I'm all for legalizing drugs but I'm fully against legalizing prostitution!

 

If the people that are addicted and want to get drugs legalized it's going to cost more so they'll go to someone who's selling it cheaper. The addicts are still going to find ways of trying to fund their habbit if they can't afford it.

 

I can't understand why you think drugs would be more expensive if legal. At the moment dealers add a risk factor of getting caught into their price, if that risk was gone they would be cheaper.

 

Not only that if they were sold in a responsible manner the chances of people being encouraged to experiment with more addictive substances would be reduced.

 

I would suggest a controlled place to buy them where health checkups of users where regularily performed and help for people wanting to quit was offered.

I can't understand why you think drugs would be more expensive if legal. At the moment dealers add a risk factor of getting caught into their price, if that risk was gone they would be cheaper.

 

Not only that if they were sold in a responsible manner the chances of people being encouraged to experiment with more addictive substances would be reduced.

 

I would suggest a controlled place to buy them where health checkups of users where regularily performed and help for people wanting to quit was offered.

 

Tax & VAT, if they legalise the drugs they can put on whatever price they'd like. I wouldn't call it 'risk price', it's more of a 'I have it, you want it, so it's my terms and my price'...Not too pricey of course cos you could go elsewhere.

 

Their like bees to honey tho.

Tax & VAT, if they legalise the drugs they can put on whatever price they'd like. I wouldn't call it 'risk price', it's more of a 'I have it, you want it, so it's my terms and my price'...Not too pricey of course cos you could go elsewhere.

 

Their like bees to honey tho.

 

 

Of course they'd be tax and vat but that still does not necessarily make it more expensive than it is now, the shipping cost would plummet as there would be no need to smuggle it anymore, and bigger quanties could be moved around.

 

I would not advocate private businesses selling it though, I would suggest that it was controlled by a government run agency who's main concern was not profit but the welfare of drug users, and I would also suggest cigarettes and alcohol were sold only through this agency too.

Edited October 14, 200717 yr by Mark.

Of course they'd be tax and vat but that still does not necessarily make it more expensive than it is now, the shipping cost would plummet as there would be no need to smuggle it anymore, and bigger quanties could be moved around.

 

I would not advocate private businesses selling it though, I would suggest that it was controlled by a government run agency who's main concern was not profit but the welfare of drug users, and I would also suggest cigarettes and alcohol were sold only through this agency too.

 

Well I don't think they'd sell crack next to Cig's in the local offlicence!

 

Nah I think that's silly, it's like saying we'll close the pub unless we put it into your controlled shop.

Well I don't think they'd sell crack next to Cig's in the local offlicence!

 

Nah I think that's silly, it's like saying we'll close the pub unless we put it into your controlled shop.

 

Nah, you'd still have pubs, because they are regulated and controlled by local authorities who have the powers to shut down a pub any time they want, I think KG was just talking about the retailing aspect of selling alcohol...

 

Nah, you'd still have pubs, because they are regulated and controlled by local authorities who have the powers to shut down a pub any time they want, I think KG was just talking about the retailing aspect of selling alcohol...

 

Yeah thats exactly what I mean. Like in Amsterdam you have coffee shops for cannibis. You couldn't sell a restricted product like this in the local newsagent, but if you have trained staff you can sell it in a controlled environment, where you can offer other related services, and easily age restrict the product

Edited October 12, 200717 yr by kindagood

I don’t agree with what you said here.

People are using drugs, making it illegal doesn’t change that they still use it.

When I read “the ethical concept of legalising drugs” I presume you mean that drugs are illegal because it would stop people from using it…so it would be a way to help those people to stop using drugs or to never start using it in the first place?

I don’t think it’s working that way….people still use drugs and will continue using it.

Now I think that legalising drugs will be a better way of taking care of these people, if drugs are legal it will be easier to control the quality of the drugs and it would also be easier to get and cheaper so there would be less criminality on the streets….no more drug dealers controlling the streets at night making the city unsafe for others.

It will be in the hands of the government and they will have more control on the whole thing.

They could use all the money they use for tracking down the drug dealers on better drug education programs and campaigns on schools to prevent as much young people as possible from starting to use drugs.

Tell them about all the different kind of drugs and what they do to you.

I think that will be a better and in my opinion more ethical way to try to stop people from using drugs then to just say it’s not allowed and they will get punished if they do it!!!

And it will be better for the people on the street aswell….

 

I hope this makes sense if not I hope that someone who is English can explain better....

 

i think i understand you.. :)

 

i'm not sure why drugs are illegal, whether it's because of the criminal gangs that control them or is it just because (i suspect) that they are harmful to you.

 

the ethical position is this...if drugs are legalised, who is selling/providing them? the state?.. could the state condone the selling and profiteering from substances that are harmful to people?... (well they do tax alcohol and ciggys already... stepping up to drugs isn't that bigger step)

 

i dunno exactly where i stand on the issue, i'd have to consider it much more.

i'm not sure why drugs are illegal, whether it's because of the criminal gangs that control them or is it just because (i suspect) that they are harmful to you.

 

the ethical position is this...if drugs are legalised, who is selling/providing them? the state?.. could the state condone the selling and profiteering from substances that are harmful to people?... (well they do tax alcohol and ciggys already... stepping up to drugs isnt that bigger step)

 

i dunno exactly where i stand on the issue, i'd have to consider it much more.

 

 

Thing is, things like Opium, Cocaine and Laudunum were once actually okay, you had the Victorian Opium dens which the authorities were perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to, cocaine and laudunum were once prescribed by doctors, I'm sure you've read your Conan Doyle...

 

Frankly, I don't think the ethical leap to the state controlling and regulating stuff like Cannabis, Heroin, Cocaine, etc really is that great a leap tbh, alcohol and ciggies kill between them about 30,000+ Britons every year, so I really cant see what earthly difference it would make.. I think the position should be basically "well, we really would rather you didn't do this, but we'll make sure you can do it as safely as possible, and we'll tax it as a punitive measure to help counteract the costs to the state in terms of healthcare"... I dont see the contradiction in this position tbh, and I think this is what any responsible State should be doing. Prohibition just aint working mate, and I think it costs society more to keep this in the grips of gangsterism ....

Thing is, things like Opium, Cocaine and Laudunum were once actually okay, you had the Victorian Opium dens which the authorities were perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to, cocaine and laudunum were once prescribed by doctors, I'm sure you've read your Conan Doyle...

 

Frankly, I don't think the ethical leap to the state controlling and regulating stuff like Cannabis, Heroin, Cocaine, etc really is that great a leap tbh, alcohol and ciggies kill between them about 30,000+ Britons every year, so I really cant see what earthly difference it would make.. I think the position should be basically "well, we really would rather you didn't do this, but we'll make sure you can do it as safely as possible, and we'll tax it as a punitive measure to help counteract the costs to the state in terms of healthcare"... I dont see the contradiction in this position tbh, and I think this is what any responsible State should be doing. Prohibition just aint working mate, and I think it costs society more to keep this in the grips of gangsterism ....

 

broadly, i agree.

i think i understand you.. :)

 

i'm not sure why drugs are illegal, whether it's because of the criminal gangs that control them or is it just because (i suspect) that they are harmful to you.

 

the ethical position is this...if drugs are legalised, who is selling/providing them? the state?.. could the state condone the selling and profiteering from substances that are harmful to people?... (well they do tax alcohol and ciggys already... stepping up to drugs isnt that bigger step)

 

i dunno exactly where i stand on the issue, i'd have to consider it much more.

 

 

I think it should be sold in special places like we have the coffee shops here in Dutchie land....people who work there are not only selling but also giving advice about what to buy and how much and how to use it....I think that would be taking care of people ;)

PLUS cigarettes and alcohol are probably even more addictive and harmful then cannabis!!!!

 

Thing is, things like Opium, Cocaine and Laudunum were once actually okay, you had the Victorian Opium dens which the authorities were perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to, cocaine and laudunum were once prescribed by doctors, I'm sure you've read your Conan Doyle...

 

Frankly, I dont think the ethical leap to the state controlling and regulating stuff like Cannabis, Heroin, Cocaine, etc really is that great a leap tbh, alcohol and ciggies kill between them about 30,000+ Britons every year, so I really cant see what earthly difference it would make.. I think the position should be basically "well, we really would rather you didn't do this, but we'll make sure you can do it as safely as possible, and we'll tax it as a punitive measure to help counteract the costs to the state in terms of healthcare"... I dont see the contradiction in this position tbh, and I think this is what any responsible State should be doing. Prohibition just aint working mate, and I think it costs society more to keep this in the grips of gangsterism ....

 

 

I couldn't agree more!!!

i think they should be legalised as if you wanted them it should be up to the buyer

'legalise drugs'?... but which drugs? soft options would be quite acceptable, but where do you draw the line? heroin?... crack? and if it was only soft drugs legalised surely the harder drugs would still have criminal gangs making money.

'legalise drugs'?... but which drugs? soft options would be quite acceptable, but where do you draw the line? heroin?... crack? and if it was only soft drugs legalised surely the harder drugs would still have criminal gangs making money.

 

You have to legalise them all......

 

...but that doesn't mean we'll all be shooting up heroin, it will probably lead to a drop in drug consumption, because if it is legalised, but controlled properly then there will be help for addicts when they want it without fear or criminal prosecution, and health checks would be performed on regular users often, and advice on the safe use of drugs given to all

'legalise drugs'?... but which drugs? soft options would be quite acceptable, but where do you draw the line? heroin?... crack? and if it was only soft drugs legalised surely the harder drugs would still have criminal gangs making money.

 

You'd have to legalise all of them Rob, for the very reasons you illustrate... Criminal gangs would just shift into other areas of drug trafficking if they were denied the cannabis/ecstasy/LSD market..... It aint pretty, but it's necessary to rid the streets of gang turf wars....

Legalise the f***ing drugs!yeeeeeh!

I say legalize them. ^^; I never plan on doing drugs, but if someone wants to, meh, go ahead.

Edited October 17, 200717 yr by Medicatedsoap

From the BBC's news website

 

North Wales Police Authority has backed a review of drug laws after its chief constable urged legalisation.

Richard Brunstrom asked the authority to back his calls to scrap current laws, legalise most drugs and bring in a new system to control them.

 

While it agreed to support the report - to go to the Home Secretary as part of UK-wide consultation - it did not say current laws should be scrapped.

 

A senior police officers' body called legalisation "a counsel of despair".

 

Mr Brunstrom called the fight against drugs unwinnable but said he did not want "an anarchic free-for-all".

 

He said there was a battle with "the flat earthers" who refused to look at the evidence suggesting drugs laws need a radical change.

 

The chief constable said his report was not a "crusade or proactive - it is a response based on a degree of radicalism".

 

The authority agreed that his report should go to the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, which is about to conduct its own drugs consultation.

 

It also said there should be a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, with the possible replacement of a Misuse of Substances Act regulating all drugs, including nicotine and alcohol based on a new hierarchy of harm.

 

The authority further agreed to consider affiliation with the lobby group Transform Drug Policy Foundation.

 

Before the meeting, Plaid Cymru AM Leanne Wood told BBC Wales' Politics Show that Mr Brunstrom was right to raise the issue.

 

'Not fit for purpose'

 

Ms Wood, a former probation officer, said she agreed with the chief constable that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was "not fit for purpose".

 

She also agreed with his view that the UK's drugs strategy was "unwinnable".

 

"I've seen myself how people are just recycled through the system," she said.

 

"They go to prison, they come out of prison, they end up continuing using drugs and continuing breaking the law, and that has to change.

 

"I think Richard Brunstrom is doing some thinking outside the box on this, which is long overdue," she added.

 

But Anglesey MP Albert Owen had said he hoped the authority would reject Mr Brunstrom's recommendations.

 

"I think he's not just thinking outside the box, he's just simply wrong," he said.

 

"We should have a three-pronged attack which is education, crime enforcement, which is prohibition of hard drugs and also rehabilitation."

 

'Counsel of despair'

 

Last week Mr Brunstrom's views were criticised by Alyn and Deeside MP Mark Tami who said claiming legalising heroin was the only way forward was "blinkered and dangerous".

 

Alyn and Deeside AM Carl Sergeant said a more sustainable solution would be to tackle the causes of drug abuse.

 

Earlier, a spokeswoman for Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) which represents 44 UK police authorities, said Mr Brunstrom was entitled to his personal views.

 

"Acpo does not agree with the repeal of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the legalisation of drugs - this is arguably a counsel of despair."

 

She added: "Moving to total legalisation would, in our view, greatly exacerbate the harm to people in this country, not reduce it.

 

"It simply does not make sense to legitimise dangerous narcotic substances which would then have the potential to ruin even more lives and our neighbourhoods."