Raving Loony
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Messages
- 3,181
Maybe, but at least with alcohol you have to drink yourself stupid. The same does not apply to most street drugs.
Restricted to those over 18 years old, all drugs including nicotine and alcohol (recently added), are available only with the appropriate approval. This involves a medical examination which may either advise against, or serve to restrict quantities a person may obtain. Appropriate maximum levels are individually established, decided through consolation between the applicant and the physician. The person must also complete regular workshops on the dangers of drugs and understand the physiological effects, harm reduction practices etc. Approval for one drug does not automatically approve someone for all drugs. A separate approval is required for each drug but the number of different drugs a person may be approved for is unlimited. The applicant must also have private health insurance and (negotiable) public liability cover.
Actually, our constitution is largely concerned with parliamentary structure and process, we have nothing comparable to the US Bill of Rights, or anything of the sort. Parliament are pretty much free to pass any damn laws they want, so long as it doesn't interfere with the way the laws are passed and the way the state manages power.Biscuit said:Very interesting post.
That was the exact idea i had about 2 years ago.
Government interference?
The government interferes in your life, in every facet of it, everyday. You cannot help that, just be greatful we have a Democracy with a Constitution the High Court is willing to use to restrict the amount of interference our government can engage in.
I don't trust the government any more than a punk on the street corner, in fact I trust it less. It's record with propaganda speaks for itself.That sort of supply at least forces EVERY user to understand what they are doing, be responsible for themselves and actually deal with the proper authorities rather than the punk on the street corner.
IMO you are missing the point. "Ruthless control and interference from organised crime.", as you put it, is a direct result of government interference, which for the record, is backed by violent coercion (ie. Policing)Surely interference from our democratically elected government is better than any similar ruthless control and interference from organised crime.
I also don't believe one has the right to impose their own ideas of responsibility to oneself upon others. Education by force sounds like thinly disguised morality to me, education should remain as a choice for consenting adults
Consumption of psychoactives is not a privilege to be rationed and monitored at the whims of the state, it is a fundamental human right and should be treated as such.
IMO, the state should not be the provider of drugs, especially those that are addictive.
Monopolies and addiction sound like extremely bad news to me, I'd prefer to see a legal competitive market with drugs, so as to keep the price down.
So would I, and their constitutional protections are all but meaningless when they'll happily distort the meanings. But still, it's a nice idea. There's not one bit in our constitution that I find particularly compelling. Quite a boring document really, but then I guess we weren't a result of revolution and enlightenment ideas.Biscuit said:I'm well aware of what the Constitution contains and the powers our parliament can use to make laws.
Many laws have been struck down on account of infringing the constitution.
Anyway my post was not about Constitutional law, and I dont propose to get into an argument about it on BL.
The Race power was actually used to enact the Racial DISCRIMINATION act - arguably if they did not have it then the RDA would be invalid and COULD be challenged by racists.
A Bill of Rights would be good but hey what the hell has that ever done for the U.S.A - i'd take our Government over theirs any day.
I think we should have the right to choose whatever drug we want without having what essentially amounts to state approval. Of course most people would take doctors reccomendations anyway which would generally be a good thing, but I feel we should hav the right, if we so choose, to self medicate according to our own research.I do not disagree with you - but when Doctors prescribe you prescription drugs they explain to you the side effects - what is wrong with that?
If you have far more powerful and deleterious drugs on the market are you suggesting that the doctors or pharmacists should not be informing people of their effects too, just as with prescription drugs??
Thats crazy.
I can't guarantee I won't harm someone when I walk outside, yet still have the right to do so.Can you guarantee that you will not harm other people in this endeavour.
Once we hand control over to the state, there's no reason to believe they will ever give it up. They can and will also arbitrarily restrict them to who they see fit to take the substances. It's a lot easier to get heroin than it is to get oxycodone!What I was trying to be was realistic. You are proposing something that is never going to happen. What is wrong with incremental steps in reducing prohibition - of course prohibition is wrong - i know that - but its not going to be wiped off in one go. You have to give to get a little.
I'm well aware that prohibition is what creates crime - and the reason we have organised crime. But its clearly too late now and so we have to work out a way that the government (which like it or not runs this country - not us) will relax the laws.
They wont relax them if all we are proposing is a free market free for all - that is a pipe dream and wont get anywhere.
Doctors must follow guidelines set by the state or risk having their licenses revoked, which can and does happen. Ultimately, government scheduling takes precedence over a doctors wishes, hence, it is state control.I completely agree.
I never said that the government should SUPPLY the drugs or determine WHO should take them.
If psychoactive drugs were legalised they would be integrated into the PHARMACEUTICAL system.
The people who prescribe the drugs (the doctors), the people that supply the drugs (pharmacists) and the people that manufacture the drugs (drugs companies) are not all invovled with the government - the vast majority are not.
Given current trends here and in most of the world, I don't see any reason to think either approach will happen. I mainly argued these points to highlight the drawbacks of state control, whhich hadn't been discussed in the thread yet.Like it or not illicit drugs will NOT become like cigarettes or alcohol - but they MAY become like prescription drugs - or at least have a similar regulatory system.
You cannot go to your pharamcist and demand antibiotics, morphine, or benzos, so why the hell should you be able to demand MDMA, amphetmaine and cocaine.
Its never going to happen.
I understand what you are saying, but i also think being realistic with our expectations is important.
Things are far more likely to get done that way.
Before man went to the moon he built a jet aircraft. Before that there was the Wright Brothers.
Maybe if we all start taking obsene amounts of drugs, the government will be forced to chuck a Portugal on our asses, and a free drug market may develop from there with a little luck. Doubtful though.We cant expect to go to the moon, or in this case some fantasy land where all drugs are available in any quantities we want. At least not immediately.
But we might one day be able to fly, just for a short while at least.
Then in the years to come after that, who knows?
I think we should have the right to choose whatever drug we want without having what essentially amounts to state approval.
You propose that the state can make a solution, I propose that the state is the only problem here. Like I said, more of a political difference than anything.Biscuit said:In addition to that you (or perhaps the person who supplied you) invariably mix with people who are "criminals". Not because they are trafficking drugs but because they are playing an underworld game of power and greed - with that comes many other acts which are without question "criminal".
Of course that is due to prohibition - but like I said, prohibition is here to stay unless an alternative is put forward - and mine was one of many.
Obviously drinking alchohol is a custom, but I don't believe for a second that people drink it for reasons other than the alchohol. They just choose which drink hides the flavour in the most tasteful way. The pathetic sales figures in non-alchoholic beer and wine are a testament to this.Alcohol is a drink and drinking it is a custom - when people buy it they may be for any number of reasons - refreshment, to have with dinner, to toast a wedding, or just because they like the taste. Being drunk is a side effect - for some it is the reason alcohol is drunk - but not for the majority in the community.
As far as questionable practices go, I think that governments are the worst offenders to humanity by any standards, (think about it for a moment) and should be restricted from interfering in our personal lives. Again a political difference, but one that defines my reasons for thinking the way I do.Especially with the added knowledge that they contained 100% of what I was paying for, and that I was free to do as I pleased without fear from the authorities or the groups currently serving the job of the legitimate companies, who are known to employ rather questionable business practices.
I think our differences of opinion are more political than anything, it really comes down to what we each perceive as acceptable roles of the state in society.
As far as questionable practices go, I think that governments are the worst offenders to humanity by any standards, (think about it for a moment) and should be restricted from interfering in our personal lives. Again a political difference, but one that defines my reasons for thinking the way I do.
Prohibition has got to go - but only in ways in which our elected government will be happy with - and sadly its unlikely they ever will be.
If... Drugs Were Legal
Evidence from Switzerland suggests that prescribing heroin can reduce crime and increase levels of employment among addicts.
While still illegal in the UK, cannabis was downgraded to a category C drug in January 2004.
Would drug legalisation really reduce crime overall, and would it make drug use any safer?
Watch the Newsnight debate further down this page
IF... DRUGS WERE LEGAL
BBC Two
Wednesday, 12 January, 2005
2100 GMT
Drugs: facts behind the fiction
The IF series of drama-documentaries examines the existing problems with drug prohibition and hears the arguments in favour of legalisation.
Based on rigorous research and interviews with experts, the programme hears the arguments for leaving the most dangerous drug of all - crack cocaine - illegal, and examines how a legal and regulated system of drugs would work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DRAMA
It is 2015.
If... Drugs Were Legal
In the film, an ex-drugs policeman investigates two girls' deaths
The government, persuaded by the vast economic cost of prohibition, has decided to legalise drugs.
The UK, along with a coalition of progressive countries from Europe, Canada and Australia, has opted out of the UN treaties which control drugs.
Much of the trade from possession to use, and production to supply, has been legalised.
The drama opens with the collapse and subsequent deaths of two girls in a club which is licensed to sell drugs.
In the scenario, most drugs are readily available, with government health warnings and lists of ingredients, from various outlets.
Drugs of addiction, like heroin, are free but only available on prescription from Swiss-styled heroin clinics.
Cocaine is still illegal.
The whole trade is regulated by a new agency, called Ofdrug.
The film follows the investigation into the two girls' deaths by an Ofdrug agent who works closely with an ex-drugs policeman.
Experts such as former chief constable Francis Wilkinson argued the case for pro-legalisation, while David Raynes of the National Drug Prevention Alliance was one of the voices arguing against.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The programme was followed by a studio debate on BBC Two's Newsnight, chaired by Jeremy Paxman.
The guests discussing the issues with Jeremy Paxman for the Newsnight debate were:
# Danny Kushlick, director of Transform Drug Policy Foundation
# Keith Hellawell, UK Drugs Czar 1998-2002
# Andrew Johns, forensic psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital
# Emma Bonino MEP, former EU humanitarian affairs commissioner