Drug Laws; A Savage Hypocrisy.

Belfast

Good book on the subject

complete text is on the site below

AIN'T NOBODY'S BUSINESS IF YOU DO

The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country
Peter McWilliams
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm

rubadub

davros wrote: »

"Stop paying money to the vicious criminals who import drugs." Now there's a campaign I can support.

That "campaign" is a recent enough media device. Before it we had the "gateway drug" crap, which even the Gardai do not use anymore since people have since become educated more and realise how stupid it sounds and how it is uses faulty logic.

The whole "if you smoke a joint you may as well have shot Veronica Guerin" attempt to inflict guilt is laughable to most drug users. All this pathetic attempt to place guilt does is makes a lot of people realise how hypocritical the laws are, and why prohibition should be lifted. Wine & smokes went up 50cent, yet we are still losing a potential fortune in taxes on other recreational drugs. It is a very simple solution to a simple problem.

The drug laws are hypocritical and need fixing, ban them all if you want, just remove the hypocrisy.

davros wrote: »

Facilitating spoiled rich kids smoking joints and snorting coke and endorsing their absolute right to self-gratification? Not interested....

It's my viewpoint that spoiled rich kids (and immature adults) demand the right to do drugs. The people who get into drugs from despair need other things.

These are typical views people have, skewed by the media. Many people have a real problem accepting that people could possibly enjoy illegal recreational drugs in a controlled manner, yet have NO problem accepting that mammy can have 1 glass of wine with her sunday lunch and enjoy a light buzz. And my God, mammy does not turn into a depraved degenerate wino even though alcohol is recognized as an addictive recreational drug. I know many people who take illegal drugs at threshold doses, just like people can have 2 pints watching football without getting liver disease, dying of alcohol overdose, or starting a fight on the way home. Many people sitting around you in your local are probably on other drugs, just at low enough doses that is is not obvious. So people see a gurning idiot and say "whats he on", "oh E", and then goes off thinking every person on E does it to that extent, yet can accept not every drinker is strewn out on the street covered in puke.

Many "immature adults" would also demand the right to drink & smoke, and not many have a problem with that.

davros wrote: »

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.

Do you actually know any drug users who are "happy" about this?? It is a pathetic tactic to use and I bet it has no effect on most drug users. Prohibition was brought into force in the US, many otherwise law abiding citizens continued to use & abuse this drug, and I expect many were not "happy" to finance murder, violence, etc.... They did not respect the law, saw it as unfair and so flouted it, just like many do now. The way the media talks about it you would swear the main aim of drug users is to fund gangland crime, and that the desired altered state of conciousness is just a bonus!

swiss wrote: »

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.

The acceptability is mainly down to the legality though. Alcohol is not legal because it is socially acceptable, it is socially acceptable because it is legal. Many will go to holland and smoke a joint no problem, but would not even dream of doing it here. People have grown up with alcohol being used so think it the norm, many would not even consider it a drug, and many cigarette and alcohol users take great offence at being called "drug users"

If alcohol was illegal, it would be portrayed in a very different light. They would call it "kids drinking industrial degreaser", just like they call ketamine "horse tranquiliser", while its medicinally used for kids! And "rat poison", was medicinally used as a stimulant in humans. The propaganda would have you believe all alcohol users will become addicts, winos on the street, destroyed liver, beating their wives & friends, losing their jobs, falling about injuring themselves. If alcohol was illegal many would think the concept of mammy having a single sherry at xmas ludicrous, just like many fail to accept somebody could enjoy minimal doses of illegal recreational drugs.

Research published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:
1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat

Some interesting reading here http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pharmacotheon/pharmacotheon.shtml with theories on why many in society are so scared of people being allowed experience altered states of conciousness, a basic urge like sex and hunger. And like sex & hunger some have a high drive to experience alter states, and those with low drives simply do not "get it", so see no point to it, and strongly oppose it.

swiss wrote: »

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.

most drugs that are illegal here are illegal in holland. Can you list some that have been (re)legalised there? Cannabis is illegal and there is no "legitimate source" to buy it from. Holland is a central hub in europe, one of the biggest ports, it is an obvious choice for drug trafficking to take place in. Amsterdam also suffers from drug tourism due to their lax laws, it is an obvious place for junkies to terminate at.

If you want to look at legalisation & legitimate sources just look back in history. Drug prohibition is a very recent concept, before they were illegal, they were legal, many cannot get their head around that. In Dublin cocaine was once freely available in pharmacies over the counter, fully legal and very widely used. Many do not even know this was the case!

oeb

If you make it so a junky has to get his heroin from a local shop or a chemist instead of a drug dealer, does that mean he is not going to have to rob someone to get the cash to feed his habit?

I always thought I was for legalization of drugs in Ireland. I am not so sure now. The thing is, they would still need to be controlled. Would you want your son to be able to go into the local chemist and pick up cocaine or heroin without a prescription? If he needed a prescription that would do little to halt the illegal drug trade because many people would not want to go to their doctor and get one / would want more than their doctor would prescribe.

Where would Ireland get it's new legal drugs from? Would we grow them ourselves? Would you work on an Irish poppy farm making heroin? Would you work with something that addictive? What if you accidentally ingested some? What would we do to safeguard the crops against drug criminals from countries who did not legalize drugs? Would we import it? From who?

Would the USA leave people fly to and from Ireland if you could buy heroin here legally?

Drugs legalization is a tricky area, especially when it comes to the class A drugs (Some of which I don't even think should be class A anyway, but that's a different matter). The problem with legalizing some drugs and not others is where do you stop? Like it or not, for a large portion of the world, the fact that drugs are illegal actually keeps them away from it, especially the harder drugs. If you were to legalize lets say, just marijuana would cocaine take the place of 'sure it's just a joint'?

When I was younger I thought it all should be legal, 'sure if junkys have to get their gear from a doctor he can help them quit' was my line of thought, but unfortuantly it does not work that simply. If you are working as a doctor and a 19 year old fresh faced lad walks into you and says 'Hi doc, some of my friends said heroin was great craic. Can I get a perscription and try it out.' What would you do?

I am not against drugs use (in the direct, sure you are only harming yourself kinda way), but I find the illegality of the issue to be a nice buffer. I think anything that makes drugs MORE accessible and makes it seem that Irish society is fine with the fact that you are taking drugs would be a poor move. It's all well and good to say 'I like drugs, and I dont think they are that bad.' But when you have a family, is that what you are going to teach your kids?

d0gb0y

Looking at the way the Big Pharmaceutical industry operates across the world I think society is looking at the wrong drug lords.
The "war on drugs" is a nice big sink hole for government money & they also loose out on the direct revenue from the drugs.

oeb

d0gb0y wrote: »

Looking at the way the Big Pharmaceutical industry operates across the world I think society is looking at the wrong drug lords.
The "war on drugs" is a nice big sink hole for government money & they also loose out on the direct revenue from the drugs.

And how exactly does the big pharmaceutical industry compare to the illegal drugs industry?

pH

oeb wrote: »

When I was younger I thought it all should be legal, 'sure if junkys have to get their gear from a doctor he can help them quit' was my line of thought, but unfortuantly it does not work that simply. If you are working as a doctor and a 19 year old fresh faced lad walks into you and says 'Hi doc, some of my friends said heroin was great craic. Can I get a perscription and try it out.' What would you do?

Well here's what *I* would do immediately.

Firstly decriminalise the possession of the drug (not the supply). It does no one any could chucking that addict in a shíthole like Mountjoy for a couple of weeks, it makes no sense wasting all that Garda time booking him, holding him, chasing him, turning up at court.

Secondly, while it may not be a good idea to give anyone who wants it heroin, if someone through some form of test can prove they're an addict, I would immediately switch their pusher to the government. Providing a clean low cost source of heroin would reduce much of the harm associated with the drug. Everyone sees heroin as an extremely dangerous drug, many are not aware that the dangers are primarily with the illegal drug. This is due to the unknown strength of any batch (overdose risk), cutting agents, needle sharing, and the general poor health and squalid conditions most addicts find themselves in. Also, the cost of heroin would be a fraction of what it is today, pure diamorphine (at Dutch prices) should cost about €3,000 per annum per addict.

It would also seem to put most dealers out of business, as they would only be able to sell heroin to 'first time users'. Regular addicted junkies are the core of their business, without these there would be no business model for heroin dealers taking the huge risk of importing and dealing the stuff, only to find that the only real customers available are non-addicts (who are a much harder sell than your average junkie!).

oeb

pH wrote: »

Well here's what *I* would do immediately.

Firstly decriminalise the possession of the drug (not the supply). It does no one any could chucking that addict in a shíthole like Mountjoy for a couple of weeks, it makes no sense wasting all that Garda time booking him, holding him, chasing him, turning up at court.

Secondly, while it may not be a good idea to give anyone who wants it heroin, if someone through some form of test can prove they're an addict, I would immediately switch their pusher to the government. Providing a clean low cost source of heroin would reduce much of the harm associated with the drug. Everyone sees heroin as an extremely dangerous drug, many are not aware that the dangers are primarily with the illegal drug. This is due to the unknown strength of any batch (overdose risk), cutting agents, needle sharing, and the general poor health and squalid conditions most addicts find themselves in. Also, the cost of heroin would be a fraction of what it is today, pure diamorphine (at Dutch prices) should cost about €3,000 per annum per addict.

It would also seem to put most dealers out of business, as they would only be able to sell heroin to 'first time users'. Regular addicted junkies are the core of their business, without these there would be no business model for heroin dealers taking the huge risk of importing and dealing the stuff, only to find that the only real customers available are non-addicts (who are a much harder sell than your average junkie!).

Do you give the heroin addicts as much heroin as they want? Where do they buy it?

That approach may work for the 'living on the street' junky (The kind shown on tv etc) but is the businessman with the secret addiction going to go to the local doctor?

I agree with you with regard to decriminalising the possetion. Obviously there would need to be very specific levels in place with regard to what quantity amounts to possetion for personal use, and what level indicates intent to supply. But who decides these?

A mate of mine smoked a fair bit of hash. Instead of buying an ounce at a regular basis, he would just buy a nine-bar anytime he was running low. I did not resell it or anything, he just saved himself about 400 quid in the process and did not need to meet his dealer very often. Now, that was for personal use, but it could also have been for supply. Which should it be classified as?

I agree that legalization would in theory be good. There is no doubt that the poor addicts with nothing to live for except their next fix are just taking up space in prisions when the real criminals are the guys who are bringing it into the country and selling it. But legalization would by no means kill the black market. It would certainly effect it, but not kill it. (Look at the illegal cigerette trade for example).

I just don't think it's as easy as it sounds.

Rosita

Standman wrote: »

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.

All laws impinge of people's right to choose. I can't choose to drink and drive. I can't choose to steal my neighbour's stuff. But society appears to need laws to prosper so the 'right to choose' is not a rational approach to any law. Laws are based on utilitarian principles which sees the greater good as superior to personal desire.

It is one thing to argue that a specific law is inherently unjust or counter-productive but an argument that a law should not exist merely because it inhibits personal freedom is very weak as all laws do that to somebody.

It is not true to say that the only reason drug supply is in the hands of
"vicious criminals" is because drugs are illegal. This is the greatest fallacy produced by the pro-drugs people.

Plenty of legal goods have thriving black markets where serious money falls intro the hands of undesirables. Given that drugs supply would almost certainly be limited in a legal setting, it is very unlikely that gangsters would not continue to operate and profit in the industry considering we are talking about highly addictive substances which are unlikely to have much respect for legal parameters.

It seems to me that legalisation of drugs would make it like alcohol - much more widely available and as such damaging to a far greater cohort that is curently the case. But I would say drugs would retain a significant underground movement at the same time, perhaps greater than currently exists, because of the nature of the substances.

The argument for prohibition of drugs or anything else is when their use impinges on the rights and freedoms of others and society in general. Drug users and addicts contribute little to society and cause much damage to other individuals in the area of crime and to society in general in terms of the cost of rehabilitating and servicing addicts. When there is a convincing argument that this would change under legalisation of drugs then there might be a case for it.

The fight against drugs is a huge cost to the economy and to society currently but I have seen little evidence that legalisation would reduce this cost. It might change its nature to a slight degree. But there'll still be addicts to be rehabilitated. There'll still be crime to support habits. And there'll still be a thriving black market. Plus the country would inevitably become a haven for criminal types who can operate their little empires out of this country knowing that the law broadly speaking is on their side. That alone is unlikely to ease our own problems.

pH

oeb wrote: »

Do you give the heroin addicts as much heroin as they want? Where do they buy it?

Some controlled access, either via pharmacies, doctors or specialist drug centres should work. Some reasonable rationed amount that meets their individual needs should suffice.

That approach may work for the 'living on the street' junky (The kind shown on tv etc) but is the businessman with the secret addiction going to go to the local doctor?

I can't see why not. If it means getting clean heroin without the risks of associating with dealers then I can't see any reason why he wouldn't.

A mate of mine smoked a fair bit of hash. Instead of buying an ounce at a regular basis, he would just buy a nine-bar anytime he was running low. I did not resell it or anything ...

I agree that legalization would in theory be good. There is no doubt that the poor addicts with nothing to live for except their next fix are just taking up space in prisions when the real criminals are the guys who are bringing it into the country and selling it. But legalization would by no means kill the black market. It would certainly effect it, but not kill it. (Look at the illegal cigerette trade for example).

The reason we have an illegal cigarette trade is because of the level of taxation on tobacco. If we tried to make a huge 'profit' on heroin through taxation then I agree we would still have a black market. However if the price of heroin and its quality is such that no dealer could match it then the only black market in heroin would be for first time users, and as I mentioned above this is such a tiny market, and such a hard and risky 'sale' that the illegal heroin dealers should be gone forever.

I just don't think it's as easy as it sounds.

There would still be new addicts using existing addicts' drugs, but the rest of society can get on with life without crime and hassle and those who choose it as a lifestyle can be more productive and less of a nuisance to the rest of us.

oeb

pH wrote: »

Some controlled access, either via pharmacies, doctors or specialist drug centres should work. Some reasonable rationed amount that meets their individual needs should suffice.

In the UK methedone is made available to addicts. Many of them complain that they are not given enough. You assume that by making something available in moderation, that people will only want to avail of it in moderation. Thus, it still allows for a thriving black market.

pH wrote: »

I can't see why not. If it means getting clean heroin without the risks of associating with dealers then I can't see any reason why he wouldn't.

For the same reason that a supprising number of people don't go to STD clinics. They are shy about it, and more importantly, however misguided their expectations may be, they don't want people to know they are a drug addict / have spots on their knob.

pH wrote: »

What an interesting typo to make, but it is irrelivant to the point of this thread if it was me, or someone I know (It actually was someone I know)

pH wrote: »

The reason we have an illegal cigarette trade is because of the level of taxation on tobacco. If we tried to make a huge 'profit' on heroin through taxation then I agree we would still have a black market. However if the price of heroin and its quality is such that no dealer could match it then the only black market in heroin would be for first time users, and as I mentioned above this is such a tiny market, and such a hard and risky 'sale' that the illegal heroin dealers should be gone forever.

Without a high level of taxation on drugs, how do you pay for the additional health care that is needed? How to you pay for all the additional research that needs to be done to determine the long term effect of a new substance that becomes available? How do you pay for the advisory boards that decide how much people can have? How do you pay for the campains that are needed to teach people that 'Even though we have decided to legalise drugs, thus making it seem like we think they are not that bad ... ummm they actually still mess you up.?

pH wrote: »

There would still be new addicts using existing addicts' drugs, but the rest of society can get on with life without crime and hassle and those who choose it as a lifestyle can be more productive and less of a nuisance to the rest of us.

Just because someone is legally off their head as opposed to illegally, does that make them behave like less of an asshole (I don't mean to say everyone who takes drugs is an asshole, but you get my point)? Does it matter to me when my kid sticks himself with a needle in the sand at the beach if it was an illegal drug addict or an illegal one?

The reasoning of legalising drugs because it hurts or effects no one but themselves is extremly short sighted. You do not have the right, for example to conduct your weekly shopping in the nude. Is it hurting anyone? Or course not. So why is it illegal? Because average joe voter does not want to see fat naked people when he is doing his shopping, and it would be discriminating to say 'Only attractive firm bodied women in their 20s are allowd to shop naked'.

Drug use effects other people (just like alchohol abuse does). By removing the stigma from drug abuse, and declaring it to be alright (which legalising does), what is their to stop drug abuse being as common as alcohol or ciggerette abuse?

pH

oeb wrote: »

In the UK methedone is made available to addicts. Many of them complain that they are not given enough. You assume that by making something available in moderation, that people will only want to avail of it in moderation. Thus, it still allows for a thriving black market.

Methadone treatment is a weird halfway house, relieving most of the craving but not addressing why people enjoy and find escape in heroin in the first place. I still maintain that you supply the vast majority of heroin in a safe manner to addicts, the remaining 'market' is so small and risky that it's extremely unattractive to the organised gangs currently importing and distributing the stuff.

For the same reason that a supprising number of people don't go to STD clinics. They are shy about it, and more importantly, however misguided their expectations may be, they don't want people to know they are a drug addict / have spots on their knob.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this, it's my belief that if a cheap, clean legal supply of the drug you're addicted to is available, the vast majority of addicts will chose that to a dirty, cut, more expensive and riskier product available on street corners. Also as the amount of heroin being sold illegally decreases as the market shrinks, it will become harder to find (and probably a lot more expensive.

Without a high level of taxation on drugs, how do you pay for the additional health care that is needed? How to you pay for all the additional research that needs to be done to determine the long term effect of a new substance that becomes available? How do you pay for the advisory boards that decide how much people can have? How do you pay for the campains that are needed to teach people that 'Even though we have decided to legalise drugs, thus making it seem like we think they are not that bad ... ummm they actually still mess you up.?

The current situation *is* costing us millions (if not billions). Firstly the addicts are in terrible health and are habitual criminals. Then there are the huge costs of Gardai enforcing possession laws.

This (our current situation) is a good as it gets, and that's not very good. Without draconian new laws that would turn our society into a de facto police state it seems we can't prohibit these drugs.

Just because someone is legally off their head as opposed to illegally, does that make them behave like less of an asshole (I don't mean to say everyone who takes drugs is an asshole, but you get my point)? Does it matter to me when my kid sticks himself with a needle in the sand at the beach if it was an illegal drug addict or an illegal one?

If we deal with heroin and cannabis here, the vast majority of problems for the rest of us (non addicts) from heroin users comes from their activities in getting enough cash to pay for their addiction. Nuisance crime (from people "off their heads on heroin" is much less of a problem).

Prior to the criminalisation of heroin, and since for addicts who have had access to cheap/clean forms of the drug, people have lived very productive and nuisance free lives as addicts.

The reasoning of legalising drugs because it hurts or effects no one but themselves is extremly short sighted. You do not have the right, for example to conduct your weekly shopping in the nude. Is it hurting anyone? Or course not. So why is it illegal? Because average joe voter does not want to see fat naked people when he is doing his shopping, and it would be discriminating to say 'Only attractive firm bodied women in their 20s are allowd to shop naked'.

Because in your example we perceive nakedness as a form of sexuality (especially with regards children) and people do argue that it would causes harm or offence in their local Tesco. Maybe we don't want addicts shooting up in Tesco either, a better example is someone being naked in their own home compared to someone who wants to use cannabis or heroin in the privacy of their own home.

Drug use effects other people (just like alchohol abuse does). By removing the stigma from drug abuse, and declaring it to be alright (which legalising does), what is their to stop drug abuse being as common as alcohol or ciggerette abuse?

Well I certainly would not start using heroin if it became legal. I've already said that it should only be made available to people who can show they're addicted to it, so numbers should remain the same.

Standman

Rosita wrote: »

All laws impinge of people's right to choose. I can't choose to drink and drive. I can't choose to steal my neighbour's stuff. But society appears to need laws to prosper so the 'right to choose' is not a rational approach to any law. Laws are based on utilitarian principles which sees the greater good as superior to personal desire.

It is one thing to argue that a specific law is inherently unjust or counter-productive but an argument that a law should not exist merely because it inhibits personal freedom is very weak as all laws do that to somebody.

It is not true to say that the only reason drug supply is in the hands of
"vicious criminals" is because drugs are illegal. This is the greatest fallacy produced by the pro-drugs people.

Plenty of legal goods have thriving black markets where serious money falls intro the hands of undesirables. Given that drugs supply would almost certainly be limited in a legal setting, it is very unlikely that gangsters would not continue to operate and profit in the industry considering we are talking about highly addictive substances which are unlikely to have much respect for legal parameters.

It seems to me that legalisation of drugs would make it like alcohol - much more widely available and as such damaging to a far greater cohort that is curently the case. But I would say drugs would retain a significant underground movement at the same time, perhaps greater than currently exists, because of the nature of the substances.

The argument for prohibition of drugs or anything else is when their use impinges on the rights and freedoms of others and society in general. Drug users and addicts contribute little to society and cause much damage to other individuals in the area of crime and to society in general in terms of the cost of rehabilitating and servicing addicts. When there is a convincing argument that this would change under legalisation of drugs then there might be a case for it.

The fight against drugs is a huge cost to the economy and to society currently but I have seen little evidence that legalisation would reduce this cost. It might change its nature to a slight degree. But there'll still be addicts to be rehabilitated. There'll still be crime to support habits. And there'll still be a thriving black market. Plus the country would inevitably become a haven for criminal types who can operate their little empires out of this country knowing that the law broadly speaking is on their side. That alone is unlikely to ease our own problems.

Considering the right to choose is a rational approach to questioning drug laws. Drug laws are different to those concerning theft or murder etc.. because a person using drugs is harming no-one but himself, and I am of the opinion that it is nobody elses business what somebody puts into their own body. I understand that drug mis-use can lead to crime/cost to society but for me this is not a good enough reason for a sweeping criminilisation of every drug user. If I am arrested for possesion of a few ecstasy tablets or cannabis, what is the crime? What I might do in the future? What effects my drug use might have on society?

Your statement that drug users contribute little and are a danger to society is a ridiculous, completely biased viewpoint and anyone who enjoys a few pints at the weekend or any other drug for that matter should take offence!

I agree that if drugs were to be legalised there would still be a black market, just like there is a black market for everything that is of high demand, but legalisation would significantly reduce demand for black market drugs. An easy example can be drawn between this and the United States' experiences with alcohol prohibition.

Rosita

Standman wrote: »

Considering the right to choose is a rational approach to questioning drug laws. Drug laws are different to those concerning theft or murder etc.. because a person using drugs is harming no-one but himself, and I am of the opinion that it is nobody elses business what somebody puts into their own body. I understand that drug mis-use can lead to crime/cost to society but for me this is not a good enough reason for a sweeping criminilisation of every drug user. If I am arrested for possesion of a few ecstasy tablets or cannabis, what is the crime? What I might do in the future? What effects my drug use might have on society?

Your statement that drug users contribute little and are a danger to society is a ridiculous, completely biased viewpoint and anyone who enjoys a few pints at the weekend or any other drug for that matter should take offence!

I agree that if drugs were to be legalised there would still be a black market, just like there is a black market for everything that is of high demand, but legalisation would significantly reduce demand for black market drugs. An easy example can be drawn between this and the United States' experiences with alcohol prohibition.

Prohibition is a standard and erroneous analogy for the legalisation of drugs. You cannot compare the reaction to the outlawing of a substance that was previously widely available to something that has never been legally available. As you say the example is easy, but it is erroneous.

Drug laws are not different from those concerning theft or murder. All three are inextricably linked. Just because it all seems very cushy in a club at the weekend dealing drugs does not mean that large numbers of people are not suffering badly as a result. The drug business is a notoriously vicious business and would remain so even if legalised.

I don't see why anyone having a few pints at the weekend (a perfectly legal and reasonably controlled substance - hough it still manages to wreak havoc which is a lesson for all the soft focus people in relation to drugs) should take offence at what I said. But they can do so by all means. All illegal drug-users contribute in their own small way to propping up the industry and many find that quite offensive too.

Our laws are based on the greater good principle and not the right to choose. I wouldn't be harming other people if I had a gun with no licence yet it is illegal to do so because if it was allowed in society in general without restriction the view is that it would be harmful. Yet, I don't come out with woolly bleeding heart liberal arguments about my right to choose as if I should be above the rest of society. I just accept it.

rubadub

oeb wrote: »

If you make it so a junky has to get his heroin from a local shop or a chemist instead of a drug dealer, does that mean he is not going to have to rob someone to get the cash to feed his habit?

Just like alcoholic and tobacco addicted scumbags rob people to get their fix, yes, of course we will still have drug addicted scumbags robbing people. Makes perfect sense. They choose to abuse a drug to total excess and remain jobless so need money from somewhere, probably will be cheaper in the chemist so hopefully they will have to commit less crime to fund their habit. This goes back to my point of branding each and every illegal-drug user a degenerate thieving scumbag, while people can accept the currently legal drugs can be taken in moderation.

oeb wrote: »

Where would Ireland get it's new legal drugs from? Would we grow them ourselves? Would you work on an Irish poppy farm making heroin? Would you work with something that addictive? What if you accidentally ingested some? What would we do to safeguard the crops against drug criminals from countries who did not legalize drugs? Would we import it? From who?

I would work on an opium farm, just like I would work in Guinness or Gallaghers, even though nicotine is chemically more addictive than heroin. The safeguard is a good point, I think this thread is really about worldwide hypocritical drug laws, which arise from countries all copying each other blindly, and because of unspoken political threats- like from the US. So in this line of arguing it is really the theoretical situation of particular drugs being legal/illegal worldwide, which is pretty much the current situation. Many politicians might want it, but it is political suicide. Just look at Ireland condemned for financing the banks, then they all copy us. It would take a EU-wide law to re-legalise some drugs.

oeb wrote: »

And how exactly does the big pharmaceutical industry compare to the illegal drugs industry?

I expect he means they control the prices in accordance to market demand, possibly overcharging for drugs people need to survive.

pH wrote: »

Everyone sees heroin as an extremely dangerous drug, many are not aware that the dangers are primarily with the illegal drug. This is due to the unknown strength of any batch (overdose risk), cutting agents, needle sharing, and the general poor health and squalid conditions most addicts find themselves in.

Yes, there was a UK documentary on about "functional" heroin addicts, many were doctors who self prescribed. Since they had a clean controlled supply they could dose correctly and hold down a job and function in society, just like functional alcoholics who might just have 4-5pints every night, yet are admitted alcoholics. Just because you are an addict does not mean you have to take to extreme excess. Many smokers get by on a few smokes a day.

oeb wrote: »

A mate of mine smoked a fair bit of hash. Instead of buying an ounce at a regular basis, he would just buy a nine-bar anytime he was running low. I did not resell it or anything, he just saved himself about 400 quid in the process and did not need to meet his dealer very often. Now, that was for personal use, but it could also have been for supply. Which should it be classified as?

If the 9bar is cut into deals then he is likely to be done for dealing, if a first offence- no. Just like homegrowers with large amounts of plants but no evidence of dealing or previous convictions can get light sentences. Many countries either allow or turn a blind eye to homegrowing a few cannabis plants for personal use.

Rosita wrote: »

Laws are based on utilitarian principles which sees the greater good as superior to personal desire.

I would say should, especially in the case of drug laws. There are many vested interests in keeping particular drugs illegal. It is said one reason for cannabis to be kept down is the rivalry the hemp crop posed to Duponts nylon. Many other drugs are a threat to the drinks industry, and anybody living in Ireland know just how hand in hand the lawmakers, politicians and publicans are.

Rosita wrote: »

It is not true to say that the only reason drug supply is in the hands of
"vicious criminals" is because drugs are illegal. This is the greatest fallacy produced by the pro-drugs people.

The "pro-drug" people include just drug users, many take legal and illegal drugs at the same time, e.g. a few pints and a spliff. They are somewhat upset at being accused of killing people due to smoking that spliff. If many had a legal outlet to buy quality controlled drugs from a proper outlet providing real jobs and tax then they would. Many grow their own, some buy it online from countries with more lax laws allegedly direct from the farmers. The criminals will take up other illegal activity, perhaps selling other items to the blackmarket, and many of the newly legal drug users would not buy their products, some would just like drinkers currently do.

Rosita wrote: »

Plenty of legal goods have thriving black markets where serious money falls intro the hands of undesirables. Given that drugs supply would almost certainly be limited in a legal setting, it is very unlikely that gangsters would not continue to operate and profit in the industry considering we are talking about highly addictive substances which are unlikely to have much respect for legal parameters.

Many would just continue to use the same drugs they do currently, cannabis being the most widely used. I do not see there being a limit on purchasing this, there is no real limit on buying alcohol or cigarettes at the moment (think there is some ridiculously large limit on booze). And of course some people will always go to the black market. But many would love to be able to legitimately buy cannabis in a shop rather than deal with scum, just like most tobacco smokers I know would not buy it on the street. Most drinkers do not buy poitin, they value quality, and respect laws that they view as fair.

Rosita wrote: »

It seems to me that legalisation of drugs would make it like alcohol - much more widely available and as such damaging to a far greater cohort that is curently the case.

Depends on the drug, many would view many currently illegal drugs to be far less harmful, and people would have an alternative drug to use. Just look at the Lancet list I posted before. When I see people smoking cannabis and drinking they drink far less, there seems to be a notion that users drink the same AND take all sorts on top of it. An analogy I made before is mcdonalds being banned from offering lowfat burgers, since "we already have big macs, and they are bad enough for obesity, 2 wrongs don't make a right, people would eat big macs AND the new burger".

oeb wrote: »

In the UK methedone is made available to addicts. Many of them complain that they are not given enough. You assume that by making something available in moderation, that people will only want to avail of it in moderation. Thus, it still allows for a thriving black market

Methadone is heavily criticized as treatment for heroin addiction. methadone is more addictive than heroin itself, but with very little of the buzz, which is what the addict really craves. It would be like giving a smoker a herb low in nicotine and more addictive that they have to smoke 5 times as much of to get the same hit (which is an argument against "light cigarettes", and an argument in favour of high grade cannabis)

Rosita wrote: »

Prohibition is a standard and erroneous analogy for the legalisation of drugs. You cannot compare the reaction to the outlawing of a substance that was previously widely available to something that has never been legally available. As you say the example is easy, but it is erroneous.

Before drugs were illegal they were legally available, simple as that. Of course many were not as widely available or used but they were out there. Cocaine was widely used in dublin in the late 19th & early century, legally available in pharmacies OTC, and used by "gentlemen" of the time, not a bunch of junkies, though I am sure there were some. The "junkies" of the time used cheaper ether (still a legally available underground drug). People just forget about cocaine use in Ireland.

Magic mushrooms were banned overnight just a few years ago, putting a lot of shops trade at risk, some would scoff at that- branding "headshops" dealers, yet would similarly scoff at the idea of a newsagent or offlicence owner being called a dealer. Were the users consulted, no- they are in a minority they do not count.

MDMA was made illegal in the 80's and had a previous underground group of users, but again they are in a minority so do not matter.

Cannabis was used widely in immigrant populations in the US before prohibition.

Opium in China before the english came.

A vast array of hallucinogenic psychotropic drugs were in use is south America before Christianity "put them right"

Salvia divinorum & BZP are drugs undergoing recent & current prohibition in many countries. There are countless other drugs and analogs also being banned, many users probably scared to make a stand since even though currently legal, once illegal they will stand out as dirty junkies.

The coca plant is still widely illegally and legally used in south American.

oeb

Just out of interest.

It is clear at this stage that Ireland, as a society, has a problem with alchohol and tobacco. The government has been making it increasingly difficult for those of us who indulge in legal substance abuse to well, abuse. Tobacco is constantly hit with what is refered to as sin tax (What is it, ~6.50 on a box of smokes is tax now?), the removal from the market of lower (and thus more accessible due to cost) quantities, laws that increase the social stigma towords smoking (ban from pubs/workplaces etc). Alchohol is hit with similar levels of taxation, there are regularly attempts to cut access hours, off licences, extreme drink driving laws etc.

Now, I am well aware that this is also a major source of finance for the government, but weather that is their sole motivation or not (and I don't think it is), for years they have been labeling these laws as ways to get people to quit smoking and/or drinking.

After taking that approach for years, how would you (lets say you were a spin doctor for the government) justify making all classes of drugs legal to presumably everyone over the age of 18. In addition to this, it has been proposed on this thread that tax on them would need to be low. So how would you justify that? How would you tell people that you have been wrong with the billions of euro in taxpayers money that you have 'wasted' funding the drug squad and conducting public education into the dangers of drug use.

How far do you go? Do you legalize EVERYTHING? Can I go to the chemist and buy meth/crack/heroin/cocaine/mdma/speed etc? How do you do all this without saying 'We were wrong, drugs are fine'.

I totally agree with alot of the points that have been raised in this thread, as I have said before, for a long time I was pro-legalisation. Hell, if they held a vote tomorrow to legalize cannibis I might even vote yes, even though I have not smoked a joint since my late teens, and I have no inclination to start smoking it again. But it's a slipery slope. By legalizing something that has been illegal for so long you are essentially saying it's ok to use it. But that's not something you can do.

The reason places like holland do not legalize cannibis, and instead just elect to not enforce the laws is the message it gives out. If I turn around, as a government official, and say 'Oops, wrong about weed. Smoke away lads.' It gives out the wrong message. Someone offers you a wrap of speed in a nightclub a few weeks later and goes 'Ahhh sure they were wrong about weed, they are wrong about this too.' It can not be done in half measures.

I don't think it's so much that weed should be legalized, I think it's a bit late for that. However I am a firm believer that it should have never been made illegal in the first place.

How do you handle control? It is very difficult to overdose (to levels where it will kill you) on alchol. You can drink till you pass out 3 nights a week for the next 10 years and still quite possibly live through it. It is virtually impossible to directly overdose on the nicotene in tobacco (assuming you use it as intended, and don't remove it from the tobacco and ingest it directly). I agree that cannibis is exactly the same in those respects. But what about other drugs? If you overdoes on many of the other drugs (particulary those described as 'Class A') you can easily die. How do you offset the risk of this while still justifying their use?

Council Kid

This is an interesting thread that I've just seen and read through, well most of it anyway. Personally I am completely in favour of legalising drugs on a global scale, although I am not a drug user. The war on drugs costs an absolute fortune of our money that could be spent on far more worthwhile things. Prohibition and the war on drugs is also not working and never has. It has just created a massive criminal enterprise and gives terrorist organisations and groups like the taleban and farc the best sort of revenue stream they could wish for.

Almost every post here against legalisation seems to raise an issue that is directly caused by them being illegal in the first place, i.e. funding criminals, murderers and the plethora of other nasty characters involved in the production and supply of black market narcotics. I can't say I've seen a single post that gives a compelling justification for continued prohibition. The only one that made sense was that a country couldn't go this alone and it would have to be a global move. I've been to Amsterdam and it's rank because of the sex tourists, druggies and drunks who flock there because of their open minded attitude to drugs and prostitutes (many of whom are forced into working there). But then again, Temple Bar at the weekend isn't exactly pleasant but that's alcohol for you. Cheers!

Drug use is more widespread now than it ever was and growing. People want or need to take these drugs for whatever reason and why shouldn't they? If they cause harm to others through this use then there are existing laws that deal with that. As for addicts or people wanting to become addicts then I think the health service should give the substance of choice away free. I'd rather pay for someone's habit through tax revenue than by them robbing me on the street. Do I care if an addict dies from their use of heroin? Not particularly, if that's what they want to do but I do think they'd stand a better chance of receiving treatment if their habit was monitored by the health service. Besides, most heroin users die from an unpredictable supply and their destitute circumstances rather than from the drug itself, e.g. a sudden increase in the purity of heroin on the street would cause a good few overdoses as the normal supply probably has a purity of only 40% or less. Properly measured doses supplied free from a pharmacist would probably cut this out.

People are going to take drugs whether we like it or not. It can either be a legal activity taxed and revenue raising, controlled and understood, or an illegal one that funds criminals, terrorists, murderers and cost us (globally) billions of euros and causes misery to the people enslaved by the drug lords who control it. I know which I prefer. Unfortunately the screaming, ranting media would never allow a politician to take a reasonable stance on the issue without lambasting them, as this sells more papers than taking a reasonable, imformed and measured stance on the issue. There was a case in the UK about ten years ago of a young girl dying after taking ecstacy, I won't name her. The ledia leapt on this, screaming out about the dangers of ecstacy and how young people were putting themselves at risk from this evil drug, published pictures of her dying in hospital as a warning to others and how these evil pushers should be thrown in jail. They gave less space to the post mortem report that stated the cause of death as water poisoning or the fact that the 'pusher' was actually someone who she had approached after deciding in advance to take e. Presumably the very sad truth of the case was less appealing to the tabloid press when they were considering their sales figures.

Oh and the comment about being in a democracy so that if people wanted drugs legalised then they would vote in a party that stood for the legalisation of drugs is absolute rubbish and is called single issue politics. I would like to see drugs legalised but I also want a stable economy. For some reason I can't imagine that the Legalise Cannabis Alliance is the best party to manage the budget deficit or balance of trade.

Fancy a line anyone?