Do you understand why is there a "war on drugs"?

Drumpot

Anybody here every Heard of Harry Anslinger? I hadn't a clue who that was until I started reading a book on "the war on drugs", the book is called "chasing the scream". It has some jaw dropping information on how the whole western world has ended up treating drug users/addicts and the spoiler is that its down to our US friends who forced everybody to buy into their own misguided beliefs based on a racist agenda. It is hard to not see USA's methods of dealing with anybody involved in non regulated drug use as borderline genocide born out of ignorance and racism. You could go further and hold them to account for pretty much most of the deaths that occur due to drug related violence.

I cant comprehend how this sort of information has not led to the decriminalisation of drug users and the regulation of all drugs. It is mindboggling when people think we are going through some sort of awakening with regards to church, race and sexuality, that this continues to be ignored. Its so obvious but the feeling I get is that its just not something politically popular to discuss or consider. How am I only reading this book now ? How have progressive politicians not even heard of this and started the conversation publicly ?

I knew, from other documentarys I had watched, that the war on drugs was originally a justification for targeting Mexicans, African Americasn and Chinese, but I couldn't believe how we have all be duped into just absorbing this method of "policing" the products without any real understanding why.

The Author of this book has similarly written about Big Pharma and how they have equally duped us all into believing their bullsh*t narrative on how to treat mental illness (including depression and anxiety). Its also remarkable how complicit governments can be in ignoring their own responsibilities, in my opinion, to challenge the consensus to protect the people from themselves. I suppose when they don't even properly regulate/challenge the banking industry we shouldn't be surprised they will equally not challenge bigger vested interest groups.

A big issue seems to be that people are not prepared to have strong held beliefs challenged. I myself have been this ignorant/belligerent in the past and can at least accept I suffer this trait at times. But as I get older, I try to allow my common beliefs to be questioned and try to get to the bottom of them.

Another big issue appears to be that people are not prepared to learn about addiction or why it actually only affects a certain proportion (10% of users) of the population. Why is that ? In many regards its people with underlying mental or physical conditions and the drug eases the pain. But society brands them "bad/criminals" instead of trying to help them. How we treat people with addiction problems is deplorable and it makes me sick when I see people getting so up in arms over socially popular travesties when I think of how we as a society treat people we choose not to try and understand, but discard to a lifetime of hell.

Do you know how we treat alcoholics or drug addicts in this country ? We get them hooked on methadone, we lock them up or we throw them into jails. Some charitable institutions do help, but we leave addicts and their families to deal with the fallout on their own and let the "shame" culture keep them quiet because addicts are "bad/criminal".

Why do you believe it makes sense to maintain the "war on drugs" ? What makes you think that its the best possible way to destroy gangs, drug dealers and reduce drug abuse ? If its scientifically accepted that 90% of those who take drugs do not have a problem with them, why are they banned ?

The counter idea is to decriminalise drugs users, regulate it (get taxes), make sure drugs are safer for users and pump funds that are usually used in enforcing it, into rehabilitation, education and support for people who will inevitably suffer from using it. This takes the power off drug dealers and kills off their cash cows. Alcohol prohibition didn't work for the exact same reason a prohibition on drugs is a pathetic failure. That's why there aren't gangs fighting over cases of Heinekan and Whiskey.

I wrote this hear because there is a progressive bunch of people on After hours who I know are open to allowing their own beliefs to be challenged. I also think a lot of people, deep down, know that "the war on drugs" is one of our great shames. Its akin to the great crimes of the catholic church in my view, yet we continue to shame ourselves by ignoring some of our most vulnerable.

I think part of the truth is, if you haven't experienced it on some level (family/friend/self) you don't care and are not interested. Its only if it impacts your life and in many the response is righteous anger born out of ignorance. I think many people don't even know or understand why they think drugs being illegal makes sense, they just accept that's the way it is without a thought.

There is so much more that I could write on this, that I have forgotten or left out but I am sure others can share these ideas or similar information to add to the conversation.

Apiarist

Drug use should be decriminalized. Marijuana should be legal. Supply of hard drugs (such as heroin) should be controlled, it may make sense to supply addicts with the drug or its substitute in clinics.

73bc61lyohr0mu

Sure didn't the CIA in the states sell a load of cocaine that was seized from this so called war and used the crazy amounts of funds generated to destabilise governments and train dictators around the world..

sk8erboii

Kendra Faithful Rodeo wrote: »

Sure didn't the CIA in the states sell a load of cocaine that was seized from this so called war and used the crazy amounts of funds generated to destabilise governments and train dictators around the world..

Iran-Contra affair. Also look into Gary Webb’s Wikipedia page he reported about the CIA involvement in selling drugs to American citizens to fund black ops projects in south america. He was killed with two gunshots to the head, ruled as suicide

EmmetSpiceland

Kendra Faithful Rodeo wrote: »

Sure didn't the CIA in the states sell a load of cocaine that was seized from this so called war and used the crazy amounts of funds generated to destabilise governments and train dictators around the world..

They are also believed to have flooded the “ghettos” and African American neighbourhoods with heroin and “crack” to lessen the impact of the Black Panthers and, generally, keep the African Americans down.

beejee

Simply put, recreational mind-altering substances should not be rationalised and then doled out and regulated by the same people put in charge to look after societies well-being.

Alcohol and cigarettes are on a downward spiral as "acceptable" and it won't be too long before they're regulated out of existence, therefore the idea of introducing multiple more substances is crazy.

Unless! You wish to have drugs regulated right now so as eventually they too will be phased out of existence!

The "war on drugs" may not be working very well, but the alternative is ludicrous.

If you're all about individuality, sure, it makes sense to fight for what you'd like to do to yourself. If you are approaching it from a societal level, then no, it doesn't make sense to willingly allow it happen.

CrankyHaus

I don't agree with the War on Drugs (as commenced by Nixon in the early 70s) but we had our first legislation on Prohibition of drugs long before it. Anslinger well predated it too. The Chinese and many others, without any US influence, have had a far more draconian policy on drugs for a long time so it's not solely a US phenomenon.

To explain the War on Drugs as all being a plot against blacks, Mexicans and Chinese is incredibly facile.

The US at the time was dealing with heroin epidemics (among other drugs) both within its major cities and its armed forces.. The former was associated with a sharp rise in crime that drove Nixon to power but the latter was far more concerning to it. In fact in the context of the Cold War it was seen as an existential threat if its servicemen were too stoned to defend against communist aggression (not my view, just the thinking of the time). While the War on Drugs has been a disaster in nearly every other way it has been quite the success in reducing drug use within the US military from extreme levels in the early 70s (to the extent that the army in Vietnam was on the brink of collapse) to very minor and acceptable ones today.

Montage of Feck

Do dope **** hope.

Pauliedragon

Funny too I saw a doco a while back about how the one thing the taliban did that was good was they didn't tolerate heroin producers so most of Americas heroin was very low quality Colombian **** prior to 9/11. The taliban were wiped out after the invasion so drug lords were back in business q top grade cheap heroin flooded the states and as you could smoke it now casual drug users who would never inject started experimenting and a whole new wave of addicts were created like students and professionals etc.

Apiarist

beejee wrote: »

...Alcohol and cigarettes are on a downward spiral as "acceptable" and it won't be too long before they're regulated out of existence....

Sounds like a pretty dumb idea. Ingesting mind-altering chemicals is what people did even before they became people. If not alcohol or marijuana, then it is the "anti depressants", and frankly, I would prefer alcohol to a synthetic drug.

c.p.w.g.w

I am made to try some form of magic mushrooms or DMT...but I tell some people and they look at me like there is something wrong with me, as they take a drag from a cigarette

Drumpot

CrankyHaus wrote: »

To explain the War on Drugs as all being a plot against blacks, Mexicans and Chinese is incredibly facile.

I did not mean this to be taken from what I was saying. I suppose the "War on drugs" (this war as we know it) started from Anslinger and his policies that were forced on other countries to adopt. His approach was racist and the US adopted it on a platform of racism and propaganda.

Seems like the intolerance of mind altering drugs begun to start when Catholicism started to take hold. The premise was that these drugs were giving people some sort of devine feelings or vision or experiences and that this diminished peoples natural conscious contact with god and mass experience. Sounds more like it was a way to control people and outcast any people with more individual aspirations.

Pauliedragon wrote: »

Funny too I saw a doco a while back about how the one thing the taliban did that was good was they didn't tolerate heroin producers so most of Americas heroin was very low quality Colombian **** prior to 9/11. The taliban were wiped out after the invasion so drug lords were back in business q top grade cheap heroin flooded the states and as you could smoke it now casual drug users who would never inject started experimenting and a whole new wave of addicts were created like students and professionals etc.

Its ironic that terrorists stopping the sale of drugs are held up as a good example of how to stop the flow of drugs. Surely if we need to take the same approach as the Taliban, to fix the drug problem , that tells us all we need to know about this strategy ?

victor8600 wrote: »

Sounds like a pretty dumb idea. Ingesting mind-altering chemicals is what people did even before they became people. If not alcohol or marijuana, then it is the "anti depressants", and frankly, I would prefer alcohol to a synthetic drug.

I think alot of people share that view and its one they themselves dont really understand.

HorrorScope

beejee wrote: »

Simply put, recreational mind-altering substances should not be rationalised and then doled out and regulated by the same people put in charge to look after societies well-being.

Alcohol and cigarettes are on a downward spiral as "acceptable" and it won't be too long before they're regulated out of existence, therefore the idea of introducing multiple more substances is crazy.

Unless! You wish to have drugs regulated right now so as eventually they too will be phased out of existence!

The "war on drugs" may not be working very well, but the alternative is ludicrous.

If you're all about individuality, sure, it makes sense to fight for what you'd like to do to yourself. If you are approaching it from a societal level, then no, it doesn't make sense to willingly allow it happen.

What gives anybody the right to dictate the consumption of a naturally occurring plant? And on that point, what right does anybody have to be a self appointed moral guardian for “society”? There are benefits to cannabis particularly in the areas of epilepsy and other illnesses that are being suppressed with pure slander by pharma and anti-drugs lobbies. It’s disgusting.

Enough is Enough!

Itt: paranoid drug addicts.

Wayne Jarvis

Enough is Enough! wrote: »

Itt: paranoid drug addicts.

McDonald's are injecting aids into their chicken nuggets!!!!!!!

isohon

beejee wrote: »

Simply put, recreational mind-altering substances should not be rationalised and then doled out and regulated by the same people put in charge to look after societies well-being.

Well I guess that means you are in favour of abolishing the regulation, via criminalisation, that the Government currently undertakes? Unless you really just meant you don't like drugs and don't want anyone else to like them too?

beejee wrote: »

Alcohol and cigarettes are on a downward spiral as "acceptable" and it won't be too long before they're regulated out of existence, therefore the idea of introducing multiple more substances is crazy.

Unless! You wish to have drugs regulated right now so as eventually they too will be phased out of existence!

I am not aware of anyone seriously suggesting repeating the same disastrous policy of alcohol prohibition as was demonstrated to be a resounding and criminogenic failure by the United States in the early part of the last century.

beejee wrote: »

The "war on drugs" may not be working very well, but the alternative is ludicrous.

If you're all about individuality, sure, it makes sense to fight for what you'd like to do to yourself. If you are approaching it from a societal level, then no, it doesn't make sense to willingly allow it happen.

The war on drugs, no need for mocking quotation marks, is an abysmal failure and moral disgrace. It has no place in our society. What is ludicrous is to continue to embrace a disgustingly unjust and demonstrably failed policy because you can't be bothered trying for an alternative and also enjoy the sense of righteous judgement it provides.

Graces7

OP is simply exchanging one lot of oddball theories for another.

Savage Tyrant

Whatever the cause of the war on drugs, I find it totally egregious that after finishing a 70 hour work week I can face a heavy financial penalty and possible prison sentence for smoking a spliff on my driveway on my day off. Which in turn will disqualify me from holding the licensing I need to work, causing further financial hardship. The system is insane.

derfderf

I can understand why drugs that have a negative impact on society are outlawed, even if i don't fully agree.

Cannabis, MDMA, mushrooms etc. only have a negative impact on the individual (and even that data is sketchy). Why these are illegal while we can drink, smoke, or eat, ourselves to death is ridiculous.

I know an OD of MDMA will kill straight away, and gorging triple stacked cheeseburgers will take years, but what is an acceptable amount of time until something kills you?

He was right.

Always Tired

Simple, it keeps cops, judges and solicitors in jobs, and the fines colllected are handy money.

In the US they have privately owned, 'for profit' prisons, when you get arrested you are charged 100 dollars just for processing you, non refundable innocent or guilty, if you post bail a portion of that is non refundable innocent or guilty, the phone calls are charged at an exorbitant rate, as are the personal items from commissary which prisoners need, and the food from commissary which prisoners are nearly forced to buy as the provided meals are awful.

And these private prisons, despite being for profit, get HUGE government subsidies. The more prisoners they have, the more money they get. Only now that overcrowding is such an issue they are relaxing things, but again that comes down to money.

Because there have been so many lawsuits now due to unsafe conditions, that cost them a lot and so now they have to have certain levels of staff when they have a certain amount of prisoners, and are forced to pay overtime or hire more people.

And governments and alcohol/tobacco companies are in cahoots together don't forget. They want to make sure you only use THEIR drugs, tobacco the highest taxed and alcohol the most harmful.

derfderf

Always Tired wrote: »

And governments and alcohol/tobacco companies are in cahoots together don't forget. They want to make sure you only use THEIR drugs, tobacco the highest taxed and alcohol the most harmful.

That is a good point, but think of the cost of something like cocaine for example. I live in Australia. Last i heard it was $300 per gram, and it's mostly crap. People still buy it though. If it was legal, and didn't need to be smuggled etc, imagine how much profit and tax could be made at that price and purity.

derfderf

Also alcohol is only most harmful because it's so freely available. If peope could buy meth or crack in Molloy's you'd soon be remembering the drunks fondly

Peatys

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

They are also believed to have flooded the “ghettos” and African American neighbourhoods with heroin and “crack” to lessen the impact of the Black Panthers and, generally, keep the African Americans down.

Not long after African Americans got the vote, the European American minority in the South had to protect their power. In very quick succession, poor areas were flooded with drugs, war on drugs was announced and convicted criminals lose the right to vote for life.

Wanderer78

It's very interesting to watch people's opinions slowly change on how we approach this problem, I do suspect we ll slowly move towards a legalisation of sorts, then we can start dealing with its issues

Always Tired

derfderf wrote: »

Also alcohol is only most harmful because it's so freely available. If peope could buy meth or crack in Molloy's you'd soon be remembering the drunks fondly

Well people in Holland don't seem to just all do heroin as a result of it not being illegal. There are still lots of reasons to not do the really addictive, expensive, dangerous drugs that destroy who you really are. And once people get addicted to meth or crack jail is not a deterrant really.

And if cannabis was legalized in a town on one side of the country and booze in a town on the other side, and the cannabis town had no booze allowed and the booze town no cannabis allowed, I can guarantee which side will have more assaults, accident deaths, people getting sick, road accidents, rapes, and domestic violence. Tho if you want to get the shift you might still chance the boozy town!

Wanderer78

Always Tired wrote:

And if cannabis was legalized in a town on one side of the country and booze in a town on the other side, and the cannabis town had no booze allowed and the booze town no cannabis allowed, I can guarantee which side will have more assaults, accident deaths, people getting sick, road accidents, rapes, and domestic violence. Tho if you want to get the shift you might still chance the boozy town!

Cannabis addiction is just as bad as any other addiction, I've seen it cause life long and complex problems, but I still agree with legislation. Many of the examples you give are highly subjective, with no absolute proof of truth, and we may never have methods of measuring so.

Drumpot

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's very interesting to watch people's opinions slowly change on how we approach this problem, I do suspect we ll slowly move towards a legalisation of sorts, then we can start dealing with its issues

It’s very interesting reading peoples reasons as to why the current status quo is working or better when there is no real insight into their reasoning.

Simple solution to drugs. Ban them, lock up whoever uses them and let these people and their loved ones deal with the fallout. But studies show 9/10 people who use drugs don’t abuse them or get addicted. Studies also show that by shaming and isolating addicts you basically all but guarantee they will never recover. Making somebody a criminal for using drugs is the same as being thrown out of a tribe hundreds of years ago which is as good as a death sentence.

So you take away all reason for a person to get clean/sober and tighten the screw harder as if that solves anything. The laws we have create the gangs and incentivise the violence in ALL aspects of illegal drugs.

There is actually no real evidence that the way we deal with drugs works on any meaningful level. A lot of your opinions are addressed in the book I mentioned And below. The drug laws actually drive people onto harder drugs!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Cannabis addiction is just as bad as any other addiction, I've seen it cause life long and complex problems, but I still agree with legislation. Many of the examples you give are highly subjective, with no absolute proof of truth, and we may never have methods of measuring so.

All your views have been subjective, I haven’t seen any scientific evidence to back up your own claims.

Wanderer78

Drumpot wrote: »

It’s very interesting reading peoples reasons as to why the current status quo is working or better when there is no real insight into their reasoning.

Simple solution to drugs. Ban them, lock up whoever uses them and let these people and their loved ones deal with the fallout. But studies show 9/10 people who use drugs don’t abuse them or get addicted. Studies also show that by shaming and isolating addicts you basically all but guarantee they will never recover. Making somebody a criminal for using drugs is the same as being thrown out of a tribe hundreds of years ago which is as good as a death sentence.

So you take away all reason for a person to get clean/sober and tighten the screw harder as if that solves anything. The laws we have create the gangs and incentivise the violence in ALL aspects of illegal drugs.

There is actually no real evidence that the way we deal with drugs works on any meaningful level. A lot of your opinions are addressed in the book I mentioned And below. The drug laws actually drive people onto harder drugs!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

All your views have been subjective, I haven’t seen any scientific evidence to back up your own claims.

there probably isnt any, complex and 'dysfunctional' human behavior a lot of the time, cannot be simplified to meet scientific criteria, as far as i see, all possible 'solutions' are highly problematic, including legalisation, but i do think, its better than our current approach.

topper75

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

They are also believed to have flooded the “ghettos” and African American neighbourhoods with heroin and “crack” to lessen the impact of the Black Panthers and, generally, keep the African Americans down.

Theory has one major flaw - the guy selling the crack in the ghetto, he's also black.

elefant

Always Tired wrote: »

Well people in Holland don't seem to just all do heroin as a result of it not being illegal. There are still lots of reasons to not do the really addictive, expensive, dangerous drugs that destroy who you really are. And once people get addicted to meth or crack jail is not a deterrant really.

Not many coffee shops with different strains of heroin on the menus :pac:

Drumpot

Wanderer78 wrote: »

there probably isnt any, complex and 'dysfunctional' human behavior a lot of the time, cannot be simplified to meet scientific criteria, as far as i see, all possible 'solutions' are highly problematic, including legalisation, but i do think, its better than our current approach.

It doesn’t really look like you are interested in actually looking at the validity of any alternative.

It’s about understanding the underlying issues with the why people turn to addiction and how the way society deals with it actually makes it worse. You will struggle to find a reasonable argument that defends the status quo that doesn’t have some sort of “moral failing” insinuation at the heart of its reasoning.

Why do hospitals treat people whose lifestyle causes them to have health problems? Why do hospitals treat anybody who is there as a result of their own behavior or mistake? Why do we feel as a society that we should take care of every citizen , except when they have used or abused a drug that we have arbitrarily decided makes them bad ?

Why do people usually become addicts? Do you think it’s a moral failing? If so , why? And why do you think it’s anymore a moral failing then doing anything else (alcohol , gambling, sex, binge tv, eating too much, consumerism) that’s legal? It’s like people think if something’s part of society it’s ok.

Most addicts or people with addictive compulsions are either suffering great pain and/or feel totally disconnected from society. (Lonely). Why would shaming them (criminals) , not supporting them (rehabilitation) and waging a war against them solve the problem? There are studies that have shown that even when heroin was stopped for a period of time , that addicts still acted the same way they did when the drugs were available. Why is that? Shouldn’t stopping the drugs work? Part of that is because you haven’t treated the underlying issue, all you have done is stopped the medication that they used to numb their pain.

Some people get medicated for pain management. Why is that ok? Addicts are often in constant pain and often feel alone. Who is anybody here to judge without any real understanding?

Their is no reasonable defence of how we treat addicts. The only example given on this thread in defence of our current way of treating drug issues was where the war was supposedly won was when the Al Quaeda ran the show. It actually sort of fits when you think of how religion (Catholicism) has over the years pushed back against drugs and clearly still influences a lot of the misguided views on this topic.

Drumpot

topper75 wrote: »

Theory has one major flaw - the guy selling the crack in the ghetto, he's also black.

Have you listened to how and why people in ghettos end up as drug dealers? It’s clear a lot of people only want to focus on and hear a narrative that always puts the blame on the victims of society without looking at the role of society.

Wanderer78

Drumpot wrote: »

It doesn’t really look like you are interested in actually looking at the validity of any alternative.

very much interested in this subject matter, as i actually have disorders that are common amongst regular drug users and addicts, in the form of a developmental disorder and learning disability. i ll look at your posts closure when i have the time, thank you

MrMusician18

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's very interesting to watch people's opinions slowly change on how we approach this problem, I do suspect we ll slowly move towards a legalisation of sorts, then we can start dealing with its issues

Opioids are legal in the USA and there is a huge crisis regarding their use there.

The idea that legalising and regulating mind altering substances will reduce their abuse is crazy.

The reason narcotics are illegal is because the dependency they easily create is very destructive to the person and more specifically their output. It turns them into a dependent.

Apiarist

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Opioids are legal in the USA and there is a huge crisis regarding their use there.

The idea that legalising and regulating mind altering substances will reduce their abuse is crazy. ..

This is because people are not aware of risks. If you smoke a joint, you understand that this may have consequences. If you smoke too much, you can damage your health. With prescription drugs, it's a trusted person (doctor) who pushes you into the opioid use. Surely a doctor won't give you something harmful?

Wanderer78

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Opioids are legal in the USA and there is a huge crisis regarding their use there.

The idea that legalising and regulating mind altering substances will reduce their abuse is crazy.

The reason narcotics are illegal is because the dependency they easily create is very destructive to the person and more specifically their output. It turns them into a dependent.

this could very well be the truth, but we have no way of truly knowing this without doing so, so should the overall aim and objectives of legalisation be for other reasons?

topper75

Drumpot wrote: »

Have you listened to how and why people in ghettos end up as drug dealers? It’s clear a lot of people only want to focus on and hear a narrative that always puts the blame on the victims of society without looking at the role of society.

Is one of those whys the CIA forcing some poor brutha to be their drug-dispensing agent in a particular housing project, like some sort of ****ed up state-sponsered Herbal Life scheme?

The victims to me are the people who are robbed so that drug habits get funded. Not the prick who buys crack to get a better high at some Saturday night block party. 'Society' has nothing to do with that. **** it man - society wasn't even there that night. Neither was the CIA.

topper75

Peatys wrote: »

Not long after African Americans got the vote, the European American minority in the South had to protect their power. In very quick succession, poor areas were flooded with drugs, war on drugs was announced and convicted criminals lose the right to vote for life.

Talk us through this 'flooding' you refer to. Are we talking yellow trucks rolling out of some depot like a batman baddie's scheme? Are we talking kiosks on street corners. How did the 'European American' people do that?:D

Drumpot

Wanderer78 wrote: »

very much interested in this subject matter, as i actually have disorders that are common amongst regular drug users and addicts, in the form of a developmental disorder and learning disability. i ll look at your posts closure when i have the time, thank you

Read (I listen to audio books) the book “chasing the scream” it’s fantastic. I’m actually not finished it yet. I’d listened to the authors newer book “lost connections” on the medication epidemic which complements it and is equally eye opening.

Criminalising drugs and shaming alcoholics/addicts isolates them and makes them think they are flawed in comparison to everybody else. Everybody has their flaws , it’s not a moral failing to struggle in life, it’s a moral failing to shame and persecute these people. What’s normal and conformed wisdom is hard to address because people like simple solutions to problems that either aren’t affecting them or don’t really understand the real issues in play or the ramifications of our solution to drug problems.

I’m as ignorant as everybody else cause I’ve never really explored whether or not “the war of drugs” made any sense or was the best way to deal with the problem.

I’ve suffered my own demons , not hardcore drugs , but I don’t see the difference between illegal drugs addicts and any other addiction. The only difference is that people with acceptable addictions are left to their own devices. That’s a step up from locking them up but it shows we still don’t, as a society, want to address addiction.

Wanderer78

Drumpot wrote:

Read (I listen to audio books) the book “chasing the scream†it’s fantastic. I’m actually not finished it yet. I’d listened to the authors newer book “lost connections†on the medication epidemic which complements it and is equally eye opening.

We re actually on a similar page here, regarding this subject matter, I ll try the audio book in time, but I will say again, legalisation won't solve these issues, as they may in fact be 'unsolvable', whatever that term even means, legalisation will in fact introduce it's own set of problems, and may in fact exasperate preexisting ones, but I still favour it over the current

beejee

Somebody raised the "who is anyone else to tell me what I can and can't do?!"

"they" are the very people put in charge to make decisions. May as well be a 10 year old pouting at a teacher. They are doing their job, and the vast majority of the time they are doing it correctly.

As for legalisation of drugs, I'll repeat that cigarettes are alcohol are being phased out. Not through new "prohibitions" but through education. Younger people, especially with regard cigarettes, just see it as thick.

Only someone thinking of themself can honestly say it's a good idea to legally allow more drugs available. And as someone mentioned above, look at the opioid crisis in the states. Stupid, all day long.

Drumpot

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this could very well be the truth, but we have no way of truly knowing this without doing so, so should the overall aim and objectives of legalisation be for other reasons?

Except for the fact drugs have always been available but they weren’t always illegal.

Why do propel think prohibition of alcohol failed so badly? And yet the exact same methods are working on drugs? It’s actually madness.

And anybody who says regulating drugs will create an epidemic doesn’t really understand much about addiction. Portugal must be bursting at the seams with drug addicts.

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/drug-reports/2019/portugal/drug-use_en

https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/

Nope, they have practically eradicated HIV for one. Better quality drugs means less drug related deaths. Look at their comparisons with other countries , it’s actually lower rate of drug use even though it’s legal! And the majority of drugs used at alcohol and cigarettes. Less then 8% use Cannibis and 0.4% of the Portuguese population use cocaine. Why has legalisation In Portugal not opened yet floodgates of drug addicts?

There really is no logical reason why we haven’t looked closer at our archaic laws on drugs. Really is “down with that sort of thing” type logic.

derfderf

beejee wrote: »

Somebody raised the "who is anyone else to tell me what I can and can't do?!"

"they" are the very people put in charge to make decisions. May as well be a 10 year old pouting at a teacher. They are doing their job, and the vast majority of the time they are doing it correctly.

Where does this stop though? Do we ban people over a certain BMI from McDonalds?

isohon

beejee wrote: »

Somebody raised the "who is anyone else to tell me what I can and can't do?!"

"they" are the very people put in charge to make decisions. May as well be a 10 year old pouting at a teacher. They are doing their job, and the vast majority of the time they are doing it correctly.

As for legalisation of drugs, I'll repeat that cigarettes are alcohol are being phased out. Not through new "prohibitions" but through education. Younger people, especially with regard cigarettes, just see it as thick.

Only someone thinking of themself can honestly say it's a good idea to legally allow more drugs available. And as someone mentioned above, look at the opioid crisis in the states. Stupid, all day long.

It is always a fairly week argument if it rests on primarily asserting the superiority of one's own opinion and decrying those who disagree as 'stupid'.

Alcohol is not being phased out, it is being regulated. So you are flatly wrong on that point.

B.A._Baracus

Drugs should never be legal.
Well fair enough for hash. Don't smoke it myself. But if booze is legal.... Why not that. Anything else? No way.

No junkie on heroin is gonna be living a normal life holding down a job. Ruins people's lives. Keep that illegal.

BalcombeSt4

Kendra Faithful Rodeo wrote: »

Sure didn't the CIA in the states sell a load of cocaine that was seized from this so called war and used the crazy amounts of funds generated to destabilise governments and train dictators around the world..

The so called "Contra Affair" in the 1980's.
Also the backing of Manuel Noriega - the dictator of Panama in the 1980's & a huge cocaine dealer, until his media profile became an embarrasment to the US & they got rid of him.

It's mad the whole "war" on drugs. Heroin (Diamorphine) is illegal but Oxycodone which is just as strong is legal & pushed to be prescribed to people by the makers of it, even for people with mild pain who don't need it, same with Oxymorphone & Hydromorphone which are even stronger Opiates than Diamorphine, and the newest one called Fentanyl which is very strong & only needed for people with severe pain but it seems to be everywhere.

derfderf

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Drugs should never be legal.
Well fair enough for hash. Don't smoke it myself. But if booze is legal.... Why not that. Anything else? No way.

No junkie on heroin is gonna be living a normal life holding down a job. Ruins people's lives. Keep that illegal.

There are more drugs than hash and heroin.
MDMA (when not cut with god knows what) is far less damaging than booze. I'm not sure exactly how much damage it does a person's health, but if you look at it's impact on society it's actually pretty positive (outside the fact supply is controlled by criminals). It played a large part in stopping the football riots in the late 80s.

Vincent Vega

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ-ygJxBvmQ

Drumpot

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Drugs should never be legal.
Well fair enough for hash. Don't smoke it myself. But if booze is legal.... Why not that. Anything else? No way.

No junkie on heroin is gonna be living a normal life holding down a job. Ruins people's lives. Keep that illegal.

I used to have this very misguided and plain wrong view but there are examples that completely blow these sentiments apart. From the evidence I have heard the debate is over, it’s not even a question of whether it is or isn’t better to legalise these drugs, the real question is why we haven’t.

And to answer your assumption about heroin users never working again, In Switzerland there are a huge portion of their heroin addicts who were able to get back into the workforce. Some have oddly been able to kick the habit by actually the state supplying them the drug , as much as they want. It sounds so counter intuitive but it’s works better then criminalising drugs. I would of believed your own sentiments myself but there are loads examples as to why it’s just plain wrong.

There was even an example of a similar experiment working in Liverpool in the 70s, again supplying users of heroin had a positive effect on their lives and ability to recover. Part of the reason heroine is so negative in our mind is because of the crime from it that’s all driven from the price and availability which is a result of criminalising it and forcing control into the hands of drug dealers. The drug dealers and addicts are insensitivised to add their own chemicals to make more money and that’s actually what causes the more harmful effects of heroine. Particularly the visible melting and distortion of people who use it.

Apparently a lot of addicts encourage others to take heroin and they add crap to their heroin. The rate of use drops and drug related crimes when it’s available freely and addicts don’t have to wheel and deal for their drugs. I can’t even rememeber all the mad stuff I’ve read , Proof that shows making drugs illegal for use just doesn’t work and causes more crime and destroyed lives then if it wasn’t illegal.

B.A._Baracus

Drumpot wrote: »

I used to have this very misguided and plain wrong view but there are examples that completely blow these sentiments apart. From the evidence I have heard the debate is over, it’s not even a question of whether it is or isn’t better to legalise these drugs, the real question is why we haven’t.

And to answer your assumption about heroin users never working again, In Switzerland there are a huge portion of their heroin addicts who were able to get back into the workforce. Some have oddly been able to kick the habit by actually the state supplying them the drug , as much as they want. It sounds so counter intuitive but it’s works better then criminalising drugs. I would of believed your own sentiments myself but there are loads examples as to why it’s just plain wrong.

There was even an example of a similar experiment working in Liverpool in the 70s, again supplying users of heroin had a positive effect on their lives and ability to recover. Part of the reason heroine is so negative in our mind is because of the crime from it that’s all driven from the price and availability which is a result of criminalising it and forcing control into the hands of drug dealers. The drug dealers and addicts are insensitivised to add their own chemicals to make more money and that’s actually what causes the more harmful effects of heroine. Particularly the visible melting and distortion of people who use it.

Apparently a lot of addicts encourage others to take heroin and they add crap to their heroin. The rate of use drops and drug related crimes when it’s available freely and addicts don’t have to wheel and deal for their drugs. I can’t even rememeber all the mad stuff I’ve read , Proof that shows making drugs illegal for use just doesn’t work and causes more crime and destroyed lives then if it wasn’t illegal.

Couldn't read your post.
The first paragraph has "wrong view" , "blow these sentiments apart" and "debate is over" before you make your argument. Stopped and couldn't read.

You are clearly up your own a*s so bad if thats how you open.