Gordon R Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 I am totally anti- drugs. If they were legalised, in my opinion, it would just give them an air of respectability. To those who say the drugs do no harm - I genuinely worry about you. Aside from the effect of the drugs, it's the crime associated with the cost of drugs that is also alarming. Addicts stealing to feed their habit. Next, someone will say prices would drop and they wouldn't have to steal as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 I am totally anti- drugs. If they were legalised, in my opinion, it would just give them an air of respectability. To those who say the drugs do no harm - I genuinely worry about you. Aside from the effect of the drugs, it's the crime associated with the cost of drugs that is also alarming. Addicts stealing to feed their habit. Next, someone will say prices would drop and they wouldn't have to steal as much. Do you think that crime would go up if cigarettes were banned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricko Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 OMG this is a thorny issue. I spend a lot of my time 'preaching' to my 6th formers about the evils of drugs, this sends out a very confusing message to young people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groach1234 Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Anyone who says drugs should be legal must have never known anyone who has lost a child to them. I would never say smack and crack should be legalised for their addictive nature but weed and pills on the other hand I would have to differ. I also know loads of people who use 'party' drugs (e's ket coke and what have you and weed) fairly regally and they work hard but use the as its cheaper to get high than it is ****** and to legalise and tax them, in my view wouldn't be such a bad thing. Why let the big pins make all the money from them? after all weed is licensed in the Netherlands, parts of australia and many other countries and i think its fair to say it bring in large amounts of income in cities such as amsterdam. Its the new legal highs that i worry about as when Mkat or methadrone was new on the scene nearly all of my friends got into it but not me (not with my heart) anyway people who wouldn't touch a spliff were more than happy to snort this white powder as it was 'legal' the cheif of the drug advice board said he'd rather have people doing e's than that filth as people know the consequences and time after time people but their head above the parapet and say drugs should be legalised there must be something behind it all. Rather mixed up reply there . George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Billy - cigarettes are a separate issue. The thread is about drugs - my position is clear - no time for them or the people who say they are okay. I don't recall people stealing / mugging etc to buy cigarettes - if that answers your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardo Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Why are cigarettes a separate issue - they are a drug that causes addiction. They just happen to be slightly more socially accepted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Billy - cigarettes are a separate issue. The thread is about drugs - my position is clear - no time for them or the people who say they are okay. I don't recall people stealing / mugging etc to buy cigarettes - if that answers your question. If they had to be smuggled in in side people and animals like Coke dont you think the price would rise the people selling them would not be your local shop (licensed, regulated and taxed) but any dodgy geezer that could get hold of a few cartons and sell for as mush mark up as possible to anyone.... Prohibition in the US fuelled organised crime, so many people do take illegal or not yet made illegal substances regularly that it isnt even considered an issue, loosing a child is very emotive, whether it be to cancer, drugs, RTI, or anything else it is a tragedy. Following your logic the GCN have it spot on, why risk a single life by allowing firearms to owned by the public? I personally think we will see guns banned before drugs legalised, doesn't mean its the right solution if after 50 years+ of the war on drugs we are still loosing don't you think it's time to try a different tactic, Legal does not mean SAFE, illegal does not mean dangerous! It's time we dropped the cotton wool mentality and made people responsible for their own actions and choices. I had a very good education into drugs while at school that allowed me to make an informed decision, it seems the more we "educate" children the less they learn, Teacher says drugs are bad and addictive, their mates say they are great, they try them and ENJOY it, if no one enjoyed drugs no one would do them..... No one is saying drugs are harmless, but they are saying there are plenty of illegal drugs which are less dangerous than legal substances. I think too many people sit on their side of the fence and preach without ever looking at the other side, there is an awful lot of propaganda about, and an awful lot of untruths and half truths. I only hope enough people can see past the **** they are fed by the MEDIA on all aspects of the world to perhaps do something about it, Freedom is becoming a joke, and its a slippery slope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 (edited) Billy - cigarettes are a separate issue. The thread is about drugs - my position is clear - no time for them or the people who say they are okay. I don't recall people stealing / mugging etc to buy cigarettes - if that answers your question. You're right. I know of no drugs which require tobacco to be effective. I was merely saying that there's already a very addictive drug which is readily available in most shops, which kills people every year. It's 100% preventable, but people just decide to take the risk. That attitude is exactly the same as what would happen if drugs were legalised. People would do them, people wouldn't. Some would die from them, others would come to their senses earlier and give up. Amsterdam seems a nice place Edited December 17, 2010 by Billy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inshallah Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Billy - cigarettes are a separate issue. The thread is about drugs - my position is clear - no time for them or the people who say they are okay. I don't recall people stealing / mugging etc to buy cigarettes - if that answers your question. Cigarettes are drugs. So is alcohol. So is a cup of tea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inshallah Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Deaths from drugs 2000-2004, from http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/faqs/faqpages/how-many-people-die-from-drugs Cocaine 575 Amphetamine 384 Ecstasy 227 Solvents 246 Opiates (heroin, morphine & methadone) 4,976 Alcohol 25,000 - 200,000 approx. Tobacco half a million approx. Note that LSD isn't on the list because it would be a big fat 0. Also, cannabis deaths are hard to distinguish from smokers, but there are very few if any direct deaths. Basically, alcohol and tobacco are so dangerous that if they were discovered now they would be banned. I don't take illegal drugs. I like a drink and I'm an ex-smoker. But my view is that this debate should be driven by SCIENCE, not opinion. Sacking prof. Nutt for presenting scientific truths was just wrong. When you consider the facts - tobacco deaths of half a million, LSD deaths 0, how can anyone possible argue that taking LSD is more dangerous than smoking? Why then, ban LSD and allow tobacco? It just doesn't make sense. I'm not arguing for the drug users. I'm arguing for science and rationality. Look at the numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J@mes Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Are the figures per million users or just overall? Have to factor in that a lot more people drink and smoke than take drugs! I'm all for it, clean it up, tax it, make a huge amount of money and remove a huge amount of organised crime. I wonder how many more people would start taking drugs if it became legal? Is the law the reason people don't, or is it because they are scared of the consequences? As long as they could develop a guaranteed test for it at the roadside then I'd be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inshallah Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Are the figures per million users or just overall? Have to factor in that a lot more people drink and smoke than take drugs! I'm all for it, clean it up, tax it, make a huge amount of money and remove a huge amount of organised crime. I wonder how many more people would start taking drugs if it became legal? Is the law the reason people don't, or is it because they are scared of the consequences? As long as they could develop a guaranteed test for it at the roadside then I'd be happy. You're right. This is for the whole population, so there will be a bias if legal drugs are more widely used than illegal ones. But even if you normalise it to the population you'll still probably only get heroin that looks more dangerous than booze and fags. As for wondering if more people would use drugs if they were legalised - my gut feeling is that most people who want to take drugs do, and those who don't, don't. I personally wouldn't if they were legalised. But there may be some increase. This might be balanced by making heroin and cocaine safer with better manufacturing control and strengths on the labels like you get on beer and spirits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 But my view is that this debate should be driven by SCIENCE, not opinion. Sacking prof. Nutt for presenting scientific truths was just wrong. When you consider the facts - tobacco deaths of half a million, LSD deaths 0, how can anyone possible argue that taking LSD is more dangerous than smoking? Why then, ban LSD and allow tobacco? It just doesn't make sense. Well said that man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterzone2 Posted December 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 **** me only brought this up the other day forgot all about it. The things for me are If it for medical reasons example smack is found in co-dine a pain killer you can get from your GP. Cannabis is a big help for Those who suffer with MS so for those and such like I personally see no problem with it. But on another note it would reduce crime from the desperate addicts looking for their fix BUT someone put figures up on here about the drugs and death it causes each year. Yet the same Idea is not applied to other thing namely our firearms look at the rest of the world OZ and NW and Italy I know for a fact that firearms can be used fully in home defence (unlike here where the law says one thing and the opposite happens). I know there are many other issues that could be dealt with in the same way just seam a contradiction to me the biggest Killer(s) are legal yet the stuff which causes least deaths isn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.