This is where your logic really falls flat. Aspirin is not bought in huge powdered lots, it is given to us in nicely, exact dosed capsules and other forms. If acid was made legal we would have exact amounts given into dosages, which equates to your worries being honestly destroyed. The illegality of it makes it more so a chance of abuse as now anyone can buy any amount they want. If made legal and controlled you can easily set forth a standard that each citizen is only able to legally buy X amount per time period.
Huh? You want to legalise it, but stop people from buying a certain amount? Surely that means there will be a huge black market for it? People who don't want it will buy it from the government to sell to gangs, and gangs will sell it to people who have reached their 'X amount per time period' and want more... this will result in purity concerns, gangs making it themselves and selling it cheaper than the government ect... what's the point of it being legal if you're going to stop people from buying it? No, I just don't appreciate people calling my arguments piss poor, then telling me I don't have a bloody clue, when they clearly don't know what they're talking about. Acid bottles are tiny vials, still quite a few doses in there, but they're tiny.
I've been stating that all along. A very TINY black market, one that most would not even bother with. Totally false. The government will have records of who bought the acid, gangs would not buy small amounts from other people to resell, that's simply illogical. Who do you think makes it currently? Those in the black market, the HUGE black market that exists because it's illegal. Now you bring up purity concerns, even though ALL OF IT currently is made by the much bigger black market that exists compared to if it was legal. Who's stopping people from buying it? People are able to buy a set designated amount for personal use, the same as I have already stated many products are, including many common cold medications in the US. [/QUOTE]
GRIM, do you propose the same model for crack and heroin? The government only allowing people to purchase a small amount for personal use? You don't think, as it's one of the most physically addictive substances out there, they may want a little more?
That would be the most logical thing to do. And with the income now going to the government they could use it for more productive things like harm reduction and drug education, instead of just trying to use scare tactics.
Right, same question to you: Do you think the government should use the same model for crack and heroin? Simply provide everyone with a certain amount for personal supply and no more?
No I don't mate - I think they should remain illegal because there highly addictive substances which have destroyed many lives. But for other synthetic substances which dont have such a high addiction potential such as ecstasy and lsd, a regulated market could work. These substances when used responsibly are not creating a burden on society. Granted much more research has to be done to see the long term effects (or positive effects for that matter) of these substances (which is being held back due to their illegality) any harm possibly being done is to the individual which is their own choice, and shouldnt be a crime for doing so.
Yes I do, however I was waiting for this point to come up. LSD is not addictive such as these drugs last I heard Many on it actually take breaks so that the next trip will be stronger, from my experience a break was in fact needed. With addictive substances there are many advantages to them being legal. Some items are... You can chemically control how addictive the item is, much better than it being brewed in a bathtub with no control. You can control how much a person gets, by not only limiting how much they get but also FORCING them to under go counseling before they are dispensed their given allotment. You take away the criminal/gang element from the equation making most of the true crime and death from the drug a thing of the past. Revenue brought in from the sale of the drugs is used for counseling and helping people get off the addictive drugs. A win, win situation. But I guess keeping gangs in business, the criminal element, letting those who get addicted rot, spending billions locking people up and the subsequent violence from the black market in addition to the drugs being made in bathtubs that can explode, being impure that can easily kill someone is a great way to go instead.
Just like alcohol prohibition, most of the crime comes from the item being illegal. Liquor still creates crime, far less and on a different scope than when it was illegal..
Ohh I see your point. The illegal drug sales crime would be decreased I agree. What about the crimes of theft, robbery, and murder from people trying to buy crack whether its legal or illegal?
Crack being controlled you can chemically alter it and make it less addictive, force counseling, in the end less would be hooked on the substance.. I also find it a lot less likely someone is going to rob a place, to bring money to a highly traceable spot as a government run/licensed office to buy the crack compared to that of an underground gang banger selling it off the street.
why would it? there isn't a black market for paracetamol in the uk and the amounts you can purchase at any one time is limited. the regulations would be something like; Each pill contains 1/5 of the average dose you would find in one tab now (whatever that is). No more than 10 pills can be sold to someone at any one time. This means 1) they have more than enough for a good days trip 2) it will be in a volume which makes it hard to give to someone without them knowing. Putting both of your fears to bed, Have you changed your mind? Or are you still looking for justification for continued belief in your preconceived opinion without considering facts and reality?
Heh, you didn't actually answer my question. Are you proposing that the government supply people with the most physically addictive drugs (crack and heroin), but limit how much they'll allow someone to have? You don't think they'll want more and more?
I did actually answer your question, quite thoroughly actually. Did you even bother to read such things as in a controlled situation it could be controlled how addictive the product is? Or the forced counseling? When did I say the government themselves would supply it?
Paracetamol is limited? I could buy hundreds of tablets tomorrow just by going to different stores, it's hardly a restriction now is it? You don't buy acid in pills. 1/5th of the average acid tab nowadays isn't enough to reach a psychedelic state, infact a whole tab isn't really enough. Oh, but I'm looking for justification right? Preconceived opinion without considering facts? You're the one who doesn't know the first thing about this drug and keep showing it with your posts.
if you feel compelled to buy it you could, but who does? nobody. The point is it makes it harder and people are likely to buy what they need for at least that day, And buy some more as they need it. And i doubt if it were legal they would sell it on street corners and pub toilets. The substance Lysergic acid diethylamide is a molecule. It can be delivered in various ways, A chalk based tablet being one of them. Is your understanding of this substance limited to what you have seen in films? But 5 of them would be. Which is the point. The point is it will be delivered in very specific doses at very specific strengths. the person taking it would be in control of the dose they receive. if you take 5 and find you aren't as trippy as you would like, take another one. it's not rocket science.
If it’s less addictive the street dealer would still be in business. It’s not just underground gang banging thugs smoking crack. I have witnessed business people that worked at phone companies, doctors and professors try crack casually and then begin to spiral out of control. They would sell everything out of their house including the wall sockets, carpets and quit paying mortgage and auto payments just to get a hit. In the end they would sell their bodies to anybody like prostitutes just to get a hit. The government will not approve drug that does not have a medical purpose.
Why would it being less addictive cause someone to not use it if it has the same high? I have witnessed direct family members, smelled the smoke, I have actually consumed drugs and have more than 'witnessed' a few professionals.. Many drugs are 'approved' and totally legal without medical use, so where you get that from is anyones guess. Tobacco, liquor, caffeine, chocolate, just to name a few. Great picture to show what an ILLEGAL drug causes, how that has anything to do with making it legal, controlled for quality and addictiveness is beyond me.
GRIM, Wanted to add a couple things. 1. I am super impressed with your ability to argue this topic. You've got a high level of mastery on it. Most people can't see past "drugs bad, ban them", and you've actually got the philosophical and economic aspects covered. Awesome. 2. Not sure if you covered or addressed this, but because street drugs are so much more expensive on the black market, that alone forces people to steal to accommodate their habits. Now for those who cannot afford black market drugs but are addicted, they have to steal, and stolen goods must be fenced. So not only do they have to steal to pay high prices, but they have to steal more to account for disposing the goods on the black market as well. It's actually a compound pricing problem. The pay more for the drugs, they earn less for the stolen goods.