Ban or Legalise?

[Geoff]

To be clear, I am in favour of legalising drugs, with a monopoly of supply reserves to the state, which, if it is sensible would provide pharmaceutical grade drugs for free, which would still be cheaper and would completely wipe out any business opportunity.

It would also give the health authorities direct access to addicts for intervention purposes, in addition to quality control.

in the normal course of events, i don't think the state should be involved in such matters. But the alternative is very corrosive to peace and security of citizens and the state.

I'm not convinced as to the drawbacks of drugs, once legalised, being sold by private companies, just as alcohol and tobacco are at present.

[Mallardz]

I would like to think that having guns legal would be something that could be enjoyed by those sensible but if there is any market at all it's going to end up with the wrong people wielding the firearms. Living somewhere where I know many people who carry knives and as many people who have been mugged at knife point or indeed attacked by other people with knives, I would strongly protest to them being legal.
I would greatly appriciate the prospect of one day owning my own firearm to shoot cans of a fence but it's just not that simple if people can get them their going to be used for crime, at least in the UK. I don't know the current policy towards guns but I've only known 2 shootings in the last year around here. One a man with some woman hostage firing on police attempting to enter his house to retrieve the woman and another where some young man was shot twice just round the corner from my friend and I which was great fun. His sister rang screaming that we should go inside because someone was shot round the corner.


Drugs should all be legal but "stoned and disorderly" should be like the drunk and disorderly punishments. Just tax the drugs intensely.

[Cormac]

To be clear, I am in favour of legalising drugs, with a monopoly of supply reserves to the state, which, if it is sensible would provide pharmaceutical grade drugs for free, which would still be cheaper and would completely wipe out any business opportunity.

It would also give the health authorities direct access to addicts for intervention purposes, in addition to quality control.

in the normal course of events, i don't think the state should be involved in such matters. But the alternative is very corrosive to peace and security of citizens and the state.

I'm not convinced as to the drawbacks of drugs, once legalised, being sold by private companies, just as alcohol and tobacco are at present.

Because a company's purpose is to maximise profitability, and this can't be done if your core value is that drugs are bad for people, and the duty rests on you to try to help get people off drugs and back on track.

Companies don't like to get rid of customers.

Companies could (and would) supply the drugs to the state, but would not have a relationship with the users. Nor would he drugs be branded in any way. If try were to be, then drugs would become aspirational just like all consume products. This would a mistake

[Cormac]

I would like to think that having guns legal would be something that could be enjoyed by those sensible but if there is any market at all it's going to end up with the wrong people wielding the firearms. Living somewhere where I know many people who carry knives and as many people who have been mugged at knife point or indeed attacked by other people with knives, I would strongly protest to them being legal.
I would greatly appriciate the prospect of one day owning my own firearm to shoot cans of a fence but it's just not that simple if people can get them their going to be used for crime, at least in the UK. I don't know the current policy towards guns but I've only known 2 shootings in the last year around here. One a man with some woman hostage firing on police attempting to enter his house to retrieve the woman and another where some young man was shot twice just round the corner from my friend and I which was great fun. His sister rang screaming that we should go inside because someone was shot round the corner.


Drugs should all be legal but "stoned and disorderly" should be like the drunk and disorderly punishments. Just tax the drugs intensely.

Drugs should be legalised, and distributed free by the government. With generic pharmaceutical grade drugs, this can be achieved at a fraction of the cost that states expend on "war on drugs" type futile activities. Drugs should not be taxed, because this gives governments a confused priority, as it does with tobacco taxes.

[Geoff]

To be clear, I am in favour of legalising drugs, with a monopoly of supply reserves to the state, which, if it is sensible would provide pharmaceutical grade drugs for free, which would still be cheaper and would completely wipe out any business opportunity.

It would also give the health authorities direct access to addicts for intervention purposes, in addition to quality control.

in the normal course of events, i don't think the state should be involved in such matters. But the alternative is very corrosive to peace and security of citizens and the state.

I'm not convinced as to the drawbacks of drugs, once legalised, being sold by private companies, just as alcohol and tobacco are at present.

Because a company's purpose is to maximise profitability, and this can't be done if your core value is that drugs are bad for people, and the duty rests on you to try to help get people off drugs and back on track.

But how is it different from tobacco companies, then, and why should they have that duty, any more than tobacco companies do?

[Cormac]

To be clear, I am in favour of legalising drugs, with a monopoly of supply reserves to the state, which, if it is sensible would provide pharmaceutical grade drugs for free, which would still be cheaper and would completely wipe out any business opportunity.

It would also give the health authorities direct access to addicts for intervention purposes, in addition to quality control.

in the normal course of events, i don't think the state should be involved in such matters. But the alternative is very corrosive to peace and security of citizens and the state.

I'm not convinced as to the drawbacks of drugs, once legalised, being sold by private companies, just as alcohol and tobacco are at present.

Because a company's purpose is to maximise profitability, and this can't be done if your core value is that drugs are bad for people, and the duty rests on you to try to help get people off drugs and back on track.

But how is it different from tobacco companies, then, and why should they have that duty, any more than tobacco companies do?

Because the cost to the state of drugs far exceeds the size of the problem. Tobacco and alcohol generally don't come with the wider criminal and policing costs, (which is my main concern).

[Cormac]

To be clear, I am in favour of legalising drugs, with a monopoly of supply reserves to the state, which, if it is sensible would provide pharmaceutical grade drugs for free, which would still be cheaper and would completely wipe out any business opportunity.

It would also give the health authorities direct access to addicts for intervention purposes, in addition to quality control.

in the normal course of events, i don't think the state should be involved in such matters. But the alternative is very corrosive to peace and security of citizens and the state.

I'm not convinced as to the drawbacks of drugs, once legalised, being sold by private companies, just as alcohol and tobacco are at present.

Because a company's purpose is to maximise profitability, and this can't be done if your core value is that drugs are bad for people, and the duty rests on you to try to help get people off drugs and back on track.

But how is it different from tobacco companies, then, and why should they have that duty, any more than tobacco companies do?

Because the cost to the state of drugs far exceeds the size of the problem. Tobacco and alcohol generally don't come with the wider criminal and policing costs, (which are my main concerns).

[Geoff]

I'm not convinced as to the drawbacks of drugs, once legalised, being sold by private companies, just as alcohol and tobacco are at present.

Because a company's purpose is to maximise profitability, and this can't be done if your core value is that drugs are bad for people, and the duty rests on you to try to help get people off drugs and back on track.

But how is it different from tobacco companies, then, and why should they have that duty, any more than tobacco companies do?

Because the cost to the state of drugs far exceeds the size of the problem. Tobacco and alcohol generally don't come with the wider criminal and policing costs, (which are my main concerns).

Which is why I said "once legalised". That would take away most criminal and policing costs, other than incidental offences already covered by other laws (age restrictions, or driving under the influence, for example).

[Gallstones]

No one needs to buy marijuana when they can grow it.

[Audley Strange]

@Eriku. Legal and controlled, licenced? Who does the controlling, a government enforcement agency or the shopkeeper? Why do they need to be controlled?



Seraph points out that gun control legislation has not reduced the homicide rate in Australia. Given that and that by restricting guns you are creating an unregistered and unguarded black market in which only criminals have guns by definition is it not also a matter for people to have their rights when it comes to having the ability or illusion of ability to defend themselves?

I was writing about drugs, I think you'll find, if you re-read what I wrote.

My apologies. I've split it up for you. The first sentence was addressing your suggestion that drugs should be legal and controlled, I was asking you what level of control you thought was appropriate. Though I notice the thread has moved on to discuss private vs government issue of recreational drugs.

The second was asking why it reasonable to suggest that control and legalisation of drugs (which you still recognise as potentially dangerous) is about allowing people rights over what substances they inject or ingest for entertainment, yet why is it not reasonable to suggest control and legalisation of guns to allow people rights over their own security?

@Thinking aloud. So when you let that arrow go, you were aiming it at someone? They took the consequences for your actions? Or were you just having fun? Your arguments don't really work.

Sure they don't. That's why bows and arrows can be found in every home in the UK, and you can carry them in the street without repercussions.

We're not talking about sporting weaponry, or even hunting weaponry, which are legal to own and use under very controlled circumstances - this thread seemed to be talking about legalising the carrying of guns by anyone anywhere vs the legalisation of drugs, which is just a teeny bit different. But hey, good deflection.

Thanks. Actually though what I'm talking about is the reasoning behind banning or legalising either. I doubt that you would want crack being available in primary school canteens, so you would consider specific areas of legislation to define drug use that would be appropriate. So there could be an argument from your POV for guns being maintained by registered organisations for fun use (much like the twagstick in your pic) and then discuss what level of control would be appropriate*. Or you might think perhaps self defence purposes are reasonable and have very controlled circumstances in which you legislate for the owners right to have a gun in his premises, licenced, under lock and key and checked by a council employee ever year.

*( I personally knew a guy who was a sports gun enthusiast who stole two guns from the range and shot two people them himself, so perhaps even sports use should be banned?)

No one really consents being hit by a car, or knifed or kicked to death by a gang of teenagers but be don't ban cars knives and trainers.

A car is not intended as a weapon. Unless you, as the driver, intentionally aim it at a person in order to kill them, incidents where people die as a result of being hit by a car are not generally considered malicious. Shooting someone is. In the UK, carrying a knife without good cause is illegal. Trainers are clothing - the foot inside the trainer does the kicking.
[/quote]

Clearly there are risks to the public by making things legal which a willful person with intent can use to harm self and others. That's the problem with your original post, your implication was that it was not the intent was the problem it was the machine in and of itself.

[FBM]

@FBM He's always at the wheel, there's just a lot of back seat drivers trying to convince you otherwise.

I'm not so sure that civilization's insulating function hasn't undermined natural selection...

[Mallardz]

This Thread needs a poll!!!

[Hermit]

This Thread needs a poll!!!

Given the issue raised in the opening post, that would be a bit difficult to design in a meaningful way. On my reading it basically amounts to something like this: Why would you be in favour making the possession of firearms illegal if you are simultaneously in favour of legalising drugs?

[Robert_S]

No one needs to buy marijuana when they can grow it.

True enough, but it seems like all those grow-lights could put a real stain on the grid.

Also, I'd like to see the breeders come up with a nice tasting sativa strain that doesn't contain all that much THC. It would be so nice to leisurely smoke a tasty joint and still be reasonable social afterward.

[Cormac]

I'm not convinced as to the drawbacks of drugs, once legalised, being sold by private companies, just as alcohol and tobacco are at present.

Because a company's purpose is to maximise profitability, and this can't be done if your core value is that drugs are bad for people, and the duty rests on you to try to help get people off drugs and back on track.

But how is it different from tobacco companies, then, and why should they have that duty, any more than tobacco companies do?

Because the cost to the state of drugs far exceeds the size of the problem. Tobacco and alcohol generally don't come with the wider criminal and policing costs, (which are my main concerns).

Which is why I said "once legalised". That would take away most criminal and policing costs, other than incidental offences already covered by other laws (age restrictions, or driving under the influence, for example).

Not necessarily, because companies will seek to profit, drug barons can stay in competition with them on price. (With all the criminal activities still in place, albeit potentially reduced).

To keep the barons out, then complete negation of the market has to be established. This can't be achieved by criminalisation or by discouraging people from taking drugs. It can only be achieved by completely negating any business opportunity.

Private companies will seek to both profit from and maintain their "customers", and this may not be a good thing.