FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


smoking should banned entirely in Australia





jennywong1991
Hi,everryone,I need write a article about smoking should banned entirely in Australia ,can anyone give me some informantion of it?PLease.Thx.
Hello_World
Sure. Okay. People will turn to crime because they can't get the drug they are addicted to...
standready
Your favorite search engine should have plenty of information.
ocalhoun
Hello_World wrote:
Sure. Okay. People will turn to crime because they can't get the drug they are addicted to...

Yep. Prohibitions -- especially prohibitions against addictive substances -- are great ways to boost the crime rate.
It's also one of the most effective ways to promote and fund organized crime.

So, really, no downsides... assuming your goal is to promote crime.
deanhills
jennywong1991 wrote:
Hi,everryone,I need write a article about smoking should banned entirely in Australia ,can anyone give me some informantion of it?PLease.Thx.
I'd take it from a health administration angle. Medical services and hospitalization have become prohibitively expensive. The use of tobacco has been proven to create serious chronic diseases. You could look up papers on that in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. You could also look around the Australian Government Public Health Websites for statistics on mortality rates due to tobacco use - if there are such research projects.
loremar
ocalhoun wrote:
Hello_World wrote:
Sure. Okay. People will turn to crime because they can't get the drug they are addicted to...

Yep. Prohibitions -- especially prohibitions against addictive substances -- are great ways to boost the crime rate.
It's also one of the most effective ways to promote and fund organized crime.

So, really, no downsides... assuming your goal is to promote crime.

I agree. Not only that law enforcement gets diverted to chasing black market hoodlums but gives more ways to corrupt law enforcement. More gangs, more violence, more chaos. And the underground tobacco industry will only get more profitable in the process. Legalizing it is the only way to control it.

But does this mean that prohibited drugs shouldn't be prohibited as well? Nope. Unlike alcohol and smoking, drugs just have overwhelming adverse effect to society. So weighing the consequences, the logical conclusion is to ban it.
Hello_World
Personally I would consider supporting legislation where the legal age increases very slowly until it is phased out. I think that would be a better plan. It might just work.

As it stands, I am already considering buying chop chop due to the prices. If they increase more, I think I will have to. Although I don't like it, as it is a lot stronger than what I smoke now.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
Personally I would consider supporting legislation where the legal age increases very slowly until it is phased out. I think that would be a better plan. It might just work.

As it stands, I am already considering buying chop chop due to the prices. If they increase more, I think I will have to. Although I don't like it, as it is a lot stronger than what I smoke now.
I thought the topic was already determined, i.e. complete cessation and help is being asked how to get materials to match this topic.

If it would be put to a debate, I would disagree with complete cessation. There should be legislation to protect those who do not smoke, but legislation to completely stop smoking would be against my personal freedom to make a choice and be the equivalent of dictating.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
Hello_World wrote:
Sure. Okay. People will turn to crime because they can't get the drug they are addicted to...

Yep. Prohibitions -- especially prohibitions against addictive substances -- are great ways to boost the crime rate.

Right. We should also keep rape legal, because otherwise there are going to be all these rapists becoming criminals! Surprised

(... I don't disagree with you, but it's a terrible argument.)
loremar
Nameless wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Hello_World wrote:
Sure. Okay. People will turn to crime because they can't get the drug they are addicted to...

Yep. Prohibitions -- especially prohibitions against addictive substances -- are great ways to boost the crime rate.

Right. We should also keep rape legal, because otherwise there are going to be all these rapists becoming criminals! Surprised

(... I don't disagree with you, but it's a terrible argument.)

No i don't think it is. It's exactly how things would happen when an addictive substance is prohibited. You just have to weigh the consequences. Which consequence is more detrimental, that of legalizing or that of banning it.

We can learn from history. When USA banned alcohol, the effects were very terrible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

If rape is illegal, sure prostitution, human trafficking, and slavery booms. But definitely legalizing rape is a lot more detrimental.
davidv
I agree with ocalhoun. Prohibiting someone from an addictive substance will greater the probability of them performing some criminal act. Banning smoking entirely is a stupid idea.

I live in Australia myself and I hate smokers. Especially stupid teenagers that do it because it's cool. There are smoking free zones in public areas such as trainstations, pubs, restaurants, bus stops etc. There doesn't need to be a complete ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans

A large majority of smokers understand that smoking is incredibly stupid but they can't help it.
rajpk
you can serch it in google yahoo aand bing. you will get lot of materiel. keeping in mind harms and disadvantages of smoking you can write article on it or from search material you can convert them to your own words
hopefully this will help you alot
thanks
Nameless
davidv wrote:
A large majority of smokers understand that smoking is incredibly stupid

Citation oh so dearly needed. No really; I would love to have that survey to wave in the faces of the smokers who refuse to publicly admit as much. Very Happy
davidv
Nameless wrote:
davidv wrote:
A large majority of smokers understand that smoking is incredibly stupid

Citation oh so dearly needed. No really; I would love to have that survey to wave in the faces of the smokers who refuse to publicly admit as much. Very Happy


I would like to rephrase. Razz

A large majority of smokers to whom I know. I know a fair amount of friends that smoke and whenever they do it around me, I call them out on it. Give them a little speech and they admit to being idiots. This is just based on personal experience.
jennywong1991
but why smoking should banned entirely in australia?Is it because many australian people die from smoking?I want more inforantion of it.Thx.
Bikerman
Nameless wrote:
davidv wrote:
A large majority of smokers understand that smoking is incredibly stupid

Citation oh so dearly needed. No really; I would love to have that survey to wave in the faces of the smokers who refuse to publicly admit as much. Very Happy

Well, it is difficult to generalise across the piece because different groups clearly have a different perception of the risk - at least that seems to be the message I'm getting from the literature.
(In the interests of transparency I should say that I am a 50yr old smoker with a good understanding of the risks who has no problem publicly admitting as much).
It seems that younger smokers understate the risks:
http://news.yahoo.com/fewer-people-see-heavy-smoking-high-risk-survey-084840413.html

Amongst the general population there is also a lot of misunderstanding:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/15/suppl_3/iii19.full

I know from talking to people (yes, I know - anecdotal, but I haven't got the time to do a full sweep of the literature) that many people, including some smokers, are under the misapprehension that nicotine is the 'danger' and don't understand the risks from the other active chemicals in the smoke far outweigh any tiny risks from nicotine itself.

I think the UK does a reasonable job at informing the public. Advertising is now almost a thing of the past (it is permitted in some specific contexts, but is largely illegal). Social attitudes have also hardened against the habit and many people are now quite happy to challenge smokers who 'infringe on their airspace'.
LostOverThere
As much as I dislike smoking, I find the idea of making it illegal very worrying in regards to civil liberties. Yes, smoking isn't healthy, but to ban it entirely is just wrong.

Likewise, I'd imagine already the reason so many teens smoke is because of it's appeal of it actually being "bad" - imagine if it were banned outright, and how teens would perceive it then!
funyug
It must be banned in whole world.
Hello_World
Why Australia? i don't know, I guess we are one of the countries who has been most proactive in trying to get rid of it... although you'd need to do research on that theory.

Quote:
I thought the topic was already determined


I guess.
Quote:

I would love to have that survey to wave in the faces of the smokers who refuse to publicly admit as much.


I think you'd be hard pressed to find an addict who thought their addiction was great...
Quote:

Is it because many australian people die from smoking?


I'm not sure that we die any more than other countries, I don't think that is it.
ocalhoun
loremar wrote:

But does this mean that prohibited drugs shouldn't be prohibited as well? Nope. Unlike alcohol and smoking, drugs just have overwhelming adverse effect to society. So weighing the consequences, the logical conclusion is to ban it.

I'm not sure you've fully weighed the consequences.
When you combine the effects of funding organized crime, the effects of the 'war on drugs', and the fact that the ban is ineffective*, I think that having legal drugs would do less damage to society than banning them does.

*Because people do drugs anyway, you lose most of the possible benefit from the ban, so now you get the negative consequences of the ban and the negative consequences of people doing drugs.
*Is it ineffective? I'd surely say so. Despite being totally banned -- and heavily enforced -- for decades, drug use is still very widespread. For a historical example, look to the alcohol prohibition in the United States: alcohol use actually increased during the period when it was banned.


Nameless wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Hello_World wrote:
Sure. Okay. People will turn to crime because they can't get the drug they are addicted to...

Yep. Prohibitions -- especially prohibitions against addictive substances -- are great ways to boost the crime rate.

Right. We should also keep rape legal, because otherwise there are going to be all these rapists becoming criminals! Surprised

A few differences here...
-Rape generally does not fund or promote organized crime
-Law enforcement efforts to stop rape haven't had the same toll on society
-Rape isn't quite as addictive as alcohol, drugs, or nicotine, so a rape ban might actually be pretty effective
-Rapists hurt others, while users of legal drugs (or cigarettes) mainly just hurt themselves
-Prisons aren't overcrowded because of rapists (they're overcrowded with drug users - last estimate I read said that about 50% of inmates were incarcerated for drug-related crimes)
Quote:

(... I don't disagree with you, but it's a terrible argument.)

Hardly.
Causing an increase in organized and unorganized crime is a predictable effect of banning any addictive drug. If you want to decide if a ban will benefit society, you need to take that into account.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Causing an increase in organized and unorganized crime is a predictable effect of banning any addictive drug. If you want to decide if a ban will benefit society, you need to take that into account.
I don't agree. Banning an addictive drug at least makes it difficult to get hold off. One would have to take a huge risk to get hold of it, and it would be expensive too.

I can't agree with rape not having a toll on society. Law enforcement is of a calibre that most women are put through a second rape of a kind when evidence is collected off them, and they have to be tested in a court of law. I also don't agree that rape is not addictive. Some people do get off on rape.

I also don't agree that users of drugs only hurt themselves. They hurt their families and society. The drug user is not aware of hurting anyone and couldn't care either way.

I also don't understand that the reason that there are so many drug related crimes is because of legislation. I have to agree with Nameless then that by the same argument if we don't prosecute murderers then the rate of murder will go down.
Hello_World
Quote:
I don't agree. Banning an addictive drug at least makes it difficult to get hold off. One would have to take a huge risk to get hold of it, and it would be expensive too.


Illegal tobacco is already widespread in Australia, known as chop chop. It exists because the government adds huge taxes to cigarettes, much higher than other things, to attempt to get people to quit. It is MUCH CHEAPER to buy tobacco illegally.

However, it would get a bit harder to get hold of I guess. It would move from dodgy newsagents and milk bars to your local drug dealer.

One would have to take a risk to get it. So what you are saying is that you wish normal people to become criminals. Thanks, I prefer not to be a criminal.
Quote:

I also don't agree that users of drugs only hurt themselves. They hurt their families and society. The drug user is not aware of hurting anyone and couldn't care either way.


The arguments for drug legalisation are about harm minimisation. Most of the 'hurts' of drug use actually have more to do with its illegal status than the addiction itself.

Given that drug addiction exists either way, benefits of legalisation include:
-addicts are not mixing with criminal class in order to buy their drug
-addicts are able to get clean needles reducing aids and hepatitis and other diseases
-addicts are able to get clean drugs without extra bad additives dealers may add to increase the value, and therefore overdoses are reduced (this is a major cause of overdose)
-drugs are taxed
-addicts would have easier access to counselling and other support
-addicts don't become further criminalised by spending time in prison with other criminals
-addicts aren't disadvantaged in getting a job by having a criminal record
-the enormous amount of money spent on jailing/charging/policing drug addicts can be both saved and/or moved to helping them get off/manage their lives better
-an addict who can maintain their lives better are less likely to steal and mug etc to get their drugs
-crime could focus on their 'bad' actions instead, so that stealing could be a crime, rather than just taking it, making a difference to addicts as they have the possibility of not going to jail if they avoid crime rather than going to jail just for existing.

I think it makes a lot of sense, I support this approach.

There is a major difference between rape and drug use. Rape is by nature a violence on others and drug use is not.

Lots of things hurt families. Drug use/addiction is awful. But lots of people hurt their families, should it be illegal to argue with your mother, for example? Should it be illegal to drop out of uni? To marry someone your family hates? To not call regularly?

Drug addicts affect their families much worse in the scenario of illegal drugs than legal drugs.

Back to cigarettes, so I am aware that smoking is bad, and my premature death would be awful to my family, illness would be a financial toll. But how does sending me to jail for taking an illegal drug (tobacco) help here?

overall, I think the government should legislate against people who interfere with other people. Murderers interfere. Rapists interfere. Muggers interfere.
Drug users who mug people interfere. Drug users who do not mug people do not. (By the same token, euthansia and gay marriage should be legal).

Why it should be banned? I'm sorry, I can't think of any convincing arguments.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I don't agree. Banning an addictive drug at least makes it difficult to get hold off. One would have to take a huge risk to get hold of it, and it would be expensive too.

You might succeed in making it more difficult to get hold of... but people still will get hold of it.
A ban may (or may not*) reduce the number of users... but at what cost?

*Again, reference alcohol prohibition in the US, where consumption actually increased during the ban.
Quote:

I can't agree with rape not having a toll on society. Law enforcement is of a calibre that most women are put through a second rape of a kind when evidence is collected off them, and they have to be tested in a court of law.

But law enforcement doesn't usually stage SWAT raids to capture suspected rapists, and rapists aren't overburdening the prison system or the court system.
Quote:
I also don't agree that rape is not addictive. Some people do get off on rape.

I didn't say it wasn't addictive. I said it was less addictive.
Quote:

I also don't agree that users of drugs only hurt themselves. They hurt their families and society. The drug user is not aware of hurting anyone and couldn't care either way.

Hence the word 'generally'.
Also, as already pointed out by Hello_World, many of the ways they hurt their families and society are not intrinsic to drug use, but more caused by drug use combined with drug ban.
... Which is more harmful to the family?
Situation A- Johnny gets hooked on drugs, starting a downward spiral until he finally gets sent to rehab... which helps, but he still struggles with it for the rest of his life.
Or...
Situation B- Johnny gets hooked on drugs, starting a downward spiral... then gets involved in a gang, gets arrested, spends some time in prison, goes right back to drug use and even more crime after getting out, goes to prison again, comes back home to mooch off of relatives because he's unemployable (due to convictions and drug use), SWAT team busts down family's door and maybe shoots the family dog because it barked at them, Johnny goes back to prison again... et cetera...
Quote:

I also don't understand that the reason that there are so many drug related crimes is because of legislation.

1- Forces addicts to associate with criminal elements in order to get a fix
2- Forces addicts to associate with criminal elements in prison
3- Allows organized crime to profit (and therefore expand) from the distribution and sale of illegal drugs
Quote:
I have to agree with Nameless then that by the same argument if we don't prosecute murderers then the rate of murder will go down.

Prosecute those who interfere with others, don't prosecute those who don't interfere with others.
It's that simple. And in the cases where drug use does interfere with others, prosecute the interference, not the drug use.
Bikerman
Quote:
Banning an addictive drug at least makes it difficult to get hold off. One would have to take a huge risk to get hold of it, and it would be expensive too.
No, in both cases.
I can get any number of drugs with little personal risk and very easily. MILLIONS of people in the UK take illegal drugs - if it were such a huge risk, and so difficult, this would not be possible. Banning a drug simply criminalises the drug-taker and thus steers them towards organised criminals who will step in to the market. Neither is there much evidence that banning a drug makes the price rocket.
An ounce of top grade skunk weed in the UK will cost you about the same as it does to buy in Amsterdam where there is no legal ban. The drug market is WAY too big to be severely impacted by the odd bust - even if it is a really big bust.
It gets worse though. The real criminal activity is at the top of the supplier network. Below that you tend to have people selling the drug to pay for their own consumption - this is certainly the case with weed, speed, coke and E.

So what the current idiotic 'war on drugs' actually does, apart from criminalising youngsters for smoking a weed, is create ideal conditions for drug barons to thrive. They have a guaranteed market, no legal competition and more money that God. The law enforcement agencies can do nothing about it, because the barons have enough resource to be quasi-governmental agencies all of their own.
Look at Afghanistan - they are growing more opium poppy under occupation than under the Taliban - the US/UK operations have actually increased the amount of high-grade heroin on the market - very significantly.

Quote:
I also don't agree that users of drugs only hurt themselves. They hurt their families and society. The drug user is not aware of hurting anyone and couldn't care either way.
This is such a huge generalisation it is effectively meaningless. Most drug users don'r hurt anyone. Millions of people pop an E and smoke a weed on a regular basis. There are a tiny number of serious illnesses and deaths (from other causes, not the actual drug in all the cases I know of). Compare that to deaths directly caused by alcohol and it doesn't even register. There is plenty of research on this - and it shows pretty conclusively that cannabis smokers rarely hurt themselves OR others. The only hurt to society results from the attempt to enforce the unenforcable, not the actual offence.
Quote:
I also don't understand that the reason that there are so many drug related crimes is because of legislation. I have to agree with Nameless then that by the same argument if we don't prosecute murderers then the rate of murder will go down.
Huh? What sort of logic is that?
Most people do not want to kill people. Many people DO want to take drugs. The murder rate is actually not likely to be much affected by prosecution rates (or punishment, come to that). Murder tends to be committed by family members in moments of extreme stress - they will not be considering the possibility of being caught or punished because they are WELL past that stage of rationality.
Survey after survey shows no link between capital punishment and murder, so if threatening to KILL a person does not deter them, no sort of punative approach is likely to do much good.
This is entirely a distraction from the point, however, since drug takers have little in common with murderers as a group and I really doubt any useful comparisons can be made.

If you do not understand that criminilising people actually causes more crime then think of it like this:
You are a pretty reasonable 18 yr old student. You get busted for sharing a joint at a bus-stop with mates. You are taken into the station and issued with a caution. You have never been in a policestation before. Now, YOU seem to think that this will shock our youth and he will learn his lesson but the evidence says otherwise. The evidence says that our youth will see that the policestation is not nearly as bad as he imagined, and that the deterrent is actually reduced - just like taking some drugs increases your tolerance so you can take more.
The cost of the drug, and the necessity to buy it illegally (which makes it very likely that the drug will be adulterated - often with dangerous compounds) means that the user will tend to commit petty crime to pay for the drug. His dealer (being a small time criminal) will often be the one to introduce him (and I say him because this mostly affects young males) to a way to pay for his drugs. It will start with him running a bit of weed occasionally, but will often lead to buglary, car theft, and other 'second-rung' offences, on the road to along and expensive career in the criminal justice system.
loremar
Bikerman wrote:
Most drug users don'r hurt anyone.

Really???? I have to see the research on this.

I'm always on the impression that most drug users are violent and actually hurt people and that use of drugs increase rape, murder, theft, suicide, etc.

I have no clue that I am this ignorant. Confused

But even if drug users aren't violent, people who use it are at higher risk of getting addicted and cause mental health problems compared to those who drink and smoke, right? So the question is, is banning drug use cause more detrimental effect in society than legalizing it?
ocalhoun wrote:
*Because people do drugs anyway, you lose most of the possible benefit from the ban, so now you get the negative consequences of the ban and the negative consequences of people doing drugs.

You do have a point but criminalizing drug use seems to have some stigma effect against it, thus preventing some people from using it and get exposed to its risks. Maybe we can legalize it and have antidrug-campaign but is it really that simple?
Quote:
Rape generally does not fund or promote organized crime

But legalizing rape would weaken sex industry - prostitution, human trafficking, and sexual slavery.
Quote:
-Rapists hurt others, while users of legal drugs (or cigarettes) mainly just hurt themselves

I agree that hurting others should be banned but people hurting themselves isn't something that we should not be concerned of. Smoking and drinking does seem to have minimal effect on health compared to drug use, so it is tolerable. Or am I just so ignorant that I'm exaggerating the effects of drugs?

There are some cases that smoking or drinking does hurt other people or at least cause disturbance. Which is why I agree with banning smoking in public and banning people who have guns from drinking alcohol or drinking while driving.

Now at this point I am no longer sure if drug use should be banned. It seems it is more complicated than what I use to think.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Banning an addictive drug at least makes it difficult to get hold off. One would have to take a huge risk to get hold of it, and it would be expensive too.
No, in both cases.
I can get any number of drugs with little personal risk and very easily.
Not everyone lives in the UK however, do they? And not everyone has your connections either. I would not know where to begin. Think the closest I've ever been to drugs has been marijuana. I did not take any as I don't smoke, but my friends did, and one had a severe reaction to it to the extent that he had to be hospitalized. That completely put me off drugs. I also learned a lesson from it. Not all people deal well with drugs and whether you want to think that or not, there is a good reason why there are medical doctors to prescribe drugs, instead of people taking them indiscriminately.

Bikerman wrote:
MILLIONS of people in the UK take illegal drugs - if it were such a huge risk, and so difficult, this would not be possible. Banning a drug simply criminalises the drug-taker and thus steers them towards organised criminals who will step in to the market. Neither is there much evidence that banning a drug makes the price rocket.
Aha, always wondered what was going on there. OK now we know, in a country of just over the 60 million people MILLIONS are illegal drug users. Poor Cameron .... he has his job cut out for him.

Bikerman wrote:
Huh? What sort of logic is that?
Most people do not want to kill people. Many people DO want to take drugs. The murder rate is actually not likely to be much affected by prosecution rates (or punishment, come to that). Murder tends to be committed by family members in moments of extreme stress - they will not be considering the possibility of being caught or punished because they are WELL past that stage of rationality.
I see, so if someone under the influence of drugs is behind a steering wheel, and just happens to kill someone, that does not really count? If someone under the influence of drugs rapes and kills someone, that does not really count? It has been proven that different people deal differently with drugs and alcohol. Some turn into violent human beings and in many cases with drugs they turn into completely desperate people in order to find the next fix.

There is also the indirect harm of young people pimping and doing prostitution in order to get hold of drugs and subjecting themselves to great harm that way, including HIV. The knock-on costs of trying to help these individuals apparently run in the billions in the UK. That does not count?

@Loremar. Completely agree with what you said.
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
Some turn into violent human beings and in many cases with drugs they turn into completely desperate people in order to find the next fix..


That is why they should be legal and easily available to addicts,so they don't do desperate things,muggings,breaking into houses,shoplifting etc (The last one is how a lot of junkies make their money).

deanhills wrote:

There is also the indirect harm of young people pimping and doing prostitution in order to get hold of drugs and subjecting themselves to great harm that way.


If they were legal they may never come into contact with the criminal element that leads them into prostitution,also lets face it,its only those on hard drugs that end up prostituting themselves to make money to get drugs,if they were legal and confirmed addicts perhaps doctors could even prescribe them free to addicts.

deanhills wrote:

including HIV. The knock-on costs of trying to help these individuals apparently run in the billions in the UK. That does not count?


Again for hard drugs if they were legal,they could be given free clean heroin and the likes,with free clean needles,no more need for dirty needles and the risk of HIV infection

Prohibition doesn't work,it only benefits the criminals who make a shit load of money,those who want to take drugs will take drugs,they will do it either legally or illegally,i would rather tax the soft drugs and make money for the Government,subsidise the hard drugs for heroin addicts,everyones happy expect the drug dealers.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Some turn into violent human beings and in many cases with drugs they turn into completely desperate people in order to find the next fix..


That is why they should be legal and easily available to addicts,so they don't do desperate things,muggings,breaking into houses,shoplifting etc (The last one is how a lot of junkies make their money).
You mean to say they won't do any crime when they are under the influence? They also won't do any harm to themselves and others? Everything will be great. And those guys who are making all the laws and implementing them are just plain idiots? No wonder you get kids who completely burn down neighbourhoods in the UK while the police are completely hamstrung and can only look on. The UK society is moving towards chaos and anarchy?

truespeed wrote:
deanhills wrote:

There is also the indirect harm of young people pimping and doing prostitution in order to get hold of drugs and subjecting themselves to great harm that way.


If they were legal they may never come into contact with the criminal element that leads them into prostitution,also lets face it,its only those on hard drugs that end up prostituting themselves to make money to get drugs,if they were legal and confirmed addicts perhaps doctors could even prescribe them free to addicts.
Who is going to pay for all of this? To keep a society intoxicated and under drugs? All a kid has to do when he goes to school is to go to a pharmacy of sorts and he can get some drugs free of charge. Then go back to the class room and be completely zonked out. I REALLY have to get my savings out of the UK. If this is how the prevailing attitude is, then I see a very bleak future for the UK.


truespeed wrote:
deanhills wrote:

including HIV. The knock-on costs of trying to help these individuals apparently run in the billions in the UK. That does not count?


Again for hard drugs if they were legal,they could be given free clean heroin and the likes,with free clean needles,no more need for dirty needles and the risk of HIV infection

Prohibition doesn't work,it only benefits the criminals who make a shit load of money,those who want to take drugs will take drugs,they will do it either legally or illegally,i would rather tax the soft drugs and make money for the Government,subsidise the hard drugs for heroin addicts,everyones happy expect the drug dealers.
I don't agree, when someone is under the influence of anything, they have no sense of responsibility - all inhibitions fly out of the window. There is no discrimination as to who people cohabit with and the behaviour they indulge in, including safe sex. Also of course people don't only commit crime to get their hands on drugs and if there are no inhibitions the sky's the limit as far as crime is concerned.
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
You mean to say they won't do any crime when they are under the influence?


No more so than alcohol,in fact with most drugs i would say less so than alcohol.
Do you drink dean? Do you object to that being legal? Go to any major city in the UK on a saturday night and all the problems the police have to deal with are drink related not drug related,do we ban drink again? After all it worked so well in America when they tried it.

deanhills wrote:

They also won't do any harm to themselves and others?


Why would they,you say yourself you don't have much experience of drugs and drugs users,if you did you wouldn't make a comment like that,agan i refer you back to alcohol,i would guess that particular drug is responsible for more acts of violence than any illegal one you could name.

deanhills wrote:

The UK society is moving towards chaos and anarchy?


No its not,no more than in any other country,we have problems but none of it is a direct result of drug intake.


deanhills wrote:

Who is going to pay for all of this? To keep a society intoxicated and under drugs?


Its not paying for a whole society,its paying for registered drug addicts of who are a small minority and who already recieve help and heroin substitutes legally.


deanhills wrote:

All a kid has to do when he goes to school is to go to a pharmacy of sorts and he can get some drugs free of charge. Then go back to the class room and be completely zonked out.



That wouldn't happen,because that would be for registered addicts and hard drugs only,as for soft drugs they could get them if they were freely available to purchase,but being under 18 they would have to get someone of age to get them for them,just like they do with alcohol now,the kid who wants to take soft drugs will find a way of getting them whether they are legal or illegal,wouldn't you rather they were purchased from a legal establishment rather than s shady drug dealer?

deanhills wrote:

I REALLY have to get my savings out of the UK. If this is how the prevailing attitude is, then I see a very bleak future for the UK.


I doubt they will be come legal in the short term,but i think the overall attitude from people in general is that they should be legalized,the politicians however won't touch it,not yet anyway,one day hopefully.

deanhills wrote:

I don't agree, when someone is under the influence of anything, they have no sense of responsibility - all inhibitions fly out of the window. There is no discrimination as to who people cohabit with and the behaviour they indulge in, including safe sex. Also of course people don't only commit crime to get their hands on drugs and if there are no inhibitions the sky's the limit as far as crime is concerned.


Drugs affect a person,different drugs affect people in different ways,one of those ways is rarely to make a person violent,in such cases where this happens as with alcohol its not the drug doing it its the person using the drug/alcohol as an excuse for their behaviour.
loremar
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/collin-e.htm wrote:

TABLE 2
MAIN EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF CERTAIN ILLEGAL DRUGS


Marijuana

Marijuana is generally associated with a reduced desire to use violence.

Heroin

Like marijuana, heroin generally has the effect of lowering the desire to use violence. In some cases, however, it appears that disturbed or impulsive behaviours may occur during a period of withdrawal.

Cocaine

Cocaine’s main property is that it stimulates the central nervous system. Cocaine abuse can cause paranoia, although that reaction appears to be infrequent among cocaine users as a whole. Some report that cocaine use can also cause irritability and anxiety in users, especially at the end of a period of intoxication.

PCP

PCP is recognized for its many properties (hallucinogenic, analgesic and anesthetic). Like cocaine, it stimulates the central nervous system. Empirical studies are particularly incomplete for this drug; however, PCP is second to alcohol as the drug most often associated with violence.

LSD

Like PCP, LSD is known for its hallucinogenic properties. It can therefore cause strange and violent behaviour.

Amphetamines

The main property of amphetamines is that, like cocaine, they stimulate the central nervous system. Amphetamine abuse can thus cause paranoia, irritability, anxiety and even toxic psychosis.

Sources: S. Brochu, “La violence et la drogue,” L’intervenant, Vol. 16, No. 3, April 2000; D.C. McBride, “Drugs and Violence,” in J. Inciardi, ed., The Drugs-Crime Connection, Sage Publications, 1981; N. Boyd, High Society. Legal and Illegal Drugs in Canada, Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1991.

From this research, it does seems that some illegal drugs doesn't necessarily cause violent behaviors except for LSD. Still if a person is not mentally well, how can you be sure he's not going to hurt anyone when he's no longer thinking straight? What would prevent him from doing violence. Alcohol may cause a person temporary insanity but drugs??

And I still don't agree that we just let other people hurt themselves deliberately. If it shouldn't be banned, at least we should do something against it.
Hello_World
Quote:
Not everyone lives in the UK however, do they? And not everyone has your connections either. I would not know where to begin.


because you have never tried. But I'll bet you do know someone you believe is likely to know how to get them... all you gotta do is ask...

Quote:
Aha, always wondered what was going on there. OK now we know, in a country of just over the 60 million people MILLIONS are illegal drug users. Poor Cameron .... he has his job cut out for him.

You do realise that the majority of people have tried marijuana, your friends included as you admit... however 'millions' as regular drug users is probably a bit of a stretch.

Quote:
I see, so if someone under the influence of drugs is behind a steering wheel, and just happens to kill someone, that does not really count? If someone under the influence of drugs rapes and kills someone, that does not really count?


No, you don't see. Just like alcohol, the legal drug, if you hit someone while drink driving you are up for jail time most likely. But not because you indulged in alcohol, but because you did the wrong thing with it. See, with legalised drugs, you can regulate. If someone under the influence of drugs rapes someone, they are guilty of rape. Not drug use, but rape.

Quote:
I'm always on the impression that most drug users are violent and actually hurt people and that use of drugs increase rape, murder, theft, suicide, etc.


Well, some drugs are worse than others. With marijuana for example, you are less likely to be violent than drinking alcohol. Acid, Exctasy, and various others are usually not violence inducing.

Ice, on the other hand, is a horrifying drug which does make people turn violent, so I am led to believe.

I guess an argument could be made for certain drugs to remain banned, such as ice, which directly causes violent behaviour, I guess in the hope that the ice addict turns to a 'better' legal drug.

Quote:
But even if drug users aren't violent, people who use it are at higher risk of getting addicted and cause mental health problems compared to those who drink and smoke, right?


Certainly, drugs are damaging to the person who uses them, in a serious way. Are they more addictive than alcohol and cigarettes? Not necessarily. People assume so, but I'd claim alcohol is more damaging than marijuana for a start.

Quote:
You do have a point but criminalizing drug use seems to have some stigma effect against it, thus preventing some people from using it and get exposed to its risks. Maybe we can legalize it and have antidrug-campaign but is it really that simple?


Well, no, it's not that simple but look at smoking. It has a stigma attached to it, and yes there are still young people who start but there are less smokers now than there used to be.

I guess the idea people talk about it in is that it is a health problem. If the stigma could be changed from criminal to a sickness...

Cause yeah, it wouldn't be good if everyone took it the way we drink alcohol...

Quote:
Which is why I agree with banning smoking in public


I support banning smoking in public indoors. I take no real issue with that. Outdoors is another matter.

Quote:
So the question is, is banning drug use cause more detrimental effect in society than legalizing it?


yes, this is a good way of putting it.

Quote:
And those guys who are making all the laws and implementing them are just plain idiots?

lol are you suggesting they aren't?
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
Not everyone lives in the UK however, do they? And not everyone has your connections either. I would not know where to begin.


because you have never tried. But I'll bet you do know someone you believe is likely to know how to get them... all you gotta do is ask...
I would not dare to ask anyone in the UAE. If I'm in the UK however looks as though I may be able to PM Bikerman or Truespeed, maybe also Watersoul. Very Happy However, most of the reason I won't be able to find access is of course because I don't believe in drugs unless administered under supervision. Last night there was a program by Dr. Oz of the United States on diet drugs. And a woman who had a reaction to a herbal medicine called Hoodia. To the extent that she now has bi-polar. Drugs are not to be trifled with. I also realize there are other addictive substances around that should also be treated with caution. Alcoholism and obesity also come from substance abuse. There are plenty of chemicals that are going into processed food resulting in food addiction over and above lifestyle considerations. I'd be all for tougher regulations to the food processing industry.

Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
Aha, always wondered what was going on there. OK now we know, in a country of just over the 60 million people MILLIONS are illegal drug users. Poor Cameron .... he has his job cut out for him.

You do realise that the majority of people have tried marijuana, your friends included as you admit... however 'millions' as regular drug users is probably a bit of a stretch.
Agreed on both counts. My instincts are anti-drugs. However not to the extent that I tell others not to use it. Closest I'd probably get is to let them know that there could be negative consequences, such as being allergic to certain chemicals.

Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
I see, so if someone under the influence of drugs is behind a steering wheel, and just happens to kill someone, that does not really count? If someone under the influence of drugs rapes and kills someone, that does not really count?


No, you don't see. Just like alcohol, the legal drug, if you hit someone while drink driving you are up for jail time most likely. But not because you indulged in alcohol, but because you did the wrong thing with it. See, with legalised drugs, you can regulate. If someone under the influence of drugs rapes someone, they are guilty of rape. Not drug use, but rape.
I don't agree. If you indulged in alcohol you don't have enough resistance to say "no" to driving. In fact you probably think you are the best driver that has ever been around. Ditto drugs. Once you've killed someone while under the influence, that person is dead, there is no recall, it is final. To me that is the equivalent of murder. But they would probably have a good case for having been in a disassociated state. You know, society does not really make sense to me at all. If you don't take drugs and kill someone, then you get the most serious sentence there is. But if you do take drugs, then you're OK.

Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
I'm always on the impression that most drug users are violent and actually hurt people and that use of drugs increase rape, murder, theft, suicide, etc.


Well, some drugs are worse than others. With marijuana for example, you are less likely to be violent than drinking alcohol. Acid, Exctasy, and various others are usually not violence inducing.

Ice, on the other hand, is a horrifying drug which does make people turn violent, so I am led to believe.

I guess an argument could be made for certain drugs to remain banned, such as ice, which directly causes violent behaviour, I guess in the hope that the ice addict turns to a 'better' legal drug.
Agreed. Again however. What about those who are allergic to chemicals? Like my friend who had been seriously ill? But yes, if we can compromise, marijuana seems to be OK for most, and I like the medical uses of it, particularly for people who are suffering from pain and don't have access, transportation or funds to see doctors and buy expensive prescription drugs that can be equally addictive.

Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
But even if drug users aren't violent, people who use it are at higher risk of getting addicted and cause mental health problems compared to those who drink and smoke, right?


Certainly, drugs are damaging to the person who uses them, in a serious way. Are they more addictive than alcohol and cigarettes? Not necessarily. People assume so, but I'd claim alcohol is more damaging than marijuana for a start.
I think this would depend on the drugs and the person's resistance to the chemicals in the drugs. As it would be with alcohol and cigarettes. Some drugs however are definitely far more hazardous from an addictive destructive point of view than alcohol and cigarettes. I'd say someone who is in the far stages of heroin addiction versus a tobacco addict would be quite different. Your tobacco addict would still be able to function OK, however your heroin addict would be totally absent from the world.
Hello_World
Quote:
I don't agree. If you indulged in alcohol you don't have enough resistance to say "no" to driving. In fact you probably think you are the best driver that has ever been around. Ditto drugs. Once you've killed someone while under the influence, that person is dead, there is no recall, it is final. To me that is the equivalent of murder. But they would probably have a good case for having been in a disassociated state. You know, society does not really make sense to me at all. If you don't take drugs and kill someone, then you get the most serious sentence there is. But if you do take drugs, then you're OK.


That is factually incorrect. If you kill someone whilst driving under the influence of alcohol you are considered cupable, and are likely to get jail time. It is in point of fact considered, not murder, but manslaughter, and considered serious.
In the scenario that drugs are legalised, I can't see any reason it would be considered different.

Quote:
What about those who are allergic to chemicals?

like people who are allergic to nuts?

Don't get me wrong. I am NOT advocating the use of drugs. Drugs are bad, on the whole, with medical use excepted.

I am suggesting to you that legalising drugs results in less harm to society.

Quote:
I would not dare to ask anyone in the UAE.... However, most of the reason I won't be able to find access is of course because I don't believe in drugs unless administered under supervision.

okay sure, I don't know about UAE. However, the point was that you could find drugs, not that you'd want to. That it is really not that hard to come by, despite its illegal status.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
That is factually incorrect. If you kill someone whilst driving under the influence of alcohol you are considered cupable, and are likely to get jail time. It is in point of fact considered, not murder, but manslaughter, and considered serious.
In the scenario that drugs are legalised, I can't see any reason it would be considered different.
Which fact was incorrect? Did I say someone who is under the influence of alcohol would be treated more leniently? Don't think so. I was trying to say that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, one would be in a state of diminished capacity to the extent that one would not even know one is putting one's life in danger as well as the lives of others. The way you had sketched it in your previous post it sounded as though someone who has had too much to drink or is under the influence of drugs, can make a sober decision as to their sobriety and not being OK to drive.

Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
What about those who are allergic to chemicals?

like people who are allergic to nuts?

Don't get me wrong. I am NOT advocating the use of drugs. Drugs are bad, on the whole, with medical use excepted.

I am suggesting to you that legalising drugs results in less harm to society.
I can't agree with this. Drugs would still be doing harm. Particularly to those who can't look after themselves.

Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
I would not dare to ask anyone in the UAE.... However, most of the reason I won't be able to find access is of course because I don't believe in drugs unless administered under supervision.

okay sure, I don't know about UAE. However, the point was that you could find drugs, not that you'd want to. That it is really not that hard to come by, despite its illegal status.
I don't think I would be able to find drugs, not legally anyway. The company I keep has never really been into drugs, as far as I know, so it probably would require me to find different kind of company in order to get to drugs. I don't see that happening. So I'm pretty happy in my drug-free environment.
Hello_World
Quote:
Which fact was incorrect? Did I say someone who is under the influence of alcohol would be treated more leniently? Don't think so. I was trying to say that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, one would be in a state of diminished capacity to the extent that one would not even know one is putting one's life in danger as well as the lives of others. The way you had sketched it in your previous post it sounded as though someone who has had too much to drink or is under the influence of drugs, can make a sober decision as to their sobriety and not being OK to drive.


Yeah, you are correct that inhibitions decrease and the risk of doing stupid things increases. I'll admit that I have tried a couple of drugs, many years previous, and the one most likely to get me doing stupid things was, by far, alcohol.

But you also said:
Quote:
But they would probably have a good case for having been in a disassociated state.


and in terms of legal defence, I was pointing to current legislation, wherein if an alcohol affected person does get behind the wheel and in doing so kills somebody, they are legally guilty of involunatry manslaughter, by reason of 'cupable driving'.

The law suggests that you should be able to make that desision about driving, at or least, the friends you keep should stop you from getting in the car. Yes, this has been a long and hard won campaign by the health and car accident people, but attitudes have changed, and people don't drink and drive, in general. You make arrangements before you go out. Drugs get tested for too, so I assume drug users would make similar arrangements.

As far as I know, alcohol doesn't reduce your cupability for other crimes either, although I may be wrong, but I haven't heard of anyone complaining about this, and I'm sure that it is the sort of thing people would complain about. Given that the law certainly assumes that you should be able to make a decision not to drive, I'm sure it would assign culpability to other crimes also.

Quote:
I don't think I would be able to find drugs, not legally anyway. The company I keep has never really been into drugs, as far as I know, so it probably would require me to find different kind of company in order to get to drugs. I don't see that happening. So I'm pretty happy in my drug-free environment.


Fine, you couldn't, because you refuse to. But if you were of an inclination to, you would be able, at least in Western countries.

Quote:
Quote:
I am suggesting to you that legalising drugs results in less harm to society.

I can't agree with this. Drugs would still be doing harm. Particularly to those who can't look after themselves.


Yes, there is still harm. I am not suggesting either that legalisation of drugs is a magic bullet that cures all drug evils. But there are many people out there doing drugs regardless of the laws, and harm caused by drugs is increased because of the legislation.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
Fine, you couldn't, because you refuse to. But if you were of an inclination to, you would be able, at least in Western countries.
Right, I could probably travel to the Netherlands. I don't know about calling it "refuse". I'm really not that interested period. Mention food however and you've got my undivided attention.
Very Happy
ocalhoun
loremar wrote:

And I still don't agree that we just let other people hurt themselves deliberately. If it shouldn't be banned, at least we should do something against it.

Ah, have we a true nanny-statist here?

Government initiatives to keep people from hurting themselves should be limited to informing them of the dangers, and then allowing them to make their own decisions.





loremar wrote:

I'm always on the impression that most drug users are violent and actually hurt people and that use of drugs increase rape, murder, theft, suicide, etc.

I have no clue that I am this ignorant. Confused

Somewhat out of ignorance, somewhat out of confusing correlation with causation.

While drug users and violent criminals are sections of society that are very often correlated with each other, that doesn't mean that the drug use is causing the violence.

It could be...
- Being a criminal already makes one more likely to do drugs (since fear of breaking the law is already removed)
- Legal drugs might not cause such problems (ie, the problems are not caused by the drugs, rather they are caused by the legislation against them)


Look at it this way... I'd wager you could find a strong correlation between people who use pornography and people who commit rape.
Does that mean that pornography should be banned in an effort to prevent rape?
Would such a ban be likely to have much effect on rape rates?


Quote:

Maybe we can legalize it and have antidrug-campaign but is it really that simple?

It is that simple, really.
If this was done, I'm sure some people would be astounded about the benefits to society... and even more astounded about the lack of harm to society.

Of course, it could be refined a bit more to provide maximum benefit...
Tax and regulate it, funding rehab programs and quality control enforcement.
Monitor and advise usage through a 'shall issue' prescription program.
Make rehab programs available -- but not mandatory* -- for any addict who ends up in the prison system.

*Mandatory drug rehab simply doesn't work. There's no program in the world that can get an addict to permanently quit if they don't want to quit.


Quote:

Smoking and drinking does seem to have minimal effect on health compared to drug use, so it is tolerable. Or am I just so ignorant that I'm exaggerating the effects of drugs?

Partly. Not all illegal drugs are as dangerous to your health as the anti-drug propaganda would have you believe. (And legal drugs aren't as dangerous as they would have you believe either)

Some are very dangerous to your health... others aren't, when used in moderation.
For some, like marijuana, the health risks are relatively low even when used in excess.
(Which is why I favor a 'shall issue*' prescription system, so that health experts can advise users of the particular risks of a drug, specific to that user's circumstances. It also allows exact dosages to be prescribed, helping to avoid overdoses. And, when users come back for a prescription renewal, the doctor can watch for signs of failing health, and point them out to the drug user, and offer rehab to avoid such harm.

*Meaning that the prescription will be given to any qualified user, not withheld solely on the doctor's prerogative, and allowing prescriptions for strictly recreational use, ie no medical necessity required.)
loremar
??? ??? ??? ??? Eh?

....


....


Uhm, why do I have this feeling that non drug users will become the new pariah in the future? Confused

A planet filled with doped people.... Amazing. Rolling Eyes
deanhills
loremar wrote:
??? ??? ??? ??? Eh?

....


....


Uhm, why do I have this feeling that non drug users will become the new pariah in the future? Confused

A planet filled with doped people.... Amazing. Rolling Eyes
Right, including MILLIONS of dope users in the UK. Although that is beginning to make sense now ..... he he ....
Twisted Evil
truespeed
loremar wrote:
??? ??? ??? ??? Eh?

....


....


Uhm, why do I have this feeling that non drug users will become the new pariah in the future? Confused

A planet filled with doped people.... Amazing. Rolling Eyes


The amount of people taking drugs is unlikely to increase just because they are legal.

If you want less people to take drugs,educate people about drugs,don't make them illegal and sweep the whole thing under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist.
loremar
truespeed wrote:
loremar wrote:
??? ??? ??? ??? Eh?

....


....


Uhm, why do I have this feeling that non drug users will become the new pariah in the future? Confused

A planet filled with doped people.... Amazing. Rolling Eyes


The amount of people taking drugs is unlikely to increase just because they are legal.

If you want less people to take drugs,educate people about drugs,don't make them illegal and sweep the whole thing under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist.

I did not say in my previous post that drugs shouldn't be legalized. I was saying that I have a feeling that there's a chance that people who won't use drugs might become the pariahs. As someone who does not drink, it even annoys me how people look at me as being unsociable because I don't drink. And now what? drugs? Why does these things even exist? If drugs get legalized, isn't there a way that people who use it just keep it to themselves?

On the second thought. If we punish people who hurt other people, how is that different from punishing people that sells things that hurt other people? Then someone might argue that people sell guns, should we punish them? The difference is people don't necessarily use guns unless it's necessary. We have always debated against people being irrational, what about against things that actually make people irrational? Then it leads us back to the argument against effects of prohibition.

For me it's too complicated and needs more research and debate for people to finally make conclusion about it. I think we have to find out first how drugs exactly affect people. Maybe some should be legalized and maybe some should be kept prohibited. At this point I'm still tentative about it.
deanhills
Excellent post Loremar. Agree with everything you say in it. I'd also like to know what legalizing drugs is really about? Does it mean that they then become prescription drugs? So junkies would have to find doctors who can prescribe the drugs to them, and then of course these would be made FREELY available to them? Courtesy of the NHS in the UK?

Who is going to pay for all of this?
loremar
deanhills wrote:
Excellent post Loremar. Agree with everything you say in it. I'd also like to know what legalizing drugs is really about? Does it mean that they then become prescription drugs? So junkies would have to find doctors who can prescribe the drugs to them, and then of course these would be made FREELY available to them? Courtesy of the NHS in the UK?

Who is going to pay for all of this?

Exactly.

While some people are suffering because they have nothing to eat, some people can't live without all these PLEASURES. Can't people be just thankful that they're able to survive? Instead of feeding people, where spending money to keep everyone's dopamine high up in the ceiling.

Or can somebody just invent a drug so that with only one dose people get so ultimatley mega hyper super doper high that they would want to die afterwards? In that way, they won't bother other people.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
I'd also like to know what legalizing drugs is really about? Does it mean that they then become prescription drugs? So junkies would have to find doctors who can prescribe the drugs to them, and then of course these would be made FREELY available to them? Courtesy of the NHS in the UK?

Who is going to pay for all of this?


Thats possibly a bit shortsighted about an industry which is worth billions around the world yet isn't taxed at all.
I would perhaps consider instead, what better use of the massive profits could we make to benefit our economies?
It could just be a simple decriminalisation with controls on product quality and warnings on the packaging etc.
Police resources could be diverted to other more serious things, and nations could also benefit from this extra taxation, instead of the criminal industry leaders who currently have a total monopoly.

Mood altering drugs such as Caffeine, Nicotine and Ethanol are all controlled to differing extents already. Warnings currently exist on high Caffeine product labels, plus age limits, or controls on places to use nicotine in smoke form, including 'no purchase while intoxicated' rules, as currently the case for Ethanol in the UK.
MDMA/Ecstasy, Cannabis, LSD, Amphetamine, Cocaine, Ketamine, Heroin and others would presumably have different regulations available for each depending on the potential risks to health.

If you did a bit of research you would know there are already legal/not yet criminalised drugs on sale in most advanced countries. Products freely on sale at stores in varying forms, such as pills or powders, but with bold warnings 'not for human consumption' or 'plant fertiliser'.
Use of the products will produce mood changing effects similar to many currently illegal options, but because their chemical formulae are slightly different to the prescribed definition in official legislation which states 'legal or illegal', they can be sold until the respective governments catch up with the producers.

Certain glues, butane gas or aerosols could be another example of legal 'drugs' available right now, plus nitrous oxide if it's intended use is not for inhalation (hmm, that must explain the number of balloons to be seen filled from little pressurised cannisters in nightclubs, music festivals and dance parties?), all being products which will get someone off their head quite quickly, easily and cheaply. Do we ban them or make it a crime for someone who uses them in a way that the product was not intended for?

The fact is that if an individual has no experience of any of this, or even shuns anyone bold enough to say that they recreationally used something to alter their mood for an altered sensory experience, then they must also advocate the banning of ethanol, caffeine, and with the OP in mind, even Nicotine.
Zuex
Talk about people's addiction, their addiction will cause a black market to be created where cigarettes will be imported illegally.

It would be impossible to impose a ban on smoking completely in any country.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
prescribe the drugs to them, and then of course these would be made FREELY available to them?

Who said anything about making it free?
There's no problem with requiring payment for drugs that aren't medically necessary.


loremar wrote:

On the second thought. If we punish people who hurt other people, how is that different from punishing people that sells things that hurt other people?

The difference is that the purchaser of these things can simply chose not to buy them (assuming that they are well informed).
The victims of people who hurt others directly don't get a choice in the matter.
cresvale
banned entirely? a little bit difficult.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
prescribe the drugs to them, and then of course these would be made FREELY available to them?

Who said anything about making it free?
There's no problem with requiring payment for drugs that aren't medically necessary.
Well then they would need to revert back to prostitution/crime to get the money for feeding their habits? The system would still be feeding crime.
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
So junkies would have to find doctors who can prescribe the drugs to them, and then of course these would be made FREELY available to them? Courtesy of the NHS in the UK?

Who is going to pay for all of this?


By junkies i assume we are both talking about Heroin addicts,well in the UK they are already proscribed Methadone,a heroin substitute,i would imagine producing a substitute through a drug company costs more than growing the real thing in a field.

Also imagine the amount of money saved by not having these addicts who have to steal to feed their habit going through the criminal justice system,police time and expenses,court costs,prison time and associated costs.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
Also imagine the amount of money saved by not having these addicts who have to steal to feed their habit going through the criminal justice system,police time and expenses,court costs,prison time and associated costs.
I thought they had to pay for the drugs (refer Ocalhoun's post), but probably in the UK everything is on the house? No wonder everyone is stoned there .... Laughing
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Also imagine the amount of money saved by not having these addicts who have to steal to feed their habit going through the criminal justice system,police time and expenses,court costs,prison time and associated costs.
I thought they had to pay for the drugs (refer Ocalhoun's post), but probably in the UK everything is on the house? No wonder everyone is stoned there .... Laughing


That was just Ocalhouns opinion,in my opinion for drugs like Heroin where the addicts are unable to work so are also unable to pay they should be given them free,it would save the economy more money than it costs.

In terms of cannabis it should be placed on the same level as alcohol,i don't see no reason why it couldn't be sold in off licenses,easy access for people would also stop people having to deal with drug dealers and perhaps limit the opportunity for people to come into contact with and take harder drugs.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Also imagine the amount of money saved by not having these addicts who have to steal to feed their habit going through the criminal justice system,police time and expenses,court costs,prison time and associated costs.
I thought they had to pay for the drugs (refer Ocalhoun's post), but probably in the UK everything is on the house? No wonder everyone is stoned there .... Laughing


That was just Ocalhouns opinion,in my opinion for drugs like Heroin where the addicts are unable to work so are also unable to pay they should be given them free,it would save the economy more money than it costs.

In terms of cannabis it should be placed on the same level as alcohol,i don't see no reason why it couldn't be sold in off licenses,easy access for people would also stop people having to deal with drug dealers and perhaps limit the opportunity for people to come into contact with and take harder drugs.
I like your idea about cannabis, have not thought about putting it on the same footing as alcohol, and that is a really great idea. Free drugs however may be a bit expensive, why not rather market Ocalhoun's suicide pill? Will probably reduce the number of stoned by a great percentage ..... Very Happy
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Also imagine the amount of money saved by not having these addicts who have to steal to feed their habit going through the criminal justice system,police time and expenses,court costs,prison time and associated costs.
I thought they had to pay for the drugs (refer Ocalhoun's post), but probably in the UK everything is on the house? No wonder everyone is stoned there .... Laughing


That was just Ocalhouns opinion,in my opinion for drugs like Heroin where the addicts are unable to work so are also unable to pay they should be given them free,it would save the economy more money than it costs.

In terms of cannabis it should be placed on the same level as alcohol,i don't see no reason why it couldn't be sold in off licenses,easy access for people would also stop people having to deal with drug dealers and perhaps limit the opportunity for people to come into contact with and take harder drugs.
I like your idea about cannabis, have not thought about putting it on the same footing as alcohol, and that is a really great idea. Free drugs however may be a bit expensive, why not rather market Ocalhoun's suicide pill? Will probably reduce the number of stoned by a great percentage ..... Very Happy


I am not saying all drugs will be free,just drugs like heroin,to addicts who would otherwise spend half their lives going through the court system in and out of prison costing the tax payer a fortune.

Cannabis should be sold and taxed,the profits from taxes alone would be huge,but each drug should be judged on its own merits in terms of how its distributed/sold.
loremar
Deanhills wrote:
I like your idea about cannabis, have not thought about putting it on the same footing as alcohol, and that is a really great idea. Free drugs however may be a bit expensive, why not rather market Ocalhoun's suicide pill? Will probably reduce the number of stoned by a great percentage .....

Hahaha. Dean that's a nice one lol. Very funny. That idea would save more starving people as well.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
I am not saying all drugs will be free,just drugs like heroin,to addicts who would otherwise spend half their lives going through the court system in and out of prison costing the tax payer a fortune.
So will this then mean you can only get heroin when you are an addict? I can't help but wonder at the proliferation of "addicts" when they know that they can get heroin for free. Sounds like fun .... hehe ...
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Well then they would need to revert back to prostitution/crime to get the money for feeding their habits? The system would still be feeding crime.


However, they would be at least a little less likely to turn to prostitution/crime to get money if they are not already criminals and not already associating with other criminals.

There is a psychological barrier between 'law abiding' and 'criminal' that most people are reluctant to cross... once it has been crossed though, it is much easier to cross a second time.
If you label drug users as criminals, then they are already across that barrier, and don't feel as restrained by it.

You also have the aspect of not forcing them to associate with criminals. I would guess that many thieving/prostituting drug addicts began such careers when they came to the dealer for their next fix without money, and begged for credit or one free time... When the dealer refuses that, though, he offers them alternative ways they could get money for it.
If they aren't associating with that already criminal element, they will be less likely to consider the possibility of other crimes to support their habit.


Look at cigarettes and alcohol... both legal drugs, both quite addictive... but do you see many people thieving or prostituting in order to buy them?




................


As for giving certain addicts drugs for free... I would only support that as a part of the rehab programs, in programs where a gradual reduction of dosage is deemed the best way to take an addict off the drug. (Or at least get them back to the state where they could use it responsibly and still function in society -- and therefore afford to buy their own.)
I don't think anybody should get free recreational drugs indefinitely however.
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
I am not saying all drugs will be free,just drugs like heroin,to addicts who would otherwise spend half their lives going through the court system in and out of prison costing the tax payer a fortune.
So will this then mean you can only get heroin when you are an addict? I can't help but wonder at the proliferation of "addicts" when they know that they can get heroin for free. Sounds like fun .... hehe ...


Yes,i would only make it available free to addicts,but you have to look into how people become heroin addicts,most people start out by smoking cannabis ,where do they get this from? drug dealers,who then offer them other drugs,what if they got their cannabis from a legal source,they would have no or little contact with harder drugs,so it would be less likely they would take it.

As for heroin being fun,i doubt anyone who has know an heroin addict would view it as fun,its not a fun drug.

I am not saying i have all this worked out as i doubt there is a perfect system,but people will take drugs,they always have they always will,tribes in the amazon jungle take drugs regularly,drugs are not going to go away just because you don't like them.
ankitdatashn
I don't know how much banning would help since people always tend to break rule, however first step should be ban smoking in public places and then maybe banning it completely,

Anyhow if I get across some article I will convey it here... Smile
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
I am not saying all drugs will be free,just drugs like heroin,to addicts who would otherwise spend half their lives going through the court system in and out of prison costing the tax payer a fortune.
So will this then mean you can only get heroin when you are an addict? I can't help but wonder at the proliferation of "addicts" when they know that they can get heroin for free. Sounds like fun .... hehe ...

Just trivialise the discussion with a silly line like that, plus the extra childish emoticon yeah?

If we had a people & society or sociological type forum I'd probably debate this at length with you, but it's in General Chat and you ignored my previous reply anyway, so I'll leave you to your imaginary perfect world where you can comment strongly on issues you have no experience of, while also deciding not to use any of the freely available data from studies of drug use and behaviour to support your views.

That's the tragedy of general chat sometimes I guess, shallow, ill informed, and liable to easy derailing by trolls.

...if anyone is absolutely against all recreational 'drugs' though, they have to be against the legal status of ethanol use as well, or their argument falls down badly.
It's curious how the world grape juice market is dwarfed by the recreational drug version, more commonly known as wine.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
That's the tragedy of general chat sometimes I guess, shallow, ill informed, and liable to easy derailing by trolls.
Well then I have a question for you. Why are you posting in the General Chat Forum? And why the attack? I'd have thought that your attack is much more descriptive of troll behaviour than what you have accused my behaviour of being. Really Watersoul, you've got the whole of the Phil&Rel Forum for yourself now, and by the looks of things the Faith Forum too. Why seek me out in the General Chat forum?

By the way the reference to millions in the UK using illegal drugs did not come from me.

Bikerman wrote:
I can get any number of drugs with little personal risk and very easily. MILLIONS of people in the UK take illegal drugs - if it were such a huge risk, and so difficult, this would not be possible.

The light hearted banter about it also was not started by me. The joking around started in another thread by a country man of yours (who has a great sense of humour) and then was continued here.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
Why seek me out in the General Chat forum?

Lol, that has honestly never been my mission on the forums, and I don't really know how to respond to the silly line about the phil/rel & faith forums Rolling Eyes
I shall continue to challenge anyones statement when I think they are ill informed though, especially if the subject matter interests me, or I have some personal/professional experience related to it.
[/off topic]

This thread actually ticks a few boxes for me, and when I see calls for the blanket criminalisation of recreational drug users (regardless of their behaviour to others in society) I certainly feel it is shortsighted and too simplistic a view, for the reasons mentioned in my previous replies.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
I shall continue to challenge anyones statement when I think they are ill informed though, especially if the subject matter interests me, or I have some personal/professional experience related to it.[/off topic]
Obviously not all of our posts will meet with your approval. However, we probably need to at least validate the effort of those people who have to work much harder to express themselves than you have to. Particularly in a Forum where the objective is post to host. I don't say we should molly cuddle people (some would probably take offense to that any way), but perhaps the challenging could be done in a nice way (refer how Ocalhoun does it). So that at least those who are making the effort with their posts would feel OK in their own space (validated as worthy human beings) instead of crowding and upsetting them and eventually create trolls out of them. I believe that our need to challenge should be superceded by a sense of community where we show appreciation for the efforts of others. Whether we agree with them or not or whether we think their efforts are mediocre or not.

watersoul wrote:
This thread actually ticks a few boxes for me, and when I see calls for the blanket criminalisation of recreational drug users (regardless of their behaviour to others in society) I certainly feel it is shortsighted and too simplistic a view, for the reasons mentioned in my previous replies.
Is there blanket criminalisation here? I don't think so. I think at the bottomline there should always be the safety and security of people, particularly people who cannot take care of themselves. I also don't believe it is helpful to solve a junkie problem by giving them free drugs. They definitely need to be looked after as they can't take care of themselves. Almost the equivalent of killing them slowly.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
Obviously not all of our posts will meet with your approval.

Or anyone elses for that matter, debate would be rather weak if they did.

deanhills wrote:
However, we probably need to at least validate the effort of those people who have to work much harder to express themselves than you have to.

No problem with that, writing style (punctuation, spelling etc) is less important than the content as long as I can understand the message.

deanhills wrote:
Particularly in a Forum where the objective is post to host. I don't say we should molly cuddle people (some would probably take offense to that any way), but perhaps the challenging could be done in a nice way (refer how Ocalhoun does it). So that at least those who are making the effort with their posts would feel OK in their own space (validated as worthy human beings) instead of crowding and upsetting them and eventually create trolls out of them.

Are you referring to me here or is this just a general sentiment of yours for forum harmony?
If 'crowding and upsetting' is what I would regard as simply disagreeing with someones point of view then I struggle to see how to avoid it in a forum designed for public debate.
As far as creating trolls goes, I would consider that anyone exhibiting trollish behaviour makes their own choices in life and any blame lies with the individual concerned, not other people with differing views in a reasoned debate.

deanhills wrote:
I believe that our need to challenge should be superceded by a sense of community where we show appreciation for the efforts of others. Whether we agree with them or not or whether we think their efforts are mediocre or not.

Appreciation for what effort? Taking a few minutes of their time to post personal opinions in a forum?
As I said, I consider the content not the writing style, if I disagree with the individual points then I will state why every time in the interests of debate. If someone does not want to be challenged then a blog post with replies turned off would appear to be a more appropriate avenue for their statements.

And again, we seem to be back to the same tired old discussion which derails threads by focussing on the style of debate instead of the subject at hand. Perhaps we should refer any further discussion about this to Reply to an off topic post instead? I'd say we're well off topic here now.

deanhills wrote:
I also don't believe it is helpful to solve a junkie problem by giving them free drugs. They definitely need to be looked after as they can't take care of themselves. Almost the equivalent of killing them slowly.

Apart from Heroin, I'd mostly agree with you there. But certainly in my country, it's the Heroin addicts who cause the most serious drug related problems, begging, stealing, prostitution, street dealing etc.
Without intensive support, most addicts so far down that road will slowly kill themselves anyway, only while doing so they will also cause damage to others in society. I would prefer a few more £'s of my taxes being used to save many thousands of £'s in street robbery, bag snatchers, burglary etc. Rehab is shockingly expensive, and so is prison, and while the UK is effectively financially broke, it's certainly the cheapest and simplest option at present.

Related article from The Lancet medical journal regarding Heroin prescription trials:
Quote:
Heroin addiction affects more than a quarter of a million people in the UK. For many, standard treatment with methadone—the synthetic opioid used to wean people off heroin— works well. But a small proportion of addicts do not respond to it; for them prescribed heroin is the only way to treat their addiction. In theory, heroin prescribing is legal in the UK. However, a combination of weak government guidelines, moral judgments on drug addiction, and a perceived lack of evidence has meant that whether or not an addict receives the appropriate treatment is somewhat of a lottery.

[...]

“Prohibition raises the price of heroin and cocaine to astronomical levels, which means people have to steal to support their dependency.” Because the market is effectively run “by organised criminals and unregulated dealers”, the quality of heroin that people buy on the street is hugely compromised. This “increases the transmission of bloodborne viruses through injecting—injecting would probably reduce if the quality improved because more people would smoke it instead”.

There's plenty of research already out there to back up common anecdotal evidence which anyone who has worked with addicts is aware of.
When one also considers police resources, legal costs, crime reduction and health/social issues such as needles discarded in parks or intimidating street begging, I can certainly see a case for free prescriptions for the most challenging addicts in our communities.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
Without intensive support, most addicts so far down that road will slowly kill themselves anyway, only while doing so they will also cause damage to others in society. I would prefer a few more £'s of my taxes being used to save many thousands of £'s in street robbery, bag snatchers, burglary etc. Rehab is shockingly expensive, and so is prison, and while the UK is effectively financially broke, it's certainly the cheapest and simplest option at present.
I thought I also mentioned intensive support. Maybe I don't have an understanding for what you mean by giving people heroin, as how I understood it is that by giving them the heroin "for free" that the understanding is that that would automatically keep them off the streets and out of trouble. Yet they would still remain addicts, be defenseless, some would still remain criminals in the hands of those pimps who are manipulating them, etc. etc. I think this perfect picture of giving them drugs legally and then everything will fall neatly into place, crime will drop etc. etc. is a fallacy. Definitely does not solve the problem either. And if their are millions who are taking illegal drugs in the UK, imagine the funding it is going to take to support millions of drug users! If they are only going to help the thousands of heroin addicts, what about all the other classes of illegal drugs - and I'm not including marijuana here.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
I thought I also mentioned intensive support.

Residential rehab is most successful in the longer term, but at £800 - £1500 per week it is quite expensive.

Dept of Work & Pensions (UK) wrote:
From the Home Office-funded National Prevalence Study, it was estimated that
there were 143,608 individuals in England using opiates (such as heroin) or crack
cocaine in the financial year 2005/06.
(These are formally classed as 'problematic drug users' PDU's, and the figures do not include N.Ireland, Scotland or Wales) research.dwp.gov.uk

Lets multiply the users by the cheapest rehab fees and you reach figures well above £100 million per week. Even non residential support work is expensive to fund, and unfortunately not very successful for long term problem drug users.

deanhills wrote:
Maybe I don't have an understanding for what you mean by giving people heroin, as how I understood it is that by giving them the heroin "for free" that the understanding is that that would automatically keep them off the streets and out of trouble. Yet they would still remain addicts, be defenseless, some would still remain criminals in the hands of those pimps who are manipulating them, etc. etc. I think this perfect picture of giving them drugs legally and then everything will fall neatly into place, crime will drop etc. etc. is a fallacy. Definitely does not solve the problem either.

You've previously stated in this thread that you have no direct or indirect experience of recreational or problematic drug users. Your views are therefore surprisingly strong when I also consider you neglect to point anyone in the direction of any of the many studies publicly available on drug use.

deanhills wrote:
And if their are millions who are taking illegal drugs in the UK, imagine the funding it is going to take to support millions of drug users! If they are only going to help the thousands of heroin addicts, what about all the other classes of illegal drugs - and I'm not including marijuana here.

Most other drugs cause a lot less damage to society than Heroin or Crack cocaine.
Government spending is always directed at reducing the greatest harm for the cheapest price, so looking at Ecstasy/MDMA as an example, when official estimates of million+ pills/grams of powder being consumed in UK clubland every weekend, yet a handful of people die each year, the cost to society is pretty small and worthy only of funding for awareness campaigns/education.
Why worry about the folk who recreationally use any particular substance if they get up for work every Monday and pay their taxes?

The issue about any drug, including 'socially acceptable' ethanol use, is less about the drug itself and more about the behaviour of the user.
A fully blown smack/crack head is desperate for money for the drug, and this desperation leads to the stealing/criminality to fund it. Remove the need for the money, supply the fix required by the user in a controlled medical environment, at a much cheaper wholesale price for the state, with a 'clean' product, it then offers a more attractive option for the user than scoring a deal from criminal scumbags who care little about their customers.

A link to a BBC news article after a pilot study with Heroin addicts:
Quote:
A scheme in which heroin is given to addicts in supervised clinics has led to big reductions in the use of street drugs and crime, the BBC has learned.

PILOT SCHEME FINDINGS
Three-quarters reduced use of street heroin
Offences down from 1,731 in 30 days to 547 in six months
Spending on drugs down from £300 to £50 a week

The story has further useful links to the various agencies involved, for anyone interested in facts instead of opinions, but to be fair, any reasonably deep research into this subject will show similar results - I guess ignorance of the subject and a refusal to differentiate between non problematic recreational drug use and damaging addiction is why many folk cannot see the changes in legislation which could be useful to reduce, if not solve, many of the problems.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
The issue about any drug, including 'socially acceptable' ethanol use, is less about the drug itself and more about the behaviour of the user.
A fully blown smack/crack head is desperate for money for the drug, and this desperation leads to the stealing/criminality to fund it. Remove the need for the money, supply the fix required by the user in a controlled medical environment, at a much cheaper wholesale price for the state, with a 'clean' product, it then offers a more attractive option for the user than scoring a deal from criminal scumbags who care little about their customers.
You can also look at it this way. Quite a number of people who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, have behaviour that turns into criminal regardless of how easy or difficult it would be for them to find the next fix. There is a chemical imbalance in the brain that affects their behaviour and they may turn wild when they are intoxicated. I'd say that would be pretty well documented everywhere.

So all that is happening with regard to these guys is that they now have a different supplier that they have to deal with. As I would imagine they would have to jump through at least a few bureaucratic hoops in order to get hold of those free drugs. Once they have the drugs, they will return to their gangs or their pimps etc. Unless authorities are going to provide them with housing and rehabilitation and completely separate them from their lifestyle prior to being given free drugs. I can't see how giving them free drugs would make a positive difference. A prostitute will return to her pimp and those who are doing crime in gangs will return to their gangs.

I think society should only help those who really want to be helped. That is Golden Condition #1 for anyone to be allowed into a Rehabilitation Program. And I'm sure this requirement must have been very thoroughly researched as well. Otherwise it won't have been around for as long as it has.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
I can't see how giving them free drugs would make a positive difference. A prostitute will return to her pimp and those who are doing crime in gangs will return to their gangs.

I've already quoted one study which showed positive results. If you disagree, then providing contradictory results from other controlled studies would perhaps be more useful than simply restating personal opinions.

deanhills wrote:
I think society should only help those who really want to be helped.

I'm more drawn to the idea that assistance/intervention should be carried out based on the potential benefits/prevention of harm to society, instead of being directly influenced by an individuals wish (or not) to continue with behaviour which damages others.

deanhills wrote:
That is Golden Condition #1 for anyone to be allowed into a Rehabilitation Program. And I'm sure this requirement must have been very thoroughly researched as well. Otherwise it won't have been around for as long as it has.

I'd be interested to learn about the research you are aware of relating to this 'Golden Condition #1' - especially if you have any reliable sources I could follow up? ...or is this just yet another unsubstatiated personal opinion?
Hello_World
Quote:
Once they have the drugs, they will return to their gangs or their pimps etc.

Quote:
Quite a number of people who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, have behaviour that turns into criminal regardless of how easy or difficult it would be for them to find the next fix.

Some well may, but here is the point:

The majority of the crime associated with drug users is crime in which they are trying to get their expensive fix. This particular set of crimes will stop.

Other crimes committed by drug users will still happen, just as they happen by people who don't use drugs.

But there is a serious encouragement to drug users to stop committing crime if it is legalised. Try to think from their point of view. If drugs is illegal, no matter what they do otherwise, they are criminals in the eyes of the law. So what if they steal something, this is just another crime they are committing. But if their habit itself is not a crime, then they have the ability to live without the constant threat of jail, they have an incentive to stop their criminal activities.

Of those who choose to continue to persue criminal activities, they will be hunted own by the police just like every other criminal who persues criminal activities.

Just like people who drink alcohol, not everyone suddenly wants to be criminals. If you smash a window while you are drunk, for example, then you are accountable for the window you smashed. There are people who get into fights and stuff when they are drunk. There are also people who are having a couple of beers while watching the footy, others sipping on wine before dinner and so on.

Quote:
I think this perfect picture of giving them drugs legally and then everything will fall neatly into place, crime will drop etc. etc. is a fallacy. Definitely does not solve the problem either.


It won't fall perfectly into place. It will go a long way towards mitigating the harm caused by drugs.

In Australia, one measure we are trialling is 'safe injecting rooms', we have them in 2 places I believe. In these rooms, police don't go or hang around the front, people go in with their drugs and are given clean needles and are supervised by a nurse who can respond if there is an overdose or share information about rehab programs.

This is good for the drug user, safer and it gets them off the street/alleys.

What is your opinion on safe injecting rooms deanhills?

I'm also interested in what Watersoul thinks about Ice?

Ice is becoming a big problem in Australia, it is a horrible drug and people get violent when they are on it. Hospitals in particular are having a terrible time with ice overdoses who come in and get violent with the doctors and nurses. I don't really know what type of drug it is.

The Ice problem is another good reason why there should be drug legalisation because it appears from news reports etc that the Ice problem has occured because there is a heroin shortage here so addicts have turned to something else. So, wow, the police have done such a good job catching the heroin imports that people have turned to something worse - just goes to show how illegal drug laws don't work.

What do you think about Ice addicts getting it legalised, I think no, it shouldn't be because in it's nature is a lot of violence.
watersoul
Hello_World wrote:
I'm also interested in what Watersoul thinks about Ice?

Ice is becoming a big problem in Australia, it is a horrible drug and people get violent when they are on it. Hospitals in particular are having a terrible time with ice overdoses who come in and get violent with the doctors and nurses. I don't really know what type of drug it is.

It's generic name is Methamphetamine, and although related to old school Amphetamine which has had a fairly stable 10-12% (each year) of 16-59 yr olds reporting prior use in the UK for the period 1996-2011, Meth/Ice use has been far less prevalent and reported as 1% or less of the same age group. (source homeoffice.gov.uk)

Hello_World wrote:
The Ice problem is another good reason why there should be drug legalisation because it appears from news reports etc that the Ice problem has occured because there is a heroin shortage here so addicts have turned to something else. So, wow, the police have done such a good job catching the heroin imports that people have turned to something worse - just goes to show how illegal drug laws don't work.

What do you think about Ice addicts getting it legalised, I think no, it shouldn't be because in it's nature is a lot of violence.

As it has so far been such a minor part of problem drug use in the UK, I will have to read a bit more to reach an informed opinion either way.
Heroin addicts have been the bulk of my professional and personal experience, and as a well established drug in this country there are many studies we can cite to establish its influence on users and the wider society.

As a gut reaction answer, I can confirm that I have personally experienced 'Meths' effect in tablet form (Yaba) in Thailand, some years ago, and as a sensible person who harmed no one else during what were enjoyable recreational drug induced states at beach parties, I would instinctively argue for the right to experience it again if I so wished.
Again, the behaviour of the substance user is the issue, not the substance itself.

If that were not the case then questions could be asked why alcohol is sold and taxed legally, when one considers the amount of weekend violence caused by people under its influence? (references to back up this statement can be provided if absolutely required by anyone, it's just late for me now though, so I'm not inspired to provide evidence for something quite obvious and simple to research for most rational folk)

If there is evidence to show that free prescriptions for problem users can reduce the overall harm to society, then I would be inclined to support that policy, whatever the drug. I would however, also support the wishes of non-problem recreational drug users to partake in whichever substance they would like to spend their hard earned wages on.

There are obviously (potentially taxpayer funded) health costs to consider as well, but need I mention junk foods, trans fats, and to go back to the OP, smoking?
mukesh
funyug wrote:
It must be banned in whole world.


I agree by this statement should to banned in whole world.
ratanegra
In my humble opinion, if you wanna die, go die, I don't care, so I wouldn't really agree with prohibiting anything except doing anything that could damage anyone else. Even suicide or eutanasia. If I wanna die, why would you try to avoid it? It's my life! The same with tobacco, drugs, etc.
ocalhoun
mukesh wrote:
funyug wrote:
It must be banned in whole world.


I agree by this statement should to banned in whole world.


You can't even let the smokers have one little country... maybe just their own island?


Let's make worldwide bans on junk food, sodas, and running with scissors while we're at it!
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Let's make worldwide bans on junk food, sodas, and running with scissors while we're at it!
Agreed. I'd go as far as saying that the latter, i.e. the junk we are consuming, must be much more dangerous to our health than smoking. If smoking is completed banned, there are a number of other things - in the interest of public health - that would be more harmful to health and should get priority first.
Radar
I think there are probably some legitimate concerns with the fallout effect from such a decision, but on the face of it, I'd be okay with it if such a thing happened.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Let's make worldwide bans on junk food, sodas, and running with scissors while we're at it!
Agreed. I'd go as far as saying that the latter, i.e. the junk we are consuming, must be much more dangerous to our health than smoking. If smoking is completed banned, there are a number of other things - in the interest of public health - that would be more harmful to health and should get priority first.


I was being sarcastic.

(By no means am I actually in favor of such bans -- not under any circumstances. Just bringing them up to highlight the absurdity of an absolute smoking ban by comparison.)
Hello_World
This is a more generalised problem that I am having with the way the world is going lately.

Soon everything will be banned. You can't eat fatty foods. You can't smoke. You must exercise for half an hour. You can't let your children climb trees or play on the roads. You can't choose to take your own life, you can't take risks. You can't do this, you must do that, blah, blah.

Unless of course you are not a person but a company, then by all means, suck up all our water, don't pay tax...

Well, I don't really want to live in this horrible world vision where every decision is micro-managed by the powers that be...

It sounds more like facism or the horrible world of 1984 than a free society to me.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
This is a more generalised problem that I am having with the way the world is going lately.

Soon everything will be banned. You can't eat fatty foods. You can't smoke. You must exercise for half an hour. You can't let your children climb trees or play on the roads. You can't choose to take your own life, you can't take risks. You can't do this, you must do that, blah, blah.
Well said and can't agree with you more. I just feel spontaneously anti these days when I see Governments campaigning for yet another rule - or the rule just gets foisted on you willy nilly in the interest of some or other cause that is in the public interest, whether for health, security, whatever.
Afaceinthematrix
loremar wrote:

But does this mean that prohibited drugs shouldn't be prohibited as well? Nope. Unlike alcohol and smoking, drugs just have overwhelming adverse effect to society. So weighing the consequences, the logical conclusion is to ban it.



Because marijuana and lsd cause so much harm to society!!!

I can assure you that I have never caused society any harm while using those drugs. Pot heads are harmless and keeping it illegal promotes tons of crime in the U.S. (mostly around Mexico). LSD is usually used at raves or other contained places and hardly drifts out into society... Shrooms are similar. Ectasy is similar... And cocaine and heroin are pretty bad but are consumed so little that if we just legalized it and made it cheap then the few crack heads could just afford their damn drug and quit breaking into cars.

Drug prohibition is a failure all around and it goes against what I feel is a basic right (that you own your own body and should be able to put whatever substance you want into your own body).
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Because marijuana and lsd cause so much harm to society!!!
In my experience some people can't deal well with marijuana. Like alcohol, different people have different responses. I've had friends growing completely aggressive and destructive when under the influence, both of alcohol and drugs. Legislation at least makes it more difficult for that small percentage of people who can't deal with it. However I'm beginning to sway towards the other end of things, i.e. when I'm in excruciating pain, and need anti-inflammatories badly, have to find a doctor and go through hours of unnecessary pain before I finally get a prescription. And the doctor hardly looks at me or asks any questions as he knows he is dealing with a responsible citizen. A waste of his time, of my time, suffering, cost of seeing him, etc. Like the majority paying heavy penalties for the minority who don't seem to be able to take care of themselves properly.
Related topics
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
CNN Banned from IRAN
Smoking age 'to rise to 18'
Postal 2
The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever
Ban on Smoking
Fanfics?
33 dead at Virginia Tech Shooting
Australia win the Cricket World Cup...again
English smoking ban.
Should Government impose ban on smoking in public?
Should texting and driving be legislated against?
How is this still possible - dolphins butchered for bait?
At stations, smoking gets costlier by the day
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.