Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The idea of legalising drugs is completely, totally, one-hundred percent ludicrous. Do you think that if A grade drugs were suddenly made totally legal to possess and use, humanity would enter some kind of Utopian existence wherein users would not be stigmatised and children would not feel pressured into experimenting?

    This concept doesn't just worry me, it really makes me angry. In many Latin American countries, glue is the drug of choice and it comes just as easily as any other consumer product. Unfortunately, most Latin American teenagers don't heroically opt to stay away from this highly powerful and addictive substance. As a result, the minds of generations are slowly melting away into chemical-filled stupors.

    A common perspective seems to be 'it's my choice, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, why should I not be allowed to do it?' This is RUBBISH. To give in to the classic cliche, No man is an island. Neither are drug users.

    Likewise, governments do not ban drugs for the hell of it. They do it for personal safety, much like how they implement gun restrictions.

    Please, please none of your pro-druggies end up becoming PM or something.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    Please, please none of your pro-druggies end up becoming PM or something.
    i also care deeply about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes

    how dare they
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Saurus)
    i also care deeply about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes

    how dare they

    I'm sure neither of us want this to slide into a debate on privacy etc, but I'd prefer the government/police ensure that my neighbours aren't on Class A drugs and jumping into cars, while my children (if I had them...) are playing in the garden.

    Okay maybe a little too hypothetical, but do you see what I mean?

    PS: I am not as right-winged as I seem, would call myself more left-leaning...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    I'm sure neither of us want this to slide into a debate on privacy etc, but I'd prefer the government/police ensure that my neighbours aren't on Class A drugs and jumping into car
    but driving drunk is a criminal offense at the moment obviously driving on drugs is also a criminal offense. this is the trouble with the current system is that responsible drug users who make sure their habit doesn't harm anyone are punished in exactly the same way as people who i don't know take smack and then go to their job as a mining engineer
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    The idea of legalising drugs is completely, totally, one-hundred percent ludicrous. Do you think that if A grade drugs were suddenly made totally legal to possess and use, humanity would enter some kind of Utopian existence wherein users would not be stigmatised and children would not feel pressured into experimenting?
    Of course there would not be a utopian society, but many fewer people would die from taking drugs/ the illegal drug trade. It would also mean that users are not treated the same as violent criminals, but as what they are - vulnerable people who need help finding stability, not locking up.

    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    This concept doesn't just worry me, it really makes me angry. In many Latin American countries, glue is the drug of choice and it comes just as easily as any other consumer product. Unfortunately, most Latin American teenagers don't heroically opt to stay away from this highly powerful and addictive substance. As a result, the minds of generations are slowly melting away into chemical-filled stupors.
    It makes me angry that instead of helping these kids, they are put in prison and treated as criminals - driving them further away from mainstream society, and compounding their problems.

    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    A common perspective seems to be 'it's my choice, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, why should I not be allowed to do it?' This is RUBBISH. To give in to the classic cliche, No man is an island. Neither are drug users.
    Saying things are rubbish with nothing to back it up except a cliche does not count as an argument. Why should someone be prevented from doing something which doesn't hurt anyone else?

    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    Likewise, governments do not ban drugs for the hell of it. They do it for personal safety, much like how they implement gun restrictions.
    Yeah, Cannabis was banned on the basis of the profound and complex understanding we had of neuropharmacology in the 1920's. Safety had nothing to do with it, it had everything to do preventing 'good pure white women being raped by those manically stoned darkies'.

    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    Please, please none of your pro-druggies end up becoming PM or something.
    Heaven forbid anyone should want a drug policy based on rationality, evidence and harm reduction rather than hysteria and political posturing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Saurus)
    but driving drunk is a criminal offense at the moment obviously driving on drugs is also a criminal offense. this is the trouble with the current system is that responsible drug users who make sure their habit doesn't harm anyone are punished in exactly the same way as people who i don't know take smack and then go to their job as a mining engineer

    Hmm...I'm sorry, having never been addicted to drugs myself, this might seem a bit harsh but...I can't call anyone who uses drugs more potent than cannabis 'responsible' regardless of the quantities they take it in.

    While a glass of wine in the evening may be responsible drinking, a line or two of coke in the afternoon is a little different.

    But say we decided to somehow marginalise drug users into 'responsible' and 'reckless'; how could a government ever go about doing this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    But say we decided to somehow marginalise drug users into 'responsible' and 'reckless'; how could a government ever go about doing this?
    people who use drugs in a private setting by themselves or with other adults = responsible

    people who offer drugs to minors, use drugs in front of minors, use drugs before commanding a vehicle, using machinery, etc etc = irresponsible
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomber)
    Heaven forbid anyone should want a drug policy based on rationality, evidence and harm reduction rather than hysteria and political posturing.

    Tomber, you make some good points. I apologise for the over-dramatic tone I took on my first post. You're right, a cliche is not a very effective form of evidence.

    I cannot get to grips with this idea that a ban on drugs means a greater proliferation of illegal substances. I live in Singapore, where there is an extremely strict policy on drug use and trafficking (death by hanging is mandatory for carrying as little as 15g of heroin). Surprise surprise, in my 9 years in this country, I have never once encountered drugs.

    Make of this what you will, Tomber. I just want to see if you can still prescribe the same argument, or if you might admit that I could be a little bit right?

    I don't know what to think of cannabis, I am sure you know more about its safeties/dangers and lack thereof. However, I find any argument to support the use of any drugs more powerful than weed a very difficult one to support.

    Nevertheless, I do agree with you that those who are made most susceptible to drugs should be educated and helped, not punished and ostracised.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    coke and heroin shouldnt be legalised.

    apart from that there much of a muchness
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I entirely agree with Tomber on the issue, it's a shame my boyfriend is banned at the moment or he'd hand you your ass on a plate LazyLuke. Never the less i'll give it a try.

    I am all for the legalisation of all drugs, and the heavy regulation and taxation of all drugs apart from cocaine and heroin. Heroin would be provided for addicts in clinics free of charge, as paid for by the massive revenue from a) taxes and b) our prisons which will only be 1/3 full compared to now. From here there will be extremely good treatment options should said addict decide to quit, and upon completion of the program he will re-enter a community where the heroin dealer will be out of business, as it is a common known fact that dealers create users who become dealers and get their friends involved.

    As for other drugs: Weed, mdma, ketamine, lsd etc. I would advocate these being sold legally in heavily supervised and limited situations; of course this will require a lot of thought. MDMA for instance carries a lesser chance of killing you than a peanut. It is my belief that somebody who is doing no harm to anyone else in doing said drugs should be able to pay taxes on their drug use to pay for any possible sticky outcome for themselves and others. As it stands a prison sentence for me for carrying some pills will do a lot more harm than the pills themselves which is ridiculous.

    Finally I don't think prohibition is a fight that we can win, and this has been proven time and again. The very fact we can't keep drugs out of prison, a place where only a few thousand people are housed, where all incomings and out goings are checked thoroughly, leads me to believe they could never succeed in doing this on a country wide basis.

    Here's a quick summary of what we could gain:
    -Pleasure
    -Safety
    -Lower taxes for policing
    -Denying income to criminals
    -A better foreign policy
    http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin097.pdf

    What all these things mean in turn is of course for you to work out, i'm not a spoon feeder.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    I live in Singapore, where there is an extremely strict policy on drug use and trafficking (death by hanging is mandatory for carrying as little as 15g of heroin).
    you ****ing savages

    "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself" - Jimmy Carter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    Tomber, you make some good points. I apologise for the over-dramatic tone I took on my first post. You're right, a cliche is not a very effective form of evidence.

    I cannot get to grips with this idea that a ban on drugs means a greater proliferation of illegal substances. I live in Singapore, where there is an extremely strict policy on drug use and trafficking (death by hanging is mandatory for carrying as little as 15g of heroin). Surprise surprise, in my 9 years in this country, I have never once encountered drugs.

    Make of this what you will, Tomber. I just want to see if you can still prescribe the same argument, or if you might admit that I could be a little bit right?

    I don't know what to think of cannabis, I am sure you know more about its safeties/dangers and lack thereof. However, I find any argument to support the use of any drugs more powerful than weed a very difficult one to support.

    Nevertheless, I do agree with you that those who are made most susceptible to drugs should be educated and helped, not punished and ostracised.
    Thanks, always good to debate politely

    I don't think that prohibition has lead to a greater proliferation of drugs in pure numbers, but that's not my primary concern - my concern is with harm reduction. As I see it, if more people are using, but fewer are being harmed by it, then that is a victory. As the drug trade stands, it is a multi billion dollar industry which is run by paramilitaries and ruthless gangsters, who are subject to no regulation whatsoever. The people who stand to lose the most from decriminalisation are the drug barons themselves. I don't argue for a lessening of restrictions based upon the belief that some of these drugs are ok to use, but from a pragmatic position of how best to deal with their use, which isn't going to go away unless you do ridiculously illogical things, like executing people for possessing substances which could hurt them (:confused: even in Singapore there is an extensive drug culture anyway) and ensure peoples safety, and the lessening of violent crime.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    It's a shame my boyfriend is banned at the moment
    Elipsis, at a guess?

    We've battled together on this issue many a time :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomber)
    Elipsis, at a guess?

    We've battled together on this issue many a time :p:
    Yeah lol, he might be looking over my shoulder .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Saurus)
    you ****ing savages

    "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself" - Jimmy Carter
    Obviously it's better to be dead than a heroin addict :rolleyes: . I wonder if Singapore's similar policy of executing gays has had any results in lowering the levels of buggery.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    Obviously it's better to be dead than a heroin addict :rolleyes: . I wonder if Singapore's similar policy of executing gays has had any results in lowering the levels of buggery.
    Funkypish and Tomber,

    Though my arse has not entirely been served on a plate, you can definitely consider it part of the entrée

    I'll have to do a bit more research into this before I debate anymore, but thank you both for you well-informed and (worringly rare on TSR) unaggressive opinions.

    Nevertheless, I hope what I have said has shed equal light on the matter, from my perspective.

    Funkypish, while Singapore does not entirely execute homosexuals for buggery in any forms (there's apparently only ever been one conviction against a homosexual individual) and corruption is the 4th lowest in the world, some of their scruples definitely need to be further examined...

    If you never see me on TSR again, it's not because I'm afraid of a good debate; more likely I am being interrogated by the Singapore police. Wish me luck on the noose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    Funkypish and Tomber,

    Though my arse has not entirely been served on a plate, you can definitely consider it part of the entrée

    I'll have to do a bit more research into this before I debate anymore, but thank you both for you well-informed and (worringly rare on TSR) unaggressive opinions.

    Nevertheless, I hope what I have said has shed equal light on the matter, from my perspective.

    Funkypish, while Singapore does not entirely execute homosexuals for buggery in any forms (there's apparently only ever been one conviction against a homosexual individual) and corruption is the 4th lowest in the world, some of their scruples definitely need to be further examined...

    If you never see me on TSR again, it's not because I'm afraid of a good debate; more likely I am being interrogated by the Singapore police. Wish me luck on the noose.
    It is really amazing to actually see somebody listen to rational thought, you are also a rareity on tsr that i've never come across on here before lol. I can see that harsher sentences have worked in Singapore but when you look at the states, who are about as tough as the West can get, their levels of drug use and abuse are far higher than here. If you look at the Netherlands where it's much more liberal the usage is far less prevalent. Either way it needs to be one or the other, not of this messing around in the middle business that we seem to be seeing here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    it'll never happen, but alcohol should probably be banned for being too harmful
    It did happen, I refer you to the alcohol prohibition of 1920s USA. It caused Al Capone (a criminal) to own the entire of Chigago and have every single goverment official on his payroll. Ethanol poisoning from homemade alcohol killing many, unregulated ingrediants, unregulated and non-competative prices. Not to mention loan-sharking, raquettering and other gang activities which spawn from prohibition money.

    Even puritanical America realised that prohibition was making things worse. Why cant we.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of the arguments posted are quite weak and really skate around the issue centering instead on choice. The issue is not "would legalisating drugs provide a complete solution" but would legislating drugs improve the current situation.

    As it stands drugs are 'banned' and it is illegal to hold most drugs, certainly in large enough quantities to deal. However its pretty clear that actually this ban is pretty ineffective because drugs are are not that difficult to purchase on the streets. If we consider legalising drugs then actually there is a very strong argument that this would improve matters.

    First, because it reduces the criminality associated with drugs. If the sale of drugs is controlled by a higher body then that removes the need for interaction with criminals and hence there is certainly less danger involved with purchasing drugs. The market for drugs will likely become less profitable for organised criminals and hence this "higher body" will retain a relative amount of control over the drugs industry as criminals will seek other means as a source of income (This is all assuming the "higher body" is rational and acts in our best interests).

    Now I think it is important to emphasise that whilst I think most illegal drugs should be legalised the only exception would be substances whose consumption leads to behaviour likely to cause material harm to others. However legalising drugs ensures that purity and quality can be regulated meaning that at least users are safer in the knowledge that the drugs they consume are not a "dirty" mixture that is more likely to cause greater harm than the drug on its own. Taxes can also be imposed on these drugs of which some revenue can be spent on educating children about the dangers of drugs and the rehabilitation of addicts. To allow this policy to succeed the same must be enforced in other members of the EU to avoid drug users congregating in a tolerant zone (e.g Netherlands).

    Finally, it must be noted that it is not the job of the higher body to ensure "happiness" - adults (mentally-competent) are rational enough to understand the dangers of drugs and thus the higher body still allows personal liberty because the element of choice has not been removed. I suppose a lot of people say that this will encourage people to experiment, but surely you could argue that most who are "irrational" enough to experiment will probably try to do so anyway in the current situation. Although it is fair to suggest that this would be a failure of the higher body to educate society about drugs. But of course some people argue that we have no choice anyway and complain that we should have the choice if we want. Hence theres no real balance point and it becomes an issue of personal liberty (i.e. the choice to be able to consume drugs) versus rationality - should we be allowed the choice....but who knows really, you can't please everyone and there are always going to be problems either way.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    All soft drugs should be legalised immediately and be no different to alcohol or tabacco. All funding for the War on Drugs should end.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.