Legalise Heroin Now!

[Aeson]

We should make not using drugs criminal. More taxes

(Then I'm gonna be a not-drug lord here in the third world and smuggle sobriety into the US in unsuspecting tourists' asses.)

[Egbert]

If a religious fundamentalist whack-job country like Iran can do it, why can't we...?

Perhaps your country must also become a fundamentalist whack-job country so that you can do the same.

[MikeH]

It's not working for the US.

[MOBIUS]

My point was only that "[x] more dangerous than [y]" of that sort is dishonest. The phrasing implies something different from the actual results of the study.

Except that it isn't dishonest at all. Especially if the reason why is explained. We have been explaining these reasons over and over and yet you still insist on having your head in the sand using emotional arguments with no basis in fact as to why you think drugs should be illegal. Apparently now all the data we're using is 'asinine' and 'dishonest'.

[Egbert]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world who doesn't know where I'd find illegal drugs for sale.


I could probably mix a fatal cocktail of the legal drugs I've got at home however

You are not the only person in the world who does not know where to get illegal drugs. I don't know either but then there are lots of things I don't know. I don't even know what I don't know (neither does Rumsfield).

[Elok]

Except that it isn't dishonest at all. Especially if the reason why is explained. We have been explaining these reasons over and over and yet you still insist on having your head in the sand using emotional arguments with no basis in fact as to why you think drugs should be illegal. Apparently now all the data we're using is 'asinine' and 'dishonest'.

No, it's dishonest. "Alcohol more dangerous than heroin" clearly implies that it's safer for me to use heroin than alcohol. Which is, of course, patent nonsense, although you were using the study to imply that. Not that "legal drug causes more damage overall than illegal drug" is a strong argument for legalization in the first place.

Like I said, I don't see an issue with decriminalization of individual possession of heroin--or pretty much anything but PCP. Full legalization is a more complicated issue, and each drug should be examined carefully by experts on an individual basis.

[MikeH]

If heroin was legal and readily available it would be less damaging than alcohol.

[MOBIUS]

No, it's dishonest. "Alcohol more dangerous than heroin" clearly implies that it's safer for me to use heroin than alcohol. Which is, of course, patent nonsense, although you were using the study to imply that.

Firstly we are talking about the effects on society as a whole and not necessarily the individual - which you repeatedly ignore! Secondly, I have even produced a scenario (the Russian article) where alcohol in a legally available form is actually more dangerous than the illegal use of heroin. So you're wrong on that count too, buddy. This is what I mean about people like you having their heads in the sand...

Not that "legal drug causes more damage overall than illegal drug" is a strong argument for legalization in the first place.

Like I said, I don't see an issue with decriminalization of individual possession of heroin--or pretty much anything but PCP. Full legalization is a more complicated issue, and each drug should be examined carefully by experts on an individual basis.

So you do actually agree at least in part with the rest of us then...?

So your entire argument so far is based on some narrow and pedantic focus that you do not believe that 'alcohol is more dangerous than heroin' (though even for that portion of your argument to work, this has to be legal alcohol against illegal heroin) on a purely individual basis where that user's actions are cocooned away from the rest of society and the supply chain that brought the drug to him or her...!?

You will note, that seems to be your argument, not that of the people in favour of legalisation/decriminalisation...

Who is the dishonest person now, huh?

[Elok]

Firstly we are talking about the effects on society as a whole and not necessarily the individual - which you repeatedly ignore!

No, I do not ignore it, I'm saying the statement "alcohol is more dangerous than heroin" implies something entirely different from that. Hence it is a dishonest statement to make.

[Elok]

If somebody published a story with the headline "crossing the street more dangerous than jumping off the top of the Empire State Building," it would be equally true, by the same rationale, but still misleading.

Anyway, it belatedly occurred to me that legalizing (not simply decriminalizing possession of) drugs could cause a very significant increase in their use after all, for a number of reasons:

1. Teenagers. Despite everything Ozzie says, our young people have a tendency to make astonishingly moronic decisions. If they couldn't be counted on to make bad choices, Phillip Morris would have gone bankrupt ages ago. Of course there would be controls to prevent sales to minors, but I see no reason why those controls would work any better than our existing laughable controls that try to keep teens from getting booze and cigs. At present, teenagers have to have contacts with an actual drug dealer to get hard drugs. If they become available in supermarkets, pharmacies, or even special stores akin to liquor stores, your average fifteen-year old will only need to find an irresponsible 18- or 21-year-old. And teenagers addicted to crack or heroin grow up into adults addicted to crack or heroin.

2. Advertising. Drugs sold by corporations will have corporate safety controls, corporate tax revenue, but also corporate legal rights, including the right to advertise their products. We can restrict advertisement to certain formats, but attempting to stop them from advertising or marketing altogether, in addition to feeling vaguely hypocritical, will run afoul of our First Amendment. I don't know about the British equivalent.

3. America's grotesquely crooked political system. I can only hope the UK, and other civilized countries, don't have our problem with congresscritters fellating special interests for campaign contributions. All businesses have the official right to "speak freely" with their money, and any attempt to cut out recreational-drug companies will run into the brick wall of our present business-friendly Supreme Court. You can't cut out the greasy rights of one legal company while giving them to all the others. Now, it's hard to say how much of a problem this will be, because "Sen. Bob Jones takes money from Consolidated Crack Rock, Inc." is a wet dream of an attack ad. On the other hand, most of us really don't know who the hell our pols take money from.

For all these reasons, I feel it's in America's best interests to decrim individual possession and let some other, more enlightened place like Portugal go ahead with full legalization so we can see how it works.

[Al B. Sure!]

This is in no way a condonation (spell checker says this is not a word though it is) of DriXnak who is a known steroid user but I will say this again and I've said it before, steroids and HGH should be legalized long before cocaine, heroin, and probably even weed. I mean why exactly are steroids and HGH illegal to begin with? They're not addictive, not mind-altering, are actually productive as far as drugs go, there will never be HGH junkies robbing people for their next fix, have relatively limited negative physical effects, are already in safe use for certain medical problems and hormonal deficiencies, etc.

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh and you ever hear about the shady **** that Big Tobacco has done over the years what with lying about health effects, hiding research into health effects, advertising to children, etc.? Wait til Philip Morris gets into the crack cocaine business!

[MikeH]

We have advertising bans tobacco, partial bans and strict controls on how you can advertise alcohol. I'm sure there's something similar in the US. Just like we have bans on junk food advertising aimed at children, or broadcast during children's programs.

I don't see why legalization means you have to allow hard sell advertising aimed at teenagers.

So that's not a reason against IMO.

[Elok]

I didn't mean advertisement aimed specifically at children. While I can't say I've noticed any increased desire in myself as a result of ads/commercials/whatever, the things apparently do something. We also don't ban things as readily as you do on your side of the pond.

[C0ckney]

in your first objection you say that people need to know someone in order to get hold of illegal drugs, but this is such a low hurdle as to be almost meaningless. if people want to acquire drugs, they will do so, it is not hard.