Should Weed Be Legal?

[The Moonster]

It might make the country money but think of all the lives it will destroy in the process.

If safe heroin/weed/ecstacy whatever was available in a shop tomorrow would you go and buy some?

Edited February 11, 2014 by The Moonster

[Dee Man]

This "slight dent" is something that you've made. It will be an enormous blow to the current criminal network. I toyed with the idea of producing a breakdown of the major costs associated with the war on drugs (and how significantly less burden prisons would in itself far outweigh the cost of a few medical facilities and staff) but I feel this article does it in more depth than I could on a forum:

http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/Economics-briefing.pdf

Can't be bothered reading 13 pages? Yeah, that's why I'm making you look like an arse here. I just know far more than you.

I could, but it would be idiotic and pointless.

This veers into the bizarre a bit, but given the government currently spends billions on drugs for the NHS I don't think they'll have much of a problem with quality control. Do you know what happens if a pharmaceutical produces faulty drugs that kills patients? Lawsuits. But this rarely happens because these are large companies with rigorous quality management systems, and the drugs aren't that hard to make.

It's clear that legalisation will reduce costs, I can scarcely make this any clearer than I already have, but it's not the reason I support legalisation. There was an "economic argument" over maintaining slavery in the US.

I disagree with the war on drugs because it is fundamentally wrong, on a human level, and imprisons people for the mere crime of consumption. It also forces drug users to consume unsafe products, it causes untold harm and misery across the world (no more acutely than in Mexico currently) and in decades to come we will have to explain to our children as to why we were so fucking stupid to allow this monstrosity to continue for so long.

Well, I looked at them anyway.

That's great, but are you sticking by your assertion that meth heads will voluntarily visit a government facility to be supervised while they take their 4 hour to several day high in the knowledge that their aggressive behaviour - which is a common effect of ice - will lead to a jail sentence?

Are you still sticking by that?

[DEEJANGO]

If safe heroin/weed/ecstacy whatever was available in a shop tomorrow would you go and buy some?

Is that like diet ecstasy and heroin light?

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

I wonder if the penny will drop now.

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

Haha I posted the above before seeing the post from Dee Man, incredible stupidity.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Lambie's Pigeon Feed

[Dee Man]

Haha I posted the above before seeing the post from Dee Man, incredible stupidity.

My favourite Geto Boys tune is 'Talkin' Loud Ain't Sayin Nuthin'.

[Supras]

That's great, but are you sticking by your assertion that meth heads will voluntarily visit a government facility to be supervised while they take their 4 hour to several day high in the knowledge that their aggressive behaviour - which is a common effect of ice - will lead to a jail sentence?

Are you still sticking by that?

I never said it would lead to a jail sentence, although it depends what they do. Aggressive behaviour = held in a cell. As anyone else. Stabbing someone - jail. As with anyone else.

Simple really. They would get no special treatment in either respect.

That, said, this discussion is all academic given meth is even remotely an issue in the UK.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

From a different source

The Tobacco Manufacturers Association claimed that more recent data showed that "the level of cigarettes consumed that are not UK tax paid has risen from 17% in 2011 to 21% in 2012" and that figures from the Office of Budget Responsibility last week showed the government expected to receive £200m less in tobacco revenue in 2012-13.

The point here is that the tobacco manufacturers have an incentive to overstate the scale of the black market as they argue that higher rates of taxation on the legal market would be counterproductive.

It may be that it is in fact Cancer Research who are being deceptive while the cigarette firms are presenting an unvarnished account of reality. It may be that there is some spin from both sides and given the difficulty in measuring an activity like smuggling even the most honest account will have a sizable margin for error.

That's why I described your figures as "Disputed" as opposed to "Obviously utter bollocks"

Although on balance I'd rather trust Cancer Research's analysis than the TBA and I would have thought that, given your repeated concerns for public health, you'd be more inclined to do so too.

[Dee Man]

You've brought up meth completely inappropriately in this thread already, but if a "meth head" wanted to consume more drugs the very best place he could be is a government facility. If he's aggressive towards, he'll be imprisoned instantly. Simple as that.

[Hearts Daft]

It's fucking easily possible you absolute zoomer.

Medical staff administer safe doses of drugs all the fucking time

Here's one doing it with heroin for decades http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/ontv/theinsider/heroin+on+the+nhs/649957.html whilst practicing as a senior GP.

And yet you are asking how it's possible? And you wonder why people think you're a fucking idiot who has been utterly destroyed on this thread?

The government/NHS' idea of A "safe dose" will not be enough for addicts in most cases. They aren't taking it to get high anymore. They're taking it to merely feel normal. "Safe dosing" would not work. The only thing like that that would work is letting them dose themselves with a doctor present. Meanwhile, people are suffering from actual illness while a doctor waits to make sure a junkie doesn't OD.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Hearts Daft

[Hearts Daft]

I never said it would lead to a jail sentence, although it depends what they do. Aggressive behaviour = held in a cell. As anyone else. Stabbing someone - jail. As with anyone else.

Simple really. They would get no special treatment in either respect.

That, said, this discussion is all academic given meth is even remotely an issue in the UK.

You going to pay for this doctors time and the costs of imprisonment and police time?

[LinkinFighter]

These arguments against are getting worse.

[Hearts Daft]

These arguments against are getting worse.

Arguments against safe dosing? You clearly know nothing about drug addiction if you actually think an NHS/Government provided safe dosing scheme would work.

[Supras]

You've brought up meth completely inappropriately in this thread already, but if a "meth head" wanted to consume more drugs the very best place he could be is a government facility. If he's aggressive towards, he'll be imprisoned instantly. Simple as that.

Er, yeah, so exactly what I just said then

This argument makes no sense, under legalisation they may be aggressive in a government facility with security, but under prohibition they may be aggressive in the street or in their homes towards other. And you think this is...better?!

Honestly, sometimes I think you want to fail.

The government/NHS' idea of A "safe dose" will not be enough for addicts in most cases. They aren't taking it to get high anymore. They're taking it to merely feel normal. "Safe dosing" would not work. The only thing like that that would work is letting them dose themselves with a doctor present. Meanwhile, people are suffering from actual illness while a doctor waits to make sure a junkie doesn't OD.

If that was the case, then I have no issue with them taking a supervised dose. It already works brilliantly in Canada. You certainly wouldn't need one doctor per patient, it could monitored over screens, and you wouldn't even necessarily need a doctor. A trained nurse could do it.

What is most amusing, here, is that you think under prohibition doctors don't deal with drug users or something. Which is utter stupidity, obviously.

I still don't see the link between this and being against legalisation.

You going to pay for this doctors time and the costs of imprisonment and police time?

We already pay for the doctors time, and the costs of imprisonment and police time.

[Supras]

Arguments against safe dosing? You clearly know nothing about drug addiction if you actually think an NHS/Government provided safe dosing scheme would work.

It already does work, did you not see the trial link I posted earlier in this very thread?

And presumably he's referring to your argument in favour of the war on drugs and imprisoning drug users. They're getting worse, certainly.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Supras

[Dee Man]

Er, yeah, so exactly what I just said then

This argument makes no sense, under legalisation they may be aggressive in a government facility with security, but under prohibition they may be aggressive in the street or in their homes towards other. And you think this is...better?!

Honestly, sometimes I think you want to fail.

Is a violent meth head going to voluntarily walk up to this facility and agree to take their fix under the eyes of the authorities?

Yes or no?

[Hearts Daft]

It already does work, did you not see the trial link I posted earlier in this very thread?

And presumably he's referring to your argument in favour of the war on drugs and imprisoning drug users. They're getting worse, certainly.

My argument in favour of the war on drugs? Which arguments that? I haven't put one forward. People would be more willing to enter serious debate with you if you didn't get so defensive and upset that someone could possibly disagree with you but that's an argument for a different day.

On your point, are we to have doctors on call at all hours for addicts to contact when they are taking a hit or will this be set times that the addict is allowed to consume? What if a doctor isn't available to them and they take it anyway? Would that be illegal or are we just legalising it altogether and letting them get on with it?

What if I wanted to use heroin, a new user. Would the government provide me with a dose to take or would I have to go to a dealer? Would this be illegal if I wanted to take it but not if addicts do?

How do you control the drug in this circumstance. As you probably know, people start taking drugs when it is supplied to them by people, usually friends, to try. No one goes out and just buys a bag of smack one day because they fancy it. When people undoubtedly became hooked would they then be entitled to government doses or would they have to be supplied by a dealer? Would these dealers be illegal?

On the safe dosing idea that I actually disputed- After the safe dose, what happens if the persons needs are not met? They then go to the same dealers the government would be attempting to eradicate surely?

The costs of such legalisation coupled with safe dosing would be monumental and a far higher amount of doctors time would be consumed by this problem than previously.

When an addict has to go to a dealer, which they inevitably will, to get their fix, what's to say crimes would not be committed to acquire the funds? Dealers are highly unlikely to also pay tax on their product when the government is undercutting them. This would be a crime and tax avoidance can carry a jail term. Jail terms of course incur yet more costs.

What happens if a junkie dies during a safe dosing procedure? There would surely be investigations into how it occurred which will of course incur yet further costs.

Given the amount of junkies in the country, how much is it going to cost to build these facilities capable of housing huge stocks of Heroin and cells for the junkies who misbehave?

How long do you estimate it would be before someone robbed one of these facilities. That would surely force heightened security which will be a huge cost as well.

Where are we to get the cash required to build this Narcotic Utopia?

Of course, this all before taking into account where the government would grow and produce their completely safe stock and of course the massive costs of labs to test all this gear. What with it being illegal virtually everywhere else they'll not be able to simply import it so the government will be needing to grow, produce, test, price, supply and monitor the drugs of 300,000 (known) heroin addicts.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Hearts Daft

[welshbairn]

I'd like the cops to hammer down on cannabis, force the price up on mindnumbing home grown skunk and even worse soap from wherever, and make it it worthwhile for smugglers to risk bringing in some decent spliff from abroad again.

[Supras]

My argument in favour of the war on drugs? Which arguments that? I haven't put one forward. People would be more willing to enter serious debate with you if you didn't get so defensive and upset that someone could possibly disagree with you but that's an argument for a different day.

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.

On your point, are we to have doctors on call at all hours for addicts to contact when they are taking a hit or will this be set times that the addict is allowed to consume? What if a doctor isn't available to them and they take it anyway? Would that be illegal or are we just legalising it altogether and letting them get on with it?

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.

What if I wanted to use heroin, a new user. Would the government provide me with a dose to take or would I have to go to a dealer? Would this be illegal if I wanted to take it but not if addicts do?

How do you control the drug in this circumstance. As you probably know, people start taking drugs when it is supplied to them by people, usually friends, to try. No one goes out and just buys a bag of smack one day because they fancy it. When people undoubtedly became hooked would they then be entitled to government doses or would they have to be supplied by a dealer? Would these dealers be illegal?

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.

The costs of such legalisation coupled with safe dosing would be monumental and a far higher amount of doctors time would be consumed by this problem than previously.

When an addict has to go to a dealer, which they inevitably will, to get their fix, what's to say crimes would not be committed to acquire the funds? Dealers are highly unlikely to also pay tax on their product when the government is undercutting them. This would be a crime and tax avoidance can carry a jail term. Jail terms of course incur yet more costs.

What happens if a junkie dies during a safe dosing procedure? There would surely be investigations into how it occurred which will of course incur yet further costs.

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

On the safe dosing idea that I actually disputed- After the safe dose, what happens if the persons needs are not met? They then go to the same dealers the government would be attempting to eradicate surely? Given the amount of junkies in the country, how much is it going to cost to build these facilities capable of housing huge stocks of Heroin and cells for the junkies who misbehave?.How long do you estimate it would be before someone robbed one of these facilities. That would surely force heightened security which will be a huge cost as well. Where are we to get the cash required to build this Narcotic Utopia? Of course, this all before taking into account where the government would grow and produce their completely safe stock and of course the massive costs of labs to test all this gear.

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.

[Supras]

Is a violent meth head going to voluntarily walk up to this facility and agree to take their fix under the eyes of the authorities?

Yes or no?

I have no idea. People will generally go for a safer and cheaper option that doesn't involve being threatened by criminal gangs, but it's hardly something I can guarantee. Will someone stab themselves with a knife occasionally, yes or no?