Drugs

[SeVeR]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/au...ed=networkfront

 

Finally, what i've been proposing for years has come out, and as it happens, anybody with knowledge of the drugs trade is in full support.

 

Legalise drugs, why?

 

1. Selling drugs through legal, no-profit, government agencies would remove the drug-trade over-night, together with all the crime !@#$%^&*ociated with it.

2. Allowing the government to control the drug trade would have huge benefits such as being able to increase the availability of help to those addicted.

3. There are tests to determine drug-use, and these can be used to register anyone addicted to drugs. Thus, people who have not previously taken drugs before will not be able to buy drugs from the clinic.

4. Anybody desperate enough will still go to drug dealers. However, the dealers will immediately lose their new customer to the government addiction clinics, as they won't be able to compete with the price.

5. The dealers will disapear, and with the government providing for existing users only, there will be NO NEW USERS. Drug-use will drastically decline.

6. The crimes that drug-users commit to pay off their dealers such as burglary and assault will be vastly reduced.

7. If we treat drug-addiction as an illness rather than a crime we will remove the "coolness" of it, and reduce it's appeal.

Edited August 13, 2008 by SeVeR

[»doc flabby]

Anyone with any sence knows that prohibition doesn't work. history has proved this time and time again.

All of the currently illegal drugs were legal at some point. cocaine was even used in coca-cola.

 

I agree with all of those plans. The only problem is you still need to allow new users to access drugs or the people who are "registered users" will simply sell them on, they will become the new dealers. The answer is anyone should be able to register to buy drugs (over legal age e.g. 18) they are then given an ID card and can then buy them from government apporved outlets. These should be plain buildings with windows, ie no advertising and no way to see inside. Theses can have lots of information on how bad they are for you and how to get help etc (like there is on tobacco packets). Also make drug taking illegal in public (like drinking is in many places, and smoking indoors)

 

The idea is to remove the glamour from it.

 

Another suggestion would be why not just "improve" the existing recreational drugs and create safer versions. I'm sure the large drug companies have a wide range of recreational drugs in there back catelog just waiting for the ok from the governments before they release them.

Edited August 13, 2008 by doc flabby

[Aileron]

Unlikely, doc. The costs of such a program would exceed the benefit after you adjust for the probability of the legalization of drugs actually occurring.

 

I actually do support a limited program to legalize drugs similar enough to what SeVeR suggested. Still, right now health insurance is bad enough. We need to fix that program up first before the legalization of drugs is possible.

[FMBI]

Not true, Ail. Drug-related crime has paralyzed the "justice" system, led to a continually escalating arms race (to the point that many city criminals are carrying around military-grade weaponry), and is reaching the point of no return - I don't think there's a single person I know who hasn't either used, or considered using, drugs.

 

 

I am against legalization, however, in the sense that libertarians argue for it. I favor decriminalisation, which focuses strictly on the self-victimisation aspects of it, rather than legalizing it, which could actually allow for boosted usage rates eventually - sure, prohibition caused massive crime, but there isn't a middle-aged man in the US who doesn't drink beer (and, usually, harder stuff) nowadays.

 

 

Pretty much, the Netherlands have it right. Just allow soft drug use in special settings, and avoid hard drug use and drug crime as much as possible. But don't actually encourage the drug use itself, or else you'll get a fetishization of user society.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[NBVegita]

I see why he's the ex-drug director.

 

I've had this debate with sever many times and unfortunately, or fortunately, I will not repeat the argument here, but I will outline flaws in sever's logic.

 

1. Selling drugs through legal, no-profit, government agencies would remove the drug-trade over-night, together with all the crime !@#$%^&*ociated with it.

2. Allowing the government to control the drug trade would have huge benefits such as being able to increase the availability of help to those addicted.

3. There are tests to determine drug-use, and these can be used to register anyone addicted to drugs. Thus, people who have not previously taken drugs before will not be able to buy drugs from the clinic.

4. Anybody desperate enough will still go to drug dealers. However, the dealers will immediately lose their new customer to the government addiction clinics, as they won't be able to compete with the price.

5. The dealers will disapear, and with the government providing for existing users only, there will be NO NEW USERS. Drug-use will drastically decline.

6. The crimes that drug-users commit to pay off their dealers such as burglary and assault will be vastly reduced.

7. If we treat drug-addiction as an illness rather than a crime we will remove the "coolness" of it, and reduce it's appeal.

 

1. lol? Yes people are going to pay a government tax (and fees) on something they already have a streamline to buy? People are going to just love to be taxed on yet another aspect of their lives. The only truth to that statement is that it would eliminate the crime aspect, because if you make anything legal, it's no longer illegal.

 

2. How would increasing the availability of drugs to people addicted to them help them in any way? Maybe I'm confused about this?

 

3. So you're saying you want to tax them and make them register as drug users? Companies will still have the ability to forbid their employees from using drugs, so now you've just given them a database to fire you on. Also renters and creditors WOULD be able to discriminate based on you being a registered drug user. Plus we all know how much people like to register their lives with the government. And they can't buy drugs legally until they've bought them illegally? Am I missing something there too?

 

4. From step 3 you said they can't get drugs, as a new user, unless they've previously been tested positive for them. So they would have to buy them from dealers. I would also like to see how buying drugs from the government after paying the taxes and regulation fees would be cheaper than a guy who sells it barely above cost?

 

5. Again that makes no sense. Drug dealers will not disappear. They will have more compe!@#$%^&*ive prices, you won't have to register and you don't have to be seen at the government drug clinic. There will always be a call for new users to drugs and for users who don't want to be governmentally registered.

 

6. The reasons why drug users commit crimes is to get money to BUY drugs. Why would simply changing the supplier change that? If you're addicted to cocaine and would mug someone for money to buy it from your dealer, why wouldn't you do the same to buy it from the government? I don't know many drug dealers that let you run a tab. Also the government would let you use cards, so there goes your credit.

 

7. Cleverly disguising what you classify drug use as is going to cause a m!@#$%^&* loss of appeal? That guy smoking pot is magically going to rethink his life because you say he has an illness? When we label alcoholism an illness, did that help any? People aren't dumb. If you label someone an addict do they have less of an urge to do a drug? If someone doesn't mind being labeled a criminal, they won't mind being labeled ill. The "coolness" factor only works with teenagers and they're even less likely to be effected by an "illness" because we're so fast to label every minor flaw in a child an "illness" today as it is.

 

I could go for another 8 paragraphs but honestly it's not worth my time or yours.

 

I don't think there's a single person I know who hasn't either used, or considered using, drugs.

 

I do agree with that to a point. I have never used an illegal drug, or misused a legal drug, neither has my brother or fiance, but beyond that I'm not sure I personally know that many more people like me.

[FMBI]

Veg, I answered most of your arguments in my post. :\

 

Edit - also, the "illness" thing does work, because rehab, while not "the best," has been proven to be an extremely good investment. If you shift the mindset a little, you can have big results.

 

Edit2 - Pot is (on the internet, in any case) universally recognized as a "special case" - shame on you for throwing that in the illness section.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[SeVeR]

NBV:

1. lol? Yes people are going to pay a government tax (and fees) on something they already have a streamline to buy? People are going to just love to be taxed on yet another aspect of their lives. The only truth to that statement is that it would eliminate the crime aspect, because if you make anything legal, it's no longer illegal.

I never said anything about a tax. I'm talking about a non-profit government company, selling at the minimum price possible. The idea is to out-compete the dealers to such a massive extent that they are effectively wiped out. As for crime, we will significantly reduce the robberies, burglarys and muggings that drug-users carry out in order to pay off their dealers. We will also reduce the crimes committed by drugs-gangs and other dealers, as they will no longer have an income.

2. How would increasing the availability of drugs to people addicted to them help them in any way? Maybe I'm confused about this?

By making the users buy their drugs from the government you can offer them help to kick the habit, and you can even build a rehabilitation centre right next door so they have to walk past it every time they buy drugs.

3. So you're saying you want to tax them and make them register as drug users? Companies will still have the ability to forbid their employees from using drugs, so now you've just given them a database to fire you on. Also renters and creditors WOULD be able to discriminate based on you being a registered drug user. Plus we all know how much people like to register their lives with the government. And they can't buy drugs legally until they've bought them illegally? Am I missing something there too?

The simple answer is, it's completely confidential, as it falls under doctor-patient confidentiality. Where is this "tax" idea coming from? I never said anything about that...

4. From step 3 you said they can't get drugs, as a new user, unless they've previously been tested positive for them. So they would have to buy them from dealers. I would also like to see how buying drugs from the government after paying the taxes and regulation fees would be cheaper than a guy who sells it barely above cost?

This is getting tiresome. The whole point of this plan it to under-cut the dealers. If there were "taxes and regulation fees" then were wouldn't be any point would there?!? You're arguing a null point because if it were just as expensive as the dealers (who make massive profits from what would be a smaller supply chain compared with what the government can do) then there is no point in using this idea. It's obviously possible to under-cut the dealers given the quan!@#$%^&*y the government could purchase, combined with a non-profit approach.

 

5. Already answered.

6. The reasons why drug users commit crimes is to get money to BUY drugs. Why would simply changing the supplier change that? If you're addicted to cocaine and would mug someone for money to buy it from your dealer, why wouldn't you do the same to buy it from the government? I don't know many drug dealers that let you run a tab. Also the government would let you use cards, so there goes your credit.

On the first sentence: Exactly. On the rest, well... if you can't figure it out from what i've said then it's pointless debating with you.

7. Cleverly disguising what you classify drug use as is going to cause a m!@#$%^&* loss of appeal? That guy smoking pot is magically going to rethink his life because you say he has an illness?

I listed it as the last point because it's secondary to the main points. It's a psychological war, that is only a potential benefit. It may not work, but there is alot of reason to believe it will have an effect. Currently it's a crime, it's rebellious, it's romantic, it's daring, it's something cool people do. Turning that into an illness, emphasising the weakness of those affected, is going to have an effect on potential new users. How much of an effect, i don't know.

[SeVeR]

Not to mention, when professional experts come out with statements like "(my) views are shared by the "overwhelming majority" of professionals in the field, including police officers, health workers and members of the government.", I think legalisation is probably the right track, regardless of the method. Edited August 13, 2008 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

Fin, the only problem with that is that rehab works when people are A) forced into it or truly believe they have an illness. Simply labeling something an illness doesn't make someone believe it is.

 

And being pot is an illegal drug, it would have to be considered part of your category of "illness".

 

Sever:

 

First off where does this "pay off their dealers" come from? People don't buy now - pay later with drugs. So you want to spend billions and billions of dollars on a non-profit organization to allow people to do all the drugs they want in the hopes they'll have a pang of conscience at being called ill instead of addicted? is there something else I'm missing?

 

Again, simply having a rehab center doesn't help. I have never been to a hospital that doesn't have a drug clinic (personally) and I can count at least a dozen in Syracuse. If they don't believe they have a problem, unless you plan to force them into rehab, it doesn't help. Fueling their addiction would only make things worse. I don't know about you, but I don't know a single person who is more persuaded by being called ill than death, cancer and going to jail.

 

Nothing is confidential. Remember companies have the right to drug test all of their employees. Or are you saying that I couldn't say if I wanted a cocaine addict working in my company or not?

 

Also people who want to do drugs will still need those dealers, at least to get their foot in the door. I mean !@#$%^&* if mom, dad, sis and brother are all legally doing drugs and loving it mind you, why would you not?

 

How do you ignore, no matter who you're buying from, that you would still steal? Even if you could get double the cocaine from the government, you would still spend just as much. Thats the problem with an addiction.

 

I mean the whole concept is !@#$%^&*-backwards. First off if you want to label it an illness, you don't need to make it legal, cheaper and more accessible. You could take all of the money you'd be spending m!@#$%^&* producing and selling these drugs to create community programs, better rehabilitation, jobs for recovering addicts ect. There are very few real life situations where reverse psychology actually works.

 

If you can show me one statistic that proves that legalizing and m!@#$%^&* producing drugs will lower the drug use in America then I would maybeconsider it. Not to mention with this being non-profit, if you have one center and one rehab in each city in the united states. Not to mention that larger cities would have multiple and larger facilities. And you had 3 people working in each facility. Say they averaged $50,000 (very low estimate for the training they would need). It would cost you $5,806,200,000 a year just to pay their salaries. If you paid them $75,000 it would cost $8,709,300,000 just to pay the employees (!@#$%^&*uming you're only open M-F 8-5). Now this isn't counting the manufacturing/producing (which would be a sliding scale based on supply and demand), shipping, managing, medical supplies, office supplies, building costs ect. You still have to pay for the marketing, promoting, regulations for driving and public activities on drugs and creating and maintaining your secure databases.

 

I mean seriously, am I the only one who thinks this whole concept is rediculous?

 

Not to mention, when professional experts come out with statements like "(my) views are shared by the "overwhelming majority" of professionals in the field, including police officers, health workers and members of the government.",

 

That is nothing more than an unfounded opinion. If any other person tried to use a similar statement to support anything on these forums, you'd have torn them apart.

[SeVeR]

First off where does this "pay off their dealers" come from? People don't buy now - pay later with drugs. So you want to spend billions and billions of dollars on a non-profit organization to allow people to do all the drugs they want in the hopes they'll have a pang of conscience at being called ill instead of addicted? is there something else I'm missing?

WTF? Pay of the dealers? You've even put it in quotation marks. Tell me where i said that, or stop misquoting me. This is the second post in a row now after the "tax and regulations" rubbish from your last post.

 

When did i say anything about buying now and paying later, or when did i ever say labelling drug addiction as an illness is anything more than a secondary POTENTIAL benefit that has nothing directly to do with the main argument, yet you still seem to focus on it because it's the easiest thing to pick holes in (of course it's easy to pick holes in it, it's psychology, and i'd like to see you try and prove the opposite!)

 

Look, if you're going to misquote me and not read my posts, i'm not going to bother to answer your post with any kind of effort.

Edited August 13, 2008 by SeVeR

[Bak]

hey how about it's my freaking body not the governments? As long as I'm not being tricked into addition, have all the facts, and am a willing adult, wtf is the government doing getting involved? If I commit crimes, then punish me for the crimes, but most drug users don't commit the crimes (save drug possession) and can still get put in jail for responsible use.

 

Also, if the government was selling drugs and not dealers, the price would go way down and dealers couldn't compete and thus would go away. A lot of the cost of drugs is the risk involved. Pot is literally a weed that grows just about everywhere plants can grow; opium-based drugs have to be imported illegally and distributed underground, and everyone along the way gets a cut. Illegal prescription drugs are just a more expensive version of legal prescription drugs.

[Samapico]

Isn't there a black market for weapons in the US?

 

Aren't weapons legal?

 

Oh right, some people (i.e. criminals) don't want to have their weapon registered...

 

If you keep 'new users' to buy / use "federal" drugs, then there inevitably be a market for counterfeit drugs. No registration, no regulation, and no "druggie" stamp on your record.

I agree with most of what vegita said...

 

All the money it would take to maintain such a system WITHOUT ADDITIONAL TAX would be much better spent on social rehabilitation and stuff.

 

I mean seriously, am I the only one who thinks this whole concept is rediculous?

No you're not

[Bak]

All the money it would take to maintain such a system WITHOUT ADDITIONAL TAX

I'm pretty sure you could make more than enough by selling the drugs, although you're right about the unregistered stuff making an underground system. But it wouldn't be as bad as it is now, as the money would stay in the US.

[NBVegita]

6. The crimes that drug-users commit to pay off their dealers such as burglary and assault will be vastly reduced.

 

Before you get defensive you should have at least re-read your posts.

 

I mean seriously.

 

Note: I never stated that you said we would tax drugs, I was !@#$%^&*uming that you were intelligent enough to know that it would be impossible to pay for otherwise.

 

7. If we treat drug-addiction as an illness rather than a crime we will remove the "coolness" of it, and reduce it's appeal.

 

The reason why I'm picking on your illness part is because if you make drugs legal and available on a m!@#$%^&* level, the only logical outcome is for their use to increase. You have (to me) insinuated that the illness part would hold a larger part than you just mentioned above. Teenagers who smoke don't magically stop smoking when they become 18 years old because it is now legal to smoke.

 

And Bak, you're right it is your body. But it's my body if someone on acid or LSD happens to think I'm a monster (or any other thousands of hallucinations that could cause them to become aggressive) or if they wander in front of my moving car because they don't realize where they are. I mean that argument is the only argument that is hard to fight except that laws by all governments are dedicated to protecting civilians, even from ourselves sometimes. The problem with drugs is there are no positives to drugs, outside of the very limited medicinal uses.

 

And as for your mention of pot, thats another thing, if the government made it legal, why would you buy it from them? You can grow pot just about anywhere.

 

And sama I'm glad to hear it.

[Bak]

feeling good is a positive, !@#$%^&* I'd say most of the time our actions are driven by feeling good or avoiding feeling bad; there's a reason drugs are popular.

 

but yeah, if I start attacking you or your family then I'm a criminal and you can treat me as such (sort of like if I get drunk and attack your family). But again, this doesn't happen to most people and I would have been fully informed of the potential hallucinations before I took anything.

 

 

And as for your mention of pot, thats another thing, if the government made it legal, why would you buy it from them? You can grow pot just about anywhere.

You're absolutely right. And people do grow pot for purely personal use. However, if you get caught trying to avoid the black market and/or funding terrorism by doing this, you are over the amount where it's just possession and you get slapped with intention to sell. Honestly like three plants a year yield more than enough but apparently "intention to sell" isn't defined by what your intention is, only how much you have.

[NBVegita]

Yes feeling good is a positive, but we aren't all allowed to do what makes us feel good. I mean to a pedophile, sleeping with a little girl makes them feel wonderful. I know you'll say well drugs only affect me, but that isn't true. The fact that drugs alter your brain in thousands of ways you never really know what you're going to do on the more powerful drugs. This doesn't ring true for pot, as its a really mellow (comparatively) drug. I mean there are thousands of reasons why most drugs should be illegal simply based on the psychological effects they have on people. It would be like opening a flood gate.

 

The problem with growing is that yes you have your people who grow for personal use, and then you have your people who grow to sell. It's No matter how you cut the pie, it's illegal and you're growing it. I think the government also says that if you have pot in two separate bags, it cons!@#$%^&*utes a will to sell. They can't be lenient because they don't know your intentions.

 

Not that I have much sympathy for many people, but I have none for people who use drugs. If you get caught growing pot, then you either should have been more careful, or been prepared for the consequences of growing an illegal substance.

 

A perfect quote from Astro (in another post)

but just because someone wants something to happen doesn't mean they should drop objectivity and move into the realm of !@#$%^&*uming something is true and then trying to prove it so.

 

I understand that some people on here personally feel drugs should be legal, but that seems to have added a whole lot of objectivity to the argument. That's why I've stated time and time again in these types of arguments, if someone can prove that legalizing a drug (doesn't have to be all, could just be one) would have a substantial positive economical, political, militaristic, or socialistic effect, then you would have an argument to make it legal.

 

The problem is that every credible argument for legalization has a credible argument denouncing it.

[SeVeR]

Sama:

If you keep 'new users' to buy / use "federal" drugs, then there inevitably be a market for counterfeit drugs. No registration, no regulation, and no "druggie" stamp on your record.

1.. As i said before, and will obviously have to say again, you can have confidentiality agreements in place, so that no office has access to the information other than the government supplier.

2. You can add any new types of drugs to the system.

 

All the money it would take to maintain such a system WITHOUT ADDITIONAL TAX would be much better spent on social rehabilitation and stuff.

Ok Sama, lets get straight to the point. Do you think that the government supplying drugs without making a profit will be able to under-cut the prices of private dealers? Bear in mind a number of economic principles. Firstly, they will be a m!@#$%^&* supplier, and will be buying and selling massive quan!@#$%^&*ies. Even if they wanted to make the same percentage profit as the private dealers then they would still beat them for price. Secondly, zero profit means exactly what i'm saying it means. !@#$%^&*, they could even operate at a loss and call it a social scheme (although i don't think it's needed). So whatever "taxes" involved are included when i say non-profit. I guess we call them operating costs. Thirdly, there is no middle man. Fourthly, the cost of importation is minimal when it's legal and m!@#$%^&*-imported. They could pretty much sell it for what they buy it for off the !@#$%^&*ed poppy plant in Afghanistan. Seriously... it will be faaaaarrr cheaper.

 

NBV:

QUOTE

I mean seriously, am I the only one who thinks this whole concept is rediculous?

No you're not

No offense, but if you could spell the word ridiculous, i might have taken a bit more time replying to your post.

 

But here goes...

Teenagers who smoke don't magically stop smoking when they become 18 years old because it is now legal to smoke.

Did i say this? Does what i say even imply this? Did i not say new users will be put off (not existing users)? Exactly.... there is no point in replying to your posts because you aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with a figment of your imagination. I'm not pissed off that you disagree with me, i'm pissed off because you constantly change my words into something you can argue back at. Edited August 14, 2008 by SeVeR

[»doc flabby]

Hate to point this out but the cost for producing drugs is really mininimal, you guys are thinking the street price is similar to how much it costs to produce..

Its just growing a plant and processing it.

No different to how alot of foods are made.

 

Weed could easily be sold at the price same level as tobacco (including the aroun 60% tax they have on it here)

Something like ectasy is probably as expensive to produce as proplus tablets so easily taxed as well.

Alcohol is very cheap (most of the cost is tax) even with the expensive and length production process of many drinks.

 

the markup from producer to street dealer is in the range of 1,000-2,000%.

 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44888000/gif/_44888602_drug2_markets_flow_466.gif

source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7531860.stm

 

And as for your mention of pot, thats another thing, if the government made it legal, why would you buy it from them? You can grow pot just about anywhere.

You can grow tobacco too very easily and make your own beer, but most people are lazy

 

In the UK we stop around 10% of illegal drugs getting into the country at the cost of 4Billion pounds. We spend another 4 billion on criminal procecutions of users and dealers. So thats 8 Billion pounds a year thats achieving very little to damange a sector worth 5billion pounds.

 

We would need to stop 60-% to have any impact on the market. This is why the current situation is hopeless. The solution is to legalise and tax.

We spend more on drugs enforcement than we do on on sports facilities, recreation(parks etc) and culture (museums).

Edited August 14, 2008 by doc flabby

[NBVegita]

I love how when I post a point you have no counter for you just ignore it.

 

In fact you never even apologized for accusing me of misquoting you.

 

Just because I make a statement, that doesn't mean it's in a direct relation to you. I was pre-empting the argument that has been brought up in every other drug argument we've had: Once you make it legal it won't be "cool" anymore and people will stop doing it. No where did I indicate that was towards any of your arguments.

 

In response to confidentiality, most companies force a drug test now. So are you going to make it illegal for me to drug test employees, or illegal to say I don't want someone addicted to cocaine working for me?

 

And I still don't see where your non-profit organization is going to fund this project that would cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars, without taxing the !@#$%^&* out of the American people.

 

Oh and being it's the only thing you're nit-picking, I apologize for a typing error. I'm sorry, I am only a human being.

5. The dealers will disapear,

You mean disappear

burglarys and muggings that

You mean burglaries

emphasising the weakness

You mean emphasizing

labelling drug addiction

You mean labeling

Sorry my spelling isn't as accute as yours.

[NBVegita]

Actually doc, farming your own tobacco and brewing your own beer is very hard and dangerous if not done correctly.

 

Growing marijuana is as easy as dropping some seeds in the soil. Not a very good comparison.

 

Lets look at that logic doc...

 

We have a problem with controlling drugs, so lets legalize them so everyone can have them. At least they're paying tax.

 

I mean when prohibition ended, MORE people drank, not less people.

 

I guess I really don't see the logic.

 

I thought the point of drug legislation was to limit drug use, not turn a profit from it?

[FMBI]

Veg, I answered that point in my very first post. After prohibition, more people drank - so you decriminalise it without legalising it.

 

Also, you're making some of the !@#$%^&*tiest posts I've seen in a while. You alternately agree with and disagree with every point Sever and doc are making.

[NBVegita]

The problem is I do agree with some things, yet I disagree with a lot. Like I would agree with Doc first post/last line with conditions.

 

I think I have pretty much disagreed with everything sever has posted. Could you post anywhere that I have agreed with his concepts? I haven't really argued for or against you fin. For which again I have agreement and disagreements.

 

My post about prohibition is that Sever (to me) presented his 7 steps to LOWER drug usage.

 

The point isn't to take the criminal aspect away and increase drug usage. Releasing prohibition did nothing more then remove the criminalization and increase the usage.

 

And for my post being bad, some of the concepts aren't completely thought out as I'm at work. Sometimes what makes sense in my head isn't making sense on the forums.

[»doc flabby]

I disagree with SeVer's plan it would fail. MY solution would not lower drug taking, nor is that its aim, its aim is to save money and decriminalise the population.

Growing marijuana is as easy as dropping some seeds in the soil. Not a very good comparison.

Sure its easy but its not very efficient. People could do that now if they wanted to. Easy enough to plant them somewhere out of the way.

 

The Pros here break into empty warehouses and fill them with co2 and envromental control equipment and grow using hydroponics here...

Or thoses at the lower end rent houses and fill them with plants and stick the heating up to max.

http://www.crimestoppersscotland.com/hothousecrime.php for some pictures its a serious business.

 

Lets look at that logic doc...

We have a problem with controlling drugs, so lets legalize them so everyone can have them. At least they're paying tax.

I mean when prohibition ended, MORE people drank, not less people.

I guess I really don't see the logic.

I thought the point of drug legislation was to limit drug use, not turn a profit from it?

If the aim is to limit drug use, its not working. Drug use is slowing increasing.

http://www.vistabay.com/blog/?p=3

 

My logic is this, why criminalize a large number of people for what they choose to put in their bodies and waste police time that would be better used fighting real problems like poverty.

 

The whole moral argument against drugs is totally inconsistant, we dont arrest obese people for eating Mc'D and make them go on rehabilitation cources. Obsesity is costing us far more than illegal drugs are terms of human health. Even more amusing is the secound biggest area of drug abuse is "legal" percription drugs. Illegal drugs didnt' kill Heath Ledger, Legal ones did (thats not to mean illegal drugs cant kill you they can, but my point is legallity is not linked to health risk).

Edited August 14, 2008 by doc flabby

[SeVeR]

NBV:

Once you make it legal it won't be "cool" anymore and people will stop doing it.

I haven't said that in this topic, stop misquoting me, i ignore your posts from the moment you misquote me. That seems reasonable to me.

 

Anyway, onto more constructive debate...

 

So are you going to make it illegal for me to drug test employees

You can drug-test your employees all you want. You just won't have access to the records used by the government supplier as that will be (and should be) confidential.

 

And I still don't see where your non-profit organization is going to fund this project that would cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars, without taxing the !@#$%^&* out of the American people.

There are plenty of social workers, health workers and NHS employees who take up most of the work in England. Alot of drugs clinics could be run out of existing hospitals or rehab centres. It won't cost a great deal as the infrastructure is already in place.

 

QUOTE

emphasising the weakness

You mean emphasizing

That's an American spelling....

 

QUOTE

labelling drug addiction

You mean labeling

No, i mean labelling. Edited August 14, 2008 by SeVeR

[SeVeR]

the markup from producer to street dealer is in the range of 1,000-2,000%.

 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44888000/gif/_44888602_drug2_markets_flow_466.gif

source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7531860.stm

I had no idea the difference was that huge. I guess this answers my question to Samapico, and kinda blows most of NBV's arguments about expenses out of the window. Imagine cutting out all of those Middle-men and dealers, and just shipping it over from the farms that produce it.

 

Both your plan and mine recognise this, and both rest on the same basic principle. Why can't NBV grasp it?

 

I want to extend your plan to only registering existing drugs users, as the dealers won't be able to stay afloat solely by addicting new users and then losing them to the government supplier. I think this would be an effective method of cutting down on new drug users.

 

Sure, existing users might try and get their friends addicted, but this will happen anyway. My plan would reduce the number of outlets where new users can get addicted. I think my method won't completely stop new users but i'm sure it will have some effect. I'd rather not have people just walking into a shop and buying drugs legally, which they then become addicted too. In the same way, the psychological effect of de-romanticising drug-taking by treating it like a perfectly legal illness will also have some effect on stopping people from taking up the habit. Don't bite my head off here NBV, i'm talking about potential new users, not existing users (like i did before, although that didn't seem to help ).

 

I want to kill two birds with one stone, although i'd be happy if the government simply followed your plan doc.

Edited August 14, 2008 by SeVeR