Legalise "Illegal" Drugs?

[kestrelx]

Professor Davie Nutt - The former government adviser on drugs explains why his latest research named alcohol as the most dangerous drug

David Nutt: 'The government cannot think logically about drugs' | UK news | The Guardian

Which leads to the questions:

1) Should we legalise currently illegal drugs?

2) Is alcohol and tobacco more damaging than LSD and Extacy etc?4

Kestrel X

[cashman]

Lsd can be far more damaging, if yer 1st trips a bad un could be cabbaged fer life, know one poor sod that was, can't honestly comment about extacy, whereas fags n booze in moderation do little damage, the only debate i see about legalizing, is around cannabis fer medical reasons. imho.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I think that we have to realise that tobacco and alcohol are only more damaging(when used immoderately) because they are freely available and seen as acceptable.

David Nutt....well, he has his opinions.....the only real value in lagalising the currently illegal drugs would be so that the government could perhaps tax them and of course ensure that they are of a standard composition.....meaning that they would not be adulterated with vim or other powder substances that could be as harmful as the drug they are 'cut' with.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Medical Cannabinoids(Cannabis) are a horse of a very different colour and do not have the problems that Cannabis resin has......paranoia, and mental delusions.

[Ken Moss]

I can't condone his report and was very surprised when I first saw it some time ago. It opens the doors to a flood of new users who think that an E is safer than a few pints.

I've known enough people who use drugs to see the long term effects and they're all far more damaged than my contemporaries who have only drunk alcohol all their lives. I'm not averse to the odd flagon or ten myself and I know for a fact that I've come out of life a lot better than acquaintances who have spent the last 20 years stoned out of their head.

Cannabis is around three times as carcinogenic as tobacco and, regardless of whether it in itself is addictive, the effects of it certainly keep people coming back more often than I would have thought healthy.

Keep these drugs illegal, Great Britain has enough problems.

[Ossywarrior]

i dont think it will "open the door" for people to take E rather han have a pint but could you imagine the damage that would be done if drugs that are illegal now become much more freely available? the money recouped in tax would pale in to signifigance campared to the money spent treating the mental and health issues caused.

[Gordon Booth]

Proffesor Nutt is a dangerous man, partly because he voices the opinions of far too many of our P.C. freethinking elete leaders and policy makers.
Have you ever heard of a barrister saying 'M'lud,my client hadn't had a pint of Thwaites for 12 hours, he only mugged this old lady(who shouldn't have had her handbag so temptingly handy) because his addiction makes him unresponsable for his actions'?
Have you ever heard of a coroner saying 'This young person had an adverse reaction to their first cigarette, their immediate death was unfortunate'?
Alcohol ranks top as more dangerous than heroin, crack and crystal meth?? Can you imagine Accrington town centre(or any other) on a Saturday night if all the people there were high on any or all of those three drugs instead of alcohol? Can you imagine it the morning after? Or even cannabis, LSD and ecstacy?
He then says he would ban the first three(what a reasonable, sensible man) but would allow alcohol, tobacco, speed, cannabis and ecstacy to be legally available-he's not even consistant! Cannabis and LSD the least damaging? Try watching Woodstock or remember the GI's 'fragging' their own people because they were high and it seemed like a good idea!
In any sane country he would be written of as a slightly dangerous nutcase but as he says-'the Lib-Dems have always been more sensible about drugs and we know we've got a lot of Tories who've taken drugs'. So he obviously lives in hope! Heaven help us!
Yes, I smoke and I drink and I know neither is good for you but I'm still around and I haven't had to burgle anyone to get my next cigarette or pint(yet) or see a shrink. Or drop dead! Yet!

[setayas]

A couple of points.
1: Cannabis is about five times stronger now than ten years ago.
2: Ecstasy is a combination of MDMA and OTHER substances. It's the other substances that usually cause the problems.

I have never known anybody to have a problem taking just MDMA. I have known people have very serious problems, including death by taking ecstasy pills because anything may have been mixed in with them.

It may be time that this country needs to have a serious and grown up think and debate about drugs. But what chance that?

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

I can't condone his report and was very surprised when I first saw it some time ago. It opens the doors to a flood of new users who think that an E is safer than a few pints.

I've known enough people who use drugs to see the long term effects and they're all far more damaged than my contemporaries who have only drunk alcohol all their lives. I'm not averse to the odd flagon or ten myself and I know for a fact that I've come out of life a lot better than acquaintances who have spent the last 20 years stoned out of their head.

Cannabis is around three times as carcinogenic as tobacco and, regardless of whether it in itself is addictive, the effects of it certainly keep people coming back more often than I would have thought healthy.

Keep these drugs illegal, Great Britain has enough problems.

Saves me writing an essay on it Ken, totally agree with every word

[Eric]

Problem with criminalizing people's so-called vices (homosexuality was once seen as a vice) is that it doesn't work. For example, the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, popularly known as Prohibition did little except push up the price of booze, get rid of all quality control in its manufacture, and, amongst many other things, gave a boost to organized crime (although I'm not quite sure what "unorganized crime" is.) It was an idea so bad, that it was the only Amendment to be repealed by another Amendment, the Twenty-first. And the criminal groups whose genesis was prohibition, now control the illegal drug trade. Prohibition of any drug just doesn't work; the trade moves underground (and a whole bunch of tax revenue is lost) ... take, for example, the "Wars on Drugs" that several right-leaning American governments have waged.

Even in Kingston, any drug you may want to indulge in is available ... for a price, of course. And this is known as a safe, peaceful community. The two murders that occured in the city this year were both "drug related". That's two unnecessary deaths as a result of the illegality of drugs.

It's a commplex and difficutly question, one that should be considered, and thoroughly hashed () out in the political arena.

Problem I can see, as a regular toker, is that if, say, marijuana is legalised, the price will go up and the quality will go dowm

I'm not advocating no control whatsoever. The sale and consumption of alcohol is subject to many laws and regulations; and folks live with this no problem. Those of you who have visited Canada may have been surprised by the restrictive nature of some of these laws, esp. in my home Province. So, legaliztion, or de-criminalization does not necessarily mean chaos.

[jaysay]

I've said this many times before why do people want to put this substances in the bodies either by inhaling or swallowing, all for the sake of a few kicks, which could lead to an uncontrollable habit, its bad enough having to take drugs to stay alive, never mind just for fun

[Benipete]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

Professor Davie Nutt - The former government adviser on drugs explains why his latest research named alcohol as the most dangerous drug

David Nutt: 'The government cannot think logically about drugs' | UK news | The Guardian

Which leads to the questions:

1) Should we legalise currently illegal drugs?

2) Is alcohol and tobacco more damaging than LSD and Extacy etc?4

Kestrel X

What he is actually saying is that without a slave trade and greed there would be no drug trade

[Gordon Booth]

Eric, as a regular smoker and drinker I accept I may be biased.As a 'regular toker' perhaps you are? You can't suggest you shouldn't criminalize peoples 'so called vices' because it doesn't work! How about child porn?It's not a vice to the people who do it!We will probably never stop it but does your argument apply?If not why not? We cant stop burglary, mugging etc. but if we want to maintain a civilised society we have to have certain things which are not acceptable and are againt the law.
As setayas says, cannabis is 5 times stronger than it was 10 years ago! I wouldn't know but wow, that sounds like good stuff.And in another 10 years, especially if legal,what will they be able to grow? Do you really think a 'toke' of legal stuff will stop people buying some 10 times stronger illegally? It wont stop the 'illegal vice' because the dealers will always offer something stronger(And more addictive? That's good business)

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

Eric, as a regular smoker and drinker I accept I may be biased.As a 'regular toker' perhaps you are? You can't suggest you shouldn't criminalize peoples 'so called vices' because it doesn't work! How about child porn?It's not a vice to the people who do it!We will probably never stop it but does your argument apply?If not why not? We cant stop burglary, mugging etc. but if we want to maintain a civilised society we have to have certain things which are not acceptable and are againt the law.
As setayas says, cannabis is 5 times stronger than it was 10 years ago! I wouldn't know but wow, that sounds like good stuff.And in another 10 years, especially if legal,what will they be able to grow? Do you really think a 'toke' of legal stuff will stop people buying some 10 times stronger illegally? It wont stop the 'illegal vice' because the dealers will always offer something stronger(And more addictive? That's good business)

There is a line between what is a "vice", and what is a "crime" ... admitedly the line is a fine one, finer for some folks than it is for others. The reason that there is a debate about criminal penalties for drugs, and that there is no debate about strict laws against child porn, burglary, murder etc., should cause us to admit that there is a difference. Homosexuality was once a crime ... I remember the time that it was decriminalized in Canada. And a knowlege of British History would remind you that it was once a capital crime to impersonate a Chelsea Pensioner

And the "strength" argument: smoke and mirrors. I presume that alcoholic bevs come in different strengths over there. I can buy beer at 3% .... I can buy beer at 11% ... if I buy the strong stuff, I drink less ... don't have much choice really. And the only reason that there are "dealers" is because access is illegal. (In the Province of Ontario the biggest, legally the only booze dealer is the Government of Ontario.)

I am not arguing for wide open, uncontroled access. My point is that what is in place now is not working. Anyone who believes it is working has his head in the sand ... or stuck far up his ass. So, rather than hide behind empty rhetoric and prejudice, it might be time to debate alternatives that might work. What's the harm in trying.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by jaysay

I've said this many times before why do people want to put this substances in the bodies either by inhaling or swallowing, all for the sake of a few kicks, which could lead to an uncontrollable habit, its bad enough having to take drugs to stay alive, never mind just for fun

Come on; you are pretending a naivety that you don't have. In the guise of asking a question ... "why" is still interrogative in the English language, I presume ... you are stating your opinion. If there are a few thousand drug users in Accrington, then there are the same number of reasons as to why they use drugs. And then there are the Sam Stones of this world, coming home from wars and falling into alcoholism and drug abuse ... how do we deal with those unfortunates? Throw them into the slammer?

The drug problems are real ... they have to be dealt with somehow ... if the present system were working, then, no problem, "if it aint broke, don't fix it." But it so obviously is broke.

At least you haven't blamed "thirteen years of labour misrule"