harvey19 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 The real answer must be to not get addicted and if a person does to break the habit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 The price of an illegal substance is determined more by the cost of distribution than of production. Take cocaine: the mark-up between coca field and consumer is more than a hundredfold. Even if dumping weedkiller on the crops of peasant farmers quadruples the local price of coca leaves, this tends to have little impact on the street price, which is set mainly by the risk of getting cocaine into Europe or the United States. Indeed, far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before. According to the UN’s perhaps inflated estimate, the illegal drug industry is worth some $320 billion a year. In the West it makes criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens (the current American president could easily have ended up in prison for his youthful experiments with “blow”). It also makes drugs more dangerous: addicts buy heavily adulterated cocaine and heroin; many use dirty needles to inject themselves, spreading HIV; the wretches who succumb to “crack” or “meth” are outside the law, with only their pushers to “treat” them. http://www.economist.com/node/13237193 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted April 7, 2012 Author Share Posted April 7, 2012 The real answer must be to not get addicted and if a person does to break the habit. but not to criminalise them during this process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 The real answer must be to not get addicted and if a person does to break the habit. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 but not to criminalise them during this process. But they have broken laws and so this cannot be ignored unless there is an option whereas the punishment is to permantly stop using drugs in lieu of conventional types of punishment. Similar to the old system where a prisoner could choose to join the army instead of conventional punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. What about countries like Singapore wher I understand there is hardly any drug problem ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 But they have broken laws and so this cannot be ignored unless there is an option whereas the punishment is to permantly stop using drugs in lieu of conventional types of punishment. Similar to the old system where a prisoner could choose to join the army instead of conventional punishment. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 What about countries like Singapore wher I understand there is hardly any drug problem ? Singapore inflates drug prices in satellite countries- a gift to the criminal dealers! The UK has a cannabis usage of 8.2% and the Netherlands has a cannabis usage of 5.4%. The USA is around 12%. Maybe it's time for some sensible thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Why would there be a black market? The addict has a choice, they can either get their heroin from the NHS for free, knowing it clean and pure, without the associated law breaking that can surround the local scum bag drug dealer selling it. Or they can go out for a few hours on the rob with all the associated risks in an attempt to raise the money needed to buy their drugs, then they buy those drugs from the local scum bag dealer without knowing what they are buying, strength or what it's been cut with. It's a no brainer. To you it's a no brainer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so. I think one of the reasons they are illegal is because some people will get addicted on them and it is to try and protect these people. I am sure there are many people who will have rejected drug use because they are illegal and they simply see it as wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.