Turn on thread page Beta

"All drugs should be legalised." watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The above quote was put to me last week and it got me thinking.

    On the one hand, who is the government to interfere in our private lives if it isn't harming anyone but the person taking it? If a person takes heroin in their own home, without harming anyone from the effects of it, then surely they should be allowed to do it without being treated as a criminal?

    However, I feel that while I still do not have an exact view on the matter, the arguments above are weak. The incidence of crime that is drug-related is high and the people that supply drugs often are involved in a number of other crimes. In addition, "hard" drug users often become addicted to the point that their health deteriorates, putting pressure on the health sector to treat them. So while some drugs should possibly legalised, I can't say I agree that ALL drugs should be legalised.

    Slightly swerving off topic, I found myself nodding in agreement with something similar to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...l-drugs-debate

    Anyway, I don't claim to know both sides of the argument fully, so post away, I want to hear your views.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Legalising drugs inevitably involves taxing them, which means that the healthcare system can actually derive funds from users to pay for treatment and public health programs to discourage irresponsible drug use. Legalising drugs also means that quality standards can be regulated and less users will die or suffer severe complications in the first place from poor quality drugs cut with chemical powders.

    In any case, drug use should certainly be decriminalised - it's had amazing results in Portugal. Drug users only resort to crime because there's no adequate public health policy preventing them from getting to a stage where they actually need to commit criminal acts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So you think only the user has effects from the drugs. LMAO!

    EDIT - You would change your mind if you saw me high lol!
    Offline

    16
    Crazy people, there will be negative externalities from this drug use.... smh blood liberals...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dandelionseason)
    However, I feel that while I still do not have an exact view on the matter, the arguments above are weak. The incidence of crime that is drug-related is high and the people that supply drugs often are involved in a number of other crimes. In addition, "hard" drug users often become addicted to the point that their health deteriorates, putting pressure on the health sector to treat them.
    Yeah but, that's just like, your opinion... man.

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I support drug legalisation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCurlyHairedDude)
    So you think only the user has effects from the drugs. LMAO!
    Actually, I do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Society doesn't stop people from eating themselves to death, why should society stop people from using recreational drugs which obviously have both positive and negative effects, not just negative effects. It should be up to the individual to decide.

    (Original post by TheCurlyHairedDude)
    So you think only the user has effects from the drugs. LMAO!
    Everything you do has an effect on other people. LMAO not. It is up to you to minimize the effects on other people. Also, prohibition never works, EVER!
    Offline

    16
    See my post on "Why do people baulk at drugs"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dandelionseason)
    The above quote was put to me last week and it got me thinking.

    On the one hand, who is the government to interfere in our private lives if it isn't harming anyone but the person taking it? If a person takes heroin in their own home, without harming anyone from the effects of it, then surely they should be allowed to do it without being treated as a criminal?

    However, I feel that while I still do not have an exact view on the matter, the arguments above are weak. The incidence of crime that is drug-related is high and the people that supply drugs often are involved in a number of other crimes. In addition, "hard" drug users often become addicted to the point that their health deteriorates, putting pressure on the health sector to treat them. So while some drugs should possibly legalised, I can't say I agree that ALL drugs should be legalised.

    Slightly swerving off topic, I found myself nodding in agreement with something similar to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...l-drugs-debate

    Anyway, I don't claim to know both sides of the argument fully, so post away, I want to hear your views.
    Yes but what happens when you legalize drugs? You kill the black market. You take the power out of the hands of unscrupulous dealers. Less exposure to more destructive drugs when a person goes to see a dealer for softer ones. You can enforce age limits like with alcohol. Drugs can be made safer/more pure through industry regulations. People can be sure of what dose they are getting. Perhaps some honest educational information about drugs might become available - there is so much bull**** spoken about them it's insane. Less health risk and less pressure on the health service - although I suspect there would initially be an increase in the number of users before the novelty of legal drugs wears off. They can be sold at affordable prices as it's only the illegality that makes them so expensive - less theft to pay for habits. It's no longer a crime so those who have addictions can be treated like patients, not criminals. People have an alternative to alcohol - say they use weed instead, then less violence. The sale of drugs boosts the economy just like alcohol. Police time and money is freed up to solve proper crimes. If many types of drugs were easily available, maybe people would be less tempted to get into the worst **** (heroin, crack, meth). Kids won't be criminalized for minor possession, ruining employment chances and making a life of crime more appealing.
    It's worth a shot because a blind man can see that prohibition has never been a success. If people want to do something they're gonna do it, whether the government approves or not, so they might as well start accepting it instead of pushing their fingers in their ears screaming "lalalala".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've tried nearly every drug under the sun apart from herion and I would not want them to be fully legalized. They are fine if you are like me and researched them thoroughly before trying anything, have the ability to take them without any permanent adverse effects (I have had very severe adverse reactions to them before). However, the vast majority of the population are plebs. Giving free and easy access to every single substance would result in a similar culture to our current binge drinking one, although replace alcohol with drugs. Look at when mephedrone was freely available, every single person in every nightclub was off their tits on it, it was ridiculous.

    I know it is hypocritical but I'd prefer to live in a society that drinks on the weekend rather than shoots up, because you can still function like a normal person after a night on the lash. You can't say the same snorting lines or what not, it would just compound the problem we already have.

    Besides it is not hard to get drugs now if you want it, the legislation just acts as a buffer in reducing overall drug users numbers. Those who don't know dealers or those who can't be arsed to go to the effort of obtaining them tend to avoid, if they were freely available, those same people would probably smash them just as they did with unregulated mephedrone.

    P.S. No longer do any drugs and hardly drink anymore, been there, done that. Focusing on more productive avenues now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dandelionseason)
    The above quote was put to me last week and it got me thinking.

    On the one hand, who is the government to interfere in our private lives if it isn't harming anyone but the person taking it? If a person takes heroin in their own home, without harming anyone from the effects of it, then surely they should be allowed to do it without being treated as a criminal?

    However, I feel that while I still do not have an exact view on the matter, the arguments above are weak. The incidence of crime that is drug-related is high and the people that supply drugs often are involved in a number of other crimes. In addition, "hard" drug users often become addicted to the point that their health deteriorates, putting pressure on the health sector to treat them. So while some drugs should possibly legalised, I can't say I agree that ALL drugs should be legalised.

    Slightly swerving off topic, I found myself nodding in agreement with something similar to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...l-drugs-debate

    Anyway, I don't claim to know both sides of the argument fully, so post away, I want to hear your views.
    Drug taking is like alcoholism, a symptom of a problem.

    Best to help people sort their problems out rather than encourage them to get a drug habit which only increases their problems.

    The hardest thing to get an alcoholic to accept is that they have a problem, pretty much the same with drug addicts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi I work for a drug service and someone using heroin would probably start off by using at home maybe once a week then their habit becomes daily and before you know it they are not staying at home not bothering anyone they are out grafting which causes crime to go up which then affects everyone so no they should not legalise drugs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
    Actually, I do.
    I really don't understand how you can think drugs only effect those who take them, alcohol alone shows this isn't the case e.g. criminal damage, increased likely hood of violence etc imagine the consequences of the harder stuff.

    I'm not particularly anti-legislation but that seems incredibly naive.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr.Manhattan)
    I really don't understand how you can think drugs only effect those who take them, alcohol alone shows this isn't the case e.g. criminal damage, increased likely hood of violence etc imagine the consequences of the harder stuff.

    I'm not particularly anti-legislation but that seems incredibly naive.
    Well alcohol falls into that category, and that's legal.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Drugs clearly affect others apart from those who take them. The fact is: the vast majority of those who take drugs are addicted and clearly legalising drugs will only cause the number addicted to drugs to go up, causing more problems for everyone. The term "recreational drug use" is really a misnomer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluxD)
    Look at when mephedrone was freely available, every single person in every nightclub was off their tits on it, it was ridiculous.
    More people take mephedrone now that it's illegal.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I've never taken drugs, but I fully support the legalisation of them.

    We could eliminate shady drug dealers by selling drugs on licensed premises, and we'd also be able to tax them and they'd still be cheaper than they are currently.

    Also, we wouldn't need to import (providing they'd grow in our climate) so we'd be able to provide jobs for more people

    And

    I've never paid for sex, but I also support the legalisation of this as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aequat omnes cinis)
    Drugs clearly affect others apart from those who take them. The fact is: the vast majority of those who take drugs are addicted and clearly legalising drugs will only cause the number addicted to drugs to go up, causing more problems for everyone. The term "recreational drug use" is really a misnomer.
    Yeah... apart from the fact that it's not. If you consider that half of all young people have tried pot. Around 10% of the population at least regularly uses it. At least 5% of the population regularly uses cocaine, and around 10% has ever used it. Only 0.2% of people have ever used heroin, and a tiny handful of those people are actually addicted. Do some research.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr.Manhattan)
    I really don't understand how you can think drugs only effect those who take them, alcohol alone shows this isn't the case e.g. criminal damage, increased likely hood of violence etc imagine the consequences of the harder stuff.

    I'm not particularly anti-legislation but that seems incredibly naive.
    Don't you know what happened during prohibition in America? Alcohol related crime sky rocketed, the quality of alcohol caused massive health problems, and to top it all off the government couldn't subsidise the cost to society of it's use through taxes. It's the exact same story with every single drug they've ever banned. Personally though, I think those who use heroin should be scripted it in daily amounts so they can't sell it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: October 1, 2011
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

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.