Drug Law

This is a deep topic that has been the subject of many upon many a Question Time debate in the U, and I can imagine it is an ongoing issue across the world. I've given three options in the poll, but like all political views there are all the shades in between to consider, and it would be helpful for the debate if all voters would specify where they stand in the comments below.

As far as my personal opinion goes I am for decriminalisation. Not only that, but I think drug addiction should be seen as a medical illness and not a criminal offense. A few of my friends are or have once been addicted to narcotics and I've witnessed first hand that it really IS a gross psychological and medical issue. Further more I do not agree with methadone or even buprenorphine as a substitute to ween addicts off heroin as studies have shown that they are just as detremental and have proven to be an ineffective method of curbing the addiction.

There is a great video clip of Russel Brand talking about it and making some very valid points on the subject. Although I don't particularly like the guy, I do find myself agreeing with him on this topic.



Just to clarify, any commenting on drug consumption or drug supplying outside of the subject matter, i.e. not regarding its legality, will not be tolerated and will no doubt be removed by the admins. I really hope that such comments do not emerge as this is an important subject and I would hate to see the thread closed because of irresponsible comments. I'm sure you pleasant folk on PA will post responsibly, but I must put this disclaimer.

Once more, comments on THE LEGAL POSITION OF DRUGS ONLY PLEASE.

Decriminalization basically does nothing to keep the drug trade out of the gangs/criminal elements, nor out of kids' hands (which is something the government at least are concerned about).  Legalization makes much more sense for soft drugs.  That way they can tax them too, same as liquor and tobacco.  I don't see something like meth or crack or mescaline being legalized, but marijuana, shrooms and similar probably make sense.


Edited by Triceratopsoil - September 05 2013 at 09:08

But also, I forgot: it is compatible with a supposedly free society. 

Legalization. The past say hundred years of the opposite has done the human race nothing good. There is a huge responsibility involved though, and I'm not sure most folks are aware of this. It's dangerous to force one's 'freedom' onto innocent bystanders. It's a tightrope really. 

CPicard wrote: Legalisation without any restraints: if people can legally buy and drink enough alcohol to die from ethylic coma, they should be able to do the same with ecstasy, heroine, PCP and all that stuff. Of course, I don't consume any kind of drugs (I can't even stand the foul stench of marijuana), but I would be glad to see my neighbours becoming zombies hooked to their needles.

If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example).

Just for clarification purposes, what is the difference between decriminalization and legalization?  Doesn't making it not criminal in effect make it legal?  Or would that mean that it isn't criminal to use but it is still criminal to sell?

twseel wrote: If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example).

By that logic, you could describe literally any hobby ever as harmful and addictive.

Triceratopsoil wrote: twseel wrote: If you could forbid something for being harmful and addictive you could instantly prohibit the use of many popular video games and Sudoku(for example). By that logic, you could describe literally any hobby ever as harmful and addictive.

Decriminalisation