1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Psychoactive substance ban.

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Corky42, 29 May 2015.

  1. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    If it's illegal to exceed the speed limit then why do we make cars that can?

    It seems to me that a blanket ban on all psychoactive substance would have a similar effect as banning cars (vehicles) being made that can exceed 70Mph, sure it prevents anyone from breaking the speed limit but what about when someone needs to do that.
     
  2. [PUNK] crompers

    [PUNK] crompers Dremedial

    Joined:
    20 May 2008
    Posts:
    2,909
    Likes Received:
    50
    Mind altering substances have been used by most ancient societies whether it be alchohol, types of cactus, cannabis, mushrooms. Apes are known to use the leaves of certain trees to induce some sort of alternate state, arguably it is part of being human as you say.

    I believe a lot of the problems people have with drugs is that they come at it from a moral stand point, I'm not sure I see it as a moral issue, more of a health issue (of course if you down 8 pints of stella go home and beat up your family it becomes a moral issue!).

    I smoke cannabis regularly, I also enjoy a beer or 5. As far as I'm aware I'm not trying to fill a hole in my life, its just something I enjoy, and as we're not here for long we may as well enjoy ourselves!
     
  3. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    I do think these almost-illegal-highs should be banned.

    And pure MDMA be legalised, tested and taxed.
     
  4. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    Yup, because banning drugs has been such an effective strategy. :p

    Interestingly, in the few countries where drugs are not banned, there is substantial less use of 'legal' highs. Why get creative with new substances when the classics work just fine?
     
  5. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Side note.

    This morning I woke up giggling like a little boy. My missus said "uh oh. What were you dreaming about this time".

    Genuinely.

    I dreamt that me and a friend I've known for 30 years were drinking in a crap pub. A youngster comes over and asks us if we want to buy E's. We have roughly 1.5 E each. Spend a while riding round on our mountain bikes. He goes in. I ride around some more. The bit that made me giggle was when I rode my bike off a pier, into the ocean, while pulling a wheelie .....

    Who says drugs are bad?

    :rock::rock::rock:

    (Worth noting I havent indulged in many many years!)
     
  6. Waynio

    Waynio Relaxing

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    211
     
  7. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Playing devils advocate here, but surely banning drugs has been more effective than not, way more people are effect by the two legal drugs in this country than the illegal ones, it's also not like the countries that have a more relaxed approach to drugs don't have problems associated with the legal taking of drugs.
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    No, it hasn't.

    [​IMG]

    Of course you could argue that without the increasing investment in the War on Drugs™ addiction rates would have gone up. But figures from the Netherlands and Portugal appear to dispute that. A more tolerant approach to drugs appears to be associated with lower use and lower criminality.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Waynio

    Waynio Relaxing

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    211
    With synthetics (legal highs) you are lower than a lab rat for dodgy labs that only care about 1 thing, ruthless capitalism, they don't know or care about the effects they have on users & it's far less legal risk for dealers vs regular illegal drugs, they even put “not for human consumption” on the packet & call it plant food etc.

    Synthetics cover many designer drugs so can understand the easy fix blanket ban, they can cause temporary extreme insanity making you dangerous to yourself & anyone around you, ruin lives, make you severely ill & cause death, IMHO authorities took ages to do something about synthetics so yeah I welcome a blanket ban if that's what it takes.

    Also calling them legal highs instead of synthetics likely makes young people assume they are safe to have when they really aren't.

    Bit side topic.
    I believe weed should be legalised, would create jobs, taxable, could be regulated like alcohol from low strength beer to high strength spirits & would make quite a lot of people who aren’t into alcohol endure life happier.



    I'm happy with vaping & tea/coffee. :D
     
    Last edited: 14 Jun 2015
  10. Guest-23315

    Guest-23315 Guest

    Lets be honest, as long as drugs are illegal, there is a **** ton of money there to be made, which more than typically attracts the shady kind of individual.
    And then lets be honest, some people are always going to want to take them. That should be their prerogative if they use them sensibly, can fund them, and are functioning members of society.

    Surely it makes more sense for them to be regulated and sold by the state. You can control the quality of the product, so people don't die from dodgy stuff, you can control how much a person can get, so they can function in society, you take the money out of the hands of criminals and raise tax revenue which can then be used to fund drug courses so people learn how to use them responsibly.

    In my opinion, legalisation is the only way that makes any sense, but i will never be allowed to happen until people of my age are in positions of power.. To be honest I think a minimum price on booze is WAY more important than making drugs illegal.

    And possession for personal consumption should seriously be de-criminalised. That, or at least just chuck it down the drain and let people get on with their lives.

    (I suppose im talking more about 'traditional' narcotics here)
     
  11. Waynio

    Waynio Relaxing

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    211
    I agree Mankz.
     
  12. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    I could also argue that the population of America has increased on average 10-12% every decade, that in 1970 there were only 200 million people and that in 2010 there were 310 million so just to keep a steady state of 1.5% of the population addicted to drugs is going to cost more as the populations rises.

    It's a bit like we are told there's now more people in work than any time in the UK, while true it neglects that there are also many more people living in the UK, records like these are always being broken what with constantly rising population numbers.

    It also depends on whose figures you believe.
    [​IMG]

    The problem is this proposed ban is on all psychoactive substances, in theory vaping & tea/coffee would automatically be banned under such proposals, heck even things like hot chocolate and aroma therapy could be banned under such a cover all proposal.

    But what happens when they can't fund them, when there not being sensible or when there not functioning members of society like some alcoholics.

    Don't get me wrong I know banning doesn't work, just look how prohibition turned out, it's just I think to say making them legal, or that decriminalisation is the perfect answer is a little misleading, it just seems like the less of two evils to me.

    While I agree on the control of the quality I don't see how we would go about controlling the quantity that a person consumes, we can't with things like alcohol or tobacco.

    Strange thing I learnt the other day is that smokers cost the NHS less than non smokers as they pay more taxes and die younger, maybe we should all be thanking those smokers for taking one for the team. ;)
     
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    Again, that depends on whether those smokers use more NHS resources in the shorter time span that they are alive.

    Statistics are tricky, but it doesn't take a long look at the world to know that banning substances doesn't work in the same way that prohibition didn't. Legalisation and regulation is, as you say, the lesser of two evils. You cannot control how much people take, but arguably addiction is not a problem that you solve from that end. For there to be fewer addicts, you need to raise children into more functional adults. But strangely I see more money being spent on the war on drugs than on deprivation, education and community services. Nobody seems to care as much about a third of children in the UK live below the poverty line on sink estates, where they have no place to go and nothing to do, than about how many people smoke pot.

    The whole idea of criminalisation of drugs makes no sense whatsoever. As an attempt at protecting people from the harmful effects of drugs it is counterproductive. How is sending a drug addict to prison and ruining their future life prospects less harmful than smoking pot or doing heroin?
     
  14. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Like you say statistics are tricky but they do tend to agree that smokers pay in up to twice as much as they cost the NHS.

    What have you been smoking. ;)

    It's probably about as harmful as the years of mis-information that's been pumped out on the effects of drugs, the result of very little unbiased research into the effects and the demonizing of anything drug related.

    Much better to lock people up or sack them for telling the truth than to have a grown up debate.
     
  15. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Speaking as someone who would very likely partake if class A's were legal, I am unable to obtain the illegal equivalents due to losing contact with the groups/people where it was easy to obtain. Being classed as mature and a few decades old, I expect there are many people like me - moved away - building families - choose to stay away from those still partaking. Certainly my 3 closest friends would be buying weed now and again if it were legal. And 1 of those friends would likely buy it very regular even though he knows it badly effects him (long term).

    Therefore recrational drugs being illegal does work. I much preferred recreational drugs to drinking booze and I expect an awful lot of people feel the same as me and would happily down a couple of pills rather than poison their livers with vodka and caffeine drinks, too much lager, etc.
     
  16. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    Having a grown-up debate? What have you been smoking? :p

    Sure it works: for every middle-aged guy like you ingesting perfectly harmless alcohol instead of the evil weed, there is some young guy languishing in prison, his future ruined, being introduced to harder drugs and the associated criminal lifestyle. Yup, the system works.
     
  17. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Are you suggesting to legalise weed in prisons to prevent this poor young guy being introduced to the hard stuff while inside?

    You could do with adding some detail to this poor yoofs life history. Like why is his life ruined by recreational drugs being illegal? Why is he in prison in the first place?

    A poor young lad being introduced to the hard stuff is surely not to be blamed on recreational drugs being illegal?! Surely cavity searches are not being done properly and the hard stuff could be prevented from finding its way inside by having visitors properly searched and officers checked?
     
  18. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    Simple. You get drunk, behave like a twit while out on the town, perhaps end up in A&E and all you suffer for it is some public embarrassment (and the approval of your hard-drinking mates). Monday you're back at work, slightly worse for wear, say nothing more of it.

    Some guy smokes some weed, gets busted, goes to prison. Maybe he gets some abuse in prison, maybe some exposure to harder drugs. When he comes out he's lost his job, his future prospects. But it's all for his own good, right?

    No. I suggest we make the whole lot illegal: alcohol, cigarettes, drugs; just put everybody inside. Because let's face it, the only place where a nice middle-aged guy like you can get his hands on some drugs in a safe, controlled environment is in prison. And since you're already inside you don't have to worry about the legal repercussions --or public embarrassment when you behave like a drunken twit. And you don't have to go to work! Just lie in your crib all day and mellow out!
     
    Last edited: 17 Jun 2015
  19. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    People don't go to prison for smoking weed. Well... a person would have to want to go to prison, and get arrested enough times to go to prison for smoking it.

    Therefore, they wanted to be a lags bum bitch, and do some heroin. And play PS3 all day.
     
  20. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,362
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    ORLY? http://www.idmu.co.uk/uk-drug-laws.htm

     

Share This Page