Youtube clip of some random and police

[steve-h]

In some circumstances, I think it's necessary. Should crystal meth be prohibited or allowed?

Look what Spain has accomplished by decriminalising drugs. The use rate is way down and the people in rehab has grown. The rate of infections via dirty needles is massively down too.

Yes, safer for the people who do use them, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed/regulated.

So it's safer but that doesn't mean it should be allowed? Hmm?

I don't care what Amsterdam enforces, why's that directly relevant? Can't you see the folly of directly comparing countries? Look at our attitudes towards alcohol - the same policies in the UK and France would lead to wildly differing results.

How is Amsterdam relevant? It's country that's had cannabis publicly sold in coffee shops for a great number of years.

 

[steve-h]

LOL. Spain? Or do you mean Portugal? This is embarrassing. Is that the weed showing its effects?

I did mean Portugal, but Spain has decriminalised personal use of drugs also.

Safer doesn't mean safe (I notice you've ignored the rest of the post, regarding this. Clean crystal meth's safer than some ghetto variant... but it's still awful. Clean cannabis is safer than rat poison infused stuff... but that doesn't mean the harmful effects all disappear.

So you're choosing the "rat poison infused stuff" then?

You've ignored the alcohol point, I see.

What do you want me to say? Do you think us Brits aren't to be trusted? We'll just binge everything that's not illegal? I don't even see a point here... are we just to assume that because this is Britain that we'll not be able to handle it?

You've also ignored the call or academic papers. Interesting.

Stop ignoring my posts so I don't have to keep ignoring yours.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

steve-h...it's definitely Portugal

 

[Skull]

All I heard were personal attacks, falsities regarding what I've said coupled with a lack of substance.

Then let's try a different method. Just answer this one question:

What do you think would happen if the police were free to ignore laws that they didn't agree with?

 

[steve-h]

No, I'm saying there's a difference between safer and safe. Can you not see that?

I can, however the choice is not between safe and safer. It's between unsafe and safer.

I'm not saying any of that... I'm just saying it demonstrates that you can't just say you can apply the same policy to two different places and expect exactly the same result, when it comes to drug use.

You've assumed a negative outcome without any data. I've assumed a positive outcome with data.

Ignoring two hour long Youtube videos that don't directly talk about the harm of cannabis? That's because you're not giving me what I ask for!

That's not what I was referring to...

This all stemmed from you saying the police should just ignore laws - a ridiculous stance.

What do you think would happen if the police were free to ignore laws that they didn't agree with?

People would get arrested, receive warnings and criminal records for personal drug use a lot less. But I'm not really expecting them to do that, I was merely saying that I dislike them for upholding that law.

Then the discussion morphed into the harm caused by drugs - yet you haven't posted ANY legitimate academic evidence about the harm caused by drugs (whereas I actually have!). It's about the harm, not whether or not prohibition works.

Incoming, as I've said a ton of times now.

Currently reading: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html

 

[Deadbeat]

Oh good, another classic OcUK debate. I can save you guys a lot of trouble: just copy and paste this image. It'll carry at least as much weight as your arguments and will save you a lot of typing.

 

[steve-h]

Safer than unsafe can still be unsafe!

Sigh. Alcohol can be unsafe, does this mean it should be illegal? Because after all, safer than unsafe can still be unsafe!

There's no logic to this way of thinking... you're saying it's better to keep it in the hands of potentially harmful drug dealers, who add very harmful substances to the drugs they sell OVER having them either, in the case of meth, prescribed in a clinical rehab or in the case of cannabis, sold in coffee shops after being properly and officially regulated.

Would you legalise safer crystal meth?

As stated above. I do not believe it should be legalised, but I don't see how making it a criminal offence is helping anybody, because meth is a highly addictive substance and if they're addicted then they need nothing but help.

You're the one arguing for a change from the status quo, no?

Duh? How does that change the fact you're just assuming the people of Britain won't be able to handle it as well as other countries, as shown by the data?

It's interesting you bring up meth too, since the use of hard drugs in decriminalised Portugal has dropped, infection rate has dropped and the number of people in rehab has increased... but perhaps the wacky people of Britain would go mental and do the opposite... for whatever reason you have.

 

[Burnsy2023]

If alcohol was currently illegal, it wouldn't become legal. The horse has already bolted with that, and tobacco (although I can see tobacco being phased out completely).

Personally, I see a whole host of reasons why alcohol shouldn't be legal every weekend, but like you say, the horse has already bolted on that one.

 

[steve-h]

I'd be for regulating (as already stated) if you can evidence it doesn't do harm (as already stated).

Let's assume that it does in fact, for the odd person, higher their case for psychosis, it's still a better option to legalise it. It's like making nuts illegal because some people can have horrific reactions. People smoke it regardless of legality and according to the data on Portugal, the use of cannabis stayed the same, so in Portugal's case, criminalising only sent the trade 'underground' which funded organised crime. It's also at this point where people get pushed onto or at least introduced to the harder drugs because of the people who typically take their chances by dealing them.

Yeah, so have it in medical facilities (or prescribed like methadone)... not in coffee shops where anyone can buy it.

Well I don't think anyone has suggested we sell heroin and meth in coffee shops. They are highly addictive and destructive substances for everyone.

 

[RDM]

I understand the positives of legalising/regulating, but as stated, I'd only favour that if it can be evidenced that it's safe.

Eg. I don't want us okaying the use of cannabis, if it's going to result in a load of mental health problems, regardless of if it stops other problems (like trafficking/dodgy batches/etc).

Even if it isn't safe (very little is after all) surely we should balance the pros and cons of both approaches rather than just dismiss one? If drugs being legal solve more problems than they cause isn't it worn legalising them even if they cause additional problems?

 

[Threepwood]

Drink too much water and you will die. Ban water.

Actually, being born is seriously dangerous I mean, it causes death! Ban it.

All I see here is people arguing. Ban arguing, it causes stress, unsafe.

There is a serious point to all this, somewhere