Bonzo77 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 What an idealistic but very unrealistic picture. You've made your point. Care to explain it? Otherwise it's pretty useless, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Do you think all the hardcore and petty criminals that peddle and produce the ****e will go straight and change their ways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Do you think all the hardcore and petty criminals that peddle and produce the ****e will go straight and change their ways? That depends on the level of taxation on legalised, commonly used, recreational drugs. If the taxes are set too high, then criminal gangs will traffic and sell it in the same way they do with cigarettes and alcohol now. But taxation is a reasonably effective behaviour modifier, so there is a sweet spot that balances the opportunities for criminals to make big money with the limiting effects of cost to the user, where smuggling is minimised and tax revenue is maximised. This is really only applicable to drugs like cannabis and alcohol, sociable mass market intoxicants with a long history of broad recreational use. You need different models for different drugs, because they all affect people very differently. Heroin use is mostly associated with addiction, and heroin addiction should be treated as a medical issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think it can only be treated as a medical issue if you class the users as victims. Its taken by free choice as far as i know. Im sure everyone knows the perils and pitfalls before they take it,hardly makes you a victim in my opinion. I take your point on the sweet spot for taxation but if the government now, or any government we have had had any interest in taking up the sweet spot concept on taxation then there would be no illegal cheap booze or fags about now would there and we would all be paying alot less for our fuel. If you legalise it and take the stigma away then you create a free market which would encourage competition to supply. To be profitable for the dealers then there would be even more chance of lower quality and dangerous cutting, not less. I think it would be counter productive to legalise, for all the for arguements there are many against. Who would benefit from legalisation? The man on the street? I dont think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 That worked well for Phillip Seymour Hoffman! Phillip Seymour Hoffman would most likely be alive today had the drug been unadulterated and at a known dose, both of which would have been the case if the drug weren't prohibited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think it can only be treated as a medical issue if you class the users as victims. Its taken by free choice as far as i know. Im sure everyone knows the perils and pitfalls before they take it,hardly makes you a victim in my opinion. So we shouldn't treat a sprained ankle from football, liver cyrosis from alcohol or a paracetamol overdose as medical issues, because the risks are known and the damage incurred due to an action taken? I take your point on the sweet spot for taxation but if the government now, or any government we have had had any interest in taking up the sweet spot concept on taxation then there would be no illegal cheap booze or fags about now would there and we would all be paying alot less for our fuel. If you legalise it and take the stigma away then you create a free market which would encourage competition to supply. That's not true. There are many legal things where the market is far from free. Removing prohibition does not mean removing all control or legislation. To be profitable for the dealers then there would be even more chance of lower quality and dangerous cutting, not less. Heroin could be supplied by the state to diagnosed addicts for next to nothing (in fact nothing to them, next to nothing is the cost to the state). There is no way it could be undercut. I think it would be counter productive to legalise, for all the for arguements there are many against. Who would benefit from legalisation? The man on the street? I dont think so. There are no arguments against, not a single one. There is plenty of moralising and hand wringing, but that is all. Everyone would benefit from legalisation, the man on the street possibly the most. Acquisitive crime would be massively reduced, the chance of being burgled or mugged would drop dramatically, the police who currently investigate acquisitive crime could do other things, the entire cost of the war on drugs would drop to practically nothing, freeing up the police and the courts and many others to do more productive things. Users would actually become functioning members of society again. Paying tax and having a job. There is no one who wouldn't benefit from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think it can only be treated as a medical issue if you class the users as victims. Its taken by free choice as far as i know. Im sure everyone knows the perils and pitfalls before they take it,hardly makes you a victim in my opinion. No, but giving heroin to existing addicts is the cheapest, most effective method of reducing all the harms associated with heroin addiction. It also reduces the uptake of heroin by the young. I take your point on the sweet spot for taxation but if the government now, or any government we have had had any interest in taking up the sweet spot concept on taxation then there would be no illegal cheap booze or fags about now would there and we would all be paying alot less for our fuel. I agree, when wasn't a government greedy? But the government are losing about 7-8% of their tax revenue on alcohol through illicit trading, run by criminal gangs. At the moment they are losing all of their cannabis revenue. Booze and fags are luxuries, and yet both are addictive - so the government and the Booze and Fags companies have enjoyed a closed shop for a long, long time: no wonder they will resist the legalisation of a plant that can be grown as easily as tomatoes, and gives enough people the "weekend hit" they need in their working lives. Not to mention the industrial benefits of growing cannabis on a mass agricultural scale that become possible with legalisation. Ifyou legalise it and take the stigma away then youcreate a free market which would encourage competition to supply. To be profitable for the dealers then therewould be even more chance of lower quality and dangerous cutting, not less. I think it would be counter productive to legalise, for all the for arguements there are many against. Who would benefit from legalisation? The man on the street? I dont think so. Taking the stigma away does not automatically lead to creating a free market. No-one has suggested that. Nowhere has enacted that. So … Observed effects of legalisation/decriminalisation/depenalisation: Increased tax revenues Decreased mortality and harms to users Decreased property crime Decreased violent crime Lower levels of incarceration Decreasing user bases. Increased spending on scientific research into drugs and addiction I think that benefits everyone on the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Like i originally said, idealistic and unrealistic and thats to both answers. You are quoting opinions and supposition as fact. Everything that both answers to my last post have put are purely opinions of how it would maybe be if legalised. Im sorry but i dont share either. And as for the sprained ankle from football,paracetamol overdose and cyrosis from alcohol abuse question then youll not like my answers. The football injury could be covered by insurance if played other than an occasional kick about in the park, with the kids etc. im sure that the insurance wouldnt be high and would be counted as a cost to enjoy the sport like buying a shirt or pair of shorts. The patacetamol overdose could have occured for varios reasons, im sure we can all agree there must have been intent to harm themselves but the cause of the overdose could be many many reasons, some of which would make them "real" victims so entitled to support and treatment. Cyrosis of the liver if through alcohol abuse doesnt make you a victim. The same arguement as drugs with this one. We all know the risks and take them knowing the risks. I know im coming across as maybe uncaring and unsympathetic but i can assure you its not the case, i have all the time in the world for true victims of any situation. Im a big believer that people should take responsibility for their own actions though and should take consequences on the chin. Im afraid i dont see anyone embroiled in drugs as a victim, we are all aware of the risks so cant complain when it doesnt work out well. One thing i will say is that i think that alot of people that have started taking drugs have done so in the company of other drug users, where it will have been considered more the norm, i think thats where your legalisation and de-stigmatising will get you, i think it will be considered more acceptable and thus the take up would be higher. I think legalisation would create an open market as ive said. If you are still going to have restrictions as you both seem to be sanctioning now then it will change nothing by legalising it, there will still be a cheaper supply out there and people who will still steal to support a habit, just the chances are that by de-stigmatising and legalising there will be more of them. I think any money saving that you are proposing would be swallowed up by support for those that choose that path to save overdoses and deaths and to educate them, the cost of that infrastructure would balance any savings i think. The only difference will be that people eventually would judge the users differently and they could use without feeling like they were living out of general societies regulations and thus they could feel better about themselves as they used the filthy stuff. If they feel subnormal then boo hoo, dont do it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The simple question is, Would you want your child to become a drug addict ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The simple question is, Would you want your child to become a drug addict ? It's certainly a simple question and I think we all know the answer. A more pertinent question though is "does prohibition reduce the number of addicts, or would another approach work better?" And the answer to that question is "another approach". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.