Pros and Cons of Drug Legalization & Regulation

liah

I'll say it outright: I'm in favour of legalizing and regulating drugs. What I want to do is compile what would essentially be a pros and cons list for the regulation of illegal substances.

So far, the majority of what I see are pros, and am interested to hear some cons (as well as any other pros I've forgotten.) I'll keep this list updated the more I read your responses.

PROS:
-The government is able to control ingredients of substances. There would be little to no worry about "rat poison" myths-- or realities. One can be confident that one knows what is going into one's system, as opposed to taking a gamble every time a substance is ingested.

-Little to no money would be going into the hands of drug dealers, making a massive impact on the amount of general crime as well as drug-related murders and violence. One can safely indulge themselves knowing that they are not contributing to potentially serious crime.

-Thousands of jobs would be created in manufacturing, building headshops, sales, management and tourism.

-With education and casual exposure to substances via peers, overdosing and addiction are, in fact, less likely-- take, for instance, countries who have a culture of raising their children to drink a glass of wine at dinner. These children are far more likely to grow up to drink responsibly as they see people around them drinking responsibly and their culture teaches them the value of control. It would not, by any means, eliminate addiction or overdosing, but it would make a positive impact. Education has far more value than scare tactics; they're more likely to be irresponsible if they know nothing about it.

-Substances such as cocaine, MDMA, marijuana, mushrooms, etc. have been heavily researched, some for as long as centuries. There is a massive amount of data and for the most part, we know the long-term effects as well as the short term of these "tried and true" drugs. If they remain illegal, then there remains a market for "legal" equivalents which have little to no research backing them and thus can be incredibly detrimental in the short and/or long term. This includes everything from huffing poppers to ingesting headshop "bath salts."

CONS: (courtesy of Earthhorse)
- Right now, the illegal drug trade is a huge source of income for criminals. They are not going to let that go without a huge, bloody fight. The position with prohibition is not entirely analagous, as prohibition came into play after the brewery trade was well established.

- Assuming these drugs would be made available through licensed premises (either off-licenses, some new narcotics-off-license equivalent, or chemists (pharmacists)) there is likely to be a huge uptake in drug consumption and experimentation. Given the known dangers and side effects of drugs such as heroin and crystal meth, and given that there is no precedent for wholesale legalisation of drugs, this amounts to a huge social experiment with people's health; one with potentially serious negative consequences.

- Without support from neighbouring states, Ireland would be very much thumbing their nose at their neighbours. It's unlikely that on the contentious issue of drugs this move would be popular and likely that some form of political sanction (not necessarily official) would follow. In short, it is unlikely we would ever be at the forefront of the decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs.

- For certain substances with strong dangers or side effects (heroin, crystal meth) companies may be averse putting their name to the product. No matter how comprehensive you make the instructions for use someone is likely to OD. The inevitable lawsuits are something that would weigh heavily on a company's conscience (by which I mean it's profit and loss accounts).

WIZE

Sorry but there is only CONS

Humans do not need Drugs unless its medication

liah

Most Haunted wrote: »

Sorry but there is only CONS

Humans do not need Drugs unless its medication

Care to expand on any of that? Do you consume alcohol?

Valmont

In a perfect world people should be allowed to buy drugs and take them as they please, taking responsibility for themselves should they develop a related health or behavioural problem. However, I can only see this situation being fair if healthcare is completely privatised so that individuals with drug issues have to bear the costs themselves. The important factor to consider is that we have a socialised healthcare system so if we legalise a few more drugs like heroin or cocaine then the taxpayer is going to be subsidising treatment for more addicts and abusers. As it stand the taxpayer is already paying for new livers and expensive medication for alcoholics and smokers, I'm not sure introducing another batch of substances into the mix would really help. It's not an ideal situation at all but what can we do.

Substances like ecstasy, Lsd, and various psychedelics are relatively harmless in and off themselves so I don't see the big deal with legalising, regulating and taxing those substances.

This thread is going to be a disaster, portended by MostHaunted's post; the vast majority of the populace have absolutely no idea about the actual science and facts behind various drugs and the actual 'threat' they may pose to society. They have been brought up on lies, 'just say no' campaigns, and vicious propaganda. I have studied psychopharmacology at third level so I am familiar with most of the major substances and how they work. Let the fireworks begin.

Joey the lips

I'll say it outright: I'm in favour of legalizing and regulating drugs. What I want to do is compile what would essentially be a pros and cons list for the regulation of illegal substances.

So far, the majority of what I see are pros, and am interested to hear some cons (as well as any other pros I've forgotten.) I'll keep this list updated the more I read your responses.

PROS:
-The government is able to control ingredients of substances. There would be little to no worry about "rat poison" myths-- or realities. One can be confident that one knows what is going into one's system, as opposed to taking a gamble every time a substance is ingested. Thats if the drug was grown in ireland. I dont think ireland has the coca plant climate. If your talking about cannibis maybe.

-Little to no money would be going into the hands of drug dealers, making a massive impact on the amount of general crime as well as drug-related murders and violence. One can safely indulge themselves knowing that they are not contributing to potentially serious crime. This is untrue and can be proven. Just look at the black market that operates in illegal ciggerates.

-Thousands of jobs would be created in manufacturing, building headshops, sales, management and tourism. Yes agreed and thousands more would be created in social services and extra guarda and prision cells. I can go on

-With education and casual exposure to substances via peers, overdosing and addiction are, in fact, less likely-- take, for instance, countries who have a culture of raising their children to drink a glass of wine at dinner. These children are far more likely to grow up to drink responsibly as they see people around them drinking responsibly and their culture teaches them the value of control. It would not, by any means, eliminate addiction or overdosing, but it would make a positive impact. Education has far more value than scare tactics; they're more likely to be irresponsible if they know nothing about it. If we truely believe in education non of us would be drinking now and on that note oif we could go back in time drinking and smoking would be illegal as well.

-Substances such as cocaine, MDMA, marijuana, mushrooms, etc. have been heavily researched, some for as long as centuries. There is a massive amount of data and for the most part, we know the long-term effects as well as the short term of these "tried and true" drugs. If they remain illegal, then there remains a market for "legal" equivalents which have little to no research backing them and thus can be incredibly detrimental in the short and/or long term. This includes everything from huffing poppers to ingesting headshop "bath salts."

CONS:
-Waiting for well-constructed, well-informed contributions.

I worked in a youth service for years and saw the effects of drugs. I never want them to be legalised.... Sorry.

liah

Joey the lips wrote: »

PROS:
-The government is able to control ingredients of substances. There would be little to no worry about "rat poison" myths-- or realities. One can be confident that one knows what is going into one's system, as opposed to taking a gamble every time a substance is ingested. Thats if the drug was grown in ireland. I dont think ireland has the coca plant climate. If your talking about cannibis maybe.

Most things can be grown in greenhouses. I don't see how that's a problem tbh.

-Little to no money would be going into the hands of drug dealers, making a massive impact on the amount of general crime as well as drug-related murders and violence. One can safely indulge themselves knowing that they are not contributing to potentially serious crime. This is untrue and can be proven. Just look at the black market that operates in illegal ciggerates.

Please see the prohibition of alcohol movement. There was massive crime when it was illegal, then when it was legalized and regulated the crime went down. The same would happen with other drugs. Yes, there's always a black market, but it can be reduced drastically, as the prohibition movement and subsequent deconstruction proved.

-Thousands of jobs would be created in manufacturing, building headshops, sales, management and tourism. Yes agreed and thousands more would be created in social services and extra guarda and prision cells. I can go on

Those jobs already exist. In countries like the Netherlands where marijuana use is legal, the majority of drug users are tourists rather than natives. Marijuana use by natives has actually gone down since legalization, not up. I'd imagine it'd be the same anywhere else.

-With education and casual exposure to substances via peers, overdosing and addiction are, in fact, less likely-- take, for instance, countries who have a culture of raising their children to drink a glass of wine at dinner. These children are far more likely to grow up to drink responsibly as they see people around them drinking responsibly and their culture teaches them the value of control. It would not, by any means, eliminate addiction or overdosing, but it would make a positive impact. Education has far more value than scare tactics; they're more likely to be irresponsible if they know nothing about it. If we truely believe in education non of us would be drinking now and on that note oif we could go back in time drinking and smoking would be illegal as well.

You completely missed my point. Education teaches how to enjoy things in moderation. In moderation, most drugs are fine. Hence how not every person who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic, how not every person who consumes junk food is obese, how not every marijuana smoker is lazy, etc.

I worked in a youth service for years and saw the effects of drugs. I never want them to be legalised.... Sorry.

Does this mean you think alcohol should be banned, junk food banned, cars made illegal, planes made illegal, and any other thing that can potentially cause harm to an individual to be abolished? Sure, we'd have nothing left. Just because it affects some people negatively does not mean that label applies to all. Those kids you worked with were the exception, not the rule.

silverharp

Joey the lips wrote: »

CONS:
-Waiting for well-constructed, well-informed contributions.

I worked in a youth service for years and saw the effects of drugs. I never want them to be legalised.... Sorry.

Probably need to make a distinction between what a minor and over 18 is allowed to do.

The major pro for decrimilisation is the opportunity cost of all the combined resouces wasted criminalising poor people when no crime against a person or property has occured in the first place.
From a pragmatic view point given that anyone who wants to consume drugs has access to them its hard to see any net increase in societal costs. It may even reduces access to underage users as the various "loss leading" techniques used by illegal suppliers to hook young users would not work if they would lose their market when they turn 18.

Joey the lips

liah wrote: »

junk food banned, cars made illegal, planes made illegal, and any other thing that can potentially cause harm to an individual to be abolished? Sure, we'd have nothing left. Just because it affects some people negatively does not mean that label applies to all. Those kids you worked with were the exception, not the rule.

I was enjoying the read till this point. My answer is and will always be no. The simple reason is that the poorer classes and are the classes and areas that suffer from the problems that result in these moves.

I do not believe it will reduce crime. I believe it increases it. Especially amoungst the new addics who cannot afford it. The increase in social services will be a burden on the tax payer.

But then again perhaps you have hit on something. The govt could tax it heavy and reduce other taxes.... but oh blast the EU wont allow this.

Joey the lips

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Probably need to make a distinction between what a minor and over 18 is allowed to do.

The major pro for decrimilisation is the opportunity cost of all the combined resouces wasted criminalising poor people when no crime against a person or property has occured in the first place.
From a pragmatic view point given that anyone who wants to consume drugs has access to them its hard to see any net increase in societal costs. It may even reduces access to underage users as the various "loss leading" techniques used by illegal suppliers to hook young users would not work if they would lose their market when they turn 18.

There is a lot of assumptions here. I worked for a youth service and I seen its effects on all ages. The highlited bit is a poor assumption. Cheap drugs would be taken by those starting out.


There is one thing I can say about this thread. There is no arguement worth it because like belief in god there is more people on boards favor drug legalisation than banning them. I am not in the mood of that type of arguement.

Thanks

silverharp

Joey the lips wrote: »

There is a lot of assumptions here. I worked for a youth service and I seen its effects on all ages. The highlited bit is a poor assumption. Cheap drugs would be taken by those starting out.


There is one thing I can say about this thread. There is no arguement worth it because like belief in god there is more people on boards favor drug legalisation than banning them. I am not in the mood of that type of arguement.

Thanks

wasnt thinking of price per say, more the possibility of reduced access to dealers where there is less financial incentive however its a minor point. The substantive argument is that the € billions "invested" in combatting illegal drugs could be better used.

You will get go argument from me that I would want my kids taking drugs. I just see the drugs war in a similar way to Prohibition in the US. Maybe bordsies see the State laws as the ass they are.

liah

Joey the lips wrote: »

I was enjoying the read till this point. My answer is and will always be no. The simple reason is that the poorer classes and are the classes and areas that suffer from the problems that result in these moves.

I do not believe it will reduce crime. I believe it increases it. Especially amoungst the new addics who cannot afford it. The increase in social services will be a burden on the tax payer.

But then again perhaps you have hit on something. The govt could tax it heavy and reduce other taxes.... but oh blast the EU wont allow this.

Beliefs don't factor in. Unless you have facts and not just anecdotes, I don't see the point on harping on about beliefs as it adds nothing to the discussion.

I'm looking for legitimate cons with evidence backing them, not just "oh well I believe.." And again, I reiterate: the youths you worked with were the EXCEPTION, not the rule.

My pros are based on the alcohol prohibition abolition. We have a lot to learn from history.

Earthhorse

It's hard to comment without knowing the details of what you would legalise (all drugs, or just some), how it would be made available and to whom i.e. without knowing the specifics of what you're proposing. However here are some brief cons I can think of on the issue:

- Right now, the illegal drug trade is a huge source of income for criminals. They are not going to let that go without a huge, bloody fight. The position with prohibition is not entirely analagous, as prohibition came into play after the brewery trade was well established.
- Assuming these drugs would be made available through licensed premises (either off-licenses, some new narcotics-off-license equivalent, or chemists (pharmacists)) there is likely to be a huge uptake in drug consumption and experimentation. Given the known dangers and side effects of drugs such as heroin and crystal meth, and given that there is no precedent for wholesale legalisation of drugs, this amounts to a huge social experiment with people's health; one with potentially serious negative consequences.

Like I say, it is difficult go into detail without knowing exactly what it is you're proposing. I can also see some practical problems with wholesale legalisation:

- Without support from neighbouring states, Ireland would be very much thumbing their nose at their neighbours. It's unlikely that on the contentious issue of drugs this move would be popular and likely that some form of political sanction (not necessarily official) would follow. In short, it is unlikely we would ever be at the forefront of the decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs.
- For certain substances with strong dangers or side effects (heroin, crystal meth) companies may be averse putting their name to the product. No matter how comprehensive you make the instructions for use someone is likely to OD. The inevitable lawsuits are something that would weigh heavily on a company's conscience (by which I mean it's profit and loss accounts).

I would also question some of the pros you have outlined.

liah wrote: »

-Thousands of jobs would be created in manufacturing, building headshops, sales, management and tourism.

Some employment would be created, no doubt. Whether it would be thousands, I'm not so sure. Whether this would outweigh the cost in terms of the health costs of drug misuse (remember, I'm assuming use will increase, and as a corollary misuse will increase too) again, I'm not so sure.

-With education and casual exposure to substances via peers, overdosing and addiction are, in fact, less likely-- take, for instance, countries who have a culture of raising their children to drink a glass of wine at dinner. These children are far more likely to grow up to drink responsibly as they see people around them drinking responsibly and their culture teaches them the value of control. It would not, by any means, eliminate addiction or overdosing, but it would make a positive impact. Education has far more value than scare tactics; they're more likely to be irresponsible if they know nothing about it.

I agree with you regarding education, not so sure about the casual exposure argument. In countries where this happens there are other reasons to believe people drink responsibly (primarily climate). I haven't seen any hard evidence that casual exposure produces this effect. Furthermore, legalisation has nothing to do with casual exposure; people can be casually exposed to drug use while it's illegal.

-Substances such as cocaine, MDMA, marijuana, mushrooms, etc. have been heavily researched, some for as long as centuries. There is a massive amount of data and for the most part, we know the long-term effects as well as the short term of these "tried and true" drugs. If they remain illegal, then there remains a market for "legal" equivalents which have little to no research backing them and thus can be incredibly detrimental in the short and/or long term. This includes everything from huffing poppers to ingesting headshop "bath salts."

Unless we are going to legalise all substances then there will always be room for illegal substances to compete. Given that the market for the substances listed in the first sentence of your post exist and the market for these other substances exist in tandem at present, I fail to see how legalising the first set will eliminate demand for the second. People will continue to buy both, unless you intend on criminalising the second set, in which case, depending on the nature of the high demand may indeed fall off.

Valmont

Well one thing that has to change for certain is drug education in schools. I shudder at the recollection of all the crap I was told in school right up until I was 17. I don't think any teenagers appreciate being lied to outright.

If there was one thing that taught me about drugs in my formative years it was an episode of Southpark. Randy Marsh concedes that smoking weed or taking some other drugs isn't really that bad for you at all every now and then but while you're getting high you could be learning a new skill, reading a book or bettering yourself somehow. I've always kept this thought with me. You know drug education is in a poor state when Southpark becomes the best option available.

Eliot Rosewater

Joey the lips wrote: »

I do not believe it will reduce crime. I believe it increases it.

This is a completely untenable position, in my opinion. You mentioned the importation of cigarettes as an example of how the illegal trade continues on when the legal one operates. What you keenly avoid mentioning is that the size of the illegal trade is significantly smaller when the substance in question is also available through legal markets.

If you legalize marijuana, many of the people who purchase it illegally at the moment will start purchasing it legally. This reduction in customers will see a direct reduction in the power of the various cartels selling it. This would result in less crime. So the onus is really on you to prove otherwise.

Zombrex

We are facing into a health crisis in this century, I don't know do we really want to be adding to this. Drug treatment in places with legalized (or non-enforced) soft drugs is rising. It all costs money. We are facing major issues with rising alcohol abuse in Ireland, and with obesity. Adding to this seems unwise, unless we are going to start down the line of private only healthcare, which I'm not sure anyone wants.

twowheelsonly

liah wrote: »

My pros are based on the alcohol prohibition abolition. We have a lot to learn from history.

Did all of the Criminals/Gangsters involved in illegal drink during prohibition suddenly give up their activities when prohibition ended?? They did in their arus.. They became involved in extortion, robberies, gambling and protection rackets amongst others.

The problem with legalising drugs in this country is that you are dependent on other countries doing the same. (Hash is NOT legal in Holland BTW but a blind eye is generally turned to personal use - 'Coffee Shops' can only have 500gms in the shop at any time and are regularly raided) No country in the world that I am aware of legally produces the drugs that we're talking about so where do we source the drugs except through criminals, albeit possibly in another country. I personally can't see any major companies becoming involved in this unless it becomes a worldwide phenomenom.

In my own case I'm 100% against it. There's no guarantee that legalizing drugs will cure the problem of addicts. The crims will come up with something else with a 'bigger buzz' to entice those that are using legalised drugs and for cheaper than the Govt will supply them.

Eliot Rosewater

Wicknight wrote: »

We are facing into a health crisis in this century, I don't know do we really want to be adding to this.

You could tax the bejesus out of it, in the same way that alcohol is taxed. However, as Valmont said, the best thing to do would be to overhaul the way we deal with health problems caused directly by peoples actions. We need to make them pay for the full cost of their actions.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Did all of the Criminals/Gangsters involved in illegal drink during prohibition suddenly give up their activities when prohibition ended??

Earthhorse touched upon that. It certainly is an issue. But as it stands keeping drugs on the black market is only ensuring that criminality continues indefinitely. At least if we took drugs out of the hands of gangsters now we could be looking at happier times when the current generation die off or retire.

One could also argue that other kinds of criminality are easier to tackle. The "war on drugs" has proved to be an incomparable failure.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

No country in the world that I am aware of legally produces the drugs that we're talking about so where do we source

The kind of drugs I would propose legalizing - mainly marijuana - can be grown in Ireland. Of course now that drugs are on the open market they can be regulated. Legislation could stipulate that drugs must be sourced in Ireland. We could introduce quality control, etc.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

The crims will come up with something else with a 'bigger buzz' to entice those that are using legalised drugs and for cheaper than the Govt will supply them.

One of the arguments for legalization is that it will break connections between drug dealers and customers. Someone who is smoking hash at the moment and wants cocaine need only ask their dealer; in a legalized world he would have no immediate source to purchase from.

Valmont

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The "war on drugs" has proved to be an incomparable failure.

That's the crux of the whole issue. Although it will probably be 50 years before someone tells the UN. I can't remember the details but they actually made some sort of a re-commitment to the war on drugs last year. Insanity really. Look what it's doing to Mexico: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1832854,00.html

dublin 16 lad

I would be in complete agreement that certain drugs, which are not physically addictive should be legalised. Not yet though, we are nowhere near ready as a society

We need to completely overhaul and upgrade our education system so young teens are thought the truth about drugs. They need the know the dangers and the effects. The positives and the negatives. They don't need to hear scare mongering which is nearly always sensationalist anti drug misinformation which helps absolutely nobody. Facts and statistics are what have to be presented, not personal opinions of people who have no idea of what they are talking about

I've been through the education system and 2 years of college so far. I have not once been educated in a non bias way in relation to drugs and drug use. In a so called developed country that is simply apalling and backwards

If we were to set up a proper education system and slowly began to legalise non addictive drugs there would be pros and cons, the pros would heavily outweigh the cons imo

Pros:
-Clean drugs with no dangerous ingredients mean users are safer
-Greatly reduce drug related crime and gang land killings
-Create huge numbers of jobs, plenty of which would be highly skilled
-High taxation on the drugs would benefit economy
-Tourism attraction

Possible Cons
-EU and world goverments would not appreciate us taking a new approach
-Short term rise in drug use over the country as people experiment
-Could trigger unrest iniatally as illegal drug dealers struggle to make a living and become frustrated


At the end of the day drug use is always going to be occur in every country. Prohibition has obviously failed. Why not make it safer for the drug user and beneficial for the economy through education and forward thinking

Zombrex

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You could tax the bejesus out of it, in the same way that alcohol is taxed.

Or you could just keep it illegal. The higher you tax it the more market there will be for black market, so it sort of defeats the purpose.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

However, as Valmont said, the best thing to do would be to overhaul the way we deal with health problems caused directly by peoples actions. We need to make them pay for the full cost of their actions.

Well yeah but is some what impossible. How are you going to saying your actions in your 20s caused your heart/liver/brain problems in your 50s therefore you have to pay?

And we are also left with the issue of what do we do with the people who can't pay.

Bottle_of_Smoke

There'd be an awful lot of jobs lost in the alcohol industry if mdma was legalised.

I used to think, hey people can get drugs if they want - legalising them won't make more people do it. However knowing the amount of people who do mephedrone who've never done class A drugs I realise I was wrong on that one.

Cannabis, I'd say yeah legalise it. Most people find it pretty boring after a while, only a certain amount of people enjoy the effects. Girls who go out to enjoy dancing are never gonna be huge fans of it. Stuff like cocaine/ecstacy will however be very popular.

Valmont

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yeah but is some what impossible. How are you going to saying your actions in your 20s caused your heart/liver/brain problems in your 50s therefore you have to pay?

I think you're misunderstanding the concept of a privatised healthcare system. Everyone should pay for their own insurance regardless, there is no blame game. Drug users will pay a lot more for their cover, that is a disincentive already. It's never going to happen in this country anyway so I guess I'm making a moot point.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

However knowing the amount of people who do mephedrone who've never done class A drugs I realise I was wrong on that one.

I agree. It doesn't really sit well with the argument for legalisation but I'm not going to pretend that it isn't the case.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

liah wrote: »

The government is able to control ingredients of substances. One can be confident that one knows what is going into one's system, as opposed to taking a gamble every time a substance is ingested.

Yes this is very important. Regulation of the contents of what we consume has been important in the realm of food, drink and medication for a long time. The same is true of these drugs.

Even the lower end drugs like hash have become more potent as cost cutters have stopped producing them correctly. A once safe drug is now available at dangerous levels of potency.

So serious has this become that even countries where it is not exactly legal, the police have been turning a blind eye to “test your hash” tents at music festivals, such as one I saw myself in the annual St. Gallen festival in Switzerland.

Drug dealers need not regulate as they answer to no one. Regulated legalised drugs however would be.

liah wrote: »

-Little to no money would be going into the hands of drug dealers, making a massive impact on the amount of general crime as well as drug-related murders and violence.

I would extend this to say that we would even be safer from crime. For every police officer who is now policing the drug underworld, there is one less police officer “on the beat” keeping us safe. For every euro spent or every jail place taken due to drugs, that is money and space taken from policing violent crime, theft, and more.

Not to mention that not only would this money be saved and put into better areas of policing, but the tax and duty profits from drugs would give the government even MORE money for policing etc.

Resources both saved AND created.

liah wrote: »

-With education and casual exposure to substances via peers, overdosing and addiction are, in fact, less likely

Yes I would also add that it would not be just education that would do this, as per the first point, the purity laws would in fact reduce anything added to the drugs to make them more addictive than they otherwise are. Of course maybe they would not be AS pure as we want, given the addictive elements of cigarettes have not been wholly removed, but a great many tricks for “cutting” drugs with things to increase addiction would be removed with government controlled purity laws.

simplistic2

Why do people keep referring to drug dealers as criminals?

For a crime to be committed there must be involuntary loss caused.

The only crimes being committed are by the gang of the Gardai under the instruction of the government against anyone voluntarily buying or selling drugs.

Valmont

simplistic2 wrote: »

Why do people keep referring to drug dealers as criminals?

The murderous gangsters behind the country's cocaine supply are most definitely criminals. Surely all of the violence testifies to this.

AARRRGH

liah wrote: »

-With education...

Education only works on those who can be or want to be educated, i.e. people like you and me. It doesn't work for most people.

Don't drink and drive...
Wear a condom...
Don't speed...
Don't smoke...

They've been educating us about the above for years, but their message is (mostly) falling on deaf ears.

Then there is the (significant) problem of people doing the opposite of what an authority tells them to do. For example, the huge amount of Americans in opposition to free healthcare.

Saying all that... I agree drugs need to be legalised and regulated. I know this will probably lead to more druggies, but our current system definitely isn't working so we should try a different approach.

Valmont

AARRRGH wrote: »

Don't drink and drive...
Wear a condom...
Don't speed...
Don't smoke...

They've been educating us about the above for years, but their message is (mostly) falling on deaf ears.

Simply because some people choose not to heed warnings doesn't mean that it isn't working.

AARRRGH

Valmont wrote: »

Simply because some people choose not to heed warnings doesn't mean that it isn't working.

I think it's most rather than some though.

How many people do you know who "drink sensibly"? I'm practically a freak because I don't binge drink.

Valmont

AARRRGH wrote: »

How many people do you know who "drink sensibly"? I'm practically a freak because I don't binge drink.

Well I'm with you on that one.

deadhead13

Countries that have gone down the legalised/decriminalised route -

The Netherlands - Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, who are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city. Resulting in Amsterdam maintaining a far greater police presence that those of comparable sized US cities.

Switzerland - ended its experiment in decriminalisation in 1992 after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs.

Spain - Legal to use but not to sell since 1983. Dramatic increase in addiction rate. And like Italy, which also legalised the use of cocaine and heroin, have the highest rates of both drug use and overdoses in Europe.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/myths/myths4.htm

Pace2008

It'll take me a long time to read through that piece in its entirety, but given that it's penned by the U.S. DEA I'd be very surprised if there isnt some serious misrepresentation of the truth in there.

deadhead13

I agree, it is coming from a very anti-legalisation/decriminalistion prespective, but is there evidence to counter their claims that usage and criminality has invariably increased in those countries.

Valmont

deadhead13 wrote: »

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/myths/myths4.htm

I don't want to be the guy to shun a source simply because I don't agree with it but that piece is terrible. Considering the references for all of their 'facts' come from journalists and other anti-drug movements, I don't think this website or this piece really stands up to scrutiny. At all. Browse the references section and you will see what I mean.

deadhead13

Fine, I'm not standing over it as a source. I just wondering is there credible research showing that crime and the use of drugs hasn't increased in the countries that have tried decriminalisation.

Executive Steve

The best PRO for continued prohibition is that it increases market efficiency, keeps prices low, and purity levels up.

Heroin prices and cocaine prices have tumbled over the years, and street purities as reported in drug busts and amount of user overdoses have increased.

From a consumer's point of view it's all quite marvelous.

molloyjazz

deadhead13 wrote: »

Countries that have gone down the legalised/decriminalised route -

The Netherlands - Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, who are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city. Resulting in Amsterdam maintaining a far greater police presence that those of comparable sized US cities.

Switzerland - ended its experiment in decriminalisation in 1992 after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs.

Spain - Legal to use but not to sell since 1983. Dramatic increase in addiction rate. And like Italy, which also legalised the use of cocaine and heroin, have the highest rates of both drug use and overdoses in Europe.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/myths/myths4.htm

Switzerland hasn't totally decrimanalised Heroin, in fact this countries policy seems to be the best and one i thing we should adopt immediatly

molloyjazz

Valmont wrote: »

I don't want to be the guy to shun a source simply because I don't agree with it but that piece is terrible. Considering the references for all of their 'facts' come from journalists and other anti-drug movements, I don't think this website or this piece really stands up to scrutiny. At all. Browse the references section and you will see what I mean.

Yes it disinfomation .. here what wiki says on Switzerlands drug policies...

Switzerland

The national drug policy of Switzerland was developed in the early 1990s and comprises the four elements of prevention, therapy, harm reduction and prohibition. [9] In 1994 Switzerland was one of the first countries to try heroin-assisted treatment and other harm reduction measures like supervised injection rooms. In 2008 a popular initiative by the right wing Swiss People's Party aimed at ending the heroin program was rejected by more than two thirds of the voters. A simultaneous initiative aimed at legalizing marijuana was rejected at the same ballot.

bog master

Good debate so far. On a personal level, I am in favour of relaxing some of the drug laws. But, I think the main point is that the War on Drugs worldwide is a complete and utter failure, and a huge waste of resources and will never succeed when huge profits can be made by criminals.

The US spent over $50 billion in the War on Drugs in 2003. Granted some of this was for "stopping use before it starts " and "healing drug users".

But is it not time we started to use some lateral thinking?

deadhead13

It is not entirely disinfomation, the "Needle Park" experiment in Zurich was deemed to have failed in 1992, a second attempt again was closed down in 1994. But it is definitely out of date, the Swiss Government began a national scientific experiment in 1994 to determine if prescribing heroin would reduce crime, disease and death. It was found herion prescription was feasible, no black market in diverted heroin was produced and the health of addicts improved.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/tlcnr.cfm

But this a policy aimed at existing hard-core heroin addicts. I'm not sure how relevant it is to the debate on should drugs be legalised or not.

molloyjazz

deadhead13 wrote: »

It is not entirely disinfomation, the "Needle Park" experiment in Zurich was deemed to have failed in 1992, a second attempt again was closed down in 1994. But it is definitely out of date, the Swiss Government began a national scientific experiment in 1994 to determine if prescribing heroin would reduce crime, disease and death. It was found herion prescription was feasible, no black market in diverted heroin was produced and the health of addicts improved.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/tlcnr.cfm

But this a policy aimed at existing hard-core heroin addicts. I'm not sure how relevant it is to the debate on should drugs be legalised or not.

AFAIK the whole needle park thing was where they just had an open drug scene...
I think it is totally relevant to this thread, as this thread is about Regualtion as well as Decriminalisation... when it comes to the heroin problem, i think the Swiss should be commended for there work, and i would love to see that policy implemented here.

deadhead13

I would agree with implementing a similiar policy here for existing users. But I'm not convinced that legalisation is a solution, that said, prohibition clearly isn't working either.

AARRRGH

What about introducing tougher drug laws? For example, the death penalty if you import or sell drugs?

nozzferrahhtoo

AARRRGH wrote: »

What about introducing tougher drug laws? For example, the death penalty if you import or sell drugs?

Since the death penalty is not currently an available option on any law you are getting ahead of yourself. You would first need to open an entirely separate discussion on the death penalty as a punishment and when that is approved THEN start discussing to which laws it should be applied.

Until then you are left with the punishments we do have available, and making them more stringent, but I am not aware of any data to suggest this has worked in the past so I am not sure what would make anyone think it will work now.

molloyjazz

AARRRGH wrote: »

What about introducing tougher drug laws? For example, the death penalty if you import or sell drugs?

yeah well ya shoulda thought of that before ya said YES to Lisbon!

simplistic2

Valmont wrote: »

The murderous gangsters behind the country's cocaine supply are most definitely criminals. Surely all of the violence testifies to this.

Yes but only the ones that murder or cause involuntary harm like anybody else.

JohnK

A voter initiative in California has gathered the required number of signatures to force a vote on legalising marijuana so we might get to see how the list of pros & cons pan out.

Could be interesting to watch how it all goes

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana-initiative25-2010mar25,0,4756689.story

Eliot Rosewater

JohnK wrote: »

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana-initiative25-2010mar25,0,4756689.story

From the article:

He said the measure would ... make it harder for teenagers to buy marijuana.

An interesting angle. At the moment the illegal drugs trade does not discriminate on the basis of age and, from my own personal experience, is pretty widespread in secondary schools. It probably would have been easier for me to buy marijuana from a schoolmate than try and negotiate with some over-18 year-old for some alcohol.

So dampen the illegal drugs trade and you dampen the availability of drugs for under-agers?

Alan Smithee

The old arguement of legalizing drugs and of regulation and taxation will only increase prices so they become prohibitive, thus leading to a blackmarket similar to the illegal tobacco trade. no doubt legal drugs to satisfy "health and safety"would also be less potent thus making them less attractive to many.

Would legalizing drugs take away the cool and rebellious factor?

The spread of "legal" headshops have hardly helped improve matters and have seen an increase and hardlining in attitudes against legalizing drugs.

I cant see this or any other government looking at this issue in any serious manner as it wouldn't be popular with the masses.

silliegillie

where you have a Drug you will inevitably have an addiction. In ireland we have Cafeine Addict, Nicotene Addict, Codeine Addict, Heroine Addict, amphetamine Addicts, Alcohol Addict, XTC Addict,Gambling Addiction. Some of these are Legal, Some of these are not. Cannabis as far as i'm informed is Not an addictive Substance ( The Nicotene in the Joint is though unless Orally consumed)You Do not get withdrawal symptons from Cannabis where as you DO get it from all the other Drugs I have mentioned. My Point is this whether it is Legalised or not there will always be Addicts so I do not think that is a just argument for regulation. There will always be a blackmarket and I believe that the best way of stopping a Blackmarket is to take it out of the Criminals hands and into the main stream of society. Im all in favour of deregulation. Anyway why should I suffer from not being able to relax and enjoy a PINT ro Spliff Ect.. Just because there is a possibilty that some one is addicted to this stuff so we have to ban it.

AARRRGH

silliegillie wrote: »

Anyway why should I suffer from not being able to relax and enjoy a PINT ro Spliff Ect.. Just because there is a possibilty that some one is addicted to this stuff so we have to ban it.

I understand what you are saying, but that's the way our society is set up.

For example, I am very health conscious, but I have to pay for smokers/the obese/etc. when they get sick and go into hospital.

I was careful with my money during the bubble, but I have to pay for the actions of the financially reckless.

I don't drink alcohol but I have to forgo free teeth cleaning so the VAT on alcohol can be reduced.

Et cetera.

Basically it's punish the majority to protect a minority.