Smoking

[Tiberius]

or do speed limits exist in your fairy tale utopia?

...yes. Why would a drug policy have any effect on speed limits? When do we ever make a new law and then say "ok, well now let's choose another random law and erase it"? Driving under the influence would still be illegal. We have legalized alcohol and people still drink and drive, but they get fined and sent to jail for doing so. This would be no different in a society that legalized drugs. I'm not arguing that legalization completely removes all drug-related crime, but the fact is that it would still be classified as crime, and the crimes involving drug smuggling / gangs would be reduced (for the simple reason that people would be able to buy drugs legally and not have to resort to black-market dealings.

they can smoke 4 cigarettes on the go (possibly with marijuana oil, amyl nitrate or whatever on one or more of them) whilst driving

They can, and when they are caught by the police they will spend a lengthy time in jail. I personally think there should be tougher sentences on criminals generally in Britain, but that is just my view. People have the right to take drugs in their own home, but they do not have a right to let that drug taking affect others.

or perhaps they should be allowed to take ecstasy, speed and PCP in any combination they wish and no matter what mood they are in.

If people wish to kill themselves then I have no problem with it. You speak as if educating campaigns would be eradicated, but this would not be how I would run such a legalization. I would keep the adverts condemning drinking and driving, but I would add to them to include messages about drugs. Likewise, I would run the "smoking is bad for you" adverts with warnings to include mentions of drugs.

And what about children? Should we be allowing children to take these drugs? If so at what age and why that age? How much can they take and are they responsible for their actions?

Protection of children is a high priority. Just as we protect children by enforcing a law for sexual intercourse, drinking, etc. I think we should enforce a minimum age of 18 for alcohol, cigarettes, sexual intercourse, drugs, etc. Scrap the laws that say children can drink in a beer garden if with their family, or that 15 year olds can buy cigarettes. Once you have reached the age when you can decide for yourself whether to go into higher education or into the world to get a job, I would say that you have matured enough to make such decisions.

I think I'd have the odd reservation about living on your cloud.

The only reason my "cloud" exists is because the current system has failed, and indeed has made everything much worse. Drugs are not going to disappear off the face of the Earth. They exist now, and nothing can stop that fact. There will always be a demand for drugs, and therein you have two options, either ban them completely and let the black-market take over (which isn't a solution), or legalize them with limiting measures to absolve the government of blame if people mis-use them. The government can charge a tax on them, but drug companies would be born to look into making them safer. People who don't want to ruin their lives will not buy drugs (much in the same way that people who don't want to trash their lungs don't smoke), and the people who will have bought them off the black-market before will buy them legally and get out of a possible life of crime.

I'm not saying it's not a radical position to take, and I also used to think the same way you thought. It was only when I considered all the options, researched into prohibition a bit, that I realized that this position is futile; it achieves nothing. We have legalized alcohol and cigarettes even though in some cases they may actually be worse than some currently banned substances, so why can't we legalize drugs in the same way?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't think Adrian mentioned the legalization of dangerous driving anywhere in his post. If crack was legalized it wouldn't have any influence on dangerous driving laws.

No I bought it in and with good reason ... if you are going to have full legalisation of drugs you have to police it and that means policing the consequences of it one of which might (almost certainly will) be the fact that people will drive under the influence of such things.

That said, it's been observed that speed limits don't really do anything. Normal people tend to drive at a speed they feel comfortable at, and crazy assholes do the same, regardless of posted limits.

Oh really? I was rather under the impression that speed limits (if only for reason of basic physics) save lives ... I'm fairly sure that the major motoring organisations think something along those lines (at least officially).

Kyu

---

or do speed limits exist in your fairy tale utopia?

...yes. Why would a drug policy have any effect on speed limits? When do we ever make a new law and then say "ok, well now let's choose another random law and erase it"? Driving under the influence would still be illegal. We have legalized alcohol and people still drink and drive, but they get fined and sent to jail for doing so. This would be no different in a society that legalized drugs. I'm not arguing that legalization completely removes all drug-related crime, but the fact is that it would still be classified as crime, and the crimes involving drug smuggling / gangs would be reduced (for the simple reason that people would be able to buy drugs legally and not have to resort to black-market dealings.

And as I said to Meatball, if you have full legalisation of drugs you have consequences and you need to deal with them! You CANNOT have a society where drugs are freely available and NOT have such consequences IMO and that is why I consider your idea of legalisation of all the lovely drugs as utopian bollocks.

they can smoke 4 cigarettes on the go (possibly with marijuana oil, amyl nitrate or whatever on one or more of them) whilst driving

They can, and when they are caught by the police they will spend a lengthy time in jail. I personally think there should be tougher sentences on criminals generally in Britain, but that is just my view. People have the right to take drugs in their own home, but they do not have a right to let that drug taking affect others.

Oh for fucks sake man ... that's complete garbage. When have you known people keep their habits to their home? And again what about the other occupants? Oh yeah ... my wife can take as many drugs as she wants ... but hey, I HAVE TO FUCKING LIVE WITH HER! SHE HAS CHILDREN! It's crap!!!!

or perhaps they should be allowed to take ecstasy, speed and PCP in any combination they wish and no matter what mood they are in.

If people wish to kill themselves then I have no problem with it.

OK ... I give up!

Kyu

[Meatball]

As we've observed, this issue boils down to a core issue of personal responsibility.

Is it the government's right to tell us what we can and can't do to our own bodies? Should we be free to do harm to ourselves(our bodies)? If so, where is the line drawn between government/personal responsibility?

[Tiberius]

OK ... I give up!

Yay! Maybe now some people can have a good discussion. As for your points you started to attack:

1) I never said there wouldn't be consequences, and I never say the government wouldn't have to deal with them. I just don't see a fundamental difference between having drugs like alcohol and tobacco legal (we deal with the consequences of those) and having other drugs legal.

2) Personal responsibility comes in here (hey, you LOVE responsibility remember?). If drug taking is affecting children, social services is always there. Same thing with parents who drink, etc. Same thing as when couples are brought apart by alcohol. If you marry a person who takes these sorts of drugs, you deal with the consequences in your home. I'm not advocating people take these drugs, and I certainly wouldn't (never have either), or marry a person who takes drugs. I'm only reasoning that drugs should be available for those who want them.

As we've observed, this issue boils down to a core issue of personal responsibility.

Is it the government's right to tell us what we can and can't do to our own bodies? Should we be free to do harm to ourselves(our bodies)? If so, where is the line drawn between government/personal responsibility?

I don't think the government has any right to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies. It used to be this way, but slowly it has changed. We made interracial relationships legal, we have legalized alcohol and cigarettes, we have recently (in the last 30 years) legalized homosexual relationships. The government does not own your body, you do. Hence why I think that people have the right to end their own life if they so wish.

It is the government's responsibility to prevent harm coming to people through anything but their own actions. That is where I would draw the line.

[Meatball]

Oh really? I was rather under the impression that speed limits (if only for reason of basic physics) save lives ...

Then why don't we make the speed limit 1 km/h? Surely that would maximize the number of saved lives?

I read a study that seemed to conclude that speed limits in fact don't save lives, for the reasons I've already mentioned. If there were no speed limits, would you drive wildly out of control? A speed limit doesn't prohibit someone from travelling faster than a posted number, it simply punishes them if they are caught. Much like drug prohibition.

[Eilonnwy]

As we've observed, this issue boils down to a core issue of personal responsibility.

Is it the government's right to tell us what we can and can't do to our own bodies? Should we be free to do harm to ourselves(our bodies)? If so, where is the line drawn between government/personal responsibility?

Very true. I wouldn't start doing cocaine or heroine if it was legal tomorrow.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I read a study that seemed to conclude that speed limits in fact don't save lives, for the reasons I've already mentioned. If there were no speed limits, would you drive wildly out of control? A speed limit doesn't prohibit someone from travelling faster than a posted number, it simply punishes them if they are caught. Much like drug prohibition.

Oh fer fuck's sake!!!!

If a car is travelling at 40MPH it imparts nearly TWICE as much energy to the thing is hits if travelling at 30MPH ... what part of that doesn't make any fucking sense?

It the thing being hit is a child then at 40MPH it will almost certainly DIE, if at 30MPH it has a reasonable chance of walking away ... that is why we have speed limits.

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

So why don't you have 30 mph speed limits on the motorways?

[Kyuuketsuki]

So why don't you have 30 mph speed limits on the motorways?

What? I have no idea (I assume because pedestrians are banned from motorways) but people CANNOT argue with the physics ... the faster a vehicle goes the more damage it will do on impact, the faster a vehicle goes the less time a driver has to react ... this is just basic science. Slower travelling vehicles are safer so there is a balance between between efficiency (time taken I guess) and other road-user safety ... IOW Meatball was wrong to imply that speed limits didn't save lives.

Kyu

[Meatball]

Kyu, you never answered my question, which I feel is important to my argument.

If there were no speed limits, would you drive faster than you're comfortable with?