|
I need (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Mr. Pink |
LMAO
so apparently....
frequent masterbation will increase the economical status of a country, whereas rimjobs will lower it.
Good to know! |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Streakfury
Yeah but it's a bit stupid (no offense Astro). That's basically saying "Hmm, the crime rates are going up, so what can we do about it?? I know, lets just make everything legal!!". |
Not really. The regulatory approach has been proactive rather than reactive in most cases. It's not an impulsive reaction like you suggest, but one based on sound economic theory. I've studied economics and law at a pretty reputable Universoty, and have spoken to a lot of academics at the criminology department here, and can safely tell you that most of them, havingpublished leading articles in their respective fields and conducted years of research, share my views.
Rather the currently popular approach to drugs is impulsive. Its reasoning looks roughly like this:
Drugs lead to problems, therefore drugs are evil, therefore lets band drugs... This ignores the fact that there is a drug market, as well as a host of other factors. The approach that I suggest is unpopular precisely because people prefer to deal with problems impulsively and are too intellectually lazy to seriously consider a more subtle approach, which may at first seem counter intuitive (typical response: "legalise drugs?!! are you mad??").
| quote: | | It doesn't really solve much. And if the government does regulate strictly (as would be required) then the "criminals" would just go underground and break the rules anyway. |
In theory, applied for example to the market for illicit narcotics, it would solve everything - almost every practical problem is minimised. In practice, the Scandinavian examples seem to support the theory.
First thing people need to realise is that drugs are not evil... they are inanimate substances and have no character, calling them evil brings emotions into the issue.
Similarly dealers are not, by definition, evil (the fact that a lot of them can be, is incidental to them being dealers). No one "pushes" drugs, the demand is so huge these days drugs basically sell themselves.
Conclusion 1: Drugs are simply a social phenomenon that has several social harms associated with it. Therefore the banning of actual drugs is not a primary objective. So as long as those harms are eliminated or minimised the outcome is acceptible. At most supply-reduction policies are an attempt to do this and can be readily compare to alternative strategies to achieve the same end.
The drug economy is larger than the GDP of many countries. It is one of the mst lucrative businesses to be involved in.
Despite growing anti-narcotics budgets drugs continue to make their way into countries. Purities often rise, and prices drop despite more drugs being seized by authorities. Countries that institute the death penalty for smuggling drugs still have countless people smuggling drugs and risking their lives.
Conclusion 2: This is basic economic theory. The drug market is a typical, strong, demand-driven market. As long as demand is strong enough, someone will emerge to take advantage of it and make a buck. Reducing supply, is unlikely to succeeed as it does not eliminate the market.
The main harms associated with drugs are: Heroin addicts overdosing and diverting ambulances from other emergencies that are not self-induced. Addicts injuring people, and committing theft in order to pay for their habit. Needle-sharing leading to the spread of disease. Negative effects on lives and families.
If the government created a legal supply of clean heroin it could be applied to people with a prescription by trained staff in "shooting centres". The heroin would be supplied for free to registered addicts. When they shot up they would chat to a case worker who would always try to push the idea of rehab, the shooting centre would become a network of support for those who do intend to quit. This would eliminate most medical emergencies (minor ones can be dealt with on site) and theft/muggings.
The illicit market would not be able to compete with the clean, cheap heroin given by the government. The positioning of shooting centres in prominent areas would act as a detterrent... seeing junkies shooting up is a much more effective in my opinion than the drug-ed we had at school.
Marijuana should be legalised simply because it is no more harmful than alcohol and half the reason kids do it is because it is "forbidden". Secondly teens buying pot legally would reduce their exposure to other drugs, as well as providing the government with another source of revenue, which could be injected into demand-reduction initiatives (various education policies etc.).
In my opinon if ecstacy were legally supplied by the government it would significantly reduce the amount of other party drugs around. It would be cheap, clean and readily available. Raves could be monitored by medical staff who would ensure no one had more than their limit and were well hydrated (but not over-hydrated).
To tell you the truth I can not see any practical problem that is not addressed by a reasoned harm-minimisation approach more effectively than the currently popular supply-reduction policy. Several prominent economists and criminologists seem to agree with me. |
|
|
| rollypoles |
| great "essay" astroboy. i loved conclusion 2 because it totally illustrates the pointlessness of a "war on drugs". |
|
|
| DJ Rat 187 |
| I think I will write about war and human conflict like my mom told me, with the whole Beslan situation it just is evident, the fact that political leaders hold their ambitions and prides so highly that they sacrifice thousands of children's and innocent people's lives every day. Something that Dostoyevski said also that nothing is worthy of causing a child's tears or something like that. Just hate back and forward and neither can admit fault or bring themselves to a level of superiority by attempting peace. The fact that another side tries to cause pain to one side by murdering children, such dispicable acts and no one is right. Like a pendulum you hit and it just always swings back at you no matter what you do. Such horrid hate forms like in with Israelis and Palestinians. Political leaders let their personal interests and ambitions represent their people and then their people suffer for it. |
|
|
| Noree |
| quote: | Originally posted by rollypoles
great "essay" astroboy. i loved conclusion 2 because it totally illustrates the pointlessness of a "war on drugs". |
Happy Birthday dude :) ......May the good times roll!!! |
|
|
| Streakfury |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Conclusion 1: Drugs are simply a social phenomenon that has several social harms associated with it. Therefore the banning of actual drugs is not a primary objective. So as long as those harms are eliminated or minimised the outcome is acceptible. At most supply-reduction policies are an attempt to do this and can be readily compare to alternative strategies to achieve the same end. |
I see where you're coming from, and I agree that there is more than one way to achieve something.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Conclusion 2: This is basic economic theory. The drug market is a typical, strong, demand-driven market. As long as demand is strong enough, someone will emerge to take advantage of it and make a buck. Reducing supply, is unlikely to succeeed as it does not eliminate the market. . |
No it wont eliminate the market, but like you said earlier, there are different approaches to the problem, and so long as the number of harmful incidents is reduced, that's what counts. If you stop the supply of drugs altogether, it matters not if the demand is there, because no 'harmful incidents' can occur if nobody can get hold of the drugs in the first place.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
The main harms associated with drugs are: Heroin addicts overdosing and diverting ambulances from other emergencies that are not self-induced. Addicts injuring people, and committing theft in order to pay for their habit. Needle-sharing leading to the spread of disease. Negative effects on lives and families.
If the government created a legal supply of clean heroin it could be applied to people with a prescription by trained staff in "shooting centres". The heroin would be supplied for free to registered addicts. When they shot up they would chat to a case worker who would always try to push the idea of rehab, the shooting centre would become a network of support for those who do intend to quit. This would eliminate most medical emergencies (minor ones can be dealt with on site) and theft/muggings. |
This is the part that I have most trouble with. I agree that some people (the people who want to quit) need the help of support centres and the like, but providing 'shooting centres' is a bit of a ludicrous idea. What sort of example would we be setting our children if, while our teachers are hard at work warning them of the dangers of drugs, their parents have spent the best part of the day in a shooting centre taking free, illegal drugs handed out by the very people who are telling everyone not to take them??
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
The illicit market would not be able to compete with the clean, cheap heroin given by the government. The positioning of shooting centres in prominent areas would act as a detterrent... seeing junkies shooting up is a much more effective in my opinion than the drug-ed we had at school. |
Personally, I only have to think of the effects of drugs to know whole-heartidly that I never want to take them. I dont need to see people who are suffering from withdrawal symptoms, or people who's brains have half rotted through glue sniffing or whatever, to know that they're bad. But some people may need to. I guess the actual site of someone suffering from various conditions through constant drug use is the only way to deter some people. But that still doesn't justify setting up these shooting centres. For one thing, it encourages the use of drugs in the first place, because if people know they can get good clean drugs for free, why shouldn't they try it?? They'd know that the drugs they were using were pure, and that there would be trained medical staff on sight if anything went pair-shaped. That just sounds to me like an invitation to use drugs.
Then there's the fact that these addicts who want to get off the drugs are there to be given support, not to be gawped at by a load of kids, and used by teachers and parents as an example of what might happen to them if they use drugs. Dignity would be thrown out the window for the addicts who went there, and I could imagine endless torments from kids and other immature people aimed at the poor sods who need the help that these centres would give. That in itself would discourage a lot of the addicts to seek the help that they need.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Marijuana should be legalised simply because it is no more harmful than alcohol and half the reason kids do it is because it is "forbidden". Secondly teens buying pot legally would reduce their exposure to other drugs, as well as providing the government with another source of revenue, which could be injected into demand-reduction initiatives (various education policies etc.). |
The government makes enough money as it is at the expense of people's health. In moderation, alcohol isn't nearly as harmful as drugs, despite what a lot of people believe, and for the government to make drugs legal on the basis that they can make a lot of money from it is totally immoral. In fact, the only reason why alcohol and cigarettes aren't illegal today is because when they were first introduced, nobody knew just how harmful they were. From that point onwards, yes the government has made a lot of money from them, but if they suddenly made them illegal, the country as a whole would suffer financially. And when asked, the public don't really mind the fact that the government makes money from them, because a lot of people have smoked and drunk alcohol for the best part of their lives, and would suffer considerably if they were to be made illegal.
But when it comes to drugs, there are far more people who don't do them than there are people who do. So for the government to make them legal, would be introducing them to a lot of people who, so far, have managed to resist the temptaion of taking them. And that, in the public's eyes, is wrong. Which is why drugs should remain illegal.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
In my opinon if ecstacy were legally supplied by the government it would significantly reduce the amount of other party drugs around. It would be cheap, clean and readily available. Raves could be monitored by medical staff who would ensure no one had more than their limit and were well hydrated (but not over-hydrated). |
I dont think that making one drug legal and readily available would stem the demand for other drugs. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Once somebody has taken one drug for a while, they start to become curious about others, and then eventually they experiment with other drugs too. If you look at it from their point of view, why should the government make one drug legal, and not the rest?? It's not like one's harmful and the other isn't. So there would then be pressure from people to make the other drugs legal too.
As for medical staff at clubs goes, I highly doubt that any trained professionals would want to use their medical skills helping people who have overdosed in clubs. There are far too many people out there who need medical attention through no fault of their own for nurses to have to be called away to be in a club for four hours, just to make sure everybody keeps their drug-taking within the limits. Then there is the fact that there's a shortage of doctors and nurses (in Britain, at least), so where exactly would these new doctors and nurses come from?? The hospitals certainly couldn't afford to lose some of their staff for a few hours every night.
:) |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Streakfury
I see where you're coming from, and I agree that there is more than one way to achieve something.
No it wont eliminate the market, but like you said earlier, there are different approaches to the problem, and so long as the number of harmful incidents is reduced, that's what counts. If you stop the supply of drugs altogether, it matters not if the demand is there, because no 'harmful incidents' can occur if nobody can get hold of the drugs in the first place. |
Of course, but My point was that supply-reduction is a flawed theory and does not eliminate supply in any significant way. The market is demand driven, and by the same forces that keep our economy functioning... it is impossible to stop supply. You cut off one point of supply and market forces instantly create another. Statistics prove this: despite the increasing drug siezures, the purity of the street product does not get worse and the price does not increase. The drug problem is only getting worse. The only economically sound way to eliminate supply is to approach it from the demand side.
| quote: | | This is the part that I have most trouble with. I agree that some people (the people who want to quit) need the help of support centres and the like, but providing 'shooting centres' is a bit of a ludicrous idea. What sort of example would we be setting our children if, while our teachers are hard at work warning them of the dangers of drugs, their parents have spent the best part of the day in a shooting centre taking free, illegal drugs handed out by the very people who are telling everyone not to take them?? |
Personally I give kids more credit, I think they will see the complexity of the issue. Particularly so if drug addicts are treated as people with a medical condition rather than criminals. The drugs would not be illegal by definition so the use of that word is inappropriate.
Secondly if you're talking about children of heroin addicts, rather than most kids, as indicated at the end of your para I would simply respond that I would prefer that the kids parents were taking clean drugs handed to them by the government, leaving the best part of the day for them to be productive, and for them to spend time with their kids, rather than have them spending all day looking for money to spend on dirty heroin which will destroy their bodies. Believe it or not the majority of heroin users can actually lead productive lives. As for the example argument: if they are heroin junkies already then they set a bad example to their kids no matter where they get their drugs from.
| quote: | | Personally, I only have to think of the effects of drugs to know whole-heartidly that I never want to take them. I dont need to see people who are suffering from withdrawal symptoms, or people who's brains have half rotted through glue sniffing or whatever, to know that they're bad. But some people may need to. I guess the actual site of someone suffering from various conditions through constant drug use is the only way to deter some people. But that still doesn't justify setting up these shooting centres. For one thing, it encourages the use of drugs in the first place, because if people know they can get good clean drugs for free, why shouldn't they try it?? They'd know that the drugs they were using were pure, and that there would be trained medical staff on sight if anything went pair-shaped. That just sounds to me like an invitation to use drugs. |
Firstly the categorisation you're using is inappropriate. If you're going to talk about drugs then that necessarily includes alcohol, paracetamol, caffeine as well as any prescription drug you've ever taken. "illicit" drugs are a human construction and the distinction is arbitrary and you cannot generalise about their effects whatsoever. Marijuana is a particularly good example. Also it's not a matter of necessarily seeing physical side effects. The fact is a lot of kids try hard drugs because they romanticise the image. If they were constantly confronted with individuals who had to perform intravenous injections just to function and hated their dependance on the substance, they would find it much harder to justify any romantic imag of the drug in their minds.
| quote: | | Then there's the fact that these addicts who want to get off the drugs are there to be given support, not to be gawped at by a load of kids, and used by teachers and parents as an example of what might happen to them if they use drugs. |
Firstly I never said to put them in a zoo or have kids take excursions to look at the junkies. I said put the injecting rooms in a public place. The only reason addicts shoot up in dark alleys these days is that they are afraid of cops, when they aren't being prosecuted they shoot up in quite public places of their own volition... I've seen it. Secondly Giving support and having them shoot up in public places are not mutually exclusive. In countries where similar proposals have been implemented people approach these addicts on the street and actually give them emotional encouragement. Police know the local addicts by name and will approach them to ask them how they're going etc... Having the addicts hide in dark alleys just drives a huge public phenomenon underground allowing society to villainise it on one hand to a ridiculous level, where victims of drug abuse become criminals and on the other hand allows kids to romanticise it and try it themselves.
| quote: | | Dignity would be thrown out the window for the addicts who went there, and I could imagine endless torments from kids and other immature people aimed at the poor sods who need the help that these centres would give. That in itself would discourage a lot of the addicts to seek the help that they need. |
Around here junkies are generally shunned. And to tell you the truth I wouldn't even try to torment a guy who is in an altered state of mind and probably impervious to pain. Also this has not been a major problem in any areas where such programs have been implemented. The addicts actually feel happy to be a part of society ratherthan being ostracised.
| quote: | | The government makes enough money as it is at the expense of people's health. |
Did it sound like I was advocating the government making money at the expense of people's health? On the contrary my theory is the government can make money and benefit people's health. The policy I suggest would greatly reduce health problems associated with drug use.
| quote: | | In moderation, alcohol isn't nearly as harmful as drugs, despite what a lot of people believe, and for the government to make drugs legal on the basis that they can make a lot of money from it is totally immoral. |
[color=limegreen]There you go talking about "drugs" again :). To which drug in particular are you refering?
The government income is just a side effect. The main thing is that it would minimise harms and reduce the drug problem. Unfortunately any policy needs to be assessed for economic feasibility these days before it is implemented.
| quote: | | In fact, the only reason why alcohol and cigarettes aren't illegal today is because when they were first introduced, nobody knew just how harmful they were. |
There are a lot of harmful practices. But democracy dictates that people can harm themselves if they wish. There are people sitting at home cutting up their own genitalia as we speak.
| quote: | | From that point onwards, yes the government has made a lot of money from them, but if they suddenly made them illegal, the country as a whole would suffer financially. And when asked, the public don't really mind the fact that the government makes money from them, because a lot of people have smoked and drunk alcohol for the best part of their lives, and would suffer considerably if they were to be made illegal. |
Alcohol began in prehistory. It is potentially harmful.. as is walking out of your house. But in moderation it is enjoyable and conducive to social relations. No one is addicted to alcohol, but because it has an image of social acceptance, people would be outraged if it was banned. The fact that alcohol is in this position and not marijuana or kava is nothing more than historical accident. The prohibition of alcohol in the US created more than just financial problems and a few upset people. It fed a boom n organised crime, and gave birth to some of the most noorious criminals in history (eg Al Capone). It led to increased alcohol consumption, and created dodgy alcohol that caused people to lose their sight or die - something that was unheard of when alcohol is legal.[/quote]
| quote: | | But when it comes to drugs, there are far more people who don't do them than there are people who do. So for the government to make them legal, would be introducing them to a lot of people who, so far, have managed to resist the temptaion of taking them. And that, in the public's eyes, is wrong. Which is why drugs should remain illegal. |
Firstly by legal I mean decriminalised. I don't mean free drugs for all at the corner store. Generally speaking the public knows very little about the drug problem and buy whatever information is fed to them by the government. Hard drugs would only be available to registered addicts - There wouldn't be an attractive coolness about going to a community centre and shooting up with some junkies. It's not a tempting image. Statistics in other countries don't show an increase in marijuana consumption either. a greater percentage of people have tried weed in Australia than in Holland for example.
| quote: | | I dont think that making one drug legal and readily available would stem the demand for other drugs. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Once somebody has taken one drug for a while, they start to become curious about others, and then eventually they experiment with other drugs too. |
Countless studies have disproved the "gateway" theory. Studies in countries where marjuana has been legalised show that the implementation of the policy corresponds to a dramatic rise in the age of the average heroin user.
| quote: | | If you look at it from their point of view, why should the government make one drug legal, and not the rest?? It's not like one's harmful and the other isn't. |
Of course it is. Speed, cocaine, heroin, MDMA, marijuana, LSD - all have completely different side effects some absolutely horrendous, others milder than alcohol. People have to start looking at sustances individually, rather than just buying the "drugs are bad" crap fed to them.
| quote: | | So there would then be pressure from people to make the other drugs legal too. |
I don't know about where you live. But around here a ten year old can tell you the difference between heroin and marijuana. Very few people would argue to make heroin readily available to the public, just because marijuana was.
| quote: | | As for medical staff at clubs goes, I highly doubt that any trained professionals would want to use their medical skills helping people who have overdosed in clubs. |
There are plenty of people who right now volunteer their time to do so.
| quote: | | There are far too many people out there who need medical attention through no fault of their own for nurses to have to be called away to be in a club for four hours, just to make sure everybody keeps their drug-taking within the limits. Then there is the fact that there's a shortage of doctors and nurses (in Britain, at least), so where exactly would these new doctors and nurses come from?? The hospitals certainly couldn't afford to lose some of their staff for a few hours every night. |
Firstly these would be professionals specifically trained individuals. Not doctors or nurses but specially trained paramedics. They would actually decrease demand for ambulances and cut down the amount of overdose cases arriving in hospitals and taking up much needed emergency beds. We're talking about more job positions being created in the employment market. When a new law firm opens up it doesn't mean the current lawyers now have to work two jobs at their existing law firm and the new one. These are new jobs for new people entering the job market. |
|
|
| Jackson |
| my brain hurts from reading those last too posts...all that yellow and green...It was like it was raining Skittles! |
|
|
| DJ Rat 187 |
god damn, it's a battle
anywho, astroboy great topic I'll use it because I have an essay every week so I'll keep this thread going if I need topics next week or the one after that |
|
|
| Streakfury |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Of course, but My point was that supply-reduction is a flawed theory and does not eliminate supply in any significant way. The market is demand driven, and by the same forces that keep our economy functioning... it is impossible to stop supply. You cut off one point of supply and market forces instantly create another. Statistics prove this: despite the increasing drug siezures, the purity of the street product does not get worse and the price does not increase. The drug problem is only getting worse. The only economically sound way to eliminate supply is to approach it from the demand side. |
If this policy works so well, why aren't they already doing it all over the world?? I'm not an economist, and to be honest, I'd never even heard of soome of the ideas you talk about when it comes to reducing drug use etc, but I know that where I live, nobody has even suggested doing what you have suggested here. I'm sure there are places in the world where your ideas work, but from my experience, nobody's tried it over here yet. But like you say, the drug problem is getting worse, so I wonder why they haven't at least tried it yet??
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Personally I give kids more credit, I think they will see the complexity of the issue. Particularly so if drug addicts are treated as people with a medical condition rather than criminals. The drugs would not be illegal by definition so the use of that word is inappropriate. |
I agree that if hard drugs weren't to be labelled as illegal, then that would take away some of the temptation for young kids to try them, but it's not the only way to discourage them, and so that by itself (for me, at least) just doesn't justify making some of them legal.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Secondly if you're talking about children of heroin addicts, rather than most kids, as indicated at the end of your para I would simply respond that I would prefer that the kids parents were taking clean drugs handed to them by the government, leaving the best part of the day for them to be productive, and for them to spend time with their kids, rather than have them spending all day looking for money to spend on dirty heroin which will destroy their bodies. Believe it or not the majority of heroin users can actually lead productive lives. As for the example argument: if they are heroin junkies already then they set a bad example to their kids no matter where they get their drugs from. |
To be honest, I hadn't even made the distinction between the kids of addicts and the kids of non-users. I was slightly exaggerating about spending the whole day in a 'shooting centre', but only to make a point. But personally I think that anyone who takes heroin for example, is setting a bad example for everyone, not just their own kids.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Firstly the categorisation you're using is inappropriate. If you're going to talk about drugs then that necessarily includes alcohol, paracetamol, caffeine as well as any prescription drug you've ever taken. "illicit" drugs are a human construction and the distinction is arbitrary and you cannot generalise about their effects whatsoever. Marijuana is a particularly good example. Also it's not a matter of necessarily seeing physical side effects. The fact is a lot of kids try hard drugs because they romanticise the image. If they were constantly confronted with individuals who had to perform intravenous injections just to function and hated their dependance on the substance, they would find it much harder to justify any romantic imag of the drug in their minds. |
You would think so, but this practice is already in effect. I myself have attended lectures at my high school that were given by ex-addicts. They explained clearly (and very graphically) the effects of the drugs they were taking (and they were taking the real hard stuff too), and we were also educated by the local police and had a first hand look at a lot of the harder drugs that are available.
Yet the drug problem is as bad as ever. Kids these days are particualrly exposed to the effects of taking hard drugs, and it just doesn't seem to be enough to put them off. There are two reasons for this:
- The dipiction of drug use in films and television.
- Peer pressure.
Both points glamorise the use of drugs, and I think that's the main reason why kids these days are as eager as ever to try out illegal substances. I think that doing what you were saying, and showing the kids first hand what could happen if they become addicted, just wont overpower the image they get from television and films.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Firstly I never said to put them in a zoo or have kids take excursions to look at the junkies. I said put the injecting rooms in a public place. The only reason addicts shoot up in dark alleys these days is that they are afraid of cops, when they aren't being prosecuted they shoot up in quite public places of their own volition... I've seen it. Secondly Giving support and having them shoot up in public places are not mutually exclusive. In countries where similar proposals have been implemented people approach these addicts on the street and actually give them emotional encouragement. Police know the local addicts by name and will approach them to ask them how they're going etc... Having the addicts hide in dark alleys just drives a huge public phenomenon underground allowing society to villainise it on one hand to a ridiculous level, where victims of drug abuse become criminals and on the other hand allows kids to romanticise it and try it themselves. |
I agree that these addicts need support, and for the most part, there is support available to them. You said yourself that the whole drug scene has been pushed underground bacause of public opinion and the fact that it's illegal to take hard drugs. But having anything related to hard drugs out in public view (including these support centres) would just make the kids and the uneducated more curious about them. Maybe that's a good thing, but maybe it isn't. :p
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Alcohol began in prehistory. It is potentially harmful.. as is walking out of your house. |
Hmm, not exactly the same kettle of though eh?? :p
Especially as walking out of your house is necessary, whilst alcohol isn't. :p
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
But in moderation it is enjoyable and conducive to social relations. No one is addicted to alcohol, but because it has an image of social acceptance, people would be outraged if it was banned. The fact that alcohol is in this position and not marijuana or kava is nothing more than historical accident. The prohibition of alcohol in the US created more than just financial problems and a few upset people. It fed a boom n organised crime, and gave birth to some of the most noorious criminals in history (eg Al Capone). It led to increased alcohol consumption, and created dodgy alcohol that caused people to lose their sight or die - something that was unheard of when alcohol is legal. |
Yes it's true that alcohol has been a part of the British diet at least, for the best part of 1000 years. But that was actually due to the fact that it was a vital part of their diet. It contains lots of carbs and vitamins, which they didnt ingest through their other foods, which consisted almost entirely of meat. Through the ages, a lot of money has been made selling beer, and so that is a good reason as to why it has remained legal to this day.
Making substances that we know are harmful in many ways legal, just seems to me to be taking away a problem by not making it a problem any more. It's understandable that making something that was once legal illegal would have the effects you mentioned, but doing the opposite would not have the same effect.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Firstly by legal I mean decriminalised. I don't mean free drugs for all at the corner store. Generally speaking the public knows very little about the drug problem and buy whatever information is fed to them by the government. Hard drugs would only be available to registered addicts - There wouldn't be an attractive coolness about going to a community centre and shooting up with some junkies. It's not a tempting image. Statistics in other countries don't show an increase in marijuana consumption either. a greater percentage of people have tried weed in Australia than in Holland for example. |
That sounds feasible, but one problem still remains: who gets to decide who is a viable addict and who isn't?? Obviously there are distictions between those who takes drugs recreationally, and who absolutely cannot live without them (addicts). But where do you draw the line?? If it were the case that addicts could get the drugs they 'need' for free, and without fear of them being impure, that would cause a surge of recreational users to either apply for the drugs as well, or at the very least, they would complain that it's unfair for the addicts to get these drugs for free and not them.
Even if this scheme were to be implemented, it still doesn't change anything for most of the public. Addicts would still be able to receive help that is already available to them now, and hard drugs would still be illegal to the people who don't already use them. This doesn't solve the problem of deterring people from trying them in the first place, it simply means that anyone who wished to take hard drugs would have to go through a formal process of requesting that they be given them by the government. And to be given them, they would have to be an addict, which a lot of them won't be. So again, they will be forced to look elsewhere for their drugs, meaning we are right back to square one.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I don't know about where you live. But around here a ten year old can tell you the difference between heroin and marijuana. Very few people would argue to make heroin readily available to the public, just because marijuana was. |
Was your argument not that hard drugs should be given to registered addicts by the government in controlled environments, with medical aid on hand?? What then, makes you decide what drugs to give out, and ones to withhold?? If you're going to give as much support as you suggest, you cant go picking and choosing between who gets support and who doesn't, based solely on what substances they take. Anyone who is addicted to any kind of drug would be entitled to recieve help, and if that includes giving them the drugs they need in moderation, then that has to apply to everyone, nomatter what drugs the may be using.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Firstly these would be professionals specifically trained individuals. Not doctors or nurses but specially trained paramedics. They would actually decrease demand for ambulances and cut down the amount of overdose cases arriving in hospitals and taking up much needed emergency beds. We're talking about more job positions being created in the employment market. When a new law firm opens up it doesn't mean the current lawyers now have to work two jobs at their existing law firm and the new one. These are new jobs for new people entering the job market. |
My point here was that there are already plenty of jobs available for the taking in the medical profession, but there just aren't enough people actually becoming doctors and nurses to fill the positions available. So what you were saying would create yet more jobs, but there would still be a shortage of people to fill those jobs, and I suspect that anyone would rather have what few trained doctors we have in the hospitals, and not in the clubs.
:) |
|
|
| DJ Rat 187 |
| ANNOUNCEMENT: so I have to do an essay again this week, it has to be a process essay, basically describing how to do something or how something happens or is done, a friend of mine is writing about the stages of the Ebola virus on the human body, so I don't know what to write about, anywho give me some topics please, I can stretch it a little so don't confine your thoughts to just like a "how to" or something. |
|
|
| DJ Rat 187 |
| :whip: GIVE ME SOME ING TOPICS :whip: |
|
|
|
|
