Branson: "Time to end the war on drugs"
Discussion
RYH64E said:
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.Compared to growing your own tobacco or shipping beer barrels, making and hiding drugs is easy.
Although bootleggers in the main didn't make their own booze. It was commercially availible alcohol smuggled in through Canada. Which is exactly what organised crime would do from the UK to Europe if drugs were ever legalised.
shauniebabes said:
An entire (legal) industry is devoted to shipping booze across the Channel to take advantage of the different tax rates. An entire (illegal) industry is devoted to shipping fags across the Channel to take advantage of the different tax rates.
Compared to growing your own tobacco or shipping beer barrels, making and hiding drugs is easy.
Although bootleggers in the main didn't make their own booze. It was commercially availible alcohol smuggled in through Canada. Which is exactly what organised crime would do from the UK to Europe if drugs were ever legalised.
The alcohol and cigarettes smuggled in are at least brand name products that are made to some kind of standards, unlike current street drugs.Compared to growing your own tobacco or shipping beer barrels, making and hiding drugs is easy.
Although bootleggers in the main didn't make their own booze. It was commercially availible alcohol smuggled in through Canada. Which is exactly what organised crime would do from the UK to Europe if drugs were ever legalised.
I guess that a significant majority of cigarettes and alcohol sold in the UK are subject to VAT and duty, the benefits of smuggling will largely depend upon the rate of duty charged, if low enough there will be no point.
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?
Its quite possible to drink alcohol all your life without ever getting drunk simply because you enjoy the taste, like good company, or don't want to die of dehydration.The makes it far less of a danger than other drugs because they only exist to enable the user to escape reality. No one ever smokes weed for the taste, or takes an ineffectural dose heroin because they are driving.
RYH64E said:
The alcohol and cigarettes smuggled in are at least brand name products that are made to some kind of standards, unlike current street drugs.
The so-called legal highs are made in back street labs in China and sold mail order from peoples bedrooms. That's not exactly strict quality control is it? If druggies really cared about sticking potentially dangerous chemicals in their bodies, they wouldn't be druggies woudd they ?
shauniebabes said:
The so-called legal highs are made in back street labs in China and sold mail order from peoples bedrooms. That's not exactly strict quality control is it?
If druggies really cared about sticking potentially dangerous chemicals in their bodies, they wouldn't be druggies woudd they ?
From what I understand about legal highs they are generally a way of bypassing legal restrictions, and are only legal until banned. There's no incentive for legitimate companies to get involved in this kind of trade.If druggies really cared about sticking potentially dangerous chemicals in their bodies, they wouldn't be druggies woudd they ?
If it were to become a legal, legitimate industry then I suspect some more respectable companies would look to enter the market. Legitimate companies sell tobacco and alcohol, why not drugs?
If I want a fix of alcohol I could try industrial alcohol, or meths, or even aftershave, but I don't - I buy it down the pub or from the supermarket, along with millions of other consumers of alcohol. I don't see why other drugs should be any different.
Drugs are a means to a fortune for criminal organisations, fact.
There is no difficulty accessing drugs currently, fact.
So to attempt to control drugs by prohibiting their use is always going to fail, by allowing their use we gain a measure of control over both the quality and the dosage of these substances. As an aside we save billions currently spent failing to stem the illegal floods of drugs crossing our borders and make billions in tax revenue.
If anyone out there can show me a downside to this then I'll be surprised.
Incidentally most vulnerable people faced with this scenario would be, IME, less likely to experiment with drugs were the exitement and rebelliousness of them being 'bad' removed.
There is no difficulty accessing drugs currently, fact.
So to attempt to control drugs by prohibiting their use is always going to fail, by allowing their use we gain a measure of control over both the quality and the dosage of these substances. As an aside we save billions currently spent failing to stem the illegal floods of drugs crossing our borders and make billions in tax revenue.
If anyone out there can show me a downside to this then I'll be surprised.
Incidentally most vulnerable people faced with this scenario would be, IME, less likely to experiment with drugs were the exitement and rebelliousness of them being 'bad' removed.
shauniebabes said:
Its quite possible to drink alcohol all your life without ever getting drunk simply because you enjoy the taste, like good company, or don't want to die of dehydration.
The makes it far less of a danger than other drugs because they only exist to enable the user to escape reality. No one ever smokes weed for the taste, or takes an ineffectural dose heroin because they are driving.
Yes they do!The makes it far less of a danger than other drugs because they only exist to enable the user to escape reality. No one ever smokes weed for the taste, or takes an ineffectural dose heroin because they are driving.
There's different strains of cannabis(indica,sativa and ruderalis) that give different effects and have hundreds of different tastes and flavours.
I love the smell and taste of the many different strains, lemon skunk,white widow,ak47,white russian,alaskan ice.... every one of them completely different in taste and smell.
There is many different varieties of alcohol based drinks and cannabis is the same in that respect, cannabis is much more than what the media and governments portray.
There is plenty cannabis connoisseurs about,they just have to hide it unfortunately.
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?
Look what happened in the US during the prohibition period. People still drank just as much but it brought about the organised mafia in the US.We'd save ourselves so much money legalising all drugs. Don't be fooled that because drugs aren't legal they're harder to get - if you want them, you can get them! There would be much less deaths from folk OD'ing on heroin if it was controlled (i.e., a standardised level of purity).
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 ?
Before the Durgs Act 1971 they used to be legal in a sense. You had them prescribed by a doctor. Use was remarkably low, much lower than today. It was the Drugs Act which encouraged drug abuse.Once it was made illegal criminals not only wanted to supply to adicts but to encourage others to use them.
There appears to be considerable doubt that we can ever go back to the pre DA days so that option has gone forever. However, the DA does encourage abuse.
Not only that but the DA also encourages the manufacture of other, more addictive and dangerous drugs. Get the state involved and all innovation dies.
I don't smoke - ex - and don't drink - am intolerant - but I don't object to others doing so as long as they don't force me to breath in their stink or drive cars or damage property/injure people. I similarly can't be arsed if they behave stupidly because of alochol or thc. It is, to me, completely immaterial.
I've never had any aggro from someone high on cannabis.
Apache said:
invest in the production of something that gives you the same buzz without the addictive side effects?
bingo, small molecule pharmaceuticals is an are where it is getting very hard to generate new drugs, recreational drugs developed by such companies could make them a lot of money, be very safe, and lead to perhaps useful neurological drugs.shauniebabes said:
The so-called legal highs are made in back street labs in China and sold mail order from peoples bedrooms. That's not exactly strict quality control is it?
If druggies really cared about sticking potentially dangerous chemicals in their bodies, they wouldn't be druggies woudd they ?
if i wanted to do it i'd make them myself.If druggies really cared about sticking potentially dangerous chemicals in their bodies, they wouldn't be druggies woudd they ?
Derek Smith said:
I've never had any aggro from someone high on cannabis.
How many times have you had aggro from someone 'high' on alcohol? How long is a piece of string?Alcohol is OK, Tony Blair, Maggie Thatcher, Pitt the younger et al said so.
Well that's fine, if we overlook the fact that alcohol is far more destructive, far more costly to police, far more damaging to the body, far more damaging to society, far more damaging to the family etc.
Drink up people, it's ok, someone said we're allowed. Don't worry about alcohol being more addictive than most other drugs, have a few more shots and you will neither remember nor care.
BUT WE MUST NEVER CONSUME THE THINGS THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED, THEY ARE WRONG. WE KNOW THEY ARE WRONG BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY ARE WRONG.
You must not relax by smoking a joint at home while watching TV, this is criminal behavior.
However, you can go to the pub on a Friday night surrounded by violent drunks, you can pick up young ladies who are too drunk to fend off your advances, you can even take them home and catch sexually transmitted diseases, or, maybe bring an unwanted child into the world. If it's a really good night you could even have a fight and vomit in someones garden.
But you must not, under any circumstances, stay at home and smoke a joint. No. It is criminally wrong. We know it's wrong because we have been told that it's wrong.
Edited by skinley on Thursday 29th December 06:17
skinley said:
How many times have you had aggro from someone 'high' on alcohol? How long is a piece of string?
Alcohol is OK, Tony Blair, Maggie Thatcher, Pitt the younger et al said so.
Well that's fine, if we overlook the fact that alcohol is far more destructive, far more costly to police, far more damaging to the body, far more damaging to society, far more damaging to the family etc.
Drink up people, it's ok, someone said we're allowed. Don't worry about alcohol being more addictive than most other drugs, have a few more shots and you will neither remember nor care.
BUT WE MUST NEVER CONSUME THE THINGS THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED, THEY ARE WRONG. WE KNOW THEY ARE WRONG BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY ARE WRONG.
You must not relax by smoking a joint at home while watching TV, this is criminal behavior.
However, you can go to the pub on a Friday night surrounded by violent drunks, you can pick up young ladies who are too drunk to fend off your advances, you can even take them home and catch sexually transmitted diseases, or, maybe bring an unwanted child into the world. If it's a really good night you could even have a fight and vomit in someones garden.
But you must not, under any circumstances, stay at home and smoke a joint. No. It is criminally wrong. We know it's wrong because we have been told that it's wrong.
Alcohol is OK, Tony Blair, Maggie Thatcher, Pitt the younger et al said so.
Well that's fine, if we overlook the fact that alcohol is far more destructive, far more costly to police, far more damaging to the body, far more damaging to society, far more damaging to the family etc.
Drink up people, it's ok, someone said we're allowed. Don't worry about alcohol being more addictive than most other drugs, have a few more shots and you will neither remember nor care.
BUT WE MUST NEVER CONSUME THE THINGS THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED, THEY ARE WRONG. WE KNOW THEY ARE WRONG BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY ARE WRONG.
You must not relax by smoking a joint at home while watching TV, this is criminal behavior.
However, you can go to the pub on a Friday night surrounded by violent drunks, you can pick up young ladies who are too drunk to fend off your advances, you can even take them home and catch sexually transmitted diseases, or, maybe bring an unwanted child into the world. If it's a really good night you could even have a fight and vomit in someones garden.
But you must not, under any circumstances, stay at home and smoke a joint. No. It is criminally wrong. We know it's wrong because we have been told that it's wrong.
Edited by skinley on Thursday 29th December 06:17
As long as you drink your drug its perfectly acceptable it seems,
If alcohol was discovered today it would be a 'class A' drug for sure!
People should stop looking at alcohol as a 'safe' drug just because its legal,
alcohol and tobacco kill more people each year than all the illegal drugs combined,less people would die from illegal drugs if better quality drugs and better education on them was provided.
Time for a scientific based drug policies rather than the current propaganda war against them we have at the moment that is clearly not working and never will.
Why is the governments of the world so against 'illegal' drugs when alcohol and tobacco are legal?
Class A drugs not cut with s
t are safer than alcohol, imo. I've had a lot worse experiences and near misses on alcohol than I ever have on, for example, MDMA.
MDMA doesn't shroud your judgement like alcohol can. It also doesn't make you forget 5 hour blocks of your night.
Yes yes, moderation is the key when it comes to alcohol but that's easier said that done once it's taken it's grip.
I absolutely think alcohol is more destructive to society than most class A drugs.
t are safer than alcohol, imo. I've had a lot worse experiences and near misses on alcohol than I ever have on, for example, MDMA. MDMA doesn't shroud your judgement like alcohol can. It also doesn't make you forget 5 hour blocks of your night.
Yes yes, moderation is the key when it comes to alcohol but that's easier said that done once it's taken it's grip.
I absolutely think alcohol is more destructive to society than most class A drugs.
Sump Scraper said:
As long as you drink your drug its perfectly acceptable it seems,
If alcohol was discovered today it would be a 'class A' drug for sure!
People should stop looking at alcohol as a 'safe' drug just because its legal,
alcohol and tobacco kill more people each year than all the illegal drugs combined,less people would die from illegal drugs if better quality drugs and better education on them was provided.
Time for a scientific based drug policies rather than the current propaganda war against them we have at the moment that is clearly not working and never will.
Why is the governments of the world so against 'illegal' drugs when alcohol and tobacco are legal?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff