Alias Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Everyone knows that substance abuse can be a real problem, and one that can be diverse - impacting some areas and groups more than others. 'Pleasure' drugs are generally perceived as illicit, even if they are not legally deemed so (and most people assume they will be illegal in the future) - but why is this? There's the obvious comparison to alcohol (generally perceived as positive in moderation) and tobacco (negative perceptions mostly due to the unhealthy method), and so if there was a drug that had minimal negative effects in moderation, which at the same time caused pleasurable effects, should it be allowed? Would it need seperate regulatory framework (perhaps depending on its addiction likelihood or binge effects)? Why should there be a blanket ban on drugs, when many of them would in all honesty have a similar health cost, if not less, to alcohol (over the population)? And if the government is to be so stringent in its ban (what company in its right mind would attempt putting R&D into a less harmful, even harmless, pleasurable drug that may just be banned anyway), perhaps it should be researching 'perfect' drugs itself - for either the health benefits or even to raise quality of living? Attempting to snub out all use of pleasure drugs (the 'war on drugs') clearly hasn't worked, and probably never will - there isn't either the policing strength or the public willpower. What are your thoughts on the current drugs approach, and the future for such policies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 'Pleasure' drugs are generally perceived as illicit, even if they are not legally deemed so (and most people assume they will be illegal in the future) - but why is this?Because most people have a very confused understanding of substance use and how to moralise on the matter. ...so if there was a drug that had minimal negative effects in moderation, which at the same time caused pleasurable effects, should it be allowed?I think it is more important to look at why there is something that thinks it can tell others whether it is allowed or not.What gives it this claim to an authority? And understanding the reasons for the existence of this authority, what are the real reasons behind why drugs are illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Steak Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Fucking ell luv I need to take drugs just reading this go and elp out at a day centre you boring twat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Steriods your weakness miss stake ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideload Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/the-ugly-truth-about-drugs/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 I read the link, but I do not see the purpose of posting it unless the original poster was asking specifically if theft resulting from drug addiction could go down if they were all legal. If anything the link raises more questions about theft and the motivation behind it than the legal position on drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideload Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Why should there be a blanket ban on drugs, when many of them would in all honesty have a similar health cost, if not less, to alcohol (over the population)? and from inspector gadget "At least when it’s illegal we can do something about it, unlike the widespread alcohol abuse which causes so much damage to society." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 For starters, Alias' query should be changed because the blanket bans aren't about public health. They are the cost for government for having a populace that is harder to control and drug-free workforce is a more reliable workforce. As for the Inspector Gadget comments, it might be useful for the police in giving them something to do when it is illegal, but just doing something isn't a good enough excuse. I mean, hell, the police would be bored to death over here if they weren't chasing drug users. And we can't have that. The views seem very narrow and short-sighted, as if we are being told how to join up the dots as a revelation. Of course theft, crime, and drugs are interlinked. But drug use isn't the cause of the problem and even the writer recognises that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest netshopper Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 drugs dont kill people rappers do!....no wait what i mean is drugs aren't bad....look at how many people are kept alive by them each year...what is bad is people's irresponsible use of drugs!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do the Navan Walk Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 For starters, Alias' query should be changed because the blanket bans aren't about public health. They are the cost for government for having a populace that is harder to control and drug-free workforce is a more reliable workforce. As for the Inspector Gadget comments, it might be useful for the police in giving them something to do when it is illegal, but just doing something isn't a good enough excuse. I mean, hell, the police would be bored to death over here if they weren't chasing drug users. And we can't have that. The views seem very narrow and short-sighted, as if we are being told how to join up the dots as a revelation. Of course theft, crime, and drugs are interlinked. But drug use isn't the cause of the problem and even the writer recognises that. The greenness of the grass Free the mushrooms - mushrooms be free. lets get natural for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Interesting debate If drugs are used to mask a problem temporarily, will it solve the problem outright or will it just be another catch 22 where the problem is constantly there? Likewise, if a person takes drugs in the hope of resolving their problem temporarily, can the effects be measured on a persons state of mind and if so, and the effects are negative, then should the tax payer pick up the tab for someone else's 'pleasure' when things go wrong? And lastly for now, if the drugs used prohibit a person from working, should they receive benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Drugs are great, anyone who thinks otherwise has only ever had bad ones. The laws are rubbish and the police are thugs. I have just read powder wars and it was a bit of an eye opener to the underworld of serious drugs and serious dealers and serious corruption. How come Michael Howard gave a Royal pardon to 2 of the biggest drug dealers ever caught in England? Aside from all the other stuff that goes on with the police and deals with dealers - the whole crock is rotten & morally wrong. If a person is using drugs to the point where they are not able to work then, it is highly unlikely that they ever had the brain capacity to be of use in any job. The present legal status of drugs gives these useless people an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Drugs are great, anyone who thinks otherwise has only ever had bad ones. The laws are rubbish and the police are thugs. I have just read powder wars and it was a bit of an eye opener to the underworld of serious drugs and serious dealers and serious corruption. How come Michael Howard gave a Royal pardon to 2 of the biggest drug dealers ever caught in England? Aside from all the other stuff that goes on with the police and deals with dealers - the whole crock is rotten & morally wrong. If a person is using drugs to the point where they are not able to work then, it is highly unlikely that they ever had the brain capacity to be of use in any job. The present legal status of drugs gives these useless people an excuse. I'm always a bit torn on the drug debate. When it comes to dope, hey, who cares - legalise the stuff over here and rake in millions. Giving people loads of hassle and potentially destroying their careers or lives only because they had a spliff or two makes no sense whatsoever. Especially if alcohol and cigarettes are way more dangerous and addictive and freely available. Hard drugs - well, would it be good to legalise heroin or coke? Not too sure and doesn't seem like a smart idea. As to the people who take it now and have become addicted: sort of a mixture between feeling sorry for them as it can't be nice to live like that, and a thinking of "hey, less people to take any of the good jobs and to pay a pension to". Just can't quite see how Class A would be safe if made legal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 For your ideas on pot - you can have my vote, I'll even move house just to vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Just can't quite see how Class A would be safe if made legal... That does include LSD, Ecstasy and Mushrooms though, which makes no sense. At the very least there needs to be an overhaul of the legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.