Class A drugs: Criminalise completely or decriminalise completely??

Real Life

flyswatter wrote: »

In addictive terms, alcohol won't addict you from the get go whereas Heroin certainly will.

Not disputing any dangers of alcohol.

i know plenty of people that tried heroin a few times and never got addicted

mikom

flyswatter wrote: »

In addictive terms, alcohol won't addict you from the get go whereas Heroin certainly will.

Utter Horseshit

666irishguy wrote: »

If the state legalized it, as soon as it was taxed ( and pretty heavily I would imagine) a large amount of consumers would turn to the black market.

I could counter that by asking you to check out what happened in the USA after drink prohibition was repealed.
Moonshine is a rarity today.

666irishguy wrote: »

I have seen too many people smoking a bit of weed, then getting a few E's off the same fellow who gave them weed and so on until they reach the harder drugs.

They visit the fella that deals in a variety because they have no other choice due to prohibition.
He never asks for ID either.

Witcher

What about the people who don't want to look at junkies everywhere? It's bad enough putting up with them now without even more of the doped up fcukers potentially being around.

Bannasidhe

flyswatter wrote: »

In addictive terms, alcohol won't addict you from the get go whereas Heroin certainly will.

Not disputing any dangers of alcohol.

What about nicotine? More addictive than heroin but freely and legally available?



Seems to me that having two highly addictive substances which have been proven to be lethal and place a huge drain on our health services perfectly legal but making other lesser or equally addictive substances illegal as they are bad for us is nonsensical.

Bannasidhe

Blay wrote: »

What about the people who don't want to look at junkies everywhere? It's bad enough putting up with them now without even more of the doped up fcukers potentially being around.

Well I don't want to look at people off their heads on alcohol screaming and roaring at each other but ...

Witcher

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well I don't want to look at people off their heads on alcohol screaming and roaring at each other but ...

Wrong person to use that old chestnut on man..I don't even drink so I don't want to look at them either.

flyswatter

mikom wrote: »

Utter Horseshit

So in general terms you're telling me alcohol will instantly addict you more than heroin? Good one.

SuperInfinity

I think this is a ****ty topic and OP you know why you joker.

mikom

flyswatter wrote: »

So in general terms you're telling me alcohol will instantly addict you more than heroin? Good one.

No not that.
The horseshit comment was your one that heroin would addict a person instantly.
Do you stand by that?

alcohol won't addict you from the get go whereas Heroin certainly will.

666irishguy

mikom wrote: »

Utter Horseshit




I could counter that by asking you to check out what happened in the USA after drink prohibition was repealed.
Moonshine is a rarity today.





They visit the fella that deals in a variety because they have no other choice due to prohibition.
He never asks for ID either.

I think that old analogy of prohibition is too easy to use with regards to drugs. Booze was around long before anybody had any of the scientific advantages we have today and for good or bad had become a cultural norm. Criminalizing it was one of the stupidest moves in history. I would ask you to consider then, if we have such a problem with booze now, what will it be like once drugs are readily available. Surely the last thing we need is another drug.
Poitin and Moonshine are still being brewed today so regardless of how many fine spirits we have on the shelves, somebody still wants to drink the juice of the spud. Having to go to that middleman is too much hassle for a lot of people, or they simply wouldn't know where to reach him, and go through their lives without ever having to feel the need to smoke weed etc. You can walk down the street today and see kids as young as 12 smoking a Benson. They probably got it off somebody who bought it in a shop.

Bannasidhe

Blay wrote: »

Wrong person to use that old chestnut on man..I don't even drink so I don't want to look at them either.

Not a man and I don't drink either. But I do have to suffer drunken yahoos so if our goal is to avoid doped up off their trollies fcukers messing up our streets perhaps we should ban alcohol?

That worked well in the US when they tried that...oh wait...it was a complete disaster and all that happened is it funded a sophisticated crime network...

flyswatter

mikom wrote: »

No not that.
The horseshit comment was your one that heroin would addict a person instantly.
Do you stand by that?

On second thoughts, no not 100% but if you compare the amount of people who drink purely socially/recreationally and the amount of people who do likewise with heroin, I can easily imagine which is the higher number.

Witcher

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That worked well in the US when they tried that...oh wait...it was a complete disaster and all that happened is it funded a sophisticated crime network...

Then it was legalised again and it still causes sh1t in society...so would drugs..the world of drug addiction wouldn't become some happy land of rainbows or something once it was legalised..people's lives would still be consumed by it and their kids and other responsibilities would still be neglected as they are now. The only advantage would be for well off types who could take their bit of coke on the weekend and not risk jail.

How many of the people here saying legalise heroin/hash/coke/E etc. have actually seen the damage they can do? I've no sympathy for drug users..none..it's their families who have to deal with it that I feel for.

Liamario

Legalise the lot of it, but force those who want to consume it to consume it in dangerous quantities. All or nothing. That will be the end of the drug trade fairly rapidly....

mikom

666irishguy wrote: »

I think that old analogy of prohibition is too easy to use with regards to drugs. Booze was around long before anybody had any of the scientific advantages we have today and for good or bad had become a cultural norm.

You do realise that cannabis predates alcohol.

Real Life

Blay wrote: »

Then it was legalised again and it still causes sh1t in society...so would drugs..the world of drug addiction wouldn't become some happy land of rainbows or something once it was legalised..people's lives would still be consumed by it and their kids and other responsibilities would still be neglected as they are now. The only advantage would be for well off types who could take their bit of coke on the weekend and not risk jail.

How many of the people here saying legalise heroin/hash/coke/E etc. have actually seen the damage they can do? I've no sympathy for drug users..none..it's their families who have to deal with it that I feel for.

ive seen the damage they can do, but ive seen alcohol do more damage. I know plenty of regular drug users who still function completely normal, have jobs and are successful. i bet you know loads of people using drugs but you arent aware they are doing it.
some of the nicest people i know that never go out looking for trouble or causing it are regular drug users and you wouldnt know it unless they told you.

SuperInfinity

Liamario wrote: »

Legalise the lot of it, but force those who want to consume it to consume it in dangerous quantities. All or nothing. That will be the end of the drug trade fairly rapidly....

The same with prostitution, I'd be willing to take part in a trial run.

micbravo

How many of these junkies only took their first hit/drug because they were pissed outta their minds on alcohol...More than like most of them....Id agree that alcohol is just as bad as most drugs...I dont use either because of sports but have been drunk alot of times and only tried a few drugs which never appealed to me but i think weed is the least dangerous of the lot...

Liamario

But seriously though, the last thing this country needs is another vice. Irish people don't know how to do anything in moderation.
Smoking, drinking etc. are done to excess and it's not a trait to be proud of.
To introduce the legalisation of any drug in this country would be madness.

Sort out our existing addiction issues before deciding we need more.

Bannasidhe

Blay wrote: »

Then it was legalised again and it still causes sh1t in society...so would drugs..the world of drug addiction wouldn't become some happy land of rainbows or something once it was legalised..people's lives would still be consumed by it and their kids and other responsibilities would still be neglected as they are now. The only advantage would be for well off types who could take their bit of coke on the weekend and not risk jail.
How many of the people here saying legalise heroin/hash/coke/E etc. have actually seen the damage they can do?

If you think all of these substances are equable in their effects that suggests to me you have little experience of them or the people who use and abuse them.

But to answer your question, I have most certainly seen what all of those substances you list can do and having worked as a community worker in a council housing estate in London's East End for 6 years I have been one of those whose job it was to clean up the mess-I had to deal with it every bloody day - and alcohol was cause of the majority of the problems we had to deal with.

Junkies passed out in the stairs, stoners looking a bit spaced and eating munchies, coke heads thinking they were gods, speed freaks whizzing about the place and alcoholics fighting and kicking all kinds of ****e out each other. Give me a stoner any day over some roaring drunk.

Then we had those who were out of their heads on prescription meds - Valium (diazepam), Xanax ( Alprazolam), Librium (Chlordiazepoxide) being prescribed like they were smarties- all perfectly legal. These were usually (but not only) prescribed to women - and guess who had to keep a discrete eye on many of these women;s children. Yup - the community worker.


Banning hasn't worked. It will never work. Better to bring in strict controls and tax it. I would also restrict the sale of alcohol and tobacco to a far greater extent then they are now.

Grayson

They shouldn't be Class A's At the turn of the 20th century, there were more addicts than there are now. But there was no crime. That's because the drug was freely available. Most addicts were people who had been given it for acute long term pain and became addicted. But instead of treating it as a social or medical problem, it was treated as a criminal problem.

Drugs aren't just causing suffering here either. Look at places like Afghanistan or central/south america. The illicit trade in narcotics is worth so much that tens of thousands are being killed. And the money generated from the drugs goes back to buying more weapons. From the Taliban to FARC to the zetas, the money westerners are spending on drugs is destabilising whole countries.

Gbear

ScumLord wrote: »

Let people try drugs in a controlled manor

You provide the control, I'll provide the drugs.

Now all we need is a manor.:pac:

666irishguy

mikom wrote: »

You do realise that cannabis predates alcohol.

Again another very stale argument "It's been with us since the caves". It's been around in some human cultures a long time, that's true. But where is the evidence it was widely smoked by everybody throughout history. It's also highly unlikely that the type of wild cannabis consumed in ancient times was anywhere near as potent as the modern strains.

Bannasidhe

666irishguy wrote: »

Again another very stale argument "It's been with us since the caves". It's been around in some human cultures a long time, that's true. But where is the evidence it was widely smoked by everybody throughout history. It's also highly unlikely that the type of wild cannabis consumed in ancient times was anywhere near as potent as the modern strains.

Same argument can be made against alcohol. Distilled spirits such as gin only became widely available in the early 18th century. Have a look at Hogarth's prints to see the result of that. Yet, alcohol wasn't banned - it was controlled, regulated and taxed.

df1985

for the sake of central america and mexico alone something needs to be done about drug policy....i know the drug wars were bad but had a good look round the net last night....my god.the mexican drug gangs are fighting on the streets of US cities now too, read a few articles last night-chicago, milwaukee, detroit have seen big spikes in cartel related violence.

666irishguy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Same argument can be made against alcohol. Distilled spirits such as gin only became widely available in the early 18th century. Have a look at Hogarth's prints to see the result of that. Yet, alcohol wasn't banned - it was controlled, regulated and taxed.

Alcohol was controlled and taxed because they could readily make it in their own countries, so regardless of whether it was legal or not, it was available to anybody with a still in a crude form. Gin had to be imported and likewise, so would modern drugs as I doubt Coca plants or Opium poppies would fare too well in our climate, likewise with the common strains of Marijuana plant used to harvest weed. Alcohol in several indigenous forms was well established in the populace whether the government liked it or not. I doubt the legalization of Gin suddenly cured the thousands of alcoholics of Gin fever overnight or made them responsible drinkers. You should check out beer street by Hogarth, who used that print to promote the drinking of English beer, so I wouldn't regard Hogarth's work as much in the way of an attack on alcohol. Again though using that logic I ask, if alcohol is that damaging, why do we need another drug(s).

Bannasidhe

666irishguy wrote: »

Alcohol was controlled and taxed because they could readily make it in their own countries, so regardless of whether it was legal or not, it was available to anybody with a still in a crude form. Gin had to be imported and likewise, so would modern drugs as I doubt Coca plants or Opium poppies would fare too well in our climate, likewise with the common strains of Marijuana plant used to harvest weed. Alcohol in several indigenous forms was well established in the populace whether the government liked it or not. I doubt the legalization of Gin suddenly cured the thousands of alcoholics of Gin fever overnight or made them responsible drinkers. You should check out beer street by Hogarth, who used that print to promote the drinking of English beer, so I wouldn't regard Hogarth's work as much in the way of an attack on alcohol. Again though using that logic I ask, if alcohol is that damaging, why do we need another drug(s).

Gin did not have to be imported. Have you never heard of the term 'bathtub gin'? Gin was one of hundreds of distilled spirits that were being made in huge quantities down countless back streets. 'Gin' simply means the main ingredient was juniper (geneviève in French) berries (as potatoes are in poitín).

Given that the vast majority of the ropes used in sailing ships were made from hemp - it's safe to assume Cannabis sativa was being grown in vast quantities - or do you assume Drake, Raleigh etc got the raw materials for all of their ropes from the Spanish West Indies?

The question is not why we need another drug. The question is why are we spending resources endlessly fighting a loosing war on some drugs when other equally dangerous drugs are freely available?

goingpostal1

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Portugal has taken steps to fully decriminalise small quantities of heroin and cocaine for personal use without punishment.

It is still highly illegal in Ireland.

Is decriminalisation and full legislation good? I mean selling it in shops? This will generate revenue and even draw drug tourists.

On the other hand, addiction will still be an issue and people will still rob to fund it, and we don't want that kind of people coming to Ireland for drug tourism.

So the great people of After Hours. Which would you opt for? Compete legalisation? Or imposing the death sentence like Singapore? (if you had to choose between the two).

Prohibition is an expensive failure. You can't outlaw suppy and demand. Prohibition makes a bad problem worse. Instead of spending money on a failed policy of criminalising drug-taking, that money could be spent on harm-reduction and regulation. If heroin was available on presciption to addicts, your granny could collect her pension with much less fear of being mugged. Providing needle exchanges reduces the incidence of AIDS and hepatitis in the overall population. Legalising drugs would have benefits for all of us. People are going to take heroin or cocaine, whether our politicians say they can or not. Our government is a lot less powerful than the international, globalised organised crime industry, that the prohibition of drugs has helped create. Our government does not have the power to stop every shipment of drugs that comes into this country. They intercept 1 out of every 10 shipments. Our coastline is too large to prevent anything more than a small fraction of the drugs that land on our shores from reaching the market. I recognise the difficulties that heroin and cocaine causes for families and communities. Criminalising the use of these drugs does not improve the situation, it has the opposite effect. Creating a society that offers equal access and opportunities in education and employment to all its children, might lessen the despair in a lot of communities, that leads to widespread addiction to hard drugs. An addict buying his drugs from organised crime has no guarantee of the safety or purity of what he is injecting or snorting. The war on drugs is a complete, unmitigated failure. It is easier than ever to get drugs in any town or village in this country. Time to call off the phony war, and try to find more imaginative solutions to this social problem. Lots of votes to be gained from scared middle-class voters by telling them "I am tough on drugs". Not many votes to be gained by telling these voters the truth.

666irishguy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gin did not have to be imported. Have you never heard of the term 'bathtub gin'? Gin was one of hundreds of distilled spirits that were being made in huge quantities down countless back streets. 'Gin' simply means the main ingredient was juniper (geneviève in French) berries (as potatoes are in poitín).

Given that the vast majority of the ropes used in sailing ships were made from hemp - it's safe to assume Cannabis sativa was being grown in vast quantities - or do you assume Drake, Raleigh etc got the raw materials for all of their ropes from the Spanish West Indies?

The question is not why we need another drug. The question is why are we spending resources endlessly fighting a loosing war on some drugs when other equally dangerous drugs are freely available?

I should have made that clearer. Gin had to be imported in the sense that it was not native to Britain initially. I think using the Gin argument is flawed though, considering the populace already had access to alcohol in the form of beers and ales and probably other spirits, yet still went straight for the stuff that would blow their heads off. If we legalized drugs, is their no danger that people will be happy with their weed for a while and then get turned on to Coke or Harder drugs or just start making their own hard drugs like Crack which is essentially made in the same spirit as bathtub Gin, and isn't exactly rocket science to make. I'm not talking about the hemp used to make ropes, I am talking about the modern stronger forms of Cannabis that people would realistically demand. The question is exactly why do weed need another drug. If we are spending this much money on alcohol which if I understand you correctly you are saying is equally as dangerous as the ones you want to legalize, then what's the point of legalizing them and exposing more of the populace to them if we can see the effects of such a scheme with alcohol?

goingpostal1

666irishguy wrote: »

..... The question is exactly why do weed need another drug. If we are spending this much money on alcohol which if I understand you correctly you are saying is equally as dangerous as the ones you want to legalize, then what's the point of legalizing them and exposing more of the populace to them if we can see the effects of such a scheme with alcohol?

We already have these other drugs, whether we want them or not. People are going to take heroin, cocaine, crack, or crystal meth, regardless of the legal status of these drugs. The government doesn't have the power to outlaw supply and demand. The question needs to be; does criminalising these drugs make them safer for the people who take them, and does criminalising these drugs make society a safer place? Does spending a fortune warehousing drug dealers and users in our prisons make any economic sense, when violent crimninals like murderers and rapists are serving laughably short prison terms. You can serve a much longer prison term for selling drugs to people who want to buy them, in this country, than you can for rape or even murder. There is something seriously wrong with that. Making so-called hard drugs legal will probably lead to a slight increase in the use of these drugs overall. That is undeniable. If heroin or cocaine were legalised tomorrow, I wouldn't start using them. Would you? Most people with any kind of a decent life would probably answer no to that question. And finally, not all drug use is abuse. Some people can use hard drugs sparingly and occasionally, just like a lot of people can use alcohol safely.

Bannasidhe

666irishguy wrote: »

I should have made that clearer. Gin had to be imported in the sense that it was not native to Britain initially. I think using the Gin argument is flawed though, considering the populace already had access to alcohol in the form of beers and ales and probably other spirits, yet still went straight for the stuff that would blow their heads off. If we legalized drugs, is their no danger that people will be happy with their weed for a while and then get turned on to Coke or Harder drugs or just start making their own hard drugs like Crack which is essentially made in the same spirit as bathtub Gin, and isn't exactly rocket science to make. I'm not talking about the hemp used to make ropes, I am talking about the modern stronger forms of Cannabis that people would realistically demand. The question is exactly why do weed need another drug. If we are spending this much money on alcohol which if I understand you correctly you are saying is equally as dangerous as the ones you want to legalize, then what's the point of legalizing them and exposing more of the populace to them if we can see the effects of such a scheme with alcohol?

Given that heroin was perfectly legal from 1874 (when it was first synthesized ) to 1956 in the UK yet as a society they managed to win two world wars in that time period it would seem that society did not collapse.

Indeed, in 1955 - the year before it was criminalized - there were only 317 recorded addicts in all of GB http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4647018.stm despite the fact that heroin based products were widely available.

By contrast, in the US, where heroin was outlawed in 1925, it was said to be a "major social problem".

But who were this handful of heroin addicts?

According to Dr James Mills, a historian who has traced drug use through the 20th century, they tended to be doctors or middle-class patients who could afford to sustain a habit.

"In the 1930s, it was really the well-to-do crowd. The working classes might have a bit of heroin in the medicine prescribed to them but it wouldn't be enough to form a dependency," says Dr Mills.

Clearly, the fact heroin was legal and widely prescribed for common ailments such as coughs, colds and diarrhoea, as well as a pain killer, had not led to the sort of widespread dependency that opponents of legalisation fear it would do if legalised today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4647018.stm

Opium - from which morphine (and heroin) and codeine are derived has been cultivated since 3400 BCE - amazingly despite the Mesopotamian's having access to this dangerous substance they still managed to devise agriculture, writing, and civilization...

You seem to believe any use of a currently illegal drug is a slippery slope to sleeping in a gutter with a needle in your arm - do you also think that a sip of wine will inevitably lead to living in a doorway drinking meths from a bottle hidden in a brown paper bag?

What is to prevent people making alcohol at home? Nothing. People can and do. The majority do not. There is even a forum here on boards dedicated to home-brewing.

Criminalization hasn't worked. Fact.

Would society really collapse of people were allowed to grow a few canabis plants for their own use? Would we end up being an anarchic society like Switzerland which prohibits the sale but allows people to grow up to 4 plants for their personal use?

In our society we have pensioners being tied to a chair to die while rural Gardaí stations are being closed, drugs related gang land killing are now being carried out in front of children while our limited resources are being squandered in trying to stem the tide of highly profitable (because they are illegal) substances.

Legalise them I say, control them, tax them and cut the feet out from under the criminal gangs and allow Gardaí resources to be better used by reopening all those closed stations. It's the logical thing to do.

666irishguy

goingpostal1 wrote: »

We already have these other drugs, whether we want them or not. People are going to take heroin, cocaine, crack, or crystal meth, regardless of the legal status of these drugs. The government doesn't have the power to outlaw supply and demand. The question needs to be; does criminalising these drugs make them safer for the people who take them, and does criminalising these drugs make society a safer place? Does spending a fortune warehousing drug dealers and users in our prisons make any economic sense, when violent crimninals like murderers and rapists are serving laughably short prison terms. You can serve a much longer prison term for selling drugs to people who want to buy them, in this country, than you can for rape or even murder. There is something seriously wrong with that. Making so-called hard drugs legal will probably lead to a slight increase in the use of these drugs overall. That is undeniable. If heroin or cocaine were legalised tomorrow, I wouldn't start using them. Would you? Most people with any kind of a decent life would probably answer no to that question. And finally, not all drug use is abuse. Some people can use hard drugs sparingly and occasionally, just like a lot of people can use alcohol safely.

Does decriminalising them end drug criminality? How do we deal with the first legal Junkies, send them off to NA and hope they kick it like we do with alcoholics? The government doesn't have the power to outlaw supply and demand, yet the recreational users do, and knowing the things you do about where drug money goes, are you not in effect supporting criminality by buying drugs, and comforting yourself morally by saying "Oh well, I want to get stoned and it's the governments fault that this money is going to a criminal"? I think what we are forgetting here though, is that the whole population is not actively using drugs, and it makes little difference to them if they are illegal or not. So on those grounds, why would we bother or risk exposing more people to substance abuse problems, (which there will be) just to cater to what is effectively a small vocal minority who want to use drugs recreationally. What about the next generation of drugs that may be created? Do we instantly legalize them or do we say we have enough drugs now forever? So begins the cycle again. I wouldn't use any legal drugs, I'm like the majority of people happy enough to have a few beers and I can't see any benefit to legalizing them. If the guys locked up in jail weren't drug dealers they would by virtue of their circumstances be in some other racket. I'm all for tougher laws though.

goingpostal1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

......
Legalise them I say, control them, tax them and cut the feet out from under the criminal gangs and allow Gardaí resources to be better used by reopening all those closed stations. It's the logical thing to do.

As long as there are votes and elections to be won by drumming up a big drugs scare in the middle classes, and then presenting yourself as the politician who is tough on drugs and who can save teenagers from a life of drug-fuelled degeneracy, this is very unlikely to happen. The war on drugs is un-winnable, but it is eminently fundable. Think of all the law-enforcement officers who would be out of work, worldwide, if the drugs war was called off tomorrow. Prosecuting the drugs war in the US and Mexico alone, is worth billions of dollars per year. Depressingly, it will probably take a sharp escalation in the number of lives lost in the drugs war, to utterly untenable levels, to provoke a change in global drugs policy.

666irishguy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that heroin was perfectly legal from 1874 (when it was first synthesized ) to 1956 in the UK yet as a society they managed to win two world wars in that time period it would seem that society did not collapse.

Indeed, in 1955 - the year before it was criminalized - there were only 317 recorded addicts in all of GB http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4647018.stm despite the fact that heroin based products were widely available.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4647018.stm

Opium - from which morphine (and heroin) and codeine are derived has been cultivated since 3400 BCE - amazingly despite the Mesopotamian's having access to this dangerous substance they still managed to devise agriculture, writing, and civilization...

You seem to believe any use of a currently illegal drug is a slippery slope to sleeping in a gutter with a needle in your arm - do you also think that a sip of wine will inevitably lead to living in a doorway drinking meths from a bottle hidden in a brown paper bag?

What is to prevent people making alcohol at home? Nothing. People can and do. The majority do not. There is even a forum here on boards dedicated to home-brewing.

Criminalization hasn't worked. Fact.

Would society really collapse of people were allowed to grow a few canabis plants for their own use? Would we end up being an anarchic society like Switzerland which prohibits the sale but allows people to grow up to 4 plants for their personal use?

In our society we have pensioners being tied to a chair to die while rural Gardaí stations are being closed, drugs related gang land killing are now being carried out in front of children while our limited resources are being squandered in trying to stem the tide of highly profitable (because they are illegal) substances.

Legalise them I say, control them, tax them and cut the feet out from under the criminal gangs and allow Gardaí resources to be better used by reopening all those closed stations. It's the logical thing to do.

These are all interesting facts and I do not doubt them, but I would like to know how many people in those cultures in the UK and the USA at the time would have even been aware of the modern concept of getting high? They were much more conservative and innocent times in many ways socially and it would not have been socially acceptable to get stoned out of your head or strung out. Recreational drug use in the sense of getting high wasn't really on the cards until the 60's. As I have said to the previous poster the issue of criminality goes both ways. The government might not be able to stamp it out on its own, but the people fuelling it are the users. The Criminal element is already established to distribute drugs, and if we legalize this generation of drugs, are we going to be forced to legalize each successive and perhaps more dangerous form of drug every time they surface on the market.

Bannasidhe

666irishguy wrote: »

These are all interesting facts and I do not doubt them, but I would like to know how many people in those cultures in the UK and the USA at the time would have even been aware of the modern concept of getting high? They were much more conservative and innocent times in many ways socially and it would not have been socially acceptable to get stoned out of your head or strung out. Recreational drug use in the sense of getting high wasn't really on the cards until the 60's. As I have said to the previous poster the issue of criminality goes both ways. The government might not be able to stamp it out on its own, but the people fuelling it are the users. The Criminal element is already established to distribute drugs, and if we legalize this generation of drugs, are we going to be forced to legalize each successive and perhaps more dangerous form of drug every time they surface on the market.

Human beings have been getting off their trollies since human beings have existed. Were those wretches Hogarth portrayed living in 'more innocent and naive times'?

William S Burrough's in his book 'Junkie' writes about being a herion addict in the 1930s - were those 'more innocent and naive times'?

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1816 after spending 6 days confined to Villa Diodati due to rain. In the company of Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley the three amused themselves by getting high and telling stories. Were they living in 'more innocent and naive times'?

Have you considered it was the futile attempts to enforce a failed drug policy that caused problems in the 60s rather than the use of these drugs?

Without LSD would we have Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band?
Without Heroin would we have Perfect Day?
Without Absinthe would we have Sunflowers?
Without Opium would we have Daffodils ?

goingpostal1

666irishguy wrote: »

..... The government doesn't have the power to outlaw supply and demand, yet the recreational users do, and knowing the things you do about where drug money goes, are you not in effect supporting criminality by buying drugs, and comforting yourself morally by saying "Oh well, I want to get stoned and it's the governments fault that this money is going to a criminal"?

This is a good point. Anyone that spends money on drugs under the current legal regime is funding drug cartels that employ unspeakable violence against innocent people. There is no getting away from that. Having said that, legalising drugs would remove a huge amount of the profitability from the drugs trade. The reason the drugs trade is so profitable is caused by the illegality of shipping and selling drugs. If you remove the risk, you remove a lot of the profit. Coca and marijuana and opium would no longer be as profitable to grow as cash crops. By legalising drugs, you would remove huge amounts of money from cartels and organised crime. Prohibition of drugs has diverted huge sums of money to organised crime. Legalisation would deprive them of those profits, which they use for evil acts.

666irishguy wrote: »

I think what we are forgetting here though, is that the whole population is not actively using drugs, and it makes little difference to them if they are illegal or not. So on those grounds, why would we bother or risk exposing more people to substance abuse problems, (which there will be) just to cater to what is effectively a small vocal minority who want to use drugs recreationally.

Anyone who pays taxes should care about how those limited resources are spent by their government. Even though someone might not be directly effected by drug abuse, they should care that their taxes are being wasted on a failed anti-drugs policy which burns up money at a ferocious pace. That money could be used for much more productive purposes, that would benefit all of society. And if heroin addicts get their heroin on presciption, they will no longer mug OAPs pensions or engage in shop-lifting to fund their next high. That will make walking the street safer for all of us.

666irishguy wrote: »

What about the next generation of drugs that may be created? Do we instantly legalize them or do we say we have enough drugs now forever?

With any new drugs that appear, we could recognise that prohibition always fails, we could remember that banning drugs always transfers their supply into the hands of criminals, who will use the vast profits they reap from this trade, to engage in violence. Prohibition, to a large extent, has created the problem we are trying to solve.

666irishguy wrote: »

So begins the cycle again. I wouldn't use any legal drugs, I'm like the majority of people happy enough to have a few beers and I can't see any benefit to legalizing them. If the guys locked up in jail weren't drug dealers they would by virtue of their circumstances be in some other racket. I'm all for tougher laws though.

I don't use any illegal drugs either. I don't even drink or smoke. I think that in order to be consistent, we should either ban all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or legalise them all. I am more in favour of legalisation, because the government can't control what people put into their bodies to get high, and where there is a demand for a mood-altering substance, there will always be someone to supply that demand, no matter how many dealers we expensively incarcerate. And you are right in saying that criminally-minded people will always engage in some form of criminality. But I doubt they will find a substitute as lucrative as the drugs trade, which has made criminal cartels so powerful, that they are threatening to overthrow the Mexican state, among other states.

tdv123

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Legalize heroin?
I can understand hash.
But heroin?

Can't beat a few shots of heroin on your day off.

666irishguy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Human beings have been getting off their trollies since human beings have existed. Were those wretches Hogarth portrayed living in 'more innocent and naive times'?

William S Burrough's in his book 'Junkie' writes about being a herion addict in the 1930s - were those 'more innocent and naive times'?

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1816 after spending 6 days confined to Villa Diodati due to rain. In the company of Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley the three amused themselves by getting high and telling stories. Were they living in 'more innocent and naive times'?

Have you considered it was the futile attempts to enforce a failed drug policy that caused problems in the 60s rather than the use of these drugs?

Without LSD would we have Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band?
Without Heroin would we have Perfect Day?
Without Absinthe would we have Sunflowers?
Without Opium would we have Daffodils ?

Human beings have got off their heads since time begun. Yes they have, but human beings haven't had to worry about paying the ESB bill, sending children to school, contracting blood diseases from hypodermic needles, driving cars, etc etc since time begun. It's OK getting off your head if their are no consequences, but in the modern world that's no longer an option. Was Mary Shelly an intelligent woman who used drugs, or did drugs make Mary Shelly an intelligent woman? Burrows may have wrote about being a heroin addict in the 1930's but I also doubt he was calling for the widespread use of narcotics so others could recreationally use them and perhaps experience his plight for themselves. That is a romantic view of drug use you have if I may say so. I would doubt that the creation of pop songs and art would be scientific proof for the benefits of drugs. They were talented people long before they took drugs. I doubt Da-Vinci sparked up his opium pipe when he was painting the Mona Lisa or Michaelangelo got a bit stoned before he scaled the scaffolding to paint the Sistine chapel. If it wasn't for drugs we would most certainly have a lot more great songs from artists like Hendrix, Phil Lynott, Jim Morrison and probably countless other great talents who bought into the ideas of Heroin chic.

mikom

666irishguy wrote: »

If it wasn't for drugs we would most certainly have a lot more great songs from artists like Hendrix, Phil Lynott, Jim Morrison and probably countless other great talents who bought into the ideas of Heroin Sheik.

Was the Heroin Sheik from Saudi Arabia?

Cannabis aids abstract thinking.

Bannasidhe

666irishguy wrote: »

Human beings have got off their heads since time begun. Yes they have, but human beings haven't had to worry about paying the ESB bill, sending children to school, contracting blood diseases from hypodermic needles, driving cars, etc etc since time begun. It's OK getting off your head if their are no consequences, but in the modern world that's no longer an option. Was Mary Shelly an intelligent woman who used drugs, or did drugs make Mary Shelly an intelligent woman? Burrows may have wrote about being a heroin addict in the 1930's but I also doubt he was calling for the widespread use of narcotics so others could recreationally use them and perhaps experience his plight for themselves. That is a romantic view of drug use you have if I may say so. I would doubt that the creation of pop songs and art would be scientific proof for the benefits of drugs. They were talented people long before they took drugs. I doubt Da-Vinci sparked up his opium pipe when he was painting the Mona Lisa or Michaelangelo got a bit stoned before he scaled the scaffolding to paint the Sistine chapel. If it wasn't for drugs we would most certainly have a lot more great songs from artists like Hendrix, Phil Lynott, Jim Morrison and probably countless other great talents who bought into the ideas of Heroin Sheik.

I assure you - after 6 years in Hackney dealing with all forms of addicts I have no such romantic views or illusions. An addict is an addict in my view - just some of them are addicted to legal substances and others to illegal ones. The vast majority of illegal drug users are, in my experience, casual ones in the same way as the vast majority of those who consume alcohol are not alcoholics but casual drinkers. Only difference I see is that the former are 'criminals' while the latter are perfectly respectable.

666irishguy

goingpostal1 wrote: »

This is a good point. Anyone that spends money on drugs under the current legal regime is funding drug cartels that employ unspeakable violence against innocent people. There is no getting away from that. Having said that, legalising drugs would remove a huge amount of the profitability from the drugs trade. The reason the drugs trade is so profitable is caused by the illegality of shipping and selling drugs. If you remove the risk, you remove a lot of the profit. Coca and marijuana and opium would no longer be as profitable to grow as cash crops. By legalising drugs, you would remove huge amounts of money from cartels and organised crime. Prohibition of drugs has diverted huge sums of money to organised crime. Legalisation would deprive them of those profits, which they use for evil acts.

Anyone who pays taxes should care about how those limited resources are spent by their government. Even though someone might not be directly effected by drug abuse, they should care that their taxes are being wasted on a failed anti-drugs policy which burns up money at a ferocious pace. That money could be used for much more productive purposes, that would benefit all of society. And if heroin addicts get their heroin on presciption, they will no longer mug OAPs pensions or engage in shop-lifting to fund their next high. That will make walking the street safer for all of us.


With any new drugs that appear, we could recognise that prohibition always fails, we could remember that banning drugs always transfers their supply into the hands of criminals, who will use the vast profits they reap from this trade, to engage in violence. Prohibition, to a large extent, has created the problem we are trying to solve.


I don't use any illegal drugs either. I don't even drink or smoke. I think that in order to be consistent, we should either ban all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or legalise them all. I am more in favour of legalisation, because the government can't control what people put into their bodies to get high, and where there is a demand for a mood-altering substance, there will always be someone to supply that demand, no matter how many dealers we expensively incarcerate. And you are right in saying that criminally-minded people will always engage in some form of criminality. But I doubt they will find a substitute as lucrative as the drugs trade, which has made criminal cartels so powerful, that they are threatening to overthrow the Mexican state, among other states.

Legalizing drugs would do little to upset the cartels. They would simply find a new market and move somewhere else, undercut government prices or find a better product than is already available. No country where farmers grow narcotics is going to want to compensate them for loss of earnings by growing cash crops that they more than likely have enough of already given the climates needed for the two. So as a taxpayer I would ask are we supposed to use our tax money to get them started on cash crops so we can in turn grow the same products at great expense in our climate? We would then have to spend millions more to pay security to guard our drug crop and products against criminal gangs who may want to acquire them for sale in neighbouring countries without legalization and all the time trying to prevent casual sale into other jurisdictions, so that a minority can use drugs recreationally? Likewise with newer drugs, are we going to spend money trying to come up with safer versions of every new drug that emerges? I would say banning alcohol is nonsense and likewise tobacco. They are here to stay and as already has been said, prohibition of those two would really be a criminals dream. Legalizing weed would do little to dent their money flow anyway. It's the harder ones that bring in the cash.

666irishguy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I assure you - after 6 years in Hackney dealing with all forms of addicts I have no such romantic views or illusions. An addict is an addict in my view - just some of them are addicted to legal substances and others to illegal ones. The vast majority of illegal drug users are, in my experience, casual ones in the same way as the vast majority of those who consume alcohol are not alcoholics but casual drinkers. Only difference I see is that the former are 'criminals' while the latter are perfectly respectable.

The difference I imagine is that many currently illegal substances will kill you a lot quicker than the legal ones and without a great deal of them being consumed. Alcohol is probably here to stay, it's culturally embedded and in fairness I don't see the need for it to be involved in everything we do in this country, but such is the situation we are in. There is also the issue of addictiveness which cannot be denied. Heroin and Cocaine will lead more people to their doom faster than alcohol.

Bannasidhe

666irishguy wrote: »

The difference I imagine is that many currently illegal substances will kill you a lot quicker than the legal ones and without a great deal of them being consumed. Alcohol is probably here to stay, it's culturally embedded and in fairness I don't see the need for it to be involved in everything we do in this country, but such is the situation we are in. There is also the issue of addictiveness which cannot be denied. Heroin and Cocaine will lead more people to their doom faster than alcohol.

Ask any A& E staff member how many people they see due to alcohol poisoning - many of whom die.

Alcohol has been at the root of many our social problems for centuries and has caused untold misery to countless families but you defend it's central role in our (drinking) culture yet believe other, less addictive and destructive, substances should remain illegal as people may, possibly, might, abuse them.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot see the logic of this.

mikom

666irishguy wrote: »

The difference I imagine is that many currently illegal substances will kill you a lot quicker when mixed with the legal ones

Fixed your post.

geetar

just throwing some facts in here:

cannabis is the most profitable crop in america.

Queen Elizabeth used cannabis to help menstrual pains in the 1800's.

:cool:

People seem to be missing the entire point of decriminalisation. The government wont be selling heroin in shops to any lad who walks in to try it. its to help support and wean people form drugs, and gives them a safe, secure way to use drugs without the dangers of old needles, bad batches and dealing with criminals.

It seems daunting at first, but you have to actually research what youre talking about before making opinionated arguments against it.

cannabis is the most profitable drug for gangs. Its high volume, and sells. if you take that away form them through legalisation, then you're removing their main income, and like any business, will suffer greatly or collapse entirely.

The origins behind cannabis illegality was also due to the competition to america's paper industry.

Ireland having farmers returning to their fields to grow hemp would create employment, increase government revenue through numerous avenues, decrease organised crime, and make everyone a good bit happier.

Jimoslimos

geetar wrote: »

Ireland having farmers returning to their fields to grow hemp would create employment, increase government revenue through numerous avenues, decrease organised crime, and make everyone a good bit happier.

Whatever the other arguments for/against legalisation, that will never happen. We simply don't have the land mass to grow a crop like hemp on a commercial scale

nachocheese

If it can be pulled from the ground like marijuana plants are then they should be legal.

If they have to be made/cooked in a lab then they should be legal but go through the same testing/standards as any other legal chemical.

Not much more to it really.

Linoge

Jimoslimos wrote: »

We simply don't have the land mass to grow a crop like hemp on a commercial scale

???? Are you posting from Liechtenstein?

I dont know why all countries in the world arent looking to each other and seeing what works and what doesnt and try to replicate. We don't have to be pioneers in drug policies and programs, but we sure as hell could hop on the bandwagon at the first oppurtunity.

Bannasidhe

geetar wrote: »

just throwing some facts in here:

cannabis is the most profitable crop in america.

Queen Elizabeth used cannabis to help menstrual pains in the 1800's.

:cool:

People seem to be missing the entire point of decriminalisation. The government wont be selling heroin in shops to any lad who walks in to try it. its to help support and wean people form drugs, and gives them a safe, secure way to use drugs without the dangers of old needles, bad batches and dealing with criminals.

It seems daunting at first, but you have to actually research what youre talking about before making opinionated arguments against it.

cannabis is the most profitable drug for gangs. Its high volume, and sells. if you take that away form them through legalisation, then you're removing their main income, and like any business, will suffer greatly or collapse entirely.

The origins behind cannabis illegality was also due to the competition to america's paper industry.

Ireland having farmers returning to their fields to grow hemp would create employment, increase government revenue through numerous avenues, decrease organised crime, and make everyone a good bit happier.

ummm...Elizabeth died in 1603 ...

But Mary II and Anne may have also had a joint or two in the 1800s

Apart from that- carry on.

ScumLord

666irishguy wrote: »

If we legalized drugs, is their no danger that people will be happy with their weed for a while and then get turned on to Coke or Harder drugs or just start making their own hard drugs like Crack which is essentially made in the same spirit as bathtub Gin,

Crack is made from cocaine, not gin. Your also comparing apples and oranges with your attitude to drugs. Cannabis is a completely different high to the likes of cocaine or heroin, if you like cannabis it doesn't automatically mean your going to like the other drugs to the same extent. Many cannabis users forego all other drugs in favour of cannabis.

666irishguy wrote: »

These are all interesting facts and I do not doubt them, but I would like to know how many people in those cultures in the UK and the USA at the time would have even been aware of the modern concept of getting high?

Humans have been using drugs for as long as we're been human and even before we where human. Humans aren't even the only animals that get high. There's even a theory going around that drug use lead to the human mind. Drugs were linked with early religion, they were always seen as the path to god and still are in some tribal cultures, it wasn't until religion developed a power structure that drug use (the direct path to god) was frowned upon by the people that wanted to be intermediaries to gods word.

Every person throughout history more than likely used drugs at least once in their life's. Even in Ireland our sacred mushrooms were used as a trial into manhood.

666irishguy wrote: »

Human beings have got off their heads since time begun. Yes they have, but human beings haven't had to worry about paying the ESB bill, sending children to school, contracting blood diseases from hypodermic needles, driving cars, etc etc since time begun.

No they had much more immediate concerns like finding food, not dying, the weather, tiny injuries causing death, slavery, learning how to survive. Our life's are sedate by their standards.

If you use drugs you make time in your day, just like you don't go into work drunk and instead have a beer in the evening or at the weekend.