| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bishop 5
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
   |
Posted - 2007.10.15 13:38:00 -
[1]
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3061121.ece
This man speaks the truth. Cut the 'dealers' out of the picture, let the government produce them (ensuring there's not cut concrete in it  ) sell it like tobacco and use the billions in profit to help our crap health service.
Never going to happen though as this sort of thing is exactly what governments need to keep 'the masses' in line and in that wonderful state of fear we all know and love.
-------------
meh |
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:00:00 -
[2]
Edited by: ry ry on 15/10/2007 15:03:46
the idea is as old as the hills, but it's just not to ever happen in the UK. the masses are generally too conservative (lower case 'c') for that sort of legislation to be anything but political suicide.
not to sound a **** or anything, but i've (ab)used several people's share of recreational drugs in my time, i've seen a few friends die from drug use and known a few proper* addicts too. personally - and based on what i fink is a fairly concise view of the issue - i think it's a ******* terrible idea to legitimise drug use.
*actual drug addicts rather than tedious students who say they, like, need to smoke weed. man.
|
VorianAtreides
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:05:00 -
[3]
lmfao, they have just put the age for buying tobaccco upto 18, do you really think this idea has any chance atall?
|
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:11:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Xoria Krint on 15/10/2007 15:11:41
Drugs.. Propaganda. End it all and legalize all the drugs. We are human beings for f*ck sake. If we wanna poison our body's.. Well let us.
And for the people that speak against it. And think drugs are just bad and destroy us.
Well let us destroy our self for some generations and if you are right. There will only be anti-drug people on the earth since we others are dead.
Especially Cannabis should be legalized.
Who do i harm when i smoke some pot and watch a good movie with some mates? :\
Why do i have to be a criminal for my drug choice?
|
Micheal Dietrich
Cynical Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:17:00 -
[5]
Wont let me view the page but I've got the general idea from the coments.
Like RyRy I got to watch a friend destroy himself with drugs. Guy can't hold a job now let alone function properly. Catscan revealed holes in his brain. He moved back to Penn with his dad and I haven't seen or heard from him in 5 years and I don't even know if he's alive at this point. I really miss that guy. He showed me how to get drunk and find your way onto the roof of any house.
___________________________
Never Forget, Never Forgive |
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:21:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Wont let me view the page but I've got the general idea from the coments.
Like RyRy I got to watch a friend destroy himself with drugs. Guy can't hold a job now let alone function properly. Catscan revealed holes in his brain. He moved back to Penn with his dad and I haven't seen or heard from him in 5 years and I don't even know if he's alive at this point. I really miss that guy. He showed me how to get drunk and find your way onto the roof of any house.
Well some people can't handle drugs. They get addicted and destroy them self. Its really sad and I have seen it myself aswell.
But the people that can handle the drugs shouldn't be punished for it.
|
Eelis Kiy
Gallente
Revelation Space
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:27:00 -
[7]
They should spend more time and money encouraging people to do something more interesting, worthwhile and rewarding with their lives than bother taking drugs in the first place.
Like play Eve 
|
Lucifer Fellblade
Ore Mongers
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:29:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Wont let me view the page but I've got the general idea from the coments.
Like RyRy I got to watch a friend destroy himself with drugs. Guy can't hold a job now let alone function properly. Catscan revealed holes in his brain. He moved back to Penn with his dad and I haven't seen or heard from him in 5 years and I don't even know if he's alive at this point. I really miss that guy. He showed me how to get drunk and find your way onto the roof of any house.
Well some people can't handle drugs. They get addicted and destroy them self. Its really sad and I have seen it myself aswell.
But the people that can handle the drugs shouldn't be punished for it.
Yeah, if your gonna take that view you might aswell say laws aren't needed at all, because those who are sensible shouldn't be punished for what the idiots do.
Laws are needed, and everybody suffers for the few because of this, it's the way society works and always has, it's not gonna change anytime soon.
------
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:30:00 -
[9]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 15/10/2007 15:31:42
Heheheh. Richard "Controversial" Brunstrom. Gotta love him.
My main objection to legalising drugs is that the tax payer foots the bill for methadone, rehabilitation and indeed for the dole.
My "common sense" (common sense just means you haven't thought very hard about something) reaction is that legal drugs = more smack addled subhuman dolewalling scum subsisting at the taxpayers expense which I'm not hugely in favour of.
If I wouldn't have to foot the bill for any of the consequences of drug use becoming widespread I'd be all in favour of it. Mind you, I'd say the same about tobacco and alcohol. Can't see why I have to pay for smokers to get chemo.
I think the real, long-term solution is more anthrax in hero1n.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Cynical Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:37:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Wont let me view the page but I've got the general idea from the coments.
Like RyRy I got to watch a friend destroy himself with drugs. Guy can't hold a job now let alone function properly. Catscan revealed holes in his brain. He moved back to Penn with his dad and I haven't seen or heard from him in 5 years and I don't even know if he's alive at this point. I really miss that guy. He showed me how to get drunk and find your way onto the roof of any house.
Well some people can't handle drugs. They get addicted and destroy them self. Its really sad and I have seen it myself aswell.
But the people that can handle the drugs shouldn't be punished for it.
And the people that say I don't get addicted make me laugh. I'm addicted to watching them secrectly being addicted.
Hell just the other day a vietnam vet I know tried pawning me his camcorder for $10 so he could buy more beer and cigs. I feel bad for what he went through but I ain't gonna support his addictions when I got my own. He doesn't pay jack for housing anyways so he should have the cash but he's just really bad about it.
___________________________
Never Forget, Never Forgive |
|
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:40:00 -
[11]
Legalizing drugs will change nothing when it comes to those who destroy themselves on them, except making it a non-taboo subject with actual options that don't include jail time or the striping of one's rights and ability to get a job. The number of people who abuse a very damaging drug regularly, known as alcohol, greatly outnumbers any other used substance on this planet and they have no issue getting work. Plenty of people destroy themselves and their lives with alcohol, but people find it much more acceptable than those who abuse illegal substances and don't see it as reason to make it illegal. You'd be surprised how much public opinion on the substance has to do with one's ability to find a place within society sober.
It will also greatly decrease crime and many instances of violence, set up a taxable source to institute funded rehabilitation when needed, and allow actual information to be available that doesn't come from someone making money off of the person using. Not to mention opening up a great amount of research opportunities with willing subjects which in many ways could shed great light onto brain function, medical use, and progress towards eliminating inherent risks with many drugs. This all besides the point that the product will be clean.
Now not all drugs should be legalized, as there are many which are too damaging for their effects. But there are plenty of alternatives or just plain clean forms to push users to an actual controlled substances unlike the condition of 'controlled' substances are now in. But in any case there would be an availability that could easily be monitored.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:43:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Eelis Kiy
They should spend more time and money encouraging people to do something more interesting, worthwhile and rewarding with their lives than bother taking drugs in the first place.
Like play Eve
Agree, But drugs help people aswell.
Originally by: Lucifer Fellblade
Yeah, if your gonna take that view you might aswell say laws aren't needed at all, because those who are sensible shouldn't be punished for what the idiots do.
Laws are needed, and everybody suffers for the few because of this, it's the way society works and always has, it's not gonna change anytime soon.
Well.. Let's set up a "drug system" then? If you do stupid things on drugs you are forbidden to use them? Hitting someone when you are drunk = one warning (three warnings and you are forbidden to drink alcohol).
Besides, Alcohol does more damage in a society then Cannabis do in country's where both drugs are legal.
And I don't really wanna see ALL drugs legal since I know some people get into drugs without reading about it first.
LSD (physical addictive only)
Mushrooms (physical addictive only)
Cannabis (physical addictive only)
Amphetamine/*****/Cocain/****** (ehm.. Why are some drugs in the offensive filter?)
truly does destroy your body and makes a tough addiction. But sure. If there is people out there that can use these drugs without getting into trubble. Heck let them use it.
|
Bishop 5
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:45:00 -
[13]
All those who keep saying they know people who have destroyed themselves on drugs; fair play... it's not pretty (my cousin died using ******) but drugs like ****** only become dangerous *because* of the illegality of it. 100% pure ****** has medicinal purpose. The stuff you'll get from 'T-Bone' on the corner of the street will be mixed with anything from washing powder to chalk, THAT'S what makes it dangerous.
Weed... well... we all know about that 
-------------
meh |
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:50:00 -
[14]
Quote:
LSD (physical addictive only)
Mushrooms (physical addictive only)
Never known either of these to have a physically addictive quality.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:52:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Xoria Krint on 15/10/2007 15:51:58
Originally by: Bishop 5
All those who keep saying they know people who have destroyed themselves on drugs; fair play... it's not pretty (my cousin died using ******) but drugs like ****** only become dangerous *because* of the illegality of it. 100% pure ****** has medicinal purpose. The stuff you'll get from 'T-Bone' on the corner of the street will be mixed with anything from washing powder to chalk, THAT'S what makes it dangerous.
Weed... well... we all know about that
This guys knows what he is talking about. But it still makes you very addictive to it and it can make you care more about your ****** addiction then your kids etc.
Erowid about ******
But the addiction ain't that dangerous if the government would accept the cures for
addiction:
Ibogaine
Ibogaine info
|
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 15:53:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Caid Lemant
Quote:
LSD (physical addictive only)
Mushrooms (physical addictive only)
Never known either of these to have a physically addictive quality.
Everything can be physically addictive. Even Eve 
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 16:05:00 -
[17]
Edited by: ry ry on 15/10/2007 16:06:15
you mean psychologically, surely?
smack is physically addictive, gambling is psychologically addictive. worlds apart.
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 16:06:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Originally by: Caid Lemant
Quote:
LSD (physical addictive only)
Mushrooms (physical addictive only)
Never known either of these to have a physically addictive quality.
Everything can be physically addictive. Even Eve
Eve actually can't become physically addicting because there is never a physical agent that can't be replaced with some other activity. Considering that the effects of most hallucinogens persist in your body for long periods of time and in most cases induce high levels of many normally active chemicals, the effects are quite easy to recreate long after the 'high' has faded without the drug itself. You could call them addictive while the high is peaking, or in the process of... but that's much more psychological than a physical need for the substance. One's body does not go through detox after tripping (when it comes to mushrooms after digestion sure, but that has to do with you eating something verging on poisonous to your digestive system), you could say something about the mind but all in all it's actually just returning to quasi-normal levels.
It's nothing like ******* (blow) or an opioid where the physical reaction in the brain/body can only be replicated by the foreign agent because the reaction is centralized and very extreme. Both mental and physical addiction varies based on the body and mind involved, but there are substances no one can truly deal with alone after becoming physically dependent.
I might have went into too much detail here but meh.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 16:07:00 -
[19]
Edited by: ry ry on 15/10/2007 16:07:38
let the dull over-analysis begin!
|
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 16:11:00 -
[20]
Well I don't know about you guys. But I can get high by playing Eve 
|
|
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 16:22:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Well I don't know about you guys. But I can get high by playing Eve
You can get a high doing anything, the basic autonomy of our brains is based around 'getting high' and chasing those very highs.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Malcanis
High4Life
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 19:24:00 -
[22]
Originally by: SoftRevolution
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 15/10/2007 15:31:42
Heheheh. Richard "Controversial" Brunstrom. Gotta love him.
My main objection to legalising drugs is that the tax payer foots the bill for methadone, rehabilitation and indeed for the dole.
My "common sense" (common sense just means you haven't thought very hard about something) reaction is that legal drugs = more smack addled subhuman dolewalling scum subsisting at the taxpayers expense which I'm not hugely in favour of.
If I wouldn't have to foot the bill for any of the consequences of drug use becoming widespread I'd be all in favour of it. Mind you, I'd say the same about tobacco and alcohol. Can't see why I have to pay for smokers to get chemo.
I think the real, long-term solution is more anthrax in hero1n.
Your post is based on a single (huge) assumption, which you might do well to verify before advocating mass murder:
Criminalising drugs reduces consumption
Kindly provide some evidence that prohibition reduces consumption. I have yet to see any. You might like to look up how many ****** addicts there were the year parliament was persuaded to criminalise it.
The simple fact that people can easily obtain drugs IN PRISON proves that prohibition simply doesn't work. Think about that: even if our lives were as tightly controlled and lacking in freedom as high security prisoners, people would STILL use drugs.
Many of what people think of as the consequences of narcotics use are actually a consequence of prohibition.
May I take it that you're also in favour of criminalising tobacco products, eating too much, drinking alcohol and owning a car which can do more than 70mph? Currently all of these things are legal choices, provide no logical benefit, and they all cost the UK taxpayer quite a bit of money.
Interesting fact: Some police reports estimate that up to 80% of all crime (and 90% of property crime) is drugs-related. Mostly committed by addicts trying to find money to buy their next fix, the rest caused by rival gangs fighting for turf rights.
Given how much crime costs the UK taxpayer, I think addiction treatment looks like a bit of a bargain.
Interesting thought: currently anyone can buy drugs, regardless of age or health. Care to speculate what might be different in this situation if people could get pure, clean drugs from a licensed supplier like a registered pharmacist? Do you think it would be easier or more difficult for children, for instance, to get narcotics?
I ask because right now I could take you to places where children of 10 or 12 are mashed on Ketamin.
Prohibition: working as intended...?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:11:00 -
[23]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 15/10/2007 20:15:50
Quote:
Interesting fact: Some police reports estimate that up to 80% of all crime (and 90% of property crime) is drugs-related. Mostly committed by addicts trying to find money to buy their next fix, the rest caused by rival gangs fighting for turf rights.
I already answered this when I made my modest proposal about spiking the supply with anthrax. PROBLEM SOLVED.  I was going to put some sort of [IRONY] tags around that but I've decided if you get annoyed that's your fault for taking obvious wind-up seriously.
Alcohol and cigarettes are already legal. Criminalising them is kind of a moot point... although actually I guess you could see the smoking ban in those terms and I am definitely in favour of the smoking ban.
Whether they'd get licensed for public consumption in this day and age is an interesting question. I suspect not. But like I said, the law on those things is not about to get changed. 70mph motorists pay speeding fines. Fat people... are fat. You're right. For the drain they place on the NHS there should be a special "chips tax".
I think the relationship between doing X and X being a criminal offence is more complicated than simply "If it's illegal people won't do it" (DUH!) but I do think the combination of keeping something socially unacceptable and providing penalties probably does have a deterrent effect with emphasis more on the socially unacceptable part.
I worry that decriminalising drug use would make drug use less of a pariah pastime.
I also worry that the increased convenience it would put drug use into the reach of the casual idiot instead of just the hardcore stupid. Currently you do need to know criminals to obtain drugs by definition. That's extra stigma on using them.
Kids on drugs? Great. All for it. Move them onto the hard stuff so they expire before they can breed. Although that's kind of an argument for legalisation. Hmmm. 
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:21:00 -
[24]
Actually when it comes to eliminating the largest portion of the black market, crime will greatly vanish in many places. Not only are you eliminating a non-violent crime, but eliminating the violence that grows from the black market that is created because any given substance is illegal. There are few ways to deal with dispute, theft, and scams when it comes to illegal substances and most of them involved violence or threats of violence. Even over something as little as $900 of good ol' sticky icky, people take drastic action because they have to or they'd be tagged as push over. You can't turn to the law in any situation without endangering yourself, all someone who is holding has is their reputation.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
lofty29
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:27:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Drugs.. Propaganda. End it all and legalize all the drugs. We are human beings for f*ck sake. If we wanna poison our body's.. Well let us.
Problem is that for the first few years you'll get a bunch of kids going 'WEED/LSD/******/SPEED/***** YAY!!11!'. They die and a large % of the population dies. Large sums of money disappear from government funds because of this, and as such, huge economical raeptrain is created.
I still don't think we should be force-fed the whole 'DRUGS ARE BAD!1!1' but I certainly think that yes we are humans and should be free to do as we choose. It's just that it's so hard to sensibly control it any other way.
---
Latest Video : FAT- Camp |
Neon Genesis
The Landed Gentry
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:34:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
LSD (physical addictive only)
Mushrooms (physical addictive only)
Cannabis (physical addictive only)
Enjoying the feeling and wanting to repeat the experience is not the same thing as physical addiction.
I don't think all drugs should be legalised. ****** is a good example, which I don't think should be allowed to fall into public hands. The chief reason being that it's so possible to kill yourself with it, and the physical addiction that comes with it can impair your judgement enough to do just that.
I will personally be very dissapointed however, if cannabis is put back to a class B in Britain. The change to class C is a good thing because it dosn't target those of us who take it in casual moderation, for innocent enjoyment.
_
|
lofty29
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:37:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Neon Genesis
I will personally be very dissapointed however, if cannabis is put back to a class B in Britain. The change to class C is a good thing because it dosn't target those of us who take it in casual moderation, for innocent enjoyment.
It won't go back soon, if ever. It's as easy to get as bootleg DVDs now, and the government know they can't control it. That, and it's as harmful as tobacco pretty much.
---
Latest Video : FAT- Camp |
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:38:00 -
[28]
Quote:
That would be the start of a Big Brother-esque society. First it starts with monitoring us like that, next they won't let us **** without filling out a form
Compared to the current situation where if you're caught with certain substances you end up in jail, loss standing as a citizen, are fined a large deal of money, and aren't allowed to work certain jobs. That to receive any given medication, you must go through two government sponsored officials and every detail is recorded including when you picked them up and what for. Or the fact that your license plates are shot at the majority of intersections you drive through and in many populated areas can now receive infractions from an automated system that recorded you in the act.
Yup, making a workable system for clean distribution of recreational drugs would be the final tipping point towards fascism.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Neon Genesis
The Landed Gentry
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:39:00 -
[29]
Originally by: lofty29
Originally by: Neon Genesis
I will personally be very dissapointed however, if cannabis is put back to a class B in Britain. The change to class C is a good thing because it dosn't target those of us who take it in casual moderation, for innocent enjoyment.
It won't go back soon, if ever. It's as easy to get as bootleg DVDs now, and the government know they can't control it. That, and it's as harmful as tobacco pretty much.
Brown had plans to review the decision, as far as I am aware.
_
|
Malcanis
High4Life
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 21:32:00 -
[30]
Originally by: SoftRevolution
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 15/10/2007 20:15:50
Quote:
Interesting fact: Some police reports estimate that up to 80% of all crime (and 90% of property crime) is drugs-related. Mostly committed by addicts trying to find money to buy their next fix, the rest caused by rival gangs fighting for turf rights.
I already answered this when I made my modest proposal about spiking the supply with anthrax. PROBLEM SOLVED. I was going to put some sort of [IRONY] tags around that but I've decided if you get annoyed that's your fault for taking obvious wind-up seriously.
Alcohol and cigarettes are already legal. Criminalising them is kind of a moot point... although actually I guess you could see the smoking ban in those terms and I am definitely in favour of the smoking ban.
Whether they'd get licensed for public consumption in this day and age is an interesting question. I suspect not. But like I said, the law on those things is not about to get changed. 70mph motorists pay speeding fines. Fat people... are fat. You're right. For the drain they place on the NHS there should be a special "chips tax".
I think the relationship between doing X and X being a criminal offence is more complicated than simply "If it's illegal people won't do it" (DUH!) but I do think the combination of keeping something socially unacceptable and providing penalties probably does have a deterrent effect with emphasis more on the socially unacceptable part.
I worry that decriminalising drug use would make drug use less of a pariah pastime.
I also worry that the increased convenience it would put drug use into the reach of the casual idiot instead of just the hardcore stupid. Currently you do need to know criminals to obtain drugs by definition. That's extra stigma on using them.
Kids on drugs? Great. All for it. Move them onto the hard stuff so they expire before they can breed. Although that's kind of an argument for legalisation. Hmmm.
"I do think the combination of keeping something socially unacceptable and providing penalties probably does have a deterrent effect"
I know you do. You already said it in your first post. It's just that all the available evidence points in the other direction. Addiction rates dectupled within 2 years of her0in prohibition in the UK. Or to put it another way: you're wrong.
Kids on drugs? Great. All for it. Move them onto the hard stuff so they expire before they can breed. Although that's kind of an argument for legalisation. Hmmm.
Another modest proposal? Again, if you're worried about kids buying drugs, it's trivially obvious that prohibition has no deterrent effect on people below the age of criminal responsibility. Slightly less trivially obvious is the situation inherent in it being illegal to sell drugs to anyone. So it's a crime to sell to adults and a crime to sell to children. Therefore drug dealers do both - why not? But if adults could obtain their drugs legally, then dealers would only have children as customers. Not a tenable situation. Arguably, prohibition increases drugs use among children.
"I worry that decriminalising drug use would make drug use less of a pariah pastime.
"
You seem to be stuck in a mindset that using "drugs" is a sin. ie: that it's morally wrong in and of itself to use any drugs (although only the illegal ones - they're illegal because they're wrong, but you seem to think that they're wrong because they're illegal too... see the logic gap?) regardless of the consequences.
Leaving aside the fallacy of treating all drugs as the same, why should eg: smoking cannabis or taking an E on Saturday night be a "pariah" past-time? Does it make Jesus cry? Are kittens killed in producing them?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
|
Nuala Reece
Caldari
Starlancers
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 22:43:00 -
[31]
Originally by: lofty29
Problem is that for the first few years you'll get a bunch of kids going 'WEED/LSD/******/SPEED/***** YAY!!11!'. They die and a large % of the population dies. Large sums of money disappear from government funds because of this, and as such, huge economical raeptrain is created.
Last time I heard stats on drug related deaths (from a Drugs, Alcohol and HIV Forum meeting in Scotland) they suggested that around 120 people die every year in Scotland from illicit drug use. Out of a population of just over 5 million that's around 0.0024%. Even if legalisation resulted in a tenfold increase in use and resulting deaths (1200 deaths per year, 0.024%) that would still be only half of the deaths the country sees as a result of alcohol use. From my point of view, the death rate from illegal drug use is hugely over played because, in the words of one of the Forum members, 'politically speaking drugs are sexy'. It's for that reason, and people's natural tendency toward conservatism (in England at least) that the evidence in favour of changing drug legislation is frequently ignored in favour of 'common sense' ideas with little or no evidence to back them up.
There's already a good amount of evidence for the economic benefits of at least decriminalising drug use. Other countries have seen overall drug use decrease after a brief increase folowing legalisation or deciminalisation for so-called 'soft' drugs. For 'hard' drugs there's even better evidence - a test study in Liverpool in the early 90's, where addicts were able to get smack on prescription on condition they attended drug counselling regularly, had pretty dramatic results. An area with high levels of crime - theft, violence and prostitution - was virtually transformed as a result of the test. Most of the theft and prostitution was a result of people needing money to fund their habit, money they didn't need once their drugs were free on prescription (gods bless the NHS). The cost on the NHS also dropped becasue the drugs they were using were medical grade rather than street-style cut with brick dust stuff - high quality gear combined with regular medical and counselling contact and more disposable income led to users being much more healthy. It also led to them being able to stabilize their lives, increasing their chances of legal employment and reducing the cost on the benefits system. Dealers had less customers and so moved away, dramatically reducing the level of violence on the streets, and punters went elsewhere allowing locals to feel more safe and have more ownership of their own streets. People were also more likely to get themselves off the drugs than the current preferred method of giving them a significantly more addictive drug as a replacement therapy (methadone).
Basically the evidence available suggests we spend far more money at the moment pursuing the war on drugs, sorry the War On Drugs!, than we would if we, well, smoked a joint and just chilled out dude 
Summary - War On Drugs! is a massive waste of money with very little significant result other than to maintain the staus quo, but a great political tool for scaring people on a local level when they're too smart to fall for the larger scare stories. Until that changes we're pretty unlikely to see any kind of real change to the law towards something that might actually benefit drug users, drug addicts, the health service, the benefits system and society in general.
Starlancers
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/NualaReece/starlancers_ad.avi |
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 23:13:00 -
[32]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 15/10/2007 23:17:59
I'd have to have a look at the figures to comment really. That could be down to any number of oddities in the way such things were recorded and reported. There's been an apparent hike in some of the figures for violent crime over the past 12 months for similar reasons. That sounds way too high to be reliable. Even if it's not I'd still be very wary of just assuming that's simple cause and effect. What would the figures have done if her0in hadn't have been prohibited?
Yes. Legalising drugs would ensure children didn't partake. Just like booze and****s.
Pariah pastime =
Hard drug use is socially unacceptable.
Soft drug use is to a greater or lesser extent depending on the context and the drug itself. You wouldn't light a joint on the bus or walking down the high street. You wouldn't tell your boss you took E. Well. I wouldn't tell mine if I did.
I don't have any particular moral mindset. On a personal level I really do not care what you do. You fall well outside my Dunbar's Number or whatever the term for the number of people you see as human is. It's only a "sin" in my book because I find people voluntarily making themselves useless and then relying on the state to look after them irritating. I dislike drug users because I have found them unreliable and unpredictable to work with. Same goes for drunks, mind you.
|
Darteis Elosia
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 23:56:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Darteis Elosia on 16/10/2007 00:03:03
Edited by: Darteis Elosia on 16/10/2007 00:02:30
Well here is my two cents.
Some drugs are just too freaking dangerous to be allowed. I tried coke and the result was a immediate addiction to that ****. One though would occupy my head when the mood suddenly turned from good to bad; coke. It's dangerous, really dangerous. My life could have been completely ****** over and i could of devoted it to trying to get more of it every day. Luckily, in one way, very tragic, in another, a series of events landed me in hospital for a week and i got professional with the addiction and what had also happen when i was high off it.
Some drugs are simply too dangerous and too powerful for anyone to handle. And even if they live a reasonably normal life with these kinds of drugs, they are always very close to slipping into an addiction that affects everyday life in a very negative way.
I can understand that some people may want to legalize Cannabis. But in all honesty that is how far i believe that the government should legalize drugs. Thats where I'd draw the line anyway for what is supposed to be legal. If people want to try experiment with drugs, fine they do as they like and some people learn best by doing but there is no reason to sanction it. If they want to try, they should be ready to break the law.
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 02:39:00 -
[34]
Quote:
Some drugs are just too freaking dangerous to be allowed. I tried coke and the result was a immediate addiction to that ****. One though would occupy my head when the mood suddenly turned from good to bad; coke. It's dangerous, really dangerous. My life could have been completely ****** over and i could of devoted it to trying to get more of it every day. Luckily, in one way, very tragic, in another, a series of events landed me in hospital for a week and i got professional with the addiction and what had also happen when i was high off it.
Pure *******, used with the proper information and availability, is much less dangerous than you put it off as. Hundreds times more people have put themselves in the hospital or grave with alcohol than have ever come from cut *******. When it comes to the drug's production and distribution methods, it's a whole other story when it comes to those who've died or had their lives ended in non-mortal ways.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Murukan
Minmatar
Dark Knights of Deneb
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 03:55:00 -
[35]
There is no excuse that weed isn't legal, the only reason right now is because the tobacco companies don't want competition for cigarettes. If you look it the facts, you're more likely to be a big violent ******* when you're drunk than if you're stoned. Maybe petty theft of chips and the like would increase but i would rather be more worried about my chips getting nicked than some drunk guy trying to punch my face in for no reason.
Manlove by Zaphod Jones
|
Skraeling Shortbus
Caldari
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 06:42:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Edited by: Xoria Krint on 15/10/2007 15:11:41
Drugs.. Propaganda. End it all and legalize all the drugs. We are human beings for f*ck sake. If we wanna poison our body's.. Well let us.
And for the people that speak against it. And think drugs are just bad and destroy us.
Well let us destroy our self for some generations and if you are right. There will only be anti-drug people on the earth since we others are dead.
Especially Cannabis should be legalized.
Who do i harm when i smoke some pot and watch a good movie with some mates? :\
Why do i have to be a criminal for my drug choice?
physiologically speaking tell me that they are not bad for you, because well they are.
Love to the Assault Frigate! |
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 06:44:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Murukan
There is no excuse that weed isn't legal, the only reason right now is because the tobacco companies don't want competition for cigarettes. If you look it the facts, you're more likely to be a big violent ******* when you're drunk than if you're stoned. Maybe petty theft of chips and the like would increase but i would rather be more worried about my chips getting nicked than some drunk guy trying to punch my face in for no reason.
Haha. I want my chips 
|
Mr Friendly
That it Should Come to This
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 07:00:00 -
[38]
Arthur C. Clarke had an interesting idea about hard drugs (just throwing this out there as I favor legalization/regulation/social destigmatization personally).
His idea:
1)make drugs available and free to any adults who wants them.
2)Let them descend into their drug haze and they remove themselves from the gene pool.
3)The non-drug users breed, the drug users do not.
4) ?????
5) profit
__________________________________________________
FOLD. The Ultimate PVP. It really is Us vs. Them.
clicky |
Asian Trader
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 08:09:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Mr Friendly
Arthur C. Clarke had an interesting idea about hard drugs (just throwing this out there as I favor legalization/regulation/social destigmatization personally).
His idea:
1)make drugs available and free to any adults who wants them.
2)Let them descend into their drug haze and they remove themselves from the gene pool.
3)The non-drug users breed, the drug users do not.
4) ?????
5) profit
Its evooolution *singing on the new Korn song*
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 08:59:00 -
[40]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 16/10/2007 08:59:35
Alas, in Britain that goes something like:
4) The Welfare state pays for their housing, food, drugs and provides them with healthcare while they pump out babies like there's no tomorrow.
|
|
|
XrayZ
Euphoria Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 10:27:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Edited by: Xoria Krint on 15/10/2007 15:11:41
Drugs.. Propaganda. End it all and legalize all the drugs. We are human beings for f*ck sake. If we wanna poison our body's.. Well let us.
And for the people that speak against it. And think drugs are just bad and destroy us.
Well let us destroy our self for some generations and if you are right. There will only be anti-drug people on the earth since we others are dead.
Especially Cannabis should be legalized.
Who do i harm when i smoke some pot and watch a good movie with some mates? :\
Why do i have to be a criminal for my drug choice?
damn straight bro!
legaliseeraaaaaa!!!!
*puts on some hippie music and starts rolling*
--------------------------------------
<3 Godlesswanderer } eve-gfx team. |
Darteis Elosia
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 13:35:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Caid Lemant
Quote:
Some drugs are just too freaking dangerous to be allowed. I tried coke and the result was a immediate addiction to that ****. One though would occupy my head when the mood suddenly turned from good to bad; coke. It's dangerous, really dangerous. My life could have been completely ****** over and i could of devoted it to trying to get more of it every day. Luckily, in one way, very tragic, in another, a series of events landed me in hospital for a week and i got professional with the addiction and what had also happen when i was high off it.
Pure *******, used with the proper information and availability, is much less dangerous than you put it off as. Hundreds times more people have put themselves in the hospital or grave with alcohol than have ever come from cut *******. When it comes to the drug's production and distribution methods, it's a whole other story when it comes to those who've died or had their lives ended in non-mortal ways.
I speak from my own experience from it and i think it's extremly dangerous, maybe it's not as bad on your liver as alcohol but it's so addictive it can easily take over someones life. It's just not a question of how many people get into the hospital becuase of it or due to related events. Think of all the people who actually are addicted to it and live their daily lives with angst and agony becuase they are.
You can tone it down as much as you like but i hope you've tried it before you advocate that it's not dangerous.
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 14:06:00 -
[43]
I live in Holland.
Trust me when i say, legalizing sounds nice and all, but it has some serious downsides. 2 'friends' of mine have gone totally out of control in their use of softdrugs and have quit school and job over it. Not good when you're 20.
Paradox V2.0 is recruiting! |
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 14:38:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Caid Lemant on 16/10/2007 14:39:42
Originally by: Darteis Elosia
Originally by: Caid Lemant
Quote:
Some drugs are just too freaking dangerous to be allowed. I tried coke and the result was a immediate addiction to that ****. One though would occupy my head when the mood suddenly turned from good to bad; coke. It's dangerous, really dangerous. My life could have been completely ****** over and i could of devoted it to trying to get more of it every day. Luckily, in one way, very tragic, in another, a series of events landed me in hospital for a week and i got professional with the addiction and what had also happen when i was high off it.
Pure *******, used with the proper information and availability, is much less dangerous than you put it off as. Hundreds times more people have put themselves in the hospital or grave with alcohol than have ever come from cut *******. When it comes to the drug's production and distribution methods, it's a whole other story when it comes to those who've died or had their lives ended in non-mortal ways.
I speak from my own experience from it and i think it's extremly dangerous, maybe it's not as bad on your liver as alcohol but it's so addictive it can easily take over someones life. It's just not a question of how many people get into the hospital becuase of it or due to related events. Think of all the people who actually are addicted to it and live their daily lives with angst and agony becuase they are.
You can tone it down as much as you like but i hope you've tried it before you advocate that it's not dangerous.
It's as dangerous as you let it and in any case it doesn't change the fact that in its pure form many factors that are currently inherent to the drug disappear. Add in a distribution method that isn't purely based around profit and getting buyers addicted and many others disappear. I'm not saying it's fool proof but with the right things instituted the drug would become reasonably safe in comparison to the current situation. Illegality has more effect on the dangers of the drug and addiction than the drug itself in this case.
When it comes to experience, I've seen enough of the stuff in front of me and around me to be able to talk.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 21:04:00 -
[45]
Originally by: ry ry
let the dull over-analysis begin!
i didn't think they'd listen :(
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.16 21:08:00 -
[46]
Edited by: ry ry on 16/10/2007 21:10:55
in other news, my elderly neighbour just came round and made me get my girlfriend out of bed to get a frog out of her bedroom*. it's not like we live in a ******* bayou or anything and it's late at night here.
seriously, wtf? this all raises more questions than answers, frankly.
*vik likes animals. a lot.
|
Malcanis
High4Life
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 19:08:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Skraeling Shortbus
Originally by: Xoria Krint
Edited by: Xoria Krint on 15/10/2007 15:11:41
Drugs.. Propaganda. End it all and legalize all the drugs. We are human beings for f*ck sake. If we wanna poison our body's.. Well let us.
And for the people that speak against it. And think drugs are just bad and destroy us.
Well let us destroy our self for some generations and if you are right. There will only be anti-drug people on the earth since we others are dead.
Especially Cannabis should be legalized.
Who do i harm when i smoke some pot and watch a good movie with some mates? :\
Why do i have to be a criminal for my drug choice?
physiologically speaking tell me that they are not bad for you, because well they are.
So is refined sugar. None of your business, really.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
High4Life
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 19:09:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Sokratesz
I live in Holland.
Trust me when i say, legalizing sounds nice and all, but it has some serious downsides. 2 'friends' of mine have gone totally out of control in their use of softdrugs and have quit school and job over it. Not good when you're 20.
And you think this couldn't have happened if they were criminalised too?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Riddaro
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 20:05:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Riddaro on 17/10/2007 20:05:27
Before i start...I havnt read the other posts in this thread and frankly i dont want to, i find the topic of this post quite irrelevant and a tad bit offensive since i work for the long arm of the law, plz devs, lock plz?!?
Send flames VIA ingame to me plz? Real Character is Kydor for your info
|
Nuala Reece
Caldari
Starlancers
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 21:48:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Riddaro
Edited by: Riddaro on 17/10/2007 20:05:27
Before i start...I havnt read the other posts in this thread and frankly i dont want to, i find the topic of this post quite irrelevant and a tad bit offensive since i work for the long arm of the law, plz devs, lock plz?!?
Send flames VIA ingame to me plz? Real Character is Kydor for your info
lol  Lock the thread because you're feeling offended by the things you haven't read? Are you on drugs?
Starlancers
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/NualaReece/starlancers_ad.avi |
|
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 21:53:00 -
[51]
Originally by: ry ry
Originally by: ry ry
let the dull over-analysis begin!
i didn't think they'd listen :(
Kinda hard to listen to when you have nothing to say.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Xoria Krint
The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 22:11:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Sokratesz
I live in Holland.
Trust me when i say, legalizing sounds nice and all, but it has some serious downsides. 2 'friends' of mine have gone totally out of control in their use of softdrugs and have quit school and job over it. Not good when you're 20.
I trust you but I don't agree. I know alot of people that don't do drugs and are over 20 that quited job/school for alot of other reasons; MMORPG's TV shows (Its true, sadly) Love I could add some more but I guess you get the point. I also know people that quited school/job over drugs ofcurse so im not going to defend it THAT much. But I also know people that do so called "light drugs" and do GREAT in both school and work. But atleast let the sick people get Cannabis as medicine but the big corporations wouldn't like that :)
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 22:18:00 -
[53]
to be honest mate, i have lots to say on the subject. unfotunately very little of it's suitable for a forum that is aimed at kiddies and filters the names of most hard drugs.
suffice to say, your supposition that ***** ******* 'isn't dangerous' is laughable to the point of being utterly contemptible.
|
Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
|
Posted - 2007.10.17 23:53:00 -
[54]
Originally by: ry ry
Edited by: ry ry on 17/10/2007 22:24:28
Originally by: "caid lament"
Kinda hard to listen to when you have nothing to say.
to be honest mate, i have lots to say on the subject. unfotunately very little of it's suitable for a forum that is aimed at kiddies and filters the names of most hard drugs.
suffice to say, your supposition that sustained ******* use 'isn't dangerous if you get good gear' is laughable to the point of being utterly contemptible.
i genuinely doubt you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
If you disagree with the suitability of this thread, why do you continue posting in it? Interesting choice to bump a thread you seem to not want to be a part of, as declared within the thread itself.
I'm also curious when I said it 'isn't dangerous', I've said it would be much less dangerous and in comparison to the current situation, relatively safe - comparison is a key word there. Not to mention a change on awareness about the distribution of the drug that doesn't only exist in an underbelly culture that has no public or legal means of awareness that don't include right stripping consequences. I'm also curious how an explanation from a different view point than yours correlates to not having a clue what I'm talking about.
--------
There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things.
Friedrich Nietzsche |
Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 00:04:00 -
[55]
Originally by: SoftRevolution
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 16/10/2007 08:59:35
Alas, in Britain that goes something like:
4) The Welfare state pays for their housing, food, drugs and provides them with healthcare while they pump out babies like there's no tomorrow.
Are you implying that there is a link between poverty, poor housing, poor health and drug use?
Are you suggesting that the incidence of drug use is much more common amongst the poorer section of the community, and possibly realising that folk in bad situations are more inclined to want to get out of it as an escape?
Could you be coming to the conclusion that many folk are mistaking a symptom as a cause?
Or are you just resorting to sweeping generalisations because you read the Mail/Telegraph/Sun too often?
I think the public have a right to know!!
The next revolution won't be televised; it'll be pod-cast. |
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 03:07:00 -
[56]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 18/10/2007 03:07:45
The Sun is lollerific. News in Briefs is utter genius. They used to pay for the sun at work and I used to only look at the **** on page 3 and then skip to Dear Diedre for the humiliating / titillating sex stuff ("Dear Diedre, I slept with my girlfriend's mum. Should I tell her?") so I generally missed the editorialising. But then I noticed News in Briefs and it ruined page 3 for me. I can't look at Mandy, 22 from Essex without picturing Margaret Thatcher
I was going for more of a Charles Murray "underclass" thing though. Only as a specific riposte to someone's slightly hopeful notion that legalising drugs would result in whole segments of society Darwin-awarding themselves out of our collective hair.
I'm afraid I'm a bit "third way" on this stuff though. People can be unfortunate and useless human detritus.
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 09:10:00 -
[57]
Edited by: ry ry on 18/10/2007 09:15:16
Originally by: Caid Lemant
If you disagree with the suitability of this thread, why do you continue posting in it? Interesting choice to bump a thread you seem to not want to be a part of, as declared within the thread itself.
I'm also curious when I said it 'isn't dangerous', I've said it would be much less dangerous and in comparison to the current situation, relatively safe - comparison is a key word there. Not to mention a change on awareness about the distribution of the drug that doesn't only exist in an underbelly culture that has no public or legal means of awareness that don't include right stripping consequences. I'm also curious how an explanation from a different view point than yours correlates to not having a clue what I'm talking about.
i don't think the thread is suitable for a pc13 computergame forum. why would that stop me from posting? i'd just assumed this thread would have been closed already.
anyway, if you really want to do the ****y internet argument thing, fine. your logic is fundamentally flawed - apparently you're assuming the level of drug use in the population would remain static, whilst it's newfound legal status would ensure that the existing users were protected from the excesses of criminality; which is the cause of the vague and hazy danger you keep mentioning.
this is a little miguided. the majority of ******* users buy off friends or friends-of-friends, who in-turn are dealing to support their own habit. perhaps more importantly, it's an addictive and extremely profitable drug; it's not in a dealer's interests to go round endangering paying customers.
so. assuming users aren't in any immediate danger from their dealer, what exactly is this 'danger'? and more importantly, how would decriminalisation reduce this?
the dangers of coke are all inherent in it's nature. addiciton (and all the many and varied problems this presents), heartattack, endless hours spouting self-absorbed **** to strangers to coked up to even listen to what you're saying. these don't change if you slap a tax on it and start selling it in Tesco Express.
you with me so-far? great.
now we have to make some leaps of logic regarding the possible downsides of legalisation. by legalising hard drugs, the government would effectively be endorsing their use. despite shrill claims to the contrary from internet forum ninjas, this would create an air of social acceptability and - god forbid - safety around a class A narcotic.
Fag packets carry dire warnings of death; your death, the death of those you care about, the death of your unborn baby, and the death of blood flow to your *****. Yet still millions of people happily puff away, cornershops and 24-hour garages do a roaring trade in ciggys, we smoke our little lungs out and everybody is happy.
now suppose the only way to get a packet of****s is by ringing around a couple of mobile numbers, until you find somebody that has some but wants ú40 for a packet of twenty. they're in a pub on the other side of town and there's no way they're coming to meet you so you'll have to make your way to The Swollen Nostril and sullenly nurse a pint till your guy turns up. money is exchanged and you're on your way back to see your mates, only noticing when you get back to the pub that he's clearly smoked three of the cigarettes.
now reverse that. coke is legalised - what happens to the levels of usage?
the percentages legalisation avocates cling to ("OH MORE PLEOPL DEIS FROM DRINK THUN DRUGS LOL") only work in their favour because of the disproportionately larger number of people who drink than take drugs. people who like to do both apparently don't count.
the moment ******* use reached the levels of alcohol use they you'll start to see what you consider to be minor social issues - addicts robbing houses to buy drugs, that sort of thing - become vastly magnified. so the government gets stuck with helping all these newly created junkies get clean, except that costs a fortune, which means
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 09:17:00 -
[58]
[cont] more tax on the bloody coke in the first place.
so now we have a situation where you're making a short-lived addictive substance easily obtainable but prohibitively expensive. can you not see the teeny tiny problem there?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |