Should drugs be legalised?

[Striker]

It's like the argument that use of cannabis leads to use of heroin. I.e. utter rubbish.

Of course it does to some degree. The question is whether that degree is significant enough to be a justification for the banning of cannabis.

Are you saying that when people experiment with drugs, the vast majority go straight onto heroin? Of course they don't. They will have tried cannabis. And when you're in that environment and that situation the availability of heroin becomes much more prominent.

 

[4SRKT]

Of course it does to some degree. The question is whether that degree is significant enough to be a justification for the banning of cannabis.

Are you saying that when people experiment with drugs, the vast majority go straight onto heroin? Of course they don't. They will have tried cannabis. And when you're in that environment and that situation the availability of heroin becomes much more prominent.

Of course most (all?) people who use heroin will also have used cannabis, but then all alcoholics that drink a bottle of vodka a day will have had the odd pint of lager as well. I'd say that the use of heroin is more linked to an addictive personality and not to anything to do with having tried cannabis.

Is this off thread then?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Of course most (all?) people who use heroin will also have used cannabis, but then all alcoholics that drink a bottle of vodka a day will have had the odd pint of lager as well. I'd say that the use of heroin is more linked to an addictive personality and not to anything to do with having tried cannabis.

Is this off thread then?

You may say it, but I would prefer to believe scientific studies.

 

[Zoe]

It could also be argued that people using tobacco will also be likely to try cannabis but tobacco is perfectly legal even though its harmful effects are well documented.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Tobacco is only legal now because of its history. You can be certain that if it was introduced now it would be outlawed.

 

[4SRKT]

You may say it, but I would prefer to believe scientific studies.

And what do these studies say? They wouldn't conveniently back up government rhetoric about the absurd and failed war on drugs would they?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

And what do these studies say? They wouldn't conveniently back up government rhetoric about the absurd and failed war on drugs would they?

Just because they may agree with the goverment's line doesn't mean they are any less valid. You can bury your head in the sand and say well, it supports the government so it must be wrong, or you can wake up and smell the coffee.

A few minutes of research lead to this:
ttp://www.physorg.com/news71419492.html

A study which was done in New York, so don't try and claim that the government paid them off :roll:

 

[chuckles1066]

It could also be argued that people using tobacco will also be likely to try cannabis but tobacco is perfectly legal even though its harmful effects are well documented.

Your fatal error is trying to introduce a moral issue into something involving a Government.

Tobacco brings in God knows how many billions in revenue to the Government and so it will remain legal, albeit with "deterrent" tax increases each budget, i.e let's fleece the average Brit who isn't bright enough to realise he/she is being fleeced.

I can guarantee that if the Government were advised that, say, legalising Ecstacy would generate £100 billion in revenue per year, you'd be able to buy it in Asda by 9.01 on Monday morning.

 

[wbbminerals]

This is very off topic but wouldn't legalising class a drugs cost more in healthcare than revenue anyway?

 

[chuckles1066]

This is very off topic but wouldn't legalising class a drugs cost more in healthcare than revenue anyway?

No.

Don't forget that every smoker who dies prematurely, for example, is one less state pension the Government has to pay.

It's a double whammy - your smoker pays shedloads in tobacco duty AND dies prematurely so instead of paying a state pension until he/she is 90, they only pay it until he/she is 70 - if the Government is lucky, the smoker will croak it before they've drawn a penny in pension.

You have not been charged for lesson 1 in UK politics - use the knowledge wisely

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Overall, yes, legalising drugs would cost more in healthcare.

chuckles1066 has been clever in his answer by only talking about tobacco (which is illegal anyway!) where the question was about class A drugs - some of which are far more potent and dangerous.

 

[chuckles1066]

Overall, yes, legalising drugs would cost more in healthcare.

Source please?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Source please?

So post your source that says it won't?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...the-drug-war-stimulate-economic-growth/35524/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I suggest you read this link, chuckles, about why drugs shouldn't be legalised:
http://www.gargaro.com/drugs.html

 

[chuckles1066]

So post your source that says it won't?

Can't prove a negative.

You made the claim - either back it up with proof or withdraw it

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Can't prove a negative.

You made the claim - either back it up with proof or withdraw it

I have. Now you back up your statement that says it won't. The "can't prove a negative" argument is usually one of someone who has made a statement and then finds out they can't back it up.

 

[yorkie]

-
I suggest you read this link, chuckles, about why drugs shouldn't be legalised:
http://www.gargaro.com/drugs.html

Hmm, I always thought you were very left-wing! That "article" is by one of those wacky American very right-wing "pro life" nutcases, therefore I will ignore it. I am surprised you are promoting it!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Hmm, I always thought you were very left-wing! That "article" is by one of those wacky American very right-wing "pro life" nutcases, therefore I will ignore it. I am surprised you are promoting it!

There are some things I disagree with. But hey, that's politics.

So you will be ignoring it because you disagree with it? Have you applied for a job with the Government?

 

[Striker]

Of course most (all?) people who use heroin will also have used cannabis, but then all alcoholics that drink a bottle of vodka a day will have had the odd pint of lager as well. I'd say that the use of heroin is more linked to an addictive personality and not to anything to do with having tried cannabis.

Is this off thread then?

A lot of people have addictive personalities. What they become addicted to is largely a case of environment. That's why the numbers of alcohol abusers is so large, as it's down to the availability of alcohol.

If you're in an environment where cannabis is used and available, it's not too difficult to come across heroin. Ergo, one makes it much more likely to lead to the other.

 

[yorkie]

So you will be ignoring it because you disagree with it? Have you applied for a job with the Government?

Give me balanced articles, not written by nutcases, and I'll read them. I am sure you can provide a better source?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Give me balanced articles, not written by nutcases, and I'll read them. I am sure you can provide a better source?

Yes, with more research. But at that time of posting I didn't have much time for it!

 

[4SRKT]

Mods note: This discussion is split from a topic about the false myth that coins placed on rails may derail a train.

I'd like to see the evidence for the amount of fatalities caused by children putting coins on the line. I'd also like to see the evidence of children then going on to putting larger items on the line later on in life, as someone on this topic has also mentioned.

It's like the argument that use of cannabis leads to use of heroin. I.e. utter rubbish.

 

[4SRKT]

If you're in an environment where cannabis is used and available, it's not too difficult to come across heroin. Ergo, one makes it much more likely to lead to the other.

That is, any environment AFAICS. Cannabis is everywhere you know, and most people who use it don't end up on heroin. My contention is that most heroin users would have ended up abusing something serious anyway (and IMHO the only reason heroin abuse is more 'serious' than alcohol is because heroin is illegal), and so you can't link cannabis use to heroin use.

Anyway, to answer the thread question (which I didn't pose BTW, despite appearances to the contrary), yes, I think all drugs should be legalised. Not because I think drugs are 'good' or 'fun', but because people are going to take them anyway so I'd rather it wasn't controlled by very unpleasant criminals.

 

[me123]

Tobacco is only legal now because of its history. You can be certain that if it was introduced now it would be outlawed.

That is correct. The same could easily be said for alcohol. Both drugs are only legal just now because use is widespread and

Don't forget that every smoker who dies prematurely, for example, is one less state pension the Government has to pay.

It's a double whammy - your smoker pays shedloads in tobacco duty AND dies prematurely so instead of paying a state pension until he/she is 90, they only pay it until he/she is 70 - if the Government is lucky, the smoker will croak it before they've drawn a penny in pension.

But it's not that simple! Smokers don't just fall dead 20-30 years younger. They tend to die with more chronic conditions, such as bronchial carcinoma and COPD. These conditions cost a lot to treat and have other implications too (such as the need for care). The NHS spends billions each and every year on treating smokers with these conditions. And, in reality, the costs of the therapy and support are probably going to be considerably greater than the cost of their state pension.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think all drugs should be legalised. Not because I think drugs are 'good' or 'fun', but because people are going to take them anyway so I'd rather it wasn't controlled by very unpleasant criminals.

It's a very naive view to assume that if they were made legal then all those nasty criminal disappear. Either you make it completely legal and they will still be there selling less and less safe drugs to make money, or you make it only sellable by pharmacies (who probably wouldn't want to ruin their family safe image) and they will still be there marketing the drugs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My contention is that most heroin users would have ended up abusing something serious anyway (and IMHO the only reason heroin abuse is more 'serious' than alcohol is because heroin is illegal), and so you can't link cannabis use to heroin use..

Are you a toxicologist specialising in the addiction to drugs? I bet not!

 

[mumrar]

So, assuming by the title saying 'drugs' are we talking all, rather than the convenient tobacco/cannabis comparisons going on?

If so, it's a resounding no. I'm not bothered about the dealers, underworld crime or tax generated. It takes a few years for people to kill themselves from harder drugs like heroine, cocaine and crystal meth.

Their health declines far more rapidly than any smokers, just look at the countless before/after shots that the media have produced. Users care about nothing other than their next hit, not their appearance, friends, anything. This is not the case with booze and fags.

Could you imagine seeing regular 'users' walking the street. It would be like a scene from 28 days later, or Call of Duty's Nazi Zombies.

 

[Geezertronic]

Cannabis or whatever variant it may be smells disgusting, people who use it smell disgusting, I hate it with a passion and if it was ever legalised it would be a travesty. Cigarette smoke may smell but it is nothing compared to the stench given out by this "wacky baccy" or whatever you want to call it.

 

[mumrar]

Another thing I'd meant to add to my post. Just because it is legalised, doesn't mean crime will go away. So it's use becomes less stigmatised, more people will try it, and when it gets addictive they will want more. People won't have bottomless pockets to fund their new 'legal highs' and because of the nature of the intensity of the craving/harshness of cold turkey, they will do anything to get more.

The only crime removed is the somewhat dubious activity from a lot of dealers. All other drug related crime (theft, mugging etc.) to feed the habit will remain.

 

[depablo]

Suppose you also have to consider how much Cannabis someone smokes. Heavy use does cause brain damage / Paranoia etc.

Kids are often removed from families due to risks from parents / partners. Not uncommon for children to live in squalor, starve and get abused (physically and mentally) by parents / extended family.

You purchase Cannabis from dealers and your peer group usually consists of other users, very easy to move on to more potent drugs.

Cannabis should continue to be banned and drug dealers locked up at every opportunity.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Weed does do less damage than alcohol, would be interesting to see it legalised.

 

[wintonian]

Suppose you also have to consider how much Cannabis someone smokes. Heavy use does cause brain damage / Paranoia etc.

Kids are often removed from families due to risks from parents / partners. Not uncommon for children to live in squalor, starve and get abused (physically and mentally) by parents / extended family.

You purchase Cannabis from dealers and your peer group usually consists of other users, very easy to move on to more potent drugs.

Cannabis should continue to be banned and drug dealers locked up at every opportunity.

I can tell you from experience that some users are quite capable of looking after children.

A lot of people who use cannabis for medical reasons do not socialise with stoners.

Are you inferring that people with MS for example who sometimes use cannabis for pain relief shouldn’t be able to look after children?