Legalisation of drugs

Please vote honestly in the poll, or stay out of it if you don't actually care, or if you don't agree with how I have worded the question/options (please challenge me in the thread instead, rather than me spiteful to try and throw the poll).

I am against the legalisation of drugs and believe that there is a link between those calling for them and those that don't hold down full time jobs (students, unemployed people etc.) To try and nutshell it even further: I don't think many people that have full time jobs care for drug legalisation as they know how destructive their use is to productive lives in general.

Obviously I would be asked to prove that, which is not easy to do, so I am hoping many people will answer honestly in this poll to perhaps provide an indication. I'll still try and attempt to source something elsewhere tomorrow or over the weekend.

The topic's intention is to discuss the pros and cons of drug legalisation in general, not to just argue my theory on the sort of people that want it - so feel free to go at it with total abandon - while not being naughty towards each other of course

Brace yourselves everyone - this topic is going to end up getting angry!

I can see an upside to legalisation in that it could be a significant revenue stream through taxation, but I very much doubt it'll bring the sweeping social benefits some people seem to expect it to. The vast scale of problems related to alcohol abuse in this country clearly shows that just because something is legal doesn't automatically guarantee that people can use it responsibly.

I don't think the criminals that currently benefiting from drugs will go away quietly either, and if their profits are squeezed then we could see an increase in drug related crime as they aggressively defend their revenue stream. That said, I'm not convinced legal drugs would be significantly cheaper than they are on the streets due to more stringent safety requirements/licensing and taxation of legally obtained drugs. If the legal option cannot price match the illegal source, who will certainly make every effort to remain competitive, the problem of crime isn't going to go away.

*looks in*
...
I'm not saying a word.
...
*buggers off*

The most destructive drug to a productive life is alcohol.

Quite possibly, though its enormous user base compared with other drugs distorts the figure enormously and makes direct comparisons very difficult.

For the record, in an ideal world I think alcohol should be restricted as well, though obviously that would never happen due to a) the social acceptability of alcohol compared with other drugs and b) the huge amount of revenue alcohol brings to the government through tax.

Sam said:

The most destructive drug to a productive life is alcohol.

Click to expand...

So do you want alcohol classified, or the others legalised because you don't consider them to be as destructive?

I think Sam's just pointing out the stupidity of alcohol being legal over much less harmful drugs, I don't think there was any suggestion in the post that other drugs should be made legal or alcohol restricted, just simply making a point.

The huge difference between alcohol and tobacco, compared to cannabis and ectasy, is that the former are far more addictive.

This is according to a 1994 study by Dr. Jack E. Henningfield Ph.D. (in Psychopharmacology) and formerly of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz MD of the University of San Francisco.

They rank the addictiveness of drugs on a graph, ranging from 1 (most addictive) to 6 (least addictive). Alcohol scores a 2.4, tobacco scores a 3, while cannabis scores a 5.4.

I can tell you from my own experiences with cannabis that it is not chemically addictive in any way to me, or to most people.

Tom said:

So do you want alcohol classified, or the others legalised because you don't consider them to be as destructive?

Click to expand...

I think drugs that are less proved less destructive and addictive than alcohol (by repeated studies time and time again) should be legalised, regulated and taxed, yes.

I find it ridiculous that people argue that cannabis should be legalised on the basis that alcohol is legal and is more addictive. Do these people really believe that if alcohol were to be popularised today, it would be legal - or for that matter, tobacco and cigarettes? The answer is a resounding no, and the reasons why they are still legal are solely down to the fact that they are too ingrained into society for removal to be beneficial.

It sounds like a cliche, but if cannabis were to be legalised then it would set a precedent that would lead to more and more drugs being campaigned for legalisation, based on ambiguous "studies" that are selectively ignored or exponented according to the relevant opinion. In any case, you always hear people that have taken stuff such as cannabis or ecstasy say "it's not harmful to most people" as Sam demonstrated above. Is 'most' people good enough? Does it not matter that very occasionally people die either directly or indirectly as a result of these drugs?

The Psychoaster said:

It sounds like a cliche, but if cannabis were to be legalised then it would set a precedent that would lead to more and more drugs being campaigned for legalisation, based on ambiguous "studies" that are selectively ignored or exponented according to the relevant opinion.

Click to expand...

The studies are not ambiguous, they are resoundingly clear. Oh, and maybe if gay marriage is legalised that will set a "precedent" for people being able to marry their cats! Oh noez! It's almost like we don't have a parliament where any further drug legalisation would have to be debated and voted upon. Hang on, we do!

The Psychoaster said:

In any case, you always hear people that have taken stuff such as cannabis or ecstasy say "it's not harmful to most people" as Sam demonstrated above. Is 'most' people good enough? Does it not matter that very occasionally people die either directly or indirectly as a result of these drugs?

Click to expand...

I presume you're in favour of the criminalisation of tobacco and alcohol then. Because both of those are not harmful to most people but occasionally kill people. Oh, the same with cars. And rollercoasters. And almost anything.

Oh yeah and you better ban horseriding as well. The statistical risks of people getting seriously injured from horse riding are around 30 times the statistical risk of being seriously injured by taking ecstasy. :

I am largely anti-drug, but I feel that pot should be considered for being made legal.

Pros:

- Less addictive (only indirectly so from consumption with tobacco) and physically harmful than alcohol (the current legal equivalent);
- Doesn't have as heavy an effect as alcohol, and smoking tons of it in one go won't kill you;
- Tax from it could be spent on helpful things;
- Has recognized medicinal value due to it's painkilling qualities, and as such could be implemented more in medicine;
- It's effects don't ultra-boost confidence in the way that alcohol does, which is what causes confrontation and accidents.

Cons:

- Smoking it is heavier on your lungs than cigarettes, and carries a risk of becoming addicted to nicotine;
- Too many idiots would do it irresponsibly, it's sad to say, because this country has a binge problem;
- Psychological effects such as paranoia and depression associated with long term use, however these can also occur with alcohol;
- Social stigma attached for some people, due to being illegal for a long time.


It should be noted that I'm not a regular smoker, I haven't had so much a whiff of the stuff for 5 years, I'm just looking at the facts and drawing my own conclusions as you should too!

Sam said:

The Psychoaster said:

It sounds like a cliche, but if cannabis were to be legalised then it would set a precedent that would lead to more and more drugs being campaigned for legalisation, based on ambiguous "studies" that are selectively ignored or exponented according to the relevant opinion.

Click to expand...

The studies are not ambiguous, they are resoundingly clear. Oh, and maybe if gay marriage is legalised that will set a "precedent" for people being able to marry their cats! Oh noez! It's almost like we don't have a parliament where any further drug legalisation would have to be debated and voted upon. Hang on, we do!

The Psychoaster said:

In any case, you always hear people that have taken stuff such as cannabis or ecstasy say "it's not harmful to most people" as Sam demonstrated above. Is 'most' people good enough? Does it not matter that very occasionally people die either directly or indirectly as a result of these drugs?

Click to expand...

I presume you're in favour of the criminalisation of tobacco and alcohol then. Because both of those are not harmful to most people but occasionally kill people. Oh, the same with cars. And rollercoasters. And almost anything.

Oh yeah and you better ban horseriding as well. The statistical risks of people getting seriously injured from horse riding are around 30 times the statistical risk of being seriously injured by taking ecstasy. :

Click to expand...

You make some valid points, but excessively decontextualising everyday accidents in comparison to substance abuse is another thing that irritates me. Yes, (completely disregarding the fact that horse riding is an inherently physical sport) injuries from horse riding might be statistically higher than those from ecstasy, however when a horse riding accident occurs medical attention can be sought immediately. When you are with a group of people who have all taken a drug, the others may and most likely will be incapable of functioning normally and with the same kinds of reactions to a medical emergency than those not under any kind of influence. This is why I think drug taking is so dangerous - if there is any problem whatsoever, then you are most likely done for because especially if it were legalised - everyone you would be with would have taken it as well.

The Psychoaster said:

substance abuse

Click to expand...

Alcohol abuse is similarly dangerous. If you abuse anything it is ultimately bad for you. There is a difference between using responsibly and not!

The Psychoaster said:

You make some valid points, but excessively decontextualising everyday accidents in comparison to substance abuse is another thing that irritates me. Yes, (completely disregarding the fact that horse riding is an inherently physical sport) injuries from horse riding might be statistically higher than those from ecstasy, however when a horse riding accident occurs medical attention can be sought immediately. When you are with a group of people who have all taken a drug, the others may and most likely will be incapable of functioning normally and with the same kinds of reactions to a medical emergency than those not under any kind of influence. This is why I think drug taking is so dangerous - if there is any problem whatsoever, then you are most likely done for because especially if it were legalised - everyone you would be with would have taken it as well.

Click to expand...

A lot of people take drugs at home, or with friends who are sober. And yes you're right, a lot of people take drugs in the presence of other people under the influence. A lot of people go horse-riding on their own, or in inaccessible locations.

Anyway this isn't relevant at all. Those statistics about injuries (1 in 350 occurrences of horse-riding results in injury, compared to 1 in 10,000 for ecstasy) mark the end result. If people are injured because all their friends were also on drugs and they couldn't get help, then that is reflected in the figures of the paper, which I've read (try accessing through your university if you can).

It makes no difference to the headline figure: horse-riding is about 30 times as dangerous as taking ecstasy, based on a reliable peer-reviewed paper (Journal of Psychopharmacology). So I ask the question Psychoaster, given that horse-riding is demonstrably a vastly more dangerous activity than taking ecstasy (not just one or two times more dangerous, thirty times), how can you logically justify supporting the prohibition on ecstasy but not wanting to ban horse-riding? As you said yourself, "does it not matter that very occasionally people die either directly or indirectly?"

its a tough call this one....

legalising would ensure harder drugs are not being cut with rat poison, talc and chalk dust etc, but then you would still have people trying to under cut the legit outlets with black market suppliers.

alcohol addiction is a big problem as is binge drinking on a friday/saturday night which is why the government is getting tougher on bogof deals and happy hour promotions. It will never be made illegal as to much revenue is generated from the sales of it and the majority of society enjoys drinking responsibly. Small amounts of alcohol is not harmful to you and in some cases can actually be good for you.

There is always going to be people that drink to much and end up in trouble medically or legally as a result.
The problem with most Class A/B/C drugs is the first time can be your last time from taking just one drug thats been cut with something harmful.
something like cannabis can effect you mentally and last long term if exposed to it enough.
Cannabis is wrongly though of as a harmless drug. a small amount can slow your thinking and reaction times in a similar way to drinking can but your less aware of it. one of the reasons why Drug driving is becoming a hot topic with police as many think its acceptable to drive a car whilst under the effects of cannabis.

I think legalising it will only result in more people doing it. I for one don't really want my kids being exposed to it on a regular basis.
it amazes me how many people smoke cannabis at Alton Towers on a day out at a family theme park. Its such an obvious smell it gives them away from a mile off! (for those who havnt smelt it before, its like a mixture between stale lager and BO!)

I can see lots of arguments for and against, freeing up police to deal with other crimes, ensuring clean supplies, tax increase and a way to generate funds to help people over come addictions etc but i fear legalising it will open the flood gates.

When cannabis was downgraded from class B to class C as a police officer i noticed an increase in people carrying it on themselves and smoking it in public as chances were you would just get it confiscated and a warning. now its class B again that has dropped right back down to its original levels.

Sam's found a study. May as well lock this now, case closed!!

For what it's worth, I think cannabis should be legalised. It's not great for you, but what is? I have come across plenty of people with psychosis problems that they or Dr's attribute to excessive cannabis use, but again nothing is good for you in excess and education and self control along with proper regulation could help reduce this issue.

I for one, after years of cannabis use, smoked something in Turkey about 8 years ago that knocked me out for three days. Not touched the stuff since.

Harder stuff, not so much.

I would understand the legalisation (and therefore close regulation) of some 'party' drugs. Ecstasy and acid probably.

Heroin is pure evil and cocaine makes people do stupid aggressive stuff so they should remain very very illegal.

I'm all for the Portuguese system - decriminalise ALL personal drug use.

I can't see the benefit of branding drug users as criminals. Much better to educate and inscentivise people to seek help if and when they have a problem. I don't get this slippery slope argument that taking drug X will eventually lead you to take much worse drug Y and therefore you'll end up in the gutter, homeless and addicted to heroin.

Decriminalising use will by no mean they're easier to get - drug trafficking and selling would still be as illegal as it is today.

The argument that something worse (alcohol) is already legal is not all-together convincing, unless you are prapared to say that alcohol is not particularly damaging.

Cannabis is consierably psychoactive and can be quite a potent and dangerous drug when used irresponsibly. It can enhance various vulnerabilities and mental issues people already have. It and LSD's effects on mental health on people both with and without mental 'prerequisites' - are not fully understood, but are linked to countless cases of mental breakdown.

adsyrah said:

I'm all for the Portuguese system - decriminalise ALL personal drug use.

I can't see the benefit of branding drug users as criminals. Much better to educate and inscentivise people to seek help if and when they have a problem. I don't get this slippery slope argument that taking drug X will eventually lead you to take much worse drug Y and therefore you'll end up in the gutter, homeless and addicted to heroin.

Decriminalising use will by no mean they're easier to get - drug trafficking and selling would still be as illegal as it is today.

Click to expand...

I'm not being funny but how does that work, it doesn't make any sence.
It's not illegal to take them but it is to sell them? That seems a little daft to me, you either make them legal and control/regulate/tax them or you keep them illegal as they are.
It makes things a lot simpler.

BigT said:

I'm not being funny but how does that work, it doesn't make any sence.
It's not illegal to take them but it is to sell them? That seems a little daft to me, you either make them legal and control/regulate/tax them or you keep them illegal as they are.
It makes things a lot simpler.

Click to expand...

I'll use a hypothetical example.

Say, there's a pilot who's addicted to cocaine. At the moment, he's not got any incentive to seek help like he would do if he was an alcoholic. As taking cocaine is illegal, he could reasonably lose his job. Now, if you decriminalise the taking of class A drugs and educate people about help and support out there to kick their habit, you immiediately give the pilot a reason to seek help rather than let his drug taking further spiral out of control.

Addiction is addiction. By stigmatising the drug user, society is doing them no favours at all.