I'd posit that the illegal status coupled with the general areas of dealing and people doing the dealing are sufficient to put many users off trying it. You may be able to get what you want within an hour, but I'm sat here in Leicester, and I wouldn't have a clue where to get some from, I might be able to make a phone call and get a bit of green waiting for me when I get home but that's it. Looking around the office I would guess that 90% of the folk sitting around me wouldn't have a clue where to look for some class A's. But make it legal, government says it's OK, even if you restrict outlets to pharmacy's and you'll have, at least to begin with, a large increase in people trying it, they won't need to skulk in alleyways
Essentially what you're arguing is that availability is what keeps people off drugs, while what I'm arguing is that other factors, such as social pressure, education, and general levels of fulfillment are the reason most people don't use say, heroin. I think the availability argument really fails for the simple reason that, as I said, if that's what was keeping people from taking drugs, they wouldn't have to work very hard to find things.
I think there are merits in both arguments, and the truth is probably blurred somewhere in the middle.
I don't think it necessarily keeps people off of drugs, but when it is not so available people are less inclined to try and get it. It becomes a lot more of an effort than popping to your local convenience store and people are generally lazy. But my primary concern is still at lest with alcohol we have learnt to deal with it, does it really seem wise to implement something that could potentially have an equivicol or possibly worse scathing affect on society. Maybe it would be better but maybe it wouldn't, is it worth the expense and potential risks? Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio using Tapatalk 2
Just to mix things up a bit - When someone mentions cocaine to me - I picture someone snorting some white powder in a toilet cubicle. When someone mentions alcohol - I picture a pint of craft beer or a glass of pinot. The affects of both may be sociable, but the methods of consumption are miles apart. Even if controlled drugs were legalised - the stigmas attached would be hard to shake off.
This seems to be something that the prohibitionists don't get. The effect has already occurred. It's here. Drugs are everywhere and plentyfull and relatively cheap. We do not have the option of having drugs or not having drugs. Our options are whether to keep them illegal or not, the idea that we can somehow impact upon the availability is just wrong - the market is saturated with all varieties of drugs. So, here's the real choice guys: Do you want to maintain most drugs being illegal (excepting alcohol, Tobacco, Coffee etc), jailing addicts and dealers, putting up with the massive amounts of crime addicts commit to fund their habits, the dirty needles they share causing aids and hepatitis, the massive cost these two things bring with them in terms of policing and NHS costs. Or, do you want a system which minimises the damage that illegal drug users inflict upon our society in their quest to scrape together more money to line drug dealers pockets?
The goverment should give smack-heads kilos of heroin for free, then maybe old ladies wont get mugged for their pension.
This is the states attempt of trying to put themselves in a position which would allow for them to cash in on peoples misfortune and abuse. The only way the state can do that is to control and regulate supply whilst also pass laws which forbids the citizens themselves to make their own alcohol and sell it, or, as in this case - drugs. Taxation and control is what this is all about. Not the well being of the population. Note: I'm not advocating (nor am I ever going to advocate) drug use or use any other substance abuse. I never have and I never will.
I wouldn't say drugs are relatively cheap, I mean £50 a gram for coke is not an everyday affordability for most people. The drug market is nowhere near as saturated as the alcohol market, opening it up to legalisation will make it even more saturated. Because If we legalise drugs and devalue them to an everyday priced item like alcohol we are running the same risks of instigating nothing more than a replacement for alcohol. I don't know the figures but I would guess it costs less money to control illegal drug users than it does all these binge drinkers and alcoholics. My only reason to legalise drugs would be to get tax from it, same with prostitution, I say make em pay. Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio using Tapatalk 2
I live in a city where there are more bars per capita than anywhere else in the USA. Let me tell you it causes some problems. Lots of drunk driving, fights and people wandering into the Mississippi river and drowning. I have taken my share of drugs, believe me, and if one were to be legalized it should be marijuana. They only give ordinance violations for it here. Maybe if we are lucky, in the next five years, it will be legal. As far as I know, no one has ever died from it, bar a car accident or two.
I live in Colchester, which was actually on a documentary recently called Party Paramedics as some of you may have seen on Channel 4 claiming that it's one of Britains hardest drinking towns. There is no denying that there's a massive binge drinking culture here , although i'm sure it's probably worse in other places - but what some people don't know is there's a big drug culture here as well. It shocks me how easily drugs can be acquired , and also - no joke, pretty much 90% of guys under 21 here you can assume smoke up regularly. Personally that doesn't bother me it's how messy Friday/saturday nights can be, especially in a town with lots of Soldiers they can get pretty mad - if they were smoking rather than drinking I bet things would be a lot calmer haha.
The only outcome from legalizing drugs is that you drop the crime rate since now instead of people having to rely on dealers they can waltz down to the store to get their fix. Legalizing drugs will result in more use, more addictions, and potentially more hardships from people becoming addicted. The junkies that you see on the street begging for change? They will still be there, and there will probably be more of them as people who would not usually try the drugs due to them being illegal become addicted. Now I do think that there is a middle ground somewhere. Marijuana, as much as I hate stoners and their stoner logic, would probably not cause any problems if it were to be legalized. Legalizing Coke/LSD/Heroin on the other hand would probably cause more problems than it would fix. In the end as it has been stated, when you want to reduce drug usage you need to educate people on the effects and the detrimental effects from using drugs. The law is a small part of the problem but the lack of education and understanding is the real issue.
I think there's strong eviudence that it would not lead to increased use. Look at what happened in Portugal when they effectively leglised drug use (for all drugs, cocaine, pot, heroin, etc) in 2001. The Cato Institute (a typically conservative think tank) studied the effects and found that: I believe the only way forward is legalisation of all drugs.
But does that take into account the different mindsets across nations? Being a US citizen I know first hand that many American's will do whatever feels/tastes/looks good even if it is bad for them. Especially here in the South, there is a blatant disregard for keeping a healthy lifestyle because doing so would rob people of the things that make them feel good inside (food/drinking/drugs). I have seen this first hand when I have had this conversation with many of my friends, that if drugs were to be legalized they would go out and do them since they want to feel good inside. And surprisingly, and this was truly surprising for me, many of these people are not the general chav-like scum but students with high ambitions studying in the fields of medicine, engineering, and other main-science fields. Now, with all that being said, I do think that eventually our culture will mature to the point that we can handle something like that but right now I feel as if the American culture is in its teen-age years constantly changing and trying to figure out what it wants to be. Think about it, the European cultures have been around for much longer than the American and can be seen to be more stable in their national mindsets and ideologies than when compared the American culture. In the grand timeline of the world, the American culture is nothing but a child when compared to that of the Germanic culture, the Italian/Roman culture, or even the Nordic tribes. We are still finding out who we really are and until we as a people get a handle on that, nothing will be able to feasibly work out. --edit-- And also what Parge said in the post just after mine
Well, 99% of the population drink, its fair to attribute at least part of that to the fact that its legal. I wonder how many would if it were illegal? So, if Heroine/Coke/LSD all became totally legal, we'd likely see a lot of the population begin to use them much more heavily, and as, unlike alcohol, we haven't had years to get a feel for to our personal 'recommended dosage' there would likely be a lot more overdoses. LSD is a very powerful hallucinogen and has the potential to cause brain damage, or as I call it 'going a bit Syd' (Barret) Cocaine causes feelings of empowerment that can be very addictive, not to mention its long term effects on the central nervous system. Heroine, again is extremely addictive, possibly leading to people that can't afford it to commit more crime, and though you can smoke it, is 'best' injected - which can lead to vein collapse etc etc. Not sure I want to see more people with any of these afflictions than we already have.
Need to do your reading buddy, LSD is up there with Ecstasy for being, essentially, completely and utterly safe. Heroin needn't lead to vein collapse, if injected properly and irregularly enough. There are plenty of users out there who've been using for 20 or 30 years and living functional lives. Addictive it is, but besides that it's pretty much harmless. If one OD's it slows down the metabolism to a dangerous degree, but then that occurs more often than not because of a lack of regulation. Similarly, the crime which is carried out is due to price - we'd be better off just giving the stuff away to junkies for life, certainly we'd save a lot more money than we're using on policing and the CJS right now. Jonnie Walker's on the phone, he'd like a word with you - We already have alcohol legal, there's no morally consistent way of denying a similarly harmful drug like cocaine.
Legalisation doesn't = easy access to all drugs. The state could still regulate its sale, just like it does with alcohol. But you'd have a form of quality control with the state regulating the supply of drugs, which you obviously don't get now (for the drugs we're on about). This means safer drugs, that aren't cut with crap, which have proper dosage information and instructions for use on the packet. In turn, legalisation helps the tax payer because you no longer have to pay for the enforcement against drug use, crime is decreased and you'd get taxes on the sale of the drugs (research done in 2009 by the charity Transform found that it could give the UK a net saving of 14billion). Remember, there's always going to be addicts; this just means it's no longer a criminal offence to use drugs, and the supply is regulated and controlled by the state (thus ending the whole black market). Now even if it were true that it increased the number of drugs users slightly, which I don't think is true based upon past cases like Portugal, I believe the public would tolerate it anyway for the benefits it would bring (ending the criminal drug market and crime that goes with it, and giving users safer drugs that are regulated and taxed). Of course, they'd have to make it so that there would be no point in buying from an illicit drug dealer, so access and price would have to be considered carefully for each drug. I.e it wouldn't just give heroine addicts unlimited supply of free/cheap heroine. It would probably give them enough so that they could get their kick, like in state-run clinics with clean drugs, but with conditions that they have to try and lead a normal working life. If they start doing criminal stuff then they still face the courts etc. And just about the point that cheap drugs = more users. Well, I have tried most drugs in one form or another when I was growing up, and I can safely say I would not take them again even if they were free on my doorstep. I could, if I wanted, go out and buy ecstasy pills and cocaine and all sorts, but I wouldn't even if they were free (last time I checked ecstasy tablets were cheaper than a pint anyway, and access is hardly difficult in manchester, yet I don't take them because of past experiences and I care about my mental and physical health).
