Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Personally I'd work towards legalisation with it regulated in much the same way as alcohol.
It would need to be much more heavily regulated than alcohol.
2004 I lived in toronto for a year. Surprised and delighted to learn that alcohol is only sold by state owned and regulated shops, with all proceeds going back into public spending.
Much as I instinctively agree with Baz that drugs are too vile to legalize, if I try and look at some sort of alt view, the only one I could possibly reconcile is that the state owns and operates any and all retail units.
Spend a week or 2 in the homes (without trying to sound like a twat), and I use that word loosely, or seeing families literally waiting for the day someone finally pegs it, to just the all consuming need that when your life has just been saved you absolutely HAVE to go and get more and risk killing yourself again. I could go on. Retailing this is a very very bad idea no matter who "controls" it, I use the inverted commas because it controls the user.
You could say all of that for alcohol. I see no sensible distinction. Diamorphine is a lot less detrimental to general health than alcohol.
Also what Digby said.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
I also agree with hat Digby has said, its a bit of a tight rope.
The biggest argument in my head against legalization is that we have enough problems with the legal drugs currently available, thinking mostly of alcohol. I think it inevitable that adding more legal drugs to the mix will mean more societal problems.
I'd be interested in seeing data from areas that are experimenting with legalization tho.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Donny osmond wrote:
It would need to be much more heavily regulated than alcohol.
2004 I lived in toronto for a year. Surprised and delighted to learn that alcohol is only sold by state owned and regulated shops, with all proceeds going back into public spending.
Much as I instinctively agree with Baz that drugs are too vile to legalize, if I try and look at some sort of alt view, the only one I could possibly reconcile is that the state owns and operates any and all retail units.
Spend a week or 2 in the homes (without trying to sound like a twat), and I use that word loosely, or seeing families literally waiting for the day someone finally pegs it, to just the all consuming need that when your life has just been saved you absolutely HAVE to go and get more and risk killing yourself again. I could go on. Retailing this is a very very bad idea no matter who "controls" it, I use the inverted commas because it controls the user.
It's a fair point, but it's not like we've a control over supply as things stand, what's in the supply isn't regulated, people don't have access to clean needles, treatment centres and the like, the money is going back into crime and helps fund any number of disgusting things, and there's a decent amount of crime to fund those wanting to pay for something that's currently criminal.
I'd favour legalisation even just to have a safe place to take the crap for the users, but with all the impacts the trade in heroin has beyond just the users I'd certainly back legalisation. I'd hope no one would take it, but making god awful decisions is for me a person's right, and it's not like it's hard to get hold of anyway
I'd like to see sterile treatment centres give access to heroin rather than the methadone being dished out at pharmacies but don't want it being available to the general population
Donny osmond wrote:
It would need to be much more heavily regulated than alcohol.
2004 I lived in toronto for a year. Surprised and delighted to learn that alcohol is only sold by state owned and regulated shops, with all proceeds going back into public spending.
Much as I instinctively agree with Baz that drugs are too vile to legalize, if I try and look at some sort of alt view, the only one I could possibly reconcile is that the state owns and operates any and all retail units.
Spend a week or 2 in the homes (without trying to sound like a twat), and I use that word loosely, or seeing families literally waiting for the day someone finally pegs it, to just the all consuming need that when your life has just been saved you absolutely HAVE to go and get more and risk killing yourself again. I could go on. Retailing this is a very very bad idea no matter who "controls" it, I use the inverted commas because it controls the user.
You could say all of that for alcohol. I see no sensible distinction. Diamorphine is a lot less detrimental to general health than alcohol.
Also what Digby said.
You could but it's not to the same extent, that's a sensible enough distinction for me. You're right but only if you take the substance in isolation and don't look at other factors.
OptimisticJock wrote:
Spend a week or 2 in the homes (without trying to sound like a twat), and I use that word loosely, or seeing families literally waiting for the day someone finally pegs it, to just the all consuming need that when your life has just been saved you absolutely HAVE to go and get more and risk killing yourself again. I could go on. Retailing this is a very very bad idea no matter who "controls" it, I use the inverted commas because it controls the user.
It's a fair point, but it's not like we've a control over supply as things stand, what's in the supply isn't regulated, people don't have access to clean needles, treatment centres and the like, the money is going back into crime and helps fund any number of disgusting things, and there's a decent amount of crime to fund those wanting to pay for something that's currently criminal.
I'd favour legalisation even just to have a safe place to take the crap for the users, but with all the impacts the trade in heroin has beyond just the users I'd certainly back legalisation. I'd hope no one would take it, but making god awful decisions is for me a person's right, and it's not like it's hard to get hold of anyway
I'd like to see sterile treatment centres give access to heroin rather than the methadone being dished out at pharmacies but don't want it being available to the general population
I shouldn't imagine the general population will want access. There might be a bump in drugs use, but if only minor and it drops the amount of crime to fund crime I'd take the trade off, but I confess I'm not just looking at this with a concern for individual addicts.
Digby wrote:
It's a fair point, but it's not like we've a control over supply as things stand, what's in the supply isn't regulated, people don't have access to clean needles, treatment centres and the like, the money is going back into crime and helps fund any number of disgusting things, and there's a decent amount of crime to fund those wanting to pay for something that's currently criminal.
I'd favour legalisation even just to have a safe place to take the crap for the users, but with all the impacts the trade in heroin has beyond just the users I'd certainly back legalisation. I'd hope no one would take it, but making god awful decisions is for me a person's right, and it's not like it's hard to get hold of anyway
I'd like to see sterile treatment centres give access to heroin rather than the methadone being dished out at pharmacies but don't want it being available to the general population
I shouldn't imagine the general population will want access. There might be a bump in drugs use, but if only minor and it drops the amount of crime to fund crime I'd take the trade off, but I confess I'm not just looking at this with a concern for individual addicts.
It's not going to stop crime to fund crime though unless you want to give it a way free. I'm not looking at just the individual addict either.
Donny osmond wrote:I also agree with hat Digby has said, its a bit of a tight rope.
The biggest argument in my head against legalization is that we have enough problems with the legal drugs currently available, thinking mostly of alcohol. I think it inevitable that adding more legal drugs to the mix will mean more societal problems.
I'd be interested in seeing data from areas that are experimenting with legalization tho.
They didn't legalise it completely but didn't Portugal decriminalise all drugs in 2000? I seem to recall they had big issues previously and much higher rates of drug use and deaths, now those figures have been completely slashed.
OptimisticJock wrote:
I'd like to see sterile treatment centres give access to heroin rather than the methadone being dished out at pharmacies but don't want it being available to the general population
I shouldn't imagine the general population will want access. There might be a bump in drugs use, but if only minor and it drops the amount of crime to fund crime I'd take the trade off, but I confess I'm not just looking at this with a concern for individual addicts.
It's not going to stop crime to fund crime though unless you want to give it a way free. I'm not looking at just the individual addict either.
I'm not wedded to a position on giving it away for free, but I would be willing to, depending on circumstance.
Donny osmond wrote:I also agree with hat Digby has said, its a bit of a tight rope.
The biggest argument in my head against legalization is that we have enough problems with the legal drugs currently available, thinking mostly of alcohol. I think it inevitable that adding more legal drugs to the mix will mean more societal problems.
I'd be interested in seeing data from areas that are experimenting with legalization tho.
They didn't legalise it completely but didn't Portugal decriminalise all drugs in 2000? I seem to recall they had big issues previously and much higher rates of drug use and deaths, now those figures have been completely slashed.
Thanks for the link. Like I said before, instinctively I would be against legalizing drugs, however I don't want to be dogmatic about it and that PDF gives some good reasons for a change in the law to decriminalize some aspects of drug use.
To a lay person it seems similar to how some countries deal with sex work - the business side remains illegal, but treat the individuals involved with some leniency. It reads like Portugal are having some success with it, good luck to them.
I would still question if it would work here, different culture and all that, but I think its worth a try. The current system is clearly not working.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
