Extra business for criminals

Nomis21

By making recreational drugs illegal, is society just giving extra business to criminals?

(I already posted this in After Hours but as I am looking for serious discussion, this might be a better place for it)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bpb101

Nomis21 wrote: »

By making recreational drugs illegal, is society just giving extra business to criminals?

(I already posted this in After Hours but as I am looking for serious discussion, this might be a better place for it)

yes, of course. But where do you draw the line. The heavier drugs that are legalized people will just try and go to the next step. if you leagalized every drug you will have massive debts as company wont set up because everybody is stoned and that produces an unprodutive work force. Then you have the health services on its knees(more so) because A and E is out the door with people on drugs.

If you ever had the unpleasant experiences of going to A and E there is alcoholics there in the night time.

Also criminals will still sell drugs as they will sell them cheaper

Take a look at alcohol think of all the car crashes , assaults in pubs fighting, shouting. Now think whats the place would be with heroin made legal. People who will get additive because it readily available like cigarettes. They only differences with cigarettes is that the effects are minor in the short term.

Now i know your not suggestion(probable) that heroin is made legal. But where do you draw the line.

Valmont

bpb101 wrote: »

if you leagalized every drug you will have massive debts as company wont set up because everybody is stoned

I'm not sure I accept your presumption here that everybody is just dying to get hooked on heroin if only the local Centra stocked it...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bpb101

Valmont wrote: »

I'm not sure I accept your presumption here that everybody is just dying to get hooked on heroin if only the local Centra stocked it...

thats because centra is too expensive :pac:
no , its not that but people would buy it im sure. Criminals will always make money.

Grayson

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

AFAIK Less people (as a percentage) smoke weed in the Netherlands than here

catallus

After Portugal "legalised" drugs the use of cannabis and cocaine rose substantially and have remained higher; heroin use declined in the short term but then stabilised: http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2007_Caitlin_211672_1.pdf (Table on page 3)

Very interesting longread on it here : http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211621_1.pdf

If drug use decreases with decriminalisation then why do they have to double treatment resources at the start and keep that growing all the time?

Valmont

catallus wrote: »

If drug use decreases with decriminalisation then why do they have to double treatment resources at the start and keep that growing all the time?

I would say that argument is irrelevant when considered against what should be a fundamental right: the right to put whatever one wants into one's own body. It shouldn't be some bureaucrat's business whether somebody wants to take drugs or not. At this point the argument is that it is the bureaucrat's business because this drug addict may become a drain on 'public' resources. Fair enough but then you should be promoting stringent controls and regulation on Mars bars and 'free' healthcare for haribo addicts because they will inevitably put a strain on the health system with their diabetes and heart disease. When taken to its logical extreme, socialised medicine calls for a complete totalitarianism to ensure absolute fairness - personally I expect a sugar tax in the not too distant future. Who knows, maybe one day we will have to venture down to the local drug-dealing alleyway to buy an affordable cheesecake?

bpb101

Valmont wrote: »

I would say that argument is irrelevant when considered against what should be a fundamental right: the right to put whatever one wants into one's own body. It shouldn't be some bureaucrat's business whether somebody wants to take drugs or not. At this point the argument is that it is the bureaucrat's business because this drug addict may become a drain on 'public' resources. Fair enough but then you should be promoting stringent controls and regulation on Mars bars and 'free' healthcare for haribo addicts because they will inevitably put a strain on the health system with their diabetes and heart disease. When taken to its logical extreme, socialised medicine calls for a complete totalitarianism to ensure absolute fairness - personally I expect a sugar tax in the not too distant future. Who knows, maybe one day we will have to venture down to the local drug-dealing alleyway to buy an affordable cheesecake?

a sugar tax is lighly however in the states the just used cornstarch or something in coke which is probable worst

catallus

As fun as the inanity of taking things to logical extremes is, the OP is looking for serious responses.

There's a lot of misinformation out there about why certain aspects of public policy exist; in this case it is about protecting people from themselves and from addictive chemicals which are pushed by entrepreneurs whose main rationale is to expand a consumer base which is more or less captive from the get-go.

Even simple facts about drug-use are twisted by ultra-liberals (as has already happened in this thread only 5 posts in) who blindly demand we allow drug-pushers flood society with their wares.

it is a cliche, and is preposterous that it even needs to be said to people with half a brain: drugs are illegal for a reason: they'll mess up your life. It is about protecting society.

My name is URL

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Detection rates for addiction fell. Probably because police no longer have to interact with low level addicts in the course of their normal duties.

Valmont

catallus wrote: »

in this case it is about protecting people from themselves and from addictive chemicals

What if they don't want to be protected from themselves? I take things to logical extremes because I value reason; your position ultimately dictates we 'protect' everyone from everything from sugar to white bread. Brennan's Bread wants to expand its consumer base too and we could easily make the argument that white bread is addictive (its metabolised quickly into glucose) but it would be naturally absurd to claim that people who eat white bread have no choice in the matter and are 'more or less captive from the get-go'.

The concept of protecting people 'from themselves' is nothing more than nanny-state nonsense.

the_syco

bpb101 wrote: »

If you ever had the unpleasant experiences of going to A and E there is alcoholics there in the night time.

Too much alcohol can kill. Too much weed won't. Also, people generally OD as the product is too pure, or they take too much. There's not exactly instructions on the bag it comes in, on dosage.

After weed was legalized in Amsterdam, the same hardcore percent kept using it. They got older, but not many young people take it up.

catallus wrote: »

After Portugal "legalised" drugs the use of cannabis and cocaine rose substantially and have remained higher; heroin use declined in the short term but then stabilised: http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2007_Caitlin_211672_1.pdf (Table on page 3)

Interesting.

Valmont wrote: »

The concept of protecting people 'from themselves' is nothing more than nanny-state nonsense.

The concept is that they're incapable of looking after themselves, and also not harming or being dangerous to others. See drink driving laws as an example.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

the_syco wrote: »

The concept is that they're incapable of looking after themselves

This isn't a good reason for anything - if we took it seriously the state should be sectioning people who don't exercise or eat their 'five a day'.

the_syco

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Agreed.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I thought the analogy was a good one. The concept is that we, as a people, are unable to function without constant interference by the government. The reality is that we are able to function without the constant interference by the government, but surprisingly the people who probably need the supervision are usually the ones who ignore the laws, and drink to excess before getting into a car to drive.

Nomis21 wrote: »

By making recreational drugs illegal, is society just giving extra business to criminals?

By making recreational drugs illegal, they allow people to make drugs without any regulation. There is no substance that cannot be used in the production of E, and no ingredient banned from cutting cocaine with.

If soft drugs (such as weed) were legalised, the government could get tax, and also ensure that less people were harmed. Furthermore, drugs being out in the open would discourage people trying drugs from an unknown source that have unknown reactions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

Valmont wrote: »

What if they don't want to be protected from themselves? I take things to logical extremes because I value reason;

To argue from the point of logical extrmes can lead to logical but absurd results

your position ultimately dictates we 'protect' everyone from everything from sugar to white bread.

No, just that when a substance becomes so badly misused that it has become a social problem the elected legislature/government can set the policy in respect of same. If the government temporarily bans tbone steak because of a belief that it leads to cjd, that is a reasoned and proportionate response to a public health issue. Its a far cry from saying that any evidence that something could be bad it must be banned.

Of course the argument may be that responsible individuals should be able to choose and, for example, run the low risk of cjd to enjoy a delicious cut of beef. But people dont always act responsibly and so there is an element of practical ultilitarian decision making involved.

Brennan's Bread wants to expand its consumer base too and we could easily make the argument that white bread is addictive (its metabolised quickly into glucose) but it would be naturally absurd to claim that people who eat white bread have no choice in the matter and are 'more or less captive from the get-go'.

When was the last time that someone strung out for Brenans mugged someone or went on a rampage in a car? The problem identified is not the fact that something can be bad for an individual, but that it can cause serious social problems. Which is why the legalisation of cannabis argument holds a lot more water - the social impact of cannabis is, in my view anyway, fairly low.

The concept of protecting people 'from themselves' is nothing more than nanny-state nonsense.

Or the reasonable reaction of a social democratic body politic trying to establish a good balance between individual rights and the overall good of society, depending, if you will alow the analogy, on whether youve swallowed the blue pill or the red one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My dentist once said "if Coca Cola was released today, it'd be banned". It is a wonder why anything now legal is not made illegal if it's harmful.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm firmly in the decriminalise soft drugs camp but alcohol is obviously going to be the most damaging drug to society as it is the most widely available, the most socially acceptable and probably the most affordable.

As bad as a town full of drunk people is at 2:00 AM on a Saturday night, a town full of people on heroin or coke at that time would make Mogadishu feel like Disneyland.

Matt Holck

drug law a convenient may to segregate the populace by law and morality

users are considered criminals and may be punished if they get out of line over other issues

users live in fear of arrest

mikom

Matt Holck wrote: »

drug law a convenient may to segregate the populace by law and morality

users are considered criminals and may be punished if they get out of line over other issues

users live in fear of arrest

Read on.......

For some time now, England and Wales have had a semi-decriminalisation programme for cannabis. And it has ended up criminalising more cannabis users than ever before.
But it doesn't criminalise all cannabis users: it primarily targets people who are young, black or Asian. It is a story of muddle-headed government initiatives, skewed police incentives, racism, drug wars and the old, old habit of treating white people more leniently than everyone else.


http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/09/10/britain-secretly-decriminalised-cannabis-and-it-was-a-disast

johnnyskeleton

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Facinating. So what does this have to do with Valmont's theory that if you the government can make substances illegal because they are harmful to an individual that they must ban everything harmful?

Black Swan

renegademaster wrote: »

in a nutshell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7M71wmwWRo

MOD REMINDER: We are a discussion forum, not a vid forwarding service. Not everyone can open these vids. If you provide a vid link, please discuss it.