• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

NEWS: Drug prohibition doesn't work - so what do we do next?

footscrazy said:
^^ Yes, I think so.
Click to expand...

Right, right, my mistake, have only glanced at the replies tbh

In fact the kind of people with the limited brain power who wont do drugs 'because they are illegal', would probably be the same ones to turn their brain off after hearing they are legal,
Click to expand...

Darwinism? Maybe we could do the gene pool a favour? ;)
 
PsiloSubNaut said:
Please don't take offense to this...

If drugs were legalized years before you were born, you may very well have had the knowledge to not have had your life ruined by drugs in the first place.
Click to expand...

Hey hey I wasn't talking about myself ;). Just presenting an alternate view to the hypocrisy that Drug_Mentor brought up.

You could be right, however I just think education is but one factor in people deciding (and continuing) to do drugs. Education can't prevent everyone from becoming addicts.
 
^^ Indeed, but nothing can (stop all people from being addicts), but we can minimisr the impact on society and individuals if we have oversight of the market.
 
Last edited:
PsiloSubNaut said:
Yet another good point in the thread

The studies from European countries such as Switzerland point to less use, will try get some links up tonight

I'll say it once again

There will always be addicts...

EDIT* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-00kU4a4sc heroin drug trial in Switzerland

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/ille-e/library-e/collin1-e.htm Switzerland's drug policy
Click to expand...

thats what i was getting at but forgot to provide those links (and i was inebriated). there's some good doco's available online in relation to those trials.
 
bit_pattern said:
There's two choices, as I see it, either leave the market unregulated and let organised crime run it, or regulate the market in a sensible manner and let the government run it. That doesn't mean a free for all, it means a sensible evaluation of a particular drug on its merit, and an acceptance of the fact that regardless of how much you try to ignore it some people are going to use drugs that you might find distasteful or socially harmful, then figure out ways of minimising the impact. It's been mentioned before, the Blueprint for Regulation, but as I see it that is the only common sense approach to this issue.

We can administer methadone safely and responsibly, why not heroin? We can administer alcohol and tobacco without (too much) problems, why not ecstacy and marijuana?

Just because something ahs been legalised/decriminalised doesn't automatically mean it will be more widely available, quite th opposite, you could legalise and make problematic drugs LESS available simply because the government has oversight of the market.

I can't believe there are so many wowser fucktards on BL! I guess some people like the idea of legalising the drugs THEY enjoy, and imposing a moral judgment on drugs they find frightening. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
Click to expand...



drug_mentor said:
I just don't understand how hard drug users can speak out saying it should remain illegal. So you are consuming less pure drugs and paying out your arse for them and can face criminal convictions and possibly jail for indulging?

Apart from the direct influence that it has on you, what about the hypocrisy? You believe you can use these substances but others should be banned from doing so? The only things that should be against the law are things like robbery and murder, shit that is directly anti social and negatively impacts on other people. In my mind if something is illegal then it should be immoral, there is nothing immoral about drug use. How in the fuck is anybody going to tell me what I can and can't put in my own body? Its a load of shite really, if someone ends up a serious addict and is fucking up major then they will be caught out on the crimes they commit to support their habit. Why punish the sensible majority eho use occassionally, even functional addicts deserve the right to stay as fried as they want as often as they want so long as they are paying their own way and not neglecting their children or anything.

I don't think anybody can get any drug under the sun but I would wager that people who can't find atleast speed, E and marijuana are a HUGE minority. You only have to read the bloody papers to know where to go to score heroin on the streets. ANYBODY can get drugs, if they actually want them it doesn't take much determination to seek them out. I am not talking about fancy or novel compounds here but your bread and butter recreational drugs are out there in huge quantities and anyone with the slightest hint of curiosity, determination and cash in their wallet can find a chemical to suit their preferences.
Click to expand...

^The government already tells you what you are and aren't allowed to put in your body, but if drugs were legalised the government would also be telling you how much you are allowed to put in your body. I think that is worse!

To those that keep saying "goverment regulation" - what makes you think that the government will be on the drug users' side? Regulation means the government telling us how much of each substance we're allowed and I can't see the government letting us have the same amount that we consume now. Legalisation doesn't mean open market and I don't think drug users will appreciate being told how much of each substance they are allowed.


As you say drug_mentor, nobody wants to be told what/how much they can put in their own body.
 
Originally Posted by footscrazy
I do however diagree with the first line 'IT'S not Suzanne's fault that she became addicted to heroin at 16.' This is just feeding into the image of drug users as helpless, useless people at the bottom of the social scale. It's important that the general public realises that this is not the typical drug user - and that many can use more or less responsibly while still being productive members of society.
Click to expand...

I completely understand why a lot of people would disagree with this. Footscrazy is right - the woman in this article only represents a small % of people who use drugs.... but I can't help wondering about this small %. They too are not hopeless drug addicts, no matter how they are represented. They are just the people who bare the brunt of drug policy and media hype because they are constantly under the microscope (and who doesn't look bad under a microscope!) My experience tell me that these people (sex workers, wards of the state etc) are just as capable as everyone else, but they are probably doing it tougher than most people can imagine.
 
bit_pattern said:
I can't believe there are so many wowser fucktards on BL! I guess some people like the idea of legalising the drugs THEY enjoy, and imposing a moral judgment on drugs they find frightening. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Call me a fucktard but I have dabbled in illegal drugs for almost 20 years and I have not once had any problems with the law. I haven't even been stopped and searched. I have never had any trouble source what ever I wanted. I have always had great relationships with my neighbours who don't call the cops on me despite some strange behaviour in my backyard. Perhaps I have been lucky, perhaps I have been doing it right, who is to say?


I'm not saying you can't do drugs, I'm just saying I see more harm if things are opened up. I guess I have no confidence in my fellow man having experience one too many fucktards on the streets over the years :\
 
Alice_Chipper said:
I completely understand why a lot of people would disagree with this. Footscrazy is right - the woman in this article only represents a small % of people who use drugs.... but I can't help wondering about this small %. They too are not hopeless drug addicts, no matter how they are represented. They are just the people who bare the brunt of drug policy and media hype because they are constantly under the microscope (and who doesn't look bad under a microscope!) My experience tell me that these people (sex workers, wards of the state etc) are just as capable as everyone else, but they are probably doing it tougher than most people can imagine.
Click to expand...

The people that you talke about (the so called junkies) would be much better off in a non-prohibition scenario. The social stigma of being addicted to drugs would be much lesser, and with the changing attitudes due to education it is likely there would be much more assistance for those with a drug addiction.

I think it stands to be said that there is nowhere near enough assistance being given to dependant drug users.

We can only go forward from our current situation. I can't honestly see how anyone could want prohibition any longer considering the profound damage it has caused to our society. The alternatives to prohibition are simply superior in almost every aspect.
 
Busty St Clare said:
Call me a fucktard but I have dabbled in illegal drugs for almost 20 years and I have not once had any problems with the law. I haven't even been stopped and searched. I have never had any trouble source what ever I wanted. I have always had great relationships with my neighbours who don't call the cops on me despite some strange behaviour in my backyard. Perhaps I have been lucky, perhaps I have been doing it right, who is to say?


I'm not saying you can't do drugs, I'm just saying I see more harm if things are opened up. I guess I have no confidence in my fellow man having experience one too many fucktards on the streets over the years :\
Click to expand...

Right, your friends ended up on the street even though drugs were illegal. You've never had a problem sourcing drugs despite them being illegal. And this is an argument for prohibition, how exactly?

If drugs were regulated then maybe your friends wouldn't have sourced them so easily, maybe they would have got the support they needed if they did get on drugs and wouldn't have ended up on the street.

I've had friends who have gone to jail for selling drugs, friends that have committed burglaries to support their habits, they weren't lucky, they are victims of the drug war. But you want to defend the status quo because you were "lucky"? Yeah, that's a fucktard attitude imo.
 
Sameria said:
Lets not all forget that if drugs were legalized and education implemented effectively, everyone would know the assosciated dangers of drugs and there would be a hell of a lot less of an "if its OTC it's safe" attitude, which we all know simply isn't true.)
Click to expand...

But that's just it, we (BL) are only aware of the dangers OTC products can cause because of our research. Some people simply do not care about the risks associated. I wonder how many heroin related deaths there would be on the first day it became available in shops...

footscrazy said:
Do you really think so though? Already many people draw a line between prescription drugs (ms contins etc) and heroin, not because the effect profile is very different but because one is illegal and has such a stigma attached to it (the stigma being mainly due, directly or indirectly, by it being illegal). I think stigma prevents a lot of people from doing certain drugs, and while the stigma of drugs wouldn't disappear overnight if they were made legal, gradually it would.

I think that you are looking at this from the point of view of a drug user - while it may be easy for you to get any drug, for a majority of people it would be extremely difficult to find heroin or even ecstasy because they just don't run in the right circles. I would guess that probably 95% or more of the population doesn't even know what datura looks like, which makes it's comparison against alcohol or tobacco (which everyone has seen and grown up with) fairly meaningless imo.

For the record, I lean towards supporting legislation, but I think it is naive to think that the number of users, and therefore problem users, will not greatly increase. Like I said before, I think the stigma and unavailability of illegal drugs is the only thing that's keeping a vast number of people from doing them. I suppose it comes down to whether you think having a vastly greater number of users (and addicts) is worse than the multitude of problems we have now. Though on second thoughts I suppose it is not upto anyone but yourself to decide whether you risk addiction or not. My point is just that I think the number of users will greatly increase.
Click to expand...

Well put, I totally agree. The stigma most definitely makes a big impact on the decision to consume a drug or not - how many people do you think knew about all the dangers of alcohol before they consumed it for the first time? They only did it so willingly because their family, friends and community were doing it. Stigma means so much more than I think a lot of the posters here realise.

drug_mentor said:
In my mind if something is illegal then it should be immoral, there is nothing immoral about drug use..
Click to expand...

Not too big of a deal but just wanted to say, while this is generally true, not always. It is not immoral to wear seat belts in cars, yet it is a law. I don't ever hear anyone saying how it should be legal to not wear a seatbelt because they should be able to choose how safe their bodies are.

trippa said:
The reason that Alcohol and Tobacco are so widely abused come's down to the fact that people can use them day in day out and still lead productive (not necessarily healthy but at least they know the risks) lives.
Click to expand...

But that's just it trippa, alcohol and tobacco destroy millions of lives and families, a LOT of users who are addicted do not lead productive lives at all, let alone healthy. It is this problem group that we should be paying attention to.

Also, it is perfectly legitimate for a smoker to tell kids not to smoke. One can be in a situation, abusing a substance, continue to do it but still wish that others never discover the horrible drug in the first place.
 
Last edited:
chemi; It's inevitable this would happen to a certain degree, but with high-profile education the damage caused in the initial stages of legalisation would be decreased. How much exactly I can't say, but I can't imagine you would have bodies laden the streets from overdoses.

The children would (I hope) be educated at an early age through the school system.
 
To add to what I have posted previously, I believe if we can educate children from a young age, and THEN have drugs become more available, that may be a much better way of handling it. There will be a nasty overlap when the drugs are available and the education still has not sunk in yet.

Perhaps a decade would be long enough. But this is an unrealistic suggestion, would never happen and probably wouldn't work.
 
bit_pattern said:
I've had friends who have gone to jail for selling drugs, friends that have committed burglaries to support their habits, they weren't lucky, they are victims of the drug war. But you want to defend the status quo because you were "lucky"? Yeah, that's a fucktard attitude imo.
Click to expand...

Because those are the "real" victims 8)

What about the poor bloke who decided not to touch drugs who was robbed? They didn't have a choice. Or perhaps they chose not to be so fucking weak and selfish and remained a productive member of society, not a drain. Your "mates" are the prime example of those who don't deserve legalisation because then they wouldn't have anything to blame their problems on.

I was being facetious when I said I was lucky. I haven't been in trouble because I work hard, keep my activities on the downlow and have priorities other than just getting fucked up. I wouldn't be niave enough to say I am smart, I'm just not stupid.
 
^^ If drugs were legal people wouldn't NEED to rob people. That's the whole point of legalising and regulating drugs. 8)

Seems to me you haven't bothered trying to understand the arguments against prohibition. Medicalise drug addiction, give it to addicts on the PBS, and let them live their lives in peace. Not only are they not out robbing people, the organised crime that thrives on drug profits will wither and die
 
Why? Because the governent wouldn't tax the shit out of them to pay for an increase in public health spending? Even weed would come with a growers licence of at least $500, not unlike the rego for the car.

Maybe I'm not bothered by your arguments because I pay more tax than you earn in a year and would prefer this to be spent on roads that I use and not the PBS Herion that I do not. The health system should exist for those who can not help themselves not those who help themselves. The point of any policy should be to eliminate addiction not feed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top