The War On Drugs

[21st Century Fox]

Very fair.

If it was me I'd legalise cannabis and most other class c's tomorrow, still think I'm a long way from wanting to see Heroin available freely though unless it was being used as a treatment in getting addicts off it.

I'm with you on "it's your body my choice" really am, hence why I support things such as euthanasia, but the problem is a huge proportion of the population quite simply are not as sensible as what you and most others are, you would see some daft buggers plying themselves with things the body probably can't take without realising the risks (a kid in my class who snorted half a gram in one line on his first time springs to mind), if you are going to legalise a lot of this stuff then we are going to need to seriously educate people about it over a period of time beforehand.

On a side note.....I just clicked your profile and absolutely pissed myself.

You wanna drink some, sends you absolutely off your tits.

Definitely better education would be needed, we don't even have that in place for alcohol now though. Cannabis would be a very good start and a step in the right direction.

[sphericalfox]

Poppers aren't drugs. It's just a way of getting a sore arse.

[Webbo]

No.

I would abolish censorship and prohibition in all its forms. Same thing, different slant.

It always amazes me that it's the vocal right-wing who ostensibly believe in the free-market, believing that corporations can make the best decisions left to themselves and with as little regulation as possible, also believe that individuals should be the last people to make decisions for themselves.

So do you believe in a free market with corporations making their own decisions with as little regulation as possible?

[Daggers]

So do you believe in a free market with corporations making their own decisions with as little regulation as possible?

Do you believe that corporations are equivalent to individual members of society?

[Webbo]

Do you believe that corporations are equivalent to individual members of society?

But you said;

I would abolish censorship and prohibition in all its forms. Same thing, different slant.

Anyway corporations are run by individual members of society, individuals profit from corporations.

Same thing, different slant.

[Daggers]

If it was me I'd legalise cannabis and most other class c's tomorrow, still think I'm a long way from wanting to see Heroin available freely though unless it was being used as a treatment in getting addicts off it.

The thing is heroin is freely available already.

[Daggers]

Anyway corporations are run by individual members of society, individuals profit from corporations.

Same thing, different slant.

I was referring to individuals, as was obvious from my reference to people making choices on my behalf.

Corporations can not be considered to be individuals or extensions thereof, to attempt to draw that parallel is crass and trite.

[Guest MattP]

The thing is heroin is freely available already.

It's not really though is it..

[Daggers]

It's not really though is it..

Would you like some?

[Webbo]

I was referring to individuals, as was obvious from my reference to people making choices on my behalf.

Corporations can not be considered to be individuals or extensions thereof, to attempt to draw that parallel is crass and trite.

I don't see how you can say people should be free to exercise an ultimately destructive hobby but don't think they should be free to earn as much as they can, which to my mind is quite a constructive thing to do.

[dave the caveman]

No one has the right to decide what I can watch or what I can ingest on my behalf.

That's a bit like saying no one has the right to stop you from driving 100mph on the road alongside the local school. It's not about what you are doing to yourself, no one cares if you kill yourself with drugs, they start caring when other innocent people get involved. Some drugs make your behaviour unpredictable and that puts other at risk.

Plus there's the healthcare issue. If you're all about being allowed to intentionally damage your body then you should also expect to have to pay for the repairs.

[Guest MattP]

Would you like some?

Aye, just let me get my belt and cooking up spoon.

[21st Century Fox]

Anyway corporations are run by individual members of society, individuals profit from corporations.

Same thing, different slant.

Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like.

Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow

[Christoph]

"The Corporations maaaaaaan"

[dave the caveman]

"The Corporations maaaaaaan"

I saw him in starbucks earlier writing a poem on his macbook air

[Daggers]

I don't see how you can say people should be free to exercise an ultimately destructive hobby but don't think they should be free to earn as much as they can, which to my mind is quite a constructive thing to do.

I think you need to work out the difference between a corporation and an individual working within a corporation. Then you need to work out how that relates to free will and free choice. Then you need to take it to a thread where people are discussing it.

[Webbo]

Fair enough, I've probably picked enough holes in that argument anyway.

I do have libertarian sympathies, I really do believe in less govt, less rules and regulation but you have to be pragmatic. When the last govt loosened up the licensing laws it was supposed to lead to a continental style cafe culture with less binge drinking. It didn't. It lead to more binge drinking or later binge drinking. Legalising drugs can only lead to wider drug taking if only by a small amount.

I don't buy the tax it argument either, people who take drugs knowingly break the law anyway, I don't see why they'd be desperate to pay tax on their drugs.

If I'm wrong on drugs the worse thing that will happen is things will stay the same if the legalise it lobby are wrong it'll be a disaster.

[21st Century Fox]

Fair enough, I've probably picked enough holes in that argument anyway.

I do have libertarian sympathies, I really do believe in less govt, less rules and regulation but you have to be pragmatic. When the last govt loosened up the licensing laws it was supposed to lead to a continental style cafe culture with less binge drinking. It didn't. It lead to more binge drinking or later binge drinking. Legalising drugs can only lead to wider drug taking if only by a small amount.

I don't buy the tax it argument either, people who take drugs knowingly break the law anyway, I don't see why they'd be desperate to pay tax on their drugs.

If I'm wrong on drugs the worse thing that will happen is things will stay the same if the legalise it lobby are wrong it'll be a disaster.

The war on drugs in South America could hypothetically escalate beyond all recognition as much as any legalisation could be a disaster.

[Guest MattP]

The war on drugs in South America could hypothetically escalate beyond all recognition as much as any legalisation could be a disaster.

Surely there still be an illegal drug trade whatever happens, at no point are we having going to have a whole world where drugs are legal, we can't even achieve a world where eating pork or gambling is legal everywhere.

The drug wars seem to be in Central America nowadays, some of the stuff going on in Mexico now is horrific.

[21st Century Fox]

Surely there still be an illegal drug trade whatever happens, at no point are we having going to have a whole world where drugs are legal, we can't even achieve a world where eating pork or gambling is legal everywhere.

The drug wars seem to be in Central America nowadays, some of the stuff going on in Mexico now is horrific.

No of course not, there's still illegal trade in tobacco and alcohol, but to say that if nothing is done and keeping it as it is won't lead to disaster either is misguided.

Yeah I've got a friends who's a translator in Mexico, it sounds pretty horrendous.

[Daggers]

I do have libertarian sympathies, I really do believe in less govt, less rules and regulation but...

"...only when it applies to things I like or approve of. If I don't approve of something I am happy to see it regulated or banned"

Yep, sounds and smells like a hypocrite to me.

[Steven]

Former top MI6 officer attacks global war on drugs

• Prohibition promotes insecurity and crime

Suggestions that the drug laws need changing, that the global war on drugs has failed, are invariably put down to woolly, liberal, or maverick, thinking. What will be the response then when the suggestions come from a former deputy head of MI6 in a study published by such an established and venerable thinktank as the International Institute for Strategic Studies?

"Drugs have been the commodity which more than any other has primed the pump for the massive rise in organised criminality witnessed since the end of the cold war", writes Nigel Inkster, former MI6 director of operations and intelligence, and author, with Virginia Comolli, of Drugs, Insecurity and Failed States published by the IISS this week.

Drugs still account for about 50% of the profits of organised criminal groups even though many of these groups have diversified into other lucrative activities such as people-smuggling, counterfeiting, and cyber crime, they say.

In principle, therefore, collapsing the black market in drugs ought to have a significant beneficial impact on levels of violence and criminality.

The IISS study is the result of a growing realisation that levels of violence fuelled by narcotics are getting worse, and growing pressure from Latin America for a rethink of current laws prohibiting drugs. It quotes a UN report which warned in 2009: "Collusion between insurgents and criminal groups threaten the stability of West Asia, the Andes, and parts of Africa, fuelling the trade in smuggled weapons, the plunder of natural resources and piracy".

While demand for heroin and cocaine appears to be levelling off in the developed world, the authors point out that Russia and Iran now have substantial populations of heroin addicts, possibly as high as three million in Iran.

Amid all the descriptions and comments on the violence, instability, and corruption in Afghanistan, very few mentions drugs. Yet Afghanistan is the source of 85% of the heroin consumed on the streets not only of western Europe, but of Russia and Iran, along with the rest of the world.

Back in 2001, Tony Blair said Britain would take the responsibility for counter narcotics operations in Afghanistan. It came to nothing. British troops were the first to face the consequences of a policy, so unthought through, that made local Afghans even more suspicious of the motives of foreign soldiers than they already were.

In Afghanistan, say the authors of the IISS study, "the heroin trade helps fuel a long-running insurgency which is unlikely to end in 2014 with the drawdown of Nato/Isaf combat forces, whilst simultaneously perpetuating within the Afghan government levels of criminality and corruption which actively promote the conditions for the insurgency to flourish".

While in Afghanistan the income from opium production represents a "social safety net", some of the poor countries of West Africa "have been taken over and comprehensively corrupted by narcotics-trafficking groups, to the point where the latter secure the loyalty of local populations by providing levels of social welfare far beyond the capacity of states to match", says the report.

The developing world has had to pay for the demand in the developed world for substances which, because they are illegal, acquire an inflated market value "with all the incentives this provides for organised criminal groups".

The study is a welcome clarion call, not for a free-for-all, but for a serious debate based on empirical evidence, free from polemics, emotion, and ideology, about how to eliminate the global black market in drugs - away from prohibition towards a regime based on legalisation combined with regulation.

[Webbo]

Yep, sounds and smells like a hypocrite to me.

Hey I never claimed to be perfect. Maybe I just care too much.

[Daggers]

Hey I never claimed to be perfect. Maybe I just care too much.

I know the feeling.

We're just too damn wonderful.

[davieG]

No chance of this happening but.......

 

Nick Clegg says Lib Dems will abolish jail sentences for drug possession if they win next election

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nick-clegg-says-lib-dems-4022692#ixzz39tIsZr8l 
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook