Should prohibition end?

[krooton]

I agree. If I were curious about taking drugs I wouldn't know where to get them and I probably wouldn't want to go down the route of finding a shady drug dealer to get them (well I wouldn't before I met them through policing) That in itself is a deterrent.

Pretty much anyone who lives is an urban area will be able to get ahold of illegal drugs, everyone knows someone who knows someone.

 

[Freefaller]

Thing is, if people are in any doubt as to how many extra people would start taking drugs if they were legalized.

Look at the craze for the new "legal" highs that has arisen. Plenty of people in the news who never having taken drugs before, thought they'd give it a try because being legal, it must be fine right ?

If people no longer have that line to cross, whats to stop them from giving it a try. Millions of teenagers are all tought that unprotected sex leads to pregnancy.

But millions try it each year because they thing it will never happen to them.

Taking drugs with health warnings would be no different for them.

Agreed 100%.

If you break it down into it's constituent parts though, however you get a "kick" out of life, that feeling of personal euphoria, excitement and/or contentment , whether it comes from prayer, meditation, racing round a track at 200mph, sky diving, fighting in a war, helping the needy - is all just a strong chemical released in the brain.

There is so much mis-information ingrained in society about drug use, because it has to have been demonised for the last 50yrs as part of the anti-drug stance.

But in reality the vast majority of people who take recreational drugs regularly do so and cause no harm to society.

Of course there are people who do get into trouble with addiction, as they do with Bingo, Alcohol, Sex virtually anything you want to imagine. But rather than criminalise them it's better to help - and also educate to reduce the chance of a problem occuring in the first place.

The decriminalisation and regulation of recreational substances is a no brainer really.

The thing is you just have to look at the VAST number of people that have addiction with gambling, drugs, sex etc... it's not an insignificant number.

Irrespective of whether or not people do get addicted, what if people have adverse reactions to them?

What about the social implications? The mum that gets stoned and her baby gets ignored? The young lads that get high and fall out of the window, or get hit by a car when they cross the road without being aware? etc...

sure, I agree, these happen every day already without the use of drugs, and I can't of course state that it'll get any worse. However, the way I see it, there's already enough people being admitted to hospital with legal drug issues, you just have to spend a night in A&E on a Friday night to see that - I dread to think what stronger drugs will do.

I have to also, accept though, that the word "recreational" is an important one. If people aren't addicted, and don't rely on them, and use them in a responsible way - then I accept that the implications are actually probably better than they are now. I accept that. I'm not worried about the sensible people though, as they will be sensible. It's the kids, or the people that don't know when to stop or how to say no.

Where do we draw the line to what is legal? Heroine?! I've seen 1st hand unfortunately, what heroine addiction can do - it's traumatic, for the family and friends. Even with treatment, it almost feels that part of his soul has been subdued - and I find that really upsetting.

Ok, I admit, I am using personal exeprience and reaction to my argument which is daft, however it's hard to be completely objective on a subject like this.

The problem is I just don't think people would use them responsibly.

 

[Burnsy2023]

If you break it down into it's constituent parts though, however you get a "kick" out of life, that feeling of personal euphoria, excitement and/or contentment , whether it comes from prayer, meditation, racing round a track at 200mph, sky diving, fighting in a war, helping the needy - is all just a strong chemical released in the brain.

If you are skydiving it takes time between hits. You have to work for it. You also to some degree know exactly when and where it will stop and you have control over that. Taking recreation drugs is different. You can overdose, you may not know where you'll end up or in what state you'll be in and you can have hit after hit whenever you like. This is one of the reasons it can be so destructive. You don't have the work trade off for the buzz.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Pretty much anyone who lives is an urban area will be able to get ahold of illegal drugs, everyone knows someone who knows someone.

I disagree. Many people living in middle class areas or are otherwise not socialising with drug users won't know where to go. I would say this is probably even the majority of people. Sure, I'm not saying they couldn't find out if they wanted, but they'd have to be committed to do that.

 

[Freefaller]

If you are skydiving it takes time between hits. You have to work for it. You also to some degree know exactly when and where it will stop and you have control over that. Taking recreation drugs is different. You can overdose, you may not know where you'll end up or in what state you'll be in and you can have hit after hit whenever you like. This is one of the reasons it can be so destructive. You don't have the work trade off for the buzz.

Furthermore, there's a lot of training and understanding, and taking responsibility for your actions. When you're high you will sometimes do things without a proper risk assessment.

 

[Sunbed]

snip

Not that I'm advocating it all should be legalised (I'm undecided).

Here is some good evidence that it should be decriminalised:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3421523.stm

As a summary, Portugal decriminalised possession of drugs in 2001. Instead of a criminal penalty you get help.

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Just search in Google for "Portugal" and "drug laws". The story is always the same.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Furthermore, there's a lot of training and understanding, and taking responsibility for your actions. When you're high you will sometimes do things without a proper risk assessment.

Indeed that's often why people take drugs, so they don't have to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[krooton]

If you are skydiving it takes time between hits. You have to work for it. You also to some degree know exactly when and where it will stop and you have control over that. Taking recreation drugs is different. You can overdose, you may not know where you'll end up or in what state you'll be in and you can have hit after hit whenever you like. This is one of the reasons it can be so destructive. You don't have the work trade off for the buzz.

The same can be said for going to the gym.

The main variables that arise with drug use is the non-regulation. If you got pure stuff, in accurate quantities, then you'd be in a much better position. In the same way someone knows that that drinking an entire bottle of wine will have a very different effect over driking the same amount of beer.

In fact, many of the same basic principles of responsible alcohol usage, such as dosage/body weight, or not using on an empty stomach, applies to many illegal drugs. Due to the illegality though, only those who go searching for such information will find it.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Not that I'm advocating it all should be legalised (I'm undecided).

Here is some good evidence that it should be decriminalised:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3421523.stm

As a summary, Portugal decriminalised possession of drugs in 2001. Instead of a criminal penalty you get help.



Just search in Google for "Portugal" and "drug laws". The story is always the same.

Whilst this could be evidence to benefits of decriminalisation, you need to be weary of whether this would have the same effect in the UK. 24 hour alcohol licences work on the continent with a different culture. It didn't work here.

 

[Fr0dders]

decriminilisation is different to removing prohibition.

The OP was advocating drugs being legally available to all which i'm against.

Having recreaction drugs still banned, but not enforced by means of prison / the courts i can see merit too.

 

[krooton]

Indeed that's often why people take drugs, so they don't have to take responsibility for their actions.

No it isn't. How can you come to that conclusion without ever having tried it yourself.

The main reason why people take drugs is because they enjoy how they make them real. That is it.

Sure, this enjoyment may be physical in terms of the serotonin rush of ecstasy, or the overall experience of taking mushrooms and playing Mario Kart with some friends, but it all boils down to it being nice.

But then even I have my own angle when it comes to these things. I'm not a fan of dissasociatives. Shooting up in to your own little heroin bubble, or dosing up on ketamine to get in to a big k-hole, that I find dangerous. Drugs that whisk you off away from reality are very scary in my eyes, but most recreational drugs are used in a social manner.

 

[Burnsy2023]

decriminilisation is different to removing prohibition.

The OP was advocating drugs being legally available to all which i'm against.

Having recreaction drugs still banned, but not enforced by means of prison i can see merit too.

This is also a good point. I also can see merit in compulsory drug rehabilitation, especially in secure residential units. Prisons are not drug free as they should be.

 

[Burnsy2023]

No it isn't. How can you come to that conclusion without ever having tried it yourself.

The main reason why people take drugs is because they enjoy how they make them real. That is it.

Sure, this enjoyment may be physical in terms of the serotonin rush of ecstasy, or the overall experience of taking mushrooms and playing Mario Kart with some friends, but it all boils down to it being nice.

But then even I have my own angle when it comes to these things. I'm not a fan of dissasociatives. Shooting up in to your own little heroin bubble, or dosing up on ketamine to get in to a big k-hole, that I find dangerous. Drugs that whisk you off away from reality are very scary in my eyes, but most recreational drugs are used in a social manner.

People take drugs for a wide variety of reasons. I am not saying that it's the only one, just that it is a reason. You can't say that people only take drugs for a single reason, it's not that simple. I know that people do it for escapism as I've had the opportunity to ask a few recently. This has often been a reason citied. I'm not saying it's representative, a proper study would be needed for that (indeed one probably exists)

You area also dangerously close to assuming that your drug experiences are representative of all or even the majority. This is certainly not the case as you have alluded to.

 

[Sunbed]

decriminilisation is different to removing prohibition.

The OP was advocating drugs being legally available to all which i'm against.

Having recreaction drugs still banned, but not enforced by means of prison / the courts i can see merit too.

True.

I'll agree that I'm against drugs being freely available to all. I just think the laws should be relaxed slightly in some cases and it should be more regulated.

 

[krooton]

People take drugs for a wide variety of reasons. I am not saying that it's the only one, just that it is a reason. You can't say that people only take drugs for a single reason, it's not that simple. I know that people do it for escapism as I've had the opportunity to ask a few recently. This has often been a reason citied. I'm not saying it's representative, a proper study would be needed for that.

If they are unhappy enough to need escapism, then the escapism feels good, it still all boils down to it feeling good. It's all about pleasure.

 

[Burnsy2023]

If they are unhappy enough to need escapism, then the escapism feels good, it still all boils down to it feeling good. It's all about pleasure.

Escapism isn't necessarily about feeling good, it can also be about not feeling bad, which is different. If you have lots of issues and troubles merely not being able to remember them can be enough justification for drug use.

 

[Freakbro]

The thing is you just have to look at the VAST number of people that have addiction with gambling, drugs, sex etc... it's not an insignificant number.

Of course, but it shows it is the personality causing the addition, not down to the drug in question. It actually takes some pretty heavy sustained use over a long period of time to become "physically" addicted to a substance, including cocaine, heroin etc. The media portrayal of 1 hit of crack cocaine and your addicted is nonsense.

Humans are habitual creatures by nature, in the whole we like routine and thus are pre-disposed to forming psychological additions far before any physical one. Hence why you get so many addictions to non-chemical related things, eg: Soap Opera's

Irrespective of whether or not people do get addicted, what if people have adverse reactions to them?

People have adverse reactions and die to aspirin. Controlled and informed supply with proper guidelines on how to consume any particular drug would help to allieviate a lot of the unfortunate drug overdoses/reactions that happen now

What about the social implications? The mum that gets stoned and her baby gets ignored? The young lads that get high and fall out of the window, or get hit by a car when they cross the road without being aware? etc...

sure, I agree, these happen every day already without the use of drugs, and I can't of course state that it'll get any worse. However, the way I see it, there's already enough people being admitted to hospital with legal drug issues, you just have to spend a night in A&E on a Friday night to see that - I dread to think what stronger drugs will do.

I agree this is a hard one, but general evidence does point to that there isn't a wholescale increase in consumption once it is decriminalised. Basically, most people who want to take recreational drugs are doing so anyway. And with regards to children, its illegal and illicit stance makes it more enticing, not less.

As for people who harm others by their actions under the influence of drugs, well they get punished as they do now, just as being drunk isn't an excuse nor is being high. I'm afraid this is all the law can do effectively.

I have to also, accept though, that the word "recreational" is an important one. If people aren't addicted, and don't rely on them, and use them in a responsible way - then I accept that the implications are actually probably better than they are now. I accept that. I'm not worried about the sensible people though, as they will be sensible. It's the kids, or the people that don't know when to stop or how to say no.

Where do we draw the line to what is legal? Heroine?! I've seen 1st hand unfortunately, what heroine addiction can do - it's traumatic, for the family and friends. Even with treatment, it almost feels that part of his soul has been subdued - and I find that really upsetting.

Ok, I admit, I am using personal exeprience and reaction to my argument which is daft, however it's hard to be completely objective on a subject like this.

The problem is I just don't think people would use them responsibly.

As for "The Kids" arguement. Absolutely! no way should any child take drugs, or alcohol. Which, unfortunately the reality is children can obtain alcohol easily even with current controls, but as it stands now, there is zero control on the supply of drugs to children.


I'm not saying lets legalise drugs and have a free-for-all, but control and regulate (and tax) the supply through licensed vendors as we do now with the legal highs of Alcohol & Tobacco.

Nor do I say there are no problems with drug use or this will cure all the issues, it won't. But we have tried the prohibition method now for 50 years, it has not worked at all. There is the basic level of demand and that will always be supplied. Regulation can help control the issues that will arise (and do arise anyway) and we don't have to criminalise large parts of society who do act responsibly for the actions of the minority.

 

[Tummy]

I'd rather see Cannabis legalised and Alcohol criminalised or the sale of it / hours it can be sold be much stricter.

 

[krooton]

Escapism isn't necessarily about feeling good, it can also be about not feeling bad, which is different. If you have lots of issues and troubles merely not being able to remember them can be enough justification for drug use.

It's all semantics really, but then some people use film, books and other activities to escape from things.

Anecdotal I know, but the vast majority of users I have encountered over the years did what they did because it fell nice. Most have cut down to maybe 2 'sessions' a year, others stopped entirely due to having children. Being able to self-moderate is very common, but you obviously don't really hear about that, only people going off the rails is news-worthy.

 

[krooton]

As for "The Kids" arguement. Absolutely! no way should any child take drugs, or alcohol. Which, unfortunately the reality is children can obtain alcohol easily even with current controls, but as it stands now, there is zero control on the supply of drugs to children.

We've all been teenagers, and we've all been able to acquire drink.

Your kid is more likely than not going to get drunk without your supervision, would you rather it be on licensed, branded vodka, or on poisonous moonshine made in a bathtub? The latter is what currently happens with illegal drugs.