Decriminalising drug use, Good or Bad Idea?

[Zingari]

some excellent stuff from both sides here esp houdini and crouchback , but that's probably because i tend to agree with their stance

[Flynny]

What about the drug cartels? You really think these will disappear if drugs were decriminalised? Or would they become dirtier, more aggresive and more underground? Aren't diamonds legal... ?

This is the most hilarious comparison i've ever seen . They're really not comparable. Think about it.

Sorry about that - the rest is perfectly reasonable. It's a value judgement all in all. I personally don't think significantly more people would experiment and I think the huge benefits would outweigh this small human cost, but that's not based on much more than a hunch.

[Flynny]

You've only got to look at cigarettes. People back in the day didn't realise the health implications and they were more of a fashion accessory than anything else. People today know exactly what smoking can do to your health, they even print pictures of clogged up arteries on packets yet people still do it. Why would that be any different for some of the harder drugs? I don't want to bring up the old cliche peer pressure bollocks but a lot of people will be influenced by friends easily. I'm sure half of the kids who smoke do so to fit in or look cool. A mate at school never inhaled yet would still smoke with us purely because we did.

Smoking amongst males went down from about 20% to 10% while Labour was in power. Not saying it's their achievement, it's just the dates that I remember being quoted, hah.

[Houdini Logic]

This is the most hilarious comparison i've ever seen . They're really not comparable. Think about it.

Sorry about that - the rest is perfectly reasonable. It's a value judgement all in all. I personally don't think significantly more people would experiment and I think the huge benefits would outweigh this small human cost, but that's not based on much more than a hunch.

I'll mull it over out loud here then -

A number of people on this thread have said that one of the benefits of decriminalisation is removing the drug lords and I simply don't think this is the reality.

The point I was making is that I can walk into a shop today and buy myself a lovely diamond ring safe in the knowledge that the diamond would have been mined legally. This does not stop the fact that there are some of the nastiest people in the world illegally mining and selling diamonds on the black market and I think the exact same things would happen with drugs - I may be able to buy them from the government stop and shop, but that doesn't mean that the illicit trade will dry up. Surely an element of that is comparable?

I think we may have also found the root of our disagreement - the defenition of 'benefits'.

Where as you believe the huge benefits would outway the small human cost, I believe that if the small human cost is one human life then there is no possible 'benefit' in the world that could outweigh that

[Finnegan]

Those nasty diamond sellers dont really need a black market. Is there any such thing as an ethically mined diamond?

[Flynny]

I'll mull it over out loud here then -

A number of people on this thread have said that one of the benefits of decriminalisation is removing the drug lords and I simply don't think this is the reality.

The point I was making is that I can walk into a shop today and buy myself a lovely diamond ring safe in the knowledge that the diamond would have been mined legally. This does not stop the fact that there are some of the nastiest people in the world illegally mining and selling diamonds on the black market and I think the exact same things would happen with drugs - I may be able to buy them from the government stop and shop, but that doesn't mean that the illicit trade will dry up. Surely an element of that is comparable?

I think we may have also found the root of our disagreement - the defenition of 'benefits'.

Where as you believe the huge benefits would outway the small human cost, I believe that if the small human cost is one human life then there is no possible 'benefit' in the world that could outweigh that

Well is that what happens with cigarette production, for instance? Or alcohol? Think about the role criminals played during prohibition in the USA - are they still involved? No. And that's not even considering if the NHS would play any role.

Diamonds are inherantly valuable, whereas illegality is largely responsible for the price of drugs. And besides you'd need trained chemists and such to produce drugs, not poor slaves.

[Houdini Logic]

Those nasty diamond sellers dont really need a black market. Is there any such thing as an ethically mined diamond?

Well that is an interesting point.

My views on 'ethical diamonds' are much the same as my views on 'fairtrade' products, though I think for everyone's sake that can stay under my hat for now.

I think there's only one simple answer - if you want a diamond, but it from Canada

[Houdini Logic]

Well is that what happens with cigarette production, for instance? Or alcohol? Think about the role criminals played during prohibition in the USA - are they still involved? No. And that's not even considering if the NHS would play any role.

Diamonds are inherantly valuable, whereas illegality is largely responsible for the price of drugs. And besides you'd need trained chemists and such to produce drugs, not poor slaves.

Some valid points - shame you weren't this informative the first time round.

[Flynny]

Some valid points - shame you weren't this informative the first time round.

Seemed a little more obvious to me

[Houdini Logic]

Seemed a little more obvious to me

**Mutters under breath ** 'Seems obvious drugs should be banned, but I still have to fooking spell it out'**

[Edmund]

I said don't 'necessarily'. You're being a bit dense. Switzerland? There's no correlation. USA's is about the same as ours. Half the countries in South America don't even have a police force.

If someone says there's no correlation between legalisation of guns and murder rates, "there are some countries where guns are legal and the murder rate is high" means literally nothing.

I'm not aware of Switzerland but USA? You're having a laugh. The fact is guns are made for one purpose. Cut them out the chain and the risk of homicide will go down. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out.

Police force or not guns still cause homicide and it's rife in South America. I'm obviously not saying all homicide would stop if guns weren't available as there are other ways of people committing homicide but it would almost certainly cut the rate.

I can't even believe you're using this argument. With your beliefs you wouldn't bat an eyelid if guns became legal here as you believe nothing would change.

Christ there are some people on here living in Fhloston Paradise.

Smoking amongst males went down from about 20% to 10% while Labour was in power. Not saying it's their achievement, it's just the dates that I remember being quoted, hah.

Figures smigures. The point I was making was people still smoke fully knowing the risks and block capital letters "SMOKING KILLS" is ignored. The only reason why is because it's socially acceptable.

[Flynny]

I'm not aware of Switzerland but USA? You're having a laugh. The fact is guns are made for one purpose. Cut them out the chain and the risk of homicide will go down. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out.

Police force or not guns still cause homicide and it's rife in South America. I'm obviously not saying all homicide would stop if guns weren't available as there are other ways of people committing homicide but it would almost certainly cut the rate.

I can't even believe you're using this argument. With your beliefs you wouldn't bat an eyelid if guns became legal here as you believe nothing would change.

I'd be worried about accidents and kids getting hold of them but no, the murder rate almost certainly wouldn't change. Everyone has a gun in Switzlerland and it has one of the lowest crime and murder rates in the world.

The entire point is that whilst it might seem simple, it doesn't work like that. People don't work like that. Arguments that seem simple are often deceptively so, as in this case.

Figures smigures. The point I was making was people still smoke fully knowing the risks and block capital letters "SMOKING KILLS" is ignored. The only reason why is because it's socially acceptable.

Should it not be?

[Edmund]

I'd be worried about accidents and kids getting hold of them but no, the murder rate almost certainly wouldn't change. Everyone has a gun in Switzlerland and it has one of the lowest crime and murder rates in the world.

The entire point is that whilst it might seem simple, it doesn't work like that. People don't work like that. Arguments that seem simple are often deceptively so, as in this case.

I agree that it's down to culture and people etc but why does Switzerland feel the need to legalise guns considering they're only made for one purpose? Surely if their a sensible bunch and have low crime figures guns aren't a necessity and there's no need for them outside hunting?

Should it not be?

No it shouldn't considering how many people suffer from throat cancer and thousands of other medical complications from a direct result.

Coke is pretty much socially acceptable at the moment. Imagine if pure charly was legally available? Not only would no one bat an eyelid to people snorting in clubs as it became more acceptable and the norm, it would be hell for the police as you'll end up with tens of thousands of Mike Tysons in city centers each weekend.

We've got enough problems with alcohol as it is.

This is why I feel a lot of naivety in this thread. For every pro there's ten cons.

[Flynny]

No it shouldn't considering how many people suffer from throat cancer and thousands of other medical complications from a direct result.

Coke is pretty much socially acceptable at the moment. Imagine if pure charly was legally available? Not only would no one bat an eyelid to people snorting in clubs as it became more acceptable and the norm, it would be hell for the police as you'll end up with tens of thousands of Mike Tysons in city centers each weekend.

We've got enough problems with alcohol as it is.

This is why I feel a lot of naivety in this thread. For every pro there's ten cons.

So you think cigarettes and potentially alcohol should be illegal too?

[Edmund]

So you think cigarettes and potentially alcohol should be illegal too?

Cigarettes yes. But it's far far to late to change that.

As for alcohol no. If drank sensibly there are no ill effects. The same can't be said about fags.

[Steven]

Cigarettes yes. But it's far far to late to change that.

As for alcohol no. If drank sensibly there are no ill effects. The same can't be said about fags.

The same could be said for a lot of illegal drugs.

[Edmund]

The same could be said for a lot of illegal drugs.

Rubbish. There's nothing safe about scramming pure coke up your nose.

[Steven]

Rubbish. There's nothing safe about scramming pure coke up your nose.

No, no, no. One line of coke is not going to do anyone any harm, nor one tab of "E" nor a couple of spliffs. Alcohol on the other hand is responsible for more than four times the number of deaths than illegal and legal drugs in the UK.

It is difficult to understand how you arrive at the conclusion you do without coming to the understanding your are prejudiced in some way rather than looking at the situation for what it is.

Drug deaths

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/goodpractice/statisticsandavailability/statistics-mortality

Alcohol deaths

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091

[Flynny]

Cigarettes yes. But it's far far to late to change that.

As for alcohol no. If drank sensibly there are no ill effects. The same can't be said about fags.

Basically asked that to suggest something like Steven did. Also what about people who smoke socially? Lots of people like a ciggy with a drink, why should they have that taken off them?

[Houdini Logic]

No, no, no. One line of coke is not going to do anyone any harm, nor one tab of "E" nor a couple of spliffs. Alcohol on the other hand is responsible for more than four times the number of deaths than illegal and legal drugs in the UK.

It is difficult to understand how you arrive at the conclusion you do without coming to the understanding your are prejudiced in some way rather than looking at the situation for what it is.

Drug deaths

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/goodpractice/statisticsandavailability/statistics-mortality

Alcohol deaths

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with those figures to be honest, though it may be because I don't understand them.

Are these figures for the entire UK population or only for people who use drugs/alcohol?

I don't want to harp on, but I wish people would look simply beyond the mortality rates

[Steven]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with those figures to be honest, though it may be because I don't understand them.

Are these figures for the entire UK population or only for people who use drugs/alcohol?

I don't want to harp on, but I wish people would look simply beyond the mortality rates

That Professor Nutt is right. Drug policy in the UK and elsewhere should be based on the harm they do.

For the record I do not condone the abuse of alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs and I do not smoke, drink rarely or take illegal substances.

[Edmund]

No, no, no. One line of coke is not going to do anyone any harm, nor one tab of "E" nor a couple of spliffs. Alcohol on the other hand is responsible for more than four times the number of deaths than illegal and legal drugs in the UK.

It is difficult to understand how you arrive at the conclusion you do without coming to the understanding your are prejudiced in some way rather than looking at the situation for what it is.

Drug deaths

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/goodpractice/statisticsandavailability/statistics-mortality

Alcohol deaths

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091

Isn't it blindly obvious why that is? Alcohol is available on a much, much, much, much larger scale. For example if coke was available on the same scale lets see the figures then my friend.

Have you not even read this thread? We're discussing the potential of legalising drugs. You're just misinterpreting my posts.

I can safely say that drinking a pint of beer is much safer than necking back a pill or snorting a line of coke in terms of effect on the body. That's all I'm saying.

I said I was out of this argument, yet got sucked back in. Well I'm out now. I've made plenty of valid points throughout the thread which have been completely overlooked yet you pick up on one segment of the argument and try and make out as if that's all my agenda is. Read all the posts and you'd realise what I was getting at. If you still can't work it out then that's your issue.

Basically asked that to suggest something like Steven did. Also what about people who smoke socially? Lots of people like a ciggy with a drink, why should they have that taken off them?

If you decide to choose to damage your lungs that's your choice. As I said before it's impossible to ban cigarettes now. If it wasn't so socially acceptable you'd have a completely different outlook and think differently.

The fact is one cigarette still does damage. One pint of beer doesn't.

Anyway I'm sick of repeating myself. I'm out.

[Houdini Logic]

That Professor Nutt is right. Drug policy in the UK and elsewhere should be based on the harm they do.

For the record I do not condone the abuse of alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs and I do not smoke, drink rarely or take illegal substances.

Don't start talking about personal choices - I'm somewhat hypocritical

[Zingari]

I can't really see why using the argument that alcohol abuse kills more than drug abuse is an argument for legalising drugs .

The reason that alcohol kills so many is that it is legal and easily attainable ,

Giving drugs the same availability and legality would surely increase the risk of drug related deaths .

EDIT ;

sorry, just repeated what EC said

[Edmund]

I can't really see why using the argument that alcohol abuse kills more than drug abuse is an argument for legalising drugs .

The reason that alcohol kills so many is that it is legal and easily attainable ,

Giving drugs the same availability and legality would surely increase the risk of drug related deaths .

By george, someone with an ounce of logic