Prohibition kills another 7

[Audley Strange]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-23258117

We need to stop this perpetual menace. It has been well known for years that organised gangs of politicians are deliberately restricting recreational drug use and in doing so are directly funding terrorism and organised crime and are responsible for the deaths of many people as well as having a gang of heavily armed goons who go breaking and entering into private property, seize personal goods and kidnap and detain individuals.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

"What do we want?"
"Proper fuckin' drugs!"
"When do we want them?"
"Fuckin' NAO!"

[Audley Strange]

You don't see their poor dying faces with pipes rammed in their cyanotic orifices in the front of all the dailies though do you? No outrage at these death, I've not seen a channel four debate about this, nor angry exchanges on question time.

Seriously, when a government is deliberately prohibiting a reasonably safe drug which it knows youths will experiment with and in turn allows ONLY organised criminals to profit and tax free on that business, the government is directly responsible for the ramifications of that. Prohibition of ecstasy specifically has lead to many people dying who would not have if said drug had been legal. Thus the Government is perpetuating deadly criminal activity, sometimes helping fund the state's enemies.

[Collector1337]

I agree 100% that all drugs should be legal.

Although MDMA isn't as safe as say cannabis.

[Rum]

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).

[Pappa]

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?

[Pappa]

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:







Or The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD):

[Pappa]

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?

Or horse riding?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... iding.html

[Rum]

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?

Driving while drunk is illegal. That's the point - of my point.

[Audley Strange]

I don't get your point Rum.

[Pappa]

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?

Driving while drunk is illegal. That's the point - of my point.

Well, I'm definitely not getting your point.

Would you withhold treatment for horse riding accidents because it is demonstratively more harmful than taking ecstasy?

[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.

[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.

[Jason]

The 'harm' effects would not be cumulative - I imagine few people would start off with 10 pints of stout, a line of cocaine, three tabs of ecstacy, a lick of LSD, a couple joints, and a ciggie to finish it off.

If you're arguing for the status quo, you'll first have to explain how the most 'harmful' drug, alcohol, is legal and controlled, while the much less harmful ones are illegal and criminal.

[Audley Strange]

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.