Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Debates across the world occur when ever the issue of how to deal with drug problems come up...the question is, should they be treated as patients: say given drugs like heroin on prescription in order to get them off the drug or should they be treated as criminals and imprisoned for their habit?

What do you think?

Make all drugs legal and let people moderate it themselves.

If they can't, too bad. It works for alcohol and cigarettes, if you get cancer or an alcohol problem, your problem.

Nobody deserves to be imprisoned for a habit.

-AC

What AC said.

Plus, duplicate thread, I'm sure.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Nobody deserves to be imprisoned for a habit.

-AC

Whats the ratio of that happening though?

There is more crime involved than simply being arrested for a habit; stealing, armed hold ups etc, not to mention the behavioral/psychological problems after taking the drugs, people need money for the drugs and do stupid things to get them.

Buying/selling/growing is a different business to actually taking them though. I'm not sure there are laws saying you can't take drugs? Cops don't usually bust people for being high, it's mostly because they are holding a drug on them, with or without intent to sell/buy.

Well from observation, people have been busted for having ecstasy pills in their pocket, but I haven't seen anyone busted for actually being high on it, even though the cops have said to their face 'you are high'.

Also drunk people, never seen anyone arrested for being 'too drunk', it's more of them being a nuisance or drinking where they shouldn't be drinking etc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Personally I have not much problem with "driving under the influence" being against the law, and being a public nuisance should also be, regardless of the higness. I think the problem I have (and probably AC) is that you can't have the drugs on you, you can't consume them, you can't buy them and you can't sell them...and all those things are outlawed and can get you in (big) trouble, while not being anyone's problem but the users, really.

The buying/selling factor is simple - people are making (tax free) money off of drug trafficking, the government can't get a cut so they ban it etc.

But I'm agreeing with you on the other parts, it's the simplification of arresting people for liking drugs that I'm posting about. Nobody is really arrested for using drugs, it's more of being arrested for the potential of committing a crime while on the drug. Same as say, someone who has 1000 photos of child porn, but hasn't actually touched a kid before, they'll be arrested for the 'potential' that they might harm a kid.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not that it deserves a cut in the first place.


Unfortunately they get a cut from everything we do, deserving or not...

Yeah I think I missed a sentence there...I think what I was saying was when a cop arrests you, you wouldn't get charged with 'being high', it'd be 'possesion' or something. Like it wouldn't be 'drunk' it's more 'drunk driving'. I dunno, whatever, I'm falling asleep here sleeping

But what I was getting at, was comparing it to Minority Report, where it is 'beneficial to society' to prevent someone from committing harm to others, before they actually commit harm. That's how I see our current legal system's excuses for charging people.


Or something, I might go play CoD 4 to keep my brain active..

1. Certain drugs should never be permitted to become legal, and depending on what the person did for their fix should determine if they should go to prison, or not.

2. We all know right from wrong and if someone doesn't, then jail is certainly a good place to begin learning.

3. I think that many addicts should be treated as patients, because having a vice does not make someone a villain.

Originally posted by Stoic

2. We all know right from wrong and if someone doesn't, then jail is certainly a good place to begin learning.


I guess you could say we all have a concept of "right" and "wrong" (most of us anyways), but one man's right may very well be another's wrong. There is likely no absolute right or wrong anyways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess you could say we all have a concept of "right" and "wrong" (most of us anyways), but one man's right may very well be another's wrong. There is likely no absolute right or wrong anyways.

Ain't that the truth, but in times of doubt or uncertainty it's best to observe than to act.

Today on the news I saw a man who allegedly defecates on himself get caught for murdering an innocent woman, his father then testified that after the man does this he would take 3 hour showers. This of course was his fathers way of pleading for his sons insanity.

This man choked the woman to death, and stuffed a banana down her throat, later cutting off the womans legs so that she would fit in the trunk of his car, and later tried to dump her body in a river.

I believe that he knew full well what he was doing, because if he didn't he would never have tried to get rid of her body.

My point? We all know right from wrong, it is within us to know these things by simply knowing what we would hate to have happen to us.

Originally posted by Stoic
Ain't that the truth, but in times of doubt or uncertainty it's best to observe than to act.

Today on the news I saw a man who allegedly defecates on himself get caught for murdering an innocent woman, his father then testified that after the man does this he would take 3 hour showers. This of course was his fathers way of pleading for his sons insanity.

This man choked the woman to death, and stuffed a banana down her throat, later cutting off the womans legs so that she would fit in the trunk of his car, and later tried to dump her body in a river.

I believe that he knew full well what he was doing, because if he didn't he would never have tried to get rid of her body.

My point? We all know right from wrong, it is within us to know these things by simply knowing what we would hate to have happen to us.

Well, you subscribe to a sort of golden rule then, I guess. But even that is not absolute. Some people hate things others like.

As for the case, I wouldn't judge so fast, it is true that insanity might be claimed wrongly, but the psychology of humans is too complex, imo, to just judge it like that. It might very well be that that person had no control, that's why professional should judge such cases.

Originally posted by Stoic

2. We all know right from wrong and if someone doesn't, then jail is certainly a good place to begin learning.



Its not that simple some people who end up on drugs come from broken homes or they were in a really messed up situation they make one wrong decison and they end up getting hooked on heroin.

Sometimes its the envinronment that you grow up in that determines how bad your actions will be.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Debates across the world occur when ever the issue of how to deal with drug problems come up...the question is, should they be treated as patients: say given drugs like heroin on prescription in order to get them off the drug or should they be treated as criminals and imprisoned for their habit?

What do you think?

Drugs themselves aren't really the problem as there are alot of people with heroin addictions that function perfectly well as they work in jobs where they can afford to buy the drugs.

the problem is all the crime that surrounds drug abuse with those people that can't afford to pay for it. shoplifting, robbery, house-breaking, muggings etc.

so regardless of whether drug taking was legallised, these problems would still exist as the addicted would still be committing crimes to pay for their habits.

Originally posted by jaden101
Drugs themselves aren't really the problem as there are alot of people with heroin addictions that function perfectly well as they work in jobs where they can afford to buy the drugs.

the problem is all the crime that surrounds drug abuse with those people that can't afford to pay for it. shoplifting, robbery, house-breaking, muggings etc.

so regardless of whether drug taking was legallised, these problems would still exist as the addicted would still be committing crimes to pay for their habits. True, but the people not being harmful to anyone wouldn't be treated as criminals, the drugs would be cheaper, safer, more monitored, and bringing in tax money, and much of the criminal gang element would be removed.

the argument of them being safer is only valid if drugs are not only legalised but actually manufactured by legitimate companies...the two are not neccesarily linked...and i doubt the later would ever happen regardless of whether drugs were legalised.

in other words would still just use substitutes likes methadone for heroin rather than pharmaceutical grade heroin (not mention the stuff would still mostly come from afghanistan and thus our government would be using our taxes to buy heroin from the taliban who would then use the money to buy weapons to kill our coutrymen...not a great idea)

so like i said...legalising drug TAKING would have little effect

if we were to go the whole route and actually manufacture and sell drugs through pharmaceutical companies then i highly doubt they'd get cheaper...low-grade, illegally imported alcohol and cigarettes are still rife because they are much cheaper....because of the huge tax levied on the genuine articles....the same would be the case with drugs

not only that but better quality drugs would likely be more addictive and this might even cause more social problems that i mentioned prevoiusly

unless there was some way to refine a drug so that the active sites which interact with the neurons were still there but the addictive qualities were removed....although i have a feeling they're the same part of the molecule (i should've actually went to my toxicology and pharmacology and drug and alcohol classes at uni i think )

Well, at least I have been talking about actually legalizing drugs across the board. And even if you doubt the other improvements I stated, it is a fact that people would not be criminalized for nothing but their habit anymore. And, if we can go by the example of prohobition, it is quite likely that if you'd actually open other drugs up like they did with alcohol, gang violence related to drug use should drastically decrease.

I personally believe that there is a huge market for those kind of drugs, so I am pretty sure that they would be manufactured and held to higher standards if they got legalized, but fair enough if you do not believe that. And, even if you think that the shit stuff wll still be around, it is extremely likely that it would at least decrease in magnitude as people can afford the safer and better options will choose them above the still illgeal ways.

It's not often people are prosecuted for having a habit though...and those charges almost always come about from having the drugs on them when they are caught for another crime...one they are doing to feed their habit in the 1st place...it is through those crimes that the largest damage to society is done...and whether or not those drugs are legalised and controlled by the state at all levels....people will still be committing those crimes to get the money for drugs

Then give them help.

They're sick, not criminals. They're only criminals because the world has an issue with them doing it.

People will always steal money to buy anything, mug people for money, it won't end or begin with the legalisation of drugs. However, the biggest problem with drugs is the drug dealers. Legalise drugs and you eliminate them. Why buy from them when you can get them consistently priced and as "clean" as can be, from a chemist or something?

-AC

..drug addicts steal constantly...daily...sometimes hundreds of pounds worth of stuff just to feed an addiction because they feel they need...rather than want

whereas most other shoplifting and the like is done because people want those items rather than to sell them on...and most of the time it's a one off

from drug scope



legalising and taxing drugs wont stop that as it'll be the same people committing the same crimes to fund their habit...the only difference is the supplier

and once again you have the issue of where the heroin comes from

afghanistan is still the worlds top producer of heroin along with pakistan, iran, burma, vietnam, laos, mexico and columbia.

needless to say we'd then have to grow our own poppies to circumvent money getting into the hands of the taliban or the burmese government etc.

that would then beg the question as to who would grow it and where?...within the EU?...Which countries?...how much subsidies would they get to produce it?...how much farmland would be set aside for growing it

then there's who would process it?...pharmaceutical companies?...publicly owned processers?...

alot of issues to be considered for what seems like a simple "legalise it, make it clean and tax it"

Originally posted by jaden101
..drug addicts steal constantly...daily...sometimes hundreds of pounds worth of stuff just to feed an addiction because they feel they need...rather than want

whereas most other shoplifting and the like is done because people want those items rather than to sell them on...and most of the time it's a one off

from drug scope



legalising and taxing drugs wont stop that as it'll be the same people committing the same crimes to fund their habit...the only difference is the supplier

and once again you have the issue of where the heroin comes from

afghanistan is still the worlds top producer of heroin along with pakistan, iran, burma, vietnam, laos, mexico and columbia.

needless to say we'd then have to grow our own poppies to circumvent money getting into the hands of the taliban or the burmese government etc.

that would then beg the question as to who would grow it and where?...within the EU?...Which countries?...how much subsidies would they get to produce it?...how much farmland would be set aside for growing it

then there's who would process it?...pharmaceutical companies?...publicly owned processers?...

alot of issues to be considered for what seems like a simple "legalise it, make it clean and tax it" I think you are quite overcomplicating the issue...partly due to it being stupidly overcomplicated in our societies today. Really though, as soon as your argument is "But the beaurocracy involved will be immense, better keep people criminals for doing nothing but maybe harming themselves", I think something is wrong.

And also, you pretty much agree that at best it will be just as shit...so, really, what's the point of having it illegal.

Again with prohibition, the evidence is there that legalizing something solely personal is a) possible and b) a vast improvement.

and i think that the "legalise it and tax it" argument is a gross oversimplification....where as what i've stated is what will happen, plain and simple because that's the way government works

and yes...it will still be shit because the point of drug related crime still isn't being addressed...

unless we practically give the drugs away for nothing then addicts will still steal to feed their habits...and unless you've been a shop worker on the end of a threat from a knife weilding junkie...or someone who's had their house robbed several times by junkies to feed their habits then i can see why you'd say that drugs only affect those who take them.

and in those terms drugs are vastly more damaging than alcohol or cigarettes....because i don't know of anyone who robs houses to feed a nicotine addiction...

Originally posted by jaden101
and i think that the "legalise it and tax it" argument is a gross oversimplification....where as what i've stated is what will happen, plain and simple because that's the way government works

and yes...it will still be shit because the point of drug related crime still isn't being addressed...

unless we practically give the drugs away for nothing then addicts will still steal to feed their habits...and unless you've been a shop worker on the end of a threat from a knife weilding junkie...or someone who's had their house robbed several times by junkies to feed their habits then i can see why you'd say that drugs only affect those who take them.

and in those terms drugs are vastly more damaging than alcohol or cigarettes....because i don't know of anyone who robs houses to feed a nicotine addiction...


I mean you overcomplicate it, in the way that you seem to say that due to the government being massive (and a bit retarded) it would create more problems, than it would help.

Well, I guess I will summarize the arguments why I believe it will improve practically immediately.

Spending on fighting drugs would be significantly decreased (in the US, by conservative estimates, it is more than 10 billion a year at the moment)

Legalization would create a legal way for companies to make money off drugs. It would improve the quality of the drugs sold. And it would take the power over drugs from barons and gangs, thereby decreasing the drug related violence significantly.

It would decrease the money illgelal operations as well as "enemy" governments make as they would not have to rely on the supply of people that allow drugs, and they could be created directly in the countries they supply. (really, growing pot is not that hard, and all the pot you grow in your backyard, doesn't aid the Taliban....let me ask you this, jaden...WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM? DO YOU WANT THE TERRORISTS TO WIN?)

It would decriminalize the usage for casual and responsible users as well as giving them ways to acquire drugs safely.

It would ensure that drugs could be monitored and would have to live up to certain standards.

All the money the companies will make will be taxed and would likely more than pay for the issues of sorting out the legal matter (again, atm the "war on drugs" cost the US government 10-20 billion a year)

So, in conclusion, legalizing it would at worst change nothing (very unlikely) and at best better many parts of drug relatied behaviour. I don't feel like you have shown anything that gives a reason why people should still be persecuted for just taking drugs they want.

Again, examples in history are there. Alcoholism still ruins lives, but, as you said, it's not as bad as the life ruining qualities of other drugs....partly cause you don't have to fear being shot in the head by some mafia ******* (or the police) when buying a vodka.

i've never tried to say people should be prosecuted for taking drugs...not once...i just don't think it should be encouraged at the state level

nothing you're proposing would stop the addicts from going out and robbing houses to feed a habit they couldn't sustain any other way. the only difference is that the money would end up going to the government even more than it already does only this time via a criminal act.

so it'd eliminate the illegal drug trade?...what do you think the drug barons would do then?...simply say "ok...our criminal days are over...we'll be good from now on"? or do you think they'd simply move into other illegal activities that have a demand...people trafficking for example...illegal sex trade.

and once again...you're not addressing my points as to WHO would grow it and where...and who would own the plantations...and who would process it

then there's the moral implications that the government would be profiting from a trade that means that people who aren't on drugs would be getting robbed from those that are...so they can make money to buy drugs off the government...when would this ever be accepted by law abiding people?

the only way it would ever be a good idea is if it was a temporary measure to find and record every drug addict....and then every penny profit from the trade was then channeled into getting the people off drugs.

anything that eliminates demand will eliminate supply. and in terms of drugs that can only be a good thing...

Originally posted by jaden101
i've never tried to say people should be prosecuted for taking drugs...not once...i just don't think it should be encouraged at the state level

Well, then we are on the same page on that.

Originally posted by jaden101
nothing you're proposing would stop the addicts from going out and robbing houses to feed a habit they couldn't sustain any other way. the only difference is that the money would end up going to the government even more than it already does only this time via a criminal act.

Again, I never said that it would. I said it won't get worse. And the other improvements still stand.

Originally posted by jaden101
so it'd eliminate the illegal drug trade?...what do you think the drug barons would do then?...simply say "ok...our criminal days are over...we'll be good from now on"? or do you think they'd simply move into other illegal activities that have a demand...people trafficking for example...illegal sex trade.

I have no idea. I know it would stop them trading drugs illegally. Not sure if the demand of people trafficking would increase, and if they would venture into that, seems like a pretty random assumption, really.

Originally posted by jaden101
and once again...you're not addressing my points as to WHO would grow it and where...and who would own the plantations...and who would process it

I would grow some in my back yard. Some farmer in poland would grow some on his farm, Bayer would synthesize some in it's factories. General Motors, realizing they suck at cars, would totally remodel their business model and buy arizona, making it into one big marijuana plantation.

Really though, how should I know "who" is going to do it. Someone that thinks they can make money from it, obviously.

Originally posted by jaden101
then there's the moral implications that the government would be profiting from a trade that means that people who aren't on drugs would be getting robbed from those that are...so they can make money to buy drugs off the government...when would this ever be accepted by law abiding people?

That makes no sense. Every type of robbery profits the government in some way, why is robbery in order to buy drugs so different, to you?

Originally posted by jaden101
the only way it would ever be a good idea is if it was a temporary measure to find and record every drug addict....and then every penny profit from the trade was then channeled into getting the people off drugs.

Nah, the government shouldn't spend money to promote it's own moral views that "drugs are bad, mkay". It's a good idea solely because people that want to take drugs should be allowed to. Robbery is still illegal, remember.

Originally posted by jaden101
anything that eliminates demand will eliminate supply. and in terms of drugs that can only be a good thing...

Your personal opinion. Fair enough. As long as people that take drugs don't get their lives ruined by the criminalization of it, I am happy for you to have that opinion.

Whether or not drugs are legal, there are always going to be people who are addicted yet cannot afford the product. This is the case with booze, and I'm sure we wouldn't have to look very far to see people who steal for cigarettes. This point is then moot.

If we assume that drugs don't change very much in price, and that nothing is done socially to prevent problematic drug use (which in this case is equatable to problematic alchohol use), we would see equal amounts of crime related to the acquisition of drugs by addicts.

However, even the most basic economic theories would suppose at least some drop in price (hard drugs more than soft). If for no other reason than that profit driven companies must undersell their competition. Less cost equates to less crime. Purity would also be suspected to go up, which would lead to less need for consumption, and thus less need for crime. These might be marginal dips in the crime rate, but they are there.

This whole argument misses the point entirely though. The problems with people robbing in order to support their habits are either economic or mental health issues. The fact that they would exist in absense of drug prohibition proves this. There is just a percentage of the population that would rather be intoxicated than not, and is willing to commit crime for that to occur. Totally different policies would be needed to tackle those issues, mostly targeting poverty or the expansion of mental health coverage in the population, and it can be argued fairly pursuasively that prohibition makes these economic and personal issues more pronounced in society.

This, of course, fails to address all the other types of crime that would evaporate in a legal drug market, fails to address the money government would be making as opposed to hemmoraging, fails to address the fact that children would no longer need to be lied to by the government (causing them to distrust all adults). Also, it focuses on what are a minority of drug users. A minority of people who drink are unable to control it, this is not sufficent to prohibit it, and we know from experience that the prohibition of alcohol causes more problems than it fixes.

So, your job is kinda recapping my points then.


I jest, of course, parrot.

lol

like I could be bothered to read what you guys were already discussing

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Debates across the world occur when ever the issue of how to deal with drug problems come up...the question is, should they be treated as patients: say given drugs like heroin on prescription in order to get them off the drug or should they be treated as criminals and imprisoned for their habit?

What do you think?

While I think drugs like heroine are excessively harmful to the user and society, there is no logical reason why alcohol is legal and heroine isn't.

On those same grounds, a heroine addict should be treated the same as an alcoholic and given the same level of consideration when trying to become sober.

from a crime point of view it doesn't improve anything though...so from the POV of the law abiding citizen...all they see is a drug addict robbing them to give their money to another drug dealer...only this time the dealer is the government...

so how do they see improvments?...



so it's a random assumption to think that people who've made millions from dealing drugs will go look for their money elsewhere in other illegal activities?

no...it's not a random assumption...when alcohol was prohibited they made their money from that...now it's legal they make their money from drugs...you legalise drugs they make their money somewhere else...plain and simple facts





you would grow opium poppies in your backyard?




so a drug dealer robs my house...and then sells the stuff on and then uses the money to buy drugs...how exactly does that profit the government?

whereas if the government were the ones selling the drugs...they would be directly profiting from my house getting robbed



so drugs aren't bad?...addiction stops the vast majority of addicts from functioning in society because they spend most of their time trying to get the money to buy more drugs

they'd still do that...



so you'd be happy to have the drugs themselves legalised but the crimes committed to fund those habits punished severely?

perhaps that's a way to enforce drug rehab on people and thus eliminate the demand...which i wouldn't have a problem with

so again...i'd only be in favour of government control over the drug trade if it was in order to begin a massive programme in order to break people's addictions.

because simply reaping the profits of the drug trade so other criminals can't isn't good enough. as i've said many times already, all the drug related crime would still remain.



how exactly does the government lie to children regarding drugs?...by saying they are bad?...cause it's not a lie...nor is it to say that alcohol and cigarettes are bad...

the problem with hard drugs is you don't get recreational users of heroin and crack...you get addicts...and you get people who don't take it...because that's the nature of the drug. so a comparison to alcohol is mute in that you wont get heroin and crack "pubs" where people can enjoy an occasional hit.

not to mention the minority of people who are addicted to alcohol do far less damage than those addicted to hard drugs in terms of crime they commit to feed their habits.

so the crime it would stop is the manufacturing and trafficking of drugs...it wouldn't actually stop these things though because they would simply be done by the government

as for the argument that if they were legal they would be cheaper...this simply isn't the case...especially in countries such as the UK because there would be huge amounts of tax levied on them

you only need to look at the fact that there are huge markets for low quality counterfeit alcohol and cigarettes...or illegally imported and thus levy free alcohol and cigarettes

so it wouldn't really stop those markets at all...

Originally posted by jaden101
from a crime point of view it doesn't improve anything though...so from the POV of the law abiding citizen...all they see is a drug addict robbing them to give their money to another drug dealer...only this time the dealer is the government...

so how do they see improvments?...

Actually, crime would significantly decrease. Gang violence solely based on drug dealing would be entirely pointless. The drugs, again, would likely be cheaper, decreasing the drug violence to support the addiction. Etc.


Originally posted by jaden101
so it's a random assumption to think that people who've made millions from dealing drugs will go look for their money elsewhere in other illegal activities?

no...it's not a random assumption...when alcohol was prohibited they made their money from that...now it's legal they make their money from drugs...you legalise drugs they make their money somewhere else...plain and simple facts

Those are not the same people. And you have a very negative view of that. Either way, I don't see why something unharmful should be the scapegoat for criminal activity. There won't be endless more criminal opportunity. If you take the large chunk of drug crime away (apparently around 25% of all crime in the US), you won't get just as much different crime. There's no demand for it.

Originally posted by jaden101

you would grow opium poppies in your backyard?

I'd probably restrict myself to some Cannabis...not into the whole opium thing.

Originally posted by jaden101
so a drug dealer robs my house...and then sells the stuff on and then uses the money to buy drugs...how exactly does that profit the government?

whereas if the government were the ones selling the drugs...they would be directly profiting from my house getting robbed


That doesn't, bevause it is not taxed. W-which was kinda my point. If they go out, steal your tv, sell it, and go buy themselves some Chicken Korma, the government profits, as it basically taxs the same money again. If you buy something illegally though, the government doesn't profit (and you don't either), only criminals do, making it even more likely you get robbed again. I'd rather have the government get some money for it, invest it in preventing the next robbery and everyone being happy.

Originally posted by jaden101


so drugs aren't bad?...addiction stops the vast majority of addicts from functioning in society because they spend most of their time trying to get the money to buy more drugs

they'd still do that...


The vast majority? You have stats on that? And no, drugs aren't bad at all, they are very useful actually and quite good at doing their job.

Originally posted by jaden101
so you'd be happy to have the drugs themselves legalised but the crimes committed to fund those habits punished severely?

Yeah. Obviously.

Originally posted by jaden101
perhaps that's a way to enforce drug rehab on people and thus eliminate the demand...which i wouldn't have a problem with

Again, you seem to want to eradicate drug use. Why? If people want to have their drugs, but behave correctly, let them.

Originally posted by jaden101
so again...i'd only be in favour of government control over the drug trade if it was in order to begin a massive programme in order to break people's addictions.

Pretty silly. Why disregard all the other imense advantages and basically say "I only say yes if we do it exactly my way, even though I realize that, atm, we are majorly in the shit"?

Originally posted by jaden101
because simply reaping the profits of the drug trade so other criminals can't isn't good enough. as i've said many times already, all the drug related crime would still remain.

No. They would not, as I have said many times, and pointed out previous examples in history.

again they'll simply move into other illegal activities...not to mention that alot of gang violence is simply based on the gangs (odd that eh?) and have nothing to do with the drug dealing




of course they're the same people...all the drugs that come into the UK and US go through organised crime...you're simply referring to the street level dealers...



they don't go out to feed an addiction to chicken kormas though do they?

you want to prevent the robbery?...then stop the drug addiction rather than promoting it



experience...and what is heroin's job exactly?...

you're also mistaking drug use from drug abuse...i'm well aware that cannabis can be used to aleviate mulitple sclerosis...and that diamorphine can be used as a pain killer...but neither are cures for anything....and all are abused far more than they are used...




a heroin or crack addict doesn't care about behaving correctly...they care about getting the money to buy their next fix.



yes they would...as i've stated...people would still rob to pay for their habits...and the organised crime would either produce poor quality stuff cheaper (as they already do with alcohol and cigarettes) as well as move onto other illegal activities...




why is it silly to want to eradicate heroin addiction?...i've known many addicts who simply dont have anything else in their lives...they wake up in the morning and get their fix...the rest of their day is spent getting the money to get a fix or at the very least getting something (valium being a good alternative)

i worked for 10 years in a shop where we were plagued with drug addict shoplifters who have stabbed staff members to get air-freshners, coffee, deodorants, batteries and anything else they can sell around the local pubs to get money for their habits

strangely enough i've known only 1 addict who has never (to my knowlege) been caught shoplifting at that shop....he was always very polite to me and other people...he funded his own habit by selling drugs (along with others in his family)

nothing you've said or anyone will ever say will convince me that legalising and taxing heroin and crack will somehow be beneficial.

because the addiction problem and all that entails will remain...and the organisations behind the supply will simply move on to other illegal activities....that is simply fact

I believe we are talking about different issues, my focus is mostly on what would improve vs. what would get worse, I think you are focussing on a specific part of addiction. I do agree that addiction is bad, and that junkies are a burden to society. I do not think that there will be more junkies though if drugs are legalized. And I don't think it is necessary to criminalize all drug users, since the actions of the drug abusers are criminal already (and obviously it doesn't seem to deter them).

But I feel that the pros of legalizing all drugs (but specifically marijuana) far outweigh the cons, in fact I can hardly see cons. I believe you have not given one con, you just pointed out problems we have now and how you think how they won't go away, which, to me, is not an argument for or against legalization, but just a neutral point one might ponder.

Now, drug barons in south america and terrorist groups in the middle east at the moment profiting from the illegal nature of the drug trade, would not profit nearly as much from it anymore, and, contrary to what you think, I don't believe, nor do I think there is any evidence, that those groups will just move on to human trafficing or arms dealing or whatever. (the businesses already exist, and just because a drug lord doesn't get money from illegal drug trade anymore, doesn't mean that there is suddenly more demand for human trafficing that the drug lord can just get into).

Really, I agree with your evaluation of some of the problems, I do not though agree, or even understand, why it makes you oppose the legalization of drugs. I don't feel like there are any arguments that make legalizing drugs bad, at most there are some arguments that you could bring to make it seem like not much of a change, though I believe that ignores basic economic and social truths.

from the point of the user, there are some reasons (weird ones actually) that make drug legalization less convenient than prohibition.

Drugs are very easy to get, especially when in highschool or college, the potency is very high (and not government regulated), etc.

Given there is almost 0% chance that one is going to get busted if they use drugs reasonably, the move from no government control over their distribution to any government control will reduce access and potentially potency of the drugs available. For associates of mine who make a large portion of their annual revenue from the sale of drugs, legalization would mean they would have to go out of business.

From sort of discussions with my friends, we feel for pot at least, prices are probably as low as they are going to get, and government control of the sale would actually reduce quality and thus safety. There is the argument for private industry, but the idea of THC potency regulation is not something outrageous to think the government might implement.

Originally posted by jaden101
nothing you've said or anyone will ever say will convince me that legalising and taxing heroin and crack will somehow be beneficial.

religion forum?

lol, triple post for the win:

1Yx9dFVa19o

for those at least open to the idea of legalization, probably the best, most suscinct argument I've seen for it.

Originally posted by inimalist
religion forum?

so thinking heroin and crack are inherently bad is a religious belief now is it?



surely there's a massive contradiction in there...if governmental control means less availability...then that'll simply mean more demand for illegal sources.



if you're talking about legalising cannabis...and people who predominantly grow and import that illegally...what do you think they will move onto next...clearly other drugs...and they'll try and create a demand for it...and/or (most likely both) they'll move onto other things...one thing is for certain...they wont go away.

Originally posted by jaden101
so thinking heroin and crack are inherently bad is a religious belief now is it?

no, and maybe that was unnecessarily glib

but that seems like a rather "head in the sand" position...

I certainly would like to think that my position is subject to change if you can show me some good evidence

that you and I have had radically different experiences with hard drug users and are apparently reading totally different sources regarding demographics of the users seems to indicate that it cannot be that black and white. That being said, don't trust crackheads, lol!

I personally happen to think that the abuse type of drug use is symptomatic of other social problems. Screening and treating children with depression, anxiety or other issues would potentially do much more to reduce the instance of drug abuse than would restricting the access to drugs of those who can use them responsibly.

Originally posted by jaden101
surely there's a massive contradiction in there...if governmental control means less availability...then that'll simply mean more demand for illegal sources.

indeed, in some areas.

16 year olds, for instance, will theoretically have a more difficult time finding drugs. And for them, the black market would still have to thrive, however, the origins of the drugs in that market could be different.

the 16 year olds I knew went to their parents or older siblings for alcohol, thus not promoting a black market of alcohol production, but rather of purchasing.

I don't see the real contradiction. That entire post was a put down of government control of the market. It would be way more difficult for me to go to some weed store, place an order, show id, etc, than it is to go over to my buddies house and grab something on spot.

I'm happy to admit there is no silver bullet to solving all problems associated with drug use. My personal opinion is that prohibition is 1) morally wrong 2) unconstitutional (canadian or american) 3) ineffective and 4) compounds other problems.

Originally posted by jaden101
so thinking heroin and crack are inherently bad is a religious belief now is it?


No, he is referring to the "NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, MY FAITH IS STRONG" thing, I think.

Originally posted by jaden101


if you're talking about legalising cannabis...and people who predominantly grow and import that illegally...what do you think they will move onto next...clearly other drugs...and they'll try and create a demand for it...and/or (most likely both) they'll move onto other things...one thing is for certain...they wont go away.

There is just not that much demand for heroin. If all Cannabis is legal, the people that used to make money from Cannabis can't move on to the next drug...because no one is buying it, if there was more heroin there wouldn't be more heroin users...cause most people, frankly, just don't want to try heroin.


But I really can't say much more than the guy in inimalists video. And I obviously won't "convert" you, but I believe that evidence and logic strongly suggest that legalizing drugs (all drugs) would create many positive changes.

that last point isn't necessarily true

with regards to cigarette prices in Ontario Canada, through the 80s and 90s, different pricing approaches were done, and there was a tipping point where cigarettes became too expensive, and people turned to what were always cheaper illegal ones.

There is likely a price balance, which would obviously be a government policy to meet, that can be obtained for all drugs. The gvt might have to take a loss on pot, though with thousands of times the mark up on hard street drugs, it is lunacy to think the government or the free market could not still profit off of cheaper drugs. Also, it is likely that people would pay marginally more (the balance I mentioned) for legal than illegal drugs.

Originally posted by inimalist
that last point isn't necessarily true

with regards to cigarette prices in Ontario Canada, through the 80s and 90s, different pricing approaches were done, and there was a tipping point where cigarettes became too expensive, and people turned to what were always cheaper illegal ones.

There is likely a price balance, which would obviously be a government policy to meet, that can be obtained for all drugs. The gvt might have to take a loss on pot, though with thousands of times the mark up on hard street drugs, it is lunacy to think the government or the free market could not still profit off of cheaper drugs. Also, it is likely that people would pay marginally more (the balance I mentioned) for legal than illegal drugs.

the difference is the demographics of it though...cigarette smokers come from all levels of income...heroin users tend to either come from the rich (as some kind of fashionable drug...models, rockstars...etc) or from the very poorest of society

actually there is as large a mark up on cannabis as anything else because the purity levels found in street drugs is relatively similar

you also have to take into account how illegal drugs are manufactured...in a government controlled scheme you would have to pay much higher costs to produce it....as you would have wages, facilities for manufacture, distribution....you would also have to cut the drug as much as any illegal substance only with cleanly sourced and non-damaging ingredients as you couldn't hand out more pure drugs as you would simply end up with a large OD problem.

as for your last point about people paying marginally more for better legal drugs...that's the case with cigarettes for the reasons i've mentioned...it wont be the same for heroin and crack addicts..and even if it was they'd have to commit more crime to pay the higher costs...thus creating more damage that has to be policed.

Originally posted by jaden101
the difference is the demographics of it though...cigarette smokers come from all levels of income...heroin users tend to either come from the rich (as some kind of fashionable drug...models, rockstars...etc) or from the very poorest of society

according to what I've seen, heroin users come from all parts of society

over 50% of those who went in for treatment had full time jobs

I think you are totally mischaraterizing the typical heroin user.

Originally posted by jaden101
actually there is as large a mark up on cannabis as anything else because the purity levels found in street drugs is relatively similar

evidence?

I can't fathom that it really takes 8 times the investment to create a gram of coke over a gram of pot.

Also, given that illegal measures must be used to produce drugs, we don't have a very good idea of what the actual resource investment into drug manufacture would be.

Originally posted by jaden101
you also have to take into account how illegal drugs are manufactured...in a government controlled scheme you would have to pay much higher costs to produce it....as you would have wages, facilities for manufacture, distribution....

I'm still confident the market could produce drugs for the same price as they are on the black market.

Much of the price of making illegal drugs comes from the risk of getting caught. The illegal trade will never get rid of that.

Do you have the evidence that says this?

Originally posted by jaden101
you would also have to cut the drug as much as any illegal substance only with cleanly sourced and non-damaging ingredients as you couldn't hand out more pure drugs as you would simply end up with a large OD problem.

if you buy coke in Columbia, it is likey to be pure, as the cut costs more than the drug itself. Only after having to be smuggled over international borders does the drug appreciate in price to the point where it would be valuable enough to cut it.

The only drug this might be problematic with is heroin, though I can't imagine it being a bigger problem than now, where heroin addicts can get drugs that contain flesh eating bacteria (happened in the UK several years ago).

Originally posted by jaden101
as for your last point about people paying marginally more for better legal drugs...that's the case with cigarettes for the reasons i've mentioned...it wont be the same for heroin and crack addicts..and even if it was they'd have to commit more crime to pay the higher costs...thus creating more damage that has to be policed.

so people will commit the same level of crime for the same reasons whether drugs are illegal or not. Seems pretty moot to me.

Tackling those problems will have nothing to do with drug prohibition. In the cases of drug use that you seem to want to use as emblematic of all drug use, I would say that the majority of cases display addiction as a symptom of some other social or personal problem, rather than it just being the drugs themselves (which prohibition has done nothing about anyways, there are more, cheaper, purer drugs today than when the war on drugs started).

Originally posted by Bardock42
The point about demand was solely about the larger criminal element moving on to other illegal endevors, as you proposed. Your point here now, is a different one. Fair enough about the 1 billion pounds, now, the question is a) how much does the UK spend on prosecuting and policing drugs usage and how much money would taxing drugs create. Obviously that's speculation, but I would figure it would exceed the 1 billion, even if it didn't. Legalization would certainly decrease the burden on society caused by addiction.


What is your "how" question then?

usage?...not alot....the crime that goes along with usage....huge amounts...and legalising it wont change the crimes that go with usage...as ive been saying continuously

policing trafficking?...again...not a huge amount but as i said...the organised crime behind it will simply move onto to other areas of crime...to think otherwise is simply stupid...it's like saying that if someone's salary was cut by a huge amount they wouldn't go looking for work elsewhere.

so i don't believe the financial or the social impact on society will be lessened at all...

Originally posted by jaden101
usage?...not alot....the crime that goes along with usage....huge amounts...and legalising it wont change the crimes that go with usage...as ive been saying continuously

As I continue saying not changing the crimes that go with usage is not a valuable argument AGAINST legalization. It's just saying "Either way, it's going to be shit". And the possibility that those crimes actually do decrease is there and quite valid, while, it getting worse, is pretty unlikely.

Originally posted by jaden101
policing trafficking?...again...not a huge amount but as i said...the organised crime behind it will simply move onto to other areas of crime...to think otherwise is simply stupid...it's like saying that if someone's salary was cut by a huge amount they wouldn't go looking for work elsewhere.

Why would you assume they would go into a different "illegal" branch though. And why do you think there's just demand for more players in other illegal endevors? Again, just because the drug baron can't sell his heroin anymore doesn't mean that the prostitution needs another crime boss. Really, I figure they'd much more likely supply the drugs needed legally instead...

Originally posted by jaden101
so i don't believe the financial or the social impact on society will be lessened at all...

But that's just putting your hands on your ears and yelling "LA LA LA", it is pretty obvious that a lot would change if drugs were legalized. And even if you think it won't be lessened, why the hell do want to prosecute people whose only crime is that they like to have a joint once in a while. If it is, to you, all the same, why not make the life of some people better, rather than being a pain in their ass for no good reason whatsoever.

there's your key statement right there.

in summer of this year there was a huge clampdown on heroin in my home city...the addiction treatment charity "addaction" expected a large uptake of people wanting treatment because of the lack of availability of the drug....they got 6 people...that's less than half a % of the the total heroin users in my hometown



mark up is dependant on how much is cut to increase the yield of the drug...your average 8th of cannabis is as little as 1% THC and as much as 5%...it's the same with most drugs...heroin, cocaine, crack etc...

obviously this fluctuates depending on how far down the line you are when buying though....but those are the averages a friend of mine tested while at university doing her honours thesis...it's also an ongoing piece of research and she had similar results compared with the 4 previous years.



do i have evidence that says what?...that building a manufacturing plant to produce cleaners drugs is costlier than a mud hut in the middle of the jungle?

i think it's self evident that that's the case

also...do i have evidence that the people making it would be paid more than the people who work for the drug barons in places like columbia and afghanistan?...again...that's matter of common sense.





and making drugs legal wont have an impact on the social, personal and economic problems that result in drug use either...unless you want to employ the drug addicts to work in the drug factories

from personal experience, i've never seen a single positive from drug addiction or heavy usage...and that stems from cannabis to heroin and everything in between...i've seen friends lose their jobs because their cannabis use led them to be unable to work a full day or being under the influence to the extent that it affected their work standard

i've seen a man passed out in a stairwell of a drug den with a needle in one arm and his 2 year old daughter in the other while 10 feet away was a pram with his 3 month old son in it

i've seen people battered with claw hammers because they were robbed by drug addicts.

so the idea that safer drugs are somehow an answer is beyond me...it'll result in less overdoses...big deal.

it'll have no impact on crime...it'll have no impact on demand (might even encourage those who are afraid of breaking the law to give it a go though)

the only reasonable application of the active compounds of these drugs is in medicine...and we already have safer and more effective treatments for almost everything anyway.

i certainly don't think there is any argument for allowing recreational use of drugs or allowing abuse of drugs in terms of helping society...they wont make anyone a more productive citizen...quite the opposite as is already the case.

it's simply a matter of who profits...and like i said...if it's the government and not organised crime...they'll simply find there income elsewhere.

well what would you do if you were in organised crime and someone took away a large chunk of your income?....would you sit back and go "ah well...i'll just do with less money"?

please

and you seriously think they'd bit for contracts to make it legally?...you think governments would go for that?

wow you really are an optimist.



i've already said i don't think that prosecuting someone who likes a spliff is a good way of dealing with it...

but then neither is tolerating and allowing someone who's an addict to carry on causing huge damage to society....why is it such a bad idea to try and stop people from wanting to take the drug in the 1st place?

anyway...we're simply going around in circles...so why bother anymore?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Make all drugs legal and let people moderate it themselves.

If they can't, too bad. It works for alcohol and cigarettes, if you get cancer or an alcohol problem, your problem.

Nobody deserves to be imprisoned for a habit.

-AC


While I agree on principle, my ****ing tax dollars go towards those *******'s medical costs...tax dollars that I would rather spend on education and science.

Originally posted by jaden101
well what would you do if you were in organised crime and someone took away a large chunk of your income?....would you sit back and go "ah well...i'll just do with less money"?

please

Again, you, for some reason, assume there is an endless supply of jobs in illegal markets. If the whole chunk of the drug trade would fall away, it doesn't mean that we need more people to traffic people, or to deal arms. We got those people. The losses made by losing the illegal drug trade can't just be picked up with the next illegal venture. You really need to address this. So far you only say "Do you think they wouldn't want to", to which my answer is "Yes they would want to, but they can't". You never address the "can't" just reapeat that they'd want to.

Originally posted by jaden101
and you seriously think they'd bit for contracts to make it legally?...you think governments would go for that?

wow you really are an optimist.

Yes. Our only problem with them is that they smuggle it into our countries. If that's not illegal...what reason is there not to trade with them?

Originally posted by jaden101

i've already said i don't think that prosecuting someone who likes a spliff is a good way of dealing with it...

Then it should be legalized. That's what that believe should lead to, but apparently you are against that.

Originally posted by jaden101
but then neither is tolerating and allowing someone who's an addict to carry on causing huge damage to society....why is it such a bad idea to try and stop people from wanting to take the drug in the 1st place?

It's not as such a bad idea. If you do it privately and do not spend immense chunks of government money on totally ineffective ways to deal with it (as happens at the moment). It is also bad that you presume you have the right to tell what people can do with their bodies and what not.
Originally posted by dadudemon
While I agree on principle, my ****ing tax dollars go towards those *******'s medical costs...tax dollars that I would rather spend on education and science.

You also realize that around 40 billion (federal and state tax dollars) go to the war on drugs. Coupled with the billions of tax the government doesn't receive from drugs (which could likely pay the medical bill easily), it's practically your fault if you support the war on drugs.

Really, lets be absolutely clear here, the problem are not the drug dealers...or the addicts...it's really just the people that want it illegal and **** themselves up the ass because of their faulty logic in the procees.

perhaps not...but what it does mean is that there will be war between those put out by the legalisation of drugs over who controls other aspects of organised crime...

meaning more crime....and more serious crime at that.




because if you're suggesting they'll all of a sudden built proper manufacturing plants in order to make safer drugs...they wont...if you're insisting that they'll pay the coca farmers a proper wage to grow the product rather than do it at threat of violence and give then a barely living wage....they wont...to think that they will is just silly really.



that's the only possible argument for legalising...that the money raised will be used to get people off drugs and no siphoned off for other purposes...at least that's the only way i can see it getting support.

but as is always the case...that doesn't happen...just like when the UK government said they were hiking up rail prices to reinvest in the railways...when infact only a fraction of the extra money actually was used for that.




good for the US...personally i don't give a **** about their war on drugs



the only faulty logic is thinking that drug addicts aren't causing damage to society regardless of who the supplier is...you're merely sanctioning state sponsored house breaking and mugging....well done you.

apart from the flimsy reasons i've already given...what benefit do these drugs have for the taker and the society...given that there's a massive amount of medical evidence for the physical damage that psychotropic

the irony with me is that i own two books pihkal and tihkal ...and i've tried quite a few of the things in both

Originally posted by jaden101
anyway...we're simply going around in circles...so why bother anymore?

very good post, and it ends up happening with most arguments when members disagree. Im sure we all agree o this.

.....and keep than dumbell away from the streets jaden.

Originally posted by GCG

.....and keep than dumbell away from the streets jaden.

hahaa...sshhh...don't tell everyone

Originally posted by jaden101
from personal experience, i've never seen a single positive from drug addiction or heavy usage...and that stems from cannabis to heroin and everything in between...

c'mon, you know of at least one

Originally posted by jaden101
perhaps not...but what it does mean is that there will be war between those put out by the legalisation of drugs over who controls other aspects of organised crime...

meaning more crime....and more serious crime at that.

That's but an assumption, not actually supported by any stats or facts or historical examples.


Originally posted by jaden101
because if you're suggesting they'll all of a sudden built proper manufacturing plants in order to make safer drugs...they wont...if you're insisting that they'll pay the coca farmers a proper wage to grow the product rather than do it at threat of violence and give then a barely living wage....they wont...to think that they will is just silly really.

The problem is not that they do not make safe drugs. The problem is that, through it being illegal, the safe, good stuff, gets cut and mixed with all sorts of shitty stuff, like, for example, rat poison (as happened in Germany)...also, it's really not England's responsibility to make sure that third world countries have a minimum wage that we would find accetable. Exposing our society to horrible legislation and all the side effects brought by it, on the assumption that "well, the third world countries will use cheap labour (which happens regardless) is just ludicrous.

Originally posted by jaden101
that's the only possible argument for legalising...that the money raised will be used to get people off drugs and no siphoned off for other purposes...at least that's the only way i can see it getting support.

Well, at least you see one of the good 50 true arguments. Now we can both rally support for drug legalization, hooray.

Originally posted by jaden101
but as is always the case...that doesn't happen...just like when the UK government said they were hiking up rail prices to reinvest in the railways...when infact only a fraction of the extra money actually was used for that.

Well, I don't trust the government either, but really, I don'T see why my tax money that I pay by buying comic books, a relatively harmless choice, should be used to fund anything (including drug rehab) when those people buy drugs for billions of pounds each year and not one penny of it goes to the government, which would benefit me again.

Originally posted by jaden101
good for the US...personally i don't give a **** about their war on drugs

Well, most of Europe is not as bad in their drug prohibition, but the basic problems still apply, just on a smaller scale.


Originally posted by jaden101
the only faulty logic is thinking that drug addicts aren't causing damage to society regardless of who the supplier is...you're merely sanctioning state sponsored house breaking and mugging....well done you.

I never said that, no one ever said that. In fact we all agreed on that, but whenever all the other pro-legalization are brought up, you counter again with "Well, but drug addicts will do bad stuff either way", which doesn't make the valid points any less valid, it's just saying that not everything will be better, which is obviously true, just not of any interest to any discussion, ever.

Originally posted by jaden101
apart from the flimsy reasons i've already given...what benefit do these drugs have for the taker and the society...given that there's a massive amount of medical evidence for the physical damage that psychotropic

Well, it makes you feel pretty ****ing awesome for a while. That's reason enough for the user, really.

Originally posted by jaden101

the irony with me is that i own two books pihkal and tihkal ...and i've tried quite a few of the things in both


The irony with me is that I only tried Marijuana, and hated it....yet, here I am, not denying other people their own experience. I'm awesome like that.

Originally posted by jaden101


from personal experience, i've never seen a single positive from drug addiction or heavy usage...and that stems from cannabis to heroin and everything in between...i've seen friends lose their jobs because their cannabis use led them to be unable to work a full day or being under the influence to the extent that it affected their work standard


Were these people writers, artists, musicians? The creative boost offered by Cannabis and its properties of relaxation thus allowing the shit to flow in terms of visualisation and then actualisation are undeniable. Lets also not forget people who prefer to chill out at home, maybe doing something creative, rather being a pissed up aggro case fighting in a pub with random toms, dicks and harrys...?
Its good for for pain relief and countering the sick feeling for cancer patients going through treatment? Glycoma relief?

True that it can get hold of some people, but so does mountain climbing. Its their right to climb or not.

If you ban Cannabis citing violent crime as a reason for any reason, then you should definitely ban drink.

Not only have I seen 3 people die through alchohol abuse,
(as opposed to the none that I have seen die through abusing the pot)
I bet that if you had 50 geezers all pissed in a room together,
and you had another 50 geezers next door all chilled out, I know which room'll be calling the ambulances and meat wagons for first...

I agree on the hard drug issues you mentioned though.
Just that not all drugs're as bad as Heroin is all Im saying.

In Jaden's defense, I think he's just saying he's never seen anything he considers positive. Not that there are none for the takers.

I could be wrong, but I never am.

-AC

Ahhhh. On re-read I see what you mean.

Fair play.

alcohol = prohibited....criminals sell alcohol...moonshine...potcheen etc

alcohol becomes legalised...criminals move into other areas...gambling...racketeering...drugs...prositution...




fair trade heroin alongside fair trade bananas and coffee...hey...just puting it out there.




so how's about trying to stop them having the need for drugs in the 1st place...radical idea i know



so you're adimitting that there wont be an improvment on that level at all...but are willing to go through all the massive problems and cost involved in implementing it in the 1st place for what someone argued earlier is a tiny market anyway...



how would you know?...

so we've come to this...some drugs shouldn't be legalised due to their massively adverse social effects...and some should be tolerated mostly for their medicinal effects and should be controlled to maximise their quality so as to enhance those effects....at a price of course



except when you are. which is, strangely enough, everytime you have a different opinion to me. *snigger snigger titter titter*



the Bill Hicks argument and the Mike Skinner argument in such a short space of time...nice

you know what these drugs did?...

Jimi Hendrix...overdose
Janis Joplin...overdose
Jim Morrison...overdose
Tommy Bolin...overdose
Tim Buckley...overdose
John Entwistle...heart failure due to cocaine use

there's loads more...but you see the pattern emerging...some of them are disputed...but even those are drug linked regardless of whether accidental or deliberate OD




on this we agree.

Originally posted by jaden101

so how's about trying to stop them having the need for drugs in the 1st place...radical idea i know

Fair enough if you have a plan for it. Banning drugs obviously doesn't work. Hey, I got an idea, lets spen the tax money we get from drugs when they are legal on your idea to stop them taking
them in the first place.


Originally posted by jaden101
so you're adimitting that there wont be an improvment on that level at all...but are willing to go through all the massive problems and cost involved in implementing it in the 1st place for what someone argued earlier is a tiny market anyway...

No, I am giving you this, and say the rest of the arguments are still more than enough to legalize drugs.

And you are not going to get legalizing drugs cost more than continuing to ban them, that's just factually incorrect.


Originally posted by jaden101
how would you know?...

I talked to people that took it. They might have lied though. But they didn't.

Originally posted by jaden101
so we've come to this...some drugs shouldn't be legalised due to their massively adverse social effects...and some should be tolerated mostly for their medicinal effects and should be controlled to maximise their quality so as to enhance those effects....at a price of course

Nope, we are still at all of them should be legalized, for a ridiculous multitude of reasons, not one of them you have countered in any way.

damn...if only i'd said that'd be the only reason for legalising it earlier...oh wait




do please list all the beneficial effects of heroin and crack on the individual and society...seeing as these are the things you're claiming i haven't countered...despite you not actually posting any of them in the 1st place.

Originally posted by jaden101
damn...if only i'd said that'd be the only reason for legalising it earlier...oh wait




do please list all the beneficial effects of heroin and crack on the individual and society...seeing as these are the things you're claiming i haven't countered...despite you not actually posting any of them in the 1st place. I will, the second you show me that I claimed that you haven't countered the beneficial effects of heroin and crack.



Actually, don't bother, I never said anything about that. I was talking about the beneficial effects legalizing drugs has on society and (by extension) on the individual, not about the drugs themselves. I can list all the arguments for that though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I will, the second you show me that I claimed that you haven't countered the beneficial effects of heroin and crack.

Actually, don't bother, I never said anything about that. I was talking about the beneficial effects legalizing drugs has on society and (by extension) on the individual, not about the drugs themselves. I can list all the arguments for that though.



all drugs include heroin and crack does it not?

your only argument is the money argument...and it's flawed

it can be argued that it's the social situation that leads people towards the drugs and that the money can be used to help solve the social situation...i.e poverty....but it wont...how do i know this...because the same argument can be applied to alcohol dependancy...obesity...heart disease...given that statistics say that poor people are far more likely to eat unhealthily...drink more and smoke more...and that the tax revenue generated from fatty foods, cigarettes and alcohol are astronomical...yet poverty is as bad now as it's been for the last 100 years..

clearly drug taxes would be no different.

the same could be argued for mental health reasons for drugs...for whatever personal or social reason....alcohol dependancy can be attributed to the same things...as can smoking and eating unhealthily

so drug taxes wouldn't aleviate these problems in society.

the difference is that people with smoking habits and obesity can still function fully in society...those with severe drug problems cannot, for the most part anyway, do that....especially those at the end that cannot afford the addiction...thus comes the problems i've mentioned countless time already.

so aside from the limited medical uses...what are these benefits you speak of?

not that Im on the subject you guys are on but this thought just crossed my mind and made me laugh...alcohol and tobacco are the worst out of all physically addictive drugs....the two go hand in hand...a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other!

Originally posted by jaden101


the Bill Hicks argument and the Mike Skinner argument in such a short space of time...nice

you know what these drugs did?...

Jimi Hendrix...overdose
Janis Joplin...overdose
Jim Morrison...overdose
Tommy Bolin...overdose
Tim Buckley...overdose
John Entwistle...heart failure due to cocaine use

there's loads more...but you see the pattern emerging...some of them are disputed...but even those are drug linked regardless of whether accidental or deliberate OD




on this we agree.

Ahhh! The old "If someone has had the same opinion before, yours cannot have any validity" argument...?
So if I experience 1st hand that the water when not a gas or solid is wet,
am I merely ripping off those who wrote before that water is wet..?
Not sure what argument Mike Skinner may have had, as I never listened to anything the talentless c*** said...!

Yes I know what those drugs did and they werent cannabis.

You left out Momma Cass: Sandwich
Sandwiches are baddddddd.


Fair play. The cannabis being lumped in with the harder shit and being demonised worse than Alcohol was my only argument.

Snoop died from mushrooms while flying a plane..lol

I have heard the Bill Hicks argument before true but dont know what you refer to about Mike skinner as I never listen to that talentless little ****.. But rest assured though, my experience is 1st hand all the way baby...

That yours is the one commonly expressed by MPs and anti drug debaters, doesnt mean that Im gonna assume that you are letting them write speeches for you as you post.

Also my arguments are not being applied to hard drugs.

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
Snoop died from mushrooms while flying a plane..lol

That would be the biggest killer in air travel responsible:

Gravity.

Ban gravity.

Or at least be willing have the government tell you how much gravity you should or shouldnt have... And which gravity-subject objects you can keep in your household.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
That would be the biggest killer in air travel responsible:

Gravity.

Ban gravity.

Or at least be willing have the government tell you how much gravity you should or shouldnt have... And which gravity-subject objects you can keep in your household.

Don't tell jokes about gravity! He's fed up with people walking all over him and I tell you...if he gives up...we're ****ed!

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Debates across the world occur when ever the issue of how to deal with drug problems come up...the question is, should they be treated as patients: say given drugs like heroin on prescription in order to get them off the drug or should they be treated as criminals and imprisoned for their habit?

What do you think?

Read High Society by Ben Elton. Apply the general idea. Leave the country if it all goes wrong.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Don't tell jokes about gravity! He's fed up with people walking all over him and I tell you...if he gives up...we're ****ed!

True lolz

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Ahhh! The old "If someone has had the same opinion before, yours cannot have any validity" argument...?
So if I experience 1st hand that the water when not a gas or solid is wet,
am I merely ripping off those who wrote before that water is wet..?
Not sure what argument Mike Skinner may have had, as I never listened to anything the talentless c*** said...!

Yes I know what those drugs did and they werent cannabis.

You left out Momma Cass: Sandwich
Sandwiches are baddddddd.

Fair play. The cannabis being lumped in with the harder shit and being demonised worse than Alcohol was my only argument.

nothing quite beats puting words in people's mouthes does it?



once is enough....or have the drugs rotted your brain that much that you forgot you already posted

the difference in tone between the two would also suggest a split personality of some kind...again...a possible result of drug use.

anyway...here's the mike skinner argument if you're interested

Hello, hello. my names terry and Im a law abider
Theres nothing I like more than getting fired up on beer
And when the weekends here I to exercise my right to get paralytic and fight
Good bloke fairly
But I get well leery when geezers look at me funny
Bounce em round like bunnies
Im likely to cause mischief
Good clean grief you must believe and I aint no thief.
Law abiding and all, all legal.
And who cares about my liver when it feels good
Wwhat you need is some real manhood.
Rasher rasher barney and kasha putting peoples backs up.
Public disorder, Ill give you public disorder.
I down eight pints and run all over the place
Spit in the face of an officer
See if that bothers you cause I never broke a law in my life
Someday Im gonna settle down with a wife
Come on lads lets have another fight

Eh hello. my names tim and Im a criminal,
In the eyes of society I need to be in jail
For the choice of herbs I inhale.
This aint no wholesale operation
Just a few eighths and some playstations mys vocation
I pose a threat to the nation
And down the station the police hold no patients
Lets talk space and time
I like to get deep sometimes and think about einstein
And carl young and old kung fu movies I like to see
Pass the hydrator please
Yeah Im floating on thin air.
Going to amsterdam in the new year - top gear there
Cause I taker pride in my hobby
Home made bongs using my engineering degree
Dear leaders, please legalise weed for these reasons.

Like I was saying to him.
I told him: top with me and you wont leave.
So I smacked him in the head and downed another carling
Bada bada bing for the lads night.
Mad fight, his faces a sad sight.
Vodka and snake bite.
Going on like a right geez, hes a ****,
Shouldnt have looked at me like that.
Anyway Im an upstanding citizen
If a war came along Id be on the front line with em.
Cant stand crime either them hooligans on heroin.
Drugs and criminals those thugs on the penny coloured will be the downfall of society
Ive got all the anger pent up inside of me.

You know I dont see why I should be the criminal
How can something with no recorded fatalities be illegal
And how many deaths are there per year from alcohol
I just completed gran tourismo on the hardest setting
We pose no threat on my settee
Ooh the pizzas here will someone let him in please
We didnt order chicken, not a problem well pick it out
I doubt they meant to mess us about
After all were all adults not louts.
As I was saying, were friendly peaceful people
Were not the ones out there causing trouble.
We just sit in this hazy bubble with our quarters
Discussing how beautiful gail porter is.
Mtv, bbc 2, channel 4 is on until six in the morning.
Then at six in the morning the sun dawns and its my bedtime.

Causing trouble, your stinking rabble
Boys saying Im the lad whos spoiling it
Youre on drugs it really bugs me when people try and tell me Im a thug
Just for getting drunk
I like getting drunk
Cause Im an upstanding citizen
If a war came along Id be on the front line with em.

Now terry youre repeating yourself
But thats okay drunk people cant help that.
A chemical reaction inside your brain causes you to forget what youre saying.

What. I know exactly what Im saying
Im perfectly sane
You stinking student lameo
Go get a job and stop robbing us of our taxes.

Err, well actually according to research
Government funding for further education pales in insignificance
When compared to how much they spend on repairing
Leery drunk people at the weekend
In casualty wards all over the land.

Why you cheeky little swine come here
Im gonna batter you. come here.

Originally posted by jaden101
all drugs include heroin and crack does it not?

Again, "legalized" being the operative word. Not "all drugs have great positive effects on society and the individual". That's a very gross misinterpretation of what you quoted there.

Originally posted by jaden101
your only argument is the money argument...and it's flawed

Actually, no, you may say that my arguments all are flawed, but the money one is certainly not the only argument I have brought.

Originally posted by jaden101
it can be argued that it's the social situation that leads people towards the drugs and that the money can be used to help solve the social situation...i.e poverty....but it wont...how do i know this...because the same argument can be applied to alcohol dependancy...obesity...heart disease...given that statistics say that poor people are far more likely to eat unhealthily...drink more and smoke more...and that the tax revenue generated from fatty foods, cigarettes and alcohol are astronomical...yet poverty is as bad now as it's been for the last 100 years..

Poverty is as bad as it has been for the last 100 years? Where do you come up with that stuff? Obviously poverty is much, much better in basically every western country now than it used to be

Originally posted by jaden101
clearly drug taxes would be no different.

That doesn't follow from anything. Clearly the government would have more money. Whether that is spend on roads, drug rehab, medicare, schools or just to give a tax cut across the board...it will have an influence. That much is clear. The government having a billion more in taxes not doing anything is a ridiculous assumption, based on solely nothing.

Originally posted by jaden101
the same could be argued for mental health reasons for drugs...for whatever personal or social reason....alcohol dependancy can be attributed to the same things...as can smoking and eating unhealthily

Smoking has become much less dominant, alcohol, I am pretty sure has been worse during prohibition at least in the US...whether that has gotten better in the UK, I do not know, but then again the UK has a reputation for it's immense Alcohol problem. Either way, that's again, and argument for nothing, not against legalization of drugs.

Originally posted by jaden101
so drug taxes wouldn't aleviate these problems in society.

That's an assumption, and not actually based on any evidence.

Originally posted by jaden101
the difference is that people with smoking habits and obesity can still function fully in society...those with severe drug problems cannot, for the most part anyway, do that....especially those at the end that cannot afford the addiction...thus comes the problems i've mentioned countless time already.

What about all those very many with not severe drug problems, but very casual usage. Why do they have to suffer because some people can't control their desires. There are people that function fully normal in a society although using drugs, why does their choice need to be criminalized. Oh, and before you answer, remember drugs are illegal now, yet all those junkies and drug gangs are very dominant everywhere, obviously banning drugs doesn't protect you from those that can't control their drug use. So why do the ones that can also have to suffer?

Originally posted by jaden101
so aside from the limited medical uses...what are these benefits you speak of?

Again, misinterpreting what I said. I never said that the drugs have benefits (besides the medical ones, you point out...and I guess relaxation or keeping you awake they can do well, too, but lets not get into how awesome drugs are, cause it was never my point)...I said LEGALIZING HAS BENEFITS...you heard DRUGS HAVE BENEFITS. Do you see the difference? I shan't argue an argument you have misheard. If you want me to name the advantages of legalization, I can do that, but stop saying I claim drugs are beneficial. If anything you are the one that obviously thinks drugs as they are a beneficial, since I want them legalized to CHANGE and adhere to higher standards, while you seem to be alright with the very dominant, but unsafe drugs all over the place we have now.

BAD crack

QAnSE_hNIDs


GOOD crack

Ajc23DuwngA

Like you said 5 posts ago, I think we are just going in circles. And this argument doesn't seem to lead anywhere, since we are convinced of our stance, and nothing the other said so far seems to have moved us a bit. If you really want a reply I will provide one, but what you say, lets drop it?

sounds good to me...been fun though.

was it just 5 posts ago though?...feel like about a million

Originally posted by jaden101
sounds good to me...been fun though.

was it just 5 posts ago though?...feel like about a million Yeah, don't see many decent arguments around here lately.


So, what about that Journalist throwing a shoe

they should ban shoes...they really should

best thing about this debate...it was actually civilised...don't get alot of that around here.

mind you...cant really see there being many heroin fanboys

Originally posted by jaden101
they should ban shoes...they really should

best thing about this debate...it was actually civilised...don't get alot of that around here.

mind you...cant really see there being many heroin fanboys Oh, they are there...they just don't have internet...




It's a joke about them spending everything on heroin.

heroin pwns goku and superman

that'll bring a few running

Originally posted by jaden101
heroin pwns goku and superman

that'll bring a few running

I think crack is more Goku's style.

is the joke something about butt cracks?...ha...haha

Originally posted by jaden101
is the joke something about butt cracks?...ha...haha

No, most of DBZ just screams "we're all on crack cocaine" to me.

aahh...true enough...

Ive never done heroin....had a chance but it was thru needle...so no way screw that crap...heard it was nice though...cant beat a great bong hit though....those can make you pass out up wake up smiling I just dont see why try and beat that...hahaha

I like the idea of making all drugs legal and let people moderate it themselves.

Drug addicts have different reason why they do it. Mines to forget the past, even if its just for few mins. Its an amazing rush. I love it.


Anyways letting people do drugs with law control. Like Drinking, have to be certain age, can't drive while high, ect. It could be used for population control. lol

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Debates across the world occur when ever the issue of how to deal with drug problems come up...the question is, should they be treated as patients: say given drugs like heroin on prescription in order to get them off the drug or should they be treated as criminals and imprisoned for their habit?

What do you think?


Throw them all in prison but don't feed them at my expense. And I have no idea how continuing to give them heroin will get them off the drug. A drug addict is a criminal, not a patient. And we need to dismiss the leftist mental illness which claims that coffee, cigarettes and alcohol are drugs. The fact that some people think that drug addicts are patients who need to be given more drugs at the white man's expense only further proves that liberalism is nothing but a mental illness.

Originally posted by UKR
Throw them all in prison but don't feed them at my expense. And I have no idea how continuing to give them heroin will get them off the drug. A drug addict is a criminal, not a patient. And we need to dismiss the leftist mental illness which claims that coffee, cigarettes and alcohol are drugs. The fact that some people think that drug addicts are patients who need to be given more drugs at the white man's expense only further proves that liberalism is nothing but a mental illness.

It's pretty pointless debating with someone like you, so I won't.

I will however say this: I find people like you a lot more disgusting than someone who likes to do drugs, or who is addicted to drugs.