The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
No doubt many members and staffies of SR, no matter what their ages, have taken drugs. Recently, there's been an even bigger chance that marijuana will get legalised, with trials in London to not even bother arresting people caught possessing...and I remembered a talk on drugs we had in school, where a policeman asked us if we'd ever considered the possibility and consequences of all drugs being legal.
Would it be a bad thing?
My first instinct was no, and pretty much the whole class laughed at Ben and Joe who had their hands up to support the idea...but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.
It's a radical idea, yes: legalizing ALL drugs, including those very addictive and very lethal ones, such as the aforementioned cocaine and heroin. I doubt it will ever happen in this country, and it would be a very controversial idea...but I'm already sold.
The war on drugs is not only being lost, it's being lost at an alarming cost. However, if the government (or any government, for that matter) decided to cut out the drug dealers, and actually sell these substances legally, it would first and foremost free up a lot of police time spent chasing up big time dealers. Sure, a black market would exist just like with any other product, but the business would be nowhere near as lucrative. As is done currently with cigarettes, taxes could be put on the prospective products and rather than soaking up money for funding work, it would actually MAKE money.
Without any competition, most traders in the drug business can mark up prices to such heights that addicts are forced to mug people on the streets, and break into houses in order to fund habits - I'm not saying that this will be totally eradicated, but drug-related street crime would surely go down. Of course, the drugs would only be sellable to over 18s (on the basis that by this age they are able to make an informed decision on whether or not they should take something that will probably start an addiction) with the exception of ones lower down the grade scale, such as dope, which would be put around the same level as cigarettes.
Naturally each container would have warning labels all over, even more than on cigarettes today. There would be no doubt in anybody's mind that, when buying a drug, they were running the risk of hallucinating and tripping (which could lead to them doing something they may not want to), getting addicted to the said drug and, in many cases, dying, be it from dehydration or an overdose. There would be labels on ecstacy boxes saying only to take one every how many hours, and to remember to drink lots of water...and the same with all the other types.
Another possibility would be creating the same sort of atmosphere that America has been building, by banning drug use anywhere outside of your (or a willing associate's) house. Of course, as a non-smoker, I would like to see smoking cigarettes in public place banned first and foremost, but if any/all drugs were legalised, this should prevent people being forced to breathe in cannabis smoke, and seeing people shoot up whilst they prepare to eat a meal. A license system would be brought in, much like the current rules and regulations for selling alcohol - only licensed stores and places could sell drugs, and any other place or person could be arrested just as they would be today, for dealing.
Of course, there is the hazard that a person could come out of their house stoned out of their mind, and do something terrible...but then, very few people do not take drugs because they simply aren't available - this problem would not be reduced, but many others would be. For instance, problems with injected drugs. Each heroin 'pack' would have a separate needle, only usable once, to stop the transferring of AIDS, and other such viruses. Another thing would be the trouble that you never know what is inside the tablet, or vial. When you pop a pill in a club, there could be all manner of dangerous chemicals that you didn't want to find in there...but if the stocks were controlled, everything would be as clean as it could be (given the nature of it).
There would be no advertising anywhere. Money could be spent on anti-drugs adverts like the recent 'doesn't smoke' campaign on TVs today.
I'm not saying this would be a perfect system, but I think it would be a damn fine one, better than the current one, anyhow. What are your thoughts on the subject of cannabis, or legalizing all drugs? I'd be glad to hear them.
Thanks for reading.
-El Blokey
Would it be a bad thing?
My first instinct was no, and pretty much the whole class laughed at Ben and Joe who had their hands up to support the idea...but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.
It's a radical idea, yes: legalizing ALL drugs, including those very addictive and very lethal ones, such as the aforementioned cocaine and heroin. I doubt it will ever happen in this country, and it would be a very controversial idea...but I'm already sold.
The war on drugs is not only being lost, it's being lost at an alarming cost. However, if the government (or any government, for that matter) decided to cut out the drug dealers, and actually sell these substances legally, it would first and foremost free up a lot of police time spent chasing up big time dealers. Sure, a black market would exist just like with any other product, but the business would be nowhere near as lucrative. As is done currently with cigarettes, taxes could be put on the prospective products and rather than soaking up money for funding work, it would actually MAKE money.
Without any competition, most traders in the drug business can mark up prices to such heights that addicts are forced to mug people on the streets, and break into houses in order to fund habits - I'm not saying that this will be totally eradicated, but drug-related street crime would surely go down. Of course, the drugs would only be sellable to over 18s (on the basis that by this age they are able to make an informed decision on whether or not they should take something that will probably start an addiction) with the exception of ones lower down the grade scale, such as dope, which would be put around the same level as cigarettes.
Naturally each container would have warning labels all over, even more than on cigarettes today. There would be no doubt in anybody's mind that, when buying a drug, they were running the risk of hallucinating and tripping (which could lead to them doing something they may not want to), getting addicted to the said drug and, in many cases, dying, be it from dehydration or an overdose. There would be labels on ecstacy boxes saying only to take one every how many hours, and to remember to drink lots of water...and the same with all the other types.
Another possibility would be creating the same sort of atmosphere that America has been building, by banning drug use anywhere outside of your (or a willing associate's) house. Of course, as a non-smoker, I would like to see smoking cigarettes in public place banned first and foremost, but if any/all drugs were legalised, this should prevent people being forced to breathe in cannabis smoke, and seeing people shoot up whilst they prepare to eat a meal. A license system would be brought in, much like the current rules and regulations for selling alcohol - only licensed stores and places could sell drugs, and any other place or person could be arrested just as they would be today, for dealing.
Of course, there is the hazard that a person could come out of their house stoned out of their mind, and do something terrible...but then, very few people do not take drugs because they simply aren't available - this problem would not be reduced, but many others would be. For instance, problems with injected drugs. Each heroin 'pack' would have a separate needle, only usable once, to stop the transferring of AIDS, and other such viruses. Another thing would be the trouble that you never know what is inside the tablet, or vial. When you pop a pill in a club, there could be all manner of dangerous chemicals that you didn't want to find in there...but if the stocks were controlled, everything would be as clean as it could be (given the nature of it).
There would be no advertising anywhere. Money could be spent on anti-drugs adverts like the recent 'doesn't smoke' campaign on TVs today.
I'm not saying this would be a perfect system, but I think it would be a damn fine one, better than the current one, anyhow. What are your thoughts on the subject of cannabis, or legalizing all drugs? I'd be glad to hear them.
Thanks for reading.
-El Blokey
Page:
If you
> need drugs to think better or relax then it says a lot.
---
*sigh*
Here's a quick personal view:
I may take drugs because they're fun. I may have taken acid and psycilisibic mushrooms to experience for myself instead of listening to scare stories and "If you look at a cannabis plant, then you will end up taking heroin and killing babies for smack-money"
Whilst I appreciate that's not what you're saying, I'm fed up with the hysteria surrounding non-lethal, non-addictive drugs.
Why is alcohol any better? It kills more people, changes people into obnoxious violent morons and the treatment for alcohol-related accidents/illness is a massive spend for the NHS
Why do alcohol-abusers get treated with a knowing smile "Ah yer only young once lad" when a kid bowls in drunk and puking at 3am, yet a kid coming home stoned, not throwing up and wanting to discuss the universe and ways to promote harmonious existence gets treated like Lee Harvey Oswald?
> need drugs to think better or relax then it says a lot.
---
*sigh*
Here's a quick personal view:
I may take drugs because they're fun. I may have taken acid and psycilisibic mushrooms to experience for myself instead of listening to scare stories and "If you look at a cannabis plant, then you will end up taking heroin and killing babies for smack-money"
Whilst I appreciate that's not what you're saying, I'm fed up with the hysteria surrounding non-lethal, non-addictive drugs.
Why is alcohol any better? It kills more people, changes people into obnoxious violent morons and the treatment for alcohol-related accidents/illness is a massive spend for the NHS
Why do alcohol-abusers get treated with a knowing smile "Ah yer only young once lad" when a kid bowls in drunk and puking at 3am, yet a kid coming home stoned, not throwing up and wanting to discuss the universe and ways to promote harmonious existence gets treated like Lee Harvey Oswald?
You can ban all the drugs in the world and I promise you people will go outside and spin round and round until they fall down and see god.
I've used drugs before. I wont say which and what because I do not wish to be seen condoning or condemning particular ones. My personal stand is - keep cannabis illegal. That way there's a fixed market price, you aren't handing over yet *more* money to the government and you know what you're getting.
There is a difference between marijuana & cannabis - with resin you still need to mix it with tobacco, so the problem of carginagenics remain, whereas with marijuana, you can solely use the plant with no tobacco mix.
Apparently.
And the argument of "Oh but making dope legal means it'll lead onto harder things" doesnt work.
Why? How do I know this? Because I'm not, have not, and will not end up jacking into my eyeball and going on crimesprees to fund my smack habit.
Doesn't appeal to me at all to take that stuff.
"Ah but what about those who might be led onto it?" - so what?
There are always going to be idiots, who says we have to protect every single one of them? Natural Selection I believe it's called.
I'm fed up with morons giving a bad name to non-addictive, natural plants deemed illegal.
And to use Bill Hicks
"The drugs that open your mind and make you realise how you're being ####ed every day of your life? Those are illegal. Alcohol? Nicotine? Harmful but legal. Coincidentally, taxed drugs! So the taxed drugs that kill are good for you, but the untaxed totally-non lethal drugs are evil and bad? Hmmmmmm...I'm getting mixed messages here"
I've used drugs before. I wont say which and what because I do not wish to be seen condoning or condemning particular ones. My personal stand is - keep cannabis illegal. That way there's a fixed market price, you aren't handing over yet *more* money to the government and you know what you're getting.
There is a difference between marijuana & cannabis - with resin you still need to mix it with tobacco, so the problem of carginagenics remain, whereas with marijuana, you can solely use the plant with no tobacco mix.
Apparently.
And the argument of "Oh but making dope legal means it'll lead onto harder things" doesnt work.
Why? How do I know this? Because I'm not, have not, and will not end up jacking into my eyeball and going on crimesprees to fund my smack habit.
Doesn't appeal to me at all to take that stuff.
"Ah but what about those who might be led onto it?" - so what?
There are always going to be idiots, who says we have to protect every single one of them? Natural Selection I believe it's called.
I'm fed up with morons giving a bad name to non-addictive, natural plants deemed illegal.
And to use Bill Hicks
"The drugs that open your mind and make you realise how you're being ####ed every day of your life? Those are illegal. Alcohol? Nicotine? Harmful but legal. Coincidentally, taxed drugs! So the taxed drugs that kill are good for you, but the untaxed totally-non lethal drugs are evil and bad? Hmmmmmm...I'm getting mixed messages here"
The 'unless I harm others, what I do is my own damn business' idea is great for drug users as it removes them from any feeling of responsibility.
All drugs, taken long term, have health effects which are detrimental and would not be acquired unless a user had taken drugs for a period of time. Now forgive me if I'm mistaken, but when these negative effects kick in, you're going to want them treated, by doctors and hospital staff e.t.c. Why should public money pay to treat drug users ? Sure, we treat smokers and alcoholics e.t.c., but why legalize something that would create further illness than it already does ?
The idea is also very high and mighty, an fails to take into account that whilst middle class people happily sit around taking such drugs having paid for them with legally obtained money, a majority of drug users use crime to fund their habit, legalizing makes the drugs easier to obtain and more expensive, increasing this problem.
Yes, some drugs are legalized in mainland Europe, but face it, politically, morally, ethically, socially and militarily, mainland Europe is a joke. The sad thing is most of Europe sees itself as some great superstate.
Fact is, if any political party ever proposes legalization it will be destroyed in the polls. Yes, a lot of people don't vote now. But look at France and Le Pen. When a party attempts to do something which goess massively against accepted views then that party, no matter how many supporters it has, is defeated because it mobilizes people to vote.
Plus, it's strange how those countries at the front line of the drugs wars aren't asking for legalization, isn't it ? Just those users sitting comfortably removed from those places, telling themselves they are nothing to do with it......if you use drugs you are because you create a demand and add to the image that it is okay to do so. Drugs users might not be bad people, but they're certainly pathetic. If you need drugs to think better or relax then it says a lot.
~~Belldandy~~
All drugs, taken long term, have health effects which are detrimental and would not be acquired unless a user had taken drugs for a period of time. Now forgive me if I'm mistaken, but when these negative effects kick in, you're going to want them treated, by doctors and hospital staff e.t.c. Why should public money pay to treat drug users ? Sure, we treat smokers and alcoholics e.t.c., but why legalize something that would create further illness than it already does ?
The idea is also very high and mighty, an fails to take into account that whilst middle class people happily sit around taking such drugs having paid for them with legally obtained money, a majority of drug users use crime to fund their habit, legalizing makes the drugs easier to obtain and more expensive, increasing this problem.
Yes, some drugs are legalized in mainland Europe, but face it, politically, morally, ethically, socially and militarily, mainland Europe is a joke. The sad thing is most of Europe sees itself as some great superstate.
Fact is, if any political party ever proposes legalization it will be destroyed in the polls. Yes, a lot of people don't vote now. But look at France and Le Pen. When a party attempts to do something which goess massively against accepted views then that party, no matter how many supporters it has, is defeated because it mobilizes people to vote.
Plus, it's strange how those countries at the front line of the drugs wars aren't asking for legalization, isn't it ? Just those users sitting comfortably removed from those places, telling themselves they are nothing to do with it......if you use drugs you are because you create a demand and add to the image that it is okay to do so. Drugs users might not be bad people, but they're certainly pathetic. If you need drugs to think better or relax then it says a lot.
~~Belldandy~~
The most important point BY FAR is how we would get enough drugs if they were legalised. Everyone should stop panicing. There's no need for cannabis farms, we can all just grow our own. You'd only need a few plants to be self-sufficient. And, once we get over the fear of the police looking in our cupboards, we can use our gardening skills to grow things like carrots and apples, and Britain will become an organic paradise. And it's a well known fact that you can make acid in your bathtub.
The Moby thing about 'unless I harm others, what I do is my own damn business' was first coined by JS Mill a couple of hundred years ago. I did politics at uni for a year and that was the most interesting thing I learned. Think about it :(
The Moby thing about 'unless I harm others, what I do is my own damn business' was first coined by JS Mill a couple of hundred years ago. I did politics at uni for a year and that was the most interesting thing I learned. Think about it :(
Well said, SHEEPY (or Moby, or whoever).
If a system could help eliminate other people suffering from another person's drug taking/abuse, then it would pretty much win the war.
If a system could help eliminate other people suffering from another person's drug taking/abuse, then it would pretty much win the war.
I think it was in the sleeve for Moby's 'Play' there was an essay about drugs etc
Which really just said nobody has the right to say what you can and can't do to your own body... as long as you do not interfere with anybody else.
Marajuana isn't as bad as alcohol and tobacco
But because this wasn't legalised like booze and fags it is a "bad drug" which "bad people" use just because people say you can't use it.
I have many other thoughts but I'm not in mood to say
Which really just said nobody has the right to say what you can and can't do to your own body... as long as you do not interfere with anybody else.
Marajuana isn't as bad as alcohol and tobacco
But because this wasn't legalised like booze and fags it is a "bad drug" which "bad people" use just because people say you can't use it.
I have many other thoughts but I'm not in mood to say
The point is that more people become addicted to drugs to the point they will commit crimes to gain money for them than people addicted to smoking and alcohol. Doesn't matter if the drugs are legal but the effect they have on people.
As for people not accepting greater surveillence/security to counter drugs...well since 9/11 I'v heard very few complaints about the increased security at ports and airports, and the new anti terrorism laws passed which allow greater monitoring of people. If you have nothing to hide then increased surveilence is nothing to fear.
~~Belldandy~~
As for people not accepting greater surveillence/security to counter drugs...well since 9/11 I'v heard very few complaints about the increased security at ports and airports, and the new anti terrorism laws passed which allow greater monitoring of people. If you have nothing to hide then increased surveilence is nothing to fear.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> By greater powers I mean changing how we do things. Coatal patrols,
> intercepting suspicious ships at sea before they near our shores
Ah, but that's basically just like frisking people before they step on the plane. Things are still brought in one way or another, no matter at which stage you check.
> Make suveillance easier and change the laws on bugging transmissions.
> Pull the gloves off in other words....
But then, how many voters would be confortable with laws selling away more of their privacy? Something brought in to combat drugs could also be used for other things, like tapping into innocent people's phonelines just to make sure they aren't doing anything bad. And as has been shown with the ideas to bring in ID cards with our fingerprints on, the public ain't to keen on the whole thing.
> The point is that if I want cheap cigarettes and alcohol ( I dont drink > or smoke so this is theoretical) then I'd see someone who brings large
> amounts in duty free and hasn't paid any taxes. This is illegal, but I'd > get the product cheaper.
Yes, and duty free is going (or gone). That IS illegal, and you WOULD get the product cheaper...but alcohol and cigarettes aren't extortiantely expensive anyway...not to the point that you need to steal in order to get some.
> Where I work we get a veritable pile of shoplifters stealing such high
> value items as large chocolate bars, razors and other small items. Know > why ? They're easy to sell on for drugs money and thats why they steal
> them. I've seen the kind of people that do this and those that get
> caught, they couldn't afford legal drugs and would still steal to feed a > drugs habit. How many of these people are suspected of stealing to buy
> alcohol and cigarettes ? Try none......
So...isn't that just proving my point? People don't steal things to get fags and booze.
> By greater powers I mean changing how we do things. Coatal patrols,
> intercepting suspicious ships at sea before they near our shores
Ah, but that's basically just like frisking people before they step on the plane. Things are still brought in one way or another, no matter at which stage you check.
> Make suveillance easier and change the laws on bugging transmissions.
> Pull the gloves off in other words....
But then, how many voters would be confortable with laws selling away more of their privacy? Something brought in to combat drugs could also be used for other things, like tapping into innocent people's phonelines just to make sure they aren't doing anything bad. And as has been shown with the ideas to bring in ID cards with our fingerprints on, the public ain't to keen on the whole thing.
> The point is that if I want cheap cigarettes and alcohol ( I dont drink > or smoke so this is theoretical) then I'd see someone who brings large
> amounts in duty free and hasn't paid any taxes. This is illegal, but I'd > get the product cheaper.
Yes, and duty free is going (or gone). That IS illegal, and you WOULD get the product cheaper...but alcohol and cigarettes aren't extortiantely expensive anyway...not to the point that you need to steal in order to get some.
> Where I work we get a veritable pile of shoplifters stealing such high
> value items as large chocolate bars, razors and other small items. Know > why ? They're easy to sell on for drugs money and thats why they steal
> them. I've seen the kind of people that do this and those that get
> caught, they couldn't afford legal drugs and would still steal to feed a > drugs habit. How many of these people are suspected of stealing to buy
> alcohol and cigarettes ? Try none......
So...isn't that just proving my point? People don't steal things to get fags and booze.
El blokey wrote:
> But the point is, dealers can charge as much as they want, for a
> product as rubbish and/or harmful as they see fit, because there is no
> regulatory body. Drug dealers dictate the actions of the addicts in
> this way. Also, even with taxes, drugs would still be cheaper...take
> cigarettes and cannabis prices, for example.
The point is that if I want cheap cigarettes and alcohol ( I dont drink or smoke so this is theoretical) then I'd see someone who brings large amounts in duty free and hasn't paid any taxes. This is illegal, but I'd get the product cheaper.
Where I work we get a veritable pile of shoplifters stealing such high value items as large chocolate bars, razors and other small items. Know why ? They're easy to sell on for drugs money and thats why they steal them. I've seen the kind of people that do this and those that get caught, they couldn't afford legal drugs and would still steal to feed a drugs habit. How many of these people are suspected of stealing to buy alcohol and cigarettes ? Try none......
~~Belldandy~~
> But the point is, dealers can charge as much as they want, for a
> product as rubbish and/or harmful as they see fit, because there is no
> regulatory body. Drug dealers dictate the actions of the addicts in
> this way. Also, even with taxes, drugs would still be cheaper...take
> cigarettes and cannabis prices, for example.
The point is that if I want cheap cigarettes and alcohol ( I dont drink or smoke so this is theoretical) then I'd see someone who brings large amounts in duty free and hasn't paid any taxes. This is illegal, but I'd get the product cheaper.
Where I work we get a veritable pile of shoplifters stealing such high value items as large chocolate bars, razors and other small items. Know why ? They're easy to sell on for drugs money and thats why they steal them. I've seen the kind of people that do this and those that get caught, they couldn't afford legal drugs and would still steal to feed a drugs habit. How many of these people are suspected of stealing to buy alcohol and cigarettes ? Try none......
~~Belldandy~~
>Sorry, never seen the film - plus, I don't understand what you're >saying ;-) someone please explain?
Well, all I can say is watch Traffic because it's far more isightful, realistic and educational on the whole drugs problem than any government thing can hope to be.
In essence, that point of the film is saying that in many neighbourhoods in America the demand for drugs is created by a mainly white American population who use recreational drugs, they themselves cannot obtain them so they look to those who are willing to risk themselves to get the drugs, which happens to be typically dealers in African American neighbourhoods. They can sell several hundred $ worth in half an hour or so thoughr the day and thats all they have to do to earn money - easy money compared to doing something like going to law school. But they only do it because people with money are willing to pay. No demand = no dealers = no problem.
By greater powers I mean changing how we do things. Coatal patrols, intercepting suspicious ships at sea before they near our shores, task airborne surveilance to tracking illegal ships entering our waters. Make suveillance easier and change the laws on bugging transmissions. Pull the gloves off in other words....
~~Belldandy~~
Well, all I can say is watch Traffic because it's far more isightful, realistic and educational on the whole drugs problem than any government thing can hope to be.
In essence, that point of the film is saying that in many neighbourhoods in America the demand for drugs is created by a mainly white American population who use recreational drugs, they themselves cannot obtain them so they look to those who are willing to risk themselves to get the drugs, which happens to be typically dealers in African American neighbourhoods. They can sell several hundred $ worth in half an hour or so thoughr the day and thats all they have to do to earn money - easy money compared to doing something like going to law school. But they only do it because people with money are willing to pay. No demand = no dealers = no problem.
By greater powers I mean changing how we do things. Coatal patrols, intercepting suspicious ships at sea before they near our shores, task airborne surveilance to tracking illegal ships entering our waters. Make suveillance easier and change the laws on bugging transmissions. Pull the gloves off in other words....
~~Belldandy~~
Page: