Drug Laws; A Savage Hypocrisy.

Standman

Picture this:


You’re lying on a deck chair in your back garden on a lovely summers evening, enjoying the sunshine and basking in natures beauty while sipping from an ice cold bottle of beer. All of a sudden from the corner of your eye you spot a figure approaching you from the other end of the garden. You tilt your head to the side in mild curiosity so as to get a better view of this mysterious figure, only to find out that it is your new neighbour, Paddy McLaw.
You sit up to greet him, but before you can say a word, he blurts out,

“What’s that you’re drinking there neighbour?”.

Slightly confused you look down to your right hand and gesture to him,

“ Why, it’s a bottle of beer! Would you like one?”.

He responds to this with a gasp that is a mix between disbelief and disgust,

“I most certainly do not! Do I look like a druggy to you?”

Now your getting beginning to get impatient with this guy, and begin to think that maybe your new neighbour is not well in the head.

“Excuse me but do you need something, or have you come over here to start a fight?”

“Excuse YOU, but what the hell do you think you are doing? You can’t drink alcohol, it’s a detriment to society!”

Completely taken aback by this utterly ridiculous statement, you promptly reply,

“This is my house, my property, I can drink whatever the hell I want and it’s none of your god-damn business!”

Obviously flustered by this response, your neighbour exclaims,

“No you can’t drink whatever you want! Did you not just hear me? Alcohol is bad for society! It breaks up families, it destroys peoples lives and worst of a all it KILLS people. If you don’t stop drinking right now, I’m going to take you by force and lock you up in a cell until you’ve learned your lesson.”

Now you are getting worried, and start thinking that maybe this guy is a psycho. You quickly get up, tell this man to get off your property and go inside to ring the Police.




If someone came to your house and did this, I’m sure your reply would be the same, if not a little less polite than just “Get off my property”. It is an absolutely outrageous scenario and is something that would of course never happen in real life.

Or would it?

Ask yourself, what is the difference between this scenario and anti-drug law enforcement? Apart from the fact that drug laws are not enforced by nosey neighbours, it is, in my view, exactly the same.

What would be your opinion of such a person that would force his opinions on you?

Well, I don’t know about you, but I would be of the opinion that they can stick their opinion up their opinionated assholes. Who are they to say what is and isn’t acceptable for me to put into my own body? I’m sure that the vast majority of you would agree that you, the lazy beer drinking-sun-enjoying man or woman have every right to drink beer whenever he or she likes in their own back garden.

But here’s something interesting. Instead of beer, substitute it with crack cocaine. Yep, that’s right; “You’re lying on a deck chair in your back garden on a lovely summers evening, enjoying the sunshine and basking in natures beauty while sucking from an ice white bowl of crack”.

Now this time, if instead of a nosey neighbour it was a police officer who approached you, would you still think that he was a crazy asshole?
I’m not so sure it would be viewed the same way, because after all, drugs are baaaaaaad!

Now of course a police officer has every right under law to take you by force and lock you in a cell for doing this, but why and how is this in any way different from the first scenario with the nosey neighbour?

Both drugs have the potential to cause harm, both drugs can and do cause harm in society. Why is it that one drug can be enough to take away your freedom, while the other one is completely acceptable?

Now it could be argued that cocaine is much more addictive and therefore dangerous than alcohol, but shouldn’t people be allowed to choose if they want to do it or not? Do we actually live in a society where you can have your freedom taken away for doing something/ having something in your possession that MAY cause harm to you or others around you? Is that not the most incredible injustice of the highest degree? It reminds me a little bit of that film, Minority Report, where people were arrested and locked up because they thought about killing somebody. You could even say it has some similarities to the actions of the Thought Police in George Orwell’s brilliant book, 1984, where even your thoughts where closely monitored and regulated.

If you are completely and utterly against drugs that’s fine, but that does not mean that everybody else has to be forced to comply with your opinion. In a free world, people should be allowed to choose what they want to put into their own bodies, what they want to do to their own bodies, and what they want to do with their own bodies, no matter how detrimental that may be to their own health. If you think that is despicable, that is perfectly OK, but you have to realise that everybody is entitled to have their own beliefs and their own world views. If someone’s world view means its Ok to do drugs and to treat their bodies badly then that’s OK. You have absolutely no right to impose your beliefs and opinions on them simply because you disagree with theirs in the same way they have no right to impose their beliefs and opinions on you.

Maybe you fear that if these kind of behaviours are allowed, society will fall apart and the world as we know it will become some kind of barbaric, selfish hellhole. This is what I believe is the main motivation behind anti-drug laws. It’s the old familiar fear of the unknown. But ask yourself how are human beings supposed to progress as a society if we are unable to make choices and mistakes for ourselves? If we are prevented from doing things just because we are forced not to, we haven’t learned anything except for the ability to be unquestioningly obedient. We are not allowed to take drugs because they are bad for society, but where will it end? Tomorrow you might hear on the news “Violence on TV deemed bad for society, new policy banning all violent movies and programs passed” or maybe “Curse words to be outlawed after new report shows its promotion of anti-social behaviour”.

These may seem far-fetched but, I can honestly see no reason why they shouldn’t be outlawed when you are of the view-point that things that are bad for society should be illegal.

What this is about is freedom. When you have freedom, it is unconditional. That is the essence of the word. There is no such thing as freedom with conditions, as true freedom must be unconditional. When you live in a truly free society, you must be prepared to take the bad with the good. Freedom means that you are free to do anything you want, as long as it does not affect the freedom of others. And when you realise this, you must also realise that other people will want to do things that you do not approve of, but you must respect their freedom to choose! It is because of this freedom that you can voice your opinion, and it is a serious abuse of this when you use it to take other peoples freedoms away.

Pyrrhonic

Well you know Standman if we were living in a rational world...

I wouldn't hang around waiting though!

all the stars

thats really well put... while i dont do the drugs myself... bar the vino, i see your point. correct & right

davros

Standman wrote: »

Is that not the most incredible injustice of the highest degree?

Not really.

Society limits lots of personal freedoms. The use of alcohol is limited in plenty of ways too.

"Stop paying money to the vicious criminals who import drugs." Now there's a campaign I can support.

Standman

The only reason drug supply is in the hands of "vicious criminals" is because they are illegal. So, in a way you do support the campaign to legalise drugs because that would be the best and easiest way to "stop paying money" to these people, while not imposing on a persons freedom to choose.

davros

Standman wrote: »

So, in a way you do support the campaign to legalise drugs because that would be the best and easiest way to "stop paying money" to these people

I don't support the legalisation of drugs but at least that's a point worth arguing about.

Facilitating spoiled rich kids smoking joints and snorting coke and endorsing their absolute right to self-gratification? Not interested.

Standman

So because you don't approve of it nobody should be allowed to do it? Just one alteration on that last line ".... their absolute right to FREEDOM OF CHOICE". Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating drug use amongst kids, I'm just ignoring your blatantly cynical viewpoint that only "spoiled rich kids" do drugs.

davros

Standman wrote: »

viewpoint that only "spoiled rich kids" do drugs.

It's my viewpoint that spoiled rich kids (and immature adults) demand the right to do drugs. The people who get into drugs from despair need other things.

Standman

That's your viewpoint but do you not think that other people who have different viewpoints should be allowed to choose for themselves?

davros

I have said I don't support the legalisation of drugs but I'm not strongly against the legalisation of drugs either.

Our society's current position is that they are illegal. Those who want to change that will have to persuade a sizeable proportion of the rest of us that there are good reasons for doing so.

If the people doing the asking are those who are currently funding the drug gangs then I really don't care if they feel their rights are being infringed in some trivial way.

If, on the other hand, a convincing case can be made that this would deprive criminal gangs of revenue and the damage can be properly controlled then I'm listening.

I would want to see this as a (pretty much) worldwide change though. No way I want Ireland to legalise drugs while other countries maintain the status quo. I don't want the kind of tourist who comes looking for a legal hit.

robindch

davros wrote: »

a convincing case can be made that this would deprive criminal gangs of revenue and the damage can be properly controlled then I'm listening.

Having worked in a well-known Dublin-based homeless charity for some years, the unanimous feeling there was that drugs should be legalized. The two principal reasons were (a) that banning a highly desirable substance gives the substance providers enormous financial and social power (cf, prohibition in the USA, opium in 19thC China) while requiring huge and needless expenditure on the part of the state to enforce and (b) that it requires huge outlay on the part of the consumer, causing theft, prostitution and so on.

The banning of certain drugs is as good an example as any of the requirement to understand the difference between normative legislation ("We legislate against X, because it is bad for society") and positivist legislation ("We permit X, but attempt to minimize its known bad effects"). In simplistic terms, "conservatives" are normative, while "liberals" are positivist.

Here in Ireland, I'd imagine that the proceeds of a significant portion of casual theft goes towards the drugs trade. In the design of policy, the generally small amount of damage done through theft against all the population must be balanced against the far greater harm done to the much smaller drug-taking population. Most countries currently weigh legislation in favor of the drug-taker, rather in the face of reality it seems to me.

JC 2K3

davros wrote: »

I really don't care if they feel their rights are being infringed in some trivial way.

Trivial to you, a much bigger deal to others.

Standman

davros wrote: »

I have said I don't support the legalisation of drugs but I'm not strongly against the legalisation of drugs either.

Our society's current position is that they are illegal. Those who want to change that will have to persuade a sizeable proportion of the rest of us that there are good reasons for doing so.

You can make a case for legalising drugs based on what the previous poster said alone, and the issue of crime related to drug prohibition is a very serious one.

But as you might have seen I come at it from the viewpoint that people should be able to choose for themselves what they put into their own body
When I was arguing with someone the other day about this, they brought up the legislation we have in Ireland in relation to the waring of seatbelts.

You can find a lot of similarities between the two. If you don't ware a seatbelt, you run the risk of causing harm to yourself and others in a similar way to that of heavy drug use. The person I was arguing with stated that if I wanted people to have freedom of choice to use drugs, then I should also want to give people the freedom to choose whether or not they want to wear a seatbelt. I thought this was a good question as both deal with a persons freedom to choose, and both may or may not cause harm. So if you regard wearing a seatbelt = not doing drugs and not wearing a seatbelt = doing drugs, we can use this argument as a template for drug use.

But what is different about the two is that there is a MUCH higher death rate; 3 out of 4 people who get into a crash without a seatbelt die. Also, the number of road deaths per year are significantly higher, in the hundreds, compared to drug related deaths which average around 100 a year - 60% of which are opiate related. But what I overlooked at first is that if you get caught without a seatbelt, you'll get a fine, and if you're lucky you could get off with a warning. Also seatbelt laws are not nearly as enforced as drug laws, I have went through checkpoints on a number of occasions wearing no seatbelt and have never been stopped - checkpoints breathalizing people I might add!

The truth is though that it would be much better if drug laws were as soft as laws regulating seatbelt use. If you get caught with even a small amount of drugs you can get convicted. This means you can never visit America, Australia or any other country whose visa requirments refuse entry to people with convictions. I think that that is disgraceful! That is something that could have the potential to very seriously affect someones life. If the Gards were doling out convictions to people who didn't wear seatbelts I'm sure there would be public outrage, and rightly so!

JC 2K3

Here's a nice little fact for you: It's perfectly legal to drive/be a passenger in a car without a seatbelt if the car is on private property.

davros

Standman wrote: »

If you get caught with even a small amount of drugs you can get convicted. This means you can never visit America, Australia or any other country whose visa requirments refuse entry to people with convictions. I think that that is disgraceful! That is something that could have the potential to very seriously affect someones life.

Not only is someone who carries drugs contemptuous of the law, they are also quite happy to finance murder, violence, intimidation, corruption and even civil war all the way from here to South America. Why would the US want to allow someone like that within their borders?

It's a very fair intellectual argument to say that people should be free to do whatever they want to themselves if it doesn't affect others. But I suspect that those advancing the argument for drug legalisation are largely those who are currently breaking the law and I have no time for them.

I'm not sure that the demand side of this has been properly tackled. From what I hear (from an attendee), cocaine is openly taken at corporate events in Ireland. Would this portion of demand not respond well to arrest, humiliation, jail time and exclusion from the US visa waiver programme?

swiss

In theory, state legislature reflects the wishes of the majority of its citizens. So if a majority of people wanted to legalise drugs, they would elect candidates that run on a mandate of legalising drugs. Once in power, they could repeal laws that have been enacted to prohibit them.

So while the analogy has been made between someone sitting in their back garden having a few beers (a situation I could certainly see myself in), and someone sitting in their back garden taking a few pills or a line of coke (a situation I could not see myself in), the reality is that socially and politically there is a world of difference between them. Hence one is illegal, and the other is not.

I have to admit that like davros, I have very little time for people who take drugs (and by drugs I mean illegal narcotics and other psychotropics such as heroin, cocaine, ectasy, etc). This is for the same reasons he outlined. It continually disappoints me when I hear the argument that drug taking "harms nobody else", from people who presumably cannot make the connection between the highly prolific gang violence and murders, the continued destitution of the addicted and their families, and their own "casual" drug taking habits.

Usually, when this case is made, people who favour the legalisation of drugs turn it around and say that if legalised, people won't buy it from the drug dealers and can purchase it from legitimate sources. While I accept that they can, I'm also dubious because we do know a country where the drug laws are about as lax as you can get - the Netherlands. While people might have differing opinions about how enlightened the drugs policy in this country might be it can't be argued that drugs there are not problematic, or that drugs related gang activity has stopped simply because they have been legalised. So, appropriately for a skeptics forum, I am skeptical of the suggestion that legalising drugs will make these problems disappear.

I do think however, that there is quite a lot of scaremongering about drugs. If drugs were legalised tomorrow, I don't think we would see the kind of meltdown in society that some would claim, because I believe social attitudes and behaviours are formed not only by the legislature but by a whole host of other influences. But, for the moment at least, I would be against such a move. In my opinion, drugs are a very dangerous substance that need to be treated with the kind of care that you give to anything dangerous, and I don't know if people as a whole are mature or responsible enough to do that given how easy it is to fall into the trap of additiction.

Maybe a more measured response would be to relax legislature by degrees (for example by legalising canabis) to gauge how individuals and society deals with it.

Standman

Exactly! You have just proven that the world would be a much better place if drugs were decriminalised. It would be the end to all the "murder, violence, intimidation, corruption and even civil war" associated with illegal drugs.

Standman

swiss wrote: »

In theory, state legislature reflects the wishes of the majority of its citizens. So if a majority of people wanted to legalise drugs, they would elect candidates that run on a mandate of legalising drugs. Once in power, they could repeal laws that have been enacted to prohibit them.

So while the analogy has been made between someone sitting in their back garden having a few beers (a situation I could certainly see myself in), and someone sitting in their back garden taking a few pills or a line of coke (a situation I could not see myself in), the reality is that socially and politically there is a world of difference between them. Hence one is illegal, and the other is not.

I have to admit that like davros, I have very little time for people who take drugs (and by drugs I mean illegal narcotics and other psychotropics such as heroin, cocaine, ectasy, etc). This is for the same reasons he outlined. It continually disappoints me when I hear the argument that drug taking "harms nobody else", from people who presumably cannot make the connection between the highly prolific gang violence and murders, the continued destitution of the addicted and their families, and their own "casual" drug taking habits.

Usually, when this case is made, people who favour the legalisation of drugs turn it around and say that if legalised, people won't buy it from the drug dealers and can purchase it from legitimate sources. While I accept that they can, I'm also dubious because we do know a country where the drug laws are about as lax as you can get - the Netherlands. While people might have differing opinions about how enlightened the drugs policy in this country might be it can't be argued that drugs there are not problematic, or that drugs related gang activity has stopped simply because they have been legalised. So, appropriately for a skeptics forum, I am skeptical of the suggestion that legalising drugs will make these problems disappear.

I do think however, that there is quite a lot of scaremongering about drugs. If drugs were legalised tomorrow, I don't think we would see the kind of meltdown in society that some would claim, because I believe social attitudes and behaviours are formed not only by the legislature but by a whole host of other influences. But, for the moment at least, I would be against such a move. In my opinion, drugs are a very dangerous substance that need to be treated with the kind of care that you give to anything dangerous, and I don't know if people as a whole are mature or responsible enough to do that given how easy it is to fall into the trap of additiction.

Maybe a more measured response would be to relax legislature by degrees (for example by legalising canabis) to gauge how individuals and society deals with it.

I have never stated, nor do I believe that drug use is harmless. There are very real dangers associated with drug use and abuse and these must be taken very, very seriously. I think you are right aswell regarding relaxing legislation in degrees rather than doing it all at once, as with anything that would be a major change in society must be handled very carefully.

The reason I feel so strongly about this subject is not because I am some drug user who is selfishly seeking to change laws for my own benefit, but because I see the criminalisation of drug users as an injustice. I think it is deplorable that a person can be sent to jail for possessing or using something that *could* harm himself or others. It just seems the punishment by no means fits the "crime". You could use the reasoning that they are punished because they are funding criminal gangs, but again I see this as a product of legislation, and a problem that will NEVER be solved using current laws.

Also, just because a majority believes something is right does not make it so. If the majority suddenly decided murder was ok, it should still not be allowed as it affects other peoples freedom - their freedom to live! In the same way I feel current laws affect peoples freedom to choose.

robindch

davros wrote: »

But I suspect that those advancing the argument for drug legalisation are largely those who are currently breaking the law and I have no time for them.

You have no time for them because they are breaking the law, or for some other reason?

There were no drug-takers down in the homeless shelter where I worked, but everybody -- even the one religious person there -- supported decriminalization.

Banning addictive narcotics puts vast power into the hands of the distributors and causes problems which, I believe, far outweigh the benefits of any legal prohibition to the drug-takers (who, I think it's fairly obvious, are ignoring the legal prohibition in any case).

JC 2K3

swiss wrote: »

I have to admit that like davros, I have very little time for people who take drugs (and by drugs I mean illegal narcotics and other psychotropics such as heroin, cocaine, ectasy, etc). This is for the same reasons he outlined. It continually disappoints me when I hear the argument that drug taking "harms nobody else", from people who presumably cannot make the connection between the highly prolific gang violence and murders, the continued destitution of the addicted and their families, and their own "casual" drug taking habits.

Non-drug users don't seem to feel guilty about the fact that they're financing corrupt industries when they buy sweatshop-made clothes, chocolate, coffee etc. It's blatant hyposcrisy to condemn illegal drug use because it is a corrupt industry.

swiss wrote: »

Usually, when this case is made, people who favour the legalisation of drugs turn it around and say that if legalised, people won't buy it from the drug dealers and can purchase it from legitimate sources. While I accept that they can, I'm also dubious because we do know a country where the drug laws are about as lax as you can get - the Netherlands. While people might have differing opinions about how enlightened the drugs policy in this country might be it can't be argued that drugs there are not problematic, or that drugs related gang activity has stopped simply because they have been legalised.

But they haven't been legalised, cannabis has simply been decriminalised. Drug gangs will always exist until all commonly used recreational substances are made 100% legal.

The main thing that the Dutch drug policy has shown is that decriminalising cannabis does not lead to an increase in usage.

Unfortunately, the Christian ruling party in the Netherlands is rapidly trying to reverse liberal Dutch policy in all areas, and coffeeshops are top of the agenda. Huge step backwards if you ask me.

swiss wrote: »

I don't know if people as a whole are mature or responsible enough to do that given how easy it is to fall into the trap of additiction.

Thing is though, the only two commonly used recreational drugs with a big potential for addiction are coke and heroin. This is why it annoys me that "drugs" are all lumped together in the same category.

swiss wrote: »

Maybe a more measured response would be to relax legislature by degrees (for example by legalising canabis) to gauge how individuals and society deals with it.

Problem being, any gauging will be horrifically biased by both sides. Look at the Dutch cannabis policy. There are very few who look at the facts and try to make up their minds about whether it has worked or not. If someone is pro-drugs it is wonderful, if they're anti-drugs, it's a failed experiment which is destroying Dutch society.

davros

robindch wrote: »

You have no time for them because they are breaking the law, or for some other reason?

I am referring to those who take drugs socially and advance the argument that they have the right to do to themselves whatever they want, damn the consequences. They don't care a whit for the rest of society so why do they think we should indulge them?

The argument for legalisation in order to pull the rug out from under the criminals is thoroughly respectable and I'm almost convinced by it (worth a phased-in attempt anyway, as swiss suggests). But I don't want Ireland to go down this road alone.

Standman

davros wrote: »

I am referring to those who take drugs socially and advance the argument that they have the right to do to themselves whatever they want, damn the consequences. They don't care a whit for the rest of society so why do they think we should indulge them?

What consequences are you referring to?

davros

Standman wrote: »

What consequences are you referring to?

The consequences of funding criminals.

It's hard to be clear when there are a few different strands to the discussion. I don't mean the consequences to one's own health.

You can probably call me a hypocrite because I have my own unhealthy habits that society doesn't interfere with but at least I didn't contribute to anyone's death when purchasing my chocolate biscuit (if you want to ban chocolate biscuits though please go ahead - it would really help me).

JC 2K3

davros wrote: »

at least I didn't contribute to anyone's death when purchasing my chocolate biscuit

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/international/chocolate_bittersweet.fortune/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_cocoa

swiss

JC 2K3 wrote:

Non-drug users don't seem to feel guilty about the fact that they're financing corrupt industries when they buy sweatshop-made clothes, chocolate, coffee etc. It's blatant hyposcrisy to condemn illegal drug use because it is a corrupt industry.

The drugs industry is more than corrupt. It is murderous, ruthless and cutthroat, and the evidence for that is inescapable as it spills over into council estates. I have no doubt that many other industries are corrupt, but at least if they operate in this country they are subject to labour and other laws. Consumers also have a choice if they want to buy the sweatshop clothes as you put it, or alternatives from a (perceived) more ethical competitor. Some people, for example, will buy fairtrade coffee. I have yet to see fairtrade cocaine. Also for other industries, people may simply not have thought about the issue very much, but when it comes to drugs, the implications are hard to avoid.

But they haven't been legalised, cannabis has simply been decriminalised. Drug gangs will always exist until all commonly used recreational substances are made 100% legal.

Even if this were true, it is not a good enough reason to legalise drugs. Prostitution gangs and rackets would disappear if prostitution was made legal, as would (in some parts of the world) slave rings, if slavery was re-introduced on a legal basis. I also find it interesting that you chose to call drugs "recreational substances".

The main thing that the Dutch drug policy has shown is that decriminalising cannabis does not lead to an increase in usage.

Unfortunately, the Christian ruling party in the Netherlands is rapidly trying to reverse liberal Dutch policy in all areas, and coffeeshops are top of the agenda. Huge step backwards if you ask me.

Problem being, any gauging will be horrifically biased by both sides. Look at the Dutch cannabis policy. There are very few who look at the facts and try to make up their minds about whether it has worked or not. If someone is pro-drugs it is wonderful, if they're anti-drugs, it's a failed experiment which is destroying Dutch society.

I don't mean to be rude, but given the previous comments, this seems to be true for you. It would be interesting to see if there is any published scientific research in this area that uses objective assessments to determine if the policy has been a success or not in social terms using statistics like street crime. But I agree that it is a subjective issue that pretty much falls on how people feel about drugs.

All other considerations being equal (as to legality, self harm, etc), I do not have a particularly big issue with drug usage. In fact the most compelling argument that I have heard in favour of drugs legalisation is that prohibition is an infringement on personal liberties. The question for me then becomes "does the state have a legitimate right to protect its own citizens from themselves?". This is a larger question which would take a long time for me to answer (I waffle on quite a lot), however I think my answer for drugs would be "no, but...".

davros

JC 2K3 wrote: »

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/international/chocolate_bittersweet.fortune/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_cocoa

OK, now I have no pleasures left.

There is some very uncomfortable reading in there, and it's news to me. But I should be able to choose around that, right? By buying fairtrade chocolate?

Standman

davros wrote: »

OK, now I have no pleasures left.

There is some very uncomfortable reading in there, and it's news to me. But I should be able to choose around that, right? By buying fairtrade chocolate?

Yes you should be able to choose around it, and you should count yourself lucky you have that choice. For drug users, however, they do not have a choice due to the simple fact that Fair Trade cannot be regulated in an illegal drugs trade. "Fair Trade Cocaine" as Swiss mentioned is absolutely impossible while its distribution is governed by criminal networks, who do whatever it takes to maximise profit and lower expenses.

JC 2K3

swiss wrote: »

Even if this were true, it is not a good enough reason to legalise drugs. Prostitution gangs and rackets would disappear if prostitution was made legal, as would (in some parts of the world) slave rings, if slavery was re-introduced on a legal basis.

Of course. I was merely replying to your point about the Netherlands not being free of drug problems and drug gangs since cannabis was decriminalised.

If something being illegal is fuelling gangland activity, be it prostitution, slavery, drugs or otherwise, the following questions must be asked:
-Why is this illegal?
-Realistically speaking, what are the main problems which might occur were it legalised?
-Do the potential problems of its legalisation outweigh the problems currently faced?

swiss wrote: »

I also find it interesting that you chose to call drugs "recreational substances".

Why?

I prefer the term in some contexts for the purpose of disambiguation.

swiss wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude, but given the previous comments, this seems to be true for you. It would be interesting to see if there is any published scientific research in this area that uses objective assessments to determine if the policy has been a success or not in social terms using statistics like street crime. But I agree that it is a subjective issue that pretty much falls on how people feel about drugs.

I don't know what street crime has to to with decriminalised cannabis..

The only useful metric I can see that applies here is rates of cannabis usage in the Netherlands compared to other countries. And it's lower than average. Of course I'm biased, as is everyone. But if someone can argue a negative aspect of the Dutch policy (besides those resulting from the Dutch policy being in isolation, which is a different issue), then I'll certainly listen.

swiss wrote: »

The drugs industry is more than corrupt. It is murderous, ruthless and cutthroat, and the evidence for that is inescapable as it spills over into council estates. I have no doubt that many other industries are corrupt, but at least if they operate in this country they are subject to labour and other laws. Consumers also have a choice if they want to buy the sweatshop clothes as you put it, or alternatives from a (perceived) more ethical competitor. Some people, for example, will buy fairtrade coffee. I have yet to see fairtrade cocaine. Also for other industries, people may simply not have thought about the issue very much, but when it comes to drugs, the implications are hard to avoid.

davros wrote: »

There is some very uncomfortable reading in there, and it's news to me. But I should be able to choose around that, right? By buying fairtrade chocolate?

You seem to be implying that those who want to use drugs can campaign for their legality all they want, and perhaps even with your support, but can't use them until made legal. However, if people aren't using drugs, they're not going to be bothered about them being illegal. It's a catch 22.

The reality is, for many people, drugs are something they want to do, and access to drugs will never be blocked. I'm sure many drug users would be thrilled to have the choice to buy drugs from a non-corrupt source, but unfortunately, not everyone knows a chemist or can grow their own drugs.

pH

JC 2K3 wrote: »

However, if people aren't using drugs, they're not going to be bothered about them being illegal. It's a catch 22.

I'm not using drugs yet I am bothered. All personal possession should be decriminalised, legal supply arranged for some of the softer drugs and a legal medical supply for those addicted to the harder drugs.

The current situation is very hypocritical and doesn't make sense. Society doesn't want me doing heroin for my own good, and cares so much about me it will chuck me in a shithole like mountjoy for a month!

We do plenty of things that are bad for us, smoking, drinking, being too fat, not having regular health checks, partaking in dangerous sports. Taken to the extreme, even those who deliberately self-harm are not criminalised, you won't chuck me in jail if I cut myself or try to kill myself, why is jail appropriate if I'm harming myself with cocaine or heroin?

robindch

pH wrote: »

The current situation is very hypocritical and doesn't make sense.

Normative laws rarely do. They need to be changed. Urgently.

Pyrrhonic

Drugs and the law....


Consider for a moment the issue of gun control. In the US guns are everywhere. Gun control there has become a big issue. Yet in Switzerland where it has been illegal not to have a gun in the house, there is no debate.

Certain issues become a focus for angry and heated debate! Like the number of angles that can fit on a pin head, the issues may be irrelevant. "Tribal" loyalties and power could be seen as an alternative explanation.

Perhaps we should remember science has shown we are not too different from the monkeys?

Belfast

Good book on the subject

complete text is on the site below

AIN'T NOBODY'S BUSINESS IF YOU DO

The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country
Peter McWilliams
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm

rubadub

davros wrote: »

"Stop paying money to the vicious criminals who import drugs." Now there's a campaign I can support.

That "campaign" is a recent enough media device. Before it we had the "gateway drug" crap, which even the Gardai do not use anymore since people have since become educated more and realise how stupid it sounds and how it is uses faulty logic.

The whole "if you smoke a joint you may as well have shot Veronica Guerin" attempt to inflict guilt is laughable to most drug users. All this pathetic attempt to place guilt does is makes a lot of people realise how hypocritical the laws are, and why prohibition should be lifted. Wine & smokes went up 50cent, yet we are still losing a potential fortune in taxes on other recreational drugs. It is a very simple solution to a simple problem.

The drug laws are hypocritical and need fixing, ban them all if you want, just remove the hypocrisy.

davros wrote: »

Facilitating spoiled rich kids smoking joints and snorting coke and endorsing their absolute right to self-gratification? Not interested....

It's my viewpoint that spoiled rich kids (and immature adults) demand the right to do drugs. The people who get into drugs from despair need other things.

These are typical views people have, skewed by the media. Many people have a real problem accepting that people could possibly enjoy illegal recreational drugs in a controlled manner, yet have NO problem accepting that mammy can have 1 glass of wine with her sunday lunch and enjoy a light buzz. And my God, mammy does not turn into a depraved degenerate wino even though alcohol is recognized as an addictive recreational drug. I know many people who take illegal drugs at threshold doses, just like people can have 2 pints watching football without getting liver disease, dying of alcohol overdose, or starting a fight on the way home. Many people sitting around you in your local are probably on other drugs, just at low enough doses that is is not obvious. So people see a gurning idiot and say "whats he on", "oh E", and then goes off thinking every person on E does it to that extent, yet can accept not every drinker is strewn out on the street covered in puke.

Many "immature adults" would also demand the right to drink & smoke, and not many have a problem with that.

davros wrote: »

Not only is someone who carries drugs contemptuous of the law, they are also quite happy to finance murder, violence, intimidation, corruption and even civil war all the way from here to South America.

Do you actually know any drug users who are "happy" about this?? It is a pathetic tactic to use and I bet it has no effect on most drug users. Prohibition was brought into force in the US, many otherwise law abiding citizens continued to use & abuse this drug, and I expect many were not "happy" to finance murder, violence, etc.... They did not respect the law, saw it as unfair and so flouted it, just like many do now. The way the media talks about it you would swear the main aim of drug users is to fund gangland crime, and that the desired altered state of conciousness is just a bonus!

swiss wrote: »

So while the analogy has been made between someone sitting in their back garden having a few beers (a situation I could certainly see myself in), and someone sitting in their back garden taking a few pills or a line of coke (a situation I could not see myself in), the reality is that socially and politically there is a world of difference between them. Hence one is illegal, and the other is not.

The acceptability is mainly down to the legality though. Alcohol is not legal because it is socially acceptable, it is socially acceptable because it is legal. Many will go to holland and smoke a joint no problem, but would not even dream of doing it here. People have grown up with alcohol being used so think it the norm, many would not even consider it a drug, and many cigarette and alcohol users take great offence at being called "drug users"

If alcohol was illegal, it would be portrayed in a very different light. They would call it "kids drinking industrial degreaser", just like they call ketamine "horse tranquiliser", while its medicinally used for kids! And "rat poison", was medicinally used as a stimulant in humans. The propaganda would have you believe all alcohol users will become addicts, winos on the street, destroyed liver, beating their wives & friends, losing their jobs, falling about injuring themselves. If alcohol was illegal many would think the concept of mammy having a single sherry at xmas ludicrous, just like many fail to accept somebody could enjoy minimal doses of illegal recreational drugs.

Research published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:
1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat

Some interesting reading here http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pharmacotheon/pharmacotheon.shtml with theories on why many in society are so scared of people being allowed experience altered states of conciousness, a basic urge like sex and hunger. And like sex & hunger some have a high drive to experience alter states, and those with low drives simply do not "get it", so see no point to it, and strongly oppose it.

swiss wrote: »

Usually, when this case is made, people who favour the legalisation of drugs turn it around and say that if legalised, people won't buy it from the drug dealers and can purchase it from legitimate sources. While I accept that they can, I'm also dubious because we do know a country where the drug laws are about as lax as you can get - the Netherlands. While people might have differing opinions about how enlightened the drugs policy in this country might be it can't be argued that drugs there are not problematic, or that drugs related gang activity has stopped simply because they have been legalised.

most drugs that are illegal here are illegal in holland. Can you list some that have been (re)legalised there? Cannabis is illegal and there is no "legitimate source" to buy it from. Holland is a central hub in europe, one of the biggest ports, it is an obvious choice for drug trafficking to take place in. Amsterdam also suffers from drug tourism due to their lax laws, it is an obvious place for junkies to terminate at.

If you want to look at legalisation & legitimate sources just look back in history. Drug prohibition is a very recent concept, before they were illegal, they were legal, many cannot get their head around that. In Dublin cocaine was once freely available in pharmacies over the counter, fully legal and very widely used. Many do not even know this was the case!

oeb

If you make it so a junky has to get his heroin from a local shop or a chemist instead of a drug dealer, does that mean he is not going to have to rob someone to get the cash to feed his habit?

I always thought I was for legalization of drugs in Ireland. I am not so sure now. The thing is, they would still need to be controlled. Would you want your son to be able to go into the local chemist and pick up cocaine or heroin without a prescription? If he needed a prescription that would do little to halt the illegal drug trade because many people would not want to go to their doctor and get one / would want more than their doctor would prescribe.

Where would Ireland get it's new legal drugs from? Would we grow them ourselves? Would you work on an Irish poppy farm making heroin? Would you work with something that addictive? What if you accidentally ingested some? What would we do to safeguard the crops against drug criminals from countries who did not legalize drugs? Would we import it? From who?

Would the USA leave people fly to and from Ireland if you could buy heroin here legally?

Drugs legalization is a tricky area, especially when it comes to the class A drugs (Some of which I don't even think should be class A anyway, but that's a different matter). The problem with legalizing some drugs and not others is where do you stop? Like it or not, for a large portion of the world, the fact that drugs are illegal actually keeps them away from it, especially the harder drugs. If you were to legalize lets say, just marijuana would cocaine take the place of 'sure it's just a joint'?

When I was younger I thought it all should be legal, 'sure if junkys have to get their gear from a doctor he can help them quit' was my line of thought, but unfortuantly it does not work that simply. If you are working as a doctor and a 19 year old fresh faced lad walks into you and says 'Hi doc, some of my friends said heroin was great craic. Can I get a perscription and try it out.' What would you do?

I am not against drugs use (in the direct, sure you are only harming yourself kinda way), but I find the illegality of the issue to be a nice buffer. I think anything that makes drugs MORE accessible and makes it seem that Irish society is fine with the fact that you are taking drugs would be a poor move. It's all well and good to say 'I like drugs, and I dont think they are that bad.' But when you have a family, is that what you are going to teach your kids?

d0gb0y

Looking at the way the Big Pharmaceutical industry operates across the world I think society is looking at the wrong drug lords.
The "war on drugs" is a nice big sink hole for government money & they also loose out on the direct revenue from the drugs.

oeb

d0gb0y wrote: »

Looking at the way the Big Pharmaceutical industry operates across the world I think society is looking at the wrong drug lords.
The "war on drugs" is a nice big sink hole for government money & they also loose out on the direct revenue from the drugs.

And how exactly does the big pharmaceutical industry compare to the illegal drugs industry?

pH

oeb wrote: »

When I was younger I thought it all should be legal, 'sure if junkys have to get their gear from a doctor he can help them quit' was my line of thought, but unfortuantly it does not work that simply. If you are working as a doctor and a 19 year old fresh faced lad walks into you and says 'Hi doc, some of my friends said heroin was great craic. Can I get a perscription and try it out.' What would you do?

Well here's what *I* would do immediately.

Firstly decriminalise the possession of the drug (not the supply). It does no one any could chucking that addict in a shíthole like Mountjoy for a couple of weeks, it makes no sense wasting all that Garda time booking him, holding him, chasing him, turning up at court.

Secondly, while it may not be a good idea to give anyone who wants it heroin, if someone through some form of test can prove they're an addict, I would immediately switch their pusher to the government. Providing a clean low cost source of heroin would reduce much of the harm associated with the drug. Everyone sees heroin as an extremely dangerous drug, many are not aware that the dangers are primarily with the illegal drug. This is due to the unknown strength of any batch (overdose risk), cutting agents, needle sharing, and the general poor health and squalid conditions most addicts find themselves in. Also, the cost of heroin would be a fraction of what it is today, pure diamorphine (at Dutch prices) should cost about €3,000 per annum per addict.

It would also seem to put most dealers out of business, as they would only be able to sell heroin to 'first time users'. Regular addicted junkies are the core of their business, without these there would be no business model for heroin dealers taking the huge risk of importing and dealing the stuff, only to find that the only real customers available are non-addicts (who are a much harder sell than your average junkie!).

oeb

pH wrote: »

Well here's what *I* would do immediately.

Firstly decriminalise the possession of the drug (not the supply). It does no one any could chucking that addict in a shíthole like Mountjoy for a couple of weeks, it makes no sense wasting all that Garda time booking him, holding him, chasing him, turning up at court.

Secondly, while it may not be a good idea to give anyone who wants it heroin, if someone through some form of test can prove they're an addict, I would immediately switch their pusher to the government. Providing a clean low cost source of heroin would reduce much of the harm associated with the drug. Everyone sees heroin as an extremely dangerous drug, many are not aware that the dangers are primarily with the illegal drug. This is due to the unknown strength of any batch (overdose risk), cutting agents, needle sharing, and the general poor health and squalid conditions most addicts find themselves in. Also, the cost of heroin would be a fraction of what it is today, pure diamorphine (at Dutch prices) should cost about €3,000 per annum per addict.

It would also seem to put most dealers out of business, as they would only be able to sell heroin to 'first time users'. Regular addicted junkies are the core of their business, without these there would be no business model for heroin dealers taking the huge risk of importing and dealing the stuff, only to find that the only real customers available are non-addicts (who are a much harder sell than your average junkie!).

Do you give the heroin addicts as much heroin as they want? Where do they buy it?

That approach may work for the 'living on the street' junky (The kind shown on tv etc) but is the businessman with the secret addiction going to go to the local doctor?

I agree with you with regard to decriminalising the possetion. Obviously there would need to be very specific levels in place with regard to what quantity amounts to possetion for personal use, and what level indicates intent to supply. But who decides these?

A mate of mine smoked a fair bit of hash. Instead of buying an ounce at a regular basis, he would just buy a nine-bar anytime he was running low. I did not resell it or anything, he just saved himself about 400 quid in the process and did not need to meet his dealer very often. Now, that was for personal use, but it could also have been for supply. Which should it be classified as?

I agree that legalization would in theory be good. There is no doubt that the poor addicts with nothing to live for except their next fix are just taking up space in prisions when the real criminals are the guys who are bringing it into the country and selling it. But legalization would by no means kill the black market. It would certainly effect it, but not kill it. (Look at the illegal cigerette trade for example).

I just don't think it's as easy as it sounds.

Rosita

Standman wrote: »

The only reason drug supply is in the hands of "vicious criminals" is because they are illegal. So, in a way you do support the campaign to legalise drugs because that would be the best and easiest way to "stop paying money" to these people, while not imposing on a persons freedom to choose.

All laws impinge of people's right to choose. I can't choose to drink and drive. I can't choose to steal my neighbour's stuff. But society appears to need laws to prosper so the 'right to choose' is not a rational approach to any law. Laws are based on utilitarian principles which sees the greater good as superior to personal desire.

It is one thing to argue that a specific law is inherently unjust or counter-productive but an argument that a law should not exist merely because it inhibits personal freedom is very weak as all laws do that to somebody.

It is not true to say that the only reason drug supply is in the hands of
"vicious criminals" is because drugs are illegal. This is the greatest fallacy produced by the pro-drugs people.

Plenty of legal goods have thriving black markets where serious money falls intro the hands of undesirables. Given that drugs supply would almost certainly be limited in a legal setting, it is very unlikely that gangsters would not continue to operate and profit in the industry considering we are talking about highly addictive substances which are unlikely to have much respect for legal parameters.

It seems to me that legalisation of drugs would make it like alcohol - much more widely available and as such damaging to a far greater cohort that is curently the case. But I would say drugs would retain a significant underground movement at the same time, perhaps greater than currently exists, because of the nature of the substances.

The argument for prohibition of drugs or anything else is when their use impinges on the rights and freedoms of others and society in general. Drug users and addicts contribute little to society and cause much damage to other individuals in the area of crime and to society in general in terms of the cost of rehabilitating and servicing addicts. When there is a convincing argument that this would change under legalisation of drugs then there might be a case for it.

The fight against drugs is a huge cost to the economy and to society currently but I have seen little evidence that legalisation would reduce this cost. It might change its nature to a slight degree. But there'll still be addicts to be rehabilitated. There'll still be crime to support habits. And there'll still be a thriving black market. Plus the country would inevitably become a haven for criminal types who can operate their little empires out of this country knowing that the law broadly speaking is on their side. That alone is unlikely to ease our own problems.

pH

oeb wrote: »

Do you give the heroin addicts as much heroin as they want? Where do they buy it?

Some controlled access, either via pharmacies, doctors or specialist drug centres should work. Some reasonable rationed amount that meets their individual needs should suffice.

That approach may work for the 'living on the street' junky (The kind shown on tv etc) but is the businessman with the secret addiction going to go to the local doctor?

I can't see why not. If it means getting clean heroin without the risks of associating with dealers then I can't see any reason why he wouldn't.

A mate of mine smoked a fair bit of hash. Instead of buying an ounce at a regular basis, he would just buy a nine-bar anytime he was running low. I did not resell it or anything ...

I agree that legalization would in theory be good. There is no doubt that the poor addicts with nothing to live for except their next fix are just taking up space in prisions when the real criminals are the guys who are bringing it into the country and selling it. But legalization would by no means kill the black market. It would certainly effect it, but not kill it. (Look at the illegal cigerette trade for example).

The reason we have an illegal cigarette trade is because of the level of taxation on tobacco. If we tried to make a huge 'profit' on heroin through taxation then I agree we would still have a black market. However if the price of heroin and its quality is such that no dealer could match it then the only black market in heroin would be for first time users, and as I mentioned above this is such a tiny market, and such a hard and risky 'sale' that the illegal heroin dealers should be gone forever.

I just don't think it's as easy as it sounds.

There would still be new addicts using existing addicts' drugs, but the rest of society can get on with life without crime and hassle and those who choose it as a lifestyle can be more productive and less of a nuisance to the rest of us.

oeb

pH wrote: »

Some controlled access, either via pharmacies, doctors or specialist drug centres should work. Some reasonable rationed amount that meets their individual needs should suffice.

In the UK methedone is made available to addicts. Many of them complain that they are not given enough. You assume that by making something available in moderation, that people will only want to avail of it in moderation. Thus, it still allows for a thriving black market.

pH wrote: »

I can't see why not. If it means getting clean heroin without the risks of associating with dealers then I can't see any reason why he wouldn't.

For the same reason that a supprising number of people don't go to STD clinics. They are shy about it, and more importantly, however misguided their expectations may be, they don't want people to know they are a drug addict / have spots on their knob.

pH wrote: »

What an interesting typo to make, but it is irrelivant to the point of this thread if it was me, or someone I know (It actually was someone I know)

pH wrote: »

The reason we have an illegal cigarette trade is because of the level of taxation on tobacco. If we tried to make a huge 'profit' on heroin through taxation then I agree we would still have a black market. However if the price of heroin and its quality is such that no dealer could match it then the only black market in heroin would be for first time users, and as I mentioned above this is such a tiny market, and such a hard and risky 'sale' that the illegal heroin dealers should be gone forever.

Without a high level of taxation on drugs, how do you pay for the additional health care that is needed? How to you pay for all the additional research that needs to be done to determine the long term effect of a new substance that becomes available? How do you pay for the advisory boards that decide how much people can have? How do you pay for the campains that are needed to teach people that 'Even though we have decided to legalise drugs, thus making it seem like we think they are not that bad ... ummm they actually still mess you up.?

pH wrote: »

There would still be new addicts using existing addicts' drugs, but the rest of society can get on with life without crime and hassle and those who choose it as a lifestyle can be more productive and less of a nuisance to the rest of us.

Just because someone is legally off their head as opposed to illegally, does that make them behave like less of an asshole (I don't mean to say everyone who takes drugs is an asshole, but you get my point)? Does it matter to me when my kid sticks himself with a needle in the sand at the beach if it was an illegal drug addict or an illegal one?

The reasoning of legalising drugs because it hurts or effects no one but themselves is extremly short sighted. You do not have the right, for example to conduct your weekly shopping in the nude. Is it hurting anyone? Or course not. So why is it illegal? Because average joe voter does not want to see fat naked people when he is doing his shopping, and it would be discriminating to say 'Only attractive firm bodied women in their 20s are allowd to shop naked'.

Drug use effects other people (just like alchohol abuse does). By removing the stigma from drug abuse, and declaring it to be alright (which legalising does), what is their to stop drug abuse being as common as alcohol or ciggerette abuse?

pH

oeb wrote: »

In the UK methedone is made available to addicts. Many of them complain that they are not given enough. You assume that by making something available in moderation, that people will only want to avail of it in moderation. Thus, it still allows for a thriving black market.

Methadone treatment is a weird halfway house, relieving most of the craving but not addressing why people enjoy and find escape in heroin in the first place. I still maintain that you supply the vast majority of heroin in a safe manner to addicts, the remaining 'market' is so small and risky that it's extremely unattractive to the organised gangs currently importing and distributing the stuff.

For the same reason that a supprising number of people don't go to STD clinics. They are shy about it, and more importantly, however misguided their expectations may be, they don't want people to know they are a drug addict / have spots on their knob.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this, it's my belief that if a cheap, clean legal supply of the drug you're addicted to is available, the vast majority of addicts will chose that to a dirty, cut, more expensive and riskier product available on street corners. Also as the amount of heroin being sold illegally decreases as the market shrinks, it will become harder to find (and probably a lot more expensive.

Without a high level of taxation on drugs, how do you pay for the additional health care that is needed? How to you pay for all the additional research that needs to be done to determine the long term effect of a new substance that becomes available? How do you pay for the advisory boards that decide how much people can have? How do you pay for the campains that are needed to teach people that 'Even though we have decided to legalise drugs, thus making it seem like we think they are not that bad ... ummm they actually still mess you up.?

The current situation *is* costing us millions (if not billions). Firstly the addicts are in terrible health and are habitual criminals. Then there are the huge costs of Gardai enforcing possession laws.

This (our current situation) is a good as it gets, and that's not very good. Without draconian new laws that would turn our society into a de facto police state it seems we can't prohibit these drugs.

Just because someone is legally off their head as opposed to illegally, does that make them behave like less of an asshole (I don't mean to say everyone who takes drugs is an asshole, but you get my point)? Does it matter to me when my kid sticks himself with a needle in the sand at the beach if it was an illegal drug addict or an illegal one?

If we deal with heroin and cannabis here, the vast majority of problems for the rest of us (non addicts) from heroin users comes from their activities in getting enough cash to pay for their addiction. Nuisance crime (from people "off their heads on heroin" is much less of a problem).

Prior to the criminalisation of heroin, and since for addicts who have had access to cheap/clean forms of the drug, people have lived very productive and nuisance free lives as addicts.

The reasoning of legalising drugs because it hurts or effects no one but themselves is extremly short sighted. You do not have the right, for example to conduct your weekly shopping in the nude. Is it hurting anyone? Or course not. So why is it illegal? Because average joe voter does not want to see fat naked people when he is doing his shopping, and it would be discriminating to say 'Only attractive firm bodied women in their 20s are allowd to shop naked'.

Because in your example we perceive nakedness as a form of sexuality (especially with regards children) and people do argue that it would causes harm or offence in their local Tesco. Maybe we don't want addicts shooting up in Tesco either, a better example is someone being naked in their own home compared to someone who wants to use cannabis or heroin in the privacy of their own home.

Drug use effects other people (just like alchohol abuse does). By removing the stigma from drug abuse, and declaring it to be alright (which legalising does), what is their to stop drug abuse being as common as alcohol or ciggerette abuse?

Well I certainly would not start using heroin if it became legal. I've already said that it should only be made available to people who can show they're addicted to it, so numbers should remain the same.

Standman

Rosita wrote: »

All laws impinge of people's right to choose. I can't choose to drink and drive. I can't choose to steal my neighbour's stuff. But society appears to need laws to prosper so the 'right to choose' is not a rational approach to any law. Laws are based on utilitarian principles which sees the greater good as superior to personal desire.

It is one thing to argue that a specific law is inherently unjust or counter-productive but an argument that a law should not exist merely because it inhibits personal freedom is very weak as all laws do that to somebody.

It is not true to say that the only reason drug supply is in the hands of
"vicious criminals" is because drugs are illegal. This is the greatest fallacy produced by the pro-drugs people.

Plenty of legal goods have thriving black markets where serious money falls intro the hands of undesirables. Given that drugs supply would almost certainly be limited in a legal setting, it is very unlikely that gangsters would not continue to operate and profit in the industry considering we are talking about highly addictive substances which are unlikely to have much respect for legal parameters.

It seems to me that legalisation of drugs would make it like alcohol - much more widely available and as such damaging to a far greater cohort that is curently the case. But I would say drugs would retain a significant underground movement at the same time, perhaps greater than currently exists, because of the nature of the substances.

The argument for prohibition of drugs or anything else is when their use impinges on the rights and freedoms of others and society in general. Drug users and addicts contribute little to society and cause much damage to other individuals in the area of crime and to society in general in terms of the cost of rehabilitating and servicing addicts. When there is a convincing argument that this would change under legalisation of drugs then there might be a case for it.

The fight against drugs is a huge cost to the economy and to society currently but I have seen little evidence that legalisation would reduce this cost. It might change its nature to a slight degree. But there'll still be addicts to be rehabilitated. There'll still be crime to support habits. And there'll still be a thriving black market. Plus the country would inevitably become a haven for criminal types who can operate their little empires out of this country knowing that the law broadly speaking is on their side. That alone is unlikely to ease our own problems.

Considering the right to choose is a rational approach to questioning drug laws. Drug laws are different to those concerning theft or murder etc.. because a person using drugs is harming no-one but himself, and I am of the opinion that it is nobody elses business what somebody puts into their own body. I understand that drug mis-use can lead to crime/cost to society but for me this is not a good enough reason for a sweeping criminilisation of every drug user. If I am arrested for possesion of a few ecstasy tablets or cannabis, what is the crime? What I might do in the future? What effects my drug use might have on society?

Your statement that drug users contribute little and are a danger to society is a ridiculous, completely biased viewpoint and anyone who enjoys a few pints at the weekend or any other drug for that matter should take offence!

I agree that if drugs were to be legalised there would still be a black market, just like there is a black market for everything that is of high demand, but legalisation would significantly reduce demand for black market drugs. An easy example can be drawn between this and the United States' experiences with alcohol prohibition.

Rosita

Standman wrote: »

Considering the right to choose is a rational approach to questioning drug laws. Drug laws are different to those concerning theft or murder etc.. because a person using drugs is harming no-one but himself, and I am of the opinion that it is nobody elses business what somebody puts into their own body. I understand that drug mis-use can lead to crime/cost to society but for me this is not a good enough reason for a sweeping criminilisation of every drug user. If I am arrested for possesion of a few ecstasy tablets or cannabis, what is the crime? What I might do in the future? What effects my drug use might have on society?

Your statement that drug users contribute little and are a danger to society is a ridiculous, completely biased viewpoint and anyone who enjoys a few pints at the weekend or any other drug for that matter should take offence!

I agree that if drugs were to be legalised there would still be a black market, just like there is a black market for everything that is of high demand, but legalisation would significantly reduce demand for black market drugs. An easy example can be drawn between this and the United States' experiences with alcohol prohibition.

Prohibition is a standard and erroneous analogy for the legalisation of drugs. You cannot compare the reaction to the outlawing of a substance that was previously widely available to something that has never been legally available. As you say the example is easy, but it is erroneous.

Drug laws are not different from those concerning theft or murder. All three are inextricably linked. Just because it all seems very cushy in a club at the weekend dealing drugs does not mean that large numbers of people are not suffering badly as a result. The drug business is a notoriously vicious business and would remain so even if legalised.

I don't see why anyone having a few pints at the weekend (a perfectly legal and reasonably controlled substance - hough it still manages to wreak havoc which is a lesson for all the soft focus people in relation to drugs) should take offence at what I said. But they can do so by all means. All illegal drug-users contribute in their own small way to propping up the industry and many find that quite offensive too.

Our laws are based on the greater good principle and not the right to choose. I wouldn't be harming other people if I had a gun with no licence yet it is illegal to do so because if it was allowed in society in general without restriction the view is that it would be harmful. Yet, I don't come out with woolly bleeding heart liberal arguments about my right to choose as if I should be above the rest of society. I just accept it.

rubadub

oeb wrote: »

If you make it so a junky has to get his heroin from a local shop or a chemist instead of a drug dealer, does that mean he is not going to have to rob someone to get the cash to feed his habit?

Just like alcoholic and tobacco addicted scumbags rob people to get their fix, yes, of course we will still have drug addicted scumbags robbing people. Makes perfect sense. They choose to abuse a drug to total excess and remain jobless so need money from somewhere, probably will be cheaper in the chemist so hopefully they will have to commit less crime to fund their habit. This goes back to my point of branding each and every illegal-drug user a degenerate thieving scumbag, while people can accept the currently legal drugs can be taken in moderation.

oeb wrote: »

Where would Ireland get it's new legal drugs from? Would we grow them ourselves? Would you work on an Irish poppy farm making heroin? Would you work with something that addictive? What if you accidentally ingested some? What would we do to safeguard the crops against drug criminals from countries who did not legalize drugs? Would we import it? From who?

I would work on an opium farm, just like I would work in Guinness or Gallaghers, even though nicotine is chemically more addictive than heroin. The safeguard is a good point, I think this thread is really about worldwide hypocritical drug laws, which arise from countries all copying each other blindly, and because of unspoken political threats- like from the US. So in this line of arguing it is really the theoretical situation of particular drugs being legal/illegal worldwide, which is pretty much the current situation. Many politicians might want it, but it is political suicide. Just look at Ireland condemned for financing the banks, then they all copy us. It would take a EU-wide law to re-legalise some drugs.

oeb wrote: »

And how exactly does the big pharmaceutical industry compare to the illegal drugs industry?

I expect he means they control the prices in accordance to market demand, possibly overcharging for drugs people need to survive.

pH wrote: »

Everyone sees heroin as an extremely dangerous drug, many are not aware that the dangers are primarily with the illegal drug. This is due to the unknown strength of any batch (overdose risk), cutting agents, needle sharing, and the general poor health and squalid conditions most addicts find themselves in.

Yes, there was a UK documentary on about "functional" heroin addicts, many were doctors who self prescribed. Since they had a clean controlled supply they could dose correctly and hold down a job and function in society, just like functional alcoholics who might just have 4-5pints every night, yet are admitted alcoholics. Just because you are an addict does not mean you have to take to extreme excess. Many smokers get by on a few smokes a day.

oeb wrote: »

A mate of mine smoked a fair bit of hash. Instead of buying an ounce at a regular basis, he would just buy a nine-bar anytime he was running low. I did not resell it or anything, he just saved himself about 400 quid in the process and did not need to meet his dealer very often. Now, that was for personal use, but it could also have been for supply. Which should it be classified as?

If the 9bar is cut into deals then he is likely to be done for dealing, if a first offence- no. Just like homegrowers with large amounts of plants but no evidence of dealing or previous convictions can get light sentences. Many countries either allow or turn a blind eye to homegrowing a few cannabis plants for personal use.

Rosita wrote: »

Laws are based on utilitarian principles which sees the greater good as superior to personal desire.

I would say should, especially in the case of drug laws. There are many vested interests in keeping particular drugs illegal. It is said one reason for cannabis to be kept down is the rivalry the hemp crop posed to Duponts nylon. Many other drugs are a threat to the drinks industry, and anybody living in Ireland know just how hand in hand the lawmakers, politicians and publicans are.

Rosita wrote: »

It is not true to say that the only reason drug supply is in the hands of
"vicious criminals" is because drugs are illegal. This is the greatest fallacy produced by the pro-drugs people.

The "pro-drug" people include just drug users, many take legal and illegal drugs at the same time, e.g. a few pints and a spliff. They are somewhat upset at being accused of killing people due to smoking that spliff. If many had a legal outlet to buy quality controlled drugs from a proper outlet providing real jobs and tax then they would. Many grow their own, some buy it online from countries with more lax laws allegedly direct from the farmers. The criminals will take up other illegal activity, perhaps selling other items to the blackmarket, and many of the newly legal drug users would not buy their products, some would just like drinkers currently do.

Rosita wrote: »

Plenty of legal goods have thriving black markets where serious money falls intro the hands of undesirables. Given that drugs supply would almost certainly be limited in a legal setting, it is very unlikely that gangsters would not continue to operate and profit in the industry considering we are talking about highly addictive substances which are unlikely to have much respect for legal parameters.

Many would just continue to use the same drugs they do currently, cannabis being the most widely used. I do not see there being a limit on purchasing this, there is no real limit on buying alcohol or cigarettes at the moment (think there is some ridiculously large limit on booze). And of course some people will always go to the black market. But many would love to be able to legitimately buy cannabis in a shop rather than deal with scum, just like most tobacco smokers I know would not buy it on the street. Most drinkers do not buy poitin, they value quality, and respect laws that they view as fair.

Rosita wrote: »

It seems to me that legalisation of drugs would make it like alcohol - much more widely available and as such damaging to a far greater cohort that is curently the case.

Depends on the drug, many would view many currently illegal drugs to be far less harmful, and people would have an alternative drug to use. Just look at the Lancet list I posted before. When I see people smoking cannabis and drinking they drink far less, there seems to be a notion that users drink the same AND take all sorts on top of it. An analogy I made before is mcdonalds being banned from offering lowfat burgers, since "we already have big macs, and they are bad enough for obesity, 2 wrongs don't make a right, people would eat big macs AND the new burger".

oeb wrote: »

In the UK methedone is made available to addicts. Many of them complain that they are not given enough. You assume that by making something available in moderation, that people will only want to avail of it in moderation. Thus, it still allows for a thriving black market

Methadone is heavily criticized as treatment for heroin addiction. methadone is more addictive than heroin itself, but with very little of the buzz, which is what the addict really craves. It would be like giving a smoker a herb low in nicotine and more addictive that they have to smoke 5 times as much of to get the same hit (which is an argument against "light cigarettes", and an argument in favour of high grade cannabis)

Rosita wrote: »

Prohibition is a standard and erroneous analogy for the legalisation of drugs. You cannot compare the reaction to the outlawing of a substance that was previously widely available to something that has never been legally available. As you say the example is easy, but it is erroneous.

Before drugs were illegal they were legally available, simple as that. Of course many were not as widely available or used but they were out there. Cocaine was widely used in dublin in the late 19th & early century, legally available in pharmacies OTC, and used by "gentlemen" of the time, not a bunch of junkies, though I am sure there were some. The "junkies" of the time used cheaper ether (still a legally available underground drug). People just forget about cocaine use in Ireland.

Magic mushrooms were banned overnight just a few years ago, putting a lot of shops trade at risk, some would scoff at that- branding "headshops" dealers, yet would similarly scoff at the idea of a newsagent or offlicence owner being called a dealer. Were the users consulted, no- they are in a minority they do not count.

MDMA was made illegal in the 80's and had a previous underground group of users, but again they are in a minority so do not matter.

Cannabis was used widely in immigrant populations in the US before prohibition.

Opium in China before the english came.

A vast array of hallucinogenic psychotropic drugs were in use is south America before Christianity "put them right"

Salvia divinorum & BZP are drugs undergoing recent & current prohibition in many countries. There are countless other drugs and analogs also being banned, many users probably scared to make a stand since even though currently legal, once illegal they will stand out as dirty junkies.

The coca plant is still widely illegally and legally used in south American.

oeb

Just out of interest.

It is clear at this stage that Ireland, as a society, has a problem with alchohol and tobacco. The government has been making it increasingly difficult for those of us who indulge in legal substance abuse to well, abuse. Tobacco is constantly hit with what is refered to as sin tax (What is it, ~6.50 on a box of smokes is tax now?), the removal from the market of lower (and thus more accessible due to cost) quantities, laws that increase the social stigma towords smoking (ban from pubs/workplaces etc). Alchohol is hit with similar levels of taxation, there are regularly attempts to cut access hours, off licences, extreme drink driving laws etc.

Now, I am well aware that this is also a major source of finance for the government, but weather that is their sole motivation or not (and I don't think it is), for years they have been labeling these laws as ways to get people to quit smoking and/or drinking.

After taking that approach for years, how would you (lets say you were a spin doctor for the government) justify making all classes of drugs legal to presumably everyone over the age of 18. In addition to this, it has been proposed on this thread that tax on them would need to be low. So how would you justify that? How would you tell people that you have been wrong with the billions of euro in taxpayers money that you have 'wasted' funding the drug squad and conducting public education into the dangers of drug use.

How far do you go? Do you legalize EVERYTHING? Can I go to the chemist and buy meth/crack/heroin/cocaine/mdma/speed etc? How do you do all this without saying 'We were wrong, drugs are fine'.

I totally agree with alot of the points that have been raised in this thread, as I have said before, for a long time I was pro-legalisation. Hell, if they held a vote tomorrow to legalize cannibis I might even vote yes, even though I have not smoked a joint since my late teens, and I have no inclination to start smoking it again. But it's a slipery slope. By legalizing something that has been illegal for so long you are essentially saying it's ok to use it. But that's not something you can do.

The reason places like holland do not legalize cannibis, and instead just elect to not enforce the laws is the message it gives out. If I turn around, as a government official, and say 'Oops, wrong about weed. Smoke away lads.' It gives out the wrong message. Someone offers you a wrap of speed in a nightclub a few weeks later and goes 'Ahhh sure they were wrong about weed, they are wrong about this too.' It can not be done in half measures.

I don't think it's so much that weed should be legalized, I think it's a bit late for that. However I am a firm believer that it should have never been made illegal in the first place.

How do you handle control? It is very difficult to overdose (to levels where it will kill you) on alchol. You can drink till you pass out 3 nights a week for the next 10 years and still quite possibly live through it. It is virtually impossible to directly overdose on the nicotene in tobacco (assuming you use it as intended, and don't remove it from the tobacco and ingest it directly). I agree that cannibis is exactly the same in those respects. But what about other drugs? If you overdoes on many of the other drugs (particulary those described as 'Class A') you can easily die. How do you offset the risk of this while still justifying their use?

Council Kid

This is an interesting thread that I've just seen and read through, well most of it anyway. Personally I am completely in favour of legalising drugs on a global scale, although I am not a drug user. The war on drugs costs an absolute fortune of our money that could be spent on far more worthwhile things. Prohibition and the war on drugs is also not working and never has. It has just created a massive criminal enterprise and gives terrorist organisations and groups like the taleban and farc the best sort of revenue stream they could wish for.

Almost every post here against legalisation seems to raise an issue that is directly caused by them being illegal in the first place, i.e. funding criminals, murderers and the plethora of other nasty characters involved in the production and supply of black market narcotics. I can't say I've seen a single post that gives a compelling justification for continued prohibition. The only one that made sense was that a country couldn't go this alone and it would have to be a global move. I've been to Amsterdam and it's rank because of the sex tourists, druggies and drunks who flock there because of their open minded attitude to drugs and prostitutes (many of whom are forced into working there). But then again, Temple Bar at the weekend isn't exactly pleasant but that's alcohol for you. Cheers!

Drug use is more widespread now than it ever was and growing. People want or need to take these drugs for whatever reason and why shouldn't they? If they cause harm to others through this use then there are existing laws that deal with that. As for addicts or people wanting to become addicts then I think the health service should give the substance of choice away free. I'd rather pay for someone's habit through tax revenue than by them robbing me on the street. Do I care if an addict dies from their use of heroin? Not particularly, if that's what they want to do but I do think they'd stand a better chance of receiving treatment if their habit was monitored by the health service. Besides, most heroin users die from an unpredictable supply and their destitute circumstances rather than from the drug itself, e.g. a sudden increase in the purity of heroin on the street would cause a good few overdoses as the normal supply probably has a purity of only 40% or less. Properly measured doses supplied free from a pharmacist would probably cut this out.

People are going to take drugs whether we like it or not. It can either be a legal activity taxed and revenue raising, controlled and understood, or an illegal one that funds criminals, terrorists, murderers and cost us (globally) billions of euros and causes misery to the people enslaved by the drug lords who control it. I know which I prefer. Unfortunately the screaming, ranting media would never allow a politician to take a reasonable stance on the issue without lambasting them, as this sells more papers than taking a reasonable, imformed and measured stance on the issue. There was a case in the UK about ten years ago of a young girl dying after taking ecstacy, I won't name her. The ledia leapt on this, screaming out about the dangers of ecstacy and how young people were putting themselves at risk from this evil drug, published pictures of her dying in hospital as a warning to others and how these evil pushers should be thrown in jail. They gave less space to the post mortem report that stated the cause of death as water poisoning or the fact that the 'pusher' was actually someone who she had approached after deciding in advance to take e. Presumably the very sad truth of the case was less appealing to the tabloid press when they were considering their sales figures.

Oh and the comment about being in a democracy so that if people wanted drugs legalised then they would vote in a party that stood for the legalisation of drugs is absolute rubbish and is called single issue politics. I would like to see drugs legalised but I also want a stable economy. For some reason I can't imagine that the Legalise Cannabis Alliance is the best party to manage the budget deficit or balance of trade.

Fancy a line anyone?