Drugs policy

A

Asguard

Kiss my dark side
Valued Senior Member
Between lissioning to "the war on drugs" and howard's old "tough on drugs" mantra's and reading the drugs and prostitution thread im baffled by the in ability of drug policy to be drafted based on EVIDENCE rather than slogans

To be honest state goverments seem better at this in Australia than the federal goverment (although that could have to do with the political perswsions at the time)

The NSW goverment wanted to set up heroin injecting rooms where the drug adicts get there drugs, AND a fresh needle and shoot up under the supervision of someone who knows how to use a shot of narloxin if needed

The Federal goverment shut them down by refusing to change the coustoms laws to alow them to get the needed drugs

the ACT wanted to legalise weed and again were shut down by the howard goverment

I am baffled by the former goverment, and others in ablity to look at drug policy as a health rather than law issue
 
It's a conflict between the deontologists vs. the consequentialists. You, being a consequentialist, want to look at what happens if a certain policy is put in place. Deontologists determine that certain acts are bad in and of themselves and for good people to participate in bad acts is bad. Consequentialists often see deontologists as religious idiots. And this is often true.

HOWEVER. Sometimes it is very hard to track the consequences of certain acts. Often consequentialists point out that this of that will be the results of a policy, when in fact the results may have subtler, more widespread results and a smart deontologist can argue that sometimes we must set up intuitive rules when we can feel that the consequences will ultimately be bad though this is very hard to prove or track.

In this case I agree with you.

In the random drug testing case we sparred about a while ago - if I am remembering right - I took the deontologists stance (or really method of analysis) - along right to privacy lines.
 
i agree with you but isnt a move to a consequentialist outlook an outgrowth of evidence based policy anyway. Ie if the goverment is as they say focused on evidence based policy they would be moving to implement these sort of policies automatically and it wouldnt be such a fight for the health care proffessions to get drug use reclasifide as a health issue
 
Don't overlook the punitive urge that so many people allow to influence their thinking on matters of policy. There are no shortage of humans who actually enjoy the contemplation of IV drugs users contracting AIDS as a consequence of policies that severely restrict the availability of sterile needles. "If they didn't want AIDS, they shouldn't have used drugs that required them to share needles!" they will say. That the cost of cleaning up after such failed policies will fall on them is never mentioned, and possibly never contemplated.
 
Asguard said:
Between lissioning to "the war on drugs" and howard's old "tough on drugs" mantra's and reading the drugs and prostitution thread im baffled by the in ability of drug policy to be drafted based on EVIDENCE rather than slogans
Click to expand...
In my opinion, there should be no law against using any drug. It's your body, fuck it up however you want.

This brings up an interesting point, if you support socialized medicine, then you might argue that a drug user is creating a burden upon society by fucking himself up with drugs. But since I don't support socialized medicine, that's not a problem for me. What about you?

The above is a big part of the reason I'm against government funded healthcare. Once the government is the one paying for your healthcare, that gives them the excuse to control damned near every aspect of your life. What you eat. What you drink. What recreational activities you engage in. How much you exercise. Whether or not you smoke. How many kids you have.

You may as well just sign control of your life over to the state. He who pays the piper calls the tune. I'd rather pay my own way than dance on the strings of some government bureaucrat.
 
i have to say thats not a surprise but yet i find it funny that the US is spending so much money on the drug lords in columbia and the poppy farmers in afganistan with that atitude:p

That being said i do agree that drugs and achole put a large strain on the health system, more achole than illict drugs actually so you do have a point. My problem though is that a law and order aproch on users (and low level user\dealers) just doesnt work. Taking a health care aproch has been shown to work and yet the goverment refuses to divert the money (and the legislation and policy) from the justice system into the health system where it will actually do some good. Most drug adicts are actually using drugs to self medicate for mental health issues which require money to be put into the health system anyway so we end up double paying for adiction because you pay to lock them up and yet we STILL have to pay for the needed treatment. Futher more without the treatment the justice system ends up being a revolving door anyway (thats even if you can stop the drugs getting into prisions which i doubt).

I would love to see bells opion on this actually
 
Asguard said:
My problem though is that a law and order aproch on users (and low level user\dealers) just doesnt work.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson with prohibiton.
Most drug adicts are actually using drugs to self medicate for mental health issues
Click to expand...
I agree again. I also think this applies to tobacco which we are in the process of outlawing bit by bit right now. I really have my doubts that replacing tobacco with prozac is a good move.
thats even if you can stop the drugs getting into prisions which i doubt).
Click to expand...
That's the really absurd part of the whole thing. We can't even keep drugs out of PRISONS!!!!!! How in the fuck are we expected to keep them out of a free society? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. All it does is create a market for criminals and drug lords. Decriminalize drugs. Let addicts get them by prescription (the hard stuff like heroin), and let the milder stuff be regulated and sold like alcohol.
 
Drugs should be decriminalised. I agree with Madant (run mad.. run like the wind). Addicts should be able to get a doctors prescription and take it as a controlled substance. Not only would it rob drug dealers of their income, it would also help in the reduction of crimes relating to drugs. Soft drugs like marijuana should also be legal.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
How about in sports where non-users would be out of the running from the get go? I mean, none of them would qualify.
Click to expand...

You could have a different class for non doping athletes. That has always been my chief concern with the use of performance enhancers; those who don't want to use them have their hand forced since it is the only way to be competitive if everyone else is using.

I was listening to Jose Canseco the other day, and he said at one point about 80% of professional baseball were using steroids, resulting in a level playing field.
 
madanthonywayne said:
All it does is create a market for criminals and drug lords. Decriminalize drugs. Let addicts get them by prescription (the hard stuff like heroin), and let the milder stuff be regulated and sold like alcohol.
Click to expand...

You will never eliminate the criminal aspect of the drug trade.

1: Alcohol eliminates it by allowing people to walk into any corner store or any pub and get blitzed. You cannot regulate hard drug addiction so the prscription concept looks like a solution on the surface but it is just not realistic. One word addicts hate to hear the most is NO.

2: Look at prescription drugs. Do you know how many people sell prescription drugs illegally? There is a huge market for the 'good stuff'.
 
Certain drugs are illegal for a reason; the greatest harm a drug does is not to the individual, it is to society as a whole. At what point does life become just about your next high? It would be a shame to degrade culture and instead promote false personalities brought on by the use of drugs. No, drugs are a TRAP.

Besides, we sure as hell can't legalize drugs like cocaine or heroin; the addicts? Kill 'em, all they do is destroy their life anyway.
 
Norsefire said:
Certain drugs are illegal for a reason; the greatest harm a drug does is not to the individual, it is to society as a whole. At what point does life become just about your next high? It would be a shame to degrade culture and instead promote false personalities brought on by the use of drugs. No, drugs are a TRAP.

Besides, we sure as hell can't legalize drugs like cocaine or heroin; the addicts? Kill 'em, all they do is destroy their life anyway.
Click to expand...

Many people have been able to fix their lives, but a very few. Illicit narcotics should always be illegal. But the people that posses them should not be. Being an addict is a victimless crime and the person should be treated instead.
 
Norsefire said:
Certain drugs are illegal for a reason; the greatest harm a drug does is not to the individual, it is to society as a whole. At what point does life become just about your next high? It would be a shame to degrade culture and instead promote false personalities brought on by the use of drugs. No, drugs are a TRAP.

Besides, we sure as hell can't legalize drugs like cocaine or heroin; the addicts? Kill 'em, all they do is destroy their life anyway.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you that drugs are bad, that they can destroy your life, that people who use them are idiots.

But, while I firmly support capital punishment, I don't support it for victimless crimes like drug use. Let the addicts get a prescription from a doctor instead of from drug kingpins.

It would greatly reduce the level of crime on our streets by defunding the criminals. Just like repealing prohibition put an end to the era of gangsters, ending the war on drugs might just turn our inner cities from war zones into decent places to live.
 
Norsefire said:
Certain drugs are illegal for a reason; the greatest harm a drug does is not to the individual, it is to society as a whole. At what point does life become just about your next high? It would be a shame to degrade culture and instead promote false personalities brought on by the use of drugs. No, drugs are a TRAP.
Click to expand...
Certain drugs are, and those ones I'd want to keep illegal. But the point is exactly what USS Exeter said, people who get caught up in the really dangerous drugs shouldn't be treated as criminals, they should be treated as people who need help.

Other drugs are not a trap, they have no addictive potential, do no physical harm, and still are treated just the same as heroin. Show me a person who is addicted beyond control to LSD or mushrooms and I'll eat my hat.

The first step in any solution is to stop lumping all drugs into the same group. They're all different, and they should all be treated differently.
 
actually im for treating ALL adicts no matter what the adiction as a health issue.

Sex adicts = health issue
food adicts = health issue
acholics = health issue
Gym adicts = health issue
Nicotinee adiction = health issue

Yet for some reason "drug" adicts are concidered a law and order problem insted of a health problem? makes no sence. How much success has the "law and order" aproch had on drug adiction when compared to the health aproch on other adictions?
 
don't forget video game and forum addicts. ;)

How many of these other addicts turn to a life of crime to supply their habit?
 
Sex adiction is linked to rape

Achole adiction is linked to both generlised assults, sexual assults and domestic vilonce

Need i go on?

The reason "drugs" are linked to organised crime and thefts is linked DIRECTLY to the illegality of those activities. WHen prohabition was stopped what happened? the crime rates went down because there was no market for illegal booze anymore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top