Branson: "Time to end the war on drugs"
Discussion
SpeedMattersNot said:
Surely if drugs were made 'legal' it gives out the incorrect message to millions of people who wouldn't otherwise try the drugs ?
Now, I don't take drugs (boring ba***rd me, I don't smoke nor really drink either for that matter) BUT I fail to see how I am in a position to tell another adult of sound mind what they may or may not put into their body if they wish.How DOES believe they ought to be able to tell others what they may or may not do with their bodies? Where does it end? Will we have set food we must eat each week?
It's an interesting discussion.
I've not got a big problem with drug users myself. I know of people quite close to me, who can lead perfectly normal and productive lives, whilst infrequently dabbling with heavy narcotics. I also feel that the negative spin put on the drugs themselves is unfair, because in my opinion the people who obtain them are most likely to be people who hold the law with very little regard.
Also, we've got fags and alcohol which, already do a lot of damage. The introduction if drink driving regulation can only be a good thing as most people struggle to drive on the roads as it is - let alone with under the influence.
I just know I wouldn't want my kids to do drugs. If the rules on hard drugs were relaxed, chances of kids being able to access these drugs would be higher.
I've not got a big problem with drug users myself. I know of people quite close to me, who can lead perfectly normal and productive lives, whilst infrequently dabbling with heavy narcotics. I also feel that the negative spin put on the drugs themselves is unfair, because in my opinion the people who obtain them are most likely to be people who hold the law with very little regard.
Also, we've got fags and alcohol which, already do a lot of damage. The introduction if drink driving regulation can only be a good thing as most people struggle to drive on the roads as it is - let alone with under the influence.
I just know I wouldn't want my kids to do drugs. If the rules on hard drugs were relaxed, chances of kids being able to access these drugs would be higher.
groak said:
Alcohol's legal and as far as I know its use/abuse/misuse is responsible for a MASSIVE amount of trouble and expense. Health trouble, domestic trouble, societal trouble, personal trouble both physical and mental. And an incalculable cost to Health Service, workplace etc etc etc. So we've got ONE Frankenstein. Do we want more?
I don't think that drugs are good, and if making them illegal had resulted in them being at least hard to get then I would maybe see the point. But imo making drugs illegal has created huge profits for criminals, allowed poor quality products into the market, and cost the authorities a lot of money. Legalising them would be the pragmatic response, and at least result in a regulated product that generated tax income. Surely the lesser of two evils?groak said:
Alcohol's legal and as far as I know its use/abuse/misuse is responsible for a MASSIVE amount of trouble and expense. Health trouble, domestic trouble, societal trouble, personal trouble both physical and mental. And an incalculable cost to Health Service, workplace etc etc etc. So we've got ONE Frankenstein. Do we want more?
And if alcohol was made illegal do you think the problem would go away?And drugs are illegal and still a massive problem.
It's shades of grey and needs some grown up and intellectual honesty
el stovey said:
If you legalise all drugs, how do you set limits for all the different substances when driving, flying a plane, turning up to work etc
Have impairment tests to see if people are fit to work/drive/operate machinery? Perhaps the higher accident rate will result in more job opportunities for the unemployed
.RYH64E said:
I don't think that drugs are good, and if making them illegal had resulted in them being at least hard to get then I would maybe see the point. But imo making drugs illegal has created huge profits for criminals, allowed poor quality products into the market, and cost the authorities a lot of money. Legalising them would be the pragmatic response, and at least result in a regulated product that generated tax income. Surely the lesser of two evils?
Correction: Drug users have made huge profits for criminals, don't care what harmful substances they stuff into their bodies, and cost the authorities a lot of money. Now why would you expect people who are inherently feckless and criminal to buy from a legal source when they can get them for less money (like they do with fags) from a bloke in a pub ?shauniebabes said:
johnfm said:
el stovey said:
If you legalise all drugs, how do you set limits for all the different substances when driving, flying a plane, turning up to work etc
The same way they already do for alcohol.You can't just measure and test for generic 'drugs' in blood.
shauniebabes said:
Correction: Drug users have made huge profits for criminals, don't care what harmful substances they stuff into their bodies, and cost the authorities a lot of money. Now why would you expect people who are inherently feckless and criminal to buy from a legal source when they can get them for less money (like they do with fags) from a bloke in a pub ?
I don't understand why it would be more expensive to buy from a legal source? Not many of us still buy alcohol from bootleggers.SpeedMattersNot said:
If the rules on hard drugs were relaxed, chances of kids being able to access these drugs would be higher.
Do you really think dugs are hard to get hold of at the moment?shauniebabes said:
RYH64E said:
I don't think that drugs are good, and if making them illegal had resulted in them being at least hard to get then I would maybe see the point. But imo making drugs illegal has created huge profits for criminals, allowed poor quality products into the market, and cost the authorities a lot of money. Legalising them would be the pragmatic response, and at least result in a regulated product that generated tax income. Surely the lesser of two evils?
Correction: Drug users have made huge profits for criminals, don't care what harmful substances they stuff into their bodies, and cost the authorities a lot of money. Now why would you expect people who are inherently feckless and criminal to buy from a legal source when they can get them for less money (like they do with fags) from a bloke in a pub ?We've established you can't ban drugs and you can't tax them out of existence, so perhaps it's better to make sure what people are getting is decent quality (as in not cut with any old s
t) and generates some tax to help deal with the inevitable fall out.groak said:
Alcohol's legal and as far as I know its use/abuse/misuse is responsible for a MASSIVE amount of trouble and expense. Health trouble, domestic trouble, societal trouble, personal trouble both physical and mental. And an incalculable cost to Health Service, workplace etc etc etc. So we've got ONE Frankenstein. Do we want more?
We already have them. The only difference is that boozed up tts and unfortunate addicts pay upfront with hefty taxes. I'm inclined to legalise everything and make a good return on the tax but at the same time invest strongly in education for all drugs including smoking and drinking so that everyone is equally informed and not reliant on idiot peers for their basic information.
You can then stick health warnings on the bags of heroin that explain the users are losers and show pictures of vomit ridden corpses or rent boys earning their next fix.
I guess it depends on whether you believe that some people will be addicts regardless while the vast majority, just like with booze won't be.
98elise said:
How do you make things like crack and heroine legal?
I thought the idea was to decriminalise possession for personal use, rather than a free for all where everything was legal? AIUI, the substances themselves would still be prohibited and large scale possession with intent to supply would still be an offence, but end users would be treated as a health issue (per fags and booze) rather than a justice issue. You can then treat the addiction instead of lobbing low level users in prison, where they're only going to get more exposure to criminality, whilst allowing the police to go after the large scale producers and suppliers. If you go as far as making certain things available on prescription (assuming people were willing to regsiter as users), you could further control the demand, which would help reduce crime and associated costs, plus reduce the risk of things like HIV infection.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff