OpinionIs it just me, or does this article miss the point? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/05/legalisation-drugs-antonio-maria-costa
      – Thelevellers, 2010-09-10 at 12:44:00   (8 comments)

On 2010-09-10 at 12:45:36, Thelevellers wrote...
Sorry, maybe that should have been 'comment piece' as opposed to article. I just think that the piece carefully avoids the fact that you can legalise without completely de-regulating something! Alcohol and Tobacco is mentioned, but the fact that you could treat more hardcore drugs the same way (in fact, even more strictly) seems to be completely ignored...
On 2010-09-10 at 22:21:43, Lee J Haywood wrote...
So what's the benefit of legalising cocaine, say, without deregulating it? Is that the same as decriminalising? Alcohol and tobacco happen to be easy to produce at low cost, but in an idea world we'd replace them with less damaging alternatives. People are always going to want to have some way to 'escape' mentally, and alcohol is the best way to do that currently (I say). All current drugs seem to be damaging and it'd be foolish to make anything more available, but we've said before that sending people to jail for possession isn't helping them.
On 2010-09-11 at 16:08:58, Thelevellers wrote...
Surely the point of legalisation is that you change the distributor from drug gangs, to regulated government/corporate organisations? That way you can at least guarantee the quality of the product (cutting some of the health issues out) and gain money through taxation to fund rehab for the users. Obviously you need to work on getting people of the most damaging drugs, but it's pretty plain just making them illegal isn't ever going to work.
On 2010-09-12 at 01:03:15, BorgClown wrote...
I gave the article a careful read. It struck me as a balanced one, albeit sided to the banning of drugs. I can see how making drugs legal would transform drug barons and their power into legally-bound tax payers, but the article makes a very strong point: the poor/ignorant people would become epidemically addicted. There's a lot to comment a lot about this, but basically, if people keep as they are, drug abuse will rise because it gives an instant escape of reality, unlike alcohol or tobacco. Hard drugs are a way to mess with your pleasure centers, and the little hedonistic in all of us loves that. People should change before drugs become legal.
On 2010-09-12 at 09:52:56, Thelevellers wrote...
Whether or not drugs are legal, they are used/abused. At least if they are legal you have a hope of restricting access a bit. I dunno, I'm not even sure I am pro legalisation, but I just felt that the article was overlooking some pretty obvious points to make his case...
On 2010-09-12 at 12:52:44, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I think there may be a case for marijuana, say, being grown by the government - but that wasn't the original idea. We said that it'd still be illegal to use drugs but it'd be better if people's lives weren't ruined as a result of being caught (decriminalisation). Having the government control the production of cocaine is particularly unlikely. It'd only happen if they could say who does and doesn't get to use the end product, and since they'd rather no-one take it their idea of a market would be an empty one. The very people who are weak enough to take the drugs are the ones who most need to be kept away from them. By that, I mean people whose lives are so terrible that drugs are an escape and drugs will only make them worse off.
On 2010-09-14 at 14:30:10, Thelevellers wrote...
Hmmm. Maybe I confused myself with decriminalisation/legalisation. I dunno. My brain dislikes serious thought at the moment :(
On 2010-10-11 at 21:12:24, TheRevolutionary wrote...
I don't know if it missed the point or just doesn't have one at all. The author never comes down strongly for any position. He just wraps it up at the end with some BS about having to find a balance between health and order. Way to take a stand /sarcasm. And though the title is provocative "world wide epidemic of addiction" but then he goes on to say how only half a percent of the population is addicted. He conflicts with his own title. what a load.