Drug Legislation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In most countries certain popular substances that are used to produce psychotropic, stimulating or relaxing effects are banned, and to be found in possesion of some of them can earn you 7 years in jail and an unlimited fine. These drugs include the popular cockain, ecstacy, LSD, heroin and canabis, amoungst others. Information on these, and the effects they produce can be found here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are many reasons for this, but the most prominent is that it is damaging to the health of the individual. I personaly beleive strongly in the individual's right to self determination, wether this is euthanasia, suicide or taking drugs. We all know that tobacco, alcohol and even caffine can have detrimental effects upon the health of the individual, if taken in to large quantities, or even at all. We also know that by making the drugs illegal we push thier production into the "black market", where profits go not to the good of society as a whole, but to gangs interested in profiteering whatever the cost and to extreemist organisations, most notable of which is Al Qaeda, whose funds were based largley upon the illicit production of the opium poppy in Afganistan. That such organisations are prospering is doubly to the detriment of society - they are taking money that would otherwise stay with in the economy and they are using that money to inflict harm upon society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, this argument cannot stand alone in forwarding the legalisation of all substances, as you could very well argue that "if taking away gang revenue is the only reason we legalise this, we must leaglise all the other methods they use to raise money too, and this is clearly irrational". So we cannot take this reason alone, but it must be a contributory factor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, we have discussed the right of the individual to self determination, somethign which you may not agree with me upon, and we have disscussed where drug profits go. Now we should look at it from the prospect of the individual once more. At the moment the individual goes to great risks to obtain the drug they wish to consume. Not only do they have to flout the law and evade the police, they must establish links with trustworthy dealers, and they must pay vast amounts more than the actual worth of the product. Moreover the purity of the drug is never certain - drugs have been known to be cut with anything from ground glass and gravel to rat poison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact purity discrepancies account for a large amount of overdoses - an addict has built up a tolerance to the usual, 50% pure heroin he is used to injecting himself with, so he knows how much he has to take to get a "high". One day his dealer sells him a very unusualy concentrated and pure "bag" of heroin, and he, unknowing of this, injects himself with the usual amount, killing himself from the massive overdose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So there are great risks involved for the consumer - this suggests that people ARE willing, no matter what the risks are, to take and use drugs. No matter how hard the police try, they will never eradicate illict drugs from the country. So what does banning do? It simply pushes the sales of these substances into the shadows, away from government control and regulation, where users find it difficult and dangerous to seek help with thier problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is even more odd about the drugs legislation in Britain, and other countries, is that it is very contradictory. Whilst certain psychotropic drugs are banned, there are a great many that are completely legal to sell, and which produce very similar effects. We have already mentioned the obvious ones of tobacco and alcohol, but others are available. For instance this site runs a mail order shop for these substances. To take one example, that of the Hawaiian Baby Woodrose Seeds, the effect and the substance itself is almost identical to LSD. Yet LSD is banned, and these seeds are still for legitimate sale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people say that the legalisation of these drugs would increase burden on the National Healthcare System (NHS) and the state in general. I disagree. Most addicts die relativley young, as do smokers, and there by save the state the cost of paying for thier pension or geriatric care. The costs of these are far greater than the costs of treatment. Moreover, the drugs would give a large amount of revenue that could be used to help cover the NHS's deficits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I do argue verciferously for the leaglisation of all drugs. Yet there must be, I feel some restrictions. No advertising promoting the sale of drugs, even at the point of sale, a VAT style tax of at least 100% on the drug, 50% of the revenues from which will go into the NHS and into advertising demonstrating the horrible effects drugs can have, and government regulated market with assured purity and advice on dosage, every packet to have warning lables on describing, in a simillar manner to cigarette packets, the problems that may ensue and for drugs only to be sold to people over the age of 18. I also feel that stringent measures should be placed upon the consumption of drugs - that smoking of them should NOT be done in any public place, be it open or enclosed, or within two metres of anyone under the age of 18, and that all actions performed under thier influence should be dealt with in the same way that drink related crimes are dealt with today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are some pictures of the Legal Products and thier Illegal equivalents:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is a replacement for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

whilst this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

replaces this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

replaces this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts, anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(if you read it all, thanks for giving me your time)

I was expecting frenzied criticism...or at least some response quickly, seeing as it is contraversial :? .

I'm prescribed Marinol for nausea and appetite while im on the downside of chemo, it's basically just synthasized THC in a pill. It gets you on a pretty hefty high if you take a lot but its like a godsend when you're losing 2-3 kilos in a week and need to keep an appetite and your food down. I was suprised stuff like that is so readily available in the US.

I was expecting frenzied criticism...or at least some response quickly, seeing as it is contraversial :? .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posting messages like that just make you seem like an attention seeker. You know that this thread is inevitably going to be locked.

No. Here is one point I disagree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, you said that many people will go to great lengths to get these drugs. While this is true, it still stops many from actually doing it. If it were legalized and easy to get, many people would not have to worry about the penalties and the hassles that go into buying them. Thus, causing MORE addicts. This decreases the health of the nation (I doubt you would argue that drugs are not harmful).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the question is would you rather give some of the economic gain (to the black market) and save numerous live, or would you rather have these in the economy and endanger many lives?

 

 

 

We all know that tobacco, alcohol and even caffine can have detrimental effects upon the health of the individual, if taken in to large quantities, or even at all. We also know that by making the drugs illegal we push thier production into the "black market", where profits go not to the good of society as a whole, but to gangs interested in profiteering whatever the cost and to extreemist organisations,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not about the production going in to the black market. We have the capabilities to completely destroy all the opium plants in Afghanistan and wherever else they are. Also, do you have any idea how high the tax is on things like cigarettes and alcohol? The government would lose billions upon billions if these things were outlawed.

I'm all for the legalisation of mild drugs with scientifically proven medical usage. Mainly marijuana, as you can't overdose on it, or become *physically addicted*, not as harmfull to your health as hard drugs, etc etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think DXM and Salvia would make a nice edition to your list of legal highs.

cockain,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y'may wanna fix that...

No. Here is one point I disagree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, you said that many people will go to great lengths to get these drugs. While this is true, it still stops many from actually doing it. If it were legalized and easy to get, many people would not have to worry about the penalties and the hassles that go into buying them. Thus, causing MORE addicts. This decreases the health of the nation (I doubt you would argue that drugs are not harmful).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the question is would you rather give some of the economic gain (to the black market) and save numerous live, or would you rather have these in the economy and endanger many lives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, some drugs are harmful but, some really aren't that harmful. Here is a huge debate on marijuana that I started a while back, it gives pro's and con's on website sources. http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=606283

Or, ya know, you don't need drugs. There is so many other things the government could be spending on their money on rather then regulating drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think DXM and Salvia would make a nice edition to your list of legal highs.

Salvia is a waste of money

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cockain, ecstacy, LSD, heroin and canabis,

Its Cocaine and cannabis is the plant form, there is a fine line between cannabis and marijuana

The main problems with legal highs is that while other drugs are still illegal they could be used as a gateway to much harder things from a real dealer. Secondly, legal highs are rubbish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BBC did a good report on the failing of drug laws only last week, search for it. Interesting reading.

Governments should legalise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because then they can tax the hell out of those drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can see why they don't, though. At the moment, alcohol and tobacco companies are too powerful to risk losing the support of by introducing more competition to the addictive legal drugs and intoxicants market.

Governments should legalise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because then they can tax the hell out of those drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can see why they don't, though. At the moment, alcohol and tobacco companies are too powerful to risk losing the support of by introducing more competition to the addictive legal drugs and intoxicants market.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I say legalise, tax and regulate like hell, but politicians are to concerned with saving thier own tails and vote grabbing to do anything drastic.

Youve got to find the right balance of tax. Otherwise people will just go back to the illegal dealers to get it cheaper.

 

 

 

Because then they can tax the hell out of those drugs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taxed LSD just seems like an absolutely terrible thing in my mind. Same for taxed marijuana, just seems so wrong.

Secondly, legal highs are rubbish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Getting "high" is a mindset. A lot of legal highs have to do with "tripping", such as salvia. If you arent in a good mood when this happens or if you are negative about the effects then you wont be affected at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of people who want to use these legal highs dont think they will work so they dont

America tried alcohol prohibition - IT DIDN'T WORK!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So why are we surprised by the negative results of drugs prohibition?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regulation and taxation makes a lot more sense.

The government wouldn't be able to tax marijuana, it's too easy to cultivate. Meaning no one will buy it, when they can grow it in their back yard.

The government wouldn't be able to tax marijuana, it's too easy to cultivate. Meaning no one will buy it, when they can grow it in their back yard.

Then you tax rolling paper, roach card, rolling tobacco and bongs. Its not hard to think of ways to tax it.

 

The government wouldn't be able to tax marijuana, it's too easy to cultivate. Meaning no one will buy it, when they can grow it in their back yard.

Then you tax rolling paper, roach card, rolling tobacco and bongs. Its not hard to think of ways to tax it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once you buy a pipe and things of the sort you pretty much eliminate the need for anything else, so increasing the tax isn't really a problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention the simplicity of making your own device out of house hold items or things from home depot \ .

 

 

The government wouldn't be able to tax marijuana, it's too easy to cultivate. Meaning no one will buy it, when they can grow it in their back yard.

Then you tax rolling paper, roach card, rolling tobacco and bongs. Its not hard to think of ways to tax it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once you buy a pipe and things of the sort you pretty much eliminate the need for anything else, so increasing the tax isn't really a problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention the simplicity of making your own device out of house hold items or things from home depot \ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're being too specific. His point is that if the government wants to tax something, they'll find a way.

People rarely re-use home made bongs. But like Lateralus said you are looking too deep into it. There are many ways in which the substance could be controlled and taxed and as most people wont have the space and time to cultivate their own there would always be a demand for a store.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is VAT (tax) on food such as carrots and onions and if you wanted, you could grow your own. The fact of the matter is that people don't, at least not normally.

The day drugs are legalised is the same day the world ends. I'm thinking along the lines of teenagers here, they already think it's cool to smoke. Just imagine what would happen if a cigarette was replaced with a sniff of cocaine. The NHS would be fall to pieces as there would be so many overdoses, just like alcohol how many children at the age of around 15/16 go get drunk at the weekend, alot is all I can say. With drugs it could turn out fatal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are obviously very very naive.

The day drugs are legalised is the same day the world ends. I'm thinking along the lines of teenagers here, they already think it's cool to smoke. Just imagine what would happen if a cigarette was replaced with a sniff of cocaine. The NHS would be fall to pieces as there would be so many overdoses, just like alcohol how many children at the age of around 15/16 go get drunk at the weekend, alot is all I can say. With drugs it could turn out fatal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are obviously very very naive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haha, oh the irony.