If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
really, why are drugs illegal?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
To me, this no longer makes sense. Now there might seem like an obvious answer, but if you look at it from another angle......
1. This is one of the main infringements on human rights, the right to do whatever the fuck you want to do within reason, drugs dont harm anyone else directly, so why does the government care so much?
2. Illegalizing something as popular as drugs only drives it underground, making it less safe and creates a black market worth billions of dollars that funds organised crime, which costs governments worldwide a lot of money and resources to combat.
3. Surely if the argument to ban drugs was based on scientific research (isnt it?) that its dangerous for you, by that reasoning alcohol and fags would also be illegal, as there are more drinking and smoking related deaths/illnesses, not to mention drunken violence and vandalism, which costs the NHS and govt.
4. But instead, they stick a tax on it (can you imagine how much money they would make from taxing all drugs, better yet making and supplying them?), and in this case respect free choice (we know what it does to us - although initially the govt failed to educate the public properly, probably cause they couldn't/can't stop it.
5. This is the messed up bit, we live in a democracy so technically any decision made by the govt is representative of the people.....so when drugs were outlawed did it go to a public vote? no, we trusted our govt was acting responsibly based on scientific research to protect us, but are they? Our opinon of drugs is based on years of propaganda (weed is one example) spread by the government and passed down the generations. They have in effect influenced/brainwashed the masses (and future politicians...) on this one so there is now a strong anti-drug sentiment among people which reinforces the popular belief that drugs are bad, fullstop. (get it?) clever thing media/propaganda is.
So, knowing all this, what could the governments real reason be for banning drugs.....
a) If more people used drugs it would probably slow the world down and make us less productive, which govts wouldnt want, but would this be so bad? some of the friendliest and most interesting people i've met are druggies/stoners, and theres no rush to wreck our planet is there?
b) People use drugs for a simple reason: to expand their mind. Using drugs promotes free and independent thinking in ways not possible through 'normal thought', activates different parts of the brain etc. So could it be that our governments are trying to stifle creativeness and independence, and what's the ultimate purpose? because we might wake up and overthrow our govt to give the power back to the people......i think the hippies were on to something in the 60s there was a hint of a revolution, must have scared the govt and i think they clamped right down on drugs since then........personally i believe the govt's (around the world) only worry is how to appease the people (Parliament was originally created as a joke to do just this) so they can get on with running the globe......
I'm aware its a bit controversial, but give it some thought there is some strange sense to it.
Basically, fighting drugs and the crime that goes hand in hand costs us all a lot of money, for what? The world economy would benefit from drug legalisation, and best of all if drugs were legal, you wouldnt need the DEA
1. This is one of the main infringements on human rights, the right to do whatever the fuck you want to do within reason, drugs dont harm anyone else directly, so why does the government care so much?
2. Illegalizing something as popular as drugs only drives it underground, making it less safe and creates a black market worth billions of dollars that funds organised crime, which costs governments worldwide a lot of money and resources to combat.
3. Surely if the argument to ban drugs was based on scientific research (isnt it?) that its dangerous for you, by that reasoning alcohol and fags would also be illegal, as there are more drinking and smoking related deaths/illnesses, not to mention drunken violence and vandalism, which costs the NHS and govt.
4. But instead, they stick a tax on it (can you imagine how much money they would make from taxing all drugs, better yet making and supplying them?), and in this case respect free choice (we know what it does to us - although initially the govt failed to educate the public properly, probably cause they couldn't/can't stop it.
5. This is the messed up bit, we live in a democracy so technically any decision made by the govt is representative of the people.....so when drugs were outlawed did it go to a public vote? no, we trusted our govt was acting responsibly based on scientific research to protect us, but are they? Our opinon of drugs is based on years of propaganda (weed is one example) spread by the government and passed down the generations. They have in effect influenced/brainwashed the masses (and future politicians...) on this one so there is now a strong anti-drug sentiment among people which reinforces the popular belief that drugs are bad, fullstop. (get it?) clever thing media/propaganda is.
So, knowing all this, what could the governments real reason be for banning drugs.....
a) If more people used drugs it would probably slow the world down and make us less productive, which govts wouldnt want, but would this be so bad? some of the friendliest and most interesting people i've met are druggies/stoners, and theres no rush to wreck our planet is there?
b) People use drugs for a simple reason: to expand their mind. Using drugs promotes free and independent thinking in ways not possible through 'normal thought', activates different parts of the brain etc. So could it be that our governments are trying to stifle creativeness and independence, and what's the ultimate purpose? because we might wake up and overthrow our govt to give the power back to the people......i think the hippies were on to something in the 60s there was a hint of a revolution, must have scared the govt and i think they clamped right down on drugs since then........personally i believe the govt's (around the world) only worry is how to appease the people (Parliament was originally created as a joke to do just this) so they can get on with running the globe......
I'm aware its a bit controversial, but give it some thought there is some strange sense to it.
Basically, fighting drugs and the crime that goes hand in hand costs us all a lot of money, for what? The world economy would benefit from drug legalisation, and best of all if drugs were legal, you wouldnt need the DEA
0
Comments
What about an addict who commits crime to feed his/her habit ?
thing is becky ...drugs have always been perfectly legal ....and cuased no problems. until recently when things were made illegal ...cuasing massive problems.
in the 1920's the two most popular drugs were cocaine and cannabis ...it didn't cause problems for society even though it may have caused problems for the individula.
i'm too pissed to contribute much i think at the mo.
drugs are not the evil your lead to believe ...it's the law that makes it evil
are you not asddicted yto food ...a few days without food will have you climbinming the walls ...if it was ...i cant go on.
erm, where does this drivel come from?
I wish this argument would just die.
Alcohol and fags are legal. Alcohol and fags are the cause of much "violence and vandalism". Therefore other harmful drugs should be legalised?
Other drugs are "dangerous for you". Therefore we should legalise them so that users of other drugs are afforded the same rights as drinkers and smokers?
It's a nonsense argument. Are you seriously suggesting that illicit drugs should be legalised because alcohol is legal?
by the way i dont think alcohol and fags affect the body and mind the same way other drugs do e.g. you can function fine if you've just smoked a fag but joint is another story......so imo they're not drugs that inspire free thinking and creativity to the same extent as for instance e, shrooms, weed. So is this the reason for double standards?
So you think that getting shit loads of tax is acceptable even when nicotine happens to be one of the most addictive substance there is and smoking realted diseases are responsible for more deaths than all other drugs put together.
Alcohol hasn't been acceptable in society for longer anyway, it's only within the last half a century that the others have become a taboo.
Yes because drinking isn't a crime. Commiting other offences while drinking is. Same should apply with drugs.
And most 'illegal drug' related crime could be avoided so easilly with a proper system set in place, where addicts get free clean heroin on prescription, with clean needles and safe places to inject.
It would be much harder to avoid alcohol related crime yet it still remains legal - it makes no sense.
I think it's quite clear that the way the laws stand at the moment they only cause more problems. Unless those of you opposed to decriminalisation can think of something else I see this as the best option. You can try and shoot down our argument yet you have no good suggestions of your own.
People will always do drugs, so surely the best thing to do is make it as safe for them and others around them as possible. Take the money away form the black market and the organise crime gangs with links to guns and terrorism.
The point is: we know that alcohol and tobacco are harmful. They can't be outlawed because they are too widely consumed and too much part of our society...
...We know that illicit drugs are harmful, so why legalise something we know to be harmful when we know the effects of allowing alcohol to be consumed by a large proportion of the population?
But drugs are too widely consumed and too much part of our society aswell. Just because they're illegal hasn't stopped people taking them and it never will
This is only one of the arguments put forward for decriminalistaion to show how hypocritical thos who oppose it can be. And it is in no way one of the strongest.
How's about some of you view on the other arguments?
oh and welome back mate.
It's true. Along with opium, drugs were available very easily in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.
SO many people take them from all walks of life, i do sometimes think it is crazy that this activity is illegal, but if a move was put foward to legalise all drugs, it would be very hard to put it into practise, i mean who would sell it, what would the age limit be, it would be v.hard to regulate.
Drugs are illegal because the MAJORITY of people say they should be.
Saying they should be legalised because alcohol and tobacco are is nonsense because:
Police forces are clamping down on alcohol use to such an extent that it may as well be illegal.
The government is on the verge of making smoking cigarettes illegal as well.
If you want to smoke crack or inject your veins with heroin then you will do so knowing it is illegal. Because any government that decided to provide these drugs, for free to addicts would be comitting political suicide.
The majority of people who aren't addicts, who don't need halluciogens to survive will also be wondering why the weak willed get something for free and they don't.
Why should my taxes pay for someone to get high? I don't pay for someone's alcohol, why should I pay for someone's heroin or weed?
I may pay to help them get off it, but I'll be damned if I'll pay to keep them on it.
People have always done damaging/dangerous stuff because it feels good - eating fatty, unhealthy food, driving dangerously, having unprotected sex etc.
I don't understand your argument, why do you think you'd be paying to get people high?
You are never going to stop people wanting to have fun, it's human nature, so we should try and minimise the risk, and i think decriminalising drugs may help this, then the gov could control it to an extent. (the safety of pills etc.)
Ok, i admit in a way you are right, addiction to heroin and cocaine isn't fun, at the start it is, but very soon it can end very messily.
But the main reason a lot of people take any drug: alcohol, pills, coke is that it feels good, isn't it?
Addicts should be given free prescriptions because it will cost society less down the road. As a copper you should know that drug money funds the majority of organised crime. Decriminalisation will cut drug related crime.
What other options do we have anyway? Do you agree that the system we have know doesn't work?
That's because you've never done it. People don't take drugs with a view to becoming addicted, any more than a BASE jumper jumps with a view to being splattered all over the rocks. They do it because it's fun.
the only thing is, government has rarely turned down a chance to make money through tax like with fags and booze........so whats the difference here? i think roll has a point......they dont want to legalise it because it would be too easy for everyone to make their own damn drugs so if they can't patent it, then fuck our freedom.....thats what it comes down to.
There aren't many. Users' main arguments often revolve around their assertion that they aren't doing anyone any harm and if drugs were legalised or decriminalised they wouldn't have to break the law to have their fun. That's fine until you realise that using drugs (including alcohol) is harmful for some. Cannabis may well have no ill effects on an individual, but I have come across regular dope smokers who developed drug-induced psychoses and that is something I wouldn't wish on anybody.
About 30% of smokers will die as a direct result of smoking. 70% won't, but because we don't know which 30% will be affected, we try to discourage smoking. It's just the same with drugs. Perhaps moderate use is not harmful, but a lot of the drugs we are talking about are addictive so moderate use soon becomes daily use and turns into a dependence. Ta
If the government is serious about reducing drug usage, it has to be supply that is targetted, not just education/'just say no'.
your ignorance barrs you from anyone being able to take any further comments made by you as being seriou in this thread realy.
in victorian times it was cannabis and opium.
the wealthy got pure opium ...in fact between 1820 and 1900 it is reckoned the entire senior ranks of the british navy and at least half the cabinet were regular opium users. it was legal and respectable.
the working class got laudanum over the counter from the chemist for pennies ...more correctly called opium tincture ...opium dissolved in alcohol.
the saying smoking old rope comes from the british rope mills ...the biggest rope manufacturers in the world at the time ...made from hemp.
the word cannabis comes from the egyptian word for canvas ...because for thousands of years the cannabis plant was used for all manner of things.
sherlock holmes injected morphine and cocain ...not to shock the readers but because it was a very fashionable pastime with the well off.
lets keep it all illegal then and give billions in hard tax free cash to the villains and terrorists.
how the hell penalising substance use that has been going on since the dawn of time can achieve anything but big trouble is beyond me.
weak people ? some of the best literature and music and art is the product of mind expanding substances.
why do you think these things are called ...officialy ...mind expanding?
heroin doesn't damage any part of your body ...in fact opiates are known to keep your skin/complexion ...smooth and youthful.
the vast majority of users never become addicted.
with a supply of clean pure drugs there is no excuse to commit crime.
how come more and more politicans and chief police officers are now agreeing that legalisation is the road we should be going down ...are all these proffesionals plain stoopid?
why is it ok to prescribe damaging anti depressants to people but not cannabis?
addiction of itself cannot be a crime and indeed isn't ...addiction is not a crime ok?
so it must be an illness ...therefore we must prescribe the right medicine yes?
if anyone ...addict or not commits a crime they are dealt with by the courts.
treating addiction as an illness would lower the prison population by around 70%.
No the strongest argument we have is that to decriminalise drugs woudl be better for society as a whole.
I think Heroin in particular should be decriminalised, even though I don't use it.
Bassically treatign addicts liek criminals only pushes the drugs and money underground leading to more risk for the addicts and more money for organised crime. It also mean that many addicts are forced to commit other crimes to pay for their addiction.
People will still take them whether they are legal or not, you will never stop that. So why keep them illegal when it causes more harm to the drug users and society.
It doen't work.
You cut a supply and theres always someone waiting to fill the gap. Always.
the so called war on drugs was obviously lost many years ago.
the biggest industry on the planet is weapons ...the second biggest is illegal drugs.
the taliban are the only people who had anything like a sucsess in the war on drugs ...reducing the worlds opium/heroin supply drasticaly.
the americans are now in charge and have poured millions upon millions of dollars in cash ...and gold ...into the hands of the warlords. the warlords now have all the up to date toyotas and weapons they could never have dreamed of!
these men have produced the largest opium crop in history ...thanks to the americans generosity. why is that i wonder.
is the heroin paying toward the war in iraq?
so much for your stopping it at source.
seeing as afghanistan has produced this stuff like forever as a crop which they have farmed and marketed around the world like forever ...who are we to tell them they can't? they have no or few problems with it.
just cos we have problems with it shouldn't be their problem.
It's easy to type without sources to back up your statements, but when challenged don't allege ignorance. So precisely the opposite of most drug users today. I don't recall suggesting that drugs weren't used in the 1920s, but I suggest that "the two most popular drugs" were not cocaine and cannabis if we are including alcohol and tobacco.
Is the government really there to legalise substances that are known to be harmful?
Many prescription drugs can have harmful effects in the long term or in overdose. But prescription drug use is at least monitored, whereas heroin use isn't.
Utter rubbish, I'm afraid. Opiates are highly addictive. Vast majority? Sorry, no.
That's a reasonable argument. But there would always be a price, and if you are suggesting government regulation and tax, the price isn't going to be cheap. So a highly addictive drug, readily available, and of good quality - I think plenty of crime would be committed to feed habits.
Not stupid, they just have more interest in crime than health.
Cannabis, in one form or another, may be available on prescription for certain conditions, but it is not for doctors to prescribe recreational drugs.
Agreed. Addiction is not a crime...
erm, no.
Methadone is prescribed to heroin addicts who want to stop, but there is no medicine for addiction per se. 70%? Even people with illnesses are subject to law. Are you suggesting criminal addicts should be allowed to go free?
It's an argument, but a weak one imho. If addicts are "forced to commit other crimes to pay for their addiction", the drug must be pretty addictive, agreed? So are you simply suggesting that legalising heroin would bring the price down so much that users wouldn't have to commit crime to feed their habit?
I agree with the first statement. Why keep them illegal? Because it deters some, it limits availability, and it shows recognition of the drug's harmful effects. You can't get SPAM anywhere these days. Why? Supply has been stopped. It's not easy, yes people will try to fill the gap, but it has to be an option, otherwise you're right, we may as well give in.
no no no ...i was not even thinking about fags and booze.
just that what is illegal now and causing problems once wasn't and didn't.
all through history people have used these things ...you cannot take away the urge to creat ...to think ...to think differently ...to experience out of body spritual experiences ...to perform better at work and play.
cocain ...i have seen musicians amaze themselves and all around ...after a line of coke ...the trouble is when wanting or needing to perform like that and experience the intesity both mentaly and emotionaly ALL THE TIME. YES ...THATS WHEN IT BECOMES A PROBLEM.
fortunately all the history in the world and the facts on the street prove ...that most people don't go down that road ...those who do mostly recover from that situation with a little help.
being illegal is in reality society wiping it's hands of the situation and handing it all over to the darkside.
as long as it is illegal to despense these kinds of medications then these medications will be supplied from elswhere ...the worldwide demand is truly staggering.
you cannot switch off that demand. you cannot switch off such a huge industry and supply network.
so surely ...it's time to take control of the situation ...take as much of the financing of this giant ...away from crooks and terrorists who don't realy give a shit about their customers.
this is the biggest untaxed cash generator on planet earth ...what you going to fight it with?
take it ...own it ...get control by changing the current laws drastivcly!
by the way ...by wanting it legalized doesn't mean that every tom dick sand harry can buy and sell it ...