Printable View
Been a few threads like of late and I thought it might be interesting to get a straw poll of opinion.
Getting the poll options on this is a bit tricky. I don't want to be leading, nor overlap too much, nor leave out what might be a common choice. Please try and vote for the best approximation and then put your disclaimer/caveat in a post :)
I went "Legalise with State Control" because it is closest to what I think. Personally I don't have a problem with what people put in their bodies, but I do have a problem with it when it negaitvely impacts on other people in a harmful way. IMO penalties for drug use should only exist when drugs are found to be involved in other crimes - they should essentially act as an extra add-on penalty that goes with the far more serious crime.
I went with "Decriminalize use maintain other policies" because it seems like a half step is a better start than jumping right in, just a gut feeling.
Anyone who is interested in the argument in favour of Decriminalisation, and the success it has had in Portugal should read this report [PDF] by Glenn Greenwald, which shows how many things have improved statistically, and debunks some of the common myths about drug decriminalisation using raw statistical data.
Full legalisation. I want to turn Britain into my little opiate playground.
The Portugal experiment is very interesting. It certainly goes a long way to rebuffing many of the key objections prohibitionists hold out - that it will create an increase in use and will attract drug tourism.
My problem with it is that it still maintains a massive and powerful black market that could be removed with proper legalisation. Billions of euros pouring into the hands of dealers.
You russians always like the grimmest drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I would gradually discriminalize use, nobody has to notice it really
I'm more like an unholy alliance between Russia and the US. I am interested in the Portugal experiment though. I'd like to see how their culture adapts to the change in drug laws. Maybe if we could demystify the glamour of drugs here it would decrease the demand. However, I believe our culture will always have a higher demand for "bad" drugs.
Frag's approach might work. Hopefully it would encourage a :shrug: mentality.
Think it will. You just can´t legalize it without making a apoint out of it anymore it´s too highprofile a discussion by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I am quite sceptic about decriminalisation of something that inflicts horrible mental and physical damages on the people. I do not think the addicted people should be left to wander the streets just like that. This is a serious problem and the addicted should be directed to psychologists and therapy. I do not really think this includes the prisons, though. People should not become criminals so that the society pays attention to them.
Legalisation of the drugs will indeed make many countries rich but seeing from how widespread smoking is, it's better to keep it illegal. This is a business where the supplies leads to demand, not the vice-versa. And the last but not the least, most of the parents will be against it, therefore, their offsprings will always have a good reason to do just the opposite.
I could choose none of the options. I am generally against smoking, but in small quantities the alcohol is not a bad thing.
Possibly, but prohibition is an illusion, pick your poison. I would keep a close eye on Portugal it seems to work for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
Update: Perhaps the closest thing to what I think is "Relax the punishment for individual users but keep the policy" ( they must undergo some kind of therapy + their families must be informed). I consider this to be some kind of illness, rather than a crime. Prisons are not for these people.
Total ban!!!!
The closest thing to my opinion is that, if you use it after your early 20's, you should be shot and buried in a shallow mass grave.
The older I get, the more I realize that Alchohol and ciggarettes are a nightmare as well, but I wouldn't ban them. I think drug addicts should be left to the wolves.
I also believe that violent criminals should be castrated and have weights and tracking devices installed on their bodies, like in harrison bergeron.
We only live once, why not destory those who screw it up for the rest of us? Am I right?
To be honest, I think we should legalize its use to some extent and prosecute those who break the laws to the fullest extent. IE if someone uses heroin and robs someones house they should go to jail for the rest of their lives. If they use heroin and rot in their basement they should be left alone. Drive under the influence of anything that isn't an accident and you should lose your job, all state licenses and go to jail for 10 years.
1 strike laws with no trial and mandatory execution at the end of the sentence for jay walking, in other words.
Drugs are for morons. Don't do them and this wouldn't be an issue, fidn meaning in your useless lives that doesn't make you a blubbering retard and a public liability
Love you too :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Just not too much, like anything.
edit kinda refreshing to not be a usefull idiot
State control and supply. Drugs provided by the state will have a guarantee of good quality, with checks so the NHS can monitor how and where they are used, and will be taxed to high heaven so the state can get revenue from the druggies (but the prices will still be lower than they are now). Combine with a two-handed policy of buying up raw material in Afghanistan in return for a certain amount of influence there. Whatever the Taliban can do, they can't outbid us in the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Maybe if we tax them to heck, druggies can finance their own rehab and be a net zero cost to the taxpayer, in contrast to what they are now.
Legalise it. Put it in Supermarkets and let the herd cull itself.
It's no buisness of mine what you put in your body.
I was under the impression, due to a trainig session I attended at work awhile ago, that the U.K. had an "opiate maintenance" policy that allowed registered addicts to receive legal measured doses of heroin along with other health services. The program was designed to help users stabilize their lives, reduce crime and increase their chances of getting clean. From what I recall this program was showing some impressive positive results.
What ever became of it?
I'm in favor of that type of system, if it proved effective because what we are doing now isn't working and is costing a fortune in treasure & lives lost and ruined.
Full legalisation - like alcohol....
The first option was somewhat tempting though... It would bring much joy to my heart to see my middle class family going to a dealer to buy themselves drugs (alcohol)... see middle class middle aged women getting thier bottles of wine...
I of course would be there getting very emotional that one of my family members are on 'drugs!' Reading off the latest goverment pamphlet threatening to arrange an intervention and making occasional vieled threats about contacting the police...
The first one or any of the last 4 would do... lets not be hypocritical in the matter...
Ideally in my view the harder drugs would be sold at pharmacy's or maybe even clinics, something soft like marijuana could be done like the coffee shops in amsterdamn or just at newagents....
It was widely used until they decided to replace it with methadone rather than heroin - which gives you relief from the addiction for a longer period, but doesn't actually give you the pleasurable 'hit' so many users take both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
There have been some pilot programmes to once again implement the policy you outline. The trial in Plymouth saw a 800% reduction in petty theft and burglary in the area it was trialled!
With the industry worth well over a billion $ a day in the US, even a 1% tax would show a surplus even after luxurious rehab expenditure.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
The thing with drug users is; they need x amount of money yearly. As they don't produce anything, that money is going to come from your pocket.
The only choice you have, is whether give it to them, or have them steal from you.
Or shoot them when they try, I think guns and weed are pretty much in the same category when it comes to people knowing what is better for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Actually that's not true. You will find that the majority of drug users work for a living. It's only the problem users who do nothing but get high. Providing them with the drugs they want not only removes the need for crime, but also allows them to stabilise their lives and sort themselves out.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Some drug users who probably work:
http://www.dickdestiny.com/republicratbarfliessmall.JPG
I was talking about the heavy users, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Legalize certain drugs. Certain rec "drugs" are too harmful to the body/mind and should still be controlled. State regulated supply for the legalized drugs to ensure quality control and taxation.
I would argue that a legal market is a controlled market. A black market is an uncontrolled market.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
....just like we have no alcohol or tobacco smuggling? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho