Drug Addicts

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

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

I think where adults are concerned you are right but the problem is ,the habit can be caused by external influences, like someone giving school kids sweets laced with some drug, and they of course want more, and are willing to steel to afford to pay for it.

This isn´t then really their fault.

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

Examples of users needing £15,000 to £30,000 a year to fund drug habits have often been given. To make such amounts of money from stolen goods police often suggest multiplying by three – on the basis that stolen goods will fetch about one third of their normal value. There are estimates of between 130,000 and 200,000 problematic drug users in the UK. That is a lot of theft, burglary, fraud or shoplifting if all are stealing to pay for things. This has led some people to suggest that well over half of all acquisitive crime is drug-related and that the market value of goods stolen involved could be between £2-2.5 billion each year.

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"

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 don't feel like you have shown anything that gives a reason why people should still be persecuted for just taking drugs they want.

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.

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

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?...

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.

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

I would grow some in my back yard.

you would grow opium poppies in your backyard? 😆

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?

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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

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

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...

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"?

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.