dbd33

That's a novel point of view. I think there's common consent in Canada that, were cigarettes to be invented today it would not be possible to get a license to sell them, and yet here you're proposing licensing something more harmful if the process of manufacture can be made safe .Do you think there is any legitmate role for the FDA (or whatever the local equivalent is called) in limiting what substances people consume?

dbd33

It also fails on the degree of addictiveness, alcohol may be the most difficult addiction to shake but it doesn't hook people as quickly as meth.

dboy

I remember hearing that take meth 2 or 3 times and the chances are you will be addicted.

ExKiwilass

That's the widespread belief, but is it backed up by fact? I don't believe it is.

Sure, there should be an FDA. And? so?

ExKiwilass

First of all, WHY is it wrong? Why is it wrong to want to get out of it/feel better/etc?

Secondly, what happened last time alcohol was made illegal? Oh, that's right....the Mafia, gang wars, bootleggers, etc. etc. and the people kept on drinking.

What's the definition of insanity? doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Prohibition doesn't work. Periodfullstoptheend.

dbd33

But alcohol isn't unregulated, we get bathtub schnapps from time to time but it's not generally available for the good reason that there's no quality control on home made booze. I put it to you that meth is the modern day equivalent of bathtub schnapps, it can't be made even slightly safe and so Alan2005 cannot have it.

A blanket legalisation of drugs is not a reasonable option and will be contested in the courts by those most likely to be hurt by it; alcohol companies and big pharmaceutical companies. A more reasonable option might be to legalise and tax some drugs but you'd need a government that would keep the tax level reasonable; the history of cigarette taxes suggests that that is unlikely.

Alan2005

Spoken like a true mouthpiece of the state - jeez.

Edit to add: Sorry dboy, didn't mean to put this quite so forcefully - was just outraged at the thought of alcohol being illegal

Alan2005

And why not - I'm sure the manufacturing of it can be made perfectly safe (plenty of other things are dangerous to make and still get made etc).

I say again - it should not up to you or the state to tell me what I can or cannot do if it harms nobody else. By all means if I go an a drug bender and damage property or injure some-one then prosecute me for that - but not for just taking the stuff.

This 'the state knows best, people cannot be trusted' attitude removes our freedoms and helps nobody. Taken to it's logical conclusion the state would be banning everything that could potentially harm us - it's stupid, patronizing, and treats us like idiots.

dbd33

So, where are you on the FDA, should people be able to sell anything at all as food on the basis that the consumer can figure out what is healthy?

It seems to me that the core issue here is "informed consent", if you want to drink bathtub schnapps knowing that you'll be blind and impotent that should be your choice but I'm not seeing how meth can be marketed in such a way as to insure informed consent. Come to that, I'm not seeing how the state can determine all the risks of meth consumption so as to label the, what, bottles, jugs, in such a fashion as to inform the consumer.

dboy

It truly amazes me how rude and cynical some people can be on here. Despite being a copper, I should be free to offer my views without being branded as 'mouthpiece of the state" as you put it. I'm all for debate and feel I can offer a front line view of this issue. I would not be so arrogant to say that i have all the answers and have considered all possibilities. I know, however, first hand what drugs do, and my experience is not just from reading the Province or occasionally driving through the dtes or having my car broken into. You may pop on here offer your views, tut-tut when you read the paper about the shootings etc. For me, and by choice I might add, its a part of my life. More than you could possibly understand.

I enjoy a wee tipple as much as the next and I'm not advocating the banning of alcohol. I was merely attempting to illustrate the view that just because cigs and booze are legal, we should not automatically presume that all drugs should be made legal. As dbd33 as rightly pointed out, certain hard drugs are pure evil. There's a big difference between a bottle of wine and a syringe of heroin.

Policing is a thankless job I get that. I've developed thick skin. I also know that many have contempt for the police. If you have an axe to grind with the 'state' then I would respectfully ask that choose an appropriate forum which to do it and be mature enough enough and intelligent enough to recognize that this thread is intended to provoke thought, challenge one's viewpoint and thinking. I am entitled to my viewpoint as much as the next person whether i'm a cop or a go-go dancer.

Alan2005

I have no problem at all with independent bodies assessing the risks associated with different products. I wouldn't even mind government campaigns telling people that 'mm drugs are baaad' in the same way as smoking - but the products should be available.

If the pharmaceutical companies were allowed to legally market mood altering substances then I actually think market forces will take things like crystal meth out of the market anyway (in the same way that you don't get that many people making 'bathtub schnapps' anymore if I can steal your example).

Alan2005

Whatever you say copper

Actually realized what I typed was a bit rude and corrected it - but accept my apologies.

Alan2005

And the difference is what exactly? Apart from one being legal and the other being illegal that is.

dbd33

I think you're right there and see no problem with legalising sufficient drugs to stamp out the drug wars; marijuana and cocaine, if available legally at a low enough cost might be enough to destroy the trade in other drugs. I would, however, stop short of legalising every drug, not least because of quality control issues.

Alan2005

That's a workable and pragmatic solution - right how do we make it government policy