Should drugs be legalised?

[Fjool]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - Santayana

[shetlandpeat]

Alcohol is a bigger social killer than many other substances. It wrecks far more lives. Sadly, the dealers of this substance make a fortune, as do those who make money from this activity without directly selling alcohol.

The trouble with it is it is legal. It can be openly displayed for sale, in some establishments you do not even have to be 18 to take a drink.

 

Punishment of drug dealers should not be lessened, and if they are hurt avoiding justice it could be deemed their own doing.

 

We still have to keep in mind the rehabilitation side of this.

[OP8S]

If somebody would like to point me to a place & time in our history where the prohabition of any substance by Government has been a success then perhaps lessons could be learnt from that. As far as I am aware there has never been a society in the history of mankind where all mind-altering substances have been prohibited from use. The powers that be know better than to deprive the " little man, or woman " from at least one substance in which they can use to escape the day to day tedium of often being forced into an occupation just so they can earn a meagre living, or use for whatever purpose they feel that it is of use to them. Many of histories creative artists have used all manner of substances to broaden their minds, leaving us with a legacy of art-work, literature, music etc. One can only wonder whether their work would be so well known & inspirational to others if they hadn't used such substances.

If alcohol had been invented more recentley then it would almost certainly be been categorised as a Class A drug. Recent studies have proven that it binds to the receptors of nearly every other substance available to man. From the cannabanoid receptors, to the stimulant receptors ( cocaine / amphetamines ), ultimately & the most dangerous of all the receptors in the brain that the uncommonly used barbituates attached themselves to. When linked to them in high quantities that's when you get into trouble & are at risk of falling into a coma, depressed breathing & possibly choking on your own vomit. Nevermind the additional damage that it can inflict on your liver if used un-wisely.

Other substances, say cannabis attach themselves to more specific receptors & in all the history of it's use has never caused a single death. Unless you happen to be in the position where a tonne of the substance falls from a height & lands on your head. I'm sure that we would of heard of an incident like that should it of happened.

The poppy plant which naturally grows in most regions of the world provides the medical world with much needed analgesia by working in roughly the same way, attaching itself to very specific receptors in the brain, which in turn block pain signals sent from the brain to the nervous system & also provides a pleasant & relaxing euphoria when administered in correct doses, which is why I assume many users of opiates continue to use it. Even when it's current status is illeagal as is cannabis.

The laws that surround the use of such substances are not based on any research in the UK on the harm that these & many more substances can cause, as is so obvious with the legal status of alcohol, so what are they based on ? Economics & politics are the only reasonable explanation for the categarisation of such substances.

If we are to focus on economics though then it soon becomes apparent that with all the money spent on prohabition of substance use along with the issues that surround it ie; the many petty crimes carried out by users to finance their habits, the billions that are spent on " The war against drugs " ( a phrase introduced by Nixon ) is wasted as the international drug-economy is one of the largest, un-taxed economies in the world, one that never suffers a recession. Therefore the whole issue of substance use, the legality & illeagality of different substances around the world must surely be based on politics alone.

Nixons "war on drugs" has been well & truly proven not to work as individuals still make up their own minds on how many pints they are going to drink a night or whether the individual prefers an illicit substance which may well be legal in another part of the world.

With this being the case would it not be a better idea to at least explore different ways in which the consumption of an individuals substance of choice can be provided to them in the safest way possible & in a way that has the minimal impact on other members of society

[Ghostrider]

We still have to keep in mind the rehabilitation side of this.

 

Why? Why should others or society in general (aka. taxpayers) be expected to contribute to the rehabilitation of someone who has become addicted to anything as a result of their own actions?

 

I smoke 20+/day, have done ever since I turned 14. I very probably have a certain level of nicotine addiction, the exact extent of which will only become apparent if/when I attempt to stop smoking 20+/day. Should that ever occur, I certainly don't expect anyone's help in overcoming whatever level of addiction I have. The decision to conquer it will be made by me, if/when I feel like it, and however I overcome it (or not as the case may be) will be by my own means and methods.

 

So far I have not had any need to resort to criminal activity to ensure my supply of nicotine, but I cannot categorically state that at some future time I may not, for whatever reason(s) may exist then, undertake criminal activity to ensure my continued supply. Should that ever occur, (and I am caught) I do not expect my prescribed penance for said act to have any bearing on the fact any level of addiction may have contributed to any crime I might commit, IMHO, it should be dealt with as a stand alone act.

 

It should be my decision and my decision alone whether I decide to conquer my addiction to reduce the liklihood of possibly committing further criminal activities, or continue feeding it while accepting future periods of penance as a fair price to pay for any nicotine I might in the future obtain by criminal means (if caught). Should I decide I wished to conquer my addiction, and also decide I wished to obtain professional etc assistance and support in doing so, these things should be commercially available at a fair price, should their be sufficient market demand to make such services viable, end of.

 

We are all solely responsible for what we may do, or not do, addiction is not an "illness", its a self-created condition, in the same way as some african tribeswomen have abnormally long necks because they keep on adding moore and more hoops around them etc etc. If a person never starts using an addictive substance they will never become addicted, addictive substances are well enough know, that anyone who takes one unknowingly must either live under a rock or be incredibly stupid. Its long past time folk were forced to face up to the consequences of their actions and deal with them in an adult and responsible manner, "touchy feely" psychobabble grew out of drug induced stupor idealistic 60's dreaming, was introudced wholesale in the mid/late 70's, and humanity and civilised nations have never gone down the tubes faster ever since.

 

It hasn't worked, it still isn't working, withdraw the nursemaids from the self-inflicted, kick the un-necessary crutches out from under them too, kick in to touch ithe multitudes of analysts/psychologists/shrinks etc who are bleeding everyone dry spouting b/s, and make folk face up to what they've done to themselves, take responsibility for it, and deal with it. Anyone suffering the effects of a self-inflicted condition should only look to society for assistance for any immediate life threating aspects of it, controlling it and conquering it is their decision, and their problem, and any external assistance on those aspects obtained by them at a commercially viable cost, not expected as a right from society's collective purse.

[OP8S]

^ You are quite right there GR, before the 1971 Act anybody with addiction problems were dealt with solely by their GP who added their names to the list of registered addicts & prescribed them pharmacuetically produced medication. This reduced any harm done to the individual & downsized the black market in such substances. A high % of these addicts when removed from the criminal circles that they were once involved in & were left to focus purely on their addiction then reduced their consumption to the point where they could come off whatever their substance of choice was. This was done without the use of psychiatrists, privately run detox centres or re-habs that all come at a considerable price. Often paid for by society. The " addict " has become the UK's newest commodity, though like you say with respect to your nicotine addiction there is absolutely no point in paying for the addict to go to any re-hab or detox centres unless they have come to the decision themselves that they " want to get off ". If this is truly THEIR descion then 99% of them can do it without any costly outside help.

Substance addiction is regarded as a health & social problem by the WHO because of the psychological problems it causes, this includes nicotine. I think to regard it as purely a matter of choice is a bit niave.

[JAStewart]

We still have to keep in mind the rehabilitation side of this.

 

Why? Why should others or society in general (aka. taxpayers) be expected to contribute to the rehabilitation of someone who has become addicted to anything as a result of their own actions?

 

I smoke 20+/day, have done ever since I turned 14. I very probably have a certain level of nicotine addiction, the exact extent of which will only become apparent if/when I attempt to stop smoking 20+/day. Should that ever occur, I certainly don't expect anyone's help in overcoming whatever level of addiction I have. The decision to conquer it will be made by me, if/when I feel like it, and however I overcome it (or not as the case may be) will be by my own means and methods.

I presume you'll pay for any smoking-related medical care instead of getting it on the NHS?

[Sherlock]

Master Stewart,

 

As this IS Master Rider we are discussing - one of the most single-minded and truly individual fellows I have encountered, short of a certain nefarious Professor - I would wholly anticipate his answer to be a simple "Yes!", and would take him at his word, sir!

 

Your humble servant

[Ghostrider]

We still have to keep in mind the rehabilitation side of this.

 

Why? Why should others or society in general (aka. taxpayers) be expected to contribute to the rehabilitation of someone who has become addicted to anything as a result of their own actions?

 

I smoke 20+/day, have done ever since I turned 14. I very probably have a certain level of nicotine addiction, the exact extent of which will only become apparent if/when I attempt to stop smoking 20+/day. Should that ever occur, I certainly don't expect anyone's help in overcoming whatever level of addiction I have. The decision to conquer it will be made by me, if/when I feel like it, and however I overcome it (or not as the case may be) will be by my own means and methods.

I presume you'll pay for any smoking-related medical care instead of getting it on the NHS?

 

I've already paid for that through £4.00+ per day for 33 years, plus numerous ther taxes. In any case I don't envision being much burden on the NHS for any smoking-related care, if it comes to that they're having to slice up my rotten lungs to keep me alive, or be tubed up to oxygen bottles. Nah, forget it, let nature take its course, order up the box instead. Quality of life will be coming in on a negative score.

 

Anyway, keep reading, I said I had no problem with publically funded health care for immediate life threatening aspects, only for the controlling and conquering aspects.

 

Dig yourself in to a hole, why would you expect anyone to give you a leg up if you were capable of digging your own way back out.

[Sherlock]

Master Stewart,

 

See?

 

Your humble servant

[Gibber]

We are all solely responsible for what we may do, or not do, addiction is not an "illness", its a self-created condition, in the same way as some african tribeswomen have abnormally long necks because they keep on adding moore and more hoops around them etc etc. If a person never starts using an addictive substance they will never become addicted, addictive substances are well enough know, that anyone who takes one unknowingly must either live under a rock or be incredibly stupid. Its long past time folk were forced to face up to the consequences of their actions and deal with them in an adult and responsible manner, .....

 

With addiction the responsibility is diminished, it may be self created and it may not be an illness but it is a physical and mental condition.

 

People may start to smoke out of choice but the choice to stop can be impossible. This is where the difference between the long necked women and a smoker lies, a tribal woman isn't under a physiological compulsion to wear more rings that may be detrimental to her health (there may be a social or cultural compulsion however) smokers are compelled to do something damaging to their health regardless of how knowing of the danger they are. Many smokers that choose to stop are unable to stop in the same way that I may choose to jump over a house.

 

For sure the choice to start is not clever but you often don't get wise 14 year olds. To deny help when the choice to stop is compromised in later life is a bit unfair.

[OP8S]

This all detracts from the title of he thread surely ? " Should drugs be legalised ".

Most substances that are currently illeagal in the U.K. can be used with little or no damage to the users health if they are regulated & distributed under closely regulated guidlines. My own GP readily admits that the substance that I care to use is not damaging any of my internal organs or having any detremental effect to my cognitive ability. The same GP that prescribes me my preffered substance readily admits that on occassion he will consume enough alcohol that will impair his cognitive abilities to a large degree & possibly slightly damage his liver, leaving him a dehydrated mess the next day with what feels like a blacksmith hammering inside his head. Only when he is not working though thankfully.

This brings us back to the question of why some substances are widely available & can cause serious damage to ones health, when others if taken out of the hands of the criminal organisations that supply them & put into the control of medical professionals would not.

Political reasons for this are IMO the only ones that apply.

[Gibber]

Why? Why should others or society in general (aka. taxpayers) be expected to contribute to the rehabilitation of someone who has become addicted to anything as a result of their own actions?

 

I've already paid for that through £4.00+ per day for 33 years, plus numerous ther taxes. In any case I don't envision being much burden on the NHS for any smoking-related care, if it comes to that they're having to slice up my rotten lungs to keep me alive, or be tubed up to oxygen bottles. Nah, forget it, let nature take its course, order up the box instead. Quality of life will be coming in on a negative score.

 

What if you did become a massive financial burden on the NHS (more than the healthcare portion of the tax on a packet of fags over 33 year could cover)? And your quality of life, because of this expensive NHS treatment was maintained at a positive level?

[Ghostrider]

Why? Why should others or society in general (aka. taxpayers) be expected to contribute to the rehabilitation of someone who has become addicted to anything as a result of their own actions?

 

I've already paid for that through £4.00+ per day for 33 years, plus numerous ther taxes. In any case I don't envision being much burden on the NHS for any smoking-related care, if it comes to that they're having to slice up my rotten lungs to keep me alive, or be tubed up to oxygen bottles. Nah, forget it, let nature take its course, order up the box instead. Quality of life will be coming in on a negative score.

 

What if you did become a massive financial burden on the NHS (more than the healthcare portion of the tax on a packet of fags over 33 year could cover)? And your quality of life, because of this expensive NHS treatment was maintained at a positive level?

 

You'd best tell me how this could happen, as by my standards for "quality of life" as soon as any of the possible known heath damaging risks of smoking were to be apparent enough that I was aware of them, my quality of life would already be on a negative score.

 

I realise "quality of life" is a uniquely personal benchmark, and that others may well be of the opinion that their quality of life is still of value even during and after the type of medical treatment which can be involved, on my personal scorecard though, it does not.

[Ghostrider]

We are all solely responsible for what we may do, or not do, addiction is not an "illness", its a self-created condition, in the same way as some african tribeswomen have abnormally long necks because they keep on adding moore and more hoops around them etc etc. If a person never starts using an addictive substance they will never become addicted, addictive substances are well enough know, that anyone who takes one unknowingly must either live under a rock or be incredibly stupid. Its long past time folk were forced to face up to the consequences of their actions and deal with them in an adult and responsible manner, .....

 

With addiction the responsibility is diminished, it may be self created and it may not be an illness but it is a physical and mental condition.

 

People may start to smoke out of choice but the choice to stop can be impossible. This is where the difference between the long necked women and a smoker lies, a tribal woman isn't under a physiological compulsion to wear more rings that may be detrimental to her health (there may be a social or cultural compulsion however) smokers are compelled to do something damaging to their health regardless of how knowing of the danger they are. Many smokers that choose to stop are unable to stop in the same way that I may choose to jump over a house.

 

For sure the choice to start is not clever but you often don't get wise 14 year olds. To deny help when the choice to stop is compromised in later life is a bit unfair.

 

The highlighted parts, are what I fundamentally and completely disagree with.

 

I do not see how personal responsibility can be diminished. People do what they do, it is their choice, certainly an addict feels an extremely strong urge to continue, but that does not remove or excuse their own level of responsibility, they still choose whether to succumb to that urge or fight it. Its a strength of will power thing, either you exercise adequate will power, or you don't.

 

"Impossible", with all due respect, is poppycock. The evidence otherwise is immense, in the shape of countless ex-addicts of numerous addictive substances. If it were "impossible" to choose to stop the only ex-addicts would be those whom were physically barred from securing further supplies of their addictive subsyances of choice.

 

Addicts have to weigh up the balance between risking the possible health damaging effects, and fighting their addiction, I'll grant you that much, but to suggest a "compulsion" to continue, regardless of anything, is IMHO extremely OTT. It also come over as somewhat insulting to all addicts, as it infers that they no longer possess the ability of rational thought and decision making.

 

Bottom line, it may be going to hell and back countless times, it may be one hell of a fight, but no-one that I have ever heard of has suffered lasting health damage or death from the withdrawal symptoms of an addictive substance. It is an exercise in mind over matter, you just need to be more stubborn, pig-headed and a better fighter than the corresponding attributes of your personal addiction.

[Gibber]

You'd best tell me how this could happen, as by my standards for "quality of life" as soon as any of the possible known heath damaging risks of smoking were to be apparent enough that I was aware of them, my quality of life would already be on a negative score.

 

I don't really know the medical realities but you can treat it as hypothetical if you want. Say a situation that means any lung slicing or oxygen pipes are foregone in favor of a very expensive drug that immediately negates the smoking damage.

 

I do not see how personal responsibility can be diminished. People do what they do, it is their choice, certainly an addict feels an extremely strong urge to continue, but that does not remove or excuse their own level of responsibility, they still choose whether to succumb to that urge or fight it. Its a strength of will power thing, either you exercise adequate will power, or you don't.

 

I think this extremely strong urge can overcome will power rather than it being only about people making a straight choice. Its a choice but its a choice that's being influenced by very strong chemicals. There are plenty of chemicals that take away choice as an effect. This is why people who have been given rophynol and raped aren't accused of choosing to have sex.

 

Addicts have to weigh up the balance between risking the possible health damaging effects, and fighting their addiction, I'll grant you that much, but to suggest a "compulsion" to continue, regardless of anything, is IMHO extremely OTT. It also come over as somewhat insulting to all addicts, as it infers that they no longer possess the ability of rational thought and decision making.

 

I'm not saying regardless of anything, it would take a small amount of will power to give up smoking if some motivational imperative were also operating like someone shoots me in the head if I light up. But its telling how strong addiction can be when people who have undergone cancer treatment start smoking again. These people are probably the most informed yet their choice is to start again, is that a real choice or is something very strong affecting their decision?

 

"Impossible", with all due respect, is poppycock. The evidence otherwise is immense, in the shape of countless ex-addicts of numerous addictive substances. If it were "impossible" to choose to stop the only ex-addicts would be those whom were physically barred from securing further supplies of their addictive subsyances of choice.

 

Can be impossible I said. There are a large number of people who have chosen and tried, but not managed to kick addiction. They have found it impossible, their will power has been weaker than their chemical addiction. Could they have chosen to have stronger will power?