Changing of public opinion on drugs
Discussion
Picture the scene. Daily Mail post an article lambasting the new drugs tzar for being a bit pro drugs. Daily Mail readers write in agreeing that it is an outrage and drugs are bad.
BUT
Infact the highest rated comments are all pro legalisation with the "DRUGS ARE EVIL" posts coming out as worst rated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263417/Dr...
I can't work out whether a load of non Daily Mail internet users have just gone through voting up to pro-drugs comments and down rating the others, or if actually the average Daily Mail reader agrees with bringing drugs into the legal domain.
Either way, there seems to be massive public support in favour of a big rethink on drugs. Once the current crop of politicians and middle englanders have retired and the youngsters have taken on the positions of power and opinion making, I reckon we could well see a much more liberalised attitude towards drugs.
I am still quite young, but surely there was not so much pro drug legalisation media and opinion 10/20 years ago, was there?
BUT
Infact the highest rated comments are all pro legalisation with the "DRUGS ARE EVIL" posts coming out as worst rated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263417/Dr...
I can't work out whether a load of non Daily Mail internet users have just gone through voting up to pro-drugs comments and down rating the others, or if actually the average Daily Mail reader agrees with bringing drugs into the legal domain.
Either way, there seems to be massive public support in favour of a big rethink on drugs. Once the current crop of politicians and middle englanders have retired and the youngsters have taken on the positions of power and opinion making, I reckon we could well see a much more liberalised attitude towards drugs.
I am still quite young, but surely there was not so much pro drug legalisation media and opinion 10/20 years ago, was there?
Edited by Shay HTFC on Sunday 4th April 17:45
Jasandjules said:
Personally I cannot see why we have restrictions on drugs. If someone is of sound mind and wants to damage their body, as long as they don't harm another person, I don't see a problem with it.
I entirely agree. Legislation banning drugs is just another example of people forcing their morals on to others.Jasandjules said:
Personally I cannot see why we have restrictions on drugs. If someone is of sound mind and wants to damage their body, as long as they don't harm another person, I don't see a problem with it.
Only said be someone who doesn't see the terrible damage they inflict on people and their families!Elroy Blue said:
Jasandjules said:
Personally I cannot see why we have restrictions on drugs. If someone is of sound mind and wants to damage their body, as long as they don't harm another person, I don't see a problem with it.
Only said be someone who doesn't see the terrible damage they inflict on people and their families!Elroy Blue said:
Jasandjules said:
Personally I cannot see why we have restrictions on drugs. If someone is of sound mind and wants to damage their body, as long as they don't harm another person, I don't see a problem with it.
Only said be someone who doesn't see the terrible damage they inflict on people and their families!
If drugs were made legal (and I can't imagine they would be in my lifetime) then there would still be the minority who are incapable of using in moderation. Once they've exhausted their own resources they'd turn to acquisitive crime as they do now. Society would still have a large number of parasites IMHO - perhaps a greater number than now if the substances were available without legal risks.
Edited by JulianHJ on Sunday 4th April 18:22
JulianHJ said:
If drugs were made legal (and I can't imagine they would be in my lifetime) then there would still be the minority who are incapable of using in moderation. Once they've exhausted their own resources they'd turn to acquisitive crime as they do now. Society would still have a large number of parasites IMHO - perhaps a greater number than now if the substances were available without legal risks.
Why would that make them different to alcoholics and people who spend their last fiver on tobacco?I reckon the greater harm to society is to allow the current state of affairs to persist. We'd be better off, on the whole, with greater numbers of legal, taxed drug users than fewer illegal, untaxed drug users.
The illegal drug supply chain is a massive cancer and the only way to get rid of it is to replace it.
CommanderJameson said:
Elroy Blue said:
Jasandjules said:
Personally I cannot see why we have restrictions on drugs. If someone is of sound mind and wants to damage their body, as long as they don't harm another person, I don't see a problem with it.
Only said be someone who doesn't see the terrible damage they inflict on people and their families!Alcohol CAN BE addictive, dangerous in certain quantities, instigate trouble etc.
Tobacco CAN BE addictive, dangerous in certain quantities
And so on..
So whats the difference with any other from of narcotics? Surely Her Majesty's Champagne Fund is missing a trick here??!
They could even reduce fuel duty with the extra income.
The main reason for having an anti drugs policy is to prevent other nations, or even groups within those nations, being able to use drugs as a means to corrupt a country.
Typical examples of this would recently be Afghanistan, and perhaps in the distant past, China.
I have nothing against the idea of legalising drugs, with the exception that people must understand what they are really saying in a historical context.
I don't have the full picture, but I'm aware that the picture is deeper than the usual arguments. The most simplistic is that drugs are bad. Then that drugs push people into poverty, and raise the rate of crime, because the price is artificially high, due to their illicit nature.
I think that in general it would be better if we could all live without recreational drugs. One of the things that has made people turn to them, is the way our society is. Many addicts must start out simply looking for an escape. We could do an awful lot just by making the country a happier place to live. Sadly that's just a dream.
Another big factor, is that of our defences. For example if we had a better naval force, perhaps less tied up, we would be able to control the drug traffic better.
Something I find interesting, is that synthetic drugs have become very popular, very quickly. I have to ask myself why that is. Personally I think it's demand side, rather than supply side. The point being that people are unhappier, and they're looking for legal highs. There isn't really a shortage of natural drugs. I guess it's a difficult time for the traditional drug barons. The youth all have a taste for a different product.
In the end it's a really complex picture, and there are no quick fixes. As the whole Blunkett thing demonstrated, it doesn't make a lot of difference, and there's one heck of a lot of stigma out there. Equally there's one heck of a lot of middle aged people who see cocaine as a fashion/social statement. For them, perhaps, the common pot smoker in a tracksuit and hoodie is just a chav.
Ultimately it's better if people don't IMO. The law won't stop it, and makes little difference either way. In fact the law is now the only real line in the sand warning us to remember why we should think that way.
Personally I see it as important to make it a priority to do something about the UK drugs problem, by direct relation to the traditional severity of those drugs. It's better IMO, that we have tobacco smokers coming out of our ears, than it is to have "enclaves" where, say, cocaine is openly acceptable.
It's never been different, so I doubt it will change.
The real problem then is poverty and drugs. The only way to solve that problem is to have "purpose" as a nation. A way for people to have something that is better than drugs. I think most would prefer that, but for some a superb life, is just not enough.
That then, is the really important distinction. The difference between those who do drugs to make a nice life better, and those who do drugs to make a bad life tolerable. The former can take care of themselves, but the latter we have to do something about. Changing the law won't make any difference to them.
Typical examples of this would recently be Afghanistan, and perhaps in the distant past, China.
I have nothing against the idea of legalising drugs, with the exception that people must understand what they are really saying in a historical context.
I don't have the full picture, but I'm aware that the picture is deeper than the usual arguments. The most simplistic is that drugs are bad. Then that drugs push people into poverty, and raise the rate of crime, because the price is artificially high, due to their illicit nature.
I think that in general it would be better if we could all live without recreational drugs. One of the things that has made people turn to them, is the way our society is. Many addicts must start out simply looking for an escape. We could do an awful lot just by making the country a happier place to live. Sadly that's just a dream.
Another big factor, is that of our defences. For example if we had a better naval force, perhaps less tied up, we would be able to control the drug traffic better.
Something I find interesting, is that synthetic drugs have become very popular, very quickly. I have to ask myself why that is. Personally I think it's demand side, rather than supply side. The point being that people are unhappier, and they're looking for legal highs. There isn't really a shortage of natural drugs. I guess it's a difficult time for the traditional drug barons. The youth all have a taste for a different product.
In the end it's a really complex picture, and there are no quick fixes. As the whole Blunkett thing demonstrated, it doesn't make a lot of difference, and there's one heck of a lot of stigma out there. Equally there's one heck of a lot of middle aged people who see cocaine as a fashion/social statement. For them, perhaps, the common pot smoker in a tracksuit and hoodie is just a chav.
Ultimately it's better if people don't IMO. The law won't stop it, and makes little difference either way. In fact the law is now the only real line in the sand warning us to remember why we should think that way.
Personally I see it as important to make it a priority to do something about the UK drugs problem, by direct relation to the traditional severity of those drugs. It's better IMO, that we have tobacco smokers coming out of our ears, than it is to have "enclaves" where, say, cocaine is openly acceptable.
It's never been different, so I doubt it will change.
The real problem then is poverty and drugs. The only way to solve that problem is to have "purpose" as a nation. A way for people to have something that is better than drugs. I think most would prefer that, but for some a superb life, is just not enough.
That then, is the really important distinction. The difference between those who do drugs to make a nice life better, and those who do drugs to make a bad life tolerable. The former can take care of themselves, but the latter we have to do something about. Changing the law won't make any difference to them.
Elroy Blue said:
Only said be someone who doesn't see the terrible damage they inflict on people and their families!
I have actually. And alchohol, and fags as well, just to cover all bases.However, if someone wants to harm themselves that is, to my mind, their decision. I don't like those in my family who harm others with their actions however, it is still their decision. They are adults, they can choose what to do with their bodies.
Shay HTFC said:
I am still quite young, but surely there was not so much pro drug legalisation media and opinion 10/20 years ago, was there?
I'll go back even further. There was a hell of a lot of drug legalisation pressure in the 60s and 70s.The problem that we face now is, to an extent, caused by the hypocrisy of the human race:
"I am 20. I see no problem with the legalisation of drugs. When my generation is in power we will put the matter right."
"I am now 50, with a child of 20. No matter what I said when I was 20, I don't want my son/daughter getting mixed up with drugs. I now want to ban even more variations"
Its been going on for generations, and will probably continue to go on.
dilbert said:
The main reason for having an anti drugs policy is to prevent other nations, or even groups within those nations, being able to use drugs as a means to corrupt a country.
Typical examples of this would recently be Afghanistan, and perhaps in the distant past, China.
Huh? Drugs aren't legal in Afghanistan. And the Opium wars really were completely different. I like to think we can be SLIGHTLY more civilized as a nation now we're not at the height of the British Empire. There's a thriving drugs trade in Afghanistan because the area is so desperately poor and opium poppies and cannabis grow like nettles out there. If you were to legalise this trade, you'd take it straight out of the hands of the "taliban", we could have "fair trade" initiatives where growers are paid a fair price for their product, and even organisations like the NHS could purchase their raw opium (Sure, it would need to be refined into diamorphine in a MEDC than Afghanistan to meet our stringent health and safety laws) from these very same farmers that are responsible for flooding our streets with illegal heroin.Typical examples of this would recently be Afghanistan, and perhaps in the distant past, China.
dilbert said:
I think that in general it would be better if we could all live without recreational drugs. One of the things that has made people turn to them, is the way our society is. Many addicts must start out simply looking for an escape. We could do an awful lot just by making the country a happier place to live. Sadly that's just a dream.
Another big factor, is that of our defences. For example if we had a better naval force, perhaps less tied up, we would be able to control the drug traffic better.
You're forgetting one key issue here - for thousands and thousands of years, we humans have enjoyed altering our states of consciousness. It is as much a basic impulse as the desire to sleep or have sex, just because we live in a society which only permits recreational intoxication through alcohol, tobacco and caffeine, we must not forget that the Cannabis Sativa plant has been used for nigh on 5,000 years, as has the Peyote cactus, Psilocybin containing mushrooms, various brews of Ayahuasca, Fly Agaric and a whole plethora of other natural plants that get us "fAnother big factor, is that of our defences. For example if we had a better naval force, perhaps less tied up, we would be able to control the drug traffic better.
ked up". There's speculation as to whether the ancient holy drink "Soma" was in fact a psychedelic mushroom brew, and there's even been (somewhat controversial) suggestions that the Manna in the desert the Israelites ate for 40 years was a genus of psychedelic mushroom by the name Psilocybe Cubensis. Whether you believe these theories, or simply regard them as quackpot nonsense, you cannot dispute that we have been altering our consciousness for many millennia.
dilbert said:
Something I find interesting, is that synthetic drugs have become very popular, very quickly. I have to ask myself why that is. Personally I think it's demand side, rather than supply side. The point being that people are unhappier, and they're looking for legal highs. There isn't really a shortage of natural drugs. I guess it's a difficult time for the traditional drug barons. The youth all have a taste for a different product.
^^See reply to previous paragraph. Nothing to do with us being unhappy as a nation, perhaps the trend is just moving from alcohol to synthetic chemicals? The other key point to remember is that these synthetic chemicals are LEGAL. People don't like breaking the law, but they DO like getting f
ked up. If that means that they jeopardise their own health by taking a chemical which has undergone no official testing to stay legal (because the government has restricted the likes of those very heavily tested (and incredibly safe) drugs like MDMA, LSD and even with sensible moderation, cocaine), then surely the government sees that it has got us into this mess?The simple fact is, we've been digging ourselves into this hole for 90 years now, and the government is in a hideously difficult position. They can't simply turn around and legalise all drugs, because then it appears they've been lying to us for the last 90 years (which they have, and politicians really can't lose that much face), but also, on a much more dangerous level, if they simply legalised drugs it would appear to the majority of "idiots" that the government were simply saying "Yeah, drugs are ok, go and get as f
ked up as you like".This is why we also need proper education about the real dangers of drugs. The best example I can cite is that of tobacco. Since we've had those hideous graphic images and the huge text warning us about how bad smoking is for us, usage rates have fallen dramatically. Generally, if people know something is bad for them, unless they're already hooked, they'll give it up.
The other thing to consider is that with the age of the internet, the ONLY way the UK could really control drugs is by bringing in a piece of legislation as ridiculous as the Federal Analogue Act in the US. Otherwise, all those very clever chemists in China are simply going to keep tweaking the chemicals, adding an extra oxygen molecule here, taking a different starting compound (for example starting from Pyrrole rather than a Cathinone completely avoids the cathinone act they're also bringing in).
And let it be known that the SINGLE reason these chemicals exist is because others (which are FAR superior) are illegal. In 2004, 72 barrels of Saffrole Oil (a key ingredient in the manufacture of MDMA) were blown up in Cambodia by Australian authorities. That's basically the worlds supply gone for a while. Would you know it, an Iranian company called Neorganics starts manufacturing "legal highs" with a difference - these ones work. Suddenly cheap, legal drugs which emulate existing illegal ones are available to drug users that are "in the know" per se, and it's inevitably only a matter of time before the rest of the country catches on and we see this "KILLER MEPHEDRONE" in our playgrounds. MORE REASON FOR LEGISLATION.
One other thing I might add - when I was 14 (and the age to buy tobacco was 16), it was easier for me to buy cannabis than tobacco, because my dealer wasn't worried about ID. If a kid really wants drugs, he'll get them, legal or not. Surely education is key here?
dilbert said:
Ultimately it's better if people don't IMO. The law won't stop it, and makes little difference either way. In fact the law is now the only real line in the sand warning us to remember why we should think that way.
I agree completely. It WOULD be brilliant if we had a nation of healthy, sober people who rode bikes to work, but we like to indulge in these pointless pleasures don't we? :Pdilbert said:
Personally I see it as important to make it a priority to do something about the UK drugs problem, by direct relation to the traditional severity of those drugs. It's better IMO, that we have tobacco smokers coming out of our ears, than it is to have "enclaves" where, say, cocaine is openly acceptable.
Why is it better though? Certainly not because it's safer. Alcohol and Tobacco kill 110,000 people in the UK every year, that's more than the combined death figures for every single illicit drug, and with legislation and proper education, we could drastically reduce the number of deaths through illegal drugs too.dilbert said:
It's never been different, so I doubt it will change.
That's the spirit!dilbert said:
The real problem then is poverty and drugs. The only way to solve that problem is to have "purpose" as a nation. A way for people to have something that is better than drugs. I think most would prefer that, but for some a superb life, is just not enough.
That then, is the really important distinction. The difference between those who do drugs to make a nice life better, and those who do drugs to make a bad life tolerable. The former can take care of themselves, but the latter we have to do something about. Changing the law won't make any difference to them.
This is where you're completely wrong. Changing the law WILL make a difference to them. Can you imagine if we lived in an age of Alcohol prohibition? How Alcohol would be seen as the scourge of our society by those same Daily Mail readers. Those cheap cider drinkers we keep hearing about in Scotland would be more than addicts with a social health problem - they'd be criminals. How would this help them? It wouldn't. It would push the price of their drug up, and would bring the purity down. There would be much fear of seeking help because their drug of choice would automatically make them a criminal, and the whole situation would be a lot worse than it is now.That then, is the really important distinction. The difference between those who do drugs to make a nice life better, and those who do drugs to make a bad life tolerable. The former can take care of themselves, but the latter we have to do something about. Changing the law won't make any difference to them.
The simple fact is, prohibition has done f
k all to stop the illicit drugs trade over the last 90 years, in fact it's done just the opposite, illegal drugs are thriving. Kids today aren't stupid either, they're told that drugs are bad, and then they smoke a spliff and see that it's really not bad, in fact it's quite good fun. The danger comes because we as a society can't turn around to those kids and say "Yeah, a spliff every now and again IS good fun, but you've got to moderate and know your limits".There will ALWAYS be a corner of society that relies on substances to get them through life, whether it be an alcoholic, a smoker, a junkie, a crackhead, or YOU having that oh-so essential morning coffee. You have to weigh up the harm you're doing to that minority through prohibition, and for christ sake, surely it's time for a sensible discussion at the political level if nothing else?
Sorry for the mammoth post, it's something which is quite dear to my heart. I could literally type for hours about this.
Perhaps this debate would be helped if some of you understood why cannabis was made illegal?
It was criminalised in the 1920's in America after one of the first public information campaigns demonising it, it was linked, inaccurately, to mass killings and crime.
The entire cost of the campaign, plus some hefty bribes paid to several politicians was met by a private company.
Du Pont paid in full as hemp was the only material which could compete with the nylon he had invented.
It was criminalised in the 1920's in America after one of the first public information campaigns demonising it, it was linked, inaccurately, to mass killings and crime.
The entire cost of the campaign, plus some hefty bribes paid to several politicians was met by a private company.
Du Pont paid in full as hemp was the only material which could compete with the nylon he had invented.
stitched said:
Perhaps this debate would be helped if some of you understood why cannabis was made illegal?
It was criminalised in the 1920's in America after one of the first public information campaigns demonising it, it was linked, inaccurately, to mass killings and crime.
The entire cost of the campaign, plus some hefty bribes paid to several politicians was met by a private company.
Du Pont paid in full as hemp was the only material which could compete with the nylon he had invented.
I think you're actually getting a little mixed up. Harry Anslinger and William Randolf Hearst had far more to do with the illegalisation of marijuana in the states.It was criminalised in the 1920's in America after one of the first public information campaigns demonising it, it was linked, inaccurately, to mass killings and crime.
The entire cost of the campaign, plus some hefty bribes paid to several politicians was met by a private company.
Du Pont paid in full as hemp was the only material which could compete with the nylon he had invented.
Hearst had invested heavily in the timber business to protect his other vested interests - newspapers. Of course this put him in a pretty powerful position with regards to distribution of propaganda on a national scale.
Anslinger, who had just become head of the DEA, was looking to expand his authority, and control more than just opium and cocaine, and he teamed up with Hearst to distribute the "Reefer Madness" propaganda most of you will be familiar with. It was said that smoking cannabis made you violent and aggressive (something I think ALL of us see is absolute nonsense today), and at the heart of this, as well as vested business interests, was racism.
Hearst and Anslinger hated Mexicans. So, they were the obvious targets - those dirty mexicans and the filthy blacks with their killer marijuana from just over the border were the new threats to the United States.
It wasn't until the campaign was well under way that Du Pont and various other pharmaceutical companies also jumped on the bandwagon, and by the 1930's, Cannabis was an illegal drug in every state.
Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence is printed on hemp, and the first law the States passed with regards to Cannabis Sativa was one which insisted it was grown for its huge applications as a textile.
Edited by Dragoncaviar on Sunday 4th April 21:01
Dragoncaviar said:
stitched said:
Perhaps this debate would be helped if some of you understood why cannabis was made illegal?
It was criminalised in the 1920's in America after one of the first public information campaigns demonising it, it was linked, inaccurately, to mass killings and crime.
The entire cost of the campaign, plus some hefty bribes paid to several politicians was met by a private company.
Du Pont paid in full as hemp was the only material which could compete with the nylon he had invented.
I think you're actually getting a little mixed up. Harry Anslinger and William Randolf Hearst had far more to do with the illegalisation of marijuana in the states.It was criminalised in the 1920's in America after one of the first public information campaigns demonising it, it was linked, inaccurately, to mass killings and crime.
The entire cost of the campaign, plus some hefty bribes paid to several politicians was met by a private company.
Du Pont paid in full as hemp was the only material which could compete with the nylon he had invented.
Hearst had invested heavily in the timber business to protect his other vested interests - newspapers. Of course this put him in a pretty powerful position with regards to distribution of propaganda on a national scale.
Anslinger, who had just become head of the DEA, was looking to expand his authority, and control more than just opium and cocaine, and he teamed up with Hearst to distribute the "Reefer Madness" propaganda most of you will be familiar with. It was said that smoking cannabis made you violent and aggressive (something I think ALL of us see is absolute nonsense today), and at the heart of this, as well as vested business interests, was racism.
Hearst and Anslinger hated Mexicans. So, they were the obvious targets - those dirty mexicans and the filthy blacks with their killer marijuana from just over the border were the new threats to the United States.
It wasn't until the campaign was well under way that Du Pont and various other pharmaceutical companies also jumped on the bandwagon, and by the 1930's, Cannabis was an illegal drug in every state.
Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence is printed on hemp, and the first law the States passed with regards to Cannabis Sativa was one which insisted it was grown for its huge applications as a textile.
Edited by Dragoncaviar on Sunday 4th April 21:01
DragonCaviar said:
dilbert said:
The real problem then is poverty and drugs. The only way to solve that problem is to have "purpose" as a nation. A way for people to have something that is better than drugs. I think most would prefer that, but for some a superb life, is just not enough.
That then, is the really important distinction. The difference between those who do drugs to make a nice life better, and those who do drugs to make a bad life tolerable. The former can take care of themselves, but the latter we have to do something about. Changing the law won't make any difference to them.
This is where you're completely wrong. Changing the law WILL make a difference to them. Can you imagine if we lived in an age of Alcohol prohibition? How Alcohol would be seen as the scourge of our society by those same Daily Mail readers. Those cheap cider drinkers we keep hearing about in Scotland would be more than addicts with a social health problem - they'd be criminals. How would this help them? It wouldn't. It would push the price of their drug up, and would bring the purity down. There would be much fear of seeking help because their drug of choice would automatically make them a criminal, and the whole situation would be a lot worse than it is now.That then, is the really important distinction. The difference between those who do drugs to make a nice life better, and those who do drugs to make a bad life tolerable. The former can take care of themselves, but the latter we have to do something about. Changing the law won't make any difference to them.
The simple fact is, prohibition has done f
k all to stop the illicit drugs trade over the last 90 years, in fact it's done just the opposite, illegal drugs are thriving. Kids today aren't stupid either, they're told that drugs are bad, and then they smoke a spliff and see that it's really not bad, in fact it's quite good fun. The danger comes because we as a society can't turn around to those kids and say "Yeah, a spliff every now and again IS good fun, but you've got to moderate and know your limits".There will ALWAYS be a corner of society that relies on substances to get them through life, whether it be an alcoholic, a smoker, a junkie, a crackhead, or YOU having that oh-so essential morning coffee. You have to weigh up the harm you're doing to that minority through prohibition, and for christ sake, surely it's time for a sensible discussion at the political level if nothing else?
Sorry for the mammoth post, it's something which is quite dear to my heart. I could literally type for hours about this.
The only conclusion is that you're saying it's acceptable for the government to medicate fit, young, healthy people, whom the government can't figure out how to help.
It'd be like the government saying, we can't fix your lives, have a spliff and be happy.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but you need to elaborate your obvious knowledge of the past to be critical. In Afghanistan the Taliban were using opium as a means of subversion. The NHS didn't have a need for that much opium, and it's a huge problem for our war there. Somehow we need to demonstrate the benefit of trade, it's just that (in theory) there's no need for the quantities they can produce of the commodity they have. None of this denies the soundness of my argument. The Taliban had a clear strategy to use the commodity as a tool of subversion.
In respect of China, the roles were reversed. By modern standards we were the bad guys. It doesn't change the idea that drugs were used as a tool of subversion.
Edited by dilbert on Sunday 4th April 22:29
dilbert said:
DragonCaviar said:
dilbert said:
The real problem then is poverty and drugs. The only way to solve that problem is to have "purpose" as a nation. A way for people to have something that is better than drugs. I think most would prefer that, but for some a superb life, is just not enough.
That then, is the really important distinction. The difference between those who do drugs to make a nice life better, and those who do drugs to make a bad life tolerable. The former can take care of themselves, but the latter we have to do something about. Changing the law won't make any difference to them.
This is where you're completely wrong. Changing the law WILL make a difference to them. Can you imagine if we lived in an age of Alcohol prohibition? How Alcohol would be seen as the scourge of our society by those same Daily Mail readers. Those cheap cider drinkers we keep hearing about in Scotland would be more than addicts with a social health problem - they'd be criminals. How would this help them? It wouldn't. It would push the price of their drug up, and would bring the purity down. There would be much fear of seeking help because their drug of choice would automatically make them a criminal, and the whole situation would be a lot worse than it is now.That then, is the really important distinction. The difference between those who do drugs to make a nice life better, and those who do drugs to make a bad life tolerable. The former can take care of themselves, but the latter we have to do something about. Changing the law won't make any difference to them.
The simple fact is, prohibition has done f
k all to stop the illicit drugs trade over the last 90 years, in fact it's done just the opposite, illegal drugs are thriving. Kids today aren't stupid either, they're told that drugs are bad, and then they smoke a spliff and see that it's really not bad, in fact it's quite good fun. The danger comes because we as a society can't turn around to those kids and say "Yeah, a spliff every now and again IS good fun, but you've got to moderate and know your limits".There will ALWAYS be a corner of society that relies on substances to get them through life, whether it be an alcoholic, a smoker, a junkie, a crackhead, or YOU having that oh-so essential morning coffee. You have to weigh up the harm you're doing to that minority through prohibition, and for christ sake, surely it's time for a sensible discussion at the political level if nothing else?
Sorry for the mammoth post, it's something which is quite dear to my heart. I could literally type for hours about this.
The only conclusion is that you're saying it's acceptable for the government to medicate fit, young, healthy people, whom the government can't figure out how to help.
It'd be like the government saying, we can't fix your lives, have a spliff and be happy.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but you need to elaborate your obvious knowledge of the past to be critical. In Afghanistan the Taliban were using opium as a means of subversion. The NHS didn't have a need for that much opium, and it's a huge problem for our war there. Somehow we need to demonstrate the benefit of trade, it's just that (in theory) there's no need for the quantities they can produce of the commodity they have. None of this denies the soundness of my argument. The Taliban had a clear strategy to use the commodity as a tool of subversion.
In respect of China, the roles were reversed. By modern standards we were the bad guys. It doesn't change the idea that drugs were used as a tool of subversion.
Edited by dilbert on Sunday 4th April 22:29
What I'm trying to get at over everything else, is the harm we're doing to people who are in the depths of an addiction far outweighs any potential benefits the government might see in restricting our civil liberties and telling us "drugs are bad".
Of course the NHS doesn't need all the opium that Afghanistan produces, but the world certainly needs it - they wouldn't produce it if there wasn't demand.
Surely you can see that if someone is going to take heroin whether the law tells them it's socially acceptable or not, it is better that they are given clean needles, somewhere safe to dispose of those needles, the correct information about how to inject, pharmaceutically pure diamorphine (so they know what dose to have and don't have to worry about batch purity etc. etc.), and even a safe place to inject?
With regards to drugs being used as tool of subversion, do you not think the Taliban would have used other means if drugs weren't so easily grown in Afghanistan? I mean, if their climate was completely unsuited to the growing of Papaver somniferum and Cannabis Sativa, do you not think they'd have just used guns as their tools instead?
edit: I should also have stated, I agree with your entire first paragraph, what I disagree with so strongly is that changing the law won't change a thing for those problematic drug users.
Edited by Dragoncaviar on Sunday 4th April 23:15
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff