Time to legalise some drugs?

Earthhorse

slipss wrote: »

Well how much of a grip did the chicago mafia have on alcohol by the 40's or 50's?

Well, that is Chicago; one state in one country in the world. Don't know the details but I doubt the mafia didn't hanve a foothold there for a looonnnggg time after prohibition ended.

slipss wrote: »

I'm gonna leave it there and we can agree to disagree, these drug threads never go anywhere productive.

Didn't you read my post? That guy is finally gonna write his musical. Honestly, some people.

Sam Vimes

dublindude wrote: »

Yes, but you are saying draconian measures don't work, and your example is a drug producing country with a third world population.

We have nothing in common with drug producing third world countries.

Your comparison is fud.

firstly, i didn't give an example, i just said there are countries that execute drug dealers. secondly, simply saying my comparison is fud doesn't make it so. why is it fud? what is so different about ireland that will make heavy sentences work when they haven't worked anywhere else? it's not just third world drug producing countries that have heavy punishments you know.

dublindude wrote: »

This is pointless.

If you really believe having free access to drugs will make it more difficult for kids to get their hands on them, well then there is no point in me continuing this conversation.

Think about what you're saying.

Your points make no sense.

i never said anything about free access to drugs. i'm talking about a system something like off licenses but a lot more strict. currently there are drug dealers hanging around outside schools enticing kids into doing drugs. do you really think a government run facility where id is checked makes it easier to get drugs than a man who approaches you on the street and offers you a free sample?

dublindude wrote: »

Again, apples and oranges.

I have no problem with people destroying their lives if they want to.

The problem with drugs is they affect the entire community.

yes drugs do affect the community but the conditions that allow them to affect the community are pretty much 100% caused by the fact that they're illegal. drug dealers murder each other and make the whole area live in fear and the users rob grannies to get their next fix.

but if they were legal, there would be no drug dealers and addicts could go to a shop and get heavily subsidised heroin so they wouldn't have to rob grannies. the example i always mention here is this woman:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3592877.stm

she doesn't affect anyone else and she doesn't give money to criminals and the reason for that is that instead of giving her draconian punishments, the government recognised that she had an addiction and helped her to live a normal life

dublindude wrote: »

You are only thinking about what's best for you. You need to look beyond yourself and see how the actions of people affect those around them.

There are loads of things I would love to be able to do, but I choose not to do them because they would be bad for society or those around me.

i don't do drugs. i just see the problems they cause and see that these problems would disappear if the government stopped banning something for which there is a huge demand

dublindude wrote: »

Should we legalise the carrying of knives?
Should we legalise the carrying of guns?

Of course we shouldn't. It makes sense to restrict things which are bad for society.

you see there is a crucial difference there. guns and knives are used for inflicting harm on others. there is no reason to carry around a gun except to harm others. but drugs affect no one but yourself.

yes, if they are abused it can result in harming other people but the same can be said of almost anything from a car to a toothbrush. there are thousands of people in this country who do coke every saturday and have never affected anyone else through their drug use, except of course the fact that they give money to drug dealers, a problem that would be solved if they were legal

something should be banned if it is bad, not if it is possible for bad things to happen involving it if it's abused. that would result in banning everything

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

Legalise drugs and we'll end up with anarchy.

Sorry your honour, I only did it because I was high.

alcohol is legal and being drunk doesn't legally excuse anything

and even if it did, that's a failing of the irish justice system, and has nothing to do with whether drugs should be legal or not.

Fanny Cradock

Dudess wrote: »

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.

You also aren't speaking from personal experience. The fact that friends or acquaintances haven't developed a dependence is purely anecdotal when considering the larger picture. The sad fact is that people do become addicted. For me the question is whether or not more people would become addicted through legalisation.



I've yet to see a compelling argument for the legalisation of drugs. There are, of course, some theoretical pros for the legalisation of certain drugs: regulation, for instance. But without hard evidence to support these claims I remain sceptical. For instance, I doubt that legalisation would remove the dealer from society. One would imagine that they would simply peddle other substances.

Admittedly there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in condemning the use of drugs like grass etc. when you consider that drugs like alcohol and nicotine - which generally aren't even categorised as drugs by most - are endemic in our society. Though of recent times you see that both of these are being increasingly regulated.

However, that these drugs - alcohol and nicotine - are so prevalent in our society, especially our recreational activities, offers little in the way of a platform to argue (as some here have done) that we should then legally introduce a range of potentially harmful drugs.

We would all be aware of the harmful consequences arising from the consumption of booze and cigarettes - both to the individual and those surrounding them as well as the cost to the exchequer in terms of expended state resources. To me this just seems like you are introducing and legitimising further substances which in net terms, would have a negative impact on society.

The fact of the matter is that there are far too many people out there who see drugs (in the larger sense) as a problem. In light of the fact that the pro legalisation folks have been unable to persuade this majority to come around to their way of thinking means they are unlikely to do so any time soon.

Terry

Sam Vimes wrote: »

yes drugs do affect the community but the conditions that allow them to affect the community are pretty much 100% caused by the fact that they're illegal. drug dealers murder each other and make the whole area live in fear and the users rob grannies to get their next fix.

but if they were legal, there would be no drug dealers and addicts could go to a shop and get heavily subsidised heroin so they wouldn't have to rob grannies. the example i always mention here is this woman:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3592877.stm

Will the government subsidise my addiction to nicotine and alcohol?
Both are addictive and sudden withdrawal from alcohol can kill you in certain cases.

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

Will the government subsidise my addiction to nicotine and alcohol?
Both are addictive and sudden withdrawal from alcohol can kill you in certain cases.

well there are lots of support services for alcoholics in this country, so they do.

you don't really see people living on the streets begging for their next cigarette so the same level of support isn't necessary.

and if heroin was legal, they could use some of the billions they save from not having to enforce a ban to pay for services to help

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For instance, I doubt that legalisation would remove the dealer from society. One would imagine that they would simply peddle other substances.

well of course they would. criminals will make money whatever way they can. that doesn't mean drugs should be kept illegal

Terry

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well there are lots of support services for alcoholics in this country, so they do.

you don't really see people living on the streets begging for their next cigarette so the same level of support isn't necessary.

and if heroin was legal, they could use some of the billions they save from not having to enforce a ban to pay for services to help

But I want free beer, in the same way that woman gets free heroin.

Alcohol is always brought up in these threads, so now I'm asking wht give someone free heroin and not free alcohol. After all, they are both drugs, right?

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

But I want free beer, in the same way that woman gets free heroin.

Alcohol is always brought up in these threads, so now I'm asking wht give someone free heroin and not free alcohol. After all, they are both drugs, right?

whatever is necessary to help people live a normal life should be done. for alcohol, AA is enough. but heroin is far more addictive than alcohol. it's just about impossible to get off it and even more difficult to live a normal life while on it. so the doctors give her exactly the right dose so that she satisifes her cravings but doesn't get off her head. because unlike with alcohol, that's what is necessary for her to live a normal life

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well of course they would. criminals will make money whatever way they can. that doesn't mean drugs should be kept illegal

Why not? Do you propose to legalise all drugs?


I've a fairly open mind to any convincing arguments. Posting a link to one woman's story doesn't really do much to sway me, however.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and if heroin was legal, they could use some of the billions they save from not having to enforce a ban to pay for services to help

Yes, I can dream too. If there was no heroin we could pump the savings to into the chronically under-funded interpretive dance artist of Ireland. You have admitted that the criminals would move onto other things. It would seem that any funding specifically used to combat heroin trafficking would then be shifted onto combating the criminals' next activity.

Terry

Sam Vimes wrote: »

whatever is necessary to help people live a normal life should be done. for alcohol, AA is enough. but heroin is far more addictive than alcohol. it's just about impossible to get off it and even more difficult to live a normal life while on it. so the doctors give her exactly the right dose so that she satisifes her cravings but doesn't get off her head. because unlike with alcohol, that's what is necessary for her to live a normal life

What about cigarettes?
Highly addictive and really hard to quit.
I want free cigarettes.
I want free stuff for everyone stupid enough to get addicted to [substance] in the first place.


As for legalised heroin becoming widely available, I refer you to my earlier point that people would willingly sell it to children on the street (in the same way that they sell methadone and foy now) and you would continue to have more teenage junkies.

Complete trade embargo on the countries of origin is the only way to stop this crap.

Tigger

Dragan wrote: »

Personally know one would be able to put forth a compelling argument for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine, or any of those types of drugs.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for that, or at least i hope not.

why not

its their body

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why not? Do you propose to legalise all drugs?

well, yes. you're implying that drugs shouldn't be made legal because the criminals would move onto something else. so why don't we make milk illegal? something should be illegal if it is bad, not because we're afraid of what the dealers will move onto if we make the thing they currently sell legal.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've a fairly open mind to any convincing arguments. Posting a link to one woman's story doesn't really do much to sway me, however.

the story mentioned one woman but hundreds of people are part of the trial

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, I can dream too. If there was no heroin we could pump the savings to into the chronically under-funded interpretive dance artist of Ireland. You have admitted that the criminals would move onto other things. It would seem that any funding specifically used to combat heroin trafficking would then be shifted onto combating the criminals' next activity.

criminals are already selling pretty much everything that there is an illegal demand for. the reason drugs are so prevelant is that there is far more money to be made off them than any other illegal substance. there's only so much diesel and dodgy ciggies you can sell before you saturate the market.

and again, "they'll just move onto something else" is a terrible reason for them to be illegal because it says nothing about whether they're actually bad or not and the same logic could be used for milk

Tigger

on the free beer issue in my opinion anyone who spends their unemployment allowance on beer and ciggaretts, or any other allowance that they are given to keep them fed and housed and clothed is getting free beetr and ciggs

we are in a state where i pay huge amounts of tax to the exchequer so that others can have free beer

now its a different issue whether this is right or wrong but what the diff between beer and heroin under those circumstanses

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

What about cigarettes?
Highly addictive and really hard to quit.
I want free cigarettes.
I want free stuff for everyone stupid enough to get addicted to [substance] in the first place.

you're not really reading what i'm writing here. it's not about free stuff for stupid people. it's about doing what is necessary to help people live a normal life and keep money out of the hands of dealers. you're not going out and giving all your money to a scum bag because of your nictoine addiction so i'm afraid you don't get squat

Terry wrote: »

As for legalised heroin becoming widely available, I refer you to my earlier point that people would willingly sell it to children on the street (in the same way that they sell methadone and foy now) and you would continue to have more teenage junkies.

that already happens and it already is widely available

Terry wrote: »

Complete trade embargo on the countries of origin is the only way to stop this crap.

well that's not going to happen. also, magic mushrooms grow all over ireland. let the embargo begin

vorbis

Terry, this woman can take heroin 3 times a day, satisfy her addiction and still lead a productive life. If you give an alcoholic the alcohol to satisfy their addiction then they will be too pissed to lead a productive life! Common sense no?

They also argue in the article that there clean heroin isn't dangerous per se. Would explain why its not a great idea to do it for cigarettes. Every drug is different. Heroin involves a physical addiction far more severe than that of other drugs.

On the overall drugs issue, I would legalize everything except heroin and other drugs with strong physical addictive properties. NHS type trials should be expanded for users of those drugs.
The rest, I'd lump in with alcohol. It shocked me a bit the first time I saw some friends of mine doing coke and pills. Yet they all hold down decent jobs and lead normal lives. Another guy I know has tried everything he can get his hands on, mushrooms, cocaine, hash, painkillers. His boss at work thinks he's a great worker and he's doing very well for himself. People take recreational drugs for the buzz they offer... same as alcohol.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

for alcohol, AA is enough. but heroin is far more addictive than alcohol. it's just about impossible to get off it and even more difficult to live a normal life while on it. because unlike with alcohol, that's what is necessary for her to live a normal life

And you know for a fact that AA is enough? Clearly she doesn't live a 'normal' life.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And you know for a fact that AA is enough?

how do you mean? i mean it's enough in that it's not necessary to fund alcohol for alcoholics because AA is usually enough to get them off it and giving them alcohol wouldn't really have the same effect as satisfying someone's craving for heroin because they'd just get pissed.

i'm sure it doesn't work for some people but what's your point? what do you suggest instead of AA?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Clearly she doesn't live a 'normal' life.

she lives a very similar life to a diabetic. she has to regularly inject herself but she's not living on the streets whoring herself out for a fix. a good tradeoff i think

nibble

I kinda seemed like I was belittling the impact of addiction on the person and friends, family etc earlier, but I'm not. Addiction sure isn't nice and that's an understatement I know, but you cant protect people from everything, you just can't.

Just about everything that you can derive pleasure from (or even pain for some) can become psychologically addictive, and that's the real challenge once the physical side of it has been combated. You can get clean from anything if you really want to and i mean really want to, withdrawal is hell but you got to suck it up, simple as.

You definitely can be a functioning addict, hell Sigmund Freud was a coke addict and he managed basically invent modern psychology . And I'm sure their is countless opiate and benzo (valium etc) addicts out there and people don't even know about it.. Is it more acceptable because they're getting prescribed the stuff from a well intending doctor?

Maybe my views are just skewed toward being pro-drug for obvious reasons, but I honestly believe people should have freedom, otherwise we may as well be living behind the great firewall of China.

Terry

Sam Vimes wrote: »

how do you mean? i mean it's enough in that it's not necessary to fund alcohol for alcoholics because AA is usually enough to get them off it and giving them alcohol wouldn't really have the same effect as satisfying someone's craving for heroin because they'd just get pissed.

i'm sure it doesn't work for some people but what's your point? what do you suggest instead of AA?


she lives a very similar life to a diabetic. she has to regularly inject herself but she's not living on the streets whoring herself out for a fix. a good tradeoff i think

Having to spend the rest of your life getting daily injections of a toxin is hardly normal.

I demand free cigarettes off the government.
I can life a normal life while still being a smoker. I just need my hit every 20 minutes or so.
The government make billions every year from the tax on tobacco products. Why should I pay for something that I'm addicted to if they are willing to give away methadon and (in the case of the British government) heroin?
I'm addicted to nicotine. I can't quit my habit. The government make this drug legally available, so why not give to addicts?

The thing here is, if other drugs are legalised, you will get this retarded arguement from junkies.

'Oh, poor me. I can't quit. The government should help me.'

Anyone stupid enough to become addicted to known addictive substances should get no help like this.
We are all taught from an early age that these things are addictive.
You get addicted, it's your own fault.

Are you all willing to pay more tax to subsidise those who end up messed up from these drugs?
don't give me that bull that the government subsidies will pay for them. You know well it won't cover it.

Are you all willing to have drug tourists invade your town?

Like fúck you are.

Amsterdam is there for all your needs.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well, yes. you're implying that drugs shouldn't be made legal because the criminals would move onto something else.

It seems that you have completely missed my point. I've not implied that drugs shouldn't be made illegal because criminals will move onto something else. I merely stated that such a thing would be a consequence of making drugs legal, thereby negating the one of the main positives I've heard that arise from regulation. I've have argued that your belief that money saved from combating drug criminals - while remembering you admitted they will simply move onto something else - would be pumped into drug rehabilitation schemes seemed to be entirely unfounded.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so why don't we make milk illegal?

Ban milk! What would I have on my Crunchy Nut Cornflakes? Heroin?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

something should be illegal if it is bad, not because we're afraid of what the dealers will move onto if we make the thing they currently sell legal.

Let's look at two of your statements.

1) You agree that something should be illegal if it is 'bad'.
2) You reveal that legalisation should include all drugs.

Bearing in mind your above two interlinking statements, can you please then try to explain to me how a substance like methamphetamine, crack, or heroin could be considered 'good'.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

criminals are already selling pretty much everything that there is an illegal demand for. the reason drugs are so prevelant is that there is far more money to be made off them than any other illegal substance. there's only so much diesel and dodgy ciggies you can sell before you saturate the market.

No, the main reason drugs are so prevalent is because of demand, not simply because the amount of money to be made selling them.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and again, "they'll just move onto something else" is a terrible reason for them to be illegal because it says nothing about whether they're actually bad or not and the same logic could be used for milk

And again, this is not a reason why I believe drugs such as coke and heroin should remain illegal. To clarify: I stated this point as a rebuttal to the the theoretical benefit - that legalisation, whilst potentially removing the criminals from the drugs trade, would somehow rid our society of them all together.


I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on the matter. Seems as you would have all drugs legalised, have you any idea about how such a thing would work in practice?

For instance:
*Have you thought about legislation?
*How would you go about building a system that could dispense substances? *Would this be a state run body, a semi-private body, or a private body?
*Can anyone purchase these drugs whenever they like? Or would it more of a rigid system - certain amounts at certain time for certain people? Which, in itself, could lead to a form of sub-dealing.
*Do you have in mind age limits where people can take crack etc?
*Would you expect the levels of addiction to rise or fall?
*Do you believe it 'moral' for the State to dispense harmful substances given that it's function is to serve the best interests population? Or is the current illegal status of drugs the immoral choice?

nibble

Terry wrote: »

Having to spend the rest of your life getting daily injections of a toxin is hardly normal.

I demand free cigarettes off the government.
I can life a normal life while still being a smoker. I just need my hit every 20 minutes or so.
The government make billions every year from the tax on tobacco products. Why should I pay for something that I'm addicted to if they are willing to give away methadon and (in the case of the British government) heroin?
I'm addicted to nicotine. I can't quit my habit. The government make this drug legally available, so why not give to addicts?

The thing here is, if other drugs are legalised, you will get this retarded arguement from junkies.


'Oh, poor me. I can't quit. The government should help me.'

Anyone stupid enough to become addicted to known addictive substances should get no help like this.
We are all taught from an early age that these things are addictive.
You get addicted, it's your own fault.

Are you all willing to pay more tax to subsidise those who end up messed up from these drugs?
don't give me that bull that the government subsidies will pay for them. You know well it won't cover it.

Are you all willing to have drug tourists invade your town?

Like fúck you are.

Amsterdam is there for all your needs.

Just for the sake of correctness heroin is certainly not a "toxin".

I would agree that the whole methadone clinic crap is well just that, crap. They don't try and get people clean, they give them methadone which is even harder to kick than heroin, but the junkies themselves just don't want to quit anyway. If they really did well they wouldn't need to be maintained with methadone for years at a time.

I would say that some addicts at least should be helped, maybe through a GP. Particularly alcoholics and benzo addicts (but thats not really the same thing) because withdrawal can kill people that go cold turkey from big drink addictions.

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

Having to spend the rest of your life getting daily injections of a toxin is hardly normal.

"normal" is relative. an injection or two a day is more "normal" than living on the streets. not injecting yourself is more "normal" again but that's not an option for her

Terry wrote: »

I demand free cigarettes off the government.
I can life a normal life while still being a smoker. I just need my hit every 20 minutes or so.
The government make billions every year from the tax on tobacco products. Why should I pay for something that I'm addicted to if they are willing to give away methadon and (in the case of the British government) heroin?
I'm addicted to nicotine. I can't quit my habit. The government make this drug legally available, so why not give to addicts?

The thing here is, if other drugs are legalised, you will get this retarded arguement from junkies.

'Oh, poor me. I can't quit. The government should help me.'

again, it's not really about the addicts. i don't give a **** if addicts destroy their lives. the point is to stop drugs affecting people other than the user themselves. your nicotine addiction doesn't have you on the streets robbing grannies so you don't get anything i'm afraid

with that trial, she went through all the normal detox procedures for years and they all failed. this was a last resort as it should be. it wasn't just a case of "i'm addicted, give me free stuff"

Terry wrote: »

Anyone stupid enough to become addicted to known addictive substances should get no help like this.
We are all taught from an early age that these things are addictive.
You get addicted, it's your own fault.

in theory i agree, but that attitude results in junkies robbing grannies to pay scum bags.

Terry wrote: »

Are you all willing to pay more tax to subsidise those who end up messed up from these drugs?
don't give me that bull that the government subsidies will pay for them. You know well it won't cover it.

it costs €90,000 a year to keep someone in prison. just how much would the government save if they didn't have to pay for any drug related inmates anymore or any of the other pointless drug prevention measures? it'd almost certainly cost less than €90,000 per year to put people caught with drugs on a rehabilitation program instead of imprisoning them

Terry wrote: »

Are you all willing to have drug tourists invade your town?

Like fúck you are.

Amsterdam is there for all your needs.

wouldn't really mind tbh. for all you hear about amsterdam it's only a few streets that are like that. life goes on in amsterdam around all the sex and drugs

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems that you have completely missed my point. I've not implied that drugs shouldn't be made illegal because criminals will move onto something else. I merely stated that such a thing would be a consequence of making drugs legal, thereby negating the one of the main positives I've heard that arise from regulation. I've have argued that your belief that money saved from combating drug criminals - while remembering you admitted they will simply move onto something else - would be pumped into drug rehabilitation schemes seemed to be entirely unfounded.

it seems you've completely missed the point i was making. criminals already sell everything that there is a demand for and they make as much money as they can from them. if drugs were made legal tomorrow, the demand for these other illlegal things wouldn't suddenly sky rocket.

what i mean is that they'd move onto something else because they'd be forced to but they wouldn't be moving into a new market, they'd be trying to squeeze extra money out of currently existing boot leg markets. the result would be far less money for them

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's look at two of your statements.

1) You agree that something should be illegal if it is 'bad'.
2) You reveal that legalisation should include all drugs.

Bearing in mind your above two interlinking statements, can you please then try to explain to me how a substance like methamphetamine, crack, or heroin could be considered 'good'.

it depends on your definition of bad. if another adult wants to take a substance that will destroy his life, that's none of my business. for me, 'bad' only becomes a factor when what you do affects others

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, the main reason drugs are so prevalent is because of demand, not simply because the amount of money to be made selling them.

and the reason there is so much money made off them is because of the demand. possibly i wasn't clear here. what i meant was "the reason drug dealers are so prevelant"

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And again, this is not a reason why I believe drugs such as coke and heroin should remain illegal. To clarify: I stated this point as a rebuttal to the the theoretical benefit - that legalisation, whilst potentially removing the criminals from the drugs trade, would somehow rid our society of them all together.

if it's done properly it would. the point is to eliminate the motivation of people to get them from the local scum bag. if the method of doing it doesn't accomplish that, there's no point in doing it

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on the matter. Seems as you would have all drugs legalised, have you any idea about how such a thing would work in practice?

For instance:
*Have you thought about legislation?
*How would you go about building a system that could dispense substances? *Would this be a state run body, a semi-private body, or a private body?
*Can anyone purchase these drugs whenever they like? Or would it more of a rigid system - certain amounts at certain time for certain people? Which, in itself, could lead to a form of sub-dealing.
*Do you have in mind age limits where people can take crack etc?
*Would you expect the levels of addiction to rise or fall?
*Do you believe it 'moral' for the State to dispense harmful substances given that it's function is to serve the best interests population? Or is the current illegal status of drugs the immoral choice?

i haven't done a comprehensive project plan complete with mile stones and decision points tbh. those are details that can be worked out. there's nothing on that list that's impossible to accomplish, it's just a matter of organising it

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

again, it's not really about the addicts. i don't give a **** if addicts destroy their lives.

Well, then you are hardly the person to be making decisions for them, are you?

david_the_great

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?


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

they would still be buying from the scumbags- except the scum will be paying taxes-

the government aren't going to start there own shops

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, then you are hardly the person to be making decisions for them, are you?

i want it to be made clear that i almost never use the following emoticon. I save it for the most ridiculous of ridiculous comments i come across: :rolleyes:

are you seriously saying that because i haven't worked out every detail of how to distribute drugs with budget estimates included my opinion on a thread on the internet isn't worth listening to ?

in your reply i would like a link to your project plan for solving the current drug problem without legalising them.

Sam Vimes

david_the_great wrote: »

they would still be buying from the scumbags- except the scum will be paying taxes-

the government aren't going to start there own shops

well if they're running legal businesses and paying taxes they're not really scum bags. Would you consider your local bar man a scum bag? Or the local newsagent?

ScumLord

Drugs where no where near the huge international problem they are now, before prohibition came along. FACT. There was a slight opiates problem in china but it was nowhere near as bad as some would have let on.

You won't find any stat anywhere that can tell you anythings gotten better since prohibition came into affect.

Prohibition is the cause of the worlds drug/crime problem not drugs.

david_the_great wrote:

they would still be buying from the scumbags- except the scum will be paying taxes-

the government aren't going to start there own shops

Scumbags don't do legitimate business all that well, or taxes. Their lazy and there isn't enough profit margin in legitimate business. Regulating drugs means we can have traceability like we do with Irish food.

It's never going to happen it seems politicians and the public at large prefer living in ghettos and having 50 cent wannabes roaming the streets making insane amounts of money. It makes us look cool like all the other developed countries.

Shazbot

nibble wrote: »

Just for the sake of correctness heroin is certainly not a "toxin".

Everything is a toxin, it just depends on the dose. Hell, water could become toxic at a ludicrous dose.

I would agree that the whole methadone clinic crap is well just that, crap. They don't try and get people clean, they give them methadone which is even harder to kick than heroin, but the junkies themselves just don't want to quit anyway. If they really did well they wouldn't need to be maintained with methadone for years at a time.

Methadone clinics aren't the cash farm you seem to have portrayed them as. Addiction is a serious disease, yes it is considered a disease, and should be treated as such. Methadone clinics try to ween the addict off heroin by lowering the dosage of the opiate over time. This can take years to do. Relapse is inevitable but the treatmeant has to be continued to give the addict a fighting chance. There are successfull cases of kicking the addiction.

Most addicts do want to quit, infact that is one criteria of addiction: understanding the drug is addictive and determental but they still crave it. It's just extremely difficult to do so

I would say that some addicts at least should be helped, maybe through a GP. Particularly alcoholics and benzo addicts (but thats not really the same thing) because withdrawal can kill people that go cold turkey from big drink addictions.

True, they should be helped and are, yet you seem to complain about the treatment clinics, rather strange outlook there.

On the the legalisation of drugs, I'm still on the fence. We will never see it implemented and to test the effects of legalising drugs would take far too long to do a massive social experiment to compare it to the current state. And if it is worse than the current state then the government would never be forgive and then we'll have future boards.ie posters ranting about the huge mistake we made. And if it did work, we'd go down as heroes. Is it worth the gamble?