Illicit Drugs

[XGTRX]

As surprising as it was to see you fail to address pretty much the only outside content in this thread, provided by yours truly. Need I go back and dig up the articles I've shared? You know, particularly the one authored by someone smarter and more educated on this topic than both you and I? Surely you'll have something to say about their claims given the volume of inane shit you've spouted back at me.

What on earth is XTC? Please, if you're going to speak from a position of assumed authority and knowledge, at least use the correct terms to refer to these substances. For the sake of educating the coming generations you care oh so much for. So much so you're happy to censor their life experience.

I see you have avoided answering my questions, you must be too educated for that.

[IcedTea]

wow... is this real life?

[zebra]

or is this just fantasy?

[Trozzle]

I see you have avoided answering my questions, you must be too educated for that.

I'm just trying to take the same approach as yourself. You seem pretty certain it's how you conduct yourself in a mature debate, so perhaps I'm learning something from the master of sidestepping questions.

[Anfanee]

or is this just fantasy?

caught in a landslide

[Trozzle]

Anyway, we agree to disagree. That's obviously as good as it's going to get here.

You actually dug up some really old memories to be honest.....but something doesn't quite seem right - didn't angsty straight-edge teenagers die out with Myspace? I mean that's pretty well the only place I've seen such a username convention used, until it finally just clicked with yours here.

You can be straight edge, that's fine. Nobody is forcing drugs on you. Just stop forcing that lifestyle on everyone else thanks. We're happy to stand by that ideal when it comes to religion, which is nothing more than a chosen belief. Believe what you wish to believe, that's your prerogative; just keep it to yourself if you're not trying to be constructive.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Trozzle

[Anfanee]

Anyway, we agree to disagree. That's obviously as good as it's going to get here.

You actually dug up some really old memories to be honest.....but something doesn't quite seem right - didn't angsty straight-edge teenagers die out with Myspace? I mean that's pretty well the only place I've seen such a username convention used, until it finally just clicked with yours here.

You can be straight edge, that's fine. Nobody is forcing drugs on you. Just stop forcing that lifestyle on everyone else thanks.

dude you see those usernames on COD all the time lololol

[Trozzle]

dude you see those usernames on COD all the time lololol

The instance of 13 year olds playing FPS outside school hours would be fairly high I suppose hahaha

Digressing, I wonder how many people sporting the X_whatever_X style username actually understand what they're joining in on (not that there's anything wrong with being straight edge, mind you...just not the way XGTRX is going about it)

[zebra]

BuT hE IsNt TyPInG LiEk DiS,

So he can't be an edgy myspace kid haha

Also

I did that.....I hate myself....maybe that's why I smoked weed by accident once? lol

[elChin0]

So how do you plan on stopping people from doing dugs XGTRX? Ice, Alcohol, LSD, Tobacco, Marijuana, Ecstacy, Heroin, whatever it may be? Its impossible.

The only reason that crime/criminals benefit is because there is an underground market for it. If Alcohol and tobacco were still prohibited, they would be profiting off that also. Most likely funding more illegal activity and possibly violent crime.

How do you stop this? You take away as much of the market from them as possible. Regulate, control and tax, just like Alcohol and Tobacco.

That doesn't mean we should legalise all current illegal substances and sell them in the local corner store. No, but for a quick arguments sake lets take Marijuana: Obviously the more research on health effects the better, but at the moment i would not categorise it as any worse than Alcohol or Tobacco and It makes millions-billions of dollars for criminals. Regulation, control and tax of the drug would take away a MASSIVE source of profit for these criminal organisations, which in turn would lessen their power.

On the other hand, we have hard drugs like Ice or Heroin. I have no experience with these personally but i would say that these are NOT something that can be regulated or controlled (some might not agree?) as the health risks are far too great. In this case i believe decriminalisation would be the best course of action at the very least. Addicts need to be HELPED not to be thrown in jail. I dont know how much funding there is for methodone/rehab clinics but i think the main focus should be on helping these people. At the end of the day more successful rehabilitation means less people going back and throwing their money at drug dealers. Once again, less money = less power/crime.

Anyway those are my thoughts, curious to hear more of what others think

Just to add to my previous post lol - Here are some articles regarding Portugal's pretty much "blanket" decriminalisation of drugs.

Its uncharted territory so there are obviously both positives and negatives to this approach but i think the positives out weigh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal - Yes its wikipedia lol but good for a run down on what exactly they are doing.

http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.wdYQAJc2I - 14 years later

https://mises.org/library/portugal%E2%80%99s-experiment-drug-decriminalization-has-been-success - 14 years later

[Trozzle]

^^^ that's gonna get torn to shreds with a heap of valid, yet somewhat moot points regarding an increase in use etc etc. I'll just use cannabis in my example, though the effects would be somewhat different depending on the drug in question.

IN MY OPINION:

If one DESIRES trying weed, they'd likely try it even if it were still illegal (at least here in Aus, given how available it is and how minor the repercussions if caught). If this person has an addictive personality, they'd continue their use after their trial.
If one doesn't desire trying weed but don't necessarily care for it, they may be more likely to trial it if it were decriminalised as the repercussions become negligible. There is no guarantee they'll go on to continue smoking it after they try it - they had no particular interest in the first place. It may not be their thing at all.

What I'm getting at is that in my opinion, those who're likely to pick up smoking weed and contribute to the ongoing instance of its use will likely be someone who'd try it regardless of its legality. This same person may be more likely to continue with their use after they try it if there's less chance of getting in the shit, which is where I agree with those like Anthony who believe "encouraging" use through decriminalisation will increase the instance of users. Let's say I meet you guys halfway on it, as your logic is absolutely sound, I just don't believe it would be the real world outcome.

Now, legalising cannabis for recreational use would yield a different result, likely more in line with the 'increase in users' prediction. I still feel a great many would jump on it to see what it's about (though again, many will already have done it before legalisation lol), but not all of those will continue use due to simply not being interested in the effects. While I personally enjoy the effects of cannabis, I can definitely see it is not for everyone. Similarly to alcohol intoxication, some people just hate it.

Decriminalising the possession of other substances (in quantities for personal consumption, that is) won't necessarily increase their instance of use, again for much the same reasons above. I know I'm just one individual, and my feelings will be skewed as I've got a little more understanding than the average person, but heroin for example as I've said before is something I have zero interest in. Even if it were fully legalised and available from the pharmacy, I'd still not touch it. Decriminalising the possession however will allow addicts to gain assistance without fearing stigmatised and thrown in jail for what was potentially an escape from depression or mental disorder to begin with, and it would likely also result in more successful rehabilitation programs as that would be the preferred course of action for when someone is picked up by the authorities in a bad state.

Definitely a case by case, drug by drug situation with legalisation, but decriminalisation of an amount for personal consumption is definitely needed before we can help the people we keep stigmatising.

[elChin0]

Overall i agree .. ahh yes ! i forgot to mention that by decriminalisation i mean quantities for personal use.

With legalisation/regulation it is definitely a drug by drug situation, like i said, i dont think every drug should be sold at the corner store. More research is needed.

The end result that needs to be achieved is to (where possible) re route funds - instead of going to drug lords, government can use tax revenue to improve our lives (hopefully lol) and to help those who have unfortunately become addicted to much harsher substances.

Sure, its possible to make the link between decriminalisation and increase in users but there are ways to combat that. Education! As mentioned previously, people are gonna do what they want, but proper education will reduce the numbers.

Legalisation is to stop money going to dealers and decriminalisation is to increase the chances of addicts being successfully rehabilitated, lessening the chance they will go back and hurt themselves/give money to criminals. I think im repeating myself a little lol

[Trozzle]

I've repeated myself a million times in this thread. Many more in others elsewhere.

f**k I've probably replied to myself somewhere too...bloody drugs messing with my head!

[Nee-san]

I've just heard the same argument regarding using drugs with no answer to the obvious (and repeatedly stated) issue of the unavoidable impact upon society, even speaking only financially.
99% of the people in this thread are speaking about recreational drug use, so the old medicinal use argument won't hold water.

I happen to believe in personal freedom as long as it doesn't impinge upon anyone else as it mirrors my own views on firearm ownership, something that is important to me.
No one in this thread has been able to demonstrate the benefits of recreational drug use outside of anecdotal references like "I'm too happy on MDMA to get into fights"

[Birds]

dude you see those usernames on COD all the time lololol

Along with "Its <insertnamehere>"

[Birds]

caught in a landslide

No escape from reality

[Anfanee]

No escape from reality

open your eyes

[Birds]

open your eyes

Look up to the skies and seeeeeeee

[Anfanee]

Look up to the skies and seeeeeeee

i'm just a poor boy

[Trozzle]

I've just heard the same argument regarding using drugs with no answer to the obvious (and repeatedly stated) issue of the unavoidable impact upon society, even speaking only financially.

99% of the people in this thread are speaking about recreational drug use, so the old medicinal use argument won't hold water.

I happen to believe in personal freedom as long as it doesn't impinge upon anyone else as it mirrors my own views on firearm ownership, something that is important to me.

No one in this thread has been able to demonstrate the benefits of recreational drug use outside of anecdotal references like "I'm too happy on MDMA to get into fights"

"Impact on society" isn't straight forward, nor is it the same for each drug in question here. Each drug will potentially impact only specific aspects (?) of society, in varying degrees, and not all drugs will impact the same aspects.

I've only provided responses regarding the financial impact of proposed testing booths/stalls at festivals (as that's seemingly the "big issue" flavour of the month right now, and what's triggering this discussion topic in many places).

For the most part, undesired negative impact will mostly come in the form of those who abuse the substances and end up requiring medical/mental treatment (EDIT: this isn't at all in regards to the substances I'm only for decriminalisation of like hard opiates and meth. Their impact reaches well beyond medical). AFAIK the latter would only fall on society/the taxpayer if it were on court orders (this is an assumption). The medical treatment aspect is a hard one - I'm somewhat all for the idea of the user accepting the risks and voiding their public healthcare in the event they f**k themselves up, landing them with the bill if they need treatment. This probably wouldn't work in practice, unfortunately. I highly doubt public health insurance companies will offer a "drug user" level of cover either haha, for many obvious reasons but also because not all drugs are the same.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Trozzle