2 of 2
2
Hillary blows it
Posted: 28 March 2009 10:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2007-06-08
Piero - 28 March 2009 11:15 PM
The anti-theist - 28 March 2009 08:34 PM

I never really agreed with the idea that illegal drugs should be legalised

Why?

That’s a difficult question but the answer is simply that I was raised to believe that drugs are bad and that the govt knows best.

I have since changed my mind on many things I was brought up to believe but the “drugs”  idea seems to get stuck. I suppose I haven’t really heard the opposing facts.

Dom

 Signature 

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2009 05:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26
The anti-theist - 29 March 2009 02:54 AM

I suppose I haven’t really heard the opposing facts.

The opposing argument is about which methods prevent or alleviate the most harm. Not only does prohibition fail to stop the spread of drugs, it increases the harm by discouraging addicts from seeking help and by giving organized crime a lucrative market. One wouldn’t just legalize or decriminalize drugs and leave it at that. One would do this as part of a strategy of treating drugs as a public health issue and not a law enforcement issue.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2009 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2009-01-19
Carstonio - 29 March 2009 09:47 AM

One would do this as part of a strategy of treating drugs as a public health issue and not a law enforcement issue.

That sounds right, in my opinion, although it would be hideously difficult to implement. On the other hand, the money saved on enforcement and the mney raised through taxation should be enough to finance even the most ambitious plans.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2009 12:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2007-06-08
Carstonio - 29 March 2009 09:47 AM
The anti-theist - 29 March 2009 02:54 AM

I suppose I haven’t really heard the opposing facts.

The opposing argument is about which methods prevent or alleviate the most harm. Not only does prohibition fail to stop the spread of drugs, it increases the harm by discouraging addicts from seeking help and by giving organized crime a lucrative market. One wouldn’t just legalize or decriminalize drugs and leave it at that. One would do this as part of a strategy of treating drugs as a public health issue and not a law enforcement issue.

I just don’t see how it would be implemented and controlled. By public health do you mean a drug addict can walk in to a hospital and receive free drugs or would it be a holistic approach which includes counselling and treatment? Funded by the tax payer?

I don’t exactly see drug addicts lining up for help. Of the people I know or knew who took recreational drugs, all did it because it was fun. Not because “they were addicted”. They could stop any time by why should they?

Will drugs be available from a legitimate recreational drug store at a cheaper rate than available from drug dealers (sans treatment) the same as cigarettes and alcohol? Will the sellers be licensed?

I’m all for for it if it works. Show me how. Give me some of that critical thinking and evidence.

Please explain it to me.

Dom

 Signature 

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2009 06:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26
The anti-theist - 30 March 2009 04:14 AM

By public health do you mean a drug addict can walk in to a hospital and receive free drugs or would it be a holistic approach which includes counselling and treatment?

I know of no one who advocates the former.

The anti-theist - 30 March 2009 04:14 AM

Of the people I know or knew who took recreational drugs, all did it because it was fun. Not because “they were addicted”. They could stop any time by why should they?

What do you mean by “recreational” drugs? Heroin and cocaine are highly addictive. Sure, people might start using them for recreational purposes. It’s almost like you don’t believe that chemical addiction exists. If that were the case, tobacco companies would be making a hell of a lot less money.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2009 08:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2007-06-08
Carstonio - 30 March 2009 10:37 PM
The anti-theist - 30 March 2009 04:14 AM

By public health do you mean a drug addict can walk in to a hospital and receive free drugs or would it be a holistic approach which includes counselling and treatment?

I know of no one who advocates the former.

I was just asking the question and would it still be free drugs to addicts?

Carstonio - 30 March 2009 10:37 PM
The anti-theist - 30 March 2009 04:14 AM

Of the people I know or knew who took recreational drugs, all did it because it was fun. Not because “they were addicted”. They could stop any time by why should they?

What do you mean by “recreational” drugs? Heroin and cocaine are highly addictive. Sure, people might start using them for recreational purposes. It’s almost like you don’t believe that chemical addiction exists. If that were the case, tobacco companies would be making a hell of a lot less money.

I certainly do believe in addiction. That’s the point I was making!  Nobody ever admits that they have a problem with drugs. Just the opposite, as I illustrated. I was being facetious.

This still doesn’t tell me how it would work and I really would like to think it could.  long face

Dom

 Signature 

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2009 03:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26
The anti-theist - 31 March 2009 12:06 AM

This still doesn’t tell me how it would work and I really would like to think it could.  long face

I see your point. I wasn’t stumping for any particular alternative. I was pointing out that our current approach is woefully ineffective.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed