nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Legalisation\decriminalisation of Drugs besides cannabis

[Deleted User]

This is something I've been thinking about recently and I think it is an interesting discussion. While there does seem to be a general consensus on boards (and one that I agree with) that cannabis should be legalised what about other drugs?

I would personally be in favour of legalising other 'softer' drugs like ecstasy, LSD and ketamine etc. While I am not an experienced user of any of the drugs, as far as I am aware there is nothing to suggest that these drugs cause significant long term damage to either users or society (a google will provide a lot of answers). I am in favour of legalising these drugs partially from a civil liberties point of view but more from the view of the money and jobs they would generate for the exchequer.

With regards harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine I would be more in favour of decriminalising possession rather than full legalisation (something along the lines of what is done in Portugal). While I know this conflicts with my earlier argument about civil liberties I believe that these drugs are so addictive and damaging (albeit heroin far more so than cocaine) that full legalisation would have too many harmful effects on society as a whole (and trust me, I'm no nanny-statist).

There are 3 obvious drawbacks that I can see to the decriminisation\legalisation argument however:

1. While I like a drink as much as the next person, I think it is definitely true to say that we Irish have a highly destructive relationship with the drugs that are legal already, particularly alcohol obviously. This could carry on with other drugs.

2. I think it is definitely true that prohibition of drugs has lead to a huge decrease in people taking drugs. Legalisation might lead to a large increase, which might not necessarily be a good thing (although this is admittedly by no means set in stone)

3. Becoming a world drug capital might not be the image we want to project to the world. While it would generate money for the exchequer, the impact on quality of life for Irish residents would be largely negative I would assume. However I suppose this could be overcome by limiting sales of drugs to Irish citizens with stiff penalties to anyone supplying them to tourists.

However having weighed up these options I still think the pros outweigh the cons and a more liberal drug policy would be beneficial as a whole.

TL;DR- what do you think about legalising/decriminalising other drugs besides cannabis (MDMA, LSD, Heroin etc.)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

karma_

Seachmall wrote: »

This is an example of a conversation that I’ve had many times with many people, some of them politicians:

MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.’

Professor Nutt: ‘Why not?’

MP: ‘Because one’s illegal.’

Professor Nutt: ‘Why is it illegal?’

MP: ‘Because it’s harmful.’

Professor Nutt: ‘Don’t we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?’

MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.’ .

That is gold.

Pete M.

forfuxsake wrote: »

except tobacco which should go the the other way. After a decade of taking pills, lsd, weed, e and mushrooms, a decade later the only one I regret is the fcuking ciggies. Money down the tube with not one memorable experience to show for it.

For fcuks sake, cop on, imagine going out on one and not fags :eek:

If they make ciggies illeagl and we're all flying about the place on whatever you're having yourself, we'd be gagging for a smoke.

Legalise the lot now and let's move on already :pac:

Chuck Stone

karma_ wrote: »

That is gold.

Fucking annoys me personally.

Teachers wouldn't put up with such stupidity from a 8-year-old child yet we seem to tolerate it from grown adults who have the audacity to think they know what's good for us.

TreesAreCrowd

In favour of legalising every drug. It's not up to me to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own body, it's their decision to make.

Legalise it, regulate it, manufacture them here and apply the tax. Whatever drug you're imagining right now is already out there on our streets, in bad qualities, dealt with by bad people. Nothing will stop that, the only way to overcome it is offering people a clean and legal supply.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If that's the case, why do you think every single civilised country on the planet does not allow the open sale of potent drugs?

It doesn't matter that it's common practice. War is a common practice. Slavery was a common practice. Children working in industry was a common practice.

It's really very simple. People should be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being molested by the state.

argonaut

grindle wrote: »

Yeah, pretty soft. Can have the effect of turning the user into a floppy, blithering twit, but taken pure it's nigh-on impossible to overdose from, given that you'll pass out long before you snort a lethal dosage.

Yeah, ketamine makes you act like an idiot but as far as I know it's one of the safest recreational drugs out there.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that (to use the most obvious example) legalising heroin is an ideal solution, but given how bad the situation currently is it's arguably the "least bad" solution to the problem.

I'm not going to claim that full legalisation (well, decriminalisation might be better, but since we're debating the principle why split hairs?) would be without negatives, but it's been tried with some successs in countries like Portugal - prohibition of popular substances clearly doesn't work. It's time we tried something else.

I understand the fear that this would be seen as society condoning drug abuse, but given that we've already got a fairly severe drug problem I think it makes more sense to regulate (and tax) soft & hard drugs instead of taking an unproductive, hugely expensive tactic of criminalisation and high penalties.

I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but it's worth saying again - legalisation of drugs would be a huge, huge blow to criminal gangs in Ireland - remember how the headshops were always getting firebombed? I'll give you a clue, they weren't being firebombed by Joe Duffy-listening puritans.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

Which is a huge problem in a democratic country.

If people can manage to regularly (Intentionally or accidentally) misuse drugs as relatively safe as paracetamol, I don't see the logic in permitting them uncontrolled access to even more potent drugs.

Here's a question for those who support drug legalisation. Do you think all prescription medicines should be relegated to "open sale" too? Should a drug like Cisplatin be relegated to open sale too? For a drug like Cisplatin, do you think should people should be allowed to self-diagnose, get the dosage off internet and administer it to themselves?

grindle

partyatmygaff wrote: »

...in Ireland people have this strange notion that alcohol isn't a "real drug".

...why do you think every single civilised country on the planet does not allow the open sale of potent drugs? I'm not even talking about recreational drugs, let's keep it simple. Say for example... why do you think you can't just walk in to a pharmacy and ask for some warfarin?

Keeping it simple: why would anybody take warfarin besides medical grounds?

If the opposite of keeping it simple is to make it complex, lets do that. I don't know of a civilised country in the world that doesn't sell one of the most potent drugs in existence, which, as you point out, is a "real drug". Banning much safer drugs (weed, ketamine, mushrooms, ecstasy) seems pithy when ludicrous amounts of tasty ethanol can be bought and drunk.

argonaut

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If people can manage to regularly (Intentionally or accidentally) misuse drugs as relatively safe as paracetamol, I don't see the logic in permitting them uncontrolled access to even more potent drugs.

Here's a question for those who support drug legalisation. Do you think all prescription medicines should be relegated to "open sale" too? To use my earlier example, should drugs like Warfarin be available for open sale to anybody at any quantity?

I don't know if they're really comparable since (with the obvious exception of painkillers, which fall under "drugs" for this discussion, no?) as far as I know your average over-the-counter drug isn't regularly bought and consumed for entertainment value. There's not a huge black market that's existed forever for people recreationally taking an anticoagulant.

If pharmacies already give you an interrogation when buying Nurofen Plus it's reasonable that they could similarly regulate currently illegal drugs.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It doesn't matter that it's common practice. War is a common practice.

In some cases, common practices are common for a very good reason.

It's really very simple. People should be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being molested by the state.

Should people be allowed to buy radioactive elements such as polonium or uranium without being "molested by the state" as well? Surely, that'd fall under the umbrella of civil liberties as well.

argonaut

partyatmygaff wrote: »

In some cases, common practices are common for a very good reason.

Should people be allowed to buy radioactive elements such as polonium or uranium without being "molested by the state" as well? Surely, that'd fall under the umbrella of civil liberties as well.

...no, why on earth would that fall under the umbrella of civil liberties?

grindle

argonaut wrote: »

...no, why on earth would that fall under the umbrella of civil liberties?

Because having fun at the weekend is the same as threatening nuclear war, sillyhead.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Here's a question for those who support drug legalisation. Do you think all prescription medicines should be relegated to "open sale" too?

Yes. People should be allowed to consume whatever drugs they like without being molested by the state.

argonaut

I should probably point out here that my personal position on this isn't really based on a political principle of individual choice or whatever, but on a pragmatic assessment of the situation. The War on Drugs is over, and Drugs won.

partyatmygaff

grindle wrote: »

Keeping it simple: why would anybody take warfarin besides medical grounds?

They wouldn't. What i'm saying is should they be allowed to self-diagnose and self-medicate? If you're going to allow people to take psychoactive drugs (In some cases to "self-medicate" and relieve stress or induce euphoria) you may as well allow them the same freedom for all drugs.

If the opposite of keeping it simple is to make it complex, lets do that. I don't know of a civilised country in the world that doesn't sell one of the most potent drugs in existence, which, as you point out, is a "real drug". Banning much safer drugs (weed, ketamine, mushrooms, ecstasy) seems pithy when ludicrous amounts of tasty ethanol can be bought and drunk.

Banning alcohol is unfeasible at this stage. Many other drugs are safer than alcohol and they're not available for open sale but that doesn't mean that they should be legalised. Two wrongs don't make a right.

argonaut wrote: »

If pharmacies already give you an interrogation when buying Nurofen Plus it's reasonable that they could similarly regulate currently illegal drugs.

Well why not? If there are proper clinical indications for all the drugs currently being discussed and there aren't more effective / less toxic drugs already available then why not?

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If people can manage to regularly (Intentionally or accidentally) misuse drugs as relatively safe as paracetamol, I don't see the logic in permitting them uncontrolled access to even more potent drugs.

Ecstasy, Cannabis, Magic Mushrooms and Acid while being more potent than many over-the-counter drugs are typically less toxic.

I'm not suggesting that every drug be made available only that our policies should be consistent and rational.

I can't fathom why that idea is controversial to some (not you, but people like those described in my quote).

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Should people be allowed to buy radioactive elements such as polonium or uranium without being "molested by the state" as well? Surely, that'd fall under the umbrella of civil liberties as well.

What in the name of muppetry has that got to do with people wanting to buy and consume drugs without being deemed a criminal?

partyatmygaff

argonaut wrote: »

...no, why on earth would that fall under the umbrella of civil liberties?

People should apparently be allowed to buy whatever drugs they want, whenever they want and at any quantity they want.

If that's all fine, what's the issue with allowing them to buy radioactive materials?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes. People should be allowed to consume whatever drugs they like without being molested by the state.

Who's going to sell these people these drugs? What kind of person could knowingly sell a potential poison to someone whose intentions and knowledge levels they didn't know? Besides street dealers of course...

argonaut

partyatmygaff wrote: »

People should apparently be allowed to buy whatever drugs they want, whenever they want and at any quantity they want.

If that's all fine, what's the issue with allowing them to buy radioactive materials?

I refuse to believe you don't see the difference between those things.

Drugs = potentially dangerous to person consuming them.

Radioactive materials = dangerous to everyone.

TreesAreCrowd

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Who's going to sell these people these drugs? What kind of person could knowingly sell a potential poison to someone whose intentions and knowledge levels they didn't know? Besides street dealers of course...

Barmen do it every single minute, of every single hour, every night of the week...I don't see them committing suicide in their masses?

grindle

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Who's going to sell these people these drugs? What kind of person could knowingly sell a potential poison to someone whose intentions and knowledge levels they didn't know?

The same people who sell alcohol and codeine to all these other lost souls?

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What in the name of muppetry has that got to do with people wanting to buy and consume drugs without being deemed a criminal?

It's a challenge to your idea of unregulated civil liberties. According to you, people should be allowed to buy the likes of cytotoxic drugs whenever they want in any quantity they want. If someone can buy substances that are that dangerous, why can't they buy a few grammes of polonium or uranium? They're both substances. According to you, it's not the business of the government to interfere with what you buy. If you allow the open sale of all drugs with "civil liberties" as your sole excuse, there is no sensible reason to not extend that to all substances.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Who's going to sell these people these drugs? What kind of person could knowingly sell a potential poison to someone whose intentions and knowledge levels they didn't know?

This is the bit where you want to be walked by the hand into an future that does not yet exist. It's a conservative repulsion to change.

Worrying about how it will happen is a bit like worrying what to do with slaves if there is no slavery. Or saying 'what will children do if they can't work down mines'. Prohibition is wrong and that needs change. Details to be worked out later.

Why shouldn't people be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being molested by the state or any other institution or individual?

partyatmygaff

argonaut wrote: »

I refuse to believe you don't see the difference between those things.

Drugs = potentially dangerous to person consuming them.

Radioactive materials = dangerous to everyone.

Radioactive materials are handled and used daily around the world by people. They don't all necessarily die or suffer harm. The reason for that is they all know what they're doing. The same goes for drugs and all substances.

As for drugs, there are many drugs which are toxic to anyone who comes in to contact with them. Cisplatin, being the one I mentioned earlier is one of those drugs.

dirtyden

Seachmall wrote: »

Ecstasy, Cannabis, Magic Mushrooms and Acid while being more potent than many over-the-counter drugs are typically less toxic.

I'm not suggesting that every drug be made available only that our policies should be consistent and rational.

I can't fathom why that idea is controversial to some (not you, but people like those described in my quote).

That is a pretty broad generalisation. Is there a 'therapeutic' dose of the above that you can quote me? I agree with the sentiment o people being allowed make the choice but ecstasy and acid are not safe.

Ecstasy and acid can have long term effects on the central nervous system even at the small doses people tend to take them in 5-25mgs. That said probably no more so than alcohol and one would have to be a pretty consistent user to do harm. Over the counter drugs have a clinical history that proves that they are not harmful if used as indicated on the packaging.

Cannabis and mushrooms are most likely pretty harmless though.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It's a challenge to your idea of unregulated civil liberties.

Being allowed to purchase and consume drugs does not mean free-for-all.

If someone can buy substances that are that dangerous, why can't they buy a few grammes of polonium or uranium?

This is such a bull**** strawman that barely deserves a response but anyway. People who buy explosives or dangerous toxins like, say, anthrax or plutonium are not doing it because they want to alter their conscious.

It's not the business of the government to interfere with what you buy.

Interfere with the purchase or consumption of Drugs? No.

Mustard gas and anthrax and polonium and thermo-nuclear bombs? Yes.

FML.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why shouldn't people be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being molested by the state or any other institution or individual?

As far as i'm concerned, it all boils down to safety and societal responsibility.

Not everyone is an expert on drugs or to follow on what I was saying earlier radioactive materials. Those who are experts on the particular substances feel an obligation to protect the general public from the dangers associated with the substances in question. I don't know about you but if I knew something was dangerous and a friend of mine told me they were going to do it, I would do all that is within my capacity to advise them against it and/or if necessary prevent them from doing it. That's what i'd do in an individual to individual situation. When it comes to entire populations and the subsets of the populations that are experts on the particular substances it ends up manifesting itself as something similar to the situation we're currently in today.

TreesAreCrowd

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If someone can buy substances that are that dangerous, why can't they buy a few grammes of polonium or uranium?

Kirk Lazarus: Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. Peter Sellers, "Being There." Infantile, yes. Retarded, no. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard.

grindle

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When it comes to entire populations and the subsets of the populations that are experts on the particular substances it ends up manifesting itself as something similar to the situation we're currently in today.

Drugs are illegal due to politics and societal mores, not expert peer-reviewed papers.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Being allowed to purchase and consume drugs does not mean free-for-all.

What does it mean then? In the context of drugs that is.

If I can buy heroin, why shouldn't I be allowed to buy Cisplatin or whatever drug I fancy?

This is such a bull**** strawman that barely deserves a response but anyway. People who buy explosives or dangerous toxins like, say, anthrax or plutonium are not doing it because they want to alter their conscious.

They can very easily be adapted to be used as weapons. If someone spiked a water supply with a huge quantity of some highly toxic drug, it'd do the same job as polonium. Disallowing radioactive substances but allowing drugs to be sold openly on the basis that radioactive substances are inherently more toxic or that they can be used as weapons is ridiculous. Both radioactive materials and drugs are substances. Both *can* be used safely for relatively innocent purposes and both *can* be used for malicious purposes. Why then should you be extended the liberty of being allowed to buy any drug at any time in any quantity but not have the same liberty for other toxic substances?