The War on Drugs is NOT The War on Cannabis

[the_pimp]

Hello,

Does meeting on an internet forum count?

For this purpose ........... no

OK, fair play, you've obviously taken it - do you really class it the same as weed? Really?

Can you see that bunching H and coke in with weed is going to make to more difficult to make legal?

[sam-i-am]

OK, fair play, you've obviously taken it - do you really class it the same as weed? Really?

Absolutely not, it has to be treated with the utmost respect.

But the truth is that prohibition makes every single aspect of drug use more dangerous. That is the truth. It cannot be avoided.

[the_pimp]

Fair play to you man, I agree with the comment re: prohibition entirely, but theres also a part of me that feels it shouldnt be freely available to everyone .......... which is prohibition, whichever way you look at it. Time for a joint I think

[sam-i-am]

but theres also a part of me that feels it shouldnt be freely available to everyone ..........

As a compromise and thinking on my feet, how about make it like driving, you can only go and score and have a go once you've passed a test and know what you're doing?

[wildbill]

The OP is really the dutch model with soft and hard drugs, cannabis being soft. I think of it as a herb rather than drug as well tbh.

Although technically not perfect it is a very practicable approach, typically Dutch. I can empathise with it, possibly because cannabis is the only thing I take .

[sam-i-am]

I hate to say it but most of the people arguing on the side of H et.all seem to be users of said substance. And while that may benefit you or your significant others the argument starts to sound a little bit redundant.

e2a: typos

I simply don't understand this.

[Arnold Layne]

Me neither @@sam-i-am

Fraust, in what way is the argument from those of us who use/have used Opioids "Redundant"?

[Bones de WeedZard]

and yet again, the damage is mostly caused by the stigma, poor quality an overinflated prices, not by the substances theyselfs! imo, of course.

[sam-i-am]

That arguement classes itself in a While were at it catagory. Just because we may think that decriminalization on a major scale might be fine for some, it still does not justify classing Canna with substances that are proven to cause irrepairable damage to peoples lives.

I'm not "at it". I've tried it about a dozen times and not for years, it's unlikely I'd bother with it again unless I had a legitimate medical need.

Aside from the overwhelming impartial evidence that prohibition is a complete dangerous and immoral failure, how does having direct knowledge of the issue invalidate this?

[sam-i-am]

@@Bones de WeedZard

Smoke a pound of herb in a day... you will fall assleep.

Overdose on most major drugs your heart will stop...

And making them immeasurably more dangerous helps how exactly?

[Arnold Layne]

Fraust, most of the Opioids are regarded as relatively benign as they do no harm to the body or its various organs. Your statement about irreparable damage is pure hyperbole. Unless you're speaking about Benzo's or Amphetamine and its derivatives (and certain other drugs that go in and out of fashion like a tarts under~crackers). But if you're talking Opioids, yes, its hyperbole. True, OD leads to potential death. Same applies to Paracetamol, Codeine, and a whole bunch of o-t-c medications available at your local Boots. Do you support the prohibition of Paracetamol?

If a person wants to do some H, they will find it somehow or other. I'd rather it be clean, properly dosed, and priced for every-man, thus undercutting and dismantling the organised crime side of things. It would also reduce, if not totally avoid the risk of OD by mistake.

I really cannot see one sensible, logical argument to support prohibition. Prohibition kills. Witness the last however many years its been since the inception of prohibition.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Arnold Layne

[JimmyPage]

It will interesting to see what data emerges from places like Colorado, regarding the hard/soft drug issue.

You can never defeat the War on Drugs with logic or evidence (because by definition there would be no War on Drugs, if logic and evidence mattered). However, if there are signs that "hard" drug use (heroin, crack, meth) is falling, then we might see a shift in emphasis on decriminalisation/legalisation.

[Cursed]

. If someone wants to use Opioid drugs, they will. Regardless of the law. But prohibition means dirty drugs, means health issues.

The real crux of this argument for me is quoted above in arnolds post. (the whole post is great but this snippet sums everything up for me.)

As a society we need to address the elephant in the room (which should have been the focus from the beginning) which is that we need to accept that some people no matter what you say or do will want to try substances that may kill them, in pursuit of a good time/escape reality etc etc. (booze is just the most socially acceptable form of this)

If we take that as the starting point then we HAVE to make this decision as safe as is humanely possible not hand it over to profit and irresponsibility. It makes no sense.

The added bonus is you remove the prohibition and remove almost all social ills surrounding a substance. I have had this conversation with almost all of my friends and every single one has argued for control until you walk down the path of looking at every single social problem and trying to look at it through a clear view not muddied by being raised in a 'just say no' society of prohibition. Almost every single problem crumbles under scrutiny and people see this when you show them. one friend ranted about solutions and i gave him one and i think genuinely changed his perspective.

Fair play to you man, I agree with the comment re: prohibition entirely, but theres also a part of me that feels it shouldnt be freely available to everyone .......... which is prohibition, whichever way you look at it. Time for a joint I think

can't remember why i quoted this sorry . i think in reference to my point above.

I hate to say it but most of the people arguing on the side of H et.all seem to be users of said substance. And while that may benefit you or your significant others the argument starts to sound a little bit redundant.

e2a: typos

I have never taken heroin and i agree wholeheartedly with freely (with minor caveats) available hard drugs.

i have never taken heroin because i know i would like it way too much and with it being impure and dangerous i just don't trust myself. I have smoked opium and enjoyed it immensly. If safe clean heroin was freely available for me to take in a safe environment where i could be educated about addiction risk and safe dosage, then i would be one of the few people who would try heroin iin an instant. I do not think most people would try heroin if freely available, i believe i would be a minority so any fears of an explosion on drug use i believe would be unfounded. To a degree i thin portugal shows this.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Ahiṃsā

[Hiphip]

Nandor says it better than I can

Cheers

[Ishmael]

the trouble with supporting control of drugs is that you have to have some trust in the controllers. The state clearly has no understanding of the drugs they control - drug law is a complete nonsense at the moment and governments are driven by disinformation campaigns in the papers, and by their snuggly relationships with pharmaceutical companies. I can't support control of drugs (other than strong poisons that no-one would want to take) by the UK government for that reason. However I do trust pharmaceutical companies and chemists to titrate and supply drugs accurately.

Now you'll want to know whether I am one of those selfish heroin users who apparently allow personal needs to overwhelm their objectivity on the matter. I have never used heroin but my oldest friend was a lifelong addict. He had a high tolerance so needed large doses. Of course with dealer smack you have no idea of the strength. He miscalculated one night. Maybe it was cut with something but the postmortem revealed only smack and alcohol. Many heroin addicts die that way, ie unnecessarily and because of a direct result of prohibition. No amount of prohibition would have saved him (unless you believe in the crazed fantasy held by current governments that the illegal drug market can be completely eradicated by policing prohibition). Prohibition didn't even begin to prevent him from getting smack, but it did ensure that sooner or later it would kill him.