Police chief to call for all drugs to be legalised

[9sublime]

I think one of the best quotes is: He notes that figures from the Chief Medical Officer revealing that, in Scotland, 13,000 people died from tobacco-related use in 2004 while 2,052 died as a result of alcohol. Illegal drugs, meanwhile, accounted for 356 deaths.

Sure, legalizing them might mean more people dabble in them, which is never a good thing, but it will mean that the purity and the safety of the supply system will reduce the risks of overdose etc.

Also, much of the criminal world would be crippled.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/15/ndrugs115.xml

 

[Bunz]

Sure, legalizing them might mean more people dabble in them, which is never a good thing, but it will mean that the purity and the safety of the supply system will reduce the risks of overdose etc.

You know I am not so convinced that large amounts of people will start using a substance because it becomes legal overnight. Surely in the short term, there would be an increase. But that would most likely stablize after not to long. If heroin, cocaine etc became legal right now. I still wouldnt mess with it. Whether something is legal or not, often times have little bearing in its actual use.

Also, much of the criminal world would be crippled.

This is where you would notice a real difference. If the money were to dry up, you would see less crime associated with drugs. If the blackmarket mark-up were to allow price to become realistic in terms of actual supply and demand, and true production costs, people would be less likely to become violent in thier efforts to capture the market.

 

[SW85]

I think one of the best quotes is: He notes that figures from the Chief Medical Officer revealing that, in Scotland, 13,000 people died from tobacco-related use in 2004 while 2,052 died as a result of alcohol. Illegal drugs, meanwhile, accounted for 356 deaths.

OK, well, isn't that evidence that the war on drugs is working?

 

[Bunz]

OK, well, isn't that evidence that the war on drugs is working?

You might be able to interpret it that way.
It is indicative of several things to me.

It shows that drug users of the kind that can cause quick death are minimal in thier existence.

The hypocracy of the policy itself

That all substance abuse, if it is a legal or illegal substance, should be treated as a public health problem and not criminal activity.

 

[SW85]

It shows that drug users of the kind that can cause quick death are minimal in thier existence.

Eh? What does quick death have anything to do with drug use? Tobacco and alcohol use can take years to kill their victims.

The numbers for drug use are lower; drugs are illegal; the numbers for alcohol and tobacco are higher, and they're legal. I certainly don't mean to draw causation where there is only correlation, but the data certainly doesn't lend itself to the argument being used here.

The hypocracy of the policy itself

I don't follow. And the word is "hypocrisy." You would be well-served at least being able to spell the words you use to justify bad policy.

 

[Bunz]

but the data certainly doesn't lend itself to the argument being used here.

I was making reference to overdoses.

 

[r0beph]

Eh? What does quick death have anything to do with drug use? Tobacco and alcohol use can take years to kill their victims.

his assertion there isn't really...valid. However the number of deaths due to drugs is only accounted for in acute onset death, not death due to complications there of. A heroin overdose is labeled drug related. A heart attack due to a life of cocaine use but not due to the actual current usage will not be labeled as such, where as it would be were it tobacco related. We can also add that drug related murders as well as drug related crimes, including murders, as well as accidents due to drug use (as they are with drinking). This skews the number of what is more damaging on whole.

The numbers for drug use are lower; drugs are illegal; the numbers for alcohol and tobacco are higher, and they're legal. I certainly don't mean to draw causation where there is only correlation, but the data certainly doesn't lend itself to the argument being used here.

The numbers for drug use are actually, unknown. Since it is illegal, the majority of users are unknown. Tobacco and alcohol are easier to gauge since there is no stigma in telling people that you use.

I don't follow. And the word is "hypocrisy." You would be well-served at least being able to spell the words you use to justify bad policy.

on this note, please take your over zealous grammatical fascism and shove it up your arse. This is debate, not a playground, grow the hell up. His mispelling oh a word means very little in regards to any of what is being discussed here. People like you are pathetic and infantile.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Sure, legalizing them might mean more people dabble in them, which is never a good thing, but it will mean that the purity and the safety of the supply system will reduce the risks of overdose etc.

Also, much of the criminal world would be crippled.

Precisely. It's just like Alcohol Prohibition in this country. Making the drugs illegal creates all sorts of unintended consequences which empower gangs and organized crime.

 

[Kwaku]

Oddly enough

though we all agree on this it will NEVER HAPPEN.
Go figure...

I guess there are just too many people making a buck selling drugs or guns or whatever for politics to realise that this is the truth!

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Precisely. It's just like Alcohol Prohibition in this country. Making the drugs illegal creates all sorts of unintended consequences which empower gangs and organized crime.

It's funny to see you say this. I got in a debate with a lady friend of mine the other day about a similar thing. I was arguing that the organized crime bosses should get control of the drugs. The government does very little right and without corruption and they should focus on more important things so they shouldn't have control of drug trade.

And the disorganized gangs dominating things is certainly not a good thing. Think back to the crack epidemics. Street corners getting sprayed, little kids and elderly people getting killed, brazen daylight executions.

Look at the difference when the Mafia ran the drug trade and when the black and Latino street gangs ran it.

With the Mafia, the only people getting killed were each other and people dumb enough to do business with them. And a lot energy was devoted to fun stuff like racketteering.

 

[9sublime]

Thats a bit idealistic and nostalgic isn't it USMC? Almost like a coherent steveox haha.

Trial legalization with ecstasy and cannabis, even impose harsher penalties on non-government distribution (especially ecstasy). This will elimnate the dangers of purity and crime from these drugs. People will be able to enjoy them with the safe knowledge of where they came from and whats in them.

If that works out, try it with speed and other commonly avaliable drugs with distribution problems such as purity and the associate crime. Speed is 15% pure on average in the UK, and its no surpise a hell of a lot of deaths come from dangerous chemicals or overdose because of unknown strength.

Standardize it and you eliminate the problem.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Thats a bit idealistic and nostalgic isn't it USMC? Almost like a coherent steveox haha.

Hahaha, it does sound a little bit like steveox. I was joking (mainly) but it's kind of interesting to look at.

I sometimes have a fun arguing for ridiculous postions like putting the Mafia in charge of the drug trade. I once argued that corruption in politics was good. How else would anything get done? We've chugged along for 175 years with a blatantly corrupt political system and it worked just fine.

 

[Bunz]

It is interesting, because the powers that be have vested all of thier focus on having Americans taking pills for all number of things and spending millions of dollars advertising it. I think we let the corporations take over the drug trade. I would imagine Merck and the others could come up with a pretty good product. The costs of enforcement and punishment for the current type of prohibition policy just isnt working.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

It's funny to see you say this. I got in a debate with a lady friend of mine the other day about a similar thing. I was arguing that the organized crime bosses should get control of the drugs. The government does very little right and without corruption and they should focus on more important things so they shouldn't have control of drug trade.

Neither the government nor organized crime should control drugs. If drugs were legalized, organized crime would no longer be able to deal profitably in drugs, because retail price increases over tenfold in a black market. Take away that black market, and drugs become much more affordable.

People can buy them in drug stores along with other pharmaceuticals. There's no need for any criminal organization to be involved.

The vast majority of people who don't use drugs don't do so because they fear criminal prosecution. They don't use drugs because they fear losing control over their lives, losing their job and not being able to provide for their family. Those powerful motivators will still be in place if drugs are legalized.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Neither the government nor organized crime should control drugs. If drugs were legalized, organized crime would no longer be able to deal profitably in drugs, because retail price increases over tenfold in a black market. Take away that black market, and drugs become much more affordable.

People can buy them in drug stores along with other pharmaceuticals. There's no need for any criminal organization to be involved.

The vast majority of people who don't use drugs don't do so because they fear criminal prosecution. They don't use drugs because they fear losing control over their lives, losing their job and not being able to provide for their family. Those powerful motivators will still be in place if drugs are legalized.

But it's a lot more interesting when the Mafia's involved.