Played_Out said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:
"Legalising recreational drugs has two major positive effects. It makes them cheap, which eliminates most of the social problems associated with drug addiction, and it makes them clean, which eliminates many of the health risks."
Like with cigarettes? ROFL sometimes you people kill me. Cigarettes are safer? Hahahahaha.
Your evidence of heroine in the U.K is ancedotal for numerous reasons that are probably not worth going into The main one being the lack of true independent research. While organized crime was very high in the 1920's do not forget about thee explosion of crime in the 60's 70's and early to mid 80's. It was not organized crime, but it was way worse than the crime rates of the 1920's. Especially the seventies. The 20's are glamorized by people looking to make money because there are true heroes and villians.
Have you not seen the number of addicts to opiate based drugs go ape-shit in the past few years? Most of them are taking legal drugs. Some drugs used to detox are just as addictive as the street drug they were detoxing from. There is no clear problem other than poor decision making. |
I don't understand why you're bringing up cigarettes. Tobacco has never been illegal so there is absolutely no parallel. The point I was making is that most problems linked to drug addiction are caused by criminalisation. Forcing products into the black market inflates prices, which leads to people stealing to support their habit. An ounce of raw opium costs pence on the streets of Afghanistan, but processed into heroin will sells for hundreds of pounds on the streets of the UK. Being illegal also means that drugs get cut with other substances (which may or may not be harmful) and this makes it more difficult for drug users to judge an appropriate dose. It is actually rather difficult to unintentionally overdose on pure heroin if you know what you're doing. And you're comment on rising crime in the '70s is the perfect illustration of my argument. The rise in crime was directly related to growth in the illegal drugs trade. It would never have happened if recreational drugs were not prohibited, because the trade would not be controlled by criminals. The rise in addiction to prescription drugs is completely irrelevant because it does not have the myriad social problems associated with it that drugs like crack and heroin do. The reason is because the supply is cheap and clean. Sure, addiction is still a problem, but it is completely dwarfed by associated problems that come with criminalisation. Here's a link to an article from The Guardian a few years back, which sums up my case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,506559,00.html And an article on the success of liberal drugs policy in Zurich, from The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/heroin-the-solution-480734.html |
I am going to respond to you and not to thee articles you posted alright.
I brought up cigaretts becuase you mentioned safer and it could be argued that they are no "safer" than if they were illegal. Nicotine is thee most addictive drug on the planet, afterall. And what the hell else is in cigaretts? You telling me that cocaine is as complicated, or cut, as nicotine is? That comes from major business taking control of the drug.
You are half correct in one point but assuming in another. Perscripition pills were big time in the sixties and seventies (they were just mixed in with thee illegal drugs that took the forefront) and seem to be the new trend now. If it creates an explosion even in similar proportion to what we have seen (although the social aspect of opium is not nearly that of other drugs), then you will have no legs to stand on. As a matter of fact, the perscription drug has phase came before and media was smashed by big companies to keep all related crime and deaths quiet. Or to blame another problem (i.e illegal drugs). Jimi Hendrix is a perfect example.
Ah, I see, because you said that in U.K. there was a much "Samller" addiction rate. Which I smashed because of lack of true independent research; among other reasons. You are trying to dodge what you initially say. Crime IS affected by those addicted to legal perscription medication. And since it is a rising occurance, you can say that it has not hit the prime yet. Maybe in ten years, it will have hit thee explosion point and be like cocaine in the late seventies and early eighties. Thus nulling your argument entirely. You can only use that argument because not enough time has passed yet for there to be a true conclusion drawn.
Sorry it took me so long to respond, I forgot about this thread.
Join the Prediction League 
