Legal Highs

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.

BaZmO*

rubadub wrote:

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.

I'd love to see evidence of that.

I was under the impression that it was repealed was due to racketeering, corruption within law enforcement agencies and loss of taxes in particular. But the upsurge in the use of Herion? That's a new one on me.

Crimson...

Legalising drugs would solve or improve every single problem associated with drug-use. Prices would plummet, quality would rise, consistency could be rigorously maintained, the safest doses established and distributed along with the drug to decrease the chances of OD, impartial and agenda-free information campaigns could let people know the risks and allow them to decide for themselves what is right to put in their own body.

Drug use and users would become an accepted part of society, as with other forms of recreation. The decrease in price and its legality would mean jobs could fund habits and massively reduce drug-related crime. Organised crime would take a blow from this loss, although it'd find something else soon enough.

But the additional tax-revenue would provide extra resources for all areas of society, a further positive knock-on effect against crime. Police would have vastly more time to tackle real crimes and prisons would have far more space to contain real criminals.

So the gov'ts have basically ****ed themselves and the societies they govern completely by lying about drugs, trying to place politics where it doesn't belong, and taking the power of choice away from its rightful owners; the people.


"A must see docu drama about what would happen to the world if drugs were legalized" Here

generalmiaow

Obviously prohibition doesn't work 100% because people are still taking drugs. So completely ignoring the moral issue of who decides what we can ingest, and the possibility that prohibition does more harm than good, surely other than the question about legalisation hangs on whether if certain drugs were legalised tomorrow, whether everyone would suddenly go out and take drugs? Obviously people are taking these "legal highs" - but if they were criminalised as looks possible would people not go back to regular ones?
I visited one of these headshops recently with a friend (no I wasn't buying drugs ) and I heard a customer asking the guy behind the counter if particular drugs were good substitutes for cannabis and ecstasy, and he then bought kratom and one of those piperazine-containing tablets. While IMO BZP is probably as bad as speed (though it has not been shown to be addictive), surely the fact that both of these drugs are coming from controlled sources and not being imported by the UVF or what have you immediately makes it better in every sense that people are taking these and not E tablets adulterated with ketamine and god knows what else.

Surely the requirement for good business practice and defence against litigation will keep legitimate suppliers of these substances froom adulterating them? I'm pretty sure that guy would have bought some pills or plasticky terrorist hash if the stuff in the shop wasn't available. If it screws him up, the head shop can probably be sued. Just try suing the anonymous pill-stamping nutcase in Belgium who makes illegal drugs. Is this not how the whole free market system is supposed to work?

In addition, wouldn't this be more useful than a night in a jail cell? (PDF link)

Where the hell has prohibition of drugs actually stopped people using and getting their hands on drugs, in a non-totalitarian society?

ScumLord

Getting high should not be illegal! That's almost seems to be everyones problems with drugs. The illegal drugs where supposedly made illegal because they where harmfull to the users health. I don't see anything wrong with mind altering drugs change can be a good thing and allot of people take them as an experience, some do take them to forget, or punish themselfs but like it's already been said the population at large shouldn't be punished because one person jumps out a window.

I don't think every drug should be legalised, heroin obviously takes over the user it's just to damn adictive, as are pills (which do alter the users brain chemistry for up to 10 years "alegidly) and coke (unfortunitly ). Shrooms and cannabis are safe in my experience especialy cannabis. It's criminal that that drug is illegal.

I don't know I'm begining to think some high up Gardi and polititions are activly helping criminal gangs by insuring these drugs stay illegal when it's obvious that cannabis (their biggest seller) could easily be made legal. Taking that source of revinue away from the criminal element would be a massive blow to their profit margins.

Why is it the reponsibility of a "community" to sort out an individuals problem?

Because that's what people do, I think thats a terrible statement, honestly I believe this is whats wrong with the world today. As long as I'm fine everyone else can go spin. People need people, communitys can get work done allot better than a government I think we should seriously be looking towards setting up proper communitys with more controll over their own affairs. Not having a community that cares about you and how your doing will drive you to depression and drug abuse. You can enjoy drugs with a community of friends that you work with.

I noticed that thing with the lack of smoke this summer, as much pills and coke as you wanted (all of it muck, mixed down to ****e) but no hash. Still no hash really.

Crimson...

We should all move to Holland.

greenkittie

Cannabis users tend to be so out of it they don't even realise they are addicted. I have seen alot of people develop an addiction to this "safe" drug that you are all so in support of. I don't think that sitting about all day smoking, unable to actually bother with getting up and living is good or normal behaviour.

The reason cannabis use is higher here than in countrys where it is legal has little to do with the legality it is about the general culture of the contry in question. The irish have always been prone to over indulgence, I'm sure our levels of alcohol abuse are higher than these contrys in which cannabis is legal as well and its obviously not because people are drinking instead as there are greater numbers of people smoking cannabis in the first place.

Prohibition dosn't work but it does reduce. Drug education on the otherhand is proven to increase the numbers of people taking drugs...

ScumLord

Very important point! Cannabis is not physically addictive!!! It is also impossible to take a letal dose. I smoke and I also work so I don't sit around all day smoking I can't or I'd be out on my arse. Everyone I know that smokes works.

Drug education on the otherhand is proven to increase the numbers of people taking drugs...

That's a good point everyone should be ignorant to the facts about drugs. :rolleyes:

peepsbates

greenkittie wrote:

Cannabis users tend to be so out of it they don't even realise they are addicted.

Are you serious?

greenkittie wrote:

I don't think that sitting about all day smoking, unable to actually bother with getting up and living is good or normal behaviour

what makes you think we(cannabis users) sit around all day smoking?

NoDayBut2Day

Mordeth wrote:

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

No, but we can learn from people's bad experiences. I think that's why the OP was sharing, so we don't make the same mistake.

havana

Deleted User wrote:

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...

.

Some good points in that post nixmix, though I would disagree with some. (Should probably say here that I work for Merchants Quay.)

''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?'' (Don't know how to quote more than once!)

Don't you think it all ready is?

My own feeling on the subject is that I would be more in favour of decriminalisation than legalisation, particularily in relation to heroin, cocaine etc. As a society we need to be realistic. There are poeple who are currently using drugs. Education and prevention is no good now. So we need to come up with some solution. Absolute prohibition and treating this as a criminal issue IS NOT the solution. Providing realistic options for people and a say in there own treatment is vital. And here the word options is important. The problem with treatment in Ireland is that there are no options for people- take whats available or hump off. One thing does not work for every individual.