Legalize all drugs....

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Apr 25, 2002
810
0
0
45
#21
I agree that we should legalize ALL drugs. But the sales and usage should be designated into "red light districts" only.

And folks should capitalize on those red light districts by building apartment complexes and such so that the patrons of "drug stores" never have to leave that area. And the end result would be the majority of folks seeing drugs as a bad option and back away from them.

Eliminating the option has done nothing more than create more prisons.
 
Jul 10, 2002
2,180
18
0
45
#22
Since it hasn't been brought up yet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13624303








Global war on drugs 'has failed' say former leaders

A tank drives past a field of poppies Opiate use rose by 35% worldwide from 1998-2008, in spite of anti-drug efforts

The global war on drugs has "failed" according to a new report by a group of politicians and former world leaders.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation of drug users.

The panel includes former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the former leaders of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, and the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.

The US and Mexican governments have rejected the findings as misguided.

The Global Commission's 24-page report argues that anti-drug policy has failed by fuelling organised crime, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and causing thousands of deaths.

It cites UN estimates that opiate use increased 35% worldwide from 1998 to 2008, cocaine by 27%, and cannabis by 8.5%.

Cesar Gaviria said the US came in for criticism

The 19-member commission includes Mexico's former President Ernesto Zedillo, Brazil's ex-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, as well as the former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and the current Prime Minister of Greece George Papandreou.

The panel also features prominent Latin American writers Carlos Fuentes and Mario Vargas Llosa, the EU's former foreign policy chief Javier Solana, and George Schultz, a former US secretary of state.
'No harm to others'

The authors criticise governments who claim the current war on drugs is effective.

It is a damning indictment. The group of world leaders, including former Presidents of Mexico and Colombia which are blighted by the trade in illegal drugs, says urgent changes are overdue.

Their report says current policies to tackle drug abuse and the crime that preys on it are clearly not working, but result in thousands of deaths and rampant lawlessness.

It calls for an end to the 'criminalisation, marginalisation and stigmatisation of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others'.

The leading international figures behind the report do not pull their punches. They say sensible regulation of drugs is working in some countries but they accuse many governments around the world of pretending that the current war on drugs is effective when they know it isn't.

Drugs need to be decriminalised, they say, and addicts need to be treated as patients, not villains.

"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won," the report said.

Instead of punishing users who the report says "do no harm to others," the commission argues that governments should end criminalisation of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organised crime syndicates and offer health and treatment services for drug-users.

It calls for drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime and promote economic and social development.

The commission is especially critical of the US, saying it must abandon anti-crime approaches to drug policy and adopt strategies rooted in healthcare and human rights.

"We hope this country (the US) at least starts to think there are alternatives," said former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria.

"We don't see the US evolving in a way that is compatible with our (countries') long-term interests."

The office of White House drug tsar Gil Kerlikowske rejected the panel's recommendations.

"Drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated," said a spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

"Making drugs more available - as this report suggests - will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe."

The government of Mexico, where more than 34,000 people have died in drug-related violence since a crackdown on the cartels began in December 2006, was also critical.

Legalisation would be an "insufficient and inefficient" step given the international nature of the illegal drugs trade, said National Security spokesman Alejandro Poire.

"Legalisation won't stop organised crime, nor its rivalries and violence," he said.

"To think organised crime in Mexico means drug-trafficking overlooks the other crimes committed such as kidnapping, extortion and robbery."
 
Nov 10, 2008
590
112
43
45
#23
I wouldnt legalize ALL drugs. I wouldnt even consider cannabis to be a drug. But yea,, cannabis should of been legal 20 years ago. As for the others, i wouldnt want them legal and if they did end up becoming legal, i wouldnt be rushing to the corner store to get them///..
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#25



What happened to your thoughts on the need for population reduction survival of the fittest?

It's funny how users who tend to have polarizing viewpoints on most issues can find themselves sharing common ground on this topic.

But it's not really funny because what that really comes down to is an inherent human tendency to try and control others; it just manifests itself in different ways in different people.
 
Jul 10, 2002
2,180
18
0
45
#26
TheG, what do those links prove?

Those drugs are illegal, and people are still using/abusing. If they are legal, the same people that would take those types of substance would still continue to. Contra-positively, those that choose to not take those types of substances b/c they are illegal are highly unlikely to start taking b/c they are legalized.

There is no crime there, as ultimately the perp. is the victim.

When the criminal element is removed, the black market price will drop, and resources can be reallocated to rehabilitation as opposed to a penal system.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#27
What happened to your thoughts on the need for population reduction survival of the fittest?

It's funny how users who tend to have polarizing viewpoints on most issues can find themselves sharing common ground on this topic.

But it's not really funny because what that really comes down to is an inherent human tendency to try and control others; it just manifests itself in different ways in different people.
You haven't understood absolutely anything of what I have been saying. How exactly did you decide I think there is a need for "population reduction survival of the fittest" (what does that mean anyway)? And why did you decide it is about controlling others? It isn't and it has never been, neither for me nor for people who have been warning about these things before me.

Once again, the reality is that the most egoistical, cold rational evolutionary strategy for human beings is to cooperate altruistically and to restrict their reproduction and consumption so that the whole species doesn't go extinct due to ecological overshoot. The problem is that human beings are in their vast majority too ignorant and stupid to understand that. That's why the only way anything can be done is by a small group of people who understand this to force the necessary type of behavior onto the rest while the rest gets educated and understands the need for that type of behavior. That's never going to happen because the small group of people that understands the situation is too small and in general of the wrong disposition to do anything.

But this doesn't have much to do with drugs. Coaxil and desomoprhine aren't going to reduce the world's population, they only take away from society resources that would be much better used for other purposes. One thing is common though - people take drugs for the same reason they have allowed the planet to get to its current state, because they are too stupid and shortsighted to understand the consequences of their actions.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#28
TheG, what do those links prove?

Those drugs are illegal, and people are still using/abusing. If they are legal, the same people that would take those types of substance would still continue to. Contra-positively, those that choose to not take those types of substances b/c they are illegal are highly unlikely to start taking b/c they are legalized.

There is no crime there, as ultimately the perp. is the victim.

When the criminal element is removed, the black market price will drop, and resources can be reallocated to rehabilitation as opposed to a penal system.
Those links show that it is better to give people clean laboratory-produced heroin for cheap than to have them inject crushed antidepressant pills into their bloodstream and have their limbs amputated as a result. I am not aware of a better illustration of the harm that prohibition is doing.

The antidepressants are not illegal, they are available in all pharmacies. It is illegal to sell them without prescription, but that's not really much of a barrier. The unique thing in the Russian case is geography. Russia is huge and separated from Afghanistan by very long and very porous borders. This makes it very easy for heroin to reach the big cities and that's why they have the largest population of heroin users in the world (some 2 million). But because, again, it is so large, it may be easy to move it around without getting noticed but it may not be that easy to supply remote cities like Vorkuta regularly so once addicted, people left without heroin apparently had to figure out alternatives. And they did, but those are much more horrible than anything heroin has ever done. Once the alternatives were found, they spread because they're cheaper and you see the consequences.

In that kind of situation, the only sane thing is to register all heroin users and start supplying them with high-quality heroin. Because the alternative is many thousands of people with arms and legs cut off that the state has to care for for the rest of their life (if they make it, of course). Those people wouldn't be on coaxil if they had heroin or if they had coaxil that's suitable for intravenous injection.

It would be better if people were not dumb enough to start doing drugs to begin with, but that's not an option unfortunately.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#29
You haven't understood absolutely anything of what I have been saying. How exactly did you decide I think there is a need for "population reduction survival of the fittest" (what does that mean anyway)?
You have discussed the need for population reduction countless time on this forum.

I mean to to type "population reduction and surivival of the fittest" my mistake for leaving out the "and" in the original post.

And why did you decide it is about controlling others? It isn't and it has never been, neither for me nor for people who have been warning about these things before me.
It's not about control?

Funny you should say that.

Once again, the reality is that the most egoistical, cold rational evolutionary strategy for human beings is to cooperate altruistically and to restrict their reproduction and consumption so that the whole species doesn't go extinct due to ecological overshoot. The problem is that human beings are in their vast majority too ignorant and stupid to understand that. That's why the only way anything can be done is by a small group of people who understand this to force the necessary type of behavior onto the rest while the rest gets educated and understands the need for that type of behavior.
or

In that kind of situation, the only sane thing is to register all heroin users and start supplying them with high-quality heroin.
That's not control huh?

I guess you were sort of right, it's not just about control, it's about control, an illusory superiority bias, and superiority complexes.

That's never going to happen because the small group of people that understands the situation is too small and in general of the wrong disposition to do anything.
Sounds like a group of super heroes here to save us from our own stupidity.

But this doesn't have much to do with drugs. Coaxil and desomoprhine aren't going to reduce the world's population, they only take away from society resources that would be much better used for other purposes. One thing is common though - people take drugs for the same reason they have allowed the planet to get to its current state, because they are too stupid and shortsighted to understand the consequences of their actions.
Too bad we cant control those stupid shortsighted people.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#30
You have discussed the need for population reduction countless time on this forum.

I mean to to type "population reduction and surivival of the fittest" my mistake for leaving out the "and" in the original post.
The "survival of the fittest" part is an addition entirely of your own. Social Darwinism was and still is a distortion and tragic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, it is not at all intellectually honest to attach it to views you don't like in an attempt to discredit them when they have nothing to do with it.

It's not about control?

Funny you should say that.

That's not control huh?
No it isn't. You are claiming that when I say that some things will have to be forced upon the population in a top down manner, I do this due to my own cravings for power. That's not the case, I am reaching to the conclusion that that's the only way by following the cold logic and the facts where they lead me without letting the social and cultural baggage that prevents most people from seeing these things to influence my thinking. I myself do not have kids and don't plan to have any and I do not care much who will do it (if it was possible and it isn't) as long as what has to be done gets done.

Yet again you try to attach the readily available labels, historical examples and ideologies to other people's position without much regard for whether they actually apply.

I guess you were sort of right, it's not just about control, it's about control, an illusory superiority bias, and superiority complexes.

Sounds like a group of super heroes here to save us from our own stupidity.

Too bad we cant control those stupid shortsighted people.
That the vast majority of people are stupid and shortsighted is hardly a disputable statement. But you again fail to understand where I am coming from - it has nothing to do with "superiority bias", "superiority complexes" or anything of the "see how smart I am and how stupid you are, now bow down to me" sort of thing. It is a deep disappointment of the state of the world, the ability of people to reason logically, their whole attitude towards knowledge, proper reasoning and understanding reality in general, and their steep discount rates with respect to the future. I am not saying these things because it makes me feel good to bash morons on the internet, quite the opposite, it brings me nothing but even more desperation when I see yet another outrageously stupid thing someone said or did.