Drug Policy

[Napoléon]

You are going the wrong way - It's not if people who already buy regulated products will start buying illegal ones, but the other way around - Why should people who buy illegal products start buying regulated ones?

I think you're the one who has things ass backwards. Did you not even pay attention to what happened in any of the US states when they legalized Marijuana?

[Dystopia]

By your logic then there'd be absolutely no use in buying a car from a reputable dealer instead of a backstreet garage. Or getting an uncertified electrician to come round to your house instead of one who's got all his credentials. Or buying, as Pyrrho says, "bathtub gin" (whatever that is) when they can buy a regulated product..

But people are not really addicted to (most people anyway) getting cars all the time or electricians unless the power is out. People do get addicted to drugs, and they do anything (even hurting others) to get a tiny piece of it. I don't see how's comparable to bathub gin, it sounds like something a comedian would say.

Maybe I'm a person who has consumed drugs for X time and I'm really used to this dealer - Maybe that person is a known acquaintance, or friend (from my experience most young people smoking weed do this), so why bother paying more for the government's product? Or do you honestly think the government would make a cheaper price than street dealers?~


Answering to the other part - Well marijuana is not as addicting as people make it so it does not apply, and I'm not arguing against legalization of marijuana specifically. I'm talking about heavy drugs. I haven't smoked weed in a while, but when I did I would be fine without smoking it if I had no money to buy more weed - I didn't get withdrawal symptoms, I just missed the high. I think if I was addicted to heroin my reaction would have been different

[IATIA]

Does bathub gin, as a general rule, make people addicted and harm them significantly? How so?

Some of the old timer stills use leaded radiators and lead soldered tubing. Bad and documented.

Now herbal drugs just deal with potency issues, but chemicals suffer the same fate as bathtub gin in that the quality of the materials used to produce same is potentially hazardous.

[BrokenQuill92]

What's bathtub gin?

[Napoléon]

But people are not really addicted to (most people anyway) getting cars all the time or electricians unless the power is out. People do get addicted to drugs, and they do anything (even hurting others) to get a tiny piece of it. I don't see how's comparable to bathub gin, it sounds like something a comedian would say.

Same argument can be made for gambling but that's still legal. Bottom line is the reason for legalisation isn't anything to do with how addicting something is. It's about personal choice. That's something you're not really paying attention to.

Maybe I'm a person who has consumed drugs for X time and I'm really used to this dealer - Maybe that person is a known acquaintance, or friend (from my experience most young people smoking weed do this), so why bother paying more for the government's product? Or do you honestly think the government would make a cheaper price than street dealers?~

What does it even matter? How is any of this relevant in the slightest?

You're obsessed with this notion that everyone will go for the cheaper alternative regardless of the risks and somehow using it as an argument against legalisation. I don't even know where you're going with it to be honest. Are you trying to say people wouldn't care about regulation? They wouldn't care about making the product they use safer and more reliable? That's demonstrably false. And it's not an argument against legalisation anyway.

Answering to the other part - Well marijuana is not as addicting as people make it so it does not apply, and I'm not arguing against legalization of marijuana specifically. I'm talking about heavy drugs.  I haven't smoked weed in a while, but when I did I would be fine without smoking it if I had no money to buy more weed - I didn't get withdrawal symptoms, I just missed the high. I think if I was addicted to heroin my reaction would have been different

So: I didn't get addicted so nobody does.

C'mon man. What am I even wasting my time responding for if this is the best reasoning you've got.

[IATIA]

What's bathtub gin?

Homemade liquor.

[Regina]

Allow all drugs, no barriers - It's on you. My opinion on using them is irrelevant, if you want them, have them. I think having less of a stigma around them and having serious conversations about drug use will encourage safer usage anyway. Making anything a taboo only makes people (read: teenagers) more interested in it because "hehehe, I'm doing something rebellious". That's why countries with the best sex education have the lowest teen pregnancy and STD rates.

Minimum age should be 18 - I chose this because that's the age for alcohol consumption in the UK where I live (and most countries, I believe), and I think the age for drugs should be whatever the age for drinking is. Teenagers will still do it, but if there's a law for alcohol I think it should be there for drugs too.

Alcohol should have warning labels like Tobacco - Alcohol is not as dangerous as tobacco, but there are health affects to binge drinking and lots of alcohol can cause serious accidents. I think there should be warnings like "know your limits" on bottles and cans etc.

[IATIA]

... I think having less of a stigma around them ...

IMHO, if drugs were utilized like the aboriginal tribes, there would be little to no abuse. The drugs were socially acceptable and there was always the 'party' night and celebrations.

[Pyrrho]

What is wrong with you people?  I provided a link for "bathtub gin" and you are fucking asking what the hell bathtub gin is?  Are you fucking kidding me? CLICK ON THE GODDAMNED LINK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_gin

In the U.S., some years ago, a bunch of stupid assholes outlawed alcohol.  What happened was that people started making it illegally, because people still wanted alcohol even though it was illegal.  Well, the quality of the product was variable, with some people going blind from drinking poorly made alcohol, as well as other issues.  Of course, this was all a great boon for organized crime, just as illegal drugs are today.  When the U.S. made alcohol legal again, people mostly stopped buying poor quality unregulated crap and bought decently made alcohol (and by that, I mean fucking low standards, as people fucking drink Budweiser! but at least it does not cause blindness).

So, we can expect the same to happen with any other drug, unless ridiculously high taxes are put on whatever the hell it is.

[Dystopia]

Same argument can be made for gambling but that's still legal. Bottom line is the reason for legalisation isn't anything to do with how addicting something is. It's about personal choice. That's something you're not really paying attention to.

Hmmm so? Why should I respect or even allow people's personal choices? Am I supposed to allow any personal choice, specially when it requires my tax money? And how does gambling relate? Playing cards, or whatever game you want to play in the casino is not addicting itself, what's addicting is playing too much and putting too much effort. Now, you can say that heavy drugs used once or twice may not make you addicted, but scientifically your body will become addicted regardless of how much you try, after a short usage.

What does it even matter? How is any of this relevant in the slightest?

You brought the regulation part.

You're obsessed with this notion that everyone will go for the cheaper alternative regardless of the risks and somehow using it as an argument against legalisation. I don't even know where you're going with it to be honest. Are you trying to say people wouldn't care about regulation? They wouldn't care about making the product they use safer and more reliable? That's demonstrably false. And it's not an argument against legalisation anyway.

Someone addicted to heavy drugs isn't certainly concerned about safety otherwise they wouldn't be doing drugs in the first place. Damn, people just don't get the consequences of legalizing all drugs. I can start by asking the following question - If the government is providing drugs, will it be with my tax money? If so, how to deal with the fact most people don't want to pay and the high price itself? If it's a private enterprise doing it, does that mean it will be pro-profit and thus drug consumption will be marketed like beauty products and clothing shops do? How will the state acquire drugs? South America is one of the places where it's easy to produce, so will it import? Who pays the costs?

If you don't believe me, try this - Go out and when you see a junkie talk to him/her and tell that person that you have drugs to sell - You'll see how much they ask for quality If it was about rehab I'd understand but I see no reason to fund people's addictions with the government's money. There's more productive stuff to do, seriously. There's rehab clinics for those who want.

So: I didn't get addicted so nobody does.

C'mon man. What am I even wasting my time responding for if this is the best reasoning you've got.

Actually it's observable empirical data that a large number of people I've met used to smoke weed with me quite frequently and we never got hooked - And most of us smoked cigarettes as well, so trust me when I tell you that weed isn't addicting. [Nicotine, on the other hand, is very addicting]

In the U.S., some years ago, a bunch of stupid assholes outlawed alcohol. What happened was that people started making it illegally, because people still wanted alcohol even though it was illegal. Well, the quality of the product was variable, with some people going blind from drinking poorly made alcohol, as well as other issues. Of course, this was all a great boon for organized crime, just as illegal drugs are today. When the U.S. made alcohol legal again, people mostly stopped buying poor quality unregulated crap and bought decently made alcohol (and by that, I mean fucking low standards, as people fucking drink Budweiser! but at least it does not cause blindness).

I think the comparison with alcohol is not appropriate. Alcohol is like sex, if done with moderation you won't get hurt - Sex is an addiction for some people, but it's not unhealthy itself, just like alcohol.

I posted some questions above and I'd like to see some replies - I'm not picking on drug users or people's rights, I'm just being skeptic and it is a healthy approach to claims. I want to know how these measures of legalizing all drugs would work, who pays, who provides the service and why it would work.