Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonfield7)
    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.
    Some really great points Moonfield. However, as you allude to near the end of your post, if we are using the UK as our country/area and the British government as our 'higher body', it seems like such a radical turnabout in the treatment of drugs is a long way off, even with the increasingly left-wing tendencies of the ruling party. Drugs and drug users are just too heavily stigmatised. Though I do agree with many of your points, I see it highly unlikely that Class A drugs will one day be fully legalised. Perhaps cannabis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    Some really great points Moonfield. However, as you allude to near the end of your post, if we are using the UK as our country/area and the British government as our 'higher body', it seems like such a radical turnabout in the treatment of drugs is a long way off, even with the increasingly left-wing tendencies of the ruling party. Drugs and drug users are just too heavily stigmatised. Though I do agree with many of your points, I see it highly unlikely that Class A drugs will one day be fully legalised. Perhaps cannabis.
    I find it near enough impossible to believe that drugs will one day be legal. The UN charter requires us to keep them illegal in fact, so what would be required is for America to be reasonable, which is never going to happen!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LazyLuke)
    Drugs and drug users are just too heavily stigmatised. Though I do agree with many of your points, I see it highly unlikely that Class A drugs will one day be fully legalised. Perhaps cannabis.
    I think you're exactly right Lazyluke, the stigma attached with drugs is just too large to budge. People are simply unwilling to accept that legislation could do any good because they are ignorant to the benefits. Of course they only see legislation as an opportunity for drug consumption to rise, but it really isn't as simple as this.

    Mmm...and I agree with your second point, it is probably unlikely that Class A drugs will be ever be legislated for. But again I must point out that my personal view is that substances whose consumption leads to behaviour likely to cause material harm to others should not be legalised because this is a responsibility of the goverment (or 'higher body') to prevent.

    Cannabis is one of those possibles I suppose, it's something that the government has dithered over in the past. Could happen...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonfield7)
    I think you're exactly right Lazyluke, the stigma attached with drugs is just too large to budge. People are simply unwilling to accept that legislation could do any good because they are ignorant to the benefits. Of course they only see legislation as an opportunity for drug consumption to rise, but it really isn't as simple as this.
    I agree completely.

    (Original post by Moonfield7)
    I must point out that my personal view is that substances whose consumption leads to behaviour likely to cause material harm to others should not be legalised because this is a responsibility of the goverment (or 'higher body') to prevent.
    I partially agree, but I think that the material harm that is caused by substance abuse is actually increased by them being illegal.

    (Original post by Moonfield7)
    Cannabis is one of those possibles I suppose, it's something that the government has dithered over in the past. Could happen...
    Not for a good few years at least. Unfortunately.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonfield7)
    I think you're exactly right Lazyluke, the stigma attached with drugs is just too large to budge. People are simply unwilling to accept that legislation could do any good because they are ignorant to the benefits. Of course they only see legislation as an opportunity for drug consumption to rise, but it really isn't as simple as this.

    Mmm...and I agree with your second point, it is probably unlikely that Class A drugs will be ever be legislated for. But again I must point out that my personal view is that substances whose consumption leads to behaviour likely to cause material harm to others should not be legalised because this is a responsibility of the goverment (or 'higher body') to prevent.

    Cannabis is one of those possibles I suppose, it's something that the government has dithered over in the past. Could happen...

    I'm not really sure which substances, if any (aside from alcohol), would lead to people causing harm to others. Maybe PCP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    I'm not really sure which substances, if any (aside from alcohol), would lead to people causing harm to others. Maybe PCP.
    I was making more of a value judgement here than a practical point, hence I realise that you could argue that there aren't many drugs that do in fact cause "behaviour that could cause material harm to others". However it is plausible that some drug users have such an adverse reaction to a particular drug that in turn can lead to the type of behaviour mentioned. But I think research is needed really to back-up my point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomber)

    I partially agree, but I think that the material harm that is caused by substance abuse is actually increased by them being illegal.
    I don't follow this, can you explain your reasoning?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonfield7)
    I was making more of a value judgement here than a practical point, hence I realise that you could argue that there aren't many drugs that do in fact cause "behaviour that could cause material harm to others". However it is plausible that some drug users have such an adverse reaction to a particular drug that in turn can lead to the type of behaviour mentioned. But I think research is needed really to back-up my point.
    I'm not really 100% on what such an adverse reaction could be. Of course there's driving on any substance which is quite dangerous. Of course it makes sense that any drugs which can result in innocents being harmed should stay banned but I just can't think of many if any that fit that criteria. Tbh I would quite like to see alcohol banned, it's a very depressing drug and causes far more trouble than it's worth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    Tbh I would quite like to see alcohol banned, it's a very depressing drug and causes far more trouble than it's worth.
    Prohibition didn't work in 1920s America - was repealed in 1933 after it became too unpopular and other problems arose; Loss of substantial tax revenue, gave way to a powerful blackmarket and the rise of organised crime - gangs engaging in racketeering became a particular problem.

    Banning alcohol will not solve many problems and a ban would in my opinion represent an infringement on personal liberties. This would make any government vastly unpopular - it would represent a government too eager to interfer and have a role in every duty of society. Unfortunately our present PM Gordon Brown is quite inclined to this kind of policy and sees the government as a mediator in every situation. But I don't think even he would ever contemplate this, public opinion would no doubt unite against him.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Moonfield7)
    Prohibition didn't work in 1920s America - was repealed in 1933 after it became too unpopular and other problems arose; Loss of substantial tax revenue, gave way to a powerful blackmarket and the rise of organised crime - gangs engaging in racketeering became a particular problem.

    Banning alcohol will not solve many problems and a ban would in my opinion represent an infringement on personal liberties. This would make any government vastly unpopular - it would represent a government too eager to interfer and have a role in every duty of society. Unfortunately our present PM Gordon Brown is quite inclined to this kind of policy and sees the government as a mediator in every situation. But I don't think even he would ever contemplate this, public opinion would no doubt unite against him.
    prohibition alone would not work, as it hasn't in the past. what has never been tried is the banning of alcohol plus the legalisation of 'softer' drugs such as LSD and ecstacy. would probably be resented at first, but would make an interesting long-term experiment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonfield7)
    Prohibition didn't work in 1920s America - was repealed in 1933 after it became too unpopular and other problems arose; Loss of substantial tax revenue, gave way to a powerful blackmarket and the rise of organised crime - gangs engaging in racketeering became a particular problem.

    Banning alcohol will not solve many problems and a ban would in my opinion represent an infringement on personal liberties. This would make any government vastly unpopular - it would represent a government too eager to interfer and have a role in every duty of society. Unfortunately our present PM Gordon Brown is quite inclined to this kind of policy and sees the government as a mediator in every situation. But I don't think even he would ever contemplate this, public opinion would no doubt unite against him.
    I kind of meant if any drug should be banned it should be alcohol. In a perfect world if they were bannable i'd want alcohol gone in a second. The only reason i'd keep tobacco around is because it's hard to smoke hash without it lol. At the end of the day it is up to people what they take and the damage they do to themselves though, and I obviously know how difficult alcohol is to prohibit.
 
 
 
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.