Drugs Policy
(06-15-2019, 09:09 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(06-14-2019, 08:06 PM)Sotv Wrote:
(06-14-2019, 06:24 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(06-14-2019, 04:45 PM)Sotv Wrote:
(06-14-2019, 04:32 PM)FenlandBoing Wrote: It would raise money for the govt and potentially release police time  - I'm quite in favour of legalising common recreational drugs for adults over a certain age as I believe people need to make their own decisions and be responsible for their own actions, but I have also seen the long term effects of cannabis on young people and young adults taking stuff that's much stronger than it was a couple of decades ago. On balance, I would say legalise some drugs for those 21 years of age or older to begin with - maybe a trial?

Agreed there may be consequences for some but personally i feel its overstated. I would also argue that the law is not a factor in young people choosing to take drugs or not, as evidenced by the fac tthat many do despite them being illegal. 
What's really inportant is we have some form of control over quality and distribution, we currently have none. If anyone thinks that police crackdowns etc have any effect whatsoever, they are deluded. 
A side effect of legalisation would be take away the cool rebellious factor as well, i know that when i 1st started smoking cannabis as a 13 year old kid, a big part of its appeal was how it was illegal and therefore somehow cool.

It won't take that rebellious side out for kids as it will still be illegal for U18s, it hasn't for smoking and drinking. But kids will be better educated about it and you'll be less likely to take MDMA as an 18 year old in a club that's cut with something nasty.

The legislation around it is absolutely barmy; psilocybin, cannabis and LSD are not lethal drugs. All three have clinical medical applications. Why are they all class A?

The Tories and Labour won't change their opinion on drugs legislation, they're too far gone. David Nutt and the stupidity surrounding medicinal cannabis here is testament to that.
Your point about alcohol is a good one, I suppose it’s part of the British culture of getting shit faced that makes it attractive. 
Legislation is barmy, the legal status is what causes a good portion of the damage.
I’m not so sure there won’t be an adjustment to legislation. Nutt was quite a while back now and I think there has been a real sea change in attitudes. Dunno if you saw it but I was really struck with the tone on question time last night when the question was asked. It seems that as society is becoming more accepting, then so are those is positions of power. I think both Kinnock’s and the welsh guy (can’t be added to look his name up) point that they were products of the 90’s culture is very telling. 
Unlike the 60’s, where despite the impression that everyone was at it, the reality was most of Britain was still quite unadventurous, a very high proportion of those of us who were in our early 20’s during the rave era dabbled in all kinds of substances. In fact I’d go as far as to say that if you didn’t take drugs or knew someone who did in 90’s you are probably an exception! That is now feeding in to some of the more honest politicians thinking.

My problem with legalising drugs is British culture...

The idea that taking the illegality away from drugs will make them less attractive I doubt very much. All it will do is legitimatise use to the same level as booze which we are already awful at handling as a nation. 
We have a similar "genie out of the bottle" scenario. Drugs are attractive.  Drug use is widespread (I never took drugs but pretty much everybody (shop floor, students, all sorts) I knew did dope and other stuff and coke is probably as endemic.  So what do you do - regulate, reduce criminal opportunites and raise taxes and educate or leave the genie unregulated?  How is the latter a better course?  Imagine if we said the same about the alcohol genie?  Nothing is a perfect solution but wshing your hands is wet(!)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)