Time to legalise some drugs?

darkman2

Just listening to a conversation on the radio there about drugs and for or against legalising certain drugs to deal with the criminal dealers. What do you think?


I can see the benefits.


More tax revenue
Stricter, safer controls and distribution
Take away potentially billions of euros from Drug Lords and criminal networks (which lets not forget those that use anything from hash to cocaine or meth are propping up)

Also the downsides which tbh we already have.

We have been fighting drug abuse for so long. It has not worked. Is legalisation something which is inevitable to deal with the criminal suppliers and dealers?

chickenhawk

I don't agree with legalising drugs. I think the drug dealers will still turn over enough of a profit to keep doing it and it just might make it seem more acceptable to do drugs.

I think harsher prison terms. Solitary confinement and less luxuries in prison like flat screen tv's and cable channels. I know that would make life harder for prison officers but the guys in prison are still running the drug scene and have gangs around them. Put them in a cell on their own for a couple of years and see how attractive life is for them.

kowloon

Prison doesn't work, a long accepted fact. Harsher prisons make feck all difference. Just makes people feel better that somethings being done.

Sam Vimes

chickenhawk wrote: »

I don't agree with legalising drugs. I think the drug dealers will still turn over enough of a profit to keep doing it and it just might make it seem more acceptable to do drugs.

How

why would anyone buy cocaine cut with rat poison off the local scumbag if they could go to a government run shop and buy top quality stuff?

chickenhawk wrote: »

I think harsher prison terms. Solitary confinement and less luxuries in prison like flat screen tv's and cable channels. I know that would make life harder for prison officers but the guys in prison are still running the drug scene and have gangs around them. Put them in a cell on their own for a couple of years and see how attractive life is for them.

there are countries that execute drug dealers and those countries still have drug problems

Wile E. Coyote

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How

why would anyone buy cocaine cut with rat poison off the local scumbag if they could go to a government run shop and buy top quality stuff?

I really don't see the government legalising cocaine. If they do decide to legalise some drugs, which i really wouldn't like to see happen, it will be hash that they legalise. This will still leave drug dealers free to make their money selling cocaine, heroine etc etc.

chickenhawk

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How

why would anyone buy cocaine cut with rat poison off the local scumbag if they could go to a government run shop and buy top quality stuff?

If someone wants to take cocaine they deserve the rat poison imo.

The same people will complain about crime on the streets and yet they are funding it.

gogglebok

kowloon wrote: »

Prison doesn't work, a long accepted fact. Harsher prisons make feck all difference. Just makes people feel better that somethings being done.

I think it might be even worse than that, and harsher prisons make criminals worse. I don't think it's hard to make a link between the disgusting violence of American prison life, and the high rates of crime on the streets. If we take people who have already broken the law, beat and rape them for ten years, and then turn them free to no job and no prospects - what do we expect? "I've learned my lesson"?

On the drugs legalisation issue, we should surely start with the principle of consent. Adults should be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies, as long as it doesn't harm other people. Then let's listen to the arguments for prohibition.

AckwelFoley

I would like to see the stigma of Flunitrazepam disapated.

The prescription of flunitrazepam as a hypnotic is generally tended to be for short-term treatment of severe insomnias, that are not responsive to other hypnotics, especially in inpatients.

also more widely known as Rohypnol or slang terms such as - rophy, rufflels, roachies, roofies, ruffies, ruff up, rib, roach 2, roche, rope, ropies, circles, circes, forget it, forget-me-pill, Mexican Valium, Run-Trip-And-Fall and snypers little friend.

Insomniacs need our help.

chickenhawk

gogglebok wrote: »

I think it might be even worse than that, and harsher prisons make criminals worse. I don't think it's hard to make a link between the disgusting violence of American prison life, and the high rates of crime on the streets. - what do we expect? "I've learned my lesson"?.

If they go into prison when they are 30 and get out when they are 70 I doubt they'll be in any condition to do much crime.

I do see your point though and maybe separating people in prison and try to educate them and set them up with jobs might be a better idea.

DublinWriter

chickenhawk wrote: »

I don't agree with legalising drugs. I think the drug dealers will still turn over enough of a profit to keep doing it and it just might make it seem more acceptable to do drugs.

Which reminds me, I must give my Guinness and cigarette dealer a call later today.

chickenhawk wrote: »

I think harsher prison terms. Solitary confinement and less luxuries in prison like flat screen tv's and cable channels. I know that would make life harder for prison officers but the guys in prison are still running the drug scene and have gangs around them. Put them in a cell on their own for a couple of years and see how attractive life is for them.

That approach was already tried in the Victorian era and all the prisoners went insane after a year.

If you still want to make the point for tougher punishments then draw the argument to its logical conclusion - shoot any one who breaks any law.

Break a red light? Death? Rob a bar of chocolate? Death. That way we'll all live in a law-abiding, crime-free, tax-paying society.

gogglebok

chickenhawk wrote: »

If they go into prison when they are 30 and get out when they are 70 I doubt they'll be in any condition to do much crime.

I do see your point though and maybe separating people in prison and try to educate them and set them up with jobs might be a better idea.

I think you're right on both counts, but the very long or lifetime sentences should be held for extreme cases or persistent violence. I wouldn't advocate that for drug use.

chickenhawk

gogglebok wrote: »

I think you're right on both counts, but the very long or lifetime sentences should be held for extreme cases or persistent violence. I wouldn't advocate that for drug use.

I'm talking about the suppliers and the dealers not the users.

Dublinwriter. There is a difference between alcohol and heroine. You seem to think I'm all for a police state. I'm not. I just have no time for drug dealers and suppliers who cause most of the serious crime in the state.

30txsbzmcu2k9w

chickenhawk wrote: »

If someone wants to take cocaine they deserve the rat poison imo.

The same people will complain about crime on the streets and yet they are funding it.

So your blaming the user because they buy from a dealer and fund crime? And you don't want to legalise it?
I Accept that the legalisation of drugs may not completely halt dealers' trade, but it will significantly reduce crime if recreational drugs like marijuana and ecstasy are legalised.
Safer streets, safer drugs, safer intake and a solution to binge drinking and all that comes with it when the pubs close.

gogglebok

chickenhawk wrote: »

I'm talking about the suppliers and the dealers not the users.

Fair enough. Most of the problems there come from the very fact that the drugs are illegal and unregulated, though. Not many off-licence owners are shooting each other in the head over shipments of Guinness Draft.

I presume most of the gangsters would move on to other things after legalisation, as they did in America after alcohol prohibition ended. But the huge profits to be made from the illegal trade must entice some young people in. Those insane profits wouldn't be there in a taxed and regulated legal trade.

chickenhawk

Nasir Elegant Wintergreen wrote: »

So your blaming the user because they buy from a dealer and fund crime? And you don't want to legalise it?
I Accept that the legalisation of drugs may not completely halt dealers' trade, but it will significantly reduce crime if recreational drugs like marijuana and ecstasy are legalised.

If marijuana and ecstasy were legalised I don't think the drug dealers would stop. The government would probably weaken the effects of these drugs (most drink is limited to 40%) and some people would want to have more of a hit so they buy the illegal stuff. Then it would be harder to catch the dealers because they could just say it was for personal usage etc.

gogglebok wrote: »

Those insane profits wouldn't be there in a taxed and regulated legal trade.

Diesel and cigarettes are taxed and regulated and people still smuggle them into the country and make huge profits.

gogglebok

chickenhawk wrote: »

Diesel and cigarettes are taxed and regulated and people still smuggle them into the country and make huge profits.

True, but don't you agree that the problems associated with smuggling and distribution of drugs would be lessened considerably if the drugs were legal? I'm not saying crime will disappear, but the fact is that we don't have thirty or forty people a year shot dead in turf wars for the illegal cigarette or diesel trade.

And you're not suggesting that the proper response to diesel and cigarette smuggling is to ban cigarettes and diesel. So why ban heroin?

Davidius

Alternatively you could just not do drugs.

Also you won't have to try and spin it in such a way that you make it out so that all the crime is the government's fault for not regulating drugs rather than your fault for funding the criminals. It can't possibly be your fault because you don't want it to be. Amirite? :pac:

Snake Plisken

I don't see this happening in our lifetime, unless they take some of the US state's thing of Medicinal Cannabis, the govenment could go with similar laws that Spain have in that you can grow your own plants (I think its a fixed number maybe 4 or 5) and smoke the produce, as long as you don't go out on the streets with it, to me thats a fair enough rule.

gogglebok

Davidius wrote: »

Alternatively you could just not do drugs.

Also you won't have to try and spin it in such a way that you make it out so that all the crime is the government's fault for not regulating drugs rather than your fault for funding the criminals. It can't possibly be your fault because you don't want it to be. Amirite? :pac:

No-one here is talking about whether they do drugs. I haven't said I fund criminals, and neither has anyone else. I'm not trying to "spin" anything, and I believe everyone else is also arguing honestly. And nobody is suggesting that all the crime is the government's fault.

Wouldn't it achieve more to argue your case instead of caricaturing the people you disagree with?

Why do you think drugs should be banned?

chickenhawk

gogglebok wrote: »

I'm not saying crime will disappear, but the fact is that we don't have thirty or forty people a year shot dead in turf wars for the illegal cigarette or diesel trade.

And you're not suggesting that the proper response to diesel and cigarette smuggling is to ban cigarettes and diesel. So why ban heroin?

I've heard about people in the border areas that have been kneecapped and they have been known to work in with illegal diesel.

To ban diesel and cigarettes would be impractical. Diesel is a usable produce which runs a large amount of machinery on our roads. Cigarettes are a large part of society and as a drug them and alcohol are more acceptable in terms of the damage and deaths they cause to the amount of taxes they bring in. Also you can't ban everything or people would not have any choice or quality of life. This does not mean you should legalize everything and hope for the best.

It's like speed limits on our roads. Some roads can handle higher speed limits others can handle less but you have to set a limit somewhere and try to enforce it. If it was just a free for all can you imagine the amount of crashes on the road.

gogglebok

chickenhawk wrote: »

It's like speed limits on our roads. Some roads can handle higher speed limits others can handle less but you have to set a limit somewhere and try to enforce it. If it was just a free for all can you imagine the amount of crashes on the road.

I don't think it is like speed limits. The argument against speeding is that it can cause harm to people other than the driver. That's not the case with taking drugs, so we need a compelling reason to ban them.

Do you accept as a general principle that people should be allowed to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people?

c - 13

gogglebok wrote: »

I don't think it is like speed limits. The argument against speeding is that it can cause harm to people other than the driver. That's not the case with taking drugs, so we need a compelling reason to ban them.

Do you accept as a general principle that people should be allowed to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people?

Because no one in the country have ever been mugged by a junkie so they can get their next fix ?

chickenhawk

gogglebok wrote: »

The argument against speeding is that it can cause harm to people other than the driver. That's not the case with taking drugs.

Do you accept as a general principle that people should be allowed to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people?

I've seen famlies of people hurt because the person who wants drugs keeps stealing off them to feed their habbit or have watched their loved ones fading away in front of them and won't listen to reason.

c - 13 wrote: »

Because no one in the country have ever been mugged by a junkie so they can get their next fix ?

I agree.

brow_601

chickenhawk wrote: »

I've heard about people in the border areas that have been kneecapped and they have been known to work in with illegal diesel.

To ban diesel and cigarettes would be impractical. Diesel is a usable produce which runs a large amount of machinery on our roads. Cigarettes are a large part of society and as a drug them and alcohol are more acceptable in terms of the damage and deaths they cause to the amount of taxes they bring in. Also you can't ban everything or people would not have any choice or quality of life. This does not mean you should legalize everything and hope for the best.

It's like speed limits on our roads. Some roads can handle higher speed limits others can handle less but you have to set a limit somewhere and try to enforce it. If it was just a free for all can you imagine the amount of crashes on the road.

but don't more people die every year from these than other drugs.like, i've heard of people dying from drinking too much, or getting lung cancer from smoking, but i've never heard of anyone dying from too much weed...

Phototoxin

If marijuana and ecstasy were legalised I don't think the drug dealers would stop. The government would probably weaken the effects of these drugs (most drink is limited to 40%) and some people would want to have more of a hit so they buy the illegal stuff. Then it would be harder to catch the dealers because they could just say it was for personal usage etc.

just make your own e. Get some contraceptive pills and some viagra, grus them up and mix them with tippex. Then put them into little pill shapes and stamp a mitsubishi logo on them :pac:

chickenhawk

brow_601 wrote: »

but don't more people die every year from these than other drugs.like, i've heard of people dying from drinking too much, or getting lung cancer from smoking, but i've never heard of anyone dying from too much weed...

And if you read on you would have seen I mentioned that the death rate is acceptable to the amount of taxes they bring in. Even if you deduct the cost of caring for the people who are ill from effects caused by alcohol and cigarettes the government is still making a huge amount of money.

If weed was legalised the amount of people that would take it up or continue to do it would not be enough of an incentive tax wise to the problems it would cause in other areas i.e. people saying other drugs should be legalised and others trying to get it banned again.

Dudess

chickenhawk wrote: »

If someone wants to take cocaine they deserve the rat poison imo.

That's a ridiculous statement - wishing illness or death on someone because they might try cocaine once out of curiosity.

Although I doubt drugs would be cut with harmful substances - why would a dealer try to kill potential customers?

Legalisation of drugs ftw - after that, personal responsibility.

chickenhawk

chickenhawk wrote: »

If someone wants to take cocaine they deserve the rat poison imo.

The same people will complain about crime on the streets and yet they are funding it.

I agree. I have no sympathy for addicts, if they dont want help with their addiction, they can rot for all i care. Irelands bad enough as it is for drug addicts.
Dealers should be shot as well.

chickenhawk

Dudess wrote: »

Legalisation of drugs ftw - after that, personal responsibility.

Ya cause that's not ridiculous. :rolleyes:

People have been known to be so responsible in the past. Most of these drugs are more highly addictive than others so people need to feed their habit more and eventually they run out of money so they turn to crime.

Dudess

You could apply that to alcohol.

I just haven't been brainwashed by anti drugs propaganda, that's all. Saying stuff like drug users can rot in hell and all that crap is just laughable.

Apart from heroin, drugs can be taken recreationally and most people don't develop problems - just like alcohol.

Laughable my arse. I agree with the drink part, but most people who go out and take drugs possibly dont know what they are using or how to use it.

Dudess

"Most people"? Where did you get that from? Most people who use drugs do so recreationally - i.e. a bit of indulgence on a Saturday night and that's it. Again, you could apply what you said to drink - plenty of people don't know how to drink sensibly.

chickenhawk

Dudess wrote: »

You could apply that to alcohol.

I just haven't been brainwashed by anti drugs propaganda, that's all. Saying stuff like drug users can rot in hell and all that crap is just laughable.

Apart from heroin, drugs can be taken recreationally and most people don't develop problems - just like alcohol.

Have you never heard about anyone dieing after taking ecstasy or a good well known example is Katy French who died after taking illegal drugs.

~Rebel~

In theory its all well and good, but if its just us doing it, we end up turning into a holiday destination for stoners, like Amsterdam did. Couldn't see it happening anyway, this being the country that put a nationwide ban on mushrooms overnight, effectively on a whim. Yeah a guy died after jumping off a roof, but how many have died doing stupid things while pissed.

I have seen the damage drugs has done to some people i knew.
Drugs are illegal for a reason, cop on.

~Rebel~

LittleNipper wrote: »

I have seen the damage drugs has done to some people i knew.
Drugs are illegal for a reason, cop on.

theres 2 issue's from this imo.
1) Alcohol is legal and I would imagine spawns far more problems then drugs.
2) Freedom of choice. People who take drugs aren't forced to (well in most cases id imagine!), they choose to. Anything in excess is a bad thing, drink, drugs, food. I just think more education about the drugs and how you should use them If you're going to would go a lot further then scare-mongering, whether they become legalised or not.

gogglebok

LittleNipper wrote: »

I have seen the damage drugs has done to some people i knew.
Drugs are illegal for a reason, cop on.

Prosecuting people and putting them in prison is damaging. The damage people do to themselves with drugs is their responsibility. They have a right to assess the risks and make their own decisions.

Do you want to ban everything that has potentially harmful consequences? Kids choke on Lego.

Im not trying to scare monger. i have done drugs in the past but i have been too many cocaine/heroin related funerals and im only 20.
You're right that people need to be educated about drink and drugs.

~Rebel~

LittleNipper wrote: »

Im not trying to scare monger. i have done drugs in the past but i have been too many cocaine/heroin related funerals and im only 20.
You're right that people need to be educated about drink and drugs.

Oh sorry, i didnt mean to imply that you were scare mongering, i just meant the government would be better off giving out useful and truthful information about proper usage etc rather then their usual scare mongering.

gogglebok

gogglebok wrote: »

Prosecuting people and putting them in prison is damaging. The damage people do to themselves with drugs is their responsibility. They have a right to assess the risks and make their own decisions.

Do you want to ban everything that has potentially harmful consequences? Kids choke on Lego.

No i dont, im just saying it would be ridiculous to legalize the likes of Heroin or Cocaine. Will end up with people ie Dying, losing all their money and homeless.

gogglebok

~Rebel~ wrote: »

In theory its all well and good, but if its just us doing it, we end up turning into a holiday destination for stoners, like Amsterdam did.

Which does sound horrible. But our primary responsibility is to our own citizens, and giving them control of their own bodies should not be negotiable.

c - 13 wrote: »

Because no one in the country have ever been mugged by a junkie so they can get their next fix?

People get mugged for a lot of reasons. If you're suggesting that muggings will increase when the prohibition on drugs is relaxed, I think we'd need to see some evidence.

Overheal

ah the neverending cyclical conversation about the legalisation of narcotics. mmmm.

im on the fence. ive done weed in the past but i still have siblings that havent given the habit up. especially the girl - is simply unmotivated, and dropping out of school and the drugs arent helping the situation. but to turn the cost of enforcing drug laws around would help a lot.

gogglebok

LittleNipper wrote: »

No i dont, im just saying it would be ridiculous to legalize the likes of Heroin or Cocaine. Will end up with people ie Dying, losing all their money and homeless.

So you want to ban everything that someone can die during, spend money on, or leave home for?

People do harmful things to themselves. If they're not hurting anyone else, why is it the government's business to stop them?

TPD

chickenhawk wrote: »

If weed was legalised the amount of people that would take it up or continue to do it would not be enough of an incentive tax wise to the problems it would cause in other areas i.e. people saying other drugs should be legalised and others trying to get it banned again.

What about the 'legalisation will cause more people to start using it' argument? Slap similar tax onto weed as is on drink or smokes and the government will me rolling in the dough. Couple that with a booming tourist trade we'd no doubt generate, and id would more than pay for the few snacks hospitals would need to give the users.

People are already saying that it should be legalised or kept illegal, it doesnt cost the government money to let people talk.

And to whoever said the government would dumb down the strength: They do that with alcohol because it is dangerous in stronger volumes. Hash and weed are harmless no matter how strong, and a user will generally stop smoking once they reach their ideal level anyway.

chickenhawk

~Rebel~ wrote: »

theres 2 issue's from this imo.
1) Alcohol is legal and I would imagine spawns far more problems then drugs.
2) Freedom of choice. People who take drugs aren't forced to (well in most cases id imagine!), they choose to. Anything in excess is a bad thing, drink, drugs, food. I just think more education about the drugs and how you should use them If you're going to would go a lot further then scare-mongering, whether they become legalised or not.

Alcohol causes far more problems because it is taken on such a wide scale. If drugs were taken at the level that alcohol is taken the problems it would cause would far outweigh the problems alcohol causes.

Freedom of choice is all well and good but as stated befoe the knock on effect of people needing to feed their habbits or losing their jobs etc due to drugs taking over their lives is something that will affect more than one person.

gogglebok

gogglebok wrote: »

So you want to ban everything that someone can die during, spend money on, or leave home for?

People do harmful things to themselves. If they're not hurting anyone else, why is it the government's business to stop them?

Read my posts. I said Cocaine/Heroin, hard drugs. Did i say i want to ban everything? No i didnt.
Why would i ban it when its already banned.

chickenhawk

TPD wrote: »

And to whoever said the government would dumb down the strength: They do that with alcohol because it is dangerous in stronger volumes. Hash and weed are harmless no matter how strong, and a user will generally stop smoking once they reach their ideal level anyway.

Ya cause people never over indulge? :rolleyes:

TPD

chickenhawk wrote: »

Ya cause people never over indulge? :rolleyes:

You become less motivated the more stoned you are. By the time you get to that 'one joint too many' you'll more than likely be too lazy to look for a packet of papers.

The odd few will keep going no matter what, and the possible sore stomach is their burden for doing so.

~Rebel~

chickenhawk wrote: »

Alcohol causes far more problems because it is taken on such a wide scale. If drugs were taken at the level that alcohol is taken the problems it would cause would far outweigh the problems alcohol causes.

Drugs will never be used and abused to the same extent that drink is, it simply doesn't have the same social aspect drink does.

Freedom of choice is all well and good but as stated befoe the knock on effect of people needing to feed their habbits or losing their jobs etc due to drugs taking over their lives is something that will affect more than one person.

I would only be arguing for Marijuana and maybe a form of ecstacy to be honest, nothing heavily addictive that can trap someone and effectively take away their freedom of choice.

AARRRGH

darkman2 wrote: »

Is legalisation something which is inevitable to deal with the criminal suppliers and dealers?

No. Having a nation of druggies is not the solution.

The solution is to introduce draconian anti-drugs laws, for example, dealing is an automatic life sentence, etc.

The problem is we are too soft on crime in this country. We should take the scum off the streets permanently. I'd be willing to pay more tax to accomplish that.

Dudess

chickenhawk wrote: »

Have you never heard about anyone dieing after taking ecstasy

One case - Leah Betts. The coroner ruled her death was actually due to too much water consumption.
I don't mean to diss you but I think you've been taken in a bit much by moral guardian types. It is possible to do drugs recreationally and be responsible about it - and I have never touched ecstasy/MDMA, cocaine or speed so I'm not speaking from personal bias. The most I'd do is a few drags off a spliff once in a blue moon. I do however have many, many friends, relatives and acquaintances who take drugs now and again - those who are at my age now (late 20s, early 30s) rarely use them, but they will during the summer for stuff like music festivals. Most of them phased it out as they got older. I could count on one hand those who have a problem now, and I'd know far more people with a drink problem.
I would be very much in agreement with the notion that cocaine tends to be done by wanky, flash types (as well as people who aren't wanky and flash) but they're tossers anyway, the cocaine is only part of their image. And they don't deserve to be poisoned...

or a good well known example is Katy French who died after taking illegal drugs.

Sorry but that's incorrect. She overdosed. If you overdose on anything you dramatically up your risk of dying.