Should drugs be legalised?

[peeriebryan]

{RE: cannabis}The risks of psychological problems like schizophrenia make me think that it's not really for general constumption

I agree with you there. I do think more research is needed into the long term effects of sustained cannabis use. Most of the evidence I've heard has been from users anecdotal substantiations. But there is also a body of medical research which suggests that moderate usage poses virtually no threat of developing psychotic conditions, a bit like having the odd glass of wine I suppose

 

*Don's devils advocate hat and cloak* Perhaps more controversially, there are many who use harder drugs such as cocaine or opiates on a irregular basis who seem to exhibit no adverse effects. As an example, I know of well educated people who are aware of the risks of addiction but enjoy a 'blast' now and again. I'm not advocating the use of such drugs by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm suggesting that it may come down to education and understanding the effects and risks involved

 

Consider the recent 'you're only smoking it' public health advertisements on TV. Presumably these adverts were aimed at a section of the public who were unaware that smoking heroin is addictive, which I thought was common knowledge

 

That said, most of the folk I know who have experimented with 'harder' drugs have decided such drugs weren't for them, or simply grew out of it. It wasn't the law that was their deciding factor, it was personal choice

 

As you metioned earlier Sudden Stop, I think it comes down to establishing potential 'safe doses' through unbiased research (I'm not suggesting there is such a thing as a safe dose of heroin) and educating folk, rather than suppressing public debate by demonising all drugs. I think only then will we be able to look at the situation objectively

[peeriebryan]

I think the government must have been following this thread

 

BBC website - Call for fresh look at addiction

More than 250 experts have taken part in a Holyrood conference on drink and drug abuse in Scotland. The one-day event marked the start of a year-long consultation.

 

Scotland's Futures Forum said it had organised the gathering of senior police, academics and health experts to find a fresh approach to the problem.

 

Last week the forum rejected conventional wisdom that Scotland is facing an ageing crisis after a 12-month study of that issue. Monday's conference heard a number of contributions urging an equally radical examination of drink and drug abuse.

 

Tom Wood, of the Scottish Association of Alcohol and Drug Action Teams, argued for renewed commitment and investment in prevention strategies.

 

Others suggested the current hard line against drug users was failing and that a fresh approach was needed. Labour backbencher Susan Deacon MSP said there was a pressing need for a more open and informed debate on drug and alcohol use.

 

Scotland's Futures Forum was created in 2005 by the parliament's corporate body to identify Scotland's challenges and encourage debate between politicians, academics and international organisations.

 

Holyrood's Presiding Officer George Reid said: "Through the Futures Forum, we are developing long-term strategic thinking on the issues which Scotland will face in the future. We are engaging with those we represent and those who know the challenges and opportunities that will arise."

[Sudden Stop]

^^^ you're gonna have to change your signature, may i suggest:

 

Shetlink: Connecting Scotland

[ArabiaTerra]

As far as I can see, drug use does no harm to anyone except, possibly, the drug user. It's the prohibition of drug use that does all the harm!

 

[Ghostrider]

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....

 

Keeping it illegal just promotes the "forbidden fruit" factor though, is that any better?

 

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.

 

So the risk of cancer in sundry internal locations from tobacco, and the same plus a boiled brain and rubberised liver from alcohol rate more acceptable than the risk of psychological problems do they? As I said earlier it's down to pot luck what you poison of choice is whether you can indulge as excessively as you like, or have a Governemnt hounding your heels at every chance. It's that inconsistency and hypocracy that breeds much of the contempt of, and unrest against the status quo.

 

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...

 

Government are supposedly there to represent the wishes and best interests of the people, black markets are rarely advantageous in the long run, but when a Government gets greedy and over-taxes an item to the point a middle man can source the product and resell it at profit below tax inclusive price, a black market will exist. It should not be a given that a Government is going to tax anything to levels that will make it worthwhile for a black market to operate, and the public should pressurise them to prevent them making anything in to one. In theory at least, they are there to serve us, we are not here to be their puppets jumping everytime they pull a string.

[Fjool]

Will someone on the pro-legalization side please tell me why they think these drugs are illegal in the first place?

 

The following Wiki entries are good examples of such a thing:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Whitear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Wood

 

Notice, in each case, that a vulnerable young woman has, seemingly, come to a sticky end because of the evil scourge of drug (ab)use.

 

In actual fact, in all three of these cases (and many, many more), it would appear the cause of death was not drugs at all. This minor fact didn't stop the media linking these deaths to the drugs and using them as a spring-board for anti-drug campaigns.

 

In the case of Leah Betts (as you will read in the Wiki entry), the anti-drug campaign was financed by the alcohol industry and Red Bull who at the time describe their product as "very popular at the moment because it's a substitute for taking ecstasy."

 

This, therefore, is more an attempt by legal drug manufacturers to stamp on competition than a sincere attempt to save the youth of this nation from harm.

[peeriebryan]

The Leah Betts case is an example of how the media (especially the red tops) fuel ignorance towards the effects of drugs

 

I remember the case well as, upon reading the story in the paper accompanied by emotive pictures of the poor girl on her death bed, one of my elderly relatives sat me down and spoke about how "dis drugs are joost terrible. Yun poor young lass being killed...."

 

Leah Betts wasn't killed by drugs, she died through ingesting too much water, apparently as a result of a lack of understanding of how Ecstasy would affect her body. As far as I'm aware, there have been no deaths as a direct result of the effects of Ecstasy, but media reports and public opinion doesn't seem to reflect that

 

Research into diseases such as Parkinson's has found that MDMA (the active ingredient in Ecstasy) is an effective treatment of some symptoms, but skewed public opinion towards the drug means that it is very unlikely for such a treatment to become legally available to those in need of it

[Styles]

I agree, the media just like to report with what ever angle they want and ignore the hard facts.

[Guest Anonymous]

I know of a person here in the shetlands who takes ecstacy on occasions to alleviate the symptoms of a serious progressive condition this person suffers from. I have met several more who have used canabis to give relief from incurable conditions.

The person who uses ecstacy for relief only did so occasionally so that they could once more actively take part in one of there hobbies they enjoyed before this incurable condition struck.

I was informed by this person that they could guage how pure or good the quality of the tablet was by how much there motor skills and co ordination improved , I found this amazing news.

This was also why this person only took them on occassion ,because the criminal supply means that there is no quality control over the product .

Also for the government to state that the long term effects of this substance is unknown is a bit hard to believe , it was first produced during the first world war and given to the german troops , as they were very keen to find an appetite suppresent that could keep the cannon fodder from getting hungry and also awake longer . but the germans gave up using it as the troops became to loved up and didnt want to fight any more , just wander aimlessly around and give everybody a big hug. no use for a govenment that has a lot of killing to be done!!!

It was again used in america during the 60's , this time as a

prescribed drug by marriage guidance councillors and it was probably from here it evolved into the whole culture that grew around it to the present day .

so to say they dont know the long term efffects , i am suspicious to think thats this is wholly untrue.

[Sudden Stop]

Will someone on the pro-legalization side please tell me why they think these drugs are illegal in the first place?

 

The following Wiki entries are good examples of such a thing:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Whitear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Wood

 

Notice, in each case, that a vulnerable young woman has, seemingly, come to a sticky end because of the evil scourge of drug (ab)use.

 

In actual fact, in all three of these cases (and many, many more), it would appear the cause of death was not drugs at all. This minor fact didn't stop the media linking these deaths to the drugs and using them as a spring-board for anti-drug campaigns.

 

In the case of Leah Betts (as you will read in the Wiki entry), the anti-drug campaign was financed by the alcohol industry and Red Bull who at the time describe their product as "very popular at the moment because it's a substitute for taking ecstasy."

 

This, therefore, is more an attempt by legal drug manufacturers to stamp on competition than a sincere attempt to save the youth of this nation from harm.

 

So in answer to my original question then, are you suggesting that ecstasy, as an example, is only illegal because of a conspiricy on the part of manufacturers of legal alternatives trying to promote their own product?

 

I agree that, certainly in the Leah Betts case, a PR firm has made an advantage of peoples fears with a pretty devious campaign, but that still isn't the reason these drugs were outlawed in the first place.

[trout]

Whats your opinion on why the drugs that are classified as A B and C were made illegal.

[Fjool]

So in answer to my original question then, are you suggesting that ecstasy, as an example, is only illegal because of a conspiricy on the part of manufacturers of legal alternatives trying to promote their own product?

 

It is one important factor upon a whole raft of reasons. My point here is that our current classifications have not been assigned on sound research and honest information; they have been decided based, partly, on media-led sensationalism and misinformation.

 

The public perception of these substances has been shaped by events such as these and it is simply not helpful to have outright lies as the basis for such important national policy. How on Earth are we supposed to educate people on this topic when the facts are routinely ignored?

 

I agree that, certainly in the Leah Betts case, a PR firm has made an advantage of peoples fears with a pretty devious campaign, but that still isn't the reason these drugs were outlawed in the first place.

 

Perhaps you should tell me why they were outlawed then? Why are certain, relatively harmless substances banned whilst other, more dangerous ones promoted by the government?

 

Despite what you may believe, the current classification policy does not have a strong relationship to the dangers involved with a particular substance; neither to society nor the individual.

[Sudden Stop]

Perhaps you should tell me why they were outlawed then? Why are certain, relatively harmless substances banned whilst other, more dangerous ones promoted by the government.

 

I hope they were outlawed by the government, at the time they first came on the scene, because of the dangers to the health and saftey of users. Rightly or wrongly, that's what i believe the reason is. Not because of media or commercial pressures but because of concern for the people. Tell me this, would Leah Betts still have died if she had been drinking red bull that night? I would image 7 litres of the stuff would probably do it right enough, if you could manage to drink that much, but ecstasy certainly is a major contributing factor.

 

My reason for asking was genuinely to see what reason pro-drug choice supporters thought. I didn't think anybody was childish enough to think it was purely a spoil-sport nanny state law, but people must have their own ideas. Whether it does spoil fun or not, there has to be a reason.

 

I assume the more dangerous substances you are talking about are cigarettes and alcohol? It doesn't take a genius to see the negative effects both already have on society and as I said previously, i think smoking has had it's day and will eventually be banned. If it had never been heard of before and a company decided it was going to invent tabacco smoking, i think the government would tell them to take a hike.

 

So, where does that leave us - Education. Drug use should be discouraged by any and all means (again, in my opinion), through classification, disrupting supply and most importantly education. You can still educate people about the dangers of drug use and how best to handle them whilst they are still illegal but quietly accepting that people are doing it anyway. Overall the numbers of drug users would surely rise if legalized, leading to more situations where users get themselves into trouble - directly or in the above case as a result of poor knowledge of the effects.

[Fjool]

I hope they were outlawed by the government, at the time they first came on the scene, because of the dangers to the health and safety of users.

I'm not convinced that this is so. Nor do I believe that it is the state's place to stop people from doing dangerous things if they wish to. Where it hurts someone else then this is a problem, but personal choice is important.

 

As it has already been mentioned, we'd have to legislate against all sorts of other activities which are considered dangerous. For example, while we may point out what a bad idea it is, we don't actually have or need laws to prohibit people from having unprotected sex with strangers. This is risky behaviour but we must allow people to make their own decisions on such things. We can warn of AIDS, herpes and the risk of unwanted pregnancy but cannot force everyone to listen and abide by what we perceive as 'common sense'.

 

Tell me this, would Leah Betts still have died if she had been drinking red bull that night?

It is possible: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=5753

 

The thing about the Leah Betts case, and the reason I brought it up in the first place, is that what killed Betts is the lack of honest and trustworthy information. She was following the health advice she had been given (i.e. drink lots of water) but this advice was based on misinformation and a flimsy understanding of the drug's actions. It is a tragedy but, in the grand scheme, not many other people have really died in this way - the lesson was learned. If we continue to say that Betts was killed by ecstasy, however, the lesson is not learned and others may repeat the mistake.

 

Besides, even if Leah had taken nothing but water, in the quantities she did, then she may still have died. This is a simple fact which the anti-drug lobbyists will simply not address in issues such as these.

 

How then can a person trust the word of these folks when they cry 'Wolf!' at every opportunity? Until the anti-drug message is purely based on facts and personal responsibility, then people will ignore the messages we really need them to pay attention to.

 

I'm not saying that deaths from drug use never happen. I am saying that it is for people to make their own minds up based on honest and forthright education; not knee-jerk, sensationalist, tabloid freakage.

 

I didn't think anybody was childish enough to think it was purely a spoil-sport nanny state law

Who has said this? Not I. I believe that the laws have been passed as a result of misinformation, and a gross misunderstanding of the true situation. It is ostritchism of the highest order to believe that you can bury an issue like this simply by declaring it 'illegal'. The ban is well-meaning but misguided.

 

In the case of cannabis particularly, there are strong indicators that market politics are, at least partly, responsible for the current prohibition.

 

I think smoking has had it's day and will eventually be banned.

Why does it need banning? Seriously - if nobody is doing it then the problem doesn't exist. Banning it is just pointless.

 

So, where does that leave us - Education.

Which is what I have argued for at every turn. The thing is that education starts with facts and requires a degree of personal choice. You cannot even begin to hope to educate people on this topic when the message consists of 'Just say no'. This is not education. It is Boogyman-ism.

 

Drug use should be discouraged by any and all means

All means?

Breaking apart families?

Throwing people in prison?

Beating someone until they promise not to take any more?

Are these reasonable measures?

 

Besides.... Why? What's wrong with someone sitting at home having a quiet Gin & Tonic? Or popping down to the pub for a pint and a game of pool if they want? Nothing. It's quite ok to do this - the world will not end if people are permitted an occasional spliff, or line of charlie. If the approach is to forbid people they're just going to stop listening to everything we have to say on the subject because we are clearly out of touch.

 

Overall the numbers of drug users would surely rise if legalized,

How so sure? What makes you think they would? I don't think this is the case at all. Magic mushrooms, poppers and lighter-fuel are legally and freely available but hardly anyone bothers with them.

 

There is evidence to suggest that the current ban on cannabis, for example, is encouraging the use of alcohol. If someone wants to 'get high' that's their choice; banning one thing just makes other alternatives more appealing instead. When the nation's drug of choice is actually one of the most damaging and socially irresponsible ones out there, then something is seriously wrong with our entire attitude.

 

I suspect that the number of people who would like to use drugs, but do not because of their legal status, form a limited demographic. The majority of people don't use them because they are not interested in doing so; just as the majority of people do not smoke, bungee-jump or step out in front of buses.

 

Don't get me wrong, Sudden Stop; we agree that large scale consumption of mind-altering substances would be a bad thing. Where we disagree is that prohibition achieves the aims we require of it. I believe that the present situation is made worse by prohibition and the lack of honest and credible information.

 

The chemicals we are discussing are simply not as dangerous as most people believe. Generally speaking, people don't die after trying these things; they don't automatically become addicted. I realise that there are exceptions but, on balance, most are small-time, recreational users who suffer more because of the impure substance of dubious origin and the criminal record they receive for dabbling.

 

At the end of the day, people will take drugs of all kinds regardless of their legality, so why not make them safer?

 

I'm sorry, I've over-waffled again. Must be all that amphetamine sulphate I took just before starting. Joke!

 

Edit: splellign

[Guest Anonymous]

They reckon in holland the number of canabis users remained pretty much at the same level when they brought canabis under government control. ( There will only ever be a certain % of the population who are curious to try it)

And the number of hard drug user's began to fall because young kids etc were no longer having to go to illegal dealers who would invariably be selling a range of different substances right through from canabis to heroin , cocaine etc.

They were no longer being exposed to these hard drugs which are the ones that really can destroy lives when the addiction gets out of control.

So what happened was .

1.) The revenue from canabis sales , instead of criminal organisations reaping the vast profits , goes into the countries treasury for the good of it's citizens

2.) The law enforcement establishment save a vast amount of time and money that they spent policing canabis and can redirect this towards fighting organised crime and the dealers of heroin etc.

3.) The country has the added windfall of vast hoards of other wise law abiding foreigners travelling to the country to enjoy being able to indulge legally in this substance without fear of prosecution.

4.) Law abiding canabis users who take an active part in society were no longer living in fear of prosecution

The dutch are a very succesful country and still produce lots of very talented people and lots of ground breaking technology.

I wonder if they have a lot more schitzo's running around than us?

I would definately reckon the establishment in this country made certain substances illegal with protecting it's people in mind .

The establishment also gets scared when they note large numbers of people doing something that they generally dont understand , such as 100,000 people getting together in a field somewhere and dancing all night to a rythmic beat , it smells like revolution to them!

But I firmly believe they are exposing the citizens of this country to more harm than good by allowing criminal organisations to control this trade and allowing the vast wealth this trade generates to fall into the hands of criminal organisations.