Canadian - US divergence NYtimes article
- Thread starter Sxotty
- Start date
pax said:
And raise drug use 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 fold?
(I actually put the commas myself, by hand, that's how bored i am at work...
)
london-boy said:pax said:
And raise drug use 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 fold?
(I actually put the commas myself, by hand, that's how bored i am at work...
There's no evidence for that; for instance, in the Netherlands cannabis use is not a punishable offence, yet consumption rate among the native population is actually lower than in countries where it is fiercely criminalised (for instance, France).
However, I'm not sure why the topic switched to legalisation when the issue at hand is a program to provide heroin to registered junkies, ie people who should be treated as patients of a terrible disease. Programs such as these have little to do with legalising the trade in hard drugs.
I think it all comes down to public information and education on the issue, and a big part is played by culture too. The Netherlands legalised Cannabis, which is very different from "hard/heavy drugs". Using that as an example is ambiguous since they are completely different substances with completely different effects and especially addiction levels.
While I wouldnt equate the canabis rates with what could happen if hard drugs were legalized I do think the current widespread issue of drug related crime and the huge criminal orgs that they finance more than make a good reason why legalizing and regulating hard drugs should at least be tried.
I think the canabis rates are more related to the taboo attraction of pot, when it was illegal, among kids. Personaly I stopped drinking when I reached legal age at 19
I think the canabis rates are more related to the taboo attraction of pot, when it was illegal, among kids. Personaly I stopped drinking when I reached legal age at 19
Willmeister
Newcomer
Prohibitionist undoubtedly used the same fearmongering tactic to persuade the masses into continuation Prohibition.
Think about it, though. If there hadn't been any prohibition, Kennedy would never have become President and we all would (probably) be happier today. What drugrunner will get his son into the Oval Office now?
Willmeister said:
Errrmmm... Whatever you said, i don't think heavy drugs should be lagalised before spending LOADS of money and time educating the whole population on the issues. And even then i don't see how heavy-drugs "legalisation" would benefit our society.
Now, i think the term "legalisation" can be interpreted in different ways, and i'm pretty sure we intend different things. Legalisation as "free for all" would be just plain wrong. Providing assistance for those addicted people, in order to take them out of the streets and out of the crime cycle they usually get into to maintain their addiction, would be good. Medical centres would be able to stock drugs and help those people through. This is already happening anyway, so i'm not sure how it could get any better, or attract more people from the streets.
I think that, rather than "legalisation", we need education on the matter and better assistance.