Drugs are bad m'kay

[munkyboy04]

Legalize all drugs. Not just the "soft ones". It would Imediatley stop crime because there would be no more dealers, People would have access to "safe" and clean drugs. And it would be easier for people to control their habits because they would have legitimate places to get them from.

I dont understand why this has not been done yet. Crime would drop by half people would be safe. and it could all be controlled.

I'm not talking about being able to go to the corner shop and buying some smack. It should all be available on prescription given out by drug workers or doctors. That way people could be helped to get off the drug's rather than "locking people up" to go cold turkey(which doesnt work because it doesnt stop the mental addiction just the physical one).

I dont understand why our laws make drug addicts criminals. when they are people with very real problems and need to be helped.

[bigboab]

Legalize all drugs. Not just the "soft ones". It would Imediatley stop crime because there would be no more dealers, People would have access to "safe" and clean drugs. And it would be easier for people to control their habits because they would have legitimate places to get them from.

I dont understand why this has not been done yet. Crime would drop by half people would be safe. and it could all be controlled.

I'm not talking about being able to go to the corner shop and buying some smack. It should all be available on prescription given out by drug workers or doctors. That way people could be helped to get off the drug's rather than "locking people up" to go cold turkey(which doesnt work because it doesnt stop the mental addiction just the physical one).

I dont understand why our laws make drug addicts criminals. when they are people with very real problems and need to be helped.

I thought that drugs were made illegal because drug using went out off control. The same thing happened with alcohol. That is why it is sold under licence.

Whether selling drugs under licence would work or not, I don't know. Anything is worth a try to save the misery that drugs cause to people, both by the drug itself and the people making profit from them because of their addiction.

[clocker]

I thought that drugs were made illegal because drug using went out off control. The same thing happened with alcohol. That is why it is sold under licence.

Alcohol is sold "under licence" because that's how the government can profit from it.
Prohibition in the US ended not because of the social upheaval it caused but because it was costing the Feds @500 million a year in lost tax revenue.

Drug use has been a staple of human culture since time immemorial.
We are hardwired with a multitude of pleasure receptors that clamor to be sated and there are innumerable compounds that will fit the need.

The war on drugs is nothing more (or less) than a war on human physiology.

[bigboab]

I thought that drugs were made illegal because drug using went out off control. The same thing happened with alcohol. That is why it is sold under licence.

Alcohol is sold "under licence" because that's how the government can profit from it.
Prohibition in the US ended not because of the social upheaval it caused but because it was costing the Feds @500 million a year in lost tax revenue.


Drug use has been a staple of human culture since time immemorial.
We are hardwired with a multitude of pleasure receptors that clamor to be sated and there are innumerable compounds that will fit the need.

The war on drugs is nothing more (or less) than a war on human physiology.

Sorry Clocker I was referring to the UK and should have stated that. I was referring back to the Victorian days and the availability of Gin, which caused most of the alcohol problems. I don't think the UK ever had a prohibition on alcohol.

As long as the sating of these pleasure receptors* don't interfere with other peoples lives or destroy those doing the sating, then they should be allowed.


* Where can these receptors be located?

[clocker]

Sorry Clocker I was referring to the UK and should have stated that. I was referring back to the Victorian days and the availability of Gin, which caused most of the alcohol problems. I don't think the UK ever had a prohibition on alcohol.

Gin was essentially the crack of Victorian times and the abuse of both has less to do with the intrinsic "evil" of the drug than underlying social pressure.

If you are poor, uneducated and trapped in a rigid class structure, escape of day to day misery- by any means- is inevitable.

In Victorian times - just as today- it was far easier for moralists ( who were/are inevitably more comfortably situated than the objects of their scorn and thus, can afford morals) to claim that drug abuse was the cause rather than a symptom of more widespread social problems.

Simpler to say that the Victorian street urchin was morally/physically inferior because of gin than to admit that he was fucked, even if stone cold sober.

This is not meant to ignore the fact that some people are just naturally prone to abuse and addiction and that some drugs are simply evil but the former is a medical/physiological condition and the latter is a byproduct of Darwinian selection.

Today's "War on Drugs" is an insane mishmash of Puritan morality and political expedience.
There are a hell of a lot more alcoholics than heroin addicts but anyone can buy liquor while possession of a gram of heroin lands you in prison.

In essence, proponents of the war have decided to make all of society ride the short bus because of the afflictions/failures of the few.

[bigboab]

I read one argument that said if they legalize cannabis it could abolish the 'hard drugs'. The reason behind the statement was that cocaine etc. Was easier to smuggle because the quantities required were small. Sounds a convincing argument for legalizing cannabis.

[clocker]

I read one argument that said if they legalize cannabis it could abolish the 'hard drugs'. The reason behind the statement was that cocaine etc. Was easier to smuggle because the quantities required were small. Sounds a convincing argument for legalizing cannabis.

I'm not so sure.
On one hand, such a proposal kills the "gateway drug" theory (" Today he's smoking pot, tomorrow it'll be crack!") but on the other hand it's like saying beer is OK but bourbon is not.

For an easily digested (and very entertaining) primer on the economics of smuggling, watch the movie Blow.
"Quantity" as such, isn't the issue.
If you're going to smuggle a ton of something, you may as well smuggle the contraband with the highest value, i.e., coke.

[bigboab]

I read one argument that said if they legalize cannabis it could abolish the 'hard drugs'. The reason behind the statement was that cocaine etc. Was easier to smuggle because the quantities required were small. Sounds a convincing argument for legalizing cannabis.

I'm not so sure.
On one hand, such a proposal kills the "gateway drug" theory (" Today he's smoking pot, tomorrow it'll be crack!") but on the other hand it's like saying beer is OK but bourbon is not.

For an easily digested (and very entertaining) primer on the economics of smuggling, watch the movie Blow.
"Quantity" as such, isn't the issue.
If you're going to smuggle a ton of something, you may as well smuggle the contraband with the highest value, i.e., coke.

I think that their idea was that cannabis is bulkier and not as easy to hide as cocaine. If you legalize cannabis there would be less demand for cocaine.

[clocker]

I think that their idea was ... If you legalize cannabis there would be less demand for cocaine.

Not buying that, either.
Different markets, different effects...different altogether.

If pot were legalized, the government could see some major money in the form of inevitable taxes/licensing and also save a lot of money currently spent on the prosecution/incarceration of users but I don't see how it would effect cocaine consumption at all.

[bigboab]

Here is an extract from a report on the subject of both alcohol and drug laws;

The growing opposition to punitive drug policies

In many countries increasing numbers of people––physicians, lawyers, judges, police, journalists, scientists, public health officials, teachers, religious leaders, social workers, drug users and drug addicts––now openly criticize the more extreme, punitive, and criminalized forms of drug prohibition. These critics, from across the political spectrum, have pointed out that punitive drug policies are expensive, ineffective at reducing drug abuse, take scarce resources away from other public health and policing activities, and are often racially and ethnically discriminatory. Criminalized drug prohibition violates civil liberties, imprisons many nonviolent offenders, and worsens health problems like the AIDS and hepatitis epidemics. Harm reduction is a major part of the critical opposition to punitive drug policies. Indeed, harm reduction is the first popular, international movement to develop within drug prohibition to openly challenge drug demonization and the more criminalized forms of drug prohibition (Reinarman and Levine, 1997, Levine 2002, 2003).

If anyone has a lot of spare time they can read the whole report here;

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/levine.alcohol.html

All I can add is that the legislation that they are implementing at the moment is not working. They need to try something else. I personally do not agree with legalizing 'hard drugs'.