Ross. Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 What good is regulating drugs going to do? People saying regulating and taxing drugs will help. Get real for one minute people with heart conditions they don't know about are gonna take them and end up in a bad way legal or not. Being available in shops are only going to put more people at risk. People with heart conditions they don't know about die doing any number of things. Under current circumstances there are already millions of people using illegal drugs on a weekly basis. Making sure that folk aren't filling their bodies with mixtures of ketamine, flour, methadone, speed, and all sorts of other shite when they think they are taking something else is a good place to start. Just telling people to not do it is stupid. Telling people to just say no has been failing for as long as there have been drugs. We need a new approach. Portugal decriminalised around 15 years ago. Why hasn't everyone in Portugal died from massive drug intake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Algorithms Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 What good is regulating drugs going to do? People saying regulating and taxing drugs will help. Get real for one minute people with heart conditions they don't know about are gonna take them and end up in a bad way legal or not. Being available in shops are only going to put more people at risk. Regulation and taxation would eliminate the need for cutting in some of the utter shite which is used to bulk up drugs. Dealers will happily bulk up what they have with the likes of washing powder in order to make more money out of it. Instead, sell a purer form of drug in a more controlled environment. You can rocket up the prices as with tobacco and alcohol in order to make people less keen to do it. It is possible that a situation could arise involving people with heart problems whereby they may put themselves at risk. However, this can happen with any area of life. There are far more people who are doing long term damage to their livers through binge drinking each weekend. The problem is a long term one, but it will be visible in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 What good is regulating drugs going to do? People saying regulating and taxing drugs will help. Get real for one minute people with heart conditions they don't know about are gonna take them and end up in a bad way legal or not. Being available in shops are only going to put more people at risk. We should make roller coasters and football illegal in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingapar Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Tax the f**k oot of something that Is already available on a well established black market? people buy cheap fags and cheap booze off the back of a lorry because they've taxed the f**k out of it. The country is skint so people would continue to buy dodgy drugs, ' legitimate' drugs share the blame For any damage, And the black market drug dealers will trade under less risk due to decriminalization. They'd be fucking ecstatic. The drug issue would not improve. add established drugs to the current trend for Legal highs and there'd be a free for all. all that would slow It in fact, is the stigma attached to it currently because of illegality. We live in a country culturally led by excess, and the nhs would take a pummeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Tax the f**k oot of something that Is already available on a well established black market? people buy cheap fags and cheap booze off the back of a lorry because they've taxed the f**k out of it. The country is skint so people would continue to buy dodgy drugs, ' legitimate' drugs share the blame For any damage, And the black market drug dealers will trade under less risk due to decriminalization. They'd be fucking ecstatic. The drug issue would not improve. add established drugs to the current trend for Legal highs and there'd be a free for all. all that would slow It in fact, is the stigma attached to it currently because of illegality. We live in a country culturally led by excess, and the nhs would take a pummeling. I don't know anyone who buys fake booze and fags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyal-blue Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I don't anyone who buys fake booze and fags. I was going to say the same. Maybe I live a sheltered life, is this common? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Neither do I, even then it would be more common for people to buy imported stuff rather than counterfeit. I think it's worth noting by taxing the f**k out of drugs you aren't likely to be adding anything to current prices, even by taxing at very very high rates, the cost of producing most illegal drugs is tiny , a dose of heroin for instance costs only a couple of pence to make. If legalisation was to come in I would still want (black market) dealers hammered so I doubt the risk to them would be reduced much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Post mortem underway. P&B druggies all crossing their fingers that it was some other stuff that killed her, and made 4 others sick, on that night in that club. Were the other four not in Kilmarnock? I'm sure that's what I read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I hear Celtic and Liverpool are bidding to hold a minute silence at their next home game. She was underage and taking drugs, i have sympathy for the family but not for her. That's pretty harsh, the lass was just out having some fun and is dead now. Wouldn't expect any grief, but an outright statement of no sympathy? That's cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I was going to say the same. Maybe I live a sheltered life, is this common? It is in the schemes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAFC Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 As suggested if there was a testing station inside clubs half the deaths would be prevented. The other half are caused by drinking too much water or not enough, or maybe drinking along with E. Chances are these tablets don't contain any MDMA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAFC Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well duh, what I mean is that the media is referring to the tablet as E when it's not. Actually according to this site http://www.pillreports.com/index.php?page=display_pill&id=33012 They do contain MDMA but also contain pmma which can cause a poisoning effect. A smile testing station would have picked this up and saved her life possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracowjambo Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I don't know anyone who buys fake booze and fags. Fake tobacco is stinking. I know a few folk that buy fake golden vaginal it smells and tastes 100x worse than the real thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Decriminalise, control the quality, let folk know exactly what they are taking, and tax the f**k out of it. The sensible way to do it, so it'll never happen. Decriminalise and controlling the quality is legalisation. Yep. I haven't heard an argument against this that doesn't go into tabloid-style rants about "gateways" and the like. Calpol was my gateway drug to be fair. What good is regulating drugs going to do? People saying regulating and taxing drugs will help. Get real for one minute people with heart conditions they don't know about are gonna take them and end up in a bad way legal or not. Being available in shops are only going to put more people at risk. Well that's one of the strangest arguments I've ever seen for imprisoning drug users. People who don't know they have heart conditions might try currently illegal drugs and get ever sicker. Right. Makes perfect sense But, anyway, with regards to this particular case, it is yet another clear indication, in my opinion, of the very real and human travesty on the war on drugs. This death was absolutely unavoidable were drugs legalised and regulated. Every second we aren't legalising, we are killing our children. Hope that's clear enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Yep. I haven't heard an argument against this that doesn't go into tabloid-style rants about "gateways" and the like. The argument will be that criminals will always be able to produce the drugs cheaper. Much cheapness and illegality will appeal to the youth. I wid too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Raccoon Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Ecstasy is pretty decent tbh. PMA? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The argument will be that criminals will always be able to produce the drugs cheaper. Much cheapness and illegality will appeal to the youth. I wid too. Er, what drugs would they produce cheaper, exactly? You do know the street price is significantly, enormously, higher than the cost of actually producing the product, right? If you think some guy can grow weed or make heroin at a lower price than GlaxoSmithKline than why isn't he doing an IPO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Er, what drugs would they produce cheaper, exactly? You do know the street price is significantly, enormously, higher than the cost of actually producing the product, right? If you think some guy can grow weed or make heroin at a lower price than GlaxoSmithKline than why isn't he doing an IPO? We're talking about ecstacy, so let's start with that. As people have said, the government will want their cut. The dealers don't have to bother with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 We're talking about ecstacy, so let's start with that. As people have said, the government will want their cut. The dealers don't have to bother with that. You think drug dealers can produce ecstasy at lower cost than enormous pharmaceutical companies? Of course it will be taxed, but given the likes of Pfizer or GSK will be able to produce it at (I'd hazard a guess*) less than a pence per pill, the government could tax it many multiples of the cost of production and still massively undercut a dealer with even the shoddiest product. *That is hardly a bold guess, major manufacturing companies can produce mass market products like pharmaceuticals at an astonishingly low price. The cost in medicine is obviously R&D, which is why your new cancer pill is extortionate, and why they sell paracetamol at 30 for a pound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 You think drug dealers can produce ecstasy at lower cost than enormous pharmaceutical companies? Of course it will be taxed, but given the likes of Pfizer or GSK will be able to produce it at (I'd hazard a guess*) less than a pence per pill, the government could tax it many multiples of the cost of production and still massively undercut a dealer with even the shoddiest product. *That is hardly a bold guess, major manufacturing companies can produce mass market products like pharmaceuticals at an astonishingly low price. The cost in medicine is obviously R&D, which is why your new cancer pill is extortionate, and why they sell paracetamol at 30 for a pound. The public would be up in arms if the price of eccys was too low. It wouldn't play well with voters. It would seem a bit cavalier. After all these would still be recreational drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.