Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 158 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 29 Aug 2010 01:04:04 BDT
Dreamer says:
I reckon drugs should be legalized and that treating drug use as a crime rather than a medical problem causes far more harm than good. I thiink the war on drugs has failed and whats more some illegal drugs are less harmful than alchohol and cigarettes. So is illegalizing drugs ridiculous and if you think otherwise you'd better have a pretty good explaination.

Posted on 29 Aug 2010 01:12:29 BDT
gille liath says:
Good idea for a thread! It's what the forum has been crying out for.

Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking I must reiterate that never, ever, in the field of human endeavour, has there been anything to the contrary. World without end, Amen.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Aug 2010 01:19:57 BDT
Dreamer says:
We've got to get back in the top 6 somehow. =)

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Aug 2010 01:28:42 BDT
gille liath says:
"Chuckle"

Posted on 29 Aug 2010 06:14:24 BDT
Withnail says:
I see from another thread that this is meant to ruffle feathers.

Anybody any idea on how to ruffle feathers? Is it good for the bird? Do they like it?

oh - I agree that war on drugs plans are a complete waste of time. If people want to escape this reality, and understand the consequences to their health of ingesting pharmo active substances then do that, tax it to the hilt, and provide support to quit when they realise there are better ways to spend their money (kind of like tobacco really).

Posted on 29 Aug 2010 08:57:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 29 Aug 2010 09:05:46 BDT
VCBF (Val) says:
I agree with what seems to be the general consensus here, that most of the problems with illegal drugs are because they are illegal, not because they are drugs. Legalising the lot would reduce the prison population, reduce police workload, put a lot of dealers out of business and probably reduce theft and prostitution as well.

I would however make a distinction between highly addictive drugs (eg heroin) and recreational ones (eg cannabis, MDMA). Many people are able to use the latter without becoming problem users (although a minority do), not many people can 'handle' the former. I would rather see addictive drugs available on prescription than in the corner shop.

PS Oh dear, this discussion isn't turning out as controversial as you hoped, is it?

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Aug 2010 09:56:09 BDT
Ku says:
Drugs is for mugs.

You better stops before I calls the cops.

Posted on 29 Aug 2010 10:08:13 BDT
TheFoe says:
Legalise all drugs? Damn straight!! Maybe that way I won't get charged 25 for an 1/8th of weed!

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Aug 2010 10:20:51 BDT
Last edited by the author on 29 Aug 2010 10:22:21 BDT
Withnail says:
No, it would still be 25, but when you buy soapbar there won't be engine oil, plastic and other carp in it.

And when you buy coke it won't be cut with crushed glass, milk powder and bleach powder.

It would be heavily taxed, but the purity would be really high.

Also the money isn't going to really dodgy criminals, it goes to your friendly drug dealer and the government coffers.

Posted on 29 Aug 2010 10:40:27 BDT
Last edited by the author on 29 Aug 2010 10:41:14 BDT
Damaskcat says:
I see nothing wrong with making drugs legal - bet that surprised you Dreamer! My only reservation would be that I'm not sure it would cut the crime which is committed to fund the drug habit. Surely if the people without enough money would still steal to get the money to pay for the drugs?

I can see that legalising drugs could help improve the health of drug addicts because they would know that what they were buying was what it was supposed to be. I also think drug use would decrease because I suspect some people only take them because they're illegal.

Interesting book on the subject Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy There's also this which I found a real eye opener Where Does it Hurt?: What the Junior Doctor Did Next

Posted on 29 Aug 2010 15:51:46 BDT
gille liath says:
Well, I don't think the argument is quite as one-sided as this. If you legalise drugs, yes, you might reduce some of the peripheral problems associated with them; but, almost certainly, you would also increase the amount of drug usage. You have to balance the one thing against the other.

Posted on 29 Aug 2010 16:20:21 BDT
JJG says:
I can see a couple of logistical problems here; what happens when an online retailer (like this fair site) gets a license to sell crack at a cut deal straight to your door? Is your ten year old child going to sign for it, like with every other package? What are all these illegal dealers and suppliers going to do when it's legalised? Give up and get a straight job? Probably not, they'll move into other areas like human trafficking.

Other than that, yep, not a bad idea in my book. It would certainly increase a fair amount of tax revenue at a time when we could do with it.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Aug 2010 18:57:40 BDT
gille liath says:
Hmm, it would increase unemployment among drug dealers! That's another drawback we hadn't thought of...

Posted on 29 Aug 2010 22:38:19 BDT
Charlieost says:
As an ex user of most of the substances mentioned above I would regretably say no to the legalisation of drugs. The problems are overdosing and addiction. I would be extremely concerned if my teenagers were able by proxy to get some of the more dangerous drugs such as the halucinogens or those which combined with alcohol can cause death. I don't want to be driving on the same road as those who are out of it on drugs or alcohol. The more expensive and the harder to get they are then the safer we all are. Let the drug guys have their feuds and shoot each other, no loss.
And if someone wants to grow a bit of weed for their own use, no bother.
But full scale legalisation, no thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Aug 2010 23:28:13 BDT
Dreamer says:
Well yes but clearly illegalisation hasn''t stopped people taking them. Less harmful drugs should be as legal as tobacco and alchohol especially since they are often less harmful. The more dangerous drugs like heroin shouldn't be fully legal but you shouldn't throw users in prison either, those sorts of drugs should be seen as a health problem not a criminal one.
Teenagers are perfectly capable of getting drugs as are everyone else, if you legalized the drugs it would A. make them less glamourous and B. make sure that when they do try out drugs they aren't giving money to gangsters and the taleban. What's more if they were legal it would make it easier to regulate usage.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Aug 2010 23:34:08 BDT
gille liath says:
But you're not answering the argument that legalisation would increase drug use. Just because *some* people take illegal drugs, it doesn't mean the embargo makes no difference. Half a loaf is not the same as no bread.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Aug 2010 01:38:51 BDT
Dreamer says:
Yes but a lot of people take illegal drugs because they are illegal. Also in portugal it didn't noticeably increase drug use.
Besides why are some drugs even illegal, I think we can agree that alcohol is far more harmful than many illegal drugs, if it was really about the damage caused by drugs then alcohol would be illegal, nbut it isn't its about a few people deciding they don't like the sort of people who take drugs and then banning the drugs. It certainly might help stop people from moving from relatively harmless drugs like weed to evil sh*t like heroin. If both are illegal and one causes litle harm what does that do to peoples trust in the law to judge what is safe, it is not a big step from breaking on law to breaking another and once you've crossed that line and found that nothing terrible happened what does that do to your respect for the law?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Aug 2010 02:05:56 BDT
Neutral says:
D claims,

"a lot of people take illegal drugs because they are illegal." Apart from providing no evidence, even if this were true there's no indication that drug use would decline if made legal.

"I think we can agree that alcohol is far more harmful than many illegal drugs" Er, no. We can agree that alcohol is as harmful as some illegal drugs which is why it presents such a major problem in Scotland.

"its about a few people deciding they don't like the sort of people who take drugs and then banning the drugs". This is nonsense D. There's continuous consultation on what constitutes legal or illegal substances.

"It certainly might help stop people from moving from relatively harmless drugs like weed to evil sh*t like heroin." Your statement is so ridiculous that one wonders what you've been on tonight. Easier access to drugs does not form a barrier against using other drugs.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Aug 2010 02:27:33 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Aug 2010 02:29:02 BDT
Dreamer says:
Yes and if any scientists question the party line they are kicked off the consultation comittee. See the fate of professor nut.
Yes it does because if the less harmful drugs are legal then people don't get involved with the people who are pushing heroin while they are trying to buy weed. What's more if the legality of drugs was really linked to their harmfulness then people would be more likely to use the law asa guidline to what they should or shouldn't take.
Yes and from the stats in portugal we can see that drug use doesn't increase either.
"Er, no. We can agree that alcohol is as harmful as some illegal drugs which is why it presents such a major problem in Scotland." No N it is scientifically well known that weed and mdma are nowhere near as damaging as alcohol. However when professor nut pointed this fact out he was fired.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Aug 2010 07:30:00 BDT
kath1968 says:
Do you think that legalising the drugs currently in Schedule 1 will make any difference to the idiots who sniff bath salts? I'm not sure the legality or otherwise of any of it will make any difference. Why do people take drugs or sniff glue or bath salts in the first place? Is this not what we should be addressing rather than changing legislation which will take forever if it's going to be well written and be a waste of time if it's written in a hurry.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Aug 2010 11:21:40 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Aug 2010 14:08:41 BDT
Withnail says:
Legality has little impact on the use of recreational drugs.

I don't use heroin, and if it is was made legal I still would have no interest. (As I suspect neither would 99.9% of people who have had to deal with heroin addicts).

Those people who use heroin are not concerned about whether it is illegal, they just accept that they have to live outside the law in order to feed their habit.

I know it is not quite the same, but cannabis use in the Netherlands is no higher than cannabis use in the UK. I have never met a person who says I would like to use cannabis, but I won't because it is illegal. It is naive to think that access to drugs is restricted by illegality. The reason some people don't have access is because they have no interest - it is everywhere.

"Easier access to drugs does not form a barrier against using other drugs." I don't agree with the idea that one drug leads to another, otherwise you would see a link between coffee and cocaine. However most dealers (one step up from the mate who can get you something) don't restrict themselves to one drug and they obviously have an interest in getting return customers for high profit product (heroin). And you don't get that with weed.

Posted on 30 Aug 2010 13:00:59 BDT
Ku says:
I've just had the anniversary of the drugs-related suicide of my baby brother. It's a somewhat emotive issue for me.

I wouldn't want to see drugs made more freely available. And that would be the effect of legalization.

Some start with hash and can take it and then leave the scene. Others can become unhinged with small amounts of the lesser narcotics.

Tampering with mind-altering substances is a serious issue.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Aug 2010 14:17:35 BDT
M. Jolliff says:
I agree that that messing with your mind is dangerous but, which would you rather? Someone taking a known substance in a controlled and regulated enviroment where they can be monitored and where they would see the results of use in other users or that person taking a unknown substance in an uncontrolled enviroment where if there is any monitoring it is from equally intoxicated persons.
Legalization would at least reduce the risks and therefore the downsides and the revenue could be directed to creating those controlled/regulated/ monitored enviroments.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Aug 2010 14:27:10 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Aug 2010 15:11:31 BDT
Ku says:
You'd think so, Jolliff. That would be very good. Unfortunately, all rationality goes out the window in these cases. You're not guaranteed a case of 'I'm a junkie. I want to feed my habit in a safe environment.' There's a lot of denial and secrecy and paranoia.

Posted on 30 Aug 2010 14:32:16 BDT
VCBF (Val) says:
There are problems with 'legal highs' as well. People who want to take mind-altering substances, but are wary of breaking the law, are trying all sorts of similar chemicals to the illegal ones, hoping for an effect without knowing how much harm it will cause. The effects and side-effects of those drugs which have been around for some time are fairly well researched, so taking them in a controlled way is potentially safer than experimenting with unknown alternatives.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0xa6d92fa8)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  32
Total posts:  158
Initial post:  29 Aug 2010
Latest post:  31 Mar 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions