aris Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) Our current legal drugs are already a burden - we don't need more. Edited October 5, 2013 by aris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted October 5, 2013 Report Share Posted October 5, 2013 why should my taxes go to those who inevitably endup in hospital through missuse of illegal drugs? if drugs were legalised, i`d just end up paying more. youd pay less the revenue from the drugs pays for everything think you missed the tax it part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted October 6, 2013 Report Share Posted October 6, 2013 Alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods cause many many times more damage to society than cannabis, heroin and cocaine would do if legalised. They cost billions annually in policing and medical care, cancer, liver failure etc and legalising cannabis would take many people away from alcohol and save us billions in taxation , despite the propoganda cannabis is a benign herb that was mans main medicine for thousands of years and despite the rambling a of one mad Dutchman and the " the won't send me to jail if I tell em I am addicted " mentality there is no medical evidence in existence of cannabis causing psychosis, addiction or any other illness whatsoever , it's just propoganda plain and simple , have you ever asked yourself why all all of the Netherlands aren't bonkers by now if cannabis causes psychosis? Or Portugal and California where it is legal for medicinal use? Or Jamaica? These countries would have massively high rates of psychosis if it did the damage we are told it does . Alcohol and tobacco are worth billions in taxation to our government and it's the same in America which is the only reason they are legal, a survey conducted in the eighties found an extraordinarily high percentage of politicians had declared financial interests in the alcoholic beverage industry . It's not a health issue its a monetary one and Professor Nutt who was the governments chief medical advisor for drugs and drug policy was sacked from his post a few years back after being asked to make up a list of different drugs and their dangers , he put alcohol and tobacco near the top of the list and was promptly given the boot for not agreeing with the norm. To find the real reason why cannabis is illegal you have to look back In time at its other uses in society. Cannabis is a variety of the hemp plant which grew wildly all over the world for thousands of years and had many uses , it will grow in any environment from the article to the Himalayas and without it we could not have sailed the seas as we did as it was used for all the sails and rigging on our ships not being subject to degradation as cotton is in the presence of seawater , it will reclaim lad, grow enough crops annually to be used as a biomass fuel source for all you global warming Eco warriors, Mercedes have been using hemp to make car interiors for many years now and the oil produced could be refined into fuel as well, it is And was also a food source having a massively high protein content in the seeds and oil ( this is why it is wrongly classified as a drug as it has nutritional value which drugs don't) , so it was used for sails, clothes, ropes and rigging, food and medicine, also paper as it lasts longer than wood derived paper , before WW2 Henry anslinger had a propoganda film made called " reefer madness" which is available on you tube which depicted white women who smoked it going off with black people and others committing murder under its influence , it's quite an amusing film to watch , shortly followed by the release of another film called " hemp for victory " also on you tube with the onset of WW2 encouraging people to grow it again as ropes were needed for the war effort , it remains illegal purely for financial reasons as it would rip huge gaping monetary holes in the alcoholic beverage , textiles and pharmacutical industries profits if it were made legal and not for any health reasons , don't forget we live In a democratic society where propoganda is a very real and nessecary and real tool of politicians in order to gain favour and get votes and all that we are told about this herb is indeed propoganda to protect the people who financially support our political system and put people in power We were told in the eighties that there was going to be a crack epidemic in this country from this new deadly form of cocaine, then more recently it was crystal meth that was going to destroy our country , any of you seen this destruction we were informed of? More propoganda and scaremongering, what you have all seen are people dying of tobacco related cancers daily , liver failure due to drinking, the police and health services brought to breaking point over alcohol abuse, young people in their twenties suffering liver failure due to binge drinking, the people you see on benches have cans of tenants and white lightning in their hand not crack pipes and needles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted October 6, 2013 Report Share Posted October 6, 2013 youd pay less the revenue from the drugs pays for everything think you missed the tax it part i dont think i`ve missed it at all say someone had a £5 bag of meow-meow / bubble etc, then they are permenently damaged and unable to work again. its going to cost 000`s of pounds to help them in the short term, and potentially alot more for after care. if its taxed, individuals will avoid paying it. just like people here avoid paying tax on fags. where is the money coming from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) i dont think i`ve missed it at all say someone had a £5 bag of meow-meow / bubble etc, then they are permenently damaged and unable to work again. its going to cost 000`s of pounds to help them in the short term, and potentially alot more for after care. if its taxed, individuals will avoid paying it. just like people here avoid paying tax on fags. where is the money coming from? they will pay tax just like they do at the off licence how many people really buy their booze on the street corner, to avoid a few quid tax, 1 in a 1000 maybe? ,people like convenience as for permanent damage to health minimal compared to booze. so a lot less aftercare than the drunks.. one again the money comes from taxing the billion pound industry that currently benefits the criminals not the country. you must also remember many drug users arnt unemployed they want to pop down the shop on a friday night in the merc collect and go home not stand in the rain looking for pushers Edited October 7, 2013 by overandunder2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 why should my taxes go to those who inevitably endup in hospital through missuse of illegal drugs? if drugs were legalised, i`d just end up paying more. Agree, but a lot of our taxes pay for the management by the police and treatment in hospitals of the drinkers as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e2000e2000e Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 People keep saying legalised drugs would reduce the number of related crimes, ie theft to pay for drugs. Surely they would still need to pay for the drugs still, the same way they do now? I'm not in favour of legalisation myself, drugs can and do ruin lives, alcohol to, and tobacco, it hurts those left behind, and I'm not talking about media hype, I'm talking about friends and neighbours. Although I agree that efforts to reduce the supply by targeting dealers and suppliers should take priority over criminalising users. If we think the war on drugs is just, which I do, we can't give up because we are loosing, we need to change tact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaquire Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 The majority of drug users aren't heavily addicted. The majority are otherwise good citizens who pay their bills and like to party on the weekend. It's a very small minority who are addicted and resort to crime to pay for their habit. The taxes that could be imposed on the supply of legal drugs would be so astronomically high that the small percentage of people who do overdose and end up in hospital on the NHS would pale into insignificance. This statistic would reduce as a more pure substance could be manufactured, tested and introduced. Destroying any demand there may be for poorly cut products that contain bleach and glass and God knows what else. Would it be perfect? No - but what is? Is paying billions of pounds to fight a war on drugs that will never end and that can only escalate as the worlds population increases really the best idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 People keep saying legalised drugs would reduce the number of related crimes, ie theft to pay for drugs. Surely they would still need to pay for the drugs still, the same way they do now? I'm not in favour of legalisation myself, drugs can and do ruin lives, alcohol to, and tobacco, it hurts those left behind, and I'm not talking about media hype, I'm talking about friends and neighbours. Although I agree that efforts to reduce the supply by targeting dealers and suppliers should take priority over criminalising users. If we think the war on drugs is just, which I do, we can't give up because we are loosing, we need to change tact. so what would your suggestion of "changing tact" be? the problem is that the police go around nicking little scroates on street corners, when they are in the cells they call them into the office and have a word in their ear explaining that they will let them walk away if they promise not to do it again and give them the name of their supplier , fair enough you would think they were after the big cheese at the top so they could make a bigger bust and get the suppliers out of business which seems like a good idea and use of valuable resources/taxes , but they never nick the big cheese , when they get there they just hold them to ransom and feed off of them to help increase their arrest statistics, the big cheese has got a lot to loose and the threat of court , proceeds of crime act etc. is enough to ensure a steady supply of scroates and prosecutions to make the constabulary look good on paper for a very long time . I understand fully that folk think the war on drugs should be continued although I don't personally agree but when do you say enough is enough? do you continue to throw billions of taxpayers money into a black hole indefinitely every year whilst people are homeless, kids are malnourished and old folk die of cold every winter? The other side of the coin is that many drugs like meow meow are in fact legal so don't really fit into this thread , as soon as they ban one a chemist changes a molecule and releases a new one , none of them are tested , none are regulated and the damage they do is far far worse than heroin and coke , you can't ban everything so how do you deal with it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 The majority of drug users aren't heavily addicted. The majority are otherwise good citizens who pay their bills and like to party on the weekend. It's a very small minority who are addicted and resort to crime to pay for their habit. The taxes that could be imposed on the supply of legal drugs would be so astronomically high that the small percentage of people who do overdose and end up in hospital on the NHS would pale into insignificance. This statistic would reduce as a more pure substance could be manufactured, tested and introduced. Destroying any demand there may be for poorly cut products that contain bleach and glass and God knows what else. Would it be perfect? No - but what is? Is paying billions of pounds to fight a war on drugs that will never end and that can only escalate as the worlds population increases really the best idea? this has already been trialed in another EU country, the addicts sold pure drugs for more cheaper street grade narcotics. it did nothing but facilitate drug abuse. they changed the format, that drugs must be issued directly to a person via a medical professional. that didnt take off too well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaquire Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 this has already been trialed in another EU country, the addicts sold pure drugs for more cheaper street grade narcotics. it did nothing but facilitate drug abuse. they changed the format, that drugs must be issued directly to a person via a medical professional. that didnt take off too well. So they tried once, it failed and they gave up? Whatever happened to try and try again? What they're doing now definitely isn't working and they've tried it a million times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 why should my taxes go to those who inevitably endup in hospital through missuse of illegal drugs? if drugs were legalised, i`d just end up paying more. But the medical problems could be addressed via taxation on the product. This is how tobacco duty works. Smokers ay vastly more in tax than they cost the NHS in treatment. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 But the medical problems could be addressed via taxation on the product. This is how tobacco duty works. Smokers ay vastly more in tax than they cost the NHS in treatment. J. But if the scrotes steal now to feed their habit, how would taxing it make any difference. I don't recollect headlines covering theft to fund smoking habits? 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.