Death Penalty

Joey the lips

The solution to a bad society is Higher walls and more places at the in! An odd electrocution now and again would smell nice.

Executive Steve

Great idea - we could be just like the United States!

NOBODY even DREAMS of committing a serious crime over there - not with the DEATH PENALTY to worry about!


But you're not really serious are you, any of you? You're just indulging in yet more violent, gory revenge fantasies fuelled by vicarious grief and bad tabloid journalism! Isn't it fun?


MUCH more fun than worrying about how to actually prevent the "scumbags" from doing what they do, leave that to the "bleeding hearts" sure.

Anyway, scumbags and poor people are born like that and are too lazy drinking cider with their dole money to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, so we have no obligation towards them; maybe we should just sterilise the lot of them! We'll sound REALLY edgy and cool and THE CITIZEN might thank our post! And sure it's NOT the same as when the Brits said the Irish as a nation were only dying of hunger in the Potato Famine because they were lazy and sub-human, sure they're the brave men and women who built America and the English roads and railways and there's a memorial to them down on the Quays so it's not the same thing.

Holsten

The death penalty is a punishment, not a deterrent.

Executive Steve

It's not a punishment if nobody learns from it.

PK2008

StopTheDrugWar! wrote: »

I know this is off topic but i felt compelled to correct your grossly inaccurate argument.



Have you any idea how much street drugs cost to produce?

**** nothing. That's how much. If legal, you could slap a 200% tax on them and they'd still be way cheaper than on the streets. If those along the illicit supply chain weren't making such huge profits they would not take the risks involved.

To suggest that illictly produced and distributed drugs would be cheaper is laughable, not to mention the fact that most people would rather get their drugs in safe pure forms without breaking the law, even if it meant paying a tiny bit more (which it clearly wouldn't).

Also, who says the government should take over? Free market ftw. Start off with pharmaceutical companies and then allow anyone, provided they meet the safety requirments that would be typical for a pharmaceutical company nowadays.



If the government enforce such extreme taxes and restrictions that people start going to dealers, then they've no-one to blame but themselves. Drugs could be easily legalised without being anywhere close to this happening.



You mean like the liability cases we see all the time with alcohol :rolleyes:?

All the situations you listed could be easily avoided, in fact you'd have to almost deliberately go out of your way for them to happen.

People didn't suddenly decide one day "hey let's legalise drugs" and then their mates said "yeah, then we'd get better quality weed. cool". It's serious debate that some of the greatest minds have argued over. Every issue that could arise has been thought about.

Ive actually worked for a pharamceutical company so i know the costs involved in mass producing drugs- which would not be less than street values I can gaurantee you that. Costs associatated with labour, mass production (production in pharmacuetical companies is a world away from simple, theres labs, lab equipment, sterilization zones, clinical trials, qualified chemists etc), distribution and marketing/competition and VAT- all of which are not applicable to contraband would drive price up. Plus the amount of security which would have to be put in place for shops to stock it would be a major problem. Current production of narcotics, such as heroin and cocaine, happens in countries where the farmers are paid pittance and therefore the production costs are next to nothing, nevermind that no testing of the drugs happens, transport costs are low as they are smuggled and no taxes are paid at any stage. If you were to produce heroin in Ireland under Irish employment laws, consumer protection laws and trading standards the costs would be well over the illegal counterpart

Secondly the clinical trials used for clearing medicinal drug use are so stringent that no recreational drug would ever get through them. Medicinal drugs have side effects but these are often either brought down to an acceptable level or are balanced against the nature of the treatment (ie if a drug cuses you to lose your hair but cures cancer it will be passed) and even then they are perscribed in order to maintain control over the use/abuse. Recreational drugs cannot pass on these merits as there is no benefit to the consumer apart from the immeasuarable "high/buzz", their side effects are measuarable however and are some of the worst imaginable- chronic addicition, pyschosis etc. The reason cigarettes and alcohol are legal is historical- if someone invented them today they would never be approved.

Thirdly no pharma company in the world would ever want to be associated with drugs which cause the side effects that heroin and cocaine have on their markets (apart from the medicinal applications which some pharma companies do produce diamorphine etc for). Despite what alot of conspiracy theorists will have you believe pharma companies work with the medical profession to create drugs which help people not harm them, they must turn a profit to survive but they have doctors on their board of directors and would never be involved with mass producing addictive recreational narcotics

Fourthly the restrictions you would have to put on the sale of drugs, namely the age limit would make it unviable, as studies have shown that most drug use begins in teenage years therefore removing the main target market. No country in the world would allow the sale of heroin to a 14 year old. Add to that the fact you would have to enforce a mximum dosage per sale limit in order to stop overdosing would further push addicts underground and if they did that 14 year old would easily have a huge case against the company as the addiction rates of drugs such as heroin and cocaine are much higher than alcohol. Opiates and alcohol cannot really be compared by their effect of the individual- repeated experience with heroin is gauranteed to lead to addiction in a very short period of time- neither of which is true of alcohol.

Lastly- drug addicts dont care about the purity of the drug, if it satisfies their fix thats all they care about- in general addicts will go for the lowest cost not the cleanest or legal. Whether the drugs are legal or not the addiction is so bad that it completely destroys the addicts life- psychologically, socially and financially (unless they are rich).

Sanctioning the mass manufacture and distribution of drugs like heroin and cocaine would defintely cause problems with international relations of countries who do not leglaise it and who suffer from drug problems.

Legalising drugs is simply unviable and unmanageable from a business perspective. It just wont happen, not in our lifetime

dfx-

Holsten wrote: »

The death penalty is a punishment, not a deterrent.

You'd have to be particularly stupid do something knowing death is the punishment. Fatally stupid even.

Yes to the poll. Yes to that keeping it mentioned in the constitution referendum thingy a few years ago.

The lot that talk about civilised society then talk about lifetime incarceration/no luxuries etc etc always brighten my day:)

StopTheDrugWar!

PK2008 wrote: »

Ive actually worked for a pharamceutical company so i know the costs involved in mass producing drugs- which would not be less the street values I can gaurantee you that. Costs associatated with labour, mass production (production in pharmacetical companies is a world away from simple, theres labs, lab equipments, steriliztion zones, clinical trials, qualified chemists etc) and distribution and marketing/competition, VAT- all of which are not applicable to contraband would drive price up. Plus the amoutn of security which would have to be put in place for shops to stock it would be a major problem. Current production of narcotics such as heroin and cocaine happens in countries where the farmers are paid pittance and therefore the production costs are next to nothing, nevermind that no testing of the drugs happens, transport costs are low as they are smuggled and no taxes are paid at any stage. If you were to produce heroin in Ireland under Irish employment laws, consumer protection laws and trading standards the costs would well over the illegal counterpart.

Wrong. You can buy 32 pills each containing 8mg of codeine from boots for £1.99.
That's like 3 euro here.

Heroin and codeine are both made from morphine, and i've been told making heroin is ridiculously easy and cheap. From my knowledge of chemistry I'd assume it's cheaper to make than codeine, and at worst only slightly more expensive.

A strong recreational dose of heroin is 20mgs. So with lots of rounding up you could produce 10 doses of heroin for 3 euro.

Secondly the clinical trials used for clearing medicinal drug use are so stringent that no recreational drug would ever get through them.

WRONG!!!!!!!

Alprazolam,diazepam, ghb, methylphenidate, morphine, oxycodone and ketamine are all very recreational and produced by pharmaceutical companies. To list but a few off the top of my head.

In fact amphetamine is quite commonly prescribed in other western countries and heroin is used in the uk for cancer patients.

It's also only a matter of time before a synthetic cannabinoid is approved and pharmaceutical thc/cbd is available in canada (although expensive).

Basically every class of drugs except psychedelics and empathogens.

Legalise these drugs alone and you'll deal a massive blow to the profit margins of drug dealers. From here it wouldn't be much of a step to legalise shrooms and mdma (not the worst of drugs tbh), and there, you've just covered the market.

The reason cigarettes and alcohol are legal is historical- if someone invented them today they would never be approved.

Thirdly no pharma company in the world would ever want to be associated with drugs which cause the side effects that heroin and cocaine have on their markets (apart from the medicinal applications which some pharma companies od produce diamorphine etc for). Despite what alot of conspiracy theorists will have you believe pharma companies work with the medical profession to create drugs which help people not harm them, they mus turn a profit to survive but they have doctors on their board of directors and would never be involved with mass addicting recreational narcotics

Are you saying that if we approved the above drugs for over the counter purchases (18+), that pharmaceutical companies would stop producing them?

I very much doubt it.

If that was to prove the case then we could allow other specialised companies to produce them but enforce the same strict regulations that are enforced on pharmaceutical companies.

Lastly- drug addicts dont care about the purity of the drug, if it satisfies their fix thats all they care about- in general addicts will go for the lowest cost not the cleanest or legal.

Your arguement assumes all drug users are addicts. This is not the case. Even heroin has a dependancy rate less than 30%.

Legalising drugs is simply unviable and unmanageable from a business perspective. It just wont happen

Head shops seem to be doing a fine job of selling their non-criminalised drugs. The profits they rake in are unreal.

Tomebagel

its tied at 108 votes,50-50:eek:

PK2008

StopTheDrugWar! wrote: »

Wrong. You can buy 32 pills each containing 8mg of codeine from boots for £1.99.
That's like 3 euro here.

Heroin and codeine are both made from morphine, and i've been told making heroin is ridiculously easy and cheap. From my knowledge of chemistry I'd assume it's cheaper to make than codeine, and at worst only slightly more expensive.

A strong recreational dose of heroin is 20mgs. So with lots of rounding up you could produce 10 doses of heroin for 3 euro.



WRONG!!!!!!!

Alprazolam,diazepam, ghb, methylphenidate, morphine, oxycodone and ketamine are all very recreational and produced by pharmaceutical companies. To list but a few off the top of my head.

In fact amphetamine is quite commonly prescribed in other western countries and heroin is used in the uk for cancer patients.

It's also only a matter of time before a synthetic cannabinoid is approved and pharmaceutical thc/cbd is available in canada (although expensive).

Basically every class of drugs except psychedelics and empathogens.

Legalise these drugs alone and you'll deal a massive blow to the profit margins of drug dealers. From here it wouldn't be much of a step to legalise shrooms and mdma (not the worst of drugs tbh), and there, you've just covered the market.



Are you saying that if we approved the above drugs for over the counter purchases (18+), that pharmaceutical companies would stop producing them?

I very much doubt it.

If that was to prove the case then we could allow other specialised companies to produce them but enforce the same strict regulations that are enforced on pharmaceutical companies.



Your arguement assumes all drug users are addicts. This is not the case. Even heroin has a dependancy rate less than 30%.



Head shops seem to be doing a fine job of selling their non-criminalised drugs. The profits they rake in are unreal.

First of all the market for Codeine is vastly different and superior to the market for diamorphine. Codeine is one of the most popular drugs in the world which allows manufacturers to take advantage of global economies of scale in order to drive down its cost (also global manufacturing and logistics). To replicate the amount of use/sales in diamorphine would be catastrophic to a nations health. The price of production of 10mgs of Codeine Vs 10mgs of Heroin may be comparable but the price of producing millions of grams of both as the multinational market forces is different. if you dont know what i mean by economies of scale, the more you can produce and sell a product the lower its cost to produce, thats why Dell can sell a PC with the same parts at a reduced cost and make more of a profit than a small local PC manufacturer. Big pharma companies have the capability to produce heroin at the same level as Codeine but they do not have a comparable market to sell it to. They could market the drug to the point of increasing the potential market base to that of Codeine but the ramifications of such a huge amount of diamorphine consumption would be disastrous

None of the drugs you mentioned are recreational, if they are being used for recreation then they are being abused (in fact Codeine can be addictive). Apart from the over the counter drugs mentioned the rest are prescribed in controlled dosages by medical professionals for specific ailments where any potential side effects have either been minimised or deemed less damaging than the ailment and therefore benefit outweighs damage. This is an important point because people believe that if a drug is passed for consumption it is therefore safe- that is wrong as there are many drugs which have harmful side effects but are prescribed for consumption because the patient is in a position where the benefit outweighs the damage. In the case of recreational drugs the cost benefit scenario cannot be used and therefore a comparison cannot be used- Codeine can be addictive but its rare so its available for pain relief, but the cost benefit is for pain relief not recreation. If Codeine was designed for recreation the cost (marginal as it is) would outweigh the benefit (as there is none) and it wouldn’t be widely available

Codeine and diamorphine may both be opiate extracts but they are at completely different ends of the scale. A person can self medicate on Codeine as the correct use of it will not alter the persons decision making abilities however if a person self medicates with diamorphine their objective decision making will be drastically impaired. Addiction to diamorphine will remove any cognitive decision making, rarely has a heroin addict been able to say "oh i better lay off it for a while", addiction tends to be a downward spiral where frequency of use increases- particularly dangerous with morphine due to "place conditioning".

As I said despite the conspiracy theories about pharma companies the reality is alot of these companies are involved in major medical science research and progression for the good of mankind - not solely for profit. Pick anyone of the major drug manufacturers and you will find abundant information on their corporate and social responsibility policies and initiatives. Many top pharma company executives/directors/advisors are ex or currently practising doctors- no doctor in the world would allow people to use morphine as a recreational drug. Pursuit of profit over public helath in the pharma sector is simply not accepted due to have government regulations. It may just be my opinion but I doubt any pharma company want the reputation as the world’s largest heroin dealer.

The main market for recreational drugs is below 20 years of age- with most 20+ addicts having begun their addiction in their teens. Therefore the restrictions on age would basically cut the potential market too much to be worthwhile, regardless the minors would still seek out the drugs through illegal methods so restrictions on age would be as moot as they are now. Even if the market was above 20 selling diamorphine with a simple warning on the label like over the counter drugs is irresponsible- as i said use of diamorphine and addiction impairs objective decision making to the point that self medication is harmful. If it was monitored and restricted to non addictive dosages this would then drive the 20+ market to illegal methods. In both instance it is likely that black market (gangs) will control the illegal distribution

The legalisation of drugs such as cannabis etc could be debated but these drugs make up a very small part of what the gangs fight over which is mainly Heroin and Cocaine distribution territory. Legalisation of these drugs is a short sighted and lazy attempt at a solution. Im not saying what they do now is better Im just saying that those that call for legalisation usually do not take in the full implications and logistics involved.

Not to mention the fact that Class A drug addiction such as Heroin and Cocaine has a lifetime affect on addicts- from their mental and physical health to their social, family and professional lives. Even if the addiction doesn’t kill them they can spend the rest of their lives suffering from the damage. There is nothing recreational about those drugs- but dont take my word for it, drop into your local rehab clinic and speak to a few addicts. Ive know many- heroin destroyed the area I grew up in- not just the gangs but the addicts.

Shane_C

Just popping my head in and out:

A government cannot undertake anything it cannot fully investigate and (in theory) understand beforehand.

Do you understand death?

chocgirl

I'm a definite No. Can't believe it's nearly 50-50.

wilson10

Sorry, haven't read all posts so maybe it's already been said but I believe that

No.1 You would have a better chance of turning pigsh1t into icecream than rehabilitating your average druglord killer scumbag and

No.2 We will have no justice or security in this country until they get rid of this concurrent sentencing bullsh1te. On the news tonight a seriously depraved scumbag already serving life for murder got another life sentence for another incredibly callous murder, to run concurrently with the life sentence he's already serving. He was led away smiling and sure why wouldn't he. Sure he got a few days out and had a bit of crack. He won't serve a day extra. To think that this lunatic will ever get out is frightening.

We all know that in the real world we will never have the option of capital punishment but for God's sake get these animals off the streets for good when the guards have done their job and given us the opportunity.

The majority of sentencing in this country is a joke.

bigdaddyliamo

it's a no for me. Very hard to put humpty back together again if any of our famous miscarrage of justices snafoos pop up:(

jiltloop

Here's a better idea, instead of having all the prisoners lazing about in overcrowded jails costing us money, why not get them out working? In fact why not have them build extra jails so we can keep them in them for longer. I'd rather see them rot in jail permanently than get a handy way out. I think if we had more prison capacity in this country then sentences would get longer and scumbags would stay in prison longer. Also getting them to build the prisons themselves is akin to getting someone to dig their own grave, which is nice.

freedom of info

I_am_Jebus wrote: »

rapists and paedophiles should have their cócks cut off on top of their jail sentence. If they can't be trusted to have a cock without committing a serious crime with it then take it off them.

a little history lesson: Nazi Germany, pedos were castrated and then sent to a 666 battalion (penal) most didnt last long

I_am_Jebus

freedom of info wrote: »

a little history lesson: Nazi Germany, pedos were castrated and then sent to a 666 battalion (penal) most didnt last long

:rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

whadabouchasir wrote: »

To all those who are in favour of the death penalty,I ask what if an innocent person gets put to death?Surely the chance of this happening is reason enough not to have the death penalty.

If an innocent person is put to death then of course we apply the death penalty to the killer.

And it turns out there was a miscarraige of justice then of course kill the next person in the chain.

Capt'n Midnight

PK2008 wrote: »

Ive actually worked for a pharamceutical company so i know the costs involved in mass producing drugs- which would not be less than street values I can gaurantee you that. Costs associatated with labour, mass production (production in pharmacuetical companies is a world away from simple, theres labs, lab equipment, sterilization zones, clinical trials, qualified chemists etc), distribution and marketing/competition and VAT- all of which are not applicable to contraband would drive price up. Plus the amount of security which would have to be put in place for shops to stock it would be a major problem.
...

Legalising drugs is simply unviable and unmanageable from a business perspective. It just wont happen, not in our lifetime

|Alcohol and Caffeine are mass produced and are very very cheap to produce and those drugs kill a lot of people. High levels of sterility are not needed if the product is taken orally or smoked or by patches. Normal foodstuff levels should be ok.

Unlike many of the expensive pharma drugs , most of the recreational substances are patent free and the processes are simple and high yield. Companies that make adhesives in some cases use even higher purity reagents than pharma and again with all the QC and overheads.

Injections do require sterility, but we aren't going to see injectable stuff around for the general public because of secondary health concerns not related to what is in the syringe..

PK2008

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

|Alcohol and Caffeine are mass produced and are very very cheap to produce and those drugs kill a lot of people. High levels of sterility are not needed if the product is taken orally or smoked or by patches. Normal foodstuff levels should be ok.

Unlike many of the expensive pharma drugs , most of the recreational substances are patent free and the processes are simple and high yield. Companies that make adhesives in some cases use even higher purity reagents than pharma and again with all the QC and overheads.

Injections do require sterility, but we aren't going to see injectable stuff around for the general public because of secondary health concerns not related to what is in the syringe..

People always cite alcohol and tobacco (not so much caffeine) as some sort of comparable justification for the legalisation of class A drugs but there just isnt any as the reason these are legal is more cultural/historical rather than based on health reasons as both are very detrimental to public health. I personally hate tobacco and feel it should be banned- if it was invented tomorrow it would never get passed the testing stage, neither would alcohol but the fact is their use is ingrained in our society historically and thats why they are taxed so heavily and restricted. Caffeine is on I personally know little about but I would assume one would have to consume alot over a prolonged period of time to notice ill effects. If people consumed heroin at the rate they consume caffeine they'd be dead within the year

We are pretty much stuck with alcohol and tobacco, I would love to see the day when tobacco is banned but thats the direction it should go- reduction not escalation. Just becuase those 2 are legal doesnt mean we should open the floodgates for every other harmful drug.

Products which are produced on a mass scale, such as adhesives or legal drugs are subject to massive economies of scale used by global corporations which drives down the cost of the product. The only way these corporations can reach these levels of production and distribution is through massive demand bolstered by patents, marketing, branding, competitive strategies etc. The demand for class A recreational drugs is nowhere near the other products mentioned- no matter how much a stoner wants legal heroin only a very tiny percentage of the public actually use hard drugs or have any desire to. The damage caused by a minority of the population addicted to drugs is defintely out of proportion but the market simply isnt be there to justify the legalisation, plus with restrictions on sale the market would be cut down even further- it is commercially unviable. If a global corporation switched its operation to manufacturing heroin it would be bankrupt within the year unless they managed to ramp up consumption among the general population and if they did that the country would be bankrupt within the year- then you would see real violence on a massive scale not the current sporadic shooting.

People seem to overlook the fact that drug users are often the most extremely violent of offenders, people overlook the fact that alot of the gangsters involved are drug users themselves- drug gang violence is often fueled by substance abuse. The notion of the slick, drug free yet naturally violent pyschotic gangster who preys on the poor, golden hearted, passive yet trapped addict are false- addicts are among some of the most violent offenders and its not always just violence in order to get a fix, substance abuse has been cited in many non money related disputes as being the cause of violence. Severe mood swings, paranoid delusions and pychosis are just some of the side effects of class A drugs- we only have to look at the behavioural effects of over drinking to see that substance abuse leads to serious anti social behaviour. Alcohol abuse and related violence is a major problem any weekend in a major city, add wide scale heroin abuse (which would not be restricted to weekends) to that and you would have the disintegration of society as we know it.

StopTheDrugWar!

PK2008 wrote: »

First of all the market for Codeine is vastly different and superior to the market for diamorphine. Codeine is one of the most popular drugs in the world which allows manufacturers to take advantage of global economies of scale in order to drive down its cost (also global manufacturing and logistics). To replicate the amount of use/sales in diamorphine would be catastrophic to a nations health. The price of production of 10mgs of Codeine Vs 10mgs of Heroin may be comparable but the price of producing millions of grams of both as the multinational market forces is different. if you dont know what i mean by economies of scale, the more you can produce and sell a product the lower its cost to produce, thats why Dell can sell a PC with the same parts at a reduced cost and make more of a profit than a small local PC manufacturer. Big pharma companies have the capability to produce heroin at the same level as Codeine but they do not have a comparable market to sell it to. They could market the drug to the point of increasing the potential market base to that of Codeine but the ramifications of such a huge amount of diamorphine consumption would be disastrous

And what about diseconomies of scale?

The worldwide heroin market is so huge that any economies of scale seen in the codeine industry would easily be applicable to the heroin market.

You're just being silly.
The prohibition of drugs artificially inflates the price of drugs well above what they would be if legal. That is a fact, one which not even the experts who are paid to sell the war on drugs dissagree with.

None of the drugs you mentioned are recreational, if they are being used for recreation then they are being abused (in fact Codeine can be addictive).

semantics. They can be used recreationally without major side effects. I would class them as recreational.

Apart from the over the counter drugs mentioned the rest are prescribed in controlled dosages by medical professionals for specific ailments where any potential side effects have either been minimised or deemed less damaging than the ailment and therefore benefit outweighs damage. This is an important point because people believe that if a drug is passed for consumption it is therefore safe- that is wrong as there are many drugs which have harmful side effects but are prescribed for consumption because the patient is in a position where the benefit outweighs the damage. In the case of recreational drugs the cost benefit scenario cannot be used and therefore a comparison cannot be used- Codeine can be addictive but its rare so its available for pain relief, but the cost benefit is for pain relief not recreation. If Codeine was designed for recreation the cost (marginal as it is) would outweigh the benefit (as there is none) and it wouldn’t be widely available.

Two completely seperate studies focusing on the relative harms of various recreational drugs, one in the uk and one in the netherlands have both shown that many of the drugs i mentioned are indeed less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. It would be easy for a government to create a yard-stick to measure their relative side-effects and regulate them accordingly.

You're trying to say the legalisation of drugs would be impossible from a buerecratic point of view. The problems you throw up in this respect would be pretty easy to deal with. A challenge? possibly. Impossible? Definitely not.


btw, codeine is often used recreationally. Not so much in Ireland though because here it mostly comes mixed with paracetamol/ibuprofen and to achieve the desired dose of codeine you'd probably die from liver failure.

Codeine and diamorphine may both be opiate extracts but they are at completely different ends of the scale. A person can self medicate on Codeine as the correct use of it will not alter the persons decision making abilities however if a person self medicates with diamorphine their objective decision making will be drastically impaired. Addiction to diamorphine will remove any cognitive decision making, rarely has a heroin addict been able to say "oh i better lay off it for a while", addiction tends to be a downward spiral where frequency of use increases- particularly dangerous with morphine due to "place conditioning".

As I said despite the conspiracy theories about pharma companies the reality is alot of these companies are involved in major medical science research and progression for the good of mankind - not solely for profit. Pick anyone of the major drug manufacturers and you will find abundant information on their corporate and social responsibility policies and initiatives. Many top pharma company executives/directors/advisors are ex or currently practising doctors- no doctor in the world would allow people to use morphine as a recreational drug. Pursuit of profit over public helath in the pharma sector is simply not accepted due to have government regulations. It may just be my opinion but I doubt any pharma company want the reputation as the world’s largest heroin dealer.

The main market for recreational drugs is below 20 years of age- with most 20+ addicts having begun their addiction in their teens. Therefore the restrictions on age would basically cut the potential market too much to be worthwhile, regardless the minors would still seek out the drugs through illegal methods so restrictions on age would be as moot as they are now. Even if the market was above 20 selling diamorphine with a simple warning on the label like over the counter drugs is irresponsible- as i said use of diamorphine and addiction impairs objective decision making to the point that self medication is harmful. If it was monitored and restricted to non addictive dosages this would then drive the 20+ market to illegal methods. In both instance it is likely that black market (gangs) will control the illegal distribution

The legalisation of drugs such as cannabis etc could be debated but these drugs make up a very small part of what the gangs fight over which is mainly Heroin and Cocaine distribution territory. Legalisation of these drugs is a short sighted and lazy attempt at a solution. Im not saying what they do now is better Im just saying that those that call for legalisation usually do not take in the full implications and logistics involved.

Not to mention the fact that Class A drug addiction such as Heroin and Cocaine has a lifetime affect on addicts- from their mental and physical health to their social, family and professional lives. Even if the addiction doesn’t kill them they can spend the rest of their lives suffering from the damage. There is nothing recreational about those drugs- but dont take my word for it, drop into your local rehab clinic and speak to a few addicts. Ive know many- heroin destroyed the area I grew up in- not just the gangs but the addicts.

I'm arguing that the overall negative impact of drugs on society would be a lot less if they were legal. If someone became dependant on cheap legal heroin, then I don't think they'd cause any more harm to society than those addicted to cigarettes do today. Addiction services would be a lot easier to provide if drugs were legal, and people would find it a lot easier to come forward.

It's pretty patronising to assume that everyone would start doing heroin if it became legal. I mean if most hardcore coke-heads would never touch heroin, despite the fact that they could easily get it if they wanted to. What makes you think average joe is gonna do it?

Especially with the whole rebellion factor out of the equation (a far bigger motivator than people give it credit for), i really don't think you're gonna see a massive surge in the number of people using these drugs.

PK2008

StopTheDrugWar! wrote: »

And what about diseconomies of scale?

The worldwide heroin market is so huge that any economies of scale seen in the codeine industry would easily be applicable to the heroin market.

You're just being silly.
The prohibition of drugs artificially inflates the price of drugs well above what they would be if legal. That is a fact, one which not even the experts who are paid to sell the war on drugs dissagree with.

semantics. They can be used recreationally without major side effects. I would class them as recreational.

Two completely seperate studies focusing on the relative harms of various recreational drugs, one in the uk and one in the netherlands have both shown that many of the drugs i mentioned are indeed less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. It would be easy for a government to create a yard-stick to measure their relative side-effects and regulate them accordingly.

You're trying to say the legalisation of drugs would be impossible from a buerecratic point of view. The problems you throw up in this respect would be pretty easy to deal with. A challenge? possibly. Impossible? Definitely not.

btw, codeine is often used recreationally. Not so much in Ireland though because here it mostly comes mixed with paracetamol/ibuprofen and to achieve the desired dose of codeine you'd probably die from liver failure.

I'm arguing that the overall negative impact of drugs on society would be a lot less if they were legal. If someone became dependant on cheap legal heroin, then I don't think they'd cause any more harm to society than those addicted to cigarettes do today. Addiction services would be a lot easier to provide if drugs were legal, and people would find it a lot easier to come forward.

It's pretty patronising to assume that everyone would start doing heroin if it became legal. I mean if most hardcore coke-heads would never touch heroin, despite the fact that they could easily get it if they wanted to. What makes you think average joe is gonna do it?

Especially with the whole rebellion factor out of the equation (a far bigger motivator than people give it credit for), i really don't think you're gonna see a massive surge in the number of people using these drugs.

Its never going to happen mate, if you dont believe me then fair enough but you and I will never see drugs legalised in our lifetime