[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Hey man, should we send you to jail because your posts don't offer anything to society?

Youve misinterpreted my argument. Drugs do more harm to society than good, through elevated crime rates, various health issues and refuting the argument that the 'freedom of choice' is a void argument as it has a negative indirect impact

[Captain Haddock]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
Youve misinterpreted my argument. Drugs do more harm to society than good, through elevated crime rates, various health issues and refuting the argument that the 'freedom of choice' is a void argument as it has a negative indirect impact

Thanks for your reply!

Did you know that decriminalisation efforts have universally resulted in decreased usage, reduction in drug related crime, and an increased number of users seeking rehab?

Think about it!

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Thanks for your reply!

Did you know that decriminalisation efforts have universally resulted in decreased usage, reduction in drug related crime, and an increased number of users seeking rehab?

Think about it!

Have you got any evidence to validate that claim?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Thanks for your reply!

Did you know that decriminalisation efforts have universally resulted in decreased usage, reduction in drug related crime, and an increased number of users seeking rehab?

Think about it!

as AveregeExcellence said have you got any stats to back up these claims, they seem a bit fishy to me.

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by cl_steele)
as AveregeExcellence said have you got any stats to back up these claims, they seem a bit fishy to me.

I like the play on words, captain haddock - fishy. GENIUS! haha

[Bellissima]

drugs do a lot of harm to other people. i have been affected by people close to me doing drugs, it is devastating especially when it goes wrong and i would not wish it on anybody... so yes it does affect and harm those who choose not to take them.

people also get into drugs even if they do not want to, through peer pressure or stupidity.. and they seriously regret it.

hard drugs should be illegal.. even if the cost to the NHS was recuperated by taxing those drugs... taking money from peoples suffering is not right.


and fyi i think that cannabis should be illegal. i don't think there's anything wrong with smoking cannabis casually, but if you do it often and become mentally addicted (before anyone jumps down my throat saying "cannabis is not addictive there's no addictive drugs in it blah blah".. yes it can become addictive especially if you have an "addictive personality".. you become addicted to the feeling.. from the release of neurotransmitters etc.)... you can become demotivated, you can live just waiting for the next high (again i know someone like this, he is a waster)... while i agree alcohol and cigarettes are as harmful/more harmful.. they're an ingrained part of society and would be impossible to ban.. why should we make something else that is potentially very harmful the same?


i think maybe the best option is to make DEALING these drugs illegal, but taking them is not illegal.

[Captain Haddock]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
Have you got any evidence to validate that claim?

Sure!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...f-in-portugal/

[funsongfactory]

(Original post by prog2djent)
"Usually, laws are there to stop us from harm. Making drugs like heroin illegal is an example of one of those laws. Making cannabis illegal isn't. Can't OD on cannabis."

Just because you can't OD on cannabis doesn't mean it isn't harmful. It damages your lungs in the same way that smoking tobacco does, and has been linked to schizophrenia; hardly harmless!

[Bellissima]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Thanks for your reply!

Did you know that decriminalisation efforts have universally resulted in decreased usage, reduction in drug related crime, and an increased number of users seeking rehab?

Think about it!

well obviously drug related crime would be down... because taking/dealing drugs would not be illegal.

i do not see any logical reason why the other things would decrease... unless it's like the big red button you're not allowed to press effect.

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Sure!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...f-in-portugal/

I dont know enough about the reliability of the website to comment. But even if we do assume it is and accurate then its still a completely different situation for the UK. Considering we're the only country in the world with a fully funded NHS then it would be much more costly than it would be with portugal. Also the article talks about reframing from custodial sentences. The courts in the UK use prison as a very last resort and as ive said before often use councilling and probation as a form of rehabilitation and treatment for these people. I agree custodial sentencing isnt the right way to deal with it but it should still be illegal. Speeding and skipping red lights is a crime but you wont go to prison for it.

[XxSophie01xX]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Let me start off from where I stand, I take the typical libertarian line in that "if something does not harm anybody else, then the state has no right in prohibiting something that might harm the user".
I would disagree with this statement. Taking drugs is a selfish act and although you are only physically harming your own body, the mental anxiety and stress you put on your family/friends is unfair. Why should they have to worry because you are, quite frankly, acting like a ****? Then again there is that argument that you can't control what another person does and if they so wish to take drugs then the only thing you can do is focus on your life and not worry about theirs.

And on a personal note, I have never tried a drug, tried a cigarette and do not drink (aside from a couple of Jager-bombs and whisky shots as tradition at party's XD.

I'm arguing with a friend about the legal status of ALL drugs. He takes the fairly typical, student line in that Cannabis should be legal
Just for the record, being a student, I don't think Cannibis should be legal. Although it doesn't as prominently show adverse effects, it is still detrimental.

Just takes longer for the effects to happen. (I also think over half the
population think this too)
I don't think it's quite that much

but harder drugs should not. I should also not that this friend is a fairly inconsistent stoner and enjoys smoking only occasionally.

But in my experience, most people who smoke and want Cannabis legal think harder drugs should be still illegal. These people frustrate me more than those who think all drugs currently illegal and should stay that way.

Here are some of his arguments I am quoting

"Usually, laws are there to stop us from harm. Making drugs like heroin illegal is an example of one of those laws. Making cannabis illegal isn't. Can't OD on cannabis."
You can OD on anything if you consume enough of it.

"Simple fact is that it's not a victimless crime. People have families who would be victims if someone in their family became addicted to heroin"
100% agree with this.

I have tried arguing back that I don't need the government to tell me, or any other person not to take hard drugs, I don't do it because Its mental, you can possibly do great harm by taking heroin, crack, meth etc

He argues that the law is there to stop harm, harm to who? The only person a drug like heroin directly harms is the user. So he says that families will be harmed.

I tried to go for the money shot and argue that people who want to buy heroin will buy it regardless of its legal status. If it were made legal people would not suddenly go out and buy heroin.
Agreed.

History shows us criminalising victimless items makes the use go up, and the decriminalisation makes use go down (early 20th century America, Holland, Portugal .... these are fine examples IMHO).

He still wouldn't have it, he can't get around the fact that the legal status of heroin will not deter people from using it.
I think you're right. It's the same as making sex legal at 16. Doesn't stop thousands of underage pregnancies etc. Just as many people have sex before the "legal" age, and making it legal to have sex at any age wouldn't make more or less people do it.

I've tried explaining that having harder drugs illegal does more harm and good, and then there really are victims. Under decriminalisation, junkies would be treated with medicine, not with a prison cell.

The drug cartels LOBBY and fight for the continued criminalisation of illicit drugs and often bribe officials (think about 80's America and Noreaga, Olly North etc).

50K have died in Mexico and possibly hundreds of thousand more across south America because these drugs are illegal, the cartels flourish and black markets arise, quality and safety of the drugs fall, and lots of deaths occur as there is now regulatory framework within the market or consumer know-how.

Most doctors, economists and scientists in this field agree with me. But it still doesn't get through to him.

Am I wrong, or even completely nuts for thinking this??

If you have the time, this video sums up my sentiments more precisely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL83WewagiM

Thanks.

Although you have some well substantiated points, and I do agree that making drugs legal wouldn't suddenly make millions go out and purchase it, I do however disagree with making drugs legal. It's just a moral dilemma more than anything. When as a society we are allowing people to take harmful substances, we become savage and uncivilised. Also, drug taking wouldn't be a private matter any more, and it would be glorified so MAYBE in that instance, it MIGHT encourage people, especially youngsters, to take drugs.

[Captain Haddock]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
I dont know enough about the reliability of the website to comment. But even if we do assume it is and accurate then its still a completely different situation for the UK. Considering we're the only country in the world with a fully funded NHS then it would be much more costly than it would be with portugal. Also the article talks about reframing from custodial sentences. The courts in the UK use prison as a very last resort and as ive said before often use councilling and probation as a form of rehabilitation and treatment for these people. I agree custodial sentencing isnt the right way to deal with it but it should still be illegal. Speeding and skipping red lights is a crime but you wont go to prison for it.

You're seriously in question about the reliability of Forbes? There are literally hundreds of sites I could have chosen from but I went with Forbes because I thought everybody knew it as one of the most widely respected business magazines in the world! Oh well..

Also you'll be surprised to find that the NHS is not one of a kind! In fact, every country in Europe has a state funded universal healthcare system!

(Original post by Bellissima)
well obviously drug related crime would be down... because taking/dealing drugs would not be illegal.

i do not see any logical reason why the other things would decrease... unless it's like the big red button you're not allowed to press effect.

Hi!

Drug related crime and drug crime are different categories!

Thanks for your contribution!

[Bellissima]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)

Drug related crime and drug crime are different categories

then please clarify what exactly you mean by drug related crime as it's quite ambiguous.

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
You're seriously in question about the reliability of Forbes? There are literally hundreds of sites I could have chosen from but I went with Forbes because I thought everybody knew it as one of the most widely respected business magazines in the world! Oh well..

Also you'll be surprised to find that the NHS is not one of a kind! In fact, every country in Europe has a state funded universal healthcare system!


!

I didnt mean the website, but the article obviously has its bias's and doesnt state where it got its actual statistics from, itll have its bias's like you or i.

Its not purely the economic implications either. Its the moral question of drugs destroying lives, the government is getting a tighter grip on ciggerettes because they are widely known to have strongly adverse side effects and hard drugs are much worse, not just the health issues but also what it does to people. I cant fathom why anyone would want a government to decriminalise this which reflects that it is socially acceptable in society.

And on another note people that say it would destroy gangster culture and mobs, it wouldnt. Do you think theyd simply walk away from a multi million pound industry? no they could easily become legit companies and make more profit, as they wouldnt have to sell it in bulk to dealers to rid the risk.

[Captain Haddock]

(Original post by Bellissima)
then please clarify what exactly you mean by drug related crime as it's quite ambiguous.

Drug fuelled violence, burglary in order to fund drug use and driving under the influence are three examples of drug related crime.

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Drug fuelled violence, burglary in order to fund drug use and driving under the influence are three examples of drug related crime.

Why would drug fuelled violence fall because its legal? people would still have the same effects on the drug and why would crimes to fund hard drug use fall? The drug would still be relatively expeensive and hard drug users are more likely to be unemployed than most, or have little disposable income, theyd have to still do something to pay for it. Driving under the influence, that hasnt deterred people on alcohol, i cant see how it would be different from other substances.

[Yellow_Watermelon]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)

And on another note people that say it would destroy gangster culture and mobs, it wouldnt. Do you think theyd simply walk away from a multi million pound industry? no they could easily become legit companies and make more profit, as they wouldnt have to sell it in bulk to dealers to rid the risk.

sounds like a good thing to me
legitimate means taxes and quality controls,

help to fund research and save lives

could even lead to development of new less harmful drugs as you would have competition between drug production companys.

[Captain Haddock]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
I didnt mean the website, but the article obviously has its bias's and doesnt state where it got its actual statistics from, itll have its bias's like you or i.

Its not purely the economic implications either. Its the moral question of drugs destroying lives, the government is getting a tighter grip on ciggerettes because they are widely known to have strongly adverse side effects and hard drugs are much worse, not just the health issues but also what it does to people. I cant fathom why anyone would want a government to decriminalise this which reflects that it is socially acceptable in society.

And on another note people that say it would destroy gangster culture and mobs, it wouldnt. Do you think theyd simply walk away from a multi million pound industry? no they could easily become legit companies and make more profit, as they wouldnt have to sell it in bulk to dealers to rid the risk.

Hi again!

If we are arguing from a moral standpoint, then I would argue that prohibition has resulted in the needless criminalisation of vast numbers of young people, disproportionately affecting poor black people irrespective of usage rates throughout society. I would argue that the system for classifying drugs is a sham with little correlation to the actual effects of the drugs, and the result is people receiving lengthy prison sentences for being in possession of relatively harmless substances such as MDMA, LSD and psilocybin mushrooms (all 'soft' drugs) while alcohol, a hard drug in the same league as heroin, remains a celebrated aspect of our culture. This is moral hypocrisy! I would argue that criminal records ruin people's lives, and that prison has the effect of hardening peoples' criminal tendencies. How does it benefit society to do this to, say, a student with lots of potential simply because he or she chose to experiment with LSD? I would argue that prohibition has caused an epidemic of violence in South America resulting in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people. I would argue that prohibition has ruined more lives than drugs have.

Thanks for reading!

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
Why would drug fuelled violence fall because its legal? people would still have the same effects on the drug and why would crimes to fund hard drug use fall? The drug would still be relatively expeensive and hard drug users are more likely to be unemployed than most, or have little disposable income, theyd have to still do something to pay for it. Driving under the influence, that hasnt deterred people on alcohol, i cant see how it would be different from other substances.

Drug fuelled violence includes gang warfare related to the illegal sale of drugs!

[Bellissima]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Drug fuelled violence, burglary in order to fund drug use and driving under the influence are three examples of drug related crime.

it would be more accurate to say which exact "drug related" crimes have been reduced, because a bit of googling has also said drug gangs, drug trafficking etc. falls under drug related crime.


as for those mentioned, again there's no logical reason why they would be reduced, specifically in proportion to the number of drug users.

[Greatest I am]

(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.

Your social harm here is caused by the fact that illegality has put the price so high that criminal activity is the only way out for the user.
It is our fault. Not his.

https://mises.org/media/3511/5-The-Drug-Addict

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

That is their business and not yours.

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.

Which is why medical supervision is required and that comes with legalization.
You will also note that many more are killed thanks to drugs being illegal. Ask the 50,000 Mexican corpses.

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

The only way to have an effective ban on anything is through legal control of all substances and a ban is impossible with a black market.

Regards
DL