Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread)

[Rosy]

Ludicrous to make drugs legal then spend money and time teaching people about how bad they are for you and treating them in the health system....those who aren't dead in the gutters or in jail for murdering others that is.

Surely you wouldn't all like to change the rules so your kids can legally be smashed off their face on drugs of addiction? There's not a lot of control in dosage when it comes to drugs and it is very easy to od. There also isn't massive step to go from recreational user to addict for certain types of personalities.

I'm glad they're not issues that confronted myself and kids and I'm extremely confident they'll never be issues that my grandkids experience either. No chance of them being legalised. :blah

 

[IanG]

Ludicrous to make drugs legal then spend money and time teaching people about how bad they are for you and treating them in the health system....those who aren't dead in the gutters or in jail for murdering others that is.

The money spent on law enforcement that will be saved plus whatever taxes they can get can go to education and treatment.

 

[Disco08]

You'd have to have some very good reasons to legalise dope King lamby. What are they?

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/60959/

 

[collector]

glad to see I'm not the only one making wild claims with no evidence to back it up

Are you trying to suggest that legalisation and along with it, regulation and removal of the criminal element would not drag the prices down?


The crime associated with drugs IS largely related to either #a - Funding issues or #b - The criminal element attached to the scene.

^ Both of these issues dissapear by bring the problem into the mainstream and dealing with it as a health issue, not a criminal issue.


People need to look at the issue rationally.

 

[collector]

those who aren't dead in the gutters

Realistically, how many die each year from illicit drug use?

or in jail for murdering others that is.

What murders would people be commiting?

Surely you wouldn't all like to change the rules so your kids can legally be smashed off their face on drugs of addiction?

Or maybe those who are parents out there in Australia can understand that #a - They need to parent their own kids, and not infringe on other peoples lives in doing so & #b - Many of us nowdays don't breed, and don't give a crap about anyone elses kids.

Simple fact is, if your kids wanted to use drugs, they would have (From your postings I am assuming they never did) regardless of it's legal status.

In any school in the country, you can get hold of any substance you want & if you think any teenager in the country is put off by something being illegal ... well lol

Legalisation simply means we stop demonising those who have a health problem.

There also isn't massive step to go from recreational user to addict for certain types of personalities.

Gee, sounds like many people who attend regular AA meetings.

No chance of them being legalised.

& 100 years ago, women were second class citizens with virtually no equal rights whatsoever.

How times change when people think rationally...


Don't kid yourself, as my generation and the ones below me become a bigger % of the population, changes will happen that the older gens won't like.

 

[dukeos]

Harm minimisation and education is the real benefit of decriminalisation. It is no longer a criminal problem, to be swept under the carpet - it becomes a health and education issue that can be treated maturely like say depression or a gambling addiction. A problem to be tackled at high school, like sex education and with real ad campaigns informingv the public,not scaring them.

I agree. I think burglary is 80-90% commited for drugs, not profit.
Imagine all the police resources freed up.
Its easier these days to buy a pill in the loo, than line up for a beer, legalising wont make it more popular. Speaking openly and education about what a moron you are for taking in the first place is the way imo.
And those low life gutter dealers would have all there income cut. Bonus!

 

[Rosy]

Thanks Disco. Do you agree with those 10 points? I was more interested in Lamby's personal opinions for his stance.

I don't place much weight in the reasons given

1-1. Marijuana users are determined to stand up to the injustice of marijuana probation and accomplish legalization, no matter how long or what it takes to succeed.
........
Marijuana will be legalized because marijuana users will continue to fight for it until they succeed.



What kind of reason is that for it to be legalised? It would be a sad world if all protesters and activists got their way simply for putting up a fight.


2. Marijuana use has positive attributes, such as its medical value and use as a recreational drug with relatively mild side effects. Many people use marijuana because they have made an informed decision that it is good for them
........
Most marijuana users develop tolerance to many of marijuana's side effects, and those who do not, choose to stop using the drug.


There are down sides as well. It's known to contain more carcinogens than tobacco. Can cause paranoia, social withdrawal, impaired ability to function physically, increased risk of heart attack, agitation etc.

Some may stop using the drug if they develop a tolerance to it's side effects but there are also those who progress to different, and possibly more damaging, drugs. Can lead to addiction and/or death due to dodgy batches and overdosing.

3. Marijuana is too expensive for our justice system and should instead be taxed to support beneficial government programs. Law enforcement has more important responsibilities than arresting 750,000 individuals a year for marijuana possession, especially given the additional justice costs of disposing of each of these cases.

Why should Yankee statistics mean we should legalise dope in Australia? No evidence given whatsoever to support the costs to the justice system compared to the taxes legalising could bring in.

4. Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans

Yet again no evidence to support the claims. How can something that contains carcinogens be guaranteed non-toxic to humans?


5. Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation.


That sounds like personal opinion to suit an agenda when the article fails to support their claims with too much evidence or fact.


6. Marijuana's legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions.


I suppose they are referring to industrial hemp which is used throughout the world?


7. Legalized marijuana would reduce the flow of money from the American economy to international criminal gangs.


Not a lot reason to legalise it in Australia.


8. A regulated, legal market in marijuana would reduce marijuana sales and use among teenagers, as well as reduce their exposure to other drugs in the illegal market.


No evidence whatsoever given to support that. In fact I'd dispute the opinion. The easier it is to get, and the more acceptable it's made to society by legalising it, could also make it more likely kids use it simply because it's accessible and deemed acceptable.


9. Arrests for marijuana possession disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics and reinforce the perception that law enforcement is biased and prejudiced against minorities.


I see no reason in that for cannibas to be legalised in Australia.



10. Prohibition has failed to control the use and domestic production of marijuana.


There is little control over the production and use of any drugs, hardly a reason to legalise them though.

If the tobacco industry is used as a precedent legalising marijuana could lead to criminal activity and a black market too. Again no evidence to support that as a reason to legalise.

 

[Disco08]

In general I agree with them rosy. They seem like common sense to me.

What kind of reason is that for it to be legalised? It would be a sad world if all protesters and activists got their way simply for putting up a fight.

Agreed, not much of an argument being made there.

There are down sides as well. It's known to contain more carcinogens than tobacco. Can cause paranoia, social withdrawal, impaired ability to function physically, increased risk of heart attack, agitation etc.

Some (or many) legal, synthetic drugs have far more dramatic side effects than marijuana. It's all about weighing up the good and bad and many people, including many experts, seem to think the positive side of controlled marijuana use far outweighs the side effects.

Why should Yankee statistics mean we should legalise dope in Australia? No evidence given whatsoever to support the costs to the justice system compared to the taxes legalising could bring in.

Look at the places that have legalised it. Their economies enjoyed the same positive results being predicted here. I'm sure these predictions would be similar for just about all western countries. Taxes would generate massive revenue.

Yet again no evidence to support the claims. How can something that contains carcinogens be guaranteed non-toxic to humans?

Carcinogens are only produced at that level when marijuana is burnt. If governments chose to legalise it they could offer the same drug in food or drink form, basically eradicating that problem entirely.

That sounds like personal opinion to suit an agenda when the article fails to support their claims with too much evidence or fact.

I guess. Prohibition has used those tactics in the past though. There's no reason to believe this situation should be any different.

I suppose they are referring to industrial hemp which is used throughout the world?

In this case I'm sure they're referring to the US, where growing any type of hemp is illegal.

Not a lot reason to legalise it in Australia.

What if we substitute the word "American" with "Australian"?

No evidence whatsoever given to support that. In fact I'd dispute the opinion. The easier it is to get, and the more acceptable it's made to society by legalising it, could also make it more likely kids use it simply because it's accessible and deemed acceptable.

No evidence, but sound reasoning was given IMO. Kids selling pot to their friends has been going on in schools for years, and gets worse every year. Take away the economic benefit to the dealers and the problem may be reduced.

There is little control over the production and use of any drugs, hardly a reason to legalise them though.

I think the point is that legalisation would create control.

 

[Rosy]

Carcinogens are only produced at that level when marijuana is burnt. If governments chose to legalise it they could offer the same drug in food or drink form, basically eradicating that problem entirely.

So legalise it in some forms but ban it in others?  Then the argument would be why is it legal to smoke tobacco but not cannabis.  How would it be controlled?  Who could or couldn't grow it?  How would it be policed?  What about the effects of chemicals used in commercial production?    A lot more study and research in many areas would need to be done before it even looked like a possibility.

So many questions and so few answers.  I haven't yet seen one convincing argument on here for the legalisation of cannabis.  And that's from someone who once, in uninformed ignorance, strongly supported it's legalisation.

 

[Rosy]

Realistically, how many die each year from illicit drug use?

I don't have the figures for that but it isn't a rare occurrence. The more readily acceptable and available dangerous drugs are the possibility the numbers will increase.

What murders would people be commiting?

I gave one example of someone I know. He was sitting with some mates watching tv when one of them went and got a knife and killed him in an unprovoked, uncharacteristic, drug fuelled stabbing frenzy.

Gee, sounds like many people who attend regular AA meetings.

Gee that's strong support for legalising drugs. :hihi

Simple fact is, if your kids wanted to use drugs, they would have (From your postings I am assuming they never did) regardless of it's legal status.

You are wrong to assume. My kids and I have open discussions about our experiences, and/or lack thereof, in regard to drugs. Simple fact, as you might consider it to be, is still no reason to legalise them.

Don't kid yourself, as my generation and the ones below me become a bigger % of the population, changes will happen that the older gens won't like.

And legalising harmful drugs won't be one of them.


I'd be interested to know who on this thread has personal experience with drug use, and the type of drugs used, and the drug culture and who is posting in complete ignorance.

I have nothing against marijuana really. I don't see any good reason given so far to support legalising it.

I am dead against harder drugs being legalised and accepted in society.

 

[Disco08]

So legalise it in some forms but ban it in others? Then the argument would be why is it legal to smoke tobacco but not cannabis. How would it be controlled?

Give people the choice. Smoke it if you don't care about the carcinogens and don't if you do.

Who could or couldn't grow it?

I'd assume they'd allow small amounts for personal use and issue licenses for larger production, as they do in places that have already legalised it long ago.

How would it be policed? What about the effects of chemicals used in commercial production? A lot more study and research in many areas would need to be done before it even looked like a possibility.

I'm sure there's been plenty of study and research done on the subject. Spain recently relaxed it's stance on marijuana for instance. I'm sure they didn't do that without careful consideration. Similarly, California now has hundreds of dispensaries legally distributing drugs to medical patients. Again, I'm sure that decision wasn't made lightly.

 

[Tiger74]

I don't have the figures for that but it isn't a rare occurrence. The more readily acceptable and available dangerous drugs are the possibility the numbers will increase.

ABS had drug induced deaths for 2000 at around 1560 for the year. their definition for drug excludes tobacco, alcohol, and petrol

 

[Rosy]

Give people the choice. Smoke it if you don't care about the carcinogens and don't if you do.

Considering cigarette smoke related illness is costing a fortune in both the health system and educating people about the perils it would seem strange to legalise something known to produce carcinogens when smoked. A lot of research would need to be done in regard to the potential health effects

I'd assume they'd allow small amounts for personal use and issue licenses for larger production, as they do in places that have already legalised it long ago.

I don't understand that assumption given the laws banning the growth of tobacco for personal use...and the Govt's vested interest in controlling it largely due to the multi-billions in taxes it generates. The tobacco industry is known to be dodgy with an underworld element simmering below the surface. I can't see them legalising dope plants for personal use while outlawing backyard tobacco.

I'm sure there's been plenty of study and research done on the subject. Spain recently relaxed it's stance on marijuana for instance. I'm sure they didn't do that without careful consideration. Similarly, California now has hundreds of dispensaries legally distributing drugs to medical patients. Again, I'm sure that decision wasn't made lightly.

The 10 reasons you gave for legalising cannabis didn't show much evidence of research. I'd be more interested to read how and why Spain relaxed it's stance.

Cannabis prescribed legally for medical patients is a different matter to it being legalised for everybody's general use. I too doubt the decision was made lightly. Is it legal there for general, non medicinal usage too? I'd be interested in the reasons for a decision in that regard.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Hi Rosy,

Interesting discussion this.

Do you consider smoking to be "acceptable" in our society? Is it portrayed as such in the modern media?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Alright, I'm convinced. There is no way marijuana can be legalised. Just check out the consequences!

 

[Baloo]

Are you trying to suggest that legalisation and along with it, regulation and removal of the criminal element would not drag the prices down?

Depends on what taxes are thrown into the mix as the government would see it as a money spinner.

The crime associated with drugs IS largely related to either #a - Funding issues or #b - The criminal element attached to the scene.

Sorry, but the escalation of violence we're seeing in society today is due to the effects that certain drugs have on a person. These beatings, stabbings, murders etc that are a regular occurrence these days have a direct correlation with the rise of methamphetamine use. This violence isn't a robbery, it's a rage.

^ Both of these issues disappear by bring the problem into the mainstream and dealing with it as a health issue, not a criminal issue.

As you can see, I disagree.

People need to look at the issue rationally.

Yes, but they need to look at both sides rationally. Not all drugs are as mellow as pot.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Sorry, but the escalation of violence we're seeing in society today is due to the effects that certain drugs have on a person. These beatings, stabbings, murders etc that are a regular occurrence these days have a direct correlation with the rise of methamphetamine use. This violence isn't a robbery, it's a rage.

All the more reason to ensure dosage and content are regulated. Coupled with education and harm minimisation we would have better controlled situation. As you assert, people are using the drug in greater numbers. How is that possible when it is illegal? Would you start using drugs if they were available? Why or why not?

Yes, but they need to look at both sides rationally. Not all drugs are as mellow as pot.

Yes, like alcohol (my personal drug of choice :beer).

 

[lamb22]

Hi Rosy. Just came back to this thread but I think legalisation is a no brainer for a number of reasons, including:

1. It would reduce the profits available to and presently made by criminals.
2. Part of those profits would make their way to Government to enact better education or health policies in relation to marijuana use.
3. Police resources would be freed up to actually catch bad guys.
4. Less burglaries and home invasions by addicts looking for cash.
5. Better treatment for addicts as criminality is not an issue.
6. Overseas evidence doesn't show an increase in addiction rates whether a drug is legal or not.

So in summary less crooks, less crime, more efficient police force, more money for health and education, better treatment (health and society wise) for addicts. Happy society all round and large increase in sale of burger rings at 3.00 am.

In my opinion it is really a no brainer. I think it will actually happen within the next genetration although people will need more convincing on 'harder' drugs.

PS As I said earlier children should be protected and strict penalties should apply for peddling drugs to minors.

 

[taztiger4]

Hi Rosy. Just came back to this thread but I think legalisation is a no brainer for a number of reasons, including:

So in summary less crooks, less crime, more efficient police force, more money for health and education, better treatment (health and society wise) for addicts. Happy society all round and large increase in sale of burger rings at 3.00 am.

also add to your summary, more vehicle deaths,more stabbings,more rapes ,fire bombings ,anti social behaviour etc etc

 

[Disco08]

From pot?

I live in a small town, and in this town the local constabulary turn a blind eye (anecdotally) to small time marijuana use because when the town has pot, everything's quite calm. When it's dry, fights and crime in general increase substantially.

Honestly, if you think violence comes as a result of smoking pot, you're a long way off the mark mate.