Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

Well. What do you think?

If you answer 'no', could you try to give at least one example of a positive consequence of drug prohibition.

Thanks.

Im going to be controversial here and say that i dont think all drugs should be legalized. I know about the irony and i may seem like a hypocrite but this is my view point. Anyone that makes a blanket decision on something without looking at the smaller detail of each individual case is, in my view, an idiot ( im not however saying all people that want all drugs legalized are idiots.) But its like someone saying their conservative ( republican* ) or Liberal ( democrats* ) I think we should look at the issues before saying that we are Liberal ( a democrat *) or in this context that we want all drugs legalized because we want mj legalized. For example im conservative in some views i.e crime and liberal in others i.e taxes, same with this situation i want cannabis legalized ( well i want it decriminalized not legalized but thats a different thread.) But i 100% would not like to see coke heiron and crack available to buy in shops. As i think this would send out a very bad message to society, i've seen many friends go down the path of hard drugs and i would not wish that on anyone or for anyones family's to have to go through watching their child destroy themselves. I will walk out my door in 15 mins to do some shopping and there will be a group of skag heads outside of sainsburys in the pouring rain begging, because of what H can do to you.

Cannabis is a very different substance to H, crack and coke. Saying you want all drugs legalized because of the fact that one drug which is illegal should not be because the damage it does is equal. if not less, to other legal drugs is like saying you want all guns available because a pellet gun is not really that harmful. The nature of other guns to fire actual bullets which will kill your ass is being ingored because you can get shot with a pellet gun and walk away from it. Same here, just because smoking a couple of doobs a day is managable habit and does not really interfer with someones everyday life does not mean that a couple of hits from the crack pipe, or a couple of needles to the arm are not going to effect some one in a very negative way.

By legalizing such hard drugs a message is sent out that those drugs are acceptable i dont think they are, my main reason for the decriminalization of cannabis is that a un-defendable stand point that a drug which does less social harm and harm to the indivitual that legal drugs is illegal. Im not sure whether smack crack and coke fall in the catergory of doing less harm to the indivitual and less harm to society than alcohol and tobacco.

I think its a easy position to take that all drugs should be legalized as you avoid having to blag your way out of the obvious hypocrite you appear to be by saying that you want mj avalible but not other ' hard ' drugs. But in my view the world is not black and white but many different shades of colours and this is same with the legalization of drugs issue. I think each drug should be studied and the effects to the indivitual and society considered rather than having a blanket statement to fit all drugs.

Its not so much having to point out a positive aspect of prohibition, as you asked, because that is a loaded question. But rather i can just point to the victims of hard drugs and use them as my best reason why H crack and coke should stay illegal. I am however against mushrooms and E being illegal a mushrooms is a natural drug and although some people can fuck up on them it is in my view, and my experience, another drug that can be controlled so it does not take over someones life, E because it is in fact less dangerous than MJ.

* = some context for the yankee smokers.

I agree in principal with what Sir Niall has said but at the same time i don't believe its the drugs fault for getting u addicted(except H) i have done coke and xtc for well over a decade without resorting to theft or begging it all comes down to the individual i mean if your going to hoover up rails like a dyson or pop pills like their m&m's then ur going to come a cropper and it's usually society that bears the brunt of the responsibility for ur addiction.

Not sure if this makes any sense as i'm fairly caned at the minute

Edit: @Sir Niall

Firstly, thanks for the post.

I was in wholehearted agreement with you on your views of the relative harm drugs can do to oneself up to the point where you say E(cstasy) is less harmful than MJ.

However I'd have to disagree with other aspects.

For me, the self-harm aspect is irrelevant, as we are allowed to persue other activities that are harmful to ourselves. Also, the act of drug-taking is victimless, and therefore an analogy with guns is inappropriate, as I hear they are often used to harm those who (if they could choose) would choose not to be shot.

You say you have seen a few people go down the 'hard drugs route' and I say back, 'you have seen people go down the illegal hard drug route'. I'm not saying either is pretty, but I am willing to bet that being addicted to pharmaceutically controlled H that is 1/10 th the price, available from people other than the desperate or the business criminal is a whole lot better for everyone (users and non-users both nationally and also importantly, globally).

doobydave wrote:Edit: @Sir Niall

Firstly, thanks for the post.

No stress man


I was in wholehearted agreement with you on your views of the relative harm drugs can do to oneself up to the point where you say E(cstasy) is less harmful than MJ.

This is my fault for not providing evidence man check this out http://www.gizmag.com/go/7037/picture/32840/ Gives the correct classification of drugs according to harm and as you can see E is ranked well below cannabis.


However I'd have to disagree with other aspects.

For me, the self-harm aspect is irrelevant, as we are allowed to persue other activities that are harmful to ourselves. Also, the act of drug-taking is victimless, and therefore an analogy with guns is inappropriate, as I hear they are often used to harm those who (if they could choose) would choose not to be shot.

Muggings etc are harm to other peoplle, and the majority of petty crimes are carried out by drug addicts so i assume that is harm to other people, hence the gun analogy.

You say you have seen a few people go down the 'hard drugs route' and I say back, 'you have seen people go down the illegal hard drug route'. I'm not saying either is pretty, but I am willing to bet that being addicted to pharmaceutically controlled H that is 1/10 th the price, available from people other than the desperate or the business criminal is a whole lot better for everyone (users and non-users both nationally and also importantly, globally).

I see your point but it still dosn't relate to my point that legalizing hard drugs would send out the wrong messages to society ( in my view at least.) Legal or Illegal H is beyond the point whether i was watching my child destroy themselves on the legal H or the illegal H it would be the same pain to me regardless.

To my fellow irish toker. I get what your saying and im glad you manage to control your habit. I wouldnt dream of telling you that taking those drugs is wrong and you should stop. I just want to suggest that others may not be as strong, and providing a legal way to obtain such addictive drugs would increase the rate of addiction. It is just simply my view on the subject and if people want to do those drugs that is their own personal decision, i just dont think that promoting that decision would nesscerly be the best way to go for society. Oh and dont worry dude, i am myself rather kaned.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote: Muggings etc are harm to other peoplle, and the majority of petty crimes are carried out by drug addicts so i assume that is harm to other people, hence the gun analogy

Whilst drug-addicts are responsible for a very high proportion of theft/muggings, it is does not follow that there is a chemical link. How many rich smack addicts do you see hauled up for these crimes?

Desperate people commit crime/muggings

They are desperate because they cannot afford the drug they have a problem with. Criminalising them just because they have a drug problem is stupid. Criminalising a user who doesn't have a drug problem is even more stupid.
Tolerance on our part would drop the price of the product to a point that addicts shouldn't have to steal. Let's face it, we are already paying for most of it anyway though insurance, and at black market prices and quality too. Couple this to the amount of ongoing resources the police spend (waste?) in this area and the occasional invasion of foreign countries and you have got one enormous pointless waste of money with absolutely no perceivable benefits.

Oh yeah, the message. I forgot.

What sort of a signal would it send out by saying to HRH subjects that they were free to put un-taxed chemicals into their body.
I reckon the universe would very probably explode.

Legal or Illegal H is beyond the point whether i was watching my child destroy themselves on the legal H or the illegal H it would be the same pain to me regardless.

That may be, but it's not the same for them.

Prohibition, in my mind, is one of todays greatest evils. It creates a huge gap between the young and authority - thus completely denying us the opportunity of a cohesive society, and is responsible for gang troubles, shootings and knife crime. The only benefactors are the criminal gangs involved and the corrupt officials turning a blind eye every so often.

I couldn't possibly begin to care less about any of the political labels or pontification about I-say-this-is-good-so-legalize-it, or I-say-this-is-bad-so-retain-prohibition stances. I do believe in two things wholeheartedly:

1. Freedom of speech, in all non-violent, non-intrusive forms;
2. Freedom of personal expression, in all non-violent, non-intrusive forms.

I want all people out of my business, period. I don't want anyone telling me I can't smoke a joint, or hang Sarah Palin in effigy, or eat a Big Mac, or suck down 17 sugary colas, or slam a lethal injection of coke-heroin-whatever in my arm. Four of those things, I don't do. I wouldn't suggest anyone else do them, either. But I don't purport to tell anyone else how to express themselves, nor do I believe government should.

Rich or poor is beyond the point, if a rich drug addict mugs me i would view it no different to if a poor drug addict mugs me. I don't think the socio-economic standing of someone committing a crime matters.You argue theres not a chemical link, but then that

desperate people commit crime/muggings

But what is that is creating the desperation? Would it be the fact they just cant work out why oh why Jennifer Lopez is still allowed to make shitty movies? Which would not indicate a chemical link. Or that they are desperate for a hit of skag, which is a chemical. So is that not a chemical link? Even if it was cheaper as you said earlier a drug addict would just crave more and more regardless of price. A rich person can just as easily blow their money on drugs as a poor person, it would just take them a little longer to hit the rock bottom stage where crime etc would seem the only option to get the drug they crave.

The message. You seriously think there would ever be un-taxed chemicals available from the government? Would never happen. Back on point the universe may not explode but if parents were watching their children become addicted to a drug, their world might collapse. Which is just as bad to the individual. This is not an assumption but gained from real life experience. (The message i believe is best put as these drugs although harmful can be managed and do not create a massive danger to yourself or others in society this is why you can do them, or at least this is the message i give to my kids.) Although as you say it may be a devastation for the parent but its not the same for the addicted individual ( which was your point about legal or illegal H.)

But an individual addicted to a substance like H or crack thought patterns cannot be trusted. As their life is controlled by a need for a drug, perhaps instead of worrying if they pay too much for their drug concern would be more appropriate in getting that person help and stopping them from being a danger to themselves, and ultimately others.

Relating to your point that prohibition is the reason behind gang violence etc. Take a wander round the schools i teach in ( inner city manchester ) and tell me thats the only reason for gang violence. Not the point that they are failed and rejected by society, have no better options, nothing for the kids to do. No parents to tell them right from wrong and no way to earn respect other than shooting and stabbing each other. Is that the fault of prohibition. But i guess your right, throwing legally available hard addictive drugs into that situation will benefit their lives greatly, and help make a cohesive society. It would also help the kids relate to authority and then they'll invite the local old bill round for tea and to watch east enders.

Like i said in my original post, i do not consider anyone who believes that these drugs should be legal an idiot or anything like that, they simply have a different point of view to me. Im not telling anyone to not do anything, im answering the poll question of do you think recreational drugs should be legalized, which i dont. I see the effects of hard drugs everyday on under privileged communities and i dont see how legalizing and increasing access to them would benefit anyone in anyway.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:Rich or poor is beyond the point, if a rich drug addict mugs me i would view it no different to if a poor drug addict mugs me. I don't think the socio-economic standing of someone committing a crime matters

I don't quite get your point, Rich or poor, drug-addict or non-drug-addict. The crime is the mugging. My point is that you would never get mugged for drugs by somebody who can afford them.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:But what is that is creating the desperation? Would it be the fact they just cant work out why oh why Jennifer Lopez is still allowed to make shitty movies? Which would not indicate a chemical link. Or that they are desperate for a hit of skag, which is a chemical. So is that not a chemical link? Even if it was cheaper as you said earlier a drug addict would just crave more and more regardless of price. A rich person can just as easily blow their money on drugs as a poor person, it would just take them a little longer to hit the rock bottom stage where crime etc would seem the only option to get the drug they crave.

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.
And your point about chemical link? Do you think we should criminalise other addictive self-destructive behaviour? Gambling etc?

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:The message. You seriously think there would ever be un-taxed chemicals available from the government? Would never happen. Back on point the universe may not explode but if parents were watching their children become addicted to a drug, their world might collapse. Which is just as bad to the individual. This is not an assumption but gained from real life experience. (The message i believe is best put as these drugs although harmful can be managed and do not create a massive danger to yourself or others in society this is why you can do them, or at least this is the message i give to my kids.) Although as you say it may be a devastation for the parent but its not the same for the addicted individual ( which was your point about legal or illegal H.)

As a parent, you cannot control what your offspring choose to do. If they choose to experiment, would you rather them fund criminals, risk their health by buying uncontrolled product and possibly incur criminal repercussions?

But an individual addicted to a substance like H or crack thought patterns cannot be trusted. As their life is controlled by a need for a drug, perhaps instead of worrying if they pay too much for their drug concern would be more appropriate in getting that person help and stopping them from being a danger to themselves, and ultimately others

I believe they are much more likely to seek help if they don't have to admit to being criminals.

Relating to your point that prohibition is the reason behind gang violence etc. Take a wander round the schools i teach in ( inner city manchester ) and tell me thats the only reason for gang violence. Not the point that they are failed and rejected by society, have no better options, nothing for the kids to do. No parents to tell them right from wrong and no way to earn respect other than shooting and stabbing each other. Is that the fault of prohibition. But i guess your right, throwing legally available hard addictive drugs into that situation will benefit their lives greatly, and help make a cohesive society.

These drugs are already widely available, in spite of the massive expenditure to eradicate them, and at a purity where it is much easier to spend more money on them.

The nature of addiction is that you want more and more. Whether the funds are there or not, this would then mean eventually anyone with alot of money would run out of funds as the hard drugs do make people drop out of society, this means even a rich person would drop out of society and stop working. Causing a end to their income and then it is just a matter of time until they hit rock bottom. The recent case of Lindsay Lohan blowing 7 million dollars on her habit is a perfect example against your point. Rich person with money, becomes addicted to hard drugs, spends all their money, hits rock bottom gets shipped off to rehab. Which is exactly the same same situation as someone who has not got 7 million, lets say they have a couple of thousand. The same thing would happen but it would just take a shorter amount of time, which was my point that you seem to disagree with. And you say that many people can afford to maintain a drug habit? I'm willing to bet my left testicle that the majority of people suffering from a hard drug addiction would not be in the situation to afford their hard drug habit.

My point about the chemical link??? Was that there is one,you havent answered my point as yet. Does this mean that there is chemical link between a drug addict and them committing crime? Like i originally pointed out, and the link has absolutely nothing to do with Jennier Lopez's shit movies? Shocking. But im still waiting for you to answer if as you pointed out

Whilst drug-addicts are responsible for a very high proportion of theft/muggings, it is does not follow that there is a chemical link

Then what is the link? Is it Jennier Lopez rearing her ugly face again? Oh tbh its neither here or there if i beilive legalised gambling is a good thing or not because this thread is on the topic on whether recreational drugs should be legalized.

You point about a parent having a lack of control on if their child wants to experiment i agree with. But i would rather have a society that reflected what i tell my kids, if it grows out the ground its probably ok. ( mushrooms and weed, as coke herion etc are manufactured from the plant not naturally occurring as cannabis is.) Rather than them to think that hard drugs are acceptable.

The nature of addiction is that you want more and more.

Really? Do tobacco addicts want more and more? Coffee addicts?

The nature of self-destructive addiction is more complicated than purely the drug involved and needn't involve external chemical addiction at all eg. gambling, food addiction, sex addiction....

My point. Many wealthy people can maintain their drug addictions without ending up at rock bottom. Granted, not all of them. But I'll donate my right testicle if you (or anyone) is the victim of a crime perpetrated by a drug addict who can afford their drugs.
Also, you don't need to be addicted to drugs to become desperate enough to commit crime. A day or two without food would be enough for myself to start doing the unthinkable.

If drugs were legalized I dont think there would be crack and coke available in stores. It should be available to addicts, who once they have their fix live a normal life and are able to hold down a job. These people wouldnt have to worry about getting sick from an impure drug or overdosing because they dont know the potency. These are the things that cause crime and a burden on public healthcare, random filler drugs and uncontrolled potency (and high cost due to its illegal status). Its no different than someone taking a prescription upper or downer in the morning to get their day going. From the tons spent on arresting and jailing drug users we should take it and spend on education. Cigarette smoking rates have plunged in the US not due to its illegality or prohibition but by education, and of course strict regulation on sales. Most people will not choose to start doing H or coke or anything IMO, just because it is all of a sudden legal, i mean would you? We smoke pot and drink and whatever else, but most people dont escalate to hard drug addicts, those people are a very small minority. One more thing about public health costs, people do drugs and get sick anyway, if the drugs were pure and labeled as to the potency overdoses could be eliminated as could other toxic things put in as filler, the pure drug itself isnt nearly as dangerous to the body as the crap thrown in by shady people who need to "cut" it to raise profits. peace.

^ That would still leave supply of hard drugs to casual users firmly in the hands of criminals, or the enterprising 'addicts' who have access to the real deal.

Can't disagree with all the other things you mention though.

Hell yes would love to go into Boots for some bud and a little ketamine

doobydave wrote:^ That would still leave supply of hard drugs to casual users firmly in the hands of criminals, or the enterprising 'addicts' who have access to the real deal.

Can't disagree with all the other things you mention though.

I should have been more clear, the hard drugs should be available to addicts through a doctor and pharmacy, just like oxycontin for example. Also the point would not be to feed the habit forever but rather wean the addict off the drug, through lowering doses or other proven method. hope its clear now. peace