The War On Drugs, part two

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I don?t know how many of you read the article I linked to in <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000882&p=2"; target="_blank">the previous thread on drugs</a> about the upcoming introduction of cannabis cafes (ironically called ?coffee shops?) across the UK, but according to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4381269,00.html"; target="_blank">this article</a> in British Sunday newspaper The Observer a report by a government think tank has called for the effective decriminalisation of drugs in the UK, and another, even more official, government report along the same lines is expected next month. Note the sentence: ?Both here and in the US the war on drugs has been a resounding failure. Rarely in the history of wars have so many achieved so little at such a high cost.?

So what do you think, Willoughby & co ? is the UK about to grind to a halt in a stoned haze?



[quote] looking out the morning I can see the trees, turn orange in the rays

don't need the smell of incense, in the morning haze

head on down the delta, in the shadow of the sun

seven shades of shiva rising, I am come

wah-hoo

let's do the war on drugs



?War On Drugs?, The Sisters of Mercy

<hr></blockquote>
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    Yesterday Rush Limbough went on a very loong rant about the failed war on drugs and how we would have a lower crime rate if drugs were legalized. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 2 of 51
    Funny you should mention...I'm doing my part to reduce the crime rate as we speak. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />



    i've seen this coming for the uk for a while. it's seemed like decriminalization was inevitable after the first coffee shop opened up and was able to stay open.
  • Reply 3 of 51
    [quote]Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent:

    <strong>Yesterday Rush Limbough went on a very loong rant about the failed war on drugs and how we would have a lower crime rate if drugs were legalized. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Rush Limbough - who he?
  • Reply 4 of 51
    [quote]Originally posted by poor taylor:

    <strong>Funny you should mention...I'm doing my part to reduce the crime rate as we speak. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Excellent!
  • Reply 5 of 51
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    I tried reducing the crime rate once in college.... of course I didn't inhale.



  • Reply 6 of 51
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    Interesting development. Seems the war on drugs is now <a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3811/drugs_now_legal.html"; target="_blank">over</a>.



    Cool. (notice that the guy in the pic is a Mac user - of course )
  • Reply 7 of 51
    pushermanpusherman Posts: 410member
    Murbut, that's really funny because I just headed to this thread to post that link. I found it during class tonight and I totally blew my cover.



    I think the best way to get rid of all these illegal drugs is to buy as much as you can from drug dealers, and then set them on fire. Be sure to do so in a well unventilated area. That will show those drug pushers who's boss.
  • Reply 8 of 51
    Yesterday Rush Limbough went on a very loong rant about the failed war on drugs and how we would have a lower crime rate if drugs were legalized



    LIMBOUGH said that? woha...



    And Taylor, that idea wouldnt work
  • Reply 9 of 51
    Groverat wrote in the now locked phantom double thread:-

    [quote] I think we should watch the UK's new actions (inactions?) very carefully and consider the consequences of the new legislation.



    No reason to dismiss the idea completely if our biggest ally is doing it. <hr></blockquote>



    Groverat me old comrade in arms, that's quite a change from your stance in my <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000882"; target="_blank">"All drugs should be..."</a> thread. You were spitting blood about the idea of legalising drugs there.....



    [ 03-28-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 51
    And now for some further <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4383488,00.html"; target="_blank">food for thought</a>
  • Reply 11 of 51
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Oh Meanie, is that marijuana-induced haze preventing proper reading skills?



    Scribam me in your linked thread:

    "I'm all for legalizing weed, but this talk of making hard drugs legal for "medical use" is absolutely ridiculous."



    As far as I know, the UK is just working with weed now, not smack or meth.



    I only have one post in that thread and it is almost completely dedicated to refuting the assertion that drugs should be paid for for users by the .gov.



    Silly Canadian.
  • Reply 12 of 51
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Just read that article and I'm really failing to see how the headline quote fits into the story at all.



    An overdose of heroin killed is son, but it's the .gov's fault for keeping him away from heroin for so long that a regular dose killed him?



    My God, how far people go these days to place blame as far away as possible.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 13 of 51
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>Oh Meanie, is that marijuana-induced haze preventing proper reading skills?



    Scribam me in your linked thread:

    "I'm all for legalizing weed, but this talk of making hard drugs legal for "medical use" is absolutely ridiculous."



    As far as I know, the UK is just working with weed now, not smack or meth.



    I only have one post in that thread and it is almost completely dedicated to refuting the assertion that drugs should be paid for for users by the .gov.



    Silly Canadian.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I sit corrected

  • Reply 14 of 51
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>Just read that article and I'm really failing to see how the headline quote fits into the story at all.



    An overdose of heroin killed is son, but it's the .gov's fault for keeping him away from heroin for so long that a regular dose killed him?



    My God, how far people go these days to place blame as far away as possible.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Methinks you're missing the point. I quote from said article:-



    [quote] I am convinced that he would be alive today if all drugs had been legalised and controlled, because he would have had no need to steal and would not have been in prison, the heroin would have been controlled and therefore not toxic, and proper treatment would have been available under such a regulated system.



    Drugs, for me, should be a public-health rather than a criminal matter. First, they should be removed from the monopoly clutches of crime. Second, the billions saved in the costs of law enforcement, street crime and property theft should be redirected towards regulation, licensing, education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. The present uncontrolled drugs free-for-all will mean that thousands more will follow my son to the grave, victims of criminally supplied impure drugs, unless western governments recognise that the so-called "war against drugs" is unwinnable and wholly counterproductive.



    Many will ask how this can be morally justified. My view is that there is more moral justification in trying to cut crime and save lives than in leaving things as they are - under the control of criminals. Those who believe legalisation will make more hard drugs available to more young people overlook the fact that drugs of all kinds are more available to more young people now than ever, even with prohibition in force. There is not a whit of evidence to support the idea that there is some massive reservoir of disaffected youth about to rush out and die. There are more pushers out there than chemists' shops, so those who want to use hard drugs are using them now and will continue to use them come what may. Therefore we should make sure the drugs they use are safe. This can only be done under legalised regulation.



    Just like alcohol prohibition in America, attempts at enforcement have served largely to demonstrate the lethal impotence of the law. We are beginning to see US-style gang warfare in our towns and cities. Apart from the health costs, multibillion-pound drug cartels, by bribery and terror, are undermining and corrupting law-enforcement and political systems across the world. Prohibition is simply fuelling this fire. We are spending billions dribbling water in at one end while criminals are making billions pouring their toxic fuel in at the other.



    Prohibition did not work in the past and it will not work in the future, simply because - now as in 1920s America - crime is controlling the supply. Therefore the link with crime must be broken. This would be a first step to removing the drugs issue from the monopoly control of crime and putting it where it belongs - in the area of public health, where it can be most effectively dealt with. Drug abusers, like alcoholics, should be treated as patients needing help rather than criminals to be punished. At present, we cannot control the drugs supply, either in quantity or quality, because we are not in charge of it. The Al Capones are. <hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 15 of 51
    Grover & co - interesting <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,677370,00.html"; target="_blank">article</a> in today's Guardian newspaper about the ongoing developments in UK drug legislation - note the final paragraph....
  • Reply 16 of 51
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    There's a difference between "it would be nice for the gov't to offer these services" and "it's their fault that my son is dead!"



    One is reasonable, one is bullshit, I'll leave you to guess which is which.



    I would be willing to bet that most hardcore drug users have serious mental issues that should be treated anyway...
  • Reply 17 of 51
    willoughbywilloughby Posts: 1,457member
    If I could make all illicit drugs disappear from the face of this Earth with the snap of my fingers, I wouldn't even second guess it.



    The right to arms is not a right in the UK. Murder and overall gun related violence is a lot less in the UK. So it will be very interesting to see what legalizing pot does over there.



    However, I think your point originally was "all drugs" - which I will always be against.



    I believe that legalizing drugs will make them easier to get for children and teens. I believe that it will send a message that society is more accepting of drug use. I believe that both of those things will bring society down to a new level. Those are just my opinions but they're not going to change.



    I don't care how much money it would save to legalize drugs. Its not about the money for me.
  • Reply 18 of 51
  • Reply 19 of 51
  • Reply 20 of 51
    willoughby,



    smoke a joint my friend, that propaganda don't work no more. it's poppycock. that boy's dad killed him... with poor parenting.



    look to Amsterdam fer yer stats,



    cuss



    p.s. and please don't snap yer fingers, you'll put pfizer, guiness and all my fave manufacturers of illicit drugs out of business.
Sign In or Register to comment.