War on drugs

Prof.Badass · 27-01-2010 07:52PM

I assume everyone's familliar with the freedom argument and the argument based on the societal effects of prohibition. I think more emphasis needs to be put on harm reduction.

Right now the commonly used recreational drugs aren't that safe, even in their pure form most would not be very safe. We already have the potential to make drugs an awful lot safer but with a little research (and i mean little) we could have virtualy harmless alternatives to most of the currently used drugs (including alcohol, street drugs and legal highs). Obviously addiction and overdose would still apply, but even these could be reduced significantly. Worst case scenario, a very small percentage of people get hooked on a drug who otherwise wouldn't and as a result have to spend a small amount of money and take the drug every day. How would they be any different from your typical smoker?

Oh yeah, they wouldn't be destroying their bodies.

On every level there's so much that can be done to reduce the harm caused by drugs, but not much that can be done under prohibition.

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

(Only talking cannabis, not fussed on anything else being legalised).

Tbh, I find this viewpoint even worse than the joe duffy crowd. At least they have an excuse for their closed-mindedness (i.e their cluelessness on drugs). Also, singling out cannabis in a drugs debate gives the impression that you think the war on drugs does have some sort of rationality behind it.

TPD · 27-01-2010 08:00PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

Tbh, I find this viewpoint even worse than the joe duffy crowd. At least they have an excuse for their closed-mindedness (i.e their cluelessness on drugs). Singling out cannabis in a drugs debate gives the impression that you think the war on drugs does have some sort of rationality behind it.

Read the end of my post: I accepted that I don't know enough about other drugs to have an opinion. I haven't looked into them because, unlike cannabis, I've never felt the desire to try them.

Research by Prof. Nutt in the UK indicates that ecstacy isn't as bad as it's made out; I've never felt like trying it though, so I haven't looked into it myself.

mannequinhands · 27-01-2010 08:17PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'm going to be the first to argue your points.

1) Because its so profitable.
2) So why not ban alcohol, rather than legalise other harmful substances?
3) Just because you can get something, doesn't mean its good. You can pick up Chlamydia in a lot of places, but its not a good thing.
4) Because making it illegal to sell outside certain hours will stop dealing. Right. Because at the moment, them being illegal ALL the time is stopping that. Come on.
5) Not going to change.
6) How? Seriously, how would it being money to people in Cambodia, and the like? Because Ireland legalises Cannabis/Coke/whatever your having yourself? Won't stop that country from ****ting on their people.
7) Not really. It'll still work out cheaper for a blackmarket good, than a common market good, due to the taxes and costs involved. So your common, or garden, drug enthusiast will still get their stuff from One Eyed Steve because it'll be cheaper for them. Look at cigarettes. €8.xx in shops, but go outside and talk to people, you can get them for €5 a pack.

A country the size of Ireland legalising drugs will NOT immediately mean drugs are going to be manufactured clean and pure.

And I say this as a person who likes his weed.

1 Why not take the profit from the criminal gangs then
2 If you were reading this properly you would realize my point is prohibition does not work
3 I never said it was a good thing my point is prohibition does not stop jack **** and if you look at statistics for countries like holland they have lower rates of cannabis use when compared to other countries in Europe PLEASE READ LINK I LEFT
4 It will help curb it do if it had say the same hours as pubs it would not be in such high demand for criminal gangs as it would not be as profitable
5 It will greatly reduce it especially the innocent people that get caught in the cross fire
6 Im talking on a worldwide scale so legal money cumming in both government and local farmers might do something
7Thats a fair point and fighting against the black market will always be on uphill struggle but if the legal stuff was more pure people might be willing to pay a few euros extra as black market stuff is usualy washed down so they can make more profit.
Also in the case of weed people might decide to grow there own personal supply
People still do but the majiorty of alcohol and tobacco from shops ,pubs etc so why not drugs

It will be a start and you have to start somewhere

tbh · 27-01-2010 08:20PM

rubensni wrote: »

Yes, let's speed things up:

Typical anti:
1. Cost to society/health service
2. "All you druggies are the same, spongers on the dole who want a council flat, etc."
3. Anarchy, crime, etc.
4. "My friend took drugs once and twenty years later she got a..."
5. "Will somebody think of the children."

Typical pro:
1. The Beatles, jazz, house and Hendrix
2. Cigarettes and alcohol are drugs
3. Waste of time and money in prohibition/prisons full of people with clear consciences
4. I've smoked my whole life and...
5. Tax on drugs = revenue for health services

Followed by hours of trolling until a mod closes it down.

I hope this thread continues because that post deserves a wider audience.

TheGod · 27-01-2010 08:20PM

Apparently Admiral Mushroom is amassing an army, 10,000 mushrooms strong, in the Dublin mountains attempting to launch a guerilla offensive against the Irish Government.

TheZohanS · 27-01-2010 08:22PM

Kiera wrote: »

Oi n00b, it would stand well to you to have a bit of respect for other members on the site. Just a helpful word of warning

Don't call posters n00bs.
It's not your place to warn people.

mannequinhands · 27-01-2010 08:23PM

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

Read the end of my post: I accepted that I don't know enough about other drugs to have an opinion. I haven't looked into them because, unlike cannabis, I've never felt the desire to try them.

Research by Prof. Nutt in the UK indicates that ecstacy isn't as bad as it's made out; I've never felt like trying it though, so I haven't looked into it myself.

Heard this somewhere before not sure if its true or urban myth but statistically you are more likely to choke on your food then die from a bad e
maybe ill goggle it

TPD · 27-01-2010 08:26PM

mannequinhands wrote: »

Heard this somewhere before not sure if its true or urban myth but statistically you are more likely to choke on your food then die from a bad e
maybe ill goggle it

I think the most recent version of this is that horseriding is more dangerous than taking ecstacy.

kraggy · 27-01-2010 08:27PM

Whatever about decriminalising cannabis, anyone who thinks that the government should do the same for all drugs must be off their tits on something.

Think about it for just one second.

Prof.Badass · 27-01-2010 08:29PM

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

Read the end of my post: I accepted that I don't know enough about other drugs to have an opinion. I haven't looked into them because, unlike cannabis, I've never felt the desire to try them.

Research by Prof. Nutt in the UK indicates that ecstacy isn't as bad as it's made out; I've never felt like trying it though, so I haven't looked into it myself.

Well all your points except #7 applied to all drugs and not just cannabis. Leaving me to assume that you are at least considering the possibility of "legalise cannabis only" being the correct option.

Personally, I don't like the "legalise cannabis only" movement, partly for the reason i gave and also partly due to what i see as their ability to derail what could have been a productive debate. Especially nowadays because of the link between cannabis and schizophrenia they'll never get a majority vote unless people are challenged to think differently about drugs, which the "legalise cannabis only" movement doesn't do.

MaybeLogic · 27-01-2010 08:29PM

kraggy wrote: »

Whatever about decriminalising cannabis, anyone who thinks that the government should do the same for all drugs must be off their tits on something.

Think about it for just one second.

The same arguments apply, whatever the drug.

Hank_Jones · 27-01-2010 08:30PM

I don't think that legalising drugs is the answer.

To be honest I just think that we need to change young peoples attitudes towards drugs.

Personally if I was in a government department relating to this, I would have smack heads in classrooms talking to kids about how drugs have affected their lives and how bad their health is etc.
Get them to talk about the different types of drugs that they have taken and how one drug led on to another.

I would think that people in the government have very little experience regarding drugs and probably are those ''smoked weed in college, but didn't inhale'' types.
We need to have somebody who actually knows about drugs tackling this stuff.
All this stuff about these head shops...yeah they should be shut down, but they should have been shut down feckin ages ago.

Anyone with half a brain regarding drugs would have realised this.
Now TDs are just snowballing with regards to something they know feck all about, give the people what they want type thing..

TPD · 27-01-2010 08:34PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

Well all your points except #7 applied to all drugs and not just cannabis. Leaving me to assume that you are at least considering the possibility of "legalise cannabis only" being the correct option.

Personally, I don't like the "legalise cannabis only" movement, partly for the reason i gave and also partly due to what i see as their ability to derail what could have been a productive debate. Especially nowadays because of the link between cannabis and schizophrenia they'll never get a majority vote unless people are challenged to think differently about drugs, which the "legalise cannabis only" movement doesn't do.

But you would agree that different drugs would require different levels of attention from the government? I don't like the idea of wrapping all drugs up as one and legalising the lot outright.

I think that each individual drug should be debated on it's own merits rather than categorised as 'drugs' - and I only posted on this thread as cannabis is the only drug I have knowledge on, and would actually care about the legal status of.

Joey the lips · 27-01-2010 08:42PM

I feel like I am on drugs. Has this thread not been done to death. Jesus.

Prof.Badass · 27-01-2010 08:48PM

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

But you would agree that different drugs would require different levels of attention from the government? I don't like the idea of wrapping all drugs up as one and legalising the lot outright.

I think that each individual drug should be debated on it's own merits rather than categorised as 'drugs' - and I only posted on this thread as cannabis is the only drug I have knowledge on, and would actually care about the legal status of.

This isn't a debate about how drugs should ideally be regulated.
It's a debate about the effectiveness of the war on drugs. Whether there are other alternatives that might be less destructive to society (which would by default imply some level of legal regulation). How exactly we should go about this is a sub-discussion between those who recognise the war on drugs as being a counter-productive failure. A discussion in which more ideas and evidence are needed.

Btw, people who only want cannabis legalised clearly do not recognise the war on drugs as being a counter-productive failure.

Mike 1972 · 27-01-2010 08:56PM

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

I don't know enough about other drugs to have an opinion.

When did that stop anyone ?

TPD · 27-01-2010 09:00PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

This isn't a debate about how drugs should ideally be regulated.
It's a debate about the effectiveness of the war on drugs. Whether there are other alternatives that might be less destructive to society (which would by default imply some level of legal regulation). How exactly we should go about this is a sub-discussion between those who recognise the failure of the war on drugs, one which more discussion and ideas and evidence are needed.

Fair enough, I went from a broad topic to a more defined but still relevent subtopic. Overall, I wouldn't say the 'war on drugs' works, or could ever work. I wouldn't want a single rule for all drugs either though.

vinylmesh wrote: »

Btw, people who only want cannabis legalised clearly do not recognise the war on drugs as being a failure.

I accept that the war on drugs will not work. This is true for all drugs; if people want to take them, they will. Just because I personally only care about cannabis does not mean that I think the war on drugs is successful. I actually don't know how you've come to that conclusion.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

When did that stop anyone ?

Erm... Right there now? When it just happened?

Sea Sharp · 27-01-2010 09:04PM

The thing that pisses me off about the war on drugs is the hypocrisy of the reasons for supporting it.
Legalisation won't mean extra costs at the expense of the health service. Examples of countries where legalisation is in place show that the percentage of population doing drugs is pretty much the same as in countries where prohibation? is in place.
Legalisation won't lead to a sudden influx of people to the A&E.
Alcohol is a terrible drug that kills people and destroys families.
If the same excuses for illegalisation of certain drugs were applied to alcohol it would have to be banned in the morning.

Martyk · 27-01-2010 09:06PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8740703353227564451&ei=XRtgS-jYF4G0-AbRn-nNBQ&q=american+drug+war+movie&view=3&dur=3#docid=-8231634812734884936

Terry · 27-01-2010 09:42PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

Well all your points except #7 applied to all drugs and not just cannabis. Leaving me to assume that you are at least considering the possibility of "legalise cannabis only" being the correct option.

Personally, I don't like the "legalise cannabis only" movement, partly for the reason i gave and also partly due to what i see as their ability to derail what could have been a productive debate. Especially nowadays because of the link between cannabis and schizophrenia they'll never get a majority vote unless people are challenged to think differently about drugs, which the "legalise cannabis only" movement doesn't do.

So you believe that crack, pcp, crystal meth et al should be legalised?

kraggy · 27-01-2010 09:55PM

MaybeLogic wrote: »

The same arguments apply, whatever the drug.

No they don't.

Are you deluded? Ok, so let's open up shops selling coke in certain parts of certain towns. Are you telling me that people who decide to go for a dabble on a Sunday evening are as likely to make it into work on Monday morning as someone who decides to have a couple of joints?

Imagine opening up shops selling heroin. Are you telling me you wouldn't have more people on the streets shooting up in public?

Imagine a shop selling pills on a Sunday night. Are you telling me the majority of people dropping that night will make it into work on Monday morning?

Sea Sharp · 27-01-2010 10:05PM

kraggy wrote: »

Imagine a shop selling pills on a Sunday night. Are you telling me the majority of people dropping that night will make it into work on Monday morning?

They probably would, yea.

kraggy · 27-01-2010 10:21PM

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

They probably would, yea.

Me thinks you haven't taken pills so.

fulhamfanincork · 27-01-2010 10:23PM

Captain_Generic wrote: »

Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, drug related crime has been dropping ever since

Really? I thought the Eu would have prohibited them from doing so.

Mike 1972 · 27-01-2010 11:09PM

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Really? I thought the Eu would have prohibited them from doing so.

Nope it would only stop them from being legalised.

(Decriminalised /= legalised)

Kurtosis · 27-01-2010 11:09PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

Right now the commonly used recreational drugs aren't that safe, even in their pure form most would not be very safe. We already have the potential to make drugs an awful lot safer but with a little research (and i mean little) we could have virtualy harmless alternatives to most of the currently used drugs (including alcohol, street drugs and legal highs). Obviously addiction and overdose would still apply, but even these could be reduced significantly. Worst case scenario, a very small percentage of people get hooked on a drug who otherwise wouldn't and as a result have to spend a small amount of money and take the drug every day. How would they be any different from your typical smoker?

This viewpoint doesn't hold water at all. Fair enough, knowledge of drug action has been vastly increased over the last few decades, but not to this extent. Have a look at prescription drugs, not one is completely free of side effects that come with taking them. Even with the most brilliant minds in pharma companies working away trying to improve these, very little progress is ever made with separating the desired effects from the undesired.

Take a close relative to a heroin, morphine. It's probably the most well studied compound used in medicine today, with lots of work into modifying it to remove some of the side effects (addicition, respiratory depression). While they've come up with more powerful related painkilling drugs from this work, the pharma companies have not been able to eliminate the side effects. If all this effort has been put into improving drugs to help people with illnesses with no real success for decades, can't see recreational drugs being improved with "a little research".

Hank_Jones wrote: »

To be honest I just think that we need to change young peoples attitudes towards drugs.

Personally if I was in a government department relating to this, I would have smack heads in classrooms talking to kids about how drugs have affected their lives and how bad their health is etc.
Get them to talk about the different types of drugs that they have taken and how one drug led on to another.

I'd disagree with ya on this point. Last thing I'd want would be a former drug addict coming in to talk to my kids. Even if they had gone through bad experiences with drugs, the message at the end of the day that comes across would be "Oh he used loads of drugs and sure he's grand". It'd be like giving them a big shopping list of the best drugs and what they do and then at the end tagging on "But don't do them!"

rossie1977 · 27-01-2010 11:15PM

Terry wrote: »

So you believe that crack, pcp, crystal meth et al should be legalised?

yes because it makes you grow your hair back

guy top left

MaybeLogic · 27-01-2010 11:52PM

kraggy wrote: »

No they don't.

Are you deluded? Ok, so let's open up shops selling coke in certain parts of certain towns. Are you telling me that people who decide to go for a dabble on a Sunday evening are as likely to make it into work on Monday morning as someone who decides to have a couple of joints?

Imagine opening up shops selling heroin. Are you telling me you wouldn't have more people on the streets shooting up in public?

Imagine a shop selling pills on a Sunday night. Are you telling me the majority of people dropping that night will make it into work on Monday morning?

I never said anyone should be allowed to go into a shop to buy a gramme of cocaine or heroin. I said that the same arguments that apply to legalising cannabis apply to the other drugs as well. It would be a decision for the government how they distribute it. The point is to take it out of the hands of the criminals, raise taxes etc. etc.

kraggy · 27-01-2010 11:56PM

MaybeLogic wrote: »

I never said anyone should be allowed to go into a shop to buy a gramme of cocaine or heroin. I said that the same arguments that apply to legalising cannabis apply to the other drugs as well. It would be a decision for the government how they distribute it. The point is to take it out of the hands of the criminals, raise taxes etc. etc.

How bloody else would it be distributed. As part of a supplement in the Sunday Newspapers?

MaybeLogic · 27-01-2010 11:58PM

kraggy wrote: »

How bloody else would it be distributed. As part of a supplement in the Sunday Newspapers?

I dunno. How's methadone distributed?

War on drugs

Comments