Legal Highs

Crimson...

Whats everyones views on all the recent media coverage, Do you think they should remain legal?

Personally I think they should, there sold as a drug harm minimisation and by banning them surely people would just return to taking there illegal counterparts.

I also believe as an adult I should have the right to choose what I can and cannot put in my body.

phantom_lord

Crimson... wrote:

Personally I think they should, they're sold as a drug harm minimisation and by banning them surely people would just return to taking their illegal counterparts.

Why should these drugs continue to be legal if they produce similar effects to illegal drugs?

Just because they haven't be made illegal they should be deemed safer than drugs that are currently illegal?

What's the bigger problem with people returning to taking their illegal conterparts? Is it that the illegal conterparts are more harmful?

Or is it because by taking the illegal conterparts they're breaking the law?
If so, why not just make cannabis legal if you're gonna allow a similar product be legal.

I also believe as an adult I should have the right to choose what I can and cannot put in my body.

Is that not an arguement for legalising all drugs?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yes it is, and it's a damned fine argument too. prohibition never has worked, and never will work. We want it, we're gona get it. What we would rather is that we didn't have to associate with criminals to get them, and become criminals because we enjoy taking them.

phantom_lord

If you're gonna let people use spice mix or whatever it is cause it stops them from using illegal drugs, then indirectly you're saying the only problem with the illegal drugs is that they're em illegal. So instead of allowing the legal high loophole, why not just legalise most drugs.

...and create some tax revenue...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that's what I'm saying.

Tax it, and put some of the money into rehab programs for the small percent of poor saps who develop addiction problems. The rest of the money, and the money saved on police and court time.. can go into public transport, roads, education.. any number of things other than harassing people who take drugs.

Crimson...

They know the long term effects of Alcohol & Tobacco and yet there available in almost every shop, the present set-up is based on historical assumptions, not scientific assessment.

If Alcohol and Tobacco were discovered tomorrow they would be banned straight away.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that wouldn't make it right though!

generalmiaow

Speaking as someone whose life has been permanently altered in a negative way by the irresponsible use of recreational drugs, which I have since stopped using as it would probably land me in a mental hospital, I think it's important not to legitimise dangerous mind-altering chemicals. For all the talk of choice, it's impossible to make an informed decision about things which science does not understand. There's no such thing as responsible use of salvia and BZP any more than there was responsible use of radium before it was known that it could cause lethal diseases.

However, the legal status of certain things made no impact on how badly I was affected by them or my ease of obtaining them, and I don't like to think of my tax money keeping people in jail for crimes that didn't hurt other people, and when their being incarcerated does them or nobody else any benefit. Since I can't think of a convincing reason to make these things illegal, I think the status quo is fine.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that's sad and all general, but we shouldn't be punished because you had a bad experience.

There's plenty of people who've fallen down stairs and had their lives permanently altered but we don't criminalise them.

There are risks, you knew that before you took them and if you didn't educate yourself to those risks (or even if you did, and still came up bad luck) it's no ones responsibility but your own. Sorry. We all gotta live our own lives.

generalmiaow

phantom_lord wrote:

Why should these drugs continue to be legal if they produce similar effects to illegal drugs?

That's the only connection between these legal highs (many of which, by the way, produce no effect at all) and illegal highs. They're different chemicals with markedly different experiences. In as much as they produce an effect on consciousness at all, alcohol is as similar to them as any illegal drugs.

generalmiaow

Mordeth wrote:

that's sad and all general, but we shouldn't be punished because you had a bad experience.

There's plenty of people who've fallen down stairs and had their lives permanently altered but we don't criminalise them.

There are risks, you knew that before you took them and if you didn't educate yourself to those risks (or even if you did, and still came up bad luck) it's no ones responsibility but your own. Sorry. We all gotta live our own lives.

Mordeth: I never said to criminalise drugs, I suggested keeping them legal. I actually agree with you.

Actually, now that I think, when I wrote status quo, I only meant the legal highs. The rest should also be legalised (with maybe the exception of addictive narcotics)

Rb

Of course legal highs should stay legal, and I'd agree that certain drugs should be legalized in this country(and others) too.
Even just hash and weed, legalize it and stick a tax similar to those on tobacco and alcohol on it. There is a massive demand for these drugs in our country, one which is being satisfied by criminals. If the government were to legalize even those two, it'd be an unbelievable source of revenue which could then be pumped back into the system into areas such as the ones Mordeth outlined above.

Theres also a massive demand for ecstasy, a drug which if manufactured properly could be completely safe. The danger lies where you've skanky criminals mixing all kinds of crap into it to maximise profit, and the users not known what has gone into the tablets they're about to swallow. If it was regulated and produced properly, it could again satisfy the demand for the drug, as well as bring in more revenue.

Legalizing the above drugs would eliminate the criminals supplying it, bring in government revenue and ensure the drugs meet safety standards. It is certainly a good idea imo.

There is a limit though, I'm against the legalisation of coke, heroin etc. for obvious reasons.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

oh, sorry.. my mistake. I feel good now I didn't get all snippy and sarcastic with you, I would have felt pretty bad now


^-- to the general

I'll get snippy with rb, mofo thinks I'm a girl.

generalmiaow

Mordeth wrote:

oh, sorry.. my mistake. I feel good now I didn't get all snippy and sarcastic with you, I would have felt pretty bad now

'Tis fine. Your response to my is actually my exact sentiment about drugs and their legal status. I included my rant because I think with the present situation the only type of informed decision that can be made must include the experiences of others.

What's interesting is that when Harney et al criminalised the mushroom, there was no single media mention of HPPD. The lawmakers are as clueless as everyone, and are simply following the present trend of thought.

phantom_lord

rb_ie wrote:

There is a massive demand for these drugs in our country, one which is being satisfied by criminals. If the government were to legalize even those two, it'd be an unbelievable source of revenue which could then be pumped back into the system into areas such as the ones Mordeth outlined above.

I'd hazard a guess, that if the gov took over the supply and distrubution of these drugs from the criminals they probably wouldn't do anywhere near as an efficent job, or with a much profitability.

phantom_lord

generalmiaow wrote:

The lawmakers are as clueless as everyone, and are simply following the present trend of thought.

That drugs are bad...mmmkay.

ferdi

man has used various drugs for tens of 1000s of years and we're still here. drugs are a fact of life, criminalising all drugs (except those supplied by companies with massive financial and political clout of course - booze and fags) does not help.

Rb

phantom_lord wrote:

I'd hazard a guess, that if the gov took over the supply and distrubution of these drugs from the criminals they probably wouldn't do anywhere near as an efficent job, or with a much profitability.

Ok well as I see things. As it stands, if people want these drugs, they have to get in contact with a dealer who may or may not have it at the time. If they don't have it, the people don't get the drugs i.e sale lost.
Whereas, if the government legalised these drugs for sale in stores, users could obtain them immediately, without having to rely on dealers. There'd be no lost sales, so demand would be immediately supplied AND there'd be tax revenue gained.

Especially with hash/weed, I don't even use the drugs but I'll often get calls from people asking do I know where they could get some because their dealers are dry. If there were stores in place, these people could run down and get what they needed immediately.

Redrocket

we should all follow in mordeths steps, and find a country with better drug laws

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Canada kicks ass

Laslo

Mordeth wrote:

yes it is, and it's a damned fine argument too.

It's a stupid argument, usually spouted by 'liberal for the sake of it' idiots with absolutely no perspective.

You think crystal meth should be legalised? Should crack be legalised? Should skag be legalised? If you do, you're a fool. Just because you think you're cool at this moment in time, experiementing with E and what-not and you think you're a big man with right-on opinions, doesn't mean you've got a clue what you're talking about. If you think hard drugs should be legalised then you need to stop taking them.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yes. i think most people who is going to take crystal meth is going to take it anyway, whatever it's legality. Just because something is available doesn't mean people are going to do it. I don't drink. I don't do coke, speed, heroin, crystal meth, DMT and most other drugs, because I don't want to.

Most of the dangers that come from heroin are from dirty needles, dirty heroin or a dirty law. The pure drug itself kills few people. Goverment regulation and strict supply controls of high-grade heroin would put the lives of users and regular civvies at far less risk, cut the criminal element out of the equation altogether. Do you remember prohibition in the Us? Do you not see any kind of similarity with what's giong on wordlwide re the other drugs?

You can't enforce prohibition unless you're willing to have a fascist state. It doesn't work, and it never will. Whether or not you think it's a good idea some people are going to take drugs, turning them into criminals and putting them outside of normal society helps no one and only contributes to the problem.

Dave!

Prohibition doesn't work, compadres

mountainyman

Mordeth wrote:

yes. i think most people who is going to take crystal meth is going to take it anyway, whatever it's legality.

That's not true I have been trying to get my hands on glass for a year and I can't. So I haven't taken it.

MM

Dyr

Making it legal for people to f*** themselves up good style isnt all that clever either. And it's alway going to be the poor under educated sap who doesnt understand the impications that will f*** themselves up.

I wrote a bit on my blog about the legalisation issue when Jerry Cameron was in town with Merchants Quay. I came to the conclusion that the only way a state could legalise drugs is to ensure that anyone purchasing has a 'drugs licence'...bear with me and read below...

Drugs are bad, m'kay?
Given the recent media coverage of the legalisation issue due to the Merchants Quay drug centre hosting Jerry Cameron, an FBI trained former US chief of police and current head of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), I think it's only fair to comment on how both for and against legalisiation camps are both in someway missing the mark.

Now me shock some by saying I believe there is no such thing as a 'drugs problem' in society, the issue really is why do people have to turn to drugs? Therefore drug abuse should be dealt with as a health and welfare issue and not a criminal issue. Funneling the money wasted on fighting the war against drugs towards building better community care for the disaffected would go a lot further than throwing it on some fight that can never be won.

Now before those against legalisation fall off their chairs let me point out that just legalising every drug and using the tax money to fund better rehab programs etc is not enough. It would be very near sighted to do that without due care.

Currently if a person wants to drive a car, which is a very dangerous piece of machinery as can be seen by the many road deaths every week, they need to procure a licence after getting many lessons and passing an eye test. Therefore should a person wish to purchase a substance which can seriously harm them and others around them they should be required to have a 'drugs licence'. Obviously the granting of which would be dependant upon psychological and physical screening, even for more mundane drugs like cannabis. This would also be a very effective way of limiting and monitoring usage.

As for heroin the current system of methadone treatment solves nothing. Methadone, which many users report, is actually more addictive than heroin and is far more potent.
So for heroin,cocaine and other seriously addictive drugs should people wish to purchase with a licence then they must also attend a drug rehabilitation program until they are no longer addicted. Failure to attend means licence is revoked. There is also the option of using an inhibitor like GABA-transaminase which will negate any effects of the narcotics permanently rendering the ingestion of an opiate by an addict pointless.

The argument for a 'drugs licence' is one I have never heard before but I think it goes someway to addressing the concerns of both the pro and against camps.

And one other thing, we should never tolerate people like MEP Eoin Ryan and Grainne Kenny (the international president of anti-drugs organisation EURAD) for playing politics with peoples health. No doubt Eoin Ryan has to look to be tough on certain issues to his constituents and his party (that state being sued by cancer patients line is just plain ridiculous!) but both of them should be big enough to listen to the pro legalisation argument from experts such as Jerry Cameron and the Merchant Quay.

mountainyman

Bambi wrote:

Making it legal for people to f*** themselves up good style isnt all that clever either. And it's alway going to be the poor under educated sap who doesnt understand the impications that will f*** themselves up.

Barney Ross last of the great Jewish boxers, racketeer, war hero and heroin addict said that the only way to get rid of heroin was to put addicts in hospital and dealers in the graveyard.

The chinese experience shows that prohibition can work. So to say that it never does is false.

http://tinyurl.com/ymenqa


MM

CiaranC

The chinese experience involves using methods that are way more harmful to society than drugs are. A police state, for one.

Dreamcrusher

Mordeth wrote:

that's sad and all general, but we shouldn't be punished because you had a bad experience.

There's plenty of people who've fallen down stairs and had their lives permanently altered but we don't criminalise them.

Thats a completely ludicrous statement. Noone ever accidentally landed ther nose upon a line of coke, or accidentally swallowed an E that fell out of the sky onto thier tongue.
And as for saying that we legalise these drugs, tax them, and use the tax money to help the 'small amount' of saps who develop addictions, dont you think having drugs freely available is going to INCREASE the amount of people who become addicted to them if theyre readily available on every street corner?
Imagine how many less alcoholics there would be if booze was illegal? Yes you could still get your hands on it illegally im sure but you wouldnt find temple bar awash with puke and fighting every saturday night.
By leaglising any kind if drugs youre just opening the floodgtes.
And this is coming from soneone who HAS taken a fair amount of drugs in my time, but id be deep in the cold cold ground before i stand up for legalisation of any currently banned substances

mountainyman

CiaranC wrote:

The chinese experience involves using methods that are way more harmful to society than drugs are. A police state, for one.

Given the impact of China's hundred year experiment with liberal drug laws (from the opium wars until liberation) I am not sure that is true for them.

MM

ianmc38

Mordeth wrote:

yes it is, and it's a damned fine argument too. prohibition never has worked, and never will work. We want it, we're gona get it. What we would rather is that we didn't have to associate with criminals to get them, and become criminals because we enjoy taking them.

Word.

I've only done the herbals tice. First time was great. Second time, I did a half of one of those BZP things. Come down was 6 hours long and felt like I'd taken 20 wraps of speed. Couldn't sleep for ages and my heart was racing at about 160 bpm non-stop. They were the ones that look like Es. The capsule ones were grand.