Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Q&A on 'legal highs'- ask a drugs expert your questions now! Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OwenBowdenJones)

    The problem with the regulate and decriminalised debate is that there is no perfect answer for everything. For example, heroin remains harmful and in the arms of the illegal drug trade, while alcohol a legal, regulated drug causes even more harm across the UK population.
    Enjoyed reading your posts and appreciate your insights.

    Want to comment on this though: I hear this a lot, that alcohol is the the drug which is responsible for the most harm etc, but this is misleading surely? I mean harm can be measured in so many different ways, so breaking it down into harm to self and harm to society, I'm imagining you find heroin use, or most other recreational drug (that isn't alcohol, tobacco or caffeine) use is going to have a much more detrimental effect on the user than alcohol use is, and, proportionately, is going to cause more damage to society. It's just that so many more people use alcohol, because it's tried and tested through thousands of years and ingrained in culture.

    So I don't like this oft-repeated mantra that alcohol causes more harm than other drugs because, intentionally or not, it will make some people think 'oh well I've drank alcohol loads of times, and if it causes more harm than cocaine then I guess it should be fine to try that too,' rather than 'I should treat alcohol with more respect.'

    Also I'm thinking, wouldn't it be better for people to use cocaine, for example, than drug X that was invented 9 weeks ago but has a nice package and is sold in a shop in Camden, similarly because it's been around London and people know what to expect more? I don't 'do drugs' (including alcohol), but if I were to, I would rather take cocaine than an unknown compound.
    • TSR Community Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Welcome Squad
    That's all from Dr Owen Bowden Jones! Thank you very much for joining us on The Student Room.

    Keep a look out for any more Q&A's happening in the future!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yeh GREAT Q&A where you delete my questions for some reasons, good communication.:clap2:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lehcarbat)
    Alcohol causes way more havoc. You can't make the "legal highs are dangerous" argument. The ban was put in place because legal highs are deemed socially unacceptable to people in government. they don't take kindly to drug users. None of your arguments are valid simply for the reason that alcohol causes more money to the NHS, deaths and health problems in UK.
    Alcohol is very dangerous. I am not trying to suggest otherwise. But as we have seen before banning something is not going to stop people from using it. The ban on alcohol has been tried and tested with no successful outcome (see Prohibition aka Volstead Act in 1919 America). A lot of people on this thread seem to think the word 'legal' next to high means they are safer than those that are currently illegal. THE 'LEGAL' DRUGS MIMIC THE EFFECTS OF VERY DANGEROUS ILLEGAL ONES. We can keep talking about alcohol yet you and myself know that alcohol will not receive any form of controlled legislation due to its socially acceptable use. Legislating on these 'psychoactive' substances will not eradicate them completely but it will make them much harder to access. Legal highs worked for some addicts as a replacement to darker alternatives e.g. crack, heroin etc but these substances can cause as much damage. The prison system across the UK is infected with the consequences of Spice/Black Mamba. Unfortunately, these substances were killing people. As I have previously stated, legislation isn't going to remove the issue completely but it is a step forward.

    In my opinion, the governing bodies that deal with drugs in the UK should reach a deal with companies to produce drugs that can be enjoyed with no horrific side effects. The israeli chemist that revolutionised the legal high world will tell you his reasons for making such substances. I suggest you check some of his work.

    Please don't respond with the same broken record that is alcohol use. It is very dangerous (I will say it again) but we simply cannot combat the issue unless we educate the entire population. Drinking is so socially accepted it has almost become a disease. These days people can't enjoy themselves in other company unless there is alcohol on deck. It is ridiculous. We should try and spend time on things that could have a significant, positive outcome. The war against alcohol is a constant battle that is never going to be won.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Numero Uno)
    Yeh GREAT Q&A where you delete my questions for some reasons, good communication.:clap2:
    Did you say something to me? Can't see your posts.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Certified)
    Alcohol is very dangerous. I am not trying to suggest otherwise. But as we have seen before banning something is not going to stop people from using it. The ban on alcohol has been tried and tested with no successful outcome (see Prohibition aka Volstead Act in 1919 America). A lot of people on this thread seem to think the word 'legal' next to high means they are safer than those that are currently illegal. THE 'LEGAL' DRUGS MIMIC THE EFFECTS OF VERY DANGEROUS ILLEGAL ONES. We can keep talking about alcohol yet you and myself know that alcohol will not receive any form of controlled legislation due to its socially acceptable use. Legislating on these 'psychoactive' substances will not eradicate them completely but it will make them much harder to access. Legal highs worked for some addicts as a replacement to darker alternatives e.g. crack, heroin etc but these substances can cause as much damage. The prison system across the UK is infected with the consequences of Spice/Black Mamba. Unfortunately, these substances were killing people. As I have previously stated, legislation isn't going to remove the issue completely but it is a step forward.

    In my opinion, the governing bodies that deal with drugs in the UK should reach a deal with companies to produce drugs that can be enjoyed with no horrific side effects. The israeli chemist that revolutionised the legal high world will tell you his reasons for making such substances. I suggest you check some of his work.

    Please don't respond with the same broken record that is alcohol use. It is very dangerous (I will say it again) but we simply cannot combat the issue unless we educate the entire population. Drinking is so socially accepted it has almost become a disease. These days people can't enjoy themselves in other company unless there is alcohol on deck. It is ridiculous. We should try and spend time on things that could have a significant, positive outcome. The war against alcohol is a constant battle that is never going to be won.
    Who seems to think legal means safe? I haven't seen anyone claiming that. That said, most of the stuff banned by this legislation is significantly safer. Dozens, if not hundreds, of substances are now banned, some of which don't even exist yet. You can pick out synthetic cannabis and pretend legal highs are all demon drugs, and I can pick out nitrous oxide, which is as dangerous as sucking the helium from a balloon. Ironically, the synthetic alcohol which is being developed specifically as a safe alternative to alcohol, will be illegal under this legislation.

    As you acknowledged yourself, prohibition has never worked, so its not even relevant whether they're safe or not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Certified)
    Did you say something to me? Can't see your posts.
    Dunno probably one of the admins as they have the authority to do so.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Who seems to think legal means safe? I haven't seen anyone claiming that. That said, most of the stuff banned by this legislation is significantly safer. Dozens, if not hundreds, of substances are now banned, some of which don't even exist yet. You can pick out synthetic cannabis and pretend legal highs are all demon drugs, and I can pick out nitrous oxide, which is as dangerous as sucking the helium from a balloon. Ironically, the synthetic alcohol which is being developed specifically as a safe alternative to alcohol, will be illegal under this legislation.

    As you acknowledged yourself, prohibition has never worked, so its not even relevant whether they're safe or not.
    Thank you for an educated response. Makes a change.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Who seems to think legal means safe? I haven't seen anyone claiming that. That said, most of the stuff banned by this legislation is significantly safer. Dozens, if not hundreds, of substances are now banned, some of which don't even exist yet. You can pick out synthetic cannabis and pretend legal highs are all demon drugs, and I can pick out nitrous oxide, which is as dangerous as sucking the helium from a balloon. Ironically, the synthetic alcohol which is being developed specifically as a safe alternative to alcohol, will be illegal under this legislation.

    As you acknowledged yourself, prohibition has never worked, so its not even relevant whether they're safe or not.
    It may seem as though there are so many unnecessarily banned substances, on the grounds that they are 'harmless'. I think it's generally safe to assume, anything illegal, is illegal for a reason. The legal line is really important to loaddss of people, who wouldn't take drugs on the basis of legality ('they're illegal for a reason, right?').

    These are people who might take legal highs in place of illegal highs; which can be equally dangerous, not necessarily chemically, but in the immediate effects the drug has on the body. Someone who has taken a legal high is not safe to drive, for example, and many other activities can become fatally dangerous under the influence of such drugs.

    It's true that alcohol has hazardous effects also, but alcohol is regulated, and illegal for certain ages, illegal to drink and drive, perhaps illegal to be drunk at work etc.

    These legal highs simply cannot continue to remain legal in the way they are. At least regulated, but really, the first step is to introduce a blanket ban, and work from there.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milzime)
    It may seem as though there are so many unnecessarily banned substances, on the grounds that they are 'harmless'. I think it's generally safe to assume, anything illegal, is illegal for a reason.
    Why would you assume that? This legislation literally bans hundreds of substances, many of which don't even exist yet. You're being very naive if you believe that most of the idiot MPs involved in this catastrophe even know of a tenth of the substances being banned, because they really have no idea. You can't ban something for a reason if you don't even know it exists. So that's not a safe assumption at all.

    The legal line is really important to loaddss of people, who wouldn't take drugs on the basis of legality ('they're illegal for a reason, right?'.
    And yet the overwhelming consensus among researchers is that criminalizing drugs DOES NOT REDUCE DRUG USE. We don't even need to look at research, though, because this exact piece of legislation was passed in Ireland, which now has the highest use of psychoactive substances in the EU. This law has already been done, it's already been shown categorically to fail to do what it intends to do, and had the wonderful side-effect of forcing people to buy from illegal suppliers instead, which makes things even more dangerous. What makes the UK so different from Ireland that a law that was a cataclysmic failure there will be a success here?

    These are people who might take legal highs in place of illegal highs; which can be equally dangerous, not necessarily chemically, but in the immediate effects the drug has on the body. Someone who has taken a legal high is not safe to drive, for example, and many other activities can become fatally dangerous under the influence of such drugs.
    You just can't make this generalisation. Again, there are hundreds of substances considered "legal highs". There are many, many drugs that are perfectly safe to drive on. People drive under the influence of caffeine and nicotine on a regular basis. Stimulants like amphetamines, to some extent, will make people significantly safer drivers. I have no doubt that there are dozens of substances that are now banned which would have no impact on a persons ability to drive.

    It's true that alcohol has hazardous effects also, but alcohol is regulated, and illegal for certain ages, illegal to drink and drive, perhaps illegal to be drunk at work etc.

    These legal highs simply cannot continue to remain legal in the way they are. At least regulated, but really, the first step is to introduce a blanket ban, and work from there.
    You're right, there should be some form of regulation. This isn't a first step toward regulation. It's an atrocious piece of legislation which has already failed, which we know will significantly exacerbate the problem, which outlaws far too many safe, useful substances, and is another big slap in the face for psychiatric pharmacology. We're being dragged back to the stone age by these clueless, chest-pounding neanderthals, but we'll just keep burying our heads in the sand. In a few years, when the stats are out and they show that drug use has gone up, addiction has gone up, deaths have gone up, and this steaming hot **** of a law has made the problem a billion times worse, we'll still be patting ourselves on the back for being TOUGH ON CRIME™.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by OwenBowdenJones)
    One the other hand, younger users, in their teens, might be put off by the risk of taking something illegal. Certainly some of my young users only take 'legal highs' because they don't want to risk a criminal record.
    This just isn't how young people think, and really demonstrates a lack of understanding and disconnect from reality. Young people who take drugs, or are likely to take drugs, are not scared of risking a criminal record. Picking up from a dealer is not seen as risky to anyone who has picked up at least once.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Why would you assume that? This legislation literally bans hundreds of substances, many of which don't even exist yet. You're being very naive if you believe that most of the idiot MPs involved in this catastrophe even know of a tenth of the substances being banned, because they really have no idea. You can't ban something for a reason if you don't even know it exists. So that's not a safe assumption at all.
    hm hm okay, sure, maybe the MPs ain't as capable shall we say, but I still think that the legal line is important, and significant, and it does (should) make a difference.

    To be honest, I just don't see how keeping these things legal is okay. Even morally. Maybe not even a blanket ban whatever but for christs sake there are some substances with minuscule differences to class A drugs which are legal. I just, personally, cannot, accept this as okay.


    And yet the overwhelming consensus among researchers is that criminalizing drugs DOES NOT REDUCE DRUG USE. We don't even need to look at research, though, because this exact piece of legislation was passed in Ireland, which now has the highest use of psychoactive substances in the EU. This law has already been done, it's already been shown categorically to fail to do what it intends to do, and had the wonderful side-effect of forcing people to buy from illegal suppliers instead, which makes things even more dangerous. What makes the UK so different from Ireland that a law that was a cataclysmic failure there will be a success here?
    ahhh it's not necessarily the net reduction of drug use per say, but just the principal of having such harmful substances as totally legal. For example, there is almost no difference between LSD and 1P-LSD, apart from the fact one is labelled a class A drug under the law, and the other is totally fine, legally speaking.
    This is not okay.



    You just can't make this generalisation. Again, there are hundreds of substances considered "legal highs". There are many, many drugs that are perfectly safe to drive on. People drive under the influence of caffeine and nicotine on a regular basis. Stimulants like amphetamines, to some extent, will make people significantly safer drivers. I have no doubt that there are dozens of substances that are now banned which would have no impact on a persons ability to drive.
    okay yeah, fair enough, fine, okay. I still can honestly with confidence continue to feel that certain legal highs simply cannot remain legal.



    You're right, there should be some form of regulation. This isn't a first step toward regulation. It's an atrocious piece of legislation which has already failed, which we know will significantly exacerbate the problem, which outlaws far too many safe, useful substances, and is another big slap in the face for psychiatric pharmacology. We're being dragged back to the stone age by these clueless, chest-pounding neanderthals, but we'll just keep burying our heads in the sand. In a few years, when the stats are out and they show that drug use has gone up, addiction has gone up, deaths have gone up, and this steaming hot **** of a law has made the problem a billion times worse, we'll still be patting ourselves on the back for being TOUGH ON CRIME™.
    ugh sorry for the rant-like stubbornness. I am someone who would probably be on the other side of this argument, if I hadn't been personally affected by the continued legalisation of certain legal-highs.

    *deep sigh*

    just ban them. It may be difficult, and 'impractical' and there are obviously many exceptions, but imo it's a better staring point to ban 'em all, then chip away at that, as opposed to having them all okay, and then awkwardly try to ban bits and pieces..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milzime)
    hm hm okay, sure, maybe the MPs ain't as capable shall we say, but I still think that the legal line is important, and significant, and it does (should) make a difference.

    To be honest, I just don't see how keeping these things legal is okay. Even morally. Maybe not even a blanket ban whatever but for christs sake there are some substances with minuscule differences to class A drugs which are legal. I just, personally, cannot, accept this as okay.
    I don't think there's any room for morality when discussing drug criminalisation.

    Many drugs are illegal. We lock people up, give them criminal records, spend tens of millions of pounds doing all of this and ruining their lives in the process. To what end? It is a solid, undeniable fact that criminalising drug use simply DOES NOT STOP PEOPLE FROM USING DRUGS. So why are we locking them up? You're lying to yourself if you think it's to "protect people". It's not, because it protects nobody, because people use drugs anyway. We somehow seem to have this absurd belief that drugs ruin lives, and to remedy this we need to ruin more lives. The vast majority of drug users, just like the majority of alcohol users and even smokers, would use drugs responsibly, never suffer any negative effects, and lead happy, productive lives. Imprisoning people for such an utterly ridiculous "crime" ruins far, far more lives than drugs ever will.

    Then there's the people who can't use drugs responsibly. The addicts. The rare few who, due to biological and social factors, end up abusing substances. Instead of offering them treatment, support, and helping them get their lives back together, we throw them in prison and ensure that they'll never again be productive members of society. Because drugs are bad, and we need to protect them, of course! We could offer rehabilitation, which would lead to less addiction, fewer deaths, and ultimately cost a lot less, but we've somehow decided that throwing people in prison, surrounded by real criminals, protects them more.

    There's also the fact that most of the harm that comes from recreational drug use (aside from throwing people in prison) is due to impurities. Drugs are illegal, so people are forced to buy from dodgy dealers. Dealers cut their products with various nasty things to make more money. People who would otherwise be absolutely fine now end up dead.

    Oh, and let's not forget all the harm it does to psychiatric medicine! MDMA has been shown to be hugely effective in treating PTSD. Cannabis has been used to treat depression, anxiety, Tourettes, cerebral palsy and all manner of things. Psychedelics have the potential to treat depression more effectively than any medication currently available. We could have been treating chronic, debilitating diseases 50 years ago, but these drugs were outlawed. That is indefensible, it's ****ing disgusting. And if anyone has the gall to try to treat themselves, the *******s, lock them up and throw away the key, because druggies are scum, drugs are bad and they ruin lives!!!!!!!

    So who, exactly, are we helping here? The people who don't try drugs because they're illegal? Those people are the absolute negligible minority, and there's a mountain of evidence to prove it. We ruin hundreds of thousands of lives, and spend billions of pounds, to prevent a few thousand people from using drugs - and most of those people wouldn't come to any harm anyway.

    Criminalisation of drugs is as immoral as it gets. It's barbaric, cruel, and our treatment of drug users is sickening.

    Sorry, that was a hell of a rant and I think I went off on a bit of a tangent.

    ahhh it's not necessarily the net reduction of drug use per say, but just the principal of having such harmful substances as totally legal. For example, there is almost no difference between LSD and 1P-LSD, apart from the fact one is labelled a class A drug under the law, and the other is totally fine, legally speaking.
    This is not okay.

    okay yeah, fair enough, fine, okay. I still can honestly with confidence continue to feel that certain legal highs simply cannot remain legal.

    ugh sorry for the rant-like stubbornness. I am someone who would probably be on the other side of this argument, if I hadn't been personally affected by the continued legalisation of certain legal-highs.

    *deep sigh*

    just ban them. It may be difficult, and 'impractical' and there are obviously many exceptions, but imo it's a better staring point to ban 'em all, then chip away at that, as opposed to having them all okay, and then awkwardly try to ban bits and pieces..
    I understand what you're saying - there are legal drugs that are almost exactly the same, functionally, as class A drugs. But we're going in the wrong direction. If we want to save lives, we should be decriminalising controlled drugs (which are often actually very safe) instead of banning more. Most harm from drug use comes, directly or indirectly, from prohibition, not from the drugs themselves. The absolute best possible result of this legislation is that people start to use illegal drugs rather than formerly legal highs, since they're now all illegal. The more likely result is that people simply start buying from illegal suppliers, so drugs that were previously fairly safe are now incredibly dangerous.

    Is that result worth another 50 years of refusing effective medicines to people with psychiatric or neurological illnesses? Is it worth completely preventing the development of safe alternatives to some of the most dangerous drugs (ie alcohol, opioids) in the world? Especially when we could achieve the same awful result with a better piece of legislation, without the horrendous side-effects and reckless blanket-banning. This law sets a horrible precedent. When non-addictive opioids are developed, and safe synthetic alcohol, these drugs won't get exemptions. It took a huge outcry to get poppers exempted, and there are still many, many safe substances that are banned.

    I completely understand why you feel that something needs to be done about legal highs. But we need to start recognising the fact that prohibition does not work, and often makes the problem worse. When we ban substances like this, it's purely to make ourselves feel better, but in reality we're just killing people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabstercat)
    This just isn't how young people think, and really demonstrates a lack of understanding and disconnect from reality. Young people who take drugs, or are likely to take drugs, are not scared of risking a criminal record. Picking up from a dealer is not seen as risky to anyone who has picked up at least once.
    Exactly. If someone wants to try drugs, sooner or later they'll realise that they can order them online and get them delivered to their house the next day with virtually no risk of legal repercussions. I think, in the case of people who want to try drugs but don't because it's illegal, it's just a matter of time before they realize that there's not really any chance of getting caught so they do it anyway.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    What absolute rubbish. The fact that it's the 21st century and adults still aren't allowed to do what they want with their own bodies is a joke.
    Sure. But then the taxes other adults are paying are going towards providing treatment for dumb people who do drugs, rather than people who actually need treatment for an illness that didn't arise from their idiocy
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Let us not forget people on drugs may be a threat to other people
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shuu00)
    Sure. But then the taxes other adults are paying are going towards providing treatment for dumb people who do drugs, rather than people who actually need treatment for an illness that didn't arise from their idiocy
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Let us not forget people on drugs may be a threat to other people
    ........Rather than hundreds of millions of pounds going towards arresting, going through the courts, keeping people locked in already overcrowded prisons? And rather than paying a little bit for rehabilitation, we pay an absurd amount of money to put them through the criminal justice system, ensuring that they'll never become productive members of society and never contribute taxes themselves, and then paying even more to arrest them and put them in prison again when they inevitably become criminals because we ruined their lives? What an utterly ridiculous, ignorant point.

    Even if we ignore the simple fact that we'd be spending an absolutely miniscule amount of money rehabilitating people compared to what we spend throwing them in prison, and the loss of productive members of society, what you're saying is still absurd. Do you want to ban extreme sports so your taxes don't have to pay for treatment for dumb people that get into sporting accidents? Do you want to ban smoking and alcohol, too? Maybe we should ban sugar, since that's by far the biggest drain on the NHS, more than any drug.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    ........Rather than hundreds of millions of pounds going towards arresting, going through the courts, keeping people locked in already overcrowded prisons? And rather than paying a little bit for rehabilitation, we pay an absurd amount of money to put them through the criminal justice system, ensuring that they'll never become productive members of society and never contribute taxes themselves, and then paying even more to arrest them and put them in prison again when they inevitably become criminals because we ruined their lives? What an utterly ridiculous, ignorant point.

    Even if we ignore the simple fact that we'd be spending an absolutely miniscule amount of money rehabilitating people compared to what we spend throwing them in prison, and the loss of productive members of society, what you're saying is still absurd. Do you want to ban extreme sports so your taxes don't have to pay for treatment for dumb people that get into sporting accidents? Do you want to ban smoking and alcohol, too? Maybe we should ban sugar, since that's by far the biggest drain on the NHS, more than any drug.
    Well for one, such people most likely were not "productive members of society" anyway.

    "Minuscule" amount of money. Do you have any figures to back up your claim? Because I'm pretty sure that finding people qualified to provide therapy and/or paying for their training is not a "minuscule" amount of money. Why do you think the NHS is continually cutting funds for the mental health sector? They just can't afford to be giving people therapy. Therapy (or counselling, to be precise) is provided on a one-to-one basis. You think they have enough trained and qualified people to provide care for the thousands of people that are prosecuted for drugs, let alone provide care for people with mental illnesses?

    Let's not forget that making certain substances illegal WILL in fact result in less people even starting drugs. There is a fear involved so people are less likely to start because they know there are consequences (obviously this has little to no effect on addicts).

    So to clear things up, I do not think I'm being absurd in the slightest. Comparing drugs to substances such as sugar is what is absurd. It's hard to limit the consumption of something that is so widely used by the vast majority of the population, the same applies to smoking and alcohol; too many people consume them. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of the population haven't tried recreational drugs and/or legal highs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shuu00)
    Well for one, such people most likely were not "productive members of society" anyway. Also, you're saying that prisoners do not get counselling and therapy? Why do you think multiple programs are in play in an attempt to integrate such people back into society once they are out?
    Sorry, what? 21% of people in the UK use illegal drugs. I'm curious how you've managed to conclude that most of that huge chunk of our society aren't productive. Do you serious believe that all drug users are addicts? Do you think everyone that drinks alcohol is also not a productive member of society?

    Prisoners get some rehabilitation, but they also get prison. I don't understand how you seem to think that rehabilitating people AND putting them in prison is somehow cheaper than just rehabilitating people...

    "Minuscule" amount of money. Do you have any figures to back up your claim? Because I'm pretty sure that finding people qualified to provide therapy and/or paying for their training is not a "minuscule" amount of money. Why do you think the NHS is continually cutting funds for the mental health sector? They just can't afford to be giving people therapy. Therapy (or consoling, to be precise) is provided on a one-to-one basis, you think they have enough trained and qualified people to provide care for the thousands of people that do drugs?
    Miniscule in comparison to the £billions we spend putting people in prison for victimless crimes, yes. Has is never occurred to you that maybe we'd have more money if we didn't lock tens of thousands of people up for drug use?


    Let's not forget that making certain substances illegal WILL in fact result in less people even starting drugs. There is a fear involved so people are less likely to start because they know there are consequences (obviously this has little to no effect on addicts).
    EXCEPT THAT IT WON'T.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...619-X/abstract

    Portugal and the Czech Republic decriminalised ALL DRUGS and they found that THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN DRUG USE. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence which shows, conclusively, that making drugs illegal DOES NOT REDUCE DRUG USE.

    So to clear things up, I do not think I'm being absurd in the slightest. Comparing drugs to substances such as sugar is what is absurd. It's hard to limit the consumption of something that is so widely used by the vast majority of the population, the same applies to smoking and alcohol; too many people consume them. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of the population haven't tried recreational drugs and/or legal highs.
    Why is it relevant that lots of people consume them? 21% of people consume drugs, about the same proportion that regularly consume alcohol. But the point which you seem to have missed is that you don't want your taxes to pay to treat drug users, and yet you're perfectly happy to spend £14billion a year to treat smokers and £27billion a year to treat the obese.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    so they ban legal highs yet they making mdma a prescription drug in america ?? society has crumbled and always will
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Instead of making them illegal, I think it'd be much more effective if they regulated use of them; illegal doesn't mean that nobody will use them - people will always find ways to obtain illegal substances. Look at marijuana, cocaine, etc. They're illegal but easily accessible. But oh well. :dontknow:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 11, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.