The Student Room Group

Legal highs kill 50 people per year. Smoking kills 100,000. We're banning legal highs

Scroll to see replies

Original post by JordanL_
This ridiculous law just forces people to buy from unregulated illegal suppliers instead of safe sources.


But these drugs aren't safe. That is the point. If you smoke a cigarette, you won't drop dead tomorrow. If you take a legal high, you run the risk, quality or not.

There is an argument for legalising cannabis. There isn't the same weight of evidence against synthetic drugs. And morally, as a society if we did legalise all drugs, are we saying we are happy to pay to pick up the pieces of people's free choice?
Reply 61
Avatar for inhuman
inhuman
2
Original post by ByEeek
But these drugs aren't safe. That is the point. If you smoke a cigarette, you won't drop dead tomorrow. If you take a legal high, you run the risk, quality or not.

There is an argument for legalising cannabis. There isn't the same weight of evidence against synthetic drugs. And morally, as a society if we did legalise all drugs, are we saying we are happy to pay to pick up the pieces of people's free choice?


If you make them legal you can tax them. And what kind of pieces are you talking about? We are already picking up the pieces of alcoholics. We are already paying the health costs of smokers.

Look at Portugal, drug use has gone down after legalization.
Reply 62
Avatar for .Iqra.
.Iqra.
18
Original post by AperfectBalance
While I would like to ban both as they are both disgusting acts, banning cigarettes would probably cause a civil war.
I just think there should be dedicated smoking places I am fed up of coming out the train station and having a bunch of chavs smoking and vaping.
Or walking behind someone who is trying to pretend to be a steam train


Choo choo, mother****er :h:

I dunno if it was cause a civil war, but it would certainly open many more peoples' eyes to how willing the government is to ban something "for the good of the people" without actually consulting the general populace first.

Then again, if people are going to have a rationally based opinion on a subject then they need education first, not anti-drug propaganda (which is what most peoples' opinions on drugs, be they legal highs or illegal, are based on. Reefer Madness anyone?)

So it's a bit of a double-edged sword, really. Doesn't play into the hands of the government to ask us how we feel about being responsible for our own lives.
Original post by ByEeek
But these drugs aren't safe. That is the point. If you smoke a cigarette, you won't drop dead tomorrow. If you take a legal high, you run the risk, quality or not.

There is an argument for legalising cannabis. There isn't the same weight of evidence against synthetic drugs. And morally, as a society if we did legalise all drugs, are we saying we are happy to pay to pick up the pieces of people's free choice?


There are many arguments for legalising cannabis. More for than against, actually. When you take into account the facts in the place of baseless opinion, anyway.

Apparently smokers pick up the bill for their healthcare several times over due to the tax they pay on cigs (I can't remember the exact figure nor do I have a source to hand, I'm merely basing that on something that's been widely repeated by people on here who have included sources). So if all drugs were legalised and regulated, why not have a similar system put in place?

Then "we" (and be "we" I mean "you") wouldn't be paying for it. In fact, you'd be benefiting from it due to the excessive amounts of tax raised from the sales.
Original post by JordanL_
Why would anyone support this? How many supporters of banning legal highs also want to ban smoking? Self-righteous hypocrites.


I would happily ban both as I see what it does to people. Huge numbers becoming mentally unwell because the legal high screws their brain chemistry. A bit of weed never hurt anyone but what we call weed now is thousands of times more potent than the weed in the 80s/90s and synthetic cannibinoids (whcih make up most legal highs) are even more potent than that.

You canot just go and ban smoking when it was so money making and so common. So instead the whole of society and govt is being weaned off it. Eventually it will be banned I'm sure, but it will take longer yet.
Original post by Drunk Punx
There are many arguments for legalising cannabis. More for than against, actually. When you take into account the facts in the place of baseless opinion, anyway.

Apparently smokers pick up the bill for their healthcare several times over due to the tax they pay on cigs (I can't remember the exact figure nor do I have a source to hand, I'm merely basing that on something that's been widely repeated by people on here who have included sources). So if all drugs were legalised and regulated, why not have a similar system put in place?

Then "we" (and be "we" I mean "you") wouldn't be paying for it. In fact, you'd be benefiting from it due to the excessive amounts of tax raised from the sales.

"Apparently smokers pick up the bill for their healthcare several times over due to the tax they pay on cigs "

No longer the case as mortality has fallen due to improving healthcare. Used to but smokers would pay load of tax then die of big heart attack. Now they survive their heart attacks due to modern medicine and live on to be disabled anda burden to society due to smoking induced chronic lung and heart disease, a stroke or two etc.
So from a money point of view then no, they are not putting more intot he system than they take out.

However if you think short term versus long term - if you ban smoking tomorrow you lose the money from tax immediately but it will take years for the savings from health to be realised. Longer than one parliment would make it too risky for a political party to undertake.
Original post by Jamie
"Apparently smokers pick up the bill for their healthcare several times over due to the tax they pay on cigs "

No longer the case as mortality has fallen due to improving healthcare. Used to but smokers would pay load of tax then die of big heart attack. Now they survive their heart attacks due to modern medicine and live on to be disabled anda burden to society due to smoking induced chronic lung and heart disease, a stroke or two etc.
So from a money point of view then no, they are not putting more intot he system than they take out.

However if you think short term versus long term - if you ban smoking tomorrow you lose the money from tax immediately but it will take years for the savings from health to be realised. Longer than one parliment would make it too risky for a political party to undertake.


Do you have a source for the second paragraph? Because I'd be inclined to agree with you if the price of cigs hadn't rocketed through the roof in the past 7 years.
Original post by Drunk Punx
Do you have a source for the second paragraph? Because I'd be inclined to agree with you if the price of cigs hadn't rocketed through the roof in the past 7 years.


I'll see if I can dig it up when i get home. Remember cost of health itself has rocketed as well as number of smokers (and number of cigs smoked) fallen dramatically.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by the bear
smoking is a mug's game

legal highs is a mug's game


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This, mate, seriously this

I used to be so addicted to spice (synthetic cannabis) it was unbelievable
I think legal highs should be banned because according to an assembly we had on drugs, they are the most dangerous :h:

Spoiler

Reply 71
Avatar for xs4
xs4
12
100k? I''m questioning the validity of your claim :/
Original post by AperfectBalance
I find anyone who uses drugs for recreational means to be pretty disgusting , It can create people and small cultures that are very hostile and can run down places.


Alcohol too?

Original post by cBay
Something really doesn't sit easy with me with the government enforcing a blanket ban on anything remotely mind altering.


Except alcohol. And you could define "mind altering" to include paracetamol, benadryl, etc. etc.
Original post by xs4
100k? I''m questioning the validity of your claim :/


It's not 100k per year according to this but it's not far off.

http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_107.pdf
Original post by ByEeek
But these drugs aren't safe. That is the point. If you smoke a cigarette, you won't drop dead tomorrow. If you take a legal high, you run the risk, quality or not.

There is an argument for legalising cannabis. There isn't the same weight of evidence against synthetic drugs. And morally, as a society if we did legalise all drugs, are we saying we are happy to pay to pick up the pieces of people's free choice?


I never said they were safe. Smoking isn't safe, but when you buy cigarettes you know what you're getting, so it's safer. Usually when people drop dead from taking drugs, it's because their drugs have been cut with other substances by dodgy dealers and has nothing to do with the drugs themselves. That's a direct consequence of criminalisation, forcing people to buy from unregulated suppliers instead of regulated ones. By banning substances, all you're doing is making them more dangerous, it's as simple as that.

I really don't understand, though, how you're trying to make the point that smoking is safer, and legal highs are these super-deadly demon drugs. Smoking kills 100,000 people/year in the UK. Legal highs kill less than 70. About 20% of people in the UK smoke, compared to about 18% who use legal highs. The vast, vast majority of legal highs are safer than smoking.

But all of that is utterly irrelevant, because of the simple fact that PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK. It didn't work when the US banned alcohol a century ago, it hasn't worked when we've tried to eliminate various substances for the last 5 decades, and it didn't work when this same atrocious piece of legislation was passed in Ireland. We have seen, over and over and over, that banning drugs DOES NOT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE USING THEM. It just doesn't, it's a fact, and it's bizarre how people think that if we try doing the same stupid thing over and over, it might eventually work.

As for paying to pick up the pieces - do you realize how much it costs to put people in prison? Do you realize that more people get injured, killed and addicted through prohibition? It costs MORE MONEY to ban drugs than it costs to legalize them.
Original post by Jamie
I would happily ban both as I see what it does to people. Huge numbers becoming mentally unwell because the legal high screws their brain chemistry. A bit of weed never hurt anyone but what we call weed now is thousands of times more potent than the weed in the 80s/90s and synthetic cannibinoids (whcih make up most legal highs) are even more potent than that.

You canot just go and ban smoking when it was so money making and so common. So instead the whole of society and govt is being weaned off it. Eventually it will be banned I'm sure, but it will take longer yet.


Do you want to ban extreme sports too? Surely people shouldn't be allowed to participate in boxing, skiing, snowboarding, gymnastics, horse riding, when they're putting themselves at severe risk of permanent damage?
Original post by JordanL_
I never said they were safe. Smoking isn't safe, but when you buy cigarettes you know what you're getting, so it's safer. Usually when people drop dead from taking drugs, it's because their drugs have been cut with other substances by dodgy dealers and has nothing to do with the drugs themselves. That's a direct consequence of criminalisation, forcing people to buy from unregulated suppliers instead of regulated ones. By banning substances, all you're doing is making them more dangerous, it's as simple as that.

I really don't understand, though, how you're trying to make the point that smoking is safer, and legal highs are these super-deadly demon drugs. Smoking kills 100,000 people/year in the UK. Legal highs kill less than 70. About 20% of people in the UK smoke, compared to about 18% who use legal highs. The vast, vast majority of legal highs are safer than smoking.

But all of that is utterly irrelevant, because of the simple fact that PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK. It didn't work when the US banned alcohol a century ago, it hasn't worked when we've tried to eliminate various substances for the last 5 decades, and it didn't work when this same atrocious piece of legislation was passed in Ireland. We have seen, over and over and over, that banning drugs DOES NOT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE USING THEM. It just doesn't, it's a fact, and it's bizarre how people think that if we try doing the same stupid thing over and over, it might eventually work.

As for paying to pick up the pieces - do you realize how much it costs to put people in prison? Do you realize that more people get injured, killed and addicted through prohibition? It costs MORE MONEY to ban drugs than it costs to legalize them.


Yep - I get all that. And you are right. But then, are you prepared to say that to the mother and father of a young person who died from taking a legal high? Let us not forget that until recently, legal highs were just that - legal.

It is a tough circle to square. Smoking and alcohol are cultural hangovers from a time when it was thought they were part of a healthy lifestyle. Legal highs are very much a new phenomenon. They certainly weren't around 10 years ago. So what do you do? Turn a blind eye and pretend it isn't happening?

If a pharmaceutical company produces a drug for human consumption, they have to go through studies, trials, tests and approvals galore. Yet if some bloke invents a drug in his garage, you seem to be suggesting that is acceptable.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ByEeek
Yep - I get all that. And you are right. But then, are you prepared to say that to the mother and father of a young person who died from taking a legal high? Let us not forget that until recently, legal highs were just that - legal.

It is a tough circle to square. Smoking and alcohol are cultural hangovers from a time when it was thought they were part of a healthy lifestyle. Legal highs are very much a new phenomenon. They certainly weren't around 10 years ago. So what do you do? Turn a blind eye and pretend it isn't happening?


The law should be determined based on the feelings of grieving parents. The fact is that all of these kids - and more - would have died if legal highs had already been illegal. The facts are very clear, and ignoring them will lead to another 50 years of addiction, death, and criminalisation of good people.

We don't turn a blind eye. We educate and rehabilitate, like we've done with smoking and seen progress.
Reply 78
Avatar for rm715
rm715
15
Original post by JordanL_
Why would anyone support this? How many supporters of banning legal highs also want to ban smoking? Self-righteous hypocrites.


The point is legal highs kill. They kill real people with lives and thoughts and families, not just a number.
Original post by JordanL_

We don't turn a blind eye. We educate and rehabilitate, like we've done with smoking and seen progress.


Agreed. But the reality is that we have made smoking so socially unacceptable it is all but banned. I am not really sure what one does with currently illegal drugs as they seem more prevalent on the fringes of society that either doesn't care, or finds them acceptable.

Legalisation is a tough one because you are basically saying "This drug is acceptable and is safe to use because we are sanctioning its use." Which makes a mockery of the hoops the pharmaceuticals have to jump through.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you