|
Whenever you get high, one of us may die (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| astroboy |
This is a massive topic.
I propose that drugs are legalised and supplied by the government at extremely competitive prices and with guaranteed purity.
This makes sense from a harm-minimisation point of view. Firstly drugs will continue to exist whether they are legal or not. The difference is the huge social problems caused by drugs (jkunkies robbing people, organised crime, ambulance services being diverted to people overdosed on heroin) are all avoidable if there is a clean, regulated source for registered, diagnosed junkies to get their prescribed hit. This would actually mean they have much more time to be productive members of society, instead of spending all day trying to get their next hit. Heroin would only be prescribed to people diagnosed with an addiction who have tried to rehabilitate and failed. They would go to the centre a set number of times a week and be given a calculated dose of clean heroin. The nurse would be a trained counselor and would talk to them about rehab programs every time they went. Perhaps a requirement would be that they have to do a talk about the dangers of heroin at a school every month (for free heroin 99% of junkies would happily agree), this would be a very poignant lesson for kids. The shooting centre would have a clinical atmosphere and the junkies would be sent outside to shoot up. Seeing them high in public would further discourage kids from trying heroin and would push the negative image further (if you've ever seen a bunch of junkies shooting up you'll agree with me). If a medical emergency arose there would be paramedics on hand to take care of things. This could all be funded by the decreased spending on trying to wage the war on drugs and the revenue the government could get by having a monopoly on weed.
The legalisation of marijuana and ecstasy instantly causes the average age of the heroin user to rise, as youngsters buying from coffee shops are not also exposed to harder drugs. Bottom line is when you make drugs illegal you don't destroy the market for them, there isn't any real evidence to suggest that the size of the market for drugs is at all effected. All that happens is that the trade is pushed underground where it is impossible to regulate, and where it feeds crime.
Why society is incapable of rational thinking on this issue is indeed a philosophical question. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Ahhh, it's nice to know we can always count on Tito and DJ-Fuq for a ridiculously drawn-out argument on the subject of drugs. :p
Just kidding, I love you guys. ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by MysticStardust
Thats depressive. Well I'm doing my part, I'm not doing any drugs except caffeine. I hope things will somehow get better in your country, if not come to Canada. We're pretty cool and I'll bet you'll like it here. |
How can you be from BC and not have just a little bit of weed in the sock drawer? :toothless |
|
|
| borron |
| quote: | Originally posted by svens_bath
i havent read through all the essays that people have posted in this thread, so id ont know if this has been said already. Although i sympathise with the situation in Brazil, you cant really try and blame the problems on those in other countries who take drugs. The problems your country is facing is due to poverty, not people taking drugs on a saturday night. If your country's economy was in a better state, then you would not have as much poverty and so there would be less of a hard-drug addiction problem in the country. Ultimately it is the goverments of the world who should be meeting together to tackle global poverty, not meeting to stop each other invading other countries, and clogging up the wheel of evolution for us all. p.s im sure that most of the drugs poeople use on these boards arent the ones that cause people to get kidnappped and mugged to feed habits, hence another reason why the orignal thread title is not a fair statement to make. |
I agree with all of the above.
It's not the people in the civilized countries who are causing this problem. While we may have a bit of blame, because of consumption, the problem is in Brasil. It's a poor country, so people have to rely on parallel economies to survive.
There are lots of people with no principles at all; those people are the drug traffickers and their helpers.
There is also another problem in your country which is causing all this; and that is corruption. I'm sure all or most of the police officers in the areas neighbour to the favelas and drug centres are being payed off. Maybe even politicians. Once again, it all comes down to poverty and parallel economy, but greed also plays a large role. Also i belive most of the drug produced there is for internal consumption? (not the case of colombia or deep amazon forest of course) |
|
|
| DJ-Fuq |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Now, while the addiction itself is not as big a problem as the withdrawal symptoms are, it still is a problem nevertheless. People that are high usually aren't very capable and rational. |
Oh come on. It depends on the drug, the amount taken and various other factors. Capable of what, working? Im not suggesting that people should be going to work having ingested so much of a drug (or even any at all) that they arent even fit to work. Thats just stupid. Irrational? What drugs direct effects makes people irrational? Heres a clue, it rhymes with alcohol.
And usually? If ur saying being high (in general) has over a 50% chance of making u irrational and incapable of doing anything, i absolutely disagree.
| quote: | | Heh, I wasn't talking solely about opiates, but nevertheless, even usage every 2 or 3 days is enough to seriously hamper one's efficiency. |
How so? If theyre not under the drugs direct effects (enough for it to have a noticable negative impact anyway), and theyre not experiencing withdrawal symptoms, how exactly is their efficiency "seriously hampered"?
| quote: | | Not to mention that the frequency of use increases during time. |
It might, it might stay the same, or it might become less frequent. Thats an individual thing that depends on the person. To say that the frequency ALWAYS constantly increases is just wrong.
| quote: | | And the only reason why so few people use heroin that often is that those who do are on the brink of overdosing. |
That doesnt even make sense, it is a ridiculous statement.
| quote: | | Yes, in short term. In long term, however, the negative effects tend to outperform the positive ones. |
And the negative effects are withdrawals, which wouldnt show their ugly heads anywhere near as often with prohibition abolished.
| quote: | | I must agree on this one. The laws are not always perfect. |
Theyre the opposite of perfect in this case, theyre extremely destructive, not just to drug users but to people in general.
| quote: | | That is true if you look at it ratio-wise, (the number of drug users)/(the number of users who are criminal offenders), but if drugs were legalized, although the ratio would most likely decrease it is questionable whether the total number would. |
The percentage of users commiting crimes would certainly decrease, most likely to the percentage of non users that commit crimes. Why? Because they wouldnt need to any more.
Even if u were right, and the number of users increased, consider this:
Situation 1, we have, for example 10 users who:
steal or do whatever else they can for money
put themselves at risk by dealing with dodgy gangs/dealers (who probably are involved in other types of crime)
use dirty unsafe drugs, which may physically harm or kill them
are not even close to being properly educated about drug use and the real effects of drugs, and therefore may damage themselves and/or others through the improper use of drugs
will be fired for simply using drugs, no matter what effect, if any, this has on their work
will also be thrown in jail/otherwise punished or persecuted, unjustly
live in a dangerous world saturated by crime that would mostly not be there if it wasnt for prohibition
dont even have the right to make a personal choice about what goes into their body
Situation 2, we have more than 10 users, who:
steal only as much as the average person
buy/get their drugs at a licensed retailer/chemist who wont shoot or mug them/each other
use clean, pharmaceautical grade drugs that bring harmfulness to the absolute minimum
are educated on how to use drugs safely, how drugs work, and the real effects that drugs have and therefore should not (and for the most part will not) cause damage to themselves/ others through improper/unsafe drug use
will not lose their job if their work performance doesnt decrease
will not go to jail simply for using a drug
live in a much, much safer world (around 83% of murders in america are drug related [iirc], ~60% of prisoners in america are in jail for drug related crimes, including drug use [iirc])
do have the right to choose what they can put into their own body
have (more, anyway) respect for the law
Now, just why is situation 1 preferable to u?
| quote: | | Again, you are falsley presuming that the total number of the drug users would be the same. |
I think the total number (relative to a countries population anyway) would decrease. But anyway, for future treatment costs to equal current prohibition costs, they would have to increase by... 4 MILLION percent. So, unless that happens, it wouldnt be very costly at all, would it?
| quote: | | It wasn't supposed to be a perfect analogy but it was supposed to show that the government sadly sometimes needs to think instead of people and to force its decisions upon them. Besides, unlike drugs, driving cars actually has some benefits. |
A governments role is not to control people, it is to represent and obey them (i think someone famous once said that). But anyway, why do u think people use drugs? Of course it has benefits. It makes u feel good and have fun, basically, which is the fundamental point of ANY recreational activity.
How come so many things that are as or more dangerous than using drugs arent illegal? Why arent u campaigning for those things to be prohibited? Could it be that u just, irrationally, because of the negative stigma attached to illegal drugs, dont like the idea of people getting high on currently illegal substances?
| quote: | | Well, I don't see minors having a problem getting their hands on alcohol. They just have to ask someone older to get some for them. It's harder for them to do so with illegal drugs, because prohibition makes them both expensive and harder to get. |
In certain situations it will be harder, yes. In others it will be easier. From my personal experience its easier to get illegal drugs, but its not terribly difficult to get legal ones either when ur underage. On the whole i dont imagine theres much of a difference, and we can only speculate on what that difference really is.
Ur right about it being more expensive, obviously. But, the amount of the drug that they would need is most likely not too expensive for them.
| quote: | | a)It would only drastically reduce the amount of drug-related crime, not crime in general |
Most crime is drug related. Plus, gangs that are involved in other types of crimes are chiefly funded by drugs.
| quote: | | b)The fact that something is or is not labeled a criminal activity doesn't always mean that something is safe or unsafe. Making murders legal would reduce the amount of crime, but it wouldn't make the streets safer. |
I agree with the first sentence, dunno about the 2nd.
| quote: | | So how would you prevent a kid asking a 25 year old neighbour for drugs? You couldn't. That's why kids in the US drink alcohol although it is prohibited to them, that's why they see porn and R rated movies as well, although the law prohibits them from doing so. |
I totally agree. There is just absolutely nothing that can be done in that case. Its a sad fact but a fact nonetheless.
However, with legalisation, the choice of whether or not to supply the child with the drug is left up to the 25 year old neighbour, not some dealer who will sell to anyone.
| quote: | | Yes. But the sheer amount of drugs on the streets would nullify that effect. |
Assuming there even was an increase, how? What has that got to do with it?
Are u saying that these people (kids, or anyone else for that matter) would start to take clean drugs in such large amounts that they would have the same negative impact on health that adulterants in drugs do now (ie, they would start deliberately overdosing)? If so, what has led u to this conclusion? If not, wtf are u saying?
| quote: | | Not really, because their parents would still not allow them to use most of those substances. |
Well thats why i said somewhat. I realise this issue would still exist, but if there was much less of a big deal made out of drugs and they were (officially) socially accepted, there would be less of that element.
| quote: | | That is not completely true. Even the most liberal countries have some drugs banned. |
Thats not necessarily out of choice tho, is it? Wouldnt any european country that legalised certain (effectivly any) illegal drugs be booted out of the eu (and un maybe)?
| quote: | | The amount of illegal drug use is lower because their police forces can focus more on hard drugs instead of arresting every kid who smokes a joint or takes a pill. |
Nope. First of all that would only be true for countries that are less harsh than average with 'softer' drugs, but far harsher than average with 'harder' drugs. What countries take that approach? None, to the best of my knowledge. Second, since softer drugs are mostly used far more than harder drugs, and legalisation, according to u, would increase use of whatever drugs are tolerated significantly, how come the 'extra' usage of them doesnt make up for that? How come use of them is actually lower?
| quote: | | Overall, you are quite wrong when you say that. Take Singapore or muslim countries for example. They are among the strictes countries in the world when it comes to the drug use, yet their drug use is miniscule: |
But isnt that because of their (even more so) appallingly excessive, ultra-draconian laws as well as cultural differances?
Prohibition does not, will not and can not work in a democracy with otherwise (mostly) sensible laws.
Its a developed country isnt it?
| quote: | | Well, they're told about the harmful effects of the drugs, that's the part of education I was alluding to. Secondly, I agree that the proper education is necessary but it doesn't require that large amount of money. |
But theyre not exactly told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth are they? Why, if there are no hidden agendas and the like on governments/medias part, are things told about the harmful effects so often exaggerated or even completely fictional?
| quote: | | Oh, yes, here we go again. Believe it or not, heroin is bad for health, even in its most purest form. |
So how come it, along with morphine and codeine and co, are commonly used medically? Why are the very people (frail and/or dieing people, for example) that would be negatively affected by this extremely harmful substance the most, given diamorphine in hospital?
Back up ur claim. In what way is pure heroin physically damaging?
| quote: | | Yes you could. And look at how many of them smoke cigarettes daily. |
I bet more than 4% of cigarette smokers do it daily
| quote: | | And how do you know that? Did any country ever legalize heroin or opium? Oh, wait, China did! And what did the statistics show? The number of users soared in just several years. |
Theres a bit of a difference. This isnt 1850. The world is a lot more developed nowadays (remember ur developed countries claim?). Under legalisation, education would be imperative. How sophisticated do u think drug education programs and rehabilitation programs were in those days? Also, methadone hadnt even been discovered till about 100 years later.
And again, even if use did increase, refer back to situation 1 and situation 2. Total harm is still massivly, massivly decreased under legalisation. The trade off, with prohibition, simply is not worth it.
| quote: | | Well, if we want the best way to reduce crime, then all that we should do it is to adopt a Singapore judicial system. Kill anyone who has any posession of drugs and the amount of crime will drop dramatically. |
That is a viable solution in a modern democracy? U would prefer that to legalisation?
| quote: | | So what? Is heroin legalized in Holland? No? Well, I thought so. |
No it isnt, but its a lot closer to it.
| quote: | | I'm starting to feel like a broken record here. You should examine the laws regarding specific drugs and the amount of use of those specific drugs and you will see that you are wrong. |
I am talking about specific drugs. ALL illegal drugs.
| quote: | | Well, it's happening now, isn't it? |
uhh, yes, because theyre illegal.
| quote: | | So you're saying it's a good thing that a dealer who is selling drugs on the streets (impure ones, mind you) walks away without punishment? Right. |
No, i didnt say that, i was not talking about that specific thing. |
|
|
| beema |
I've read through this whole thread...
Didn't stop me from smoking weed last night and today...
Sorry Maaz, this argument isn't convincing me. |
|
|
| trancEyes22 |
*rubs eyes*
the posts are too long for me to read...sorry i have a short attention span, but i agree with beema |
|
|
| astroboy |
| Another point: Heroin users can be productive. Firstly, the vast majority of heroin users are actually casual users (yes such a thing is possible), and There was a quite well known successful real-estate agent in Melb who was a regular heroin user for a long time (I knew one of his friends). The guy drove a brand new beemer, and he died of an overdose. |
|
|
| nrjizer |
| quote: | | In a perfect world, where people are intelligent and forseeing, legalizing all substances would not be a problem. In the real world we unfortunately live in, people often don't think until it's too late. If people were thinking, everybody would be wearing seatbelts. Yet because of the short term benefit that avoidance of putting a seatbelt has (use of a miniscule amount of energy vs. potential life saving), the government has to force people to do so. It is also an assault on one's individual freedom, but would you think it's correct decision for a hospital to deny a car accident victim life saving treatment because that person was not wearing a seatbelt? |
So then, you prefer the government would think for us? Tell us what we may or may not do with our own bodies? Sure, there are some drugs out there that create damaging physical addictions, but where do you draw the line? Are ciggerettes not physically addicting? They create incredible health hazards to the user, and unlike something like cocaine or heroin (which doesn't _always_ have to be smoked), everyone else around a smoker has to breathe their too, which is apparantly even more dangerous than what the smoker inhales.
As for seatbelts, when you drive a car you're driving on public, government owned roads funded by the tax payer. It's reasonable for the government to say "wear your seatbelt when your on OUR roads." However, I do not see how it is anyone's right to tell me I can not put a mind altering substance in my body in the privacy of my own home where I'm hurting no one, but potentially myself. Because, after all, my body belongs to me. It's my right to "harm" it in any way I want, even with drugs. By your logic, you'd have the government telling us what we can and cannot eat, as to preserve our health and avoid obesity. I mean, obiesity IS an empidemic in America is it not? Don't you think weighing 350+ lbs and eating McFood every day is any more healthy than railing a line of cocaine, or smoking a bowl? Hell, I bet half the people in this forum have at least done weed, X, and shrooms in their lifetime (maybe all 3 at once :crazy: ) , and I'm sure plenty have done harder drugs than that. I'd bet most of these people are healthier and in far better physical shape than these grossly overweight people, or even your average chain smoker.
| quote: | | some drugs create strong addictions. So although people who take drugs for the first time are consentual adults, once they develop the addiction they stop being that. And while from the individualist point of view you could say it's their own problem, their addiction creates a problem for the society. Their work efficiency is lowered which may result in them being fired or turning to crime. And what should a society do to a poor drug addict? Give him the treatment freely or let him rot on the street? The first option is fair but costly, while the second one is in correspondance to your philosophy, yet it is stripped of any compassion. |
You seem to have forgotten that existing zero tolerance laws have done pretty much jack at preventing people from using this drugs in the first place. Only now, we have to spend billions of dollars, as well as human lives and thousands of man hours trying to prevent the drugs from getting in their hands in the first place, as well as having to house thousands and thousands of in-mates in government jails for drug offences. All this does it makes it a little bit harder for dealers to get the drugs, meaning that there is violence among drug dealers trying to get their product and keep control of its distribution, and also many more billions of dollars, lives and man hours spent trying to track down these dealers. This also means the dealer will have to charge more for the drug, meaning the junkie's next hit will be more expensive. Thus, the junkie is more likely to resort to crime to obtain money for his next hit. The "war on drugs" causes a lot more problems and costs a lot more money than it would if it did not exist. You could take all the money and time spent on it and invest it in public education about drugs and their effects, as well as public health clinics to help people get clean if they need to. You'd be saving a LOT more people that way.
| quote: | | You also ignore the problem of selling drugs to minors. Minors should usually not be considered consentual adults because they are easily influenced into doing things they either don't want to or of which they are not capable of grasping consequences. So even if the drug trade is allowed, the criminal activity would turn to the most vulnerable groups of the society which would be protected by the government, like children and teenagers. |
Don't be so naive as to think minors aren't getting them anyways, or that a backalley drug dealer is going to give a rats ass if someone is of legal age or not before he sells them drugs. To think that you're going to keep all substances out of the hands of minors is a pipe dream. But by legalizing and controlling distribution of drugs, the government can do a LOT more to keep them out of the hands of minors. The backalley drug dealers will always exist, just teenagers can get an older brother or friend to go and buy them cigs and beer. Hell, I'm 17 and I still get beer pretty often, and every other guy my age I know smokes. I also skate, and probably 3 out of 4 skaters smoke weed, cigs, or both, even right at a skatespot. This one school has some awesome ledges that are very popular, and any time you get a decent session going there with 8 or 9 or more guys, the smell of weed starts to fly through the air.
I can tell you that many of the minors that use these substances do them responsibly (at least the ones I know). I drink, but I don't ever get faced, because I choose to take better care of myself then that. Most of my friends are the same way, too. While I do agree that substances should be kept out of the hands of young kids, I think 16 is a resonable legal age for substance use (alcohol/tobacco/drugs). I mean, if you're old enough to get behind the wheel of a 2 ton chunk of metal travelling at 60+ mph on packed roads with the rest of us, you should be able to burn a camel or joint. I mean, look at Europe. Many countires over there have legal drinking ages at 16, if any at all (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Spain, and others). Per capita consumption of alcohol in countires like France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc is far greater than in the U.S., but their cases of alcoholism are far less. The same goes for drugs, too. Look at Amsterdam. Since marijuana was legalized (or at least decriminalized) the percentage of people using it has actually gone down. The issue of sex is pretty much the same, too. People in Europe are much more open and tolerant about sexuality, especially with younger people (nude sunbathers are practically as common as dog walkers), yet their cases of teen pregnancy are far far less than in the U.S. One of the golden rules of rasing a child is that if you flat out deny him something, or try to shelter him from it, he's just going to want it even more, if only to rebel. It just goes to show you that piss poor parenting and lack of education for youngsters is half the problem (but thats a whole 'nother topic :D ).
| quote: | | by Astroboy:The legalisation of marijuana and ecstasy instantly causes the average age of the heroin user to rise, as youngsters buying from coffee shops are not also exposed to harder drugs. Bottom line is when you make drugs illegal you don't destroy the market for them, there isn't any real evidence to suggest that the size of the market for drugs is at all effected. All that happens is that the trade is pushed underground where it is impossible to regulate, and where it feeds crime. |
Hammer on the nail. Well said. |
|
|
| Mr. Pink |
Woah...long replies to something so simple...
ganja is good
:tongue3 |
|
|
| astroboy |
Any criminologist or economist worth his salt will tel you that it does not make sense to eliminate the market for illicit drugs OR to minimise their negative effects on society through supply-reduction policies. The only reason such policies remain in place, despite the mounting research sugesting their stupidity, is the fact that society is incapable of thinking rationally about the drug problem. Any politician attempting to institute a rational harm-minimisation policy can wave his position goodbye. What is known as a "legitimation crisis".
Why is this the case? Why is society so bent on thinking that an inanimate substance itself is evil?
Because the drugs are different to other objects. They are defined by their use. Drugs are not a means to an end, they are a means to a means. They alter reality and meaning, both of which dominant societal structures (particularly religious ones) have always wanted to control. This is why they have fostered this irrational attitude towards drugs, ironically it is these attitudes which now vicariously cause the drug problem to get progressively worse. |
|
|
| Mr. Pink |
It's like rain!!!!!!! On a sunny day
it's a free ride...when you already paid!!!!! |
|
|
| MsGod |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Disclaimer
First of all, I'd like to say that I'm not against drugs: whoever wants to use them should be allowed to do so if there are no harmful consequences to other people who have got nothing to do with it. Also, this is not a "everytime you masturbate God kills a kitten, please think of the kittens" thread - I'm actually looking for discussion, and people who can prove me wrong. Last, but not least, this thread DOES belong to the chill-out room. That being said, let's focus on the topic, shall we? :)
Some of you probably use drugs (hemp, heroin,...) and most of you probably live in "most developed" countries. Why am I comparing these two facts? Because you'll hardly feel the consequences of drug using as much as we do here in South America.
As you know, there's a lot of money involved in drug dealing (Europeans and North Americans pay 10x more than its original price), reason why this activity became so intersting for criminal organisations (let's face it, drugs are illegal and most countries wouldn't be able to support the legalisation because of their health system). Because of the impressive revenues earned by this trade, small criminal groups became stronger as time passed by, leading to the creation of para-military armies in Colombia and a pseudo civil war in some parts of Rio de Janeiro, where drug dealers have weapons better than our own army. Like a cancer, it quickly spreads to other cities, and because of the greed of drug dealers, they join other activities such as kidnapping and robbery in order to support this commerce - and this is why I'm posting it here on the chill-out room.
Not long ago, my girlfriend was blitz-kidnapped by drug dealers, who wanted money and her mobile phone (I don't know what the proper English word for this event would be... they kidnapped her for a couple of hours, got all they wanted from her and then let them go). She never used drugs, mind you (she's ironically alergic to most of these sorts of substances, including legal drugs like alcohol). One of my best mate's father had also been blitz-kidnapped some time ago. Heck, even I, who also never used drugs, by the way, had my watch nicked by a bloody drug addict.
No, Brasilia is not a dangerous place actually (countless times I was hanging out on the streets after midnight, and oldskool TA's may remember I once crossed the city on foot in a tour with a Japanese tourist), but I reckon the situation is getting worse... and all these crimes were linked to drug dealing. Coincidence? Not really.
That's why I'm telling you guys of the situation down here. Many of you complain about immigration, but you're not aware of the harm done in our countries because of things some of you are also to blame. You guys complain about September 11th, but we lose far more people here every year in this terrorism sponsored by these people who want to get "high".
I guess you guys got what I mean by now. I'm aware of the fact we've got drug addicts in Brazil too, but I'm doing the best I can: spreading the word, both here and there :) |
Correction, these crimes were not linked to *drug dealing*, but moreso they were linked to your countries prohibition *against* drugs. You see, the war on drugs jacks up the price of plants/substances/etc that were once legal and free to grow whereever they pleased. Since the prohibition of many illegal drugs, the prices of drugs, as well as the prices of products used in the production of drugs has SKYROCKETED. This puts BILLIONS of dollars into the hands of people like "drug dealers". If the drugs were legal we would have no drug dealers, and people wouldnt have to rob, rape, and pillage others for $$ to buy what are now overpriced and low quality narcotics, amphetamines, or sedatives, thus rendering crimes caused by drugs completely pointless. If the people who began the "war on drugs" were here today to see how much many lives they've wasted, how much money they've flushed down the toilet (on falsified anti drug propoganda), and how much pure trouble they have caused with their need to control the minds and lives of society, they would surely have never began scheduling drugs as legal or illegal in the first place. If I were the one making the laws, I'd probably put a skull and cross bones on items I felt people should not ingest, should they choose to ingest it on their own, thats their fault, and our world is out one less dumb fockin idiot.
Melissa |
|
|
|
|
