Sorry, Gleeber, but (assuming, by the tone of your other comments, that you mean legalisation rather than legislation) your logic just isn't sound.Originally Posted by gleeber
Simply because the government have voted to downgrade/reclassify (note: it still has a classification and therefore has not been declassified) cannabis it does not automatically follow that they will now (or ever) legalise cannabis, heroin, ecstasy, cocaine, or any other substance currently classified as illegal.
Tell that to the 46,000 Britons who die each year due to smoking. No? How about the 33,000 Britons who die as a result of alcohol?Originally Posted by gleeber
If legalisation (again, assuming you mean legalisation as the drugs are already the subject of legislation) truly means control then why does the NHS have to spend so much to combat the effects of these two legalised drugs? Why does so much get spent on advertising and helplines to try to get people off them? Why is an estimated 1 person in every 13 dependent to some degree on alcohol?
Legalisation gives out a very dangerous message: that these drugs are safe to use. That simply is not the case.
Let's not be naïve, Gleeber. These drugs are not illegal because the government wants to spoil your fun. They are not illegal because the names of all the drugs were written down, put in a hat, and drawn at random into the three categories. They are illegal because they are harmful. They are harmful in the short term and they are harmful in the long term. In some cases we don't even know the full implications for the long-term health of users. There is mounting evidence that regular use of ecstasy might cause long-term brain damage.
If you really think drugs are harmless just look at Ozzy Osbourne. You think he was born that way???
We legalised (or, rather, failed to criminalize) cigarettes and alcohol before the full implications of their use was fully understood. We are now paying the price and will probably never be free of the problems they cause. Would you make the same mistake with all other drugs?
Obviously the government… but I think we hold different opinions on the definition of 'controlling the drug scene'. I think that the government should increase the profile of the war on drugs, not throw the gates open and welcome the dealers into the light.Originally Posted by gleeber
Personally, I'd rather the government imposed stiffer punishments on those dealing drugs. Even the increase in the maximum sentence for dealing class B and C drugs from 5 to 14 years (which was bundled in with this reclassification of cannabis, but somehow you failed to mention) doesn't go far enough – I dream of the day when drug dealing is as heinous a crime as paedophilia. As for dealing to kids – that should be automatic life imprisonment without parole.
Also, they should stop tiptoeing around the users.
It seems, at the moment, as though drug use has become almost accepted amongst society and that is just wrong. This is a case of supply and demand. Go after the dealers and you cut the supply. That's great, and the more it is done the better. But go after the users and you cut the demand. Let's bring drug use back into the position where it is unacceptable and, you never know, it might just help to control the situation.
Bookmarks