Don't deal here!

[TransformX]

I doubt it. If it was bad LSD then I would ask you to consider how often bad beer and cigarettes are produced. Hardly. That's because they're legal and the repurcussions of producing bad product are serious. Not so in the illegal trade of drugs.

I'm not saying I advocate the use of such substances, that's an entirely different discussion. BTW. "illicit" is not a property of any substance, it is a property attached to it by the legal system. There are many substances that not illicit but do little good if any at all. Some drugs may actually have some good effects and even if not, if people are happier using it, I don't see a problem with it. I'm not advocating a ban on praying either, even though it does no good.

As a side note, ODing on LSD is hardly possible, sorta like trying to OD on H20. It can be done but.... Moreover, most ODs, AFAIK, are the result of the user erroneously absoribing to much at a time or not being aware of the concentration in the actual package bought. Standardiszed dosages in standardised forms would, of course, lower ODs significantly. And that can be easily enforced if it were legal..

In other words, ODing is okay, buy cheap high quality Heroin and OD yourself to death, we're cool. Or take any substance without a doctor's prescription and step out to mingle with sane society.. How about removing the ban on alcohol and give it to children?
And that, my friend, is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Umfriend]

Spend a night in the emergency room with your younger brother, who has overdosed on bad LSD and is asking for a scalpel so he can cut out the worms crawling under the skin on his face, and you're tune changes quickly. Nothing good comes from illicit drugs, and a society that fails to protect itself from them is doomed to collapse as China did during the 1800's under their nation wide opium addiction.

I doubt it. If it was bad LSD then I would ask you to consider how often bad beer and cigarettes are produced. Hardly. That's because they're legal and the repurcussions of producing bad product are serious. Not so in the illegal trade of drugs.

I'm not saying I advocate the use of such substances, that's an entirely different discussion. BTW. "illicit" is not a property of any substance, it is a property attached to it by the legal system. There are many substances that not illicit but do little good if any at all. Some drugs may actually have some good effects and even if not, if people are happier using it, I don't see a problem with it. I'm not advocating a ban on praying either, even though it does no good.

As a side note, ODing on LSD is hardly possible, sorta like trying to OD on H20. It can be done but.... Moreover, most ODs, AFAIK, are the result of the user erroneously absoribing to much at a time or not being aware of the concentration in the actual package bought. Standardiszed dosages in standardised forms would, of course, lower ODs significantly. And that can be easily enforced if it were legal..

[Jammrock]

Silly. Drug repression is costly, harmfull and goes against liberty.

Spend a night in the emergency room with your younger brother, who has overdosed on bad LSD and is asking for a scalpel so he can cut out the worms crawling under the skin on his face, and you're tune changes quickly. Nothing good comes from illicit drugs, and a society that fails to protect itself from them is doomed to collapse as China did during the 1800's under their nation wide opium addiction.

[Umfriend]

Sorry, cannot agree. When I was in CH, I had (at different times) 2 employees who were drogués. I tolerated one when he was on joints, provided he did not smoke at work, which he did. I had to sack him. He is dead, now, of AIDS, having trod the slippery path to heroin. The other got sacked, on the spot, after a young employee complained to me he tried to deal cocaine to him.

You may not agree but you're actions in CH are hardly an argument, just history. Most deaths due to heroin are not caused by the product but by the circumstance under which they need to be used due to the legal issues. In NL and CH both there have been programs for years to provide heroin to durg addicts who failed to kick the habit repeatedly. How many in such programs died from heroin?

I'm 100% in favour of zero tolerance for possession and the police do a good job here. One joint or ecstasy tablet is worth three months minimum behind bars. Recidivism is minimal with such harsh treatment. Even tourists get the same treatment. Dealing even a small amount is 5 years minimum. Drugs are a very small problem in this country, much less so than in CH, where there is some tolerance.

Again, no argument, just positions. In NL we have a lot of tolerance (far short of what I would call for though). But the problems are far less than in many other states.

Liberty? Liberty to slide into criminality to pay for your habit?

No, liberty to, as an adult, do as I see fit without bothering other people. The slide into criminality is due to treating the market as illegal which increases consumer cost tremendously. Make a pack of cigarettes 50 euro a pack and see what happens.

The really bad thing is that that increased cost to the consumers actually benefits the producers/traders. See what's going on in Mexico. Thousands of deaths not due to the drug but due to the economic incentives that the law provides. And the consequences are far reaching. Over here, the real estate market has been penetrated by drugs money for years already causing criminality (other than fraud and deceit common to financial sector) to flow over into the bona fide world.

It's actually frustrating that what are claimed to be disadvantages of drugs in a broad perspective by those seeking to retain its illegal status, are actually the very consequences of the illegal status they wish to retain.

[Umfriend]

That's only because you've never been near drug addicts and have no idea just how far they'd go to get enough money for their next fix.
It starts with a whole street of broken car windows and stolen radios, to violent burglary.

You don't know that.

It also raises an interesting point: cost. The price for these substances on the street are way higher than they would have been had they been free to trade. Freeing trade would lower the price considerably, such even, that no crime need be committed to pay for the drug. There is no reason why a joint (and I assume a sniff of coke but I am less sure there) should cost more than a beer or a loaf of bread. See any crimes committed to pay for those? Yes, you do.

Moreover, beer, food and medicines are all substances that whose production are supervised/controlled so as to avoid health problems. That can not be done with illegal substances so there is no control, no incentive for any producer to produce good product (without, for instance, pesticides that are harmfull to the environment and users).

[KRSESQ]

The term "controlled substance" has always amused me. Law enforcement has no control over these substances. Nearly ALL of the control is in the hands of those who are, by definition, criminals. Law enforcers bust the occasional ton or two of contraband or the occasional indoor farm and parade it like it was a major victory. In reality it represents the tiniest fraction of what's actually out there.

I guess it boils down to how draconian you want the law to be. IIRC for a time the People's Republic of China doled out summary executions for heroin dealers, yet the impact on actual heroin abuse in that country was miniscule. Last I heard, by one estimate ten percent of the youth population was hooked.

You could come up with all kinds of good reasons for doing surprise house-to-house police sweeps in order to catch users and dealers with their pants down (I think it HAS been done in some communities). After all, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear, right? But those sweeps NEVER include the most affluent neighborhoods where the most influential people live, yet they're as likely to be drug users as anyone (often abusing perfectly legal prescription medications).

And many Americans would vigorously object to police going through their personal belongings on a "fishing expedition" whether they have anything to hide or not. I and everyone I know would.

The only thing such harsh measures has achieved in North America has been to make the big-time drug dealers more violent and ruthless. It's had little or no effect on usage, despite the prison sentences facing users and small-time dealers who are caught, many of whom are considered "non-violent" offenders.

The traditional "War on Drugs" has been a dismal failure (except for the prison and law-enforcement industries). Even law enforcement officials admit this, at least privately. It's time to start thinking about new approaches.

Kevin

[Brian Ellis]

Silly. Drug repression is costly, harmfull and goes against liberty.

Sorry, cannot agree. When I was in CH, I had (at different times) 2 employees who were drogués. I tolerated one when he was on joints, provided he did not smoke at work, which he did. I had to sack him. He is dead, now, of AIDS, having trod the slippery path to heroin. The other got sacked, on the spot, after a young employee complained to me he tried to deal cocaine to him.

I'm 100% in favour of zero tolerance for possession and the police do a good job here. One joint or ecstasy tablet is worth three months minimum behind bars. Recidivism is minimal with such harsh treatment. Even tourists get the same treatment. Dealing even a small amount is 5 years minimum. Drugs are a very small problem in this country, much less so than in CH, where there is some tolerance.

Liberty? Liberty to slide into criminality to pay for your habit?

[TransformX]

Silly. Drug repression is costly, harmfull and goes against liberty.

That's only because you've never been near drug addicts and have no idea just how far they'd go to get enough money for their next fix.
It starts with a whole street of broken car windows and stolen radios, to violent burglary.

[KRSESQ]

That's an awful lot of grass and coke. He'd probably get a similar sentence in the States. Especially for the coke.

(Watching events unfold in California with considerable interest.)

Kevin

[Umfriend]

Silly. Drug repression is costly, harmfull and goes against liberty.

[Brian Ellis]

Zero tolerance for drugs!

THE NICOSIA criminal court yesterday handed down the longest-ever sentence for drugs in Cyprus when businessman Dinos Constantinou, 55, was jailed for 25 years.

Constantinou was found guilty of possession with intent to supply 189 kilos of cannabis and 12 kilos of cocaine.

He was arrested in 2008 in connection with one of the island’s largest drug busts.

Lucas Siderenios has already pleaded guilty in connection with the same case and has been jailed for 23 years. His wife Eleni, who also pleaded guilty, was jailed for 15 years, while the couple’s daughter, Georgia Vatti, was acquitted. A fourth man, Iosif Perpinias, who also pleaded guilty, was jailed for 12 years.