[n00]

(Original post by py0alb)
So why do you keep trying to move the goal posts? We're all talking about legalisation, and you keep banging on about reclassification and decriminalisation. Stick to the ****ing topic.

Sorry whos moving the goal posts?

Clearly you're not going to make any attempt at backing up your point that the illegality of drugs is a strong disincentive to use.

(Original post by py0alb)
If you legalised drug x, imposed quality controls and removed legal sanctions and made it openly available for purchase in tescos, then usage would go up, period. Anyone who argues against this needs their head checking.

Sure, we can't be sure what effect legalising drugs will have, i guess allowing advertisement would increase use for instance. But this isn't your argument. We do not have to legalise drugs to see the effect of removing the disincentive to use that you argue exists. We just remove the disincentive.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Mister Dead)
I disagree quite strongly with almost everything you've said. I think it's incredibly prejudiced, unworkable, illogical and your distinctions between stuff like drug and alcohol abuse and eating disorders just seem to be arbitrary.

They are not arbitrary. An eating disorder is a mental condition, as is drug addiction. One is triggered through no fault of your own, one is your own fault.

Having to take drugs to become a drug addict - how is that different to having to not eat to become anorexic? Some people take drugs to have an ace time, some diet to look good and feel health. Some people take drugs because they hate themselves and want to escape, some people don't eat because they hate their body and are repulsed by the act. Difference?

I think you are failing to understand the severity of anorexia nervosa as a medical condition. One doesn't just decide to stop eating and subsequently becomes anorexic. You can't control whether you become anorexic or not, it is a serious medical condition and I feel that you are belittling it. Drug addiction on the other hand you can control. You don't take drugs, you don't become addicted. There is no similar control for anorexia.

An awful lot of people that need medical treatment for the matters we are discussing have made significant contributions in tax over their lifetime and you choose to refer to them as 'these people', as though they are some kind of outcast.

How would you like me to refer to them? As you said there are an awful lot of people, I can't name them all. And frankly it takes too long to type out drug addicts/alcoholics/people with smoking related illnesses every single time. Also I would contest that they have made significant contributions in tax over their lifetime. I would like to see some statistics, but I doubt that there is no correlation between someone's education/social background and the rate at which people are admitted for these sorts of problems. And seeing as there is a strong correlation between social background/education and wealth, there is most likely a correlation between wealth and the number of these cases.

And you repeatedly excuse or ignore people that cost the NHS a fortune, people it appears just don't fit your prejudice, by using the scale of the problem to dismiss it.

Well yes, my argument is an economic one as well as a moral argument.

I would also like you to expand on why you believe it is prejudiced and illogical? If you choose to pump your body full of ****, why should other people pay for your treatment when something inevitably goes wrong?

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by py0alb)
So why do you keep trying to move the goal posts? We're all talking about legalisation, and you keep banging on about reclassification and decriminalisation. Stick to the ****ing topic.

If you legalised drug x, imposed quality controls and removed legal sanctions and made it openly available for purchase in tescos, then usage would go up, period. Anyone who argues against this needs their head checking.

this is probably true, yeah. but i'd also imagine that amongst those significant masses that will use regularly but work and pay taxes, there would be a drop in consumption of current drugs. Introduce marijuana and alcohol sales would drop. That would be my guess, anyway.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Then please explain why cannabis usage is lower in the Netherlands, and in the states in America where it was briefly decriminalised, and in the countries where it is decriminalised, than here? Your argument makes logical sense, it just isn't born out by reality. In reality a lot of people are using drugs because they are naughty, and are seen as the way to rebel.

You can't compare from one nation to the next, there are simply too many uncontrolled variables. In Portugal cannabis was merely decriminalised and usage jumped up by 50%.

The state of California did research into the effects of full legalisation and predicted a steady year on year increase in usage.

[Dr. Bassman]

(Original post by py0alb)
You can't compare from one nation to the next, there are simply too many uncontrolled variables. In Portugal cannabis was merely decriminalised and usage jumped up by 50%.

Source?

EDIT:

just because a 50% increase is an absolutely ridiculous figure...

[py0alb]

(Original post by Mister Dead)
this is probably true, yeah. but i'd also imagine that amongst those significant masses that will use regularly but work and pay taxes, there would be a drop in consumption of current drugs. Introduce marijuana and alcohol sales would drop. That would be my guess, anyway.

Agreed. I also think that illegal hard drug usage would also drop as a result. Ultimately I think if you legalised enough soft-medium drugs, then there would be a much lower rate of new addicts each year on crack or H - people would be able to find such a different range of highs from their local pharmacy that they simply would have no need of buying some dodgy unknown powder from a scary man in a hoody down a dark alley.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Dr. Bassman)
Source?

EDIT:

just because a 50% increase is an absolutely ridiculous figure...

http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/P...onalReport.pdf

Jump from 7.8% to 11.7%

[py0alb]

(Original post by n00)
Sorry whos moving the goal posts?

Clearly you're not going to make any attempt at backing up your point that the illegality of drugs is a strong disincentive to use.

Sure, we can't be sure what effect legalising drugs will have, i guess allowing advertisement would increase use for instance. But this isn't your argument. We do not have to legalise drugs to see the effect of removing the disincentive to use that you argue exists. We just remove the disincentive.

I'm confused. In your understanding, what is the word for making something no longer illegal? In England, that word is legalisation.

I already explain the three mechanisms by which the illegality of drug X prevents wider usage:

lack of availability, health concerns, and the threat of prosecution.

[Jack22031994]

Dont legalise any


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Mister Dead]

[QUOTE]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
They are not arbitrary. An eating disorder is a mental condition, as is drug addiction. One is triggered through no fault of your own, one is your own fault

This doesn't make any sense. By your logic if they are both mental disorders, an eating disorder also doesn't exist until you actually stop eating. Just as an addiction doesn't occurr until you actually start taking drugs. You're dismissing any mental abberration that occurs prior to use in the drug addict, but not prior to a change in eating habits of someone with an eating disorder.

Eh?

I think you are failing to understand the severity of anorexia nervosa as a medical condition. One doesn't just decide to stop eating and subsequently becomes anorexic. You can't control whether you become anorexic or not, it is a serious medical condition and I feel that you are belittling it.

Again with the arbitrary distinction. Nice try with me 'belittling' anorexia. I'm saying what casues people to eat too much or too little can come from exactly the same place as what cause people to consume too much alcohol or drugs. Alcohol and drugs can ruin lives and decimate families and communities. From where i'm standing it seems awfully more like you're belittling that than i'm belittling anorexia.

Drug addiction on the other hand you can control. You don't take drugs, you don't become addicted.

Right, again you ignore what drives people to take drugs in favour of just repeating the word addiction, as if that always overrides a pre-existing condition that causes use.

There is no similar control for anorexia

Yes there is, and by your logic it is start eating food. And you're the one accusing me of belittling a condition!

How would you like me to refer to them? As you said there are an awful lot of people, I can't name them all. And frankly it takes too long to type out drug addicts/alcoholics/people with smoking related illnesses every single time. Also I would contest that they have made significant contributions in tax over their lifetime.

Well i'm telling you for a fact so obvious that surely it doesn't need backing up that a significant percentage of people in treatment have worked and paid taxes their whole working life - should they be denied treatment on the grounds that there's a significant % that hasn't?

I would also like you to expand on why you believe it is prejudiced and illogical? If you choose to pump your body full of ****, why should other people pay for your treatment when something inevitably goes wrong?

Because, again i'll repeat myself, you make an arbitrary distinction between people that eat too much or too little triggered by a pre-existing mental condition, and people that ruin their bodies and minds with drugs and alcohol, wait for it......... triggered by a pre-existing mental condition!

Hey guess what, about 30-40% of significant drug/alcohol abusers have eating disorders. Who'd have thunk that. It's almost as though both are behaviours triggered by significant mental abberrations.

[Dr. Bassman]

(Original post by py0alb)
http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/P...onalReport.pdf

Jump from 7.8% to 11.7%

TIL I learnt 7.8% to 11.7% is a 50% increase. Either way, it's irrelevant. Here are my thoughts on the matter, take them or leave them. Firstly, I obviously don't believe cannabis is a dangerous drug. In fact, I think an increase in cannabis use is a good thing, depending on what 'usage' is considered to be. Heavy usage in my opinion is a bad thing, but an increase in weekly usage, or something like that is hardly a bad thing, though obviously this is a bit subjective. However, the other positive is that with more cannabis users there are less alcohol/'hard' drug users which can only be a positive thing.

Secondly, decriminalisation is different to legalisation. Decriminalisation just means that you can get away with it and so there's no reason for cannabis usage to go down since nothing has changed except that you won't be prosecuted. Legalisation would impose strict regulation however and so you can't argue that because cannabis use went up in Portugal legalisation doesn't work since there's still no control, portugal did not legalise any drugs. The Netherlands is a far better example, though still not perfect in my opinion. Hopefully Uruguay (iirc) will shine some light on it. Legalisation doesn't necessarily mean being allowed to sell it in supermarkets. Nothing is really 'fully' legal, everything has controls, from food to alcohol. With heroin for example, you could ensure that it was only available through prescription and that would bring users closer to the health services etc. and ensure that new usage decreases. In fact, IIRC they did a study in Switzerland, involving something similar to this and the rate of new users dropped massively (don't have the figures on me, you can believe me or not, up to you).

You have to also consider the fact that usage isn't the only important factor. Let me ask you a question. Would you prefer to have 1000 addicts using clean, regulated heroin, free from disease, crime, stigma etc. or 500 addicts using dirty needles, having to deal with dealers, more crime etc.? Personally I'd prefer the first, simply because, despite the fact that there are more addicts, society is actually far less damaged. Also remember that with the money previously used to prosecute drug users and dealers/traffickers, and the money gained from taxation you could massively decrease the harms from drugs and fund education, rehabilitation etc. and so it actually isn't unreasonable to assume that, not only would drug use be FAR safer, but drug use really could decrease, as has been found before.

Quite simply, people need to stop viewing the idea of legalisation as full-blown 'buy it from your cornershop' legalisation. Try and view it from a medical stand-point and you'll find that it seems like a less 'dirty' topic. Fundamentally I think people are just afraid of the thought of anyone being able to get class A drugs easily (which frankly is the situation right now for many people) but that's not what legalisation entails.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Dr. Bassman)
TIL I learnt 7.8% to 11.7% is a 50% increase. Either way, it's irrelevant. Here are my thoughts on the matter, take them or leave them. Firstly, I obviously don't believe cannabis is a dangerous drug. In fact, I think an increase in cannabis use is a good thing, depending on what 'usage' is considered to be. Heavy usage in my opinion is a bad thing, but an increase in weekly usage, or something like that is hardly a bad thing, though obviously this is a bit subjective. However, the other positive is that with more cannabis users there are less alcohol/'hard' drug users which can only be a positive thing.

Secondly, decriminalisation is different to legalisation. Decriminalisation just means that you can get away with it and so there's no reason for cannabis usage to go down since nothing has changed except that you won't be prosecuted. Legalisation would impose strict regulation however and so you can't argue that because cannabis use went up in Portugal legalisation doesn't work since there's still no control, portugal did not legalise any drugs. The Netherlands is a far better example, though still not perfect in my opinion. Hopefully Uruguay (iirc) will shine some light on it. Legalisation doesn't necessarily mean being allowed to sell it in supermarkets. Nothing is really 'fully' legal, everything has controls, from food to alcohol. With heroin for example, you could ensure that it was only available through prescription and that would bring users closer to the health services etc. and ensure that new usage decreases. In fact, IIRC they did a study in Switzerland, involving something similar to this and the rate of new users dropped massively (don't have the figures on me, you can believe me or not, up to you).

You have to also consider the fact that usage isn't the only important factor. Let me ask you a question. Would you prefer to have 1000 addicts using clean, regulated heroin, free from disease, crime, stigma etc. or 500 addicts using dirty needles, having to deal with dealers, more crime etc.? Personally I'd prefer the first, simply because, despite the fact that there are more addicts, society is actually far less damaged. Also remember that with the money previously used to prosecute drug users and dealers/traffickers, and the money gained from taxation you could massively decrease the harms from drugs and fund education, rehabilitation etc. and so it actually isn't unreasonable to assume that, not only would drug use be FAR safer, but drug use really could decrease, as has been found before.

Quite simply, people need to stop viewing the idea of legalisation as full-blown 'buy it from your cornershop' legalisation. Try and view it from a medical stand-point and you'll find that it seems like a less 'dirty' topic. Fundamentally I think people are just afraid of the thought of anyone being able to get class A drugs easily (which frankly is the situation right now for many people) but that's not what legalisation entails.

You realise I'm fully in favour of carefully controlled licensing and legalisation, right?

I just think people who argue that legalisation wouldn't quite patently lead to an increase in usage are either stupid or disingenuous and actually make the otherwise sensible legalisation camp look naive and/or dishonest.

[Annoying-Mouse]

I fail to see why people are bothering to debate py0alb, it isn't very controversial position. Legalizing cannabis will increase usage, that's pretty freaking obvious. Why wouldn't people try cannabis? I mean, there's constant comparison people make to alcohol and how it's worse than alcohol yet people still drink alcohol. There's no reason to not try it and there are countless of reasons to try it, if legalized.

It's not a counter-argument against legalization, just a fact.

[Mister Dead]

whenever i see Dr Bassman's name I can't help think of Kramer collecting his new number plate:



which tickles me, thanks. As you were.

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
. Why wouldn't people try cannabis? I mean, there's constant comparison people make to alcohol and how it's worse than alcohol .

nah, they're both excellent. Single malt and a reefer. very civilised.

[Acerbic]

(Original post by py0alb)
Again: I have no idea where that might be. You expect me to walk round all the rough parts of town after dark and approach any men I see in hooded sweatshirts? I'm more likely to get stabbed than score drugs.

You live a very sheltered life

[py0alb]

(Original post by Acerbic)
You live a very sheltered life

Because I don't typically socialise with drug dealers and other assorted criminals? Well then so do 90% of the UK.

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by Acerbic)
You live a very sheltered life

My housemate's never smoked a cigarette in his life, and doesn't do any drugs. Subsequently the people he hangs around with tend to be people that enjoy similar activities. What is odd about that. He's doing a postgraduate course in nanotechnology. I can get you any drugs you want but don't know anything about nanotechnology. Am I leading a sheltered life?

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Mister Dead)
This doesn't make any sense. By your logic if they are both mental disorders, an eating disorder also doesn't exist until you actually stop eating. Just as an addiction doesn't occurr until you actually start taking drugs. You're dismissing any mental abberration that occurs prior to use in the drug addict, but not prior to a change in eating habits of someone with an eating disorder.

Eh?

What causes drug addiction? Taking drugs. You can't have an addiction without taking the drugs. What causes you to take drugs? Yourself. Nothing else causes you to take drugs, it is a decision that you make consciously. I sympathise with those who have issues in their life which make them feel like they have to take drugs, but the simple fact is they don't. Plenty of people have issues and don't resort to taking drugs to escape. Taking the drugs is not part of the disorder. Not eating on the other hand, that is part of the disorder. As anorexia is classified as a mental disorder, you don't decide to stop eating in the same way you decide to take drugs. The disorder causes you to stop eating properly. There isn't a mental disorder making people take drugs, the addiction comes about as a result of taking the drugs.

Again with the arbitrary distinction. Nice try with me 'belittling' anorexia. I'm saying what casues people to eat too much or too little can come from exactly the same place as what cause people to consume too much alcohol or drugs. Alcohol and drugs can ruin lives and decimate families and communities. From where i'm standing it seems awfully more like you're belittling that than i'm belittling anorexia.

See above. And yes, I would agree that I am belittling alcohol abuse and drug addiction to an extent. In the sense that I am arguing that it is the fault of the abuser that they are in such a state. Whereas the person with anorexia has far far less responsibility for their condition.

Right, again you ignore what drives people to take drugs in favour of just repeating the word addiction, as if that always overrides a pre-existing condition that causes use.

Tell me some of these factors which drive people to take drugs please. Don't just give me sob stories. Life is tough, get over it. Doesn't mean you have to go and take drugs to escape.

Yes there is, and by your logic it is start eating food. And you're the one accusing me of belittling a condition!

But that is part of the disorder, being unable/unwilling to properly nourish yourself. Taking drugs causes the addiction. You can prevent the addiction by not taking drugs. You can't prevent anorexia by eating more, not eating enough is part of the condition.

Well i'm telling you for a fact so obvious that surely it doesn't need backing up that a significant percentage of people in treatment have worked and paid taxes their whole working life - should they be denied treatment on the grounds that there's a significant % that hasn't?

What is your point here? I'm saying I disagree that a significant proportion of addicts/abusers have paid taxes their whole working life. And even if they had, I'm arguing that the amount they have paid is not comparable to the cost of the treatment they are receiving. They shouldn't be denied treatment, but they should be made to pay for it.

Because, again i'll repeat myself, you make an arbitrary distinction between people that eat too much or too little triggered by a pre-existing mental condition, and people that ruin their bodies and minds with drugs and alcohol, wait for it......... triggered by a pre-existing mental condition!

Where is this mental condition which causes people to abuse drugs and alcohol?

Hey guess what, about 30-40% of significant drug/alcohol abusers have eating disorders. Who'd have thunk that. It's almost as though both are behaviours triggered by significant mental abberrations.

Source? And link to a study proving that having an eating disorder makes you more likely to abuse drugs?

Correlation does not equal causation. I have yet to see a study that proves that taking drugs is the result of some sort of mental disorder. Addiction? Yeh that's a mental disorder. But like I said addiction is a result of taking the drugs in the first place. Some people are more likely to be addicted to drugs through some sort of mental aberration but I haven't seen anything to suggest they are more likely to take drugs in the first place. Taking them was their choice, not the result of a condition.

[Dr. Bassman]

(Original post by py0alb)
You realise I'm fully in favour of carefully controlled licensing and legalisation, right?

I just think people who argue that legalisation wouldn't quite patently lead to an increase in usage are either stupid or disingenuous and actually make the otherwise sensible legalisation camp look naive and/or dishonest.

It really isn't unreasonable to assume that drug use could decrease though, as I posted. If you google around on heroin decrease in Switzerland you'll see what I mean. Just because one country experienced an increase in cannabis (a real anomaly in the illegal drugs camp) as a result of decriminalisation doesn't mean that the same would be true for other drugs that have been legalised. I think it's far from 'stupid' or 'naive' to think that drug use could decrease, provided the regulation and education was done properly.