THC4MS

Hello Captain_Chronic Long time on see 😉

Smoking joints and driving should be regulated as alcohol and driving is…you shouldn’t work/drive on either.

making harder drugs illegal doesn’t solve the problem, it just drives it underground which makes it harder to control, and the only people to profit from it are criminals…

Regulating the production of harder drugs would make them purer, removing a significant danger when someone buys drugs, i.e. impurity.

Regulating/taxing drugs would provide revenue to the government to deal with the social issues which often give rise to drug taking in the first place. It may increase the cost of the drugs..it may on the other hand decrease them as less people in the chain would be profiting…

Reducing the stigma surrounding drug taking may increase the number of people seeking help and actually reduce the number of people addicted in the long term…People addicted to “hard” drugs need treatment as much as people addicted to alcohol.

Drug taking is as ancient and prevalent in society as the consumption of alcohol…although the distinction is absurd, as all are drugs. Alcohol may actually be newer in the sense that it requires production and fermentation whereas one can get high by merely chewing cocoa leaves. In fact many illegal drugs are found growing naturally in nature. In the future people may well regard the “war on drugs” in the same way prohibition is regarded now…A failed policy that was a kneejerk reaction to a perceived problem, instigated by a over-paternalistic state.

In no way should drugs being legal mean that children should be brought up to think it is perfectly OK to stick a needle in their arm in order to get a high. Just as now it is taught that it is not wise to consume so much alcohol that one becomes an alcoholic, the dangers of drug abuse should be taught to all. legalising drugs and reducing the stigma surrounding them does not make them cool…It does, however, make them safer.

A mature approach to drug abuse is probably too much to ask in a nation of Daily Mail readers…But regulating/controlling the production of drugs would probably solve more problems than it creates. In fact we have the problems already, can anybody show me how the present system of prohibition has worked in any way, shape or form? It hasn’t…it has failed completely…drug taking has increased massively over the last 50 years…Legalise it, control it’s production and even let the government supply the harder drugs (for a price) in pharmacies for all I care…To registered consumers over the age of 18…It can’t be any worse a solution to the “solution” we have now.

Zigzag is making a lot of sense there – pretty much my feelings on the matter!

The idea that ‘harder’ drugs than alcohol or tobacco are somehow more in need of regulation is rediculous. You mentioned prohibition Hippy – why cant you see that the current state of affairs directly correlates to alcohol prohibition in the 20’s? If all drugs were legalised I am 100% certain certain things would happen..

1) Crime in this country would be dramatically reduced – have you any idea how much crime is directly drug related? Having safer/cheaper alternatives to the current shady underworld system at present MUST reduce crime!

2) There will be less heroin addicts in the country, and a lot fewer deaths. Just as under prohibition – when you make a certain substance illegal you increase the amount of people who become locked in a viscious cycle of addiction and risk of personal harm (There was more problems with alcoholism and alcohol related death during prohibition than after it for example.)

3) Society will improve in general. The government has no right to impinge on any personal freedoms. Ive seen respected surveys saying that more than 50% of the population of the UK have tried some form of illegal drug at least once! IF OVER 50% OF THE POPULATION DO SOMETHING IT SHOULDNT BE AGAINST THE LAW!!! Laws are meant to have been made by the people,for the people as far as I can work out.

The current view of drugs in the general population is a horrible case of brainwashing by vested interests and spineless governments – dont get sucked into the bullshit. I dont take drugs for personal reasons (same as I dont smoke and never will.) But ill be damned if someone can convince me that the next guy in the street shouldnt be able to decide that for himself as well!

@=XDC= MadHippy wrote:

@xdc the doc wrote:

You mentioned prohibition Hippy

No I didn’t!!

You have the wrong man!! Typical scots blaming an innocent engleeeesh man!!

😆 😆 8) 😉 😉 8) 😆 😆

😛 Lol you think protest your innocence all you want…. BURN HIM! 👿

(and the rest of you English feckers.)

Interestingly enough Cannabis use has only been illegal in the US since the 30s after a flurry of propaganda on the part of Harry Anslinger (who had just been made director of the newly formed Bureau of Narcotics and was trying to make a name for himself) and William Randolph Hearst (a newspaper magnate, who had huge investments in the timber industry and was facing competition from Hemp growers). The first anti-cannabis law was passed in the US after a single day of debate, and despite the American Medical Association being completely opposed to it.

Obviously this link is biased, it’s from a site called Drug War Rant…. but you can wiki the facts in the article, they’re pretty solid:

Linky

Prohibition was never enacted in Britain, so that argument is that all our current alcohol problems are due to that is entirely without substance.

A lot of crime is drug related, but what makes you think that will be reduced if hard drugs were legalised? Booze is legal, and if anything there is MORE crime related to that than to drugs. Popularising something will increase the associated problems because hard drugs are highly addictive. The body demands more, and people will try and fuel that demand in any way they can, whether legal or not. People steal for fag money already – just because they can be purchased over the counter does not change how people acquire the funds.

Legalising such drugs says society deems it acceptable to become dependent upon them. That’s what drugs do – make you dependent. The same is not true of alcholol – in itself it is not addictive. Most people who consume alcohol do not become addicted; most people to consume hard drugs do. Worse than that, for some drugs like heroin you need ever increasing doses to get the same “hit”.

I don’t see how legalising something and, by implication, easing access to it could result in less people trying it, and therefore a reduction in addicts. The opposite would be true.

Can someone explain how a small increase in tax revenue can possibly compensate for allowing more young people to become junkies?

Government has every right to impinge on personal freedoms if those can have a detrimental affect elsewhere. Owning a gun could be a “personal freedom”, but surely we don’t want them legalising here do we? Looking at child porn could be interpreted as “personal freedom”, but I sure as hell don’t want that legalising either.

I’m fairly agnostic on legalising of cannabis, to be honest – it’s a Class C drug that I don’t know too much about, other than it’s addictive qualities are pretty low (much lower than nicotine, I believe).

But legalising Class A drugs – pure and utter madness. And no, I don’t read the Daily Mail.

PS: Many drugs are legalised for medical purposes – even heroin.