Do you think all drugs should be legal?

FishFacePhil

Do you think all drugs should be legal, illegal or something in between? Provide one or more arguments to back up your view. I'll start.

I think all drugs should be legal for many reasons:

1.) Keeping it an illegal industry puts it in the hands of criminals. By keeping drugs illegal, they will continue to be the main source of income for criminal organisations all over the world. Prohibition is directly responsible for the existence of some of the most ruthless and (thanks to the enormous sums of money they have made from drugs) powerful criminal organisations in the world such as Los Zetas (a Mexican drug cartel) and the Colombian cartel. Drug money has enabled these organisations to become more powerful than the governments in these countries and a force to be reckoned with for any government or law enforcement agency.

Thanks to prohibition, what used to be petty street gangs can become powerful, unstoppable forces. For example, MS13 started off as a petty street gang, but as a result of the enormous sums of money they could make by selling drugs in the areas they controlled, they became one of the most dangerous criminal organisations in the world. Drugs are the primary source of income for the vast majority of criminal organisations in the world. With money, they can then buy guns, boats, properties etc., bribe corrupt law enforcement agents and politicians and pay for the services of various professional criminals to mention just a few of the ways in which drug money empowers these organisations. The rapid rise in the power of Dublins criminal organisations is due to the drug trade.


2.) Legalisation would cause a massive drop in crime rates. People who depend on illegal drugs for whatever reasons often have to resort to criminal activities such as theft to support their habit. Before drugs were banned, heroin and cocaine used to be sold in the US as cheaply as sugar. Today both of these substances are more expensive than gold. Switzerland saw a significant drop in petty crime rates as a result of bringing in its heroin-assisted treatment program:
http://www.citizensopposingprohibition.org/resources/swiss-heroin-assisted-treatment-1994-2009-summary/

3.) People should be allowed to choose what they do with their own bodies. If someone decides the benefits of taking a substance outweigh the risks and negative effects, they should be allowed to do so. Imprisoning people for choosing to alter their minds or bodies with the use of substances is a massive infringement on freedom. The government does not know whats best for everyone, and neither do doctors. Cannabis for years was classed as a substance with no medicinal properties, yet millions of people worldwide have successfully used it to treat pain as well as a wide range of other ailments. While there are many people who do not educate themselves on how things work, there are plenty of people who do their research and gain an understanding of the properties of drugs, as well as the risks and dangers associated with them. These people often know better than their doctors (I'll provide some examples after), yet to obtain a substance they feel that they need, they have to go through a doctor whos decision will be dicated by his/her level of knowledge on that particular thing, as well as opinion.

Some examples: I'm a pharmacology student and I educate myself on and research various classes of substances, especially if I decide I want to use a particular substance. I've gone to doctors multiple times to ask them to help me with insomnia which I get occasionally. I know all the classes of drugs commonly prescribed, as well as ones not commonly prescribed. Each time, the only thing the doctors suggest prescribing is stilnocht, which is a alpha subunit selective GABA_a receptor agonist (therefore it induces low quality sleep and is fairly addictive). I suggested baclofen to one doctor (a selective GABA_b agonist which induces high quality sleep) but they weren't open to the idea because they had only heard of it being used to suppress muscle spasms. I then suggested mirtazapine and he said "thats an antidepressant that makes people gain weight". I had to inform him that due to its anticholinergic, antiserotonergic and antihistamine binding profile, it is also a highly effective, and relatively non addictive hypnotic. Then another doctor who wasn't open to prescribing various hypnotics such as clonidine, was glad to prescribe trazodone and then assured me its non addictive. Despite popular belief among various doctors and psychiatrists, trazodone like the vast majority of sedatives, is addictive and can cause severe withdrawal symptoms on discontinuation after long term (i.e. 6 months or more) use. They have the same idea with newer sedatives such as gabapentin and pregabalin, the doctors commonly claim they are non addictive and people who believe the words of these doctors end up in big trouble when they decide they want to stop taking the medication.


I'll limit it to 3 arguments for now. I'll counter a few obvious arguments I can think of for keeping drugs illegal.

1.) If they were legal, more people would use them and get addicted to them. - Seems like reasonable speculation but in reality, thats not the case. About 50% of Americans have used cannabis, whereas only 25% of Dutch people have used it. Awareness is the most important factor. Less people smoke cigarettes today because there is greater awareness of the long term effects of smoking. When accurate and unbiased information is available, people can make informed decisions about whether or not they want to try or use a particular substance.

Another point to consider is the fact that when people who are determined to alter their minds do not have access to common drugs, they resort to more dangerous and harmful substances which they would ordinarily never go near. For example nobody would sniff glue or abuse aerosols if the were a wide range of different safe drugs were available to them. The reason so many people drink alcohol today, is because its the only sedative they can legally obtain, if safer and healthier sedatives like kava were available, the rate of alcohol use would drop significantly.


2.) Drugs are dangerous, they can kill you - Yes, most drugs can kill you if you take too much, and some drugs are more harmful than others. Caffeine overdoses can cause heart attacks, strokes and other potentially fatal symptoms. Nicotine and alcohol overdoses can be fatal too. People have even died of water overdoses. The key here is dosage. The difference between a medicine and a poison is dosage. Alcohol is difficult to overdose on since one needs to consume large amounts of a foul tasting liquid to get there. Other drugs like heroin or GHB on the other hand are much easier to overdose on since a small bit of powder can be enough. Most people who use these substances do not overdose on them because they are aware of the risks, and are responsible enough to be careful with how they use them. Unfortunately, there will always be reckless, irresponsible people who choose to ignore the risks which is why people arrive in hospitals needing their stomachs pumped or needing treatment after crashing a car. The very same principle applies to driving cars. The vast majority of people exercise caution when they drive because they know the risks. Unfortunately a small minority of people drive recklessly and cause accidents. Does this mean cars should be banned? No, it just means people need to use cars responsibly. Electricity is another good analogy. If used properly, it can be used for great things. If used recklessly, it can kill.

A good analogy for drugs is construction tools. Its silly to lump them all into the same category because different tools have different properties, and different risks associated with them. A skilsaw is clearly more dangerous than a spanner one needs to consider them seperately. Like tools drugs range from dangerous (i.e. heroin) to very safe (kava). Different tools have different uses, and some tools are safer to use for a particular job than others. A jackhammer is used for breaking concrete, but using it for removing tools from a wall would be extremely dangerous and destructive. Similarly, a drug like psilocybe mushrooms can be of immense benefit if used for psychotherapeutic purposes, but like a jackhammer it can be quite dangerous, so using it for recreational purposes is very unwise.

So to summarise, whether a drug produces good or bad, depends entirely on how it is used.

Manach

Offhand, in the context of drugs currently illegal, then I believe the ban should remain as is.
First, no one is an island. Recreational drug use would have an impact beyond the individual in the context of lose of utility, support services with a greater number of persons being being addicted if there was no barrier to purchasing them. Instant happiness from chemicals would produce an idea in society that has loss its will to strive for the genuine article. Unchecked drug use is the natural end-point to a child's self-indulgence and not an adult's maturity. For instance in the case of current legal substances Khat - bbc link.

Second, the war on drugs is costly. So is the war on murder, burglary, etc. No one yet is saying we surrender in those. The criminal lifestyle in smuggling drugs represents to certain indiviudals easy money. They will not turn out to be model citizens if drugs are legalised.

Thus going against the utilitarianism view of ', legalising such would be wrong for the individual and society.

michael999999

The two girls on life support up the country, after smoking some dodgy hash may disagree with you OP!

Nino Brown

I'm all for legalization and un-restriction of all drugs except antibiotics. The money that is spent controlling them could be put to much better use elsewhere.
And I don't really care if more people get addicted to them, let darwinism do it's thing.

Nino Brown

michael999999 wrote: »

The two girls on life support up the country, after smoking some dodgy hash may disagree with you OP!

Legalization would prevent "dodgy hash", all drugs could be manufactured in pure form in sterile environments. It's exactly because drugs are illegal that people get contaminated drugs.

sbsquarepants

I believe all drugs should be legal. My reasoning is this

1 - As a grown adult i believe i own my body and i should have the right to do with it what i will. I realise that heavy drug use could be costly to the state to care for people should they OD or get addicted and require treatment. but that argument could be made for smokers, drinkers, sports enthusiasts, sun worshippers, motorists, fast food lovers and so on and so on. ie it is really a non argument.

2 - The war on drugs is an abject failure, drugs are everywhere. As each year passes they become more and more available. It's an unwinable war and an economic nonsense. Instead of costing countless billions, the industry could and should generate countless billions for the state instead of for criminal gangs.

3 - Human nature does not pay heed to man made laws. People were still gay when it was illegal, even when extremely harsh punishments were involved. A certain percentage of the population (quite large i would imagine, but i have no numbers) WANT to take drugs and WILL take them regardless. It is foolish to imagine this will ever change.

4 - In the case of drugs such as cannabis and magic mushrooms say, it is arrogance beyond imagination for a lawmaker to declare nature itself to be illegal - that is just too stupid for words, have we learned nothing from king kanut! Using this logic why don't we simply ban floods because they damage property. Lets outlaw tsunamis from now on, they've lost the run of themselves lately. It's plain crazy.

FishFacePhil

michael999999 wrote: »

The two girls on life support up the country, after smoking some dodgy hash may disagree with you OP!

I'm sure they'd agree with me when they think it through. They got dodgy hash because they bought it illegally. In Holland there are strict guidelines and quality control regulations in place, so "dodgy hash" would never be produced, let alone make it to the shelves and be sold to people.

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, in the context of drugs currently illegal, then I believe the ban should remain as is.
First, no one is an island. Recreational drug use would have an impact beyond the individual in the context of lose of utility, support services with a greater number of persons being being addicted if there was no barrier to purchasing them. Instant happiness from chemicals would produce an idea in society that has loss its will to strive for the genuine article. Unchecked drug use is the natural end-point to a child's self-indulgence and not an adult's maturity. For instance in the case of current legal substances Khat - bbc link.

Reasonable argument, but it is based purely on speculation. The evidence contradicts your argument. As I said, only 25% of Dutch citizens have tried cannabis which is much lower than the US and many other countries where it is illegal. Decriminalisation in Portugal did not result in a rise in the number of people who use drugs. Conversely, it resulted in a greater number of drug addicts seeking help (since they no longer had to fear prosecution) and ultimately getting off drugs and getting free of their addictions.

Manach wrote: »

Second, the war on drugs is costly. So is the war on murder, burglary, etc. No one yet is saying we surrender in those. The criminal lifestyle in smuggling drugs represents to certain indiviudals easy money. They will not turn out to be model citizens if drugs are legalised.

Thus going against the utilitarianism view of ', legalising such would be wrong for the individual and society.

Very different things. Nobody chooses to be burglarised or murdered. The law prosecutes the burglars and murderers, not the victims of the crime. These things can't be compared to drug use. Nobody chooses to be addicted to or overdose on a drug, but its only a small minority of drug users that get addicted or overdose, and you can't solely focus on the risks and negative effects while ignoring the beneficial properties (which is the very reason people use them). Nobody chooses to crash a car, but the fact that accidents happen doesn't justify banning cars. A better comparison relating burglary to drug use would be owning a house. If you own a house, there is a risk that it will be burglarised. People choose to own a house because of the benefits it provides, not because of the downsides (i.e. burglary, electricity bills etc.). Banning drugs to save people from the risks is like banning houses to save people from being burglarised and paying electricity bills.

FishFacePhil

The other day (actually what inspired me to start this thread) I was walking out of my local supermarket and there were two guys outside collecting money for something. One of them asks me "do you want to help in the fight against drugs?". I replied "against drugs? I'm all for drugs". The expression on his face changed from friendly to "I'm gonna punch you any minute now" and he replies "why are you all for drugs", so I respond "I think they should all be legalised", and he replies "heroin, which kills people, should be legal?". Then I replied, its not the heroin that kills people, its their own stupidity. That came out wrong, my verbal communication skills are terrible in comparison to my written communication skills, at this point he looked like he wanted to kill me. I could feel like things could easily turn violent at any second.

For this prohibition nonsense to come to an end, people like these two lads need to see it for what it is, but how can you change the opinions of people who seem like they want to kill you for holding an opposing opinion? I'm guessing they have the idea built up in their heads that drugs are evil, and they are fighting on the side of good, then they see me come along and they think I'm one of the devils minions. Metaphorically I mean. Whats ironic, we both probably want the exact same thing. To see an end to the suffering caused by drugs. For that to happen, I believe drugs need to be legalised. Of course, there will still be suffering, but it will be radically reduced they are no longer illegal.

chiefohara05

FishFacePhil wrote: »

The other day (actually what inspired me to start this thread) I was walking out of my local supermarket and there were two guys outside collecting money for something. One of them asks me "do you want to help in the fight against drugs?". I replied "against drugs? I'm all for drugs". The expression on his face changed from friendly to "I'm gonna punch you any minute now" and he replies "why are you all for drugs", so I respond "I think they should all be legalised", and he replies "heroin, which kills people, should be legal?". Then I replied, its not the heroin that kills people, its their own stupidity. That came out wrong, my verbal communication skills are terrible in comparison to my written communication skills, at this point he looked like he wanted to kill me. I could feel like things could easily turn violent at any second.

For this prohibition nonsense to come to an end, people like these two lads need to see it for what it is, but how can you change the opinions of people who seem like they want to kill you for holding an opposing opinion? I'm guessing they have the idea built up in their heads that drugs are evil, and they are fighting on the side of good, then they see me come along and they think I'm one of the devils minions. Metaphorically I mean. Whats ironic, we both probably want the exact same thing. To see an end to the suffering caused by drugs. For that to happen, I believe drugs need to be legalised. Of course, there will still be suffering, but it will be radically reduced they are no longer illegal.

Chances are he might have lost someone close to him to Heroin. Having seen what that poison does to a person and their loved ones i can emphasize with him a little to be honest. I doubt he wanted to kill you because you had a different opinion, rather he was upset because you were inadvertently insulting someone close to him.

As for my opinion i agree that they should be legal, but i think they should be legal and state run only.

No private enterprise. Anyone who wants to do drugs, can buy them off their GP, state approved pharmacy and register for it. Keep it cheap so you take the gang scum out of business and ensure quality control over it so no one dies from a crap batch that contains something like 25% powdered glass.

Register with the GP as a drug user, but keep that register secret from employers with the exception of guards, defence forces, ambulance, schools etc.

Manach

If such drugs were legalised, then the State would impose still some restrictions based on say age and a filter by means of price as per the Scandanavian model. So if the price were high, then the criminal element would still have a rational motive to supply the items, akin to petrol smuggling today. As well, criminals being no respecters of the law would just also then start targeting the age restricted market. Given the social problems of crime with today's drug users seeking to pay for their habit, then extrapolate that to a much higher higher proportion of the population - a crime tsunami.

If the cost of the drugs are low, then the criminal rational diminishes, but this then creates a lower barrier to use. From the work of Dr. Theodore Dalyrimple,
a prison doctor who practiced in some of the worst neighborhoods in the UK, there was a high proportion of his treated patients exhibiting extreme forms
of anti-social behaviour that trapped them within their dependant social class (as well, he visited similar urban areas of the liberal Netherlands: the same problems there)

Historically societies in which had no social controls on such use of stimulants then the effects were in the main unalloyed misery. From Hogarth's London to late-stage Imperial China's opium dens. However there were always parties which profited from this environment.
The OP sees an issue, is dissatisfied and wishes to introduce a reform and argues a good case. However, using the example of Big Pharma's legal drugs that alter behaviour as a model. These have gained traction in recent times in the US, to treat everything from mild depression to boisterous kids in pre-school.
There is nothing it seems that cannot be medicated away, "take a chill pill". Causes of anxiety and disatisfaction in Ireland, most readers agree,
are societal issues caused by the current governing political framework. Marx once railed against the Opiate of the masses. If drugs are legalised, there will be
the actual opiates - that instead of working to reform the system based on an discontent with the system, the critical mass of reform will never be realised by the damping effect of the stupefied voters.

Suryavarman

chiefohara05 wrote: »

As for my opinion i agree that they should be legal, but i think they should be legal and state run only.

No private enterprise. Anyone who wants to do drugs, can buy them off their GP, state approved pharmacy and register for it. Keep it cheap so you take the gang scum out of business and ensure quality control over it so no one dies from a crap batch that contains something like 25% powdered glass.

Register with the GP as a drug user, but keep that register secret from employers with the exception of guards, defence forces, ambulance, schools etc.

Do you propose that we do the same with tobacco and alcohol as well?

Prodigious

What about parents who want to take drugs? Should the state be selling cocaine and heroin to adults who have children depending on them?

Suryavarman

Prodigious wrote: »

What about parents who want to take drugs? Should the state be selling cocaine and heroin to adults who have children depending on them?

Should the state allow businesses to sell alcohol and tobacco to parents?

Prodigious

Suryavarman wrote: »

Should the state allow businesses to sell alcohol and tobacco to parents?

Invalid argument. Tobacco does not dramatically alter your state of mind, nor does a moderate amount of alcohol.

zenno

Those two women did not end up in intensive care because of hash, it was because they were sniffing aerosols, old news now but this is the reason, they didn't end up there because of dodgy hash or cannabis for that matter.

Gilbert Grape

People don't really believe there was contaminated hash do they,dumbed down and brainwashed eejits.

zenno

Gilbert Grape wrote: »

People don't really believe there was contaminated hash do they,dumbed down and brainwashed eejits.

The news media needs to be dealt with for giving false information to the public. How can any one believe a thing they say. Lies and more lies they spurt out, day in day out, sure just look at all the previous comments on this thread, makes me laugh how gullible people are when it comes to the news media. They'd believe anything.

Suryavarman

Prodigious wrote: »

Invalid argument. Tobacco does not dramatically alter your state of mind, nor does a moderate amount of alcohol.

Many currently illegal drugs don't "dramatically alter your state of mind" with moderate consumption.

Why does that even matter? What is wrong with something that alters one's state of mind?

Tom_Cruise

I think they should be legal. They may as well be legal as it is - they are so readily available these days anyway.

chiefohara05

Suryavarman wrote: »

Do you propose that we do the same with tobacco and alcohol as well?

No need, Tobacco and alcohol already have quality control.

Plus my local pub owner isn't shooting me in the kneecaps for not paying my tab.

Suryavarman

chiefohara05 wrote: »

No need, Tobacco and alcohol already have quality control.

Plus my local pub owner isn't shooting me in the kneecaps for not paying my tab.

That's because alcohol and tobacco are already legal. Legalise currently prohibited drugs and those problems go away.

chiefohara05

Suryavarman wrote: »

That's because alcohol and tobacco are already legal. Legalise currently prohibited drugs and those problems go away.

which was my opinion in the first place....

Suryavarman

chiefohara05 wrote: »

which was my opinion in the first place....

No it wasn't. Your opiniuon in the first place was that currently prohibited drugs should only be legalised if they were sold by the state and users of said drugs had to register with a GP.

Now once again, do you propose that we do the same with tobacco and alcohol? If not, why not?

chiefohara05

Suryavarman wrote: »

No it wasn't. Your opiniuon in the first place was that currently prohibited drugs should only be legalised if they were sold by the state and users of said drugs had to register with a GP.

Now once again, do you propose that we do the same with tobacco and alcohol? If not, why not?

What i said was "No private enterprise"

Im guessing our miscommunication comes from what i mean by "legal and state run"

Publicans need a licence. So do businesses that sell cigarettes. Both of those drug dealers need a state approved license, and are state approved retailers, and their products are held to industry quality and safety standards.

Illegal 'Drugs' should be subject to the same restrictions and licences at the very least as alcohol and tobacco. Hence state approved retailers and wholesalers. From my point of view the only people who could legally peddle narcotics would be GP's and Pharmacists.

Personally if anything i think they should be under more restrictions not only to the fact that they are more addictive than cigarettes and alcohol, but also more immediately mind altering. You can nitpick with me on this with soft drug/hard drug variations all you want, i am open minded regarding cannabis being ultimately harmless, but there is no way you can equate one person being able to drive after one pint, to the same way that one person can drive after one snort of coke or one needlefull of heroin.

As for registration with a GP. Again its the soft drug/hard drug stuff differentiation. Cocaine, Heroin destroys people and their families, you won't convince me otherwise. Hash, mushrooms etc. i'd personally categorise that as the same as alcohol and cigarettes.

Mark Hamill

chiefohara05 wrote: »

they are more addictive

Is there a scale for addictiveness? A scientific one?

Suryavarman

chiefohara05 wrote: »

What i said was "No private enterprise"

Im guessing our miscommunication comes from what i mean by "legal and state run"

Publicans need a licence. So do businesses that sell cigarettes. Both of those drug dealers need a state approved license, and are state approved retailers, and their products are held to industry quality and safety standards.

They are still private enterprises though...

Illegal 'Drugs' should be subject to the same restrictions and licences at the very least as alcohol and tobacco. Hence state approved retailers and wholesalers. From my point of view the only people who could legally peddle narcotics would be GP's and Pharmacists.

Why on earth should only doctors and pharmacists be allowed to sell recreational drugs? So if I want to see my doctor about some illness I may have or buy some Benylin for my cough at a chemist I have to queue behind somebody that wants to smoke a few joints or snort some coke? That doesn't make sense. Doctors' offices and pharmacies should be for sick people, not for somebody just looking for a good time.

Personally if anything i think they should be under more restrictions not only to the fact that they are more addictive than cigarettes and alcohol, but also more immediately mind altering. You can nitpick with me on this with soft drug/hard drug variations all you want, i am open minded regarding cannabis being ultimately harmless, but there is no way you can equate one person being able to drive after one pint, to the same way that one person can drive after one snort of coke or one needlefull of heroin.

I think you are severly underestimating how addictive, strong and dangerous alcohol and cigarettes are relative to currently outlawed drugs.

How long is the line of coke and how strong is the coke?

Who goes driving after taking heroin? Who even wants to go driving after taking heroin?

As for registration with a GP. Again its the soft drug/hard drug stuff differentiation. Cocaine, Heroin destroys people and their families, you won't convince me otherwise. Hash, mushrooms etc. i'd personally categorise that as the same as alcohol and cigarettes.

Alcohol destroys far more families and individuals than heroin or cocaine. Why not have only GPs sell alcohol? You'd be wrong to class alcohol and cigarettes with hash and mushrooms. Mainly because cigarettes and alcohol are more addictive and dangerous than both substances and much closer to heroin/cocaine/crystal meth.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is there a scale for addictiveness? A scientific one?

Not exactly scientific but expert opinion:

http://www.duffysrehab.com/blog/10-most-addictive-drugs

http://www.ukcia.org/research/misc/rel_addict.php

sbsquarepants

Prodigious wrote: »

Invalid argument. Tobacco does not dramatically alter your state of mind, nor does a moderate amount of alcohol.

There's your problem there - moderation. Some people can hack it and some people can't. I can have 2 or 3 cans watching the football, or a movie and then go about my day as if i hadn't ever drank at all. I have a mate who every time he sips a drink will inevitably end up on a week long bender.
The problem is something internal to him, not alcohol. (If you're obese, there's no point saying it's Mr. Kiplings fault is there) Same with any other drug - It's not the drugs fault, it's the person taking it. There is no first time addiction, that's media bullshít. Addictions take time and warning signs need to be repeatedly ignored for them to develop.
People need to take responsibilty for themselves instead of just blaming external factors - it's the drink, it's the drugs, it's boredom due to lack of facilities, it's this, that or the other. No it's you. You are responsible for the things you do - End of story.

Snake Pliisken

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There's your problem there - moderation. Some people can hack it and some people can't. I can have 2 or 3 cans watching the football, or a movie and then go about my day as if i hadn't ever drank at all. I have a mate who every time he sips a drink will inevitably end up on a week long bender.
The problem is something internal to him, not alcohol. (If you're obese, there's no point saying it's Mr. Kiplings fault is there) Same with any other drug - It's not the drugs fault, it's the person taking it. There is no first time addiction, that's media bullshít. Addictions take time and warning signs need to be repeatedly ignored for them to develop.
People need to take responsibilty for themselves instead of just blaming external factors - it's the drink, it's the drugs, it's boredom due to lack of facilities, it's this, that or the other. No it's you. You are responsible for the things you do - End of story.

As was said earlier in the thread, no man is an island; what you're saying here is only true in a vacuum and being so blunt won't win over anyone with a different opinion. To say that responsibility ends at the user is only true when that person has been given the right information and skills to know how to use drugs safely, something which has not happened in this society. The responsibility for the wasted lives of drug addicts can be spread to those in positions of power in our society: the prohibitive and propagandist government, the puritanical church and the parents all share the blame with the addict.

Until education catches up with the problem, people will continue to be lost to their own ignorance.

FishFacePhil

Manach wrote: »

Historically societies in which had no social controls on such use of stimulants then the effects were in the main unalloyed misery. From Hogarth's London to late-stage Imperial China's opium dens. However there were always parties which profited from this environment.
The OP sees an issue, is dissatisfied and wishes to introduce a reform and argues a good case. However, using the example of Big Pharma's legal drugs that alter behaviour as a model. These have gained traction in recent times in the US, to treat everything from mild depression to boisterous kids in pre-school.

Again this boils down to lack of awareness. Historically, there were far greater numbers of smokers than there are today due to lack of awareness of the negative aspects of smoking. Lack of awareness is the most significant factor behind big pharmas success in getting people dependent on psychiatric drugs. If people knew the consequences of long term use of drugs like SSRIs and benzodiazepines, they would be far more reluctant to use them long term, especially for minor conditions that don't have a major negative impact on the persons life (i.e. trading minor anxiety for a physical dependence on benzodiazepines seems insane to anyone that has an idea of what benzodiazepine withdrawals entail). With sufficient awareness of the negative effects of psychiatric drugs, the only people who will willingly use them on a regular basis are the people who truly need them (i.e. most people with severe schizophrenics will choose to take antipsychotics despite the wide range of negative side effects because in this case, the benefits outweigh the negatives) and people who make an informed decision that they are willing to face the consequences (i.e. people who decide that the benefits of living their lives without severe insomnia or anxiety outweigh the negative effects of being medicated for the rest of their lives). On top of all that, when people are aware of safer and healthier alternatives, they will utilise them. For example, people with anxiety wouldn't be so quick to get prescribed benzodiazepines if they knew about relativelty safe, healthy and non addictive anxiolytics like afobazole.

Prodigious wrote: »

Invalid argument. Tobacco does not dramatically alter your state of mind, nor does a moderate amount of alcohol.

Nor do "moderate" amounts of cocaine. Suryavarmans argument was fully valid.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Many currently illegal drugs don't "dramatically alter your state of mind" with moderate consumption.

Why does that even matter? What is wrong with something that alters one's state of mind?

In fact, most don't. Moderate is a subjective term but the prodigious used alcohol as an example, so in this case lets say it means using the drug in low doses. In this case, the vast majority of drugs can be used in low doses without significantly altering the mind.

pwurple

FishFacePhil wrote: »

In this case, the vast majority of drugs can be used in low doses without significantly altering the mind.

Source?

The issue with legalized drugs isn't so much their effect on the users themselves, who I am sure are perfectly happy. The wider issue is society as a whole, and the impact that users have on others.

My own anecdotal experiences are below. Almost all can also be attributed to misuse of alcohol, however I don't know any funtioning light heroin users...

I have seen heroin addicts seriously neglect and abuse their own children.

I have a friend who makes her living in amsterdam treating people with cannabis related psychotic disorders. Peope who have become paranoid criminals, even though the use is perfectly legal there.

Lastly, a couple of friends in college who discovered the joys of pot in third year. People who went from being 3rd or. 4th in the class, to dropping out completely. They got fat, mainly play video games still, and live on the dole. They are perfectly jolly and content, but society (and their parents) lost some talented engineers and gained two more dole recipients.

The above are simply anecdotes, but my point is that while the effect on the individual may not damage their own life, the wider impact must be considered.

FishFacePhil

Sources? Its pretty clear to anyone with an understanding of pharmacology that the intensity of a drugs effects depend on the dosage. What kind of sources are you looking for? I'm pretty sure you can find thousands of them if you look up "dosage response curve".

pwurple wrote: »

Almost all can also be attributed to misuse of alcohol, however I don't know any funtioning light heroin users...

You don't know any, but they're out there. Due to the stigma attached, they're not gonna advertise that they use heroin.

pwurple wrote: »

I have seen heroin addicts seriously neglect and abuse their own children.

I have a friend who makes her living in amsterdam treating people with cannabis related psychotic disorders. Peope who have become paranoid criminals, even though the use is perfectly legal there.

And there are plenty of non users who neglect and abuse their children. If they were good parents to begin with, they would have never become addicted to heroin (due to the fact it is illegal and thus, likely to result in them going bankrupt or going to jail etc.) when they had children to raise. These people would be bad parents, regardless of whether they are on heroin or not. As for cannabis induced psychosis, people who suffer from this are a tiny minority of cannabis users. I happen to be one of the few people that actually is prone to cannabis induced psychosis. Because it affects me like this, does that mean nobody should be allowed to use it? Some people become violent and angry when they drink, does that mean nobody should be allowed to drink? Hardly seems sensible considering most people do not become angry and violent on alcohol. I personally wouldn't hurt a fly when I'm drunk, alcohol instead makes me happy and childish. Similarly, most people do not experience paranoid psychosis on cannabis. As a teenager, out of the group of about 15 or so friends that smoked hash, there were only 2 (including myself) of us that had this problem and I believe the number of people who are prone to this form of psychosis to people who don't is actually much lower than that, its closer to 1 in 100.

pwurple wrote: »

Lastly, a couple of friends in college who discovered the joys of pot in third year. People who went from being 3rd or. 4th in the class, to dropping out completely. They got fat, mainly play video games still, and live on the dole. They are perfectly jolly and content, but society (and their parents) lost some talented engineers and gained two more dole recipients.

My friend in college discovered the "joys of pot" in 2nd year, and he is now in his 4th year and still one of the top students. I guarantee you, not everyone who smokes cannabis is lazy and unmotivated. While cannabis has a reputation for inducing laziness and lack of motivation, amphetamines have a reputation for making people motivated, focused and ambitious. Different drugs have different properties and drugs affect everyone differently. But again, drugs affect everyone differently. Just because amphetamines enhance motivation and ambition in some people, doesn't mean it does for everyone. If cannabis has that negative effect on you, the sensible thing is to stop smoking it. As simple as that. I smoked cannabis as a teenager, but because it affects me in negative ways (psychosis and lack of ambition) I quit at around 19 and have never smoked it since.

pwurple

FishFacePhil wrote: »

Sources? Its pretty clear to anyone with an understanding of pharmacology that the intensity of a drugs effects depend on the dosage. What kind of sources are you looking for? I'm pretty sure you can find thousands of them if you look up "dosage response curve".

And you can safely assume that drug addicts measure the micrograms of that particular dosage correctly all the time?

If they were good parents to begin with, they would have never become addicted to heroin (due to the fact it is illegal and thus, likely to result in them going bankrupt or going to jail etc.) when they had children to raise. These people would be bad parents, regardless of whether they are on heroin or not.

The heroin addiction came before the unplanned pregnancies. Perhaps they would have been fabulous parents without it, perhaps not. Who knows. Too late either way. One of them is in and out of jail, and the children are in and out of care. I couldn't give a monkeys about the parents indivually, but there is a cost to society here. To me, as a taxpayer, to care for this mistreated children. To house these people and attempt to rehabilitate them. And as I've seen the kids already stealing, to deal with the future criminality also.

Some people become violent and angry when they drink, does that mean nobody should be allowed to drink?

There are controls on alcohol for exactly those reasons. Age limits, publicans not allowed to serve the intoxicated. Times and days when it not allowed to be sold. Rules and regulations in place.

If cannabis has that negative effect on you, the sensible thing is to stop smoking it. As simple as that. I smoked cannabis as a teenager, but because it affects me in negative ways (psychosis and lack of ambition) I quit at around 19 and have never smoked it since.

Indeed, very admirable. If only everyone was so perfectly sensible. On planet reality, there are an awful lot of idiots roaming the planet, who can cause a lot of problems for everyone else.


There is a balance to be struck between freedom and keeping the integrity of a society.

Mark Hamill

pwurple wrote: »

And you can safely assume that drug addicts measure the micrograms of that particular dosage correctly all the time?

All the more reason to have it dosed out by clinics, no?

pwurple wrote: »

The heroin addiction came before the unplanned pregnancies. Perhaps they would have been fabulous parents without it, perhaps not. Who knows. Too late either way. One of them is in and out of jail, and the children are in and out of care. I couldn't give a monkeys about the parents indivually, but there is a cost to society here. To me, as a taxpayer, to care for this mistreated children. To house these people and attempt to rehabilitate them. And as I've seen the kids already stealing, to deal with the future criminality also.

And this situation has never arisen with alcohol abuse?

pwurple wrote: »

There are controls on alcohol for exactly those reasons. Age limits, publicans not allowed to serve the intoxicated. Times and days when it not allowed to be sold. Rules and regulations in place.

That could easily be applied (with appropriate dosage alterations) to drugs.

pwurple wrote: »

Indeed, very admirable. If only everyone was so perfectly sensible. On planet reality, there are an awful lot of idiots roaming the planet, who can cause a lot of problems for everyone else.

There is a balance to be struck between freedom and keeping the integrity of a society.

Yes, but where do you think that balance sits now? How much of the negative effects of drugs are a result of them being illegal? Things like criminal gangs making lots of money, anti-social behaviour from users, huge financial costs to society in terms of extra policing and medical treatment. How many of them would shrink or even disappear if drugs were legalised and regulated?

Zombrex

Suryavarman wrote: »

Should the state allow businesses to sell alcohol and tobacco to parents?

The thing is that "all drugs" aren't the same as alcohol and tobacco.

If your pint of Guinness could kill you with one drink you wouldn't be allowed buy it in your local pub.

We take food and drug safety for granted in this country. You know your Mars bar isn't going to kill you, or give you flesh eating bacteria. You know that if your restaurant isn't adhering to food safety standards it will eventually get closed down. Contrast eating out or buying food with say Afganistan or Cuba or China. We complain about our burgers having horse, imagine if they had radio active chemicals. You know your doctor isn't going to give you something that will likely make you blind just because you have a sore toe.

The concept of legalising all drugs then runs into this issue because frankly we don't let companies or shops sell you something that is likely harmful without a valid reason for having it and doctor supervision.

I would be interested to hear how those who wish all drugs legal imagine these drugs slotting into our already established food and drug safety regulations.

Mark Hamill

Zombrex wrote: »

If your pint of Guinness could kill you with one drink you wouldn't be allowed buy it in your local pub

Guinness isn't the drug, alcohol is the drug. Guinness is a heavily diluted form of the drug and its the dilution that makes it safe to drink in relatively small amounts and thats why you can buy it. A pint of pure alcohol would kill you.

Zombrex wrote: »

The concept of legalising all drugs then runs into this issue because frankly we don't let companies or shops sell you something that is likely harmful without a valid reason for having it and doctor supervision.

Cigarettes? Alcoholic drinks?

Zombrex wrote: »

I would be interested to hear how those who wish all drugs legal imagine these drugs slotting into our already established food and drug safety regulations.

The same way as legal drugs currently do? Which aspects of current food and drug safety laws cannot be applied to recreational drugs?

clairefontaine

I think a lot of them should be, if only to take the power out of the hands of the cartels.

clairefontaine

Zombrex wrote: »

The thing is that "all drugs" aren't the same as alcohol and tobacco.

If your pint of Guinness could kill you with one drink you wouldn't be allowed buy it in your local pub.

We take food and drug safety for granted in this country. You know your Mars bar isn't going to kill you, or give you flesh eating bacteria. You know that if your restaurant isn't adhering to food safety standards it will eventually get closed down. Contrast eating out or buying food with say Afganistan or Cuba or China. We complain about our burgers having horse, imagine if they had radio active chemicals. You know your doctor isn't going to give you something that will likely make you blind just because you have a sore toe.

The concept of legalising all drugs then runs into this issue because frankly we don't let companies or shops sell you something that is likely harmful without a valid reason for having it and doctor supervision.

I would be interested to hear how those who wish all drugs legal imagine these drugs slotting into our already established food and drug safety regulations.

Not true. Cigarettes have one purpose, and that is to kill you.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Guinness isn't the drug, alcohol is the drug. Guinness is a heavily diluted form of the drug and its the dilution that makes it safe to drink in relatively small amounts and thats why you can buy it. A pint of pure alcohol would kill you.

Yes, that is my point. We have a highly regulated system for food and drug safety. This legalize everything notion would not fit well into our current system. I can't buy a pint of pure alcohol, and we expect that a pub would not be allowed sell that to me either.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which aspects of current food and drug safety laws cannot be applied to recreational drugs?

They already are applied to recreational drugs, which is why they are banned. One can argue that some drugs do not need to be banned, but the legalize everything notion implies more of a scrapping of the whole system, than changing the classifications of certain drugs.

Say for example I want to buy heroine. Ok well heroine is a very strong and potentially dangerous opioid. If I was to buy a legally obtained opioid (which I have done before as a pain killer) I would require a doctors prescription and the doctor would have to assess that the medical need for such a drug. At the time I had a requirement for a strong pain killer, but my doctor monitored me very carefully and controlled how I took the pain killer and in what dose of the period I was taking it.

What doctor is going to sign off on allowing someone to take heroin recreationally?

Or do you simply remove the restriction on doctors having to regulate such drugs. You make all drugs legal over the counter?

The first thing that would happen is a whole lot of people would get into trouble with these drugs and then complain that the pharmacy should not have been allowed sell them something so dangerous without a doctors prescription and doctors would have to monitor them because the consumer cannot be expected to understand and follow all the various potential problems one can have with this.

It is the same reason you can't just use any ingredient in your bakery and no health and safety standards and then just say Well its up to the consumer to find out if that cake they just bought contains Eboli.

People like and more importantly expect the state to regulate what they consume, be it drugs or food or drink.

I don't see how the legalize everything attitude can work with the current systems, nor do understand what proponents of the legalize everything attitude propose as an alternative.

sbsquarepants

Zombrex wrote: »

The thing is that "all drugs" aren't the same as alcohol and tobacco..

They aren't all that different either

Zombrex wrote: »

If your pint of Guinness could kill you with one drink you wouldn't be allowed buy it in your local pub.

You don't know if peanuts are going to kill you or not untill you try them - they sell them in my local pub. And having been unfortunate enough to once try a mouthfull of the muck, i reckon a pint of smithwicks could kill you!:D

Zombrex wrote: »

The concept of legalising all drugs then runs into this issue because frankly we don't let companies or shops sell you something that is likely harmful without a valid reason for having it and doctor supervision. .

Cigarrettes?
Whatever about alcohol, which can be argued to have both good and bad points. What good points have smokes got? They don't have a single positive going for them. They're highly addictive, carcinogenic and serve no usefull purpose save to satisfy the cravings of those already addicted. They even kill addicts families, friends, co workers etc. ffs!
Now would you like 20 sir? 100? 1000? No problem whatsoever!

Zombrex wrote: »

I would be interested to hear how those who wish all drugs legal imagine these drugs slotting into our already established food and drug safety regulations.

Same as above. The usual shíte, licensed vendors, adults only, heavily taxed, health warnings all that malarky. Happy days!

Mark Hamill

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, that is my point. We have a highly regulated system for food and drug safety. This legalize everything notion would not fit well into our current system. I can't buy a pint of pure alcohol, and we expect that a pub would not be allowed sell that to me either.

So don't allow approved groups to sell or supply pure drugs then? When I advocate legalisation of drugs, I would still expect standard health and safety considerations to limit the forms and concentrations sold, and the environments they can be sold in.

Zombrex wrote: »

They already are applied to recreational drugs, which is why they are banned. One can argue that some drugs do not need to be banned, but the legalize everything notion implies more of a scrapping of the whole system, than changing the classifications of certain drugs.

I think this is where we are coming at it differently. I don't believe that health and safety ideals have been applied properly to recreational drugs, legal or otherwise. I think that a lot of the drive to legalise or criminalise specific drugs has come from those purely with financial or political interest, rather than actual scientific evidence. So, I would see it more as changing the system so it becomes more consistent, because it is far from consistent. If a proper lifecycle analysis was performed on all recreational drugs, one that actually looked at their global social and health effects (both short and long term), I doubt that cigarettes and alcohol would come out on top. Hell, I doubt fast food would come out on top.

I do agree that legalising everything probably wouldn't be a good idea though. Some drugs genuinely wouldn't pass the health and safety laws, if genuinely tested.

Zombrex wrote: »

What doctor is going to sign off on allowing someone to take heroin recreationally?

Or do you simply remove the restriction on doctors having to regulate such drugs. You make all drugs legal over the counter?

There are places that have undertaken so called "heroine trials", such as Switzerland who have a permanent one.

Just because I support the legalisation of drugs doesn't mean I think they should be especially easy to get. I don't take any recreational drugs and I don't encourage anyone to either, I just believe that for some or many (not necessarily all) currently illegal drugs, the social costs of legalisation are less than the costs of criminalisation.

Even if all drugs were legalised, that wouldn't necessarily mean that anyone at any time could get any drug in any form.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So don't allow approved groups to sell or supply pure drugs then?

Don't allow approved groups to sell or supply all drugs, no. You cannot do that and maintain health and safety standards, because what is the valid health and safety reason to sell someone heroin?

If you are saying hospitals should be able to treat people already addicted to heroin with heroin under doctor supervision, I've no issue with that. But I that doesn't seem to ever be what is proposed when people talk about legalising all drugs, because it doesn't give recreational drug users access to recreational drugs for recreational purposes (any more than our current system allows you to buy strong painkillers for a Friday night).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When I advocate legalisation of drugs, I would still expect standard health and safety considerations to limit the forms and concentrations sold, and the environments they can be sold in.

But that is the point. You cannot recreationally use drugs like tramadol at the moment, so why would you be allowed to buy for recreationally use drugs like heroin?

These drugs are banned because there is nothing but recreational use for them. If you were to legalize all drugs for recreational use you are basically throwing out the system we have at the moment.

You seem to be basically saying we should make these drugs like other legal drugs. But if we did that they would still be banned because no doctor is going to give you a prescription for heroin.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think this is where we are coming at it differently. I don't believe that health and safety ideals have been applied properly to recreational drugs, legal or otherwise. I think that a lot of the drive to legalise or criminalise specific drugs has come from those purely with financial or political interest, rather than actual scientific evidence.

Well that might be true for things like pot, but again the OP is talking about legalising all drugs not just the mild ones.

I've no issue with legalising some drugs such as cannabis and allowing recreational use because they are no worse than cigs or a pint. Nor do I have any issue with doctors treading a supervised patient with what every drug the doctor feels is necessary (within guidelines of course)

My response was to this notion that we should legalise everything. In order to allow you to buy something like heroin for recreational use we would have to throw out the systems that attempt (admittedly in a flawed fashion) to protect people from the drugs we currently manage.

I don't think people are really considering the ramifications of such a move.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are places that have undertaken so called "heroine trials", such as Switzerland who have a permanent one.

Just because I support the legalisation of drugs doesn't mean I think they should be especially easy to get. I don't take any recreational drugs and I don't encourage anyone to either, I just believe that for some or many (not necessarily all) currently illegal drugs, the social costs of legalisation are less than the costs of criminalisation.

Even if all drugs were legalised, that wouldn't necessarily mean that anyone at any time could get any drug in any form.

Well to be honest I think that is what people want when they call for the legalisation of all drugs. They want people to be able to freely buy and consume all drugs with out the "nanny" state watching over them. We already have a whole host of drugs that are regulated that most people don't have access to. And for very good reason.

Mark Hamill

Zombrex wrote: »

what is the valid health and safety reason to sell someone heroin?

What is the valid health and safety reason to sell someone cigarettes?

Zombrex wrote: »

But I that doesn't seem to ever be what is proposed when people talk about legalising all drugs, because it doesn't give recreational drug users access to recreational drugs for recreational purposes (any more than our current system allows you to buy strong painkillers for a Friday night).

I think that is because a lot of the drive for full legalisation comes from people who want stuff like cannabis legalised, which would be appropriate to sell as a recreational drug, as opposed to something like heroine, which wouldn't be.

You cannot recreationally use drugs like tramadol at the moment, so why would you be allowed to buy for recreationally use drugs like heroin?

Because people already do, and banning heroin doesn't stop that, it makes the entire situation worse.

Zombrex wrote: »

You seem to be basically saying we should make these drugs like other legal drugs. But if we did that they would still be banned because no doctor is going to give you a prescription for heroin.

They already do. Women in the first stage of labour are given diamorphine to combat pain -diamorphine is heroin. You can diamorphine prescriptions for severe pain.
If heroin was legalised then I see no reason why doctors wouldn't prescribe someone heroin to combat their addiction, they already prescribe methadone for it and methadone is not exactly a nice drug either.

Zombrex wrote: »

My response was to this notion that we should legalise everything. In order to allow you to buy something like heroin for recreational use we would have to throw out the systems that attempt (admittedly in a flawed fashion) to protect people from the drugs we currently manage.

I don't think people are really considering the ramifications of such a move.

Well, like I said above, I think most of the push for this is people thinking mainly about the "softer" drugs like pot, not harder ones.

Zombrex wrote: »

Well to be honest I think that is what people want when they call for the legalisation of all drugs. They want people to be able to freely buy and consume all drugs with out the "nanny" state watching over them. We already have a whole host of drugs that are regulated that most people don't have access to. And for very good reason.

Yeah, but those regulated drugs can be as, or more, damaging than "hard" drugs like heroin (they just lack the addictive or mind altering aspect). Chemotherapy drugs are incredibly damaging to health, but you can get them (under prescription, with strictly regulated dosage) for treatment, if they are better than the alternative. I dont see why heroin couldn't be treated the same - addiction is an illness and controlled treatment with heroin has been shown to work in several countries.

Mark Hamill

This article, I just found, is relevant to this discussion:
Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse David Nutt, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore, The Lancet 2007; 369: 1047–53

It looks at the different harms arising from different drug uses (including legal ones - alcohol, khat, solvents, alkyl nitrites, and tobacco) and attempts to scale them and it comes out with some interesting graphs of the various drugs:



I dont have full access to the article, but from what I have read about it seems that one weakness with the article is that only illegal forms of the illegal drugs are considered (ie no prescribed diamorphine or clinic methadone is included) and that the harm associated with being caught with illegal drugs is included in the graph. This makes it harder to say exactly what effect legalisation would have on the harm of the illegal drugs.

It is still interesting to see how high alcohol and tobacco are.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is the valid health and safety reason to sell someone cigarettes?

That cigarettes are not beyond the level of danger that we regulate for.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think that is because a lot of the drive for full legalisation comes from people who want stuff like cannabis legalised, which would be appropriate to sell as a recreational drug, as opposed to something like heroine, which wouldn't be.

Possibly, but I think they should stick to arguing for the legalisation of cannibas on the grounds that it doesn't pass the threshold of danger that we regulate for either.

Arguing for a legalise everything concept seems incredibly naive to me.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because people already do, and banning heroin doesn't stop that, it makes the entire situation worse.

But that isn't how the current system works. You can buy a plate of sausages, leave them out all day, then under cook them and give your guests food poisoning. That isn't a reason to abolish food safety standards in restaurants.

There is an expectation that any transaction regulated by the state, including the buy and selling of food and drugs, will meet a particular set of health and safety standards.

You couldn't sell heroine to people for recreational use and still maintain those current standards. So you would have to drop the current standards.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They already do.

You know what I mean. No doctor is going to give you a prescription for heroin for the Friday night party you are planning. Doctors prescribe opioids in very specific circumstances and monitor the usage very carefully, not least of which because there is an expectation in the general public that the doctor is not going to allow you to come to serious harm. When I was in hospital and was on a morphine machine after surgery the machine stopped me taking too much morphine and the doctors took me off it after 2 days.

What doctor is going to sign off on you using it recreationally?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If heroin was legalised then I see no reason why doctors wouldn't prescribe someone heroin to combat their addiction, they already prescribe methadone for it and methadone is not exactly a nice drug either.

Yes but we aren't really talking about using heroine in a medical treatment situation, are we. We are talking about legalising heroine, and in fact all drugs, for recreational use. Or for what ever use the person wants.

Mark Hamill

Zombrex wrote: »

That cigarettes are not beyond the level of danger that we regulate for.

Going by the article posted in my previous post, they are not far off it.

Zombrex wrote: »

But that isn't how the current system works. You can buy a plate of sausages, leave them out all day, then under cook them and give your guests food poisoning. That isn't a reason to abolish food safety standards in restaurants.

The current system, using your analogy, would ban sausages.

Zombrex wrote: »

You couldn't sell heroine to people for recreational use and still maintain those current standards. So you would have to drop the current standards.

And yet they do, see the Swiss model I linked to earlier.

Zombrex wrote: »

What doctor is going to sign off on you using it recreationally?

The same doctors who work in those Swiss clinics I mentioned?

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes but we aren't really talking about using heroine in a medical treatment situation, are we. We are talking about legalising heroine, and in fact all drugs, for recreational use. Or for what ever use the person wants.

Uses which they are going to satisfy anyway even if they need to break several laws and fund criminal gangs to do it.

I don't think heroin is really a Friday night on the town recreational drug, its recreational in that the people who take it don't need it for a separate medical condition, they take it because of the addiction. Even if it was, legalising (for recreational use, but in a highly supervised clinic) is overall a better, safer option then not legalising it and would satisfy health and safety regulations.

Recreational use doesn't necessarily mean that it is available in a nightclub bar, I would agree that many drugs, if decriminalised, should not be distributed that way.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Going by the article posted in my previous post, they are not far off it.

Well if that is the case it is an argument to ban fags, not legalize heroin

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The current system, using your analogy, would ban sausages.

Well no, the current system bans the ecoli bug that can kill you in the sausages.

Again the issue with something like heroin is that there is no safe recreational limit. And we expect what we consume to be regulated by the government to be safe within particular levels.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And yet they do, see the Swiss model I linked to earlier.

The same doctors who work in those Swiss clinics I mentioned?

For someone who is not already a heroin addict? I haven't had a chance to read the article you linked to yet but my understanding from what you said is that heroin is only given to pepole who are already addicts as an alternative to them obtaining it legally. That is a different issue afaiak

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Uses which they are going to satisfy anyway even if they need to break several laws and fund criminal gangs to do it.

Only if they are already a heroin addict. There is a world of difference between giving heroin to people who are already heroin addicts in order to avoid them robbing people to get it illegally, and the government saying we are no longer regulating food and drug safety, buy what you want and use it as you want we don't care.

Mark Hamill

Zombrex wrote: »

Well no, the current system bans the ecoli bug that can kill you in the sausages.

Again the issue with something like heroin is that there is no safe recreational limit. And we expect what we consume to be regulated by the government to be safe within particular levels.

But how do we know there is no safe recreational limit? Going by the graphs in my earlier post (and remembering that part of the damage measured relates to the criminality of the drug) heroin isn't that much more damaging than tobacco or alcohol.

Zombrex wrote: »

For someone who is not already a heroin addict? I haven't had a chance to read the article you linked to yet but my understanding from what you said is that heroin is only given to pepole who are already addicts as an alternative to them obtaining it legally. That is a different issue afaiak

A different issue, but the same method can be used. Besides, how could you prove if someone is an addict or not? And if they are not, and they want it enough to go to one of the clinics, then chances are they will want it enough to get it from a dealer too, getting it from a clinic is safer for everyone involved.

Zombrex wrote: »

Only if they are already a heroin addict. There is a world of difference between giving heroin to people who are already heroin addicts in order to avoid them robbing people to get it illegally, and the government saying we are no longer regulating food and drug safety, buy what you want and use it as you want we don't care.

There is a world of difference because it isn't a dichotomy between those two choices. Let anyone who wants to take heroin take it, but only let them take in the same clinics as the long term addicts, under strict supervision. Its way more practical than simply banning the drug entirely and assuming that people wont just fund criminal gangs to get it. Its way safer than letter people who have never taken it (but will take it anyway) take it alone and ignorant of its effects and dangers. And it has the added bonus of letting possible new users see what long term users actually end up like, when they themselves go to use it (maybe making them think twice about it).

We have to accept that the type of people who are going to take heroin recreationally (lets face it, heroin is probably the last drug that most people think of when they argue for the legalisation of drugs) are the type who will take it regardless of its legality.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is a world of difference because it isn't a dichotomy between those two choices. Let anyone who wants to take heroin take it, but only let them take in the same clinics as the long term addicts, under strict supervision.

That is not putting heroin on the same level as cigs and alcohol, and as such not I think what this thread is about. It is not recreational use, to have to go to a clinic and take heroin under strict supervision. Imagine if you had to do that with alcohol.

There is also the reality that the costs involved in such supervison would be huge, and probably passed on to the consumer.

So are you going to go to a clinic and spend 80 euro for a hit of legal heroin, or are you just going to buy the same amount without the cost of supervision for 20 euro (no idea how much heroin costs, just examples).

So it doesn't eliminate the illegal trade, in the same way that tax on cigs has created an illegal cigerette trade.

Mark Hamill

Zombrex wrote: »

That is not putting heroin on the same level as cigs and alcohol, and as such not I think what this thread is about.

Tbh, I think most people who make the argument for legalisation only want cannabis, and maybe a few other "light" drugs, to be as available as cigs or alcohol.

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not recreational use, to have to go to a clinic and take heroin under strict supervision.

It's not exactly treatment though, either. I don't think heroin is a recreationally drug in the same way as cannabis or ecstasy is.

Zombrex wrote: »

There is also the reality that the costs involved in such supervison would be huge, and probably passed on to the consumer.

Given the huge costs in policing the current ban on drugs it may well be cheaper to give the likes of heroin for free, in a supervised clinic. The tax the government makes on other drugs like cannabis could pay for it.

Zombrex wrote: »

So are you going to go to a clinic and spend 80 euro for a hit of legal heroin, or are you just going to buy the same amount without the cost of supervision for 20 euro (no idea how much heroin costs, just examples).

Most people buy legal cigarettes, rather than cheaper illegal knock-offs even though they aren't too hard to get. Also, that €20 of heroine is a lot more expensive when you consider that you don't know whats going in it and that it would be still illegal. People are less likely to go the illegal route when there is a straightforward legal route they can choose, even if it's somewhat more expensive (assuming we can't use taxers from other drugs to fund stuff like heroin).

smjpl

Zombrex wrote: »

That cigarettes are not beyond the level of danger that we regulate for.



Possibly, but I think they should stick to arguing for the legalisation of cannibas on the grounds that it doesn't pass the threshold of danger that we regulate for either.

Arguing for a legalise everything concept seems incredibly naive to me.

Why? What difference would it make?

Note: What do you mean by all drugs? I am talking about most recreational drugs, everything from cannabis to heroine. They should be sold from a government run facility at a very low price (cost value etc) and should be sold in relatively low quantities. If there are too many restrictions then the criminal element will find a home in it again

So my point is, what major negative difference would it make because there a good few positive difference it would make? The drugs are readily available anyway but at least people would be receiving pure (pure as in clean) substances that they could take (which they will anyway) in the most responsible manner they can. Remove the high costs and fear of reprimand by the law and you at least provide a framework for lowering criminal actions due to taking drugs, you provide a more feasible method for people who don't wish to abuse anymore and you provide a safer environment for people who wish to continue taking drugs.

You were talking a lot about health and safety regulations. Safety has to be achieved through information not restriction. Restriction brings us back to where we are now. We are nowhere now. Drug money is huge & drug preventative methods are completely failing. What would you propose if not legalisation?

Zombrex

smjpl wrote: »

Why? What difference would it make?

You would have hundreds of thousands of people suing the government saying that they failed in their duty of care, for a start.

smjpl wrote: »

Note: What do you mean by all drugs? I am talking about most recreational drugs, everything from cannabis to heroine. They should be sold from a government run facility at a very low price (cost value etc) and should be sold in relatively low quantities. If there are too many restrictions then the criminal element will find a home in it again

Ok, and when the first person over doses and their family naturally say "Hang on a minute the government sold this kid a dangerous drug that resulted in his death, we are going to sue", then what do you do?

We do not live in a society where you can simply say "Heroin €5 per kilo - *disclaimer this might kill you", and start making money off selling heroin.

People expect, nah demand, a level of care and regulation when purchasing anything that is legal.

Heck look at the horse meat fiasco a few months ago. Imagine how far the government would get if tomorrow they said "Yeah we are just going to stop regulating meat for harmful drug levels, just you know buy the stuff and take your chances"

smjpl wrote: »

You were talking a lot about health and safety regulations. Safety has to be achieved through information not restriction.

That has never been the case ever in the history of health and safety regulations. It is also utterly unfair to expect a consumer to be educated to the vast array of substances that could be in what they consume and the different effects they could have on us.

If you ask the average person what is in a product they have just bought, aside from the top ingredients they will have no idea what most of them are. But they will know that they must be considered relatively safe for them to buy otherwise they wouldn't have been let buy them. Or if they are dangerous they would be not allowed by them without doctor supervision.

There is no way to fit something like recreational heroin into the frameworks we have now.

smjpl wrote: »

What would you propose if not legalisation?

I wouldn't propose anything until I had something I knew was going to work well. This would not work well.