Legalise "Illegal" Drugs?

[Less]

Originally Posted by ***Mr D***

But isnt there worse crimes that go without a custodial sentence the extra room could be used for?

Not that I would take coke or heroin, but it would of not been touched as it would be sealed, IMO the big shipments would come in via different methods.



I agree for certain crimes tent city would be a good option, keeping the cost down to the tax payer.



Do you know if you had an argument with the other half and went to sleep in the car with the keys in the vehicle, if you where drunk and the police arrived, you could and probably would be done for drunk and in charge of a vehicle.

Or morning after the night before, you think you fine but your just over the limit.

Do the above deserve a 5 year ban.

The people who don't care, the repeat offender would carry on driving regardless banned or not, licence or not.

Going of BG figure in 2007 - 83,975 people would be banned for 5 years, or life if a second offence, this would have a very big impact on a lot of lives.

The above are diversions in an attempt to give strength to a weak argument.

Worse crimes need the law tightening up not the relaxing of laws on what you consider to be a lesser crime.

As for sleeping in the car, let the bitch be uncomfortable, I'll have the bed.

[mobertol]

Originally Posted by ***Mr D***

If your calling someone please put a name to it.

Don't worry dearie , I'll let you know



As to the rest of the debate - am sickened to the heart by this sort of thing and hope "Cavalier Garinda" will turn up on the horizon to sort out the whole "Bluddless!" lot of you...

PS am thinking of using you as a profile-case for my next TEFL courses in "how not to write the Queen's English" -will have them all logging-in to Accyweb and reading your posts...after all it is a public forum...

[Margaret Pilkington]

I have a solution to the shortage of prisons...and also to the problem of rehabilitation for those criminals who take drugs/ supply drugs.

We don't bother to put them in prison. We buy a remote Hebridean island, preferably somewhere cold damp and inhospitable....and we transport those involved with drugs to the island.........they will have to fend for themselves, they won't need prison officers to look after them, there will be no supply of drugs of any description and by the time their sentence is up they should have done their cold turkey and be fit to enter society again.

I agree with Less...we do not relax laws that aren't working...we look at why they aren't working and remedy the weaknesses. Reinforce the law, uphold the law......make the criminals pay(these are the dealers, the traffickers)
Two words - Zero Tolerance, that is what is needed, and punishment that isn't a cake walk.

I suppose that someone will come on now and tell me how these ideas contravene human rights........my answer is human rights imply responsibility on the part of each individual...if you can't demonstrate a degree of responsibility for yourslef and your actions, then don't bleat about human rights!

[mobertol]

Won't bleat about human rights, Margaret, but those in society who are among the weakest, need and deserve the support of those who are stronger.

Life is full of surpises and we all have our strengths and weaknesses.

No man is an Island -we all need the support of someone, at some point in our lives.

Some are lucky and find that support when they need it, others are less fortunate but this doesn't make them less worthy.

I believe in the fundamental goodness of mankind...may be deluded but that's how i see it.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I don't see drug sellers/pushers/ traffickers as weaker members of society...quite the opposite, they prey on those who they have made vulnerable.

The punishments for these people are laughable.

And as for those who are criminalised by taking drugs......well tough love...send them where they cannot get their hands on drugs.

I do not see you as deluded. But you can kill with kindness.

[mobertol]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I don't see drug sellers/pushers/ traffickers as weaker members of society...

I meant thse who fall into the trap of becoing users for various reasons....

[Margaret Pilkington]

They are vulnerable because thay have made themselves so.....they have looked for something that their life is lacking, in illegal substances....they made themselves victims....and I hate that culture.....where everyone else is to blame. Doing something because all their friends are doing it. My mother used to say 'if your friend jumped on the fire would you do it too?'

Each of us has a choice. We have to take the responsibility for that choice. This may seem a tough stance, but it is something that I believe.
Legalising drugs would not make the choices easier, or less harmful.......it would just mean that the state was the drug dealer.....and when folk became hooked they would be blaming the state.

[mobertol]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

They are vulnerable because thay have made themselves so......

Sorry Margaret

That is too simplistic for me...we are all dealt diferent hands when we come into this world, it just isn't so easy ....

Shake up the balls. everyone wants to play -life is a bit of lottery after all...who knows what it will throw in your direction....

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by mobertol

I meant thse who fall into the trap of becoing users for various reasons....

Willy Nelson country singer uses cannabis...



Where you "anti-drugs" people get it wrong is that you do not accept that the first drug most people take is alcohol, then tobacco, then some may take cannabis, then others may take Heroin and so on and so on!

But the first drugs in the line are booze and fags - so you could say they are the first rungs on the ladder - if you see it like that! No Heroin user does not use tobacco or alcohol - so these acceptable drugs are actually the first drugs people use!

Also I wonder why all the shops and the name supermarkets sell King size Rizla's which only have one purpose; to make cannabis joints! So why do these mainstream shops sell them!

[Michael1954]

You are repeating the same old argument over and over again but adding nothing new, apart from naming celebrities who have taken drugs. Tobacco and alcohol are legal; it does not follow that cannabis should also be legalised.

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by Michael1954

You are repeating the same old argument over and over again but adding nothing new, apart from naming celebrities who have taken drugs. Tobacco and alcohol are legal; it does not follow that cannabis should also be legalised.

They are repeating the same argument over and over again also! Thank you very much!

Does cannabis make you mad? http://clear-uk.org/does-cannabis-make-you-mad/

Conclusion: Cannabis And Mental Health, The Case For Reform

Concerns of a link between cannabis and mental illness areperhaps the strongest argument for cannabis law reform.

Prohibition claim 1: Cannabis strength has increased massively in recent years

It may have done, but we don’t know for sure because prohibition makes proper monitoring of the trade impossible. If it has increased, the change was brought about by the workings of prohibition. Certainly a market shift did occur and went unnoticed for nearly 10 years because of the lack of proper control. If the fears that high THC levels impact on mental health are true, prohibition has made things worse. Under prohibition, cannabis is not a controlled drug.

Prohibition claim 2: The increased strength has lead to more cases of serious mental illness

There has been no increase in the rates of mental illness. But if increased potency (not strength) has taken place, it might make existing illness worse and be bad for those at risk. The need for a better understanding of the issues of potency and strength is obvious and proper regulation of the trade would address this.

Prohibition claim 3: The age people use cannabis has dropped and now it’s common for children to be heavy users

This is true, but it’s hardly an issue to support the workings of prohibition. That children have become ensnared in the unregulated and uncontrolled cannabis trade is entirely caused by prohibition.

Prohibition claim 4: The younger users start, the bigger the risk of developing serious mental illness

We might as well assume this is true, whether true or not. Children deserve the protection of the law which only a regulated trade could provide, prohibition treats them as criminals and drives all use – including problematic use – underground.

Prohibition claim 5: Lax attitudes to cannabis use have increased the number of users, therefore increasing the rates of the illness

As rates of serious mental illness have not increased in line with the increase in cannabis use, there is no evidence to support this, but the “lax attitudes” have come about through the failure of prohibition. Proper legal control and regulation would mean an end to “lax attitudes” and the introduction of proper, workable laws.

Prohibition claim 6: Prohibition is the best way to protect people from the dangers of cannabis use.

Prohibition means we don’t know what is sold as cannabis, how strong it is or how potent it is. We don’t know if it’s contaminated either after harvest or in the growing process through overuse of pesticides for example. We don’t know who sells it, where from or in what amounts. The only qualification to be a dealer is unaccountability. Cannabis users have no recourse to the law when things go wrong and sometimes violence is used. When this happens it will be those least able to defend themselves – such as ill people – who suffer most.

Prohibition is a con, it is not drug control. The only way to achieve drug control is to control the commercial supply industry, which means proper legalisation, licensing of dealers and premises, age restrictions and strength/potency information.

Treating those you claim to want to help as criminals is, well, simply mad.

[Less]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

They are repeating the same argument over and over again also! Thank you very much!

You asked about legalising illegal drugs in your start of this thread.
The answer came back a resounding no.

So why not accept it and stop your wittering on your question has been answered, so leave it at that, we know you would like to and now, you know we don't want to,

End of story.

[mobertol]

Originally Posted by Less

You asked about legalising illegal drugs in your start of this thread.
The answer came back a resounding no.

So why not accept it and stop your wittering on your question has been answered, so leave it at that, we know you would like to and now, you know we don't want to,

End of story.

Thanx Less -am fed up of seeing them wittering on about this too!

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by Less

You asked about legalising illegal drugs in your start of this thread.
The answer came back a resounding no.

So why not accept it and stop your wittering on your question has been answered, so leave it at that, we know you would like to and now, you know we don't want to,

End of story.

No! by a few "die hards!" but what about Mr D, tommiasfc, Wrighty and a few others who are more open-minded.

Why don't Mobertol and Maggie P shut up and stop wittering!

[Michael1954]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

No! by a few "die hards!" but what about Mr D, tommiasfc, Wrighty and a few others who are more open-minded.

Why don't they shut up and stop wittering!

This subject has been exhausted on here. If you want to change the law regarding drugs, see your MP.