Quantcast
Which drugs should be legal (supply and possession) - Page 4 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Colonel Kurtz

Which drugs should be legal (supply and possession)

Which of the following drugs should bd legalised (supply and possession)   

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of these drugs should be legal



Recommended Posts

Lot of generalisations in here. Not all smack heads end up selling their arses. Some are able to hold down jobs for years. It’s when the crack gets thrown into the mix it becomes rapidly unsustainable. One thing I’ve learned is that addiction has no respect for social or economic status and can affect a massively diverse cross section of society. You’re just not aware of it. 

People who have succumbed to addiction are obviously easier to identify. But there is a healthy portion of society that are still out there managing to appear outwardly normal whilst indulging in all manner of things behind closed doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

Decriminalising and legalising are two different things.

 

Edit: Sorry, yes. Methadone is a synthetic version of heroin that's used as a carrot to ween people off heroin. The government legalised a version of heroin to try and solve the problem we had with it.

 

So the government has legalised heroin, just under a brand name and sans needles.

 

That's a good point, and I strongly believe that the addicts shouldn't be punished when it's clear that they can't do anything about the addiction and the criminality of it for them is essentially irrelevant. 

13 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:


You don’t think Methadone is sold/ traded for other illegal drugs/ sex? 

Yeah I'm sure it is. I won't claim to know lots about it, but I know that some Methadone users also continue to use Heroin as well, so it doesn't really solve the problem.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legalise everything

Weed would be sold like craft beers 

Es, acid & coke would be sold in strictly controlled offies

Heroin and shit like crack would be prescription only 

Tax revenue would be ploughed into health & education

Currently work with lots of addicts... they're a sorry bunch that need help and instead get involved in crime and the criminal system doing nobody any good whatsoever

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soft Joe said:

Lot of generalisations in here. Not all smack heads end up selling their arses. Some are able to hold down jobs for years. It’s when the crack gets thrown into the mix it becomes rapidly unsustainable. One thing I’ve learned is that addiction has no respect for social or economic status and can affect a massively diverse cross section of society. You’re just not aware of it. 

People who have succumbed to addiction are obviously easier to identify. But there is a healthy portion of society that are still out there managing to appear outwardly normal whilst indulging in all manner of things behind closed doors.

This is exactly the problem.

 

If you could just buy heroin or meth in your local pharmacy any time you wanted, with no legal issues, for a lot of people, it would instantly make life SO much better. They are addicted, but have something of a handle on the addiction, and so if you just made it so they could get a known quantity of something that was safe, in a safe environment, it would be better. Plus the cops could go focus on solving actual crimes, which would be better for them as well.

 

However, there's another segment of people who under the current system are living functional lives who, if they ever tried any of these harder drugs even once, would instantly have their whole worlds consumed by the addiction that resulted. They do it now, and we are trying to make it really hard - imagine how many more would have this happen if it was just openly available at parties and bars? For those people, legalisation would make their lives many times worse.

 

The argument that Mills makes, referenced by SD a few pages back, doesn't completely apply here IMO, because a person using drugs is not only affecting themselves. Drug addiction has a massive impact on family and friends of that person, as well as society at large, especially if we are having to fund the addiction or the treatment for it if the person ever decides to try to get free of it.

 

It's complicated, basically. Anyone who thinks it isn't hasn't really thought it all the way through in my opinion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

 

 

The argument that Mills makes, referenced by SD a few pages back, doesn't completely apply here IMO, because a person using drugs is not only affecting themselves. Drug addiction has a massive impact on family and friends of that person, as well as society at large, especially if we are having to fund the addiction or the treatment for it if the person ever decides to try to get free of it.

 

 

Most of these problems are down to the illegality of the drugs. The price of the drugs, variability in the strength of the drug and the quality of the diluting agent would all be solved with legalization, taxed to pay for social and medical costs. The "heavy" drugs sold in licensed premises similar to boozers.

One overlooked point is the connection between addiction and poverty. There has been shown to be a strong link between increasing poverty and opioid addiction in the states. Society needs fixing. Removing criminal profits and making addicts criminals would be a fitst step but the current inequality and targeting the poor by right wing governments must also be tackled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Has anybody made an argument why it’s better for hardened criminal gangs to run the drugs trade? 

They're more efficient thanost government agencies is one argument. Pablo Escobar or Dido Harding. Which would you choose to run a business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Evelyn Tentions said:

They're more efficient thanost government agencies is one argument. Pablo Escobar or Dido Harding. Which would you choose to run a business?

It'd be fun when the tender notices go out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Evelyn Tentions said:

They're more efficient thanost government agencies is one argument. Pablo Escobar or Dido Harding. Which would you choose to run a business?

It's getting harder to tell the difference. Johmson and Trump could be up the chain of a gang just as easily as up the chain of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Always baffles me how people like Jodrell Bank features from Ant & Dec get addicted to painkillers, they're shite. 

There are a whole range of painkillers available and they are often used due to the medical profession not having the time or facilities to treat the underlying problem and just palming the patient off with whatever they can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Oh balls, someone has already done this jape. Fucking same minded cunts. I bet you can't guess what I am thinking now though can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Always baffles me how people like Jodrell Bank features from Ant & Dec get addicted to painkillers, they're shite. 

I can see how it happens. As someone who's had to take high doses of corticosteroids I've seen how effective they can be in controlling a debilitating health issue. It wouldn't be a significant leap, and I'm fortunate it wasn't for me, to think that you're so incredibly well so quickly with them that you couldn't give them up. I'm sure the same happens with painkillers, you become scared of what happens if you're not taking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book I mentioned yesterday is Drug Wars by Neil Woods. In 1960 there were 454 heroin addicts in the U.K.  then we adopted prohibition and you could say it rose.  Previously they’d been registered and received prescriptions for heroin from their GP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

The book I mentioned yesterday is Drug Wars by Neil Woods. In 1960 there were 454 heroin addicts in the U.K.  then we adopted prohibition and you could say it rose.  Previously they’d been registered and received prescriptions for heroin from their GP. 

I read Good Cop, Bad War by him a while ago.

 

The stand out bit I remember, which was also something he talked about on the video someone linked in the Knife Crime thread was an operation where they took out about 100 people who ran all of the drugs somewhere. He was told the next week by their intelligence guy that they had stopped the drug trade in the town for about two hours. That's all it took for someone else to move in and replace the ones they'd locked up.

 

The idea that prohibition can work is laughable, 100 years of doing the same shit over and over with no success in actually halting the thing you want to stop and the accepted answer seems to be to just continue as is. Because logically if you've been doing the same shit for all those decades and it hasn't worked then obviously the only solution is to do more of the same.

 

Or as I have often broken it down in a very simple chunk, we can't even keep drugs out of prison, how the fuck does anyone think you can do it in the outside world?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Karl_b said:

I can see how it happens. As someone who's had to take high doses of corticosteroids I've seen how effective they can be in controlling a debilitating health issue. It wouldn't be a significant leap, and I'm fortunate it wasn't for me, to think that you're so incredibly well so quickly with them that you couldn't give them up. I'm sure the same happens with painkillers, you become scared of what happens if you're not taking them.

My mate became addicted to Oxycontin after taking it for a prolonged period. They tried to wean him off but he went over to vodka with predictable consequences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The experience of big pharmaceutical companies in the US driving the opioid addiction epidemic may be an insight into how the private sector would behave if you gave them the right to supply recreational drugs in the UK. Bribes to doctors, relentless targeting of vulnerable groups and the deliberate technical development of more addictive drugs.
 

Once the private sector makes money from addiction it is in their interest to create more addicts. The Sackler family alone made billions from opioids whilst a 1,000 people a week die from overdoses. Be careful what you wish for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a really weird argument

If the NHS was privatised it might be applicable

Why don't we look at the actions of our biggest private sector drug pushers now?

Guiness, Diageo etc The evils of Big Brewa

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×