Evil Inky Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 People are killed by taking drugs, even just once. People are killed rock climbing, paralyzed playing rugby, and brain-damaged while boxing. Yet we don't ban any of these activities.Will someone on the pro-legalization side please tell me why they think these drugs are illegal in the first place?I think the simple answer is that sometimes politicians do stupid things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudden Stop Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 People are killed rock climbing, paralyzed playing rugby, and brain-damaged while boxing. Yet we don't ban any of these activities.Lists of examples are great: hand guns, speed limits, exposing yourself in public! All illegal, all for individual reasons. It's not often you hear people complain that their freedom to choose for themselves to wander about flashing folk has been taken away and that it should be legalized, even though i'm sure those who are that way inclined really enjoy doing it. I think the simple answer is that sometimes politicians do stupid things. And sometimes people do stupid things. Laws are there to protect those who do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodat Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 Too true. Among the list of stupid things that springs to mind is someone shoving a syringe full of heroin into the nearest available vein, never mind the dangers. And for those who will howl in indignation, I am well aware that those who do such things are, more often than not, at the end of a long road that has taken them there. However it is surely the responsibility of those who make laws in our name - duly elected by us to do so - to do their best with specialist advice and expertise, and pass and enforce laws to protect those same unfortunates. I know that it would be better to place folk on programmes rather than put them to prison, but are you going to tell me it will work for everyone? I don't think so. And the politicos will say that ultimately they do their best while looking out for the majority of law-abiding citizens out there. Cannabis is another matter. Personally, I see that there are justifications for persons with specific conditions to use such substances, and the real crime there is that they are not being provided with such as standard medication by the NHS. But then Mr B et al seem determined to put the last nails in the coffin of that institution, so it seems there is little hope of that situation being resolved anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 <--snip-->>However it is surely the responsibility of those who make laws in our name - duly elected by us to do so - to do their best with specialist advice and expertise, and pass and enforce laws to protect those same unfortunates. I can agree with this theory up to a point, it works fine and is an honourable stance when it is the true "unfortunates" that are protected by it and appreciate it. However, where does it leave those people who are being branded "unfortunates" by it, but who themselves would much prefer such controls didn't exist, they most certainly do not consider themselves to be "unfortunate" in any sense of how it is used to justify such regulations, and object in strong terms to the very unwelcome so called "protection" being forced upon them. Bottom line, many people make a conscious choice to abuse their bodies one way or another, with both addictive and non addictive substances, which will almost certainly lead to their early demise, and most of those same people will look you in the eye and tell you they'd much prefer to have the lifestyle they do and their lifespan be considerably shorter, than choose another lifestyle which they dislike and live longer. For those people, why is it a matter of pot luck what your preferred substance is as to whether a Government simply ignores you and lets you binge to your hearts content of puts every possible obstacle in your way. Does it really matter what you die of if it is an early one brought on by inappropriate and/or excessive use of any substance, if your doing so harms no one else, it's no one else's business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here in what we mean as regards legalization of drugs. De criminalise is a better way to describe it. The establishment/ authorities refer to illegal drugs as controlled substances , this is reference is completely wrong 100%.By being Illegal they have passed control into the hands of , and if you start at the top of the distrubution tree it would read like this, Terrorist organisations, criminal organisations , career criminals , dodgy businessmen, drug addicts who sell to maintain there own habit, young boys & girls who think it is cool to be a drug dealer .These substances are therefor most definately OUT OF CONTROL. Many of the people at the retail end of the distrubution tree will also be unemployed , prefering this to actually working for a living, for everyone who is catched another is happy to get there gap in the market , i'm sorry but it is true , policing in britain at this time barely scratches the surface and very rarely disrupts supply , besides there is so much money at stake it would be very foolish not to realize that those concerned in the supply of drugs already have people working for them within the police, customs ,airport staff etc. So what I mean by being legal is bringing these substances under control -strict control ,taking it out of the hands of criminals , getting the people with problems back in touch with the authorities to get on a proper controled reduction programme , to stop them commiting crime to pay for there habit.lI am beginning to think that some of the pro - prohibition debaters are having visions of ice cream vans driving around with ready filled syringes of heroin. You can decriminalize substance use and still send out the message that it is not good.I think this country should try the dutch approach , hard drugs would still remain illegall but people with problems would get them under strict medical supervision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheesht Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Yes lets have a free for all, drugs, murder, robbery, GBH the lot . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Please read my post wheesh , a free for all is what it is at the moment . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 People are killed rock climbing, paralyzed playing rugby, and brain-damaged while boxing. Yet we don't ban any of these activities.Lists of examples are great: hand guns, speed limits, exposing yourself in public! All illegal, all for individual reasons. The difference is that hand guns are banned, and speed limits imposed in order to protect people from the actions of other people, not to protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Hence you can drive as fast as you like on a racetrack where the only person you are endangering is yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamnSaxon Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 And sometimes people do stupid things. Laws are there to protect those who do. Surely the laws are there to protect the rest of us from those who do. If somebody's smoking a bit of (currently) illegal weed in the privacy of their own home, who needs protecting from them? Really, this thread is just polarising into "pro legalisation" and "anti legalisation" camps, with nobody changing anybody's mind (least of all their own). OK. If you're pro, what would make you change your mind? If you're anti, same question. I'm pro, and I'd want to see some hard evidence of harm being done by drug use - i.e. not mugging old ladies or breaking into people's houses to keep the hapless user capable of paying criminals' prices, but actual harm caused to other people by the user using the drug. I also wouldn't include the idiots who manage to kill themselves by OD'ing on something cut with poisons - that sort of thing only happens because it's currently only available through criminal supply chains. I want to see. say, me smoking a joint and actually harming somebody else, any way you like. I know it's not going to happen. That's why I'm pro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeriebryan Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 I agree with most of your points there DamnSaxon. For the record, I'm firmly on the fence regarding legalisation/decriminalisation of 'drugs' However, I more often than not find the pro-legalisation/decriminalisation camp put forward a more compelling case. The situation is that drugs will always be available, certain individuals will always take drugs and current legislation seems to be woefully inadequate. Existing laws don't seem to be an effective deterrent to drug users or dealers, and I don't believe decriminalising certain drugs would lead to an increase in their use among the general public. If you want to take heroin, you will, regardless of the law Surely the subject should be approached with an open mind, and a reasonably workable solution found through a process of constructive debate rather than comparing recreational drug users to murderers, muggers, terrorists and other hysterical analogies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamnSaxon Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Surely the subject should be approached with an open mind, and a reasonably workable solution found through a process of constructive debate rather than comparing recreational drug users to murderers, muggers, terrorists and other hysterical analogies Absolutely. And I'm not even saying an "opened" mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudden Stop Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 You can decriminalize substance use and still send out the message that it is not good. Sorry droiker, but I think that by decriminalizing something you would send out the message that it was ok. I just do.... Really, this thread is just polarising into "pro legalisation" and "anti legalisation" camps, with nobody changing anybody's mind (least of all their own). OK. If you're pro, what would make you change your mind? If you're anti, same question. I have come around a little, I do now (having had a good talking to from pb) see a case for using cannabis as a medical pain killer alternative. But as a substance just for jollies, i'm still against it. The risks of psychological problems like schizophrenia make me think that it's not really for general constumption. I'm pro, and I'd want to see some hard evidence of harm being done by drug use - i.e. not mugging old ladies or breaking into people's houses to keep the hapless user capable of paying criminals' prices, but actual harm caused to other people by the user using the drug. I also wouldn't include the idiots who manage to kill themselves by OD'ing on something cut with poisons - that sort of thing only happens because it's currently only available through criminal supply chains. Given that the government is going to tax anything that is legalized and there will still be a black market with the exact same supply route, haven't you answered your own question? Maybe not, but that's the way i see it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamnSaxon Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 Given that the government is going to tax anything that is legalized and there will still be a black market with the exact same supply route ... There could be the exact same supply route, but surely there doesn't need to be? I can imagine western pharmaceutical firms being quite happy to set up supply chains from the same farmers in Afghanistan who grow opium now but have to sell it through gunrunning chains, or John Player with the pot growers. Surely this is the point in cutting the ties between drugs and major crime. I don't want to be helping feed weaponry into some conflict if I buy a bit of something to cross the eyes, I'd much rather be paying some tax on it to help keep the NHS going (as I already do with my tobacco). No, we (= society generally) need to take a long, cool look at the whole damn business. (or do I mean DamnBusiness? ) Sadly, while there's so much of this "all druggies are bulging eyed madmen who do loads of crime" attitude, it ain't gonna happen. And while it doesn't happen, all the problems of its being criminalised remain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 I read that a woman overdosed on water today in California. Ban water. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6261509.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudden Stop Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 I repeat: Sometimes people do stupid things. Watch out, these people are out there just waiting for something suitable stupid to do. I seem to remember something similar a few years back where at least one person had died at a rave, purely because of the amount of water drunk during the dancing marathon. Might even have been Glasgow, i can't remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.