Drug Legalisation (3 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

Well I don't think news and current affairs has had a debate on this in the recent past, so I thought it'd be a good idea to visit this topic for some debate.

Personally I'm in favour of a system where all currently illicit drugs are legalised, and then taxed to the heavens to pay for future hospital visits. The reasons I support legalisation are:
- increased quality, because the businesses selling them can reasonably expect to be around in a year's time, so quality control and maintaining a customer base is important, especially when compared with the current situation where dealers have no idea whether they'll still be dealing tomorrow or in a month's time. The advantage of this is that it minimises the chance of an overdose due to an overly strong batch of whatever it is.
- helps break the taboo surrounding drugs, and creates more and informed dialogue about what the long term effects of drugs are, which ones shouldn't be mixed, and how they should and shouldn't be taken.
- through an excise charged on the drugs it funds patients who have stuffed their bodies up using drugs, which are currently paid for by public money.
- the government has no business telling me what substances I put in my mouth in my own home.

Discuss.

 

[A1]

Good topic.
I disagree though.

- increased quality, because the businesses selling them can reasonably expect to be around in a year's time, so quality control and maintaining a customer base is important, especially when compared with the current situation where dealers have no idea whether they'll still be dealing tomorrow or in a month's time. The advantage of this is that it minimises the chance of an overdose due to an overly strong batch of whatever it is.

How will it be decided on who the business will be? Initially they would have to be business run by organised criminals as the would be the only ones that would have ready access to large quantities of the "stuff". Legalising it won't do shit to the quality. A lot of organisations today take short cuts in order to cut costs. This includes things like diluting drinks, minimising quantities of inputs as well as using cheaper and inferior substitutes. Although drugs are illegal, common sense would state that the makers would try to create good quality "stuff" in order to satisfy their clients. No drug maker would want to produce shit, as this might kill the user and bring attention to the maker. I think that the same priciples apply now in the underground industry, as they would if it were to be legalised.

- helps break the taboo surrounding drugs, and creates more and informed dialogue about what the long term effects of drugs are, which ones shouldn't be mixed, and how they should and shouldn't be taken.

What taboo???? The only taboo these days is negative discussion on jews. Drug debates, anti drug commercials and documentaries are all too common. The same is true for drug research and its effects. I can't see any child not being able to talk to their parents about the problems associated with drugs.

- through an excise charged on the drugs it funds patients who have stuffed their bodies up using drugs, which are currently paid for by public money.

Why pay for something that could be avoided entirely? The cost of treatment is one thing, but social costs are something completely different. To cover all social costs the drugs would have to be priced so high, that they would be unattainable for most people. Therefore, you would still have the illegal undergorund trade as you do now.

- the government has no business telling me what substances I put in my mouth in my own home.

Yes it does, especially if it has an affect on society. It would be doubtful that drug users would quietly sit at home and veg. A number of issues would cause problems. Having a high excise would mean that many addicted people would not be able to afford the drugs. They would have to steal and rob, as is the case now. Other people, whi might be able to afford the drugs may drive, operate machinery or just go bonkers on the street. Who knows what would happen? But whatever would, it certainly wouldn't be good. And someone has to pay for these problems and protect society.

 

[withoutaface]

How will it be decided on who the business will be? Initially they would have to be business run by organised criminals as the would be the only ones that would have ready access to large quantities of the "stuff". Legalising it won't do shit to the quality. A lot of organisations today take short cuts in order to cut costs. This includes things like diluting drinks, minimising quantities of inputs as well as using cheaper and inferior substitutes. Although drugs are illegal, common sense would state that the makers would try to create good quality "stuff" in order to satisfy their clients. No drug maker would want to produce shit, as this might kill the user and bring attention to the maker. I think that the same priciples apply now in the underground industry, as they would if it were to be legalised.

But if the distributor cannot reasonably expect to be around next week, what problem is there with them cutting a few corners to increase their profits now, whic is the only time they'll be sure to be operating?

What taboo???? The only taboo these days is negative discussion on jews. Drug debates, anti drug commercials and documentaries are all too common. The same is true for drug research and its effects. I can't see any child not being able to talk to their parents about the problems associated with drugs.

The amount of information provided at the moment can be summarised in three words, "Drugs are bad". Now we can send a much more effective message if we, while acknowledge that in the long term drugs probably aren't the best thing for your health, instruct users on which drugs are particularly bad, which ones never to mix, and which quantities are dangerous for any given drug. In the current case a lot of people still try drugs, because they are in essence the forbidden fruit, if we cut the taboo surrounding them these few that do try it will be more likely to be safe.

Why pay for something that could be avoided entirely? The cost of treatment is one thing, but social costs are something completely different. To cover all social costs the drugs would have to be priced so high, that they would be unattainable for most people. Therefore, you would still have the illegal undergorund trade as you do now.

Your first statement implies that a "tough on drugs" stance can eliminate drug use. Such an idea is completely ludicrous, as there has not to my knowledge been anywhere in the world that has successfully wiped out drugs in this way. Secondly I don't think the prices would have to be that high to fund hospital use, and I think you're forgetting just how much trouble those that import it have to go to to get it through customs.

Yes it does, especially if it has an affect on society. It would be doubtful that drug users would quietly sit at home and veg. A number of issues would cause problems. Having a high excise would mean that many addicted people would not be able to afford the drugs. They would have to steal and rob, as is the case now. Other people, whi might be able to afford the drugs may drive, operate machinery or just go bonkers on the street. Who knows what would happen? But whatever would, it certainly wouldn't be good. And someone has to pay for these problems and protect society.

Trickle down crime occurs more often when drugs are more expensive (ie when they are illegal), and you're assuming that a tough on drugs stance will eliminate drug use again, which as I've stated is wrong. Alcohol is freely available now, and has much the same detrimental effect on the ability to drive as any drug.

 

[davin]

- the government has no business telling me what substances I put in my mouth in my own home.

thats what she said


seriously though, i do support drugs being legalised because that allows for some regulation....doses can be controlled, and it can be taxed.
unrelated, an essay i wrote a couple years back, though relating to drugs in america. but i think a lot of the points aren't country-based

 

[loquasagacious]

Hmmm has anyone read the Ben Elton book dealing with this topic?

To a large extent I agree with Justin.

Drugs are an ideal cadidate for taxation/excise because of the inelastic nature of demand (much like cigarettes, alcohol and petrol).

Given the size of the illegal drug industry the potential for revenue raising is quite enormous - eg Australia consumes roughly $6billion of pot as it stands, a 10% GST on that is not an insignificant sum, nor is company and payroll tax associated with it.

I believe that legalisation would drive the majority of 'drug lords' OUT of business. The market would soon be dominated by existing pharmaceutical companies as they already have the equipment necessary to reliably produce the volumes and quality desired. And it would certainly push the stereotypical 'street corner drug dealer' out of business - afterall why go there when the chemist is open?

There would be more money available to block illegal importation and potentially the co-operation/funding of such operations from the pharmaceuticals.

It would make australia a more well known and attractive tourist destination (much like the netherlands).

I would suggest particularly at the outset that the industry be heavily regulated to ensure quality levels - such a regulatory framework could be funded by a small portion of the tax revenue.

Finally as an obvious measure much like cigarettes/alcohol it would be illegal to sell to under 18s.

..............

It must be pointed out though that this position rests on one of two theories (held by whomever is promoting it): A-Drugs are NOT bad or B-Harm minimisation is better than zero tolerance. And everyone wants the money.

 

[Mountain.Dew]

i might add in my 2 cents...

its good that these illegal drugs are legalised. one reason i would like to share is that if you make something illegal to obtain/use/trade/etc..., then it becomes more and more ludicrous, and more people would want it because it is branded 'illegal'. its a bit like when your parents tell you not to do something, you just HAPPEN to do it some time later. E.g. Never watch the news with hot European chics as news reporters. But, you just go ahead and do it.

if you make it legal, then this 'demand' and 'ludicrous' nature will slowly diminish. And BECAUSE it is legalised, more people will be aware of them. they will be better informed and therefore, take appropriate measures. not to mention withoutaface's plan to heavily tax the drugs.

Another point. the thing on quality. I think that the quality would be increased. As a legal good, it would probably have to pass a number of 'quality-assurance' tests to ensure that there is no contamination, infections, dilution, etc...to that product, to ensure quality. When in the black market, there are no 'tests' and therefore, traders CAN get away with cutting costs and what not, and therefore, that could lead to more psychological, biological and physical damage than what the actual drug inflicts itself.

However, I have a concern: if you do tax it heavily, doesnt it mean people who are already addicted resort to any means possible to get that money? it could lead to an increase in criminal activity, such as murder, fraud and theft, just to name a few.

 

[crazyhomo]

Other people, whi might be able to afford the drugs may drive, operate machinery or just go bonkers on the street. Who knows what would happen?

i know. people who turn up drunk to work get fired. if you turned up high to work you'd get fired

also, how many cigarrette robberies do you hear about committed by nicotine junkies needing their next fix?

 

[frog12986]

The implications that drug use has upon society at the moment are immense. Regulating their use, providing legalisation or something similar, would merely exacerbate this problem even more, and hence, would contribute to a greater decline in societal standards across a greater spectrum. The policy at present is not based around the notion or eradicating drugs and its effects, but rather around containinment/harm minimisation or controlling excessive fluctuations.

If we were to effectively guage the benefits that legalisation might have, there would need to be a full scale inquiry into the public costs of drug use currently, and establish estimates that would occur (presumably) due to a larger proportion of society partaking in usage. Moreover, although proponents of legalisation argue that related crime and social problems, that result due to high pricing would be greatly minimised, I doubt that we can truly measure the impact the extensive usage would have on family life, productivity and and individuals overall contribution to society.

If we take alcohol as an example..

The effects that alcohol has upon society's functioning are immense:
- family issues
- anti-social behaviour
- relationship problems
- adolescent behaviour
- associated health risks
etc etc etc
One cannot deny the way in which alcohol has become an outlet for those in need, or those who suffer from mentally debilitating illnesses. Furthermore, adolescents and young adults in particular create an extensive workload for law enforcement authorities through weekly binges, and excessive alcohol consumption over a certain period. The problematic nature of alcohol has emerged due to its relatively easy access and cheap pricing. If we add further types of more harmful or powerful drugs into this frame that have the same ease of access, and relative pricing, once can only imagine the negative effects that would be exerted upon all facets of society.

The logic of economic rationalism has extended too far...

 

[crazyhomo]

The implications that drug use has upon society at the moment are immense. Regulating their use, providing legalisation or something similar, would merely exacerbate this problem even more, and hence, would contribute to a greater decline in societal standards across a greater spectrum. The policy at present is not based around the notion or eradicating drugs and its effects, but rather around containinment/harm minimisation or controlling excessive fluctuations.

If we were to effectively guage the benefits that legalisation might have, there would need to be a full scale inquiry into the public costs of drug use currently, and establish estimates that would occur (presumably) due to a larger proportion of society partaking in usage. Moreover, although proponents of legalisation argue that related crime and social problems, that result due to high pricing would be greatly minimised, I doubt that we can truly measure the impact the extensive usage would have on family life, productivity and and individuals overall contribution to society.

If we take alcohol as an example..

The effects that alcohol has upon society's functioning are immense:
- family issues
- anti-social behaviour
- relationship problems
- adolescent behaviour
- associated health risks
etc etc etc
One cannot deny the way in which alcohol has become an outlet for those in need, or those who suffer from mentally debilitating illnesses. Furthermore, adolescents and young adults in particular create an extensive workload for law enforcement authorities through weekly binges, and excessive alcohol consumption over a certain period. The problematic nature of alcohol has emerged due to its relatively easy access and cheap pricing. If we add further types of more harmful or powerful drugs into this frame that have the same ease of access, and relative pricing, once can only imagine the negative effects that would be exerted upon all facets of society.

The logic of economic rationalism has extended too far...

you believe alcohol should be banned?

Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Racketeering happened when powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. The cost of enforcing prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers. When repeal of prohibition occurred in 1933, following passage of the Twenty-first Amendment, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits, due to competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores. Organized crime later adjusted by selling illegal drugs instead. The black market thrives on the sale of any illegal product.

 

[Mountain.Dew]

i do believe that withoutaface and Damage Inc. have said to impose heavy taxes on these 'to-be-legallised' illicit drugs...

 

[frog12986]

you believe alcohol should be banned?

No, but it's impact upon society is immense, which would only be worsened by more powerful and harfmful drugs; whether that harm be short or long term. The prohibition argument is outdated, More people are affected by the impacts of existent 'legal' drugs than those that are prohibited. Legalisation, as I said, would exacerbate this problem even more..

Ask any police officer who works out there on the streets, day in, day out. Alcohol contributes to a greater decline in moral standards, and creates more work for authorities than any prohibited drug or its related black market. Essentially, this is based around the frequency and quantity of usage..

 

[crazyhomo]

No, but it's impact upon society is immense, which would only be worsened by more powerful and harfmful drugs; whether that harm be short or long term. The prohibition argument is outdated, More people are affected by the impacts of existent 'legal' drugs than those that are prohibited. Legalisation, as I said, would exacerbate this problem even more..

why did you bring up all those issues with alcohol if you don't want it banned? surely if it is that bad, we don't want people having access to it?

 

[frog12986]

Are you really that Ignorant?
Why? Because it emphasises the extensive effects that a LEGAL drug has upon society. Its impact is greater and more far reaching than any illicit drug, and legalisation would create similar, possibly worse scenarios with regards to other more powerful and harmful drugs..

 

[crazyhomo]

so we should make alcohol illegal, because that would lessen its impact upon society

 

[davin]

going to agree with crazyhomo about it not making sense with using alcohol as a theory of why drugs are bad but then saying "well, we'll keep alcohol legal though"
when i start hearing about guys getting high and then beating their wives....then maybe there's some additional costs to consider there.

However, I have a concern: if you do tax it heavily, doesnt it mean people who are already addicted resort to any means possible to get that money? it could lead to an increase in criminal activity, such as murder, fraud and theft, just to name a few.

well, its not like its cheap now. heck, those crimes happen now anyway. i don't see how there would be a change. its totally possible it might even be a bit more affordable if it were legal, really.

 

[frog12986]

so we should make alcohol illegal, because that would lessen its impact upon society

I never said that it should be illegalised! My point is that legalisation of OTHER drugs would cause greater detriment to society, as a relatively mediocre drug such as alcohol already creates more problems for society than any of the drugs that are currently ILLEGAL. Adding a greater number of more powerful drugs into this situation with greater quantites and cheaper pricing, would only cause MORE problems for society. The harm minimisation approach should be maintained for the benefit of society..

 

[davin]

frog, what makes alcohol so different that its ok to have legal and currently illegal substances are not?

 

[crazyhomo]

can you explain to me why alcohol should remain legal? you're making a good case for having it banned...

 

[frog12986]

Revoking the legality of a drug is much more difficult than protecting society by maintaining the illegal status of drugs that at the end of the day, will have more detrimental and long lasting effects upon society. Is that notion really that difficult to comprehend?

 

[crazyhomo]

what detrimental and long lasting effects will alcohol prohibition have on society?