Judge - I am the law and I'll do as I please.

[Harleyman]

On this thread alone I've said there are no utopias on offer. Clearly. More than once.

I've even said

 

 

It's clear you don't actually read other people's posts, but skim over them and invent your own idea of what they have written.

 

 

They will have to take an approximate 60% cut in profits. The price of drugs is vastly inflated by their illegality. Most are dirt cheap to produce, especially the many that simply grow out of the ground, which is account for nearly 100% of the most common drugs of abuse, the notable exceptions being ecstasy (derived from nutmeg oil) and LSD (derived from ergot fungus).

 

Modern production laboratory facilities can churn this stuff out for pennies. It does churn this stuff out for pennies.

 

 

 

Cocaine currently sells at about £500-£800 an ounce. It costs about £30-£50 an ounce to make, if you make it by the ounce.

 

If you're making kilos of it using modern industrial processes, you can expect it to cost upwards of £2-£3 an ounce.

 

Still think that the government couldn't undercut the dealers?

 

Regulation, restriction and education was slow, but it's working for alcohol and cigarettes.

 

On that point we agree totally. I don't envisage suddenly legalising all drugs on one day, and having a mad free for all. I see the process as very gradual and slow, working out the problems as they arise as each individual substance and form is moved from one schedule to another. Cannabis is probably the least pressing matter, and will be last on the list, but will be decriminalised for the process.

 

Laissez-faire is very much where I'm coming from personally, but the harm reduction arguments are what matter right now.

 

 

 

Well, if we stop wasting literally billions (the USA has spent nearly 3 billion dollars on the "war on drugs" so far this year) there's going to be more of it around to put into research funding, apprenticeships, capital investment, boy scouts etc.

 

Why for god's sake make something that isn't doing a scrap of good to anyones health more easily available when alcoholism and tobacco abuse still take a toll on the well being of a segment of society.

 

You really do believe in adding fuel to the fire dont you?

 

Let the drug wars go on. Let judges hand out ever increaisngly harsh sentences for dealers caught selling the hard drugs.

 

Let the pot smokers continue smoking the stuff illegally and nail them to the wall like drunk drivers if they're caught DUI.

If they apply for a job and admit they have smoked pot then make it clear that they will be subject to randon testing at any time without any notice as part of the employment conditions. If they lie on the application form about past or present use of pot and are found out then instant dismissal.

 

That of course is a liberal tolerant view amd probably something that any employer would not agree to What goes on in the Uk these days I wouldn't know but in my part of the world companies who employ a large number of workers such as Home Depot , Costco, Walmart, Sams Club, Lowes, Target, Sears, JC Penny make it quite clear on job applications that all applicants will be tested for drugs, including pot and any positive results will result in that person's application immediately declined.

Many also have large notices pinned to the wall of the employment offices or even on the main doors saying to effect that users of any illegal drugs need not apply.

[Phanerothyme]

Why for god's sake make something that isn't doing a scrap of good to anyones health more easily available when alcoholism and tobacco abuse still take a toll on the well being of a segment of society.

If you really haven't understood the reasons, articulated and reiterated throughout the thread by not just me but many others, that the damage from illegal drugs is much greater is due to their illegality, then you're probably never going to. But I guess it's worth one last try eh?

 

Prohibition did not stop drinking, but it did spawn organised crime in the form we recognise today, and it gave rise to the bloodshed and mayhem that eventually forced the government to repeal the prohibition laws.

You really do believe in adding fuel to the fire dont you?

Once again, you're implying beliefs that I don't hold. I'm talking about a scheme that will and has been proven to reduce harm caused by a drug to the individual, crime related to the paying for and obtaining the drugs, and reduce the number of users of a drug significantly over time, and you say this is adding fuel to a fire?

Let the drug wars go on. Let judges hand out ever increaisngly harsh sentences for dealers caught selling the hard drugs.

The "drug wars". What are they fighting for? The only people that benefit are the police forces that fund themselves through seizures of property and the private prison industry and their ancillary industries. It's a massive form of government subsidy in effect.

 

Meanwhile the problem gets progressively worse, costs billions and is totally unnecessary. Moreover the longer the war goes on, the more difficult it is to bring to a close. Vested interest and employment grows to depend on the "drug wars", lobbyists emerge to defend those industries against threats like drug legalisation. There are private prisons that, in their prospectuses, openly aspire towards ever increasing crime rates.

 

I feel that a true American would understand the concept of individual liberty and personal responsibility, and how it is important for society as much as the individual to inculcate these ideas into the culture.

 

But you demonstrably expect the state to step in on a colossal scale and wage war against its own citizens for exercising their liberty to change their own state of mind. You prefer the state to determine their state of mind, and decide what consciousness alteration is permissible (stupefactants) and what is not (psychedelics).

Let the pot smokers continue smoking the stuff illegally and nail them to the wall like drunk drivers if they're caught DUI.

Of course you'd need to prove driving impairment. You're not going to like this, but driving when drunk is different to driving when stoned. Plenty of people have passed driving examinations stoned. Research shows that habitual users drive better when slightly stoned than when completely straight. Alcohol, however, numbs your abilities in all cases.

 

And consider an illegal drug that improved your driving. Would you nail people to the wall for using an illegal drug that enabled them to drive more safely?

 

If they apply for a job and admit they have smoked pot then make it clear that they will be subject to randon testing at any time without any notice as part of the employment conditions. If they lie on the application form about past or present use of pot and are found out then instant dismissal.

 

That of course is a liberal tolerant view amd probably something that any employer would not agree to What goes on in the Uk these days I wouldn't know but in my part of the world companies who employ a large number of workers such as Home Depot , Costco, Walmart, Sams Club, Lowes, Target, Sears, JC Penny make it quite clear on job applications that all applicants will be tested for drugs, including pot and any positive results will result in that person's application immediately declined.

Many also have large notices pinned to the wall of the employment offices or even on the main doors saying to effect that users of any illegal drugs need not apply.

 

Yet many silicon valley employers abandoned drug testing because they lost their most talented employees.

 

Reluctantly I'm forced to admit you don't want to discuss this.

 

Every single point you have raised in favour of prohibition has been repeatedly rebutted, and you have not been able to, or not seen fit to deal with a single rebuttal of your frankly insane assertions.

 

But in one sense you have provided a worthwhile foil to expound the idea of drug legalisation, and public opinion is slowly turning away from the model of prohibition as they realise a great deal of what they have been told about drugs are outright lies and propaganda.

[Harleyman]

If you really haven't understood the reasons, articulated and reiterated throughout the thread by not just me but many others, that the damage from illegal drugs is much greater is due to their illegality, then you're probably never going to. But I guess it's worth one last try eh?

 

Prohibition did not stop drinking, but it did spawn organised crime in the form we recognise today, and it gave rise to the bloodshed and mayhem that eventually forced the government to repeal the prohibition laws.

 

Once again, you're implying beliefs that I don't hold. I'm talking about a scheme that will and has been proven to reduce harm caused by a drug to the individual, crime related to the paying for and obtaining the drugs, and reduce the number of users of a drug significantly over time, and you say this is adding fuel to a fire?

 

The "drug wars". What are they fighting for? The only people that benefit are the police forces that fund themselves through seizures of property and the private prison industry and their ancillary industries. It's a massive form of government subsidy in effect.

 

Meanwhile the problem gets progressively worse, costs billions and is totally unnecessary. Moreover the longer the war goes on, the more difficult it is to bring to a close. Vested interest and employment grows to depend on the "drug wars", lobbyists emerge to defend those industries against threats like drug legalisation. There are private prisons that, in their prospectuses, openly aspire towards ever increasing crime rates.

 

I feel that a true American would understand the concept of individual liberty and personal responsibility, and how it is important for society as much as the individual to inculcate these ideas into the culture.

 

But you demonstrably expect the state to step in on a colossal scale and wage war against its own citizens for exercising their liberty to change their own state of mind. You prefer the state to determine their state of mind, and decide what consciousness alteration is permissible (stupefactants) and what is not (psychedelics).

 

Of course you'd need to prove driving impairment. You're not going to like this, but driving when drunk is different to driving when stoned. Plenty of people have passed driving examinations stoned. Research shows that habitual users drive better when slightly stoned than when completely straight. Alcohol, however, numbs your abilities in all cases.

 

And consider an illegal drug that improved your driving. Would you nail people to the wall for using an illegal drug that enabled them to drive more safely?

 

 

 

Yet many silicon valley employers abandoned drug testing because they lost their most talented employees.

 

Reluctantly I'm forced to admit you don't want to discuss this.

 

Every single point you have raised in favour of prohibition has been repeatedly rebutted, and you have not been able to, or not seen fit to deal with a single rebuttal of your frankly insane assertions.

 

But in one sense you have provided a worthwhile foil to expound the idea of drug legalisation, and public opinion is slowly turning away from the model of prohibition as they realise a great deal of what they have been told about drugs are outright lies and propaganda.

 

 

While it's true that money seized from drug dealers goes to funding police forces I wholeheartedly support this.

There are very few cities in America at this time which are not struggling with a deficit of lesser or greater proportions and like schools and social services police have been underfunded to the point where they are using outdated equipment and feeling the pinch of manpower shortages.

Thus, I have absolutely nothing to say against helping our police forces in any way we can.

As for prisons I know little of prisons run privately but Federal and State prisons in America are grossly overcrowded already.

 

As for true liberty and personal responsibility that's all very well on the surface but can you rely on everyone being that?

Enabling drugs to become availabe through legalisation serves to make it posssible for people who ordinarily would not mess with them to start doing so and can you expect each and every one of them to be trusted to behave responsibly? No way ! So what in effect would happen is opening a Pandora's box when there is absolutely no need to.

 

I dare say some States like Washington, California, Colorado and Vermont which are traditionally more liberal in many ways would push for pot legalization but as already stated at least once before it would be an exercise in futility since Federal law supercedes State laws in such matters and that's how the system operates.

 

The way I see it for the distant future is that pretty much the same situation will go on. Cannabis will continue to prescribed for medical reasons, law enforcement may turn a blind eye to cannabis possession if the quantity is very, very small and arrest and prosecute those who grow the stuff.

 

The well off will indulge themselves in the more expensive and exotic forms of mind expansion and determine their own fates accordingly as a result although if statistics and news reports are anything to go by most well known celebrities dont know what behaving responsibly is and end up drug addicted messes who die long before their normal life expectancies.

 

Could this be a mirror image of what could be if drugs were to be made legally available to all who (unlike the social elite) ordinarily would not thumb their noses at the law? Something to think about.

 

I wont lose any sleep over drug dealers killing each other in their wars south of the border. Look at it this way. A dead gangster is one less to be clothed, fed and housed at public expense.

 

BTW a few years back I was on a jury where a driver had been pulled over by the Highway Patrol for driving erratically. It was determined from urine testing that he had been smoking the weed.

 

I've also talked to people who claim a pint or two makes them more alert when driving.

[Cyclone]

Why for god's sake make something that isn't doing a scrap of good to anyones health more easily available when alcoholism and tobacco abuse still take a toll on the well being of a segment of society.

 

You really do believe in adding fuel to the fire dont you?

 

Let the drug wars go on. Let judges hand out ever increaisngly harsh sentences for dealers caught selling the hard drugs.

 

Let the pot smokers continue smoking the stuff illegally and nail them to the wall like drunk drivers if they're caught DUI.

If they apply for a job and admit they have smoked pot then make it clear that they will be subject to randon testing at any time without any notice as part of the employment conditions. If they lie on the application form about past or present use of pot and are found out then instant dismissal.

 

That of course is a liberal tolerant view amd probably something that any employer would not agree to What goes on in the Uk these days I wouldn't know but in my part of the world companies who employ a large number of workers such as Home Depot , Costco, Walmart, Sams Club, Lowes, Target, Sears, JC Penny make it quite clear on job applications that all applicants will be tested for drugs, including pot and any positive results will result in that person's application immediately declined.

Many also have large notices pinned to the wall of the employment offices or even on the main doors saying to effect that users of any illegal drugs need not apply.

 

So increase spending on a failed and immoral policy is your opinion. Based on (presumably) propaganda and a desire to make sure that no one does anything you disapprove of...

[Harleyman]

So increase spending on a failed and immoral policy is your opinion. Based on (presumably) propaganda and a desire to make sure that no one does anything you disapprove of...

 

What I disapprove of makes no difference. It's what the law disapproves of and that's what counts. I just happen to believe that legalizing drugs that could lead to even more people using them and becoming addicted in a society that is already dealing with alcohol abuse and the health hazards of tobacco is patently irresponsible.

 

I only express my opinion. If you feel so strongly on the subject organize and lobby your MP with petitions signed by those who share your views. I'm sure your MP will place it right at the top of his agenda.

[Chris_Sleeps]

I just happen to believe that legalizing drugs that could lead to even more people using them and becoming addicted in a society that is already dealing with alcohol abuse and the health hazards of tobacco is patently irresponsible.

This argument goes:

 

Alcohol is legal, and people abuse it.

Tobacco is legal, and people abuse it.

Therefore, all the other drugs apart from these two should be illegal.

 

Can you see how someone could find that reasoning odd?

[LeMaquis]

What I disapprove of makes no difference. It's what the law disapproves of and that's what counts.

 

The anti-drug laws don't count for much though, do they? They must be the most widely-broken laws in the world. Once you accept that and realsie that a different approach is needed then a different way of controlling drugs can be looked at. The present laws just give all the money to the drugs gangs.

[Bonzo77]

What I disapprove of makes no difference. It's what the law disapproves of and that's what counts. I just happen to believe that legalizing drugs that could lead to even more people using them and becoming addicted in a society that is already dealing with alcohol abuse and the health hazards of tobacco is patently irresponsible.

 

I only express my opinion. If you feel so strongly on the subject organize and lobby your MP with petitions signed by those who share your views. I'm sure your MP will place it right at the top of his agenda.

 

You go on about the drugs problem like it isn't there, as if legalising cannabis would be the start of a none existent problem.

The drug problem is already there. Doing something about it is where the problem lies. The only way to remove criminals from the equation is by making drugs legal.

 

Just because something is against the law doesn't mean we should all obey. It doesn't work like that.

[Cyclone]

What I disapprove of makes no difference. It's what the law disapproves of and that's what counts.

The law is supposed to support the general morality of society, not dictate to it how things will be.

But you feel able to suggest what penalties should be applied...

Let judges hand out ever increaisngly harsh sentences for dealers caught selling the hard drugs.

So clearly you think your opinion matters.

I think your opinion is misguided, based on faulty logic and propaganda, hence I'd like to see you re-examine the issue from a point of "should drug X be illegal", answering that it is illegal is circular and is just refusing to look at the issue.

I just happen to believe that legalizing drugs that could lead to even more people using them

Based on what evidence? You do realise that whenever it's been tried the numbers using the drug fall?

and becoming addicted in a society that is already dealing with alcohol abuse and the health hazards of tobacco is patently irresponsible.

Do you even know if cannabis is addictive?

 

I only express my opinion.

Wouldn't it be better if it weren't based on ignorance?

If you feel so strongly on the subject organize and lobby your MP with petitions signed by those who share your views. I'm sure your MP will place it right at the top of his agenda.

What makes you think that I haven't made my MP aware of my feelings?

[Phanerothyme]

Anyone who takes this question seriously might want to watch the debate tomorrow night at 7pm (UK Time) - the question of legalisation is being raised more and more often, ever more visibly.

 

Organised by Transform and conducted through the brilliant Intelligence Squared, the event bumf goes something like this

To liberalise or prohibit, that is the question. And to answer it the masters of live debate have joined forces with the masters of web technology to create a never-seen-before combination of Oxford debating and Silicon Valley prowess.

 

Prohibitionists argue that legalising anything increases its consumption. The world has enough of a problem with legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, so why add to the problem by legalising cannabis, cocaine and heroin?

 

The liberalisers say prohibition doesn’t work. By declaring certain drugs illegal we haven’t reduced consumption or solved any problem. Instead we’ve created an epidemic of crime, illness, failed states and money laundering.

 

Julian Assange and Richard Branson; Russell Brand and Misha Glenny; Geoffrey Robertson and Eliot Spitzer. Experts, orators and celebrities who’ve made this their cause – come and see them lock horns in a new Intelligence²/Google+ debate format. Some of our speakers will be on stage in London, others beamed in from Mexico City or São Paulo or New Orleans, all thanks to the “Hangout” tool on Google+.