[Closed] Drugs!

The issue with any drugs is the ability of self control, how it's supplied and the levels it's supplied at. Alcohol causes many issue I see a lot of effects of alcohol but of course I will it's readily available legally, you can brew your own and available illegally too. The data you see for figures where alcohol is was involved from healthcare in an incident isn't a great source. If a person has had half a lager it's recorded as having alcohol and gets marked down as alcohol involved that's all it shows, not if it contributed or not but gets marked as a statistic.

If heroine was as easy to get hold of and as social acceptable the figures probably would be very similar to alcohol. Both are unpleasant drugs that have consequences when not used responsibly. I'm not sure legalising them will make it any better, the Colorado data is far too earlier to tell on any long term effects.

I could give incidental information on deaths of most drug but it's incidental so no use what so ever, sorry DazH but that's all your providing and secondhand too. None of them are them are nice to deal with, alcoholism is an awful thing it's terrible how it effects individuals and families. Class A deaths are horrible too there's longterm uses who seem to get few issues until one day they get it wrong but have serious health problems and then there's new users who've only tried a few times then it goes seriously wrong.

What ever the drug of choice an addiction effects the individual, their families, friends, society and their employers. Do we really need to try and monitor another drug when alcohol and tobacco cause enough issues. Yes we might need to look at how it's controlled but I'm not sure legalising it is the answer.

There are no societal benefits of personal recreational drug use therefore why should a society indulge those who wish to pursue selfish acts which benefit no-one apart from a temporary, short and synthetic happiness ?

[img] [/img]

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

cheekyboy - You are bundle of laughs.

Shall be ban the growing of flowers in gardens and insist the land is only used for growing food?

Mr Woppit - Member

Care to deal with my central point, or do we need to hear more about your weevil obsession?

😆 => "weevil" They are cute.

Simple:

1. Legalised drugs
- can you control drugs when there is danger of over consumption?
- side effect that society needs to deal with can you deal with it?
- where is the boundary between personal consumption and the wider society? i.e. where do you stop from affecting others?

2. Not to legalise drugs.
- underworld still control it but at least it's only confine to minority of users in the grand scheme of things.
- the penalty that goes with it etc ...

gobuchul - Member

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

^^^ heavy stuff that.
Did you nick it from Bertrand Russell?

The country already accommodates alcohol and nicotene use. This is the current status quo. Why should it be any different for a legalised range of other, currently illegal, drugs?

where is the boundary between personal consumption and the wider society? i.e. where do you stop from affecting others?

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

So far, the Colorado experience with one particular type of drug that, we have been told, will ruin your life and destroy society, is that neither of these things has pertained. $20 million has been raised in local tax revenue. I do not know what effect it has had on criminal involvement but I am willing to bet that they have rapidly become disinterested in the product.

What exactly is your point?

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

^^^ heavy stuff that.
Did you nick it from Bertrand Russell?

Oh dear.

Mr Woppit - Member
What exactly is your point?

Consume whatever you like as that is individual freedom which I agree but the problem is that the side effects always ended up with burden to wider society.

Yes, tobacco or alcohol are dangerous/harmful but do you need to add to that burden?

🙄

Mr Woppit - Member

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

^^^ heavy stuff that.
Did you nick it from Bertrand Russell?

Oh dear.

G. Orwell. 😆 OKay, they all say similar things in a twisted ways. Bunch of western "philosophers".

Consume whatever you like as that is individual freedom which I agree

Yes, tobacco or alcohol are dangerous/harmful but do you need to add to that burden?

OKay, they all say similar things in a twisted ways.

I think I may be losing the will to live.

Mr Woppit - Member

I think I may be losing the will to live.

😆

You cannot have it all and I favour culling.

Yes, imagine all those MPs hook on crack if it is legalised. I mean they are already bunch of zombies even without addiction.

Oh ya ... China can always supply the "goods" just like opium was once supplied to them in the past.

Simple:

1. Legalised drugs
- can you control drugs when there is danger of over consumption?
- side effect that society needs to deal with can you deal with it?
- where is the boundary between personal consumption and the wider society? i.e. where do you stop from affecting others?

2. Not to legalise drugs.
- underworld still control it but at least it's only confine to minority of users in the grand scheme of things.
- the penalty that goes with it etc ...

Imo, provided appropriate licensing and restrictions of quality etc safe limits etc will be better known. There should also be harm reduction due to the fact there's no longer a stigma and illegality attached. Friends etc should be much more willing to call an ambulance be honest about drug consumption if they were legal. Of course you can never mitigate risk entirely.

As for risk to society, we already have laws on alcohol consumption and what you can and can't do when under the influence. Wouldn't take much to extend these laws. Harsh penalties for crimes commit while using might work as a deterrent as well.

Yes, tobacco or alcohol are dangerous/harmful but do you need to add to that burden?

I'd look at the overall effect. It's similar to helmet compulsion, where the effect on the individual is outweighed by the benefit to overall health.

In this case, although there would probably be an increase in usage amongst those that wise to partake, the benefits will be seen in other areas. High tax take, less people in prison for drug offences, better drug education and most importantly take the supply of a substances there if obviously a demand for out of the hands of criminals.

It's a stupid question which ignores reality and is heavily loaded with your own biases and prejudices.

It was not a question it was a statement, you are correct i am totally prejudiced against illegal drug use.
In my reality i have yet to encounter anyone who has used drugs and has encountered the highs and the lows and come through the other side and can honestly say they really enjoyed themselves and that it was beneficial to them or society.

I am 48 i have lost 3 friends 2 to the drink and one to the drugs, all three cut off in their prime because of selfish stupidity, 3 families greatly bereaved.

What has mtbing got to do with drug legalisation ? its a poor analogy you really need to learn to think.

? its a poor analogy you really need to learn to think.

Ironic coming from you who is apparently basing their entire view point on personal experience. It's fair enough in some sense but misses the bigger picture entirely.

If I was to play the same game I've lost 1 friend to outdoor activities gone wrong and none to drugs. So does that mean we should ban mountaineering? No, of course not. All activities carry a risk and we should do our best as individuals and as a society to manage them and deal with the consequences.

Keeping illegal drugs illegal doesn't deal with any of the problems they currently cause, where as legalising them would sort out a huge dose of them. It may bring others but from what I can see the effect to society on the whole would be a gain, not a loss.

There are no societal benefits of personal recreational drug use therefore why should a society indulge those who wish to pursue selfish acts which benefit no-one apart from a temporary, short and synthetic happiness ?

cheekyboy - I'm sorry about your friends.

However your statement that I quoted above is quite strange. You seem to be suggesting that unless an activity has "worth" then it should not be done.

I don't think anyone here has suggesting that over indulgence in narcotics, legal or otherwise, is a good thing. The crux of the legalise and control argument is that people will always take drugs, so why not ensure this does not become a revenue source for organised crime by supplying better quality, cheaper and taxed drugs? This would also greatly reduce petty crime and burglary, the vast majority of which is performed to fund drug use.

What is "synthetic" happiness? I have had some very genuinely happy times which involved alcohol!

I am 48 i have lost 3 friends 2 to the drink and one to the drugs, all three cut off in their prime because of selfish stupidity

Selfish stupidity? How compassionate.

cheekyboy - Member

My view is quite simple !

Concisely :-

There are no societal benefits of personal recreational drug use

Thousands of great artists of all genres have found inspiration through drug use, as have many scientists and great thinkers of the world.

I wish there was an image I could post of a million Patrick Stewart facepalm's.

What has mtbing got to do with drug legalisation ? its a poor analogy you really need to learn to think.

It's a perfectly valid analogy. Doing things for fun is about lighting up those little pleasure neurons in the brain; whether that be hurtling down a hill on a bike, chasing a fox across a field on a horse, playing tetris, or laughing your ass off on 2CB.

Do we really need to try and monitor another drug when alcohol and tobacco cause enough issues.

Ok then, lets legalise recreational drug use , where do we start from ? How do we regulate, who do we consult with, how do we control the logistics of supply.
Do people really believe we could develop and implement a workable system, without disruption to the existing infrastructure, it would take international co- operation on a huge and unworkable scale a bit like the pipe dream that one day we will live on another planet.
Its a totally absurd and unworkable idea, the state would have to dismiss all previous criminality before it could properly engage in regulating the supply from the previous gangs who had control, an amnesty on murder and absolute villainy, if thats what you want then I pity you.

Do people really believe we could develop and implement a workable system, without disruption to the existing infrastructure

What are you talking about?
It's selling a consumable product, it's nothing new or difficult.

the state would have to dismiss all previous criminality before it could properly engage in regulating the supply from the previous gangs who had control

WTF! 😯
Why would we be dealing with the criminals?

If you're not already on drugs, then definitely give them a go.

unworkable scale a bit like the pipe dream that one day we will live on another planet.

WTF are you talking about? Yeah it's as complex as interplanetary travel. 🙄

Most drugs used for recreation are also used for medical purposes, cocaine, heroine etc so the supply of these is not too difficult.

Most drugs used for recreation are also used for medical purposes, cocaine, heroine etc so the supply of these is not too difficult.

ok then !

If drugs became legal tomorrow how would it be effectively regulated, supplied and taxed to ensure the taxed revenue would be sufficient to cope with the utter chaos it would create !

I don`t know how it could be done, maybe you could enlighten me.

I don`t know how it could be done, maybe you could enlighten me.

Like it is with fags.
There you go, easy.

the utter chaos it would create

Your sensationalist fantasy, not fact.

[quote=cheekyboy]
If drugs became legal tomorrow how would it be effectively regulated, supplied and taxed to ensure the taxed revenue would be sufficient to cope with the utter chaos it would create !

I don`t know how it could be done, maybe you could enlighten me.
I suspect that those who think recreational drugs should be legalised are not suggesting that we just legalise them overnight. Obviously a number of frameworks would need to be set up first - supply chain, distribution, monitoring, support etc. etc. Some of these are already in place, although perhaps on a smaller scale, such as the availability of most of these drugs for medical purposes.

So yes, if you could magically revoke the current laws overnight and make everything legal from tomorrow, then there would be chaos. But that's quite clearly not what anyone (sensible) is suggesting.

There's no reason why, given time to get the right mechanisms in place, this can't happen.

I suspect that those who think recreational drugs should be legalised

The point I am trying to make is the inability of those people to actually think !

Most of what comes out of their mouths is regurgitated drivel, its what we hear when people venture near russell brand with a microphone.

cheekyboy - Member

The point I am trying to make is the inability of those people to actually think!

Isn't that exactly what you are demonstrating?
That and a total absence of imagination?

I'll try and make it easier:

Alcohol is a drug.
Cannabis is a drug.

Can you imagine life where alcohol is regulated, taxed, not run by pardoned criminals (a ludicrous suggestion), et cetera?

Yes?
It should be easy... 😉

Now why is cannabis so different?

The point I am trying to make is the inability of those people to actually think !

a bit like the pipe dream that one day we will live on another planet.

The point I am trying to make is the inability of those people to actually think !

Most of what comes out of their mouths is regurgitated drivel, its what we hear when people venture near russell brand with a microphone.

Or, you know, that's what we are doing. Based on our own prejudices, experiences, expert opinion and some science we've come to our own conclusions which happen to be the same as some of the experts?

As far as I can see you're the only one not doing any thinking are are regurgitating the same old shite we see in the Daily Mail.

As far as I can see you're the only one not doing any thinking are are regurgitating the same old shite we see in the Daily Mail

I have asked two very simple questions

1/ What are the benefits to society that would justify the legalisation of drugs that are currently illegal ?

2/ If legalised how would the supply, quality control, taxation etc be regulated and administered.

I have not yet received one coherent response to these two simple questions.

Judging by some of the remarks I have received I have obviously upset some people, this may be because the received view they hold on most drug related matters cannot be realistically defended.

cheekyboy - those two questions have already been answered multiple times. If you can't be bothered to read/understand the replies or read any of the compelling evidence it's only you that's being made to look stupid.

Judging by some of the remarks I have received I have obviously upset some people, this may be because the received view they hold on most drug related matters cannot be realistically defended.

No, it's because you're being wilfully ignorant - while expressing strong opinions that are nothing other than prejudices. Please try reading the article I posted a link to - it's full of actual evidence. What are you afraid of?

1/ What are the benefits to society that would justify the legalisation of drugs that are currently illegal ?

2/ If legalised how would the supply, quality control, taxation etc be regulated and administered.

I have not yet received one coherent response to these two simple questions.

You have recieved the answers you just dont want to engage or accept them

Judging by some of the remarks I have received I have obviously upset some people, this may be because the received view they hold on most drug related matters cannot be realistically defended

LOL you really are away with the fairies
You are the one who wont read links for example [ you are almost proud of this fact and berate folk for citing evidence], admit your views are prejudiced and unrelaistic [ a hope] and then you accuse others....lolz at the ironing

1/ What are the benefits to society that would justify the legalisation of drugs that are currently illegal ?

There are people in prison that are there because they have taken drugs that are illegal, if you decriminalise that, thousands of otherwise normal people are released from prison. Families will be complete again, they can get a job and pay tax...

How's that?

Ok then, lets legalise recreational drug use , where do we start from ? How do we regulate, [b]who do we consult with[/b], how do we control the logistics of supply.
Do people really believe we could develop and implement a workable system, without disruption to the existing infrastructure, it would take international co- operation on a huge and unworkable scale a bit like the pipe dream that one day we will live on another planet.
Its a totally absurd and unworkable idea, the state would have to dismiss all previous criminality before it could properly [b]engage in regulating the supply from the previous gangs who had control[/b], an amnesty on murder and absolute villainy, if thats what you want then I pity you.

I'd say Holland would be a good place to start. Their recent amendments even go so far as to stop the obvious tourist trade of that particular market.

I also find it hard to believe that the Coffee Shops are trading with drug cartels but I'm open to being proved wrong.

As to the benefit - many a song played at a gig I've been to has apparently been written using the odd bit of weed and other stuff. That's entertainment and entertainment makes folk happy. I know this is a good thing as I've dedicated countless hours of my life to Sid's Civ...

If you going to legalise illegal drugs does that mean there is a possibility that guns should be legalised too?

I want Benelli M4 for the just in case scenario. Don't you go around telling me that guns kill and violate your human rights. My human rights and freedom must be upheld. Guns don't kill people do, guns save lives of innocent families.

A gun is not addictive but merely for self protection if zombie maggots roam the streets. Nobody should be forced to carry one but freely available for everyone to carry one.

It will benefit the govt because if you legalise guns the govt can increase their revenue via tax and with guns you need to train at the shoot range and bullet cost money and govt can tax that too.

If guns are legalised the prisoner number could be reduced and many family will be complete again because they are able to protect themselves from zombie maggots.

Guns don't kill people do.

Guns save life.

How's that?

🙄

How's that?

For making you look more than a little silly?

It's [i]very[/i] good.

If you going to legalise illegal drugs does that mean there is a possibility that guns should be legalised too?

If you want to break it down into a very simple (on the face of it) analysis, look at cost benefit analysis.

Cost/benefit of helmet compulsion (for example): Bad for overall health.

Cost/benefit of legalising recreational drugs: Possible increase in users might mean more stress on the health system. Better drug education, known quality of supply, takes trade away from criminals, crime reduction, lower policing costs and big tax revenue increase. Benefits out weight the costs.

Cost/benefit for gun ownership: Easy access to guns for everyone, including criminals. Police now need to be armed. Massive increase in costs for policing, health care and licensing. Benefit: A very few debatable points about self protection.

I think you can see it doesn't really add up and your analogy doesn't work.

Legalising means it is controlled and regulated and not in the hands of criminals.
It would create jobs and revenue in a legitimate way as well as raising taxes
We could reduce the harm done by improving the quality of the product so that users dont die due to quality/impurity issues

So you agree that we would need to establish a government run department/departments to do all of this ?

Once this is all up and running would the costs of this be met by the revenue taken in by the drug taxation, I can only assume you have checked the figures/financial model ?

Would these taxes be earmarked for use in drug related health services.

Or would the non-drug using tax payers have to subsidise what is essentially someone elses pleasure ?

Would the govt approved drugs meet the needs of the hardened drug user, would he be prepared to pay the new tax or would he just keep usng his old criminal supplier ?

The transition period from criminal supply to govt approved supply, how exactly would that work ?

Would the thriving criminal drug suppliers really give up their lucrative businesses overnight and get a job, handover the range rover sports etc.

So you agree that we would need to establish a government run department/departments to do all of this ?

Once this is all up and running would the costs of this be met by the revenue taken in by the drug taxation, I can only assume you have checked the figures/financial model ?

Very weak line of attack tbh. I guess this is what you ask if you dont care about evidence.

Would these taxes be earmarked for use in drug related health services.

Or would the non-drug using tax payers have to subsidise what is essentially someone elses pleasure ?

The Treasury earned £9.5 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2011- 2012 (excluding VAT).17 This amounts to 2% of total Government revenue. Including VAT at an estimated £2.6bn, total tobacco revenue was £12.1bn

I cannot be bothered with the rest but yes there will be issues that need to be discussed and resolved.
Thankfully we have models of other controlled substances, evidence form other countries who have done it and it is not as hard as interplanetary space travel.

So you agree that we would need to establish a government run department/departments to do all of this ?

Given that there is already a department dealing with alcohol and tobacco etc (FDA I think) I'm sure an expansion of that department would cover it.

Once this is all up and running would the costs of this be met by the revenue taken in by the drug taxation, I can only assume you have checked the figures/financial model ?

I have no idea how much this would cost, but the tax intake from Colorado on weed alone was in the region of $2m in a month. I would suspect that this sort of rate of taxation would cover most, if not all of the costs associated with the new policy. Not to mention the money saved in the criminal justice system.

Would these taxes be earmarked for use in drug related health services.

Or would the non-drug using tax payers have to subsidise what is essentially someone elses pleasure ?

Are taxes from alcohol and tobacco ring fenced? The costs to polcing, health care etc should go down, not up, due to users having a reliable and known source. Would be a bit daft to ring fence taxation on this issue, especially if the proceeds far outweighed the costs.

Would the thriving criminal drug suppliers really give up their lucrative businesses overnight and get a job, handover the range rover sports etc.

Who knows? Maybe they'll take the opportunity to go legit? If I was selling drugs now and had the opportunity to keep doing it without the risk of a hefty jail sentence, I'd be pretty keen.

Surely th purpose of any internet discussion is for individuals to be able to counter one anothers arguments with what you describe as critical thinking, I havent read your posted article because I prefer to counter any argument you Grum can put forward without the need to copy and paste a received view. opinion or theory.

cheekyboy - Member

As much as Gove worries me (I'm a teacher), fair play to him for sending his daughter to a state comprehensive (albeit a C of E selective one).

Before you start praising that twerp, may I suggest a bit of background research !

Mmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!

cheekyboy - Member

So you agree that we would need to establish a government run department/departments to do all of this?

They already exist.

Once this is all up and running would the costs of this be met by the revenue taken in by the drug taxation, I can only assume you have checked the figures/financial model?

You are aware that products are generally sold at profit?
It may surprise you that the NHS makes a net profit of £9-13,000,000,000 a year due to smoking. Smoking is more costly than recreational drugs.

Would these taxes be earmarked for use in drug related health services.

No, because there would be a surplus.

Or would the non-drug using tax payers have to subsidise what is essentially someone elses pleasure?

No, as reasoned above.

Would the govt approved drugs meet the needs of the hardened drug user, would he be prepared to pay the new tax or would he just keep usng his old criminal supplier?

This is just another example of how you really haven't thought things through and have no understanding of the matter. I could explain, but really?

The transition period from criminal supply to govt approved supply, how exactly would that work?

It's very simple.
One weekend, the drug user hangs around the back of a dodgy pub, waiting for someone to possibly turn up with a substance that may or may not be what he wants, and may or may not be harmful.

Next weekend, the drug user pops into the chemist, buys some MDMA, has a really great time, hurts no-one and boosts the economy.

Would the thriving criminal drug suppliers really give up their lucrative businesses overnight and get a job, handover the range rover sports etc.

The majority of drug users would prefer to buy from a legitimate source, provide it and the criminal business would no longer be lucrative.

e ?

Yes please, but without that superfluous ****ing space, if you don't mind.

Well I have finally received a few answers, although poor old Junkyard has become too fatigued to continue.

I remain unconvinced that drug legalisation is a worthwhile thing to society as awhole or the individual.

I also see no worthwhile benefit from self-stupefaction.

So please excuse me I`m of off to ride my bike on the magic mountain 😀

good idea, make up a political party with that as the main driver and see how many votes you get.

I briefly met Prof Nutt last week. He blamed politicians for the mess that is drugs policy. A nearby politician blamed old people for voting (i) more than young people and (ii) against drugs, on the whole.

So please excuse me I`m of off to ride my bike on the magic mountain

Enjoy your flounce 😉

I briefly met Prof Nutt last week. He blamed politicians for the mess that is drugs policy. A nearby politician blamed old people for voting (i) more than young people and (ii) against drugs, on the whole.

I suspect it'll take a fairly large shift in the political landscape before this sort of policy ever makes it into the statue books. It will need people who are youngish now to become older and start getting involved. As along as there are lots of older generations entrenched in their views then nothing will change and it would be political suicide to attempt it.