Alcohol 'more dangerous than heroin'

[ib.me.ub]

That is fine, but when it affects other people and the rest of society, it becomes a problem.

[Tiberius]

I can't see how you can reconcile the two. If you ban it completely, you are going completely against the freedom of people to do what they want with their own bodies. Either you don't want to ban it completely, or you aren't being honest when you say that such freedoms are "fine". You can't have both.

[Skipper]

Ban all harmful substances completely, including alcohol and tobacco. This is my position, coming from a position of reformed smoker, drug taker(pot mostly), and drinker.

I see no overwhealming positive factors that outweigh the negative factors associated with these substances.

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 favour full legalisation, which isn't an option in the poll as it's completely different to decriminalisation. The current position on drugs from the British government is completely bullshit. We spend billions trying to fight it and yet more and more people are taking drugs. Legalise, tax and create a whole job creating industry around the cheap production of substances people want and will get from black market sources anyway. Let people decide what they want to do with their own bodies and don't make criminals of them simply for wanting to smoke a bit of weed or take some shrooms.

[ib.me.ub]

Such freedoms are fine up until a certain point in time.

When they start to affect the environment, others, or society in general, they become a problem.

[Tiberius]

@Skipper

I would have thought the option "decriminalize all drugs with regulation" matched your view.

Such freedoms are fine up until a certain point in time.

When they start to affect the environment, others or society in general, they become a problem.

So are you for banning them all, or are you for freedoms with limits? There is a difference. You can't both support freedoms and prohibition, but you can support banning of some, and freedom of some. I still think its a nasty compromise and that freedom should always win, but at least you'd be consistent.

[ib.me.ub]

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.

[Skipper]

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.

But the individual does participate. Regularly. Why have all the society wide negatives that come with the issue and not the benefits? If people are going to do it, tax it and stop the money going to illegal dealers. Bring the issue out into the open and treat proper addicts where possible. In Holland where weed is tolerated, although still not completely legal, user rates among youngsters is lower than most of Europe and also in Portugal where they have decriminalised all substances user rates have fallen. So there is nothing to suggest user rates would rise if we were to legalise, so what benefit does full, strict banning bring?

@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.

[ib.me.ub]

So are you for banning them all, or are you for freedoms with limits? There is a difference. You can't both support freedoms and prohibition, but you can support banning of some, and freedom of some. I still think its a nasty compromise and that freedom should always win, but at least you'd be consistent.

I would consider freedoms with prohabition & freedoms with limits as the same thing. The limits being prohabition.

[Tiberius]

Ok, now were going around in a circles. Do you want to ban all lethal substances like you said, or are you actually more in favour of banning *some* substances, whilst letting some of the less dangerous ones be used be peole who want them?

Which are you?

[ib.me.ub]

:-) Ok. I believe in ban all harmful substances completely, including alcohol and tobacco.