why is it we can ban some new substances but...

Elevator

we seem incapable to ban others. Ban magic mushrooms that grow everywhere once a year ffs

ban bzp, ban meph but the only thing we do with the cigarettes and alcohol is increase the vat on both year in year out

why can't we ban these when we have such clear evidence of their abuse???

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

instead of banning them concentrate on prevention

if someone wants to smoke weed, mushrooms etc fine let em

but

fine anyone who end-up in hospital or cause public offence due to alcohol or drug abuse a very large amount (few grand), if they cant pay > prison time or rehab so or make it payable to revenue over a period of time, failure to pay fine > prison or rehab


basically to sum it up if someone wants to do drugs, alcohol ok so
but make them pay for it if the passtime ends-up costing the taxpayer money or public order offences

rubensni

ei.sdraob wrote: »

basically to sum it up if someone wants to do drugs, alcohol ok so
but make them pay for it if the passtime ends-up costing the taxpayer money or public order offences

And what about the person who is fond of cola or Lucozade or Mars bars and gets diabetes? Or puts salt on their dinner and develops hypertension? Or was speeding and gets in a car crash? Do you charge them too?
What if they've paid taxes their whole life? Do you charge them less then, even though in your eyes they've made morally wrong decisions?

silverharp

rubensni wrote: »

And what about the person who is fond of cola or Lucozade or Mars bars and gets diabetes? Or puts salt on their dinner and develops hypertension? Or was speeding and gets in a car crash? Do you charge them too?
What if they've paid taxes their whole life? Do you charge them less then, even though in your eyes they've made morally wrong decisions?

Indeed, if someone is a slob all their life why should the average person subsidise the behaviour. Ideally a health insurance system should be able to quantify risk and premiums related to smoking, overeating and other risky behaviours. On the plus side , said slob might get cheaper life assurance

It comes down to the fact that any system that gives people a free pass will increase the incidence of the risky behaviour.

ei.sdraob

rubensni wrote: »

And what about the person who is fond of cola or Lucozade or Mars bars and gets diabetes? Or puts salt on their dinner and develops hypertension?

in US an unhealthy lifestyle directly impacts their medical insurance premiums

rubensni wrote: »

Or was speeding and gets in a car crash? Do you charge them too?

speeding is already illegal and one can end-up with points, fines or license taken off

rubensni wrote: »

What if they've paid taxes their whole life? Do you charge them less then, even though in your eyes they've made morally wrong decisions?

no you dont, make it clear that they can do drugs but if anything goes wrong theres a large fine attached, that will have to be paid whether they are on unemployment benefits (benefit reduced by few euro a week until fine is paid off) or longtime employed (nontaxed income is reduced by few euro a week until fine is paid off)

any money saved on policing etc can be then put towards rehab programs or/and prisons

the point is to drive home the message that while you are free to do what you want, society will look down and heavily comedown on your ass if your actions result in harm to the society you live in

this way people are given a clear choice and would have to realize that their choices have clear consequences, its not the act of taking drugs that hurts society its what people on drugs do to society thats the main problem

some countries like Portugal already decriminalized drugs (somewhat, instead of fine and jail drugs get confiscated) and have reported a 10% drop in drug usage, thats quite an achievement

While drug use, possession, and acquisition are still illicit activities in Portugal, these acts have been decriminalized. Acts that could once bring a prison sentence of three months to a year will now result in the confiscation of the illicit substance and a referral, not to a trial, but to a three-person commission to evaluate the offender. Under this new law, non-addicts may receive monetary fines or other penalties, while addicts will only receive non-monetary penalties. The three-person commission will most likely consist of a lawyer, a doctor, and a social assistant to evaluate the individual's level of addiction and recommend treatment options with the goal of rehabilitating the offender. Administrative sanctions may be used, but are not the primary objective of this new law. This new law did not legalize drug use, but removed criminal penalties for use, possession, and acquisition for all illicit drugs in quantities up to a 10-day supply.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/portugal.html
from DEAs mouth, the same DEA of the infamous "war on drugs" whose accomplishments include: billions wasted, pile of people in prisons and drug usage increase

ei.sdraob

Silverharp2 wrote: »

It comes down to the fact that any system that gives people a free pass will increase the incidence of the risky behaviour.

perhaps you should read my post again
where have i mentioned giving a free pass?

why dont you read the bit after the but


my argument boils down to

a person is free to do what they want,
but if their actions affect others they will have to pay heavily for any actions that negatively affected others in society


do you have any studies or data to backup your assertion that
" any system that gives people a free pass will increase the incidence of the risky behaviour "

i have posted earlier the case of Portugal where drug use went down

how about Netherlands where they consume less drugs as a result of their policies > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

The drug policy of the Netherlands officially has four major objectives:
To prevent drug use and to treat and rehabilitate drug users.
To reduce harm to users.
To diminish public nuisance by drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighborhood).
To combat the production and trafficking of drugs.[1]

thats quite an interesting policy to have as it tries to address the core issues with drugs not wasting time on trying to legislate against the drug of the week as is happening here

silverharp

ei.sdraob wrote: »

perhaps you should read my post again
where have i mentioned giving a free pass?

why dont you read the bit after the but


my argument boils down to

a person is free to do what they want,
but if their actions affect others they will have to pay heavily for any actions that negatively affected others in society


do you have any studies or data to backup your assertion that
" any system that gives people a free pass will increase the incidence of the risky behaviour "

i have posted earlier the case of Portugal where drug use went down

how about Netherlands where they consume less drugs as a result of their policies > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands



thats quite an interesting policy to have as it tries to address the core issues with drugs not wasting time on trying to legislate against the drug of the week as is happening here

I agree with your posts , I only mean free pass in financial terms, if everyone had to pay the true cost of the services they accessed behaviour would react to the reality of the situation. I dont think the state should intervene in behaviour that does not harm others but at the same time it shouldn't stand behind people who knowlingly damage their bodies.

ei.sdraob

Silverharp2 wrote: »

. I dont think the state should intervene in behaviour that does not harm others but at the same time it should stand behind people who knowlingly damage their bodies.

and thats the main dividing line between our opinions

i fall more towards the libertarian side of the spectrum so i dont see the state having many jobs in the first place


lets put it into an example:

a person wants to commit suicide, short of locking the person up and/or sending in doctors to try to resolve the situation what can the state do to prevent this person from taking their life by any number of ways?


the way i see it, if someone wants to harm themselves its their choice, if their acts (drunk and disorderly conduct lets say) results in damage to others or their property then this person can either pay for it (severely! think nordic countries where a speeding fine payable is based on how rich you are) or be removed from society via imprisonment, yes i realize that imprisonment costs society money hence why a judge needs to balance out few things before taking this choice

Fighting_Irish

Way too sensible

ei.sdraob wrote: »

instead of banning them concentrate on prevention

if someone wants to smoke weed, mushrooms etc fine let em

but

fine anyone who end-up in hospital or cause public offence due to alcohol or drug abuse a very large amount (few grand), if they cant pay > prison time or rehab so or make it payable to revenue over a period of time, failure to pay fine > prison or rehab


basically to sum it up if someone wants to do drugs, alcohol ok so
but make them pay for it if the passtime ends-up costing the taxpayer money or public order offences

bonkey

ei.sdraob wrote: »

in US an unhealthy lifestyle directly impacts their medical insurance premiums

Yes, but a medical insurance is:

a) Not a fine imposed by the government
b) Applied regardless of whether something "goes wrong" or not
and
c) Not mandatory.

The equivalent of this would be to charge people higher medical premiums if they smoke, take drugs, etc.

The notion of fining people, however, if their habit incurs a social cost is different....and there the question comes back into its own. How do we decide what behaviour is "legal, but capable of incurring additional fines", and what behaviour is merely legal?

It would seem that this distinction would end up being as seemingly arbitary as the legal / illegal line that the OP highlighted...so while it may be arguably a better way of dealing with various issues (and I'm far from convinced that it would be), it doesn't seem to do anything about the arbitrariness.

Joey the lips

I think we have drifted slightly away from shore. I think if the world was starting again ciggerattes and alcohol would be banned but as prohabition showed in america its to ingrained in normal society to ban it.

I would be all for the ban of ciggerattes and for putting limits on alchol consumption but the main problem you have is this

1. Who is going to stand in an election and make them there goals.
2. Who will vote for them?
3. How many people in govt will ban it as it means increased taxes elswhere

You could go on....

I think the same of cannibis. You ask 100 15-20 year olds do they favor the legalisation of cannibis and 99 will prob say yes. You ask 100 50 year olds and 99 will prob say no. Its not those 100 50 year olds are fuddy duddys its because they have kids most likely and never want to see them on any substance.

If cannibis had been mixed in tabacco from the start it would not be an issue now. In fact i imagine there would be a low tabbocco version of a ciggeratte which is strong in cannibis,

silverharp

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and thats the main dividing line between our opinions

i fall more towards the libertarian side of the spectrum so i dont see the state having many jobs in the first place


lets put it into an example:

a person wants to commit suicide, short of locking the person up and/or sending in doctors to try to resolve the situation what can the state do to prevent this person from taking their life by any number of ways?


the way i see it, if someone wants to harm themselves its their choice, if their acts (drunk and disorderly conduct lets say) results in damage to others or their property then this person can either pay for it (severely! think nordic countries where a speeding fine payable is based on how rich you are) or be removed from society via imprisonment, yes i realize that imprisonment costs society money hence why a judge needs to balance out few things before taking this choice

Keyboard or grammer failure on my part, shouldnt was the word I was going for

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

instead of banning them concentrate on prevention

if someone wants to smoke weed, mushrooms etc fine let em

but

fine anyone who end-up in hospital or cause public offence due to alcohol or drug abuse a very large amount (few grand), if they cant pay > prison time or rehab so or make it payable to revenue over a period of time, failure to pay fine > prison or rehab


basically to sum it up if someone wants to do drugs, alcohol ok so
but make them pay for it if the passtime ends-up costing the taxpayer money or public order offences

We already have such a system, smokers pay said fine every time they buy a packet of cigarettes.

33% God

I don't see how one can justify banning any of those substances.
If I take drugs it impacts only upon my own health which is my own business. If a government does not think the electorate responsible or smart enough to make their own decisions about their health then how do they justify their own mandate from that same electorate.
"You are not allowed to take drugs, we can't trust you to make that decision for yourself. Now vote for me".

If drug use does cause me to harm others in some way (and in general it doesn't, we can't punish the majority for the actions of a small minority) then I will have committed an offence and can be prosecuted.
If it effects my health then my taxes will have paid for that. In fact, if we look at the NHS in Britain the costs to the health service by alcohol and tobacco is more than paid for by the taxes levied on them.

Besides, even from a purely pragmatic point of view banning these substances is pointless. Prohibition has never worked. What has been shown to work are proper education programmes and allowing people to get their drugs in a responsible manner.
When they allowed access to heroin in Switzerland not only did the rate of crime etc associated with the drug go down, so did the number of new addicts, the number of people quitting, and the number of ODs. It was universally positive.
Ireland needs to learn form the success of these countries, and pioneer success elsewhere.

97i9y3941

its only when the yuppies started to vist these headshops there was a big fuss!

bonkey

33% God wrote: »

When they allowed access to heroin in Switzerland not only did the rate of crime etc associated with the drug go down, so did the number of new addicts, the number of people quitting, and the number of ODs. It was universally positive.

Its not entirely accurate to say that they "allowed access" to heroin, in a pos decrying the failure of prohibition. The Swiss didn't unban heroin. Its still illegal here. Rather, heroin addiction is treated as an illness, with addicts able to get heroin (as opposed to some alternate) as part of the treatment program.

The success of the policy has mostly been attributed to making heroin look like a loser's drug...something that you end up being pitied for being addicted to, to the extent that the government will treat you for being sick.

In effect, they kept the drug illegal but put a policy in place which successfully managed to give it a seriously negative image.

simonj

Current drugs policy has failed, it is unenforceable and there needs to be a rethink.

My biggest concern is that by handing over controlled substances, we have made criminals very rich, they control supply, potency and age of use.

To get around current archaic drug laws all they need to do is change a chemical very slightly and brand it as a bath salt - with the effect that sellers will not or can not educate users as to potential dangers.

Also, is there a prohibition on convicted drug dealers and gang land figures buying into headshops to either launder money or go legit?

Our drug policy is arse over tit - and needs radical overhaul


amhrannua.com