Hard Drugs should be legal

Al capone killed lots of people for money made in the illegal Alcohol trade (i'm drinking a BEER right now, and no i'm not drunk, i only had one, this is #2) and Pablo Escobar killed lots of people for the money made in the illegal cocaine trade.

Alcohol was made Legal, amd Capone went straight to jail. Escobar supplied kilos and kilos of cocaine into the US with the help of Manuel Noreaga, A US ALLY at the time. Cocaine still floods into the US to this day. And i'd bet the CIA profits off of it just so they can bust the dealers they sell it to.
Thats why nothing's been legalized.


Yeah they got those guys but the problem has not been solved yet. i think its about time to change our ideas of what works. Prohibition does not.



Same Problem, Same Solution. Tax and regulate. Illegal markets will diminish, and Kingpins will get arrested.

Pot should be legal, as long as you dont drive or operate heavy machinery high. Especially for people like me who need it medically. Cerebral Palsy, BTW.... Works better for me than the BOTOX injections that really suck.

They have the NHS in England. Dope Junkies get clean needles and product that is not poisoned. Here in the US you have Junkies who get their kids to tie off their arm while they shoot up, not knowing how potent the product is. They end up ODing infront of their kids. This happens here in New Jersey. If they had an NHS-like program, the junkies would get graduated doses that would slowly wean them off of the drug and the potency would be the same every time so they would know exactly how much to use without killing themselves.

It is not the govts job to tell people what to put or not put in their own bodies, but it is the governments job to keep people who are addicted to a drug from dieing a horrible and tragic death that will mentally hurt their families.

People, Society, Freedoms, Governments are all equally accountable. I tend to go with Einstein's theory on humans/Universe/Stupidity.

Anyways, its all cause and effect dating back the last 100 or so years. Drugs were used in some very easily accessable items way back when, nobody knew that Cocaine was highly addictive and caused radical personality changes. So its sale and production was banned, but they never actually sought to cure the root of the problem so you have coke addicts without coke, so you get an intermediary who can supply it... of course the intermediaries aren't usually the types most want to associate with, so then you try to snuff it out, and all that happens is that you create a huge change of events that really do end, but its something that has to change within a society, and some ideas you just can't kill... unfortunately Puritanism is here to stay in some people (although its going away, like Slavery).

I can still maintain however, that Marijuana gets a bad rap and should be perfectly legal. And lets be honest, the people who aren't giving second thought to the support of other narcotics use, probably have at some point or still do like to smoke up. :yes:

Quote:

---

They have the NHS in England. Dope Junkies get clean needles and product that is not poisoned. Here in the US you have Junkies who get their kids to tie off their arm while they shoot up, not knowing how potent the product is. They end up ODing infront of their kids. This happens here in New Jersey. If they had an NHS-like program, the junkies would get graduated doses that would slowly wean them off of the drug and the potency would be the same every time so they would know exactly how much to use without killing themselves.

---

Do they ? I thought you had the same methodone "support" programs that most other places have , with the slight difference that over in the States they will actually give a bigger supply to the patients than elsewhere . It has been suggested that the US policy of giving a months supply to junkies rather than a daily or weekly supply has led to the sharp increase in fatalities from people overdosing on this "safe" clean product .
Another problem with your post on weaning them off and the regulated potency of the supplied narcotic is that like the illegal narcotic it is used to replace it is addictive and its potency diminishes with use .

As for the topic itself ? a tricky one isn't it .
Regulate and tax it , control supply and attempt to control demand , good idea but will it work ?
Smack is illegal , some smackheads are complete wasters , utter dicks who really deserve to to take a long walk off a short pier , others can get on with their lives hold down a decent job support their familes and be fully productive members of society .
Alcohol is legal..........and all the same applies .
Now it can be said that legalising drugs and taxing them will remove the criminal element , alcohol and tobacco are legal and taxed after all . Yet both are produced illegally and sold , and both are legally produced andsold but then illegaly smuggled due to diffences in taxes . And you only have to look at some of the real unsavoury characters involved in cigerette smuggling to seethatthe "eliminatingcriminality" aspect of the arguement has some serious leaks in it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You don't see a distinction between alcohol and heroin?

---

I see a major distinction. However, both will make the takers loose some/a lot of the control of their body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You're still in control with alcohol unless the use of it is excessive.

---

There's no law forbidding excessive use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I disagree! :no:

The very definition of an addict is that he is not capable of deciding out of his own free will what he puts into his body. He is a slave to his addiction. It is not only the government's mere right, but duty to protect him from further harm. Even when disregarding all effects on third parties, like driving under influence, operating equipment and social effects.

---

Free will is a relative term. So is addiction. So is harm. The goverment can still help even if these drugs are allowed, either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

I see (in my naive youth) that the government is like a friend, advising that it's not a good thing to take hard drugs, and saying you will be sorry you did. Not by what the drugs do, but by what they do.

See? The government can be a good.

(I still see government and good as an oxymoron though)

---

The government may still campaign against drugs even if they're legal.

Well, in a way they should really legalize drugs and exclude people who take them from healthcare. We'd have to sweep them off the streets now and then but maybe the genetic pool would be improved to the point that earth would be ruled by evil conservative ban-nazis like me. :2thumbsup:

Strike sorry but...
1) drugs makes addiction
2) they costs much and addicted junkie pay everything he has to buy them
3) addicted finally has no cash, so he uses cash of his family, friends and similar
4) family, friends and similar stop giving cash to addicted, so he is starting stealing
5) when strong addicted, he starts commiting serious crimes and generally is dangerous

All in all - community has problems because
1) man became junkie
2) junkie is not paying cash but we have to pay big cash to heal him or to prevent him from commiting crimes
3) junkie's family became poor and we have to pay them
4) junkie spread aids and similar

With drugs legal, it would be dangerous for whole community, because we would have to pay for that junkies.

~:rolleyes:
With drugs illegal it is dangerous and you have to pay for the junkie:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

4) junkie spread aids and similar

---

If it is legal there could be tighter regulation and control on needle exchanges. We have injecting rooms here in Sydney where people can shoot up and have their needles dealt with safely.

We've talked about this many times before.

Where do you sell drugs? Next to beer?

You want heroin and crack on a shelf next to tylenol? OR would you need a prescription; but who would write one?

The reality is, if you can buy meth without a prescription (because nobody would write one) why couldn't you buy effexor or viagra without a prescription? Pharmaceutical companies can't wait for more ham fisted talk about legalization - it will help ruin any regulations on pharmaceuticals.

"Drugs" are drugs because they provide no tangible benefit - so they can't be prescribed, and while they provide no medical benefit, they can't be put in a general store because that would be unconscionable.

Quote:

---

"Drugs" are drugs because they provide no tangible benefit - so they can't be prescribed,

---

Most of the "illegal" drugs have a very long and ongoing use in medicine for their benefitial properties and can be prescribed.

But if they are prescribed the government-doctor conspiracy is still telling you when and how many of them you can put in your mouth. There is no such law for LEGO blocks, I can put as many of them into my mouth as I want and it is not illegal, I want the same to apply to heroin as well and I want my kids to enjoy the freedom to buy heroin for themselves whenever they damn well want to. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Most of the "illegal" drugs have a very long and ongoing use in medicine for their beneficial properties and can be prescribed.

---

I'd go further. The long term acute effects are often less toxic than legal drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

But if they are prescribed the government-doctor conspiracy is still telling you when and how many of them you can put in your mouth. There is no such law for LEGO blocks, I can put as many of them into my mouth as I want and it is not illegal, I want the same to apply to heroin as well and I want my kids to enjoy the freedom to buy heroin for themselves whenever they damn well want to. :furious3:

---

I'd personally stick to over 18 only. But with that attitude I don't imagine your kids will make it to adulthood in any case...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

We've talked about this many times before.

Where do you sell drugs? Next to beer?

You want heroin and crack on a shelf next to tylenol? OR would you need a prescription; but who would write one?

The reality is, if you can buy meth without a prescription (because nobody would write one) why couldn't you buy effexor or viagra without a prescription? Pharmaceutical companies can't wait for more ham fisted talk about legalization - it will help ruin any regulations on pharmaceuticals.

"Drugs" are drugs because they provide no tangible benefit - so they can't be prescribed, and while they provide no medical benefit, they can't be put in a general store because that would be unconscionable.

---

Tuff, this doesn't make sense.

Viagra et al are intended to be used only for medical purposes (and for the record, there IS a black market for viagra... but that's a whole 'nother story.)

Alcohol, on the other hand, isn't intended for medical use, so it isn't sold next to tylenol, of course. But as to where other drugs should be sold -- haven't you ever heard of an ABC (that's Alcoholic Beverage Control) store? In my home state, and other states, hard liquor can only be sold in such a store, not in grocery stores or anywhere else. So, what's wrong with restricting the sale of illegal drugs to government-owned stores? Say, a Cannabist shop for the standard "light" drugs (probably just cannabis and its derivitaves) and a "Narcotics Control" store for the harder stuff.

And for that matter, restrict the production and distribution of said narcotics to the Government -- NOT pharmaceutical corporations, NOT Government-funded organizations (god knows, nobody wants a Fannie Meth... :hide:) just the good ol' Uncle Sam Drug Brewery.

And if people want to burn their brains out on meth and crack, then they can pay back society via the government-owned stores while they're doing it. And if they harm others, well, that's another issue entirely. Hell, idiot drivers hit people all the time, and people who don't do anything worse than cigarettes and beer rob people all the time. That's why there are already laws against such activities. Harming a society is a problem that is restricted to the people who do it, even if other people are harmed, because it was the choice of the person harming society to begin with. And don't give me the out-of-control crap. Drug users are generally far more in control than you might like to think; and if they aren't, then it was their own choices that removed that self control, and people who would never otherwise be affected by them should not have to suffer the consequences of trying to save a few stupid people who would, in all likelihood have found a way to get hooked anyway, because if there are no Narcotics Control stores, there's always Tyrone/Miguel/Billy Bob on the corner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Jumping off a cliff into sharp rocks isnt scary. Would you do it?

---

There's a big difference between leaping off a cliff and smoking pot... namely, the difference between being impaled on sharp rocks and sitting at home, eating a cheeseburger and watching W. C. Fields movies. OOOOOH, scary!

Edit: @Rory, I actually think all those drugs should be 21+, unless the legal age for alcohol is lowered. Even if many of these drugs are less hamful, they're still fairly intoxicating in many cases.

So my post doesn't make sense but your government owned store and drug production facility makes sense. Our tax dollars shouldn't go toward the war against drugs - rather we should use those dollars to produce and distribute drugs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

So my post doesn't make sense but your government owned store and drug production facility makes sense. Our tax dollars shouldn't go toward the war against drugs - rather we should use those dollars to produce and distribute drugs...

---

Umm, I think when you sell things at a store you get something called revenue? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I'd personally stick to over 18 only. But with that attitude I don't imagine your kids will make it to adulthood in any case...

~:smoking:

---

Come on, everybody knows that your kids end up taking every forbidden substance in huge masses anyway just because it is forbidden.

I find it rather amusing that some of the logic of the pro-drugs group is that "we have two harmful substances which are legal and causing problems in society, so let's add some more!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Umm, I think when you sell things at a store you get something called revenue? ~:confused:

---

So the government that we all trust and love should gain revenue through the sale of drugs? Just become nicer drug dealers? We could then use that revenue to deal with drug related crime and health issues. Win win for everybody.

State owned meth labs. Cool - lets try it.

Re: my choice of 18 years for drugs. That's the age for alcohol in the UK.

The argument against drugs appears to be:

They're bad: the class of drugs has no relation to this; the toxicity of the drugs has far more to do with the additives and the unknown bulkers. Compare the toxicity of whisky to that from an unknown still.

If it's illegal we can stop people getting it: utter tripe. I'm probably about as far away from street smart as you can easily get, and I imagine it'd take me a few hours to get into contact with a person I trust to get me some. For harder drugs longer, but again I am confident that one or two of my friends can get it.

If it's illegal, people won't use it: more like if the government states that looking at it kills and you know hundreds who enjoy it you'd wonder what the government is on.

For many drugs I personally would never use. I find that the long term toxicity for many is too high, and I'm not keen on IV drugs. If there was a wand I could use to get rid of them from the planet I'd use it. But they're here, they're addictive and loads of people like them.To me, persons who'd keep them illegal are as useful as King Canute's supporters.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

So the government that we all trust and love should gain revenue through the sale of drugs? Just become nicer drug dealers? We could then use that revenue to deal with drug related crime and health issues. Win win for everybody.

State owned meth labs. Cool - lets try it.

---

Actually, yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Regulated, clean drugs that will pay for themselves. As for the crime and health issues, I guarantee you that would not be a problem. Pretty much everyone who is willing to use the stuff is already.

Edit: I sometimes wonder why I even bother arguing with a guy who named himself after an anti-drug mascot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

You know what the definition of insane is, right? Trying the same thing and expecting different results.

---

What does that setence relate to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So when do you want your personal government agent to come by and make sure you're getting enough exercise?

The drug war has been a monumental failure. Drugs are not harder to get. Innocent people are dead or robbed by the government. How can it truly be justified that we continue it?

CR

---

Fortunatly, doing exercise isn't addictive, nor does it cost money. Drugs eventually leads you to stealing (Or doing some other crazy scheme to drain money out something/someone) once you're out of money, because of it's addictedness and cost. Drugs are so, and in such a way this comparison makes little sense.
And how can one say it isn't harder to get? If it was legalized, it would be sold in every major city by shops. With it banned, the only places selling them is only in shifty alleys and in marginalized neighbourhoods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I find it rather amusing that some of the logic of the pro-drugs group is that "we have two harmful substances which are legal and causing problems in society, so let's add some more!"

---

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. They only have a right to reprimand me if I begin to harm others or property. Tuff this isn't about slavery or the defense department. It is about the legalization of drugs. The government has no right to micromanage me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I find it rather amusing that some of the logic of the pro-drugs group is that "we have two harmful substances which are legal and causing problems in society, so let's add some more!"

---

Smokers harm only themselves (and barely that if they quit soon enough) and alcohol is the foundation of our society ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Smokers harm only themselves (and barely that if they quit soon enough)

---

See, the problem is that they don't just harm themselves. They harm everyone around them even more since the people around him are actually inhaling smoke without filters. That is the reasoning behind the banning of smoking in all small closed comercial surfaces in most of Western Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

See, the problem is that they don't just harm themselves. They harm everyone around them even more since the people around him are actually inhaling smoke without filters. That is the reasoning behind the banning of smoking in all small closed comercial surfaces in most of Western Europe.

---

The only people significantly harmed would be the people working at the bar or restaurant, not the customers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The only people significantly harmed would be the people working at the bar or restaurant, not the customers.

---

and even then the effect is minimal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can not put into my body. They only have a right to reprimand me if I begin to harm others or property. Tuff this isn't about slavery or the defense department. It is about the legalization of drugs. The government has no right to micromanage me.

---

They have the right to do whatever the American populace as a whole tells them to do. The beauty of democracy is that if you want drugs legalized, you can make a political party that will legalize them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

They have the right to do whatever the American populace as a whole tells them to do. The beauty of democracy is that if you want drugs legalized, you can make a political party that will legalize them.

---

Well I'm trying to get enough people here to see things my way so I can get this enacted and the base of my argument is my statement in the first post. SFTS in 2026!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

They have the right to do whatever the American populace as a whole tells them to do.

---

No they don't, reread the declaration of independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

This isn't about drinking and driving its about the legalization of but not limited to Pot, Coke, Shrooms, Heroine, Meth, Speed, LSD, Ecstasy etc.

---

Late addition to the convo here. But SFTS, you are going down a very dangerous path my young friend.

Can't join the Corps if you've done these drugs. I would be very careful about the decisions you make here. They have life-long implications, that you, as a young adult, have yet to grasp.

Anytime I hear this, I know it comes from someone who just doesn't know any better.

Unlike alcohol, which will merely make you sick or kill you of poisoning if you drink too much, these other drugs can offer a fate worse than death. If you overdo it on hallucinogens like LSD, mushrooms, or PCP, you can have a premanent alteration of your perspective making you unable to determine reality from your imagination. You will live in a nightmare of paranoia and fear. Heroine is instantly addictive. Your body chemistry adapts to require it like food or water. You will be unable to even think about anything else until you get your fix. As for meth: http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/DrugI...s/photo_3.html

Trust me on this. Drugs are bad, m'kay.

I won't argue with on the reefer. That should be legalized. For one reason alone: As young people, we are told that ALL DRUGS will kill you and are evil and yada yada. Kids try pot and realize the truth: it ain't that big of a deal. Then kids think that other drugs are the same, "If pot is safe, then other drugs must be okay too". They are not the same. The only reason that pot is a gateway drug is because the government has made it that way by exagerating and lieing to the public.

If you want to recreationally use, stick with alcohol, kava, and pot.

If you move on to hard drugs after you are properly informed, you deserve every bit of misery that awaits you.

Good luck with your choices on this. They will follow you for life.

I don't personally do any of these drugs. I dont smoke (although I have before). I dont do these drugs because I want a degree from my uni and I want to continue to thrive in strength sports and training. The hardest thing I've ever tried is weed. I will never touch coke or meth or psychedelics but that is not the point. The point is the government has no right to micromanage its citizens lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Drugs eventually leads you to stealing (Or doing some other crazy scheme to drain money out something/someone) once you're out of money, because of it's addictedness and cost. Drugs are so, and in such a way this comparison makes little sense.
And how can one say it isn't harder to get? If it was legalized, it would be sold in every major city by shops. With it banned, the only places selling them is only in shifty alleys and in marginalized neighbourhoods.

---

The usual oft used drivel.

Illegal drugs are more expensive, as you're paying for the fact that getting into the country is complicated. Legal ones would be far less expensive - less crime!

It's already dead easy to get! And it is not from marginalised estates. Cocaine is used by many middle / upper class people. They are not going down darkened alleys. True, some do - perhaps it would be safer for all to g to a shop?

Addictive... ever seen people give up cigarettes or alcohol? And how much do they cost? Tens if not more per day.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

With it banned, the only places selling them is only in shifty alleys and in marginalized neighbourhoods.

---

surely, you jest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Well I'm trying to get enough people here to see things my way so I can get this enacted and the base of my argument is my statement in the first post. SFTS in 2026!!!!

---

Assuming we keep 4-year POTUS election cycles, you'll have to wait 'til 2028, Candidate Strike. That'll make you an old man of what, 37?

Unless you meant 2026 for Texas Guv, first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Late addition to the convo here. But SFTS, you are going down a very dangerous path my young friend.

Can't join the Corps if you've done these drugs. I would be very careful about the decisions you make here. They have life-long implications, that you, as a young adult, have yet to grasp.

Anytime I hear this, I know it comes from someone who just doesn't know any better.

Unlike alcohol, which will merely make you sick or kill you of poisoning if you drink too much, these other drugs can offer a fate worse than death. If you overdo it on hallucinogens like LSD, mushrooms, or PCP, you can have a premanent alteration of your perspective making you unable to determine reality from your imagination. You will live in a nightmare of paranoia and fear. Heroine is instantly addictive. Your body chemistry adapts to require it like food or water. You will be unable to even think about anything else until you get your fix. As for meth: http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/DrugI...s/photo_3.html

Trust me on this. Drugs are bad, m'kay.

I won't argue with on the reefer. That should be legalized. For one reason alone: As young people, we are told that ALL DRUGS will kill you and are evil and yada yada. Kids try pot and realize the truth: it ain't that big of a deal. Then kids think that other drugs are the same, "If pot is safe, then other drugs must be okay too". They are not the same. The only reason that pot is a gateway drug is because the government has made it that way by exagerating and lieing to the public.

If you want to recreationally use, stick with alcohol, kava, and pot.

If you move on to hard drugs after you are properly informed, you deserve every bit of misery that awaits you.

Good luck with your choices on this. They will follow you for life.

---

Thanks Div. Trust Louis on this too: DON'T DO DRUGS.

Some get away with it, the lucky ones. Others do not. And there's no telling in advance.

You only need to see it once. One friend or relative. The mere sight of it is beyond what anybody should have to endure. ~:mecry:
Never mind what it must be like for the afflicted themselves. It ruins good people. It submits them to a fate worse than death. Same goes for that even craftier killer: alcohol.

Don't do drugs, and be very, very careful about alcohol. :shame:

My family has had problems with drugs and alcohol to but that doesn't give my government the right to say I cant do something. Ive been to cousins funerals and uncles rehabs and Im still not changing my mind.

If the majority of people in a country don't want to put up with idiots that want to fill themselves with hard drugs, then I think that's fair enough. Since when did the freedom to take heroin become a basic human right? Human rights are made up remember, they are not some set infallable law. If the majority of people in a society want to do something, I say go with it. If the rest of the world sees this as something horrific, then they can try to stop them. But for issues like hard drugs, they are banned because people want them to be banned, and its not an unreasonable demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SftS

My family has had problems with drugs and alcohol to but that doesn't give my government the right to say I cant do something. Ive been to cousins funerals and uncles rehabs and Im still not changing my mind.

---

The government couldn't protect you if it wanted to. You need to protect yourself.

For the record, I am all for full legalisation of all harddrugs. For practical purposes I am. Prohibition didn't work. The War on Drugs doesn't work. Criminalisation doesn't work. All it accomplishes is too enrich street scum, and to make fabulously wealthy organised scum, and to such an extent that it destabilises legal society.

Should the government have the right to interfere with what you put into your body? Yes. Not to chase after recreational use, but certainly for substance abuse. For the same reasons that the government has a 'right' to interfere when they see somebody drowning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The government couldn't protect you if it wanted to. You need to protect yourself.

For the record, I am all for full legalisation of all harddrugs. For practical purposes I am. Prohibition didn't work. The War on Drugs doesn't work. Criminalisation doesn't work. All it accomplishes is too enrich street scum, and to make fabulously wealthy organised scum, and to such an extent that it destabilises legal society.

Should the government have the right to interfere with what you put into your body? Yes. Not to chase after recreational use, but certainly for substance abuse. For the same reasons that the government has a 'right' to interfere when they see somebody drowning.

---

What if the one addicted is not harming anyone but themselves?

But if we make them legal you teenage rebels will be without a cause...Strike may be onto something here.~:wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

What if the one addicted is not harming anyone but themselves?

---

Just like the drowning guy, eh? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Just like the drowning guy, eh? :dizzy2:

---

If you jump into a lake with full knowledge that you can't swim...

Unfortunately, that can't be proved; but it's pretty hard to prove that you don't know about the dangers of hard drugs, not least the addictive qualities. I'm fairly sure that nobody will decide to smoke meth thinking that it will give them a light buzz and taste like candy.

@Div: I think the people arguing for legalization are mainly arguing that if you are dumb enough to do it, you shouldn't tax society's resources and feed illegal organizations in the process; none of us actually want to use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

@Div: I think the people arguing for legalization are mainly arguing that if you are dumb enough to do it, you shouldn't tax society's resources and feed illegal organizations in the process; none of us actually want to use them.

---

But if we legalize it then we can no longer crack down on the idiots. The War on Drugs isn't working, with that I agree - but I don't think legalization is the answer. We just need new tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

But if we legalize it then we can no longer crack down on the idiots. The War on Drugs isn't working, with that I agree - but I don't think legalization is the answer. We just need new tactics.

---

But why "Crack down" to begin with? If they harm someone, fine, put them through the system. Otherwise, why bother?

Man Attempts To Amputate Own Arm In Denny's

It must have been all of the sugar and baking powder in his cocaine.

It is funny though - when people cite how drugs are only dangerous when they are adulterated. Adulterated with what? Other drugs that you want to be legal?

Things that have been used to adulterate drugs: rat poison, chalk, dirt, sugar and probably countless others.

Who said they'd be legalised? Warfarin has its place, but not as a bulking agent for Heroin / cocaine. chalk is OK, but I'd not reccommend mainlining it.

Just as something is legal doesn't automatically mean it is 100% safe. You can overdose on iron, but banning iron isn't a great idea.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Things that have been used to adulterate drugs: rat poison, chalk, dirt, sugar and probably countless others.

Who said they'd be legalised? Warfarin has its place, but not as a bulking agent for Heroin / cocaine. chalk is OK, but I'd not reccommend mainlining it.

Just as something is legal doesn't automatically mean it is 100% safe. You can overdose on iron, but banning iron isn't a great idea.

~:smoking:

---

So you can maybe sell heroin as a cleaning fluid in the back of a liquor store? You can't sell it for human consumption, because that would be irresponsible.

It isn't a cleaning fluid.

~:smoking:

Will you sell it for consumption? Can you do that responsibly?

Ever heard of pholcodiene or any of the drousy cough syrups? Their active ingredient are all opiates.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Ever heard of pholcodiene or any of the drousy cough syrups? Their active ingredient are all opiates.

~:smoking:

---

Don't they serve a therapeutic purpose?

How would you suggest we implement this great new idea?

Most of my patients state they don't serve a theraputic purpose. I think that the cough syrup market is already well established.

Selling drugs? Sell from a pharmacy to those over the age of 18. Each comes complete with large warnings of dangers, what to do / not to do and a sterile, pre filled syringe if appropriate.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Most of my patients state they don't serve a theraputic purpose. I think that the cough syrup market is already well established.

Selling drugs? Sell from a pharmacy to those over the age of 18. Each comes complete with large warnings of dangers, what to do / not to do and a sterile, pre filled syringe if appropriate.

~:smoking:

---

Over the counter without a prescription?

Yup, just like the other killers cigarettes and alcohol.

I've been to the local supermarket at christmas time to get a job lot of presents. I went to the counter with probably over 6 litres of spirits, a 16 pack of paracetamol and a 16 pack of Ibuprofen. The potentially lethal dose of spirits didn't raise an eyebrow, but I wasn't allowed both the tablets... Even though there is no interaction.

If you make getting safe drugs difficult, people won't do it. Sure, people will still overdose, but unlike the current situation where the dose could be 2mg to 20mg, it is a fixed dose.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Yup, just like the other killers cigarettes and alcohol.

I've been to the local supermarket at christmas time to get a job lot of presents. I went to the counter with probably over 6 litres of spirits, a 16 pack of paracetamol and a 16 pack of Ibuprofen. The potentially lethal dose of spirits didn't raise an eyebrow, but I wasn't allowed both the tablets... Even though there is no interaction.

If you make getting safe drugs difficult, people won't do it. Sure, people will still overdose, but unlike the current situation where the dose could be 2mg to 20mg, it is a fixed dose.

~:smoking:

---

Ok, you guys do it first and we'll see if the rate of drug usage drops. Then, maybe, we will introduce similar measures. If you can't get your quasi-socialist mother state to give in to your ideas, why do you think we would try it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Over the counter without a prescription?

---

For cough syrope? Can't get rid of the urge and there is always an alternative, like cough syrope. Cocaine and heroin should be seen as currency, that is the highest priority instead of the idiots that get hooked on it, white gold.

Who is trying to get drug usage down? Not me. I'm interested in getting crime down, and forcing the industry off the criminal black market and on to the taxable legitimate market.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Who is trying to get drug usage down? Not me. I'm interested in getting crime down, and forcing the industry off the criminal black market and on to the taxable legitimate market.

~:smoking:

---

You can't make the black market dissapear because any control or government will make it more expensive, and some like it cheap, especially the hooked nothing will change black market will provide cheaper. There is simply no solution here it can't be solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You can't make the black market dissapear because any control or government will make it more expensive, and some like it cheap, especially the hooked nothing will change black market will provide cheaper. There is simply no solution here it can't be solved.

---

Cigarettes contain one of the most addictive substances on the planet. And yet they have become prohibitively expensive. But how many people actually buy bootleg cigarettes?

https://img220.imageshack.us/img220/...lyteethho8.jpg

Seriously, it's not a very big market.

Anyway, the alcohol industry has shown us the light already: you can always sell incredibly cheap, low-grade versions of any addictive substance to kill a black market. Which, by the way, is why the entire narcotics industry should be government-run, because a lot of the "hobo wines" are basically poison, and HOPEFULLY a government-run narc industry would have the common decency not to add such adulterants. Whether or not they are capable of such a thing, I know that it is still a safer bet than private companies, and certainly better than your average pusher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Seriously, it's not a very big market.

---

Cocaine and heroin not a big market? It is the very currency of the black market worldwide.

So, selling a pure product that's cheaper than an impure product is going to massively dent the market.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So, selling a pure product that's cheaper than an impure product is going to massively dent the market.

~:smoking:

---

Are you dealing with the outcome or the argument, I say you can't win this. Doesn't really matter what you do. But again, and again, it's currency, and as currency it is much more dangeroud then a few junkies.

The underpinnings of cocaine / heroin links with its real world price. If you flood the market, the price goes down. So the value as a currency is undermined. Zimbabwe has a currency. Doesn't mean it has any worth.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The underpinnings of cocaine / heroin links with its real world price. If you flood the market, the price goes down. So the value as a currency is undermined. Zimbabwe has a currency. Doesn't mean it has any worth.

~:smoking:

---

And how would you flood the market? You would have to buy it somewhere els first

Quote:

---

Cocaine and heroin not a big market? It is the very currency of the black market worldwide.

---

I think he meant the illegal tobacco market , so he is wrong as it is actually a huge industry and very very lucrative .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I think he meant the illegal tobacco market , so he is wrong as it is actually a huge industry and very very lucrative .

---

Good point. Looked at from another angle, the "llegal tobacco market" isn't actually that at all, but rather a "huge luxery tax-avoidance market". The product is the same whether bought from Los Angles or Moldovia; the difference is the tax-based price (and who gets the profits).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

If you can't get your quasi-socialist mother state to give in to your ideas, why do you think we would try it?

---

Because instead of having a quasi-socialist mother state to take care of us, we in America believe in personal freedoms. The war on drugs is much like many states' wars on firearms. We don't need it here.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Good point. Looked at from another angle, the "llegal tobacco market" isn't actually that at all, but rather a "huge luxery tax-avoidance market". The product is the same whether bought from Los Angles or Moldovia; the difference is the tax-based price (and who gets the profits).

---

Well its wider than that , you have the common smuggling which is the tax avoidance , thats a damn good earner , I know of quite a few trafficers who switched from narcotics to cigarettes , and ordinary people who gave up work to get into this easy money .
Then you have the fake brands , which is fraud but also comes into the tax avoidance bracket .
Then you have the outright fakes which are so full of crap that they couldn't even be classed as a legal version of that dangerous and addictive substance , which is fraud , tax avoidance and a whole other pile of crimes thrown in for good measure .
It just illustrates that even when legalised you cannot get rid of the criminal involvement where there is a potential for easy cash , its a bit like the prescription drugs issue with illegal copies and outright fake versions being sold all over the world .

Touche' Sir. And well-played. We have to yield some of the "it'll reduce crime" argument. Legalization may eventually reduce local crime by elevating the mfg & distro systems into more transparent climes, but the knock-off industry, both local and international, will still thrive, especially in the era of interwebs.

Maybe more aggressive postal and customs regulations could put a dent in such industries. But the track record so far = not so hot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Unlike alcohol, which will merely make you sick or kill you of poisoning if you drink too much, these other drugs can offer a fate worse than death. If you overdo it on hallucinogens like LSD, mushrooms, or PCP, you can have a premanent alteration of your perspective making you unable to determine reality from your imagination.

---

I missed this earlier. Div, you're right that overuse of LSD can result in permanent psychosis, but you undercut your own argument by lumping mushrooms in there. Show me a respectable medical study that shows harmful long-term side-effects from mushrooms. Go ahead, look for one. 'Cause there ain't one.

Mushrooms are less addictive than ciggies, less physically harmful than alcohol, and don't do lung damage like pot. They're maybe the safest drug out there, right next to caffeine. They're a baby aspirin drug.

Don't confuse the quality of the high with the toxicity of the substance.

Mushrooms are also legal here, sometimes a tourist believes he can fly but apart from that little problems, but I do hear story's of people getting pretty messed up in the head pretty bad, but I know of no study of it's effects.

If you take a load of LSD you'll go absolutely crazy. If you take a load of paracetamol you will be dead in roughly 4 days. If you drink too much water you'll die...

Smuggling cigarettes is profitable. They might have what? 10% of the market! Currently criminals have 100% of the market, and they set the price. Knock off cigarettes are cheaper than those on the shelves.

The Triads started out in Hong Kong. They smuggled opiates to the island, both high class stuff and low cost, raw opium. The British gave them the biggest boost and criinal gang has ever gotten: they banned the substance. Suddenly the margins shot through the roof. Now as we may all know the Triads are a massive multinational organisation with their tendrils all over the world.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Touche' Sir. And well-played. We have to yield some of the "it'll reduce crime" argument. Legalization may eventually reduce local crime by elevating the mfg & distro systems into more transparent climes, but the knock-off industry, both local and international, will still thrive, especially in the era of interwebs.

Maybe more aggressive postal and customs regulations could put a dent in such industries. But the track record so far = not so hot.

---

The tax-avoidance crime is generally determined by how greedy the government is with it's sin tax. For tobacco, the tax is being used as a overt usage deterrent as well as a steady revenue stream, and is probably too high as a result. Simple economic analysis should determine the tax level where smuggling becomes cost-ineffective.

Quote:

---

The Triads started out in Hong Kong. They smuggled opiates to the island, both high class stuff and low cost, raw opium. The British gave them the biggest boost and criinal gang has ever gotten: they banned the substance. Suddenly the margins shot through the roof. Now as we may all know the Triads are a massive multinational organisation with their tendrils all over the world.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Well at least your last line is OK , it is true that the groups known as triads have legal and illegal business interests anywhere in the world where there is a chance for them to make some cash...but the rest of your post :no:

What part are you deriding? Their existence, or that the UK banned the drugs? I'm at work. I'll get some references from home.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

What part are you deriding? Their existence, or that the UK banned the drugs? I'm at work. I'll get some references from home.

---

Their origins , their early criminal activities and the nature and timing of Britains and Chinas changes in the opium trade and those changes relation to changes in the triads business practices .

I did not allude to their origins, I said what had given them their boost. I am aware that they had been around for several hundred years previously.

I was referring to the period after Japanese capitulation in 1945 in Hong Kong, when not only had the Japenese destroyed most criminal records regardingt he Triads, but the British military administration banned narcotics, that the Triads had been importing under the Japanese. Sure, they were involved in most other crimes, but the British gave them an entire market, that they then exploited to the full.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I disagree.
While they are illegal, their prices are significantly higher and they are available only on the black market via dealers. Once they become legalized, the prices drop and you can sell them openly on the street. I would imagine especially young people who can then afford it will give it a try and possibly end up seriously harmed or dead as a result, costing the taxpayers healthcare because in current society we care for the ill and don't just leave them to die as we used to.

Viking: Hard drugs have a lot more negative effects in comparison to alcohol. You'll end up with a lot more harmed newborns (who did not ask to be harmed while in the womb of an addict or someone who gave the drugs a try), kids who happen to see it on the kitchen counter and similarly, a larger number of addicts (hard drugs are more addictive than soft drugs like alcohol, hence the name) that go through the taxpaid health system.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome

Your argument holds no water (nor vodka for that matter).

Alcohol is a scourge on western society. It is just as bad (if not worse) that "hard" drugs. It certainly has more negative societal effects that marijuana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Strike sorry but...
1) drugs makes addiction
2) they costs much and addicted junkie pay everything he has to buy them
3) addicted finally has no cash, so he uses cash of his family, friends and similar
4) family, friends and similar stop giving cash to addicted, so he is starting stealing
5) when strong addicted, he starts commiting serious crimes and generally is dangerous

All in all - community has problems because
1) man became junkie
2) junkie is not paying cash but we have to pay big cash to heal him or to prevent him from commiting crimes
3) junkie's family became poor and we have to pay them
4) junkie spread aids and similar

With drugs legal, it would be dangerous for whole community, because we would have to pay for that junkies.

---

Sorry Krook but...

1) Booze makes addiction
2) they (booze) costs much and addicted boozer pay everything he has to buy them
3) boozer finally has no cash, so he uses cash of his family, friends and similar
4) family, friends and similar stop giving cash to boozer, so he is starting stealing
5) when strong boozing, he starts commiting serious crimes and generally is dangerous

All in all - community has problems because
1) man became boozer
2) boozer is not paying cash but we have to pay big cash to heal him or to prevent him from commiting crimes
3) boozer's family became poor and we have to pay them
4) boozer spread aids and similar

With booze legal, it is dangerous for whole community, because we would have to pay for that boozers.

That people who have no problem with legal alcohol but think "drugs" should stay illegal are blind to the sameness of the two is sublime in its ridiculousness...

$4 Billion Well Spent

Quote:

---

Across the Andean region, the size of the coca crop has increased 18 percent in the past five years, a period during which the United States has spent $4 billion on anti-drug programs. With farmers turning to pesticides and modern irrigation to improve crop yields, the amount of cocaine produced in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia -- source countries for nearly all of the global supply -- hovers at 1,100 tons a year, according to a recent U.N. report.

Here in the lush Yungas region of western Bolivia, farmers are allowed by law to plant a total of nearly 30,000 acres of coca -- leaf that is then sold in the domestic market for tea or to be chewed to ward off hunger. But production here far exceeds that threshold, and much of the surplus feeds a cocaine trade thriving in part on the new regional demand of a rising Latin American middle class.

The Andean cocaine supply now exceeds the amount produced in the 1990s, when U.S. policymakers pushed anti-drug aid to the region to counter powerful Colombian cartels. In 1993, when a U.S.-supported police unit shot dead the drug lord Pablo Escobar in his home town of Medellin, the Andes produced 200 fewer tons of cocaine than it did last year.

---