[Birterillo]

I think legalising heroin would make people go out and buy it.

Most people I know wouldn't even know how to go about purchasing hard drugs -- however if they were readily available, maybe they would be tempted to try.

Also you have to realise that although you are (from the sounds of it) an intelligent person, there are people in the world with very little intelligence. There will be those who take the legalisation of these drugs to mean the government have found them to be safe, and so wouldn't be too worried about taking some.

[AverageExcellence]

The actual drug use isnt always the dangerous part. But if your hooked on hard drugs like heroin then the cost of your habit is considerable, often far more than the user can afford, and if the substance is physically addictive then they have no choice but to steal and do dishonest things to feed that habit, so it is indirectly damaging to society. And hard users wont be able to hold down a stable job due to the adverse withdrawal symptons of these.

Not to mention the pain and distress it causes family and friends of the users.

Also the drug can be physically destructive to the users and other people. Take PCP and LSD. There was an article where a person on pcp gauged his son's eyes out and ate them. Not to mention the cliche view of people killing themselves by cutting and jumping off buildings whilst on major delusions.

On that note it doesnt offer any benefit to society and should be banned. You could easily argue that child porn should be legal so people have the freedom saying they dont directly hurt anyone so it should be fine. Its the impact of it that is the damaging part

[tulley11]

(Original post by prog2djent)
That's the dumbest argument I've heard from the anti-legalisation crowd apart from "but it affects families" or "society wouldn't function"

Derp

Herp

Herpa derpa tiddledy tum

Well you didn't give a reply?

[Azog 150]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
The actual drug use isnt always the dangerous part. But if your hooked on hard drugs like heroin then the cost of your habit is considerable, often far more than the user can afford, and if the substance is physically addictive then they have no choice but to steal and do dishonest things to feed that habit, so it is indirectly damaging to society. And hard users wont be able to hold down a stable job due to the adverse withdrawal symptons of these.

Not to mention the pain and distress it causes family and friends of the users.

Also the drug can be physically destructive to the users and other people. Take PCP and LSD. There was an article where a person on pcp gauged his son's eyes out and ate them. Not to mention the cliche view of people killing themselves by cutting and jumping off buildings whilst on major delusions.

Really?! Please don't tell me that it causes people to jump out of windows...


If Hard Drugs were legal, the criminality surrounding addicts stealing for their next fix would be easier to tackle. Not to mention that the biggest physical dangers of Hard Drugs stem from them being illegal. As its illegal, suppliers can get away with putting in all sorts of nasty adulterants bringing down the purity of the drugs- something that wouldn't happen if their supply was regulated.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Birterillo)
I think legalising heroin would make people go out and buy it.

Most people I know wouldn't even know how to go about purchasing hard drugs -- however if they were readily available, maybe they would be tempted to try.

Also you have to realise that although you are (from the sounds of it) an intelligent person, there are people in the world with very little intelligence. There will be those who take the legalisation of these drugs to mean the government have found them to be safe, and so wouldn't be too worried about taking some.

Well the law isn't discouraging people at the moment, histor and evidence shows us that when you legalise or atleast decriminalise, use and crime fall, Portugal, switzerland and holland have had great success.

this whole series (I recommend you watch all 6, but I've just linked the 6th here)

- Hard safe rooms are a great success across western and Northern europe, atleast with the smaller countries.

this http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Arc...ml?cid=2517882

You can find out about protugal anywhere, wiki is good, Stossel has also covered it.

As I've said before, heroin is safer than alcohol when created properly, its just highly addictive and its side affects are constipation.

As for the story about the PCP, this is very isolated.

Here's the thing, the only reason, in my opinion, that certain drugs are kept illegal, is, for both tradition (Ed Milliband's views represented quite a lot of people), money to the state - I think we all know about British And American involvement in Afghan opium and creating crack. But, the other is general fear, but what to be scared of? If the market, drug companies or the state are manufacturing the products, they will be much safer (unfortunately) taxed, and desirability would fall, as it always has. Its a mixture of fear, tradition, and societal outlook that keeps the population duped into thinking drugs should be illegal. You can post stories about how a meth addict ate his own intestines and a crack head sold her foot for a fix (lol), but these are isolated, and there are many other, legal things that are much more harmful, and happen more often. Thousand, maybe hundreds of thousands die or are seriously injured in car accidents in the UK, so lets make cars illegal? There are more people dying from trips and slips than cocaine abuse, so lets make sure people aren't allowed to walk?

I know these are semi-strawman's, TSR and the learned logic of students love to say "strawman" at every turn, wrongly using it in most cases.

Lastly, I think everyone knows Narcotic drugs mess you up, of any intelligence, at the very least, psychedelics should be made legal first, and narcotics decriminalised.

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Azog 150)
Really?! Please don't tell me that it causes people to jump out of windows...


If Hard Drugs were legal, the criminality surrounding addicts stealing for their next fix would be easier to tackle. Not to mention that the biggest physical dangers of Hard Drugs stem from them being illegal. As its illegal, suppliers can get away with putting in all sorts of nasty adulterants bringing down the purity of the drugs- something that wouldn't happen if their supply was regulated.

How would it be easier to tackle hard drug users stealing? and dont say well its legal so it can be subsidised and that because thats just ridiculous, why should the tax payer have to help pay for it. As for some drugs, yes some drugs are strong hallucinogens and can cause severe psychosis or mental delusions which cause people to do irrational things. And you still wouldnt be able to fully regulate it. There would still be cheaper knock off versions of the drug with the same dangers. As is the same issue with counterfeit ciggerettes and spirits

[prog2djent]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)

users wont be able to hold down a stable job due to the adverse withdrawal symptons of these.

Not to mention the pain and distress it causes family and friends of the users.

pcp gauged

For the 3 enboldened extracts

1. Current users can't hold a stable job, I don't know the figures, but I think the amount of addicts that have jobs is higher than people think. Anyway, if they can't hold down a job, well, I am a free market heartless ******* so you can find out my views on healthcare and the welfare state just by reading about libertarianism on wikipedia, though, pragmatically, addicts should receive NHS treatment over, well, well over and above a prison sentence, and in my world, so would white market dealers, the problem comes within the transition, even though cartels would be wiped out once drugs are legal, currently, the black market dealers are linked with other far more harmful criminal activities, because of legal status maybe?

2. Drug use caused pain and distress for families anyway, the legal status does not discourage people who want to find heroin, and as I have said quite a bit, use will fall and always has when the legal status changes. Additionally, lots of things cause distress for familes, lets make them all illegal, the family-drug-distress-illegal argument only strengthens the pro-drug case.

3. Adressed this in the above post.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
How would it be easier to tackle hard drug users stealing? and dont say well its legal so it can be subsidised and that because thats just ridiculous, why should the tax payer have to help pay for it. As for some drugs, yes some drugs are strong hallucinogens and can cause severe psychosis or mental delusions which cause people to do irrational things. And you still wouldnt be able to fully regulate it. There would still be cheaper knock off versions of the drug with the same dangers. As is the same issue with counterfeit ciggerettes and spirits

I think you are really overstating the issue of stealing and drug addiction, its a very very small issue.

And when the market and or/state have control over production, this will be a much better alternative to the black market.

I think the thing is, people expect that the problem will go away completely if you rule over the issue by throwing the book it, ruling the issue with an iron first, and then you can go so far with drug crime laws, that it creates and authoritarian hell hole around the issue with very few personal freedoms.

Having them legal will always be better than illegal, since use will never go away.

Besides, whats so wrong with a groups of guys taking some DMT with their friends and laughing yourself to death and getting all insightful and junk haha.

There's 3 areas to it, lets say the far right, middle and far left (this has NOTHING TO DO with policitcal spectrum, just using it as a staple), the far right end has drugs legal/decriminalised, drug use is still there, but lower than it would be in the middle, and the middle is what we have now, no need to explain that. Then at the far left, you have no personal freedom in the area and the penatly for drug possession and use is severe prison sentences, the use of drugs, is, however the same as the far right, lower than the middle.

Which society do you want to live in out of those?

[Azog 150]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
How would it be easier to tackle hard drug users stealing? and dont say well its legal so it can be subsidised and that because thats just ridiculous, why should the tax payer have to help pay for it. As for some drugs, yes some drugs are strong hallucinogens and can cause severe psychosis or mental delusions which cause people to do irrational things. And you still wouldnt be able to fully regulate it. There would still be cheaper knock off versions of the drug with the same dangers. As is the same issue with counterfeit ciggerettes and spirits

Hard drug users with a problem severe enough to cause them to steal to fund their habit would be more likely to come forward for help. As it stands, hard drug users are already living outside of the law, so what does it matter if they break the law a little bit more to fund their habit? It also makes them less likely to come forward for help- who wants to admit they have been doing something highly illegal?

If you bring them in from the cold, then they are going to be less likely to live outside of the law. Drug decriminalisation in Portugal has been shown to produce a drop in crime rates, a drop in prison population, a drop in tax payer money spent prosecuting personal users, a drop in drug related deaths and a drop in overall drug use. In the most severe cases of addiction, drugs could even potentially be prescribed as has been tried with success in Switzerland and Australia.

Believe me, hallucinogenics don't cause you to jump out of windows. There is a handful of cases that have been blown out of all proportion. You are more likely to do something irrational and dangerous on a night out on the piss. And the fact you put PCP in the same sentence as LSD and the fact you used an example of someone on PCP to make a generalisation of all hallucinogenics shows your lack of knowledge in the area. Have you even got a reliable source for your PCP claim?

And no you wouldn't be able to fully regulate it, but the problem would be far far less severe then it is currently.

[ginacourteener]

I don't agree with it, but then again it might wear off the novelty. I mean, they don't have problems with drugs in like the Netherlands, and some are legal over there.

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by prog2djent)
For the 3 enboldened extracts

1. Current users can't hold a stable job, I don't know the figures, but I think the amount of addicts that have jobs is higher than people think. Anyway, if they can't hold down a job, well, I am a free market heartless ******* so you can find out my views on healthcare and the welfare state just by reading about libertarianism on wikipedia, though, pragmatically, addicts should receive NHS treatment over, well, well over and above a prison sentence, and in my world, so would white market dealers, the problem comes within the transition, even though cartels would be wiped out once drugs are legal, currently, the black market dealers are linked with other far more harmful criminal activities, because of legal status maybe?

2. Drug use caused pain and distress for families anyway, the legal status does not discourage people who want to find heroin, and as I have said quite a bit, use will fall and always has when the legal status changes. Additionally, lots of things cause distress for familes, lets make them all illegal, the family-drug-distress-illegal argument only strengthens the pro-drug case.

3. Adressed this in the above post.

I dont think your correct that most hard drug stable jobs, I mean how can you when on herion for example when you can barely consentrate and physically get withdrawal symptoms, do they shoot up in their break time? if so then how do they even do their job?. But Usage wont necessarily fall just because uve made it legal, people dont do the drug for attention, legalising it will only normalise it in society and therefore there will be more addicts. I am inclined to agree with you on the basis of prioritising nhs help rather than custodial sentencing, but this doesnt mean legalisation is needed, ie mental illnesses receive medical treatment and i think addicts deserve similar treatment (im not saying the two are the same). Also drug cartels wont be destroyed by legalising the drug, they will just lose a lot of money from it. There are millions of pounds worth of illegal counterfeit spirits and tobacco that are in the system, a similar thing could happen with hard drugs, and no doubt as a 'luxury' product theyll have high tax as do the latter 2.

And legalising a drug doesnt actively encourage you to do it but it makes it acceptable in society and you are much more accessible to try than it would be if it was illegal. Can you tell me how legalising hard drugs strengthens the argument in regards to family life? i really dont see the logic in that.

[Azog 150]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
And legalising a drug doesnt actively encourage you to do it but it makes it acceptable in society and you are much more accessible to try than it would be if it was illegal. Can you tell me how legalising hard drugs strengthens the argument in regards to family life? i really dont see the logic in that.

Drugs are already highly accessible. In fact its easier to meet up with a dealer then it is to go to Tesco. And what's more, the fact its illegal means dealers can get away with selling to teenagers and children which wouldn't happen if they were highly regulated. I'd say kids being able to get hold of illegal drugs is more detrimental to family life then adults having the possibility of acquiring legal drugs if they so wish. Just because heroin is no longer illegal, it doesn't mean your dad is going to go and start shooting up.

You've also got to understand that legalisation of hard drugs wouldn't mean heroin is readily available behind the counter in Tesco. More likely you would have to get your drugs from a secure, highly regulated specialised place.

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Azog 150)
Hard drug users with a problem severe enough to cause them to steal to fund their habit would be more likely to come forward for help. As it stands, hard drug users are already living outside of the law, so what does it matter if they break the law a little bit more to fund their habit? It also makes them less likely to come forward for help- who wants to admit they have been doing something highly illegal?

If you bring them in from the cold, then they are going to be less likely to live outside of the law. Drug decriminalisation in Portugal has been shown to produce a drop in crime rates, a drop in prison population, a drop in tax payer money spent prosecuting personal users, a drop in drug related deaths and a drop in overall drug use. In the most severe cases of addiction, drugs could even potentially be prescribed as has been tried with success in Switzerland and Australia.

Believe me, hallucinogenics don't cause you to jump out of windows. There is a handful of cases that have been blown out of all proportion. You are more likely to do something irrational and dangerous on a night out on the piss. And the fact you put PCP in the same sentence as LSD and the fact you used an example of someone on PCP to make a generalisation of all hallucinogenics shows your lack of knowledge in the area. Have you even got a reliable source for your PCP claim?

And no you wouldn't be able to fully regulate it, but the problem would be far far less severe then it is currently.

Thats not true at all, there are many drug help places and confidential institutions that help drug users, i know a few people that go to drug councilling, if it was so illegal how is that possible? and the fact you try to justify further crimes is just silly. The fact imply that a number of hard drug users would like help for their addiction but cant due to legalities just strengthens the argument of why a drug shouldnt be used. And of course by legalising a drug costs will reduce as its no longer a crime, but are you taking into account that NHS costs would go up drastically especially if your giving it to them on the nhs.

Im not saying that taking a drug makes you jump out of a window or off a roof as its official high, but it has been known to happen depending on your mental state. And how is it a lack of knowledge to suggest PCP and LSD are potentially deadly, im not saying its a virtual certain im saying there have been a handful of notable occasions where its happened, thats not a lie or exaggeration.

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Azog 150)
Drugs are already highly accessible. In fact its easier to meet up with a dealer then it is to go to Tesco. And what's more, the fact its illegal means dealers can get away with selling to teenagers and children which wouldn't happen if they were highly regulated. I'd say kids being able to get hold of illegal drugs is more detrimental to family life then adults having the possibility of acquiring legal drugs if they so wish. Just because heroin is no longer illegal, it doesn't mean your dad is going to go and start shooting up.

You've also got to understand that legalisation of hard drugs wouldn't mean heroin is readily available behind the counter in Tesco. More likely you would have to get your drugs from a secure, highly regulated specialised place.

If you have the connections then it is relatively simple but i dont think an overwhelming majority of people do. Just because its legal doesnt mean it can be monitored more efficiently, whats stopping people from buying it for people who are below the age like with alcohol and ciggerettes?.
People would definitely be more likely to do it if it was legal for sure. Its like everyone who goes to amsterdam always talks about trying weed in one of the coffee shops just because they can. Im sure that (not a majority) but a significant amount of people would try it.

I agree users shouldnt go to jail for it. But i dont think it should then be readily available for people to buy in shops.

[prog2djent]

To anyone, Heroin Use went down 50% in portugal after decriminalisation.

Don't know the exact figures but Class A drugs in Holland Switzerland have all fallen under decriminalisation.

[Azog 150]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
Thats not true at all, there are many drug help places and confidential institutions that help drug users, i know a few people that go to drug councilling, if it was so illegal how is that possible? and the fact you try to justify further crimes is just silly. The fact imply that a number of hard drug users would like help for their addiction but cant due to legalities just strengthens the argument of why a drug shouldnt be used. And of course by legalising a drug costs will reduce as its no longer a crime, but are you taking into account that NHS costs would go up drastically especially if your giving it to them on the nhs.

My point is its illegality makes it a taboo. Yes, some people are willing to go to confidential counselling, but many others are much more reluctant to. With the taboo of illegality removed, people may be more willing to come forward for help- drug decriminalisation in Portugal has shown this to be the case.

Whether a drug should or shouldn't be used is besides the point of the debate. Drugs are used now despite them being illegal.

And what evidence do you have that NHS costs would drastically go up? Drug users are already on the NHS- legality has no affect on it.

The places that have trialled prescription of hard drugs have not shown any increase in health costs.

Im not saying that taking a drug makes you jump out of a window or off a roof as its official high, but it has been known to happen depending on your mental state. And how is it a lack of knowledge to suggest PCP and LSD are potentially deadly, im not saying its a virtual certain im saying there have been a handful of notable occasions where its happened, thats not a lie or exaggeration.

LSD is completely non-toxic.

And how is a handful of instances an argument in favour of keeping them illegal?

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Azog 150)
My point is its illegality makes it a taboo. Yes, some people are willing to go to confidential counselling, but many others are much more reluctant to. With the taboo of illegality removed, people may be more willing to come forward for help- drug decriminalisation in Portugal has shown this to be the case.

Whether a drug should or shouldn't be used is besides the point of the debate. Drugs are used now despite them being illegal.

And what evidence do you have that NHS costs would drastically go up? Drug users are already on the NHS- legality has no affect on it.

The places that have trialled prescription of hard drugs have not shown any increase in health costs.

Help is widely available through many local councils and GPs recommendations, id like to see a city or town that offers 0 help to support your view. And drugs arent really taboo. Even if a person was to get arrested for a hard drug offence it is rare they serve time purely for it. often a caution for a first time, even the courts use drug councilling as a community sentence to give them help. I dont know the case of portugal to comment, were stricter than the UK before?

And as you say, if your giving out heroin or other hard drugs on the NHS then there will always be a larger continuous need for it, If they are so dependant on it then whats the problem with getting methadone on the NHS so they can regain control.

We're the only country in the world to have a national health service, You cant compare our health cost situation with other countries. The tax payer would pay much more than they would abroad. And like you say you would be able to buy it at regulated stores, but then if u cant afford it then you can then get it from the nhs? thats like them giving alcoholics alcohol from pharmacists, its just not viable.

But the economic implications arent the main issues. Its the moral issue that needs more consideration but we've circled around this before.

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Azog 150)


LSD is completely non-toxic.

And how is a handful of instances an argument in favour of keeping them illegal?

Im not saying people die as a result of taking LSD because its toxic, but its hallucigenic effects have been known to make lead people to do irrational things, even in the cases where it hasnt killed it can cause severe depression and other poor mental health problems. When you balance that out with the potential 'fun' some users have from it i dont think the ends justify the means

[PicardianSocialist]

A reason to doubt that legalisation would lead to a huge spike in hard drug use is the the elasticity of the demand curve for cocaine - i.e high prices and limited availability only remove the casual users from the market, the addicts will buy no matter what the price and no matter what the risk. Also, Sainsbury's doesn't operate in the same way as a drug dealer. It's a drug dealers job to be discrete, so it's much easier to hide your habits under prohibition.

Something else that's being overlooked is that this would be a godsend for drug addicts. Part of the way drugs can ruin your life is through your finances and through the nasty **** they cut it with. If drugs were bought and sold in public, it would be cheaper and have lists of ingredients and purity ratings on the packet. Hell, you could have directions for use, readily available clean needles, etc.

Some people are saying how drug use is not a victimless crime because it causes emotion stress for the addicts families. Okay, cool! So we can ban anything which might cause emotional stress to people? Goodbye freedom of speech! Goodbye freedom of expression! You might cause emotional stress, we can't have that.

And for those of you who are concerned for the victims of crimes committed while on hard drugs: I recommend you briefly skim over the wikipedia page for 'Mexican Drug War'. Sixty thousand people dead, ten missing, since 2006. Add to that the half a million people in US prisons for drug related offences, plus victims of gang crime. What about these victims?

[Captain Haddock]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)

On that note it doesnt offer any benefit to society and should be banned. You could easily argue that child porn should be legal so people have the freedom saying they dont directly hurt anyone so it should be fine. Its the impact of it that is the damaging part

Hey man, should we send you to jail because your posts don't offer anything to society?