Harminimisation vs Zero Tolerance

[xionking]

What do you reckon? Should we have a zero tolerance attitude towards drugs or should we be aiming for harminimisation?

-Xionking

 

[Mister Scruff]

Legalisation with a proper support service in place for addicts and problem users, services currently available for both illicit drug users and problem users of alcohol, would be a nice idea. So the second one. Harmonicasiationism.

 

[xionking]

Legalisation with a proper support service in place for addicts and problem users, services currently available for both illicit drug users and problem users of alcohol, would be a nice idea. So the second one. Harmonicasiationism.

Harmonicasiationism? Lol.

I hear what you're saying though. Thanks for the input, Scruff.

-Xionking

 

[Mephistopheles]

Minimisation of harm. Prohibition has adverse effects as we can clearly see around the world. Just saying "drugs are bad, mmkay?" and banning them deprives one of the possibility to get clear and objective information about effects and hazards of drugs which causes the problems we see today.

 

[MasterPaladin]

Minimisation of harm. Prohibition has adverse effects as we can clearly see around the world. Just saying "drugs are bad, mmkay?" and banning them deprives one of the possibility to get clear and objective information about effects and hazards of drugs which causes the problems we see today.

I agree. Making drugs legal would snowball into a larger problem. Better education of the effects of drugs yes. In NYC there is or was I don't know if it's still in effect a program where you could sign up and get free clean needles. This I agree with as well but not to make drugs legal.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I agree. Making drugs legal would snowball into a larger problem. Better education of the effects of drugs yes. In NYC there is or was I don't know if it's still in effect a program where you could sign up and get free clean needles. This I agree with as well but not to make drugs legal.

Well, just legalising it would indeed not work but doing something similar as we do for alcohol, i.e. making designated stores, imposing age restrictions and giving out information on the hazards that come with use would work alot better than just buying the shit that's sold on the street. At least you could ensure that the drugs being used are not polluted with dangerous chemicals.

 

[MasterPaladin]

Then people who would not normally have tried it might to see what it's like and doing this you can easily get hooked.

 

[xionking]

Forget legalising the drug or not, although you guys

I'm talking stuff like, getting Mdma Testing kits into the nightclubs and festivals (something like 2 million ecstasy tablets are consumed over an average Australian weekend), safe injecting rooms, drug rehabilitation initiatives that dont make the drug users feel like their the dirtiest people under the Sun. Programmes that are set up so that ex-addicts can re-enter society without being frowned upon. Proper sustainable programmes aimed at keeping addicts out of prison, and away from the absolute fringes of society.

Zero tolerance looks at capturing and punishing the users in a manner that to me seems a bit like kicking a dog when it's already down, when in reality the traffikers are the ones enforcement should be seriously cracking down on.

-Xionking

 

[Mephistopheles]

Then people who would not normally have tried it might to see what it's like and doing this you can easily get hooked.

That's a misconception. It's not harder to find it on the streets as it is in the shops in the right areas. It takes a certain kind of curiosity to try it. Here you can buy marihuana in shops but there's scores of people that have never tried them because they aren't interested.

And same thing goes for people who do want to satisfy their curiosity; they will find their stuff anyway.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Forget legalising the drug or not, although you guys

I'm talking stuff like, getting Mdma Testing kits into the nightclubs and festivals (something like 2 million ecstasy tablets are consumed over an average Australian weekend), safe injecting rooms, drug rehabilitation initiatives that dont make the drug users feel like their the dirtiest people under the Sun. Programmes that are set up so that ex-addicts can re-enter society without being frowned upon. Proper sustainable programmes aimed at keeping addicts out of prison, and away from the absolute fringes of society.

Zero tolerance looks at capturing and punishing the users in a manner that to me seems a bit like kicking a dog when it's already down, when in reality the traffikers are the ones enforcement should be seriously cracking down on.

-Xionking

Well, I believe the only people too stupid to see the truth in those ideas are right wing politicians.

 

[MasterPaladin]

in order to arrest the seller you need a buyer and both have to be arrested. The police in NYC are told stay away from drug arrests and leave that to the Narcotics unit and they go after the big guys but as I said to get the big guy you need to take the little guy as well.
There are many other probs with making it legal and that is an area I really want to stay away from it would take over the whole meaning of this thread

 

[LD_Tickler]

People need to recognize that there are things such as unenforceable laws. So much of our society is rooted in classical Idealism, that we forget lawmaking doesn't always change human behaviour.

I've never met anyone who said to me, "I really want to smoke weed, but it's illegal, so I won't."

Zero tolerance doesn't work. Naturally, harm minimization makes the most sense - assuming that you're interested in improving conditions, instead of just punishing people.

 

[xionking]

Well, I believe the only people too stupid to see the truth in those ideas are right wing politicians.

Ok, can you emphasise at all, Mephistopheles?

 

[Perduabo]

What do you reckon? Should we have a zero tolerance attitude towards drugs or should we be aiming for harminimisation?

-Xionking

I advocate the legalization of marijuana.

Regarding other drugs, its up to the individual what they want to do with their lives, I have no say on what they do because its none of my business what they d with their private lives.

I hate heroin and meth, but I see no reason to be a preachy, pious nag and tell people they shouldn't. I trust as adults they are capable of making their own decisions without anyone holding their hand.

 

[MasterPaladin]

ok let me put it this way. In different parts of the country maybe it might be better to be honest I don't see how but in a place like NYC thats making drugs legal would make this place dangerous to live in.

 

[xionking]

I advocate the legalization of marijuana.

Regarding other drugs, its up to the individual what they want to do with their lives, I have no say on what they do because its none of my business what they d with their private lives.

I hate heroin and meth, but I see no reason to be a preachy, pious nag and tell people they shouldn't. I trust as adults they are capable of making their own decisions without anyone holding their hand.

Thanks for your opinion, Perduabo. Heroin and meth are devastating drugs, and I agree with you. To me, there's nothing worse than someone who preaches anti-drugs and frowns upon drug users when it is isn't affecting them? It annoys me even more when that person knows very little about drugs to begin with, and is just going on the stereotypes or what they've heard in the media.

MasterPaladin - you talk about this food chain kind of process that takes place in NYC, where you take the little man out in order to get to the big guys. Would you say it's successful?

-Xionking

 

[Mephistopheles]

ok let me put it this way. In different parts of the country maybe it might be better to be honest I don't see how but in a place like NYC thats making drugs legal would make this place dangerous to live in.

Well, would there be drug related violence if the stuff was just sold in stores? Store owners doing drive by shootings to shoot their competitors?

 

[MasterPaladin]

to take down the big guy yes you can't any other way to prove a sale you need a buyer though certain quantities mean with intent to sell. This is what I'm trying to avoid here law quoting because laws are different in different states so to answer you in general yes it makes for a stronger case.

 

[Mephistopheles]

to take down the big guy yes you can't any other way to prove a sale you need a buyer though certain quantities mean with intent to sell. This is what I'm trying to avoid here law quoting because laws are different in different states so to answer you in general yes it makes for a stronger case.

Well, here we make a difference between amounts used for sale and used for personal use. If I have 3 pills it's considered personal use and they will just give me a fine if I get caught. Same thing with marihuana, 5 grams, about 1/6th of an ounce, is allowed. More than that is illegal. Which works quite well.

 

[xionking]

Yeah, we have personal use here too, mainly with marijuana though. I think we can privately have a few grams as long as we are not in poccession of it in a public space.

We more or less have a zero tolerance towards pills though, to the point where recently a girl died at our Big Day Out festival, because police were checking patrons for drugs as they entered, and she was afraid of being caught, so she decided it would be safest to consume all 3 pills before going into the venue. Death on the dancefloor.

-Xionking

 

[MasterPaladin]

Well, would there be drug related violence if the stuff was just sold in stores? Store owners doing drive by shootings to shoot their competitors?

no but drive by shooting of store owners yes because there taking a very large business away from the illegal dealers. Remember how many are in a large city such as NYC I as I said do not want to get into such a large debate but the ramifications of what making it legal would do make keeping it illegal a must. Plus about and this is a true figure about 10,000 dealers would be free if it was legal. Ok lets say it's like liquor where you need a license so you can't do it on your own that just means the Gov. wins again with taxes and now becomes the new Dealer by proxy.

 

[MasterPaladin]

xion I think you set a record 21 responses and only 53 views

 

[Mephistopheles]

Yeah, we have personal use here too, mainly with marijuana though. I think we can privately have a few grams as long as we are not in poccession of it in a public space.

We more or less have a zero tolerance towards pills though, to the point where recently a girl died at our Big Day Out festival, because police were checking patrons for drugs as they entered, and she was afraid of being caught, so she decided it would be safest to consume all 3 pills before going into the venue. Death on the dancefloor.

-Xionking

Yeah, they sometimes do that here too with similar results, but that's because we have a christian majority in our governement now.

 

[Mephistopheles]

no but drive by shooting of store owners yes because there taking a very large business away from the illegal dealers. Remember how many are in a large city such as NYC I as I said do not want to get into such a large debate but the ramifications of what making it legal would do make keeping it illegal a must. Plus about and this is a true figure about 10,000 dealers would be free if it was legal. Ok lets say it's like liquor where you need a license so you can't do it on your own that just means the Gov. wins again with taxes and now becomes the new Dealer by proxy.

Well, would that be such a bad thing? Those dealers do not need to be released; they committed a crime under the laws that were in effect when they were convicted.

But let's face it, the mob used to run the alcohol business during prohibition years, but when the governement finally got it's common sense back did owners of bars get shot by the mob?

 

[MasterPaladin]

Case in point California it is legal to have 12 mari. plants if you have an illness that it helps I personally know about 25 people who moved there to make money. Why because they can