Prohibition kills another 7

[Rum]

The consequences are hardly unforeseen. Portugal has seen a very positive response since they legalised drugs and the Netherlands has seen a gradual decline in use since they decriminalised.

Based on the evidence, legalisation is a win-win. Drugs get taken out of the hands of criminals and become safer in a variety of ways. Use doesn't seem to rise, quite the contrary. Meanwhile, the State can focus on treating drug use as a public health issue and stop subsidising criminals via the War on Drugs.

Well people always present the best evidence (well you haven't actually) that supports their case. The best that can be said about the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal (they have not legalised them) is that the problem is no worse. (there's an evaluation here http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 060-2.html). It is at best inconclusive though there appear to have been some benefits in terms of people seeking help for addiction. Also at best this is a means of avoiding the 'war on drugs' approach and not a liberalisation with a capital 'L'.

Holland may have decriminalised cannabis but it isn't meant to be a free for all or a liberalisation with that same capital 'L' but to 'reduce the demand for drugs, the supply of drugs and the risks to drug users, their immediate surroundings and society'.

There is a danger in my view that people will see decriminalisation as permission. The cases of Holland and Portugal may well not apply across the board (they are different from each other in any case) and I would hate to see this neck of the woods experimented upon to see if it did work.

My own experience incidentally has a large impact on my views about drugs. I was mentally incapacitated in my mid 20s as a result of using too much LSD and dope and I have a few old mates who never really got to grips with the so called real world after messing a bit too freely with psychedelics.

[Rum]

I have often seen data which shows how much more dangerous alcohol is than many other 'recreational' drugs. The fact is that alcohol is integrated into our society for better or worse, whereas most recreational drugs are at best marginalised. Even if large numbers of people use them that is no reason to legalise them or make them easily available. Also the argument that it is the fault of the state that people who use illegal drugs and harm themselves in the process of buying shit produced by gangsters seems fallacious. Why not simply refrain?

To suggest that seems outrageous to most. I would say it is no more outrageous than unleashing god knows what unforeseen consequences on society be legalising them.

I still don't get your point, what has this argument to do with your former post?

As to the above. Telling people to refrain is a great idea, abstinence works so well, but forcing them to deal with organised criminals because they don't is not. The drug ecstasy is relatively harmless, there were roughly at its peak 3 million kids taking it every weekend, nor did it have any massive sociological impact in the short, medium and now long term. The government made this drug illegal and thus put it into the hands of criminals. It's not a fallacious argument. Would there be a social detriment to regulation legalisation, sure, especially amongst the brewers.

It doesn't. I got caught up with the whole drugs decriminalisation notion I'm afraid. Anyone who needs medical help here should get it. End of story. I was being contrary.

[Pappa]

The consequences are hardly unforeseen. Portugal has seen a very positive response since they legalised drugs and the Netherlands has seen a gradual decline in use since they decriminalised.

Based on the evidence, legalisation is a win-win. Drugs get taken out of the hands of criminals and become safer in a variety of ways. Use doesn't seem to rise, quite the contrary. Meanwhile, the State can focus on treating drug use as a public health issue and stop subsidising criminals via the War on Drugs.

Well people always present the best evidence (well you haven't actually) that supports their case. The best that can be said about the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal (they have not legalised them) is that the problem is no worse. (there's an evaluation here http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 060-2.html). It is at best inconclusive though there appear to have been some benefits in terms of people seeking help for addiction. Also at best this is a means of avoiding the 'war on drugs' approach and not a liberalisation with a capital 'L'.

Holland may have decriminalised cannabis but it isn't meant to be a free for all or a liberalisation with that same capital 'L' but to 'reduce the demand for drugs, the supply of drugs and the risks to drug users, their immediate surroundings and society'.

There is a danger in my view that people will see decriminalisation as permission. The cases of Holland and Portugal may well not apply across the board (they are different from each other in any case) and I would hate to see this neck of the woods experimented upon to see if it did work.

My own experience incidentally has a large impact on my views about drugs. I was mentally incapacitated in my mid 20s as a result of using too much LSD and dope and I have a few old mates who never really got to grips with the so called real world after messing a bit too freely with psychedelics.

Based on my own experience, I don't believe people who would like to try drugs are discouraged by their illegality. Likewise, I don't think people who currently choose not to do drugs would be rushing to shoot up heroin.

One significant fact about the effect in Holland is that the average age of drug users has increased and the number of young people taking drugs has declined. There may be many reasons for that, but one that seems likely is that drugs are no longer associated with risk or rebelliousness there any more.

[Audley Strange]

Thanks for the pertinent responses.

I suspect experience informs us differently, because I have serious issues with alcohol because of the way it affected and affects family members, which is why I hardly drink, whereas in my youth I had a whale of a time on drugs. I'd like therefore some consistency.

How about making all recreational drugs are available only from licensed pharmacists (yes this includes booze an fags) for those who have themselves a licence to purchase a restricted amount for personal use, based on mental and physical health checks. Sure that would empty the locals and the supermarkets but fuck those drug dealing filth eh?

I am not for full legalisation of all drugs. I am for the regulation and sensible use of recreational substances by adults.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I wonder what the first mind-altering substance was to ever be restricted by law...and who restricted it...and why?
Just a thought...

[Jason]

Hmm.. Muslims restricting alcohol? Seems to have worked out well for them.

My bet is legal restrictions on what consciousness-altering chemicals an individual chooses to imbibe where imposed by some offspring of the Judaic tradition.

[Audley Strange]

I wonder what the first mind-altering substance was to ever be restricted by law...and who restricted it...and why?
Just a thought...

Soma is the first one I think mentioned, in the Vedas. However I'd imagine we were scoffing mushrooms for a long time before that. A loooooooong time.

[Cormac]

An ex girlfriend of mine was murdered in a cocaine fuelled rage by her "boyfriend".


I am even more in favour of decriminalisation and regulation.

Prohibition is not preventing anyone from taking drugs, but it does create a vast market for criminal scum to spread criminality and violence throughout society. Criminalisation causes society to have to spend enormous resources policing drug users and dealers. We could cut all that out by decriminalisation, and direct those resources instead to more effective social use, such as services to help get drug users clean and to discourse their use.

Also, through provision of pharmaceutical grade drugs, we could significantly cut the harm caused by drug use.

[Warren Dew]

I agree 100% that all drugs should be legal.

Although MDMA isn't as safe as say cannabis.

Not according to the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs:

I'd like to see what those graphs look like after adjusting for prevalence of use.

[Warren Dew]

All drugs should be legal. All treatment for ill health, addiction and other damage that results should not be funded by the NHS (in the UK).

Would you also see treatment withheld for obesity-related diabetes, climbing accidents or injuries sustained whilst drunk?

You could just get rid of the NHS entirely, and let people take responsibility for their own health. That would probably improve health far more than all the "health care" in the world.

[pErvinalia]

The drug ecstasy is relatively harmless, there were roughly at its peak 3 million kids taking it every weekend, nor did it have any massive sociological impact in the short, medium and now long term.

It lead to the perpetuation of raves.

[pErvinalia]

Thanks for the pertinent responses.

I suspect experience informs us differently, because I have serious issues with alcohol because of the way it affected and affects family members, which is why I hardly drink, whereas in my youth I had a whale of a time on drugs. I'd like therefore some consistency.

How about making all recreational drugs are available only from licensed pharmacists (yes this includes booze an fags) for those who have themselves a licence to purchase a restricted amount for personal use, based on mental and physical health checks. Sure that would empty the locals and the supermarkets but fuck those drug dealing filth eh?

I am not for full legalisation of all drugs. I am for the regulation and sensible use of recreational substances by adults.

The problem we are stuck with is the legacy of social acceptance of two drugs that turned out to be incredibly harmful (alcohol and tobacco). So we end up in this silly situation we have now where, at the very least, cannabis is illegal but booze and ciggies are fine. By all reasonable measures, booze and ciggies should be banned and dope legal. But we are stuck with booze and ciggies; no criminalisation of these will ever happen, I imagine. So how to loosen the laws to include things like say marijuana and perhaps ecstacy (although, I'd heard it was not particularly good for you; but that might have been biased reporting), but restrict things like cocaine, meth and heroine for example; all the while allowing the most harmful drug (alcohol) to remain legal? You end up in the situation as has been suggested in this thread to allow it all. I don't think that is a realistic and, frankly, acceptable solution from a government that has to manage the health of society.

I think the general principle of the state regulating elicit substances is better than letting the criminal world do it, is a solid one. But we will forever have this bloody alcohol (and to a lesser extent, cigarette) problem. The answer to that, given we will never ban it or widely restrict its use, is to tax the shit out of it, like we do with cigarettes. Of course, you can't tax it too much, or people will just move towards home brewing. But even then, only a small percentage of people will do that. It such a fucking effort to do (unless you have a kegging system (and the gov could tax the shit out of them too)).

[pErvinalia]

All drugs should be legal. All treatment for ill health, addiction and other damage that results should not be funded by the NHS (in the UK).

Would you also see treatment withheld for obesity-related diabetes, climbing accidents or injuries sustained whilst drunk?

You could just get rid of the NHS entirely, and let people take responsibility for their own health. That would probably improve health far more than all the "health care" in the world.

Social Darwinism FTW!

[Pappa]

An ex girlfriend of mine was murdered in a cocaine fuelled rage by her "boyfriend".


I am even more in favour of decriminalisation and regulation.

Prohibition is not preventing anyone from taking drugs, but it does create a vast market for criminal scum to spread criminality and violence throughout society. Criminalisation causes society to have to spend enormous resources policing drug users and dealers. We could cut all that out by decriminalisation, and direct those resources instead to more effective social use, such as services to help get drug users clean and to discourse their use.

Also, through provision of pharmaceutical grade drugs, we could significantly cut the harm caused by drug use.

Something I read a while back (I'm paraphrasing):

We don't just spend enormous resources fighting the War on Drugs. We actively subsidise the dealers and traffickers with taxpayer money. Every pound we spend increases the risk of incarceration, violence and death for those in the trade. Increased risk means increased price, otherwise they wouldn't bother. The net result is more money for dealers and traffickers.

[Collector1337]

I was mentally incapacitated in my mid 20s as a result of using too much LSD and dope and I have a few old mates who never really got to grips with the so called real world after messing a bit too freely with psychedelics.

I'm glad you can admit your detachment from reality.