No link between tough penalties and drug use states report
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
Camoradi said:
The point of the report is that there is no obvious link between severity of penalties and drug use in the country in question. Liberal (with a small L) politicians have immediately seized on that to say that harsh penalties don't work. By the same virtue removing harsh penalties may not work either....
due to there being "no obvious link"
That is what I meant by "don't necessarily work" i.e. it's not as simple as draconian penalties=less drug use.due to there being "no obvious link"
Camoradi said:
hairykrishna said:
Camoradi said:
The point of the report is that there is no obvious link between severity of penalties and drug use in the country in question. Liberal (with a small L) politicians have immediately seized on that to say that harsh penalties don't work. By the same virtue removing harsh penalties may not work either....
due to there being "no obvious link"
That is what I meant by "don't necessarily work" i.e. it's not as simple as draconian penalties=less drug use.due to there being "no obvious link"
Again it isn't that straightforward, but in essence when someone is planning a crime the penalty is not taken into consideration.
There are exceptions. For instance, whereas they might have intended to carry some form of firearm, the extra penalty does tend to restrict the options in the planning stage. However, if a shooting is, for instance, an essential, then the likely punishment is not considered.
With drugs, the likely penalties does not come into it at all for those who are addicted.
The normal conclusion of all research into offending is that in the majority of crimes the only deterrent effect is the likelihood of being caught.
One example of this is speeding in fog. Drivers aren't stupid and all must have seen the results of crashes at speed on motorways and fast roads when drivers travel faster than they can see ahead. The 'penalty' for driving too fast in fog is injury and death. Yet many people continue to go at speed. The odds against there being a crash are high.
In the USA the 'three times loser' is another classic example, and one that confounds logic. The third felony conviction means incarceration for life virtually. The list of those imprisoned for life following a petty crime, such as shoplifting, is tremendous. The glib explanation is that these people are institutionalised but there's little evidence to support this. So the Americans get another recruit to their slave labour force.
So it is no surprise to find there is no link between tough penalties for drugs use and the actual usage because people don't think they will be caught because, of course, they are hardly ever caught. The odds against it are infinitesimal. Go into any women's toilets in a club and you'll ample evidence of drugs being used, and this goes on every night.
There is no chance of the police being able to mount any action against street dealing as it is too labour intensive. The serious crime units are overwhelmed by demand at the moment. Natural wastage is not being replaced, more crimes are coming in, and the high workload means sickness levels are up in some. So the government ignore the problem and hope it will go away. Yet we all know things will get worse.
Those who die through contaminated drugs will have parents who start campaigns which generate lots of friends on Facebook and so a politician will meet with them, promise extra concentration on drugs and nothing will be done.
What is needed is a different approach. This country can't have swingeing cuts to police levels and operations against drugs use and dealing. The most sensible option is some form of control. Sensible - so no politician will bite the bullet.
For several of my earlier years cannabis ruled my life, I had to have it every day or I had a problem, I smoked at the very least an ounce a week, this started as soap bar back in the late nineties and then became 'powerful skunk weed' due to it being more available.
In some respects it made me who I am today,im very attentive and I put that almost down to paranoia. I'm still very paranoid, not paranoid about things like people looking at me etc but strange things, although that probably was there any way as I was always a worrier. In other respects I wasted years of my life smoking that s
t, I really did waste years 
I should have been doing other things not smoking fking weed round me mates.
When we were teenagers my best mate was a bit more hardcore, coke on a Friday night, then a Saturday, then a Thursday, then a Wednesday, then every day. He got in with the wrong type of people and started doing real drugs. Sadly he over dosed and was found by his dad on Xmas day even 14 years on I think about him frequently, he really was the kid in the sort of advertising why not to smoke, as it leads to cannabis, which leads to coke etc etc.
With all that said and done I think most drugs should be legal. Being illegal clearly doesn't stop people in any way shape or form. Social use may well be ok, especially with cannabis. Of course you can get addicted to drugs but then what about alcohol- which evidently I didn't start using until around the age of 33 properly. I will say that drinking or binge drinking which is the fashion it appears now is well on par with some class a drugs. They'd never let it be legal now if someone bought it out today
In some respects it made me who I am today,im very attentive and I put that almost down to paranoia. I'm still very paranoid, not paranoid about things like people looking at me etc but strange things, although that probably was there any way as I was always a worrier. In other respects I wasted years of my life smoking that s
t, I really did waste years I should have been doing other things not smoking fking weed round me mates.When we were teenagers my best mate was a bit more hardcore, coke on a Friday night, then a Saturday, then a Thursday, then a Wednesday, then every day. He got in with the wrong type of people and started doing real drugs. Sadly he over dosed and was found by his dad on Xmas day
even 14 years on I think about him frequently, he really was the kid in the sort of advertising why not to smoke, as it leads to cannabis, which leads to coke etc etc.With all that said and done I think most drugs should be legal. Being illegal clearly doesn't stop people in any way shape or form. Social use may well be ok, especially with cannabis. Of course you can get addicted to drugs but then what about alcohol- which evidently I didn't start using until around the age of 33 properly. I will say that drinking or binge drinking which is the fashion it appears now is well on par with some class a drugs. They'd never let it be legal now if someone bought it out today
JuniorD said:
Cigarettes and alcohol are legal yet criminal gangs make a fortune out of these commodities. Legalise drugs and there will still be illegal criminal channels.
Given the you misery involved in the drug trade from the source to the end user and beyond, I personally think it should be an offence punishible by huge fines or imprisonment to possess or use illegal drugs of any class. As for dealers, would be happy enough for capital punishment. It may not be a solution or even a strong enough deterrent, but the fewer of these people on the streets, the better, even if only temporarily.
Criminals are able to make large profit because the legal drugs are very highly taxed and they make a profit by buying legally produced drugs and selling them where the tax is high. Illegal tobacco and alcohol are also a minority of sales.Given the you misery involved in the drug trade from the source to the end user and beyond, I personally think it should be an offence punishible by huge fines or imprisonment to possess or use illegal drugs of any class. As for dealers, would be happy enough for capital punishment. It may not be a solution or even a strong enough deterrent, but the fewer of these people on the streets, the better, even if only temporarily.
Legally produced drugs would be much cheaper than illegal drugs and much safer. The illegal drugs would not stand a chance.
dandarez said:
Hilts said:
Can someone explain the difference between alcohol, tobacco and drugs?
Julie (18) is buried in local cemetery. She died almost a year ago this week. She took just one (her first) bloody ecstasy tablet at a local evening dance. The family was devastated. You can argue all you like about whether it was pure etc. My argument is this, my mum became alcoholic - she eventually died of cancer (all related) but she never dropped dead after her 'first' drink, her 'first' fag! Come to that, I know of nobody who has, even after their second or third. Yeah, down the line with abuse of alcohol the problems come. With drugs they can come instantly with catastrophic results. Julie could have got sloshed out of her mind that night on alcohol, the likelihood is she would still be here today. My nephew over 20 odd years ago was given and took cannabis in his first week at Southampton Uni. His uni life lasted hardly a fortnight - he went off the rails. His family support saved him although it scuppered many years of their lives... and even to this day he his still not right.
You want drugs, and it seems many liberalisers do, then I'd advocate if you 'drive' and you're caught on them, you get a ban just like the drink drivers. I've met enough druggies in my life (the 60s was full of them) and was offered many, but luckily I never felt the need. My mind is my own, I don't need it altered. Sadly, it seems many can't live with their own minds. Sad.
The statistics on the other hand show that most illegal drugs are much less dangerous than alcohol which is as mind altering as any illegal drug. There are also plenty of occasions where people have died or been seriously injured the first time they have gone drinking.
The LD50 for MDMA is actually pretty high from a toxicity point of view (dozens of tablets), one tablet will not kill you unless it is mixed with something else or you went crazy and under or over drank.
If E was available in consistent doses there is no reason why it would be any more difficult to moderate your input than with alcohol in fact if anything it easier because beyond a certain point you don't get higher.
My view is that if drugs were regulated and legalised people would actually tend away from those with the most harm and worst highs anyway. Personally I'd like to see a consistent licensing system for psychoactive drugs and let qualified people develop and make them.
This was posted in the YouTube thread a while back and when I clicked it, I looked at the length and almost didn't bother with it. However, I did and I was glad - a very, very interesting take on The War On Drugs and changed my view on things dramatically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXmKxW05ri8
Well worth 90 mins of your time imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXmKxW05ri8
Well worth 90 mins of your time imo.
Although current penalties for drug possession are woefully lenient, I reckon they still serve to deter a significant amount of people from getting involved with drugs.
If drugs were decriminalised there would surely be a rise in their use, and at a time where we already have a big enough problem with alcohol is this something we really need?
If drugs were decriminalised there would surely be a rise in their use, and at a time where we already have a big enough problem with alcohol is this something we really need?
Been reading The War We Never Fought by Peter Hitchens recently. It makes the point very well that we've never really seriously fought a "war on drugs" and despite having some relatively harsh penalties on paper the reality is that possession and small scale dealing of cannabis in particular and "soft" drugs in general has been decriminalised since the early 70s.
V8Ford said:
Although current penalties for drug possession are woefully lenient, I reckon they still serve to deter a significant amount of people from getting involved with drugs.
If drugs were decriminalised there would surely be a rise in their use, and at a time where we already have a big enough problem with alcohol is this something we really need?
I genuinely don't think there would be - and even if there were, it'd be additional tax revenue...If drugs were decriminalised there would surely be a rise in their use, and at a time where we already have a big enough problem with alcohol is this something we really need?
Alcohol and tobacco are a more dangerous substance than many drugs yet they're legal and raise large amounts of revenue for the Government. Colorado legalised it and it's proven to be a good thing:
Funk said:
V8Ford said:
Although current penalties for drug possession are woefully lenient, I reckon they still serve to deter a significant amount of people from getting involved with drugs.
If drugs were decriminalised there would surely be a rise in their use, and at a time where we already have a big enough problem with alcohol is this something we really need?
I genuinely don't think there would be - and even if there were, it'd be additional tax revenue...If drugs were decriminalised there would surely be a rise in their use, and at a time where we already have a big enough problem with alcohol is this something we really need?
Alcohol and tobacco are a more dangerous substance than many drugs yet they're legal and raise large amounts of revenue for the Government. Colorado legalised it and it's proven to be a good thing:
a lot of dealers that sell the hardstuff on the weekends sell the green stuff during the week witch is there main income, so IMO legalise cannabis and cripple the dealers and reap the tax benefits, if the legal stuff was of half decent quality people would much rather pay the tax then go meet some dodgy fe*kers
AJS- said:
Been reading The War We Never Fought by Peter Hitchens recently. It makes the point very well that we've never really seriously fought a "war on drugs" and despite having some relatively harsh penalties on paper the reality is that possession and small scale dealing of cannabis in particular and "soft" drugs in general has been decriminalised since the early 70s.
He's wrong though, we spend billions imprisoning users and interdicting smugglers, yet illegal drugs are as cheap as they've ever been; not very good value for our taxes is it? Inconsistent application of law is illiberal and breeds contempt; gaoling recreational users does not make society safer, does little to rehabilitate and costs a boatload of cash.Esseesse said:
Once these things are legal it's nearly impossible to make them illegal. Just because one harmful substance is legal isn't an argument to legalise other harmful substances.
Many harmful substances are legal. The lethal dose for Aspirin is 300mg/kg. And there's no antidote.Ban it I say...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff