Should Weed Be Legal?

[young buck]

http://www.avaaz.org/DrugLawsKill

[Jimmy85]

Would be interesting to see how different the poll results would look if we were voting to legalise all drugs instead of just weed.

[Marshmallo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26151459

This'll definitely reduce usage and make people safer IMO.

[LinkinFighter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26151459

This'll definitely reduce usage and make people safer IMO.

An absolute joke, the same as cannabis moving up to class B circa 2009. Sending people to jail is not the answer.

[parsforlife]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26151459

This'll definitely reduce usage and make people safer IMO.

Tbh I always thought taking horse tranquilliser every night was pretty harmless, but now the government has changed it from bad to really bad I'll probably stop, maybe just for weekends,

I actually don't think the idea of drug classification is that bad, but only if it was not politicised and drugs were actually classified purely on harm which is clearly not the current system.

[Zetterlund]

Tbh I always thought taking horse tranquilliser every night was pretty harmless, but now the government has changed it from bad to really bad I'll probably stop, maybe just for weekends,

I actually don't think the idea of drug classification is that bad, but only if it was not politicised and drugs were actually classified purely on harm which is clearly not the current system.

Would you support the legal sale of horse tranquilliser in nightclubs? It's a drug and therefore exactly the same as alcohol and caffeine, after all.

[blanco]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26151459

This'll definitely reduce usage and make people safer IMO.

What kind of brain donor takes general anaesthetics for kicks anyway.

ETA parsforlife just answered

Edited February 12, 2014 by blanco

[The Moonster]

Would you support the legal sale of horse tranquilliser in nightclubs? It's a drug and therefore exactly the same as alcohol and caffeine, after all.

Who has asked for drugs to be sold in nightclubs? Any support for drug legalisation on here has come with the conditions that only licensed shops can sell them and that the law will state that you can only consume on private property. It'd up to the night club to decide if you're suitable to enter, much like they do now with alcohol.

Also can't believe we've not had a "just say neigh" joke yet.

[parsforlife]

Would you support the legal sale of horse tranquilliser in nightclubs? It's a drug and therefore exactly the same as alcohol and caffeine, after all.

Possibly, tho as said maybe licensed shops selling it would be better.

Don't take what I said to be a contradiction to my support of legalisation btw, I never have said drugs are harmless or that taking them with that belief is anything less than sheer stupidity.

Edited February 12, 2014 by parsforlife

[chomp my root]

Do you feel the current system is the best system available?

The argument that the current system is flawed so we must change it to another system (which hasn't exactly been proven to work either) is really no argument for change. Any change to the way the nation deals with drugs would cost a fortune to set up and administer and what would we do if it didn't work ? (this would have to be before all the money rolled in from the end of supras's war on drugs, which is contentious anyway) Would we re-criminalise drugs ? The government would already have accepted that people use drugs and may indeed have 'gotten into them' through the NHS. How would these people be 'treated' ? They maybe wouldn't want to be which leaves even more of a mess to be sorted (and paid for).

Its not a 'keep things exactly as they are' or 'legalise drugs and have special clinics' argument. That kind of argument is great for the internet or the pub but when theres consequences to be dealt with by politicians and civil servants etc can you really see them going "och , we'll give it a shot and see how it goes" ?

[Zetterlund]

Who has asked for drugs to be sold in nightclubs? Any support for drug legalisation on here has come with the conditions that only licensed shops can sell them and that the law will state that you can only consume on private property. It'd up to the night club to decide if you're suitable to enter, much like they do now with alcohol.

It's entirely feasible, and safe, to sell ecstasy in night clubs

Arguing for 'injection centres' is one thing if it is to help get addicts off drugs, and as I said earlier this route can be taken without legalising the drug in question, but the suggestion of selling recreational drugs in nightclubs is utterly ludicrous.

Imagine the uproar as soon as the first teenager dies after receiving a government-approved "safe" dose of ecstasy or horse tranquilliser in a nightclub. It would be political suicide to even suggest it.

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26151459

This'll definitely reduce usage and make people safer IMO.

120,000 people in England and Wales unlawfully possessed Ketamine in a single year. Let's call it 130,000 including Scotland and NI.

We should impose the maximum 5 year sentence on them all. That will stop them taking drugs and will make everyone else too afraid to take drugs. This will cost the taxpayer over £25m. But its worth it to stop ketamine use.

[NotThePars]

I didn't know ketamine was a class-c drug until some dodgy dude told me at Bestival last year. The place was flooded with the drug.

[chomp my root]

120,000 people in England and Wales unlawfully possessed Ketamine in a single year. Let's call it 130,000 including Scotland and NI.

We should impose the maximum 5 year sentence on them all. That will stop them taking drugs and will make everyone else too afraid to take drugs. This will cost the taxpayer over £25m. But its worth it to stop ketamine use.

I think you're being silly now, a public flogging would probably be sufficient

[southcapital]

but the suggestion of selling recreational drugs in nightclubs is utterly ludicrous.

We do, it's called alcohol, people die all the time cause of it and nobody bats an eyelid

[The Moonster]

The argument that the current system is flawed so we must change it to another system (which hasn't exactly been proven to work either) is really no argument for change. Any change to the way the nation deals with drugs would cost a fortune to set up and administer and what would we do if it didn't work ? (this would have to be before all the money rolled in from the end of supras's war on drugs, which is contentious anyway) Would we re-criminalise drugs ? The government would already have accepted that people use drugs and may indeed have 'gotten into them' through the NHS. How would these people be 'treated' ? They maybe wouldn't want to be which leaves even more of a mess to be sorted (and paid for).

Its not a 'keep things exactly as they are' or 'legalise drugs and have special clinics' argument. That kind of argument is great for the internet or the pub but when theres consequences to be dealt with by politicians and civil servants etc can you really see them going "och , we'll give it a shot and see how it goes" ?

A system that is failing badly is entirely a reason to look at change. The cost of setting it up is easily dealt with, we just need a government that aren't warmongering b*****ds, but that's a debate for a different thread. You're argument is hypothetical and pretty damn near impossible to answer - what would we do if it doesn't work? What doesn't work about it? It's impossible to know, although if the current example is anything to follow then if it doesn't work we'll defend it to the hilt and shout down any other suggestion as ludicrous.

You're kind of sitting on the fence here denouncing suggestions left right and centre without offering anything up yourself. You agree the current system is flawed and not working. You say that legalisation/de-criminalisation would not work. What should we do?

EDIT - RE: "a system that hasn't exactly been proven to work either" - Portugal decriminalised drugs about 11 years ago and have seen the number of teenagers who take drugs go down, the number of addicts who undergo rehab go up and the number of users affected by HIV drop significantly. I'd say there's a suggestion that decriminalisation might work, which would be my preferred option if legalisation couldn't go through (but still work towards full legalisation). Supras has linked to Canada ealier, Switzerland also have seen positive results from bringing in more tolerant drug laws.

Edited February 13, 2014 by The Moonster

[Supras]

Doctors will not be on call. There would be a discussion as to opening hours,but I would propose them being open to 24/7 within hospitals. Which are open 24/7 anyway.

It would absolutely never be illegal to consume a product. If people want to obtain an unsafe product from a criminal, a ludicrous proposition but it appears to be all you've got, then that's their prerogative.

I would allow consenting adults to consume heroin, absolutely.

Your second point rambles on and says nothing. Would dealing drugs be illegal? Obviously, just like dealing illegal cigarettes is illegal. The point about trying "smack" with their friends is not relevant. These points are getting more bizarre by the page.

First statement is explicitly not true, and I've already posted an article as to the exact costs of the current war on drugs. The medical bill would be reduced significantly too, as it would monitoring people consuming a safe product, not letting them take junk and get rushed to hospital. There's little more I can do when people are posting such blatant untruths. It's in exactly the same category as "maybe slaves are happy being slaves, maybe they don't want freedom".

The paragraph is bold is fucking embarrassing. It's basically saying "what if crimes are committed? What then!?!?"

I actually lol'd at the third paragraph. Extra cost from a report

This guy's great. He's your typical opponent to drug legalisation. Utterly out of his depth and playing well into your heads with complete nonsense a child could see through. He's the exact reason why people who support the war on drugs are so difficult to find, they can't help but look stupid with their views.

1st question - If someone wants to OD, fine. Not anything anyone can do about it. This is an argument against legalistiion, how?

2nd question - Maybe, it wouldn't matter.

3rd question - Er, prisons are full of drug users Worst point of the three so far, but how low will we go?

4th question - What, like robbing a hospital? How is this fucking relevant to anything?

5th question - Narcotic utopia is something you have made up. But given I've already posted extensively about the money saved from legalisation, there is little more I can add.

6th question - Governments do not make drugs, drug companies do. You didn't think the NHS made all the drugs they have in hospital? How fucking stupid is this guy? I'm upgrading this to worst point.

And people complain about my tone? I thought I was quite reasonable there. Certainly a lot more than I needed to be. It's hard to take seriously questions like "but what if crimes are committed?" Could I put you forward as someone to speak publically against legalisation? It would be a major boost to the movement.

It's hard to keep coming and annihilating people, and pretty meaningless given the above, a brilliant post, was totally ignored.

Isn't it amusing how none of those opposed to legalisation can do this:

Bullshit. I have been explaining and backing up my position the entire thread, as people who support legalisation tend to. But it's not enough, those who oppose absolutely should be able to pose an alternative policy. It's no where near enough to point out potential problems with a legalisation approach if you don't have any suggestion yourself. Doing nothing is the status quo, the ludicrous failure of a policy that is the war on drugs. So put up an alternative proposal? Go on, if you think you're good enough.

And yet they expect me to answer their repetitive nonsensical questions about my proposal? And then ignore the answers?

But with reference to one of the above points, of course ecstasy can be sold safety in nightclubs. And if you're in "uproar" over this you're a fucking idiot who either doesn't understand ecstasy, or doesn't understand alcohol. Or maybe you're just like those despicable human beings who was were in "uproar" over freeing the slaves.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Supras

[Supras]

I'm yet to hear an argument for the legalisation of smack other than "War oan drugs a pyoor failure" while ignoring the drug treatment programmes successes. Smack is already losing it's appeal. Legalising it would be fucking stupid.k IMO.

It saves people lives, provides a safe product and does not criminalise people for the crime of consumption.

I've maintained throughout, the most harmful drugs are ones where the case for legalisation is strongest, in it is legalisation we have by far the most to gain. I favour a policy that minimises harm, not one that minimises use.

Cause I'm, you know, a compassionate human being who isn't dogmatic about criminalising drug users.

[Zetterlund]

But with reference to one of the above points, of course ecstasy can be sold safety in nightclubs. And if you're in "uproar" over this you're a fucking idiot

Deary me.

Or maybe you're just like those despicable human beings who was were in "uproar" over freeing the slaves.

Seriously? How can your obviously well-researched argument descend into this? What an utterly preposterous thing to say.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Zetterlund

[Supras]

Deary me.

Seriously? How can your obviously well-researched argument descend into this? What an utterly preposterous thing to say.

Deliberately favouring a policy that is so clearly harmful to millions of human beings around the world? Even the arguments are the same, it would cost too much money, maybe people like being slaves, we don't know how they will use their freedom. It's the same kind of scaremongering nonsense we have seen on this very thread.

That's why it's a very appropriate comparison. The war on drugs will be viewed with complete disgust in generations to come. How could we let such an injustice continue for so long?

But it's good you have totally abandoned debating the issue at all. It's taken you far too long to realise just how far out your depth you really are.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Supras