Drugs policy
A former Senior Civil Servant who worked in Drugs policy has confirmed what I've always known. That everyone, including every serious politician I've ever met, all Policemen with more than two brain cells to rub together (that's not very many, I admit) and most reasonable people agree that prohibition doesn't work. It did not work for alcohol and it's not working for drugs - nor will it ever.
Most of the problems associated with illegal drugs in the petty bourgeois hive-mind inhabited by daily mail readers and Nu Lab politicians, are problems associated with the illegality of them. Legalise (yeah even heroin) them all. (Yup, crack too).
Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant prick whose moral judgement on people he sees as 'junkies' is clouding his ability to see that the vast resources we put the way of interdicting supply are entirely wasted, the effects of a functioning black market are worse than those of a regulated legal trade, and the efficient pyramid marketing scheme for heroin sees to it that there are more problem users AS A DIRECT RESULT of the governments habit of forming policy on this issue according to the anticipated Daily Mail headline. All prohibitionists use the slippery slope argument, ignoring the fact that this will only apply in illegal circumstances, and the vast majority of 'users' favour pot, or coke or E without feeling the need to turn themselves into Amy Winehouse. Drugs are not a moral issue, any more than a glass of wine in an evening is, and anyone who thinks it is, is a twat whose opinions can (and will) be dismissed out of hand.
I see no reason to change any of the opinions I put up here in one of my early posts except that I feel in some small way vindicated that someone else (Brunstrom's a loony) formerly of the establishment has come out with sense at last. Perhaps this will shift the terms of the debate away from the Daily Mail axis which so poisons discourse on the issue.
Feel free to comment against legalisation, but invoking morality to do so will get you called a 'cunt'. Capish?
30 immoderate opinions:
That the effects of a functioning black market are worse than those of a legal regulated trade is definitely true.
But those who believe crack should not be legalised problably aren't all ignorant pricks.
It could always go the other way and form a no tolerance stance on dealers . Singapore has the death penalty for drug traficking and has managed to factor out gang trade right in the middle of the golden triangle. In England we go soft on drug dealers and prefer to let our children die. So legalisation is probably a better option here as capital punishment flies in the face of protecting the individual at the expense of the society.
But why should you kill a trader satisfying a demand. Isn't that abhorrent to you?
If you kill dealers, what about alcohol, which is just as dangerous?
Last time I checked alcohol wasn't illegal therefore traders are within their rights to supply demand.
Alcohol and crack, not the same thing.
You can take the stance that laws are there to be respected and you flout them at your own risk,that someone illegally profiterring from a trade in a severely addictive substance has knowlingly stepped outside the law and is therefore subject to punishment or as you suggest you can take the power from the dealers by legalising drugs.
alcohol just as dangerous as crack - are you flippin for real?
in terms of addictiveness crack is by far the worse of two evils.
I'm saying they're equivalent.
Tobacco - Very Very mild
Pot - very mild.
Coke - mild.
E - strong
Alcohol - Very strong
Heroin - Very very strong
Crack - Strongest.
But legalise drugs, making coke and heroin legal, crack will probably go away
where are you getting your scientific information from? What does that severeity scale you just posted relate to?
This is actually what flips me off about the laws on drugs - they're not based on science. Like the ban on magic mushrooms what was that about!
There are two things to consider with drugs - the lethal dose which is a measure of toxicity ie: how little it takes to kill you and how addictive it is.
Nicotine = severely addictive, not too toxic.
Crack = severely addicive, severely toxic.
Cocaine = less so.
Opium = addictive but actually relatively non-toxic in it's pure form.
Alcohol - toxic and addictive!
Marijuana - impossible to overdose on, non-addictive - unfortunately causes severe psychosis in some people.
It would be good if drugs were leaglised. It should be a matter of personal responibility. This government works hard to downplay personal responsibility.
Laura. Are you really suggesting that we should re-implement the death penalty, specifically to kill people who provide a product people want to buy? Really?
You do realise don't you that there is no fundamental difference between legal and illegal drugs? And that in fact the legal drugs do far more damage (to people and to society as a whole) than the illegal ones? Do you have the slightest fucking clue how many people are killed by Heroin and Crack on a yearly basis vs how many are killed by Tobacco and Alcohol? I'm not even going to mention the number killed by LSD, Magic Mushrooms and Pot...
So if I understand you correctly the level of addictiveness of a substance is the deciding factor whether something should be illegal (and thus presumably the deciding factor as to whether someone should be killed or not???)
Fuck.
Okay the fundamental point here is the drugs which are legal and the drugs which are illegal have been absolutely arbitrarily chosen. Marijuana is orders of magnitude less damaging than Alcohol or Tobacco. Heroin in it's clean form when administered by someone with a clue is actually a very safe drug.
I just hope you understand Laura, that YOU, specifically YOU and others like you are responsible for untold harm to drug users. Whether you like it or not YOUR ignorant, bigoted attitude is DIRECTLY responsible for death and suffering to other humans. I hope you're fucking satisfied.
Zorro.
Laura, furthermore according to your page you rate the Doors highly. You do realise all that music you like would not exist without illegal narcotics don't you? ;) As far as I know Peyote is illegal in the UK.
Re Alcohol vs crack. Only a fool would suggest that Crack is the worse drug. How many people are addicted to Crack cocaine? How many people are addicted to Alcohol? Is addiction to one worse than the other, well the individual addicted to crack may well perish before the individual addicted to alcohol, however from society's point of view damage caused by Alcohol costs more, affects more lives, and I would argue is the more important issue.
And I don't believe that usage of crack would go up if it were legalised. All evidence accumulated so far shows that usage of drugs goes DOWN when they are legalised. (probably due to the 'it's naughty' buzz dissapearing).
Z.
Good post Jackart!
I'm saying if you illegalise drugs why not be serious about it otherwise it would be better legalised and regulated.
Do YOU have any idea of the numbers killed by LSD etc? Not many I would think. More people are killed per year by alcohol and tabacco than by other drugs becasue their use is more widespread.
I'm finding it hard to follwing your point sorry. It is false that marijuana is less damaging than tabacco. The tar in pot is worse for your lungs than that in tabacco.
I already said that opium was relatively non toxic.
Shit I didn't realise that I personally was responsible for untold harm to countless drug users. Is it time for your fix? Your post is a pretty incoherent reply to mine
and yes I like the doors music I also enjoy taking peyote.
Well Laura I've got news for you. You personally are responsible. You and all the people like you are the reason this and previous governments lack the balls to do the right thing and decrriminalise all drugs. Therefore YOU and all the people like you ARE personally responsible for all the harm caused by the illegality of narcotics.
Every time some crack head ODs because they got some gear much purer than they are used to thats YOUR fault. Every time some druggie busts into some pensioners house and cracks their heads open, thats YOUR fault. Get it through your head please.
I'm not even going to bother discussing this with you as your 'facts' are severely lacking. Once you understand that Pot IS less damaging than tobacco come back and start the conversation again.
I don't believe it! You like taking Peyote?!?!?!?! You think YOU should be allowed to take YOUR narcotic of choice but others shouldn't??? You FUCKING hypocrite.
"More people are killed per year by alcohol and tabacco than by other drugs becasue their use is more widespread."
I assume that you think were all drugs legalised then millions of people would start taking crack and heroin? Answer in the affirmative and I surely won't bother to argue with you any more.
Z.
somebody better tell those clinical scientists that their studys into crack and alcohol are all wrong and that ther're fools.
I'm gald you're not going to bother arguing with me as you have not understood my comments.
Thanks for stopping by anon.
alternatively please read my posts slowly and carefully and you will find that I am not anti drugs I'm anti drug dealers outside the law profiting without taxation from the addition.
oh yeah and meanwhile I'll try to get into my head that everytime a crack head kills a pensioner it's my fault.
It couldn't be the fault of the person perpetrating the crime obviously - that would me admitting that people have personal responsibilty.
They shoudl bring back the dealth penatly for murder and violent crime as well.
Laura, I understand your comments. Unfortunately for you they are simply wrong. "It is false that marijuana is less damaging than tabacco. The tar in pot is worse for your lungs than that in tabacco"
If you really think Pot is more damaging than alcohol, please provide statistics for number of deaths due to Pot compared to Alcohol which shows more people dying from the former!! Alternatively please show statistics which show the cost to society of Pot being more than the cost to society of Alcohol.
Or do some googling, then come back and apologise for your hypocrisy and stupidity. Or just give up commenting on things about which you obviously know FUCK ALL.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I was clearly stating that Alcohol causes more damage to SOCIETY as a whole than Crack. Crack is likely more damaging to an indivudual.
And am I really any more anon than you? You say your name is Laura and you like the Doors. Is any of that true? Who knows. I've identified myself as Zorro. I also like the doors. I don't however take Peyote, I prefer marijuana. There now I'm exactly AS anon as you are!
I find it rather amusing that you admit to liking a class A substance but you think dealers of other class A substances should be killed, and you obviously think Marijuana should remain illegal as it's so very dangerous. (And presumably pot dealers should also be killed? What about magic mushroom dealers??)
You Laura are the biggest hypocrite I've come across outside of the Labour party in my entire fucking life.
"They shoudl bring back the dealth penatly for murder and violent crime as well."
Yes I rather thought you might think that way. You obviously have no problem at all being responsible for death and mayhem.
Do try to get your tiny mind around the fact that the justice system in this country gets it wrong as often as it gets it right. If we were stupid enough to reimplement the death penalty, just exactly how long do you think it would be before the state executed a completely innocent person? (*I give it 6 months)
In principle I agree with you. Pragmatically though it could never be allowed.
I believe it's better for 1000 criminals to go free than for one innocent man to be punished. I presume you believe the opposite? I so hope you are that "innocent man" one day...
what the hell are you even talking about? I said I thought all drugs should be legal. Otherwise why not enforce the law?
Your blog name is anonymous therefore I refered to you as anon. Sorry I should have used your full name anonymous.
I never said that crack and pot were more damaging to society than alcohol.
You don't understand anything thats not black and white. You're also inarticulate and agressive - can't express yourself without swearing.
"lternatively please read my posts slowly and carefully and you will find that I am not anti drugs I'm anti drug dealers outside the law profiting without taxation from the addition."
Thats not at all clear from your posts, and if that is the case do you not realise that that is the outcome of prohibition? If you want to stop this then stop prohibition. There is really no alternative.
Legalise all drugs (and don't tax them to penury) and the whole black market dies. Really. That's it, game over.
(Admittedly a lot of those involved in the trade are organized criminals who would certainly do something else illegal instead but thats another argument for another day!)
thank your lucky stars then that you live in a society where 1000 criminals do go free instead of one innocent being punished. I hope you realise this leads to greater harm to the majority - it's still okay for you to have that principal though.
Is is not okay with you that I may be of a differing opinion?
I get agressive and sweary when I'm constantly reading such utter drivel.
You say Crack dealers should be killed but YOU like taking another Class A substance. Do you not realise how hypocritical that is???
And unlike you I understand that NOTHING in life is actually black and white, it's all GREY!
Laura, you've met an anonymous troll. Leave them alone.... They're worse for you than narcotics
Correct everything is grey I'm merely offered what has been an effective measure to prevent drug trafficking in another country.
If you don't like it fine. I also agreed that legalising drugs could be a good idea.
I did not suggest that crack takers should be killed. Do you not think a death penalty would be an effective deterent to the essentially evil gang trade in highly addictive drugs that ruin people lives. That is the ideal behind the death penalty that is serves as a DETERENT.
Thanks for the advice jackart - I noticed earlier that you said those anonymous ones were likely dickheads.
Plus all this blogging is really not getting my essay done.
Laura,
I'm guessing you don't think Peyote dealers should be killed but you do think that Crack dealers should? In which case you obviously realise that current classification of drugs is a complete mess (as both of these drugs are currently prescribed at the same level).
You are for some legalisation but you cannot seem to grasp that if you legalised all drugs except crack then the black market would concentrate on that, and were the penalties higher then the cost would go up, so the harm would go up. Plus you would be executing people for merely selling a substance people want to buy, thus causing MORE harm to society.
Your idea of legalising some drugs and keeping others illegal and increasing the penalty is NO different to current policy. You just have a different list of drugs YOU want to be able to take.
That's the fundamental problem. You don't have the right to tell me what I can smoke, inject or shove up my ass. Got it, you have NO RIGHT. Any more than I have any right to tell You to stop taking Peyote.
The government/state has NO right to dictate on arbitrary lines which narcotics are allowed and which are not.
And Jackart, I'm not anonymous, I'm zorro. You have a name to call me by which means just as much as 'laura' does. Furthermore I don't see how being truthful can be considered Trolling. Were this an anti-drugs site then my posts could well be considered Trolling. It's not so I don't think I am! ;)
Z.
Jackart, agreed, but is there the slightest quantum of evidence to suggest that the next Tory gummint won't allow their drugs policies to be dictated by an expert council of tabloid editors?
Not here, anyway.
Quite right, Mark Wadsworth. Even if Camoron himself held liberal views on drugs, which he quite possibly does, he'd cave in to the Daily Mail twats just as much as Labour do. In the public's opinion, politicians should be as "tough" as possible, & Camoron will pander to that.
http://tinyurl.com/6qo9s9
Small minded, Mail-reading prohibition with a bit of vague zenophobia thrown in.
I've tried arguing against prohibition on the grounds that it's a failure and liberalisation would reduce crime & general disorder, but everyone just thinks any liberalisation would lead to raging crackheads committing murder in the streets.
The cunts are impervious. Maybe in 20 years we'll see a bit more sense. I don't even take drugs myself, but anything Mail-related enrages me.
Also, The Independent reversing their support for legalisation of cannabis pissed me off. I've had it waved in my face so many times, but my reason for holding liberal views are different to theirs, and are based on consequences. This skunk affair proves my point rather than theirs.
These are the sort of total cunts who said the world would stop turning if opening hours were extended by 1 minute... right, I'll stop now.
*xenophobia
成人電影,情色,本土自拍, 情色聊天室, 寄情築園小遊戲, AV女優,成人電影,情色,本土自拍, A片下載, 日本A片, 麗的色遊戲, 色色網, ,嘟嘟情人色網, 色情網站, 成人網站, 正妹牆, 正妹百人斬, aio,伊莉, 伊莉討論區, 成人遊戲, 成人影城,
ut聊天室, 免費A片, AV女優, 美女視訊, 情色交友, 免費AV, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 色情影片 成人影片, 成人網站, A片,H漫, 18成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 美女交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, A片, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, UT聊天室, 尋夢園聊天室, 男同志聊天室, UT男同志聊天室, 聊天室尋夢園, 080聊天室, 080苗栗人聊天室, 6K聊天室, 女同志聊天室, 小高聊天室, 情色論壇, 色情網站, 成人網站, 成人論壇, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, 成人聊天室, 成人小說, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 日本A片, 愛情公寓, 情色, 舊情人, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 情色交友, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 色情a片, 一夜情, 辣妹視訊, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊, 視訊美女, 美女視訊, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室, 視訊交友90739, 成人影片, 成人交友, 本土自拍, 免費A片下載, 性愛,
成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人電影, 成人, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊美女, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, a片下載, aV, av片, A漫, av dvd, av成人網, 聊天室, 成人論壇, 本土自拍, 自拍, A片,成人電影,情色,本土自拍,
Post a Comment