harmful....?

We ban other stuff that is harmful for you, such as food adatives, pesticides, sub-standard quality meat, food colouring (famously high-lighted by the "pot noodle" scare of last year). What is the difference between that and drugs?

Or do you think that people should be about to sell anyone anything, even if it is harmful, and if the buyer consumes it and it harms them that is their own fault?

Uthur

Wicknight wrote:

Or do you think that people should be about to sell anyone anything, even if it is harmful, and if the buyer consumes it and it harms them that is their own fault?

As long as you are honest about what it is your selling it should be allowed.
If some idiot wants to put something harmful into his body then that's
his own business. As long as you're an adult it should be your own
concern and not the government's.

nobodythere

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

5. Street crime would virtually disappear, along with its main cause, getting money so an addict can fund their next fix.

Addicts don't disappear just because they can buy drugs legally!

SpAcEd OuT

I dont see where it says addicts will disappear?

Zombrex

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

I dont see where it says addicts will disappear?

Well if the addicts are still there the street crime used to feed there habits will still be there ...

Zombrex

Uthur wrote:

As long as you are honest about what it is your selling it should be allowed.
If some idiot wants to put something harmful into his body then that's
his own business. As long as you're an adult it should be your own
concern and not the government's.

That only really works if you refuse to provide health services or police services to those under the influence. Cigaretts and alcohol cost the health service billions. Adding to the rang of things that someone can freely get f**ked up on would greatly increase that cost.

Also "honesty" is not something corporations rush freely to sign up to be apart of. It took years to get the alcohol and cigarett companies to agree to any form warnings on their products, such as astonishingly unaffective "Enjoy responsably" or "Smoking kills". I would imagine the classic cigarett company defense "We don't know" would be used for drugs.

We expect health and safety departments to protect us from everything from dodgy resturants to unsafe food chemicals. I mean even if Heniz put "these baked beans can cause heart failure" on the side of the package they still would not be allowed sell them. I fail to see why we should just ignore this when it comes to drugs and allow people to sell anything they want no matter how harmful it is.

SpAcEd OuT

Wicknight wrote:

Well if the addicts are still there the street crime used to feed there habits will still be there ...

if something was legal it would probably be more affordable therefore many wouldnt need to turn to crime to fund their habits, some still might but there would be a lot less people turning to crime to fund their habits than there is now.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

That only really works if you refuse to provide health services or police services to those under the influence. Cigaretts and alcohol cost the health service billions. Adding to the rang of things that someone can freely get f**ked up on would greatly increase that cost.

Also "honesty" is not something corporations rush freely to sign up to be apart of. It took years to get the alcohol and cigarett companies to agree to any form warnings on their products, such as astonishingly unaffective "Enjoy responsably" or "Smoking kills". I would imagine the classic cigarett company defense "We don't know" would be used for drugs.

We expect health and safety departments to protect us from everything from dodgy resturants to unsafe food chemicals. I mean even if Heniz put "these baked beans can cause heart failure" on the side of the package they still would not be allowed sell them. I fail to see why we should just ignore this when it comes to drugs and allow people to sell anything they want no matter how harmful it is.

Are you saying a state operated health sevice can be used to justify telling people what they can and cannot consume? Even if they're informed of the risks associated with that consumption?

nobodythere

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

if something was legal it would probably be more affordable therefore many wouldnt need to turn to crime to fund their habits, some still might but there would be a lot less people turning to crime to fund their habits than there is now.

As dosage needed to get your fix increases, you inevitably have to pay more.

Zombrex

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

if something was legal it would probably be more affordable therefore many wouldnt need to turn to crime to fund their habits, some still might but there would be a lot less people turning to crime to fund their habits than there is now.

Thats a bit of funny reasoning ... firstly drug addicts and alcoholics do crime because they have no money, their habit normally stops them holding down proper jobs

Secondly there is no reason to believe that drugs would be cheaper if legalised. Quite the opposite would probably be the case, after compaines have factored in adverstiment and marketing budgets and the government has slapped all the taxes on.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Are you saying a state operated health sevice can be used to justify telling people what they can and cannot consume? Even if they're informed of the risks associated with that consumption?

I am saying 2 things -

Firstly, it is nonsense to say that if a person wants to be self-destructive in is life that this will never effect anyone else. At the very least it effects the health service that have to fix him 20 years down the line when he has destroyed his liver, lungs or heart. I am not saying people should be left in their own person hell hole of self inflicted dieases, I am saying that the claim that drug use is a purely personal thing that doesn't effect wider society is incorrect.

Secondly, people are already told what they can and cannot consume. I cannot market petrol as the new hip drink to 20 something ("Redbull but with a bit extra kick") Despite this rather bizare "down with the nanny state" attitude a lot of people here have, we expect and demand that government health services make sure everything else we consume is safe, from our water to our food, to medicines, simply because we can't and don't want to have to educated ourself on advance chemistry and biology, or put our trust solely in the corporations selling the products. But when it comes to drugs people bizarely say that the "you are on your own" attitude is some how now fine.

This whole argument reminds me of the bit in the Simpsons where Krusty is marketing his home pregency test and it has in small warning letters "May cause birth defects". The idea that something like that would ever get on the market is so laughable that it is used to great comical effect in the Simpsons.

But on the issue of drugs that seems to be exactly how pro-legalisation people think the world of health and safety is run or should be run. It isn't, it is not how society works, and i am pretty sure it is not how you would actually want it to work.

Do you think a resturant should be able to kill you with ecoli posioning so long as they put a little warning on their menus saying "Food may not be safe".

(and btw before anyone says it, I think the current system of selling cigaretts with warning labels is as ridiculous as selling cocaine or E with a warning label)

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

At the very least it effects the health service that have to fix him 20 years down the line when he has destroyed his liver, lungs or heart.

Would you approve of banning tobacco and alcohol on that basis? How about high cholesterol foods that can cause heart problems?

Wicknight wrote:

Secondly, people are already told what they can and cannot consume. I cannot market petrol as the new hip drink to 20 something ("Redbull but with a bit extra kick") Despite this rather bizare "down with the nanny state" attitude a lot of people here have, we expect and demand that government health services make sure everything else we consume is safe, from our water to our food, to medicines, simply because we can't and don't want to have to educated ourself on advance chemistry and biology, or put our trust solely in the corporations selling the products. But when it comes to drugs people bizarely say that the "you are on your own" attitude is some how now fine.

This whole argument reminds me of the bit in the Simpsons where Krusty is marketing his home pregency test and it has in small warning letters "May cause birth defects". The idea that something like that would ever get on the market is so laughable that it is used to great comical effect in the Simpsons.

But on the issue of drugs that seems to be exactly how pro-legalisation people think the world of health and safety is run or should be run. It isn't, it is not how society works, and i am pretty sure it is not how you would actually want it to work.

Do you think a resturant should be able to kill you with ecoli posioning so long as they put a little warning on their menus saying "Food may not be safe".

(and btw before anyone says it, I think the current system of selling cigaretts with warning labels is as ridiculous as selling cocaine or E with a warning label)

The government not allowing a firm to market petrol as a hip new drink and the other examples you have given are examples of the government regulation of a market that is failing due to assymetric information. That is, regulation of supply not consumption. In your example the is not ban on drinking petrol but rather on taking advantage of a lack of knowledge on the consumers part to sell them a product which may damage their health unbeknownst to them.

For cannabis the costs of educating people on it's effects would be far, far less than the huge cost society incurs in it's prohibition.

I think in a free society which values personal liberty, people making their own informed choices should be preferred to the state making those choices for them. Do you agree?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Would you approve of banning tobacco and alcohol on that basis?

Tobacco definatly as it is a substance that has not safe level on ingestion. Alcohol does, and I would be for much stricker licensing laws to limit bing drinking.

Deleted User wrote:

How about high cholesterol foods that can cause heart problems?

This old argument again ... "sure everything is harmful if you take enough of it" .. thats obvious, the point is that food must be sold at a safe level.

For example you cannot put more than the safe level of paracetomol in a tablet. If someone goes out and buys 20 tablets and downs them all in one go, and dies of liver failure, not much you can do about that, just like there isn't much you can do if someone eats a steak a day and dies of bowel cancer aged 50.

But that isn't a justification for turning around and saying there is nothing wrong with putting an unsafe level of the drug in a single tablet. If you tell me the completely safe level of E, cocaine or heroin consumption I would be all for that being legal at that level.

Deleted User wrote:

In your example the is not ban on drinking petrol but rather on taking advantage of a lack of knowledge on the consumers part to sell them a product which may damage their health unbeknownst to them.

No, even if you put a warning label on your drink saying "warning, contains petrol, may cause death" you would still not be able to market and sell it as a drink (ie something to be consumed).

Likewise, even if you put a warning label on your ecstacy tablets saying "warning, may cause serious brain, liver or heart problems" you should still not be able to see it as a legal recreational drug to be eaten. Just like Krusty putting "May cause birth defects" on his pregency test would be a breach of about 30 health and safety laws, hence the humour.

Deleted User wrote:

For cannabis the costs of educating people on it's effects would be far, far less than the huge cost society incurs in it's prohibition.

Says who? The government spends millions each year on alcohol and anti-smoking campaigns, yet the level of teenage smoking and binge drinking continues to rise.

It is ridiculous based on current evidence to suggest that if we legalise something and then tell people its dangerous so don't do it unless you want to harm yourself, people won't do it. The very fact that something is legal is an endorsement from society and the state that it is ok to do.

Deleted User wrote:

I think in a free society which values personal liberty, people making their own informed choices should be preferred to the state making those choices for them. Do you agree?

Where is this "informed choices" bulls**t coming from. People don't make informed choices about alcohol or cigarets. People don't go "ummm, i have considered the science and biology and I think that the risk of heart and liver problems in later life is worth the buzz I will get out of downing these 5 triple vokas" ... it doesn't work like that. I wish it did, for a start no one at all would take up smoking if they actually understood and apprecated what it does to you (or take E or heroin etc).

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

No, even if you put a warning label on your drink saying "warning, contains petrol, may cause death" you would still not be able to market and sell it as a drink (ie something to be consumed).

Likewise, even if you put a warning label on your ecstacy tablets saying "warning, may cause serious brain, liver or heart problems" you should still not be able to see it as a legal recreational drug to be eaten. Just like Krusty putting "May cause birth defects" on his pregency test would be a breach of about 30 health and safety laws, hence the humour.

If someone knowing the costs wanted to consume something, being aware of the costs I wouldn't seek to criminalise them for doing so. They should be free to make that decision for themselves.

That petrol product would never come to market without a lack of information on the consumers part.

Wicknight wrote:

Says who? The government spends millions each year on alcohol and anti-smoking campaigns, yet the level of teenage smoking and binge drinking continues to rise.

Yes, the government spends a lot on it but how much would it cost in terms of tax losses, police time, court usage and the prison system to prohibit alcohol and tobacco. The government is always going to have to intervene in that role wheter something is illegal or not anyway

I might draw your attention to this which http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/index.html demonstrates the huge cost of marijuana prohibition in the US . It's supported by many of leading economists in the US.

wicknight wrote:

It is ridiculous based on current evidence to suggest that if we legalise something and then tell people its dangerous so don't do it unless you want to harm yourself, people won't do it.

It's ridiculous based on current evidence to suggest that if we make something illegal people won't use it.

Any way how to minimize drug usage is a related but not the same question as the question of prohibiton prohibition.

wicknight wrote:

The very fact that something is legal is an endorsement from society and the state that it is ok to do.

The fact that something is legal means that you can use it without making a criminal of yourself. Legalistation of something is not the same as society endorsing something.

Wicknight wrote:

Where is this "informed choices" bulls**t coming from. People don't make informed choices about alcohol or cigarets. People don't go "ummm, i have considered the science and biology and I think that the risk of heart and liver problems in later life is worth the buzz I will get out of downing these 5 triple vokas" ... it doesn't work like that. I wish it did, for a start no one at all would take up smoking if they actually understood and apprecated what it does to you (or take E or heroin etc).

I think that they do. People make rational decisions on the margin. They weigh the costs of the usage vs the benefits they'll derive from it. Depending on if that net benefit is positive or negative from that individuals perspective, they'll decide wheter to use it or not. Now this individuals usage of drugs may have an external cost on society as a whole. How would you make them take that into account? The same way the government generally makes people take external costs into account, by internalising the cost on society into that individuals cost i.e. taxation.

People do gain utility from using drugs. Now this benefit may be very difficult to measure and certainly varies between people but it does exist. This difficulty in measuring is why it is best to leave the decision up to the individual, who is best able to make that decision. The goverment should aim to make sure people are capable of making an informed decision as far as possible by being aware of the costs of usage

If you see no benefit and only costs, as coming from the usage of alcohol, for example, then of course there will be no rationale for consuming it.

I think the question of prohibition should be made on a case by case basis rather than trying to throw all drugs into the same basket. The problem is that most people don't analyse the question of prohibition in rational manner and just divide drugs into legal and illegal ones

Uthur

Wicknight wrote:

We expect health and safety departments to protect us from everything from dodgy resturants to unsafe food chemicals. I mean even if Heniz put "these baked beans can cause heart failure" on the side of the package they still would not be allowed sell them. I fail to see why we should just ignore this when it comes to drugs and allow people to sell anything they want no matter how harmful it is.

Even if Heinz beans were very bad for you they should still be allowed to
be sold. If an adult wants to eat an unhealthy food, or do an unhealthy
drug they should be allowed to. The state should force all products to
have warnings on the label though so you know what you're getting, but
if you are over 18 and know the product has risks then that should be your
choice.

Zombrex

Uthur wrote:

The state should force all products to
have warnings on the label though so you know what you're getting, but
if you are over 18 and know the product has risks then that should be your
choice.

So a company should be legally allowed to make a profit out of producing, marketting and selling heroin to adults?

shltter

Wicknight wrote:

So a company should be legally allowed to make a profit out of producing, marketting and selling heroin to adults?

Well companies are allowed to legally make a profit from killing people with tobacco and some of the most "respectable"business and political people have made their money out of selling alcohol to people who sometimes end up as addicts or killing themselves and others while under the influence of the drug that they were legally allowed to consume and that someone made a profit on.


My two cents
we are repeating the mistakes of prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 30s we are making gangsters rich and spending millions of Euros trying to fight a battle that we can never win.
What I would suggest would be to put these drugs on free prescription available to registered addicts
That would deprive the gangsters of their lucrative market and mean that the
future of drug dealing would be very limited as soon as they got someone hooked the person would be able to get the drug free. No money in that for drug dealers
Drug addicts would have no need to steal to fund their habit which accounts for a massive percentage of street crime.
The sexy side of these drugs would be lessened as they would be available from chemists and it would remove part of the sense of danger etc.
We would be putting addicts in touch with the health service and targetting programs to help people off drugs would be easier.

Obviously this is relation to "harder drugs" cannabis should just be legalised straight away and regulated similar to tobacco and alcohol

Zombrex

shltter wrote:

Well companies are allowed to legally make a profit from killing people with tobacco

That doesn't make it right ...

shltter wrote:

What I would suggest would be to put these drugs on free prescription available to registered addicts

There would still exist a market for people who aren't addicts yet. Would the people using E or cocaine on a night out be able to get a free prescription for recreational use on a Friday or Saturday night?

Victor

I wonder what one does with the (legalised) crack cocaine addicts*, do you lock them up? Surely a breach of civil rights?

Like the two guys who stabbed all the people on South Circular Road. While I realise they were probably looking for money for drugs, that wasn't their only motivation.

rubadub

Wicknight wrote:

you cannot put more than the safe level of paracetomol in a tablet. If someone goes out and buys 20 tablets and downs them all in one go, and dies of liver failure, not much you can do about that, just like there isn't much you can do if someone eats a steak a day and dies of bowel cancer aged 50.

But that isn't a justification for turning around and saying there is nothing wrong with putting an unsafe level of the drug in a single tablet. If you tell me the completely safe level of E, cocaine or heroin consumption I would be all for that being legal at that level.

Well doctors administered mdma in tablets up until the mid 80's I presume these were a "safe dose", there are millions of mdma users and very few deaths from it, if paracetomol was put up for review today it would not be an OTC drug, there are many allergic reactions to OTC drugs resulting in deaths. Heroin is still administered in many countries too, presumably in safe doses.

Wicknight wrote:

So a company should be legally allowed to make a profit out of producing, marketting and selling heroin to adults?

If you look at the criteria used in selecting which drugs should be legal and compare it to currently legal drugs, then yes, a company should be legally allowed to sell heroin. I am not saying it is morally right, but it is legally hypocritical to prohibit its sale.

Victor

rubadub wrote:

Heroin is still administered in many countries too, presumably in safe doses.

As morphine (similar but not the same) and similar, I suspect not heroin itself.

rubadub

Victor wrote:

As morphine (similar but not the same) and similar, I suspect not heroin itself.

No, I mean heroin itself, AKA heroine, diacetylmorphine, diamorphine, acetomorphine. There are doctors in the UK addicted to it who prescribe it to themselves, they also lead normal lives as they are using standard doses of a pharmacuetically pure substance, just as many doctors are hooked on nicotine and are fully functional.

Zombrex

rubadub wrote:

No, I mean heroin itself, AKA heroine, diacetylmorphine, diamorphine, acetomorphine. There are doctors in the UK addicted to it who prescribe it to themselves, they also lead normal lives as they are using standard doses of a pharmacuetically pure substance, just as many doctors are hooked on nicotine and are fully functional.

The only use of perscribed diacetylmorphine substances is to heroin addicts to help with withdrawl. It hasn't been used as a pain killer in the UK for 50 years as far as I know. It might be a case the doctors in the UK perscribe themselves these withdrawl remedies but it would be similar to having a heroin addiction I would love to know how you define "fully functional"