Tokyo Sexwale wrote:
spast1kunt wrote:It's the illegality of drugs which creates most of the social problems associated with drug use.
You whole post hinges on this and it's totally incorrect. The illegality of drugs causes unclean drugs and wealthy cartels but the real crimes committed (when thinking of Class As like Heroin, Crack etc) are in gaining money to buy the drug in the first place, or violence from one addict on another or other antisocial behaviour. The fact the drug is illegal is irrelevant to the social problems, just look at alcohol. Alcohol is a legalised drug that has huge problems from a societal and criminal POV. It's availability is the biggest reason for this - a highly addictive drug that's available almost 24/7 with the only real restriction on it being age and not to sell it to someone who's completely fcuked. It's mass market means it's cheap as chips too.
No, spazzers is right. The crime done to get money to buy drugs other than alcohol is purely an artefact of their illegality pushing the price up. Alcohol - despite being taxed to fcuk - is still cheap enough that people don't generally have to commit crime to pay for it. There's no reason why other drugs shouldn't be just as cheap (in terms of price per unit effect, rather than price per unit mass), since they are all piss simple to produce. Purely synthetic drugs like E and speed are much simpler to synthesise than many common medical drugs, being about on the level of aspirin or paracetamol in complexity. With heroin and cocaine a plant does all the difficult chemistry for you and all that's needed is to purify the extract, and in the case of heroin acetylate it - even simpler processes.
Also, you can't just dismiss the "wealthy cartels" like that. Manufacturers of legal things do not generally run what amounts to private armies or terrorise and fcuk up entire regions or countries.
Alcohol is a special case when it comes to antisocial or criminal behaviour because it is pretty much unique in having the effect of making you think it's a great idea to act like a cnut. Most other drugs you either don't want to do anything at all much, or else at least allow you to retain a reasonable appreciation of whether you're being a cnut or not and the desire not to be one.
Turntable wrote:If figures show that legalising hard drugs (with controls and education) would make far more addicts than exist already, then I would definitely be against it.
I wouldn't. There's nothing wrong with being an addict per se. It's only a problem when it's difficult to get hold of the stuff you're addicted to, and of course legalisation would put a stop to that. Tobacco is of the same order as heroin in terms of addictiveness but that's OK since it's available and cheap enough that anyone who wants it doesn't have a problem getting it.
CJ+ wrote:Stepping away from the criminality/cost aspect, what do we think of the "well, why the giddy fcuk can't I put whatever chemicals I like into my own bloodstream?" question?
If the government should be able to mandate what people can and cannot do to themselves, where/how do we draw the line.
Imagine this scenario:
Heroin is legal, taxed and regulated, and is available in shops under much the same circumstances as alcohol is now. All the laws that apply to alcohol (driving, operating machinery, age, etc.) apply to heroin too.
So Wayne McChav goes down the offy and spends his dole on (a) White Lightning or (b) Sunny H.
Assuming for a moment that he doesn't go criming or be in charge of children or whatever when he's pissed or high, so what?
So he's addicted. Again, so what? His body, his problem.
Genuinely interested to hear your thoughts about this - on each side of the debate.
This, absolutely. What someone does to their own body is their own problem and none of the government's fcuking business. It's only people being cnutish to other people that should be of the government's concern, and legalising drugs would cut out a great swathe of motivation to cnutishness both deliberate and secondary. Health care costs are covered by the tax (last time I looked tobacco taxes brought in something like 9 times the cost of treating tobacco-related health problems), and also by people dying earlier and not needing so much pension, geriatric care etc. (And in any case nobody worries about taxing people to pay for the health care costs of other kinds of self-inflicted damage incurred in the course of some activity that the whining moralists do not have a down on, like climbing mountains and falling off, or riding a bike and falling off, or doing sport and getting Dis-eye or Deev-knee, etc.) Not to mention the massive reduction in police, prison etc. costs from not chasing dealers and not having to deal with crime committed to pay dealers.