Full legalisation

[tom_bombadil]

I myself belive in full legalisation of all drugs because if we legalise all drugs we will be making homes in large citys safe from burgalars looking for money for drugs heroin addicts will have acsses to clean needles. Children who have taken say a family members drugs by mistake not knowing what they where would be taken to hospital quicker as the parents would be able not to fear the law because of their drug using. Also people who take drugs and want to give up could get help without being prosecuted. Before you ask i do not take drugs and no I never have but i strongly belive that we should legalise all drugs not only would it help the people in the nation feel safer in their homes but it would help our economy the tax we would recive on drugs would be mamoth yes addiction may go up but would we care no not really when we are safe in are homes and towns from desprate drug addicts stealing for money.

[Ciryaher]

Why don't we just make things simpler and lobotomize every human at birth?

Full legalization is a stupid idea. I don't want a bunch of idiotic druggies walking around the streets, deranged and likely to do anything.

One good side is that maybe the stupid part of the population would kill itself off from overuse....

[FREEDOM!]

I have to agree with Ciryaher (for once), i think full legalisation is a perfactly stupid idea!

[Ancalagon]

I have to say, I actually agree that there must a single approach to this issue. Gone are the days when a society could simply bury their head in the sand and ignore the issue. Neither is it safe to assume that 'druggies' are your average, poor, black/white/yellow trash, jacking up and overdosing. With children being targeted at schools by dealers, a club culture build around them, average earnings and disposable income increasing, accessability to them easier than it has ever been, something has to give.

Narcotics permeate every aspect of society. Every class is affected by them, every city and village is somehow touched by them. No matter how you look at it, your personal opinion, your point of view, they are here to stay and their use is increasing at a phenomenal rate.

There are 2 approaches to this issue.

1. Ban everything. Make it illegal in every country, with a multi-national taskforce designed to erradicate the problem from society. This would also mean a mass removal of benzodiazepines, opiates and other 'drugs-of-abuse' to be found in every Pharmacy across the world.

With a Pharmacy being robbed every 30mins in the UK, it seems reasonable to expect to remove the object of desire from the potential abuser.

alternatively

2. Legalise everything. Take the criminal element out of the equation. Tax and manage what is currently a multi-billion black economy. Remove the illegal trade in all narcotics by managing the sale of legal, quality-controlled drugs. Taxing the product will go to paying for the healthcare of abusers. A formal approach to tackling crime can be managed by ensuring all registered abusers are provided with a controlled, non-substitued product...eg. Methadone removed, heroin provided.

There are probably a 100 other reasons on either side of the debate, but the fact remains, a solution must be found. In my opinion, the 1st option (which is generally accepted as the current approach) is a complete failure. With drug abuse on the increase, and no possible way of controlling the product, the tax-payer is having to foot the bill for additional resources in policing, customs and excise, healthcare and long-term treatment. Due to the nature of the business, it currently means that no money from the illegal trade is finding its way to the organisations that actually tackle the problem.

Neither is part-legalisation an option. On a recent visit to Amsterdam, where a more liberal approach is taken to the smoking of cannabis, I realised that the city has become a magnet to dealers of every type of drug, openly flogging wares to passers-by. I am a liberal person, however I believe that it must be either all or nothing. A lax approach to one drug is simply an invitation to all, irrespective of the original flexible concept. To be accosted in the street, running the gauntlet in a train station, or simply approached in a bar by dealers offering cocaine, ecstacy and heroin, is not my idea of a managed drug policy.

I am strongly in favour of legalisation, for the simple reason that it can be controlled and criminal profiteering removed. It is not ideal, as the world would be better without them all, but as we live in the real world, we can say with absolute conviction that they will always be available. I know for a fact that I can make a phonecall this minute, and could have access to my drug of choice in less than 20mins. COnsidering I live in a society with an inordinate amount of policing, that is rather frightening. What is more frightening is the people with whom I would have to deal with to obtain this, moreover, where the money ends up and what it is actually paying for. How do you think terrorists fund their activities?

[Gloer]

That is a sure symptom of senile society and decline of culture.

[FREEDOM!]

It would destroy America, and every other country for that matter.

[Ciryaher]

The problem, Ancalagon, isn't the fact that there's no way to stop all these drugs. The problem is that drug laws are not equally enforced across the board.

You could make drugs completely illegal, but it wouldn't make a single bit of difference without strong and unbending laws. The wealthy and elite shouldn't be able to escape imprisonment (this has happened many times) for one thing. You have to enforce the law and exact a strong penalty upon *all* convicted of the crimes. Start ad campaigns that don't just tell you why not to do drugs, show the people. Let them see uncensored images of the effects of drugs; how they destroy the mind and body and what they can make you do to yourself and to others. Send out the message through every medium and bash it into anyone's head worth bashing into that these things *kill*.

A pot-head, heroin shooting, X popping society that is unrestrained would be the downfall of the rest of society. The problem would be widespread and out of control, and collapse would be inevitable.

[Ancalagon]

Isn't it a truly woeful conundrum?

Basically your damned if you do and damned if you don't. It does not take much scratching to discover the underbelly of society anymore, because it has managed to crawl up and into your neighbours house, maybe even your own. Trust me, depending on where you live, your eyes can open wider and attitude soften when you see the effects of criminal culture becoming the rule of law. When that is virtually funded by drugs leaving the police powerless, it tends to open your mind to new ways of tackling the problem. I do not doubt for a minute that legalisation would open the doors to new problems, then agfain, legalisation would not be a sudden, open shop policy. It would need to thought out, controlled and managed. It would need to be contained, desiginated areas in combination with advertising, health warnings and all the other legal paraphenalia that goes with any toxic product.

I am certain of one thing, I do not envisage a sudden huge influx of people simply starting to take drugs because they can. The truth is, it is easy to access now, almost an acceptable part of many groups within society, so why not take the step and remove the criminal element from the equation? Let's face it, a gun culture has arisen from it, territorial warfare, gangland shootings, burgulary, assault, trafficking, murder, club-culture and many other facets of society, controlled by gangsters and criminals. The fact is that prohibiting its use, has simply driven it underground and made it impossible to control. People still get it, die from it, enjoy it or whatever they want from it, but not a penny is accounted for.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
Neither is part-legalisation an option. On a recent visit to Amsterdam, where a more liberal approach is taken to the smoking of cannabis, I realised that the city has become a magnet to dealers of every type of drug, openly flogging wares to passers-by. I am a liberal person, however I believe that it must be either all or nothing. A lax approach to one drug is simply an invitation to all, irrespective of the original flexible concept. To be accosted in the street, running the gauntlet in a train station, or simply approached in a bar by dealers offering cocaine, ecstacy and heroin, is not my idea of a managed drug policy.


I have to correct this image a little. The liberal approach exists in the entire nation. Yet, the problem you describe exists mostly in the city-centre of Amsterdam. I'm pretty sure you were approached by dealers from time to time because you stood out as a tourist/foreign visitor. Indeed, many of the visitors in Amsterdam come to get their cannabis and something at the side, because none of this is possible in their own country. This demand is attracting many dealers. For the average dutch youngster, soft-drugs are something to experiment with (much like alcohol) and hard-drugs are for losers.
In most parts of the country, coffee-shops (the places were selling of small quantities of cannabis is allowed) do not attract any hard-drug activitiy, especially because those who tried early one, were actively pursued by the police. The illegal and hidden backdoor selling of soft-drugs has mostly vanished and is thereby seperated from the hard-drug business.

I disagree strongly to legalise any hard-drug, because of the clear physical and mental hazards, even when it's used in very small quantities. Open advertising and effective law enforcement (like stop pursueing people who smoke cannabis once in awhile), can go a long way.

[Arvedui]

The way I see it, there are at least two very good reasons why it should be legalized:
1) As Anc have already mentioned, producing, shipping and distributing drugs makes a lot of money. All that money goes to illegal activities, the worst beeing financing terrorist activities. It is just the same as happened in the USA in the twenties/thirties when alcohol was forbidden. I suppose the strength the Mafia buildt then, can still be felt in the US. Which links together with my second point:
2) Drugs cannot be un-invented! It is here. 'It wants to be found!' There is a market for it, and that market will probably always be there.
Information from various government authorities does not help. Noone can say anymore that they did not know drugs was dangerous. But still, new users are recruited daily.
A sort of UN-DEA? Could maybe work, but that would require the cooperation of every single country in the world. And also, that all those single countries had total control in every square mile of their territory. That would first require world peace.

I have also two good reasons why it should be banned into the Void:
1) I am a father of two kids.
2) Drugs, to me, are morally wrong!

Those are my emotional issues, and to me, they are hard to remove. But anyway, common sence tells me that the policy we execute today have failed miserably.

[Athelas]

Legalize: Marijuana

Legalize, with a prescription: LSD, MDMA, mushrooms

Ban: Tobacco

Instead of jail, rehab/detox for users of methamphetamines, crack, coke.

Harsher penalties and jailtime for drunk driving and for injury accidents while drunk. I have heard that in Sweden, your first DUI means a mandatory 5 year sentence and loss of license for life. We could learn from that.

[tom_bombadil]

I am sory I have to say this but you people who are anti legalisation are not seeing both sides of the story. As a matter of fact not everyone who takes drugs is an addict and not everyone who takes them is stupid. Some people who take drugs use them for personal enjoyment not because they are addicted. these people are perfectly honest people they do nothing wrong apart from break a law which is pointless and wates police time. Not only does the Drugs war waste police time but it causes massive corruption in the police force. Plus if we made drugs legal are economy would benifit massivly tobaco and alchool they bring in the most tax over 50% i am told so imagine what drugs would bring in we could litreally transform Britain and we could sort out basically all our problems

[Ciryaher]

I see both sides. If it were legalised, sure, you'd have a lot less crime.

Unfortunately, I think that anyone who has to use a drug to enhance their life (unless they are under great pain from some affliction) doesn't know how to live. They rely on some temporary high to make up for the fact that they don't know what to do with themselves.

On top of that, these things destroy minds. Not just actual destruction of brain cells and other organs, but also by removing our ability to think for ourselves.

I will never support the full legalization of drugs.

[FREEDOM!]

AMEN!

[faila]

I would say if you have alcohol you might as well make atleast maryjauna legal. But also make laws that if someone is caught killing someone under the influence he is killed, that would make people be alot safer.

[Ancalagon]

make atleast maryjauna legal

I wonder if 'Mary Juana' would have something to say on the matter herself?

:D

[Gloer]

any of those substances.

There are no benefits from them.

It is not always illegal to be stupid but sometimes it is neccessary.

[DGoeij]

I don't get it. Alcohol is a drug that causes serious brain damage when used in great quantities and it clearly makes a lot of people behave very agressive when used in small doses. Yet, these are the arguments used to explain why other drugs aren't supposed to be legalized.

Please explain.

[Athelas]

Originally posted by DGoeij
I don't get it. Alcohol is a drug that causes serious brain damage when used in great quantities and it clearly makes a lot of people behave very agressive when used in small doses. Yet, these are the arguments used to explain why other drugs aren't supposed to be legalized.

Please explain.

A similiar argument can be made against tobacco; but nicotine addicts will bust a gut to convince others that tobacco is not a drug. (They don't like to think of themselves as drug users or "chemical dependant.)

[FREEDOM!]

What drinking does is it makes your liver bad and your brain numb and it slows your reaction time. that is why it is illegal to drink and drive!

[Rogue666666]

Someone mentioned something about making harsh punishments for any who would behave aggresivly while intoxicated. That this would make people a lot safer.

Uhh, excuse me, but drugs, no matter who you are, DO NOT MAKE YOU A SAFER PERSON.

Besides, already parents have difficulty from keeping their children away from drugs, when they ARE illegal. Making them leagl would only serve one purpose: to make it easier for kids to get their hands on drugs. Even if it whas illegal say, below the age of 18, there would still be so any drugs flying around that it woudn't really matter. The whole next generation would be drag addicts. Do you have any idea of what that would do to civilization? Virtually anhhilate it.

And it is a rare child who, when everyone else is on drugs, would say, "NO! I'm not going to do it, its wrong!"

In a hundred years over 90% of our population would most likely be addicted.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
In a hundred years over 90% of our population would most likely be addicted.

After thousands of years of brewing beer and growing tobacco, 90% of the world is addicted to alcohol and smoking their lungs to pieces............. Oh wait. You just made a false statement.

[Gloer]

The argument you presented that alcohol and smoking are accepted and that is a prejudicative to accepting light drugs.
That argument stinks.

If one person kills a man, that doesn't make it right for the next man to kill him.

If one harmful substance is commonly used, it does not make it acceptable to use other harmful substances. In fact your argument should be turned arround:

We should gradually illegalise alcohol production with heavy taxation and moral scorn. That is already happening to smoking to everybodys satisfaction.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Gloer
We should gradually illegalise alcohol production with heavy taxation and moral scorn. That is already happening to smoking to everybodys satisfaction.

But you still have smokers, and I don't see how law could possibly prevent them to entirely stop smoking. Even when everybody is well aware of the dangers of smoking. I somehow remember something from US histroy that was called the 'prohibition'. Even if you try to ban alcohol a little more subtle than that, I don't see how it could possibly work out. Compared to smoking, you have to drink a lot more and at a regular basis to get your body into serious trouble. Like soft/light drugs, there's no need for a government to actively pursue anybody who occasionally uses these products.
And you wish to state drunken drivers will never appear again as soon as alcohol has become illigal? Even total moral scorn will not have the desired effect. There's (thank god) outrageous moral scorn against any form of child abuse, which is far worse in my eyes, but somehow it still happens.

You reason that making a social criminal (and you haven't even mentioned illigalization by law) out of everybody who drinks, smokes, or uses drugs will eventually stop the abuse of any of these products. This will not happen and in the meanwhile, you've made life hard for every occasional user.

[Eledhwen]

Alcohol and tobacco are legal and unrestrained (except alcohol for drivers) - only when a drinker misbehaves does any sanction apply. The limit of sanctions for smokers is to be turfed off a bus or train if they refuse to put it out; yet these drugs cost all of us £$Billions because of their largely unlisted side effects. Yes, we all know about heart attacks, cancers, liver schirrousis etc, but what about accidents caused by drivers lighting up or taking a swig from a hip flask? It takes just as much attention as using a mobile phone. Then there are the crimes of addicts - from petty theft (usually from parents) by juveniles, to smash and grabs or armed robbery of off-licences by adult addicts. That's all before you get on to the effects on family, friends and work (especially manual work, where accidents are a risk).

In my opinion, the addition of currently illegal drugs to the legal outlets for tobacco and alcohol would exponentially increase the above problems. At least under the present laws one has to actively seek out the outlawed drugs (though, sadly, many school children have the stuff almost rammed in their faces in the attempt to recruit more addicts).

It's true that many people can indulge in drugs without becoming addicts (rare in the case of tobacco, which is more addictive than heroin), but who can know whether they have an addictive personality until they are addicted? And who can know that until they try to give the habit up?

We need to continue to restrict access to drugs, and Law is the only way to do that, but also to provide real help for addicts at all levels of society, which includes the real option of a change of lifestyle. What's the use in curing an addict, then returning them to the same group of 'friends' in the same drug-infested, no-hope neighbourhood?:confused:

[Gloer]

Legalisation is as good as promotion and advertising of bad habbits.

Once millions of people have bad habbits it is not as easy to revert as you stated: prohibition did not work.

The only possible way to restrict the bad habbits is suttle, social disapproval, black painting, economical hindrances such as control of distribution, taxation etc.

It is effective: the use of tobacco is decreasing as the annual use of alcohol also is 50 % less in the restrictive countries compared to liberal places like France where alcohol related diseases are common.

Legalisation can only be done in disguise of medical treatment. The addicts are taken into control of the society out of the control of the private entrepreneurs.

[Snaga]

I think its easy to think that black and white solutions exist to the drug problems but in reality they don't. I see this a balancing act, where the trick is to find the lesser of the various evils.

Alcohol is a drug that (western) society has adapted to, but at the cost of accepting health problems, aggressive behaviour, road accidents and trying to deal with them. That's because prohibition has been seen to fail.

If you look at marijuana, in Britain I would just the prohibition does more harm than good. It makes it harder to obtain, and therefore it does reduce numbers suffering the potentially harmful effects. But it means the supply is controlled by criminals, who can then use it as a gateway to more dangerous substances where the profits are even greater.

But on the other hand a slow transition to more legal acceptability is better than a sudden change in my opinion. It just makes more sense to me to go by incremental steps, such as reducing the severity of punishments at first, rather than encouraging the floodgates of usage by going straight to full legalisation.

[Rogue666666]

DGoeij, you mentioned Alchohol and Tobbacco, but woudnt you say the drugs are even SLIGHTLY more addictive then those items mentioned above?

And still no one has addressed the problem I stated earlier. What would it do to the younger generation? If all these kids got their hands on drugs would that be a good thing?

[Athelas]

The younger generation ALREADY has their hands on illegal drugs. Legalization would allow them to be regulated, dosages and purity could be controlled, education would replace rumor and superstition, and medical treatment would replace incarceration. Marijuana has proven medicinal uses. Tobacco and alcohol have none.

As to whether alcohol and tobacco are more addictive than other drugs; they are more addictive than most illegal drugs. Witness the rate of alcoholism and nicotine addiction among youth and adults.

[Rogue666666]

So you think it would be fine if every single kid grew up with a drug addiction? NO, not only would that have terrible consequences, but currently not ALL kids have their hands on drugs. In fact, their are many millions who don't.

[Athelas]

I'm sure that big tobacco and alcohol put a lot of money toward keeping other drugs illegal because they don't want the competition. Their profits would plumet if people had legal access to alternative recreational drugs that had few or none of the dangerous side effects of their lethal products. LSD has been successfully used in treating alcoholism, for example. How many times have I heard of someone with 8 or 9 DUI'S still free to plow into a school bus.... We need much HARSHER penalties for drunk drivers. In Sweden, I have heard, the penalty for your first DUI is 5 years in prison, no parole or time off, and you loose your driver's license FOREVER. That makes perfect sense to me.

[Rogue666666]

HELLO, you keep forgeting that millions of kids who currently wil never try drugs will most likely become addicted becuase of full legalization. I think that an entire generation of drug addicts is WAY more dangerous than thousands of drunk drivers.

[Athelas]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
I think that an entire generation of drug addicts is WAY more dangerous than thousands of drunk drivers.

I've lost family to drunk drivers. I disagree. Many people are smart enough not to become alcoholics and smokers. Legalizing drugs won't automatically make a generation suddenly stupid enough to become junkies of any sort.
Killing someone while driving drunk should be prosecuted and sentenced the same as premeditated murder.

[Rogue666666]

I completely agree that drunk driving should be given incredebly harsh punishments. Personlally, I don't care if they throw drunk drivers who kill others in prison for life. Its what they deserve.


Of course, if you've lost family to drunk drivers you can't be expected to give an unbiased opinion of it, though I'll admit that no one's opinion is completely unbiased.

I'm not saying that people would turn stupid and everyone would grab drugs, i'm saying that the younger generation would mostly become addicts becuase their are VERY few kids under the age of 18 who would say no, compared to the amount who would take the stuff just because of peer pressure.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
I'm not saying that people would turn stupid and everyone would grab drugs, i'm saying that the younger generation would mostly become addicts becuase their are VERY few kids under the age of 18 who would say no, compared to the amount who would take the stuff just because of peer pressure.

I still don't get it. Where are all the kids of the younger generation grabbing sigarettes and booze because of peer pressure? Becoming addicts to stuff that's easier to come by.

Could you explain the fundamental difference between addictive products like alcohol and nicotine and (as of now) illegal soft-drugs that would create such differences as you seem so certain about? You see, marajuana is being sold in shops in my country (and home town) for some years. We aren't facing any 'lost generation' because of it.

[Rogue666666]

OH, I said nothing about a LOST generation. Just a twisted one. You see, I lived in YOUR home country for many years, and I defintly woudn't say that Dutch teenagers were of high moral value. I remember walking through the forest nearby and finding marijuana packs lying on the ground. BUT, NOT EVERY CHILD HAS IT. The effects drugs have on people , even soft drugs is worse then legal stuff like Alcohol and Smoking.

But thats not the big picture! Do you think because tobacco and alchole are illegale that soft drugs should be to? WHY THE HECK WOULD YOU WANT ANOTHER SUBSTANCE THAT KILLS PEOPLE? Adding a third wrong to two others will NOT make it right. Can't you see that?

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
But thats not the big picture! Do you think because tobacco and alchole are illegale that soft drugs should be to? WHY THE HECK WOULD YOU WANT ANOTHER SUBSTANCE THAT KILLS PEOPLE? Adding a third wrong to two others will NOT make it right. Can't you see that?

Soft-drugs don't kill people, like alcohol doesn't. People kill people, or themselves. Tobacco has worse effect on your health systems then most soft-drugs, unless you start mixing marahuana with tobacco (with added nicotine) that is. Occasional use of alcohol, tobacco and soft-drugs doesn't create addicts, and you should know that. It's allready proven that the occasianal use of alcohol helps preventing heart-problems, and terminal ill patients benefit by the use of soft-drug, more than with medication. You're yelling about wrongs, but they're not that wrong, unless used in a very unwise manner. That's where education and prevention is all about. In preventing abuse of alcohol, random checks by police patrols, combined with commercials all over the country, do more in preventing peope to drink and drive than any prohibition could. Like Gloer pointed out, smoking isn't cool anymore, it's stupid. You're allowed to, but don't complain to much about bad health please. You could do the same with soft drugs. You claim they are all bad stuff, let me expalin to you that water, yes, right out of the kitchen, is poisonous. You'll just have to drink very very much of it. But 2 litres a day is the minimum amount of fluid your body needs to survive at all. So let's not prohibit the use of water shall we, let's explain people you shouldn't drink it by the bathtub.

Currently, as soft-drugs are illegal, but used by people, they have easier acces to more deadly stuff by the criminals selling it to them. By pressing soft-drugs into the hands of criminals, instead of the legal market, you aren't preventing real hazardous and dangerous drug abuse.

[Rogue666666]

O ya, I've heard of the healing effects of alchohol. Sure, it will help your heart condition, as it kills off your brain cells.

OH, and this is great. Soft-drugs don't kill people, like alcohol doesn't. People kill people, or themselves.

Right, but when I asked why guns are illegale in Holland, its because, and get this, "Guns kill people". Right. Amazing that your government just makes guns illegal instead of trying random checks by police patrols, combined with commercials all over the country

I've seen your commercials. There just great. But they haven't stopped people from getting killed yet. Your illustration of tap water doesnt work either. So water from the sink is dangerous, FINE, go buy bottled water and drink all you want. Besides, people don't get addicted to tap water and theirs an easy, and safe solution (water bottles)

Drugs are adictive. AND, drug dealers are NOT nice people. Putting more money into their hands would NOT be helpfull to the community.

[DGoeij]

You seem to be very misinformed about some things.

1. Alcohol doesn't kill your braincells just like that, your ow body contains alcohol just to make it function properly. Like any substance, it's poisonous when used in great quantities. When drinking 8-10 glasses of alcoholic beverages a day, you have a severe chance of damaging your braincells.
Drinking up to two glasses a day, will reduce the risk of hearth-problems severely. Don't blame me, these are facts, thoroughly researched by medical scientists.

2.Water, as in H2O, the basic substance, wether from sinks or bottles, is poisonous. Like lots of substances on this earth, you body doesn't like too much of it. That's a fact too. It's just that the government has no need to warn people against it, you have to force yourself to drink the amounts you need for the poisonus effects to tae place. As I explained, by the bathtub.

3. Whomever explained to you that guns are illigal in the Netherlands because these things kill people, forgot about his or her history classes. The US history developed itself into allowing (even by constitutional law) citizens to carry firearms. Dutch history developed very differently. Guns aren't illigal, we just have very very strict regulations concerning civillians. Members of gun-clubs, with no criminal record, are usually allowed to purchase a gun and keep it tightly locked up, unless they are using it in training or competition. The rest of society tends to look at guns as tools of criminals or policemen, and if you are neither, you shouldn't have a gun. That's the average opinion, different from that in large parts of the US. That's why our countries have different gun-laws. I tend to agree more with the one in my own country, but then again, I grew up with it.

4. The commercials and police patrols happen to work. Drinking and driving is regarded as retarded behavior, and massive regular (and irregular) police checks all over the country are encountering lesser and lesser people who have been drinking before they drove off.

5. Every drug, including the ones allowed in your neighbourhood drug-store, is addictive. The biggest problems occur with illigal drugs which are highly addictive and very expensive. People using these substances need help, not just jail, like every addict could use some help. Ever tried to stop smoking?
Soft-drugs have this name because their addictiveness is usually less then that of nicotine, or sometimes even caffeine. Like alcohol (that's a drug too), there is no danger in the occasional use of these substances. Well, there's some danger, compared to the not using, but crossing the street is dangerous too.

6. The trick with legalizing, or better, de-criminalising the soft-drugs, is, they become part of the legal market, having rules and regulations and the police can easily check the distribution. Their locations are knwon. Shops selling soft-drugs wish to keep selling, so allowing minors to even get in is out of the question. Selling more than a set quantity will get them closed down too. Like what should be happening to stores selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors. Just months ago, the government has ordered more checks of these stores too, because of these things happening.
People using soft-drugs, prefer these decent places above street-dealers. So, you are taking the money out of the hands of criminals.

[Rogue666666]

First off, the so called "scientific facts" about alchole are VERY debatable. But that is an entirely different thread.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I believe that the effects of drugs on society are degrading, wheter illegale or not.

Just because something is difficult or impossible to stop, DOES not mean that you should give in and make it available for everyone. Drugs are wrong, even sot drugs. And, as we all know, drug addicts slowly build up. Their addiction doesn't stop at a certain level. It continually grows. So unless you plan to make Hard drugs legal, making soft drugs available won't solve the problem society faces today.

Yes, if you drank too much water it would kill you. But you have to FORCE yourself to drink that much water. Drugs on the other hand, all you have to do is try it once and you can become addicted for the rest of your life. When you ask people who have been addicted to drugs for thirty years what would they do if they could go back and never have tried it the first time, what do you think most of them say?

"NO, I love bieng addicted, I've been dependant on this thing most my life, why whoudn't I love it?"

Wrong, just like smoking, many whish that they had NEVER started. So making it possible for more people to get hooked on it, will in the end, only increase suffering. :(

Besides, in Holland, isn't it true that soft drugs aren't TECHNICALLY legal, but there is so much of it everywhere that the police don't really care. That is a perfect example of when things get to hard, people give up. AND the only thing worse than losing a fight, is giving up.

[DGoeij]

First off, the so called "scientific facts" about alchole are VERY debatable. But that is an entirely different thread.

Exstensive research is always debatable when you don't like the outcome.


I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I believe that the effects of drugs on society are degrading, wheter illegale or not.


I already guessed your attitude towards drugs in general wasn't a very positive one. ;)




Just because something is difficult or impossible to stop, DOES not mean that you should give in and make it available for everyone. Drugs are wrong, even sot drugs. And, as we all know, drug addicts slowly build up. Their addiction doesn't stop at a certain level. It continually grows. So unless you plan to make Hard drugs legal, making soft drugs available won't solve the problem society faces today.


Drugs aren't going to be available for everyone just like that. And especially hard drugs will never be accepted. But if you wish to prevent serious problems, I see legilasation of soft-drugs and continous prosecution of hard-drug dealers as a more realistic and effective approach than a relentless 'War On Drugs'.


Besides, in Holland, isn't it true that soft drugs aren't TECHNICALLY legal, but there is so much of it everywhere that the police don't really care. That is a perfect example of when things get to hard, people give up. AND the only thing worse than losing a fight, is giving up.

Sigh. Soft drugs aren't technically legal, but standing governmental orders prevent the police and justice department wasting time and money on that part of the drug-scene that isn't causing the gross majority of the problems. The police does care, but somehow they prefer busting hard-drug dealers and murderers above occasional marahuana smokers. The people, the police and researchers asked for a change in government policy, and they finally got it.
Fighting everything sounds really cool, but is quite ineffective and a waste of valuable recources. Knowing what to fight can be very helpfull.

[Rogue666666]

Ok, I have only two accusations left to throw at you, as it is you who are trying defend your reasons for making it legall.

The first is one I already mentioned, but you failed to respond to.

How many people do you know that have been addicted to drugs for most or even a small part of their life come up and tell you what a great time they had bieng addicted to crack, or Marijuana?


Secondly, I don't remember a clear answer to this question.

If you made drugs legal, then purchases would rise TREMENDOUSLY, putting money in the hands of drug cartels which murder hundreds of innocent families and most of them support active terrorists group who have plans to hurt, kill , and torture people to such a horrible extent that we can't even conceive of it yet. Would that be the right thing to do?


You tell me.

[DGoeij]

First, as I have made clear several times, I see no advantages in legalizing hard-drugs. The addictiveness and the physical dangers involved in the use of XTC, cocaine, herione, crack etc. are far too great.
As part of school projects and by other means, I have spoken to a number of people who were addicted to hard-drugs. Their main argument was that they had only started with a small amount, and needed more and more afterward. None of them really enjoyed remembering that time, but they were pretty sure they didn't care much when they were addicted. The criminal offences made by them is incredible, considering the amount of money they had to obtain, paying for their 'shots'.
These are the substances which make incredible amounts of money, thereby making them profitable goods to produce, smuggle and sell. It seems that terrorist factions and other criminal organizations are financing part of their operations with drug-money. I would like to see my police and justice departments focusing on those activities.

Other substances, like caffeine, alcohol and other soft-drugs, are seriously less addictive and the profits are too low for any big-time criminal to get involved much. Especially since people can easily produce their own 'grass', by growing their own plants. Not very expensive and not very hard, especially compared to hard-drugs. I know of two brothers in our neighbourhood growing some. One of them a student in psychology, doing pretty well.

And if these substances were legalized, purchases would hardly rise in my country, since everybody who wish to use them already does so. Dozens of my friends have tried, several continue to use them during their weekends, others didn't like them and stopped using them, most stick to beer. I don't know about your age, but my friends are all over eighteen, so they can buy their own goods. Personally, I think all of it smells disgusting, but I can imagine someone thinking the same thing about the occasional cigar I smoke.
If soft-drugs were fully legalized, the production and sale should, as it is already, stay under the same rules as that of alcohol and tobacco. Disturbing cash-flows and other activities would be noticed and pursued. Making money is part of our society and I don't suspect every profitable buisness of financing terrorists. Currently, I would be suspicious of every mobile-phone company.

[Ithrynluin]

I voted for "possibly only some". I am not sure whether that is the correct choice (if there is any at all), but I cannot imagine how the whole system would work if "heavy" drugs like heroine and cocaine were to be legalized. I am, however a fierce supporter of the legalisation of pot - the whole world should look up to the Netherlands in that view (and some others actually, but that is quite another matter).