phase_dancer said:
Education; What should it include/exclude? Where should it be taught and to what level. Should restrictive legislation exist for drug related books etc?
Drug Education should be discussed openly and honestly with anyone of any age who seeks information. The subject should be touched upon from the ages of 10 and up, yet in depth information should be given on a voluntary basis to anyone, perhaps by a school psychologist/nurse. Classroom discussions should look at drug use as part of their health/science study, but always end with the teacher encouraging those who want more info to see the psychologist or whoever is in charge of drug issues as they relate to students. Though information provided should be unbiased and fact-based rather than morality-based, under-age drug use should be discouraged. I feel this stance can be easily justified without resorting to a 'drugs are bad mmkay' ethos, which should be avoided at all costs. Secular humanist principles based on reason will be the basis for the approach, much like like sex ed. is taught now.
Arbitrary moralism should be the task of parents, preachers, private/religious schools, and strange men with megaphones on city street corners.
This all may be considered too early by some, however I was thoroughly interested in the subject at that age. I was smoking pot at 10 and used needles (heroin) and many prescription drugs at age 13. I did quite a few potentially lethal things at that age, and only because I didn't know enough. Would I have started taking drugs later with such education available? Doubtful. Would I have done potentially lethal drug combos/dosages/methods-of-administration if I knew the real risks involved? No.
Luck alone got me through quite a few stupid and dangerous acts where I was unaware of the risks I took. For others who were not so lucky, lack of education proved lethal.
Legislation; All or nothing, or something in between?
Consenting adults should be free to consume whatever substances they wish to. This is not an opinion based on my love for drugs, it's a philosophical/political standpoint.
I believe that the state does not have the right to sovereignty over my body, that right is mine and mine alone. I support euthanasia rights for the same reason.
Drugs would be sold at pharmacies, aquired from under/behind the counter on request. Each box/packet would contain an information sheet on the drug supplied, listing contra-indications, explanations of effects at all dosage levels, and any other risks that may be involved with taking the drug.
People should also be able to produce their own drugs for personal consumption, yet selling them would be illegal unless they were subject to both taxes and quality control, much like growing tobacco and selling your own cigarettes is illegal now. The existence of Shulgin wannabe's would however prove valuable, as it would provide further incentive for those selling rec. drugs to keep prices down at levels that greatly reduce drug related crime.
Any company should be free to move into rec. drug manufacture to keep prices competitive (low), and no patents shall be granted to any drugs discovered and sold for recreational use for this same reason. Monopolies and drugs don't mix well, the worst dealers are the ones that know you have nowhere else to go.
Quality Control Options; I realise most (if not all) bluelighters support testing, but how far do you think this should go? Should it include lab testing - free even - or perhaps you'd go as far as to say it's the governments responsibility, seeing that so much is already being spent in the *publics' interest* but in reality, making things no safer.
All drugs sold legally would be subject to the same quality controls that apply to any other drugs you buy at your pharmacy. People who make their own drugs for personal use would be exempt, providing they do not sell the drugs. I don't see this causing any special problems as almost all consumers would rather mass produced products which would undoubtedly be cheaper and safer than their backyard counterparts. If companies started charging too much, they'd lose business to backyard producers illegally selling their products so it would not be in their interests to do so.
Advertising; Should it be left as is; cigs and alcohol only? Or should it be banned altogether or perhaps allowed for anything & everything?
Advertising should only be allowed in magazines/venues that are restricted to those 18 years and older.
Health Care; Should rehab be free, should it be compulsory, or should it be available at all?
Drug treatment is probably the only health/edu./welfare service that I support being paid for by a regressive GST type taxes on rec. drugs rather than progressive income tax. This is because unlike things such as poverty, most illness and homelessness, which are often the result of ones circumstances or sheer bad luck, the negative effects sometimes caused by drug use are purely the result of personal choice, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Studies should be done to work out the financial impact made by each particular drug on the healthcare system, then each drug is taxed to cover only it's own impact. This way, those who choose not to take certain risks don't have to pay for those who do.
Another reason that tax revenues from each drug should only be used to deal with the effects of that drug is to avoid the sort of government revenue rasing going on with parking violations, which could prove problematic with drugs as it could raise the prices up to the levels we currently see with prohibition, causing unnecessary negative impact from drug use, thereby defeating the whole purpose of legalising them in the first place.
...and personally I'd rather my $200 go to a crime organisation than to cover the budget holes before some mealy-mouthed politician's re-election campaign.
If taxes were kept this way, I believe covering the healthcare impact while keeping prices very low would not prove very difficult at all.
Also, I believe these measure would push drug related crime to insignificant levels, which of course takes a huge burden off of law enforcement and prisons, saving the government truckloads of money. This money can be used to cover any unforseen problems not accounted for, give everyone tax breaks, and improve the quality of all government sevices.
Try to give sensible reasons for your opinions. A hard core approach isn't what's asked for. Intellectual dissidence and reasoning is
How about the cognitive dissonance that comes with being a philosophical anarchist combining free market individualism with welfare state socialism to bring down a crypto-fascist status quo? Sometimes I make me sick