You can say the same about alcoholics and people with gambling problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can say the same about anyone who has an addiction that can only be sustained with money they no longer have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That "selective presentation" as you call it is FACTUAL.....no, you can not say the same about other addicts.....the study of criminal statistics show that over 80% of all violent crime in the US is drug related ....does that number sink into your brain? over 80%...you don't see gamblers going on violent killing sprees in Las Vegas, the gambling capital of the world

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats an unfair comparison and Ill try to explain why. The illegal narcotics trade is a multi-billion dollar industry that is effectively monopolised by organised crime groups, since the industry is such a huge earner for criminals there is going to be side effects such as gang violence & robbery. Now if this trade was made legal (I'm not advocating that it should be but I'm playing Devils Advocate here) it would be under strict legislation that would essentially take the money away from the criminals much in the same way as when prohibition being repealed took the alcohol trade away from criminals.

 

 

 

The gangs who are killing each other over the drugs trade do so because of the money thats involved, the fact that the money comes from drugs is incidental - they used to kill each other over booze during prohibition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gambling on the other hand is legal in certain areas of USA and is under strict legislation. This means large corporations can control the industry which keeps the money away from criminals and it creates a safe and controlled enviroment for gamblers. Gambling, in states where it is banned is controlled by criminals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that any industry that has a sufficient demand & is made illegal will inevitably be controlled by organised crime. Basically all they're doing is filling a demand however, it does have its consequenses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legalizing it will not fix the problem. Do you think the multi billion dollar illegal drug trade "industry" will just pack up their bags and go home....relax in retirement? Nope, the drug trade will still flow, the only thing would change is the price would drop, they would undercut the "government taxed drug"...and the broke druggies would flock to the lowest supplier...crime would continue...nothing would change. Along with that, the druggies would still perpetrate crime as they still can not hold a job, and must do what they got to do to fill an ever rising need.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Columbian drug lords (country whose main export is drugs) would not stop producing, and there is no way the US government would enter into trade agreement with them as a supplier of the "legalized taxed drug" trade as they are murderous thugs who have terrorized families in columbia for generations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like a great idea to the potheads to legalize it, and in fact they have gotten somewhat of a victory in California by having "pot stores" for "medical purposes"...where the latest gimmick is you pay a doctor $50-$150 for a prescription for your "headaches" and off you go to the store to purchase your legal pot......got to love that crap....but then again, that is california where most of the population is made up of secular progressives who are bound and determined to take the country down with them. Be interesting to see how far that goes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm...do you work in "law enforcment"? Yes, I should imagine you have had some involvement with that area of government at least. But you seem to be underestimating the government's ability to control the market. In the UK (and I don't know much about the US), sometimes, very rarley, cigarettes are smuggled into the country to avoid the tax. But I know a lot of smokers who really shouldn't be able to afford cigarettes - I have never seen or heard of any of them looking for these illegal cigarettes. They all buy them from shops, where they don't have to worry about wether the filter is good, wether the cherry will drop off half way through, wether it has been blended with dirt or privet leaves, wether any of them contain impurities, wether the tar count is as is says on the packet etc etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I have to say one thing - the reason that smuggling like that takes place very rarley is because it is uneconomical. The people shipping the illegal cigarettes demand a lot to do it because of the risks involved. This occurs with drugs. If all drugs were produced within the company laboratries and green houses that sold them, they were packaged and sold legaly through legal outlets, there would be no "risk compensation" as dealers and shippers expect. Because the shops could do it with no risk of litegation they would be alot cheaper. Cokain, cannabis, ecstacy, MDMA and heroin are actualy remarkably cheap to produce. Then why does and heavily cut gram of cokain (50-70% of actual cokain to 50-30% sugar/flour/rat poison) cost around 45 pounds (according to my friends)? Because of the risks involved. MDMA can be synthesised easily and cheaply in someone's house, if they have a chemistry degree and the right equipment - we know this because some people do it - and yet the pills cost 2-5 pounds each 9usualy cut to contain only 5-15% MDMA), and a gram of pure powder costs 45 pounds. Because it's illegal. We could produce amazing strong ecstacy pills at about 10-20p each, manufacturing costs, I would guess. We could put tax on them so that at point of sale it would cost 2 pounds each per pill, maybe more. People would buy them because they wouldn't have to worry about the purity, they know they will be safer (a lot of people that I know who have taken drugs are absolutley paranoid about the things they cut it with), and, because they are pure, they would be alot stronger than the illegal pills currently on sale for 2 pounds each.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have said 80% of violent crime is related to drugs. Yes it is, because it is illegal. The drug lords and dealers fight for territory, and try to create monopolies in thier towns on a specific drug. A huge amount of that crime is because dealers are getting angry with pushers or thier own suppliers. Moreover, if it was taken out of the shadows, people could get support and help to quit alot more easily.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm...do you work in "law enforcment"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have said 80% of violent crime is related to drugs. Yes it is, because it is illegal. The drug lords and dealers fight for territory, and try to create monopolies in thier towns on a specific drug. A huge amount of that crime is because dealers are getting angry with pushers or thier own suppliers. Moreover, if it was taken out of the shadows, people could get support and help to quit alot more easily.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am a fully certified police officer in NorthEast Florida, where I work part time as a reserve officer with the Anti-drug task force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also have a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice, with a minor in criminology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I retire from the military, I will work full time in that capacity

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So it would entail that you support making prescription medicine available without a prescription, right? Why should you make it so easy to get things like LSD and not Lexapro and Xenical? Do you really think it's wise to allow people to take medication without the advice of a doctor? You can't have a one way street.

Speaking of Bill Hicks...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See, I think that drugs have done some good things for us, I really do. If you don't think drugs have done good things for us, then do me a favor, when you go home tonight, take all your albums, all your CDs, all your tapes and burn them. Because you know what? All the bands that made all that great music that has enhanced your lives over the years? Real [effing]' high on drugs. The Beatles were so high they even let Ringo sing a few songs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's probably a slight generalisation, but a good point nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, i'm not saying drugs are good, but they're not necessarily bad. There are lots of drugs out there, not just illegal ones, and I believe that they all have some place in society in one way or another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, i'm not denying that the illegal drugs trade is a terrible thing, it fuels so many problems in our society it's hard to know where to start. But as a teenager, i'm getting sick of being told about the evils of drugs. Because, the thing is, I look around society and I see smokers, and drinkers, doing it perfectly within the law, but still causing problems. Smoking, it's addictive, it kills more than most hard drugs but it's perfectly legal. Is there a multi-billion crime industry associated with cigarrettes? No, not to the extent of the illegal ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alchohol, it kills more than any other drug, yet it's something nearly everyone's drunk at some point in their life. Alchoholism can lead to so many problems, it's as serious as any drug addiction in my mind, it breaks up families, leads to depression and suicide yet the cause is legal. Because for every problematic alcoholic there are probably 20 perfectly sensible drinkers who enjoy a drink now and again, but don't let it control their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had experience with drugs myself, directly and indirectly, and I know that for every mentally disturbed weed smoker that's paraded around the headlines there are plenty more who are perfectly happy fuelling what's a rather expensive, and illegal habit, but's nonetheless harmless to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what society would be like if all drugs were legalised. I really don't, but I'm guessing that a lot of the crime and illegal trade associated with it would collapse if prices were regulated. Yes, you'll still get addicts, in the same way that you'll get gambling, smoking, drinking and food addicts, all doing just as much damage to themselves.

It's very dangerous , because people do very stupid and bad things while being high and there wouldn't be enough clinics for a huge number of addicts. Only some people now the right amount to take and the rest will get killed by the drugs.It's the same as with guns, a few people would use them right and the rest starts shooting other people without a reason.

Because for every problematic alcoholic there are probably 20 perfectly sensible drinkers who enjoy a drink now and again, but don't let it control their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think that's a fair comparison - having one drink has far less of an affect on you relative to having one .

 

Because for every problematic alcoholic there are probably 20 perfectly sensible drinkers who enjoy a drink now and again, but don't let it control their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think that's a fair comparison - having one drink has far less of an affect on you relative to having one .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although that's true, the greater effect doesn't necessarily mean that it's more dangerous if the effects themselves are made clear, and obviously doing things like driving is forbidden.

 

 

 

It's probably a slight generalisation, but a good point nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, i'm not saying drugs are good, but they're not necessarily bad. LK-really bad statement, and I respect your opinions usually. There are lots of drugs out there, not just illegal ones, and I believe that they all have some place in society in one way or another. LK-another bad statement...spend some time talking to druggies...really a sad thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had experience with drugs myself, directly and indirectly, LK-sorry to hear that, really I am, no sarcasm intended. and I know that for every mentally disturbed weed smoker that's paraded around the headlines there are plenty more who are perfectly happy fuelling what's a rather expensive, and illegal habit, but's nonetheless harmless to them. LK-harmless is a bit of a stretch...it only takes one "experience" to get a bad dose and be brain dead...or plain dead....you see these drugs are cut with all kinds of fun stuff, gasoline, bleach and others you really don't want to know...they are not made in supervised labs where the dose is standard each time...you might get a "hot" dose or a "low" dose, hot dose is undercut, low dose is overcut...hot dose generally fries you, if not fatal...it also depends on how YOUR body reacts to it, you might react negatively to a small dose, or might not react at all...you might get addicted on the first taste, or maybe the fifth...why even tiptoe down that road....it's like playing russian roulette with a loaded gun, eventually you get the cylinder with the surprise...BANG!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what society would be like if all drugs were legalised. I really don't, but I'm guessing that a lot of the crime and illegal trade associated with it would collapse if prices were regulated. Yes, you'll still get addicts, in the same way that you'll get gambling, smoking, drinking and food addicts, all doing just as much damage to themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nothing makes someone do things like drugs...especially heroin and crack...they will do ANYTHING....for a high, regulated or not, they can't hold a job, thus must do crime to get the money for the next rush....

LK, yeah I see your point. I'm going through those teenage years where you question everything around you and challenge society for the hell of it. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose my experience with drugs has been very tame and limited. I haven't lost any friends to drugs (thankfully) but I have seen some people at my school change completely because of weed of all things, that supposedly harmless drug. I guess we all just take the risks and hope we aren't the ones who they make documentaries about later. It's stupid, really. I think the general consensus though is that you don't touch solvents. I know a lot of teenagers do, but they really are incredibly dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do have parents who have jobs that mean they end up dealing with the effects of drug use though, they see the harder ends of it, they deal with the true addicts, and the true crime that results from it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I was trying to say though was that to say that all drugs are pure evil was a bit unfair. I tried to think about all the music that has been 'inspired' by drugs. But then, that's probably a bit like keeping an incredibly dangerous dog in the house with your children because a few people admire it when you take it out for a walk. I was speaking out of my [wagon] really pretending to know about hard drugs and their effects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few months ago I was all for doing everything we could as a society to remove drugs entirely, to prosecute people to the full extent of the law for drug use (however minor) and to get them off our streets. I've since realised that that would be an impossible task, the UK doesn't have anywhere near the resources. So, since the current situation isn't really working, I thought about the opposite extreme. Legalising all drugs but controlling their use to the full extent of the law. I don't know which is better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An interesting point to note however, is that in the 1920's America passed the Prohibition Act as you probably know. Not only did this lead to bootleg alchohol, but the rise of the speakeasies, the gangsters like Al Capone, the protection rackets and gang murders and control. When the prohibtion act was dropped in the '30's, the gangs largely disappeared. Whether or not this was due to the depression or the act I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drugs are in our society, whether we like it or not, and it will probably take more resources than we have to remove them from our society. But maybe if we tried to legislate drug use, we might not be able to control the addiction, but the organised crime might disappear. Just a thought, and a largely uneducated one on the matter.

LK, yeah I see your point. I'm going through those teenage years where you question everything around you and challenge society for the hell of it. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose my experience with drugs has been very tame and limited. I haven't lost any friends to drugs (thankfully) but I have seen some people at my school change completely because of weed of all things, that supposedly harmless drug. I guess we all just take the risks and hope we aren't the ones who they make documentaries about later. It's stupid, really. I think the general consensus though is that you don't touch solvents. I know a lot of teenagers do, but they really are incredibly dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do have parents who have jobs that mean they end up dealing with the effects of drug use though, they see the harder ends of it, they deal with the true addicts, and the true crime that results from it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I was trying to say though was that to say that all drugs are pure evil was a bit unfair. I tried to think about all the music that has been 'inspired' by drugs. But then, that's probably a bit like keeping an incredibly dangerous dog in the house with your children because a few people admire it when you take it out for a walk. I was speaking out of my [wagon] really pretending to know about hard drugs and their effects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few months ago I was all for doing everything we could as a society to remove drugs entirely, to prosecute people to the full extent of the law for drug use (however minor) and to get them off our streets. I've since realised that that would be an impossible task, the UK doesn't have anywhere near the resources. So, since the current situation isn't really working, I thought about the opposite extreme. Legalising all drugs but controlling their use to the full extent of the law. I don't know which is better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An interesting point to note however, is that in the 1920's America passed the Prohibition Act as you probably know. Not only did this lead to bootleg alchohol, but the rise of the speakeasies, the gangsters like Al Capone, the protection rackets and gang murders and control. When the prohibtion act was dropped in the '30's, the gangs largely disappeared. Whether or not this was due to the depression or the act I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drugs are in our society, whether we like it or not, and it will probably take more resources than we have to remove them from our society. But maybe if we tried to legislate drug use, we might not be able to control the addiction, but the organised crime might disappear. Just a thought, and a largely uneducated one on the matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well said and good on ya, it takes a real man to realize when he has overspoken himself, I have done it and learned from it, as I am sure many have. The sad ones are the ones you can prove wrong until the end of time and they stubbornly refuse to open up their minds and realize they were wrong, or at least concede a point or two. I come across a bit harshly because I feel very strongly about issues I have researched and learned about, or experienced...that and I don't sugar coat anything I say :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We can sit here all day and theorize what would or would not happen if drugs were legalized...we would never truly know until it happens, but I am not holding my breath...but then again, stranger things have happened, like "medical" marijuana stores popping up in droves in california..who would have thought, of course they are getting raided on a daily basis for filling out bogus prescriptions....I give them about a year or so and they will be permanently shutdown...but then again...this is America, and anything can happen, especially with the bleeding heart liberals having the controlling percentage of the Senate and Congress...time will tell I guess.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do know that alcohol abuse leads to liver and kidney problems...over a LONG period of time, drugs on the other hand are horribly addictive, and can cause a fatal reaction on the first does...or maybe it might take a few years....we have pictures at my sheriff's office that show the same 10 people over 4-5 years of arrest pictures...and they looked like they aged 30 years....common factor? drug abuse. drugs also lead people to do ANYTHING to get them, ad once they lose their job (inevitable) they resort to stealing, then it goes from there......

In an interesting note there was an article on the news about legal highs today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6466275.stm

 

 

 

 

It's probably a slight generalisation, but a good point nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, i'm not saying drugs are good, but they're not necessarily bad. LK-really bad statement, and I respect your opinions usually. There are lots of drugs out there, not just illegal ones, and I believe that they all have some place in society in one way or another. LK-another bad statement...spend some time talking to druggies...really a sad thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had experience with drugs myself, directly and indirectly, LK-sorry to hear that, really I am, no sarcasm intended. and I know that for every mentally disturbed weed smoker that's paraded around the headlines there are plenty more who are perfectly happy fuelling what's a rather expensive, and illegal habit, but's nonetheless harmless to them. LK-harmless is a bit of a stretch...it only takes one "experience" to get a bad dose and be brain dead...or plain dead....you see these drugs are cut with all kinds of fun stuff, gasoline, bleach and others you really don't want to know...they are not made in supervised labs where the dose is standard each time...you might get a "hot" dose or a "low" dose, hot dose is undercut, low dose is overcut...hot dose generally fries you, if not fatal...it also depends on how YOUR body reacts to it, you might react negatively to a small dose, or might not react at all...you might get addicted on the first taste, or maybe the fifth...why even tiptoe down that road....it's like playing russian roulette with a loaded gun, eventually you get the cylinder with the surprise...BANG!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what society would be like if all drugs were legalised. I really don't, but I'm guessing that a lot of the crime and illegal trade associated with it would collapse if prices were regulated. Yes, you'll still get addicts, in the same way that you'll get gambling, smoking, drinking and food addicts, all doing just as much damage to themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nothing makes someone do things like drugs...especially heroin and crack...they will do ANYTHING....for a high, regulated or not, they can't hold a job, thus must do crime to get the money for the next rush....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can't hold down a job? 50% of those earning over 200,000 pounds a year, in Britain, take cokain. In a covert survey conducted by an Italian news group, 1/4 of the italian parliament had cokain traces in thier body, and 50% had THC. There was a survey carried out last year on the tops of toilets of bars and public ares in Britain - the highest level of cokain was found in the house of commons toilets. Can't hold down a job eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I repeat, wether or not the drugs are harmfull to the individual is irellevant, so long as the individual is consious of the risks. The right to self-determination and individual liberty is the corner stone of the societies we live in. Leaglisation expands this liberty, and it is not the buisness of the state to prevent us from harming ourselves, that is the buisness of the individual - it is only up to the state to make sure the risks are publicised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to whether or not I am open to a change of mind - when I first heard this argument I agrued verciferously against it. I had done the DARE programme, I had read the news articles etc. But it occured to me that in my belief system there seemed to be an inherent contradiction - if I beleive that I should be able to do what I please, so long as it does not NECESSITAE harm on others (note NECESSITATE), then how can I logicaly argue against this on the grounds that it is harmful? Yet there seem apparent benefits from legalisation as well. It took me a while to reconcile my self to this view - it opened a window of possibilities which I had not percieved before - I had simply beleived that drug taking was wrong, almost that it was morally wrong, and an inherently bad act, akin to theft or murder. Yet I suddenly realised that this is not the case. The person who presented me with this argument was my father. I have wavered on it a few times scince then, changing my mind, buffered by the opinion in school debates and the sage advice of my teachers, but I still find it to be logicaly sound. I am in no way a zealot or a preacher on this particular issue, and I am very open to other opinions, so long as they are well thought out and logical - and counteract the points I have raised.

 

 

 

 

 

It's probably a slight generalisation, but a good point nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, i'm not saying drugs are good, but they're not necessarily bad. LK-really bad statement, and I respect your opinions usually. There are lots of drugs out there, not just illegal ones, and I believe that they all have some place in society in one way or another. LK-another bad statement...spend some time talking to druggies...really a sad thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had experience with drugs myself, directly and indirectly, LK-sorry to hear that, really I am, no sarcasm intended. and I know that for every mentally disturbed weed smoker that's paraded around the headlines there are plenty more who are perfectly happy fuelling what's a rather expensive, and illegal habit, but's nonetheless harmless to them. LK-harmless is a bit of a stretch...it only takes one "experience" to get a bad dose and be brain dead...or plain dead....you see these drugs are cut with all kinds of fun stuff, gasoline, bleach and others you really don't want to know...they are not made in supervised labs where the dose is standard each time...you might get a "hot" dose or a "low" dose, hot dose is undercut, low dose is overcut...hot dose generally fries you, if not fatal...it also depends on how YOUR body reacts to it, you might react negatively to a small dose, or might not react at all...you might get addicted on the first taste, or maybe the fifth...why even tiptoe down that road....it's like playing russian roulette with a loaded gun, eventually you get the cylinder with the surprise...BANG!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what society would be like if all drugs were legalised. I really don't, but I'm guessing that a lot of the crime and illegal trade associated with it would collapse if prices were regulated. Yes, you'll still get addicts, in the same way that you'll get gambling, smoking, drinking and food addicts, all doing just as much damage to themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nothing makes someone do things like drugs...especially heroin and crack...they will do ANYTHING....for a high, regulated or not, they can't hold a job, thus must do crime to get the money for the next rush....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can't hold down a job? 50% of those earning over 200,000 pounds a year, in Britain, take cokain. In a covert survey conducted by an Italian news group, 1/4 of the italian parliament had cokain traces in thier body, and 50% had THC. There was a survey carried out last year on the tops of toilets of bars and public ares in Britain - the highest level of cokain was found in the house of commons toilets. Can't hold down a job eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm thinking he was referring to dependant addicts on heavy drugs. Not everyone who takes drugs, even heavy drugs, is an addict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's probably a slight generalisation, but a good point nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, i'm not saying drugs are good, but they're not necessarily bad. LK-really bad statement, and I respect your opinions usually. There are lots of drugs out there, not just illegal ones, and I believe that they all have some place in society in one way or another. LK-another bad statement...spend some time talking to druggies...really a sad thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had experience with drugs myself, directly and indirectly, LK-sorry to hear that, really I am, no sarcasm intended. and I know that for every mentally disturbed weed smoker that's paraded around the headlines there are plenty more who are perfectly happy fuelling what's a rather expensive, and illegal habit, but's nonetheless harmless to them. LK-harmless is a bit of a stretch...it only takes one "experience" to get a bad dose and be brain dead...or plain dead....you see these drugs are cut with all kinds of fun stuff, gasoline, bleach and others you really don't want to know...they are not made in supervised labs where the dose is standard each time...you might get a "hot" dose or a "low" dose, hot dose is undercut, low dose is overcut...hot dose generally fries you, if not fatal...it also depends on how YOUR body reacts to it, you might react negatively to a small dose, or might not react at all...you might get addicted on the first taste, or maybe the fifth...why even tiptoe down that road....it's like playing russian roulette with a loaded gun, eventually you get the cylinder with the surprise...BANG!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what society would be like if all drugs were legalised. I really don't, but I'm guessing that a lot of the crime and illegal trade associated with it would collapse if prices were regulated. Yes, you'll still get addicts, in the same way that you'll get gambling, smoking, drinking and food addicts, all doing just as much damage to themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nothing makes someone do things like drugs...especially heroin and crack...they will do ANYTHING....for a high, regulated or not, they can't hold a job, thus must do crime to get the money for the next rush....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can't hold down a job? 50% of those earning over 200,000 pounds a year, in Britain, take cokain. In a covert survey conducted by an Italian news group, 1/4 of the italian parliament had cokain traces in thier body, and 50% had THC. There was a survey carried out last year on the tops of toilets of bars and public ares in Britain - the highest level of cokain was found in the house of commons toilets. Can't hold down a job eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm thinking he was referring to dependant addicts on heavy drugs. Not everyone who takes drugs, even heavy drugs, is an addict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coke remains in the blood stream for only 24 hours - so the fact that so many were found to have it in thier blood stream when tested suggests that they are regular users...or all of the tests were done after some huge party...which seems a trifle unlikley.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's probably a slight generalisation, but a good point nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, i'm not saying drugs are good, but they're not necessarily bad. LK-really bad statement, and I respect your opinions usually. There are lots of drugs out there, not just illegal ones, and I believe that they all have some place in society in one way or another. LK-another bad statement...spend some time talking to druggies...really a sad thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had experience with drugs myself, directly and indirectly, LK-sorry to hear that, really I am, no sarcasm intended. and I know that for every mentally disturbed weed smoker that's paraded around the headlines there are plenty more who are perfectly happy fuelling what's a rather expensive, and illegal habit, but's nonetheless harmless to them. LK-harmless is a bit of a stretch...it only takes one "experience" to get a bad dose and be brain dead...or plain dead....you see these drugs are cut with all kinds of fun stuff, gasoline, bleach and others you really don't want to know...they are not made in supervised labs where the dose is standard each time...you might get a "hot" dose or a "low" dose, hot dose is undercut, low dose is overcut...hot dose generally fries you, if not fatal...it also depends on how YOUR body reacts to it, you might react negatively to a small dose, or might not react at all...you might get addicted on the first taste, or maybe the fifth...why even tiptoe down that road....it's like playing russian roulette with a loaded gun, eventually you get the cylinder with the surprise...BANG!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what society would be like if all drugs were legalised. I really don't, but I'm guessing that a lot of the crime and illegal trade associated with it would collapse if prices were regulated. Yes, you'll still get addicts, in the same way that you'll get gambling, smoking, drinking and food addicts, all doing just as much damage to themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nothing makes someone do things like drugs...especially heroin and crack...they will do ANYTHING....for a high, regulated or not, they can't hold a job, thus must do crime to get the money for the next rush....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can't hold down a job? 50% of those earning over 200,000 pounds a year, in Britain, take cokain. In a covert survey conducted by an Italian news group, 1/4 of the italian parliament had cokain traces in thier body, and 50% had THC. There was a survey carried out last year on the tops of toilets of bars and public ares in Britain - the highest level of cokain was found in the house of commons toilets. Can't hold down a job eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm thinking he was referring to dependant addicts on heavy drugs. Not everyone who takes drugs, even heavy drugs, is an addict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coke remains in the blood stream for only 24 hours - so the fact that so many were found to have it in thier blood stream when tested suggests that they are regular users...or all of the tests were done after some huge party...which seems a trifle unlikley.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a difference between regular users and addicts.

 

 

 

And I repeat, wether or not the drugs are harmfull to the individual is irellevant, so long as the individual is consious of the risks. The right to self-determination and individual liberty is the corner stone of the societies we live in. Leaglisation expands this liberty, and it is not the buisness of the state to prevent us from harming ourselves, that is the buisness of the individual - it is only up to the state to make sure the risks are publicised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So why make such a big deal about legalising illicit drugs, when just as many people would like open access to pharmaceutical drugs. I see it as a double standard to use personal freedom as an excuse for legalising illicit drugs yet giving a blind eye to the restrictions imposed on pharmaceuticals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see it as a tough time convincing people that you shouldn't have to get a doctors advice before taking any medication, I don't see it as any different for any other drugs. Why should a doctor have to prescribe a drug with serious side effects such as psychosis, liver, kidney or lung damage, yet you propose to legalise illicit drugs with the exact same side effects.

 

 

 

Sometimes people need to restrict liberties in order to protect them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you reconcile your right to personal liberty and your right to being informed without restricting either liberty? If you need to inform someone before letting them take a drug, then it really isn't freedom.

 

 

 

 

And I repeat, wether or not the drugs are harmfull to the individual is irellevant, so long as the individual is consious of the risks. The right to self-determination and individual liberty is the corner stone of the societies we live in. Leaglisation expands this liberty, and it is not the buisness of the state to prevent us from harming ourselves, that is the buisness of the individual - it is only up to the state to make sure the risks are publicised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So why make such a big deal about legalising illicit drugs, when just as many people would like open access to pharmaceutical drugs. I see it as a double standard to use personal freedom as an excuse for legalising illicit drugs yet giving a blind eye to the restrictions imposed on pharmaceuticals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see it as a tough time convincing people that you shouldn't have to get a doctors advice before taking any medication, I don't see it as any different for any other drugs. Why should a doctor have to prescribe a drug with serious side effects such as psychosis, liver, kidney or lung damage, yet you propose to legalise illicit drugs with the exact same side effects.

 

 

 

Sometimes people need to restrict liberties in order to protect them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you reconcile your right to personal liberty and your right to being informed without restricting either liberty? If you need to inform someone before letting them take a drug, then it really isn't freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think I ever said that we shouldn't have a free supply of pharmacuticals...a concept which, as you point out, is naturaly cohesive with the one I presented. I do in fact agree with you - and I say that all pharmacuticals should be legalised for free distribution (i mean free as in liberal, not free as in terms of payment). There is another benefit raised by your post that I had not considered - but it would be possible for people to ask thier doctors, if all drugs were legal, as to wether the medication they are taking for something will have importunate synergistic effects with a recreational drug they try to take. It could increase awareness of the risks of synergism, and make the risks more publicaly available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to wether freedom is limited by risk information - it could equally be argued that risk information actualy increases freedom. In fact, there is a better argument - that to be able to make a free and rational descision about taking a drug, you should know as much about it as possible, or your descision will be neither free or logical. It also divorces the state from the problems incurred by drug use - we told you the facts, we made sure you knew them, you told us you knew them (when you signed the disclaimer), so you made an informed descison. All we can hope to do is inform your descison, but we can not think that we should forcefully impose our own descision. You are an adult, you must make your own choices in life. Freedom includes the consequences of your action. In a way you are free to perform an action, but you must also be free to accept those consequences. The only way to understand the consequences is by being adaquatley informed. I agree to a certain extent that true freedom would include the freedom to take a descision without knowing the consequences that must follow from it. But here we enter a mire of litigation - where people sue comapnies for not warning them of the risks. To avoid such a legal ruckus, the risks will have to be publicised. This is a pragmatic idea, not an idealogical one, and it is unfortuante that here, like in so many other areas, inevitably ideology can only function so far. You could try to turn that argument back on me - that the liberal ideaology cannot, pragmaticaly, include drugs too...but as I have demonstrated, I beleive it can.