Legalise ALL drugs?!

[MoogleViper]

All of you people saying that legalisation will help are looking at it through rose tinted glasses. Things don't work in society like they should do. It's like a country where drugs are legal saying "Let's ban drugs, it will stop people getting them." Which we know won't work. Just remember things don't always work like they should do theoretically.

 

 

Also I agree with Gorrit about the hypocrisy. And I wouldn't be too bothered if smoking and alcohol was bad. Also I try to stay off of medical drugs if I can, I don't take painkillers.

[jayseven]

Well you just agreed with what we've been saying about there being a problem, illegal or not. Do you disagree that there would be more help available? That taxation would be a plus? C'mon man, discuss it don't diss it.

[Kurtle Squad]

Well you just agreed with what we've been saying about there being a problem, illegal or not. Do you disagree that there would be more help available? That taxation would be a plus? C'mon man, discuss it don't diss it.

The taxation would be a plus, but with the taxation comes people avoiding it, meaning getting drugs cheaper via other means, ala cigarettes.

This means there'd be less money going into the public sectors to deal with hospitals & enforcing drug laws, and more drug problems.

 

 

To be honest, I believe the (NHS) Not Helping Shit should refuse people with self inflicted injuries with things to do with drug use, fireworks, etc etc.

They should have to pay themselves, especially as a lot of the people to do with those sorts of things are scum anyway. A lean towards the American system would help us a lot.

The whole country has to change when it comes to money, tax and crime though, if they sorted EVERYTHING out, there would probably be the less tax, and a way better systems for everything; it'd need money to get the ball rolling though (jails, and ways of prisoners earning themselves and the more dangerous to be kept.)

[MoogleViper]

Well you just agreed with what we've been saying about there being a problem, illegal or not. Do you disagree that there would be more help available? That taxation would be a plus? C'mon man, discuss it don't diss it.

 

I was just saying that it wouldn't work out perfectly like a few people seem to think.

 

The taxation would be a plus. There is lots of help available but a lot of people just don't want it. The only thing is the help would be more known and ready available.

 

I don't think as a country that we should condone something so harmful to people and to society. I agree with Raining, people will still need money to buy it so will still resort to crime to fund their habit.

 

I think the whole legal punishment system needs to be more severe. People aren't scared of the law. It's like when you watch those police shows and see some big guy kicking the shit out of everyone just for the sake of it and then the narator says he got a £40 fine. It's complete bollocks. The only thing that's stopping people from commiting crime is their conscience and a lot of people don't seem to have one.

[jayseven]

My point is that serious drug users/abusers will carry on with their lifestyles regarless of whether the drug fo choice is legal or not. How many drug users do you know, and what drugs do they use? Do you think ignoring what is happening is the answer to drug abouse?

 

I think there should be a line drawn between abuse an recreational use. HAve you ever smoked weed? Do you think a £40 fine for simple posession is fare? Because personally I think $40 is totally over the top for people seeking merely t have a good time.

 

You say a lot of people just don't want it but clearly you are agreeing that you do not know who wants help and who does not. Do not discriminate between the two, and do not ever attempt to distiguish between the differeences either if you do not think you care capable of doing so.

 

Also, with what Kurtle said about self-harm regarding fireworks.. Well that's just plain silly. Where do you draw the line between incidents and accidents? I don't think the NHS should ever have the right to turn down treatment to anyone because they may suspect the injuries are self-inflicted. If you start giving the NHS guidelines like that, then they're more likely to overlook the innocent - which is just plain wrong.

[Kurtle Squad]

Also, with what Kurtle said about self-harm regarding fireworks.. Well that's just plain silly. Where do you draw the line between incidents and accidents? I don't think the NHS should ever have the right to turn down treatment to anyone because they may suspect the injuries are self-inflicted. If you start giving the NHS guidelines like that, then they're more likely to overlook the innocent - which is just plain wrong.

Well why don't YOU go and pay for morons then, I don't want to.

 

And by the way, it would obviously be obvious self inflicted idiocy only. Being scared of harming the innocent is EXACTLY what's wrong with punishment today, and it's why there are criminals, it's almost impossible to get done for something without 100% proof, which is rediculous when what they've done is so obvious.

Give your own money to prople who don't deserve it, not mine.

 

 

And a £40 fine is more than generous for anything illegal.

[MoogleViper]

My point is that serious drug users/abusers will carry on with their lifestyles regarless of whether the drug fo choice is legal or not. How many drug users do you know, and what drugs do they use? Do you think ignoring what is happening is the answer to drug abouse?

 

I think there should be a line drawn between abuse an recreational use. HAve you ever smoked weed? Do you think a £40 fine for simple posession is fare? Because personally I think $40 is totally over the top for people seeking merely t have a good time.

 

You say a lot of people just don't want it but clearly you are agreeing that you do not know who wants help and who does not. Do not discriminate between the two, and do not ever attempt to distiguish between the differeences either if you do not think you care capable of doing so.

 

Also, with what Kurtle said about self-harm regarding fireworks.. Well that's just plain silly. Where do you draw the line between incidents and accidents? I don't think the NHS should ever have the right to turn down treatment to anyone because they may suspect the injuries are self-inflicted. If you start giving the NHS guidelines like that, then they're more likely to overlook the innocent - which is just plain wrong.

 

- I know lots of drug users. Mainly weed but other stuff like poppers, phet, (probably more but I try not to associate myself with them.) The drug problem is terrible at my school. A few years back Warsop was voted the worst place for drugs. I've seen countless number of people come into class stoned. Last year in my tech lesson two guys started sniffing poppers next to me. No I don't think ignoring it is the answer. I think the punishments should be a lot greater. People should fear the law.

 

- No I have never smoked anything. I don't think that there should be a line drawn. How can you distinguish between the two? It's not exactly clear cut. When there are people allowed to "have fun" then there will be people who take it further. It's human society. I think £40 is perfectly resonable. Why not use that £40 on something else that's fun and isn't harmful to you.

 

- I didn't say that nobody wanted help. I was saying that help is there, so if somebody truly wanted it they could easily get it.

 

- I agree with Kurtle's comment about the NHS not helping self inflicted injuries. However I don't fully agree. With things like fireworks there will be accidents. Yeah you get idiots but like you said that could lead to overlooking the innocent. However you can't accidentily smoke a fag, or inject heroin into your veins, or down 25 pints on a friday night. If the NHS could refuse help to people like this then I would be less against it.

 

BTW the £40 fine thing was for somebody who had kicked the shit out of people in the street for no reason. Do you think a £40 fine is reasonable for that?

[jayseven]

£40 fine for assault is ridiculous, of course I agree

 

The point we're debating about self-inflicted injuries - or more accurately, a hospital's "right to refuse service" - is, in my eyes, playing God. Doctor's have taken the hippocratic oath, and it's totally ridiculous to say that if someone's gone and drunk 25 pints they deserve to die!

 

Kurtle - Everyone pays taxes. Everyone is therefore paying for anything they're not using. I don't drive yet I pay for the streets to be congested daily and nightly. I pay for the prison service. I pay for nuclear missiles and wars and shit! We all do.

 

Taxation on drugs would mean that there would be extra revenue earned, that you as a non-customer would not be paying, so these 'idiots' would be in effect paying for their own treatment, as opposted to the current situation where your fiendish drug users get treatment and don't pay any VAT on the reason they are there

[somme]

 

 

To be honest, I believe the (NHS) Not Helping Shit should refuse people with self inflicted injuries with things to do with drug use, fireworks, etc etc.

They should have to pay themselves, especially as a lot of the people to do with those sorts of things are scum anyway.

 

 

They do pay themselves, in the form of taxes.

[BlueStar]

Being scared of harming the innocent is EXACTLY what's wrong with punishment today, and it's why there are criminals,

 

No criminals in middle eastern countires where they cut off hands and don't give fair trails is there? Maybe you should move to a judicial paradise like Saudi Arabia or the Yemen, go and try and order a pint and see how great their justice system is.

[Charlie]

"The Drug Warriors' biggest argument against medical marijuana is that it's only the opening wedge in a movement toward total legalization of drugs. So, supposedly, we have to "nip it in the bud" - in the words of Deputy Barney Fife, the nation's first Drug Czar.

 

What if the Drug Warriors are right?

 

What if legalizing medical marijuana turned out to be the first step on a journey that ended in the outright repeal of every drug law? What would America be like?

 

Understandably, many Americans fear that with no drug laws, we would have hundreds of thousands of addicts, crack babies, children trying drugs, and other evils. But that's what we have now.

 

Let's assume the worst

 

If all drugs were legal, addicts would no longer pay black-market prices to criminals for drugs of questionable and dangerous origin. They would get drugs produced by legitimate pharmaceutical companies and pay market prices. They would no longer die from buying toxic drugs, and they would no longer have to mug innocent people to support their habits.

 

If all drugs were legal, addicts could seek help by going to doctors - no longer afraid of being prosecuted for their medical problems.

 

If all drugs were legal, criminal drug dealers would no longer be on our streets. They couldn't compete with the low, free-market prices for drugs sold at pharmacies.

 

If all drugs were legal, criminal drug dealers would no longer prey upon our children - any more than distilleries and breweries try to infiltrate schools to hook kids on alcohol. When I grew up in Los Angeles in the 1940s, the worst schools were safer than L.A.'s best schools are today.

 

If all drugs were legal, our government would no longer be dispensing propaganda that makes children want to try the forbidden fruit.

 

(Article Continues Below)

 

Reducing street violence

 

If all drugs were legal, our prisons would be emptied of hundreds of thousands of non-violent people who have never done harm to anyone else. No longer would over-crowded prisons cause truly violent criminals to be free on early release and plea bargains to terrorize the rest of us.

 

If all drugs were legal, law-enforcement resources would be available to fight violent crime, instead of being used to chase people who may harm themselves but are no threat to us.

 

If all drugs were legal, much of the street violence would end - as it did when Alcohol Prohibition ended - because gangs of thugs would no longer be fighting over drug territories.

 

If all drugs were legal, police corruption would diminish, because criminals could no longer use black-market drug money to gain immunity by subverting weak policemen.

 

If all drugs were legal, the government could no longer use the Drug War as an excuse to tear up the Bill of Rights and pry into your bank account, strip-search you at an airport, tear your car apart, monitor your e-mail, or seize your property without even charging you with a crime.

 

Why do we know this?

 

Why do I think America would be like this if all drugs were legal?

 

Because that's the way it was before the drug laws were passed. Yes, there were people whose lives were destroyed by drugs then - just as some people today destroy their lives with drugs, alcohol, financial mistakes, or various character weaknesses - but far fewer people lost their lives to drugs when they were legal.

 

And America's streets were peaceful.

 

Has America changed since then? Of course it has. But cause-and-effect relationships don't change. Force still begets force. Government programs still lead to unintended and destructive consequences.

 

Re-legalizing drugs would put a stop to those destructive consequences - end the criminal black market, end the violence, end the incentive to hook children, and end the production of toxic drugs that kill people.

 

We have to quit being afraid of the unknown, and instead recognize what we do know - that the Drug War is doing enormous harm to society.

 

If we care about our children, if we care about our cities, if we care about our country, we have to end the insane War on Drugs."

 

http://www.populistamerica.com/what_if_all_drugs_were_legal

 

 

Just found that and thought it was quite interesting. Seems to have very similar arguments to Ben Elton's "High Society".

 

Anyone who says I've bumped this thread is getting banned from it

[MoogleViper]

I really don't get the "Addicts won't have to resort to crime to get the drugs". They will still have to buy it. Or are you suggesting that drugs be free? Meaning the government won't get tax and will actually be losing money from drugs. Also more people will be tempted to try them.

[Bren]

I really don't get the "Addicts won't have to resort to crime to get the drugs". They will still have to buy it.

 

So that doesnt matter, its not gonna change wether theyre legal or illegal, but the other points are quite good. So many people are in prison for possession of drugs, or for growing some plants in their house. Theyre just taking up room for where rapists, murderers and general bellends could be sleeping.

[MoogleViper]

So that doesnt matter, its not gonna change wether theyre legal or illegal, but the other points are quite good. So many people are in prison for possession of drugs, or for growing some plants in their house. Theyre just taking up room for where rapists, murderers and general bellends could be sleeping.

 

But if they were legal then probably more people would be addicted and therefore resort to crime to fund their addiction.

 

As for the prison thing, thats why I think punishments should be more severe, e.g. death penalties for murder.

[jayseven]

The problem with the death penalty for murder is, for a start, a lot of innocent people are sent down for murders they did not commit - look at the Jill Dando murder, for a start.

 

As for you saying more crimes will occur due to addiction... well that's a misunderstanding of why addicts steal in the first place, and also a huge generalisation.

 

A lot the addicts who commit crimes are seriously interested in seeking help, but hugely aware that their record prevents them from getting any non-NHS treatment.

 

Legalisaton would lead to a market where dealers would not be able to say "you iz hooked, so I'm gonna increase how much your hit will cost". Drug dealers charge different prices, depending upon whether the customer is desperate or not, and they often charge more when they know that the customer feels like the dealer is doing them a favour.

 

Sure, there's no denying that some people may still steal to feed their habit - but to be honest, there are people out there stealing to feed their computer games habit, their shoe shopping habit or whatever.

[thirtynine.]

But if they were legal then probably more people would be addicted and therefore resort to crime to fund their addiction.

 

As for the prison thing, thats why I think punishments should be more severe, e.g. death penalties for murder.

If heroin was legal would you happily inject yourself with some?

Im going to guess no.

So why would anyone else be different? Your point is plain silly, if its legal it dosent mean people HAVE to do it.

[MoogleViper]

If heroin was legal would you happily inject yourself with some?

Im going to guess no.

So why would anyone else be different? Your point is plain silly, if its legal it dosent mean people HAVE to do it.

 

No I wouldn't. But not everyone is the same. I didn't say that Everyone would do it if it was legal. But a lot more would.

 

It's like smoking. More people smoke cigarettes than weed. Why? Because it's legal. And because it's legal it's less frowned upon.

[Charlie]

I really don't get the "Addicts won't have to resort to crime to get the drugs". They will still have to buy it. Or are you suggesting that drugs be free? Meaning the government won't get tax and will actually be losing money from drugs. Also more people will be tempted to try them.

 

They'll be much cheaper than they were before as Drug Lords don't dictate the price of them, the Government will... Although those two terms could be classed as synonmous if this ever happens..

 

Legalisaton would lead to a market where dealers would not be able to say "you iz hooked, so I'm gonna increase how much your hit will cost". Drug dealers charge different prices, depending upon whether the customer is desperate or not, and they often charge more when they know that the customer feels like the dealer is doing them a favour.

 

They would have to do it in a way that only licensed Pharmacies could sell them and the Government would dicate absolutely everything about them.

[jayseven]

well to be honest, legalisation just means the underworld pokes its head out above the paraphet.. I think I spelt that right...

 

Anyway. These gangstaz who control the underground dealings at the moment would be able to make their businesses legit. Perhaps that's another downside? Rewarding their endevaurs by letting them off? hmm :/

[thirtynine.]

No I wouldn't. But not everyone is the same. I didn't say that Everyone would do it if it was legal. But a lot more would.

 

It's like smoking. More people smoke cigarettes than weed. Why? Because it's legal. And because it's legal it's less frowned upon.

 

The thing is, heroin isnt a recreational drug. You dont meet up with your mates to chase the dragon. Also when was the last time someone turned to crime because they couldnt afford fags, or overdosed on fags? The reason more people do it is there is less danger, also yes it is more accepted, I doubt heroin would be available in your local corner shop. Pharmacy's and by prescription would be the only way. Also cannabis's lack of intake isnt due to socitys oppinions, its because to buy it you have to go to shady drug dealers. (I know it may seem i am contradicting myself as im basically saying people would be more likely to take cannabis if it was sold by reliable sources, but that wouldnt be the case with heroin.)

[Domo Kun]

I think that dealing should be illegal, but users shouldn't be prosecuted. Or, perhaps, only prosecute non addictive drugs. I think to prosecute those addicted to drugs which are killing them is just wrong. Fine the hell out of dealers (who will be very rich) and use the money to rehabilitate the poor addicts.

 

Mind you, legalize harmless drugs like mushrooms! Hours of fun! I can't belive they've turned class A!

[thirtynine.]

I think that dealing should be illegal, but users shouldn't be prosecuted. Or, perhaps, only prosecute non addictive drugs. I think to prosecute those addicted to drugs which are killing them is just wrong. Fine the hell out of dealers (who will be very rich) and use the money to rehabilitate the poor addicts.

 

Mind you, legalize harmless drugs like mushrooms! Hours of fun! I can't belive they've turned class A!

They arent really harmless.

 

Most dealers who get caught arent rich, they are the kids the bigger and richer dealers send out.

[BlueStar]

I really don't get the "Addicts won't have to resort to crime to get the drugs". They will still have to buy it. Or are you suggesting that drugs be free? Meaning the government won't get tax and will actually be losing money from drugs.

 

How much money do you think the government has to pay in terms of policing crimes commited by addicts who have to steal in order to get drug money or otherwise face potentially lethal withdrawl? Do you think that will be less than how much it would cost to add one more drug to the list of those perscribed by doctors?

[Domo Kun]

They arent really harmless.

 

Most dealers who get caught arent rich, they are the kids the bigger and richer dealers send out.

 

Really? Talk to Frank would beg to differ!

 

Okay, considering that the kids aren't rich, don't fine them, but they need some kinda punishment or dealing will become legitimate. How could they possibly get the rich ones? Those are the bastards who're ruining drug addicts' lives.

[thirtynine.]

Really? Talk to Frank would beg to differ!

 

Okay, considering that the kids aren't rich, don't fine them, but they need some kinda punishment or dealing will become legitimate. How could they possibly get the rich ones? Those are the bastards who're ruining drug addicts' lives.

 

Talk to frank can suck my balls. If you have ever seen someone have a bad trip on shrooms you would know its not great, granted afterwards they are fine but they have still had a scary experience which could have been easily avoided.