Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Also a government monopoly on prolefeed? Hasn't anyone translated 1984 to Swedish?

There should be a Godwin's Law for 1984 association fallacies. That's all I can say.

[Virex]

@Nikov, you'll grow a bit yourself, so what?
The aim of the law is to suppress revenue to gangs by making drugs less expensive, help the addicts instead of punishing them and generate revenues thanks to taxes. But right now the benefits from buying opium and selling heroin is something like 10000% (no sources, from memory). You could grow tobacco, brew alcohol,... or any other heavily taxed substances, what would he difference be?
The thing is, drugs and prostitutions are both injecting billions of dollars into organized crime, this have to stop. I don't expect this initiative to work, though, because said organized crime won't sit on their thumbs while you intend to starve them to death.

Funny you should bring prostitution into this, since that's something else that's legalized in the Netherlands, yet doing so has not caused a significant drop in woman trade or prostitution-related crimes here...

[DJ]

What I don't understand is how can Nikov support government intrusion in people's personal lives, especially "for their own good". I thought he was supposed to be against all that socialist BS.

[Sheb]

Virex, while prostitution in Holland is still a dirty business (I think around 50% of prostitutes are there against their will) it is still way better than in most countries.

[Muz]

I hate drugs. And I hate that the war on drugs is costly and benefits criminals.

But honestly, I like the war on drugs. Let's put it this way - people now smoke and drink and gamble and have unprotected sex even when there's some serious problems. We've campaigned the hell out of those things that are bad for you. Everyone knows that they're bad. But people keep doing it.

I have a friend who started smoking cocaine when she was 12, just because it was in easy reach. She uses the same excuse as many tobacco smokers give - "It's just to cure stress, I can stop". I don't actually know how bad coke is, and she knows better than to try heroin. But it is worrying that people like that start in the first place.

Point is, people will do it. But unlike cigarettes or alcohol, you can't stop after trying it out. The safest solution is just to keep it out of reach of everyone. Well, I heard crack is less addictive than cigarettes, and even cheaper, but eh, better not at all, it doesn't contribute anything.

[lordcooper]

It's also worth keeping in mind that Holland is currently surrounded by countries where these things are illegal and as such is an obvious choice for those wishing to take advantage of more lenient legislation.  Now if all those other countries had the same policies...

[DJ]

But unlike cigarettes or alcohol, you can't stop after trying it out.

Lolwut? Nicotine is more addictive than most drugs. Booze addiction takes some effort to acquire, but once you get it it's a bitch to lose. Most people who try to quit booze fail, sometimes even after years of not drinking.

[jester]

yeah, sorry Muz, cant really work out the point you are trying to make, banning drugs isnt working, so we should make them harder to get?

[G-Flex]

But unlike cigarettes or alcohol, you can't stop after trying it out.

Lolwut? Nicotine is more addictive than most drugs. Booze addiction takes some effort to acquire, but once you get it it's a bitch to lose. Most people who try to quit booze fail, sometimes even after years of not drinking.

Do we even know what "it" he's referring to here? If he's talking about heroin, I'd agree in the sense that opiate addiction is extremely crippling and not something that anyone should have to be subjected to (in comparison to tobacco or alcohol; alcoholism is crippling in its own right but not in the same ways and it's far easier to avoid in most cases).

But honestly, I like the war on drugs. Let's put it this way - people now smoke and drink and gamble and have unprotected sex even when there's some serious problems. We've campaigned the hell out of those things that are bad for you. Everyone knows that they're bad. But people keep doing it.

And you don't consider this a sign that the War on Drugs is being fought the wrong way, or is horribly mismanaged?

If we're going to get people to stop taking addictive drugs, we aren't going to do it by throwing them in jail constantly. I'm not arguing for legalization of all drugs, but I am arguing that unless we actually go after the causes of drug abuse, it won't stop (and also that jailing addicts without rehabilitating them is destructive).

We need better mental health services in this country, and we need to combat the socioeconomic forces that cause people to turn to drugs in the first place (which we also need to do for other reasons anyway). Without that, we're screwed.

[jester]

Point:  for a long time Heroin was dealt out by doctors,  the 'junkie' problem only started when it became illegal.  Most of the people on the prescription heroin were normal working people who had developed and addiction after it was used as a pain med (you dont automatically become addicted from one use, so this didnt happen to most people)

Most of the people on it now arent using it cause they are happy well adjusted people either, historys of brutal child abuse etc are a dime a dozen among junkies, having the same amount of money poured into the police force as what we have now would kick this sort of thing in the arse very hard if they werent policing alot of drug stuff.

Also: how many people do you think are going to go out and shoot up some smack the day it becomes legal?  To me the idea that the amount of users will skyrocket with legality is just crazy, DRUGS ARE NOT HARD TO GET, I and other people I went to school with took drugs cause they were easier to get than alcohol.  To me this says that prohibition just doesnt work where it is needed most

[Little]

As a highschool student, pot is way easier to get than alcohol.

[Lagslayer]

If you ask me, the anti-drug laws shouldn't be in place because of the addictive quality, the organized crime, or how they are harmful to the body, but because they can't be regulated like alcohol or tobacco. You stop producing cigarette smoke as soon as you put it out and alcohol passes through your system completely in a couple of hours, but lots of drugs stay in your system for months after the effects have worn off. This makes it difficult to conclusively prove weather someone is still impaired by the drugs. So what would be done if they were legalized? Make it like cigarette smoke and just don't do it in certain places? They are still impaired, and depending on the drug, anywhere from extremely mellow, to extremely violent, to just f*****g crazy. And what about driving restrictions, like with alcohol? It would mean if you have done drugs at any time in the last few months, it would register just as if you had been doing them a couple of minutes ago.

A lot of things can be considered addictive, with very few of them actually being a physical depencency.

Legalizing only certain drugs wouldn't do much to drug crimes. So long as the harder drugs are still illegal, the cartels will never go away.

If someone wants to harm their own body, I say let them. At least in the United States, this is supposed to be included in freedom of choice. I won't speak for whatever might work in another country, though. Every culture is different.

That being said, I don't see this changing anything, at least in the US. The "drugs/smoking/alcohol are bad" message has been beat into our head for decades, and people still choose to use them anyways. Not much farther it can be taken until you hit full-blown brainwashing.

[Bauglir]

I don't think it would be a problem to maintain mandatory drug testing for jobs where being under chemical influence like that would make you a risk to others, including where failing to do your job poses significant risk. Current tests for alcohol intoxication, breathalyzer aside, would (I think) be able to detect meaningful intoxication by other drugs that would make drivers a risk, maybe with some modification to the routines. If the law enforcement guy in my toxicology class is to be believed, it's not too hard to notice physiological signs of most common drugs (since that's often how you're caught).

This is a whole other issue than whether or not you should be allowed to do drugs in the first place, though.

[jester]

If you ask me, the anti-drug laws shouldn't be in place because of the addictive quality, the organized crime, or how they are harmful to the body, but because they can't be regulated like alcohol or tobacco. You stop producing cigarette smoke as soon as you put it out and alcohol passes through your system completely in a couple of hours, but lots of drugs stay in your system for months after the effects have worn off. This makes it difficult to conclusively prove weather someone is still impaired by the drugs. So what would be done if they were legalized? Make it like cigarette smoke and just don't do it in certain places? They are still impaired, and depending on the drug, anywhere from extremely mellow, to extremely violent, to just f*****g crazy. And what about driving restrictions, like with alcohol? It would mean if you have done drugs at any time in the last few months, it would register just as if you had been doing them a couple of minutes ago.

A lot of things can be considered addictive, with very few of them actually being a physical depencency.

coffee, alcohol and nicotine are all physically addictive (eg have serious withdrawal symptoms) and im sorry, but everything in the top paragraph just isnt true.  Testing exists for pretty much all common drugs and the idea that they stay on in your system in any serious way for months is just propaganda bs, especially the idea that this cant be shown up on a blood test

[Lagslayer]

If you ask me, the anti-drug laws shouldn't be in place because of the addictive quality, the organized crime, or how they are harmful to the body, but because they can't be regulated like alcohol or tobacco. You stop producing cigarette smoke as soon as you put it out and alcohol passes through your system completely in a couple of hours, but lots of drugs stay in your system for months after the effects have worn off. This makes it difficult to conclusively prove weather someone is still impaired by the drugs. So what would be done if they were legalized? Make it like cigarette smoke and just don't do it in certain places? They are still impaired, and depending on the drug, anywhere from extremely mellow, to extremely violent, to just f*****g crazy. And what about driving restrictions, like with alcohol? It would mean if you have done drugs at any time in the last few months, it would register just as if you had been doing them a couple of minutes ago.

A lot of things can be considered addictive, with very few of them actually being a physical depencency.

coffee, alcohol and nicotine are all physically addictive (eg have serious withdrawal symptoms) and im sorry, but everything in the top paragraph just isnt true.  Testing exists for pretty much all common drugs and the idea that they stay on in your system in any serious way for months is just propaganda bs, especially the idea that this cant be shown up on a blood test

Did a little more reading and we are both half-right.
http://www.ohsinc.com/how_long_do_drugs_stay_in_your_system.htm
According to this, it's regular use that makes it stay in your system for a long time. But even if you only do it once in a while, most of them can still show up in tests for several days.

I never said there wasn't any testing for the drugs, but the testing is more difficult than a simple breathalyzer if you want an accurate reading. http://www.drugdetection.net/drug.htm

A lot of the withdrawl "symptoms" are just being sad because you don't have your drugs anymore (not all of them, but a lot of them). It's quite different from actual bodily harm.

This next article also makes some interesting points.
http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidrug/argument/myths.html

However, any information about drug use or the facts about them need to be taken with a grain of salt. Politics is all wrapped up in this issue and so many parties have an agenda.