Original Post
Drugs.
Legalization of drugs.
Normalization of drugs.
How do you feel about substance abuse?
Do you feel certain drugs are less harmful than others or not harmful at all?
etc.
Following the last topic of School & Drugs since it almost got de-railed.
Originally Posted by Ele
Usage doesn't equate to abuse. I'd argue factors like education would go a fair way to preventing abuse by forming an open, informed, normalised discourse about drugs.
I agree, which is why I advocate a societal shift rather than just legalization.
Originally Posted by Ele
The laws don't work, though. People abuse it regardless of the law. If the law's not working the law's not working. It needs to change.
The law is there ot prevent problems, if the law isn't working it's because people think it's acceptable to break it. Lack of respect and responsibility is as much a problem as drug abuse itself.
Originally Posted by Ele
Another point not many people bring up is that a lot of the danger to others that you're talking about stems from addicts trying to acquire their drugs. Legalisation nips the supply and price problem right in the bud. It also provides revenue that can be directed at rehabilitating addicts.
/Some/ of the problems come from addicts trying to acquire their drugs, but some are consequences of having people that are high around.
But i don't see how legalization would prevent drug related crime. An addict still needs money to support their addiction, so they would still steal etc.
Originally Posted by Ele
Legalisation does have a net gain - it's at least a better alternative to the situation we have now.
What net gain are you even talking about?
Originally Posted by Ele
Short term, if nothing else, the results of legalisation (of weed, anyway) looks promising. The normalisation process has probably begun, and usage remains the same (if it hasn't begun, then we'll wait and see what happens). By all reports, crime has dropped - if there's a pool that represents the total danger to society, then the pool's now a little shallower.
Link?
Originally Posted by Ele
Yes, people are irresponsible. But we can combat that. If we're serious about this, then governments should be piling a whole heap of money into educating the people. Informing them so they have the knowledge that presupposes a responsible decision.
I agree, but I don't think legalize then educate is a good idea. Unrestricted supply of potentially troublesome substances is not good.
Originally Posted by Arglax
How exactly would this work? What would be your model to realise this scenario?
Various states have medical marijuana right? Steroids can be used for medical purposes right?
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I agree, which is why I advocate a societal shift rather than just legalization.
Legalisation (and the resulting normalisation) is the precondition for this societal shift.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
The law is there ot prevent problems, if the law isn't working it's because people think it's acceptable to break it. Lack of respect and responsibility is as much a problem as drug abuse itself.
So? The fact that the law isn't working remains. Yeah, the law is there to prevent problems, but it doesn't. Regardless of why that is, the law still doesn't work. Legalisation is a viable alternative.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
/Some/ of the problems come from addicts trying to acquire their drugs, but some are consequences of having people that are high around.
But i don't see how legalization would prevent drug related crime. An addict still needs money to support their addiction, so they would still steal etc.
Their drugs become much more accessible. They're much cheaper and much more widely available. On a wider scale, legalisation cuts down drug trafficking (and the resulting crimes) and an aspect of gang violence. The violence caused by the illegal drug industry plummets.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
What net gain are you even talking about?
Of the top of my head, less crime + more revenue (some of which goes back into rehabilitation and preventative strategies). My main point, that I really want to stress, is that it's a better alternative to the laws we have that don't work.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Link?
I said by all reports and I meant by all reports. Google anything along the lines of 'legalization crime rates'.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I agree, but I don't think legalize then educate is a good idea. Unrestricted supply of potentially troublesome substances is not good.
It's comparable with food and obesity and cigs and lung cancer - not that this justifies legalisation, but it just shows that we deal with substances like this everyday, and the fabric of society hasn't collapsed. I think the pathway would be educate, legalise + educate and then continue educating also.
I'd like to bring up an argument I've read a few times also. It goes that right now, it's illegal for any new recreational drugs to be made and sold. As we've seen in parts of America, there's a pretty huge legal drug market. Pharmaceutical companies would definitely want to cash in on that by developing new drugs with better highs and no side effects. You throw money at pharmaceutical companies and say 'I want a drug that does this, this and this' and they'll be able to make it - they're very good at it.
There's no need to have some teleological belief that the drugs we have now will be the drugs we have in the future.
Originally Posted by Ele
Legalisation (and the resulting normalisation) is the precondition for this societal shift.
I think it's much harder to change people's thinking about something that is already normalized and legal. For example getting people to stop smoking is very hard.
I think education then legalization is better than the reverse.
Originally Posted by Ele
So? The fact that the law isn't working remains. Yeah, the law is there to prevent problems, but it doesn't. Regardless of why that is, the law still doesn't work. Legalisation is a viable alternative.
Of course it's viable, but would it be effective? So far people have said that usage doesn't change much, and that's not really want I consider a success.
Originally Posted by Ele
Their drugs become much more accessible. They're much cheaper and much more widely available. On a wider scale, legalisation cuts down drug trafficking (and the resulting crimes) and an aspect of gang violence. The violence caused by the illegal drug industry plummets.
Well, I'm not sure that is true. Gangs can still run drugs for profit, and legalizing something then claiming there is less crime is a dishonest way to represent the situation.
Originally Posted by Ele
Of the top of my head, less crime + more revenue (some of which goes back into rehabilitation and preventative strategies). My main point, that I really want to stress, is that it's a better alternative to the laws we have that don't work.
I'm not convinced that it's better. I don't think what the US is doing is a good solution either though.
Originally Posted by Ele
It's comparable with food and obesity and cigs and lung cancer - not that this justifies legalisation, but it just shows that we deal with substances like this everyday, and the fabric of society hasn't collapsed. I think the pathway would be educate, legalise + educate and then continue educating also.
In my opinion that is definitely an argument AGAINST legalization. People have serious problems with smoking/obesity related illnesses. The logic that "well smoking is legal so pot should be too" is very very poor.
Originally Posted by Ele
I'd like to bring up an argument I've read a few times also. It goes that right now, it's illegal for any new recreational drugs to be made and sold. As we've seen in parts of America, there's a pretty huge legal drug market. Pharmaceutical companies would definitely want to cash in on that by developing new drugs with better highs and no side effects. You throw money at pharmaceutical companies and say 'I want a drug that does this, this and this' and they'll be able to make it - they're very good at it.
I would be OK with this so long as regulations were in place to make sure they are safe, and society was such that drug use was done responsibly.
Right now the general thinking is that developing and testing recreational drugs to the extent that they are deemed safe is simply not profitable.
Originally Posted by Ele
There's no need to have some teleological belief that the drugs we have now will be the drugs we have in the future.
I agree with this, but we don't have future drugs in the present. New substances are judged on their own merits.
Originally Posted by Arglax
Steroids are used medicinally all the time, and I'm not arguing about that, I'm arguing about whether use of steroids in competition is fair or not. Not sure what that's doing in this thread.
That's true, not sure why I didn't put that in the other thread. My point was that there's a difference between a trained professional issuing drugs, and a layperson using drugs.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
That's true, not sure why I didn't put that in the other thread. My point was that there's a difference between a trained professional issuing drugs, and a layperson using drugs.
Yes, that's why I asked you how you would regulate use of steroids, what your model would be.
f=m*a syens
