Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

So DoobyDave you put forward a challenge of naming a incident where a drug addict who could afford his habit caused a crime, to which you would reward your right testicle but then when a crime is named you find a problem in a crime named. First of i think the nature of the crime is not up dor question here, a injury to someone is in my book a rather serious crime.

The nature of the crime is very important here as the majority of crimes perpetrated by drug-addicts are to obtain money for drugs.

Unless you think it is acceptable for indivituals to physically attack people as long as no money is stolen.

No, but you are assuming that the level of attacks will increase with better availability of drugs. I would disagree with this assumption and in fact evidence would strongly suggest the opposite.

Also is violent crime not also a crime usually commited by hard drug addicts? Such as those on ice or crack which increases violent behaviour and mood swings?

If you are an avid Daily Mail reader, then 'yes'. If you have a greater grasp on reality then you will appreciate that the majority of violent crime is commited by those under the influence of alcohol.

Yes booze is legal and that is a substance that can kill people and is legal. Rightly or wrongly this is a socially acceptable drug, one which i do think should never of been made legal.

Well, that's two people then. You and Al Capone.....

Dana, the actress from Different Strokes. Who robbed a video store in 1972 to fund a drug habbit she had a spent her fortune on. Who claim she wasnt famous? Was Different Strokes not one of the popular sit-coms of that era raking in millions? Just because you dismiss it as being a sit-com not which was not popular does not mean that it was not. So to me thats not really getting round the issue.

Ok, I'll admit to knowing nothing of her. The two questions I would have to ask to make this stand as a evidence for you are 'was she wealthy when she committed the offence?' and, since valium is a prescription drug and not trafficked through the usual channels 'did she know anywhere to buy it from?'

And Ozzy. You cannot seriously use Ozzy Osbourne as an example to defend prohibition. He has taken more drugs than most of us here put together. Firstly, prohibition did not stop Sharon getting attacked. Secondly, it is not an example of a wealthy addict commiting crime to fund his addiction, which was my point (although, I obviously didn't make this clear enough, or you were being deliberatelty obtuse in missing it).
And again, I don't know the details, but was he drunk?

I have also seen the consequences of hard drugs and would no way wish that upon anyone at all.

And again, I will say you have seen these consequences under prohibition. How did prohibition help the victims of drug abuse that you keep mentioning? Another valid, non-loaded question that deserves an answer. (as well as my initial question, to which there has been no answer as yet, by anyone who has voted against)



I want to see all drugs legalised to reduce the problems associated with drug abuse/addiction.

these problems include

Huge profits for criminal cartels
Cost to taxpayers fighting the War on Drugs / failing to tax these products
Corruption within authority around the world
The needless deaths/injuries protecting these highly profitable industries
Theft/crime perpetrated to afford illegal drug addictions leading to huge insurance premiums for everyone (prohibited substances being more expensive than tolerated ones)
The alienation of large groups of otherwise law abiding citizens.
Drug-users should have the same rights as non-drug user when they themselves are victims of crime. This might seem unimportant, but it has knock-on effects for non-drug users too, as often these crimes will go unreported.

1st) I put it to you that a crime is a crime, of course the seriousness of a crime is variable but all you asked was if anyone could present a crime commit by a drug addict who is in a postion to afford their habbit, i did. Twice. You then altered the question to fit your means

In retrospect, it seems I should have clarified the type of crime to which I was referring, the type of crime that the majority of drug addicts find themselves committing ie obtaining goods/money to feed their habit

The usual type of crime commited by a drug addict is neither here or there. You asked your question, it was answered with two separate examples. Yet you have still not abmitted that your question and challenge was answered. Your basically saying that if i say a crime that is commited by a drug addict but does not fit to your view of what a drug addict's usual criminal behaviour is then it does not count. So if a crack head stole a combine harvester and drove it into a city centre and started chopping people up, it would not count as a crime to prove that crack should be part of prohibition. As it dosnt count as a normal crime commited by drug addicts which you said was.....

obtaining goods/money to feed their habit

Seems silly huh? Well then how can you dismiss two crimes, commited by two addicts, as not answering your challenge of presenting a crime commited by two people with the means to afford your habit? It clearly answers your challenge, and just because it does not fit in with your view of a typical drug addict crime is, does not mean that it is not a crime commited by two drug addicts with the means of affording their habit, like your challenge asked.

2nd) I never made that assumption, the quote is out of context. The quote in context was referring to you saying that the physical attack of Ozzy did not consitude a crime commited by a drug addict with the means to afford their habit. To which i was saying if your saying that crime does not count are you saying .....

it is acceptable for indivituals to physically attack people as long as no money is stolen

Because if your saying the cime by Ozzy ( attempted murder.) Is not good enough to consitude a crime commited by a drug addict within their means, but a crime which is typical with drug addicts as you put it

obtaining goods/money to feed their habit

Is acceptable to consitude an answer to your challenge. Then why is it not good to consitude a answer to your challenge, after all isnt it a crime? Is that not what you was challenging? Or is it because the crime is not as serious as getting money to feed their habit?

If not then why will you not accept the answer to meet and beat your challenge?

Also you claim evidence, but where is the evidence to prove your point that with the increase of availablitly of hard drugs, violent crime does not increase.

3rd) It has nothing to do with the Daily Mail, the fact remains that a side effect of Ice is that it causes massive mood swings and increases violent behaviour. Check out erowid before you dismiss things with no evidence to do so.

4th) I said booze should never of been made legal, not made illegal now so i can make a heap of money bringing it in like Al Capone. Again an example of you twisting clearly visable words to fit your own means.

5th) No she was not wealthly because she had spend her money on the drug habit, which was the point we was debating that

Clearly the are desperate because they are addicted to something they cannot afford. And no, many rich enough people can afford to maintain a drug habits without hitting rock bottom.

So you have to once again take that quote in the context of which it was said.

I am not using Ozzy to defend prohibition, again you need take that in context. I was using to answer your challenge of giving you an example of a crime commited by a drug addict who had the means to afford their drug habit.

6th) Your right i have only seen the consequences of someone ravaged by the evil of hard drug addiction under prohibition. But if it was a legally obtainable substance then it would of been the same consequences. How would the nature of the consequences of being addicted to and coming off of H be different if the drug was legally available.

I have already outlined my oppostion to the legalisation of all drugs, mostly in my first post. I am not going to repeat myself again.

Peace

Goodness.

I put it to you that a crime is a crime, of course the seriousness of a crime is variable but all you asked was if anyone could present a crime commit by a drug addict who is in a postion to afford their habbit, i did. Twice. You then altered the question to fit your means

I have already admitted that the question I asked did not accurately illustrate the point I was trying to make. What do you want, points?

I have subsequently reiterated this point I was trying to make, and I shall do so again - The MAJORITY of crime related to drug use will disappear if these drugs are made available through authorised channels. The minority of drug-related crime (the Daily Mail crack-head violent scare stories that occur EVEN THOUGH drugs are illegal) will remain failry unaffected.

I have already outlined my oppostion to the legalisation of all drugs, mostly in my first post. I am not going to repeat myself again.

Please feel free.

We have already established that you wish illegal drugs to remain illegal because they can be harmful and it would 'send the wrong message'.

Dave i fear this discussion had lead to a stalemate position on both sides. It seems both me and you have equal conviction in our beliefs on the subject of drug legalization and our disagreement stems from the starting point we use to formulate our ideas on the subject. It comes down to protection or prevention, im firmly on the side of prevention and i think im right in saying your on the side of protection. Although i can see your points and im not saying your points are not valid i just personally see them as an idealistic view of the problem of hard drugs. I disagree highly with the solution to state all drugs are illegal, as drugs such as cannabis and magic mushrooms are included in the ban. So i can not in principle agree with the legalization of all drugs because as i said it is in my view not approiate to ban all drugs, and consequently it is not approiate to legalize all drugs. Some drugs are manageable to have in someones life, such as use of cannabis, others take hold of someones life and turn it into a focus on the drug, such as crack and smack.

I cannot see how the introduction of readily available hard drugs would benifit society in any way at all, and i hope it will never happen. I have seen the effects of hard drugs first hand, and dealt with the children of drug addict parents. No amount of logical reasoning and arguments would ever meet or be able to to counter the first hand real life consequences of hard drugs i deal with on a daily basis.

Peace.

Dave i fear this discussion had lead to a stalemate position on both sides

I agree.

Some drugs are manageable to have in someones life, such as use of cannabis, others take hold of someones life and turn it into a focus on the drug, such as crack and smack.

It's not entirely the substance that is relevant here (although it does obviously play a part). The individual and the individual's situation is an important factor in whether or not self-destructive use occurs. And this self-destructive use needn't have any other victims than the user.

I cannot see how the introduction of readily available hard drugs would benifit society in any way at all

I have actually listed quite a few several posts back.



3 pages in, nearly 50% people against and still had no answers to my initial question though.

Ho-Hum.

An attempt at peace is obviously falling on death ears here.

You claim there is the possibility of there being no other victims that the user? This is simply not the case and proves you are looking at the issue of hard drugs from a overly simplistic viewpoint, what about the family and friends of the user? Are they not also suffering from the problem of hard drugs? The children of hard drug users are not suffering? There will always be other victims of a persons hard drug use.

The problems you think prohibition will solve........

Huge profits for criminal cartels

Fair point. But criminal cartels will always find possibilities to create huge profits, eliminating drugs does not necessarily mean you will eliminate crime organizations which now import drugs, they may simply move on to another market, for example guns.

Cost to taxpayers fighting the War on Drugs / failing to tax these products


Again fair point

Corruption within authority around the world

Regardless of the present of drugs this would happen. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, the dissmissal of prohibition would not effect this.


The needless deaths/injuries protecting these highly profitable industries

Fair point, i feel for those innocently caught up in the violence perpetuated by drugs. For those who are killed dealing or defending territory for drugs i have no sympathy, it is their decision to enter the world of drugs and to attempt to be a gangster. I would of course try to talk them out of it given half a chance, but it is a death sentence they signed themselves in my view.

Theft/crime perpetrated to afford illegal drug addictions leading to huge insurance premiums for everyone (prohibited substances being more expensive than tolerated ones)

Yes that must why the price of cannabis in Amsterdam is so remarkably cheaper than the price here in England. 8 euro is the average price per gram for average to good weed. Roughly £6.50 Stirling per gram. 3.5 grams at that price would be around £19.50. Compared to the £20 we pay in England for a henry. But your right a saving of 50p indicates a huge price reduction, and if this price reduction could only be transfered to drugs such as H and crack then it would reduce the price hugely making all addicts able to feed their habit and no longer have to steal or mug to find the money. Plus is arguing for hard drugs, more readily available, at a lower price such a good thing?

The alienation of large groups of otherwise law abiding citizens.
Drug-users should have the same rights as non-drug user when they themselves are victims of crime. This might seem unimportant, but it has knock-on effects for non-drug users too, as often these crimes will go unreported.

I didnt realize that the offical position of old bill that crimes committed when drug addicts are the victim is less important. Unless your referring to bias the old bill might have? Which would obviously be solved by making hard drugs legal because when the old bill where told by the government they had to stop discriminating against black people, they made sure they did a damn good job of investigating the murder of Stephen Lawrence. So there is obviously no reason or previous evidence to suggest just because the government said hard drugs are acceptable, the old bill will agree and stop holding any bias towards drug addicts.

So out of your points i can only see three that are worthy to be argued against. Ive already given two.

We have already established that you wish illegal drugs to remain illegal because they can be harmful and it would 'send the wrong message'.

As you have so kindly simiplified for me. Though i would like to point out the spin you've put on this. Hard drugs like H and Smack are extremely harmful there is no 'can be' about it. Research before you dismiss the danger of a drug, erowid is your friend.

Yes i do belive that it would send the wrong message to young people that if thy can just go into a shop and buy H and Smack. Those drugs are not acceptable in any way, shape or form. Putting them for public sale would go against this and i dont think thats an approiate viewpoint.

My 3rd point was also previously stated

I cannot see how the introduction of readily available hard drugs would benifit society in any way at all

But you insist on continuly stating no-one has ever come up with any answers to dismiss your view, blatently ingoring the fact that me and echc1 have both come up with answers against you, just because you say something does not mean its correct. Such as the way you say that H and crack can be harmful, just because you say they can be harmful does mean they are not extremely dangerous and harmful. You produce no evidence for your statement to counter the claim that crack and smack are harmful.

You tear into a philosophy that banning all drugs is a right way to go, but advocate the same philosophy in legalizing all drugs. I wonder how much contact you have with hard drug users on a daily basis, and how much time you personally put into helping addicts before deciding on the best way to help the problem of hard drugs is to legalize them. A one size fits all policy never works, whether its to legalize or ban the use of drugs.

Peace

But criminal cartels will always find possibilities to create huge profits, eliminating drugs does not necessarily mean you will eliminate crime organizations which now import drugs, they may simply move on to another market, for example guns

And that's a good reason not to eliminate a significant percentage of their income?

Regardless of the present of drugs this would happen. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, the dissmissal of prohibition would not effect this

Similar to above, it will remove much of the 'ammunition'

Yes that must why the price of cannabis in Amsterdam is so remarkably cheaper than the price here in England. 8 euro is the average price per gram for average to good weed. Roughly £6.50 Stirling per gram. 3.5 grams at that price would be around £19.50. Compared to the £20 we pay in England for a henry. But your right a saving of 50p indicates a huge price reduction

Cannabis is both illegal AND taxed in the Netherlands.

and if this price reduction could only be transfered to drugs such as H and crack then it would reduce the price hugely making all addicts able to feed their habit and no longer have to steal or mug to find the money. Plus is arguing for hard drugs, more readily available, at a lower price such a good thing?

In short, 'Yes' and 'Yes'.

I didnt realize that the offical position of old bill that crimes committed when drug addicts are the victim is less important. Unless your referring to bias the old bill might have? Which would obviously be solved by making hard drugs legal because when the old bill where told by the government they had to stop discriminating against black people, they made sure they did a damn good job of investigating the murder of Stephen Lawrence. So there is obviously no reason or previous evidence to suggest just because the government said hard drugs are acceptable, the old bill will agree and stop holding any bias towards drug addicts.

Do dealers/growers not get burgled?

This next one's a cracker.

i feel for those innocently caught up in the violence perpetuated by drugs.

You feel for them, but you're not prepared do develop a level of tolerance that would remove the reason why they became injured in the first place.

You produce no evidence for your statement to counter the claim that crack and smack are harmful.

I in no way wish to belittle the effects that hard-drug addiction can cause.

You tear into a philosophy that banning all drugs is a right way to go, but advocate the same philosophy in legalizing all drugs. I wonder how much contact you have with hard drug users on a daily basis, and how much time you personally put into helping addicts before deciding on the best way to help the problem of hard drugs is to legalize them.

Not a lot tbh. but there are many junkies in my town. I recently had the pleasure(?) of being in a room where a guy was doing heroin. He had given me a bit of his life-history and all I can say is that I felt truly sorry for him.

1st) i never said i dont think eliminating some of their income is a good idea in fact i con seeded that that was a fair point.

2nd) Corruption is and was a part of society, dating back far beyond when the issue of prohibition was a concern. Ancient Greece had huge amounts of corruption in its governing bodies which was no way related to drugs at all. Again absolute power corrupts absoultly. Just because drugs is a means in which this corruption is expressed does not mean removing the means will stop the problem of corruption.

3rd) What does is that points relevance? I was responding to your claim that

(prohibited substances being more expensive than tolerated ones)

which you outlined in your problems which a end to prohibition would solve. I was simply proving to you that this is a false point and tolerating a substance does not indicate that the cost of the substance would go down. You have once again taken that quote completely out of context and are twisting it to fit your means.

4th) So the average price reduction of 50p per 3.5 bought in holland compared to every 3.5 bought in England if transfered to the price of hard drugs be enough to bring the price of H and crack down enough to suddenly make it more affordable. H and Crack are so popular because they are already cheap drugs, the problem lies with the fact the tolerance of these drugs builds up realitively quickly. Therefore the cost of a habit is not so much because of the price of the rug, which is realitively cheap when compared to example cannabis. But rather that the user's tolerance develops quickly enough so no matter the oringal cheap starting point of the drug the habit develops in an expensive purely because of the amount of H and Crack that is needed to achieve a fix. So no matter if the drug was tolerated and price went down, the high level of tolerance developed realitivly quickly would turn it into a expensive habit. Regardless of the starting price of the drug.

5th) I never said that dealers and growers dont get burgled im sure some of them do. You however are totally missing the point. You stated

Drug-users should have the same rights as non-drug user when they themselves are victims of crime.

Impiling that are currently not receiving the same rights. I asked you if this was standard police practice? You did not answer. I then asked if it was not standard official police practice to treat the needs of drug users without the same rights as the non drug using public, then was it because of police bias? Alas you did not respond. I then put it to you that the position of drugs in society tolerant or not would not effect if the police bias, if it exists, towards drug users. Citing the case of Stephen Lawerence as an example of police predijuce not being changed because of popular public opinion and government legislation. Again you did not respond to this, and im amazed ive had to break this point down so much as to try and force a response from you.

5th) Of course i feel for them, but empathy is not an attribute that leads onto action all of the time. I can empathize with you and see your points for prohibition to be lifted. But that in no way means i agree with you and im going to actively help you with your cause.

6th) Your wording that Smack and Crack can be dangerous suggested otherwise. I was simply attacking any spin that was attempted to be placed on the issue.

7th) Talking to him as a fellow equal human probably helped him more than you know, as this is what i am often told by the people i am in contact with. The situation hard drug addicts are in never fails to melt my heart and this is why i feel so strongly on this issue. I think me and you must have the same aim, to better their lives and prevent others from going down that path, but different ways in which we beilive this is best achieved.

Right now it's 15 yes and 14 no. I'm going to even it up.

I've worked in a few hospitals and seen crack babies, kids as young as 10 in psych wards and have been to the morgue. I remember one girl who died of an overdose in the morgue and that is enough for me to vote - NO.

no they shouldn't. only because my brother is an ex addict and all the pain and worry it caused us and him was awful. im happy to say hes sober now and just got married.

I would say yes, just to make sure the drugs are 100% clean.
I saw a report on TV where they were talking about closing down the German Heroin-Centres, where addicts could get their stuff for free once a day. I thought "so what? this shit shouldnt be given out to the people for free". But then I learned in the report, that the heroin given to the people in those centres was 100% heroin and the heroin you can buy on the streets only contains 3-4% heroin and the rest ist whatever the dealer likes it to be.....and then I learned something that made me rethink the whole story. Heroin has no long-tail claims, you "just" get addicted to it.....If all drugs would be legal, all drugs would be of better quality, the people would be better informed and I think there wouldnt be as much coce-heads as there are now.