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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
how many people had to die along the way?
how many people in trusted positions ...all the way through the police force ...the legal system ...and to government itself were corrupted?
the law against alcohol caused far more damage than the alcohol itself ever could.
Who's a drug user?
Where? Quote it.
This is far too simplistic a view. Heroin for instance isn't really physically toxic. Why? Because it's molecular structure is extremely similar to the body's natural painkilling chemicals. The same with some of the psychedelics - they are very similar to the brain's neurotransmitters.
Do you smoke tobacco? If you do, is it simply because you're allowed to?
As for the physical cost, a heroin addict with no money will need to steal about £150 of goods a day to fund a £30 habit. Add on top of that the cost of higher insurance, and the hassle of getting your car windows fixed after someone has just nicked your stereo. Giving them the £30 drugs (which wouldn't cost the Government £30 anyway) will save you the best part of £150. A day. Per heroin addict.
Then there's the cost of us lot who have to prosecute and defend these people. For a magistrates case of simple possession that's two solicitors on £50 an hour, three justices, a clerk (who is another solicitor), plus the court running costs, plus the prison running costs.
As for the social costs, if you get it prescribed through doctors you can provide the addicts with clean syringes, clean spoons and clean drugs. You will prevent street-level dealing, which is a blight on any community. You will largely prevent drug pushing- why push people onto drugs if as soon as they are on it they can get it from the doctors instead?
These people are taking heroin anyway- that's the fact people don't seem to get.
Exactly, if supplying them with needles is OK because it reduces disease, why is the prescription of heroin not?
you insult me, lie about me and flip flop on what you want. 1 minutes prescription only to drug addicts, then its to everyone sold. Its a jok.
you ask me where people say drugs are a good thing , and I do, then you ifgnore it.
So I don't post tons of links. So I don't find propaganda sites to support my position. Big deal.
Blagsta constantly misquoting me and twsiting things like the div he is.
What I said was find me an offical government website or better a yet a drug charity website that says drugs aren't so bad, can be used tofor social togethgerness and all this business andn then you might have a chance.
I will make the legalisation argument clear for you:
Legality = Legitmacy.
Fact.
Smoking kills pople, causes health problems but its legal and hence legitmate. Same for drinking, legal = Legitmate.
If you legalise something, you make it legitimate and acceptable.
If you legalise street drugs, then you legitimise it. Personally I think thats wrong.
Drugs are dangerous, even legal ones. In the paper today there is a report of a new club drug that is actually an animal drug for worming, but mixed it gives the user a high. Experts are syaing don't take it, its banned in the USA and some of Europe but its ok here. Still dangerous though.
I really think most of this argument is raging against the machine rather then a genuine idea of cutting crime and social ills.
I'm waiting, so is everyone else.
You're making yourself look like a divot. Go away Luke, you're boring now.
Morrco- lies aboput me not going to uni for start. Look it up yourself.
Blagast takes things I say then twists it so it looks like I am saying something random when I was actually answering a question. Its morning and I can't be bothered searching thorugh this thread just prove something to you.
All I have seen here is a bunch of peopl who can't debate and choose to gang up and attempt to intimidate someone. Its disgusting and childish.
Where has anyone said that drugs could help social togetherness? Lower crime could, but that would be a side effect of the prescribing rather than the drug itself.
Are you encouraged to smoke because they are legal? Smokers are social pariah's in most work places and homes.
What drug? Do you have a name?
Sorry? We cant debate? We have expressed our views time and again, arguing in detail how we think the legal supply of drugs would help.
You have had comments from people in the legal profession and people who work with or have been addicts.
You on the other hand have provided no sources, used conjecture, half remembered stories you have read years before, and failed to back up any of your arguments. Which is why some of the more hot headed posters have insulted you.
I think it is clear it is you who needs to debate properly.
:no:
:no:
Poeple smoke because tis legal and its only now the tide is turning on smoker after over a hundred years of people smoking. Legal makes it legitimate. Except then they make it illeagl in places and then its not legitimate to smoke there.
I don't remmebr the name no, but look in a metro paper, its in there.
No you fucking haven't, its only been about 1 or 2 thats kept it cicl. I have provided proof and you only take a slice of whats been posted her by me. When I ask for proof though it snever supplied. That one report on druscope and thats wall you have. I don;'t give a toss if a few addicts and a drug worker want it legalised. There plenty out ther that don't Don't you get that?? Just coz I am th eonly one posting on this thread talking about it doesn't mean they don't exist.
I have debated and its taken a long time for me to get angry and swear unlike a few of the people on this thread.
Legality does equal legitmacy.
I wont try and explain what he means there, thats up to him.
Even if legal supply of drugs did legitimise it, why is that an issue?
What level of violence is personally acceptable to you for the purpose of making others conform to your opinions?
bong- You reealy think we should legitmise these drugs?
Definately could lower crime - then again so would legalising rape and murder.
If less things are crimes then there are less things for ppl to do 'wrong':P
Also i think kermit was saying it should be prescribed to addicts? Well maybe but surely that isnt helping them just because its clean... also recreational users may abuse the system, though i dont disagree it may lower drug related crime slightly.
I dont think you can compare mind altering drugs to tobacco, but maybe alcohol...though the comparissons are being made wrongly - The alcohol crime/death figures seem to always get compared with the drug ones (alcohol is legal therefore much more widely used so its an unfari test)... say 1k ppl overdid it with harder drugs and 1k ppl over did it with alcohol I wonder what the effects would be in comparisson :chin: :chin:
I guess legalising drugs wouldn't change the world that much, though it would seem wierd someone stepping outside to inject instead of a cigarette lol.
Having said all this I do agree that addicts should be able to be prescribed controlled doses if they wanta cooperate, could ease them off I guess.
People take drugs regardless of the legality. More people won't take drugs if they become legal- after all, 83% of the population don't smoke, and that's legal.
Klintock is right- the legality of something doesn't condone it. Until very recently necrophilia was legally allowed- did you shag dead bodies? Of course not (I hope).
Really? How so?
Do you think that one set of men have magical powers, and if they write something down, then other men must obey what they have written just because they have?
You can't be that naive, surely to fuck?
So, I ask again, how much violence do you think is fair to use to force your opinion on others?
And rofl at the necrophilia example, thats not the same sort of thing =|
It depends what you mean, for a very large chunk of the under 30's they are already a very normal part of life. No law change would make any difference there.
You seem to think the law is a deterant, which it obviously isnt. Would you try cannabis if the law changed?
What a silly thing to say.
If you give drug addicts access to drugs, they don't need to steal to fund their addiction.
Do you think the current system, which requires addicts to burgle and rob, is better?
It is, though.
They can take the drugs in medically controlled conditions, knowing that their drugs haven't been cut with harmful substances.
Why not let recreational users buy drugs commercially from licensed stores? People use cannabis, they pop E, and they always will do. Why not let them do it safely, and cut out the real scum- the drug pushers.
So the only crime associated to the drugs trade is the possession of the drug itself? There isnt any cost or crime committed other than that?
It is the same thing though.
If you claim that legality will make people do it, then you are claiming that people will do everything that's legally allowed.
Same way you do now, with the users will power (and help).
How do alcoholics come off alcohol?
Yeah, but who to?
Last time I checked it wasn't a crime to saw your own foot off, so why is it one to damage yourself in this way? Who owns that body anyway?
The point is not whether we can limit the use of drugs (history has shown we can't) but how we limit the damage drugs cause.
By keeping many of these drugs illegal you are increasing the risk to users and the harm they do to society.
Look at prohabition in the US.