I am very excited about the possibility of illegal drugs being reclassified so that their harm is taken into account scientifically (BBC News).
I do like to ‘take’ alcohol… Maybe we will be able to have a more fair, reasonable and logical drug-use policy in future?
Your first post will be moderated -- if it is not spam and is not illegal it will be approved. Subsequent posts by you will automatically be approved.
Some words will automatically cause your comment to be blacklisted and there will be no warning. Avoid referring to the names of pharmaceutical drugs. If in doubt, copy your comment so that you can paste and amend it.
Apologies for any inconvenience; blame the spammers
July 31st, 2006 at 12:40 pm
synchronititous [?] quote taken from my blog written yesterday…
THE CHIEF REASON FOR CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY IS LAW.
Take the Drug Problem. People who use illegal drugs for whatever purpose are automatically categorised as criminals even though in other areas of their lives they may be quite model citizens. As they cannot obtain their required drugs legally they are forced to deal with dealers who are the thin end of vast criminal organisations which exploit people at all points along the drug chain. In order to pay for their requirements, addicts may be driven to steal of even mug folks to obtain cash to pay for their habit. Thus a whole cycle of criminality is created by the very fact that something is illegal.
How much simpler things could be if the drug wasn’t illegal in the first place. The raison d’etre for that criminal regime would cease to exist. Less people would get hurt, there’d be less people in jail, etc etc
Sure, there might be an increase in dependency, but a more caring attitude in society could help ameliorate this if not eventually reverse it.Extend this type of analysis to other illegalaties and I think you could find equally appalling problems which are essentially the result of a law rather than people’s desire to be criminal.
July 31st, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Quite right Abi…
In Budapest I didn’t see a speed limit sign on any central Pest streets and drivers were averaging 40mph on straight wide roads… Every junction was fitted with a pedestrian crossing and there was little traffic because it could all move freely. The point, I think, is that regulating road use creates law-breakers when little is gained by it except congestion.
In the same way drug addicts are imprisoned when treatment (like alcoholism) is the answer.
And many people would enjoy, without harming others, social drug use… Is the state restricting access to drugs for scientific reasons?
Evidentially not, and so it is tyrannical.
July 31st, 2006 at 3:40 pm
zzzz.
what a load of crap. my dads friends son is in a mental hospital thanks to people like you telling them drugs aren’t really a problem.
And “drugs no worse than alcoholism”, garbage. alcoholism is not the tiniest bit of a problem unless you drink a large amount of it.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:50 pm
People like me?
The evidence used to compile the Select Committee’s findings were based on the average danger-rating of drugs as supplied by scientists with an expertise in the field.
Saying that alcohol can’t be more dangerous than X drug is based solely on your unfortunate, but anecdotal evidence. I am afraid for every ‘drugs are the cause of this ailment’ report, you will find many, many more lives ruined by alcohol.
The BBC News article has been updated since I linked to it with a graph showing the actual comparative dangers. Most people at my sixth-form and university took one of the drugs on that chart and none of them have suffered any mental illness and, further, none of them needed their stomachs pumped or counselling to wean themselves off of the drug.
I am afraid, unless you can come up with overwhelmingly convincing scientific evidence, I will have to support my opinions on the science available to me.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:33 pm
People like anyone who compares dangerous drug culture to little old ladies who drink the odd glass of wine. Which is the trick most legalisation campaigners pull.
Alcohol doesn’t have any effect unless you drink a lot of it, that is why its totally different to drugs.
You say most people at your sixth-form and University took drugs, well exactly! thats why I don’t trust scientists on this issue, they are the drug takers! they are biased.
It would be like asking a thief if robbery should be a crime.
Yes my experiance doesn’t prove drugs are as bad as they may appear to me, but just because your friends were lucky enough to get away with it isn’t proof either.
I have a lot of respect for science but they are not saints, they get stuff wrong all the time.
I disagree with a lot of the blame alcohol (and other drugs) get for crime and social problems, its just the new socialist excuse, it used to be “the criminal is the victim of society” but now its mostly “the criminal is only criminal because of the drugs/alcohol”.
If someone attacks me while on drugs/alcohol I am going to blame them not the drink or drug, unless someone forced them to take it.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:57 pm
I will jump to the defense of scientists now — they are wrong only when their experiments are flawed and, with peer review, that is normally weeded out.
Apart from that scientists are never wrong. They make an assessment of the available evidence and make theories based on those — they are not claiming to be ‘right’ only that the evidence available at the time points towards a particular fact. This is the exact argument that creationists/intelligent design advocates mistakenly fall foul of.
Given that this is the science of biological effects of drugs based on statistics (rather than physics or genetics which has room to gain new understanding and, so, evidence) I feel safe in commending the result they have achieved.
And before you say “Lies, damned lies and statistics”, that saying is not to pour doubt on statistics, only on the way they are studied and used. If statistics are used properly then there’s no reason not to believe the patterns they draw. The trouble comes in understanding their underlying causes and that’s where politicians get involved.
So, in this case, we can all agree that crime is committed by drug users but we can disagree on whether legalisation, harsher punishment or more effective treatment (or a combination) is the right solution.
Similarly, we can agree that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis (as borne out by the statistics) but disagree on whether that means we should legalise or change the basis of our classification system (or both).
August 1st, 2006 at 12:45 am
Scientists should behave as you say, but in truth they have jumped to conclusion and made false assertions about the future many times.
Yes statistics can be very useful, but they very often don’t tell the whole story, as I’m sure you know.
Crime is commited by drug users… yes but is the drug the cause or is the criminal just in a downward spiral in which drugs are also part of the story but not the ’cause’?
If all the drugs suddenely disappeared would much of the robberies, muggings etc “to feed the habit” also disappear with it as leftist would like to believe?
I don’t think so. Although I’m not saying it wouldn’t have some effect.
I most certainly do not accept cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol.
Alcohol is not a dangerous drug, it only becomes a problem if people drink a huge amount of it.
1 beer, not problem, 2 beers, no problem to most people, 10-15 beers, now theres a problem.
But its the same with almost any food, 1 beef burger you will feel pretty good but after eating 10-15 you are gonna feel ill and be in no condition to drive home.
These other drugs are mind altering substances from taking just one. There is not safe limit.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003565.html
I also know people who freely used cannabis without any apparent problems, but so what, we shouldn’t make laws to suit the strongest and most able in society, we should make laws with an eye on protecting those more likely to get into trouble.
August 1st, 2006 at 9:07 am
we shouldn’t make laws to suit the strongest and most able in society, we should make laws with an eye on protecting those more likely to get into trouble.
I don’t agree — we shouldn’t make laws to protect people from themselves, we should make laws to protect people from others.
I would contend that legalisation of alcohol after prohibition reduced crime and that a similar reduction would be brought about following the legalisation of drugs — leftist you may call it — but I call it liberal.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Yes legalisation of alcohol reduced crime but it was not a dangerous drug! not unless it is heavily abused.
I very much agree that the government shouldn’t make laws to protect people from themselves but its not as simple as that. Some young people get involved with the drug culture through bad influences, mistakes (believing they can handle it), or through force.
I don’t think we can just cast aside people who have made a mistake.
The effect of drugs goes wide than just the individual.