The UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime is to publish a report called on world governments to decriminalise the use and possession of ‘all drugs’, it has been claimed.
In a statement published online today, Richard Branson, said that the UNODC has prepared a statement calling for governments to ‘decriminalise drug use and possession for personal consumption for all drugs’.
Branson said that the document is ready to be published – and says that he hopes the UN group will not yield to political pressure from ‘one government’ to stop publication.
You must think that arsenic should be available over the counter then. It is a drug, and currently illegal to sell.
I was thinking more cannabis, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, LSD, speed...All that lot. Better to buy over a counter than via the streets which leads to gang crime.
I was thinking more cannabis, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, LSD, speed...All that lot. Better to buy over a counter than via the streets which leads to gang crime.
Ah! So "all drugs" does not mean what one might expect it to mean.
Do we really have to start attaching the word 'recreational' to the word 'drugs' so we can have this discussion without these lame 'gotcha' arguments?
I think so. One man's recreational drug is another man's poison. People use stupid things like ketamine for recreational purposes these days.
If a substance is banned from sale to protect the public from harm (like arsenic), where does the government draw the line for other substances that can cause harm? Crack cocaine is enormously dangerous to its users, for instance.
Decriminalisation basically means not fining/imprisoning people for use or possession of drugs. It means addicts can come forward for help without risk of being put in jail. Dealing in drugs, however, would still be considered illegal.
Obviously, full legalisation implies decriminalisation, but not the other way around.
Decriminalisation basically means not fining/imprisoning people for use or possession of drugs. It means addicts can come forward for help without risk of being put in jail. Dealing in drugs, however, would still be considered illegal.
Obviously, full legalisation implies decriminalisation, but not the other way around.
I see. It is rather like using "all drugs" to mean "recreational drugs", isn't it? This commandeering of the language, unfortunately cause confusion. Are people really asking for the possession of any substance held for recreational purposes to be legal? If they are they haven't thought it through.
I think so. One man's recreational drug is another man's poison. People use stupid things like ketamine for recreational purposes these days.
If a substance is banned from sale to protect the public from harm (like arsenic), where does the government draw the line for other substances that can cause harm? Crack cocaine is enormously dangerous to its users, for instance.
I mean, arsenic has zero recreational value, is not in itself illegal and is covered by totally different laws to substances that come under the Misuse of Drugs act, which are clearly the ones that people are referring to when they talk about legalising 'drugs'. Ketamine is a stupid comparison because, y'know, it's actually fun to use and relatively safe which is why people use it.
I mean, arsenic has zero recreational value, is not in itself illegal and is covered by totally different laws to substances that come under the Misuse of Drugs act, which are clearly the ones that people are referring to when they talk about legalising 'drugs'. Ketamine is a stupid comparison because, y'know, it's actually fun to use and relatively safe which is why people use it.
So you are saying that the actual law under which something is made illegal is relevant. Would it be OK to ban possession of crack cocaine under the same legislation that arsenic is banned, then?
Is it worth pointing out that some arsenic compounds have been used as stimulants (in the past)?