(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
You're getting ahead of yourself, I wasn't debating whether I or you agree with it, rather the concepts behind it.
If anything I would say that you are naive to think that legalising all drugs will have a net beneficial effect. For example, from our experiences with 24 hour drinking all it did was promote binge drinking, antisocial behaviour and increase hospital related admissions.
The real reason why 'medical' cannabis isn't legalised is because it has questionable efficacy or benefit. Even the studies and references to news articles that you made show this.
Combining multiple analgesic drugs ("Multimodal analgesia") together offers a better quality of analgesia and allows you to reduce the doses of the drugs used which in turn decreases the risk and severity of side effects - that was why Tylenol was developed.
Again, you're making very bold claims based on very little (if any) evidence?
Even in the studies that have shown some
benefit to using cannabis they haven't strictly been using cannabis per se
but an isolated and more concentrated derivative.
You say that alcohol was more difficult to get hold of because you needed the co-operation of an adult however the same can be said about getting hold of narcotics at some (if not multiple) points in the supply chain.
Prohibition tends to deter people whether that is something you personally experienced or acknowledge. On the other hand legalising it creates the impression that it is acceptable.
1) Someone commiting a crime against another due to their drug use is not acceptable, legal or illegal.
2) Enforcing the illegal drug laws does cost millions but equally so does enforcing those relating to the legal drugs out there (eg; the black market, counterfeiting, anti-social behaviour, drink/drug driving laws, addict related crime, etc) - these crimes won't suddenly disappear if we legalise all recreational drugs.
As we have seen with alcohol decreasing the prices, increasing availability and making it more socially acceptable has increased the cost to society, not reduced it. To me that is a great example of what to expect should we legalise all prohibited narcotics. Sure other recreational drugs may be less harmful than alcohol and it may cost less to society but we can't get away from the fact that they have questionable (if any) benefit, they are a potentially harmful and they are still a cost to society.
The legality of alcohol should not be used as an argument to legalise all narcotics, rather it should be a warning call.
You want to legalise ketamine? You do know that Professor Nutt, formerly of the British Home Office's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, actually raised the issue of reclassifying ketamine higher because of the frequency and severity of it's negative side effects (ie; urinary problems - cystitis, incontinence, haemoglobinurea, etc). Then there are the other side effects which are documented (ie; memory impairment).