Should Weed Be Legal?

[Shtuggie]

And making crystal meth illegal changes any of this? Were it legal people would consume it in monitored conditions, where they can't rape or kill anyway. Drug fueled crimes would reduce dramatically in legalisation. This point is, yet another, slam dunk for me. In what's emerging as a pattern.

Using your basketball metaphor, this is quite clearly not a slam dunk but an attempted three pointer into the crowd...

The crystal meth example is an interesting one. What you are suggesting is that legalisation will result in people using drugs being monitored. How exactly will this happen? Padded locked rooms where they can't get out and interfere with the public?

Surely full legalisation and allowing adults to be trusted as to whether they use certain substances means they can use the drug if and when they see fit? Surely legalisation implies being able to use such substances, um, in places where there might be members of the public or presumably other drug users who they might harm unknowingly?

So, with legalisation of Crystal Meth for example, we would have to spend money on cordoning of specific areas for people to use the drug safely?

You cannot monitor someone on a 12 hour high and prevent them from wandering around in areas where they can harm people unless you have tremendous amounts of cash to throw at it.

Can you indicate how much we would have to tax such a drug to ensure we at least cover the costs of administrating it safely and ensuring people are monitored until the entire effects of the drug have worn off? Also, where would we have such safe havens for drug enthusiasts? Already over-crowded hospitals?

All interesting questions I would be curious to know the answer to. As I have stated, I am in favour of legalisation, but there is a tremendous amount of infrastructure to be put in place before something like that can happen. What would the initial outlay cost? Costs such as research into safe administration, centres for safe and monitored drug use etc.

A big chunk to spend before any swelling of the coffers from heavy taxation of the product...

Edited May 17, 2013 by Shtuggie

[LinkinFighter]

image.jpgimage.jpg

I've seen alcoholics a lot uglier than that. Ugly people will continue to exist no matter what they consume.

[Supras]

Please provide evidence that no-one would want it if it's legalised.

If it was legal, I would be waiting for the chemists to open first thing tomorrow morning to buy as much as I could, then go home and rub my face up and down an artex wall before wiping out my family and neighbours as it would be 10 times more fun than your repetitive, tedious, question avoiding, selective quoting pish.

Nobody wants it now, and more liberal drug policies in Canada and Portugal have decreased rates of use. It is definitive proof? Of course not, but it is evidence, and much more than you have provided in this thread.

Selective quoting? I've answered every point.

But yes, certainly in the initial period I would propose that any crystal meth user is monitored during their consumption of the drug, and during the effects of it. I've already posted this though, and you ignored it.

This is exactly the question you avoided earlier.

The meth is consumed in monitored conditions. Awesome. Are they then monitored for the 12+ hour high?

Um, no, I answered that question. And yes I think, certainly in the initial stage, that absolutely should be implemented. But I don't know why I'm bothering answering it again, given you totally avoided a direct answer last time.

I've got no interest in being very specific about what the un can and can't do. I'm happy to take the head of portugal's anti-drugs program's word that they "would have gotten into trouble with the un" if they had blanket legalisation. I would have thought he'd have a pretty good grip of the ins and outs of the situation. Happy for it to be shown that he's talking shit though.

They can't do anything to stop drug legalisation. They know it, and so does everybody else.

How would they have got in trouble, exactly? Decrimalisation is seen by many, including me, as a precursor to full legalisation. Mostly because decriminalisation, on its own, makes no logical sense. It's a step in the right direction, but doesn't do nearly enough. Portugal has had great success with decriminalisation, anything is a success compared to the war on drugs, but it will eventually mutate into full blown legalisation.

He may say he would get into trouble with the UN, but until he quantifies what this trouble would be it's hard to form a response to it.

The NHS bill would massively out weigh the tax revenues with a drug like crystal meth. Slam dunk me.

Also users would increase from the younger generation as making it legal is basically the government endorsing it.

You must know you are wrong on this crystal meth one and know it will never happen.

Weeds a different story all together but crystal meth come on. Your argument is flawed and TBF irrelevant.

Except in the case of tobacco the tax revenues outweigh the NHS costs. The same could easily be implemented with currently illegal drugs. That's not a slam dunk, that's another thing that you've posted that goes explicitly against the available evidence. Again, a running theme here.

There are plenty of things that are legal and not endorsed by the government. How can anyone take you seriously when you make a point as stupid as that? Do you think the government endorses smoking? Did all those anti smoking campaigns give it away? This isn't easy for me, I feel like Noam Chomsky vs. the BNP, it's a disconcerting mismatch.

What sections of my argument are flawed? Be specific. And whilst you are at it, state explicitly who benefits from Crystal Meth, or any drug, being illegal?

OK - I will happily ride the bus to the next stop. Can you prove that the NUMBER of fatalities would decrease even with increased usage due to safe administration etc?

By proof I mean directing me towards some of your research or a URL with articles validated statistics from these instances. What I don't mean by proof is you telling me that studies have been shown to reduce harm and use.

Okay, take the example of Vancouver supervised injection site - http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/

Deaths since opening in 2003 are zero, and that's with an average of 587 injections per day. According to some pretty in depth research, that is 11.7 overdose deaths averted per year - cited here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003351.

And that's a very conservative estimate for one facility only.

See that? Wonder if any of the supporters of the war on drugs will be citing studies? I do doubt it.

[Supras]

I just checked out Portugal's drug policy and there's been a rise in drug deaths recently (to levels similar to what they were before decriminalisation) and only among the young have usage rates declined. Wikipedia mind you

Do you have a source beyond wikipedia?

Using your basketball metaphor, this is quite clearly not a slam dunk but an attempted three pointer into the crowd...

The crystal meth example is an interesting one. What you are suggesting is that legalisation will result in people using drugs being monitored. How exactly will this happen? Padded locked rooms where they can't get out and interfere with the public?

Surely full legalisation and allowing adults to be trusted as to whether they use certain substances means they can use the drug if and when they see fit? Surely legalisation implies being able to use such substances, um, in places where there might be members of the public or presumably other drug users who they might harm unknowingly?

So, with legalisation of Crystal Meth for example, we would have to spend money on cordoning of specific areas for people to use the drug safely?

Exactly what currently happens in the supervised site in Vancouver, cited above. Certainly in the short term. In the long time controls could be lifted, after structured analysis and peer review.

You cannot monitor someone on a 12 hour high and prevent them from wandering around in areas where they can harm people unless you have tremendous amounts of cash to throw at it.

Can you indicate how much we would have to tax such a drug to ensure we at least cover the costs of administrating it safely and ensuring people are monitored until the entire effects of the drug have worn off? Also, where would we have such safe havens for drug enthusiasts? Already over-crowded hospitals?

If that is the high for crystal meth. But of course you can monitor, very easily and relatively cheaply. A padded room with a camera is all you'd need, and I stress again this is just short term. If it can be shown that these people can function in society using the drug, following extensive studies, it will be liberalised, and rightly so. But to determine that it would need to be closely monitored in the short term for several drugs.

I would use seperate facilities from hospitals. Of course, as with tobacco, tax revenues will be significantly larger than costs. But it's on economics where legalisation wins hands down, the cost of the war on drugs is absolutely enormous. It is one of the most financially wasteful policies the world has ever seen, legalisation would save the state billions purely by dismantling the wildly unsuccessful war on drugs.

All interesting questions I would be curious to know the answer to. As I have stated, I am in favour of legalisation, but there is a tremendous amount of infrastructure to be put in place before something like that can happen. What would the initial outlay cost? Costs such as research into safe administration, centres for safe and monitored drug use etc.

A big chunk to spend before any swelling of the coffers from heavy taxation of the product...

Not really. For most drugs the correct dosage and potency is already known, and it's fairly inexpensive to create health facilities such as those in Vancouver.

It's economic folly to continue with the war on drugs anyway, so if you're trying the economic argument, prepare to be soundly defeated.

[Shtuggie]

Do you have a source beyond wikipedia?

Exactly what currently happens in the supervised site in Vancouver, cited above. Certainly in the short term. In the long time controls could be lifted, after structured analysis and peer review.

If that is the high for crystal meth. But of course you can monitor, very easily and relatively cheaply. A padded room with a camera is all you'd need, and I stress again this is just short term. If it can be shown that these people can function in society using the drug, following extensive studies, it will be liberalised, and rightly so. But to determine that it would need to be closely monitored in the short term for several drugs.

I would use seperate facilities from hospitals. Of course, as with tobacco, tax revenues will be significantly larger than costs. But it's on economics where legalisation wins hands down, the cost of the war on drugs is absolutely enormous. It is one of the most financially wasteful policies the world has ever seen, legalisation would save the state billions purely by dismantling the wildly unsuccessful war on drugs.

Not really. For most drugs the correct dosage and potency is already known, and it's fairly inexpensive to create health facilities such as those in Vancouver.

It's economic folly to continue with the war on drugs anyway, so if you're trying the economic argument, prepare to be soundly defeated.

The statistics from Vancouver do make for very interesting reading, and it must be said that the initiative there has to be commended - very good indeed.

Not trying to play the economics card here at all, but I do not think it is as simple as taking money from the war on drugs efforts and chucking that into safe havens for users.

if we were to tax it to the extent of being able to sustain such centres, the cost of such a drug may be out of the reach of addicts who can get cheaper access currently. How will they continue to afford the drug under legalisation - would they be supplemented by the tax payer?

If they could not afford - is it reasonable to suggest that crimes such as robbery and theft would increase?

Or would the drug dealers who have suddenly lost their livelihood come up with more dangerous alternatives that these people would turn to in their desperation for a hit? Also, might they be able to illegally gain access to stocks of the now regulated drugs through theft and then dilute them with unsafe supplementary toxins to then sell on cheap to the addicts?

Edited May 17, 2013 by Shtuggie

[DEEJANGO]

Except in the case of tobacco the tax revenues outweigh the NHS costs. The same could easily be implemented with currently illegal drugs. That's not a slam dunk, that's another thing that you've posted that goes explicitly against the available evidence. Again, a running theme here.

There are plenty of things that are legal and not endorsed by the government. How can anyone take you seriously when you make a point as stupid as that? Do you think the government endorses smoking? Did all those anti smoking campaigns give it away? This isn't easy for me, I feel like Noam Chomsky vs. the BNP, it's a disconcerting mismatch.

What sections of my argument are flawed? Be specific. And whilst you are at it, state explicitly who benefits from Crystal Meth, or any drug, being illegal?

You smoke crystal meth BTW so I would hazard a guess it would have the same affect if not worse than tobacco with your lungs, hearts , skin , etc etc as the chemicals used to make the drug are horrendous, so the NHS bill would be much the same with meth as it is with tobacco. Would you agree? Proberly not.

If the goverment bring in a law to make anything legal of course they are endorsing it.

With tobacco it's been legal for 100's of years and are only until relatively recently( around 1950) are they seeing the negatives affects of smoking and campaigners started about the ill affects of tabacco. Only in more recent years have the goverment stepped in to condemn it.

I've already answered the latter.

[Deanburn Dave]

Did some cannabis 30+ years ago when I played in a rock band and was mixing with a few interesting characters. After the "high" of a gig it helped you relax. For many years I thought it was fairly harmless until I saw the effect that it had on a friends teenage son who went from a happy cheery 16 year old to an anxious paranoid reclusive 18 year old. His pals all said that he smoked the same amount of cannabis as them but it affected him badly. The lad is now 24, on medication to try and control the constant anxiety and struggles to hold down a job because sometimes he cannot leave the house because he feels people are "looking at him".

Cannabis has totally fecked the best years of his life. Is it worth taking the chance ? .......not in my opinion.

[Supras]

The statistics from Vancouver do make for very interesting reading, and it must be said that the initiative there has to be commended - very good indeed.

Not trying to play the economics card here at all, but I do not think it is as simple as taking money from the war on drugs efforts and chucking that into safe havens for users.

if we were to tax it to the extent of being able to sustain such centres, the cost of such a drug may be out of the reach of addicts who can get cheaper access currently. How will they continue to afford the drug under legalisation - would they be supplemented by the tax payer?

Yes, it's what I've been proposing all along - because it has been proven to work.

It is as simple as that. If we want a policy that is economically viable legalisation is a necessity, the war on drugs is a money pit. And one that doesn't achieve any objective that it sets out to. It has to be abandoned, and that has to be accompanied with either decriminalisation or, even better, legalisation.

Most drugs can be produced very cheaply, even with enormous tax hikes they may still be cheaper than the current version. Illegality adds a helluva lot to the price. The government can make it very cheaply, slap huge taxes on it, and still keep it at a very competitive price. But beyond that most users would like to take a safe product, rather than trusting criminals. It's the same reason bootleg booze and cigarettes is a tiny market compared to the legal offering. It would still exist, just much reduced.

If they could not afford - is it reasonable to suggest that crimes such as robbery and theft would increase?

This is huge whataboutery, but the evidence strongly suggests the opposite. Drugs could be sold at competitive and consistent prices, unlike now. Addicts would not be criminalised, in the current system they already face long prison sentences for the crime of consumption and suddenly robbery doesn't seem so much of a risk. When what they are doing is legal, it is a larger risk. There are some alcoholics, tobacco addicts or caffeine addicts who rob people, but it is a significant minority. And the same would be the case were drugs to be legalised.

Or would the drug dealers who have suddenly lost their livelihood come up with more dangerous alternatives that these people would turn to in their desperation for a hit? Also, might they be able to illegally gain access to stocks of the now regulated drugs through theft and then dilute them with unsafe supplementary toxins to then sell on cheap to the addicts?

Hmmm, no. Even drug addicts value their own life, if they can get a safe product from the government, with no criminality and at a reasonable price they would obviously go for that rather than the rat poison from dealers. Drug dealers stand to lose massively from legalisation, they oppose it more than anyone.

As for your second point, seriously? Heroin exists in hospitals currently, nobody is suggesting they don't stock it in case it is robbed.

You totally agree with legalisation, so why are you asking these distant hypotheticals?

You smoke crystal meth BTW so I would hazard a guess it would have the same affect if not worse than tobacco with your lungs, hearts , skin , etc etc as the chemicals used to make the drug are horrendous, so the NHS bill would be much the same with meth as it is with tobacco. Would you agree? Proberly not.

If the goverment bring in a law to make anything legal of course they are endorsing it.

With tobacco it's been legal for 100's of years and are only until relatively recently( around 1950) are they seeing the negatives affects of smoking and campaigners started about the ill affects of tabacco. Only in more recent years have the goverment stepped in to condemn it.

I've already answered the latter.

I don't know that much about the effects of Crystal Meth, I've never claimed I did, but what justification is there for making it illegal and imprisoning users? What justification do you have for such an extreme reaction?

The government could easily make something legal and not endorse it. Again, this isn't an argument in favour of the war on drugs, do you really think it is?

And no, I must have missed when you stated exactly who benefited from the war on drugs and imprisoning drug users. Remind me again.

[Supras]

Did some cannabis 30+ years ago when I played in a rock band and was mixing with a few interesting characters. After the "high" of a gig it helped you relax. For many years I thought it was fairly harmless until I saw the effect that it had on a friends teenage son who went from a happy cheery 16 year old to an anxious paranoid reclusive 18 year old. His pals all said that he smoked the same amount of cannabis as them but it affected him badly. The lad is now 24, on medication to try and control the constant anxiety and struggles to hold down a job because sometimes he cannot leave the house because he feels people are "looking at him".

Cannabis has totally fecked the best years of his life. Is it worth taking the chance ? .......not in my opinion.

What does this have to do with it being legal or not?

[DEEJANGO]

I don't know that much about the effects of Crystal Meth, I've never claimed I did, but what justification is there for making it illegal and imprisoning users? What justification do you have for such an extreme reaction?

The government could easily make something legal and not endorse it. Again, this isn't an argument in favour of the war on drugs, do you really think it is?

And no, I must have missed when you stated exactly who benefited from the war on drugs and imprisoning drug users. Remind me again.

Could you quote me on when I said they should imprison drug users please?

[dorlomin]

It is simply absurd that weed is illegal. I cannot actually get into the mindset of someone who thinks it should be illegal, such a harmless drug on the grand scale of things.

Its not harmless. I have seen some pretty strong evidence that it damages the development of the hippocampus if consumed in large amounts by teens. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence linking it with lowering motivation. memory problems and other side effects. But its close to alcohol in terms of damage you have to consume large amounts for a long time to cause harm.

The damage caused by enforcing legislation likely outweighs the damage from legalisation.

[jagfox]

Legalise it!

Government drug policies are bad, mmmkay?

If all other drugs were de-criminalised would there even be a market for Crystal-meth?

Heroin is illegal but addicts get prescribed methadone which is more addictive and harmful to the person when given in measured doses than heroine or diamorphine would be? A lot of OD deaths due to smack are due to changes in the illegal supply chain which means it arrives in areas in a less cut state. A lot of the side effects are also due to the poisons and other random junk that it gets mixed with to increase the dealers profit. As said there are cases doctors having been users for many years without it affecting their day to day lives as they used controlled amounts of relatively pure heroin or related substances, diamorphine usually. After the Second World War thousands of ex-servicemen were prescribed morphine and lived relatively normal lives.

Legalise, tax and reduce the criminal justice bill. Could be another reason for keeping the status quo?

[Supras]

Could you quote me on when I said they should imprison drug users please?

Yes, that absolutely is a current aspect of the system you are supporting. The war on drugs imprisons drug users all the time, or are you proposing that we radically alter the current policy.

Its not harmless. I have seen some pretty strong evidence that it damages the development of the hippocampus if consumed in large amounts by teens. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence linking it with lowering motivation. memory problems and other side effects. But its close to alcohol in terms of damage you have to consume large amounts for a long time to cause harm.

The damage caused by enforcing legislation likely outweighs the damage from legalisation.

Caffeine has been shown to be harmful with excessive use too. Marijuana is a significantly safer drug than alcohol.

[Shtuggie]

Yes, it's what I've been proposing all along - because it has been proven to work.

It is as simple as that. If we want a policy that is economically viable legalisation is a necessity, the war on drugs is a money pit. And one that doesn't achieve any objective that it sets out to. It has to be abandoned, and that has to be accompanied with either decriminalisation or, even better, legalisation.

Most drugs can be produced very cheaply, even with enormous tax hikes they may still be cheaper than the current version. Illegality adds a helluva lot to the price. The government can make it very cheaply, slap huge taxes on it, and still keep it at a very competitive price. But beyond that most users would like to take a safe product, rather than trusting criminals. It's the same reason bootleg booze and cigarettes is a tiny market compared to the legal offering. It would still exist, just much reduced.

Bootleg drugs would be a tiny market, yes. There would still have to be serious policing costs in shutting the guys down, though. As you said, drug dealers are the only ones who stand to lose, so they will try and keep their livelihood.

This is huge whataboutery, but the evidence strongly suggests the opposite. Drugs could be sold at competitive and consistent prices, unlike now. Addicts would not be criminalised, in the current system they already face long prison sentences for the crime of consumption and suddenly robbery doesn't seem so much of a risk. When what they are doing is legal, it is a larger risk. There are some alcoholics, tobacco addicts or caffeine addicts who rob people, but it is a significant minority. And the same would be the case were drugs to be legalised.

Whataboutery it may be, but it was a perfectly reasonable assumption.

Hmmm, no. Even drug addicts value their own life, if they can get a safe product from the government, with no criminality and at a reasonable price they would obviously go for that rather than the rat poison from dealers. Drug dealers stand to lose massively from legalisation, they oppose it more than anyone.

As for your second point, seriously? Heroin exists in hospitals currently, nobody is suggesting they don't stock it in case it is robbed.

As mentioned above, drug dealers are the only ones who stand to lose. Although drug addicts value their own life, addiction can do strange things and it is reasonable to suggest that drug dealers will try to undercut the legal prices with all kinds of substitutes that people WILL turn to in desperation.

You totally agree with legalisation, so why are you asking these distant hypotheticals?

As me talked about earlier in the thread, we are both here to be educated. I am merely interesting in finding out more from someone who clearly knows a lot about the subject, and asking hypotheticals seems the perfectly logical way to do it. Also this debate interests me from both sides and you were getting no reasonable questions and objections from those against legalisation so I wanted to help them out with some reasonable objections.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Shtuggie

[DEEJANGO]

Yes, that absolutely is a current aspect of the system you are supporting. The war on drugs imprisons drug users all the time, or are you proposing that we radically alter the current policy.

I'm not supporting any system I'm simply stating that I would not like to see crystal meth legalised but would not have a problem with weed being legal that's all.

And drug users don't get 'imprisoned all the time'

You will find that in the court system in the UK for possession of a uncontrolled drug will be a fine.

[placidcasual]

I never thought I'd see the day that America, or at least some of it's constituent states, adopting a progressive policy on drug law. Drug users are effectively being criminalised for what amounts to no more than a consumer choice. Why shouldn't someone be able to buy some weed, E, cocaine etc and get stoned or high if someone else is able to walk into an off-license and buy a bottle of vodka?

[Supras]

Bootleg drugs would be a tiny market, yes. There would still have to be serious policing costs in shutting the guys down, though. As you said, drug dealers are the only ones who stand to lose, so they will try and keep their livelihood.

Whataboutery it may be, but it was a perfectly reasonable assumption.

As mentioned above, drug dealers are the only ones who stand to lose. Although drug addicts value their own life, addiction can do strange things and it is reasonable to suggest that drug dealers will try to undercut the legal prices with all kinds of substitutes that people WILL turn to in desperation.

As me talked about earlier in the thread, we are both here to be educated. I am merely interesting in finding out more from someone who clearly knows a lot about the subject, and asking hypotheticals seems the perfectly logical way to do it. Also this debate interests me from both sides and you were getting no reasonable questions and objections from those against legalisation so I wanted to help them out with some reasonable objections.

Really? So even though the costs would be significantly less than they are now, you still think there would be "serious policing costs"? Well, how serious? A lot less serious obviously, but still "serious" according to you. I feel like I've entered the Twilight zone here, children getting easier access to drugs and "serious policing costs" being arguments against drug legalisation? These are not valid hypotheticals, at all, it is just stating something with no basis and pretending it is argument against legalisation.

The black market will not dominate the market, it will be a tiny segment as it is for many goods. I don't know how many times I have to point this out.

I'm not supporting any system I'm simply stating that I would not like to see crystal meth legalised but would not have a problem with weed being legal that's all.

And drug users don't get 'imprisoned all the time'

You will find that in the court system in the UK for possession of a uncontrolled drug will be a fine.

But if you don't want it legalised you want it to be illegal, and have failed to provide any justification for this whatsoever.

Drug users absolutely do get imprisoned all the time, especially in the US, but also in the UK. It's one of the founding pillars of the war on drugs.

You will find that the law states possession could mean up to 5 years in prison. And that was a law that was passed by this government.

[DEEJANGO]

For possession of a uncontrolled substance claiming personal use you will get a fine.

If found with a big amount you will be charged with intent to supply which could lead you to be imprisoned.

But as I say for drug users who get caught with a amount the courts deem to be for personal use they will be fined and people do not ' get imprisoned all the time ' for this.

Edited May 17, 2013 by DEEJANGO

[Supras]

For possession of a uncontrolled substance claiming personal use you will get a fine.

If found with a big amount you will be charged with intent to supply which could lead you to be imprisoned.

But as I say for drug users who get caught with a amount the courts deem to be for personal use they will be fined and people do not ' get imprisoned all the time ' for this.

Um, no, Cannabis is a Class B drug and possession can carry a 5 year imprisonment in the UK. In the US small scale marijuana possession, and paraphernalia has in one case led to a 96 year prison sentence.

People absolutely do get imprisoned all the time for drug possession, and all over the world too.

Have you yet provided any reason why Crystal Meth should be illegal, or who making it illegal benefits?

[robbie bobson]

A lot of stoners here methinks