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
treat drugs like other drugs are currently treated in the UK.
alcohol/coffee/ibruprofen - freely available within quality control constraints to over eighteens.
harder drugs - prescription only.
it would marginalise the criminal element, ensure people get a consistently safe product, and bring revenue into the exchequer.
Yes but what would we be doing on the other side all that, we would be actively supporting some very sick people, there is a lot of tragedy at the other side of our supply. We can make rules here but we can't change the very nature of the trade it's from south America and those controlling it are scum, how exactly are you going to legalize it without destroying lives. I do not want to pay taxes for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I'd assume that they'll only be selling drugs made by themselves... I'm sure the current medical suppliers are capable of making more than they are now with few problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
EDIT: Btw, that's the reason I will never, ever touch any drug, no pot or anything. I don't want to support an industry that kills thousands every year.
Do you drink? Drive a car? Eat fast food? Use power tools? Support any sort of political movement?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A fair point, but it begs the question of whether we want people buying cocaine at their corner shop. A number of young men have died in my home town from massive heart attacks, where use is prevelant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I've also watched people turn into complete wastrels on hash.
Sorry, I used unclear terms. By "controlled", I meant illegal in the "classed" or "scheduled" context. Those that would become legalized like alcohol/nicotine would be subject to health and safety regulation and taxation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Bah. Not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Well now you're just bloody lying. You don't drink?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I am quite sure that my water company doesn't kill anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Let me rephrase, DO YOU DRINK ALCOHOL?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I don't think there is anyone on any side of the debate who believes there is a way of stopping people wasting their lives one way or another. The question is now all about harm and cost reduction to the individual and to society. There is a middle ground between corner shop and the alley behind the corner shop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
There is no reason why the cocaine market can't become expolitative and unfair in the same legitimated way the chocolate and coffee trade is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yes, and Aass brewery doesn't kill people either.
If people kill themselves by overuse of their products, then that's something else. That wasn't what I was talking about previously. The drug industry kills people to produce their products, something no brewery I know of does.
Interesting that no-one has supported the current policies and next to no-one supports 'more of the same only worse'.
It does leave the question of who our politicians are appealing to with their moribund approach?
Alcohol claims far more lives, directly and indirectly than all the illicit drugs put together x10.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
By what rationale is alcohol not a hard drug?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Alcohol is highly habit forming and is very capable of killing someone just like cocaine.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
All people kill themselves by overuse that's why it's called and overdose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Again, not what I'm talking about. Until I see a brewer doing a hit and run, I'll continue to drink. Until the drug industry stops doing hit and runs, I won't touch their pot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
May I introduce you to Alphonse Capone?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The whole reason gangs are in the drug buisness is because it's illegal.
I have absolutely no plans to buy alcohol produced by Mr. Capone, for the very same reason I won't touch drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Oh try it anyway they stuff a turkey and call it tradition, nothing wrong with it in small doses just certain deathQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Listen cowpoke, you're working backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No legit buisness can deal in drugs because they are illegal.
This leads to a vaccum
This vaccum gets filled by peolpe who stab people
This vaccum turns into dog-eat-dog
The violence gets ramped up
By legalising the drugs these things will end, just like the mafia got out of the alcohol buisness.
Sure, I agree with all of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
But as long as things remain the way they are, I'm not touching that stuff. If the situation changes, and it's sold by government outlets, for example, then the situation changes, of course(though I still doubt that I will try it, I love my beer).
Bottom line is; I'm not going to fill the coffers of a crook. No way Jose. Don't care how great his offer is, I won't take it.
Why are we arguing?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Because you're Texan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Norweigan penis envy?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yeah.... You tiny Texans just can't come to terms with my might Norwegian boner...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
But hey, given its incredible size, I don't blame y'all.
I fail to grasp the difference between the last two options. Plus does the UK's licensing system regards the sale of alcohol come under state control?
:idea2: I think the backroom is about measuring your wits, not ~:blush:~ It is surpising how swiftly we moved from the opiates to sex... Tz-tz-tz... :no:
Eating a pizza, unhealthy yet pleasurable
Riding a motorcyle, risky yet fun (I believ 16x more likely to die)
Drinking coffee, a stimulant, unhealthy
So being "unhealthy", "risky" or "a drug" is fine. But obviously the goverment has some responsibility.
About 5,000 people a year die in motorcyle accidents, and you are about twice as likely to die if you take a bike compared to a car. So that's 2,500 deaths a year the government could prevent by banning motorcyles. And all the extra injuries as well, probably 99% of motorcyle accidents result in injury. The rate of death is 66.7 per 100,000.
So if you support motorcyles being legal, should you support any drug being legal that has a death rate of 66.7 per 100,000 or less?
Some drugs have other concerns besides death, but I left the amputated arms and smashed in faces out of the motorcyle equation too because I didn't want to take the time to look it up.
If it's legal, it's not cool.
You misunderstood when they called you vi KING. you got pointy ears that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Many owners of motorcycles are responsible people. Motorcycle is meant to be a transport vehicle.The example you gave is a simple abuse. Some drugs are used in the medicine and that's not illegal. Using your example, legalisation of the drugs is abolishing the speed limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Ooops, Sasaki, I thought you voted for full legalisation...
by the rationale that we don't accept it as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
People who don't read the Org? In the UK at least, people who are most likely to vote in numbers aren't really the kind of people I'd associate with playing TW games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
But do you agree with laws based on cultural and emotional responses or do you think there should be some method or evidence behind such decisions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I wouldn't touch heroin and cocaine if it was legal. I'm just not interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Not so at all. Most drug users are responsible people. Do you think everyone you see sat in a pub or stood outside smoking a cigarette is a wild and dangerous person?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
I voted 'Decriminalise use and supply'.
Hmm, I'm the only one who did so. Two concerns are behind my vote:
1) Frustration over criminalization of drugs and the effect this has on law and order.
Notably:
- the strain on law enforcement,
- the huge profits. Unsolvable. The more drugs are interecpted, the higher the price becomes.
- the trickling upwards of these billions and billions, which undermines the legal economy. This effect must not be underestimated.
- the destabilising effect on producing countries. See: Colombia and Afghanistan.
- crime, and the formation and perpetuation of sensitive urban areas / ghetto's.
2) Drugs are bad.
Much worse, I think, than many proponents of legalization argue. This includes alchol, which I think comes at the highest social cost of all drugs.
Drugs are explosive goods, and need to be tightly monitored by the government. I am not in favour of the somewhat arbitrary division of alcohol legal and cannabis illegal. Both need to be monitored closely.
It seems that you rationale doesn't match your vote. You want close montoring and control - but have elected to leave drugs in a totally uncontrolled market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Personally I think decriminalisation is perhaps the worst answer. It refuses to stop, control or take any responsibility for a criminal market.
Every single statistic shows that the higher your education is, the more likely you are to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So.... It's the smart, educated and successful people doing the voting.
The thing is, it is a similar situation with "legal alternatives" which is weed killer, packaged with names like "snowball" with on the side have written "not safe for human consumption".
I think drugs should be decriminalised for use and I have no problems in other drugs being used for other things. However, I wish people would stop trying to smoke their maths text book as a spliff because it is hemp paper.
both, but principally the first, and regardless i have little interest in drugs, only the problems caused by their criminalisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Thank God! Still leaves too many of the others with the vote, or at least are viewed as enough of a threat that they might vote elsewhere so money is still showered upon them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I'm for legalised, controlled drugs.
But IF you want them illegal, release batches with impurities and switch what the impurity is: blood thinner one week, maybe some insecticide the next... Make drugs really playing with one's life.
~:smoking:
In the UK, especially among the younger sections of the population, they're more likely to be apathetic. It's the suburban conservative middle class who can be relied on to vote, hence New Labour's periodic reactionary policies directed at their approval. They favour more CCTV, more police, more cars, strict enforcement of current cultural norms even as they privately ingest assorted substances, etc. They may be educated, they may have some liberal views, but they're not likely to be liberal across the board. Tory probably best describes them, albeit solidly Thatcherite economically.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I'm assuming that this isn't JUST for cannabis, which is why I put "Legalize and let business operate market" instead of Full Legalization, IF it was just cannabis I would've put the latter.
The difference I intended between the "Full Legalization" and the "Legalize and let businesses operate market" options is a litttle unlcear - my apologies.
My intention was that full legalization means that they are marketed, advertised and sold just like any other product whereas the business operate and state operate were meant to suggest that they would be legal but the market would not be so deregulated (authorised clinics, etc).
My model would be something like this:
Clinics attached to General Practitioner surgeries staffed with nurses, drug counsellors and a doctor.
You get your clinic card which shows which drugs you are authorised to buy. You become authorised by attending education sessions about a particular drug. You are told the safer doses, methods of consumption, risks, etc. Once you have your ticket you can buy a maximum amount of that drug each day. If you buy it frequently the system flags you as a potential problem user and you have to go and see a counsellor/medical practitioner to discuss your use. They will only stop your supply if you don't go and see them. You can elect to carry on taking the drugs after this session - that's your choice.
Habitual users of certain drugs go into an advanced programme where they get increased support to get clean if they choose.
I wouldn't include weed/mushrooms in this system of prescription, but the advisors, etc would be trained to give guidance about it too.
Bump this for an interesting article in the Economist:
Basically saying that most nations have effectively adopted decriminalisation without stating it openly. The vast majority of drug offences are met with administrative rather than custodial punishments:
http://media.economist.com/images/20091114/CIR479.gifQuote:
Virtually legal
Nov 12th 2009
From The Economist print edition
In many countries, full jails, stretched budgets and a general weariness with the war on drugs have made prohibition harder to enforce
THE Green Relief “natural health clinic” in a bohemian part of San Francisco doesn’t sound like an ordinary doctor’s surgery. For those who wonder about the sort of relief provided, its logo—a cannabis leaf—is a clue. Inside, in under an hour and for $99, patients can get a doctor’s letter allowing them to smoke marijuana in California with no fear of prosecution. In a state that pioneered bans on smoking tobacco, smoking cannabis is now easier than almost anywhere in the world.
California, with its network of pot-friendly physicians, offers the most visible evidence of a tentative worldwide shift towards a more liberal policy on drugs. Although most countries remain bound by a trio of United Nations conventions that prohibit the sale and possession of narcotics, laws are increasingly being bent or ignored. That is true even in the United States, where the Obama administration has announced that registered cannabis dispensaries will no longer be raided by federal authorities.
From heroin “shooting galleries” in Vancouver to Mexico’s decriminalisation of personal possession of drugs, the Americas are suddenly looking more permissive. Meanwhile in Europe, where drugs policy is generally less stringent, seven countries have decriminalised drug possession, and the rest are increasingly ignoring their supposedly harsh regimes. Is the “war on drugs” becoming a fiction?
Reformers are in a bold mood. Earlier this year a report by ex-presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico called for alternatives to prohibition. On November 12th a British think-tank, Transform, launched a report* setting out ideas on how drugs could be legally regulated. For every substance from cannabis to crack, it suggests a form of regulation, via doctors’ prescriptions, pharmacy sales or consumption on licensed premises.
That world is still some way off. But a debate about regulation is increasingly drowning out the one about enforcement. Take America, where 13 states let people smoke marijuana for medical reasons. Most set somewhat stricter terms than California—where insomnia, migraines and post-traumatic stress can all be reasons for a spliff, if you see the right doctor. “There’s never been a person born who couldn’t qualify,” says Keith Stroup, the founder of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a lobby group that has been around since 1970. “In California, the system of medical use they have adopted is in fact a version of legalisation.”
Elsewhere in the United States, there are many signs of prohibition ebbing away. Some 14 states have decriminalised the possession of marijuana for personal use (medical or otherwise), though most keep the option of a $100 civil penalty. Three states—New Mexico, Rhode Island and Massachusetts—license non-profit corporations to grow medical marijuana. Most radically, some states are considering legalising the drug completely. California and Massachusetts are holding committee hearings on bills to legalise pot outright; Oregon is expected to introduce such a bill within the next couple of weeks.
One reason for the sudden popularity of cannabis is financial. Tom Ammiano, the California assemblyman who introduced the bill to legalise marijuana earlier this year, points out that were it taxed it could raise some $1.3 billion a year for state coffers, based on a $50 per ounce levy on sales. As an added benefit to the public purse, lots of police time and prison space would be freed up. California’s jails heave with 170,000 inmates, almost a fifth of them inside for drug-related crimes, albeit mostly worse than just possessing a spliff.
In Europe, the authorities face similar pressures: the difficulty of enforcement, and bursting courts and prisons. So the tough sentences recommended in the laws of many European countries are seldom handed out. London’s police chief said last week that law-breakers of all kinds were escaping with cautions or on-the-spot fines, because of pressure on the courts.
...
Source:Virtually Legal
Pretty surprising to me that out of these countries we are the harshest. I know from experience that the Spanish and French police are pretty tolerant, they just take it from you.
Basically saying that most nations have effectively adopted decriminalisation without stating it openly.
Looks like I was on to something
Obama has helped this creep into many South America countries - in essence by not throwing a hissy fit when it is mentioned.
It's an ugly fudge, but I'm enough of a pragmatist (in fact, almost wholly a pragmatist) to see it as the first steps on the path of a sensible policy on the subject.
~:smoking:
I wonder whether the open policy of tolerance has distorted the result on that one. Because only the serious, persistent and large scale cases get police intervention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Any German orgahs comment on the German stat? It looks like there are no "other" policies being applied - cautions, rehab orders, etc.
Internally I think he has decided to let the states take the lead and just not let the federal thingies (sorry US internal politics confuses me) get in the way or oppose what they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Not so sure about the South America thing. The US have recently set up a large military base in Columbia with the stated aim of combatting drugs. Personally I think this is almost certainly about securing oil access a decade or so down the track.
Are we talking about weed or all drugs, that could explain it, never heard of someone going to jail for growing marihuana, but there is also XTC and the trade is pretty damn big. It's a pest to the enviroment because the chemicals are dumped and when something explodes it's usually an XTC-lab, these are not recreational users but hardline professional criminals. I think that is what we are dealing with here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Obama = State Rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho