Taking the Fun Out of Pot

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Fried Egg

It is a stated aim of prohibition to drive up the price of the drug in order that it become prohibitively expensive. Assuming that prohibition has had at least some success at restricting the supply, then we can say that legalising it would bring the price down meaning that fewer addicts would need to resort to crime to fund their addiction.

Don't forget the tax; and it won't be low: the government is rather short of funds at the moment.


* Wonders if we aren't all victims; of drug snorting traders and financiers in the City. (It would provide an explanation of some of their more "optimistic" activities. ) *

[mygoditsraining]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

Drug taking IS a victimless crime

Yes, all of the money spent on NHS services coping with addicts, overdoses, drug-related injuries and disease is woven magically out of thin air, conclusively proving that drugs harm no-one ever.*

How do drugs get produced? How do they get into the country? A victimless system? What planet do you live on where drugs are grown by happy, well-located prosperous local farmers who gain fair exchange for goods, where the supply chain is well maintained, the distribution is fair, and drugs are diluted using safe, affordable materials?

Rather than me ranting about this a bit more, lets take another angle:

How about you go spend a month doing some volunteer work at a rehabilitation clinic, come back from that and tell me that no-one you see there is a victim.

@dustinzgirl

Oh, and I think drug dealers are filth. That includes the pharmaceutical companies.

As someone who has worked on the development of cancer treatment for a major pharma company, let me just say that I do not agree with you lumping pharma in with dealers. Granted, a board of directors is always going to represent shareholder interests, thus giving any company the aspect of a bloated vampiric tick, but the truth of the matter is that it is an absolute soul destroying pain in the arse to provide safe, effective medication in a timely manner. When I was a student, the timeline for a medicine to reach market from first isolation was 12 years. It's now closer to 15. Can you imagine trying to pitch an investment that might provide a return in 15 years time?

On a side note, the market in fake drugs is rising. Pfizer are trying to increase awareness via an advertising campaign, realdanger.co.uk, but the sad truth is that more and more people are going to keep taking fake drugs because they imagine that they are cutting out the profit margin of "THE MAN" and saving themselves a few quid when they are really just endangering themselves.

Sagan was right back in '95 when he predicted that technology would outstrip awareness and we'd end up back in a demon-haunted world of half-truth and superstition. If you have the courage of your convictions to never to use any form of pharmaceutical because the companies that make them are "filth", then I truly, truly pity you.


*For the record, I'm also of the opinion that smoking and drinking are two lumbering drains on the health service that education and further restrictions on the use of either could alleviate massively.

[Moonbat]

"I have to have a fix, I've no cash and so I simply have to steal to get the money"

But this sort of simplified cause and effect is not simply limited to drug takers, and again yes stealing is a crime, but taking the drug is not. By this logic no-one no matter how rich they are is allowed to take drugs because poor people take them and then have to steal to get more. Is that fair?
If a Biliionaire wants to end his life by getting high on Heroine, then why is he not allowed? If he wanted to drink himself to death it would be no problem, no-one has a right (including the state) to tell me what I can and can't put into my body, although there are limits I think I shouldn't be allowed to inject myself with a radioactive isotope, but thats more that it'll affect others.

How about car driving and speed, some people get a better/faster car to drive it faster than is legally allowed, but should they ban all cars just because some people can't adhere to the rules. Should everyone be banned from driving because young men like to drive fast and cause untold wreckage?

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

But this sort of simplified cause and effect is not simply limited to drug takers, and again yes stealing is a crime, but taking the drug is not.

Er, yes it is.

Originally Posted by Moonbat

By this logic no-one no matter how rich they are is allowed to take drugs because poor people take them and then have to steal to get more. Is that fair?

Those poor, poor rich people. My heart bleeds for them....

Originally Posted by Moonbat

If a Biliionaire wants to end his life by getting high on Heroine, then why is he not allowed? If he wanted to drink himself to death it would be no problem, no-one has a right (including the state) to tell me what I can and can't put into my body, although there are limits I think I shouldn't be allowed to inject myself with a radioactive isotope, but thats more that it'll affect others.

How about car driving and speed, some people get a better/faster car to drive it faster than is legally allowed, but should they ban all cars just because some people can't adhere to the rules. Should everyone be banned from driving because young men like to drive fast and cause untold wreckage?

The rule is that certain drugs are illegal, as is speeding. Your argument seems to be based on the fantasy that all these drugs are legal (); but what some of us are addressing, at least in this part of the thread, is the ludicrous notion that drug-taking is victimless. It is not. And so basing a claim that these drugs should be legalised on the grounds that there are no victims isn't going to hold water. You will have to find a more persuasive argument.

[Moonbat]

Yes, all of the money spent on NHS services coping with addicts, overdoses, drug-related injuries and disease is woven magically out of thin air, conclusively proving that drugs harm no-one ever.*

The NHS also has to spend alot of money dealing with the effects of old age, does thast mean that living is a crime and we are the victims?

How do drugs get produced? How do they get into the country? A victimless system? What planet do you live on where drugs are grown by happy, well-located prosperous local farmers who gain fair exchange for goods, where the supply chain is well maintained, the distribution is fair, and drugs are diluted using safe, affordable materials?

They are usually produced in poorer countries where the production of said drug is the best use of their resources and source of income. They have to be smuggled (if they are grown abroad which plenty isn't anymore) but that's because the state deems them bad for us and so wont allow people to import them. All those bits you mention about supply chains and fair trade, well if it was legal then the supply chains and trade would be forced to be fairer, it is only because they are illegal yet there is a demand for them that people have to break rules to get them here.

People at drug re-habilitation centres (mostly) have chosen to take the drug and if they are unable to resist the addictve side to it then they are the victim, but as said earler also the perp, so again it is victimless.

*For the record, I'm also of the opinion that smoking and drinking are two lumbering drains on the health service that education and further restrictions on the use of either could alleviate massively.

So you're saying you wont let anyone smoke or drink because it can cause a strain on hospitals? By this logic people shouldn't be allowed to live to 60 as it can cause a drain on the system, or drive cars as they might crash, or play sport as they might be injured, or eat spicey foods. People shouldn't be allowed to get tattoos as sometimes they get infected, people can't get piercings for the same reason. People shouldn't be allowed to work too hard as it causes stress, there are a million ailments that are part of life, including addiction, if you removed all the drugs and alcohol people would only become addicted to something else! What would have them addicted to? Prayer? Meditation? Masturbation? (ahem!)


Drug abuse does harm people, but people choose to take them, so they are the victim and the perp, ergo it is a victimless crime.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

The NHS also has to spend alot of money dealing with the effects of old age, does thast mean that living is a crime and we are the victims?

Ageing is, at least at the moment, not voluntary; using drugs (including alcohol and nicotine) is, to a greater or lesser extent, voluntary.

Originally Posted by Moonbat

Drug abuse does harm people, but people choose to take them, so they are the victim and the perp, ergo it is a victimless crime.

If you ignore their families and the rest of society (which you seem to want to do, but I don't), then yes, they are the only victims: but only one victim is still a victim; my maths tells me than one does not equal zero.

[Moonbat]

The rule is that certain drugs are illegal, as is speeding. Your argument seems to be based on the fantasy that all these drugs are legal (); but what some of us are addressing, at least in this part of the thread, is the ludicrous notion that drug-taking is victimless. It is not. And so basing a claim that these drugs should be legalised on the grounds that there are no victims isn't going to hold water. You will have to find a more persuasive argument.

Drug taking isn't victimless per se, but it is a victimless crime, If I choose to take drugs it is my choice, as long as I don't commit other crimes or hurt others then why can't I inject horerine into MY blood stream. What right have you got to tell me I can't, are your objections based soley on the (tenuous) link between my taking drugs and then commiting other crimes?

stealing is a crime, but taking the drug is not.
Er, yes it is.

Stealing is a crime with a victim, drug taking isn't!

but should they ban all cars just because some people can't adhere to the rules.

My point here is that you are saying that drug users steal and rob, but only the ones not rich enough to afford more drugs, so because some drug users are poor and have no job or income and so resort to stealing to pay for their drugs no one is allowed to take drugs, not even the rich that can afford it (and the subsequent medical attention required)

How can (Ursa Major, and Mygoditsraining) you justify not allowing me to take a drug of my choice? I haven't stolen to pay for it, I haven't commited any other crime than the crime (due to the illagility of cannabis) of buying and smoking the drug. I haven't hurt or even affected anyone? Do you think you (or the state) has the right to deny me the joy of smoking?

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

Drug taking isn't victimless per se, but it is a victimless crime....

It's a crime (at the moment) and it has victims; but you believe that it is a victimless crime. I'm baffled. ()

Originally Posted by Moonbat

How can (Ursa Major, and Mygoditsraining) you justify not allowing me to take a drug of my choice? I haven't stolen to pay for it, I haven't commited any other crime than the crime (due to the illagility of cannabis) of buying and smoking the drug. I haven't hurt or even affected anyone? Do you think you (or the state) has the right to deny me the joy of smoking?

Because it is, currently, illegal. And whether drugs should be legalised or not depends on certain arguments winning the day. The idea that there are no victims is simply not a winning argument, for the simple fact that it is complete and utter nonsense. Continually propounding it is doing no-one any favours and is not helping your cause.

Please try some other arguments.

[Moonbat]

I still don't agree with you Ursa, drug taking is a victimless crime, ok, who is the victim when someone takes Heroine?

If girl A injects, who is the victim? Girl A chose to inject so she cannot be the victim of her own crime, so who is?

Because it is, currently, illegal.

And part of my arguement is why does the state think it has a right to tell me what I can and can't put into my blood stream?

[Wybren]

HMM Actually Moonbat, while the person taking the drug may indeed be doing on their own, there are victims with drugs, speaking from personal experience - Children, wives, families, of people who use drugs, children who have to go without because a parent spends all their money on drugs - the money may be legally obtained but the children and family still suffer. It doesn't matter which substance is abused, be it cigarettes, alcohol, pot, heroin, etc. Sure it is your body, put what you want in it, but spare a thought to your family and loved ones, what pain do you put them through?

[Moonbat]

Sure it is your body, put what you want in it, but spare a thought to your family and loved ones, what pain do you put them through?

Ok, I agree that parents need to support their children rather than get high (although plenty do both) but the person actually taking the drug is victimless, if they then lie in a dazed stupor instead of feeding thier children then that is neglect and a different crime.

what if a boxer gets punch drunk and so can't support his young children, is he at fault for getting punch drunk, he chose to box, boxing itself isn't illegal, but now he is unfit to support his children (or care for them) would you say the children were a victim of boxing, I think not, you'd say they are a victim of neglect.

spare a thought to your family and loved ones, what pain do you put them through?

Again this is a very self righteous point of view, you are denying someone the freedom of choice because you can't handle the consequences. People die, or go mad, that's life and it's not always due to drugs. I have heard this arguement before and I find it is selfish on the part of the family.
Not only can the state tell me what I can put into my body, but now my parents are telling me what kind of life I must lead (and we all know how closely we follow our parents wishes) I am pro choice.

[Wybren]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

Ok, I agree that parents need to support their children rather than get high (although plenty do both) but the person actually taking the drug is victimless, if they then lie in a dazed stupor instead of feeding thier children then that is neglect and a different crime.

Um can you actually comprehend that because the neglect is a result of the drug taking that ergo the kids are a victim of crime?

what if a boxer gets punch drunk and so can't support his young children, is he at fault for getting punch drunk, he chose to box, boxing itself isn't illegal, but now he is unfit to support his children (or care for them) would you say the children were a victim of boxing, I think not, you'd say they are a victim of neglect.

Nope I would actually say that the children are a victim of the parents choice to become a boxer - the neglect is a result of the boxer choosing that profession and not preparing for the potential consequences

Again this is a very self righteous point of view, you are denying someone the freedom of choice because you can't handle the consequences. People die, or go mad, that's life and it's not always due to drugs. I have heard this arguement before and I find it is selfish on the part of the family.
Not only can the state tell me what I can put into my body, but now my parents are telling me what kind of life I must lead (and we all know how closely we follow our parents wishes) I am pro choice.

You know what, as a person who spent 4 years of her youth not getting fed or clothed properly because my stepfather needed to support his various habits I am going to say that your comment is really out of order, I am not deny anyone anything, I am just asking that they spare a thought to who they are hurting directly or indirectly. Sure people die or loose their mind through other means, and yes that is life, but it is those who hurry the process along voluntarily they are the selfish ones. I do not object to people being wise in their consumption of such substances, I am all for things like marijuana being used medicinally, but your idea that drug taking is a victimless crime is seriously misinformed.

[BookStop]

MB, I'm with Ursa and Wybren on this one. Your argument is silly and really doesn't hold up at all.

If marijuana were legal like alcohol, then I'd be perfectly supportive of responsible folks smoking it. Problems would arise, of course, from those who choose to abuse, but that's not too different than folks who abuse alcohol (addiction notwithstanding), but that doesn't seem to be where this thread has wandered.

I'm curious as to where you think illegal drugs come from. Most folks don't grow them themselves you know. Criminal culture leaves many victims in its wake, and supporting that culture is just as criminal.

[Moonbat]

Wybren, I apologise if my comments upset or hurt you that was not my intention.

Um can you actually comprehend that because the neglect is a result of the drug taking that ergo the kids are a victim of crime?

Neglect is always a result of something, you could blame education, or ethics, you could blame society for the drug taking, Neglect is the crime and should be dealt as such, I wouldn't say you were a victim of drug abuse, but of Neglect, regardless if the neglect was caused by drug abuse, the drug abuse was not the crime of which you were the victim. Many children are neglected by parents that work too hard and wouldn't dream of touching drugs, should be ban work too?

We obviously come from two very different stand points here, I see the drug user as the person commiting the crime and being the victim of it, I do not see anyone caught up in the mess left behind as a victim of the drug taking, I see them as a victim of other crimes (i.e. neglect) these may be directly or indirectly related to the drug taking but they are not the drug taking, which is the victimless crime I am talking about.

Many legal substances are addictive, and others bad for you (in excess) but almost anything can be taken consequence free in moderation. Will we ban everything and anything that can in anyway be bad for us? I hope not, I really like eating my own bogies.

I just cannot accept the sweeping statement that 'drugs are bad.' It doesn't fit with my world view.

[Moonbat]

Criminal culture leaves many victims in its wake, and supporting that culture is just as criminal.

Criminal culture also supports many people, feeding families and such. Growing and selling drugs such a MJ (or even H) puts people through school, puts meals on tables, and as I have said, nobody (or very few) takes drugs unless they want to, it's not like weapons manufacturing, or prostitution or people smuggling.

I wouldn't have to support the criminal culture if the drugs were legalised. You say you'd have no problem with people smoking, but then it would be abused, so the issue is with people doing things that are not good for them, where is the line drawn between use and abuse?
Who are you to draw such a line? One man's inebriation is another man's tipsy