100% support Dom's position on drugs as usual. This time I will contribute to what I consider to be an extremely important social issue.
It's not a blanket statement that I hate these people, and usually hatred only occurs after I've had a particularly nasty encounter with them.
For the most part it's great sadness that for whatever reason, they spend their days smelling like they've not showered for 6 months, injecting shit into whatever is left of their circulatory system and losing their kids/prospects in the process.
It's that part of me that finds it hard to reconcile with facilitating drug use, but I can't argue against the fact that harm minimization programs have lead to greater outcomes for these people than militant policing and jail. The latter of which usually increases drug use.
You using your experiences with "these people" to mould your opinion of certain drugs is flawed to the point of absurdity (the fact that it is disturbingly common does not change this). Yes, the unfortunate reality is that drug addicts are frequently relegated to the lowest tier in Australian society, and are often plagued by financial difficulties, homelessness, social problems and mental illness. However, with VERY few exceptions this is not because of the intrinsic effects of drug use. It is the criminal and social status of 'illicit' drugs that has had this outcome. Adopting this position on certain substances and not others, due to an either negligible or entirely non-existent distinction being made, has forced users to become criminals, associate with worse criminals, use an unreliable product with no standards applied to its manufacture or sale, and most importantly pay an enormous premium to do so.
Applying this treatment to ANY desirable product would result in its users experiencing the same social effects.
This is true for every commonly used, currently illegal drug. Moderate dosages, legal and standardised production and sale, as well as social acceptance of drug use would not just lower the occurrence of these negative effects. It would all but ELIMINATE them.
You are acknowledging your previous view was a result of misinformation. You should continue doing this and dispose of the garbage you and everyone else has been fed about drugs by malevolent and insane governments which have much to gain from keeping you stupid.
On topic though, I have moderated slightly.
I wouldn't oppose the legalisation of certain 'less harmful substances' so long as there had been a comprehensive and scientifically based review on the impact of such a policy, and the potential savings/implications for the economy. If such a review/inquiry concluded that costs would be reduced (social and economic), then I don't see why we should continue with the status quo.
It would be interesting to see where the new black markets would develop. There will always be those looking to exploit, and will move on to new 'industries' accordingly.
Where do you draw the line? What exact harms are you referring to?
Heroin in pure form at set dosages is one of the safest drugs around. The same is correct for almost every currently criminalised drug worth using.
What criteria do you use to decide which substances the government should punish people for using?
The thing is, EVEN IF it is correct that these drugs used ALONE are severely harmful to users; THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL TO BE GAINED BY CRIMINALISING CONSUMERS AND SALESPEOPLE, as opposed to just the criminal behaviour
affecting others that supposedly results from drug addiction.
incentivation, maybe you should actually read up on subjects such as this which you decide to weigh in on, instead of taking yet another one of your positions directly from legal and political material which blindly accepts the same overwhelmingly incorrect premises that have been shoved down the throats of individuals in supposedly free and educated societies for the last century.
