(November 3, 2010 at 8:55 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: :-) Ok. I believe in ban all harmful substances completely, including alcohol and tobacco.

Because prohibition clearly works. Nobody takes drugs these days and nobody drank during the ban on alcohol during 1920's America.

(November 3, 2010 at 8:25 am)Skipper Wrote: @Adrian

Decriminalisation, such as what has been done in Portugal dosen't fully legalise drugs, it just takes away the punishable criminal side of possessing substances. Their decriminalisation has worked to the extent user rates have fallen and also illnesses from things such as needle sharing has also dropped. Full legalisation would mean the substances could be produced by either government or private companies at set strengths and doses and also sold via licensed premises. You still loose out on tax and still keep illegal dealers when you just decriminalise.

Decriminalisation is getting rid of punishment for the acts, the first option in the poll doesn't exclude drug taxation or supply from private or public sources.

(November 3, 2010 at 8:17 am)ib.me.ub Wrote:

(November 3, 2010 at 8:10 am)Skipper Wrote: But banning simply dosen't work. You are proof of that. Drugs and pot were illegal when you were taking them and yet you still took them so how do you think banning will work?!

I don't think anything conventional will work in terms of this problem. The only thing that will work, for sure, is choice of the individual to not participate.

Nothing will change until people choose to change themselves.

But you'd be more than happy to force them to change wouldn't you? How very totalitarian of you.

---

(November 3, 2010 at 8:55 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: :-) Ok. I believe in ban all harmful substances completely, including alcohol and tobacco.

Congratulations, you just banned xanax, aspirin, caffeine & cough syrup. Please do a little research before you make such stupid statements.

I was gonna say, pretty much every substance is harmful when used in the wrong way. Have you seen the labels on most cleaning products?

Basically ib.me.ub, you are against the freedom of people to choose what they do with their own bodies, and by wanting to ban all substances that cause harm, you open a pandora's box of problems.

You can't stop people from harming themselves if they want to, unless you are content with locking them up and putting them under constant control for the rest of their lives. The key to keeping people from harming themselves is education, not control. Legalize drugs, let the free market make them safer, and educate people in their dangers. Then people can decide if they want to cause damage to their bodies, not some fascist state.

Nobody decides what I do with my body but me. Anything else is a form of slavery.

(November 2, 2010 at 3:06 pm)Shinylight Wrote:

Does the fact that alcohol is ranked first mean that it is inherently more harmful than other drugs or does it simply reflect the fact that more people use it?

(November 3, 2010 at 10:46 am)Tiberius Wrote: Nobody decides what I do with my body but me. Anything else is a form of slavery.

What if you put something into your body that alters your behavior so that you harm others? Doesn't the government have the right to prevent that from happening?

(November 3, 2010 at 11:43 am)theophilus Wrote: What if you put something into your body that alters your behavior so that you harm others? Doesn't the government have the right to prevent that from happening?

Last time I looked they hadn't quite perfected the mind control chips, but let's pretend you are talking about an imaginary drug instead.

If there was a drug that caused 100% of it's users to go on a mindless rampage (there isn't) then yes I'd say that would be a good candidate for a government ban as it's only purpose is to make the user hurt others. This is not the case for "real world" illicit drugs, although PCP can be pretty close to what you describe.

Here is a car analogy:

Quote:What if you drive your automobile in a fashion that harms others? Doesn't the government have the right to prevent that from happening?

Sure they do, but they do not have the right to ban automobiles. In other words, we already have laws to prevent dissuade people from harming others.

People are gonna pay lots of money for drugs no matter what, we might as well get the tax from it.

so legalise, regulate and tax the buggers.

(November 3, 2010 at 11:43 am)theophilus Wrote:

(November 2, 2010 at 3:06 pm)Shinylight Wrote:

---

---

Does the fact that alcohol is ranked first mean that it is inherently more harmful than other drugs or does it simply reflect the fact that more people use it?

It is more harmful, I'm not sure of the 9 criteria used to judge harm to the user but it clearly came out on top in most of them.

Research method.

(November 3, 2010 at 12:34 pm)Shinylight Wrote: It is more harmful, I'm not sure of the 9 criteria used to judge harm to the user but it clearly came out on top in most of them.

Research method.

He can't wrap his head around what peer review is, so I'm thinking that link won't help him too much.

(November 3, 2010 at 9:56 am)Shinylight Wrote:

(November 3, 2010 at 8:25 am)Skipper Wrote: @Adrian

Decriminalisation, such as what has been done in Portugal dosen't fully legalise drugs, it just takes away the punishable criminal side of possessing substances. Their decriminalisation has worked to the extent user rates have fallen and also illnesses from things such as needle sharing has also dropped. Full legalisation would mean the substances could be produced by either government or private companies at set strengths and doses and also sold via licensed premises. You still loose out on tax and still keep illegal dealers when you just decriminalise.

Decriminalisation is getting rid of punishment for the acts, the first option in the poll doesn't exclude drug taxation or supply from private or public sources.

Decriminalisation is different from full legalisation. Decriminalising drugs, as you say, does take away the punishment but is still technically illegal so you wouldn't have companies or governments producing and taxing it. For that to happen it would take legalisation.