steve`o

but exactly the same can be said for alchohol
i know loads of people who have drunk more and more over the years
screwed up their lives and pissed their earnings up the wall and its all perfectly legal ?

ABCDiamond

But at least all the tax payers have got a % of that money back, in tax paid by the drinkers

paulry

Thats awful. It makes me think that maybe those of us whose lives haven't been affected by such things are being naive when we say "yeah sure, lets legalise it".

But then on the other hand I know people who have bled their parents dry thanks to gambling. ...People who have destroyed their own and their family's lives though alcohol. Should we ban those? ...For that matter (and as mentioned) so many things cause damage if done in excess.

I've not voted yet.

steve`o

again the same would apply if they legalised it
tax it, get the crime out of it and generally clean it up
i`d also legalise brothels in the uk and get it off the streets

lapin_windstar

Was it for decriminalisation of heroin so that doctors could prescribe it to addicts in limited amounts so they don't have to go out stealing from their parents, loved ones or others? (I am aware that wasn't really an option).

I'm very sorry about your brother and for your parents and for you, too. It's awful. I know a couple of people that have completely screwed up their lives in similar ways and another that - like in your family's situation - stole his parents' pension leaving them broke in a village in Southern Africa. A good friend of mine was a heroin addict for couple of years and (bar a couple of relapses) now seems to be clean. He must have spent thousands and thousands of dollars on heroin: and all of that money went to criminals, drug dealers, tax dodgers etc right back up the chain to Afghan warlords and Burmese dictators, with misery and death at every step.

Wol

My sympathy.

I guess you voted "Yes". If he could get his stuff legally and at no risk and cheaply he wouldn't have had that effect.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Ditto.. but for my nephew. Now in his 40's and had a life trashed by substance abuse of all types. Currently being assessed to see if will need a liver transplant.

Gems

No way should it be legal.

Too many lives have been ruined by drugs. The medical research even says long term use of cannabis = risk of mental health issues.
So even thats not safe long term.

Have parents who are chain smokers and very ill after years of smoking. Prob going to annoy a few on here, but I would love cigarettes made illegal too. Seeing your parents with serious medical issues from age of 50 due to smoking is no joke.

If you want drugs legalised you should be prepared that your own kids would buy them.

Gems

emelems

I find it hard to differenciate (sp?) between the 2 also.. however, she is now on cocaine apparently.. I suppose it could be said that if she was a drinker she would prob be on spirits now instead of beer?

I don't know.. all I *do* know is that it has had a major impact on her work ethics (she no longer is able to cope with work and is signed off for depression), her children (both of which have seen her decline and usage of drugs) and her parents (who are beside themselves).. and she is now completely out of money.. and her household bills are being picked up by her mother..

Sad days...

Em x

Alfresco

I actually voted No, because the financial loss can be dealt with. It's the fact he has messed up his brain and put our parents under tremdous emotional trauma over the years which is the main issue for me. He has stabbed my father before and threatened to kill both my parents many times. He treats them as dirt. He has tried to commit suicide many times too and was actually dead once until the paramedics revived him.

He is now in London and my parents still in Cape Town, so at least he can't physically harm them anymore.

I do see the point in legalising some things however, but it's hard to say it's ok legalise something when you see how it can really destroy a person physically, mentally and emotionally and the other people around that person.

Don't get me wrong, I have beer (or few) everyday and only stopped smoking in January this year, but legalising hard drugs would be problem for me, unless the addicts were in an institution and can't harm those around them.

Burbage

The we in this question is the sticking point for me. UNless you radically alter the democratic system there's no we about it. The government will legalise drugs if they feel it is in their interest. The interest of the public is of no concern to them.

If you think that the government doesn't want to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on fighting drug crime then you have very little understanding of how "democratic" governments work.

emelems

really? I just can't see that.. hard core addictions are shit.. and I really can not think that it being legal would alter anything much... see the Steve's post re alcohol addiction.. or someone else mentioned gambling addictions... both "legal".. both destroy lives...

I can not actually see any logical answer to any of it to be perfectly frank..

Em x

iamthecreaturefromuranus

You been smoking something?

ponyrama

International research on Prohibition (or not) as the case may be has shown that the government policy in place in a particular country has little or no effect on usage/demand on any drug.

Effective customs policies have some effect on supply (australia is a good example of this) but this in turn actually drives up prices, reduces quality and thus probably results in more crime to pay for less drugs.

The argument to prohibit or not is essentially a political one and related individual harm does not really come into it anymore (the harm reduction debate did have some effect on policy making years ago in places like spain/portugal etc who are now suffering the consequences of liberal policies in relation to drugs like heroin with massive rates of BBV infections amongst the IDU population). For legalisation to work it would have to in my opinion, be across the board, as to legalise one substance and not another would just have a displacement effect in terms of crime and associated social problems.

The harm reduction debate is also a difficult one as the myth and propaganda in the media is often extremely damaging in terms of affecting peoples perceptions of the harms certain drugs do. Recent international research released at this years Cannabis Conference in Sydney evidences very real and damaging affects of cannabis (of any strength or variety - its the cannabinoids that do the harm) on the adolescent developing brain which mimic the effect of the prodomal (sp?) phase of schizophrenia in the adolescent brain. These effects are probably (i'm not a doctor) irreversible and make individuals who smoke as teenagers much more likely to develop mental health problems in later life. The recent experiment in the UK of declassifying cannabis to class C (they have reversed their decision now) has had a massive impact of the perception of the UK public that cannabis is 'safe'.

Whether the cost to the public purse is a crime related one or a health related one (the cost of dealing with alcohol related health issues far outweighs any criminal costs) the debate will always be a political one as regardless of prohibition people will always use substances - we always have.

So the debate actually should be - accepting that we will always have substance related health problems and substance related crime problems (not all countries have a free health system - you have to pay for your methadone in Australia unless you are one of the lucky few who manages to get in a public dosing clinic) - is it morally/ethically acceptable to divert the resources from the 'war on the supply of drugs' to the 'war on the quality and ready availability of drugs to reduce harm'? I would vote for the latter - but unfortunately the world economy is so inextricably linked with the billions of dollars that are connected with the illegal drug trade that I fear it will never happen. Maybe we could have a related stimulus package attached to prevent economic fallout?

Rant over.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

As almost every country on the globe is now spending millions and enforcing policies in an attempt to stamp out a legal drug, cigarettes, what possible logic could there be in continuing that policy while at the same time legalising a whole set of other drugs?