Some good ideas there, but I'm not sure about the £50 fee for the swipe card. The drugs would need to be cheaper than street prices, or people would still get them ilegally.

quote:

Originally posted by Kato Some good ideas there, but I'm not sure about the £50 fee for the swipe card. The drugs would need to be cheaper than street prices, or people would still get them ilegally.

Fair point. The reason I thought of charging people for the card is to act as a discouragement for people who just want a cheap instant thrill as they are most likely to OD or do something stupid on it. If it were implimented however they would probably have no problems get it from some dodgy source.

Respectable informed drug users though would probably have no quarrels paying the £50 fee as it would mean that they know that what they are getting would be pure and would be more than happy to see the fee funding extra drug research rather that seeing it wasted by Gordon Brown.

___________________


[font size="-2"]text[/font]

"The only thing I'm high on is Love for my Son and Daughters. Yes, a little LSD is all I need."
-Marge Simpson

Nice thread/post


Which drugs should be legalised? I agree with your thoughts; if a drug is relatively harmless in small doses and is not physically addictive, then it should be legalised. Scrap the ABC system entirely, a drug is either legal or illegal. Same punishments for all illegal drugs

I think the idea of using an identity card to control the distribution of drugs to each person is a good idea. It could be implimented fairly easily as well i should imagine, a simple algorithm could see if a person is buying too much of a particular drug and return a notice back to the seller saying 'no sale' or something. I don't agree with the £50 cost of a card though. We will all have ID card like the french soon, so why not use those? And i think tax should be charged in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol - let Gordon Brown do what the hell he likes, i can't really see the government having it any other way.

Even with inflated prices i really don't think people would buy cheaper drugs on the black market. You don't get people buying home brew cider off their mate just to save a couple of quid do you? One of the main reasons (as i see it) for legalising something like ecstacy is to make it safer, i'd happily pay twice the cost of a black market pill to get a 'safe' government made pill and i'm sure nearly everyone else would too.

I disagree with how the money should be spent. It should be treated in the same way as every other taxible item with the money going to the treasury. With a possible exception where a small percentage of the cost of each drug going to the NHS in the same way 30p of a box of cigarettes goes direct to the NHS.

The sale of drugs would be in sealed boxes and as with EVERY other legal drug (even paracetemol/asprin) there would be a full set of guidelines, risks, dosage etc etc on a leaflet inside the box. You could also issue guidelines to pharmasists making them obliged to tell you the risks before sale of the drug. You could also inform buyers of the strength of a drug if it is government controlled in the same way i know a can of carling is 4.1% alcohol

Other basic laws;
-Drugs can only be bought from licenced pharmacies between certain hours, this would make drug taking less impulse and more planned, i.e. safer.
-You can only buy drugs for yourself, no exceptions, big fine if caught breaking this law. Prison time if caught buying for a minor
-Minimum age 18


I've probably missed loads out, but that what i think


Pete

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by dj_cuba Respectable informed drug users though would probably have no quarrels paying the £50 fee as it would mean that they know that what they are getting would be pure and would be more than happy to see the fee funding extra drug research rather that seeing it wasted by Gordon Brown.

As a respectable drug user I would rather see my tax money go to the NHS, schools etc rather than further drug research..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Grrrrr Nice thread/post Which drugs should be legalised? I agree with your thoughts; if a drug is relatively harmless in small doses and is not physically addictive, then it should be legalised. Scrap the ABC system entirely, a drug is either legal or illegal. Same punishments for all illegal drugs I think the idea of using an identity card to control the distribution of drugs to each person is a good idea. It could be implimented fairly easily as well i should imagine, a simple algorithm could see if a person is buying too much of a particular drug and return a notice back to the seller saying 'no sale' or something. I don't agree with the £50 cost of a card though. We will all have ID card like the french soon, so why not use those? And i think tax should be charged in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol - let Gordon Brown do what the hell he likes, i can't really see the government having it any other way. Even with inflated prices i really don't think people would buy cheaper drugs on the black market. You don't get people buying home brew cider off their mate just to save a couple of quid do you? One of the main reasons (as i see it) for legalising something like ecstacy is to make it safer, i'd happily pay twice the cost of a black market pill to get a 'safe' government made pill and i'm sure nearly everyone else would too. I disagree with how the money should be spent. It should be treated in the same way as every other taxible item with the money going to the treasury. With a possible exception where a small percentage of the cost of each drug going to the NHS in the same way 30p of a box of cigarettes goes direct to the NHS. The sale of drugs would be in sealed boxes and as with EVERY other legal drug (even paracetemol/asprin) there would be a full set of guidelines, risks, dosage etc etc on a leaflet inside the box. You could also issue guidelines to pharmasists making them obliged to tell you the risks before sale of the drug. You could also inform buyers of the strength of a drug if it is government controlled in the same way i know a can of carling is 4.1% alcohol Other basic laws; -Drugs can only be bought from licenced pharmacies between certain hours, this would make drug taking less impulse and more planned, i.e. safer. -You can only buy drugs for yourself, no exceptions, big fine if caught breaking this law. Prison time if caught buying for a minor -Minimum age 18 I've probably missed loads out, but that what i think Pete

wow, there's some good ideas there. I think I'm gonna give way to your manifesto instead

___________________


[font size="-2"]text[/font]

"The only thing I'm high on is Love for my Son and Daughters. Yes, a little LSD is all I need."
-Marge Simpson

quote:

Originally posted by dj_cuba OK here goes... Firstly drug addicts should be treated as victims not criminals. They need help and support to wean themselves of the drug and become functioning members of society, they most likely turned to hard drugs because of depression and the lack of support they recieved from society in the first place. I don't think punishing them by sticking them in a place with a high concentration of drugs and them releasing them with a criminal record to destroy any hopes and dreams of making a better life for themselves is right. Crimes they commited to pay for drugs should be punished, but not their addiction. Addictive drugs should remain illegal however as people under the influence of them are often a large burden and non-contributer to the good of society as well as being a great contributer of crime. Most importantly however they should be illegal because the majority of users want to quit addiction but find they can't. I feel this reason alone is more than enough reason to keep the drug in question illegal. Non-addictive drugs with no history of frequent overdose should be legalised (steroids not included) under tight controls which would involve interested members buying a swipe card (over 18s only with photo ID) which they could then use to buy drugs at Government approved lisenced premises. The swipe card would control the frequency and dosage of the drugs purchased. Non-addictive drugs cause no or very little threat of crime or negative consequences to society as a whole like addictive drugs do (i.e shoplifting/mugging). There is also no argument that these drugs would cause the user to enter a spiral of self-destruction as they could pull out anytime they wanted to. They may be psycologically addictive, but so is any fun enjoyable activity in life and despite this if they really wanted to pull out they could and would. The Government needs to realise that people need escapism and many currently non-addictive recreational drugs are in many instances far far safer than tobacco and alcohol which are legal. Based on these arguments I see no reason why non-addictive recreational drugs should be illegalised and it seems to me that they have no more substance to them (excuse the pun) that to block freedom of choice. The swipe cards will cost £50 for 6 months (renewable) with 17.5% tax on all purchases. All drugs sold under the swipe system must be accompnied with a Government booklet detailing the effects of the drug, both mentally and physically and give important advice on dosing, harm-minimalistaion and general safety. Any premise not giving out these leaflets will either be given a substantial fine or else be shut down. 50% of the money generated from the swipe card system would be used to fund research into creating new recreational drugs which mimic and cause less harm than the present ones. The forumlas for any new chemicals created would be guarded under the official secrets act 1989. Once a chemical has been created that the Government thinks would be a suitable replacement trials would be set up in certain parts of the country to test how well it fairs out. If the authorities then believe it to be a safer replacement that causes people to switch from the more harmful original then it will become legalised. It it becomes clear that the new drug is causing more harm than benifits once legalised however, it can be recalled immediatly. The other 50% of the money generated from the swipe card system will go towards studying common recreational drugs af all kinds further. Not nearly enough research is conducted due to Government restrictions on conducting research into illegal drugs. MDMA has been used recreationally for over two decades and there is still no conclusive research on just how dangerous it is. This is not acceptable in my opinion when you consider that up to a million young people use the drug in the UK every weekend. Persons found using any drug controlled under the swipe system who are proven to not own a card will be fined or given community service with the same severity procedure applying as for possesion of an illegal drug. Persons found guilty of forging swipe cards will be given a caution with community service and severe fine. Second time offnders will be given a criminal record and possible prison sentence. Card holders found passing swipe controlled drugs onto non card holders will have their card confiscated for 18 months with a 450% increase in the original price of the card to buy it back. They will be given a caution, severe fine and community service. Second time offenders will be given a criminal record and will be banned from owning a swipe card for life. They may also recieve a prison sentence as a replacement for community service/fine. Anti-drug eductation will be balanced and non-biased to form simply 'drug education'. Harm-minimalisation education will be taught in Schools from ages 14 up. Any orginisation distributing delibratly misleading information on drugs in order to shock people into not taking them will become a criminal offence. Misleading information is far more dangerous than the drugs themselves. Although this crime may be difficult to prove due to the need to prove that the mis-informtion was deliberate I still feel it should be implimented. The ABC classification system will be completly revised. The system is generally accepted as an indicator of how dangerous a drug is. Medical use of the drug also plays a part in the clasification system however which gives people the wrong impression. As far as I'm aware if an illegal recreational drug has no accepted medical use then it is automatically a class A (i.e Magic mushrooms) This does not mean that it is in the highest order of dangerous substances however as this would suggest that shrooms are more dangerous than Speed and Ketamine which is just plain wrong. It is also unfair that someone should be punished more or less severly for crimes relating to the illegal drug in question based on its medical usage. The ABC clasification system would be used soley as an indicator of how dangerous a drug is and the penalties for possesion/dealing/trafficing etc. Cannabis would be legalized in pill form which would be available through the swipe system controlling dose and frequency. Magic Mushrooms would be fully legalised in all forms under the swipe system. MDMA would be downgraded to class B status and would gain significant funds for extra research. LSD would be downgraded to Class B status. Ketamine would be upgraded to Class B status. Heroin, Cocaine and crack would retain their Class A status. Methamphetamine would be upgraded to Class A status. Persons found guilty of personal possesion of an illegal drug will given a fine and/or community service relevent to the class of the drug. Imprisonment will be scrapped, however persistant offending will result in the punishment of fine/community service becomming rapidly more severe for each time the offence is commited. Third time offenders will be subject to unlimited severity and a criminal record. First and second time offenders will be given seperate cautions. If there is agreement by the authorities that the person found in possesion is an addict and expresses a wish to beat addiction they will be given just a caution and treatment consisting of a drug re-habilitation programme will be mandortory. Counselling will be available should it be required. If that person then turns back to the drug it should be decided by the authorities whether it is nessecary to apply the extra penalties available for possesion. Crimes commited to pay for or under the influence of illegal drugs should be punished accordingly, however depending on the persons mental condition as well as personal and criminal history, compassionate sentencing should be available if it is felt neccesary. Sorry about the long read As you've probably guessed it's a subject I'm quite passionate about. Please let me know what you think, whether you agree, don't agree or bits you would change or feel are flawed. Iam interested to hear all opinions.

you care far, far, too much about drugs. they are illegal, and there's nowt you can do about it.

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath you care far, far, too much about drugs. they are illegal, and there's nowt you can do about it.

Firstly there is something you can do: vote Lib Dem.

Secondly, why should it stop a perfectly reasonable discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by dj_cuba The stuff about £50 for a card for 3 months

Another reason this would be inappropriate is that you've put a limit on the length of time a card lasts: If i'd paid that much for a card i'd want to make sure i got my moneys worth.. i.e. buying more drugs than i would have other wise and i'm sure you don't want to encourage excessive drug taking

PS I haven't been thinking about this thread in random places like the shower over the past day...honest

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Grrrrr Firstly there is something you can do: vote Lib Dem. Secondly, why should it stop a perfectly reasonable discussion?

vote lib dem?

nothing wrong with a perfectly reasonable discussion. im just saying you clearly care far, far too much about drugs.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_cuba As far as I'm aware if an illegal recreational drug has no accepted medical use then it is automatically a class A (i.e Magic mushrooms) This does not mean that it is in the highest order of dangerous substances however as this would suggest that shrooms are more dangerous than Speed and Ketamine which is just plain wrong. It is also unfair that someone should be punished more or less severly for crimes relating to the illegal drug in question based on its medical usage. The ABC clasification system would be used soley as an indicator of how dangerous a drug is and the penalties for possesion/dealing/trafficing etc. Cannabis would be legalized in pill form which would be available through the swipe system controlling dose and frequency. Magic Mushrooms would be fully legalised in all forms under the swipe system. MDMA would be downgraded to class B status and would gain significant funds for extra research. LSD would be downgraded to Class B status. Ketamine would be upgraded to Class B status. Heroin, Cocaine and crack would retain their Class A status. Methamphetamine would be upgraded to Class A status.

in regards solely to the highlighted bit your arguments are wrong .. i could possibly understand that classification if it was with refrence to problem drug usage and which drugs were more commonly used by those causing problems for society .. but if you are suggesting that a private company manufactured drugs that were pure then your scale would be off ..

Heroin in its purest form is one of the cleanest least toxic drugs out there .. its only the withdrawal side that affects people negatively ..

furthermore if following your scale .. LSD should be dropped to class c or legalised given that the amount one would need to consume to have a fair chance of death is too great for anyone to just have about .. in that sense MDMA is far more dangerous than LSD due to the number of deaths that have occured with the former ..

just a few points id thought id make ..

quote:

Originally posted by dj_cuba Cannabis would be legalized in pill form which would be available through the swipe system controlling dose and frequency. Magic Mushrooms would be fully legalised in all forms under the swipe system. MDMA would be downgraded to class B status and would gain significant funds for extra research. LSD would be downgraded to Class B status. Ketamine would be upgraded to Class B status. Heroin, Cocaine and crack would retain their Class A status. Methamphetamine would be upgraded to Class A status.

some strange choices with the re classification ketamine class B? and put it in the same category as lsd and mdma.
lsd should be class A drug without a doubt id make mdma class B and leave ket where it is as class C its hardly what u would call a problem drug.

___________________
http://www.prizelive.com/r/sleepydragon

quote:

Originally posted by sleepydragon some strange choices with the re classification ketamine class B? and put it in the same category as lsd and mdma. lsd should be class A drug without a doubt id make mdma class B and leave ket where it is as class C its hardly what u would call a problem drug.

out of curiousity what is your reasoning behind that for LSD? as for ket it aint a class c drug .. it aint even classified ..