Durg laws don't stop people taking Drurgs, m'kay.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So says some reporter on teh BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29824764

[JimC]

Well they didn't stop me.

But then I'm special...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Well they didn't stop me.

But then I'm special...

The main thing is that it stops those other weirdos, you know, the ones that can't cope with having their minds expandified. Us special types are, by definition, excluded from such infantile laws. But we need them to protect the stupid and the smelly from themselves.

Or some shit...

[pErvinalia]

Drug laws, like a bunch of laws, are more about idiotic conservative morality than any logical reasoning process.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Drug laws, like a bunch of laws, are more about idiotic conservative morality than any logical reasoning process.

Global, law-enforcement, drug policy can be summed up in this helpful graphic.

[Hermit]

Drug laws, like a bunch of laws, are more about idiotic conservative morality than any logical reasoning process.

Global, law-enforcement, drug policy can be summed up in this helpful graphic.

[mistermack]

If you did a similar worldwide survey, you would find that drnk drving laws don't stop people drving while pussed either.
I believe Russia has a zero limit. Good luck with that.

[Hermit]

If you did a similar worldwide survey, you would find that drnk drving laws don't stop people drving while pussed either.

Indeed. On the other hand decriminalising drug use doesn't open the flood gates to abuse. Also, speaking of decriminalisation, there's a difference between that and legalisation. Lastly, the introduction of random breath testing in Australia resulted in a significant drop in road accident / fatality / injury rates.

[pErvinalia]

I've never quite got the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. What's the deal? Is the former ok to possess, but not ok to deal??

[Hermit]

I've never quite got the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. What's the deal? Is the former ok to possess, but not ok to deal??

No. The difference is not between what is decriminalised or legalised. It is concerned with what happens when you are found to have done something. Decriminalisation basically means that at worst you might be fined rather than gaoled. Parking tickets come to mind, or littering. Legalisation means that you will neither be gaoled nor fined. In relation to drug use legalisation also means that drug addiction is treated as a health issue rather than a criminal one. With very few exceptions (the US state of Colorado being one, and only in regard to cannabis) the cultivation and trade of drugs has not been decriminalised, let alone legalised.

[pErvinalia]

[mistermack]

If you did a similar worldwide survey, you would find that drnk drving laws don't stop people drving while pussed either.

Indeed. On the other hand decriminalising drug use doesn't open the flood gates to abuse. Also, speaking of decriminalisation, there's a difference between that and legalisation. Lastly, the introduction of random breath testing in Australia resulted in a significant drop in road accident / fatality / injury rates.

That's more to do with effective enforcement, than the principle of making it illegal though.

If there were random drug tests, which resulted in a driving ban, fewer people would take drugs less often.
It's an efficient deterrent that has an effect, not the legality or illegality.

There is little deterrent to starting drug taking, so it's unsurprising that it's illegality has no effect on light use.
And by the time people are addicted to something, no deterrent is going to work.