Atheist Ireland Forum

I agree with your sentiments, but the standard counter-argument is that prohibition demonstrably did not work, so alcohol shouldn't be banned, but widening the addiction net is wrong at the same time. It's contradictory and silly, but what can I say?

By analogy, state-run brothels and the like would be preferable over individuals selling themselves on the street. I can just imagine the reaction to such a proposition, even though from an objective standpoint we have:

- reduced STD risk due to mandatory testing.
- eliminate pimping (similar to taking profits away from drug dealers by legalising marijuana)
- reduce possibility of other criminal 'interludes' (similar to getting 'bad weed', or getting caught up in other criminal activity in the case of drugs).
- reduce rape.
- generate taxable revenue (and job creation!)

Instead we have an act that is legal per se, but not allowed to be done in a solicited and regulated manner despite the obvious benefits.

The analogy may not work wrt drugs, but the point is that no amount of rational argument works when you have people opposed to something on principle for illogical reasons. 'What kind of society would we have if our state ran brothels?!' isn't so far from 'How could we allow these awful drugs to become legal?!'

That's why brothels are legal in the Netherlands.

It stopped woman trade instantly.

I think the biggest problem is that people incorrectly reason that what is undesirable to them must also be undesirable to society. People also incorrectly assume that an argument for legalizing drugs is also an argument for taking them.

That sums it up as I see it. I only wish I could make my points so succinctly!

Very good point Dev. In portugal they made using drugs legal and guess what... the use of drugs went down!

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Dev

How far do you take drug legalisation though?

Should sleeping pills be available without prescription for instance? As a short term solution that is known to bring about long term problems, I'd say it would be irresponsible to not heavily regulate certain types of prescription medicine.

Some types of recreational drugs also do cause societal harm. For instance, drugs that are known to cause aggressive behaviour in a large proportion of users.

From what I know about Marijuana I think it should be legalised. I don't know enough about other drugs to have an informed opinion.

I also support legalisation of brothels. Legalisation of brothels has been quite successful where it has been implemented in Australia. It killed an underground market overnight and made it possible for the government to regulate and draw tax revenue from the industry. Solicitation on the street is still illegal and anyone would have to be an idiot to avail of such a service. You can be sure if a prostitute is working on the street it's either becuase she's really a cop or isn't allowed to work in a brothel for some reason.

The point of legalisation is to bring these substances into an arena where you can regulate them. Once you accept some indisputable fact I think it is the only logical course to take.

1) It will never be possible to intercept every (or even more than a small percentage) cargo of illegal drugs. - The criminals win.

2) There will always be a market for drugs. (and a big one by anyone's standards) - The criminals win.

3) Most users are not abusers. But for the few that get themselves into trouble the very illegality would put them off seeking help. - The criminals win.

4)Without regulation it is easier for kids (I'm talking teens) to buy dope than alcohol or tobacco. The key word there is 'easier'. Where do they get it, and what other temptation will they encounter... - The criminals...


As Dev pointed out, legalisation isn't about condoning or advocating drug use.

Sober, wide-awake and belt-buckled people still die in road accidents, but a lot fewer today than before those precautions were legally enforced. With drugs comes responsibility, and we can't teach that while they are illegal (apart from needle programs).

Tulip1 mentioned Portugal. They legalised ALL drugs in 2001. This allowed them to begin educating the public and use has since fallen, especially among the young.

Here's their policy paper
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/green ... epaper.pdf


For a good overview, you can't beat Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal


And I have come across many people directly quoting papers like this one which are presented as up to date but are just downright inaccurate. This one was compiled by the Christian Institute in 2003 and is bunkum. The only author with any medical background is a gynaecologist who was originally brought in to oppose abortion. But once groups like this find anyone qualified in their ranks they trot them out as sages in everything.
http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/ ... bis.html#8

the above post already stated what I would answer.

I am for legalisation of all drugs. Medicational drugs however are regulated because they have to prove that they work.

Sleeping pills etc should be free aswell in my opinion.

an interesting video on dope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNPm5cG85c

Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking. The sleeping pill analogy is a red herring because they're already legal and regulated.

I disagree with Tulip on the sleeping pills. As someone who has experienced chronic insomnia in the past, I can guarantee you I would be an addict today if I were able to get my hands on sleeping pills. For that reason I am very glad I have responsible doctors who would not give them to me when I was sleeping for 2 hours/night and not thinking straight.

Self medication is a bad idea.

As for recreational drugs, like I said, legalise pot. But some drugs bring out aggressive behaviour in people. I'm not talking about the small percentage of people who get violent after walking past a pint of guinness. I'm talking about drugs that turn an average person into a danger to society. Crack cocaine for instance is something I would not like to see legalised.

Furthermore, I'd suggest that perhaps if people could get their hands on safer drugs, they wouldn't bother wtih crack, crystal meth etc. The legalisation thing therefore might not have to be across the board and applying to every drug.

Heroin, on the other hand is mainly a danger to society because of what users will do to get money for their next hit. It's therefore more of a threat to society when it's illegal. Legalise it and give it away free to addicts.

I agree with legalisation or at least decriminalisation in general, but these things require thought on a case by case basis as opposed to a blanket, fundamentalist libertarian appraoch.

Crack is a good example of a drug that will destroy a person. It certainly is a separate class of drug. It's also worth noting though that the invention of crack is linked to the illegality of cocaine. It's difficult to sell cocaine to poor people as it's expensive. Crack though - is inexpensive, easy to manufacture from cocaine and more addictive than its archetype.



Do you think its the governments role to protect people from themselves? An individual causing damage has not evaded responsibility because they knowingly compromised their own judgment.

Regulation means controlling the environment and circumstances under which the drug can be taken. This to me is the accommodates the "case by case" pre-requisite for the safe dispensing of all drugs. I would be happy to allow the the dispensing of crack to individuals under the supervision of adequately skilled staff, security and medical. I wouldn't be in favour of a crack/pcp off licences like I am with alcohol though.

Bip. alcohol brings out agression, still we accept all problems that derive from it. Look at wiskey or buckfast.

Does the fact that these other drugs are illegal stop anyone taking them? I think not.

What do you think making drugs illegal achieves? Nothing to date. You can get drugs anywhere and as much and often as you like. Not only in cities but every where. Sleeping pills included.

There are experiments with giving junkies heroine for free and guess what..... they could just live a normal life because they didn't have to persue there addiction.

I don't see the fact that you can get addicted as a rule why you should make a drugs illegal. There are more alcoholics then junkies and we still don't ban alcohol. Strange thing is with alcohol they did learn that banning it didn't work but we still think it does with other substances. As I said before how can you be against legalisation of drugs if you think alcohol should be legal?

Alcohol is just as bad as crack. More people are addicted to alcohol then to crack and it is even cheaper. If a person wants to destroy them self on alcohol we blame the person but when they do it on crack it is the drug that is so bad.

Double standards

Given that you clearly didn't actually read the post to which you are responding, I feel no real obligation to respond to your rebuttal.

If you'd like to formulate a valid response, I'd point you to the bit where I specifically stated that I agree with the legalisation of heroin.. a fairly imporant part you clearly didn't read. I'd also point you to the bit where I differentiated alcohol, whch can cause aggresive behaviour in some people, with drugs that can cause aggressive behaviour in the majority of users.

You've largely made my point for me. If Cocaine was not illegal it wouldn't be expensive and there would be no need for crack.



Not necessarily the government, no. But someone needs to. Not everyone is a medical professional.



Again, there would be no need for such facilities if other, safer drugs were available. But yeah, bring on the heroin injecting rooms. Get addicts off the street, stop them funding organised crime and stop them commiting crimes to feed their addictions.

Bip.....I did read your post you avoid the question. Why is addiction or/and health an reason to make something illigal? And the fact that it bring social harm or makes people agressive?

Cigarets and coffee are legal. Cigarets kill lots of people bringing social harm. coffee is addictive.

Making things illegal doesn't protect people from taking them that much is proven in the past years.

And agian ....... When an alcoholic does something we blame te person, on the case of crack or other drugs we blame the drug... double standards.

You stated that you don't blame alcohol by saying: "I'm not talking about the small percentage of people who get violent after walking past a pint of guinness."

And then you blame drugs for other peoples behaviour right after that: "But some drugs bring out aggressive behaviour in people. (Alcohol does this more then any drugs and on larger scale)
I'm talking about drugs that turn an average person into a danger to society. Crack cocaine for instance is something I would not like to see legalised."

I have seen people on crack which were far from agressive. But the point is not how people react to substances but if it helps to make it illegal. Are peolpe doing less or more social harm or get less agresive when a substance is illegal or legal? I don't think it makes a difference at all.

I don't blame drugs for behaviour but people. I get agressive from drinking strong alcohol therefore I don't drink it. I don't say ban alcohol."

So yes I did read your post but I think you contradict yourself because I think alcohol is a class A drugs.