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.

CiaranC

DreamCrusher wrote:

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

Thats great and all, but places which have legalised drugs, say Cannabis in Holland & Canada actually show lower usage than places like Ireland.

So there is no evidence to suggest making something legal and safe will increase usage. The opposite is true in fact.

Same old arguments every time.

Dreamcrusher

CiaranC wrote:

Thats great and all, but places which have legalised drugs, say Cannabis in Holland & Canada actually show lower usage than places like Ireland.

So there is no evidence to suggest making something legal and safe will increase usage. The opposite is true in fact.

yep, same old arguments every time

rubadub

4 people have voted for current legal highs to be made illegal.

What are these people including? coffee, tea, chocolate, cigarettes, alcohol, what about other feel good drugs people tend to take without real medical necessitation, like aspirin, paracetomol, iboprufen.

Or is only things their mother doesnt take that they find objectionable.

dr.bollocko

Prohibition doesnt work. I know others have already said it, but in a modern, liberal and permissive society prohibition does not work and is not sustainable. So we have a situation in this country where cannabis is illegal. But now there has been so much seized that it is impossible, or much more difficult for dealers to get large amounts of cannabis into the country, compared with a comparative monetary value of cocaine, heroin, e, etc. So now, and since the start of the summer, there has been less and less cannabis around, and people aren't turning to legal highs. Its "****, we have no smoke, but I have a guy who can get some coke or speed, come on, lets just go and get ****ed up on coke and speed, because its the only thing we can get." As long as you keep drugs illegal all you are doing is putting more money into the hands of dealers and putting more people on the streets, at least if its regulated, you take the poison out of the drug, you take the money out of the hands of the dregs of society and you have some level of government regulation.
And legal highs suck anyway. thats why they are legal.

mountainyman

CiaranC wrote:

So there is no evidence to suggest making something legal and safe will increase usage. The opposite is true in fact.

I'd take Meth if I could get it. I don't know if I would take it that often though.
But what about ordiary amphetamines wouldn't people take them to study.
What about valium, are you saying changing prescription practises didn't impact on addiction levels.
Amsterdam is riddled with heroin.

MM

rubadub

mountainyman wrote:

But what about ordiary amphetamines wouldn't people take them to study.

I am sure they would, as an alternative to caffeine and/or cigarettes, amphetamine would be considered a safer choice by many doctors. Not everybody binges on drugs, in moderate levels many illegal drugs prove to be safer than legal alternatives.

Look at these people saying mates are turning to coke since there is no cannabis about, choosing what most would consider a more harmful alternative since their preferred one is not available. I would love to be free to take less harmful drugs than the ones I do imbibe, drinking alcohol is socially and legally acceptable, there are plenty of people who would choose a safer alternative if it was as socially and legally accepatable.

Just because drugs become legalised it doesnt mean people will use their current drugs to the same degree. It is like saying mcdonals should not be allowed to add a lower fat burger to their menu since it is already bad enough. People will not get their usual unhealthy meal AND the new burger. Just like people would not drink their usual 8 pints, AND take a gram of coke, 5 spliffs, 2 grams of meth, a few shots of heroin, a few crack pipes, 3 e, a few tabs of acid and a big punnet of mushrooms.

CiaranC

mountainyman wrote:

I'd take Meth if I could get it. I don't know if I would take it that often though.

Interesting that you think Meth would suddenly become available as soon as it was made legal. You think the chemists shipping Coke and E into Ireland dont do the same with Meth for legal reasons?

But what about ordiary amphetamines wouldn't people take them to study.

Im sure they would. Amphetamines are legal in lots of places in Europe. They are sold over the counter in Spain for instance.

What about valium, are you saying changing prescription practises didn't impact on addiction levels.

Where are we talking about? Got a link?

Amsterdam is riddled with heroin.

Im behind a restrictive firewall today so I cant google it, but Im almost certain Amsterdam has lower Heroin use than other European cities.

BaZmO*

ferdi wrote:

man has used various drugs for tens of 1000s of years and we're still here. drugs are a fact of life

That's extremely twisted logic. It's like saying that man has been commiting suicide for 1000's of years but we're still here.

dr.bollocko wrote:

Its "****, we have no smoke, but I have a guy who can get some coke or speed, come on, lets just go and get ****ed up on coke and speed, because its the only thing we can get."

That's just nonsense. They're completely different drugs with different side effects and considerably different in price. It's like heading down to the off lincence for a couple of cans and it being closed and then saying, "Can anybody get any H?"

CiaranC

Bazmo wrote:

That's extremely twisted logic.

Why?

It's like heading down to the off lincence for a couple of cans and it being closed and then saying, "Can anybody get any H?"

No, its like every offlicence, pub, restaurant, hotel, supermarket and guesthouse in the country being closed. Other drug usage would rocket!

ferdi

what would happen if alcohol was banned tommorrow? this isny a smart-ass question, i'm genuinly trying to imagine what the public at large would do....

BaZmO*

CiaranC wrote:

Why?

Why? Because he's alluding to the fact that just because it's been done for years somehow makes it ok.

CiaranC wrote:

No, its like every offlicence, pub, restaurant, hotel, supermarket and guesthouse in the country being closed. Other drug usage would rocket!

No it's not. Just because one drug becomes unavailable doesn't mean that by default people will start using any drug that is available. I hate the ignorant view that many people have with regards to drugs thinking that every drug is the same.

ferdi wrote:

what would happen if alcohol was banned tommorrow? this isny a smart-ass question, i'm genuinly trying to imagine what the public at large would do....

Well you only have to look as far as America during prohibition for that answer.

ferdi

BaZmO* wrote:

Why? Because he's alluding to the fact that just because it's been done for years somehow makes it ok.

i'm not alluding to the fact, i'm saying it straight out! an since you mentioned it earlier, suicide is ok too.

BaZmO* wrote:

Well you only have to look as far as America during prohibition for that answer.

and in a 'free' society, what makes you think it will be any different with any other drug?

Dyr

Deleted User wrote:

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.

oohh the rant trigger has ben tripped

Oh and here we come to my personal bugbear, not only is methadone treatment useless, community care is too. Why is it the reponsibility of a "community" to sort out an individuals problem? Especially when they're probably not from that community at all. Would you accept that someone's else health issue is actually your responsibility because you live next door to them. Would you accept that your personal health and treatment should be delivered through some community framework rather than through your doctor? Would a community based solution to D4 cokeheads be tolerated in blackrock?

And lets be honest here, when the term community is used it doesnt really mean community in a geographic sense, it's means the social group we like to call "disadvantaged"

hence you could have a community based treatment in coolock staffed by non-locals (or better still non-nationals) treating junkies from all over the northside yet recieving funding as a "community" project. It's not a solution because it's in no-ones interest to actually solve the problem.

It's basically providing infrastrcture for addicts and ensuring these "communities" will be forever stigmatised. Having said that, it looks good in the press, soaks funding, and lots of local activists have made good careers out of perpetuating never ending responeses to social issues so happy days all round, just dont kill the fatted pig...:mad:

Miguel_Sanchez

Wait... Legal highs with the what now?

EWheelChair

I'd never forgive them if they banned legal highs, i'll never forget the feeling of joy i got when OJ was found innocent.

BaZmO*

ferdi wrote:

i'm not alluding to the fact, i'm saying it straight out! an since you mentioned it earlier, suicide is ok too.

That's fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I just think it's odd to base an argument on the fact that just because it's gone on for years it's somehow ok.

ferdi wrote:

and in a 'free' society, what makes you think it will be any different with any other drug?

I'm not quite sure what we're discussing/debating here?

WhizzGDK

I think that every country has its drugs problems, but a look at holland and canada reveals that societys drug problems are not related to wheather they are illegal, canada and holland have the same amount of rehab clinics per capita as anywhere else, but their data on the problems are much more accurate because its not a crime. Both countries have fantastic economies so there is the evidence that legalisation of soft drugs wont do any harm to society, if anything it will help us understand the soft drugs better.

Bambi

Bambi wrote:

oohh the rant trigger has ben tripped

Oh and here we come to my personal bugbear, not only is methadone treatment useless, community care is too. Why is it the reponsibility of a "community" to sort out an individuals problem? Especially when they're probably not from that community at all. Would you accept that someone's else health issue is actually your responsibility because you live next door to them. Would you accept that your personal health and treatment should be delivered through some community framework rather than through your doctor? Would a community based solution to D4 cokeheads be tolerated in blackrock?

And lets be honest here, when the term community is used it doesnt really mean community in a geographic sense, it's means the social group we like to call "disadvantaged"

hence you could have a community based treatment in coolock staffed by non-locals (or better still non-nationals) treating junkies from all over the northside yet recieving funding as a "community" project. It's not a solution because it's in no-ones interest to actually solve the problem.

It's basically providing infrastrcture for addicts and ensuring these "communities" will be forever stigmatised. Having said that, it looks good in the press, soaks funding, and lots of local activists have made good careers out of perpetuating never ending responeses to social issues so happy days all round, just dont kill the fatted pig...:mad:

Ahem

Deleted User wrote:

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.

Ok,so you don't agree with methadone programs,agree there and you don't see any use in Community care. However I think you misunderstood me there as the care I was reffering to would be preventitive rather than reactive. Apologies as I was not clear there.

Once a person is addicted then molly coddling them would not help. Drug treatment programs have to be tough and as I suggested should treatment not work then an opiate inhibitor is yer only man!

ferdi

BaZmO* wrote:

That's fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I just think it's odd to base an argument on the fact that just because it's gone on for years it's somehow ok.

that fact that its gone of for years is not the basis for my argument that its ok, its just an aside really.

rubadub

BaZmO* wrote:

That's just nonsense. They're completely different drugs with different side effects and considerably different in price. It's like heading down to the off lincence for a couple of cans and it being closed and then saying, "Can anybody get any H?"

Yes, you are actually right (but presume you were being sarcastic), one of the main reasons prohibition was repealed in the US was due to the very fact that people did start using heroin in massive numbers. Far easier to smuggle and deal than large bottles of alcohol.