Cocaine

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... and in reutrn we hve the "I can't challenge the argumetn so I'm just going bemoan it insterad"

I'll put it more bluntly so: the posters have no interest in saving lives any more than they have interest in the slave trade in a foreign continent. Someone said "drugs bad, mmmkay?" and they don't have either the deisre or ablity to go and research it for themselves and use these as excuses to cover it up.

What are you on about?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Legalizing hardline drugs is not the answer either though... it's going from one extreme to the other!

They should call this idea "operation out of the frying pan"... :P

The answer is a multi-faceted approach. We need to put as much effort and resources into helping those with drug addictions, as we do with catching and punishing drug lords and dealers!

If we were talking about some other dangerous item, such as weapons for example, I doubt practically anyone in society would be arguing for the complete legalization of dangerous weapons, as a way of removing criminal gangs and lessening gun violence! It would be a laughable suggestion... (not to yanks obviously - but most of the rest of the sane people in this world)

And I think it's equally laughable to suggest complete legalization of dangerous drugs.

I'm completely in favour of better education and better help/resources for those with addiction problems, but I am not naive enough to think that creating an open door policy regarding drugs, would be in any way successful... it would be a disaster in fact!

I can't help thinking, that there is an element of latent societal guilt and snobbery involved in this mindset... I think many people look at their own drug taking habits, and perhaps want to feel less stigmatized and don't want to be associated with the more nefarious characters along the drug chain... you probably come from a nice family and wear a suit to work, so you don't like the inference that you are connected (in any way) to underworld criminals and drug addicts on the street.

It's all just degrees of separation... the stink doesn't come out in the wash, no matter how much you try. You could be snorting your cocaine off a solid gold toilet seat in foxrock, rather than some germ infested piss pot in a knocking shop in the city centre.... you're still part of the chain, and part of the problem!

Comparing weapons, which are designed to inflict physical pain on other people, with drugs which are designed to inflict pleasure and enjoyment on the user. Ridiculous. Please try to think of better comparisons

Steyr 556 wrote: »

For people who advocate legalisation and decriminalisation, how will that work in a country like Ireland that can’t produce drugs like Cocaine?

Cocaine has to be imported from South America (Southeast Asia??), I don’t think there are any states in those areas where it can be grown that make it legal to do so and thus legal to export to here.

So, considering the immense difficulties in acquiring Cocaine, it would have to be produced here, as a synthetic compound, who will do this, a pharmaceutical company?

I doubt there will be many big pharma companies who want to get involved with the production of a drug that is illegal across much of the western world. And then throw in the possibility of that company being sued (much the same way tobacco companies were and are sued) by users who have suffered health effects, addiction, who have been victims of users under the effects of the drug etc.

Mixing coke and drink produces cocaethylene in your system which has serious health implications. In a country where binge drinking is prevalent and having a line on a night out is becoming the norm, that’s the type of thing that even Monsanto would want to avoid being caught up in legally.

Legalisation then starts to look only suitable to drugs that can be grown in country (weed, magic mushrooms) and are safe - well aware that when I say that, people drive stoned and crash, people with underlying mental health conditions try to jump out of windows on magic mushrooms - but at least from a biological standpoint combinations of those drugs don’t produce toxins in the body like cocaethylene.

Decriminalisation leaves the supply chain in place. The drugs still come in, the gangs increase business. It would be inevitable that the drug gangs would profit enormously from such a situation. Even if the average individual is just consuming their own small amount, it has to be obtained from someone.

How do you feel about this opinion?

Gotta love when people take the time needed to make such long winded posts but don't take the time to actually consider solutions to the concerns you raise, which are easily thought of with a bit of outside the box thinking.

Coca leaves can be legally and ethically bought from certain countries and the processing could be done domestically. Sure, most pharmaceutical companies wouldn't wish to get involved due to the current stigma however things change quickly when legalisation is on the table. Sadly many people equate legality with morality, and companies/corporations fall in line with this thinking. There would absolutely be someone willing to produce the drug here. If the Netherlands can produce €18bn worth of drugs to a very high standard while under prohibition then I'm fairly confident that someone could step up to the plate here, whether they're a native company or not. It's simply a matter of having appropriate regulations in place which are adhered to (not THIS is where I would actually grow concerned, but maybe the resulting governmental body could be a miracle and actually function as intended and efficiently for once).

As for consumers suing the producer; make drugs only available in legally regulated dispensaries where consumers are registered and made sign whatever legal contracts are necessary to avoid that bull****. On this point, I'd be more worried about Ireland becoming a big drug tourist spot, similar to Amsterdam/Netherlands has experienced. But again, solutions to this could be found. Maybe make drugs only available to current citizens and residents and have very harsh punishments for anyone found distributing drugs to people who aren't legitimately allowed to purchase for themselves; people <21, tourists, criminals etc. In these dispensaries also you could have a great impact on awareness of drug use, the people working there could inform customers before each purchase and limit how much they can buy at one time. With coke, for example, apparently after 1.5g you no longer release dopamine but a different chemical which causes increased levels of paranoia and anxiety. How many people who use coke would be aware of this? Very few I'd say because very few bother to do the research. But in a dispensary they could be advised of all of these kinds of things. Same goes with purchases of MDMA. The people working there could ask each customer what event/occasion they're buying the drugs for and try to advise them about how much/little to buy. You'd NEVER have an illegal dealer do this. Similar can be done for basically all drugs. Harm reduction in these facilities should be the priority

What people need to realise is that not only would we have a large boost in revenue simply from the sales but we'd have a huge lightening on the various resources currently used for the war on drugs. The Gards especially is one area I'd love to see benefit from this. With them not having to bother people over having a bit of drugs on them they could be put to use to add more police presence around the centres and more units created to tackle antisocial behaviour in areas where it's necessary. Prison room could be freed up to allow for harsher sentencing of people who actually deserve it: violent criminals, paedophiles, multiple conviction reoffenders etc

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I highly doubt kerosene is used is the paracetamol I use
It's also not made in a field in the arse end of no where.
It also doesn't get cut down various times and loading up with some other crap.

Am not saying oh look paracetamol is completely fine. But we're talking about two totally different ways of creating drugs

You realise you're making arguments for legalisation here, right? Legal and regulated = quality control and those issues you're raising are avoided...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Part of the issue with that study is that measures intesnity of pleasure, and that's got nothing to do with addiction levels. A good cup of tea is immensely pleasureable but not addcitive.

I think danger of withdrawal should be considered also.
Alcohol and benzodiazepines can kill a person during withdraw, that's something that's rare and the two drugs that have that problem are legal(one needs a prescription)

The legality of benzodiazepines does give the option for a doctor to prescribe a sensible taper program, something that can't leaglly be done with most drugs.

Big Gerry wrote: »

The UK is one of the biggest producers of legal cocaine.


No one is getting killed in the legal market for cocaine.



https://www.businessinsider.com/britain-is-the-worlds-biggest-exporter-of-legal-cocaine-and-heroin-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

Yup heroins medical name is diamorphine and is given to some people with terminal cancer. Also produced without issue.