Poll: Do you agree with the criminalisation of drug use?

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

I think he meant that nobody will take bath salts when MDMA is legal. It would be like buying pigeon meat from a creepy man's van when there's a perfectly good delicatessen selling chicken across the street.

We're already way ahead of you:

I might have been unclear. SNIP

No, you weren't being unclear, as I said, I wasn't challenging your point, just being a smart arsed nitpicker. You know, the old internet "ha, I can interject here and look knowledgeable if I ignore the intent of this statement and go with the literal out of context interpretation"

 

[CrystalViolet]

We've been circumventing Darwinism for far too long.

I'm sorry but the very second someone plays the "Darwinism" card they lose all credibility in my books and I lose all respect for them.

I also agree with the Darwinism thing. If someone is dumb enough to smoke 5 packs of cigarettes a week or snort coke every other day when the information on the danger is so readily apparent they deserve everything they get.

Dude, seriously? I was right behind you up until this point.

This isn't about protecting people from themselves, it's about making yourself feel superior(others need to be protected from themselves, but you're to awesome to ever need that), and the Ban Everything Brigade will happily use demonstrably incorrect reasoning to justify the use of demonstrably ineffective, even counter-productive, policies if it allows them a chance to set themselves above the rest of society.

+1

I didn't want to say so myself but I'm inclined to agree with you. There's a certain smug sense of superiority about people who argue that humans are inherent need of subjugation.

Yes.

Considering these drug addled cretins are responsible for financing the drug cartels that commit all sort of atrocities because they can't live without feeling high, in other words being indirectly responsible for all the deaths and suffering the drug lords cause, and couldn't care less about it to hell with them.

Then in that case you implicitly support the financing of the drug cartels. You obviously care more about punishing drug users than ending the death and suffering you decry.

Also as a "drug addled cretin" let me just point out that your assumption is incorrect. Never in my adult life have I ever funnelled money either directly or indirectly into the hands of cartels. I don't even buy Coca Cola, Nestlé or Zara products for ethical reasons.

 

[CrystalViolet]

By the way I'm yet to see a single solid argument for decriminalisation in this thread. I've read every reply and honestly haven't seen one.

 

[bluepotatosack]

None of those poll options really fit match my opinion on the matter. In short, I think possession of drugs should be decriminalized across the board, but not necessarily intent to sell. Drug addiction should be treated as a health problem, not a criminal one. One of my best friends was addicted to heroin for a while. He got jumped and injured several times, and was often prescribed vicodin for pain. That's essentially an opiate and he became addicted, and then turned to heroin. After a bad experience one night I got a call early in the morning from him and I ended up taking him to the hospital. After we got home he went and talked to his parents about getting into a program. He put every effort into quitting and has been clean for years now. Throwing him in jail wouldn't have helped anyone, so statements like the one below genuinely anger me.

As for addicting drugs, nope. Addiction removes the choice to quit, and a lot of addicting drugs are often super harmful. A lot of people will just end up killing themselves because of an OD, especially if it becomes readily available.

I am all for the full legalization and taxation of cannabis, though.

 

[carnex]

Well there are two sides to that coin that are against legalization. And I guess both were mentioned already but I will reiterate.

Most illegal narcotics, and abuses of legal narcotics affect not just the person taking it but other around that person. Be it though addiction and financial effects, effects on personality and behavior, sheer violence, health deterioration etc. Then there are legal and illegal narcotics that have no positive effects whatsoever like tobacco (positive effects are psychological from ritualistic behavior and comfort of a habit) but more like crack or krokodil.

But that is a less of a problem, since if that was only problem it could be greatly reduced. However greater problem comes from the fact that every movement need to fund various projects that would most likely never pass if public ever had any word on it, or if they even caught a sniff of it. Those are funded by "crime tax" which is actually government's involvement in criminal activities within countries border, and for some countries, all over the world. And those are most prevailing in activities that must come through some choke point like narcotics over borders. And it's more because of those that they will remain illegal and yet easily available.

 

[R.K. Meades]

We can look to Portugal for a case study in decriminalisation. Glenn Greenwald was commissioned to study the effects of their drug laws for the Cato Institute, and the resulting white paper makes for an interesting read: here [http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf].

My sincere belief is that decriminalising narcotics can help us solve numerous problems. Addicts can be treated like people in need of assistance, rather than criminals-- a sharp decline in the number of non-violent offenders hurled into cages will save the taxpayer a mint. The underworld will lose a massive revenue stream. Fewer people will contract diseases from shared needles. Now, I'm not ignorant to the fact that legislative solutions nearly always have unintended consequences. With that being said, serious drug reform looks much better than the current status quo. Prohibition is nasty business.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

So why make that a criminal offence? It's possible to use even addictive drugs without becoming addicted as long as there are services available, the correct purity controls etc. There are plenty of people who choose to drink alcohol.

As a biomed student lemme let you in on a fact.

It's MONSTROUSLY hard for people to escape some addictions, particularly meth. Like almost impossibly hard. Here in the UK the NHS would pay for such a service, and honestly knowing the chemical basis of how this shit gets inside you and how difficult it is to escape I definitely think that even with legalisation there should be exceptions or extra rules. Simply seeing the depravity some people are sucked into just to get the next fix turns my stomach.

If you choose to use and you understand it all and you like it thats fine, and actually when i become a doctor I intend going to be fairly vocal on the legalisation of lower class drugs but drug or no I believe any product that chemically forces the user to crave more against their will or otherwise is something terrifying that a corporation shouldnt be able to have as a cash cow. After all, just tempt a user into the first few hits and you have a forced customer for life, the only other option being months of painful agonising detox and withdrawal.

I dont get on board the moral brigade, but I dislike big Pharma as it is, HEAVILY dislike to be frank. And to let them wield this much power scares me. I dont want a company to be able to get customers for life using addiction as a tool. Its bad enough in America that companies milk cancer patients for life saving drugs, this is arguably just as bad.

Obviously this varies by drug but when you see the success stats for quitting meth you realise that in some categories there really isnt any choice. Once youre fucked youre almost certainly fucked for good. An unwilling customer for as long as you live. No organisation should have such a slavish hold on anyone. Obviously as someone with medical knowledge I know marijuana has a range of uses for therapies and isnt addictive, so in my opinion thats the obvious drug to have legalised first.

I cant argue against the legalisation of highly addictive substances on a crime basis, as portugal will demonstrate crime will probably decrease. However handing that power over to a company that will continue to sink chemical hooks into people isnt that much better, and frankly they have more funding to get better at doing it. Much better. It needs to be HIGHLY discouraged but I wouldnt know how, thats a legal issue rather than a medical issue.

 

[Erttheking]

I feel like highly addictive drugs should be illegal, but I feel like we miss the forest through the trees when we persecute people who buy the stuff instead of focusing on the dealers. I mean what's the point in prosecuting a heroin addict? "That drug will ruin your life, so we'll ruin your life with the legal system." Don't send them to jail, send them to rehab.

 

[CrystalViolet]

As a biomed student lemme let you in on a fact.

As a biomed graduate you're not actually letting me in on any fact.

It's MONSTROUSLY hard for people to escape some addictions, particularly meth. Like almost impossibly hard. Here in the UK the NHS would pay for such a service, and honestly knowing the chemical basis of how this shit gets inside you and how difficult it is to escape I definitely think that even with legalisation there should be exceptions or extra rules.

Some people are always going to take meth anyway, legal or not. Not many people are going to opt for that crystal stuff when quality-controlled methylphenidate, amphetamines, or MDMA are available.

I dont get on board the moral brigade, but I dislike big Pharma as it is, HEAVILY dislike to be frank. And to let them wield this much power scares me. I dont want a company to be able to get customers for life using addiction as a tool. Its bad enough in America that companies milk cancer patients for life saving drugs, this is arguably just as bad.

I don't like pharmaceutical companies either but we need the stuff we produce. The drug legalisation roadmap produced by Transform Drug Policy in the UK actually proposes measures against exploitation by pharma companies. It wouldn't be a free for all but a tightly regulated industry. Also one of the proposed models would have chemists as having the exclusive right to dispense.

I feel like highly addictive drugs should be illegal, but I feel like we miss the forest through the trees when we persecute people who buy the stuff instead of focusing on the dealers. I mean what's the point in prosecuting a heroin addict? "That drug will ruin your life, so we'll ruin your life with the legal system." Don't send them to jail, send them to rehab.

Even though I disagree with your position that highly addictive drugs should be illegal I feel that you're at least looking at it from a pragmatic and likely unbiased perspective.

I've never seen a bright fellow use marijuana (all of them, redgardless whether or not I've met them in real life or talked with them over the internet, they've all been complete halfwits)

I'll have to assume you include me in your list of halfwits despite all the evidence I've offered you to the contrary. We'll chalk it off to a confirmation heuristic.

It is simply amazing that people think legalising Meth, Cocaine and Heroin is actually a good thing, just goes to show hwo fucking ignorant people can be,

Read my arguments above. I think you'll be hard-pressed to come up with a compelling counter-argument.

it fucking ruins lives people,

So we should ruin their lives by putting them in jail instead?

but no one is impressed by your edginess, those drugs are fucking dangerous.

I'm not trying to impress anyone.

have you heard testimonies of people who have abused these drugs?

Yes.

It is funny to see though internet-"sociologists" argue that every problem would be completly and utterly solved by legalization, with no problems whatsoever.

All of my arguments for decriminalisation and a highly regulated market are sound. I'm yet to see a single person in this thread claim that this model would solve all of our problems without issue. I challenge you to find one. You probably won't though because you've clearly already made up your mind.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

As a biomed graduate you're not actually letting me in on any fact.

Im presumptuous as fuck and owe you an apology. Ive been grouchy all morning since I started at 8 30 and my immunology tutorial was cancelled without my knowledge meaning i got up for nothing. Shouldnt have dick waved.

Some people are always going to take meth anyway, legal or not. Not many people are going to opt for that crystal stuff when quality-controlled methylphenidate, amphetamines, or MDMA are available.

True, but thats not really my problem with it to be honest, its more about the unavoidable power dynamic between buyer and seller that puts one at a massive disadvantage. The idea even a % of people become trapped in an almost inescapable relationship where they need to feed money to a company to not suffer terrible symptoms sits badly with me, regardless of if they enter willingly or not the lack of an ability to exit willingly (without EXTREME physical effort) punishes people so monstrously hard for a few bad decisions. I dont want there to be an acceptable precedent to set up such obviously parasitic relationships between companies and people.

I don't like pharmaceutical companies either but we need the stuff we produce. The drug legalisation roadmap produced by Transform Drug Policy in the UK actually proposes measures against exploitation by pharma companies. It wouldn't be a free for all but a tightly regulated industry. Also one of the proposed models would have chemists as having the exclusive right to dispense.

Thats definitely interesting and I'll give the map a look. It would definitely need to be, the relationship between seller and buyer for addictive substances need not be toxic and parasitic, but its so stupidly easy for it to become like that. It would certainly need a lot of regulation to protect buyers, with many government sanctioned opportunities to escape the addiction. More research would be ideal in defeating meth addiction, I did a little personal research after watching breaking bad and seeing how poor the success is really shocked me.

That said I think your position, from a purely isolated moral perspective, is totally reasonable and I cannot find fault, recreational drugs certainly wont destroy society from legalisation. I'm against protecting people from themselves against their will but on the same basis im against any system where people lose the ability to exit a relationship without extreme personal cost. Its a difficult balance, ill do some reading on the proposed plans and see how they sit with me. This would definitely be an interesting subject for a summer research project. Although experimentation in this area will certainly be almost impossible to do for a lowly under grad researcher(due to the illegality of crystal meth).

Certainly I believe its totally tragic that currently drug addiction (against the will of the user) is a crime rather than a medical issue. Certainly even with legalisation addiction related crime would be handled as both a medical and a criminal case.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Im presumptuous as fuck and owe you an apology. Ive been grouchy all morning since I started at 8 30 and my immunology tutorial was cancelled without my knowledge meaning i got up for nothing. Shouldnt have dick waved.

That's okay

Thats definitely interesting and I'll give the map a look. It would definitely need to be, the relationship between seller and buyer for addictive substances need not be toxic and parasitic, but its so stupidly easy for it to become like that. It would certainly need a lot of regulation to protect buyers, with many government sanctioned opportunities to escape the addiction.

I highly recommend reading the roadmap because it sounds like it would interest you. It's pretty basic but it does a good job of listing how the various models could be applied to different drug types. I don't think any of the models allow for a direct distribution from the pharmaceutical companies. That doesn't mean that no vendor would exploit people but with the correct regulations in place it would keep it to a minimum.

More research would be ideal in defeating meth addiction, I did a little personal research after watching breaking bad and seeing how poor the success is really shocked me.

Have you read about the research into LSD as a therapeutic agent for addiction? I'm on my phone so it would be a pain to link but there's some promising research into LSD for the treatment of alcohol and cigarette addiction. There's nothing on meth addiction that I know of though.

Its a difficult balance, ill do some reading on the proposed plans and see how they sit with me.

I wish more people would do the same

 

[Jonluw]

True, but thats not really my problem with it to be honest, its more about the unavoidable power dynamic between buyer and seller that puts one at a massive disadvantage. The idea even a % of people become trapped in an almost inescapable relationship where they need to feed money to a company to not suffer terrible symptoms sits badly with me, regardless of if they enter willingly or not the lack of an ability to exit willingly (without EXTREME physical effort) punishes people so monstrously hard for a few bad decisions. I dont want there to be an acceptable precedent to set up such obviously parasitic relationships between companies and people.

Opiates really are the difficult part of successful drug reform.
Of course, we're already selling highly addictive nicotine with few inhibitions, but it's not like we want more of that kind of stuff. But reallly, I don't think we'd be better off with a black market with tobacco of questionable origin and quality. Tobacco use has been declining lately: it looks like the most effective deterrent to using harmful drugs is a well-educated public.
Here in Norway it's illegal to advertise any drug at all (except stuff like over-the-counter painkillers), and I honestly think that should just be common sense. Of course, people are still earning money from the sales, but your right to alter your own body chemistry should never be influenced by people who are incentivized by money.

However, I'm with you that no one should be able to earn money selling stuff that has the kind of withdrawal symptoms heroin does.
That includes black-market dealers. The way it works now, in Norway at least, is that the government supplies clean needles for addicts in order to limit the spread of bloodborne diseases. In some places, they're also giving addicts special rooms to shoot up in.
I think this is good. We need to view opiate addiction as a health problem: the addicts' lives are certainly not made better by the threat of prison.
But why then, when we're trying to help these people cope with their addiction, do we still force them to buy drugs of questionable quality from street dealers? I know it sounds crazy at first, but why not simply arrange an institution where opiate addicts may pay a small fee and receive a clean dose of their drug in a safe environment, free from criminal persecution. Here they will also be offered help with getting rid of the addiction if they wish. It removes actively drugged people from the streets, and reduces the danger of overdosing significantly. In addition, the clinical setting should make it fairly unappealing for people who are not already addicted to the stuff. Ideally, this institution wouldn't even offer drugs to people who aren't already addicted. Which means to become an addict in the first place, you'd either have to have an unfortunate run-in with medical drugs like the friend of an earlier poster, or somehow get into contact with street dealers for that first hit.
Thing is, if users start going to the government institution after that first hit (because of low prices and superior product), there's no incentive for dealers to be selling these drugs in the first place as they can't count on people coming back for more.
This should lower recruitment to the drug significantly and weaken the black market quite a bit.
I have no faith that this will cause opiate use to increase, since these drugs are of the kind where the effects are the greatest disincentive to use. If you're already not worried about getting addicted to heroin, chances are you're not worried about the fact that it's illegal.

Of course, the most important part of giving the public a healthier relationship with drugs is honest education and a far better mental healthcare offer than what we have today. Mental health needs to be destigmatized.

 

[Dizchu]

I think some of the more dangerous drugs shouldn't be freely available, but cannabis? Absoluately, there are already much more harmful drugs available in shops, the only restriction being age (in the UK you must be 18+).

When it comes to recreational drugs other than cannabis... it really depends on how addictive/physically harmful they are. I'm sure LSD in moderation (and under supervision) could be relatively "safe" due to its non-addictive nature and low toxicity (though the hallucinatory nature of the drug could have really bad effects).

But then there's stuff like cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine that I'm a lot less comfortable with. They're not as harmless and non-addictive (but then again neither's tobacco, and that's readily available).

But regardless of how dangerous the drugs are, I think users shouldn't be treated like criminals. Addicts need to see doctors, not prison cells. And of course, not all users are addicts.

 

[CrystalViolet]

I love how you're counterargument for the fact that it ruins people's lives are "but putting them in jail does too".

A perfectly valid argument. Had you read my previous comments you would see that there's more to it than that. I would like to see addiction treated as a medical issue because that helps people, whereas putting them in jail perpetuates the problem. I'm a police detective and I've heard countless cases of people trying heroin for the first time while in prison for other minor drug offences. There are many addicts who can't receive help due to the stigma and legal barriers. I'm not saying anything new here.

Legalizing it will get more people to use them, this is true of everything you legalize, this isn't a thing of "dur, people get it anyway", everything gets higher demand when it's legal, that's just how things are.

That's not how things are. Cannabis consumption is actually fairly low compared to the rest of Europe in the Netherlands where it's freely available in coffee shops whereas the UK has the highest rate of MDMA and LSD use in the world. Even if we were to assume that the demand would increase (which most likely wouldn't happen) people would have access to clean opium and methylphenidates instead of adulterated heroin and crystal. Nobody will eat a kebab from someone's van when there's a perfectly good kebab shop across the street.

Thing is, drug addicts aren't the only ones who get their lives ruined, their acquaintances, friends and family all often suffer horribly due to their addiction, it's really ugly stuff.

Yes, in the current legal climate where addiction goes untreated due to stigma and legal consequences.

Now, what you have to do here, is look at what positive effects this might have, so far you've metnioned:

People's lives get ruined if they get put in jail (which is half true, but irrelevant since you can put people in rehab instead of jail)

It's your choice not to read the rest of the comments in this thread but when you do so you withdraw your right to list my arguments and still be taken seriously. Go ahead, actually read the rest of the thread and you'll find many more solid arguments, otherwise you just look like an ignoramus.

Dem tax moneyzz

That's not actually an argument I made. Your attempts to paint me as a fool backfire when you make assumptions.

And..., that's it.

Now read your very next line...

I couldn't be bothered to look through more comments,

Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen.

-the rest of your platitude-

You've offered nothing new here. Every point you've made I've responded to in the thread.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Even if we were to assume that the demand would increase (which most likely wouldn't happen) people would have access to clean opium and methylphenidates instead of adulterated heroin and crystal.

Just to check, you mean pharmaceutical grade diamorphine yes? Given the choice between "clean" opium (kinda pointless, you're going to smoke it anyway, adulterants aren't going to be much of a problem barring strength) and street heroin, it's the latter every time.
It might work itself out over a generation but you aren't going to persuade many current heroin users to do solely opium.

 

[Javetts Eall Raksha]

i'm pretty liberal (actual liberal, not American liberal) and i really don't see why it's anyone's business what you do to yourself. of course the driving while under the influence effects others, so it should be illegal in that instance. but i'm big on the idea that you own you. i also have a very simple philosophy on crime. a simple two point thought as to what should constitute a crime. 1: for there to be a crime, there must be a victim, 2: someone can't be both the victim and the guilty party in a crime.

under this i really can't see drug use of any kind being a crime.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Just to check, you mean pharmaceutical grade diamorphine yes?

No, diamorphine is just heroin. I mean unrefined opium with less abuse potential. Diamorphine would also be legal under this proposal but there would be strong systems in place that would favour opium over diamorphine for obvious reasons.

Given the choice between "clean" opium (kinda pointless, you're going to smoke it anyway, adulterants aren't going to be much of a problem barring strength) and street heroin, it's the latter every time.

Actually adulterants would be a huge problem if dealers were to actually cut it but most of them just trade in heroin anyway.

It might work itself out over a generation but you aren't going to persuade many current heroin users to do solely opium.

I do agree which is why it would have to be a long term plan. The plan would be to weed addicts off heroin using clean diamorphine, methadone or fentanyl and to discourage people from taking opiates in general. At least in this system those at risk of experimentation are more likely to use clean opium than dirty street heroin.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

No, diamorphine is just heroin.

Well aware of that, thanks.

I mean unrefined opium with less abuse potential. Diamorphine would also be legal under this proposal but there would be strong systems in place that would favour opium over diamorphine for obvious reasons.

Fair point, probably a good idea.

Actually adulterants would be a huge problem if dealers were to actually cut it but most of them just trade in heroin anyway.

Eh, can't say it'd be any worse than shitty soap bar hash.

I do agree which is why it would have to be a long term plan. The plan would be to weed addicts off heroin using clean diamorphine, methadone or fentanyl and to discourage people from taking opiates in general. At least in this system those at risk of experimentation are more likely to use clean opium than dirty street heroin.

Good plan