Uruguay legalises marijuana

[Tazio]

Again, you're making the assumption that legal drugs would be more expensive that illegal drugs.

 

Do you think a tenner bag from the street contains ?10 worth of heroin?

 

They may be the same price at first. But not for long.

 

And of course I know that drugs are cut. I also know that heroin addicts aren't the most sensible with their money so won't be buying the lovely official stuff all the time.

[2NaFish]

do you think you'd care about the quality

 

Ever done drugs or do you know many drug addicts/users? Seriously. I ask this, because if you did you'd appreciate that when suppply has been guaranteed, quality of drug is pretty much paramount.

 

People want a good high, not a shit high.

[Chad Sexington]

 

 

They may be the same price at first. But not for long.

 

And of course I know that drugs are cut. I also know that heroin addicts aren't the most sensible with their money so won't be buying the lovely official stuff all the time.

 

Again, assumptions being made all over the shop.

 

Im also not too sure what your point is. Are you saying there is no point trying to wrestle drugs away from dealers because the daft junkies will still go to them anayway?

 

 

[Tazio]

Again, assumptions being made all over the shop.

 

Im also not too sure what your point is. Are you saying there is no point trying to wrestle drugs away from dealers because the daft junkies will still go to them anayway?

 

But you're making assumptions as well. Or are you so convinced you're correct? A lot of addicts can't afford to subsidise their habit on a day to day basis so unless official supplies were a lot cheaper that would continue. And if the official stuff is purer it is more likely to create a stronger habit, if they don't all overdose from it first. I'm sure jakeys you see drinking Frosty Jack would rather be having something a bit nicer but they've gone for the cheap option as its all they can afford.

 

My point is that unless a legalisation also finds a way to completely wipe out the supplies from illegal sources they will continue to exist. And undercut official sources as well.

 

I'm not arguing for or against it, just a bit confused at some people thinking legalisation will stop all problems.

[The People's Chimp]

It depends on the individual drug and user though, surely. If you were a heroin addict living in a council estate/high rise flat and you were desperate, do you think you'd care about the quality or long term health ramifications? Similarly, are you more likely to go to a state-run clinic/shop for your heroin, or buy from the guy on your doorstep?

 

I know what your answer would be hypothetically (mine would be the same), but realistically that's not the same decision that a desperate heroin addict would take.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

The vast majority of users would go to the official state source. Especially if the legalisation of heroin, for example, included the possibility of obtaining a prescription for that heroin.

[2NaFish]

But you're making assumptions as well. Or are you so convinced you're correct? A lot of addicts can't afford to subsidise their habit on a day to day basis so unless official supplies were a lot cheaper that would continue. And if the official stuff is purer it is more likely to create a stronger habit, if they don't all overdose from it first. I'm sure jakeys you see drinking Frosty Jack would rather be having something a bit nicer but they've gone for the cheap option as its all they can afford.

 

My point is that unless a legalisation also finds a way to completely wipe out the supplies from illegal sources they will continue to exist. And undercut official sources as well.

 

I'm not arguing for or against it, just a bit confused at some people thinking legalisation will stop all problems.

 

Frosty Jack is taxed, legislated by the state and its quality is ensured by the government agency. If you can prove there's lots of folk drinking moonshine then you've got a point.

 

And nobody has said it would stop all problems.

[The Brow]

The usual stock reply when someone dares to challenge the liberal agenda. Yawn.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

Its not though. You're hyperbole and lack of credible argument show that you clearly don't understand.

[The People's Chimp]

But you're making assumptions as well. Or are you so convinced you're correct? A lot of addicts can't afford to subsidise their habit on a day to day basis so unless official supplies were a lot cheaper that would continue. And if the official stuff is purer it is more likely to create a stronger habit, if they don't all overdose from it first. I'm sure jakeys you see drinking Frosty Jack would rather be having something a bit nicer but they've gone for the cheap option as its all they can afford.

 

I think a lot of Jakeys probably love the frosty jacks - it's dirty, fast hitting, and less severe than hitting a bottle of whisky every day.

 

Edit: and 2na's point is spot on. Where are the moonshine drinkers?

[Tazio]

Frosty Jack is taxed, legislated by the state and its quality is ensured by the government agency. If you can prove there's lots of folk drinking moonshine then you've got a point.

 

And nobody has said it would stop all problems.

 

The point is that people buy what they can afford to feed their habit, not the legal status of cheap cider. It was just used as an example of addiction fed behaviour.

[Chad Sexington]

 

 

But you're making assumptions as well. Or are you so convinced you're correct? A lot of addicts can't afford to subsidise their habit on a day to day basis so unless official supplies were a lot cheaper that would continue. And if the official stuff is purer it is more likely to create a stronger habit, if they don't all overdose from it first. I'm sure jakeys you see drinking Frosty Jack would rather be having something a bit nicer but they've gone for the cheap option as its all they can afford.

 

My point is that unless a legalisation also finds a way to completely wipe out the supplies from illegal sources they will continue to exist. And undercut official sources as well.

 

I'm not arguing for or against it, just a bit confused at some people thinking legalisation will stop all problems.

 

At no point have I said it would stop all the problems. However it has to a better solution than the status quo which is clearly not working.

 

Wether some folk decide to still buy their gear from the local crook is neither here nor there in the bigger picture.

 

Enough people would buy from the state to make a massive impact on the current situation.

 

 

 

 

[Boris]

Oh, that's your answer for everything Boris.

 

 

In the case of the production and supply of narcotics I'd say it's pretty reasonable.

[2NaFish]

The point is that people buy what they can afford to feed their habit, not the legal status of cheap cider. It was just used as an example of addiction fed behaviour.

 

Let's run the numbers then. We'll accept your assumption for the minute. If drugs are legalized and taxed and controlled by the state and some folk go to them all the time for their hits, some some of the time and some none of the time and they just stay with their dealer, how is that worse than all drugs being bought from dealers which is the current situation. All the money going to criminals currently. None of the drugs being of an assured quality that you can't be certain isnt going to kill you currently. Everyone instantly becomes a criminal currently.

 

Surely some people being brought back in to society is better than continuing this society of people outwith society? And that's accepting your assumption that folk will opt to stay with drug dealers, which i don't really think holds water to any great degree.

[2NaFish]

In the case of the production and supply of narcotics I'd say it's pretty reasonable.

 

It is. I was just being playful with your red credentials.

[djf]

The criminalisation of pot users as a collective has done way more damage than the smoking of weed.

[2NaFish]

Ghanj makes things better. For example, this interview for a movie, done whilst high, is a lot funnier than the actual movie itself.

 

[The People's Chimp]

Remember when mephedrone was "legal"? (It wasn't, it just wasn't classified yet as a drug and was sold via a loophole in the law where it could be sold as bath salts, plant food or some other nonsense term to avoid the necessary licensing laws required to sell a chemical for human consumption). People ****ed themselves up. School kids were taking it. Straight pegs who would never usually even contemplate using a drug were taking it just because it was "legal". And they were taking it a lot. Regularly read about people going on five day binges without sleep and taking so much their limbs were starting turning purple.

 

Kids were taking it because irresponsible 'head shops' and internet retailers were selling it to pretty much anyone - a state run narcotics provider wouldn't be doing that. It would be strictly controlled, IDs etc.The sale of Mephedrone wasn't in a way that is envisaged by those calling for the legalisation of drugs.

 

That people also conflated legal high with safe high, or 'herbal high' with safe high was more down to them being muppets than anything else.

[Boris]

Kids were taking it because irresponsible 'head shops' and internet retailers were selling it to pretty much anyone - a state run narcotics provider wouldn't be doing that. It would be strictly controlled, IDs etc.The sale of Mephedrone wasn't in a way that is envisaged by those calling for the legalisation of drugs.

 

That people also conflated legal high with safe high, or 'herbal high' with safe high was more down to them being muppets than anything else.

 

Correct, but when you look at the black & white approach taken by Government re narcotics, it isn't surprising that the more easily led in our society would come to this conclusion.

 

I agree 100% with your comments re control, minimum age of purchase etc etc

 

Off piste slightly, is there any report or statistics available that show how the Netherlands compares with the rest of Western Europe regards drug use, given their blind eye policy towards cannabis, and their testing of chemical drugs like ecstacy?

[Alan Johnson]

 

Ever done drugs or do you know many drug addicts/users? Seriously. I ask this, because if you did you'd appreciate that when suppply has been guaranteed, quality of drug is pretty much paramount.

 

People want a good high, not a shit high.

 

I have, yes, although I have neither taken heroin nor been addicted to anything, but I know/have known people who would probably be considered addicts to other substances. I understand the point about quality, but again I'm talking about addicts rather than casual users. I'd imagine that desire for quality decreases as dependence increases.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Alan Johnson]

 

The vast majority of users would go to the official state source. Especially if the legalisation of heroin, for example, included the possibility of obtaining a prescription for that heroin.

 

IMO, introducing prescriptions for addicts would be pretty much the only way to make legalisation of heroin work. Not a chance any government would risk suggesting it though.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[2NaFish]

I have, yes, although I have neither taken heroin nor been addicted to anything, but I know/have known people who would probably be considered addicts to other substances. I understand the point about quality, but again I'm talking about addicts rather than casual users. I'd imagine that desire for quality decreases as dependence increases.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

Sure, it would decrease, but given the choice, why wouldnt the vast majority of people come back in to the tent and choose to live within society? And i'll make the same point as i did with tazio earlier, surely some people (and i'd argue most) not being forced into an underclass of criminality is a better thing than all drug users being forced into it. Surely it's better if less money goes to drug dealers. Surely it's better, if people are going to do drugs, that as many of them get drugs that are clean from shite than cuts down the risk of them developing secondary issues. The positives far outweigh the negatives, especially when the status quo is an abject failure.

[Alan Johnson]

 

Sure, it would decrease, but given the choice, why wouldnt the vast majority of people come back in to the tent and choose to live within society? And i'll make the same point as i did with tazio earlier, surely some people (and i'd argue most) not being forced into an underclass of criminality is a better thing than all drug users being forced into it. Surely it's better if less money goes to drug dealers. Surely it's better, if people are going to do drugs, that as many of them get drugs that are clean from shite than cuts down the risk of them developing secondary issues. The positives far outweigh the negatives, especially when the status quo is an abject failure.

 

It's better, but again it's not perfect.

 

I do actually support drug legalisation, or at least decriminalisation, in theory, but I worry that practically a lot of people seem to see a lot of its potential benefits as more of a clear cut matter than it actually is. Decriminalisation would solve a lot of problems, but it would cause new ones at the same time.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[2NaFish]

It's better, but again it's not perfect.

 

I do actually support drug legalisation, or at least decriminalisation, in theory, but I worry that practically a lot of people seem to see a lot of its potential benefits as more of a clear cut matter than it actually is. Decriminalisation would solve a lot of problems, but it would cause new ones at the same time.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

I dont want to appear arsey as you're approaching this in a reasonable manner, but surely better is better than worse? Drugs are a issue for society in general, and a pro-active approach will what's required to mitigate them. I'd be interested to know what you see as the problems you see as i think we can then look to solutions to help mitigate them.

[BoJack Horseman]

I can't really see people being happy to pay a much higher price for there heavily taxed drugs. It just means there will still be an unregulated market created by the same criminals.

 

There's just no way that the price would go up. The price of marijuana especially is ridiculously high. Look at the US and what you can get from dispensaries, or Colorado specifically and look at their prices. The price would fall dramatically, including tax.

 

 

I'm pro decriminalisation of all drugs, but not pro-legalisation.

 

I don't believe anyone should be jailed for what they choose to put in their body, especially when two of the most harmful drugs - alcohol and tobacco - are legal. However people can't be trusted. People are idiots. People don't know moderation. People would **** themselves up, even more than they already do.

 

Remember when mephedrone was "legal"? (It wasn't, it just wasn't classified yet as a drug and was sold via a loophole in the law where it could be sold as bath salts, plant food or some other nonsense term to avoid the necessary licensing laws required to sell a chemical for human consumption). People ****ed themselves up. School kids were taking it. Straight pegs who would never usually even contemplate using a drug were taking it just because it was "legal". And they were taking it a lot. Regularly read about people going on five day binges without sleep and taking so much their limbs were starting turning purple.

 

Of course there are many more people who would be able to take drugs in moderation with no problem, but the idiots would ruin it for them. You can't have a country full of idiots who have easy access to whatever dangerous drugs they want. It's bad enough trying to control them when they only have access to alcohol. Throw crack, meth and smack into the mix and it doesn't bare thinking about.

 

Mephedrone was what we'll call a 'craze'. It was a fad drug that folk were taking because it was popular, not because it was legal. Anyone can go buy and huff solvents, but not many do. If drugs were legalised I'm sure we'd see a drastic increase in initial use, but it would die down after the hype wore off.

[Alan Johnson]

 

I dont want to appear arsey as you're approaching this in a reasonable manner, but surely better is better than worse? Drugs are a issue for society in general, and a pro-active approach will what's required to mitigate them. I'd be interested to know what you see as the problems you see as i think we can then look to solutions to help mitigate them.

 

Of course it is. It might sound ridiculous but one of my fears is that some people would take legalisation as 'the drug problem is solved', and we'd still be just as unable to discuss the drug problem effectively as a society.

 

I'm not one of the 'everyone will start taking drugs if they become legal' lot, because that's nonsense. Some people might be surprised by the initial levels of uptake though.

 

One thing I do wonder is how attitudes to drug dealers might change. In theory people should be completely opposed to drug dealers as with legalisation they would serve no unique purpose, but I wonder if we'd see a rise in acceptance, as 'they're only selling something the government sell as well'.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Boris]

In theory people should be completely opposed to drug dealers as with legalisation they would serve no unique purpose, but I wonder if we'd see a rise in acceptance, as 'they're only selling something the government sell as well'.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

People generally don't buy stolen goods, do they? Surely that would be a similar thing to what you are suggesting?

[2NaFish]

Of course it is. It might sound ridiculous but one of my fears is that some people would take legalisation as 'the drug problem is solved', and we'd still be just as unable to discuss the drug problem effectively as a society.

 

I'm not one of the 'everyone will start taking drugs if they become legal' lot, because that's nonsense. Some people might be surprised by the initial levels of uptake though.

 

One thing I do wonder is how attitudes to drug dealers might change. In theory people should be completely opposed to drug dealers as with legalisation they would serve no unique purpose, but I wonder if we'd see a rise in acceptance, as 'they're only selling something the government sell as well'.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

First point - there will still always be issues with drug abuse and knock on effects for society. If people are affected, there'll be a discussion; that's the way things all will be in a democracy. Added to this there will be a lobby to have drugs re-criminalized or tightened up, so i can't see the debate going away. It'll change massively, but as the situation normalized after the bedding in period a debate would resume, The quantity of the debate would roughly echo the quantity of the problem. If there was less debate it would almost certainly be because there was a less of a problem. The quality of the debate can only be altered by the participants, not the topic of discussion. (although more people on mind bending drugs might produce more inventive solutions. thinking outside the box is easier when you're already out your tree...)

 

Second point - you're right, there would be an increase in certain types of drug use. As i said previously, after the bedding in period i wouldnt be surprised to see certain types of drug use decrease. I can certainly recall seeing stats that say the level of regular teenage weed smokers in holland was lower than in scotland. I can't speak for the quality of the study or if it's backed up elsewhere however.

 

third - as boris says, people don't often intentionally buy knock off stuff. Moreover, there'd be a lot less drug dealers - so relatively speaking, the issue is better served. And then instead of being viewed as leeches who feed off the addictions of others, they would subsequently be seen as people who were depriving the state of revenue as well as being seen as people who feed of off other's addictions.

 

The situation would change and perceptions to the culture would change, but the problems you raise are all heavily mitigated by subsequent effects of the reality as i see it.

[Alan Johnson]

 

 

People generally don't buy stolen goods, do they? Surely that would be a similar thing to what you are suggesting?

 

I don't mean a rise in people buying from them, but a change in how they're seen. At the moment a lot of people view drug dealers as the scum of the earth (which is an understandable viewpoint). Most people don't buy stolen goods, but if they see a guy down the pub selling knock off DVDs their first instinct isn't 'that's disgusting, I'd better call the police'.

 

I mean that drug dealers will be pushed down the list of severity of criminals for some of the public.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Boris]

I don't mean a rise in people buying from them, but a change in how they're seen. At the moment a lot of people view drug dealers as the scum of the earth (which is an understandable viewpoint). Most people don't buy stolen goods, but if they see a guy down the pub selling knock off DVDs their first instinct isn't 'that's disgusting, I'd better call the police'.

 

I mean that drug dealers will be pushed down the list of severity of criminals for some of the public.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk 2

 

I don't think you can lump all drug dealers as the same.

 

Some may just punt a bit of marijuana to their mates, thereby getting them a reduced cost spliff.

 

Some may get other stuff and pass it on.

 

Are these the same as the "Mr Big" higher up the chain who is involved on an industrial scale? At which point there is a high chance of gangster involvement?

 

I don't know. But, as with most things related to narcotics, things aren't black and white.

[Freebird]

With regard to pricing:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/07/how_much_would_legal_marijuana_cost_a_new_book_says_it_would_be_nearly_free_.html

[Alan Johnson]

I don't think you can lump all drug dealers as the same.

 

Some may just punt a bit of marijuana to their mates, thereby getting them a reduced cost spliff.

 

Some may get other stuff and pass it on.

 

Are these the same as the "Mr Big" higher up the chain who is involved on an industrial scale? At which point there is a high chance of gangster involvement?

 

I don't know. But, as with most things related to narcotics, things aren't black and white.

 

I think few people other than the law would actually consider the guy who only buys stuff for his mates as a drug dealer, though. I would consider someone a drug dealer if their income entirely, or at least mainly, comes from selling drugs. Obviously there's a difference in the impact people have as you move up the scale but that's how I would differentiate between a dealer and not. I imagine I won't be alone in that opinion.

[ArcticJambo]

With regard to pricing:

 

http://www.slate.com...arly_free_.html

 

Interesting article on the economics.

 

Wrt to weed ... if legalization means more folks take a toke with their weekend alcohol frolics, then I'd say there'll be a lot less carnage up town.

[Guest C00l K1d]

Im all for legalising weed but other drugs not so much. I think free needles is a good idea but to get to the point where you're actually selling very harmful and addictive drugs (heroin is far more addictive and dangerous than alcohol and cigs lets not kid ourselves) is a step to far for me.

 

I also think legalised drugs like heroin would just take the 'pirate dvd' route. Sure you can go to the shops and buy the shiny new decent quality product for X amount. Or you can go buy the product which is of far shiter quality at a quarter the price but still get to see the film.

 

 

[Sharpie]

I guess in some ways I come from a different perspective because of age and changes in society. As a young person I believed and was taught homosexuality was a crime, at least the physical aspect, I was also taught marriage was between a man and a woman. We also believed in some ways that a person born out of wedlock was a ******* and was not the same as the rest of us. All of these have been put to rest and scrapped, and to be honest the world has not changed so far it has not collapsed because of gay politicians, police persons , and even soldiers.

 

I have been involved in drug enforcement, and have watched the war on drugs, total disaster, and the cost has been high financially and in mortality because of tainted drugs, and gang warfare. Any legalisation however is going to be a slow process to be done properly and efficiently. Too sudden and the anti drug population will resist possibly violently. As stated education is essential, means of distribution requiring much thought on who, where, and how they can be sold. Location of use. Would it be appropriate for example to sit at a Hearts game, pull out your outfit and proceed to brew up a fix, and then in public view inject it into your pumped up vein, would you be allowed to smoke a marijuana joint, at the same game but not a tobacco cigarette.

 

I don't think there is an argument that some drugs are addictive, we spend a lot of money here on rehab facilities for users of illicit drugs, can the health system finance an increase of addicts requiring treatment because of easier access and now being legal. I could go on and on about problems arising from legalisation, and I am not vehemently against it, I guess the biggest question I have is are our bureaucracy capable of efficiently carrying out the very complicated change and major impact on society.

[Socrates]

Im all for legalising weed but other drugs not so much. I think free needles is a good idea but to get to the point where you're actually selling very harmful and addictive drugs (heroin is far more addictive and dangerous than alcohol and cigs lets not kid ourselves) is a step to far for me.

 

I also think legalised drugs like heroin would just take the 'pirate dvd' route. Sure you can go to the shops and buy the shiny new decent quality product for X amount. Or you can go buy the product which is of far shiter quality at a quarter the price but still get to see the film.

 

That's why the sensible way of doing it is to prescribe drugs like heroin to registered addicts. You wouldn't be able to walk in to a supermarket and buy a bag of smack.

 

That way, you'd get rid of most of the dealers, who make the vast majority of their money selling to addicts, and, then, because there are fewer dealers you get fewer new addicts coming along in the future.

[ArcticJambo]

I guess in some ways I come from a different perspective because of age and changes in society. As a young person I believed and was taught homosexuality was a crime, at least the physical aspect, I was also taught marriage was between a man and a woman. We also believed in some ways that a person born out of wedlock was a ******* and was not the same as the rest of us. All of these have been put to rest and scrapped, and to be honest the world has not changed so far it has not collapsed because of gay politicians, police persons , and even soldiers.

 

I have been involved in drug enforcement, and have watched the war on drugs, total disaster, and the cost has been high financially and in mortality because of tainted drugs, and gang warfare. Any legalisation however is going to be a slow process to be done properly and efficiently. Too sudden and the anti drug population will resist possibly violently. As stated education is essential, means of distribution requiring much thought on who, where, and how they can be sold. Location of use. Would it be appropriate for example to sit at a Hearts game, pull out your outfit and proceed to brew up a fix, and then in public view inject it into your pumped up vein, would you be allowed to smoke a marijuana joint, at the same game but not a tobacco cigarette.

 

I don't think there is an argument that some drugs are addictive, we spend a lot of money here on rehab facilities for users of illicit drugs, can the health system finance an increase of addicts requiring treatment because of easier access and now being legal. I could go on and on about problems arising from legalisation, and I am not vehemently against it, I guess the biggest question I have is are our bureaucracy capable of efficiently carrying out the very complicated change and major impact on society.

 

I don't see our bureaucracy having difficulty dealing with pot for instance, it's the harder stuff that doesn't seem to be come with an easy solution. I know you're familiar with Vancouver's drug scene ... East Hastings is an eye opener, even to folks who think they're familiar with the downside, yet just literally a block away up the street you'll find a varied crowd socializing responsibly in bars, who think nothing of popping outside for a smoke with the regular tobacco smokers.

 

The only concern I have is whether young kids will have easier access to weed as it becomes more mainstream.

 

Edit: I guess what I was saying that a lot of the problems arise out of an individual's personality/behaviour/environment.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

I'd legalise all drugs

[Tiberius Stinkfinger]

I thought this was going to turn into a "look at me, I'm in Uruguay" thread, instead its turned into a JKB Junkies thread.

 

Its a fix.

[Boris]

I thought this was going to turn into a "look at me, I'm in Uruguay" thread, instead its turned into a JKB Junkies thread.

 

Its a fix.

 

[Guest C00l K1d]

 

 

That's why the sensible way of doing it is to prescribe drugs like heroin to registered addicts. You wouldn't be able to walk in to a supermarket and buy a bag of smack.

 

That way, you'd get rid of most of the dealers, who make the vast majority of their money selling to addicts, and, then, because there are fewer dealers you get fewer new addicts coming along in the future.

Isnt that what methadone is? Except its a heroin substitute. I dont really see how thats helping the problem.

 

Again i think we should be combating incredibly harmful drugs like heroin, and i think facilitating them wouldnt help cut down use. Of course the war on drugs is a massive failure and i dont really have any better ideas but to legalise it would be a mistake.

 

Im not really sure where i stand on drugs like ecstacy and cocaine tbh. I think every drug would need to be individually rather than making judgements on purely on the class.

[Socrates]

Isnt that what methadone is? Except its a heroin substitute. I dont really see how thats helping the problem.

 

Again i think we should be combating incredibly harmful drugs like heroin, and i think facilitating them wouldnt help cut down use. Of course the war on drugs is a massive failure and i dont really have any better ideas but to legalise it would be a mistake.

 

Im not really sure where i stand on drugs like ecstacy and cocaine tbh. I think every drug would need to be individually rather than making judgements on purely on the class.

 

Except many people don't want to take methadone, or they combine it with heroin, so the illegal market goes on. It's not like this is some sort of new idea. They do that in Holland and Portugal, with pretty good results.

[JamboX2]

 

You don't tackle a social evil by taking on the role of the bad guy.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

Should alcohol be banned? It's legal, liscenced and taxed yet costs the NHS amd police so many millions per year. Social evil, some may argue. Ban that? Or control it with tax and liscencing?

 

 

[Guest C00l K1d]

Should alcohol be banned? It's legal, liscenced and taxed yet costs the NHS amd police so many millions per year. Social evil, some may argue. Ban that? Or control it with tax and liscencing?

Alcohol isn't comparable to heroin or crystal meth though is it?

 

The only other drug thats used as socially as alcohol and would be a fair comparison would be cocaine and i think there is a case there for it to be legalised.

[JamboInSouthsea]

Correct, but when you look at the black & white approach taken by Government re narcotics, it isn't surprising that the more easily led in our society would come to this conclusion.

 

I agree 100% with your comments re control, minimum age of purchase etc etc

 

Off piste slightly, is there any report or statistics available that show how the Netherlands compares with the rest of Western Europe regards drug use, given their blind eye policy towards cannabis, and their testing of chemical drugs like ecstacy?

 

Don't have a link but do remember reading years ago, possibly in some Legalise Cannabis Campaign pamphlet, that when weed was initially decriminalized that the usage of heroin dropped by something like 80%.

 

Figures are probably not the same today as places like Amsterdam in particular attract a large number of tourists who are there for one reason.

 

Countries like Germany, Spain and Portugal also have relatively relaxed drug policies.

 

Personally I think total legalisation and control from the state is surely better than leaving the industry to criminals and would make the treatment of hard core users and addicts easier and thus reduce the harm caused.

[Sharpie]

 

 

Alcohol isn't comparable to heroin or crystal meth though is it?

 

The only other drug thats used as socially as alcohol and would be a fair comparison would be cocaine and i think there is a case there for it to be legalised.

 

You see this is why I question the difficulty surrounding legalization. Arctic Jambo mentioned a district in Vancouver. This populated by homeless persons a large majority of whom are addicted heroin users. I can assure you if marijuana and cocaine particularly were legalized and heroin not ,the activists of whom there are many in that district would immediately claim cocaine is rich persons drug, and it is legal, but the drug the poor use to help alleviate their homelessness and poverty is not, another case of discrimination against the poor.

[fabienleclerq]

The cost to the NHS if all drugs were legal would be astronomical, the gangsters would either under cut the shops with cheap shite or go legit and the same scumbags make the money.

 

Drugs destroy enough lives without state encouragement.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The cost to the NHS if all drugs were legal would be astronomical, the gangsters would either under cut the shops with cheap shite or go legit and the same scumbags make the money.

 

Drugs destroy enough lives without state encouragement.

Costs to NHS up, costs of crime down.

[fabienleclerq]

 

Costs to NHS up, costs of crime down.

How are the increased amount of junkies going to fund their habit? Crime will go up.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

How are the increased amount of junkies going to fund their habit? Crime will go up.

 

Really? With controlled prices and supply, you think crime will go up?

 

As mentioned above, Switzerland has shooting galleries. Do you think there are more junkies in Switzerland or, indeed, higher rates of crime?

[BoJack Horseman]

Price in Uruguay is looking to be set at $1 a gram. That's ridiculously cheap. How anyone thinks the price will be higher than street is beyond me.

[shaun.lawson]

Price in Uruguay is looking to be set at $1 a gram. That's ridiculously cheap. How anyone thinks the price will be higher than street is beyond me.

 

A packet of 20 cigarettes here is about $4 (and a week's supply of nicotine patches, $35 - only in Uruguay... ).

 

But given I don't have the remotest awareness of what 1g of marijuana actually means in real terms, how does that compare to the price of cigs?