cindere528 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I think Billy is talking a lot of sense there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 For those that feel drugs should be legalised - how do you think that would help? I'm genuinely interested because I've seen some people really f*ck up their lives with drugs and would be interested to hear how people feel legalisation would improve things. I am not quite sure how I feel about it, but one argument that is used in support of this approach is that trade in drugs is a huge fundraiser for violent crime worldwide. Legalised drugs could be taxed to fund treatment and awareness programs, as with smoking: while they are illegal, the profits from the continuing trade in them only fund unsavory enterprises and nasty people. To me, that's always been a good enough reason to not take them, actually: I just don't see how you can be sure what's in even a cannabis cigarette or what its funding: even if you grew it yourself, you have to get the seeds from somewhere, and plant-based narcotics can be enormously varied in their strength and effects: with no regulation it's impossible to tell what you've got. Plus, even the people who grow cannabis in this country because they have to do it in a way that isn't visible, do it using hugely power-hungry grow lights, so it's not exactly an environmentally friendly form of intoxicant either. And you have the whole second hand smoke thing over again of course... On the other hand, if the various illegal drugs were legalised, it would undoubtedly be seen as a form of official approval and people who would be uneasy about taking them now, because they are illegal, would assume they must be safe. I'm really not sure if the parallel with alcohol is right: alcohol can be very dangerous, but it's also something that people have been taking probably since the first ape discovered the first fruit tree where the fruits had gone a bit fizzy. For thousands of years, alcoholic drinks were drunk by everybody, children included, because in any society where they dont' understand about bacterial contamination of drinking water, it tends to be safer to drink fermented drinks than pure water. (Islam is an exception and one reason they got away with it is that their plumbing technology and hygiene was miles better than anyone else's at the time). I don't think that you can really compare alcohol to even cannabis, let alone some of the new things that are very new products of the pharmaceuticals industry. What longterm effects those will have over generations we can't even start to guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kats inc Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Legalising them would mean a proper form of supply was available just as is at present with the methadone programme.This would stop street drug use,take away many of the dangers of their use and would end the use of crime to fund supply.It would mean no dealing,reduce the numbers of young girls forced into prostitution to fund their habit and so on. I'm not saying this is an easy answer by any means. so please don't think I am.I am also not saying this in any way should encourage drug use but should be a means to regulate it.I work on an estate that has a huge heroin and crack problem and it is mainly funded by crime and other forms of antisocial behaviour which impacts hugely on the area as a whole.Putting in a legalised and controlled supply would begin to address this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusewalker Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 In this context I found this actually really funny comments To me it would depend on the quality of the XTC compared to the user's skill as a horse rider - I've seen people doing some damn stupid things on horseback! The fact that they are illegal doesn't stop people who want to take them -if you want them you can find them. What would (hopefully) change if drugs would be legalised is that there would be a form of 'quality control' and you would know what each pill would contain - rather than trusting the dodgy looking guy with the tracksuit bottoms in a dark corner of a club. To be honest I always get a bit annoyed when there is a big story about someone having injured or killed themselves due to drug use - when it's "party drugs" like XTC or coke. It'd be great, and far more balancd, if they would report weekly roundups of hospitals, with the number of cases they received either in A&E or other departments, which were related to alcohol abuse. Thousands of people end up in hospital every week, either because they got pissed and injured themselves, or because they've become a victim of alcohol-fuelled aggression. I've got a far bigger problem with alcohol abuse than with pople taking 'happy pills' Billymalc has said what i would have done. I think history proves that the legal status of drugs make no difference to how many people would use them. It was mainstream enough when i was younger, it's pretty rare these days not to have dabbled in something I'll confess to smoking dope for a long time, probably from age 16 to 35 when I just grew out of it. I took acid at age 20 and it scared the hell out of me so never had the slightest inkling to take anything really stronger, I therefore refused anything else on offer. Throughout my time smoking I held down a job, could get up in the morning and attained a senior position. Tisann kids do their own thing - it doesn't mean he will go on to harder drugs, have you spoken to him about the fact you know he his smoking calmly. ditto. another previous random recreational user, but didnt have a problem with life and was a million miles away from any sort of addiction to any of it. i think it comes down to a certain type of personality, and that could be fags, booze, drugs, sex, computer games, allsorts. i got a physical addiction to chocolate once though - quite seriously - and had to ween myself off it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted February 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Thanks for your thoughts Billy, no need to rant, I have never quite been able to understand the argument but I am genuinely interested in why others think legalising drugs might - and there are some far more sensible posts on here than "because it's less dangerous than horse riding" Victoria, good point - I think the effects of drugs are just coming to light really aren't they - that's why for example they reclassified cannabis from class c to b last month (link)? As I said, I have known people who have had a bit of a "smoke" a few times a week or more - some just for relaxation, others for illness, and it hasn't (to my knowledge) affected their life any more than someone having a few glasses of wine (or indeed a nice bar of Green & Black's ). Sadly, I have also known various people who have really messed up their lives over drugs (cannabis). One very badly. I guess visiting someone in a mental hospital and them not really having a clue who you are and no memory of it later, really influences your thoughts Just like knowing an alcoholic might for others. I'm not sure how legalising it would make it less risky for these people They have enough of a problem realising they have a problem without someone telling them it's now perfectly legal. I'd be worried if drugs were legalised that more people would see them as acceptable - I guess to some they are, but I would really hate to see more teenagers getting into drug use in a big way. I feel for these kids and for their parents. I totally agree that there are many incidents relating to alcohol abuse too and I appreciate my thoughts are probably a tad skewed from my experiences and the experiences of those around me. I am not saying I'm right, I'm saying these are my concerns and it's good to read others' thoughts Interesting discussion, thanks folks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pboae Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 With the possible exception of crystal meth, alcohol and tobacco are more addictive, more dangerous, and cause more deaths (as a proportion of users) than any of the other commonly abused drugs. Alcohol is the only one where the withdrawal alone can kill. When stats are quoted to show that cannabis is a gateway drug, they very rarely mention that smoking cigarettes is actually a far better predictor of later/harder drug use. In purely health terms, if someone smokes or drinks heavily, they would probably be better off swapping to just about anything else. Although it's true that designer drugs haven't been around as long as A & T, opiate use probably has been, or at least long enough that we can be fairly sure what the generational effects are likely to be. Which is how we know that the main physical side effect of long term opiate abuse is constipation (which can be more serious than it sounds), as long as it is smoked not injected. Most of the health problems we associate with heroin addiction are actually caused by the chaotic lifestyles and lack of money that go with it. Most long term heroin addicts who manage to kick the habit end up alcoholics, which is far more likely to kill them in the end. They'd be better off on a managed opiate programme. So as far as I am concerned the health argument just doesn't stand up. The mental health argument is more complex, but again, the stats get misrepresented, as people with mental health problems commonly self medicate (hence the high number of smokers on psychiatric wards). So although smoking cannabis at a younger age correlates with later severe psychosis, suffering mental distress at a young age also correlates with later severe psychosis, and of course they are more likely to look to self medicate with legal and illegal substances. So no-one can say at the moment which causes what. I'd sooner see money and effort diverted away from the war on drugs and into mental health services for people who are in early stages of mental suffering. There are many things that will be dangerous to some people and not others, and they don't always know about it (salt for example). You can't ban everything on that basis. Nor simply because it can be dangerous (which is where the horse riding example comes in). People are free to do all sorts of far more dangerous things for fun, as long as they make an informed decision about it. You only have to look to prohibition in america to see the problems that illegality causes, corruption, organised crime, deaths from contamination or variable strength. Even though the law was barely enforced and widely ignored. It's pretty much a blue print for the current situation with cannabis. Yes there probably are people who don't take drugs now because they are illegal, but how many are there who take them because they are illegal, and they want that thrill? It's swings and roundabouts. So maybe the question should really be, what's the point in keeping them illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusewalker Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) hi pboae, you've hit the nail on the head of some of the inconsistencies with the current situation. some interesting details as well when you describe types of addiction, are you referring to physical or psychological addiction? i have heard that crack is physically addictive after about 3 hits, which would make it much more addictive than alcohol and tobacco? Yes there probably are people who don't take drugs now because they are illegal, but how many are there who take them because they are illegal, and they want that thrill? It's swings and roundabouts. this is spot on Edited February 11, 2009 by krusewalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pboae Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 i have heard that crack is physically addictive after about 3 hits, which would make it much more addictive than alcohol and tobacco? Crack, like cocaine, isn't physically addictive in the true sense of a physical addiction, unlike opiates, for example. Although there can be physical side effects during withdrawal, they are mainly due to sleep deprivation caused by heavy use. Cocaine and crack cocaine have high levels of reinforcement though, so in some people they create a strong desire to repeat the experience ASAP. Addictiveness is rated on across a number of factors, and to some extent it's subjective, so the different scales don't always agree. How quickly a dependency can start is only a small part of it. For example, some people can develop a cocaine habit *very* quickly, but many more people use it occasionally or recreationally, and never develop any form of dependency, so relative to the total number of users, the proportion of addicts is fairly low. Whereas tobacco has very high levels of dependency, so amongst tobacco users the number of addicts vastly outweighs the number of recreational users (i.e. 'social' smokers who can take it or leave it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Excellent posts pboae! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Only today I read about a Mother giving a talk to sixth formers after her 21 year old son was killed in a car crash. Why did he crash? Because he had drunk alcohol and taken an ecstasy tablet before he got in the car. Drugs don't just affect the 'rider', he could so easily have killed somebody else with him as well as the grief he has left his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishPastry Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) but what caused him to crash? the alcohol or the E? (not that im saying you should be driving with either) POSTED BY KRUSEWALKER Edited February 12, 2009 by DanishPastry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pboae Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Unfortunately all the laws in the world won't prevent recklessness. There's no excuse for getting behing a wheel when intoxicated, no matter whether it's something legal, illegal, or prescribed. Or even when just too tired to concentrate properly. But staying sober isn't the whole answer, young male drivers are disproportionately dangerous by just about any statistical measure you want to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Unfortunately all the laws in the world won't prevent recklessness. There's no excuse for getting behing a wheel when intoxicated, no matter whether it's something legal, illegal, or prescribed. Or even when just too tired to concentrate properly. But staying sober isn't the whole answer, young male drivers are disproportionately dangerous by just about any statistical measure you want to use. Absolutely right, it's all about attitudes, and awareness of (or rather the lack of awareness of) consequences, and that it CAN happen to you. Surely making drugs legal sends out entirely the wrong message, i.e. that it's ok to take drugs. As you say, it's hard enough to stop people drinking and driving when there's a legal limit, imagine if there was no limit Krusewalker: do you really think you can say one had an effect and the other didn't?! Both alter your alertness and ability to react and make decisions. It's the behaviour and the motivations that needs addressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pboae Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Absolutely right, it's all about attitudes, and awareness of (or rather the lack of awareness of) consequences, and that it CAN happen to you. Surely making drugs legal sends out entirely the wrong message, i.e. that it's ok to take drugs. As you say, it's hard enough to stop people drinking and driving when there's a legal limit, imagine if there was no limit But the current situation doesn't work either. In the case you mentioned, the current laws didn't stop the driver taking an illegal drug or getting behind the wheel whilst drunk and under the influence of drugs. Just as it doesn't stop thousands of others doing the same thing every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Totally agree again here: laws only work as far as people want to abide by them. People know that you're not allowed to drive when you're physically and mentally not in a fit state to do so. That knowledge doesn't go out the window all of a sudden when you're intoxicated. I read in the paper that ecstacy causes 12 deaths ayear. Errrr, and exactly how many deaths a year does alcohol cause? I don't think down grading/legalising ecstacy would drive that number up, it rather puts the responsibility more firmly in the court of the user. Afer all, just because alcohol is legal, we don't say that it's okay to get leathered every weekend, or become alcohol dependent and develop all sorts of conditions, do we? If ecstacy was legalised then facilities with pill testing kits would be allowed at clubs and parties, which would make people way more clued up about what's actually in their pills and that knowledge could actually stop some people from taking them. You're not going to stop people from taking drugs, so you might as well make the experience as safe as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts