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

Is it time all illegal drugs are legalised? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Is it time all illegal drugs are legalised?
    Yes
    31
    41.33%
    No
    44
    58.67%

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    The drugs also need to be cheaper than a dealer can sell them for too otherwise there is no point


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They absolutely would be. Advanced manufacturing/harvesting. Competition. Intense marketing.

    Would definitely be cheaper than a dealer if drugs were suddenly legalized.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MountKimbie)
    They absolutely would be. Advanced manufacturing/harvesting. Competition. Intense marketing.

    Would definitely be cheaper than a dealer if drugs were suddenly legalized.
    For expensive drugs maybe not for cheap ones and still be taxed


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    For expensive drugs maybe not for cheap ones and still be taxed


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Expensive drugs such as?

    Besides even if they were slightly more expensive you're getting a superior product.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MountKimbie)
    Expensive drugs such as?
    Expensive drugs like cocaine


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Expensive drugs like cocaine


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The production costs of cocaine are relatively low in terms of how much leaf you need. The final price the user ends up paying is a different matter that is determined by things like supply/demand etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    The drugs also need to be cheaper than a dealer can sell them for too otherwise there is no point
    I can't see a problem with that; the overheads of an illegal drug selling operation are huge. If it were out in the open and commercially organised it would be far cheaper than it currently is.
    I am also willing to bet that many/most drug users would be willing to pay more for a product that is guaranteed to be unadulterated.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I could see this working but executive powers might be an issue. They would need to have enough oversight to be able to overrule the government should it come to that.
    Now that you mention it, that would be a bit tricky. I would prefer if the organisation is able to overrule the government of course it should have substantial evidence for doing so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Castro Saint)
    It's frustrating to see that most of the people who say no base their opinion on ignorant assumptions without even bothering to spend a bit of time researching the almost flawless idea of legalising drugs. :doh:

    Without going into too much detail look at these points, and bare in mind that this is also taking into account that most people that want to, and do, take drugs already have the ease of access to do so (trust me, I should know 😉):

    "The government will have to clean up after people taking drugs blah blah"

    Do you know how much money is spent on the war on drugs? Plus think about the money that selling these drugs will make. This money can easily be better spent on hospitals or other clinics to help people with whatever drug related problem if they need it. Ironically, most drug-related incidents happen because people are taking drugs that are advertised as X but turn out to be Y. Legalisation would directly combat this problem. It's a common presumption that the amount of drug taking will suddenly rise tenfold with legality, I assure you this will not happen lol. The number of people going to hospital for drugs-related cases will pretty much stay the same, if not simply decrease. As I stated before, if people want drugs they can get them now anyway.

    "People will go to work tripping balls on LSD, Coke etc."

    And I presume just because alcohol is legal every alcohol user goes to work drunk? It's very unlikely isn't it. And hey, if they do go to work high on whatever and get caught, then they can be dealt with like they would if they were drunk or high on prescription drugs... no biggy.

    "It makes it easier to get blah blah"

    I can assure you drugs are easier to get, in purer form, than ever before with the invention of the dark web marketplaces (and this is assuming one does not already have a trustworthy dealer down the road). If people want to get drugs, they can pretty much get whatever they want hassle free. What legalising drugs would do is make sure drug-takers are not getting punished/criminal records for something that puts nothing but themselves at harm, and cut out all of the nastiness that the current drug trade brings - exploitation of children and families, gang-related deaths and violence, cutting drugs with other substances etc.

    Also look at what is happening to the tobacco industry. Tobacco packets are covered in warnings, there are slidey doors in shops covering them up, there are countless resources to help people quit, and smoking is banned from loads of public places. The result? The number of smokers has decreased because of these regulations, because it's less easy to smoke and to be tolerated publicly by the rest of society. BUT, if you still choose to smoke, sure go ahead... it's still readily available to buy. The same type of system can be put in place for drug x, y and z. It will be as easy as it's ever been.

    ________

    Drugs are here to stay whether you like them or not. We can't even keep them out of our prison system. Prohibition doesn't work - open your eyes.
    A rep is not enough, I agree with this so much! Why can't people open their eyes?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bad Faith)
    Now that you mention it, that would be a bit tricky. I would prefer if the organisation is able to overrule the government of course it should have substantial evidence for doing so.
    I agree with your idea of an independent authority and one I like. It would be far better than the government having oversight.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I agree with your idea of an independent authority and one I like. It would be far better than the government having oversight.
    The problem now is how de we make it a reality rather than an idea? What will it take for the government to realise that the war on drugs is an expensive failure?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    anybody who's actually done their homework will understand, even if you hate drugs, the war on drugs actually harms the society that is subjected to it more than the harm of drugs itself. e.g. the most dangerous thing about weed, for example, isn't the effects of the substance, but actually getting caught with it. regarding all else, for example, the war on drugs makes the price of drugs horrendously and artificially high, so this means that crimes are more likely to occur to individuals (e.g. theft: burlgary and muggings) in order for addicts to extracts the funds they need for others, cartels are more likely to mistake normal citizens for gang members (in the case of mexico and the US-mexican border), etc. also, the taxation that you place on drugs (without the purpose of deterring consumption) pays for the rehabilitation of addicts, whom are often a minority of people (except perhaps for meth, particularly, but even heroin causes addiction in a minority of cases, as evidenced by the early 1800s america where heroin was prescribed by doctors)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    anybody who's actually done their homework will understand, even if you hate drugs, the war on drugs actually harms the society that is subjected to it more than the harm of drugs itself. e.g. the most dangerous thing about weed, for example, isn't the effects of the substance, but actually getting caught with it. regarding all else, for example, the war on drugs makes the price of drugs horrendously and artificially high, so this means that crimes are more likely to occur to individuals (e.g. theft: burlgary and muggings), cartels are more likely to mistake normal citizens for gang members (in the case of mexico and the US-mexican border), etc. also, the taxation that you place on drugs (without the purpose of deterring consumption) pays for the rehabilitation of addicts, whom are often a minority of people (except perhaps for meth, particularly, but even heroin causes addiction in a minority of cases, as evidenced by the early 1800s america where heroin was prescribed by doctors)
    How does the 'war on drugs' affect UK citizens?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MountKimbie)
    How does the 'war on drugs' affect UK citizens?
    not only have I already comprehensively answer that, I'll make some more points: the price for effectively policing the war on drugs is high. there are some communities in the UK that can't even afford to protect citizens from burglaries so how do you expect the police to take on an arbitrary duty of taking away the often non-dangerous substances of otherwise completely law abiding and peaceful citizens? why should UK tax payers subsidise a failed state project of stopping people taking drugs when there are more holes in that plan than swiss cheese? if the aim of the war on drugs is to stop people taking or being able to take drugs, it doesn't work. if the aim is to cure addiction, it fails even harder. I don't know what else you want me to suggestion. the war on drugs is the most unintelligent approach to deterring drug use imaginable. it magnifies every single issue with drugs in society. look at portugal and tell me, with their drug decriminalisation, that their results are worse than ours. tell me about switzerland and their crinics that allow heroin addicts to inject themselves with clinically cleaned syringes has made drug deaths higher than the UK's rate. tell me how the netherlands' ecstasy safety-test facilities has caused deaths from MDMA "overdoses" has been more likely to lead to further deaths than MDMA in the UK. this is ridiculous - the UK law/approach is more likely to cause the deaths of more people if they drive knowledge and safety regarding drugs into the dark while doing nothing to keep the practice of drugs deterred.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    not only have I already comprehensively answer that, I'll make some more points: the price for effectively policing the war on drugs is high. there are some communities in the UK that can't even afford to protect citizens from burglaries so how do you expect the police to take on an arbitrary duty of taking away the often non-dangerous substances of otherwise completely law abiding and peaceful citizens? why should UK tax payers subsidise a failed state project of stopping people taking drugs when there are more holes in that plan than swiss cheese?
    Hardly a 'war on drugs' in the UK though is it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MountKimbie)
    Hardly a 'war on drugs' in the UK though is it?
    of course it is. even in america, the stronghold of anti-drugs law enforcement, at least has many states that have legalised recreational marijuana, and an incredible amount of conservative states at least have legalised medical marijuana. in the UK, because of our astonishing institutional drug conservatism, we don't even have that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    of course it is. even in america, the stronghold of anti-drugs law enforcement, at least has many states that have legalised recreational marijuana, and an incredible amount of conservative states at least have legalised medical marijuana. in the UK, because of our astonishing institutional drug conservatism, we don't even have that.
    do you think responsible drug use is compatible with a very hedonistic society such as the UKs?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MountKimbie)
    do you think responsible drug use is compatible with a very hedonistic society such as the UKs?
    so if I went into a police station and consumed a responsible amount of MDMA they'd have no issue with that? I can't think of anything more hedonic than MDMA.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    so if I went into a police station and consumed a responsible amount of MDMA they'd have no issue with that? I can't think of anything more hedonic than MDMA.
    In the world where drugs are legalized I meant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MountKimbie)
    In the world where drugs are legalized I meant.
    well, I don't think people would be willing to use violence to prevent a person taking an mdma pill, if that's what you mean. that's why I don't think the government should. e.g. if the people themselves aren't willing to use violence to build a public library, neither should the government (via forcible taxation)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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

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