Printable View
Really? That's very interesting, Amsterdam must be the exception though? The place is crawling with the stuff. I have heard that there has been a decrease in the use of the hardest drugs (like cocaine), is that fair to say?Quote:
we have the lowest use of europe I believe
Also, I've heard that Holland is having massive problems with illegal prostitution and human trafficking. Do you think that's linked to the drugs industry?
It isn't just Amsterdam policy, I live in Amersfoort and my neightbour is a coffeeshop, every town has them. Gut says less drugs is used, cocaine (which is pretty harmless really) is pretty much accepted, stronger stuff is a big nono. Prostitution is a gray area here, red lights are legal, but there are also 'tippelzones' that are only tolerated, and many eastern european and the other import operate there. Wouldn't call it a massive problem though, it's a disgrace imho but not a massive problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
You gotta be joking Frag, the short-term effects include increased blood-pressure and increased heart-rate which can result in cardiac arrest, paranoia, itching, tachycardia, hallucinations and impotence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The long-term effects include brain cell imbalance, depression, increased risk of heart attack, lupus, Goodpasture's disease, vasculitis, glomerulonephritis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, haemorrhagic and ischemic strokes.
Not only that, but, it is also toxic and can cause seizures and related effects that can lead to respiratory failure, stroke, cerebral haemorrhage or heart-failure. Also it can induce hyperthermia which may cause muscle cell destruction and myoglobinuria resulting in renal failure
Smoking cocaine can cause hemoptysis, bronchospasm, pruritus, fever, diffuse alveolar infiltrates without effusions, pulmonary and systemic eosinophiliachest, pain, lung trauma, shortness of breath, sore throat, asthma, hoarse voice, dyspnea, and a flu-like syndrome.
It is however, much easier to withdraw from and overcome addiction, than drugs like Meth.
Can't be compared with meth (well I am not sure what meth is but I heard it's bad stuff), and it is simply to expensive to get addicted. If you had too much to drink, snort a line and you are fine again. A little boost nothing more, it isn't like it has any real effect compared with otherparty drugs like xtc. Only goes wrong when people start boiling the stuff, but I stay far from that.
If we legalize all drugs, then should we regulate them in the same way as we regulate pharmaceuticals? If so then what would doctors prescribe heroin for?
If that is a non-issue and you believe that drugs should be sold over the counter like cigarettes and alchohol, why shouldn't medical pharmaceuticals be sold over the counter? The pharmaceutical industry would never stand for psychiatric medications being tightly regulated and crack cocaine beign sold over the counter. what is the real suggestion, as I've never understood it?
We've seen what competition in the sugar and sugar alternative industry can be like, imagine what the marketing of drugs would do. How many people really understand physiology to the extent that they can make an informed decision about what is safe and unsafe? People can't even do that with something as simple as sugar and carbohydrates, how can they be expected to counter industry claims with their understanding of human neurology?
Bad Idea. I think our society has a big enough problem with drug use as it is. legal or illegal.
My opinion is that screw all the considerations of public health and sundry; the important thing is to take the market out of the hands of the mafiosos. That way dosage price plummets and addicts no longer need to engage in crime to feed their habit, batches irresponsibly "cut" with something nasty on one hand and unusually pure causing ODs on the other no longer result in needless casualties, the trade and industry and consumption can be taxed like any other to offset the public expenses incurred, and a whole lot of very nasty and vicious crime (which incurs a lot of public expenses, above and beyond monetary too) loses its raison d'être of the huge sums of money involved in illegal drug trafficking.
Sounds like mainly pros to me.
I believe that any taxes made from the sale of newly legal super drugs would be quickly outweighed by the massive loss of productivity, days worked, average income and domestic output in general. Financial gain is not something to put into the mix on both moral or logical grounds.
And these would actually differ from alcohol exactly how in such effects ?
And I'm waiting for someone to address the bit about gutting the primary reasons for serious drug-related crime, which is IMO easily the best reason to, as it were, legalize it.
Prohibition, anyone ?
How would this be any different than with alcohol? Some people show up drunk to work, they either get sent home or get fired. Someone comes in stoned on weed, the same should happen. A responsible user will choose a more appropriate time to use, with the knowledge of the length of intoxication and dosage. I like beer, but I know if I want to keep my job I had better not drink a six-pack before going into work. So I pick nights and weekends to partake.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
This way, people will be able to show up drunk and high. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Not likely, considering that the most popular illegal drug, marijuana, does not impair productivity on anything like the level of alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Two of my best employees in NYC were potheads. I thought it was a stupid, expensive habit, but they were astonishingly talented computer monkeys, so I looked the other way. Well, to be honest, since everybody knew I was a drug-free lemur, I might have supplied them with clean urine once or twice, since I couldn't go losing two of my best workers to a drug-screening test.
Trust me, potheads can be fine, productive workers. Drunks, on the other hand, are a problem.
And should rightfully get canned. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I don't know how the more addictive opiates would affect someone. Can a heroin addict do a 8-hour workday sober, or would withdrawal or preoccupation prevent him/her from doing a decent job?
You think it should be illegal to have less productivity, work less, and have a lower income?Quote:
I believe that any taxes made from the sale of newly legal super drugs would be quickly outweighed by the massive loss of productivity, days worked, average income and domestic output in general.
Yes to soft drugs, IE: marijuana, mescaline, LSD, etc.
No to hard drugs: Heroin, Meth, etc.
Clearly a Republican. :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I think that any claim that a tax on drugs would benefit the public treasury would be short-sighted.
Was that not clear in the post Sasaki?
I think that drugs should remain illegal due to the publics existing ignorance of much more simple physiological realities (among many other reasons). I believe that a profit driven, over the counter, mainstream serious drug industry would target more people than ever before and cause incredible damage; The least of which would result in diminished tax coffers overall.
My first post highlights 2 of my initial concerns.
This is one reason that I consider myself a slippery slope conservative
I might be wrong but your saying: if legalised in the same manner as say cigarettes with advertising and private companies it would "cause incredible damage". Is that what your getting at?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I think everyone who is saying "yes, legalise drugs", is making the point that the entire process would be government run and controlled with no advertising, etcetera.
people are saying that the government should sell drugs and give them out for low prices?
This is what people are saying? The government is now responsible for making our terrible habits affordable AND providing them to us?
What?
^-----
Dunno about you, but I'd kinda prefer the gov't selling decent-quality drugs at bargain prices to the current situation, which is nasty gangsters selling bad drugs at absurd rip-off prices and doing very nasty things to people on the side...
Legalising drugs will be quick way to reduce population I suppose.
As long as they get junkie in a controlled manner then it should be fine. Its the thrill of being a rebel which makes those junkies a addict.
Granted, banalizing the stuff into a legal, largely safe, as-such accepted phenomenom ought to remove most of the "forbidden fruit" attraction.
And then you can drive usage rates down with the same methods that are working right fine with tobacco.
People saying: Yes to soft drugs, no to hard drugs, need to agree on what constitutes a hard drug.
I've seen people say that cocaine isn't all that bad, and that LSD isn't a hard drug. Both of these are fairly nasty to the best of my knowledge.
If you ask me that'd be a largely pointless solution anyway; roughly comparable to making beer legal and keeping hard liquors banned.
Three guesses if the gun-toting kneecapping gangsters are going to go anywhere with that arrangement...?
Here it is between weed and the rest. But we have another thingie as well, for example in some city's they are giving junks heroin for free, I don't like it but the wellbeing of the user is of lesser importance then the trouble he causes. And cocaine indeed isn't that bad, been using it weekends since I was 18, and most of my friends as well. Pretty harmless, but it can make some people agressive when combined with alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Charlie will feck you up mate. Trust me.
Every time I read this thread, Cypress Hill songs go through my head...
Hmm, I think this issue would be a lot less contentious if the decriminalization were restricted to marijuana, which is a massively popular drug. Not as destructive as alcohol, not as addictive as nicotine, a long history in our culture, I'd say it's a prime candidate for decriminalization.
Legalizing all drugs would be almost impossible to pull off, both practically and politically. Let's not get into the same trap abortion fell into decades ago, an all-or-nothing fallacy. Realistic, pragmatic compromise is what democracy is all about, after all.
Let the potheads have their weed and call it a day.
The survey I saw said that 30% of of Americans had tried Marijuana and 70% hadn't. It also said 30% of Americans supported legalization and 70% didn't. Funny stuff. Don't think the numbers are high enough for legalization though.Quote:
Hmm, I think this issue would be a lot less contentious if the decriminalization were restricted to marijuana, which is a massively popular drug. Not as destructive as alcohol, not as addictive as nicotine, a long history in our culture, I'd say it's a prime candidate for decriminalization.
Sure, fine, force me to go look up the polls. Here's the gallup from '05 (warning: PDF). As of two years ago, 35% are in favor of decriminalization, 60% opposed. Independents are more likely than Republicans or Democrats to favor decriminalization, no surprise there.
Positions vary widely from state to state. There seems to be substantially more support for allowing states to set their own policies than a nationwide fiat.