Legalisation\decriminalisation of Drugs besides cannabis

gaffer91

This is something I've been thinking about recently and I think it is an interesting discussion. While there does seem to be a general consensus on boards (and one that I agree with) that cannabis should be legalised what about other drugs?

I would personally be in favour of legalising other 'softer' drugs like ecstasy, LSD and ketamine etc. While I am not an experienced user of any of the drugs, as far as I am aware there is nothing to suggest that these drugs cause significant long term damage to either users or society (a google will provide a lot of answers). I am in favour of legalising these drugs partially from a civil liberties point of view but more from the view of the money and jobs they would generate for the exchequer.

With regards harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine I would be more in favour of decriminalising possession rather than full legalisation (something along the lines of what is done in Portugal). While I know this conflicts with my earlier argument about civil liberties I believe that these drugs are so addictive and damaging (albeit heroin far more so than cocaine) that full legalisation would have too many harmful effects on society as a whole (and trust me, I'm no nanny-statist).

There are 3 obvious drawbacks that I can see to the decriminisation\legalisation argument however:

1. While I like a drink as much as the next person, I think it is definitely true to say that we Irish have a highly destructive relationship with the drugs that are legal already, particularly alcohol obviously. This could carry on with other drugs.

2. I think it is definitely true that prohibition of drugs has lead to a huge decrease in people taking drugs. Legalisation might lead to a large increase, which might not necessarily be a good thing (although this is admittedly by no means set in stone)

3. Becoming a world drug capital might not be the image we want to project to the world. While it would generate money for the exchequer, the impact on quality of life for Irish residents would be largely negative I would assume. However I suppose this could be overcome by limiting sales of drugs to Irish citizens with stiff penalties to anyone supplying them to tourists.

However having weighed up these options I still think the pros outweigh the cons and a more liberal drug policy would be beneficial as a whole.

TL;DR- what do you think about legalising/decriminalising other drugs besides cannabis (MDMA, LSD, Heroin etc.)

Babybuff

Not sure, I would like to be able to use marijuana medicinally as I have glaucoma and I don't take drugs at all, wouldn't be interested in it (or other drugs) for any other reason though. I tend to agree along the lines of point A

Super-Rush

I wouldn't call LSD, Ecstasy or Ketamnine soft drugs.

You're a lot more likely to die after one e tablet than you would after one spliff.

I would be very much in favour of legalising cannabis but thats about as far as it should go.

gaffer91

El Pistolero wrote: »

I wouldn't call LSD, Ecstasy or Ketamnine soft drugs.

You're a lot more likely to die after one e tablet than you would after one spliff.

I would be very much in favour of legalising cannabis but thats about as far as it should go.

To the best of my knowledge, Ecstasy is not particularly harmful. Most of the harm is caused my the ingredients is mixed with which could be closely watched and regulated if it was legal. Look at the chart at the bottom of this article. Actually the whole article is pretty interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm

Fromthetrees

Drugs are bad news, decriminalising weed seems fine but I genuinely believe most people just don't get how horrible drugs can be.

joshrogan

Legalise it all, allow people make decisions for themselves as to whether they want to take certain drugs.

Seachmall

El Pistolero wrote: »

I wouldn't call LSD, Ecstasy or Ketamnine soft drugs.

You're a lot more likely to die after one e tablet than you would after one spliff.

That's hardly a fair comparison, and the chances are extremely small of doing yourself harm with MDMA.

E is very much a soft drug. The British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs reported E to be one of the safest all round drugs in terms of addiction potential, physical harm and social factors (even safer than Weed), and David Nutt (the then head of the council) called it as safe as horse riding.

gaffer91

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Drugs are bad news, decriminalising weed seems fine but I genuinely believe most people just don't get how horrible drugs can be.

Lots of illegal drugs are less harmful than alcohol.

ScumLord

El Pistolero wrote: »

You're a lot more likely to die after one e tablet than you would after one spliff.

I think there is a minority that can have an allergic reaction to E so it's not right to say a normal person without this reaction would have any chance of dying.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Drugs are bad news, decriminalising weed seems fine but I genuinely believe most people just don't get how horrible drugs can be.

I genuinely believe most people have a comic book villain view of drugs and don't know how great they are for the majority of users the majority of the time. That's why people like doing them, their fun and don't cause any problems to the majority of people that take them.

Logical Fallacy

El Pistolero wrote: »

I wouldn't call LSD, Ecstasy or Ketamnine soft drugs.

You're a lot more likely to die after one e tablet than you would after one spliff.

I would be very much in favour of legalising cannabis but thats about as far as it should go.

The statistical likelihood of death from an E tablet is the roughly the same as that of eating a peanut. In fact i am pretty sure it's a little bit higher for a peanut.

I do agree with you though, i would call LSD, Ecstasy or Ketamine "soft drugs" as i feel that downplays the possible short term and long term affects of abuse.

I'd like to see everything up to crack and heroin legal, but only if you needed a license to do them and that license could be removed if you committed any breach of the law while under the influence.

ScumLord

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I'd like to see everything up to crack and heroin legal, but only if you needed a license to do them and that license could be removed if you committed any breach of the law while under the influence.

I think they should only be available to social clubs, a scene of taking drugs socially should be encouraged and plenty of activities should be on offer at the club. It would keep stuff out of shops and allow regulation.

Chuck Stone

Peaceful people should be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being molested by the state.

_Gawd_

ALL drugs should be legal and above board.

If people want to abuse them - let them. Where does your moral responsibility come from? It was their decision and now they must live with the consequences. No longer will innocent people be put out because these cretins shooting each other for money. The crime comes from the illegality of drugs, not because of the drugs themselves.

Anybody that refutes that statement need look no further than 1920's America - Prohibition. As soon as it was repealed, murder rates that were originally off the charts dropped because we substituted back alley gangsters with guns for professional businessmen in the market. Today, this generations Prohibition is the illegality of drugs and we must overcome it by legalizing all drugs.

pragmatic1

El Pistolero wrote: »

I wouldn't call LSD, Ecstasy or Ketamnine soft drugs.

You're a lot more likely to die after one e tablet than you would after one spliff.

I would be very much in favour of legalising cannabis but thats about as far as it should go.

MDMA has a very low toxicity. I'd be in favour of all drugs being legalised.

Chuck Stone

ScumLord wrote: »

I think they should only be available to social clubs, a scene of taking drugs socially should be encouraged and plenty of activities should be on offer at the club. It would keep stuff out of shops and allow regulation.

*Nightclubs*

Eric Cartman

to be fair, no government should have the right to tell me what I can and cant take, full legalisation would be helpful, but right now getting drugs whether it be Weed, MDMA, Ket etc.. isnt exactly hard. Id just rather my money going to legitimate businesses rather than criminal gangs.

karma_

Babybuff wrote: »

Not sure, I would like to be able to use marijuana medicinally as I have glaucoma and I don't take drugs at all, wouldn't be interested in it (or other drugs) for any other reason though. I tend to agree along the lines of point A

If you'd like to try it, then do, it's obtainable and if you didn't want to try that, it's fairly easy to grow.

Temptamperu

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Drugs are bad news, decriminalising weed seems fine but I genuinely believe most people just don't get how horrible drugs can be.

Whats difference would it make if the drug was legal? I'll tell you, none because whether or not its legal its easier to buy than alcohol.
No restrictions, no laws and no quality control that would be the difference I suppose.

Eric Cartman

Temptamperu wrote: »

Whats difference would it make if the drug was legal? I'll tell you, none because whether or not its legal its easier to buy than alcohol.
No restrictions, no laws and no quality control that would be the difference I suppose.

+1

I can get a bag of weed delivered to my house at 3am , cant get cans past 10pm , its madness

Babybuff

karma_ wrote: »

If you'd like to try it, then do, it's obtainable and if you didn't want to try that, it's fairly easy to grow.

I'd rather take it in medicinal form, like a little pill would be handy. I smoked when I was younger just wouldn't be bothered with it these day's what with being a responsible parent and employee, wouldn't be worth it. Besides that weed just makes me laugh all night, couldn't be having that now I'd never sleep. (honestly drugs don't agree with me so prefer not to indulge)

Irish Guitarist

If people want to destroy themselves by taking drugs it doesn't bother me. The problem I'd have with it would be the effect it would have on other people.

Drinking and driving is bad enough without snorting cocaine and driving. And just because these substances would be legal it wouldn't make them any less addictive but people would think "they're legal, they must be alright". As more people take these drugs crime would most likely increase.

n900guy

gaffer91 wrote: »

This is something I've been thinking about recently and I think it is an interesting discussion. While there does seem to be a general consensus on boards (and one that I agree with) that cannabis should be legalised what about other drugs?

I would personally be in favour of legalising other 'softer' drugs like ecstasy, LSD and ketamine etc. While I am not an experienced user of any of the drugs, as far as I am aware there is nothing to suggest that these drugs cause significant long term damage to either users or society (a google will provide a lot of answers). I am in favour of legalising these drugs partially from a civil liberties point of view but more from the view of the money and jobs they would generate for the exchequer.

With regards harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine I would be more in favour of decriminalising possession rather than full legalisation (something along the lines of what is done in Portugal). While I know this conflicts with my earlier argument about civil liberties I believe that these drugs are so addictive and damaging (albeit heroin far more so than cocaine) that full legalisation would have too many harmful effects on society as a whole (and trust me, I'm no nanny-statist).

There are 3 obvious drawbacks that I can see to the decriminisation\legalisation argument however:

1. While I like a drink as much as the next person, I think it is definitely true to say that we Irish have a highly destructive relationship with the drugs that are legal already, particularly alcohol obviously. This could carry on with other drugs.

2. I think it is definitely true that prohibition of drugs has lead to a huge decrease in people taking drugs. Legalisation might lead to a large increase, which might not necessarily be a good thing (although this is admittedly by no means set in stone)

3. Becoming a world drug capital might not be the image we want to project to the world. While it would generate money for the exchequer, the impact on quality of life for Irish residents would be largely negative I would assume. However I suppose this could be overcome by limiting sales of drugs to Irish citizens with stiff penalties to anyone supplying them to tourists.

However having weighed up these options I still think the pros outweigh the cons and a more liberal drug policy would be beneficial as a whole.

TL;DR- what do you think about legalising/decriminalising other drugs besides cannabis (MDMA, LSD, Heroin etc.)

Looking for money/income or else some political motivation with regard to drugs (or anything) will fail completely. The only two reasons are a) reducing public health risks and b) redirection of limited police time towards criminal activity that has more public harm.

Left/right/likes drugs/don't like drugs/"want to kill themselves with drugs we need to stop them/not care about them" and personal viewpoints are completely irrelevant. If there is reduced risk to the public in terms of health (i.e., psychosis with cannabis, and association or increase use with ahrder drugs that cause more health problems), and if police can focus resources on crimes that are more dangerous to the public (i.e., cocaine dealers, with weapons, vs some guy smoking weed) then there is good justification for it to be legalised.

In fact, that is exactly the situation with alcohol; illegal, would lead to increased public health concerns by way of methylated spirits and lack of controls of production, and police time would be 99% focussed on someone having a few beers.

As soon as you start putting personal political viewpoints to the front, you fail (i.e., what we have in Ireland: politicians running the country based on personal moral standpoints and not on what is practical and workable). Could we have more police focussed on more dangerous crimes if cannabis was legalised? Could we see improved public health (i.e., less associated drug use like cocaine, and uncontrolled high potency cannabis)?

But in Ireland (and many other western countries), it's: do I like the idea of cannabis smoking people? Not really. Do these people have long nasty hair and not listing to Pat Kenny. Probably. Should the police stop these people doing their nasty drugs? Probably.

...is police time entirely wasted pursuing cannabis-related offences? Definitely.

forfuxsake

except tobacco which should go the the other way. After a decade of taking pills, lsd, weed, e and mushrooms, a decade later the only one I regret is the fcuking ciggies. Money down the tube with not one memorable experience to show for it.

df1985

MDMA should be. Its the happiest feeling going, a club full of people on mdma would be a much nicer place than a club full of drunks.

Cocaine-NO. a lot of people in Ireland who've tried cocaine have actually tried talcon powder effectively. we get absolute ****e here that isnt worth a penny.

Good quality cocaine will blow your head off, as someone who did my fair share of good cocaine working abroad it shouldnt be legalised (even if for selfish reasons id like it to be). I know what I looked like on it and you wouldnt want people in everday life walking around like that. The session only stops when you run out of coke/cash and cant get more. Ive seen sound nice guys turn into psychotic lunatics on it. thankfully it only ever turned me into a talkative arrogant arsehole but for some its a lot worse.

grindle

Mr.S wrote: »

Ket, a soft drug?!

Yeah, pretty soft. Can have the effect of turning the user into a floppy, blithering twit, but taken pure it's nigh-on impossible to overdose from, given that you'll pass out long before you snort a lethal dosage.

Eric Cartman

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Drinking and driving is bad enough without snorting cocaine and driving.

some people take prescription drugs and drive when they shouldnt. Just because cocaine is legal doesnt mean that people are going to get in a car, snort a few lines and go kill people. I think most people would see it as a recreational thing like alcohol, and it would be the same people who drink drive that drug drive. A little less time busting kids with bags of weed might even free up some garda resources to tackle this.

Temptamperu

grindle wrote: »

Yeah, pretty soft. Can have the effect of turning the user into a floppy, blithering twit, but taken pure it's nigh-on impossible to overdose from, given that you'll pass out long before you snort a lethal dosage.

Also it is very good at treating depression, Studies show that 2mg every 2 weeks can help people with Major Depression a lot more than SSID's have been.

partyatmygaff

Temptamperu wrote: »

Also it is very good at treating depression, Studies show that 2mg every 2 weeks can help people with Major Depression a lot more than SSID's have been.

Ok, so it could be legalised (Pending the appropriate studies) for treating depression and whatever other psychological illnesses it's capable of treating. In fact, I believe it's already being used as a surgical drug. Drugs when prepared and administered by competent people are fine.

That said, what on earth would make you think that the government would ever allow drugs like ketamine, ecstasy or any other relatively potent drug to be sold over the counter? Even relatively tame drugs like codeine need prescriptions and pharmacist supervision. I don't see the likes of ketamine or ecstasy being available for open sale any time soon regardless of what the general public thinks.

Eric Cartman

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ok, so it could be legalised (Pending the appropriate studies) for treating depression and whatever other psychological illnesses it's capable of treating. In fact, I believe it's already being used as a surgical drug. Drugs when prepared and administered by competent people are fine.

That said, what on earth would make you think that the government would ever allow drugs like ketamine, ecstasy or any other relatively potent drug to be sold over the counter? Even relatively tame drugs like codeine need prescriptions and pharmacist supervision. I don't see the likes of ketamine or ecstasy being available for open sale any time soon regardless of what the general public thinks.

people can be responsible for themselves, there is no legal barrier to me waking up at 10am and downing 2 litres of vodka and dying of alcohol poisoning. Thats perfectly ok in the governments eyes, but If I go out and pop an E and have a good night then im a ' drug abuser' and im awful.

Im not trying to say alcohol is worse (that argument has been done to death) but Im just saying that people can self regulate their intake of any drug, without a pharmacist standing over them.

partyatmygaff

Eric Cartman wrote: »

people can be responsible for themselves, there is no legal barrier to me waking up at 10am and downing 2 litres of vodka and dying of alcohol poisoning. Thats perfectly ok in the governments eyes, but If I go out and pop an E and have a good night then im a ' drug abuser' and im awful.

I'm pretty sure they'd call you a drug abuser if you downed 2 litres of Vodka as well. The only problem is that in Ireland people have this strange notion that alcohol isn't a "real drug".

Im not trying to say alcohol is worse (that argument has been done to death) but Im just saying that people can self regulate their intake of any drug, without a pharmacist standing over them.

If that's the case, why do you think every single civilised country on the planet does not allow the open sale of potent drugs? I'm not even talking about recreational drugs, let's keep it simple. Say for example... why do you think you can't just walk in to a pharmacy and ask for some warfarin?

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

regardless of what the general public thinks.

Which is a huge problem in a democratic country.

A quote from David Nutt on reasoning with people,

This is an example of a conversation that I’ve had many times with many people, some of them politicians:

MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.’

Professor Nutt: ‘Why not?’

MP: ‘Because one’s illegal.’

Professor Nutt: ‘Why is it illegal?’

MP: ‘Because it’s harmful.’

Professor Nutt: ‘Don’t we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?’

MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.’

repeats …

- Estimating Drug Harms [PDF]


The assumptions people make because they hear "illegal" and/or "drug" are completely out of touch with reality. And people are being convicted for making reasonable decisions to use one over the other.

karma_

Seachmall wrote: »

This is an example of a conversation that I’ve had many times with many people, some of them politicians:

MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.’

Professor Nutt: ‘Why not?’

MP: ‘Because one’s illegal.’

Professor Nutt: ‘Why is it illegal?’

MP: ‘Because it’s harmful.’

Professor Nutt: ‘Don’t we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?’

MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.’ .

That is gold.

Pete M.

forfuxsake wrote: »

except tobacco which should go the the other way. After a decade of taking pills, lsd, weed, e and mushrooms, a decade later the only one I regret is the fcuking ciggies. Money down the tube with not one memorable experience to show for it.

For fcuks sake, cop on, imagine going out on one and not fags :eek:

If they make ciggies illeagl and we're all flying about the place on whatever you're having yourself, we'd be gagging for a smoke.

Legalise the lot now and let's move on already :pac:

Chuck Stone

karma_ wrote: »

That is gold.

Fucking annoys me personally.

Teachers wouldn't put up with such stupidity from a 8-year-old child yet we seem to tolerate it from grown adults who have the audacity to think they know what's good for us.

TreesAreCrowd

In favour of legalising every drug. It's not up to me to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own body, it's their decision to make.

Legalise it, regulate it, manufacture them here and apply the tax. Whatever drug you're imagining right now is already out there on our streets, in bad qualities, dealt with by bad people. Nothing will stop that, the only way to overcome it is offering people a clean and legal supply.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If that's the case, why do you think every single civilised country on the planet does not allow the open sale of potent drugs?

It doesn't matter that it's common practice. War is a common practice. Slavery was a common practice. Children working in industry was a common practice.

It's really very simple. People should be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being molested by the state.

argonaut

grindle wrote: »

Yeah, pretty soft. Can have the effect of turning the user into a floppy, blithering twit, but taken pure it's nigh-on impossible to overdose from, given that you'll pass out long before you snort a lethal dosage.

Yeah, ketamine makes you act like an idiot but as far as I know it's one of the safest recreational drugs out there.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that (to use the most obvious example) legalising heroin is an ideal solution, but given how bad the situation currently is it's arguably the "least bad" solution to the problem.

I'm not going to claim that full legalisation (well, decriminalisation might be better, but since we're debating the principle why split hairs?) would be without negatives, but it's been tried with some successs in countries like Portugal - prohibition of popular substances clearly doesn't work. It's time we tried something else.

I understand the fear that this would be seen as society condoning drug abuse, but given that we've already got a fairly severe drug problem I think it makes more sense to regulate (and tax) soft & hard drugs instead of taking an unproductive, hugely expensive tactic of criminalisation and high penalties.

I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but it's worth saying again - legalisation of drugs would be a huge, huge blow to criminal gangs in Ireland - remember how the headshops were always getting firebombed? I'll give you a clue, they weren't being firebombed by Joe Duffy-listening puritans.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

Which is a huge problem in a democratic country.

If people can manage to regularly (Intentionally or accidentally) misuse drugs as relatively safe as paracetamol, I don't see the logic in permitting them uncontrolled access to even more potent drugs.

Here's a question for those who support drug legalisation. Do you think all prescription medicines should be relegated to "open sale" too? Should a drug like Cisplatin be relegated to open sale too? For a drug like Cisplatin, do you think should people should be allowed to self-diagnose, get the dosage off internet and administer it to themselves?

grindle

partyatmygaff wrote: »

...in Ireland people have this strange notion that alcohol isn't a "real drug".

...why do you think every single civilised country on the planet does not allow the open sale of potent drugs? I'm not even talking about recreational drugs, let's keep it simple. Say for example... why do you think you can't just walk in to a pharmacy and ask for some warfarin?

Keeping it simple: why would anybody take warfarin besides medical grounds?

If the opposite of keeping it simple is to make it complex, lets do that. I don't know of a civilised country in the world that doesn't sell one of the most potent drugs in existence, which, as you point out, is a "real drug". Banning much safer drugs (weed, ketamine, mushrooms, ecstasy) seems pithy when ludicrous amounts of tasty ethanol can be bought and drunk.

argonaut

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If people can manage to regularly (Intentionally or accidentally) misuse drugs as relatively safe as paracetamol, I don't see the logic in permitting them uncontrolled access to even more potent drugs.

Here's a question for those who support drug legalisation. Do you think all prescription medicines should be relegated to "open sale" too? To use my earlier example, should drugs like Warfarin be available for open sale to anybody at any quantity?

I don't know if they're really comparable since (with the obvious exception of painkillers, which fall under "drugs" for this discussion, no?) as far as I know your average over-the-counter drug isn't regularly bought and consumed for entertainment value. There's not a huge black market that's existed forever for people recreationally taking an anticoagulant.

If pharmacies already give you an interrogation when buying Nurofen Plus it's reasonable that they could similarly regulate currently illegal drugs.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It doesn't matter that it's common practice. War is a common practice.

In some cases, common practices are common for a very good reason.

It's really very simple. People should be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being molested by the state.

Should people be allowed to buy radioactive elements such as polonium or uranium without being "molested by the state" as well? Surely, that'd fall under the umbrella of civil liberties as well.

argonaut

partyatmygaff wrote: »

In some cases, common practices are common for a very good reason.

Should people be allowed to buy radioactive elements such as polonium or uranium without being "molested by the state" as well? Surely, that'd fall under the umbrella of civil liberties as well.

...no, why on earth would that fall under the umbrella of civil liberties?

grindle

argonaut wrote: »

...no, why on earth would that fall under the umbrella of civil liberties?

Because having fun at the weekend is the same as threatening nuclear war, sillyhead.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Here's a question for those who support drug legalisation. Do you think all prescription medicines should be relegated to "open sale" too?

Yes. People should be allowed to consume whatever drugs they like without being molested by the state.

argonaut

I should probably point out here that my personal position on this isn't really based on a political principle of individual choice or whatever, but on a pragmatic assessment of the situation. The War on Drugs is over, and Drugs won.

partyatmygaff

grindle wrote: »

Keeping it simple: why would anybody take warfarin besides medical grounds?

They wouldn't. What i'm saying is should they be allowed to self-diagnose and self-medicate? If you're going to allow people to take psychoactive drugs (In some cases to "self-medicate" and relieve stress or induce euphoria) you may as well allow them the same freedom for all drugs.

If the opposite of keeping it simple is to make it complex, lets do that. I don't know of a civilised country in the world that doesn't sell one of the most potent drugs in existence, which, as you point out, is a "real drug". Banning much safer drugs (weed, ketamine, mushrooms, ecstasy) seems pithy when ludicrous amounts of tasty ethanol can be bought and drunk.

Banning alcohol is unfeasible at this stage. Many other drugs are safer than alcohol and they're not available for open sale but that doesn't mean that they should be legalised. Two wrongs don't make a right.

argonaut wrote: »

If pharmacies already give you an interrogation when buying Nurofen Plus it's reasonable that they could similarly regulate currently illegal drugs.

Well why not? If there are proper clinical indications for all the drugs currently being discussed and there aren't more effective / less toxic drugs already available then why not?

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If people can manage to regularly (Intentionally or accidentally) misuse drugs as relatively safe as paracetamol, I don't see the logic in permitting them uncontrolled access to even more potent drugs.

Ecstasy, Cannabis, Magic Mushrooms and Acid while being more potent than many over-the-counter drugs are typically less toxic.

I'm not suggesting that every drug be made available only that our policies should be consistent and rational.

I can't fathom why that idea is controversial to some (not you, but people like those described in my quote).

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Should people be allowed to buy radioactive elements such as polonium or uranium without being "molested by the state" as well? Surely, that'd fall under the umbrella of civil liberties as well.

What in the name of muppetry has that got to do with people wanting to buy and consume drugs without being deemed a criminal?

partyatmygaff

argonaut wrote: »

...no, why on earth would that fall under the umbrella of civil liberties?

People should apparently be allowed to buy whatever drugs they want, whenever they want and at any quantity they want.

If that's all fine, what's the issue with allowing them to buy radioactive materials?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes. People should be allowed to consume whatever drugs they like without being molested by the state.

Who's going to sell these people these drugs? What kind of person could knowingly sell a potential poison to someone whose intentions and knowledge levels they didn't know? Besides street dealers of course...

argonaut

partyatmygaff wrote: »

People should apparently be allowed to buy whatever drugs they want, whenever they want and at any quantity they want.

If that's all fine, what's the issue with allowing them to buy radioactive materials?

I refuse to believe you don't see the difference between those things.

Drugs = potentially dangerous to person consuming them.

Radioactive materials = dangerous to everyone.

TreesAreCrowd

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Who's going to sell these people these drugs? What kind of person could knowingly sell a potential poison to someone whose intentions and knowledge levels they didn't know? Besides street dealers of course...

Barmen do it every single minute, of every single hour, every night of the week...I don't see them committing suicide in their masses?