The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Belldandy wrote:
> Firstly, whether drugs are legal or not they still have to be paid
> for. Drugs related crime is mostly caused by users and not dealers,
> and the crimes committed by users are more likely to effect everyday
> people like you and me. Crimes committed by users are to gain money to
> pay for drugs because the user does not have the money themselves.
> Legalize and the price would be higher than it is ? Why ? Dealers
> routinely mix in allsorts of material with drugs to bulk out the
> product and decrease it's purity. Sure no one wants 100% pure drugs,
> but unless something goes wrong most street drugs have a lot of junk
> mixed with them. Legalized drugs would not be allowed to have this
> material in so would cost more.
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.
> Secondly, whilst many drugs are grown for other uses, they are not
> grown on a wide enough scale in the current legal facilities to feed
> the drug habit of the United Kingdom. Let's see someone apply for
> planning permission for a Cannabis farm and see how long that
> Government lasts. Sure, if you want to fill the countryside with drug
> growing farms thats great, but you'll need tons of security for each
> one, which will also add to the cost of the drug to users.
That, on the other hand, is a great point.
I have no idea how a shortage of drugs would be worked around...maybe if Britain struck up a deal with a South American country? Unlikely though, and I don't see cannabis farms working over here...but on the other hand, people accept breweries.
> Thirdly, if you legalize then you'd have to ensure people did not take
> the drugs home with them as this would allow these people to then deal
> to people under the legal age limit.
This is the same problem had with any drug. Under age people get beer and cigarettes illegally, and the same would happen with more drugs...it's just something that would have to be combatted. One might say this would open up more children to the likes of heroin, but I doubt someone under 15 would take heroin 'just to try it', as is the case with cigarettes. The odds would also be shortened with aforementioned awareness campaigns, in addition to what is already taught in school. The only solution to the problem would be to arrest people doing this for dealing (in addition to dealing to minors), and send them away.
> Fourthly, legalization would not increase the % of users seeking to
> stop using drugs as legalization in itself would create more users,
> Drugs, by definition, are addictive, especially those in classes A and
> B, and current detox programmes are underused. There is also a great
> irony in offering more detox facilities alongside easier to access
> drugs....
I can see the irony, but they are trying to help different problems. It would NOT increase the percentage of people wanting to stop use drugs, I agree...at least, I don't think it would. Maybe, with the drugs becoming legal, more tests would be done when looking at users, to help pinpoint the risks...and then, even more people will look to quit (as has recently happened with the breast cancer scare with young female smokers). Also, the money saved and made could help improve and add more rehab facilities.
> Fifthly, it would not get rid of the curent drugs barons in Russia,
> Latina America, Afghanistan, and the main dealers in the rest of the
> world. What would happen is you'd have a drugs war being fought more
> intensely. Does anyone really think that with legalization these
> wealthy people will just up sticks and go into something else ?
> They'll fight back and flood the illegal market with cheaper, stronger
> product.
I think that their business would be far less profitable. There are black markets for everything (like fake Levi jeans), and there would probably be some for drugs if they were legalized...but in order to survive, the barons WOULD have to make the product cheaper, and would probably not make as many customers. After all, why buy something in a dirty alley from a man wanted by police when you can walk into a licensed store and get it, maybe even for less money?
> In addition, legalization would not be backed by enough people who
> vote, it's political suicide.
This is all hypothetical...as I said, I seriously doubt it would happen. However, I do believe Portugal has legalized all drugs, or did a trial...can anyone shed any light on this?
> As the film Traffic pointed out, if people came round middle/upper
> class neighbourhoods wanting drugs would kids bother going to law
> school ?
Sorry, never seen the film - plus, I don't understand what you're saying ;-) someone please explain?
> Legalization and softer sentences for possession such as those
> proposed for Cannabis can therefore be considered potentially racist
> as they advantage the users and not the dealers.
That's not being racist at all. They are not doing it because it favours white people and not black people...although why they ARE doing it I'm not sure. They seem to be going in totally opposite directions with possession and dealing punishments. They should put up, or shut up IMO.
> It removes the risk
> for the user but does nothing for the dealers, it's like saying its
> okay for people to take drugs, but not to deal them to people unless
> you're the government.
> There is something very wrong in that.
The thing that is wrong with taking drugs is that it harms other people - if the risk to non-takers from takers was removed, using drugs would not be wrong at all...at least, as 'not wrong' as something that could effortlessly have an adverse affect on you can be (like cigarettes).
> 1) Treatment instead of detainment.
> 2) Arrest for possession of any amount of drugs classified as
> illegal.
Is number 2 not going against number 1?!
> 3) Increased international co operation on organised crime.
Yes, but then, this could be said for helping any cause, such as gun control...unfortunately, all countries and their heads have different views on this and almost every other subject, and international co-operation is hard to execute, let alone improbable to achieve.
> 4) Increased funding to foreign governments who wish to rid themselves
> of drugs production.
Which would be yet more money being sapped into this war, for a factor which may not even be that effective.
> 5) Greater powers to seize material coming into the UK.
Again, what do you define as greater powers? There isn't that much more that people on the borders can do, and they will all have little gaps and holes for people to smuggle everything and anything, including drugs, into Britain.
> Firstly, whether drugs are legal or not they still have to be paid
> for. Drugs related crime is mostly caused by users and not dealers,
> and the crimes committed by users are more likely to effect everyday
> people like you and me. Crimes committed by users are to gain money to
> pay for drugs because the user does not have the money themselves.
> Legalize and the price would be higher than it is ? Why ? Dealers
> routinely mix in allsorts of material with drugs to bulk out the
> product and decrease it's purity. Sure no one wants 100% pure drugs,
> but unless something goes wrong most street drugs have a lot of junk
> mixed with them. Legalized drugs would not be allowed to have this
> material in so would cost more.
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.
> Secondly, whilst many drugs are grown for other uses, they are not
> grown on a wide enough scale in the current legal facilities to feed
> the drug habit of the United Kingdom. Let's see someone apply for
> planning permission for a Cannabis farm and see how long that
> Government lasts. Sure, if you want to fill the countryside with drug
> growing farms thats great, but you'll need tons of security for each
> one, which will also add to the cost of the drug to users.
That, on the other hand, is a great point.
I have no idea how a shortage of drugs would be worked around...maybe if Britain struck up a deal with a South American country? Unlikely though, and I don't see cannabis farms working over here...but on the other hand, people accept breweries.
> Thirdly, if you legalize then you'd have to ensure people did not take
> the drugs home with them as this would allow these people to then deal
> to people under the legal age limit.
This is the same problem had with any drug. Under age people get beer and cigarettes illegally, and the same would happen with more drugs...it's just something that would have to be combatted. One might say this would open up more children to the likes of heroin, but I doubt someone under 15 would take heroin 'just to try it', as is the case with cigarettes. The odds would also be shortened with aforementioned awareness campaigns, in addition to what is already taught in school. The only solution to the problem would be to arrest people doing this for dealing (in addition to dealing to minors), and send them away.
> Fourthly, legalization would not increase the % of users seeking to
> stop using drugs as legalization in itself would create more users,
> Drugs, by definition, are addictive, especially those in classes A and
> B, and current detox programmes are underused. There is also a great
> irony in offering more detox facilities alongside easier to access
> drugs....
I can see the irony, but they are trying to help different problems. It would NOT increase the percentage of people wanting to stop use drugs, I agree...at least, I don't think it would. Maybe, with the drugs becoming legal, more tests would be done when looking at users, to help pinpoint the risks...and then, even more people will look to quit (as has recently happened with the breast cancer scare with young female smokers). Also, the money saved and made could help improve and add more rehab facilities.
> Fifthly, it would not get rid of the curent drugs barons in Russia,
> Latina America, Afghanistan, and the main dealers in the rest of the
> world. What would happen is you'd have a drugs war being fought more
> intensely. Does anyone really think that with legalization these
> wealthy people will just up sticks and go into something else ?
> They'll fight back and flood the illegal market with cheaper, stronger
> product.
I think that their business would be far less profitable. There are black markets for everything (like fake Levi jeans), and there would probably be some for drugs if they were legalized...but in order to survive, the barons WOULD have to make the product cheaper, and would probably not make as many customers. After all, why buy something in a dirty alley from a man wanted by police when you can walk into a licensed store and get it, maybe even for less money?
> In addition, legalization would not be backed by enough people who
> vote, it's political suicide.
This is all hypothetical...as I said, I seriously doubt it would happen. However, I do believe Portugal has legalized all drugs, or did a trial...can anyone shed any light on this?
> As the film Traffic pointed out, if people came round middle/upper
> class neighbourhoods wanting drugs would kids bother going to law
> school ?
Sorry, never seen the film - plus, I don't understand what you're saying ;-) someone please explain?
> Legalization and softer sentences for possession such as those
> proposed for Cannabis can therefore be considered potentially racist
> as they advantage the users and not the dealers.
That's not being racist at all. They are not doing it because it favours white people and not black people...although why they ARE doing it I'm not sure. They seem to be going in totally opposite directions with possession and dealing punishments. They should put up, or shut up IMO.
> It removes the risk
> for the user but does nothing for the dealers, it's like saying its
> okay for people to take drugs, but not to deal them to people unless
> you're the government.
> There is something very wrong in that.
The thing that is wrong with taking drugs is that it harms other people - if the risk to non-takers from takers was removed, using drugs would not be wrong at all...at least, as 'not wrong' as something that could effortlessly have an adverse affect on you can be (like cigarettes).
> 1) Treatment instead of detainment.
> 2) Arrest for possession of any amount of drugs classified as
> illegal.
Is number 2 not going against number 1?!
> 3) Increased international co operation on organised crime.
Yes, but then, this could be said for helping any cause, such as gun control...unfortunately, all countries and their heads have different views on this and almost every other subject, and international co-operation is hard to execute, let alone improbable to achieve.
> 4) Increased funding to foreign governments who wish to rid themselves
> of drugs production.
Which would be yet more money being sapped into this war, for a factor which may not even be that effective.
> 5) Greater powers to seize material coming into the UK.
Again, what do you define as greater powers? There isn't that much more that people on the borders can do, and they will all have little gaps and holes for people to smuggle everything and anything, including drugs, into Britain.
I think of it this way.
Drugs by themselves are essentially harmless.
But then, so are guns. Guns after all don't kill people. People kill people.
It isn't the drugs that are the danger, it is the people who will abuse them.
Drugs by themselves are essentially harmless.
But then, so are guns. Guns after all don't kill people. People kill people.
It isn't the drugs that are the danger, it is the people who will abuse them.
Right here goes;
Firstly, whether drugs are legal or not they still have to be paid for. Drugs related crime is mostly caused by users and not dealers, and the crimes committed by users are more likely to effect everyday people like you and me. Crimes committed by users are to gain money to pay for drugs because the user does not have the money themselves. Legalize and the price would be higher than it is ? Why ? Dealers routinely mix in allsorts of material with drugs to bulk out the product and decrease it's purity. Sure no one wants 100% pure drugs, but unless something goes wrong most street drugs have a lot of junk mixed with them. Legalized drugs would not be allowed to have this material in so would cost more.
Secondly, whilst many drugs are grown for other uses, they are not grown on a wide enough scale in the current legal facilities to feed the drug habit of the United Kingdom. Let's see someone apply for planning permission for a Cannabis farm and see how long that Government lasts. Sure, if you want to fill the countryside with drug growing farms thats great, but you'll need tons of security for each one, which will also add to the cost of the drug to users.
Thirdly, if you legalize then you'd have to ensure people did not take the drugs home with them as this would allow these people to then deal to people under the legal age limit. how do you convince people to pay more for something they have to use in a controlled environment ? Wit hgreat difficulty I think, the types of people who use drugs are most likely to be suspicious of any place like that.
Fourthly, legalization would not increase the % of users seeking to stop using drugs as legalization in itself would create more users, Drugs, by definition, are addictive, especially those in classes A and B, and current detox programmes are underused. There is also a great irony in offering more detox facilities alongside easier to access drugs....
Fifthly, it would not get rid of the curent drugs barons in Russia, Latina America, Afghanistan, and the main dealers in the rest of the world. What would happen is you'd have a drugs war being fought more intensely. Does anyone really think that with legalization these wealthy people will just up sticks and go into something else ? They'll fight back and flood the illegal market with cheaper, stronger product.
In addition, legalization would not be backed by enough people who vote, it's political suicide.
I think we can stop hiding this whole thing behind such lovely messages as "In the US itself large numbers of young black men are convicted of drug offences, and lose their right to vote" because these African Americans/Latin Americans are convicted mainly for being dealers to a massively white user base.
If White Americans didn't want the drugs so much then Black Americans wouldn't be arrested in such large numbers. Of course when White Americans are arrested for possesion they usually receive cautions and fines, not imprisonment. The same goes for Britain as it does America, the neighbourhoods of the end of chain drug dealers are typically in lower income areas. Geographically this will also be the same areas where migrants to the UK are likely to be - i.e ethnic minorities. The largely white drug users know these neighbourhoods are where to get drugs and go into them to get them. Whether you buy drugs in a club or wherever this kind of area is probably where they originate.
As the film Traffic pointed out, if people came round middle/upper class neighbourhoods wanting drugs would kids bother going to law school ?
I'd like to point out that I'm not saying all drug dealers are from ethnic minorities, nor that all drug users are white, but in America this has certainly proven to be generally true.
Legalization and softer sentences for possession such as those proposed for Cannabis can therefore be considered potentially racist as they advantage the users and not the dealers. It removes the risk for the user but does nothing for the dealers, it's like saying its okay for people to take drugs, but not to deal them to people unless you're the government.
There is something very wrong in that.
The best way to win the war on drugs is not legalization of any nature. Its;
1) Treatment instead of detainment.
2) Arrest for possession of any amount of drugs classified as illegal.
3) Increased international co operation on organised crime.
4) Increased funding to foreign governments who wish to rid themselves of drugs production.
5) Greater powers to seize material coming into the UK.
6) Introduce longer sentences (As in minimum 10 years served) for all dealers found guilty.
Measures like these would work, not morally dubious legalization...
~~Belldandy~~
Firstly, whether drugs are legal or not they still have to be paid for. Drugs related crime is mostly caused by users and not dealers, and the crimes committed by users are more likely to effect everyday people like you and me. Crimes committed by users are to gain money to pay for drugs because the user does not have the money themselves. Legalize and the price would be higher than it is ? Why ? Dealers routinely mix in allsorts of material with drugs to bulk out the product and decrease it's purity. Sure no one wants 100% pure drugs, but unless something goes wrong most street drugs have a lot of junk mixed with them. Legalized drugs would not be allowed to have this material in so would cost more.
Secondly, whilst many drugs are grown for other uses, they are not grown on a wide enough scale in the current legal facilities to feed the drug habit of the United Kingdom. Let's see someone apply for planning permission for a Cannabis farm and see how long that Government lasts. Sure, if you want to fill the countryside with drug growing farms thats great, but you'll need tons of security for each one, which will also add to the cost of the drug to users.
Thirdly, if you legalize then you'd have to ensure people did not take the drugs home with them as this would allow these people to then deal to people under the legal age limit. how do you convince people to pay more for something they have to use in a controlled environment ? Wit hgreat difficulty I think, the types of people who use drugs are most likely to be suspicious of any place like that.
Fourthly, legalization would not increase the % of users seeking to stop using drugs as legalization in itself would create more users, Drugs, by definition, are addictive, especially those in classes A and B, and current detox programmes are underused. There is also a great irony in offering more detox facilities alongside easier to access drugs....
Fifthly, it would not get rid of the curent drugs barons in Russia, Latina America, Afghanistan, and the main dealers in the rest of the world. What would happen is you'd have a drugs war being fought more intensely. Does anyone really think that with legalization these wealthy people will just up sticks and go into something else ? They'll fight back and flood the illegal market with cheaper, stronger product.
In addition, legalization would not be backed by enough people who vote, it's political suicide.
I think we can stop hiding this whole thing behind such lovely messages as "In the US itself large numbers of young black men are convicted of drug offences, and lose their right to vote" because these African Americans/Latin Americans are convicted mainly for being dealers to a massively white user base.
If White Americans didn't want the drugs so much then Black Americans wouldn't be arrested in such large numbers. Of course when White Americans are arrested for possesion they usually receive cautions and fines, not imprisonment. The same goes for Britain as it does America, the neighbourhoods of the end of chain drug dealers are typically in lower income areas. Geographically this will also be the same areas where migrants to the UK are likely to be - i.e ethnic minorities. The largely white drug users know these neighbourhoods are where to get drugs and go into them to get them. Whether you buy drugs in a club or wherever this kind of area is probably where they originate.
As the film Traffic pointed out, if people came round middle/upper class neighbourhoods wanting drugs would kids bother going to law school ?
I'd like to point out that I'm not saying all drug dealers are from ethnic minorities, nor that all drug users are white, but in America this has certainly proven to be generally true.
Legalization and softer sentences for possession such as those proposed for Cannabis can therefore be considered potentially racist as they advantage the users and not the dealers. It removes the risk for the user but does nothing for the dealers, it's like saying its okay for people to take drugs, but not to deal them to people unless you're the government.
There is something very wrong in that.
The best way to win the war on drugs is not legalization of any nature. Its;
1) Treatment instead of detainment.
2) Arrest for possession of any amount of drugs classified as illegal.
3) Increased international co operation on organised crime.
4) Increased funding to foreign governments who wish to rid themselves of drugs production.
5) Greater powers to seize material coming into the UK.
6) Introduce longer sentences (As in minimum 10 years served) for all dealers found guilty.
Measures like these would work, not morally dubious legalization...
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> You don't legalize something just because you're losing a war against
> it. Nor does the fact that so many people break a law mean that you
> get rid of that law for them.
You're missing the point entirely. The whole situation could be IMPROVED by mass legalization. Allowing people to own guns wouldn't solve the recent problems England's had with shootings, it would just mean that more school shootings would happen, and more children would kill themselves using their dad's weapon.
> What makes drugs so special, apart from
> the fact that many middle/upper class people use them ? I mean by that
> criteria you might as well legalise alsorts of things.....
One of the main drugs problems is the dealers. They cause the most crime, and are arguably doing the most damage. If supplying drugs was controlled, as I've described, then the problem would be made smaller.
> You don't legalize something just because you're losing a war against
> it. Nor does the fact that so many people break a law mean that you
> get rid of that law for them.
You're missing the point entirely. The whole situation could be IMPROVED by mass legalization. Allowing people to own guns wouldn't solve the recent problems England's had with shootings, it would just mean that more school shootings would happen, and more children would kill themselves using their dad's weapon.
> What makes drugs so special, apart from
> the fact that many middle/upper class people use them ? I mean by that
> criteria you might as well legalise alsorts of things.....
One of the main drugs problems is the dealers. They cause the most crime, and are arguably doing the most damage. If supplying drugs was controlled, as I've described, then the problem would be made smaller.
You don't legalize something just because you're losing a war against it. Nor does the fact that so many people break a law mean that you get rid of that law for them. What makes drugs so special, apart from the fact that many middle/upper class people use them ? I mean by that criteria you might as well legalise alsorts of things.....
I'll post something later on this because I've got to go now, I'm sure no one will agree with what I post but hey, I'm used to it :)
~~Belldandy~~
I'll post something later on this because I've got to go now, I'm sure no one will agree with what I post but hey, I'm used to it :)
~~Belldandy~~
Excellent post.
I agree that legalising drugs would alleviate many of the problems associated with their use. Prescribing heroin would alleviate crime, reduce the stigma, and - if the user wanted - help in weaning people off their addiction.
You would also eliminate the political side of the 'war on drugs'. Columbia's government, for instance, receives huge amounts of military aid from the US so that it can eliminate drug production. In reality it is waging war on those Columbian peasants - spraying their crops with herbicides etc. - who don't support the government; and hiring paramilitaries to kill trade unionists. In the US itself large numbers of young black men are convicted of drug offences, and lose their right to vote.
Also there is a really excellent book by Mike Jay called 'Emperor of Dreams'. It's about drugs in the nineteenth century, when heroin, cocaine etc were all legal. Very respectable people took huge quantities of drugs, sometimes in the name of science, sometimes just for fun. It's a great read and quite eye-opening.
I agree that legalising drugs would alleviate many of the problems associated with their use. Prescribing heroin would alleviate crime, reduce the stigma, and - if the user wanted - help in weaning people off their addiction.
You would also eliminate the political side of the 'war on drugs'. Columbia's government, for instance, receives huge amounts of military aid from the US so that it can eliminate drug production. In reality it is waging war on those Columbian peasants - spraying their crops with herbicides etc. - who don't support the government; and hiring paramilitaries to kill trade unionists. In the US itself large numbers of young black men are convicted of drug offences, and lose their right to vote.
Also there is a really excellent book by Mike Jay called 'Emperor of Dreams'. It's about drugs in the nineteenth century, when heroin, cocaine etc were all legal. Very respectable people took huge quantities of drugs, sometimes in the name of science, sometimes just for fun. It's a great read and quite eye-opening.
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: