Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Drug Laws; A Savage Hypocrisy.
Options
-
20-05-2008 4:05pm#1Picture this:
You’re lying on a deck chair in your back garden on a lovely summers evening, enjoying the sunshine and basking in natures beauty while sipping from an ice cold bottle of beer. All of a sudden from the corner of your eye you spot a figure approaching you from the other end of the garden. You tilt your head to the side in mild curiosity so as to get a better view of this mysterious figure, only to find out that it is your new neighbour, Paddy McLaw.
You sit up to greet him, but before you can say a word, he blurts out,
“What’s that you’re drinking there neighbour?”.
Slightly confused you look down to your right hand and gesture to him,
“ Why, it’s a bottle of beer! Would you like one?”.
He responds to this with a gasp that is a mix between disbelief and disgust,
“I most certainly do not! Do I look like a druggy to you?”
Now your getting beginning to get impatient with this guy, and begin to think that maybe your new neighbour is not well in the head.
“Excuse me but do you need something, or have you come over here to start a fight?”
“Excuse YOU, but what the hell do you think you are doing? You can’t drink alcohol, it’s a detriment to society!”
Completely taken aback by this utterly ridiculous statement, you promptly reply,
“This is my house, my property, I can drink whatever the hell I want and it’s none of your god-damn business!”
Obviously flustered by this response, your neighbour exclaims,
“No you can’t drink whatever you want! Did you not just hear me? Alcohol is bad for society! It breaks up families, it destroys peoples lives and worst of a all it KILLS people. If you don’t stop drinking right now, I’m going to take you by force and lock you up in a cell until you’ve learned your lesson.”
Now you are getting worried, and start thinking that maybe this guy is a psycho. You quickly get up, tell this man to get off your property and go inside to ring the Police.
If someone came to your house and did this, I’m sure your reply would be the same, if not a little less polite than just “Get off my property”. It is an absolutely outrageous scenario and is something that would of course never happen in real life.
Or would it?
Ask yourself, what is the difference between this scenario and anti-drug law enforcement? Apart from the fact that drug laws are not enforced by nosey neighbours, it is, in my view, exactly the same.
What would be your opinion of such a person that would force his opinions on you?
Well, I don’t know about you, but I would be of the opinion that they can stick their opinion up their opinionated assholes. Who are they to say what is and isn’t acceptable for me to put into my own body? I’m sure that the vast majority of you would agree that you, the lazy beer drinking-sun-enjoying man or woman have every right to drink beer whenever he or she likes in their own back garden.
But here’s something interesting. Instead of beer, substitute it with crack cocaine. Yep, that’s right; “You’re lying on a deck chair in your back garden on a lovely summers evening, enjoying the sunshine and basking in natures beauty while sucking from an ice white bowl of crack”.
Now this time, if instead of a nosey neighbour it was a police officer who approached you, would you still think that he was a crazy asshole?
I’m not so sure it would be viewed the same way, because after all, drugs are baaaaaaad!
Now of course a police officer has every right under law to take you by force and lock you in a cell for doing this, but why and how is this in any way different from the first scenario with the nosey neighbour?
Both drugs have the potential to cause harm, both drugs can and do cause harm in society. Why is it that one drug can be enough to take away your freedom, while the other one is completely acceptable?
Now it could be argued that cocaine is much more addictive and therefore dangerous than alcohol, but shouldn’t people be allowed to choose if they want to do it or not? Do we actually live in a society where you can have your freedom taken away for doing something/ having something in your possession that MAY cause harm to you or others around you? Is that not the most incredible injustice of the highest degree? It reminds me a little bit of that film, Minority Report, where people were arrested and locked up because they thought about killing somebody. You could even say it has some similarities to the actions of the Thought Police in George Orwell’s brilliant book, 1984, where even your thoughts where closely monitored and regulated.
If you are completely and utterly against drugs that’s fine, but that does not mean that everybody else has to be forced to comply with your opinion. In a free world, people should be allowed to choose what they want to put into their own bodies, what they want to do to their own bodies, and what they want to do with their own bodies, no matter how detrimental that may be to their own health. If you think that is despicable, that is perfectly OK, but you have to realise that everybody is entitled to have their own beliefs and their own world views. If someone’s world view means its Ok to do drugs and to treat their bodies badly then that’s OK. You have absolutely no right to impose your beliefs and opinions on them simply because you disagree with theirs in the same way they have no right to impose their beliefs and opinions on you.
Maybe you fear that if these kind of behaviours are allowed, society will fall apart and the world as we know it will become some kind of barbaric, selfish hellhole. This is what I believe is the main motivation behind anti-drug laws. It’s the old familiar fear of the unknown. But ask yourself how are human beings supposed to progress as a society if we are unable to make choices and mistakes for ourselves? If we are prevented from doing things just because we are forced not to, we haven’t learned anything except for the ability to be unquestioningly obedient. We are not allowed to take drugs because they are bad for society, but where will it end? Tomorrow you might hear on the news “Violence on TV deemed bad for society, new policy banning all violent movies and programs passed” or maybe “Curse words to be outlawed after new report shows its promotion of anti-social behaviour”.
These may seem far-fetched but, I can honestly see no reason why they shouldn’t be outlawed when you are of the view-point that things that are bad for society should be illegal.
What this is about is freedom. When you have freedom, it is unconditional. That is the essence of the word. There is no such thing as freedom with conditions, as true freedom must be unconditional. When you live in a truly free society, you must be prepared to take the bad with the good. Freedom means that you are free to do anything you want, as long as it does not affect the freedom of others. And when you realise this, you must also realise that other people will want to do things that you do not approve of, but you must respect their freedom to choose! It is because of this freedom that you can voice your opinion, and it is a serious abuse of this when you use it to take other peoples freedoms away.3
Comments
-
Well you know Standman if we were living in a rational world...
I wouldn't hang around waiting though!0 -
thats really well put... while i dont do the drugs myself... bar the vino, i see your point. correct & right0
-
-
The only reason drug supply is in the hands of "vicious criminals" is because they are illegal. So, in a way you do support the campaign to legalise drugs because that would be the best and easiest way to "stop paying money" to these people, while not imposing on a persons freedom to choose.0
-
I don't support the legalisation of drugs but at least that's a point worth arguing about.So, in a way you do support the campaign to legalise drugs because that would be the best and easiest way to "stop paying money" to these people
Facilitating spoiled rich kids smoking joints and snorting coke and endorsing their absolute right to self-gratification? Not interested.0 -
Advertisement
-
So because you don't approve of it nobody should be allowed to do it? Just one alteration on that last line ".... their absolute right to FREEDOM OF CHOICE". Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating drug use amongst kids, I'm just ignoring your blatantly cynical viewpoint that only "spoiled rich kids" do drugs.0
-
-
That's your viewpoint but do you not think that other people who have different viewpoints should be allowed to choose for themselves?0
-
I have said I don't support the legalisation of drugs but I'm not strongly against the legalisation of drugs either.
Our society's current position is that they are illegal. Those who want to change that will have to persuade a sizeable proportion of the rest of us that there are good reasons for doing so.
If the people doing the asking are those who are currently funding the drug gangs then I really don't care if they feel their rights are being infringed in some trivial way.
If, on the other hand, a convincing case can be made that this would deprive criminal gangs of revenue and the damage can be properly controlled then I'm listening.
I would want to see this as a (pretty much) worldwide change though. No way I want Ireland to legalise drugs while other countries maintain the status quo. I don't want the kind of tourist who comes looking for a legal hit.0 -
Having worked in a well-known Dublin-based homeless charity for some years, the unanimous feeling there was that drugs should be legalized. The two principal reasons were (a) that banning a highly desirable substance gives the substance providers enormous financial and social power (cf, prohibition in the USA, opium in 19thC China) while requiring huge and needless expenditure on the part of the state to enforce and (b) that it requires huge outlay on the part of the consumer, causing theft, prostitution and so on.a convincing case can be made that this would deprive criminal gangs of revenue and the damage can be properly controlled then I'm listening.
The banning of certain drugs is as good an example as any of the requirement to understand the difference between normative legislation ("We legislate against X, because it is bad for society") and positivist legislation ("We permit X, but attempt to minimize its known bad effects"). In simplistic terms, "conservatives" are normative, while "liberals" are positivist.
Here in Ireland, I'd imagine that the proceeds of a significant portion of casual theft goes towards the drugs trade. In the design of policy, the generally small amount of damage done through theft against all the population must be balanced against the far greater harm done to the much smaller drug-taking population. Most countries currently weigh legislation in favor of the drug-taker, rather in the face of reality it seems to me.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I have said I don't support the legalisation of drugs but I'm not strongly against the legalisation of drugs either.
Our society's current position is that they are illegal. Those who want to change that will have to persuade a sizeable proportion of the rest of us that there are good reasons for doing so.
You can make a case for legalising drugs based on what the previous poster said alone, and the issue of crime related to drug prohibition is a very serious one.
But as you might have seen I come at it from the viewpoint that people should be able to choose for themselves what they put into their own body
When I was arguing with someone the other day about this, they brought up the legislation we have in Ireland in relation to the waring of seatbelts.
You can find a lot of similarities between the two. If you don't ware a seatbelt, you run the risk of causing harm to yourself and others in a similar way to that of heavy drug use. The person I was arguing with stated that if I wanted people to have freedom of choice to use drugs, then I should also want to give people the freedom to choose whether or not they want to wear a seatbelt. I thought this was a good question as both deal with a persons freedom to choose, and both may or may not cause harm. So if you regard wearing a seatbelt = not doing drugs and not wearing a seatbelt = doing drugs, we can use this argument as a template for drug use.
But what is different about the two is that there is a MUCH higher death rate; 3 out of 4 people who get into a crash without a seatbelt die. Also, the number of road deaths per year are significantly higher, in the hundreds, compared to drug related deaths which average around 100 a year - 60% of which are opiate related. But what I overlooked at first is that if you get caught without a seatbelt, you'll get a fine, and if you're lucky you could get off with a warning. Also seatbelt laws are not nearly as enforced as drug laws, I have went through checkpoints on a number of occasions wearing no seatbelt and have never been stopped - checkpoints breathalizing people I might add!
The truth is though that it would be much better if drug laws were as soft as laws regulating seatbelt use. If you get caught with even a small amount of drugs you can get convicted. This means you can never visit America, Australia or any other country whose visa requirments refuse entry to people with convictions. I think that that is disgraceful! That is something that could have the potential to very seriously affect someones life. If the Gards were doling out convictions to people who didn't wear seatbelts I'm sure there would be public outrage, and rightly so!0 -
Here's a nice little fact for you: It's perfectly legal to drive/be a passenger in a car without a seatbelt if the car is on private property.0
-
Not only is someone who carries drugs contemptuous of the law, they are also quite happy to finance murder, violence, intimidation, corruption and even civil war all the way from here to South America. Why would the US want to allow someone like that within their borders?If you get caught with even a small amount of drugs you can get convicted. This means you can never visit America, Australia or any other country whose visa requirments refuse entry to people with convictions. I think that that is disgraceful! That is something that could have the potential to very seriously affect someones life.
It's a very fair intellectual argument to say that people should be free to do whatever they want to themselves if it doesn't affect others. But I suspect that those advancing the argument for drug legalisation are largely those who are currently breaking the law and I have no time for them.
I'm not sure that the demand side of this has been properly tackled. From what I hear (from an attendee), cocaine is openly taken at corporate events in Ireland. Would this portion of demand not respond well to arrest, humiliation, jail time and exclusion from the US visa waiver programme?0 -
In theory, state legislature reflects the wishes of the majority of its citizens. So if a majority of people wanted to legalise drugs, they would elect candidates that run on a mandate of legalising drugs. Once in power, they could repeal laws that have been enacted to prohibit them.
So while the analogy has been made between someone sitting in their back garden having a few beers (a situation I could certainly see myself in), and someone sitting in their back garden taking a few pills or a line of coke (a situation I could not see myself in), the reality is that socially and politically there is a world of difference between them. Hence one is illegal, and the other is not.
I have to admit that like davros, I have very little time for people who take drugs (and by drugs I mean illegal narcotics and other psychotropics such as heroin, cocaine, ectasy, etc). This is for the same reasons he outlined. It continually disappoints me when I hear the argument that drug taking "harms nobody else", from people who presumably cannot make the connection between the highly prolific gang violence and murders, the continued destitution of the addicted and their families, and their own "casual" drug taking habits.
Usually, when this case is made, people who favour the legalisation of drugs turn it around and say that if legalised, people won't buy it from the drug dealers and can purchase it from legitimate sources. While I accept that they can, I'm also dubious because we do know a country where the drug laws are about as lax as you can get - the Netherlands. While people might have differing opinions about how enlightened the drugs policy in this country might be it can't be argued that drugs there are not problematic, or that drugs related gang activity has stopped simply because they have been legalised. So, appropriately for a skeptics forum, I am skeptical of the suggestion that legalising drugs will make these problems disappear.
I do think however, that there is quite a lot of scaremongering about drugs. If drugs were legalised tomorrow, I don't think we would see the kind of meltdown in society that some would claim, because I believe social attitudes and behaviours are formed not only by the legislature but by a whole host of other influences. But, for the moment at least, I would be against such a move. In my opinion, drugs are a very dangerous substance that need to be treated with the kind of care that you give to anything dangerous, and I don't know if people as a whole are mature or responsible enough to do that given how easy it is to fall into the trap of additiction.
Maybe a more measured response would be to relax legislature by degrees (for example by legalising canabis) to gauge how individuals and society deals with it.0 -
Exactly! You have just proven that the world would be a much better place if drugs were decriminalised. It would be the end to all the "murder, violence, intimidation, corruption and even civil war" associated with illegal drugs.0
-
In theory, state legislature reflects the wishes of the majority of its citizens. So if a majority of people wanted to legalise drugs, they would elect candidates that run on a mandate of legalising drugs. Once in power, they could repeal laws that have been enacted to prohibit them.
So while the analogy has been made between someone sitting in their back garden having a few beers (a situation I could certainly see myself in), and someone sitting in their back garden taking a few pills or a line of coke (a situation I could not see myself in), the reality is that socially and politically there is a world of difference between them. Hence one is illegal, and the other is not.
I have to admit that like davros, I have very little time for people who take drugs (and by drugs I mean illegal narcotics and other psychotropics such as heroin, cocaine, ectasy, etc). This is for the same reasons he outlined. It continually disappoints me when I hear the argument that drug taking "harms nobody else", from people who presumably cannot make the connection between the highly prolific gang violence and murders, the continued destitution of the addicted and their families, and their own "casual" drug taking habits.
Usually, when this case is made, people who favour the legalisation of drugs turn it around and say that if legalised, people won't buy it from the drug dealers and can purchase it from legitimate sources. While I accept that they can, I'm also dubious because we do know a country where the drug laws are about as lax as you can get - the Netherlands. While people might have differing opinions about how enlightened the drugs policy in this country might be it can't be argued that drugs there are not problematic, or that drugs related gang activity has stopped simply because they have been legalised. So, appropriately for a skeptics forum, I am skeptical of the suggestion that legalising drugs will make these problems disappear.
I do think however, that there is quite a lot of scaremongering about drugs. If drugs were legalised tomorrow, I don't think we would see the kind of meltdown in society that some would claim, because I believe social attitudes and behaviours are formed not only by the legislature but by a whole host of other influences. But, for the moment at least, I would be against such a move. In my opinion, drugs are a very dangerous substance that need to be treated with the kind of care that you give to anything dangerous, and I don't know if people as a whole are mature or responsible enough to do that given how easy it is to fall into the trap of additiction.
Maybe a more measured response would be to relax legislature by degrees (for example by legalising canabis) to gauge how individuals and society deals with it.
I have never stated, nor do I believe that drug use is harmless. There are very real dangers associated with drug use and abuse and these must be taken very, very seriously. I think you are right aswell regarding relaxing legislation in degrees rather than doing it all at once, as with anything that would be a major change in society must be handled very carefully.
The reason I feel so strongly about this subject is not because I am some drug user who is selfishly seeking to change laws for my own benefit, but because I see the criminalisation of drug users as an injustice. I think it is deplorable that a person can be sent to jail for possessing or using something that *could* harm himself or others. It just seems the punishment by no means fits the "crime". You could use the reasoning that they are punished because they are funding criminal gangs, but again I see this as a product of legislation, and a problem that will NEVER be solved using current laws.
Also, just because a majority believes something is right does not make it so. If the majority suddenly decided murder was ok, it should still not be allowed as it affects other peoples freedom - their freedom to live! In the same way I feel current laws affect peoples freedom to choose.0 -
You have no time for them because they are breaking the law, or for some other reason?But I suspect that those advancing the argument for drug legalisation are largely those who are currently breaking the law and I have no time for them.
There were no drug-takers down in the homeless shelter where I worked, but everybody -- even the one religious person there -- supported decriminalization.
Banning addictive narcotics puts vast power into the hands of the distributors and causes problems which, I believe, far outweigh the benefits of any legal prohibition to the drug-takers (who, I think it's fairly obvious, are ignoring the legal prohibition in any case).0 -
Non-drug users don't seem to feel guilty about the fact that they're financing corrupt industries when they buy sweatshop-made clothes, chocolate, coffee etc. It's blatant hyposcrisy to condemn illegal drug use because it is a corrupt industry.I have to admit that like davros, I have very little time for people who take drugs (and by drugs I mean illegal narcotics and other psychotropics such as heroin, cocaine, ectasy, etc). This is for the same reasons he outlined. It continually disappoints me when I hear the argument that drug taking "harms nobody else", from people who presumably cannot make the connection between the highly prolific gang violence and murders, the continued destitution of the addicted and their families, and their own "casual" drug taking habits.
But they haven't been legalised, cannabis has simply been decriminalised. Drug gangs will always exist until all commonly used recreational substances are made 100% legal.Usually, when this case is made, people who favour the legalisation of drugs turn it around and say that if legalised, people won't buy it from the drug dealers and can purchase it from legitimate sources. While I accept that they can, I'm also dubious because we do know a country where the drug laws are about as lax as you can get - the Netherlands. While people might have differing opinions about how enlightened the drugs policy in this country might be it can't be argued that drugs there are not problematic, or that drugs related gang activity has stopped simply because they have been legalised.
The main thing that the Dutch drug policy has shown is that decriminalising cannabis does not lead to an increase in usage.
Unfortunately, the Christian ruling party in the Netherlands is rapidly trying to reverse liberal Dutch policy in all areas, and coffeeshops are top of the agenda. Huge step backwards if you ask me.
Thing is though, the only two commonly used recreational drugs with a big potential for addiction are coke and heroin. This is why it annoys me that "drugs" are all lumped together in the same category.I don't know if people as a whole are mature or responsible enough to do that given how easy it is to fall into the trap of additiction.
Problem being, any gauging will be horrifically biased by both sides. Look at the Dutch cannabis policy. There are very few who look at the facts and try to make up their minds about whether it has worked or not. If someone is pro-drugs it is wonderful, if they're anti-drugs, it's a failed experiment which is destroying Dutch society.Maybe a more measured response would be to relax legislature by degrees (for example by legalising canabis) to gauge how individuals and society deals with it.0 -
I am referring to those who take drugs socially and advance the argument that they have the right to do to themselves whatever they want, damn the consequences. They don't care a whit for the rest of society so why do they think we should indulge them?You have no time for them because they are breaking the law, or for some other reason?
The argument for legalisation in order to pull the rug out from under the criminals is thoroughly respectable and I'm almost convinced by it (worth a phased-in attempt anyway, as swiss suggests). But I don't want Ireland to go down this road alone.0 -
Advertisement
-
I am referring to those who take drugs socially and advance the argument that they have the right to do to themselves whatever they want, damn the consequences. They don't care a whit for the rest of society so why do they think we should indulge them?
What consequences are you referring to?0 -
The consequences of funding criminals.What consequences are you referring to?
It's hard to be clear when there are a few different strands to the discussion. I don't mean the consequences to one's own health.
You can probably call me a hypocrite because I have my own unhealthy habits that society doesn't interfere with but at least I didn't contribute to anyone's death when purchasing my chocolate biscuit (if you want to ban chocolate biscuits though please go ahead - it would really help me).0 -
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/international/chocolate_bittersweet.fortune/at least I didn't contribute to anyone's death when purchasing my chocolate biscuit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_cocoa0 -
The drugs industry is more than corrupt. It is murderous, ruthless and cutthroat, and the evidence for that is inescapable as it spills over into council estates. I have no doubt that many other industries are corrupt, but at least if they operate in this country they are subject to labour and other laws. Consumers also have a choice if they want to buy the sweatshop clothes as you put it, or alternatives from a (perceived) more ethical competitor. Some people, for example, will buy fairtrade coffee. I have yet to see fairtrade cocaine. Also for other industries, people may simply not have thought about the issue very much, but when it comes to drugs, the implications are hard to avoid.JC 2K3 wrote:Non-drug users don't seem to feel guilty about the fact that they're financing corrupt industries when they buy sweatshop-made clothes, chocolate, coffee etc. It's blatant hyposcrisy to condemn illegal drug use because it is a corrupt industry.
Even if this were true, it is not a good enough reason to legalise drugs. Prostitution gangs and rackets would disappear if prostitution was made legal, as would (in some parts of the world) slave rings, if slavery was re-introduced on a legal basis. I also find it interesting that you chose to call drugs "recreational substances".But they haven't been legalised, cannabis has simply been decriminalised. Drug gangs will always exist until all commonly used recreational substances are made 100% legal.The main thing that the Dutch drug policy has shown is that decriminalising cannabis does not lead to an increase in usage.
Unfortunately, the Christian ruling party in the Netherlands is rapidly trying to reverse liberal Dutch policy in all areas, and coffeeshops are top of the agenda. Huge step backwards if you ask me.
I don't mean to be rude, but given the previous comments, this seems to be true for you. It would be interesting to see if there is any published scientific research in this area that uses objective assessments to determine if the policy has been a success or not in social terms using statistics like street crime. But I agree that it is a subjective issue that pretty much falls on how people feel about drugs.Problem being, any gauging will be horrifically biased by both sides. Look at the Dutch cannabis policy. There are very few who look at the facts and try to make up their minds about whether it has worked or not. If someone is pro-drugs it is wonderful, if they're anti-drugs, it's a failed experiment which is destroying Dutch society.
All other considerations being equal (as to legality, self harm, etc), I do not have a particularly big issue with drug usage. In fact the most compelling argument that I have heard in favour of drugs legalisation is that prohibition is an infringement on personal liberties. The question for me then becomes "does the state have a legitimate right to protect its own citizens from themselves?". This is a larger question which would take a long time for me to answer (I waffle on quite a lot), however I think my answer for drugs would be "no, but...".0 -
OK, now I have no pleasures left.
There is some very uncomfortable reading in there, and it's news to me. But I should be able to choose around that, right? By buying fairtrade chocolate?0 -
OK, now I have no pleasures left.
There is some very uncomfortable reading in there, and it's news to me. But I should be able to choose around that, right? By buying fairtrade chocolate?
Yes you should be able to choose around it, and you should count yourself lucky you have that choice. For drug users, however, they do not have a choice due to the simple fact that Fair Trade cannot be regulated in an illegal drugs trade. "Fair Trade Cocaine" as Swiss mentioned is absolutely impossible while its distribution is governed by criminal networks, who do whatever it takes to maximise profit and lower expenses.0 -
Of course. I was merely replying to your point about the Netherlands not being free of drug problems and drug gangs since cannabis was decriminalised.Even if this were true, it is not a good enough reason to legalise drugs. Prostitution gangs and rackets would disappear if prostitution was made legal, as would (in some parts of the world) slave rings, if slavery was re-introduced on a legal basis.
If something being illegal is fuelling gangland activity, be it prostitution, slavery, drugs or otherwise, the following questions must be asked:
-Why is this illegal?
-Realistically speaking, what are the main problems which might occur were it legalised?
-Do the potential problems of its legalisation outweigh the problems currently faced?
Why?I also find it interesting that you chose to call drugs "recreational substances".
I prefer the term in some contexts for the purpose of disambiguation.
I don't know what street crime has to to with decriminalised cannabis..I don't mean to be rude, but given the previous comments, this seems to be true for you. It would be interesting to see if there is any published scientific research in this area that uses objective assessments to determine if the policy has been a success or not in social terms using statistics like street crime. But I agree that it is a subjective issue that pretty much falls on how people feel about drugs.
The only useful metric I can see that applies here is rates of cannabis usage in the Netherlands compared to other countries. And it's lower than average. Of course I'm biased, as is everyone. But if someone can argue a negative aspect of the Dutch policy (besides those resulting from the Dutch policy being in isolation, which is a different issue), then I'll certainly listen.The drugs industry is more than corrupt. It is murderous, ruthless and cutthroat, and the evidence for that is inescapable as it spills over into council estates. I have no doubt that many other industries are corrupt, but at least if they operate in this country they are subject to labour and other laws. Consumers also have a choice if they want to buy the sweatshop clothes as you put it, or alternatives from a (perceived) more ethical competitor. Some people, for example, will buy fairtrade coffee. I have yet to see fairtrade cocaine. Also for other industries, people may simply not have thought about the issue very much, but when it comes to drugs, the implications are hard to avoid.
You seem to be implying that those who want to use drugs can campaign for their legality all they want, and perhaps even with your support, but can't use them until made legal. However, if people aren't using drugs, they're not going to be bothered about them being illegal. It's a catch 22.There is some very uncomfortable reading in there, and it's news to me. But I should be able to choose around that, right? By buying fairtrade chocolate?
The reality is, for many people, drugs are something they want to do, and access to drugs will never be blocked. I'm sure many drug users would be thrilled to have the choice to buy drugs from a non-corrupt source, but unfortunately, not everyone knows a chemist or can grow their own drugs.0 -
However, if people aren't using drugs, they're not going to be bothered about them being illegal. It's a catch 22.
I'm not using drugs yet I am bothered. All personal possession should be decriminalised, legal supply arranged for some of the softer drugs and a legal medical supply for those addicted to the harder drugs.
The current situation is very hypocritical and doesn't make sense. Society doesn't want me doing heroin for my own good, and cares so much about me it will chuck me in a shithole like mountjoy for a month!
We do plenty of things that are bad for us, smoking, drinking, being too fat, not having regular health checks, partaking in dangerous sports. Taken to the extreme, even those who deliberately self-harm are not criminalised, you won't chuck me in jail if I cut myself or try to kill myself, why is jail appropriate if I'm harming myself with cocaine or heroin?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Drugs and the law....
Consider for a moment the issue of gun control. In the US guns are everywhere. Gun control there has become a big issue. Yet in Switzerland where it has been illegal not to have a gun in the house, there is no debate.
Certain issues become a focus for angry and heated debate! Like the number of angles that can fit on a pin head, the issues may be irrelevant. "Tribal" loyalties and power could be seen as an alternative explanation.
Perhaps we should remember science has shown we are not too different from the monkeys?0
Advertisement