Home Politics & Debate
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.

drug crime

1141517192025

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    The point is not whether we can limit the use of drugs (history has shown we can't)

    I disagree, I find it hard to beleive that maybe not in all but in most cases a society where drugs are legal and acceptable would see higher drug consumption than one where they illegal and unacceptable......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its a hard thing to judge... And if some legislation was changed the it would 100% have to be different for each drug as obv they dont all have the same effects.

    And klintock ure right ppl can damage themselves if they want, though they shouldnt be able to put themselves in a state where they may damage society and maybe others.

    Not asking this as part of the arguement, but ... Why do you think the government have drugs as illegal at the moment ? They could get tax revenue from them if they were legalised so if they will cause no harm to people other than the ones taking them themselves why are they banned?

    (genuine question)

    (oh and PS im not arguing against the prescribed heroine thing at the moment, I agree with that after thinking it through a bit :P i just mean in general...)
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kentish wrote:
    Probably yes, but if you legalise them you will arguably increase use

    How would giving out heroin on prescription to addicts drastically increase it's use?
    It would be harder to get hold of then it is now.

    Kentish wrote:
    Irrelevant. We're not suggesting banning something that is currently legal.

    How does that make much difference?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Probably yes, but if you legalise them you will arguably increase use and therefore increase the harm anyway. A lot of people can use drugs without incident but that doesn't mean it is right to provide these things on the NHS.

    There maybe some minor increase in use, and at first that may cause problems, but it would settle.

    And in return you would greatly decrease the risks to the consumer, quality control and information at the point of sale would really cut down the risk of damage and OD.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    How would giving out heroin on prescription to addicts drastically increase it's use?
    Why would you prescribe it? And how would an addict prove he is an addict and needs his script? Would anyone be allowed to get it? WOuld they have to agree to a gradual decrease in dose over time?
    It would be harder to get hold of then it is now.
    How so if it available in licensed shops?
    How does that make much difference?
    It is the difference. :confused:
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Toadborg wrote:
    I disagree, I find it hard to beleive that maybe not in all but in most cases a society where drugs are legal and acceptable would see higher drug consumption than one where they illegal and unacceptable......

    The consumption of every illegal drug has been on the increases since it was made illegal. Do you really think that the law is working?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    muse- wrote:
    Not asking this as part of the arguement, but ... Why do you think the government have drugs as illegal at the moment ? They could get tax revenue from them if they were legalised so if they will cause no harm to people other than the ones taking them themselves why are they banned?

    The banning of cannabis had strong racial over tones, its basically about control and fear.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    There maybe some minor increase in use, and at first that may cause problems, but it would settle.

    And in return you would greatly decrease the risks to the consumer, quality control and information at the point of sale would really cut down the risk of damage and OD.
    Why only minor increases that would settle? You are giving tacit approval for the use of a drug for recreational purposes. An addictive drug with pleasurable effects. Doesn't quite make sense to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Why would you prescribe it? And how would an addict prove he is an addict and needs his script? Would anyone be allowed to get it? WOuld they have to agree to a gradual decrease in dose over time?

    It would work exactly the same way methadone scripts do now, is there rampant methadone abuse, are we all begging our GP's for methadone?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Why only minor increases that would settle? You are giving tacit approval for the use of a drug for recreational purposes. An addictive drug with pleasurable effects. Doesn't quite make sense to me.

    But it varies depending on the drug, MDMA is relatively safe, and cannabis safer than alcohol to society.

    Why should we restrict these drugs?

    Cocaine and heroin are different, heroin should be on prescription and I have seen no good answer to the cocaine problem.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kentish wrote:
    It is the difference. :confused:

    What does this difference mean? :confused:
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    It would work exactly the same way methadone scripts do now, is there rampant methadone abuse, are we all begging our GP's for methadone?
    But you don't get the same high with methadone, as you probably know. It's a slow releasing opiate and is only used for heroin withdrawal. And it has to be taken in the chemist so it's hard to abuse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    What does this difference mean? :confused:
    There's a difference between banning something and legalising something.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kentish wrote:
    There's a difference between banning something and legalising something.

    But most of these drugs were legal at some point?

    Explain this difference.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    But it varies depending on the drug, MDMA is relatively safe, and cannabis safer than alcohol to society.

    Why should we restrict these drugs?
    Safer isn't safe, and I'm not fussed either way on cannabis legalisation. I've seen good evidence about cannabis causing a psychosis, unpredictably, and I wouldn't want anyone extra to suffer that. MDMA I don't know, it was demonised by the Leah Betts thing, but probably again is unpredictably harmful.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But if you're expecting wider society to pick up the pieces of your risky behaviour in terms of healthcare and social services, then I think we all have a right to say what should be promoted and what should not.

    Fair enough, I suppose, if we take as read the existence of society etc (which I won't go into for a change) but should it be the decisive say?

    What's wrong with a "we'd prefer it if you didn't" or a "no services for you if you do" or even, "if you can afford those things privately, go ahead."?

    Then of course, we have to decide at what point does your legitimate interference to protect your own interests become outweighted by the damage you are doing interfering?
    And klintock ure right ppl can damage themselves if they want, though they shouldnt be able to put themselves in a state where they may damage society and maybe others.

    We already have laws against those who damage others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    But most of these drugs were legal at some point?
    So what? This has nothing to do with the past banning of a drug. The choice is whether to legalise or not. If you insist on bringing the lessons of prohibition into it, then you will probably appreciate that the legalisation of any currently illegal drug would be a final decision. Subsequent prohibition would be difficult to enforce, even more difficult than it currently is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    But you don't get the same high with methadone, as you probably know. It's a slow releasing opiate and is only used for heroin withdrawal. And it has to be taken in the chemist so it's hard to abuse.

    No it doesnt, only in some areas and by some GP's is consumption in the chemist. But thats not the point really, are you suggesting that if you knew you could get it you would try?

    And yes, cannabis can be harmful to some people, but that misses the point, would it be more or less harmful if there was quality control and safety information at the point of sale? And the same goes for MDMA.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Fair enough, I suppose, if we take as read the existence of society etc (which I won't go into for a change) but should it be the decisive say?

    What's wrong with a "we'd prefer it if you didn't" or a "no services for you if you do" or even, "if you can afford those things privately, go ahead."?

    Then of course, we have to decide at what point does your legitimate interference to protect your own interests become outweighted by the damage you are doing interfering?



    We already have laws against those who damage others.

    Yep we do ... I know im much more likely to break the law if im in a state of innebriation :P (not that i do =P), im thinking more of the ppl that get hurt by the 'law breakers' before they get prosecuted (if they do).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I already have tried it bong.

    It adds weight to legitimacy. Why aren't people using the drugs now? Yes a lot are but alot are not as well. Making i legal opens up the gates and accaptance.

    It may be part of yuor life, or people you mee but that doesn't mean its part of everyone else's.

    Why legalise it for the people already using. How come their say is more imprtant or valid then any one elses?

    You have to use common sense. If you legalise nearly all crimt hen course your crime levels drop because the acts commited aren't criminal any more, dso thats one chunck gone.
    Then the conenction crimes to drugs would stiull exist anyway as they are crimes in their own right for various motives more then just getting one fix. And you really haven't got what you'd do either? is it just for addicts in which case it doesn't stop new addicts being hooked or is it for everyone and what effect would that have??
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kentish wrote:
    So what?

    So the phobition of drugs isn't so very different than the prohibition of alcohol in the states - something that failed.

    They banned it and found the law caused more problems - the same sort of problems we are seeing now since drugs have been banned.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    So the phobition of drugs isn't so very different than the prohibition of alcohol in the states - something that failed.

    They banned it and found the law caused more problems - the same sort of problems we are seeing now since drugs have been banned.
    No, not the same sort of thing at all. Nice to see the same old tired arguments are coming out though. It's a bit tedious.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Walkindude wrote:
    It may be part of yuor life, or people you mee but that doesn't mean its part of everyone else's.

    But it is. Addicts have to commit other crimes to pay for their addiction. Drug money is the biggest earner for organised crime.

    It affects everybody.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    Why legalise it for the people already using. How come their say is more imprtant or valid then any one elses?

    You have to use common sense. If you legalise nearly all crimt hen course your crime levels drop because the acts commited aren't criminal any more, dso thats one chunck gone.
    Then the conenction crimes to drugs would stiull exist anyway as they are crimes in their own right for various motives more then just getting one fix. And you really haven't got what you'd do either? is it just for addicts in which case it doesn't stop new addicts being hooked or is it for everyone and what effect would that have??

    Because legal supply would benefit everyone, users and non users alike in lower robbery and assault figures, more police time spent chasing real criminals, tax revenue from the sales, less health problems from addicts, less gang violence....

    And I cant make sense of the second bit at all, sorry.

    If I wish to use cannabis, why should I be stopped?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    No, not the same sort of thing at all. Nice to see the same old tired arguments are coming out though. It's a bit tedious.

    I can see what you mean, I'm not convinced the example of banning alcohol is an ideal one.

    And its not even an issue of legal drugs supply being great, all it has to be is less crap than what we have now, which is Europe's worst drug problem.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    No it doesnt, only in some areas and by some GP's is consumption in the chemist. But thats not the point really, are you suggesting that if you knew you could get it you would try?
    I wouldn't try methadone because it isn't a pleasurable drug to take. Maybe I'd try diamorph I don't know. But I think if you make it socially acceptable, use would increase.
    And yes, cannabis can be harmful to some people, but that misses the point, would it be more or less harmful if there was quality control and safety information at the point of sale? And the same goes for MDMA.
    No idea. Do you have any info on it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    muse- wrote:
    Not asking this as part of the arguement, but ... Why do you think the government have drugs as illegal at the moment ?

    They are illegal because most people want them to be and any governemtn that proposed legalisation of all drugs or even most, that are currently illegal would lose the next election.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because cannibis is illegal and for a reaosn. Its againts the law. Laws are bedrocks of society and maitin a sensible order. Yes they are broken and people gt punished when break them and yes I know plenty get away with it as well.

    I mean if you say you want to use cannivbs why should you be stopped then why should any one be stopped doing what they want? I want dvds and clothes form shops, they can afford to lose making millions a year, I earn a lowish wage why not just walk in and take it? And similar for other crimes.


    real criminals are linked to drugs, the dealers that push their wares on kids and teens, the drug lords, the enforcers etc etc. Thats real crime and criminals.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kentish wrote:
    No, not the same sort of thing at all.

    Why is not? Explain?
    Kentish wrote:
    Nice to see the same old tired arguments are coming out though. It's a bit tedious.

    What arguments?

    I'm not suggesting that because one harmful substance is legal that others should be, but alcohol is a drug like any other.
    I think it is worthwhile pointing out the problems prohibtion caused and how they parallel with the problems we have now with illegal drugs.

    Money going to organised crime. Users getting a bad quality product which can be fatal etc..
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    There maybe some minor increase in use, and at first that may cause problems, but it would settle.

    And in return you would greatly decrease the risks to the consumer, quality control and information at the point of sale would really cut down the risk of damage and OD.

    Well you don't know that for a fact do you?

    Yes it may be a good idea for the point of view of health and safety etc but the problem is that most people don't give a shit about how cleans some junkies smack is.......
Sign In or Register to comment.