|
Post by DeadCat on Jan 22, 2003 8:49:31 GMT -5
Should Drugs be Legalised...
Sorry glendo, but I tried to respond to your topic but it appears to be locked?
Anyway, here goes...
I think that nicotine should’ve been made illegal (back when cocaine was made illegal in the early 1910’s) whilst THC should only be legally controlled to similar parrameters as alcohol. (i.e. if you smoke too much, don't drive.....)
(DeadCat)
For those of us who may only smoke it once every 6-12 months, the whole completely illegal thing is laughable.....
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on Jan 22, 2003 13:14:19 GMT -5
I was against legalization for years, but lately...I say legalise it.
UNfortunately, you wouldn't be able to trust the government to run a clean operation...LOL! Taking the power from the Drug Lords and giving it to the government...LOL. Anyway, if it can be done properly, and without corruption, I say legalise it.
They would still need to enforce laws regarding the use.
I say if someone's in the confines of their own home, and not risking anyone else's life, so what. If they want to smoke themselves silly, so be it. However, if they come out of their house, into public, and risk someone elses life (operating a vehicle, driving a bus, flying a plane, walking across a busy street, etc, etc) then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If people would just take a little responsibility for their own actions, it'd be OK.
Then again, theirs always the few idiots that ruin a good thing. Look at alcohol. I have no problem with alcohol. I personally, rarely drink. If I do, it's usually at home (unless I have out of town guests from Switzerland...LOL)!
It's the knuckleheads that drink themselves silly, then get behind the wheel of a car and drive around risking many lives. These people have no responsibility to themselves or others, and they continually get a little slap on the wrist for the offense.
Wuff, Rx
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Jan 22, 2003 13:23:52 GMT -5
LOL...
Oh Rx, you have it all wrong... LET the government get involved! LOL... instead of handing out milk to all the kiddies like they did in the days of old... they could hand out joints to all the kids... guaranteed to lower the amount of arguing they do with the teachers... LOL
In all seriousness though, I don't think wacky tobaccy is any more dangerous to society than tobacco. Sure, it is more carcinogenic than regular cigarettes and has a much larger range of deleterious health side effects... BUT if people are of age- and WANT to subject themselves to that sort of medical torture... that is 100% their decision.
I'm in agreement with Rx, I see no reason why consenting adults should be forbidden from taking any substance they want... it is their body- as long as their are no third-party victims (eg no kids in the room taking in 2nd hand smoke).
Myself, I never have, nor ever will use tobacco, pot, or any other such substance- but I respect the right of others to do so if they wish.
My view on marijuana is the same as my view on tobacco- it should be perfectly legal, so long as they are in their own home, and no minor is in the room. I do have a problem with smoking (of any kind) in public indoor places- and/or minors being subjected to 2nd hand smoke.
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Jan 22, 2003 13:48:43 GMT -5
Definately decriminalise. Not sure about legalise.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Jan 22, 2003 14:38:23 GMT -5
Let the people who want to smoke pot do it. You can tax it creating a nice stream of income for the Government. Plus with all the joke pot trials, we would save money in judicial fees and jails. If you want to get high go ahead, but don't bitch when it kills you.
As for the rest of the drugs i am against them.
|
|
|
Post by BrainFade on Jan 23, 2003 15:51:06 GMT -5
In my country, the (illegal) marijuana industry is actually bigger than mainstream commercial agriculture, with thousands of rural families making a living by selling weed. Our judicial system is totally overwhelmed - from the courts to the prisons, and yet our government insists on arresting these people, who have done nothing more than try to support their families by growing a crop that has been a part of African culture for centuries. Something like 20% (not sure of the exact figure) of South Africa's prison population are in there for marijuana-related "crimes". Surely it makes more sense to free up the prisons to make room for real criminals: murderers, baby rapists, corrupt polticians, and let these people go back to their farms.
The massive cannabis industry could then be taxed and regulated with tax money going to healthcare, an improved police force etc? It makes so much sense to so many people, but governments don't seem to be swayed by logical, rational arguments, but rather prefer to stick to policy dictated by outdated, untrue propaganda while heartliy endorsing the alcohol and tobacco industries, which IMHO are far more damaging to society. Just looking at the number of babies that are born deformed because of alcohol in the poorer communities here and how people spend all their meagre paychecks on booze makes you realise the hypocrisy of anti-cannabis legislation... nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by glendo on Jan 24, 2003 0:16:15 GMT -5
sorry, i wanted to start a biggie here, but i havent had the time, so i will erase my topic and contribute hear instead Drugs Should Be legalised. Why? purely and simply, consider that guns can be just as bad for your health as drugs, or coca-cola in fact, that i dont see why not. they exist because they are in demand. they are sold because people want to take them. civilsations from the beginning of time get high.will drugs ever be legalised? No. this is going to be the absolute moral,ethical example made from the drugs debate. if they were to be legalised, avangelists, church and polititician alike would be on the bandwagon, as well as the media. especially in this day and age, we dont seem to be a progressive civilisation anymore, rather more one that is trying to hold on very tight to customs, rituals, ethics and morals that exist today. Change must scare the governments? This is thre big reason that they wont be legalised. Would the governments look like they are giving in to one of their biggest adversaries? how much have they spent over the decades to try and stop it? The US government (yeah them again) would be the decision maker on a global scale to society finally accepting that there is a drug culture. They boycott and place bans on countries that are drug producers. The modern US is so conservative that this possibility will likely never happen, and they will enforce other countries to follow suit. think about the world today IF drugs were legalised. there would be pro's and con's to this debate, but i would love to hear the world that you guys would create..
|
|
|
Post by smokingun on Jan 24, 2003 2:45:09 GMT -5
some drugs can be very addictive. once an addict, it is near to impossible to quit. this leads to higher crime rates just so that the junkie can get his fix. i do smoke tobacco. if i couldn't afford it, i'd quit but i won't commit a crime to get a pack. if the same hods true for drugs then i see no reason why drugs shouldn't be legalised. i think that "soft" drugs like marijuana are quasi legal in some countries in europe. where one can actually go to a shop and buy the stuff.
but to legalise something like heroin, would be opening a pandoras box.
the other kind of drugs that i don't think should be legalised are mind altering drugs. anything that will contort reality, create hallucinations, and change your behaviour is again a NO NO. whom would we blame if a person high on LSD saw people as monsters and attacked them?
going by the above argument i suppose even alchohol should be banned. and in many ways, it is banned. minors aren't allowed to buy it, certain states or countries ban alchohol outright because of the problems that it creates.
so if the drugs in question can make you feel good without altering your behaviour, will not create an addiction that can lead to crime, then i suppose i don't see a problem with legalising it.
i won't go into the long term effects of sustained drug and alchohol abuse. as a smoker who is aware of the petfalls and couldn't care less anyway, it would make me a hypocrite of sorts. neither will i go into the cases of people dying from an overdose. legalising drugs could cause the number of people dying from an overdose to actually decrease since i suspect some of the deaths are due to the substances used to dilute the concentration of the dope.
oh and even if they legalise dope, driving or doing anything where you could endanger peoples lives under the influence should be considered a major offence.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jan 24, 2003 4:23:37 GMT -5
Drugs are popular because a very few people are making an unbelievable amounts of money, and a lot of people are making a small amount of money, out of supplying drugs. Very few people who take drugs can afford too, so they turn to crime/prostitution to get the required monies. This is the real evil of drugs and a massive drain on most countries financial systems, in England; 70% of all crime is drug related. Legalize all drugs; you take away the crime sub-culture that surrounds it, legalize all drugs; you can start to educate people not to use them for health reasons, much the same as we have done with smoking, legalize all drugs; if it is decriminalized the joy of doing something that is “illegal but good” is removed, legalize all drugs; and there will not be dealers giving drugs to 10/11 year old kids, knowing they will eventually develop the craving that will make them future customers Let me tell you a story: Back in the mid/late ‘60’s, there was virtually no drug related crimes. I used to get heroin and methedrine legally from a Dr. Petro (my girlfriend was his receptionist) it was very easy, I told him I needed drugs and he gave them to me for the cost of a prescription, £3-00 if I remember correctly. Whilst drugs were available on prescription there was no big black market for drugs as such. Sure people who wanted drugs but could not get them from his/her Dr., would buy from a dealer/friend. However there was no real incentive to push drugs on to the general public, as any person developing a “habit” could then go to his Dr. and get his own drugs legally, thereby robbing the dealer of his customer. This all stopped in the 1968 (I think) Harold Wilson the Labour Prime Minister of the time, passed a law banning Dr’s. from prescribing class A drugs, all drug users would now have to get their drugs from a “Drug Addiction Center.” In the next 12 months the price of drugs skyrocketed, as did the deaths from drug overdoses. Neither of these facts made the papers, but the news that drug addiction was down did make the headlines. The real truth was that drug taking and addiction was on the increase, but it was all now on the black market (there are now more drug addicts in Leeds or Glasgow than there were in the whole of Briton in 1966/7). Who was responsible for pushing that law through??? For me you have to go back to the overthrow of the Kray Twins. This was not bought about by masterful detective techniques, the evidence was always there, rather it was the secret handshake bunch at Scotland Yard/Government who received more (and the promise of much, much more later) bribery money from the Greek, Maltese and Jewish criminals who took over once the Kray’s were out of the way. These new crime lords wanted to incorporate a far bigger prostitution/sex and drugs trade to their “Empire” through their European/Mid East/American connections. History shows the connection of Governments to drugs from the Opium wars till today, and today we have a multi-billion $ business that is still paying off the politicians/policy makers and this is the biggest reason there will never be a policy to legalize drugs.
|
|
|
Post by BrainFade on Jan 24, 2003 8:32:50 GMT -5
Interesting fact: it's actually to overdose on paracetemol than on heroin.
If drugs were legalised and could be quality controlled, instead of being cut with all types of other bullshit, there would be fewer OD's.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jan 24, 2003 8:56:07 GMT -5
Brain Fade You are spot on, legal drugs are pure, black market could be cut from 0% to 60%, imagine taking drugs 50% pure then buy from a new supplier and find it is 70% proof. I did not know 1 person who died of an overdose whilst using drugs prescribed by a Dr. in the year after drugs went on the black market, 10 people I knew died.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jan 24, 2003 9:15:22 GMT -5
Actually, I always thought it interesting to make a comparison to the days of the prohibition in the US. When alcohol was made illegal, it didn't stop people from consuming it, but rather created a huge criminal situation that did not exist before.
People will consume drugs. Some might feel this is wrong, some might feel this is fine, but it remains a fact that they will do it. As such, what is really the point of creating a situation that produces more than 50% of world crime, misery everywhere, and at the same time produce something that doesn't even provide for any tax income is just plain stupid.
Certainly soft drugs should be completely legalized, and taxed similarly to tobacco or alcohol. Given the legal trade, prices are more than likely to be below today's black market prices, but would also generate huge tax incomes for governments. Furthermore, a majority of the crime related to such drugs would disappear, creating a safer place, and decreasing considerably the time and budgets spent by countries on security. Talk about a win-win situation!
It will not rid the world entirely of drug problems, as I can't see hard drugs being legalized. Thus there will remain consumers, producers and dealers, and all the various crime related to an illegal substance trade.
Then again, strictly from a personal level, they can legalize the lot of it. It will not bring me to begin consuming any of it, as I really have no interest in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Jan 24, 2003 9:24:17 GMT -5
Can people can drink and drive? No. Can they drink and work? No. One can't even get drunk (I mean wasted...) in public without getting in all sorts of potential legal problem. Let's apply the same standards to drugs...
If you want to smoke, sniff, shoot up or whatever...in the privacy of your own home, who de f*** would I be to stop you? Why should I have that right. Your liberty stops when mine starts. And if your action (getting stone) are not in conflict with anyone's well-being except yours...power to you.
The only thing this prohibition is doing is making some drug king pins really really rich, the system really poor (overwhelmed prisons, costly court cases etc...) and the drug education inexistant.
BTW: High on downers or high on Prozac...What is the difference?
S..h
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Jan 24, 2003 9:35:58 GMT -5
Interesting fact: it's actually to overdose on paracetemol than on heroin. I assume you meant its EASIER to overdose on Paracetemol... ...Anyhow- this wasn't a pedantic post- the reason I responded to this particular post was so that our American bretheren could understand this... In the US Paracetemol isn't called Paracetemol... it's called acetominiphen... (sp?) A common active ingredient in MANY over the counter products!
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Jan 24, 2003 11:41:46 GMT -5
Fuck drugs and anyone who profits from them. That's what has ruined my country and the reason that many good friends of mine have died...
|
|