Drugs - Time to legalise - The Economist

[Kid Dynamite 7169]

 

You sound jealous.

Not jealous, just really fucked off at bringing my job into it and twisting what I said. People get sacked for less in my job these days

[Holden McGroin 6783]

I meant bitter about the million pound houses and high flyer friends but then I was just teasing.

 

Slight off piste but Its similar to when people call me "Geordie wanker" down here. Its like they think I would offended by something im proud of !

[Dr Gloom 22143]

I'm a pharmacologist. It's very easy to convert opium into heroine (diamorphine), your distinction of synthetic is arbitrary and pointless. And now it sounds like you are a creationist.

 

atheist actually. i just find it preposterous that any government has the right to tell me i can't put a substance down my neck, particularly one that grows naturally on the planet.

 

but i would apply the same logic to chemicals. if i want to poison myself with any drug, that should be my right as an individual. as long as i'm not directly hurting someone else by my actions, why should that be a crime?

 

tax the fuck out of all drugs then inform and educate the public.

[ClubSpinDoctor 0]

 

atheist actually. i just find it preposterous that any government has the right to tell me i can't put a substance down my neck, particularly one that grows naturally on the planet.

 

but i would apply the same logic to chemicals. if i want to poison myself with any drug, that should be my right as an individual. as long as i'm not directly hurting someone else by my actions, why should that be a crime?

 

tax the fuck out of all drugs then inform and educate the public.

 

 

That's my feelings on it. Clegg has ruined any chance of it happening any time soon though

[Renton 21983]

 

atheist actually. i just find it preposterous that any government has the right to tell me i can't put a substance down my neck, particularly one that grows naturally on the planet.

 

but i would apply the same logic to chemicals. if i want to poison myself with any drug, that should be my right as an individual. as long as i'm not directly hurting someone else by my actions, why should that be a crime?

 

tax the fuck out of all drugs then inform and educate the public.

Maybe you'd change your mind if your child became legally addicted to heroine. Because I think decriminalization will only increase drug use, getting a Mr McKay character to explain the evils of drugs won't work imo.

[ClubSpinDoctor 0]

What if his child became illegally hooked to it? And owed money to a local hard case scumbag, because that's the only way he can get it?

[Kid Dynamite 7169]

It does impact on others though. See how long you have to wait to get seen in a&e at 2am on a Saturday because 75% of the waiting room is pissed. Who is paying for long term neuro care when we have a generation of patients fucked by too many drugs?

[Renton 21983]

What if his child became illegally hooked to it? And owed money to a local hard case scumbag, because that's the only way he can get it?

That could happen but I think it is less likely, particularly given Dt Gloom's lentil munching middle class background. Legalisation = tacit acceptance.

[Alex 35570]

It does impact on others though. See how long you have to wait to get seen in a&e at 2am on a Saturday because 75% of the waiting room is pissed. Who is paying for long term neuro care when we have a generation of patients fucked by too many drugs?

I agree with you there. If you take an extreme example, then you are potentially 'hurting others' because you could have a heroin overdose which results in an ambulance being used etc. These things are finite resources, like everything else. Whether this is made worse by changing the law is more of a grey area though. I certainly don't agree with the legalise everything and tax it to the hilt approach for several reasons. However, there are options which might be better than the status quo which don't have to involve Asda selling smack kits.

[adios 717]

 

you can enjoy it without mixing it with tobacco, another one that kills more than most other drugs and that is legal.

 

it's legal to posses dope in two american states incidentally.

It's legal to possess for like half the states now, you can just sell it legally in two states.

 

Most of those states require a medical card, but most of them are also farcically easy to acquire.

[ClubSpinDoctor 0]

It does impact on others though. See how long you have to wait to get seen in a&e at 2am on a Saturday because 75% of the waiting room is pissed. Who is paying for long term neuro care when we have a generation of patients fucked by too many drugs?

 

That's assuming that legalisation would lead to higher consumption.

 

'Legal highs' are readily available now. Their purity and potency is far superior to most illegal drugs yet I'd argue illegal consumption is far, far greater.

[Dr Gloom 22143]

Maybe you'd change your mind if your child became legally addicted to heroine. Because I think decriminalization will only increase drug use, getting a Mr McKay character to explain the evils of drugs won't work imo.

 

for a pharmacologist, you really ought to know it's heroin, not heroine.

[Dr Gloom 22143]

That could happen but I think it is less likely, particularly given Dt Gloom's lentil munching middle class background. Legalisation = tacit acceptance.

 

 

can't we all just get along?

 

[Alex 35570]

 

for a pharmacologist, you really ought to know it's heroin, not heroine.

Likewise, a self-facilitating media node could have guessed it's a phone auto-correcting the spelling.

[Renton 21983]

 

for a pharmacologist, you really ought to know it's heroin, not heroine.

Blame autocorrect.

 

It's diamorphine in the BNF (its rINN).

[adios 717]

Maybe you'd change your mind if your child became legally addicted to heroine. Because I think decriminalization will only increase drug use, getting a Mr McKay character to explain the evils of drugs won't work imo.

won't somebody please think of the children

 

That's quite sensationalist for someone so scientific.

 

Haven't the legalising/decriminalising countries shown no increase in drug use?

[ChezGiven 0]

Not jealous, just really fucked off at bringing my job into it and twisting what I said. People get sacked for less in my job these days

 

Is that why you edited the post? If i was twisting what you said then there would be no need to edit it.

 

The fact that you have shows that you know the post made you look bad. I was just pointing out what was bad about it.

 

You don't know where you are with all this do you, you poor thing.

[ChezGiven 0]

Tbf that sounds like more fun than pinball

 

As i neither work in finance, law or medicine i'm afraid i wasnt referring to myself.

 

Just the parochial view that drugs are for bamps.

[Renton 21983]

Tbh I don't really care, I just fancy an argument.

[adios 717]

Definitely one of the more fun arguments to have. Thought it would stay light hearted until j69 started going on about horrible spasticated cunts or whatever it was.

[Kid Dynamite 7169]

 

Is that why you edited the post? If i was twisting what you said then there would be no need to edit it.

 

The fact that you have shows that you know the post made you look bad. I was just pointing out what was bad about it.

 

You don't know where you are with all this do you, you poor thing.

I edited it because of your stirring. It's still in your quote. It's quite clear what I meant. I've never had an issue with you in the 10+!years I've been on here but you've genuinely pissed me off today with that

[Dr Gloom 22143]

Likewise, a self-facilitating media node could have guessed it's a phone auto-correcting the spelling.

I've been called a lot of things in my time but never that

[adios 717]

sugaRape!

[Dr Gloom 22143]

Those that talk of the dangers of all illegal drugs generally don't have much experience of what most of them are like and are therefore not as well placed to pass judgement.

 

It's nobody else's business what I ingest not least the government's. Why should they get to decide?

[ewerk 31195]

Those that talk of the dangers of all illegal drugs generally don't have much experience of what most of them are like and are therefore not as well placed to pass judgement.

 

It's nobody else's business what I ingest not least the government's. Why should they get to decide?

 

And what about those who do suffer from addiction problems? Who develop health problems. Who lose control and turn to crime to fund their habits? What about them?

 

I know that's the standard scare story that those who oppose legalisation put up but just because you can handle it doesn't mean that everyone can.