[ch0c0h01ic]

(Original post by py0alb)
You think there's a big black market for alcohol and tobacco?


By big, I mean vaguely comparable to the white market.

Yes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12456360

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/de...lcohol-tobacco

It depends on your definition of 'big'.

[ch0c0h01ic]

(Original post by KingMessi)
I suppose, but I still can't help but feel that regulation of these drugs would be positive-if I remember correctly, weed (or maybe cannabis) is legal in the Netherlands, and I'm sure drug-related crime rates are lower there....

Of course there'd still be a black market (I exaggerated somewhat), but it'd be greatly reduced in my opinion...

Remember that The Netherlands has a different culture and is a different society.

A similar argument was used to promote 24 hour opening hours for licensed premises. At the time it was thought that it would create a more relaxed continental style drinking culture.

[metalthrashin'mad]

(Original post by bsforrester80)
Alcohol is one the biggest contradictions when ti comes to drugs. It kills more people than other drugs yet it is perfectyl legal - and taxable.

I'm not saying it should be made illegal, or all drugs should be made legal but this blanket view that all recreational drugs are bad except alcohol is blinkered and outdated.
To be honest the government, if they legalised cannabis for example could make a fortune out of tax on it and solve the debt crisis!

It kills more people because it is legal. Its legal so people take it. If the same amount of people did heroin as drunk alcohol then it wouldn't be as harmful would it?

[Hanvyj]

(Original post by Call me Bob)
Not true. The harm that heroin can cause is way more complex - blood-born viruses from injecting, scarred or collapsed veins, chronic abscesses, infection of the heart lining, tuberculosis, completely messed up immune system, OD due to purity variables and dodgy gear.

That's without even getting on to the psychological aspects, such as anxiety, depression and how it can totally devastate people's lives.

Agree though that alcohol can, too, be highly destructive.

I don't think this guy gets how f*cked up drugs like this can make people...

[Hanvyj]

(Original post by metalthrashin'mad)
It kills more people because it is legal. Its legal so people take it. If the same amount of people did heroin as drunk alcohol then it wouldn't be as harmful would it?

Yeah. The logic in this argument is flawed. Take murder for example. Murder is illigal! It kills far fewer people than driving, which is perfectly legal!

Conclusion -> either driving should be come illigal or murder legal to make it faaiirr

[py0alb]

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
Yes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12456360

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/de...lcohol-tobacco

It depends on your definition of 'big'.

Well I never. Still wouldn't call it "big" mind.

[wallace32]

All the problems caused by drugs are due to them being illegal. All drugs should be legal.

[Captain Haddock]

I'm going to be honest, I don't want drugs legalised because of their potential medical uses, I want them legalised because they're really fun. I don't particularly enjoy alcohol, and I don't see why I deserve to go to jail just because I prefer different highs to the kind that come out of a bottle. People who are for prohibition seem to get too caught up with the issue of controlling supply and trying to limit drug use. I'm yet to see anyone actually give a good reason why drug users should be locked up.

(Original post by metalthrashin'mad)
It kills more people because it is legal. Its legal so people take it. If the same amount of people did heroin as drunk alcohol then it wouldn't be as harmful would it?

This is stupid. Mortality rates for most drugs are low even if you take their lower usage rates into consideration. The fact is most recreational drugs are tolerated very well by the human body, more so than alcohol.

[Pindar]

(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.

How is that related to what we're talking about? None of the drugs I mentioned cause anti-social behaviour or are likely to cause hospital related admissions.

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
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.

Read the article in the opening post.

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
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've just contradicted yourself. How can they not have been using cannabis but using a concentrated derivative contained in cannabis?

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
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.

Drug dealers aren't subject to the same laws that alcohol retailers have, no one asks for ID. It's impossible to control and regulate.

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
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.

Why shouldn't it be acceptable? And the suggestion that prohibition deters the majority of people from taking it is laughable.

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
1) Someone commiting a crime against another due to their drug use is not acceptable, legal or illegal.

Such as? How does one commit a crime against another through drug use? Who is the victim?

If there is a crime committed why should it be about anything other than the harm caused?

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
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.

The black market and counterfeiting markets would disappear, yes.

What anti-social behaviour are you referring to? You seem to be talking about alcohol which is legal, along with "addict" related crime. All the illegal drugs i've mentioned are not addictive, unlike alcohol and nicotine, two legal drugs.

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
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.

But alcohol is far more harmful, addictive, and causes more "harm to society" than most illegal drugs.

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
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).

Every chemical in the world can cause death and negative side effects if consumed in excess. Your point is moot.

[Pindar]

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
Probably not no. The prices might come down but the government would tax it heavily which would still leave a niche for the black marketeers and counterfeiters, as we've seen with alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs.

Hence a reason why the government shouldn't tax it heavily. It would obviously be a counter-productive move, just like illegalising it was.

(Original post by Hanvyj)
This post reflects my views very well. Going into town on a friday night makes me really despair for society. Why? Because of alcohol. Should we legalise drugs because alcohol is legal? NO!

Alcohol is much worse than MDMA, ecstasy, cannabis, ketamine, magic mushrooms and LSD combined. It's a fallacy to compare alcohol to these drugs.

[Hanvyj]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Alcohol is much worse than MDMA, ecstasy, cannabis, ketamine, magic mushrooms and LSD combined. It's a fallacy to compare alcohol to these drugs.

It might be technically safer, but I dont despair because I think the people I see might get hurt by their exesive drinking. Many of the drugs have higher levels of intoxication etc, I think people get intoxicated too much allready on alcohol to introduce something else that can wreak peoples lives.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Hanvyj)
It might be technically safer, but I dont despair because I think the people I see might get hurt by their exesive drinking. Many of the drugs have higher levels of intoxication etc, I think people get intoxicated too much allready on alcohol to introduce something else that can wreak peoples lives.

What an emotionally charged sentence. If you appeal to your logical side, you've just said they are safer, much safer. How exactly is something with close to little no harm going to "wreak" peoples' lives?

However you have literally summed up the essence of what I was trying to say, you admit they are safe however you dislike the idea of people getting intoxicated. You have basically just proved what I was trying to say, which is that is the real reason they are illegal.

There is nothing wrong with intoxication, it's just an altered state of mood and perception of reality. There is nothing superior about the sober state of reality in relation to a high one. It's completely natural for people to get intoxicated and want to be intoxicated.

Sober = stoned = wired = tripping = ketty. They all deserve to be equal and without prejudice.

When it comes down to it, it's the individual's choice what state of reality they wish to experience and if they want to risk harming themselves (even if it's actually insignificant) they should be allowed to do so.

[aj1467]

(Original post by KingMessi)
Call me dense, but why can't the government tax it?

I didn't write that properly, sorry (half asleep :L) Yes they could tax it, but anyone could just grow it secretly for free, e.g. in their loft. Im pretty sure that people would rather get it for free and grow it themselves then pay tax on it if given the option. They aren't doing that good a job of stopping people growing it in their houses atm (the people that used to live in the house i recently moved into grew weed for 3 years, only found out it because they left it all in the loft when they moved out) and a few friends have heard about lots of people that used to grow it for years.

(stealth edit for spelling mistake :P)

[n00]

(Original post by Call me Bob)
Not true. The harm that heroin can cause is way more complex - blood-born viruses from injecting, scarred or collapsed veins, chronic abscesses, infection of the heart lining, tuberculosis, completely messed up immune system, OD due to purity variables and dodgy gear.

These harms occur due to it being illegal. They are not direct health risks of heroin use, they are health risks of using dirty needles and injecting other dirty **** found in illegal heroin.

(Original post by Call me Bob)
That's without even getting on to the psychological aspects, such as anxiety, depression and how it can totally devastate people's lives.

Indeed I never said it was harmless.

[thisisnew]

Stop citing the medical uses of certain drugs already when stating your case because the reality is you want them legalized so you can freely get high and not because you believe they are a much needed medical drug

Alcohol (your favorite comparison) also has many 'proven' medical uses. Note how it's pretty much combined with many other things. Where alcohol is beneficial and used they're not going to sling you a can of strongbow are they?

Even if they legalize several drugs for medical purposes distribution will be limited to prescription, will be used in a controlled manner and may only contain certain compounds of said drug in addition to other ingredients effectively obscuring it to the point where you can't really call it by whatever the street name it originally went by. Don't go thinking they'll be stocking weed in the aisle of ASDA which has all the paracetamol and ****. You'll still be here wondering why you can't freely consume your drugs and get high.

[SAK.A]

This.

[Call me Bob]

(Original post by n00)
These harms occur due to it being illegal. They are not direct health risks of heroin use, they are health risks of using dirty needles and injecting other dirty **** found in illegal heroin.

Well, some perhaps, but legalising heroin would not eliminate harm, but reduce it. People will always inject to get their hit in the quickest possible way. Clean needles are already widely available through various means, including needle exchange services. This does not prevent people from using dirty needles, it reduces the risk.

Nor does it prevent abscesses, immune system problems, or people using on top, increasing the risk of overdose.

I think there are some benefits to legalising it, don't get me wrong, but these health issues are not caused purely because it is illegal - some of them will still exist no matter what.

[Captain Haddock]

(Original post by Hanvyj)
It might be technically safer, but I dont despair because I think the people I see might get hurt by their exesive drinking. Many of the drugs have higher levels of intoxication etc, I think people get intoxicated too much allready on alcohol to introduce something else that can wreak peoples lives.

What is 'level of intoxication'?

[Hanvyj]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
What an emotionally charged sentence. If you appeal to your logical side, you've just said they are safer, much safer. How exactly is something with close to little no harm going to "wreak" peoples' lives?

However you have literally summed up the essence of what I was trying to say, you admit they are safe however you dislike the idea of people getting intoxicated. You have basically just proved what I was trying to say, which is that is the real reason they are illegal.

There is nothing wrong with intoxication, it's just an altered state of mood and perception of reality. There is nothing superior about the sober state of reality in relation to a high one. It's completely natural for people to get intoxicated and want to be intoxicated.

Sober = stoned = wired = tripping = ketty. They all deserve to be equal and without prejudice.

When it comes down to it, it's the individual's choice what state of reality they wish to experience and if they want to risk harming themselves (even if it's actually insignificant) they should be allowed to do so.

So having teenage girls stagger out of night-clubs and puke their guts up in the middle of the road is a good thing?

Having people shout at you and try and get into fights with you because they are p*ss drunk when you are on you way home from work is good to encourage yeeeaahh.

Sorry, but I think you have a very naive view of how the world works. Something with close to little no physical harm can still be bad. Just because it makes you feel good sometimes doesn't mean its a good thing to do.

If you include all the social/economic/phsycological effects in the getting "high" part of getting drugs, then yes, you are correct that that is the main reason they are illigal!!!

[No Future]

I agree that drugs aren't illegal because they're harmful to ones health. It depends on the drug.