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

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

What would happen if drugs were legalised Part 2. Heroin

I agree with you DM. The only viable long term solution is complete legalisation. The human body is an amazing organism and it should be left to make it's own decisions. The government makes too much money from these illegal substances and aren't willing to try a different approach, much like other corporate industries.

The scope of prohibition fails in the way that these substances have been around for decades and hypothetically even if one drug was eradicated another will take it's place. Just like locking up manufacturers and dealers, they won't go anywhere there is always someone willing to stand up and make tonnes of money because prohibition has allowed these drugs to become akin to the price of gold. Legalise these drugs and allow the government to profiteer as they do with everything else or try and diagnose societies need to get high and have money.

In the short term it's cheaper to keep these drugs illegal but in the long term it's not going to help anyone, and come to think of it I doubt the government care anyhow as prohibition is the easiest solution in their eyes.
 
Also, something Ibis and myself were discussing the other day was maybe you could make people do a short course and get certified to use substances. Obviously this wouldn't eliminate problems all together but I think it would go a long way to reducing them. If there was a reasonably rigorous test required to pass a lot of the more irresponsible types probably wouldn't bother.

Granted this does create a black market for it but at the same time I don't have the same issues with punishing people who still fuck around when a little effort would get them legal supplies.
 
Decriminalization is the answer - With government taxed product.

1.) It's legal to posess - lowers police work
2.) No organised crime, gov gives it to you if you want it.
3.) The gov recoups an income of the product to pay for associated heath costs.
4.) No need to rob someone - the product is cheap and you can get it anywhere.

Legal couldn't happen unless again it's totally government owned.
Corperations getting another extremely addictive substance and advertiseing it to 'little timmy' on tv and selling it in the 7/11. That would be a horrible world.

I think a socialist controled substance approach is the way - all drugs are taxed and produced here in AUS. We would boost the economy and the Tax goes into the health system. Controversial but workable.
 
What you described is legalisation not decriminalisation dude. Decrim means it isn't a crime to possess, cops will still take it off you if they find it and if I am not mistaken you can still get fined.

If the Government produces and sells the drugs that is legalisation.
 
Well legal for the government to produce only.
Not legal for corperations.
I can see that working; provided it's a democratically administered system.
 
For me personally, I think legalisation would be more successful then decriminilisation of all drugs. Decriminilisation I believe would actually increase the blackmarket because the punishment would be far less for possession, and people would be less judging of people who wish to use drugs.

Although I'm still pro prohibiting to some extent... but I'm slowing drifting towards legalisation.

I thought it was you D_M (maybe it was Busty_st.Clare) who once said "What someone puts into there own body is not the governments business, but what they do when it's in the body is very much their business"

I would go over which drugs would make sense (in my opinion) to be legalised, but lets just stick to heroin as the thread requests.


I have never used heroin, don't plan on using heroin even if it were legalised.
I think the immediate changes of legalisation of heroin would be great, less needles on the streets, I don't think the amount of addicts would increase that badly either. It's a massively hated drug by most people, it's something that even other drug users look down upon people using. For this reason I believe it would be only a tiny minority of people who would suddenly go "ooo now that heroin's legal I'm gonna get some and put it in my veins"

However in the long term, I could forsee people once in a blue moon trying it, loving it, getting more, and thus beginning their addiction cycle. So whilst most other drugs I would see a quick spike of use, with heroin I see a slow gradual long term increase.

Heroin is a drug that has little value in being legalised.
Maybe the black market for heroin is much worse then I realised, but in my experience the black market runs mostly from meth, cocaine and pills. So the legaisation of heroin probably has more loss then gain, however if other drugs were legalised I think heroin should be too so we can have our fundamental freedoms.
 
drug_mentor said:
Also, something Ibis and myself were discussing the other day was maybe you could make people do a short course and get certified to use substances. Obviously this wouldn't eliminate problems all together but I think it would go a long way to reducing them. If there was a reasonably rigorous test required to pass a lot of the more irresponsible types probably wouldn't bother.

Granted this does create a black market for it but at the same time I don't have the same issues with punishing people who still fuck around when a little effort would get them legal supplies.
Click to expand...

There already exists courses for access to controlled substances. They are called Pharmacists (or doctors) and it takes a little longer than a weekend to understand the complex nature of drug interaction and the human body. These qualifications are more than having knowledge, a strict code of conduct and ethics ensure that not everyone is allowed this privilege. Registration Boards are in placed to maintain a high standard of those with access to such drugs. There are plenty of moral controls that, although in the eyes of the law are not illegal, will result in your registration being revoked. Do you seriously believe that Joe Public is willing to change simply for access to illegal drugs?


Unfortunately as much as "freedom for all" is a warm and fuzzy catch cry, in reality most people are idiots and have not proven to me that they could handle legalisation. Some people are just hard wired to be anti social, whether it is getting in the face of innocent bystanders or simply going over board and throwing harm reduction out the window. Lets say I am being too harsh and in reality only 10% of people would have problems, become addicted, be a social disturbance. If I went to the football tonight, in a crowd of 50 000, 5000 people would cause a disturbance. For these people drug use is not a personal choice because they can not help affecting others. Even 2500 (5% ) is too many for me to be convince there would not be an adverse affect on our society.
 
Crankinit said:
The only way I can see it working is if users are forced to register for some kind of insurance policy whereby they pay a certain amount to be able to use meth, and this money goes towards monitoring their use, having regular counselling on hand, paying for any healthcare problems that arise, etc etc. Basically negating the strain on society.
Click to expand...

I think this is one angle that might make it worthwhile. I think this would be a good idea.


drug_mentor said:
I have a million more complicated reasons I believe legalisation is a more sensible policy than prohibition, but I am also a very firm believer in freedom and to me freedom is black and white, you either have it or you don't.
Click to expand...

What if someone who is fucked up causes me harm and fucks up my own freedom's. I.e the freedom to be left alone.

Freedom for drug users, or freedom for everyone?
 
That is one of the main arguments against anarchism. We have to limit freedoms, when it comes to harm of others. Drawing the line on those limitations often becomes the problem, because harm can occur in mamy ways not just the physical.
 
Busty St Clare said:
There already exists courses for access to controlled substances. They are called Pharmacists (or doctors) and it takes a little longer than a weekend to understand the complex nature of drug interaction and the human body. These qualifications are more than having knowledge, a strict code of conduct and ethics ensure that not everyone is allowed this privilege. Registration Boards are in placed to maintain a high standard of those with access to such drugs. There are plenty of moral controls that, although in the eyes of the law are not illegal, will result in your registration being revoked. Do you seriously believe that Joe Public is willing to change simply for access to illegal drugs?


Unfortunately as much as "freedom for all" is a warm and fuzzy catch cry, in reality most people are idiots and have not proven to me that they could handle legalisation. Some people are just hard wired to be anti social, whether it is getting in the face of innocent bystanders or simply going over board and throwing harm reduction out the window. Lets say I am being too harsh and in reality only 10% of people would have problems, become addicted, be a social disturbance. If I went to the football tonight, in a crowd of 50 000, 5000 people would cause a disturbance. For these people drug use is not a personal choice because they can not help affecting others. Even 2500 (5% ) is too many for me to be convince there would not be an adverse affect on our society.
Click to expand...


This is a top point, but hardly applies to Heroin, because to my knowledge people who are heroin addicts would prefer to do it in their own home or at least away from large crowds.

But your point depicts exactly how I feel about the legalisation of speed.
 
Just a reminder that this is not a discussion about whether drugs should or should not be legalised.

Its a discussion assuming that heroin was made legal to use tomorrow and what we might expect to find in ten years time.

There was an interesting point made up there by I think drug mentor that maybe people would be expected to pass a course before being able to use. While I understand Bustys suggestion that that is what a pharmicist does, if heroin was legalised then its a very definite possibility that a licence to use could be introduced and to get said licence one would need to attend a course. Such course would I expect cover in depth harm reduction concepts.
 
Yeh but a license to use just creates another black market opportunity; ie those who don't have set license. Same deal we have today.
 
aero said:
Yeh but a license to use just creates another black market opportunity; ie those who don't have set license. Same deal we have today.
Click to expand...

Drug_mentor also already covered that saying, that yes this would create a black market, but it would be a massive dent in it. And most people would get around to doing the course so that they don't have to break the law to get the heroin.

Also if their was a black market for it, it would either be cheaper then heroin therefore you would be questioning it's purity. Or it would be the good stuff inwhich case they would have to price it harder illegaly then you would get it legally.

I also think you should think about that full blown heroin addicts will do almost anything to get a fix, therefore going through the course wouldn't seem so bad rather then being too dependent on their supplier.
 
MazDan said:
There was an interesting point made up there by I think drug mentor that maybe people would be expected to pass a course before being able to use. While I understand Bustys suggestion that that is what a pharmicist does, if heroin was legalised then its a very definite possibility that a licence to use could be introduced and to get said licence one would need to attend a course. Such course would I expect cover in depth harm reduction concepts.
Click to expand...

That would do nothing to eliminate a black market in my opinion. Anyone who who is registered would be on a database that insurance companies would be extremely interested in. I'm not just talking about health insurance but also income protection, life insurance even car insurers would be highly interested in your habit, not to mention your employers. It would be still cheaper in the long run to search out your poison from criminals.
 
What would happen is the same thing that would happen in the late 1800s/early 1900s back when heroin was legal, and easily available at whatever pharmacy/general store.
 
^Not quite, it wasn't known as a menance then. It is now, I think all we really need is pharmacotherapy with the persons drug of choice. Legalisation really isn't the 'solid' option for any abuseable substance.

Obviously, pharmacotherapy for amphetamines would be pretty useless, keeping someone amped up 24/7 hardly stops the psychotic episodes that commonly plague such users.

My for legalisation argument is based upon crime rates, and violent crimes comitted by offenders who are comitting those crimes to supply their heroin addiction (by violent crime i include; robbery, assault, murder etc)
 
Busty I don't think pharmacists are allowed to recreationally use anything they want, so such a course infact does NOT exist. I don't recall saying a "weekend course" either, I did say a short one but anything up to 6 months full time qualifies as a short course. I think the length of the course would vary depending on the drug. Someone doesn't have to understand absolutely everything about a drug to use it safely anyway, just general dosing, effects, what not to mix it with and general first aid. I also think each drug should be looked at to determine an age restriction, 18 might be a tad young for some of the harder substances.

Maybe the world hasn't proven itself worthy enough to use drugs in your eyes, but last I checked it didn't answer to you.

Sykik, I see what you are saying but the fact is, people impose on others freedoms every day and sometimes it is caused by drugs, the majority of the time it isn't. We have the police and courts to punish people who do the wrong thing, drugs being legal doesn't turn the world into some free for all where it is just anarchy and the junkies run around with free reign. For the slight increase in agro wankers over the weekend who are on too much meth and grog there would be a massive reduction in robberies and shit, I really don't see legalising drugs turning the world into a more dangerous place than it is today. Factor in the elimination of a huge percentage of organised crime and I think you would find an overall reduction in violence worldwide on a phenominal scale.

In my opinion I don't think anyone could claim the odds of another person impacting on their own freedom would increase substantially just because drug use became legal. To me it is just shit to say oh nobody should do drugs because a small percentage of people are wankers on them, the majority of those people are antisocial wankers whether they use drugs or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top