Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to bcfcforum.co.uk. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Legalise Drugs!
Topic Started: Dec 16 2010, 10:45 AM (303 Views)
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
pestcontrol
Dec 16 2010, 05:13 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 04:02 PM
Kyle-KRO
Dec 16 2010, 02:17 PM
People should be free to put into their bodies whatever they like without requiring the approval of the state; if as a result of this some then infringe upon another's life and/or liberty, only then should they be dealt with accordingly.

I don't subscribe to the slippery slope spin, i.e. "cannabis will eventually lead one to heroin", or the "Joe never did drugs, because they weren't legal, but now that they are legal he (and everyone else) is an addict."

More people will certainly experiment (like they currently do with things such as Alcohol and tobacco), but I'd imagine the vast majority would find it to be not for them and move on.

Drugs (both legal and illegal), alcohol, gambling, etc. have the capacity to help destroy ones life, but it shouldn't be down to the state to prevent it; in my opinion it should come down to the individual, his/her family, friends, and supporter, and the community with which they live.

I agree with a lot of what you say there, I tried it didn't like it , and also if you chose to take drugs alcohol and smoke it shouldn't be down to the state to pay for health requirments.

I do believe though that if you legalise drugs they will become more of a killer than alcohol or smoking.

So what you are saying is that it is ok for the state to take tax and NI and all manner of stealth taxes and then they can also pick and choose who recieves treatment because of life style choices?.

If somebody smokes and dies it is always the smoking that has killed them or at the very least contributed to there demise which in my opinion is complete nonsense anyway first they came for the smokers then it will be the drinkers and then it will be the fatties and one day it will be you.

Well that's me buggered then because I drink I smoke and I'm overweight. :LOL:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pestcontrol
Unregistered

dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 05:25 PM
pestcontrol
Dec 16 2010, 05:13 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 04:02 PM
Kyle-KRO
Dec 16 2010, 02:17 PM
People should be free to put into their bodies whatever they like without requiring the approval of the state; if as a result of this some then infringe upon another's life and/or liberty, only then should they be dealt with accordingly.

I don't subscribe to the slippery slope spin, i.e. "cannabis will eventually lead one to heroin", or the "Joe never did drugs, because they weren't legal, but now that they are legal he (and everyone else) is an addict."

More people will certainly experiment (like they currently do with things such as Alcohol and tobacco), but I'd imagine the vast majority would find it to be not for them and move on.

Drugs (both legal and illegal), alcohol, gambling, etc. have the capacity to help destroy ones life, but it shouldn't be down to the state to prevent it; in my opinion it should come down to the individual, his/her family, friends, and supporter, and the community with which they live.

I agree with a lot of what you say there, I tried it didn't like it , and also if you chose to take drugs alcohol and smoke it shouldn't be down to the state to pay for health requirments.

I do believe though that if you legalise drugs they will become more of a killer than alcohol or smoking.

So what you are saying is that it is ok for the state to take tax and NI and all manner of stealth taxes and then they can also pick and choose who recieves treatment because of life style choices?.

If somebody smokes and dies it is always the smoking that has killed them or at the very least contributed to there demise which in my opinion is complete nonsense anyway first they came for the smokers then it will be the drinkers and then it will be the fatties and one day it will be you.

Well that's me buggered then because I drink I smoke and I'm overweight. :LOL:

:LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owm-JpieQmg
Quote Post Goto Top
 
.Jake
Member Avatar
Nikola Zigic
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
pestcontrol
Dec 16 2010, 05:33 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 05:25 PM
pestcontrol
Dec 16 2010, 05:13 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 04:02 PM
Kyle-KRO
Dec 16 2010, 02:17 PM
People should be free to put into their bodies whatever they like without requiring the approval of the state; if as a result of this some then infringe upon another's life and/or liberty, only then should they be dealt with accordingly.

I don't subscribe to the slippery slope spin, i.e. "cannabis will eventually lead one to heroin", or the "Joe never did drugs, because they weren't legal, but now that they are legal he (and everyone else) is an addict."

More people will certainly experiment (like they currently do with things such as Alcohol and tobacco), but I'd imagine the vast majority would find it to be not for them and move on.

Drugs (both legal and illegal), alcohol, gambling, etc. have the capacity to help destroy ones life, but it shouldn't be down to the state to prevent it; in my opinion it should come down to the individual, his/her family, friends, and supporter, and the community with which they live.

I agree with a lot of what you say there, I tried it didn't like it , and also if you chose to take drugs alcohol and smoke it shouldn't be down to the state to pay for health requirments.

I do believe though that if you legalise drugs they will become more of a killer than alcohol or smoking.

So what you are saying is that it is ok for the state to take tax and NI and all manner of stealth taxes and then they can also pick and choose who recieves treatment because of life style choices?.

If somebody smokes and dies it is always the smoking that has killed them or at the very least contributed to there demise which in my opinion is complete nonsense anyway first they came for the smokers then it will be the drinkers and then it will be the fatties and one day it will be you.

Well that's me buggered then because I drink I smoke and I'm overweight. :LOL:

:LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owm-JpieQmg

:LMAO:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
keepthecityblue
Member Avatar
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I think they SHOULD legalise drugs.

Making it a taxable product will bring the revenue into the Treasury - that money can be used for the treatment of drug patients etc, and surplus to go into other use.

It also cuts out the drug dealer. Drug dealing funds crime. Almost every drug (maybe aside from cannabis which can be grown at home so is slightly different) is used to fund other organised crime - and it also causes crime such as turf wars between drug dealers.

The counter argument that the state shouldnt promote drug use is a decent one. At the end of the day, all the currently illegal drugs have some negative effects. Smoking cannabis is worse than smoking cigarettes - it DOES kill. It causes lung cancer just like smoking cigarettes. It also causes more impairment than smoking cigarettes. Drugs like ecstasy can cause dehydration and collapse and cocaine OD can also kill.

However, all those drugs can be consumed in "safer" quantites - just like alcohol. Drinking will raise your risk of liver disease. But as long as it is not heavy - it will be less significant. Those who recreationally use drugs will have fairly minimal impact on their health.

Heroin is by far the most destructive drug that is currently illegal (and maybe crystal meth). Heroin is WORSE than alchohol. Heroin deaths are less because less people take it, but just look how many people use alcohol and are not dependent. Can you say the same for heroin users? I have never met a heroin user who isnt addicted to the drug.

But by not making it illegal - you can take those addicts out of the criminal justice system - sell them the drug cheaper (or even prescribe it them) and try and rehabilitate them.

The police waste loads of times dealing with drug users.

Prohibition in the USA didnt work - and funded organised crime. Illegal drugs are exactly the same. People still take drugs. And they fund orgainsed crime.

I think the arguments for legalistaion far outweigh those against.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
pestcontrol
Dec 16 2010, 05:33 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 05:25 PM
pestcontrol
Dec 16 2010, 05:13 PM
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 04:02 PM
Kyle-KRO
Dec 16 2010, 02:17 PM
People should be free to put into their bodies whatever they like without requiring the approval of the state; if as a result of this some then infringe upon another's life and/or liberty, only then should they be dealt with accordingly.

I don't subscribe to the slippery slope spin, i.e. "cannabis will eventually lead one to heroin", or the "Joe never did drugs, because they weren't legal, but now that they are legal he (and everyone else) is an addict."

More people will certainly experiment (like they currently do with things such as Alcohol and tobacco), but I'd imagine the vast majority would find it to be not for them and move on.

Drugs (both legal and illegal), alcohol, gambling, etc. have the capacity to help destroy ones life, but it shouldn't be down to the state to prevent it; in my opinion it should come down to the individual, his/her family, friends, and supporter, and the community with which they live.

I agree with a lot of what you say there, I tried it didn't like it , and also if you chose to take drugs alcohol and smoke it shouldn't be down to the state to pay for health requirments.

I do believe though that if you legalise drugs they will become more of a killer than alcohol or smoking.

So what you are saying is that it is ok for the state to take tax and NI and all manner of stealth taxes and then they can also pick and choose who recieves treatment because of life style choices?.

If somebody smokes and dies it is always the smoking that has killed them or at the very least contributed to there demise which in my opinion is complete nonsense anyway first they came for the smokers then it will be the drinkers and then it will be the fatties and one day it will be you.

Well that's me buggered then because I drink I smoke and I'm overweight. :LOL:

:LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owm-JpieQmg

:LMAO:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr.nick
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
keepthecityblue
Dec 16 2010, 07:43 PM
I think they SHOULD legalise drugs.

Making it a taxable product will bring the revenue into the Treasury - that money can be used for the treatment of drug patients etc, and surplus to go into other use.

It also cuts out the drug dealer. Drug dealing funds crime. Almost every drug (maybe aside from cannabis which can be grown at home so is slightly different) is used to fund other organised crime - and it also causes crime such as turf wars between drug dealers.

The counter argument that the state shouldnt promote drug use is a decent one. At the end of the day, all the currently illegal drugs have some negative effects. Smoking cannabis is worse than smoking cigarettes - it DOES kill. It causes lung cancer just like smoking cigarettes. It also causes more impairment than smoking cigarettes. Drugs like ecstasy can cause dehydration and collapse and cocaine OD can also kill.

However, all those drugs can be consumed in "safer" quantites - just like alcohol. Drinking will raise your risk of liver disease. But as long as it is not heavy - it will be less significant. Those who recreationally use drugs will have fairly minimal impact on their health.

Heroin is by far the most destructive drug that is currently illegal (and maybe crystal meth). Heroin is WORSE than alchohol. Heroin deaths are less because less people take it, but just look how many people use alcohol and are not dependent. Can you say the same for heroin users? I have never met a heroin user who isnt addicted to the drug.

But by not making it illegal - you can take those addicts out of the criminal justice system - sell them the drug cheaper (or even prescribe it them) and try and rehabilitate them.

The police waste loads of times dealing with drug users.

Prohibition in the USA didnt work - and funded organised crime. Illegal drugs are exactly the same. People still take drugs. And they fund orgainsed crime.

I think the arguments for legalistaion far outweigh those against.

They do outweigh the cons but think of it this way how would you feel if one of your kids became a heroin addict, I don't think you'd think itvwas good then.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
keepthecityblue
Member Avatar
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 08:06 PM
They do outweigh the cons but think of it this way how would you feel if one of your kids became a heroin addict, I don't think you'd think itvwas good then.

Im not really old enough to have kids :D

Obviously if i did have kids I wouldnt want them to be heroin addicts - and I see what you are saying.

But, when I say legalised - I dont mean you should just be able to walk into the shop and buy a wrap of heroin.

Heroin is the most dodgy one of all of them to be legalised. However, I dont see any reason why kids would be more likely to try heroin if it was legal than at the moment.

If I wanted to get some heroin, I'm fairly sure that I could get some(ive never actually tried)... but I havent ever taken heroin, or ever had the urge to.

I dont necessarily believe that making something illegal deters its use. Canabis is very widely used despite being illegal.

I would say that the reason cannabis is more widely used than heroin is because people view it as safer. People are still making a choice.

Even looking at Class A drugs. Cocaine and ecstasy are both fairly widely used. Its because neither kills so many people - and I think that most people who use them know that they can take the drugs at a safe level - without being addicted or killing themselves.

However, heroin is such a different kettle of fish - because its addictiveness is so high - and its destruction on the life of an addict is huge.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thehod
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
dr.nick
Dec 16 2010, 08:06 PM
keepthecityblue
Dec 16 2010, 07:43 PM
I think they SHOULD legalise drugs.

Making it a taxable product will bring the revenue into the Treasury - that money can be used for the treatment of drug patients etc, and surplus to go into other use.

It also cuts out the drug dealer. Drug dealing funds crime. Almost every drug (maybe aside from cannabis which can be grown at home so is slightly different) is used to fund other organised crime - and it also causes crime such as turf wars between drug dealers.

The counter argument that the state shouldnt promote drug use is a decent one. At the end of the day, all the currently illegal drugs have some negative effects. Smoking cannabis is worse than smoking cigarettes - it DOES kill. It causes lung cancer just like smoking cigarettes. It also causes more impairment than smoking cigarettes. Drugs like ecstasy can cause dehydration and collapse and cocaine OD can also kill.

However, all those drugs can be consumed in "safer" quantites - just like alcohol. Drinking will raise your risk of liver disease. But as long as it is not heavy - it will be less significant. Those who recreationally use drugs will have fairly minimal impact on their health.

Heroin is by far the most destructive drug that is currently illegal (and maybe crystal meth). Heroin is WORSE than alchohol. Heroin deaths are less because less people take it, but just look how many people use alcohol and are not dependent. Can you say the same for heroin users? I have never met a heroin user who isnt addicted to the drug.

But by not making it illegal - you can take those addicts out of the criminal justice system - sell them the drug cheaper (or even prescribe it them) and try and rehabilitate them.

The police waste loads of times dealing with drug users.

Prohibition in the USA didnt work - and funded organised crime. Illegal drugs are exactly the same. People still take drugs. And they fund orgainsed crime.

I think the arguments for legalistaion far outweigh those against.

They do outweigh the cons but think of it this way how would you feel if one of your kids became a heroin addict, I don't think you'd think itvwas good then.

By that reasoning, shouldn't we make alcohol illegal in case my son becomes an alcoholic?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · General Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Forum Design by Hirsty.