Be Excellent To Each Other

I used to think like that, but IMO we already live in a world where it is perfectly socially acceptable to imbibe/take intoxicants on a daily basis. As for harm, it's a fact that alcohol and tobacco rank as among the most intrinsically harmful drugs known, and by that I am not referring to the numbers of people using them. Even certain Class A drugs like Ecstasy have no discernible harm at all (when pure MDMA) for 99.99% of people; it's only when they're cut with all manner of other shite that things become a little less clear. Even then, I've yet to meet the obese yet undernourished, totally non-functioning "E drunk" or a wheezing, tumour-logged one either, for that matter.

I think some should and some shouldn't. Despite all the bullshit in the news I have never known anyone really fuck themselves up with ecstasy or cannabis, and I come from probably the druggiest generation ever. However I see loads of people reduced to pathetic shambling wastes due to booze.

Do you feel the same way about alcohol, ie that it should be illegal?

What about making drugs illegal prevents them damaging people's lives?

Too harsh, two dimensional and totally unrealistic IMO. I should've emphasized "Age 14" (or even younger) and all the peer pressure that goes with it.

I can't believe we're having this discussion again. It always ends in trouble.

I'm not getting arsey about this; people are totally entitled to their views and I could well be wrong about this. It's only what I've come to think over the years; 5 years ago I would've said exactly what Gnomes is saying, more or less.

I rarely drink, but if the deal on the table was the removal of alcohol from society in return for the removal of damaging drugs, I'd jump at the chance.

I'm not going to exhaustively restate my opinions on this, I've done so many times before.


Misanthropic and lacking faith in the human race perhaps, but I genuinely believe it to be true. If you can't appeal to a person's common sense through reason and evidence, the only other thing to go for is their wallet. The reason the govt. do it is because it actually has an effect.

My opinion hasn't changed much over the years Cavey, but then I'm not as old as you are. Perhaps I'll think differently in 10, 20 years time, but I hope I don't.

That's a scenario that will never ever happen. Drugs exist, and they cannot be made to unexist.

Thanks for that insight Lewie.

Your point was seeking to ensnare me in the lazy argument of 'Well, if you don't object just as strongly to alcohol, a damaging substance, it invalidates your opinion in respect to drugs'.

As socially acceptable as having a few drinks is, I'd happily drink non-alcholic drinks forever if that was the sacrifice necessary to stop it damaging other people's lives who use it to excess. It is a damaging substance. Addictive, but not as actively addictive as lots of other substances that are currently and rightfully illegal. An acceptable evil perhaps? Even if so, it's not to be used as a basis for making other things legal too.

My brother used to have serious problems with crack, which had the effect of fucking over his teeth from grinding them constantly and even he admits he didn't know what the fuck he was doing day to day for a long time, to say nothing of the cost. Not good at all.

On a purely pragmatic level, drinking booze (or taking E, or chasing the dragon, or eating a hashcake) doesn't pump a load of carcinogenic, stinking waste into the lungs of everyone who enters a significant volume of space over quite some time.

The impact of the drug-taking process on passers-by is the most concerning thing for me really. Selfish, I know.

On the other hand, smoking (currently) doesn't tend to drive addicts to mugging and burglary (or the ceaseless bellowed "singing" of racist songs on the tram, stupid St George's day drunks). Swings and roundabouts.

No, it's not. It's worth noting though that this all happened while Crack was illegal which does beg the question of why you think the current laws are having such a positive effect that not changing them is, as you put it yourself, "so fucking ludicrous". There would be undeniably positive aspects of legalising at least certain drugs (i.e. the substances would actually be pure, the entire trade would no longer be controlled by criminals and tax from the sales would flow into the government's coffers). The negative aspects are, of course, that people might actually take the drugs because of their legal status; but that's already happening by your own evidence so keeping them illegal is denying society the positive effects and we're still living with the negative effects anyway. That position seems pretty ludicrous in itself...

Separate Flying Men thread anyone?

Just jumping in and possibly this has been covered, but, clean heroin is neither toxic nor particularly harmful.

Crack though, totally is all those things.

Yeah, not sure why heroin was brought up - bit of a red herring.

No offence to anyone here, but a lot of arguments against the legalisation of drugs come from a position of ignorance.

In the interest of balance, many arguments for the legalisation of drugs come from a position of ignorance, also.

I was using it as a specific example. As a broader brush approach, I'm against the idea as I fear allowing these substances to be used would be a bad thing. I don't particularly want to share my space with someone off their tits on hallcinogens and the like.

All the best people have taken acid at least once in their lives.

What if use of certain drugs was limited to private residences and/or venues specifically designated as being for said drugs?

I'd have concerns over dens of inequity, the patrons and those that run them.

But whether it's legal or not, that makes no difference - it still happens.

I would expect a ban on drugs in public places, much like smoking and drinking bans are currently in place. The idea of sitting next to someone on a bus snorting coke is just too ludicrous to comprehend.

The idea of sitting next to someone on a bus who was snorting coke 30 minutes ago isn't ludicrous though. Of course, that's no different from someone who sunk their 8th pint 30 minutes ago.

Quite.

But they exist already outside of the law. Make them legal, and you can regulate them.

Except the one on coke is probably about twenty times less likely to shortly be joining the massed ranks of pissed up plebs at his local A&E department.

We can solve that by relazing drink/drive laws. No more drunk people on buses.

Also, it's perfectly possible to drink 8 pints and not end up in A&E. I've always made it home from the music quiz (despite the last mile from Bicester train station to Mali Towers taking three times as long as usual) and stuff.

What would you regulate? how would you regulate it? What would the stick be?

Dosage? Purity? Frequency?

Why go to a regulated place when the other stuff is half the price?

Indeed.

I really didn't want to be drawn into this again, but here I am.

Why not? Seriously, what exactly do you think someone's going to do to you that drunk person wouldn't? Also, what does 'and the like' actually mean here? This entire sentence seems to be pretty vague and odd.

Good luck with that.

As is demonstrated by the basic smoking statistics, we can acknowledge the financial and 'purity' benefits of having a substance legalised, but the ultimate effects are still incredibly damaging. There are no 'positive effects' that Bamba alludes to. Damaging effects are bad for health, society, behavior, and healthcare provision. Making it legalised and having a lovely new taxable revenue stream will nerf the governments desire to stamp out these effects because the cash is just too useful. The problems caused by addiction will only increase by making it legal and socially acceptable.

Some people, won't take drugs due to their negative effects, some won't because it's illegal, others won't because of cost, or some combination of the three. Making it available, accessible, and acceptable just creates a new problem area of society to go with smoking, drinking, and obesity. How can anyone think that's a good thing?

That's part of the fear, I think. People worry that if the substances are made legal then they are likely to become more socially acceptable. Then you are more likely to come into contact with people taking drugs. Even if the use of drugs is restricted to people taking then in private, they'll still end up off their faced on the street. Having once seen someone sniffing glue at a bus stop (don't go to Croydon) and try to sit next to me on the bus, and countless encounters with drunks on buses and trains, and one guy so stoned that he fainted on top if his staffordshire bull terrier as he went to get off at his stop, it's not a pretty sight.

I've my own thoughts about the legalisation of drugs, but they are also heavily influenced by the fact that I lost someone I cared for dearly due to drugs, at a very young age, and you've all read what I have to say before and I have no reason to re-hash (no pun intended) the same old arguments, but I will second what Craster said in that there are different forms of ignorance, depending not only on personal experience but also observation, and nobody's opinion should be invalid. Nobody can say for definite what would happen in society if certain drugs were legal, and to what degree, but whether it's something that society is ready to try, I'm not sure.

what about snorting coke off of the dresser by your front door before stepping out to the bus stop? Just because you don't see the act doesn't mean it shields you from the effects. A person may drink a litre of vodka in his house before stepping outside. He's still drunk.

No idea about crack, but I do know that Coke isn't even in the same universe of harmfulness compared to heroin.

Even I baulk at the idea of legalising H - filthy drug. Pure or not, it's still *incredibly* addictive. In my past life, spent with a bunch of pretty hardcore tokers, I've seen people smoke weed every day, do Billy every other, snort Coke, routinely do E - all to more or less no avail. But a few "graduated" to H and without one single exception, all were fucked up big style within a year, despite being previously relatively OK with habitual, routine use of all these other spectrum of drugs.

Also, I know many total coke-heads now, but every single one of them holds down a high powered job and is able to function pretty well by all accounts; far, far better than even a heavy drinker, let alone H user. It really is in its own category as far as I am concerned; not only incredibly addictive but also rendering users totally incapable of doing pretty much anything.

They might decide I'm a robot or something, and try to power me down, lest I pack the wrong boxes, or something. I've had more experience with drunk people, so it isn't as big a worry as it is the environment of the night bus back to Bicester when the squaddies are back.

"And the like" was being left deliberately vague to cover all hallucinogeic substances. I find it easier to paint with a broad brush, as I'm not compeltly au fait with the pharmacology of all psychotropic substances. And if they touched my kids I'd fucking kill them. Or something.

or Oliver Reed.

I didn't allude to them, I outright stated them as core point of my post. And your response has just been to say they don't exist and go on to restate the negative effects again. I'm not here to change your mind man, but it would be good if you'd actually engage with what I'm saying rather than just denying everything that doesn't support your opinion. Your entire argument is self-sustaining because it begins from a position that proves itself i.e. there are literally no benefits to be had from legalising any drugs therefore it's undeniably a bad thing. The fact that, to reach that position, you need to ignore some actual facts doesn't seem to be bothering you but it makes a for a pretty fruitless discussion.

I'll alter my position to "Benefits of legalising and regulating drugs that are currently illegal do exist but the sheer impracticalities of such an endeavour, and the resultant chaos over the next few years renders the whole thing moot"

No offence dude but that's some pretty unrealisitic tabloid shit right there.



Fair enough. I only ask because your post talked about people "off their tits on hallcinogens" which already covers all hallucinogenice susbtances because, well, that's what you actually said. Hence why I wondered what else you were talking about.

The proponents of the legalisation of drugs constantly make this comparison with alcohol. Yes, drunk people can be scary arseholes, alcohol is socially acceptable, legal, and bad. If you're telling me society shouldn't be hypocritical on harmful substances I'll agree that banning alcohol would also be a great measure that I'd happily subscribe to if it meant the rest could be proscribed too.

It's a strangely self-nullifying position to hold too. 'Look how bad alcohol is, and drugs are no worse'. Why would you want to make something else even half as bad as alcohol legal then?

It's not much to ask that you can walk in the street, or sit on a bus, without being exposed to people compromised by any kind of mind-altering substance, or in the case of smoking, something that directly damages your own health by proximity.

None taken. I'm given to hyperbole, gets me through the day.



For hallcinogens read "drugs", if it helps. It's a rather vague general thing.

Indeed. I'm pretty sure we're arguing the same point here. But I could (hypothetically) snort coke off the dresser by my front door now before walking out, and it's currently illegal. Saying you don't want to be surrounded by druggies means you're either naive to the fact it already goes on more than you think, or you actually think the streets would be much different if drugs were legalised tomorrow.

Failure to read post alert. I already said:

Positive benfits:

1) Tax Revenue
2) Purity of substance (so you can turn into a pupil-dilated, decision-making-compromised incoherant fucking mess in a nice, safe, way).
3) Less drug-related crime (although still plenty of cheap black market shit, which happens with all pharmaceuticals).

Negative benefits (oxymoron):

1) Physical health risks.
2) Mental health risks.
3) Behaviorial and social problems.
4) Limited motivation of government to address 1-3, because of the lovely tax revenue.

When I was in Amsterdam, I noticed more people with seemingly mental health problems than any other place i've ever visited, so I'm inclined to couple the things together.

Perhaps because the fact that it is illegal doesn't prevent people from using, provides a handy source of income for criminals, exposes people who just want to get high to some dodgy types and also puts them at more risk from not knowing exactly what they are taking. I think you need to take each drug on a case by case basis though. Personally I think that for some the overall harm might be more if they were made legal and some it would be less. I think a pretty sound argument can be made for reform in some areas and it has been but the government has to ignore evidence because it is not politically acceptable to seriously discussing legalising anything.

Oooookay. So how do you square that with also saying:



Seriously man, it's pretty offensive to accuse me of somehow not reading your posts when you're making such massively contradictory statements.

Is it as self-nullifying as saying, 'Look how many problems we already have with drugs, let's never change anything'?

I didn't say that, someone else did. Obviously I don't want to be surrounded by people that are off their faces, but I have been. On public transport, just out and about. Sometimes drink, sometimes drugs. But I do think that there is a good chance that legalising it would give it a mask of social acceptance, because they aren't doing anything 'wrong' therefore these incidences would rise. And the drunks hassling people on the streets and on buses and trains would be joined by even more to make life for other passengers and pedestrians just a bit more miserable.

That's fair. Classification is a tricky potato already though. Cannabis is all over the place with that - is it a B or C now? I'd probably agree with a C for immediate health factors but probably a B when you consider the wider ramifications of dependent use.

Bamba: I was talking positive 'benefits' of legalisation, relative to the current situation. The overall usage of drugs is still bad, and there's no positive 'effect', of taking them. It doesn't make you a stronger, better, more intelligent and more effective human being.

Actually, amphetamines and nicotine do have some short term positive effects on these things.

I stand corrected. Amphetamines for all! My heart rate and blood pressure can take it long term, I've no doubt.