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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Drugs
Comments
-
Thanks. Will answer those from the full legalisation standpoint of course.
Reasons drugs should be legalised.
1. It's none of yours or the state's damn business what someone chooses to put in their body.
I could agree with that in theory. What about in practice though?
If you're saying you want to grow a pot plant and smoke it, have no issue with that. It sort of becomes my business and the states very quickly though if availability and supply of 'recreational' drugs is increased, allowed, normalised.
Just like it is with fatty foods. There are problems with obesity in children and it will be tackled by education not sanction. At least if drugs were legalised they could be made illegal to sell to people under the age of 18.The state has certain responsibilities towards it's citizens. The individual has certain responsibilities towards the state.
Yes and it should not be engaged in the business making criminals out peaceful people up for victimless crimes.If an individual decides he to wants to import/manufacture street drugs and make them freely available to everyone aged 15 aged and upwards (i'm saying aged 15 because that is the age many kids are are of course usually able to get their hands on other currently legal drugs, ie alcohol and cigarettes), then that individual is in my eyes subverting his responsibilities towards his fellow citizens (the state)
Equally, if the state decides to allow import/manufacture of street drugs and make them freely available to everyone aged 15 and upwards, it is in my eyes subverting its responsibilities towards the individual (its citizens).
Your failing to see that legalisation would remove the 'street' element. Consider alcohol. When was the last time you were offered cheap drink outside off licences by home brewers?If someone says to me
"I don't use drugs myself, but i don't mind what anyone else does so legalise it" they might mean well, but what they're effectively saying is
"I don't use drugs myself, but i don't care if your 15 year old son or daughter is able to do it, so legalise it."
No. My view would be why is it right to heap further misery on parents of drug dabbling young people by involving children in the criminal justice system?
.2. Safety of the product (Regulation)
I take this to mean that with leglisation, the safety of taking drugs will increase as they're purer. Well, it's certainly true that people do die or get very ill due to bad mixes. You very occasionally hear of bad ecstacy making people ill or bad heroin etc. It's hardly common though when you consider how many people do it. For the most part drugs mixes do not affect the user in that way. Bad for sales. As for more addictive substances likely being added to mixes, well that's just rubbish. They're not.
So the safety aspect is not really justification for legalisation based on a very few deaths and adverse effects by current users
Regulation is not just about safety. It could include who is allowed to sell. what times of the day/night etc.3. It would prevent the flow of money to criminal and terrorist organisation.
That is debatable. Who's to say that just because ecstacy, heroin, weed or coke becomes legally available, that criminal elements will not just keep producing product for market in the same way they're doing?
They'll just see it as competition; wouldn't stop some at all most likely.
How could a rag-tag bunch of thugs compete with a slick rationalized pharmaceutical company? Come on - play with idea instead of rejecting it outright.There will always be a black market for drugs, same as there is with alcohol and cigarettes. So it certainly might slow the flow of money to criminal elements, but would it prevent it as in keep from happening? I very much doubt it.
The only reason for a black market is punitive taxation. This is a government created problem. Heaping taxes and levies on any compact product will ensure a black market.4. Huge reduction in costs to the tax-payer in prisons, policing, and welfare.
De-criminalisation can sort the prison problem.
Policing costs of drug-related matters/crime may not go down hugely through legalisation.
The drug war has cost the US tax-payer €1 Trillion in recent decades. This is an undeniable destruction of wealth on a massive scale.Not sure how you think welfare costs would go down hugely or even stay the same with legalisation. More drugs = more users = more addicts = more welfare needs eg counselling, rehabilitation etc
Drug users/sellers become stigmatised as criminals. It makes it harder to get a job, ergo, welfare is often the only option. If drugs were not illegal than people would not be stigmatised and criminalised. If half the money spent on prohibition was spent on education and treatment (see the portugal experience) then there'd likely be a lot less drug abuse.6. Drug consumption is a victimless 'crime'
Certainly is not imv, unless you don't consider people with drug problems as victims.
You're conflating two issues. I specifically said 'drug consumption' and you've twisted it to 'drug problems' to suit your agenda. I consume drugs regularly (Beer at the weekend) I am not a problem to the state and I'm relatively healthy.
Please make the distinction between drug abuse and drug consumption if you want to be taken seriously.7. It would keep young people outside the criminal underworld.
To an extent. It would also send this loud and clear message:
Street drugs are safe and acceptable to use.
Again you're stuck on the street aspect. Legalised drugs would no longer be a street issue. Being pro-legalisation is not being pro-drug taking. Abuse of any drug should be still be stigmatised,8. Drugs would become a hell of a lot cheaper leading to a reduction in addict related crime.
Cheap drugs = more users = more addicts = more problems.
Do you really think cheaper drugs is actually a point in favour of legalisation?
A smack addict will take as much as he can get his hands on. His tolerance just goes up. When the cheap stuff runs out, he'll be hankering for more. So there may not be a reduction in addict related crime at all, not with more addicts.
Again, you're focusing on problem drug takers. Should we restrict all cars to 120 KPH because some people speed? No.10. Prohibition doesn't work.
Works not too bad from where i'm standing. My son is not a drug user.
How would you feel having to deal with a policeman rather than work with him yourself if he developed a drug problem? Think about it.From the article:
"The global war on drugs has "failed" according to a new report by a group of politicians and former world leaders."
But it hasn't "failed". And the fact that it's unwinnable is no reason to abandon it, just the same as the war on speeding on our roads or drink-driving is unwinnable. Doesn't mean we give up trying to limit it. Good article though and did have some good points.
The 'war' on drink driving and reducing road deaths is being won. The ghosts of thousands of dead Mexicans will tell you that the drug war has lost a long time ago.AP IMPACT: After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals
MEXICO CITY – MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.
Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.
"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."
This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.
Source.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein0 -
-
Chuck Stone wrote: »At least if drugs were legalised they could be made illegal to sell to people under the age of 18.
Like booze and tobacco..Chuck Stone wrote: »Yes and it should not be engaged in the business making criminals out peaceful people up for victimless crimes.
+1Chuck Stone wrote: »Consider alcohol. When was the last time you were offered cheap drink outside off licences by home brewers?
That's because alcohol supply is saturated. You can walk into an offy and purchase as much booze as you want.
You would have to do the same with drugs then.Chuck Stone wrote: »No. My view would be why is it right to heap further misery on parents of drug dabbling young people by involving children in the criminal justice system?
De-criminalisation solves that problem, something which i've already said i'm in favour of.Chuck Stone wrote: »How could a rag-tag bunch of thugs compete with a slick rationalized pharmaceutical company? Come on - play with idea instead of rejecting it outright.
Quite easily i'd imagine. Users buy drugs at all times of the day and night, and they have dealers that will meet them anywhere or deliver to your house or parties etc. The only way i could see them completely losing their business is if pharmaceutical companies rolled out a similar service. That is 24hour access with free home delivery.Chuck Stone wrote: »The only reason for a black market is punitive taxation. This is a government created problem. Heaping taxes and levies on any compact product will ensure a black market.
So then that's taxation of drugs out the window as a reason/benefit of full legalisation.Chuck Stone wrote: »The drug war has cost the US tax-payer €1 Trillion in recent decades. This is an undeniable destruction of wealth on a massive scale.
It is. Although that figure would come by implementing simple de-criminalisation.Chuck Stone wrote: »Drug users/sellers become stigmatised as criminals. It makes it harder to get a job, ergo, welfare is often the only option. If drugs were not illegal than people would not be stigmatised and criminalised.
De-criminalisation.Chuck Stone wrote: »If half the money spent on prohibition was spent on education and treatment (see the portugal experience) then there'd likely be a lot less drug abuse.
Couldn't agree more.Chuck Stone wrote: »You're conflating two issues. I specifically said 'drug consumption' and you've twisted it to 'drug problems' to suit your agenda. I consume drugs regularly (Beer at the weekend) I am not a problem to the state and I'm relatively healthy.
Please make the distinction between drug abuse and drug consumption if you want to be taken seriously.
Consumption is a broad term.
(: the act or process of consuming <consumption of food>)
Didn't mean to conflate them. A clearer term would have been drug Use.Chuck Stone wrote: »Abuse of any drug should be still be stigmatised,
Agree. That can still be improved within the framwork of de-criminalisation.
Use of any street drug need not be normalised to achieve this.Chuck Stone wrote: »How would you feel having to deal with a policeman rather than work with him yourself if he developed a drug problem? Think about it.
With respect, i have. That's why i'm in favour of de-criminalisation.0 -
For the Umpteenth time where in the world has the legalising of so-called soft drugs worked ? and don't give me twenty lines of obfuscation about some report from the other side of the world .NAME the parts of the world and i'll search it out myself .No government reports either .!!!! I want to believe it but so far i'm not at all convinced but i'm a good listener .0
-
For the Umpteenth time where in the world has the legalising of so-called soft drugs worked ? and don't give me twenty lines of obfuscation about some report from the other side of the world .NAME the parts of the world and i'll search it out myself .No government reports either .!!!! I want to believe it but so far i'm not at all convinced but i'm a good listener .
That Global Commission reports figures are flawed paddy according to UNODC.
http://www.cps.org.uk/files/factsheets/original/111025094444-MisleadingandIrresponsibledrugPrevalenceStatistics.pdf0 -
Asked and answered:For the Umpteenth time where in the world has the legalising of so-called soft drugs worked ? and don't give me twenty lines of obfuscation about some report from the other side of the world .NAME the parts of the world and i'll search it out myself .No government reports either .!!!! I want to believe it but so far i'm not at all convinced but i'm a good listener .
Holland
Spain
Portugal
Canada
USA (some states)0 -
Thanks for the link. Even with the UNODC's revised numbers drug usage has still risen. From your link above:That Global Commission reports figures are flawed paddy according to UNODC.
http://www.cps.org.uk/files/factsheets/original/111025094444-MisleadingandIrresponsibledrugPrevalenceStatistics.pdfUNODC wrote:Based on UNODC published best estimates of the number of cocaine and opiate users,
the number of annual users for opiates increased, between 1998 and 2008, by 19.6% (as
opposed to 34.5 % as presented in the Global Commission’s report) and by 18.7 % for
cocaine (as opposed to 27% as presented in the Global Commission’s report)
So it still stands for you to answer the question: even as the money spent on the war on drugs is increasing (in America at any rate) and the number of people taking drugs is increasing--as you kindly outlined above--do you still maintain that prohibition is working? Given this information, the thousands killed in Mexico in the name of the War on Drugs every year, the criminal gangs running the drug trade in Ireland, do you still think that legalisation is not an option?0 -
-
Stop moving the goal posts everytime someone replies to your requests. You asked for an example of countries not a specific number.
Using your logic I could say that the amount of people that die from drug abuse considering the number of users is rather small!!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Thanks for the link. Even with the UNODC's revised numbers drug usage has still risen.
(you're welcome)
You missed the last bit.
Also contained in the link just under the revised-down figures and quite an imortant continuation of the bit you copy-pasted is the following closing statement from UNODC:
During the period 1998-2008, the world population aged 15-64 grew by 685 million people, or + 18.5 %.
Even if the prevalence of drug use remains the same,the increase
in population would mean that the absolute number of users would increase proportionally.
This important fact was not taken into account by the authors of the Global Commission’s paper.
Based on UNODC published best estimates of the number of cocaine and opiate users, the prevalence rates for annual use in the population age 15-64 remained stable at around 0.35% for opiates and 0.36 % for cocaine between 1998 and 2008.
http://www.cps.org.uk/files/factsheets/original/111025094444-MisleadingandIrresponsibledrugPrevalenceStatistics.pdf
Am posting that for clarity, and not as a supporter of the current U.S.-style Prohibition or 'War on Drugs' or to prove it's working. I fully agree with large parts of that report, the reason being it proposes de-criminalisation as a solution.
Nevertheless it's figures are wrong, which is of course good news, but also sad that such a high-profile commission should have to use grossly inaccurate information to make it's case.So it still stands for you to answer the question: even as the money spent on the war on drugs is increasing (in America at any rate) and the number of people taking drugs is increasing--as you kindly outlined above--do you still maintain that prohibition is working?
If you're asking me do i still maintain that prohibition of import/manufacture and sale/supply is 'working' in this country, the simple answer is not as good as it could be, but essentially yes.
I maintain that it's a far better option than full legalisation. Full legalisation is, to coin a very apt cliche, potentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or going from the frying pan into the fire. Or trying to put out a fire with petrol. Take your pick.
As i've said all along, i do not support "Prohibition" as is practiced in the US. However, to use the word as is in the dictionary, (ie to prohibit sale of something), i'm for prohibiting the full sale legally of drugs.
I'm saying prohibiting the full sale legally of drugs has worked not too bad, as mine and many others sons and daughters are not drug-users/abusers. Hope that's clear. lf that sounds seIf-serving to you some,..so be it.Given this information, the thousands killed in Mexico in the name of the War on Drugs every year, the criminal gangs running the drug trade in Ireland, do you still think that legalisation is not an option?
First of all i'd like to know what form of legalisation you're in favour of. Example: Legalisation to include legal outlets for unlimited purchases of any drugs?
I've had enough rigmaroll with other posters confusing de-criminaling and legalising.
If you could please clarify that, i'd get back to you.
As it stands, I have no reason to believe that any realistic form of legalisation would put them out of business.0 -
As a matter of interest, how do you know your son has never used any illegal drugs, ed2hands? And what age is he? Drug use isn't exactly something one mentions to their parents, nor is it something that's in any way obvious.
Also, regulated legalization would be what most proponents would be for, not some kind of free for all.0 -
I was thinking that myself, in fact there's a good chance his kid is on drugs.As a matter of interest, how do you know your son has never used any illegal drugs, ed2hands? And what age is he? Drug use isn't exactly something one mentions to their parents, nor is it something that's in any way obvious.
Also, regulated legalization would be what most proponents would be for, not some kind of free for all.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
As a matter of interest, how do you know your son has never used any illegal drugs, ed2hands? And what age is he? Drug use isn't exactly something one mentions to their parents, nor is it something that's in any way obvious.
Absolutely. He has come into contact with it definitely. From a head shop. He told me. Luckily we can talk about it, but yea you're right, it would be hard to spot.0 -
Advertisement
-
You would think from following this thread that People who like drugs spend time with concern for the Irish Economy and it's Legislative good health .It just does'nt fit any stereotype of drug taker i've ever heard of .Also concern for funds for gardai is not consistent either . Surreal .0
-
The stereotypes just really aren't true.It just does'nt fit any stereotype of drug taker i've ever heard of
Yes, stupid drug users exist, they're the obvious ones.
But there are a huge amount of people who take drugs and are successful, intelligent, balanced and normal people. It's just they're careful about talking about it. I mean, you'd be foolish to admit to drug use to anyone besides those who you know also take drugs, or close friends, unless you want to risk social stigmatization or even prosecution.0 -
Meanwhile in Poland...Polish Politician 'to Smoke Pot in Parliament'
A Polish political leader is promising to smoke pot in his country's parliament, to protest against tough laws on soft drugs
Janusz Palikot, leader of the left-wing Palikot's Movement, is campaigning to liberalise Poland's conservative approach to drugs policy.
His plan to roll up a joint in parliament has angered the speaker of the house, Ewa Kopacz, who has reported Palikot to prosecutors.
She has said she will not allow him to break the law in the building.
Palikot wants to introduce a draft law on 20 January, seeking the decriminalisation of the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/285010/20120120/polish-politician-smoke-pot-parliament.htm0 -
If you're asking me do i still maintain that prohibition of import/manufacture and sale/supply is 'working' in this country, the simple answer is not as good as it could be, but essentially yes.
How can you say this? Where is your control?I'm saying prohibiting the full sale legally of drugs has worked not too bad, as mine and many others sons and daughters are not drug-users/abusers.
This is appalling reasoning. Your experiences are not a scientific sample.
Who's to say they would have been drug users with or without prohibition?
Perhaps there is a natural equilibrium in populations when it comes to drug use?
Check this out.
0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »How can you say this? Where is your control?
You think i've lost control of myself by making that statement?
Just gave a straight answer to a straight question.Chuck Stone wrote: »This is appalling reasoning.
It's based on solid evidence. There are no drugs legally/easily available in my area. That's not to say there isn't any or i couldn't get hold of something eventually if i really wanted to and that isn't the case in all places, no doubts about that. However as a general rule, you can't just walk down the street and come across it. You've got to know someone.
So it's a hell of a lot harder for to come by for kids or whoever, than if it were on sale beside the chipper on the main street. Those people that really really want something to smoke or snort or drop will get it, but the likes my kid and plenty others won't be bothered as it's not in their faces every day.
In that regard, prohibition works. It keeps a good distance from curious kids and impulse buyers and drugs.Chuck Stone wrote: »Your experiences are not a scientific sample.
There is no way of taking stats or samples for present day Ireland and comparing them to Irish stats during legalisation, because of course there is none of the latter.
You can say "prohibition as practiced in Ireland is failing", and point out why you believe current prohibition is worse for the country than legalisation would be.
And vice versa. I can say "prohibition as practiced in Ireland is working", and point out why i believe current prohibition is better for the country than legalisation would be.
The fact is we're both just speculating on whether prohibition here 'works' in comparison to legalisation. Scientific samples are a nice idea, but can't buy using it as a reason to refute my opinion.Chuck Stone wrote: »Who's to say they would have been drug users with or without prohibition?
Exactly. It's all guessing. My best guess though is they have a better chance of not being a street drug user/abuser under prohibition than legalisation.
Take cigarettes. One can guess that if cigarettes had been prohibited for the last 100 years or so like drugs have, would fewer people smoke now than presently? Would say yes myself.
And what if they were then suddenly legalised and sold in every town in the country? Would usage increase eventually? Again, would say yes.
Prohibiting something is a very effective way to limit or discourage it's use.Chuck Stone wrote: »Perhaps there is a natural equilibrium in populations when it comes to drug use?
Yeah perhaps there is to an extent. There's only one way to find out i suppose, but no country (bar Holland with one drug) has yet been willing to undertake this vast uncontrolled experiment on its population.
Am hoping you or someone will propose what drugs they would like to see legalised here and in what way to sell them. Maybe then we go through your list of reasons again and see how they apply to it. Run it up the flagpole as they say.0 -
Advertisement
-
Common sense alone tells us that legalising soft drugs will escalate a new phase of accidents in the home and at work and the streets .We are already learning of people being tested for drug use after car accidents as an example .Legalising Soft drugs is not going to change people for better with any kind of campaign strategy .Peer Pressure among the teens will drive the demand up and no amount of policing or legislation will stop that .There is a lot of money to be made out there if the Head Shops re-open .It does'nt need a study .A walk in dublin City Centre is enough any day or night of the week . We would see the walking dead on the streets of every town in Ireland within a few years .Drunks are bad enough .. they are predictable ....but drug addicts are not .0
-
You think i've lost control of myself by making that statement?
Just gave a straight answer to a straight question.
Lol, it's funny (partly because I didn't explain myself properly, granted).
Scientific controlIt's based on solid evidence. There are no drugs legally/easily available in my area.
Seriously, that ^^ does not constitute evidence. If anything it's an example of confirmation bias.So it's a hell of a lot harder for to come by for kids or whoever, than if it were on sale beside the chipper on the main street.
Kids (under 18's) don't face the same problems getting illegal drugs as they do with getting alcohol and cigarettes because it's regulated.Those people that really really want something to smoke or snort or drop will get it, but the likes my kid and plenty others won't be bothered as it's not in their faces every day.
So the only reason your kid isn't experimenting with drugs is because he can't get it in the shop? Sounds like you don't trust him/her?In that regard, prohibition works. It keeps a good distance from curious kids and impulse buyers and drugs.
Curiosity is not something that will be extinguished by hiding things from people; if anything hiding it would pique curiosity.There is no way of taking stats or samples for present day Ireland and comparing them to Irish stats during legalisation, because of course there is none of the latter.
Yes, there is no scientific control but FGS look at the amount of misery and violent death that orbits the illegal drug trade because it's illegal.Take cigarettes. One can guess that if cigarettes had been prohibited for the last 100 years or so like drugs have, would fewer people smoke now than presently? Would say yes myself.
Perhaps, but you'd also have all those people who grow, manufacture, distribute, sell and consume tobacco in various states of incarceration and criminal labeling creating much more misery than the drug itself. Is this only obvious to me or what?And what if they were then suddenly legalised and sold in every town in the country? Would usage increase eventually? Again, would say yes.
Even if consumption increased it doesn't mean harm would not be reduced in the event of legalisation. No more prison for distributors and no more prison/life wrecking criminal records.
Increase in consumption =/= increase in harm to society.Am hoping you or someone will propose what drugs they would like to see legalised here and in what way to sell them
Maybe then we go through your list of reasons again and see how they apply to it. Run it up the flagpole as they say.
You want to be walked by the hand into an alternative future which does not yet exist. Nobody can do that for you and asking someone to is naive.
We can talk about how we think it might turn out but we can't predict exactly how it would.
Prohibition is harming people more than the drugs themselves and that's all that matters.
Also, we're paying for the 'privilege' of this farce as tax-payers.0 -
Complicate an Issue and drag it on for long enough and people will give up and leave but i'll be back regularly with my usual simple "wise saws and instances" and poor punctuation to give away something to the unfortunate .They either find me funny or fault my spelling but little else .I've not seen one simple concise statement yet to convince me of the need to legalise soft drugs because there is'nt one.. only long tedious references to studies that have little relevance .0
-
Chuck Stone wrote: »Seriously, that ^^ does not constitute evidence. If anything it's an example of confirmation bias.
It's empirical evidence. So it does actually.Chuck Stone wrote: »Kids (under 18's) don't face the same problems getting illegal drugs as they do with getting alcohol and cigarettes because it's regulated.
You're saying kids would find it harder to get drugs if they were legalised and regulated? Pull the other one.Chuck Stone wrote: »So the only reason your kid isn't experimenting with drugs is because he can't get it in the shop? Sounds like you don't trust him/her?
No that's obviously not what i was saying. I trust him a lot actually. It meant that kids are kids and if they see it in a cool shop on main st, they might be tempted.Chuck Stone wrote: »Curiosity is not something that will be extinguished by hiding things from people; if anything hiding it would pique curiosity.
That's another weak argument that's always trotted out.
Nor will it be extinguished by putting it legally for sale.Chuck Stone wrote: »Yes, there is no scientific control but FGS look at the amount of misery and violent death that orbits the illegal drug trade because it's illegal.
As outlined in a previous post to you, legalising does not necessarily just make it just go away. We can discuss this, but only if you give me something to work with, ie what drugs would you legalise and how would you sell them?Chuck Stone wrote: »Perhaps, but you'd also have all those people who grow, manufacture, distribute, sell and consume tobacco in various states of incarceration and criminal labeling creating much more misery than the drug itself. Is this only obvious to me or what?
Are you saying that for street drugs in general worldwide, there is more misery being suffered by the people the who grow, manufacture, distribute, sell and consume drugs being locked up or otherwise than the misery of drug abuse itself? That's very debatable. You could maybe say that about weed for example in the US, but as i'm blue in the face saying: de-criminalisation of posession would solve these problems.Chuck Stone wrote: »Even if consumption increased it doesn't mean harm would not be reduced in the event of legalisation. No more prison for distributors and no more prison/life wrecking criminal records.
Leaving aside the distributors, and fact that you don't need to legalise it to stop prison/life wrecking criminal records for possession , i'm curious to know why you think harm would be reduced by increased drug use.Chuck Stone wrote: »Increase in consumption =/= increase in harm to society.
Please explain.Chuck Stone wrote: »You want to be walked by the hand into an alternative future which does not yet exist. Nobody can do that for you and asking someone to is naive.
I'd like you or someone to tell me what drugs you propose to legalise and by what means you propose to legalise it. A simple and not unreasonable request to you and any other legalisation proponents on this thread. It's time to examine your ideas.
Calling me naive is great and all, but surely those who argue their case so passionately won't mind giving a few details of their proposed solution..Chuck Stone wrote: »Prohibition is harming people more than the drugs themselves and that's all that matters.
Depends on which drug you're talking about and what country.Chuck Stone wrote: »Also, we're paying for the 'privilege' of this farce as tax-payers.
We can discuss this aswell as soon as you or someone give me your specific proposals or suggestions.0 -
What do you mean here by "drug"?Are you saying that for street drugs in general worldwide, there is more misery being suffered by the people the who grow, manufacture, distribute, sell and consume drugs being locked up or otherwise than the misery of drug abuse itself?
Heroin, methamphetamine and crack cocaine would be the only three off the top of my head which there is serious misery associated with their abuse.
Weed, MDMA (ecstasy), lsd, mushrooms etc. ? There's not much misery or abuse surrounding these at all.0 -
What do you mean here by "drug"?
Heroin, methamphetamine and crack cocaine would be the only three off the top of my head which there is serious misery associated with their abuse.
Weed, MDMA (ecstasy), lsd, mushrooms etc. ? There's not much misery or abuse surrounding these at all.
Yes would say it's undoubtedly true for the first three.
The last three less so.
Am still patiently waiting for some responses and for someone to propose what drugs they think should be put on sale and by what means. All quiet on the Western front so far. Might take a stab at some options later in the week if there's no takers.0 -
I'm not sure what I think however I have it heard it said that perhaps all drugs should be legal. I'm sure there are merits for heroin. Look no further than dublin city center to see the affects of illegal heroin, and I doubt many of them are going to quit. If they were given access to a controlled supply of heroin perhaps their life would improve and we could have a safer city? There is an entire sordid evil subculture associated with the buying selling and using of heroin. Murder, prostitution, theft, child neglect and abuse, rape and so forth. It's definitely worth looking at legal heroin.What do you mean here by "drug"?
Heroin, methamphetamine and crack cocaine would be the only three off the top of my head which there is serious misery associated with their abuse.
Weed, MDMA (ecstasy), lsd, mushrooms etc. ? There's not much misery or abuse surrounding these at all.
Yes would say it's undoubtedly true for the first three.
The last three less so.
Am still patiently waiting for some responses and for someone to propose what drugs they think should be put on sale and by what means. All quiet on the Western front so far. Might take a stab at some options later in the week if there's no takers.0 -
Thank you for correcting me on this. I only skimmed the article but I still won't relinquish my point: no matter how you spin the numbers, the conclusion is the same: The War on Drugs is a colossal waste of money and resources. A decade of violence and repression and what do we get? A stable and unmovable level of drug consumption. It's not working.Even if the prevalence of drug use remains the same,the increase
in population would mean that the absolute number of users would increase proportionally.
You're trying to have your cake and it eat here. You can't say you want to keep all drugs illegal and then at the same time condemn the war on drugs; the war on drugs the world over is a direct result of states' attempts to keep illegal drugs off the streets--which is exactly what you support.and not as a supporter of the current U.S.-style Prohibition or 'War on Drugs' or to prove it's working.
I'll state this simply: All drugs should be fully legal. Supermarkets, online stores, market stalls, you name it; let them sell drugs. I've been arguing this the wrong way, I support the legality of drugs ultimately on moral grounds. What your local chipshop proprietor puts into his own body is none of your business; nor should it be. Your position boils down to telling people what they can and cannot do because you don't agree with it, not because it harms you. I'm sure you would not want your son to get involved in many other activities apart from drug use, but that is no reason to force other people to stop what they're doing.ed2hands wrote:First of all i'd like to know what form of legalisation you're in favour of.
As it stands, I have no reason to believe that any realistic form of legalisation would put them out of business.
People want drugs, people like drugs, and illegalisation has only served to push production and distribution into the hands of violent criminals. Lift the ban and peaceful, law-abiding citizens will be able to open drugs shops which can sell and distribute substances minus the violence and murder. Ultimately, that is what you support when you support illegalisation: 34,000 dead people in Mexico who didn't have to die. And don't say you don't support "that type of prohibition". If you support keeping drugs illegal you are supporting murder, violence, and repression on a colossal level. The morality of that doesn't sit right with many people, even if it does for you.0 -
I am not a proponent of the legalization of drugs. My own view is that we probably have 'enough' legal drugs available without adding to the list. Of course, whether how the current criminalization of drugs is handled in a self defeating manner for society is a different discussion, of course, but I'm not of the opinion that legalization is the optimum solution any more than the blunt use of law to curb the use of addictive substances - be they heroin, alcohol or cocaine or tobacco.The difference between Hard drugs and Drink & Smoking is the legality..If smoking tobacco was illegal i'd safely say well over 90-odd % of people would stop smoking.Anyone who takes any form of illegal drug in my eyes is as bad as any criminal...Buying drugs is funding scumbags...I have no pity for anyone who dies from using illegal drugs..Harsh but true..
However, I'll have to say that whenever I hear someone come out with the "it's wrong because it's illegal" school of logic, as quoted above, I do despair for my species. It's like someone arguing that Apartheid was right because it was 'legal' or female emancipation was wrong because it was not. It shows a lack of abstract reasoning that supposedly is what defines us as homo sapiens - the capacity to think 'outside the box' and beyond simplistic, shallow logic that earlier primates mastered.
In short, it is comments like that are what have turned me to support eugenics. That is all.0 -
I think this is a bit of a lazy argument because it starts from the premise of "drugs are bad" and doesn't distinguish between drugs or make any kind of argument based on their effects, nor does it examine whether having multiple different drugs legal alongside one another would actually be more harmful to society, it just assumes it.The Corinthian wrote: »I am not a proponent of the legalization of drugs. My own view is that we probably have 'enough' legal drugs available without adding to the list.
To give an example of how "adding to the list" could actually be beneficial, suppose weed was legalized and normalized in society. Rather than drinking alcohol every weekend, people might instead alternate between going out drinking and staying in and using weed. This could lessen alcoholism, alcohol related illness, violence and disorder in the streets at club closing times etc.
Very simplistic, I know, but it's an example of how the availability of another drug could lessen the use of alcohol and overall be beneficial to society. It's not as black and white as more legal drugs => damage to society.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why don't people stay in on the weekend to drink alcohol?To give an example of how "adding to the list" could actually be beneficial, suppose weed was legalized and normalized in society. Rather than drinking alcohol every weekend, people might instead alternate between going out drinking and staying in and using weed.
Personally I do believe that drugs are not so much bad as 'not good'. Some have beneficial side effects, but beyond varying levels of addition (and I doubt anyone would defend the benefits of addition) all come with negative side effects if used outside of the most minimal amounts.
Historically we simply would find it difficult to eliminate them - drugs of one type or another have been around since pre-history, after all. However presuming that legalizing them will result in responsible use is as silly as the presumption that we can criminalize them without consequence either.0 -
-
Thank you for correcting me on this. I only skimmed the article but I still won't relinquish my point: no matter how you spin the numbers, the conclusion is the same: The War on Drugs is a colossal waste of money and resources. A decade of violence and repression and what do we get? A stable and unmovable level of drug consumption. It's not working.
Well, just firstly i'm not the one 'spinning the numbers'. That was done by the Global Commission.You're trying to have your cake and it eat here. You can't say you want to keep all drugs illegal and then at the same time condemn the war on drugs; the war on drugs the world over is a direct result of states' attempts to keep illegal drugs off the streets--which is exactly what you support.
Am not sure how the phrase "have your cake and eat it" relates to anything i've said. Let's be clear what i've said and not said in regard to the war on drugs.
I'm against the "war on drugs" when it's locking cannabis users up ala the U.S. I'm against the war on drugs when it's locking heroin and crack users up instead of treating their addiction. I'm against the war on drugs that wastes police and other resources doing this.
However i do support the option to keep most illegal drugs 'off the streets' as you put it. Just because I support the prohibition of the legal sale of drugs does not mean i support all the current methods used to enforce that prohibition. I'm afraid you're trying to assign a contradiction and hypocricy to my stated position which is not there.I'll state this simply: All drugs should be fully legal. Supermarkets, online stores, market stalls, you name it; let them sell drugs. I've been arguing this the wrong way, I support the legality of drugs ultimately on moral grounds. What your local chipshop proprietor puts into his own body is none of your business; nor should it be. Your position boils down to telling people what they can and cannot do because you don't agree with it, not because it harms you. I'm sure you would not want your son to get involved in many other activities apart from drug use, but that is no reason to force other people to stop what they're doing.
People want drugs, people like drugs, and illegalisation has only served to push production and distribution into the hands of violent criminals. Lift the ban and peaceful, law-abiding citizens will be able to open drugs shops which can sell and distribute substances minus the violence and murder. Ultimately, that is what you support when you support illegalisation: 34,000 dead people in Mexico who didn't have to die. And don't say you don't support "that type of prohibition". If you support keeping drugs illegal you are supporting murder, violence, and repression on a colossal level. The morality of that doesn't sit right with many people, even if it does for you.
Well, what you said above has two main points:
The first one (to paraphrase:What a person puts into his body is his own business) is possibly the weakest argument i've heard in favour of legalisation.
The second one (If you support keeping drugs illegal you are supporting murder, violence, and repression on a colossal level) is the most disengenuous.
Second one first.
I certainly feel sorry for the many dead in Mexico and elsewhere, most especially the minority in that number who were not members of a drug gang and who were innocently caught in the crossfire. In saying that, it's highly disengenuous IMO to lay the fault for these deaths firmly at the door of those who oppose legalisation as if by taking this view we have blood on our hands. That i find quite an underhand tactic.
You and others here maintain that 'what a person puts into his body is his own business'. This is repeated like a mantra in all discussions of this sort and has been commandeered to garner support for the cause of both legalisation of all drugs and libertarianism in general. Am not surprised it's used so much as it's an attractive phrase that many can associate with. I mean who wants to be told what they can and can't do right? But when you actually examine what it really implies and how it applies to drug legislation, it's just basically empty rhetoric imo.
It's all well and good to shout about individual rights and peoples right to consume what they want, but people also have a right to decide what they want to be legally sold in their own country do they not? In their own shops and supermarkets and public places. People have a right to live in a society where street drugs are not legalised, encouraged, normalised and made any more available to it's citizens than they already are, especially considering the vulnerable sections that some of you have breathtakingly ignored thus far.
Law and legislation for drugs you could arguably say is created and evolves in response to the will of the citizenry and the overall welfare of the community. It's evolving as we speak towards de-criminalising use all over the world.
If it's ever found that heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, speed or whatever -use has become a socially acceptable and largely harmless past-time and that it's effects on the community are mostly socially benign and without cost to it's health, then maybe your what a person puts into his body is his own business argument might apply. For the moment though, saying all drugs should be available to anyone is definitely a minority viewpoint, as evidenced by the very few who hold it, and believe me it's not because of any nasty anti-drug propaganda or drug misinformation or lack of scientific study on it's physical and social effects. People can see with their own eyes the effects they have, and most can speculate and form an opinion of what legalising their sale throughout the land would do to help the problem.
Going back to the gang deaths in Mexico and other places. The idea you're in favour of is fully legalising cocaine, crack, meth etc production, import and sale in the hope that the drug gangs will be completely starved of business and the killings and executions will stop.
You're talking about turning over the drugs industry to some companies or corporations that would supposedly administer all manufacture and distribution; from the coca fields of Bolivia to the crack dens of every major city. Good luck with that.
Not sure how that's a realistic solution to the existing problems in drug policy. If a corporation muscled in on the cocaine/crack/chrystal meth trade, do you seriously think the current controllers will just call it a day and make their way to the local job centres? I doubt it. They'll just see it as competition. So you'll have legal drugs flooding the cities and you'll also still have the illegal sellers aswell. Unless you plan to more-or-less give it away, the gangs will be still in business imv. It's relatively easy to manufacture and transport/smuggle.0 -
The Independents take on the failure of the drug war.....US waves white flag in disastrous 'war on drugs'
After 40 years, Washington is quietly giving up on a futile battle that has spread corruption and destroyed thousands of lives
The Independent
After 40 years of defeat and failure, America's "war on drugs" is being buried in the same fashion as it was born – amid bloodshed, confusion, corruption and scandal. US agents are being pulled from South America; Washington is putting its narcotics policy under review, and a newly confident region is no longer prepared to swallow its fatal Prohibition error. Indeed, after the expenditure of billions of dollars and the violent deaths of tens of thousands of people, a suitable epitaph for America's longest "war" may well be the plan, in Bolivia, for every family to be given the right to grow coca in its own backyard.
The "war", declared unilaterally throughout the world by Richard Nixon in 1969, is expiring as its strategists start discarding plans that have proved futile over four decades: they are preparing to withdraw their agents from narcotics battlefields from Colombia to Afghanistan and beginning to coach them in the art of trumpeting victory and melting away into anonymous defeat. Not surprisingly, the new strategy is being gingerly aired in the media of the US establishment, from The Wall Street Journal to the Miami Herald.
Prospects in the new decade are thus opening up for vast amounts of useless government expenditure being reassigned to the treatment of addicts instead of their capture and imprisonment. And, no less important, the ever-expanding balloon of corruption that the "war" has brought to heads of government, armies and police forces wherever it has been waged may slowly start to deflate.
Prepare to shed a tear over the loss of revenue that eventual decriminalisation of narcotics could bring to the traffickers, large and small, and to the contractors who have been making good money building and running the new prisons that help to bankrupt governments – in the US in particular, where drug offenders – principally small retailers and seldom the rich and important wholesalers – have helped to push the prison population to 1,600,000; their imprisonment is already straining federal and state budgets. In Mississippi, where drug offenders once had to serve 85 per cent of their sentences, they are now being required to serve less than a quarter. California has been ordered to release 40,000 inmates because its prisons are hugely overcrowded.
At the same time, some in the US are confused and fear that the new commission proposed by Congressman Eliot Engel, a man with a record of hostility to the Cuban and Venezuelan governments, may prove to be a broken reed. As he brought in his bill he added timidly: "Let me be absolutely clear that this bill has not been introduced to support the legalisation of illegal drugs. That is not something that I would like to see."
Part of the reason for the slow US retreat from the "war" is that the strategy of fighting it in foreign lands and not at home has proved valueless. Along the already sensitive frontier with Mexico the effect of US attempts to enforce a hard line by blasting drug dealers away has been bloody. Anxious to keep in check the flood of illegal immigrants into territory that once belonged to Mexico, Washington is building a wall and fence comparable to that which once cut through Berlin and that which is today causing havoc between Israelis and Palestinians.
In the areas of Mexico closest to the US frontier the toll of deaths in drug-related violence exceeded 7,000 people in 2009 (1,000 of them dying in January and February). This takes the death toll over three years to above 16,000, figures far in excess of US fatalities in Afghanistan. The bloodshed has continued despite – or perhaps because of – the intense US pressure on President Felipe Calderon to station a large part of the Mexican army in the region. It is deploying 49,000 men on its own soil in the campaign against drugs, a larger force than the 46,000 Britain sent to take part in the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. But still the blood flows.
As in Colombia, where a multibillion-dollar US subsidy maintains that country's armed forces, there are well-founded suspicions that military operations are often rendered futile because the miserably paid local commanders and individual soldiers are easily bought off by drug dealers.
The quiet expiry of the "war" has dawned slowly on a world focused on the US's more palpable conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last month, the US House of Representatives gave unanimous approval to a bill creating an independent commission to reconsider domestic and international drug policies and suggest better ones. Congressman Engel, a Democrat from the Bronx and the sponsor of the bill, declared: "Billions upon billions of US taxpayer dollars have been spent over the years to combat the drug trade in Latin America and the Caribbean. In spite of our efforts, the positive results are few and far between."
As far back as last May, Gil Kerlikowske, the former police chief of Seattle who was named head of the US Office of National Drug Control Policy and thus boss of the campaign, announced he would not be using the term "war on drugs" any more. A few weeks earlier, former Latin American presidents of the centre and right – Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia – had told the new US President that the "war" had failed and appealed for greater emphasis on cutting drug consumption and the decriminalisation of cannabis.
For the lives and sanity of millions, the seeing of the light is decidedly late. The conditions of the 1920s, when the US Congress outlawed alcohol and allowed Al Capone and his kin to make massive fortunes, have been re-created up and down Latin America.
Mexico's President has not been afraid to point out to Washington that official corruption is at the root of drug trafficking in the US just as it is in Mexico. "I say we should investigate on both sides. I'm cleaning my house and I hope that on the other side as well the house is being cleaned," he said pointedly last April before President Obama came visiting.
Furthermore, President Calderon says that lax gun control laws in the US caused an influx of firearms into Mexico. He has declared that 90 per cent of the 30,000 weapons that government forces seized from drug dealers in Mexico came from north of the border. For their part, the Latin Americans, under a new generation of more self-confident leaders, are tired of being hectored about their failings by the US, the world's principal source of cannabis whose agents continue the drug dealing they indulged in during the Iran-Contra affair of the Reagan years.
Evidence points to aircraft – familiarly known as "torture taxis" – used by the CIA to move captives seized in its kidnapping or "extraordinary rendition" operations through Gatwick and other airports in the EU being simultaneously used for drug distribution in the Western hemisphere. A Gulfstream II jet aircraft N9875A identified by the British Government and the European Parliament as being involved in this traffic crashed in Mexico in September 2008 while en route from Colombia to the US with a load of more than three tons of cocaine.
In 2004, another torture taxi crashed in a field in Nicaragua with a ton of cocaine aboard. It had been identified by Britain and the European Parliament's temporary committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners as a frequent visitor in 2004 and 2005 to British, Cypriot, Czech, German, Greek, Hungarian, Spanish and other European cities with its cargo of captives for secret imprisonment and torture in Iraq, Jordan and Azerbaijan.
Given the circumstances, it is unremarkable that US strictures are being politely ignored. President Evo Morales of Bolivia – criticised by the US for defending Bolivians' practice of chewing coca leaves to assuage hunger and altitude sickness – wants to allow every Bolivian family around the city of Cochabamba to cultivate coca bushes for their own use. He also wants to export coca leaves to his country's neighbours. Mr Morales's authority, recently reinforced by winning a second presidential term in fair elections and by a strengthening of Bolivia's economy, has no need to worry about US criticism.
Venezuela and Bolivia have expelled US narcotics officers from their territory. At the end of last month, President Rafael Correa of Ecuador ended Washington's lease of a large air base on the Pacific from where US aircraft were engaged in the struggle against the region's increasingly powerful left.
This year should be the year that common sense vanquishes the mailed fist in an unwinnable war against an invisible enemy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-waves-white-flag-in-disastrous-war-on-drugs-1870218.html?fb_action_ids=10150603955392392%2C10150603951312392&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline#access_token=AAADWQ6323IoBAIdKuOPrC32xPutj4uZCFmgJxTxuCKXUpZC2HHUGVaZBldWWQDYbMs7UcNs5Q7cOMx3ZAZBMYuvRknqvZBp2e6AKGf32thyAZDZD&expires_in=51510
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk
Advertisement