Who should be allowed to use drugs?

[hopefulraymond]

In fact I would argue it makes things worse when all you need to do is wear a suit three times a year and vote in a meeting on a board for a pay check.

i'm not taking sides in this battle, but if anyone hears of this job ^^^, could someone please let me know? I know someone who is ripe for it. <ducking for cover just in case>

 

[opi8]

Cigarettes are legal, addictive and far worse for you than heroin. Alcohol is legal, taxed and many become addicted and that is far worse for your body than any opiod. Why not have the option of a drug like morphine or heroin legal and taxed just like cigarettes and alcohol? Nobody is forcing anybody to use alcohol, nicotine, caffeine or any other legal drug. We should be allowed to choose what we put into our bodies. I think it's incredibly simple and the arguments against legalizing all drugs are too weak for an intelligent person to defend.

 

[One Thousand Words]

I honestly believe that smokers should pay a yearly levy of say $500 for the privilege of using the public health system. The $5billion collected from tobacco taxes is a drop in the ocean of the estimated $30billion they cost the health budget. The same could be implemented for schizophrenics who continue to take drugs once diagnosed or convicted drink drivers who continue to drink alcohol.

 

[bit_pattern]

Educate how? If sitting in a lecture was all it takes you wouldn't need exams. If ad campaigns were truly successful no one would smoke. People are idiots and will harm themselves despite all the warnings or licenses on the planet.

Yet through education (along with a raft of other public health measures) we've reduced smoking rates from >90% down to <20% within two generations. It's the *only* recreational drug where consumption rates have declined over time - and that's been achieved via a two-pronged strategy of effective regulation and widespread public education. Education alone isn't going to help with other recreational drugs until their brought into fold of the regulated market, then health authorities can control the supply and the image of the drug. The quickest way to de-romanticise drug addiction is to medicalise the shit out of it - you're not such a badarse outlaw in the eyes of young people when you have to get your drugs from a pharmacist than in some shady street hustle. Regulate and educate. That is the key IMO.

 

[bit_pattern]

^ are you saying the rich and powerful only score pure products? Well maybe the informed ones do, but I'm sure there's plenty that have no idea.

Miley Cyrus eats 'molly' and lil Wayne od's on codeine. :/

These people need to be educated in what their taking, not just told 'no', that's HR.

Eminem was a benzo junkie - go figure. You'd think with that much cash you could at least have a good drug addiction.

 

[bit_pattern]

You need a licence to drive. Having one to raise a child isn't that crazy an idea.

Well, it kind of IS unless you advocate forced sterilisation or the institutional removal of children from their mothers - and we all know how well THOSE kinds of experiments have worked in the past.

 

[bit_pattern]

Has everybody read this already?

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources/publications/after-war-drugs-blueprint-regulation

After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation

There is a growing recognition around the world that the prohibition of drugs is a counterproductive failure. However, a major barrier to drug law reform has been a widespread fear of the unknown – how could drugs be made safely available after prohibition ends?

For the first time, 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' answers that question by proposing specific models of regulation for each main type of currently prohibited drug.

We demonstrate that legal regulation is not an unthinkable, politically impossible step in the dark, but a sensible, pragmatic approach to control drug production, supply and use.

 

[One Thousand Words]

His albums did go to shit after that to be fair

 

[One Thousand Words]

Well, it kind of IS unless you advocate forced sterilisation or the institutional removal of children from their mothers - and we all know how well THOSE kinds of experiments have worked in the past.

You can't ignore the fact medical science advanced leaps and bounds following WW2

I wouldn't waste my money on the snappy uniforms and funnel the cash into vasectomies.

 

[spacejunk]

Complacent fascist; just lapping up that "free society" (whatever the fuck that is) aren't you?
I'll bet you wouldn't be so smug about the nazis if you were around in those times.
You'd probably be as shit scared as you are of "addiction".

Wasn't Hitler an addict?
And Churchill?
And John Curtin (reformed alcoholic)?

And how about this fellow; the innovator of modern surgical technique?

Society is made up of all kinds of people.
Addicts, dabblers, social deviants of all shapes and sizes.
Some of them happen to make great contributions to mankind.
Deal with it.

 

[bit_pattern]

His albums did go to shit after that to be fair

Naaah, he was a benzo junkie way before that - he was totally fucked up on the Dre 2001 tour - Dre ditching his sorry arse after collecting on the first two albums is what sent him to shit. His music was always about the production, once that was gone his talentlessness really started to shine through

 

[bit_pattern]

I wouldn't waste my money on the snappy uniforms and funnel the cash into vasectomies.

Lol... I'm seriously considering a vasectomy. I'm almost convinced that reproduction is more harmful than non-reproduction and then i'd get to fuck without a dinger to my heart's content

 

[opi8]

I honestly believe that smokers should pay a yearly levy of say $500 for the privilege of using the public health system. The $5billion collected from tobacco taxes is a drop in the ocean of the estimated $30billion they cost the health budget. The same could be implemented for schizophrenics who continue to take drugs once diagnosed or convicted drink drivers who continue to drink alcohol.

Why not make the corporations who make billions of dollars off smokers pay that tax for every smoker?

 

[opi8]

With regards to a parents license, while a bit on the extreme side, I know that a lot of people should at the very least be educated more and have some kind of "test" to show how competent they would be as parents.

Bad parenting can leave long lasting scars on children which often later results in them turning to drugs. I understand that it's a very contentious suggestion, but I do really think that it is a large problem in our society. And how many people are unable to pass a drivers license test? I would imagine that any progress made in educating parents about being parents would be a good thing.

 

[teological]

HR rule number one should always be do not get addicted. Increasing the purity and availability will not solve this problem and arguing that it will is short sighted.

It is not about the drugs, it is about violent crime and corruption. Availability of drugs is not what determines who will use and abuse them. They are already available virtually everywhere, whoever wants them will find them. If we are living in a free society, the federal government should have no right to invade people's privacy. Law enforcement is about protecting people from other people doing them harm, drug use and abuse is not a law enforcement problem. It is fundamentally a healthcare and educational issue.

Even if we do not legalize drugs, they are still always going to be here, only difference is the billion dollar black market will be lining the pockets of criminal gangs who encourage school age children to sell drugs and do not care for any sort of harm reduction. (reference; look up prohibition)

It is not about the drugs, it is about violent crime and terrorism supported by the black market that has no borders and is fully globalized.

I honestly believe that smokers should pay a yearly levy of say $500 for the privilege of using the public health system. The $5billion collected from tobacco taxes is a drop in the ocean of the estimated $30billion they cost the health budget. The same could be implemented for schizophrenics who continue to take drugs once diagnosed or convicted drink drivers who continue to drink alcohol.

If someone is truly a schizophrenic and commits a violent crime, they can uphold a proper defense in court with a plea of insanity, and you want to hold them responsible for using drugs and fine them? Just goes to show how accurate and well thought out your opinions/arguments are.

 

[Christ!]

Interesting thread.

I'm not as black and white as I once was on wanting to legalize/make available all drugs to adults. The arguments put forward by the majority here definitely feel the most logical to me, but in practice I'm not sure how it would go. Education is probably the only thing I feel really strongly about.

Sounds so simple and right - keeping kids away from drugs, stopping black market/violent crime, letting informed people choose what they put into their bodies, saving all that money from pointless drug enforcement. etc...but it just seems like it'd be very complicated, all sorts of unforeseen effects good and bad. If I could flip a switch and make drugs legal I would in a second though

 

[One Thousand Words]

If someone is truly a schizophrenic and commits a violent crime, they can uphold a proper defense in court with a plea of insanity, and you want to hold them responsible for using drugs and fine them? Just goes to show how accurate and well thought out your opinions/arguments are.

It's not a fine as punishment, rather a levy to offset the increased cost of their use. The main argument against legalising weed is its links to schizophrenia in a small minority. If these people are wanting to still smoke they should forfit access to "free" healthcare that the rest of us pay for or at least pay for the privilege. Universal free healthcare for all is not economically viable. If it was the government would simple buil more hospitals and train more doctors. All this talk about education seems to skip past the fact that despite every one knowing the health benefits of diet, exercise and moderate drug use, most people continue to do what they want regardless of the effects. At some point a financial incentive should be provided for those who choose not to place a strain on the health system, whether it's drugs, junk food or simply not doing dumb shit like riding shopping trolleys while pissed.

Mental illness or not you are still punishable for committing serious crimes against society. If you plead insanity you are locked up in a hospital, the difference is you will often not have a set release date. Rarely do they allow you to walk away.

 

[spacejunk]

^ your arguments get weaker and more desperate as this thread goes on.
"Universal free healthcare for all is not economically viable"
Bollocks.
Going to every fucking war America engages in is not economically viable.
Having our court systems and LE energies focused on small-time drug users is not economically viable.

Economics is not the be-all and end-all of a fair, intelligent society.
You might think the population is full of idiots who can't handle using drugs - but how will we ever know what the reality is when it's all swept under the rug by prohibition? Our collective head is in the sand; and that old chestnut about "the rest of us" paying for the alleged cost of the mentally ill taking illicit drugs is as offensive as it is ignorant.

How many PTSD and victims of depleted uranium fallout in our defence forces do you think our little adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have created?
Poppy industry really picked up since the Taliban were supposedly ousted too; interesting, isn't it? I wonder who the real criminals are? My money is not on "the small minority" of people with schizophrenia who choose to smoke cannabis.

Regulation is the only way to stop the madness of the current situation - the profiteering of organised crime, the absence of any measure of safety or quality control in manufacture/cultivation - and the dangerous garbage that is passed off (at top $ in this country) to the consumer.

 

[catching fish]

If these people are wanting to still smoke they should forfit access to "free" healthcare that the rest of us pay for or at least pay for the privilege.

What about obese people?

 

[footscrazy]

I'm going to close this thread for now. At this stage I feel like views have been made clear and that the back and forth is more of a disagreement between individuals rather than a productive contribution to the thread.