Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should ALL Drugs Be Legal and Free?

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Please people, I'm still recovering from the last legalise drugs thread a few weeks ago. *Die Thread Die! Stab*

    http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237193

    I go with this option because The Economist has the answer to everything. And because I like the occasional drug.


  • Options
    #63
    Duck's hoop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭Duck's hoop


    Valmont wrote: »
    I like the occasional drug.

    Off the occasional table.


  • Options
    #64
    mayordenis
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 9,611 Mod ✭✭✭✭mayordenis


    Dudess wrote: »
    I never fail to find it bemusing how people think even occasional moderate drug use is worse than regular binge-drinking sessions...

    Bemusing seriously?
    Maybe you disagree with it, but bemused? really no reason to be bemused.

    Liver damage from alcohol = some internal organ failure leading to death, who cares?
    Cocaine erroding my nose = I won't look so good, very very important.


  • Options
    #65
    5318008!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭5318008!


    Holsten wrote: »
    Legal, yes.

    Free, no.

    You'd have even more useless doley heroin addicts.

    Who says they'll be doley?

    People on opiate painkillers can still work jobs. In switzerland where they have a prescription heroin program most of the addicts have rejoined the workforce.

    Unless you take a high dose, opiates won't massively impair on your capacity to work. If you give people who are dependant on heroin a steady supply of the stuff, most will stablise at a dose a below what they would consider "recreational".

    The fact that they often don't work jobs and are homeless ect. is all to do with prohibition. At the moment their lives revolve around heroin. If they got it on prescription it would just be another part of their day, like cups of coffee would be for you or me.


  • Options
    #66
    Pat Sheen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Pat Sheen


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Which drugs exactly are you proposing be legalised? There are thousands, and some are actually, genuinely harmful (and I don't mean the usual suspects which lies and exaggerations are told about). What regulation schemes do you propose for these drugs? (you need some regulation, because otherwise some drugs could go the way alcohol has gone)

    My point is it's not as simple as saying "we should legalise all drugs". My position is that we should legalise a certain amount of minimally harmful drugs with well thought out, adequate regulations, decided upon on a drug by drug basis.

    I think you lack insight and fall into the third category in my original post because the suggestion that all drugs should be free and legal is ill thought out and simply ridiculous.

    I said already, legalise all of them and then apply regulation based on a proper scrutiny of the facts rather than emotive hyperbole. I don't propose any regulation because I think regulation should evolve according to the present situation rather than pre-emptively attempting to second-guess what will happen in the future. Although I'm suggesting drug possession, and use, should be legal (and regulated) I'm not suggesting for example that you should be able to get a free blotter of LSD with every can of coca-cola. Sales and incentive use of drugs should still be illegal. I thinks its only when we consider how to allow drugs users to access drugs within a legal framework that we truly begin understand why they do so and how best to minimise harm to the individual and society in general.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    5318008!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭5318008!


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    My point is it's not as simple as saying "we should legalise all drugs". My position is that we should legalise a certain amount of minimally harmful drugs with well thought out, adequate regulations, decided upon on a drug by drug basis.

    I know people loving saying "everyone except me is dumb", but c'mon. If people have a choice between a toxic drug and a non-toxic one with the exact same effects, there's just not going to be a market for the toxic one.

    Anyway, If we were to legalise only a few minimally harmful drugs, we'd have to legalise at least one effective drug from each class. Otherwise there'll still be a market for illegal drugs and you've got the same problem as before (only smaller, depending on which drugs you legalise).


  • Options
    #68
    Pat Sheen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Pat Sheen


    Although what I'm suggesting goes further, I suggest participants in this thread read this article describing the effects of decriminalisation of all drugs possession offences in Portugal over the past 8 years. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html


  • Options
    #69
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    seanybiker wrote: »
    Bangers should stay illegal. They are crap (yes i took em) and they are dangerous.
    You got duds - probably piperazines. If you had MDMA you'd be singing its praises, it's literally impossible not to enjoy. MDMA taken responsibly is not dangerous in the way you think it is (it won't make you drop dead), though the adulterants contained in pills purpoting to be Ecstasy often are. Of course, legalising it would mean that you'd know you're getting the real thing instead of some horrible meth/BZP combo.
    skyhighflyer wrote: »
    First off, someone who drinks coffee or lucozade is not a drug user under any normal definiton of the word.

    No, because their choice of psychoactive stimulant happens to be legal.
    5318008! wrote: »
    The main problem is lack of education. Put simply, people don't have any sort of notion of the relative dangers of each drug. Blatant lies, exagerations and propaganda give people a view of drugs that's way off.If everyone knew the truth i doubt we'd even be having this discussion.

    Ever wonder why crack is so addictive, and cocaine isn't so much? Ever wonder why so many people get addicted to tobacco but not stronger drugs?

    The answer lies in the route of administration. The less time that passes between taking the drug and your brain's reward system firing, the more addictive it'll be. If you inhale or inject a drug the come-up will be almost instant, giving it a very high addictiveness. If you snort a drug the come up takes a few minutes so while it's not in the same league as inhaling/injecting it's still relatively addictive. If you take a drug orally, the come up takes longer and as a result the chances of addiction are a lot lower.

    Weed is less addictive because when inhaled the come-up isn't instant, as it affects the reward system in an indirect manner.However it would still be a lot less addictive if people got their cannabinoids from pills instead of inhaling them.

    If all drugs (including stimulants and opiates) were available in pill form, you wouldn't see the problems with addiction you see now.There's no point denying that addiction will occur, but it'll be a lot less severe and it'll take longer to develop so people will have plenty of warning.

    Obviously there's other important factors aswell. Such as if you take the drug socially or alone, how often you take it, whether you use it as an emotional crutch ect. but they're true to every drug no matter how you take them
    I don't think the route of administration is as significant factor as you're making out; I'm pretty sure it has much more to do with the chemical make-up of the drug. Benzo's taken orally are as addictive as they come, whereas Ketamine, even if administered intramuscularly, probably won't lead to dependance.

    Anyway, this thread is a shambles. The OP doomed it to failure with a joke poll, and half the people commenting can't even spell the names of common drugs, let alone argue for or against them. I'd like to see a proper thread on the subject since it's something I feel fairly strongly about.


  • Options
    #70
    Pat Sheen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Pat Sheen


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Anyway, this thread is a shambles. The OP doomed it to failure with a joke poll, and half the people commenting can't even spell the names of common drugs, let alone argue for or against them. I'd like to see a proper thread on the subject since it's something I feel fairly strongly about.

    How is it a joke poll? There is no joke intended. Maybe someone thinks your post is funny, I don't know, is it?


  • Options
    #71
    glennb
    Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭glennb


    i think a trial of this would be a good idea and the drugs would be as safe as any other medical drugs as the product would be controlled it would also put money back into the country to an extent instead of giving money to drug lords and making life for them easy the money would go into government

    but something like this could never happen in ireland because of carelessness of using the drugs what measurment is too much drugs to drive it would never chatch on


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Pat Sheen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Pat Sheen


    glennb wrote: »
    i think a trial of this would be a good idea and the drugs would be as safe as any other medical drugs as the product would be controlled it would also put money back into the country to an extent instead of giving money to drug lords and making life for them easy the money would go into government

    The money back into the country should be the money saved that is being wasted. So what I'm saying is, supply of drugs should not be illegal. I can offer you a cigarette, a beer or a cup of tea but if I offered you a joint or a line I would be guilty of a drug supply offence. That's ludicrous! SALE of drugs should be illegal.


  • Options
    #73
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    Pat Sheen wrote: »
    How is it a joke poll? There is no joke intended. Maybe someone thinks your post is funny, I don't know, is it?
    The whole 'Free Drugs' aspect makes no sense and pre-emptively derailed a potentially interesting thread.


  • Options
    #74
    Pat Sheen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Pat Sheen


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    The whole 'Free Drugs' aspect makes no sense and pre-emptively derailed a potentially interesting thread.

    Have you any idea how little drugs cost at the point of production? The cost is multiplied, level by level, by the corruption and evasion necessary to bypass the agents of prohibition.


  • Options
    #75
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    Pat Sheen wrote: »
    Have you any idea how little drugs cost at the point of production? The cost is multiplied, level by level, by the corruption and evasion necessary to bypass the agents of prohibition.
    I'm well aware of it; that isn't my point - though with the amount of duty the government would slap on any drug it wouldn't end up much cheaper than it is now. I'm for the decriminalisation of many drugs, but I don't see why they should be handing them out for free.


  • Options
    #76
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    To be honest, I like the approach taken in Portugal (in the article listed above). Better to see an emphasis on treatment among low-level offenders than on just locking them up.


  • Options
    #77
    5318008!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭5318008!


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    I don't think the route of administration is as significant factor as you're making out; I'm pretty sure it has much more to do with the chemical make-up of the drug. Benzo's taken orally are as addictive as they come, whereas Ketamine, even if administered intramuscularly, probably won't lead to dependance.

    IM injection is only about the same as snorting. Also ketamine doesn't directly affect the brain's reward system, it affects the NMDA system, which I'm guessing (never having done ketamine) has a downstream effect on the brain's reward system. Also the intoxicating effects of ketamine may serve as a deterrant to full-time use (which may also help explain the cannabis anomaly).

    As for benzos? From a pharmacological point of view they should be no more addictive than alcohol, as they're pretty much the same thing (never having done any myself). But i think there's a pretty good psychological explaination.

    First of all, people prescribed benzos use them daily and alone, which is just begging for dependance.

    Second of all, not only do some people take them to help them cope with life (another way of begging for addiction) this is actually the reason they're prescribed!!!

    While stimulants are for ADHD/some medical disorders. Opiates are for pain. and antidepressants aren't recreational.
    Benzo's are actually given to stressed out people and told it'll help them cope and everything thing will be better if they take them. If you occasionally took an appropriate dose of xanax with a can of red bull and went to a club with mates, I don't see a reason why the addiction would be much greater than with alcohol.


  • Options
    #78
    masonman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 168 ✭✭masonman


    DieselQueen wrote: »
    Heroin- Drug

    Heroine- Heroic female character.


    Reminds me of that scene in the Committments

    "Ah Sure no-one can spell around here anyway" :pac:


  • Options
    #79
    Pat Sheen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Pat Sheen


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    I'm well aware of it; that isn't my point - though with the amount of duty the government would slap on any drug it wouldn't end up much cheaper than it is now. I'm for the decriminalisation of many drugs, but I don't see why they should be handing them out for free.

    If the government supplied drugs and then taxed them, effectively profiting from the supply then I suppose that could be interpreted as sale and would be de facto illegal.


Advertisement