Legalisation

[headcase]

Personally, I'm against it. I think it's fine the way it is. For the record though, I don't include marijuana in my arguements. I'm still not 100% sure where I stand on marijuana.

If you're willing to look, virtually every drug you could wish for is available to you. That is of course, if you're willing to look. This means that those people who have no interest in drug use aren't bothered by it. It's not there staring them in the face everytime they go to the store and they aren't being bothered by heroin addicts looking for change. Instead they go about their lives quite happily without casting a though to drugs and their usage. Perfect.

Meanwhile, for those member of the public who do use drugs, they do so quite happily. Every few months my drug using CV adds something new. Then there is the added kick of doing something illegal. Or the kick of getting something rare and special. Or the kick if walking down the street after a night on acid and thinking "these people wil live their lives and never experience anything like that", or more importantly, "almost none of these people need that, or could handle that, or deserve that". I'm happy.

On top of that, it keeps in subtle. I'm not wandering the streets during the day off my face on MDMA. There aren't junkies shooting up in alleys as you bring your kids to school. In fact, there aren't many junkies at all. The added stigma and propaganda associated with heroin means no one wants to get hooked. Whatever you believe, it will lose that stigma if it is legalised, and that will inevitably lead to an increase in use and addiction. Plus, never underestimate the resourcefulness of children. They will want to try it and they will get it. Without the reason of us adults, they'll go mad and ruin their lives by the age of 15.

Things aren't perfect, but we've got a great status quo going. I can't see how legalisation will improve the situation any. Society is functioning away quite happily and I have all the drugs I need. Why change that?

[Eulux]

while I would appreciate many drugs being legal and easier to find...I understand why they are illegal. there's a reason most people don't do drugs...they know they can't handle them...hell, quite a few users can't handle it...but do it anyways...drugs aren't for but maybe 10% of the population...

though I think reefer should be legal. my one exception.

[devonian]

I personally think there are numerous arguments supporting legalisation:


Prohibition means that drug users have to put up with cut and contaminated drugs of unknown purity, possibly cut with dangerous substances.
It means that addicts in need of help are unable to receive it, because such help is unavailable or they are too afraid of being ridiculed or arrested.
It ensures that the drug trade, rather than being taxed and legitimate, funds organised crime groups and mafias.
It causes the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens in Colombia and other drug-exporting countries who have nothing to do with drugs but get caught up in gang warfare.
It means that children are encouraged to traffic drugs because minors receive less harsh penalties than adults.
It means that the government is not able to give impartial advice and has to spew anti-drug propaganda to make its position seem reasonable.


There are many more arguments to add to this list ? have a look at Wikipedia's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition on it.

Fundamentally, though, the War on Drugs simply does not work. Drug use has never been more widespread, and drugs have never been cheaper or more widely available than they are today. This is a testament to the billions wasted on this unwinnable war. For an even better example, think back to Prohibition, when all alcohol purchases were banned. The irony is that is was easier to get alcohol when it was illegal than when it wasn't! All that happened was that the supply was pushed into the hands of organised criminals. The War on Drugs is a similar failure.

More than that, I think the War on Drugs is totally unethical and immoral ? the role of the State is to protect us from others, not to protect us from ourselves. Should we ban all tobacco products? Should be ban alcohol like the days of Prohibition (which, incidentally, also didn't work)? Should we ban fatty foods? Everyone knows that heart disease is linked to obesity, and it a much greater killer than illegal drugs, so maybe we should ban unhealthy foods as well. Where do you draw the line?

And in that vein, if you were caught with LSD in your possession, you might well (in the US at least) be facing a jail term. Is that really OK with you? Because that is the fundamental tenet of drug prohibition. What you're advocating is that the state put drug users in prison (as they do currently to enforce drug prohibition), so are you saying that you wouldn't mind if you personally went to prison?

[headcase]

While I concede that purity is an issue, I think it is a necessary evil.

Addicts do recieve help, and plenty of it. Stone will verify the role of Arbour House and Haver Lodge in this city.

I also think the "organised crime" arguement is blown out of proportion. While my personal experience may be limited, I have never come across or heard of any issues caused by "organised crime" due to the drug trade.

If you were to strip Colombia or Lebanon or and of the drug producing countries of the income it generates, it would do far more damage.

I don't think the children drug smugglers arguement of relevant. They are probably feeding their families and if they are caught, they are not going to imprison children. Compare it to children having to deal with drug-addicted parents when heroin is available in the local supermarket.

As for the propagnada, again it's not really relavant. You're not going to legalise drugs so the government can give more unbiased information.

People seem to expect the War on Drugs to eliminate drug use completely, and see it's failure to do this as abject. In reality, the War on Drugs keeps use controlled, at which it succeeds completely. Prohibition is also an irrelevant arguement. It was a different time and a different scenario. There isn't a demand for drugs like there was for alcohol and alcohol was legal then suddenly banned. Apples and oranges.

I dealt with the last two paragraphs in my original post.

[devonian]

To address some of the points in your first post:

This means that those people who have no interest in drug use aren't bothered by it. It's not there staring them in the face everytime they go to the store and they aren't being bothered by heroin addicts looking for change.

Actually, drug-related crime is one of the problems of prohibition. Addicts turning to crime?often violent crime?is a great problem, and if they could get their fix cheaply and legally then it's likely they wouldn't have to steal quite so much to feed their habit. According to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/19/ndrugs19.xml, "more than 320,000 problem drug users commit "very high numbers of offences" - mostly shoplifting, but also violent crime."

In fact, there aren't many junkies at all.

Last I checked, there were several thousand drug addicts in the UK alone.

The added stigma and propaganda associated with heroin means no one wants to get hooked. Whatever you believe, it will lose that stigma if it is legalised, and that will inevitably lead to an increase in use and addiction.

This seems logical, but I think it's not a foregone conclusion. Just because something is legal doesn't mean uptake will increase. Drugs tend to be very price-inelastic, so a change in price does not elicit a similar change in demand. That's why moving something from Class B to Class A doesn't really reduce demand, it only pushes up the price. By that same mechanism, if drugs were legal, it isn't necessarily the case that they will be more used.

Case in point: under-18 use of cannabis in the US (where cannabis is Schedule I, the same category as heroin) is ten times greater than the equivalent use in the Netherlands, adjusted for population size. Why is this the case? It's not obvious, and I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that drug use won't necessarily increase just because prohibition ends.

Plus, never underestimate the resourcefulness of children. They will want to try it and they will get it. Without the reason of us adults, they'll go mad and ruin their lives by the age of 15.

Children and teenagers use drugs all the time. Prohibition hasn't stopped them. If drug education was more thorough and less propagandistic, maybe more teenagers would pay attention. 45% of under-18s in this country have tried cannabis, for example (I know you're excluding cannabis from your argument, but I'm just trying to illustrate the futility of prohibition).

Onto your second post:

Addicts do recieve help, and plenty of it. Stone will verify the role of Arbour House and Haver Lodge in this city.

That's not my point ? my point is that if drugs were legal, more addicts could receive the help that they are too scared otherwise to seek. Similarly, by taxing drugs, the massive profits made from taxes could be re-invested in drug rehabilitation programmes.

I also think the "organised crime" arguement is blown out of proportion. While my personal experience may be limited, I have never come across or heard of any issues caused by "organised crime" due to the drug trade.

Where do you think the drugs you buy come from? Cocaine, MDMA, cannabis ? all come from major suppliers. For example, almost all MDMA comes from China, and the profits made fund the Chinese mafia group, the 'Triads'. See XXX: "Jimmy might not know it but these days he is effectively a salesman for the Triads, the Chinese gangs which have all but cornered the market in the production of the raw materials needed to make ecstasy and cleverly exploited China's burgeoning trade relationships with other countries to distribute the chemicals around the world."

If you were to strip Colombia or Lebanon or and of the drug producing countries of the income it generates, it would do far more damage

No, you misunderstand ? I'm not suggesting that at all. In fact, the War on Drugs is suggesting that: the Colombian authorities are trying to clamp down on cocaine production, and our soldiers in Afghanistan burn down fields of poppies to prevent them being turned into heroin, causing the destruction of farmers' sole source of income. If drugs were legal, these people could get a fair payment for their crop, and would not live in fear of their land being torched by soldiers, helping the economies of these sometimes fledgling countries.

As for the propagnada, again it's not really relavant. You're not going to legalise drugs so the government can give more unbiased information.

Not only does that not make sense, but it doesn't happen in practice: The government pushes its own view, which is that no-one should take any recreational drugs. It can't say, "here's all the information on this drug. Now, make up your own mind ? but if you choose to take it, we'll put you in prison." Such a position wouldn't make sense, and would never be accepted by prohibitionists. And in any case, they still choose to push lies and propaganda: remember that poster showing 'your brain on Ecstasy' with lots of holes in it?

In reality, the War on Drugs keeps use controlled, at which it succeeds completely.

I don't see how you can say that at all. Our prisons are filling up with non-violent offenders and are now at bursting point. Furthermore, how do you define 'controlled'? How do you know that drug use wouldn't be lower if drugs were legal?

I dealt with the last two paragraphs in my original post.

I can't see where ? can you reiterate for me? You don't seem to address the immorality of the War on Drugs and the fact that it isn't the state's job to protect people from themselves.

Prohibition is also an irrelevant arguement. It was a different time and a different scenario. There isn't a demand for drugs like there was for alcohol and alcohol was legal then suddenly banned. Apples and oranges.

They're fundamentally the same thing: when alcohol was banned, the supply came instead from organised criminals. Now that drugs are banned, supply comes from organised criminals. Prohibition didn't stop people drinking alcohol at all. The War on Drugs doesn't stop people taking drugs at all. Prohibition caused a highly profitable black market to appear. The War on Drugs has caused a highly profitable black market to appear. Yes, maybe the social context is different, but a lot is shared by both and a lot can be learned from that.

People seem to expect the War on Drugs to eliminate drug use completely, and see it's failure to do this as abject.

That is the point of the War on Drugs. The government does want to eliminate drug use completely, and as we see more of our civil liberties infringed, who knows ? maybe it'll succeed. The government isn't trying to maintain the status quo, it really does want no drug use at all, whatsoever, and if it catches you red-handed, you'll surely go straight to jail. What makes you think the rules don't apply to you? It does seem slightly hypocritical to support a regime that puts drug users in prison while also being a drug user yourself...

I think another fundamental point that deserves stating is this (from the Telegraph article I mentioned): "Occasional drug use is not the principal cause of Britain's drug problems. The bulk of drug-related harm occurs among the relatively small number of people that become dependent on Class A drugs, notably heroin and cocaine." This is so, so, so important, and it's a finding that the Royal Society of Arts' study confirmed, as did Parliament's own Science Select Committee: That the vast majority of drug use is essentially harmless, and almost all the harm caused to the self and to society is done by a tiny minority of drug users. This, to me, illustrates the fallacy of trying to prevent anyone taking drugs by arguing that 'all drugs in any quantity are a danger to society' (which is the government's line).

[Stone]

This (http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ned=en_ie&q=cocaine+seizure+west+cork) is one of the biggest Cocaine seizures in Europe ever and it happened in our own county, headcase. Today four of the men were due in court in Clonakilty and seriously, the amount of armed Garda? present for the transfer from Cork prison was more than the fucking queen of england would have got. They even closed all roads along the route and had helicopters patrolling, one of them was hovering above where I live to keep watch on the road to West Cork.

Do ya think they'd do that for any other 'criminal'? No... And it wasn't even for the prisoners protection, it was for the Garda?'s own protection. They know that whoever own'd the shipment is gonna want them dead, and will kill any garda who stands in their way. That is organised crime by any definition and anybody who says that drug trade doesn't feed organised crime doesn't know their head from their ass.

headcase, even just read the newspaper and see, the drug trade is what keeps organised crime going. The protection racket, illegal gambling, racketeering, whatever, that is the domain of the simple knacker these days. They heavy guys are in drugs.

The whole war in Limerick is drug fueled. The gang warfare in Dublin is drug fueled. We in Cork have been spared the brunt of it with only occasional shootings and serious violence. Practically most of the Cork people killed in the drug trade are killed in Portugal and Spain.

[headcase]

To Stone; my point was not that there is no organised drug trade, but that it has no relevance to me. I don't care if those smygglers spend the rest of their lives in jail because I'm never going to smuggle cocaine. They knew the risks and got caught. Same deal with the Limerick gangs. If they want to kill each other then let them. I'm never going to be dealing drugs in Moyross so it has no relevance to me. If it were to spill onto the public streets it might be another matter, but if it does chances are the public are going to push for harsher laws, not more lenience.

Compare this to Amsterdam. Like I said elsewhere, my friends have warned me to stay off the streets at night if I'm by myself. Never to try buy drugs by myself. This isn't an issue here or in most other 1st world cities but Amsterdam is special due to it's lenient drug policy.

Addicts turning to crime?often violent crime?is a great problem, and if they could get their fix cheaply and legally then it's likely they wouldn't have to steal quite so much to feed their habit.

But there will be many more addicts, and them turning to crime, as you said yourself, will be a problem. A much wider problem then it is today.

Last I checked, there were several thousand drug addicts in the UK alone.

Exactly. Which isn't very much.

This seems logical, but I think it's not a foregone conclusion. Just because something is legal doesn't mean uptake will increase. Drugs tend to be very price-inelastic, so a change in price does not elicit a similar change in demand. That's why moving something from Class B to Class A doesn't really reduce demand, it only pushes up the price. By that same mechanism, if drugs were legal, it isn't necessarily the case that they will be more used.

I don't see the logic in that mechanism at all. You're associating a change in price with a change in legality. Those changes are very distinct.

Case in point: under-18 use of cannabis in the US (where cannabis is Schedule I, the same category as heroin) is ten times greater than the equivalent use in the Netherlands, adjusted for population size. Why is this the case? It's not obvious, and I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that drug use won't necessarily increase just because prohibition ends.

I don't consider cannabis in the same league as harder drugs. An increase in use and addiction is the cornerstone of my arguement and it doesn't hold true for cannabis. Maybe people don't like it and others don't care for it. The same can't be said for stimulants and opiates.

Children and teenagers use drugs all the time. Prohibition hasn't stopped them. If drug education was more thorough and less propagandistic, maybe more teenagers would pay attention. 45% of under-18s in this country have tried cannabis, for example (I know you're excluding cannabis from your argument, but I'm just trying to illustrate the futility of prohibition).

I with there were figures for under-15's so we could compare those of alcohol and cannabis, and possibly harder drugs again.

That's not my point ? my point is that if drugs were legal, more addicts could receive the help that they are too scared otherwise to seek. Similarly, by taxing drugs, the massive profits made from taxes could be re-invested in drug rehabilitation programmes.

That addicts won't be as scared is hardly a relevant point. While money could be invested, contrast that with the greater demand on those programmes and on the health service.

Where do you think the drugs you buy come from? Cocaine, MDMA, cannabis ? all come from major suppliers. For example, almost all MDMA comes from China, and the profits made fund the Chinese mafia group, the 'Triads'. See XXX: "Jimmy might not know it but these days he is effectively a salesman for the Triads, the Chinese gangs which have all but cornered the market in the production of the raw materials needed to make ecstasy and cleverly exploited China's burgeoning trade relationships with other countries to distribute the chemicals around the world."

Drug dealers killing drug dealers. Better then drug addicts robbing houses and mugging people. Like I said, I don't deny the existance of organised crime, I deny it's relevance.

If drugs were legal, these people could get a fair payment for their crop, and would not live in fear of their land being torched by soldiers, helping the economies of these sometimes fledgling countries.

If drugs were legal, what stops the gang warefare in these countries? What about the poverty there when what little farmland they have is dedicated to growing drugs?

Not only does that not make sense, but it doesn't happen in practice

I think you might have misunderstood my point.

I don't see how you can say that at all. Our prisons are filling up with non-violent offenders and are now at bursting point. Furthermore, how do you define 'controlled'? How do you know that drug use wouldn't be lower if drugs were legal?

Because alcohol and tobacco use is massive. Nicotine has little "buzz", is known to be very addictive, harmful and expensive. Yet so many people still use it, and they're going to know better then to use heroin? Whats the big difference? While I question the imposition of prison sentences, that's not the arguement at the moment.

You don't seem to address the immorality of the War on Drugs and the fact that it isn't the state's job to protect people from themselves.

Because people can't look after themselves. You quote the prevalence of crime committed by drug addicts yourself. Drugs addicts do impose on other people's freedom. As for the morality, just open your eyes. Read my first post again. I have all the drugs I need and all it takes is a little subtlety and I'm safe. I can't impose myself on others because I'll rightly go to jail. Meanwhile, the general public, to whom all the information they need on drugs is available if they care to look, don't have addiction blow up in their faces. It's a perfect status quo.

They're fundamentally the same thing: when alcohol was banned, the supply came instead from organised criminals. Now that drugs are banned, supply comes from organised criminals. Prohibition didn't stop people drinking alcohol at all. The War on Drugs doesn't stop people taking drugs at all. Prohibition caused a highly profitable black market to appear. The War on Drugs has caused a highly profitable black market to appear. Yes, maybe the social context is different, but a lot is shared by both and a lot can be learned from that.

There is no demand for drugs and there wsa a massive demand for alcohol (which triggered the law in the first place). This is key to the "organised crime" arguement.

Alcohol had no negative stigma, which feeds into the demand arguement.

Any fool can make alcohol. It tkaes a fair understanding of chemistry to make speed, a good understanding to make ecstasy and a lab to make LSD. As for cocaine and heroin, you need the fields of illegal plants.

With alcohol, like marijuana, it's fine have a pint/joint at the weekend or at night. That doesn't hold true for drugs.

Apples and oranges.

That is the point of the War on Drugs.

That's what they say is the point of the War on Drugs. Anyone who believes this is even a remote possibility is a fool. They're keeping a lid on use and I stated in my original post. At this, they are succeeding.

and if it catches you red-handed, you'll surely go straight to jail. What makes you think the rules don't apply to you? It does seem slightly hypocritical to support a regime that puts drug users in prison while also being a drug user yourself...

I can say from first hand experience, when my friend X was caught with several doses of a Class A drug (Schedule I), that this isn't the case. The drugs were confiscated, his name was taken and that was the end of the matter. Crucially, because the drugs were for personal use. The law presents a hard, zero-tolerance facade to maintain the stigma I keep emphasising. The stigma that keeps little Jonny and Sarah away from drugs. Meanwhile, if headcase wants to spend his Saturday nights at home with a few ******, they don't care. Headcase stays off the streets, keeps out of other peoples way and doesn't get addicted to anything. Everybody wins.

"Occasional drug use is not the principal cause of Britain's drug problems. The bulk of drug-related harm occurs among the relatively small number of people that become dependent on Class A drugs, notably heroin and cocaine." This is so, so, so important, and it's a finding that the Royal Society of Arts' study confirmed, as did Parliament's own Science Select Committee: That the vast majority of drug use is essentially harmless, and almost all the harm caused to the self and to society is done by a tiny minority of drug users. This, to me, illustrates the fallacy of trying to prevent anyone taking drugs by arguing that 'all drugs in any quantity are a danger to society' (which is the government's line).

Consider the fact that that report will consider marijuana as drug use. Of all the drug users in thr UK, only a small few are addicted to Class A substances. How will legalisation improve those numbers?

[Stone]

The fact that it has no relevance to you is not really a valid arguement. There have been members of the public badly affected by it, not only in Moyross, but across the country and the world. And you can't tell the future so you can't say that you won't be affected by it.
Quoted from http://www.irishabroad.com/news/irishinamerica/columnists/irelandcalling/JinglBellsandGunShots.asp
The murder that really shocked everyone happened last Tuesday morning when a young trainee plumber was shot in cold blood in a house on the north west side of Dublin because he might have been a witness to the killing of the country?s number one drug lord.

The 20-year-old plumber, by chance, was working in the house when the gunman executed the gang boss Martin ?Marlo? Hyland while he slept. To make sure the terrified youngster downstairs could not talk, the gunman then shot him in cold blood.

That plumber could have been your brother/son/father/you, in fact there could be a similar killing involving you or somebody you are close to at any time. To say that it doesn't affect you is pretentious and if you believe in fate, then it's doing a good job of tempting it.

It's an inescapable fact that gun crime and much of the present violent crime is related to the drug trade. Simple as.

[devonian]

But there will be many more addicts, and them turning to crime, as you said yourself, will be a problem. A much wider problem then it is today.

Surely, though, if drugs were cheaply available, or there was better provision of drugs on the NHS, they wouldn't need to steal to get their fix? This holds true regardless of whether there are more addicts or not.

Exactly. Which isn't very much.

Your statement is meaningless when you're not comparing it to anything. Historically, this is the highest level ever recorded: there were approximately 6,000 to 15,000 problematic illegal drug users in 1971; in 2002 there were estimated to be between 161,000 and 266,000. The increase in the size of the population does not nearly account for this rise. Similarly, the UN’s own report ‘Global Illicit Drug Trends 2003’ reveals that of the 92 countries reporting to the UN in 2001 only 15% reported decreases in use, while 85% reported that use had either remained the same or had risen.

I don't see the logic in that mechanism at all. You're associating a change in price with a change in legality. Those changes are very distinct.

What I'm saying is that, empirically speaking, making a drug more illegal doesn't reduce demand, it only pushes up the price, so making something less illegal won't necessarily increase demand.

That addicts won't be as scared is hardly a relevant point. While money could be invested, contrast that with the greater demand on those programmes and on the health service.

But if drugs were taxed, then every single drug user and addict would be paying for their own rehabilitation, as opposed to the current situation which is that the country as a whole has to pay for it. By taxing drugs, you would be able to completely offset any possible burden on the NHS.

If drugs were legal, what stops the gang warefare in these countries? What about the poverty there when what little farmland they have is dedicated to growing drugs?

With their trade now legal, organised criminal gangs would have no interest in drug dealing and the needs of the farmers could be addressed by their governments. Gang warfare only occurs because the crops are illegal—you don't hear about gang violence over maize crops, do you?

Because alcohol and tobacco use is massive. Nicotine has little "buzz", is known to be very addictive, harmful and expensive. Yet so many people still use it, and they're going to know better then to use heroin? Whats the big difference? While I question the imposition of prison sentences, that's not the arguement at the moment.

Because people can tell the difference right now. Everyone knows it plainly easy to get any drug you want, so by your logic, if people 'can't look after themselves', why aren't they all smack addicts? If heroin were legal it could still be very heavily controlled, and I don't see why its uptake would suddenly increase. What it would do is ensure a pure, uncontaminated supply for those who need it. It's ironic to me that there's a heroin shortage in the NHS, yet its street price is lower than ever!

Because people can't look after themselves. You quote the prevalence of crime committed by drug addicts yourself. Drugs addicts do impose on other people's freedom.

If they could get their fix in a way that doesn't interfere with others and is taxed so they subsidise their own treatment, they wouldn't be imposing at all, surely?

With alcohol, like marijuana, it's fine have a pint/joint at the weekend or at night. That doesn't hold true for drugs.

I strongly disagree. Some people apparently use cannabis once and develop schizophrenia. Similarly, you can use cocaine or d-amphetamine or Ritalin or a whole number of other drugs on-and-off and not become addicted, so I don't think this is correct at all. The point that drug use in general is mostly harmless still stands, and applies to Class A, B and C drugs.

That's what they say is the point of the War on Drugs. Anyone who believes this is even a remote possibility is a fool. They're keeping a lid on use and I stated in my original post. At this, they are succeeding.

Then why are almost all Western governments systematically cracking down on drug use in any way they can? What about the new civil liberties violations in the US? What about the restriction on selling pseudoephedrine to prevent it being turned into meth? What about new US legislation that makes being in possession of cannabis within a several-mile radius of a school somehow more illegal than if you weren't near the school? The War on Drugs isn't about maintaining the 'status quo', and if you think that's what it's about then you are mistaken. No government is going to just stop making progress, this thing is relentless.

I can say from first hand experience, when my friend X was caught with several doses of a Class A drug (Schedule I), that this isn't the case. The drugs were confiscated, his name was taken and that was the end of the matter. Crucially, because the drugs were for personal use.

This is entirely anecdotal — can you be sure that this happens in all cases? This certainly isn't the case in the US, where it isn't unheard of for simple possession of a small amount of cannabis to be an offence worthy of incarceration (read: human suffering). Your friend will now have a criminal record — he's been put in the same category as fraudsters, rapists and murderers. His chances of employment are now statistically lower. Is that really OK?

The law presents a hard, zero-tolerance facade to maintain the stigma I keep emphasising. The stigma that keeps little Jonny and Sarah away from drugs. Meanwhile, if headcase wants to spend his Saturday nights at home with a few ******, they don't care. Headcase stays off the streets, keeps out of other peoples way and doesn't get addicted to anything. Everybody wins.

But it doesn't keep people away from drugs! At all! Not in the slightest! Teenagers are widely disillusioned by the 'just say no' propaganda the government spews, and that makes drug-taking more attractive, arguably. According to UK Drug Policy Commission report from this April, about one in five people arrested is a heroin addict, drug addiction rates in the UK are double those in France, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands, and there has been a 111% rise in the number of people jailed for all drug-related offences between 1994 and 2005. However, street prices have dropped - with heroin falling from ?70 a gram in 2000 to ?54 in 2005.

So please don't tell me that our drug policy keeps people away from drugs, because that view simply doesn't stack up.

Consider the fact that that report will consider marijuana as drug use. Of all the drug users in thr UK, only a small few are addicted to Class A substances. How will legalisation improve those numbers?

No-one can say for sure. Just as smoking is now out of fashion and in decline, perhaps drug use may follow the same trend if it were legal. As I've stated before, though, I don't think it matters — making drugs legal will allow them to be taxed to pay for rehab and education and take the massive burden of drug use off the general taxpayer, even if it does mean more drug users.

[devonian]

Briefly, regarding the nature of organised crime and the drug trade: If you buy illegal drugs, unless you personally know the top of the food chain (say, the chemist who synthesised it or the grower who produced it), chances are you're funding organised crime, and that means you're connected with it whether you like it or not. And I agree with Stone, the example he gives is good ? even completely innocent people are harmed by it because they get caught up in the crossfire.

Another similar point, from Transform's 'After the War on Drugs':

It is invariably the weakest links in the illegal drug chain (peasant growers, drug 'mules', and problematic users) who feel the greatest impact of drug enforcement. The most serious criminals have the resources to evade legal consequences and bargaining power as informants if they are caught.

[Stone]

I can say from first hand experience, when my friend X was caught with several doses of a Class A drug (Schedule I), that this isn't the case. The drugs were confiscated, his name was taken and that was the end of the matter. Crucially, because the drugs were for personal use. The law presents a hard, zero-tolerance facade to maintain the stigma I keep emphasising. The stigma that keeps little Jonny and Sarah away from drugs. Meanwhile, if headcase wants to spend his Saturday nights at home with a few ******, they don't care. Headcase stays off the streets, keeps out of other peoples way and doesn't get addicted to anything. Everybody wins.


I can also say from first-hand experience... A friend of mine was caught with a some speed once, and the guard took it, had a chat with him and then told him that he'll be keeping an eye on him 'cos he didn't want to fuck his life up over something so trivial (nice cop eh?). Another friend of mine was caught with less than an 8th of hash and was taken to court, fined, and now has a criminal record. My cousin was caught with 68 pills, hardly all for himself though, and he got away with them being confiscated and no more happened.

So to recap...
Hash for personal use: Fine + criminal record.
Speed for personal use: Nothing.
Dealing ecstasy: Nothing.

The situation is different for everybody, not just who you know or what you see.

headcase, you're bringing up stuff from your experiences, from what you see, and that isn't a valid arguement because there is more happening in the world, hell, even in this city than you know or see.

[devonian]

So to recap...
Hash for personal use: Fine + criminal record.
Speed for personal use: Nothing.
Dealing ecstasy: Nothing.

The situation is different for everybody, not just who you know or what you see.

Yes, I think we're also referring to what happens in the UK/Ireland — I'm sure there are plenty of people who go to prison here for non-violent drug offenses, mind, but in the USA, for example, the penalties are much harsher. As I say, people go to jail for having a single joint on their person, so I assume similar penalties would be had for other drugs. There are literally thousands of people in the US in prison for drug possession charges. And in Thailand, the penalty for drug dealing is death...! (In fact, there have been suggestions of giving drug 'kingpins' the death penalty in the US as well.) So all these different punishments are still part of the War on Drugs and have to be included in the argument.

I'm told that the Netherlands is different, though: While all drugs apart from cannabis are legal, they essentially don't arrest/prosecute people (although they can't go and legalise because they are bound by three UN directives not to), which I guess is what you're suggesting, headcase? The thing is, I can't see that happening here, and nor do I see the UK Government maintaining the status quo — they've publicly stated that they're going to be doing more work on this issue, so drug use will become increasingly expensive and dangerous in the future, I should think.

I think the real problem with the Dutch way is the principle of it. The government, rather than enacting the laws that it wants to, has to betray both its people and the UN by having worthless laws and not enforcing them. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but something about that doesn't sit right with me. It also doesn't address the problems of organised crime, drug purity and safety, lost money on addicts and in enforcement (the US spent $50billion last year on the War on Drugs, and yet cannabis in the US is worth $35bn per year — more than corn! And none of that is taxed!) and so on.

Also, here's an interesting article comparing drug use, homicide rate etc. in the US and the Netherlands, implying a connection between those statistics and drug liberalisation: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm. Maybe that's an unfair assessment, but the statistics are quite interesting anyway.

[headcase]

To say that it doesn't affect you is pretentious and if you believe in fate, then it's doing a good job of tempting it.


A plumber was shot. Tragic. That in no way implies that legalisation is the answer. I have never heard of anyone being mugged in the street by a junkie looking for a fix, or a pharmacy being raded for it's heroin supply. At the moment, the drug gangs are being (relatively) quiet. No point in upsetting the public and getting the Gardai after you; a convenient situation that doesn't hold up to the new breed of criminal that takes their place after legalisation. I can't spot a date on that article either, but if memory serves, it wasn't anything very recent. Let the good times roll.

Surely, though, if drugs were cheaply available, or there was better provision of drugs on the NHS, they wouldn't need to steal to get their fix? This holds true regardless of whether there are more addicts or not.

I think a key stumbling block is our disagreement on whether use and addiction will increase. I'll deal with the in more detail later, in relation to cigarettes.

If use does increase though, which I'm certain it will, it will put a massive strain on everything. You want to tax the drugs to pay for the drugs, to pay for hospital bills, to pay for help for addicts, to pay for everything really. I'm not sure it will be much cheaper at the end of the day. Look at cigarettes. Only today did I see an commerical almost identical to the "criminality chain" one you quoted above saying not to buy smuggled cigarettes, you're "funding organised crime". Heroin is a different, bigger, story.

On top of that, an addict won't go and pick up his fix in the morning and be happy for the day. Heroin addicts are either on heroin or desperate for more. Imagine the queues, the demand, the intensity of addiction. If the NHS is paying for you're fix, why do anything with your life? Nothing will ever compare to the feeling of shooting up - free heroin is the solution to the human condition. Your career, your sex life, kids, friends; none of it matters. You;ve got your heroin and you're happy.

Your statement is meaningless when you're not comparing it to anything. Historically, this is the highest level ever recorded: there were approximately 6,000 to 15,000 problematic illegal drug users in 1971; in 2002 there were estimated to be between 161,000 and 266,000.

Our statements are meaningless when we don't know what goal we are trying to achieve. The success of my standpoint hinged on the exixtence of a happy, functioning, progressive society; success which cannot be denied. A plumber was killed in Limerick - go to Defcon 5! No. It's a sad and unfortunate story - for one family. Society is no less happy, is no less functioning, and is no less progressive. What's there to gain?

What I'm saying is that, empirically speaking, making a drug more illegal doesn't reduce demand, it only pushes up the price, so making something less illegal won't necessarily increase demand.

"Less illegal" and "legal" are still very different scenarios. To Jonny and Sarah, the productive members of society, drugs are still bad and they're not going to get involved. To headcase, it's only food for debate online, because I don't think I'm going to be caught and if I am, I don't imagine I'll be prosecuted.

I don't think price is relevant either. A night on MDMA is still less then a night out in a club, and a night on LSD is the same price as a pint.

With their trade now legal, organised criminal gangs would have no interest in drug dealing and the needs of the farmers could be addressed by their governments. Gang warfare only occurs because the crops are illegal—you don't hear about gang violence over maize crops, do you?

You're sidestepping the reality here and you know it. If it's illegal, why don't the government step in now? Why will the gangs walk away now that it legalised? They're not doing it because it's illegal, they're doing it because it's profitable. If anything, crime will increase in these areas after legalisation.

Because people can tell the difference right now.

And here's another crux of my arguement. Why? Why can they tell the difference? Why aren't they all smack addicts? Meanwhile, why do people smoke cigarettes which they know have little "buzz", are expensive, addictive and harmful? When you look at it in the cold light of day, why aren't these people all smack addicts?!

Because it's illegal. Talk to a member of the general public about drugs.

"Drugs are bad"
"Why"
"Because......."

Because that's that they've been told. And that's what they believe because of the propaganda, because only the lower classes of society get involved in drugs; the criminals and addicts. Because they scene is far removed from their 9-5, their suburban house and family saloon. Drugs are for bad people and they're quite HAPPY to have nothing to do with them. Yet they give themselves lung cancer for 8 euro a day. Never under-estimate the idiocy of the general public.

Not only will use incrase if drugs are legalised, but it could trigger the very collapse of society.

If they could get their fix in a way that doesn't interfere with others and is taxed so they subsidise their own treatment, they wouldn't be imposing at all, surely?

You vastly under-estimate the depths of heroin addiction. Sure, it'll be fine and they'll get it for cheap while the funds last - but what then? Who's going to hold up a job in the depths of heroin addiction? Moreover, what kind of company is going to hire them? We also seem to be limiting our scope to the middle classes. What about the ones below? What about the government-funded housing estates, corporation ghetto's like Knocknaheeny (sorry to keep referencing Cork city - I know won't understand completely but you catch the gist). These people are struggling to feed their families as it is. Alcoholism is a major problem, as is violent-crime. I shudder to think what freely available heroin would do to these areas.

Some people apparently use cannabis once and develop schizophrenia.

Some people eat a peanut and die. Lets not fret over tiny minorities.

Similarly, you can use cocaine or d-amphetamine or Ritalin or a whole number of other drugs on-and-off and not become addicted, so I don't think this is correct at all. The point that drug use in general is mostly harmless still stands, and applies to Class A, B and C drugs.

Another crux of my arguement, and one I already referenced. Why do you think that is? Why do I limit my drug use so much? The same reason I stay off the streets - because what I am doing is illegal. If I'm snorting coke everyday or dropping pills (or, a thousand times worse, shooting heroin) I'm going to get arrested. I'd lose my job and my family (hypothetically). The only way I can get away with my drug use is if I keep it subtle and don't let it impose in my life. Otherwise I'll be spending my weekends at Arbour House or all my days at the convenience of the State. I keep it subtle, Jonny and Sarah aren't bothered and go about their daily lives happily, everybody wins.

Then why are almost all Western governments systematically cracking down on drug use in any way they can? What about the new civil liberties violations in the US? What about the restriction on selling pseudoephedrine to prevent it being turned into meth? What about new US legislation that makes being in possession of cannabis within a several-mile radius of a school somehow more illegal than if you weren't near the school? The War on Drugs isn't about maintaining the 'status quo', and if you think that's what it's about then you are mistaken. No government is going to just stop making progress, this thing is relentless.

Everyone is getting more intelligent. The drug trade is evolving and as a result, the War against it must too. In order to maintain the "status quo", the governemnt must do everything in it's power to cut down on the drug trade. Otherwise, it would be overrun and the equilibrium would shift the other way.

This is entirely anecdotal — can you be sure that this happens in all cases? This certainly isn't the case in the US, where it isn't unheard of for simple possession of a small amount of cannabis to be an offence worthy of incarceration (read: human suffering). Your friend will now have a criminal record — he's been put in the same category as fraudsters, rapists and murderers. His chances of employment are now statistically lower. Is that really OK?

In principle, no. It isn't unheard of, but it isn't the rule of thumb. I'm sure there are Gardai on the street that would prosecute me to the full extent of the law for jay-walking. The vast majority, meanwhile, can who a little common sense. While my experience is anecdotal, it is far from a one-off. Three incidents jump to mind, along with Stone's two.

I think I already explained why this zero-tolerance facade is necessary.

But it doesn't keep people away from drugs! At all! Not in the slightest! Teenagers are widely disillusioned by the 'just say no' propaganda the government spews, and that makes drug-taking more attractive, arguably.

No, it doesn't keep us and our click away from drugs. But we are a small and select social group. In reality, the vast majority of my associates will have nothing to do with drugs, for the same vague and imprecise reasons as Joe Public quoted above.

Equally, it imposes the subtlety that I keep emphasising. We keep off the streets. We keep quiet about our drug use. I still get my drugs from a friend's friend who knows this guy... and who knows how far that chain stratches back before we reach the guy who actually has the drugs.

So please don't tell me that our drug policy keeps people away from drugs, because that view simply doesn't stack up.

And legalisation will?

making drugs legal will allow them to be taxed to pay for rehab and education and take the massive burden of drug use off the general taxpayer, even if it does mean more drug users.

Oh joy, a tiny amount deducted from our tax bill. Only at the cost of God knows what. If I were to present this choice to 100 random member of the public, what would the outcome be? I don't imagine it will be very supportive of your viewpoint.

If you buy illegal drugs, unless you personally know the top of the food chain (say, the chemist who synthesised it or the grower who produced it), chances are you're funding organised crime, and that means you're connected with it whether you like it or not.

So be it. What harm? I certainly don't think the world will be improved through legalisation. Quite the opposite, in fact.

headcase, you're bringing up stuff from your experiences, from what you see, and that isn't a valid arguement because there is more happening in the world, hell, even in this city than you know or see.

Exactly! Then I know and see! Then anybody knows or sees! So, who cares? What relevance does it have to society at large? None! The drug trade has no relevance to society at large!




I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) I dealt with most of the last post in the above passage (it took long enough). If not, just point it out.

[Stone]

I have never heard of anyone being mugged in the street by a junkie looking for a fix, or a pharmacy being raded for it's heroin supply.

I have and I'm sure many others here have. Just because you haven't doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

At the moment, the drug gangs are being (relatively) quiet. No point in upsetting the public and getting the Gardai after you; a convenient situation that doesn't hold up to the new breed of criminal that takes their place after legalisation. I can't spot a date on that article either, but if memory serves, it wasn't anything very recent. Let the good times roll.

So... Going on rampages with guns is being quiet? Wow... Also, it doesn't matter when it was and I'm sure if I looked I could find many more examples.

I think a key stumbling block is our disagreement on whether use and addiction will increase. I'll deal with the in more detail later, in relation to cigarettes.

If drugs were legalised, and people were properly educated on drugs then addiction wouldn't necessarily increase. Consumption may, but not addiction. It is possible to take heroin without becoming addicted. I know a few people who've taken it. Some once, others a few, and one that took it a few times a week. Yet none take it now.

If use does increase though, which I'm certain it will, it will put a massive strain on everything. You want to tax the drugs to pay for the drugs, to pay for hospital bills, to pay for help for addicts, to pay for everything really. I'm not sure it will be much cheaper at the end of the day. Look at cigarettes. Only today did I see an commerical almost identical to the "criminality chain" one you quoted above saying not to buy smuggled cigarettes, you're "funding organised crime". Heroin is a different, bigger, story.

Did you know that if cigarettes were made illegal tommorow that the HSE and the NHS would collapse because of the lack of money due to lost taxes. That is why cigarettes aren't illegal here, not because they are a 'mild buzz' but because they generate so much revenue the gov's can't keep going without them.

On top of that, an addict won't go and pick up his fix in the morning and be happy for the day. Heroin addicts are either on heroin or desperate for more. Imagine the queues, the demand, the intensity of addiction.

And do you know that for sure? Some people don't take heroin everyday, some people only take it once a month.

If the NHS is paying for you're fix, why do anything with your life? Nothing will ever compare to the feeling of shooting up - free heroin is the solution to the human condition. Your career, your sex life, kids, friends; none of it matters. You;ve got your heroin and you're happy.

Why would the NHS be giving it for free? Wasn't the discussion about taxing the drugs?

Our statements are meaningless when we don't know what goal we are trying to achieve. The success of my standpoint hinged on the exixtence of a happy, functioning, progressive society; success which cannot be denied.

And how do you measure 'success'? Wouldn't a society that champions your ability to exercise free will and do as you want rather than tell you what you can and can't do to yourself seem more progressive? You stink of conservatism.

A plumber was killed in Limerick - go to Defcon 5! No. It's a sad and unfortunate story - for one family. Society is no less happy, is no less functioning, and is no less progressive. What's there to gain?

Would you say the same if it was your brother? The point I was making is that nobody here is safe from the guns of the drug trade. You were being cocky saying it doesn't affect you. You or somebody you care about could be the next person in the wrong place at the wrong time. It affects everybody.

You're sidestepping the reality here and you know it. If it's illegal, why don't the government step in now? Why will the gangs walk away now that it legalised? They're not doing it because it's illegal, they're doing it because it's profitable. If anything, crime will increase in these areas after legalisation.

Their profits would be completely squashed. Imagine, you're going out in town on a Saturday night and want pills. Do you go to the store that sells them to get clean pills or do you take a risk from some scumbag you know. You wan't cocaine, do you buy it clean from a store or do you buy the shit that's been mixed with chlorine, glucose, etc. As it's available in stores and many people will buy from there then there's less market for the dealers so to make money they have to push their price up or else it's not worth their while. They are then priced out of the market. It will become that drugs from the black market are just not profitable any more. Like you referenced the cigs a while ago. There's not much money to be made in them so it's a niche market.

And here's another crux of my arguement. Why? Why can they tell the difference? Why aren't they all smack addicts? Meanwhile, why do people smoke cigarettes which they know have little "buzz", are expensive, addictive and harmful? When you look at it in the cold light of day, why aren't these people all smack addicts?!

People smoke cigarettes because they choose to smoke cigarettes. Whether they are bad for you is irrelevant because it is each persons choice to do so. Also, some people smoke all their lives without getting cancer. My grandmother has smoked since she was young and is now 76 and there's no sign of her getting sick from it. Other people die of natural causes long before that.

Take into consideration the fact that reheated oil is a carcinogen and yet people still eat food cooked in reheated oil. Look at the ingredients of the foods you eat for hydrogenated oils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat), aspartame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy), etc. Why aren't they illegal?

Because it's illegal. Talk to a member of the general public about drugs.

"Drugs are bad"
"Why"
"Because......."

Because they are not educated about drugs.

Because that's that they've been told. And that's what they believe because of the propaganda, because only the lower classes of society get involved in drugs; the criminals and addicts. Because they scene is far removed from their 9-5, their suburban house and family saloon. Drugs are for bad people and they're quite HAPPY to have nothing to do with them.

You'd be suprised how many of these people you refer to actually take cocaine. They obviously don't go around with banners proclaiming they take cocaine or smoke weed, but I've met many people from classes other than the working class who take cocaine and smoke weed. You're just assuming that they don't because that's what they want you to assume.

Yet they give themselves lung cancer for 8 euro a day. Never under-estimate the idiocy of the general public.

Yeah, and people who have sex without condoms risk getting aids and other STD's but they still do it. Big fucking deal. If I enjoy smoking cigarettes and I want to smoke cigarettes then I will smoke cigarettes. I don't need some little shit calling me an idiot for it because he thinks he's so much cleverer than me.

Not only will use incrase if drugs are legalised, but it could trigger the very collapse of society.

And you know that for sure do you? I think you should go to the bookies now to make yourself a rich man with your ability to see into the future.



I'm stuck for time now. I'll get on the rest later.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

....Much has already been said...

I'd like to emphasize these points:

1. Legalization will decrease drug prices. Because high quality drugs are available locally and cheaply, contrasting with highly priced adulterated ones, people will buy from the open market. Thus, the black market for these drugs dies. One huge pot of money for gangsters to rely on disappears. ...Organized crime? Where did you go?

2. The War on Drugs is ineffective, plus looking at the ludicrous amount of taxpayer's money the goverment spends to finance it, I say we change our policy to get more bang for our buck. I, and many other people, hate seeing good money wasted on useless things.

3. Drug use DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL DRUG ABUSE. There is a difference. A few casual uses does not make you a junkie. Many, many people use drugs casually. This is bigotry at its purest form.

4. What we do in our own free time apart from work is up to ourselves. Pissing in a cup because you smoke pot is undignifying and just wrong. If you can't do your job properly because you aren't a responsible drug user, you obviously can't keep a job. Fuck drug testing.

They say that education is the first step to enlightenment. It is our right as citizens to spend our lives in the pursuit of happiness, be that an occasional fag or not. I believe that instead of propaganda, teaching people to be RESPONSIBLE drug users is a better policy, and in accordance with our rights.

[Oi Scout]

1. Legalization will decrease drug prices. Because high quality drugs are available locally and cheaply, contrasting with highly priced adulterated ones, people will buy from the open market. Thus, the black market for these drugs dies. One huge pot of money for gangsters to rely on disappears. ...Organized crime? Where did you go?

Yes but when gangs stop growing/ creating drugs (enevitable if they are legally grown), governments will be in total control of the drug, and will be able to increase taxes on the drug to a ridiculous amount. And it would be completely possible for them to gradually phase out substances to a point where there is a very limited amount in the world, once they have gained control.

2. The War on Drugs is ineffective, plus looking at the ludicrous amount of taxpayer's money the goverment spends to finance it, I say we change our policy to get more bang for our buck. I, and many other people, hate seeing good money wasted on useless things.

If these drugs were legal, I am willing to put money on the fact that they would be taxed.

3. Drug use DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL DRUG ABUSE. There is a difference. A few casual uses does not make you a junkie. Many, many people use drugs casually. This is bigotry at its purest form.

Fair play, however, the popular opinion of non-users, is that using drugs makes you a junkie.

4. What we do in our own free time apart from work is up to ourselves. Pissing in a cup because you smoke pot is undignifying and just wrong. If you can't do your job properly because you aren't a responsible drug user, you obviously can't keep a job. Fuck drug testing.

Agreed. Or maybe, it is again discrimination against drug users that lose them jobs, rather than that they can't hold a job. I'm sure a junkie would love employment, considering then they are not constantly worrying about where to get the money for their next hit.


They say that education is the first step to enlightenment. It is our right as citizens to spend our lives in the pursuit of happiness, be that an occasional fag or not. I believe that instead of propaganda, teaching people to be RESPONSIBLE drug users is a better policy, and in accordance with our rights.

Some members of the public do not want to know, the non-users (is there a term for that). And again if the government was in controll people would be taught all the wrong things as ultimately the government would intend on phasing it out. It would start with ''Lesson 1: Roll your joints with filters, to purify the skunk.'' And end up at ''Lesson 100: Insert a filter into the rolled up note you use to snort coke, to purify it.'' Both bullshit, but one far more rediculous than the other.

Edit:
Basically what I'm saying is: That there would always be a covert way in which general society, and in particular governments, would like to irradicate drug use. And the maintained illegality of certain drugs, helps the offensive whereas the legalisation of these drugs would lure the users into a trap, which would eventually (over a long period) result in the eradication of these drugs altogether.

Yes, this is starting to sound like a conspiricy theory, but every user has at least 3 right?

[headcase]

I have and I'm sure many others here have. Just because you haven't doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I've asked around today; my parents, my friends, their parents - no one has been affected my the drug trade in this way. Unfortunately, a wider survey in impractical (because I'm not going to do it), but I'm happy enough with mine.

So... Going on rampages with guns is being quiet? Wow... Also, it doesn't matter when it was and I'm sure if I looked I could find many more examples.

Please do. Remember; no one cares if drug dealers kill drug dealers.

If drugs were legalised, and people were properly educated on drugs then addiction wouldn't necessarily increase. Consumption may, but not addiction. It is possible to take heroin without becoming addicted. I know a few people who've taken it. Some once, others a few, and one that took it a few times a week. Yet none take it now.

That's because in todays society addiction isn't able to develop. There isn't sufficient heroin available and it's difficult to keep under wraps. If heroin is available in the corner shop, of course addiction is going to increase.

I think people have to drop the naivity concerning the "education" arguement. People keep bring it up with an air of certainty. Look; of all it took was education, no one would smoke, everyone would wear their seatbelts, never drink too much and this, that and the other. You keep attributing some great intelligence to the general public that just isn't there.

Did you know that if cigarettes were made illegal tommorow that the HSE and the NHS would collapse because of the lack of money due to lost taxes. That is why cigarettes aren't illegal here, not because they are a 'mild buzz' but because they generate so much revenue the gov's can't keep going without them.

Where did you get this piece of information? I can't find anything directly related to Ireland but here's a few interesting quotes:

According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes.

[Cite. (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html)]

I'm fairly sure this (http://www.mit.edu/people/jeffrey/House_Testimony_Nov_1993.html) report backs me up, but I can't find any single quote suited. It's from the US, who have a similar health-care system to us.

This (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html) report is on the cost of smoking on health care in the US. It has no mention of taxes but judging by the tone, smoking isn't paying for itself. Again, the health care system there is similar to ours.

Why would the NHS be giving it for free? Wasn't the discussion about taxing the drugs?

That was refering to devonians comment which I quoted above that statement.

...or there was better provision of drugs on the NHS...

And how do you measure 'success'? Wouldn't a society that champions your ability to exercise free will and do as you want rather than tell you what you can and can't do to yourself seem more progressive? You stink of conservatism.

Our society is unquestionably happy and functioning. The definition of "progressive" is a little vague. Regardless, society is progressing technologically, medically, intellectually etc...

Would you say the same if it was your brother? The point I was making is that nobody here is safe from the guns of the drug trade. You were being cocky saying it doesn't affect you. You or somebody you care about could be the next person in the wrong place at the wrong time. It affects everybody.

Who it was is irrelevant. It's still one family. No one is dafe from the drug trade in the same was that no one is safe from being shot by a bank robber. The risk is so miniscule as to be irrelevant. I've already explained how I believe legalisation will vastly increase crime, where there is a much greater chance it will affect you or your family. You have to consider it from both sides to make your arguement relevant. Because there is a problem during prohibition doesn't mean that legalisation will solve it.

Their profits would be completely squashed. Imagine, you're going out in town on a Saturday night and want pills. Do you go to the store that sells them to get clean pills or do you take a risk from some scumbag you know. You wan't cocaine, do you buy it clean from a store or do you buy the shit that's been mixed with chlorine, glucose, etc. As it's available in stores and many people will buy from there then there's less market for the dealers so to make money they have to push their price up or else it's not worth their while. They are then priced out of the market. It will become that drugs from the black market are just not profitable any more. Like you referenced the cigs a while ago. There's not much money to be made in them so it's a niche market.

You misunderstand. That statement was refering not to your street dealer, but the farms where the drugs are grown.

People smoke cigarettes because they choose to smoke cigarettes. Whether they are bad for you is irrelevant because it is each persons choice to do so. Also, some people smoke all their lives without getting cancer. My grandmother has smoked since she was young and is now 76 and there's no sign of her getting sick from it. Other people die of natural causes long before that.

I've already stated the cost of smoking-related illness on the health services of the US and Canada. I think that puts the damage it does into perspective.

That's beside the point however. I brought up cigarettes, their use and addiction to counter the arguement that people will somehow "know better" then to smoke heroin, which you haven't addressed.

Take into consideration the fact that reheated oil is a carcinogen and yet people still eat food cooked in reheated oil. Look at the ingredients of the foods you eat for hydrogenated oils, aspartame, etc. Why aren't they illegal?

Because their use doesn't impose on society.

You'd be suprised how many of these people you refer to actually take cocaine. They obviously don't go around with banners proclaiming they take cocaine or smoke weed, but I've met many people from classes other than the working class who take cocaine and smoke weed. You're just assuming that they don't because that's what they want you to assume.

Exactly! Why don't I know? Because they are forced to keep it subtly! It's one of the points I've been making all along! What's to keep them as such without prohibition? I also wonder exatly how many people are using cocaine, but at that I can only conjecture.

Yeah, and people who have sex without condoms risk getting aids and other STD's but they still do it. Big fucking deal. If I enjoy smoking cigarettes and I want to smoke cigarettes then I will smoke cigarettes. I don't need some little shit calling me an idiot for it because he thinks he's so much cleverer than me.

You've missed the point entirely in your rush to be offended. I also don't appreciate being quoted out of context. That entire paragraph was emphasising the point that the public view drugs as being bad because they're illegal and that's what they've been told. Meanwhile, they have no problem with cigarettes which aren't that different. Therefore, never underestimate the idiocy of the general public.

Edit: On second thoughts, re-reading my comment, I admit it was a little ambiguous. You can't read my mind. I apologise for any confusion and resultant offense.

And you know that for sure do you? I think you should go to the bookies now to make yourself a rich man with your ability to see into the future.


Evidently not. Hence the qualifier "could" instead of "will".



I think both the posts proceeding Stone's were already dealt with between me, him and devonian.

[devonian]

And here's another crux of my arguement. Why? Why can they tell the difference? Why aren't they all smack addicts? Meanwhile, why do people smoke cigarettes which they know have little "buzz", are expensive, addictive and harmful? When you look at it in the cold light of day, why aren't these people all smack addicts?!

Because it's illegal. Talk to a member of the general public about drugs.

"Drugs are bad"
"Why"
"Because......."

Because that's that they've been told.

Maybe this is just a philosophical point we'll have do disagree on. I don't believe that people don't use heroin because they've been told not to — people are at least aware, on some level, that is it a highly addictive drug that can take ahold of your life and it's best for most people to steer clear of it. If someone wanted to get their hands on heroin, it wouldn't be hard. This is where we differ, I think: I say that people would continue not to use heroin even if it were legal, whereas you think people only stay away from it because it's illegal and are too dense to know that it's dangerous and would use it if it was available.

I'm confident that people will respond well to being educated on the topic, but maybe that's just me being optimistic. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!

I don't think price is relevant either. A night on MDMA is still less then a night out in a club, and a night on LSD is the same price as a pint.

Another problem with drugs being illegal — there's no tax, and prices are now so low that for simple inebriation, illegal drugs are cheaper than alcohol. Thus, people who just want to get 'off their tits' (for want of a better term) are arguably driven to illegal drugs.

And legalisation will?

Maybe, maybe not. But so far, putting drug users in prison certainly hasn't — that was why I quoted those drug addiction statistics. My real gripe with the current system is that it's plainly failing to prevent people using and/or becoming addicted to drugs (the War on Drugs' stated aim), and I think that the government ought to have a serious rethink on this one. It pisses me off no end when I hear about a report two years in the making by the Royal Society of Arts saying that our drug classification system isn't fit for purpose, and then hear the Home Office comment on it saying basically 'we don't give a shit. We'll stick to what we're doing now, thanks, even though it's plainly not working.'

That's because in todays society addiction isn't able to develop. There isn't sufficient heroin available and it's difficult to keep under wraps. If heroin is available in the corner shop, of course addiction is going to increase.

That's untrue — as I've said, we have more problem drug users than ever. If 'there isn't enough heroin', how come heroin prices are at an all-time low, even without adjusting for inflation? More supply causes prices to fall, so a lower price indicates more supply. And I'm not advocating selling heroin in the 'corner shop'; not in the slightest. There are many other ways of distributing the hardest drugs: in a licensed pharmacy, from a doctor, from a dedicated druggist, and many others. What I'm advocating is a general liberalisation of the drug laws and a serious rethink of how society views drug use and deals with drug abuse. I'm not advocating a free market for drugs, and I'm not advocating hard drugs being sold in the confectionary aisle of the local supermarket.

I think people have to drop the naivity concerning the "education" arguement. People keep bring it up with an air of certainty. Look; of all it took was education, no one would smoke, everyone would wear their seatbelts, never drink too much and this, that and the other. You keep attributing some great intelligence to the general public that just isn't there.

Yes, that's quite true, sadly. A lot of it is societal — France doesn't have the binge-drinking culture that we do, and that's probably largely due to the fact that children are brought up with alcohol in small amounts from a young age, taught how to respect it, what not to do etc. rather than just being allowed to find out on their own.

People still smoke, but numbers are at an all-time low and falling, which would suggest a social change (and also because tobacco prices have risen because of increased taxation. In fact, taxation has been shown to be the only thing that realistically causes a fall in smoking levels (other than a general societal shift, I suppose). That would support legalising and heavily taxing and regulating the sale of illegal drugs to reduce their demand. Legalisation would at least reduce the cost to society of drug use through taxation, even if it doesn't cover the cost entirely such as the example of smoking you gave.

There's also something in the fact that the Netherlands' drug use, of both soft and hard drugs, is much lower than really anywhere else in the world, despite their drug policy being very liberal. I can't exactly say this was down to education as I've nothing to back that up, but it's quite interesting nonetheless — perhaps we could learn something from them.

Oh joy, a tiny amount deducted from our tax bill. Only at the cost of God knows what.

The US spent $50 billion on the War on Drugs last year alone, and keeps more than 1.2 million people incarcerated for non-violent drug offences. Money spend persecuting the taxpayers themselves, who now can no longer contribute to society but are a tremendous burden instead. To call that a 'tiny amount' is a bit unfair, I think. Furthermore, taxation could turn a deficit into a profit, if the taxes levied were high enough.

So be it. What harm? I certainly don't think the world will be improved through legalisation. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Remember; no one cares if drug dealers kill drug dealers.

We've established that many thousands of people who have nothing to do with the drugs trade are killed as a result of armed violence from drug gangs and organised crime. It's not 'drug dealers killing drug dealers' — and as the sole suppliers of your drugs, and possibly your friends too, aren't you concerned at them wiping each other out? There is a tremendous human cost to the illegal drug trade.

No one is dafe from the drug trade in the same was that no one is safe from being shot by a bank robber. The risk is so miniscule as to be irrelevant.

Maybe in your country. What if you lived in Colombia?

've already stated the cost of smoking-related illness on the health services of the US and Canada. I think that puts the damage it does into perspective.

I'm sure your point is correct, but what if cigarettes were illegal? Would that not put a phenomenally huge strain on the health service without the tax revenue from their sale? The same can be said for drugs: if they were taxed, we'd at least be some way to paying for the treatment required for drug users, even if drug use increased.

If it's illegal, why don't the government step in now? Why will the gangs walk away now that it legalised? They're not doing it because it's illegal, they're doing it because it's profitable. If anything, crime will increase in these areas after legalisation.

The government does step in now — to destroy plantations of opium poppies. Yes, the gangs are involved because it is profitable. Why is it profitable? Because it's illegal. With the drug trade legalised, drugs will be cheap to produce and import (with tax being levied on their sale like with alcohol and tobacco) and gangs will have no interest. That's the relationship: drugs being illegal causes high prices, causing gangs to be interested. They're directly related; drugs aren't simply profitable in their own right.

Prohibition example (sorry, I know you don't like these...): When alcohol was made illegal, gangs immediately started production of bootleg alcohol. Why? Because there were no legit suppliers, so with reduced supply, prices are hugely inflated. They didn't continue peddling moonshine after Prohibition was repealed because the price fell massively, so the gangs weren't interested.

Because their use [of hydrogenated oils etc.] doesn't impose on society.

That's utterly untrue. Heart disease and obesity, which are directly linked to overconsumption of foodstuffs such as saturated fats and hydrogenated fatty acids, are a far larger health problem than illegal drug use is. There is a huge cost to society in terms of health care for such conditions, and yet we're happy to let people consume these untaxed products with impunity. I think this again comes down to Mill's philosophy of 'the individual is sovereign', which seems to have been applied widely throughout our society, just not in the area of drug use.

If we banned everything that was harmful to society at large, fatty foods, processed foods, cars over a certain CO2 output, cigarettes, alcohol, and more would all be banned. It wouldn't work. Furthermore, it would likely be damaging to the ecnonomy: Some Christians would say that allowing same-sex marriage is damaging to the moral fabric of society, yet statistically speaking a gay person's average wage is higher than the national average, so economically-speaking it would be unwise to persecute these people.

Similarly, I believe the systematic persecution of drug users is equally unwise. I believe that most drug use is harmless — even excluding cannabis use — and that making these people criminals is not something the government should endorse. No-one can say what sort of economic contribution drug users make to society, but it's almost certainly true that by making them criminals, the government causes their output to fall (especially if they're in prison...). I realise you think the status quo is an acceptable compromise, but I do not and I find it entirely unacceptable.

The War on Drugs is immoral, unnecessary and does not work. It goes against everything this society stands for — a liberal democracy which stands for the sovereignty of the individual —; it has been devised based on an entirely faulty premise — that all drug use is harmful and must be eradicated — and it fails to address the needs of those addicted to drugs — the US, for example, only has the capacity to rehabilitate 15% of its drug addicts, yet it manages to find the billions of dollars necessary to incarcerate millions of people for non-violent and mostly harmless offences. Funny, that.

I think perhaps we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm shortly going on holiday, so I won't be able to continue commenting, but I've really enjoyed this thread, and it's interesting to hear your views on the War on Drugs as a drug user; it's enlightening. And I think a lot of our disagreements are simply philosophical ones rather than anything of substance. Such is life...

[osha7677]

Decriminalization for personal use would be my wish.

[.VX]

If Marijuana was legal, we wouldn't have to deal with dealers. Dealers are bad...

[headcase]

How much of this thread did you read before you replied?