Background: I've dropped out of college and can't bear the thought of working a dead end job for the rest of my life. I've chosen to try and get involved in politics to make a change for the better. I have the rest of my life to try and make this change, so I might aswell start now.

As a first step, I've decided to write out a manifesto, which will form the basis of my eventual political party. Scrutiny is essential in forming any perfect policy, therefore if any of you have the time, I'd very much appreciate it if you could read over what I've wrote and provide some constructive criticism.

If you can't be bothered to read it, I can respect that as I'm lazy myself, but please don't troll and spam here. Thanks.


Drugs
The government have no right to dictate what people do in private, as long as these actions do not infringe on the rights of others. There's a common misconception that drugs are damaging our society, which is false. It's the irresponsible problem users of drugs who are a drain on themselves, their families and our society.

Through current government policy, over 3,000,000 UK citizens are made criminals, the vast majority of which do not cause any problems. Our policy will focus on not discriminating against people due to which drugs they choose to take, but will focus on providing treatment to those who need it: those who are a drain on our emotional and financial resources.

As it is illogical to make a policy considering all drugs in the same light, we will seek to implement legislation on different drugs in accordance to their associated dangers.



Marijuana
Marijuana is the most popular drug in the UK, and we would seek to legalise it. Whilst we do not advocate its usage, we respect that individuals have the right to do what they like with their own bodies, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Prohibition has FAILED to curb usage of marijuana; it is still easily obtainable, and its legal status only channels the profits towards organised crime syndicates and terrorists.

In line with our stance of not advocating its usage, we will impose a ban on all marijuana related advertising. Due to the nature of how easy it is to cultivate, taxes will not be imposed on its sale to avoid the bureaucratic and administrative costs. Licenses will not be granted to big businesses who wish to sell the drug: production will only be limited to local cultivation.

Magic Mushrooms
Identical to the party's policy on marijuana.


Ecstasy
Ecstasy is currently ranked 18th in a list of the 20 most commonly used drugs, and only 200 people in the UK have died from it's usage since the 1990s: the majority of whom died from over exhaustion, NOT from any toxic effects of the drug. In order to limit ecstasy related deaths, we will seek to legalise the drug in order to remove the social taboo which is currently associated with it. As a result of this, people will be more inclined to exert pressure on club owners to implement adequate safety measures. Legalising ecstasy will also allow for regulation, so consumers will know what, and how much they're actually taking.

Taxes will be imposed on the sale of ecstasy, which will help fund the negative externalities arising from drug use.

In line with our party's policy on not advocating drug use, advertising of ecstasy will not be prohibited, and licenses will only be granted to manufacturers who adhere to strict regulations.


LSD
Similar to the policy on ecstasy, except there'll be even stricter licenses imposed on those who wish to manufacture it. This is designed to limit its usage.

Amphetamines
Not too knowledgable regarding how they should be legislated... Any ideas?


Cocaine
Currently, huge amounts of profits are being channelled towards those involved in the distribution of cocaine. These people do not pay tax, and thus, do not contribute to the economy.

We would seek to legalise cocaine and ensure that users buy it through legitimate retailers. Not only will this generate tax to help deal with problem users, but it will also put many of our organised crime syndicates out of business.

We realise that cocaine has a high problem use potential, but prohibition has failed in curbing its use. The artificially high prices have only resulted in more crime and more profits going towards illegal drug cartels who contribute in corruption and fund terrorism.

Distribution of cocaine will be subject to strict licensing.


Crystal Meth/Heroin/Crack Cocaine
Crack cocaine and heroin are the 2 drugs which are currently causing the most damage to our society through problem use. The negative costs through drug related crime and medical treatment amount to roughly £16.4 billion a year.

As a government, our policy will not focus on heavy handed tactics and zero-tolerance, which has proved to be ineffective, but will focus on limiting the costs which problem drug users impose on our society. We will achieve this through increasing funding for treatment and education.

These treatments will not come at the expense of the general taxpayer, but instead will be funded through taxation on other currently illegal drugs. Through ending the prohibition on drugs; lowering prices, we expect there'll be less burden on the taxpayer as there's a decrease on the burden of our criminal and health services.

Substitute drugs, produced in the UK under strict regulation by the government, will be supplied to problem users in order to assist in treatment. This will also decrease the amount of people who need to buy drugs via the black market: limiting profits of criminals and ensuring users can receive safe produce.

Those who chose to take heroin recreationally and who can manage their use, will be required to obtain a prescription. This will reduce the demand for heroin on the black market.


Through the above policies we expect to see:
A decline in drug related deaths
A decline in the spread of HIV
A decline in the usage of hard drugs
A huge reduction in theft and robberies
A reduction on the burden of our police force
More space in prisons
A reduced burden on the NHS
Less corruption
A decline in children getting involved in the drug industry
An improvement in the state of some of the UK's poor inner city regions: plagued by gangs and drug related crime.

no if it becomes legal that means even the retards who no shit about drugs will use them and ultimately kill themselves....therefore lets just keep em illegal so we can skip the whole legal back to illegal shit.

I asked for constructive criticism, not half baked, illogical garbage with bad spelling.

You will never win any kind of election with this policy.

you wanted me to scrutinise right?

what does scrutinise mean anyways?

did you mean scrutinize?

tard

ummmm

first, get a dead end job, or go back to collage...because you just have went where every able minded marijuana using/supporting person has already went.

Do you really think that you could do anything in politics?
You could secure a low wage job at the "green party".

permanently hanging a noose on a possible career out of the thing.

if i were you, which im not, i would use my knowledge to the advantage by working with groups like freevibe.

Im telling you the people who work there are drug users and soccer moms alike, once in a while they throw in a few over the top statements.....on purpose me thinks.


nevertheless, you have got to get your hand into the pile where the money is....... come help displace and pervert our society beyond logic and recognition.....thats what real politicians do.....you should too (with all due respect....im serious)

get off your pipe dream, and put the pipe down....

join the fucking workforce......

btw meth is an amphetamine. tard.

I'm already a part of the workforce. I'm a clerk at the local hospital.

That's what's wrong with politics - none of the normal citizens believe they can succeed and make a change, and therefore all the politicians tend to be corrupt and selfish.

Democracy is meant to represent society. 1/10 people in the UK take drugs, and most people declare themselves as left leaning libertarians. There is NO party catering for a huge portion of the people here.

This part of my manifesto is only a fraction of an 18 page document which focuses on many other areas. I'm aware that many people won't understand the drug argument, and I won't focus on that when the time comes. I just want to make sure that I have a decent policy set out on drugs so the people who are knowledgable will be more likely to endorse me.

LAWL
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/657/laawlpf2.png

r u runnin 4 presadent?

IMO, the UK has a MUCH more relaxed drug policy than the Draconian drug policy of the US. R3vvy, you should consider relocating to the US, for our drug problem is MUCH worse than that of the UK.

I like your policy!

--KP

I've thought about trying to move to the US to try and get involved, but there's already a big movement over there.

People over here are very apathetic. Everyone agrees the government is shit, but no one does anything, or believes there can be a change. I believe I could do more good by trying to get a movement started over here.

If I'm successful in helping to influence our government to make the right choice (which is very possible), at least then it'll give more fuel to you guys over there - as you'll then be able to say "look at how the policies in the UK are working - what's your counterargument now?".

And thanks.

Background: I've dropped out of college and can't bear the thought of working a dead end job for the rest of my life. I've chosen to try and get involved in politics to make a change for the better. I have the rest of my life to try and make this change, so I might aswell start now.

You are a college drop out. You will never be a politician, you will never form your own political party. BTW a political party based soley on drugs is retarded.






Through current government policy, over 3,000,000 UK citizens are made criminals, the vast majority of which do not cause any problems. Our policy will focus on not discriminating against people due to which drugs they choose to take, but will focus on providing treatment to those who need it: those who are a drain on our emotional and financial resources.

I know this is true, but most of the populous will not believe this so you should use statistics and sources.



Marijuana
Marijuana is the most popular drug in the UK, and we would seek to legalise it. Whilst we do not advocate its usage, we respect that individuals have the right to do what they like with their own bodies, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Prohibition has FAILED to curb usage of marijuana; it is still easily obtainable, and its legal status only channels the profits towards organised crime syndicates and terrorists.

In line with our stance of not advocating its usage, we will impose a ban on all marijuana related advertising. Due to the nature of how easy it is to cultivate, taxes will not be imposed on its sale to avoid the bureaucratic and administrative costs. Licenses will not be granted to big businesses who wish to sell the drug: production will only be limited to local cultivation.

By imposing bans on its advertising, you are trying to control people and tell them what to do. Your idea of government is stepping into people's lives and controlling them.

Again, you are trying to control people's lives and how they would like to make money. This is hypocritical. Many people do not want to grow weed in their own home. If you do not allow "big buisnesses" (which you most likely think is "evil") to sell weed, these people might try to obtain it from organized crime.

[qquote]
Ecstasy
Ecstasy is currently ranked 18th in a list of the 20 most commonly used drugs, and only 200 people in the UK have died from it's usage since the 1990s: the majority of whom died from over exhaustion, NOT from any toxic effects of the drug. In order to limit ecstasy related deaths, we will seek to legalise the drug in order to remove the social taboo which is currently associated with it. As a result of this, people will be more inclined to exert pressure on club owners to implement adequate safety measures. Legalising ecstasy will also allow for regulation, so consumers will know what, and how much they're actually taking.
[/quote]
If you are going to let "big buisnesses" take over the ecstasy trade, they might as well take over the marijuana/mushroom trade too.


In line with our party's policy on not advocating drug use, advertising of ecstasy will not be prohibited, and licenses will only be granted to manufacturers who adhere to strict regulations.

wTF? You want to advertise ecstasy, but not marijuana? You're reasoning for not advertising marijuana was to not advocate its use. Are you advocating ecstasys use?


LSD
Similar to the policy on ecstasy, except there'll be even stricter licenses imposed on those who wish to manufacture it. This is designed to limit its usage.

You do know that LSD is MUCH safer then ecstasy, right? Putting stricter regulations on a safer drug is dumb, dude. You should probally learn moar about drugs before becoming a politician. Not that it is required, obviously.


Amphetamines
Not too knowledgable regarding how they should be legislated... Any ideas?

Prescription dispensed.


Cocaine
Distribution of cocaine will be subject to strict licensing.
[quote]
What is your view on advertising, taxes etc.

[quote]
Crystal Meth/Heroin/Crack Cocaine

Substitute drugs, produced in the UK under strict regulation by the government, will be supplied to problem users in order to assist in treatment. This will also decrease the amount of people who need to buy drugs via the black market: limiting profits of criminals and ensuring users can receive safe produce.

Is this a joke? Do you think it is the drug's problem or the individual's problem? You started off by implying it was the person's problem, but you keep being a hypocrit. The problem users will find a way to make "substitute drugs" a problem. What do you even suggest for this? BZP for meth? Joke. Kratom for heroin? Joke.


Those who chose to take heroin recreationally and who can manage their use, will be required to obtain a prescription. This will reduce the demand for heroin on the black market.

Agreed.




You have alot of work to do.

Whats your stance on alcohol?

You are a college drop out. You will never be a politician, you will never form your own political party. BTW a political party based soley on drugs is retarded.

The former Prime Minister of the UK, John Major (before Tony Blair), who served 2 terms, left school with 3 o-levels (really shitty) and didn't goto college. It's possible over here.

My policies are not based purely on drugs. This is a small fraction of what I've wrote. I decided to post this section here because a lot of you guys here are more knowledgeable than me on the subject.

I know this is true, but most of the populous will not believe this so you should use statistics and sources.I've got a whole bank of stats, so I'll beef this up a little.


By imposing bans on its advertising, you are trying to control people and tell them what to do. Your idea of government is stepping into people's lives and controlling them.Our current government already intrudes on our lives way too much: 40% of what most of us earn goes to the government. Going from weed being illegal, to weed being legal (yet with advertising constraints) is a huge step in the right direction.

Ideally there'd be no constraints on advertising, but the policies need to be introduced progressively. One of the weaknesses of just 'legalising drugs' is that voters uneducated on the arguments are going to assume that everyone will turn into "druggies" once the policy is introduced. By saying we'll limit advertising, we can make the point that we are not condoning drug usage and we don't want more people to start smoking weed .etc: we just want all the negative effects of drugs on our society to be minimised. This is more likely to appeal to the voter. It might be immoral to play the voters, but once we can get a foothold into government and change the electoral system, further changes can then come accordingly.

Again, you are trying to control people's lives and how they would like to make money. This is hypocritical. Many people do not want to grow weed in their own home. If you do not allow "big buisnesses" (which you most likely think is "evil") to sell weed, these people might try to obtain it from organized crime.

I've changed my mind. It's likely that local sellers will exist regardless of whether big businesses decide to sell it.

My only concern is that it will lead to cannabis being available in supermarkets, which I'm not sure is a wise idea. I think a more suitable policy would be for outlets to apply for licenses to sell marijuana. Similar to current alcohol laws, and the policy which is in place in the Netherlands.

If you are going to let "big buisnesses" take over the ecstasy trade, they might as well take over the marijuana/mushroom trade too.Bigger businesses have to take over the ecstasy trade because they have the means of production, and it'll require more costly government intervention to regulate numerous smaller firms - which we don't want.

wTF? You want to advertise ecstasy, but not marijuana? You're reasoning for not advertising marijuana was to not advocate its use. Are you advocating ecstasys use?Sorry, spelling mistake. I would not allow advertising of any drugs. Drug taking should be only undertaken by those who are aware of the dangers and are responsible, to advertise them to the general public would most likely increase problem use and probably serve to reverse any progress we could make.


You do know that LSD is MUCH safer then ecstasy, right? Putting stricter regulations on a safer drug is dumb, dude. You should probally learn moar about drugs before becoming a politician. Not that it is required, obviously.I thought about this one. I understand where you're coming from, but LSD is a much more powerful drug, and I think it'd be foolish to make it easily available to people: especially children. If I'm to introduce legalising drugs policies, then I'll need to ensure that there isn't a boom in irresponsible drug use, as the media and public will be all over me like a rash, and any progress made will have to be reversed.


Prescription dispensed.
Thanks.


Cocaine
Distribution of cocaine will be subject to strict licensing.
What is your view on advertising, taxes etc.
Taxation will only serve the purpose of funding treatment for problem users, and will be kept at a minimum so that prices can be kept low: to stop some users having to resort to crime.

Is this a joke? Do you think it is the drug's problem or the individual's problem? You started off by implying it was the person's problem, but you keep being a hypocrit. The problem users will find a way to make "substitute drugs" a problem. What do you even suggest for this? BZP for meth? Joke. Kratom for heroin? Joke. I'm going to reword it. What I meant was that heroin addicts should be allowed methadone in order to help them overcome addictions if in treatment.

Tax it in accordance to the resultant social costs.

Ban advertising so it's not seen as attractive and cool to drink to help combat the problem of binge drinking we have.

Return more powers to local levels, so they can pass legislation regarding the problems they are faced with. Locally elected heads of police will be more suitable to deal with the wants of the public - reducing anti-social behaviour arising from the binge drinking culture.

Killing as a result of driving a vehicle while incapacitated will be viewed as manslaughter and will be punished accordingly.

Note to those in America, there is a serious binge drinking problem over here in the UK and it's seriously fucking with our youth.

Natural selection.

Your 'policy' just seems to involve legalisation of pretty much every common drug! I don't think you have a hope in hell of getting to become a member of ANY 'group' with that.

Perhaps being more tactful, such as leaving gaping loopholes for drugs such as RCs would be more beneficial than saying, "lets legalzize a11 dr00gs mang!"?

P.S

"Marijuana is the most popular drug in the UK,"

you really need to stick the word 'illicit' in thar somewhere

&

"Ecstasy is currently ranked 18th in a list of the 20 most commonly used drugs"

This is also most probably wrong. I think what you meant to say is, 'Ecstacy is the 18th Least harmful of the top 20 most commonly used drugs'. I believe it is probably in the top 5 most commonly used 'illicit' drugs in the UK, with over 500,000 users a year.

Thanks for pointing out the mistakes - I'll reword them.

Think about the amount of ravers and clubbers in the UK and the amount of people who are living in the UK's inner city ghettos: they're all under-represented in our current political system and very disillusioned with it all. If I can get my message out to them, then I'll have a substantial amount of followers, which could prove to be enough to make the big parties think.

If I can draw enough support, who knows, maybe the followers Green Party, UKIP and Respect will join in....

It's foolish not to stand up and fight for what you believe in. Because all efforts are going to have some impact.

By the way you want decriminalisation not legalisation.

Make small amounts legal to possess, but keep dealing illegal and crackdown harder on the street dealers.

Decriminalisation is WAY more realistic than legalisation.

I like your ideas but I just don't think it could work. Maybe with a degree in politics, chemistry, biology and psychology you could actually stand up to the man and put forward a sound argument but as a college drop out you will mean nothing to them. Even then you have to take into around the fact that the majority of general public do not understand drugs and are scared of them thanks to various forms of propaganda, urban legends and passed down taboos from old times. Even if you could get support as a politician from even a handful of other similar minded politicians (Unlikely) you will never get support of the public or a reasonable number or politician , even backing you could have serious implications for a politician's job.

Its a great idea but its not going to work over night, if anything the public first need to be educated about safe use of drugs cutting down on death and injuries before it is even possible that the government would look twice at you... Try teaching your average raver or random chav on the streets about safe drug use and they will sprout just about every bullshit urban legend. People are always going to use drugs irresponsibly and dangerously and as long as this goes on the drug world is never going to change...

Edit: Using facts and figures from the horizon program will not help much. I have my doubts about the accuracy of that program and you will need to do a lot more research from a lot wider sources on both sides of the fence to put out the real facts.

Drugs
The government have no right to dictate what people do in private, as long as these actions do not infringe on the rights of others. There's a common misconception that drugs are damaging our society, which is false. It's the irresponsible problem users of drugs who are a drain on themselves, their families and our society.

The government has a right to dictate what people do it private for the best interest of the people. Now, what they do for the best of the people is questionable. That said, a lot of the people don't know what's best for them, not to say the government does. But, a majority of people are stupid.


Through current government policy, over 3,000,000 UK citizens are made criminals, the vast majority of which do not cause any problems. Our policy will focus on not discriminating against people due to which drugs they choose to take, but will focus on providing treatment to those who need it: those who are a drain on our emotional and financial resources.


Guess what will take more financial resources, treatment or imprisonment? Treatment, by far. Looking at this from a purely financial standpoint, clearly locking them up is the much better option. There is no argument there.


Marijuana
Marijuana is the most popular drug in the UK, and we would seek to legalise it. Whilst we do not advocate its usage, we respect that individuals have the right to do what they like with their own bodies, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Prohibition has FAILED to curb usage of marijuana; it is still easily obtainable, and its legal status only channels the profits towards organised crime syndicates and terrorists.

In line with our stance of not advocating its usage, we will impose a ban on all marijuana related advertising. Due to the nature of how easy it is to cultivate, taxes will not be imposed on its sale to avoid the bureaucratic and administrative costs. Licenses will not be granted to big businesses who wish to sell the drug: production will only be limited to local cultivation.



Can't argue with the fact that the funds from the drug market would be better spent if given to the government than drug dealers. That said, the government can't just pull a 180 and tell you they've been lying all these years and drugs aren't that bad after all. That creates a sense that you can't trust the government. If you can't trust the government, then you can't have faith in the government. The government's power comes from the people, so this would in effect destroy the government. This would have to be done gradually.

If anything, marijuana should be legalized and controlled in the same manner as alcohol. That said, marijuana shouldn't be legalized. It would be impossible for the government to get a decent revenue from the sale of marijuana since it is so easy to grow. Unless, the private sale and manufactuing carried a heavy enough sentence to provide a good enough disincentive to stop people from doing it. In addition to that, it would make it socially acceptable, and therefore much more widely used. More potheads and we will get less work done...right? The entire American Dream is based on working hard to achieve your goals, we don't want the American populace to just say "fuck it" and smoke a bowl.


Ecstasy
Ecstasy is currently ranked 18th in a list of the 20 most commonly used drugs, and only 200 people in the UK have died from it's usage since the 1990s: the majority of whom died from over exhaustion, NOT from any toxic effects of the drug. In order to limit ecstasy related deaths, we will seek to legalise the drug in order to remove the social taboo which is currently associated with it. As a result of this, people will be more inclined to exert pressure on club owners to implement adequate safety measures. Legalising ecstasy will also allow for regulation, so consumers will know what, and how much they're actually taking.

Taxes will be imposed on the sale of ecstasy, which will help fund the negative externalities arising from drug use.

In line with our party's policy on not advocating drug use, advertising of ecstasy will not be prohibited, and licenses will only be granted to manufacturers who adhere to strict regulations.


I'm too lazy to really scrutinize this one, but since ecstasy and LSD are so hard to make the black market could be near eliminated by greatly increasing penalties for private sale and manufacturing, and allowing it to be distributed by several large companies and taxed. It would be limited, and they could scan your drivers liscense or something to make sure you haven't had it already this month, or something like that. The idea is that it is very strictly controlled.

Spending the tax money on dealing with the problems caused by ecstasy and LSD use is a dumb idea. You don't use the money you got from taxing drug users to help out the drug users. Then you are in the same place you were at the beginning, with no money and you have merely solved a problem that you created yourself.


Cocaine
Currently, huge amounts of profits are being channelled towards those involved in the distribution of cocaine. These people do not pay tax, and thus, do not contribute to the economy.

We would seek to legalise cocaine and ensure that users buy it through legitimate retailers. Not only will this generate tax to help deal with problem users, but it will also put many of our organised crime syndicates out of business.

We realise that cocaine has a high problem use potential, but prohibition has failed in curbing its use. The artificially high prices have only resulted in more crime and more profits going towards illegal drug cartels who contribute in corruption and fund terrorism.

Distribution of cocaine will be subject to strict licensing.




There is no reason to legalize cocaine. It's a terrible drug that has no reason for legalization. It has no potential for positive effect on the people. You could divert law enforcement to crack down on cocaine, but no doubt the increased availability and affordability of alternative (and legal) drugs would decrease the demand for cocaine. Users shouldn't be penalized that much, but there should be strict penalties for the smuggling and transporting of cocaine into the country.


Crystal Meth/Heroin/Crack CocaineThese treatments will not come at the expense of the general taxpayer, but instead will be funded through taxation on other currently illegal drugs. Through ending the prohibition on drugs; lowering prices, we expect there'll be less burden on the taxpayer as there's a decrease on the burden of our criminal and health services.

Substitute drugs, produced in the UK under strict regulation by the government, will be supplied to problem users in order to assist in treatment. This will also decrease the amount of people who need to buy drugs via the black market: limiting profits of criminals and ensuring users can receive safe produce.

Those who chose to take heroin recreationally and who can manage their use, will be required to obtain a prescription. This will reduce the demand for heroin on the black market.



Again, it's stupid to spend the tax money on anything related to drugs. You wouldn't need to spend that money if you hadn't created the problem by legalizing drugs in the first place. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just say that "drugs are the devil," like we do now, while heavily taxing them and getting money.

How the hell would you get this heroin prescription? You probably weren't suggesting they get it for pain, or any other legitimate cause. You were probably suggesting they just get it for fun. If you missed the bulletin, that's not what we have prescriptions for.

There is no reason to legalize crack cocaine or cocaine in general. Heroin might have some medical use, but shouldn't be available for purely recreational use. The negatives outweigh the positives.

If I wasn't tired, I could have found a hell of a lot more problems with your idiotic plan for a party than I did. Drugs are nothing to base a political party around. There is a hell of a lot more to government that just the legislation of drugs.

EDIT: Taxing drugs could be a very large source of income for the government, and that is the strongest point for legalization. Large corporations could produce them on such a massive scale that they would be extremely cheap to them, much cheaper than any street organization could make them simply due to the concept of wholesale discounts. Not to mention the fact that the drugs go from the corporation to the retailer, with no steps inbetween. Then the government would tax it (like cigarettes or liquor). Regardless, on a scale this large, a pack of joints could easily be the same as a pack of cigarettes. That's enough to put any street dealer out of business. How many people do you see selling cigarettes or bootleg alcohol?

As much as i like some of these policies, It wont work.

Natural selection.

I'm sure poor Jimmie's mommy n daddy will agree with you.

"don't do meth, do coke, its legal!"

if coke is more easily obtained, how do you expect to prevent the production of crack? outlaw baking soda?

meth production won't ever stop.

to summarize, you started out strong with the marijuana bit but there are some huge holes in the other policies.

Did you even read this back to yourself after typing it out?

The former Prime Minister of the UK, John Major (before Tony Blair), who served 2 terms, left school with 3 o-levels (really shitty) and didn't goto college. It's possible over here.

Oh.

My policies are not based purely on drugs. This is a small fraction of what I've wrote. I decided to post this section here because a lot of you guys here are more knowledgeable than me on the subject.

Alright.

I've got a whole bank of stats, so I'll beef this up a little.

Good idea.

Our current government already intrudes on our lives way too much: 40% of what most of us earn goes to the government. Going from weed being illegal, to weed being legal (yet with advertising constraints) is a huge step in the right direction.

Ideally there'd be no constraints on advertising, but the policies need to be introduced progressively. One of the weaknesses of just 'legalising drugs' is that voters uneducated on the arguments are going to assume that everyone will turn into "druggies" once the policy is introduced. By saying we'll limit advertising, we can make the point that we are not condoning drug usage and we don't want more people to start smoking weed .etc: we just want all the negative effects of drugs on our society to be minimised. This is more likely to appeal to the voter. It might be immoral to play the voters, but once we can get a foothold into government and change the electoral system, further changes can then come accordingly.

Point proven. I am hoping eventually you would wish to further remove the governments power.



My only concern is that it will lead to cannabis being available in supermarkets, which I'm not sure is a wise idea. I think a more suitable policy would be for outlets to apply for licenses to sell marijuana. Similar to current alcohol laws, and the policy which is in place in the Netherlands.

Liquor is available in supermarkets.



I thought about this one. I understand where you're coming from, but LSD is a much more powerful drug, and I think it'd be foolish to make it easily available to people: especially children. If I'm to introduce legalising drugs policies, then I'll need to ensure that there isn't a boom in irresponsible drug use, as the media and public will be all over me like a rash, and any progress made will have to be reversed.

Alright that makes sence.


Taxation will only serve the purpose of funding treatment for problem users, and will be kept at a minimum so that prices can be kept low: to stop some users having to resort to crime.

I think it needs to be taxed to an extent. The tax from drugs could be used to help the addicts, the poor, the roads etc.

W00t, Another Libertarian! Welcome to the third fuckin' party, man!

Edit: Well, I suppose, by your logic, you're not entirely Libertarian... more like a very liberal Democrat. Still, by the time you fix all the holes in your argument, I'm pretty sure I know where you'll be standing in politics.

I smoke pot, but in all honesty, I do not suport it's legalisation, neither ANY psycoactive substance without medical use(alcohol and nicotine)
Too many dumbasses on earth who all would try to eyebll DMT dose, and take way too much or the like.
Its not going to work.
its like locking 100 people in a room with stupid noob on meth+a AK-47.
people die.

People should take a class on whatever drug they want to try and if they pass, they get a liscense to buy said drug.
Idiots and LSD do not mix well in the long term.

People are probably inclined to know more about the dangers on something that becomes legal.

The former Prime Minister of the UK, John Major (before Tony Blair), who served 2 terms, left school with 3 o-levels (really shitty) and didn't goto college. It's possible over here.


Excellent point. I'd suggest getting involved in a major party, getting to know people, volunteering, sucking up etc. Politics and gonzo-journalism are the only two professions where lack of formal education actually act in your favour. And journalism sucks.

As regards drugs, logically you should move to make marijuana legal, to get all the stupid stoners on your side, and everything else illegal so you don't have to take the flack when assholes eat magic mushrooms and try to fly off the 12 floor of a hotel, etc etc..

Mushrooms, in their own way, can be just as powerful as LSD.

The government has a right to dictate what people do it private for the best interest of the people. Now, what they do for the best of the people is questionable. That said, a lot of the people don't know what's best for them, not to say the government does. But, a majority of people are stupid.

A lot of this has to do with the culture we live in:. people are being dumbed down. All it takes is an hour watching some of the bullshit shown to the children of today and it's easy to see how our youth is being negatively affected.

This whole mass-consumer culture isn't doing us any favours either.



Guess what will take more financial resources, treatment or imprisonment? Treatment, by far. Looking at this from a purely financial standpoint, clearly locking them up is the much better option. There is no argument there.

My argument is that currently, MASSES are being spent due to our drug policies.

Last year problem drug users cost our nation £16billion through processing them through the criminal justice system; the value of stuff stolen .etc

Also, these addicts are contributing nothing to the economy. When they're in jail there still going to be a burden on us.

Providing treatment for addicts, and allowing them access to substitute drugs such as methadone will cost no where near as much as the amount they are costing us already, and they can be gradually re-introduced into society.

And this will only be a relatively short term cost aswell, because after a period of 3 years or so, there's bound to be less problem users.

This would have to be done gradually.

That's the sad thing, and combined with the naivety of the public, the reason for why I'd be more successful changing. As people are saying, it'd definitely be more beneficial to start a movement to raise awareness about the drug argument so these changes can come more quickly.


If anything, marijuana should be legalized and controlled in the same manner as alcohol. That said, marijuana shouldn't be legalized. It would be impossible for the government to get a decent revenue from the sale of marijuana since it is so easy to grow. Unless, the private sale and manufactuing carried a heavy enough sentence to provide a good enough disincentive to stop people from doing it. In addition to that, it would make it socially acceptable, and therefore much more widely used. More potheads and we will get less work done...right? The entire American Dream is based on working hard to achieve your goals, we don't want the American populace to just say "fuck it" and smoke a bowl.

The whole economic system is an illusion. Think about it, we just work to buy useless throwaway shit, and in doing so we waste extremely vast amounts of resources. Even though I'd never mention this in public, it surely is more beneficial and sustainable for us to think 'fuck it' half the time and stop wasting the resources we have. The whole illusion of the economy only serves the purpose of keeping the bankers and governments in power, and keeps us working. If more people decided to use drugs and 'woke up' to these things, wealth and power will be distributed back to the people. I have a feeling I'll get ripped apart for ths because it's all theory, but it's plausible none the less.

The other argument is that people are doing drugs anyways. As long as we don't advocate their usage and try to educate people against their use, everything should be ok.

I'm too lazy to really scrutinize this one, but since ecstasy and LSD are so hard to make the black market could be near eliminated by greatly increasing penalties for private sale and manufacturing, and allowing it to be distributed by several large companies and taxed. It would be limited, and they could scan your drivers liscense or something to make sure you haven't had it already this month, or something like that. The idea is that it is very strictly controlled.

Pretty much what I believe. Though thanks for bringing up the point about increasing penalties for private sale.

Spending the tax money on dealing with the problems caused by ecstasy and LSD use is a dumb idea. You don't use the money you got from taxing drug users to help out the drug users. Then you are in the same place you were at the beginning, with no money and you have merely solved a problem that you created yourself.

Not just that, but to fund sound education programs in schools, and to help problem drug users in general.

I'm not sure how this brings us back to the beginning though. If manufacturers were subject to market conditions, then prices will be likely to fall, and that gap could be basically taxed: meaning prices would stay the same. If the drug problem gets too high, then taxes will go up and less people will be using them. If people are responsible, prices fall...

There is no reason to legalize cocaine. It's a terrible drug that has no reason for legalization. It has no potential for positive effect on the people. You could divert law enforcement to crack down on cocaine, but no doubt the increased availability and affordability of alternative (and legal) drugs would decrease the demand for cocaine. Users shouldn't be penalized that much, but there should be strict penalties for the smuggling and transporting of cocaine into the country.

I've changed my mind on coke. I didn't really have much of a clue about it before I seriously read up about it's damaging effects. I thought it was similar to ecstasy.

I agree with what you said, thanks.

Again, it's stupid to spend the tax money on anything related to drugs. You wouldn't need to spend that money if you hadn't created the problem by legalizing drugs in the first place. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just say that "drugs are the devil," like we do now, while heavily taxing them and getting money.

I believe that everything should be taxed in accordance to their negative social cost. So drug users will only be paying for their own problems, and the rest of the general taxpayers won't be affected. The policy will be based around legalising drugs but NOT advocating or promiting drugs, and efforts will be made to ensure that drug use doesn't rise. This will be done through education, strict licensing laws, age restrictions, ban on advertising and the removal of street dealers - who are the source of the 'gateway drug' problem.

How the hell would you get this heroin prescription? You probably weren't suggesting they get it for pain, or any other legitimate cause. You were probably suggesting they just get it for fun. If you missed the bulletin, that's not what we have prescriptions for.

Heroin addiction should be treated as a medical problem; not a criminal problem. Users should be able to goto the GP (doctor) and say they have a problem, and receive treatment accordingly.

This way only the current heroin users can get their hands on produce, and this number will inevitably go down after treatment, and new users won't have acess to the drug. Through users realising their problems and getting help (and through the policies on other drugs), there'll be less demand for the drug on the black market and use of the drug will eventually fade.

If I wasn't tired, I could have found a hell of a lot more problems with your idiotic plan for a party than I did. Drugs are nothing to base a political party around. There is a hell of a lot more to government that just the legislation of drugs.

I'm not basing my party on drugs. It's a party which is libertarian in nature, and I just want to make sure that I have sound policies in all areas.

I smoke pot, but in all honesty, I do not suport it's legalisation, neither ANY psycoactive substance without medical use(alcohol and nicotine)
Too many dumbasses on earth who all would try to eyebll DMT dose, and take way too much or the like.
Its not going to work.
its like locking 100 people in a room with stupid noob on meth+a AK-47.
people die.

Just because drugs become legal, it doesn't mean that everyone will start taking everything.

If you're a kid or someone who's never taken drugs, it's unlikely you're going to go out there and say "i want to take some DMT", it's likely that you'll start off on something weaker and work your way up through curiosity, or through dealers suggesting stuff or whatever. If it's through curiosity, then it's likely you're going to handle the drug and will have researched it, but if it's through your dealer - then this isn't as likely. The whole idea is to remove dealers from the chain to remove the gateway drug problem.

If you can limit the legal supply through licensing, then it's likely that only the current users of the drug will use it, and new users will find it very hard to get, and it'll most likely slip out of view of the public.

I'm a left-leaning libertarian. I believe in removing income taxes in favour of consumption based taxes, and that the government should only act to protect the people of dangers they can't defend themselves against.

Most people believe this just to be foreign armies, but in our imperfect world, I've extended this to entities such as big businesses, the mass media, certain damaging cultures .etc

The legalization of drugs will inevitably result in the destruction of drug community/culture via the over-commercialization and advertisement of common substances, like weed. A trip to the 7-11 down the street will replace chilling with your dealer and socializing with other users.

I agree with you that way too much of our money goes into funding this bullshit drug war, but I disagree with you on your standards for legalization. What we really need to do is cut the majority of the drug enforcement funding, starting with the bullshit propaganda, and stopping at an Oregon/Washington level of local police enforcement. If they find weed on you, they take it away and fine you.

All in all, a large chunk of my enjoyment of psychoactive substances is buying the stuff and interacting with the amazing people that constitute the culture. I also really don't care whether drugs are legal or not, I just hate paying for the fucking govt to tell me bullshit.

My argument is that currently, MASSES are being spent due to our drug policies.

Last year problem drug users cost our nation £16billion through processing them through the criminal justice system; the value of stuff stolen .etc

Also, these addicts are contributing nothing to the economy. When they're in jail there still going to be a burden on us.

Providing treatment for addicts, and allowing them access to substitute drugs such as methadone will cost no where near as much as the amount they are costing us already, and they can be gradually re-introduced into society.

Treatment is more expensive than imprisonment. From a financial standpoint, it is better to lock them up and throw away the key than to try to help them get back on their feet. Some drug addicts are drug addicts due to character flaws that will make them unhelpful to the workforce ever. Even if drugs didn't exist, they would still gamble, blow their money on prostitutes, or alcohol. You can cure an addiction to a substance, but that's treating the problem and not the cause. There is nothing you can do to fix a person's lack of self control. What you would see is the same people ending up in government funded rehab programs again and again.



The whole economic system is an illusion. Think about it, we just work to buy useless throwaway shit, and in doing so we waste extremely vast amounts of resources. Even though I'd never mention this in public, it surely is more beneficial and sustainable for us to think 'fuck it' half the time and stop wasting the resources we have. The whole illusion of the economy only serves the purpose of keeping the bankers and governments in power, and keeps us working. If more people decided to use drugs and 'woke up' to these things, wealth and power will be distributed back to the people. I have a feeling I'll get ripped apart for ths because it's all theory, but it's plausible none the less.

The other argument is that people are doing drugs anyways. As long as we don't advocate their usage and try to educate people against their use, everything should be ok.


So what? The economy works, just in the manner it is supposed to. People work to buy the things they want. They work making things other people want, which those people work to earn money to buy. How useful the things they want is irrelevant, because those things are still a goal to give them something to work for. It maintains order. If people "wake up" to your theory (taking for granted it is a legitimate point, which it really isn't) they wouldn't have anything to work for. Besides drugs, which are useless throwaway shit. The economy maintains order, bottom line.

"People already use drugs" is a stupid argument. That's like saying "fuck, people get raped. why don't we just say fuck it, and let them keep raping people?" Just because something happens doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything to prevent it. Drug propoganda works on a shocking amount of the population, not to mention the strong disincentive of prison time. These two things both keep the number of drug users far below what it would be otherwise. Drug use is prevalent among young people, but once you have a family and children, you would come to grasp the idea that the punishment for you picking up a bag of the devil's dandruff on saturday night isn't worth the chance of losing your wife and children for several years.


Not just that, but to fund sound education programs in schools, and to help problem drug users in general.

I'm not sure how this brings us back to the beginning though. If manufacturers were subject to market conditions, then prices will be likely to fall, and that gap could be basically taxed: meaning prices would stay the same. If the drug problem gets too high, then taxes will go up and less people will be using them. If people are responsible, prices fall...


Taxing of drugs could be a massive source of income for the government. If private companies manufacture the drugs, they could produce ecstasy pills for a penny on the dollar compared to black market prices. The government could tax a large amount on it, but still keep it well under the price that any private party could offer it for. The government wouldn't need any capital, since the companies would be making the drugs themselves. But, this money shouldn't be spent on anything related to drugs. Drugs aren't very important, and the government should spend the new income on many other things before drug education.


I believe that everything should be taxed in accordance to their negative social cost. So drug users will only be paying for their own problems, and the rest of the general taxpayers won't be affected. The policy will be based around legalising drugs but NOT advocating or promiting drugs, and efforts will be made to ensure that drug use doesn't rise. This will be done through education, strict licensing laws, age restrictions, ban on advertising and the removal of street dealers - who are the source of the 'gateway drug' problem.

Legalization or Decriminalization will increase usage of drugs. No doubt. This will lead people to believe that drugs are socially acceptable, and they will feel free to experiment and use them even if they wouldn't have before. They will be freely available to anyone, so even the people that couldn't get them before will have access to them. There is no penalty for the usage, there is nothing to lose by doing drugs. Don't give me any bullshit about "smoking weed and Amsterdam" or "Nevada and hookers" either.

^^^^^ SO WHY NOT FUCKING HAVE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TRY DRUGS TAKE A DAMN CLASS THAT WOULD EDUCATE THEM ON THE POSSIBLE LONG-TERM NEGATIVE EFFECTS AND JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO USE THEM RESPONSIBLY?

In the class, they would be examined based on behavioral traits, intelligence, healthiness, mental stability, and whatever the fuck else they need to be examined on.

Does that mean that maybe some of the people that pass would start selling their drugs to people that couldn't? Yes, but these people would still be inclined to get the license to be able to buy drugs, so they would take the course-learn all the negative effects, and then decide on their own if they're willing to buy from the people that do get the license.

The people that are supposedly (and I say supposedly because I think that's fucking bullshit.) doomed to live lives of addiction are already doomed to do so, so what difference does it make if drugs were LEGALIZED?

^^^^^ SO WHY NOT FUCKING HAVE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TRY DRUGS TAKE A DAMN CLASS THAT WOULD EDUCATE THEM ON THE POSSIBLE LONG-TERM NEGATIVE EFFECTS AND JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO USE THEM RESPONSIBLY?


I never said that was a bad idea, faggot, I think the same exact way.


In the class, they would be examined based on behavioral traits, intelligence, healthiness, mental stability, and whatever the fuck else they need to be examined on.


Intelligence should be a factor in determining if a person can use drugs or not? Are you retarded? Very inteligent people get mixed up in drugs and ruin their lives.

Healthiness? This would bar smokers from being able to get high?

Mental stability, ok now you are sounding a little bit smarter, but what you have to realize is:

THIS IS PREDJUDICE AND WOULDN'T BAR ANYONE, FUCKING ASSHOLE.


The classes should just teach people how to use drugs as safe as possible and be legit about it.



The people that are supposedly (and I say supposedly because I think that's fucking bullshit.) doomed to live lives of addiction are already doomed to do so, so what difference does it make if drugs were LEGALIZED?
[/quote]

Hmmm...maybe that most people wouldn't be doomed to addiction and do not need to be prosecuted for injesting chemicals while not doing damage to another person?

Dude, you are really, really dumb.

I never said that was a bad idea, faggot, I think the same exact way.



Intelligence should be a factor in determining if a person can use drugs or not? Are you retarded? Very inteligent people get mixed up in drugs and ruin their lives.

Healthiness? This would bar smokers from being able to get high?

Mental stability, ok now you are sounding a little bit smarter, but what you have to realize is:

THIS IS PREDJUDICE AND WOULDN'T BAR ANYONE, FUCKING ASSHOLE.


The classes should just teach people how to use drugs as safe as possible and be legit about it.





"Hmmm...maybe that most people wouldn't be doomed to addiction and do not need to be prosecuted for injesting chemicals while not doing damage to another person?"
When did I ever fucking say drugs would be illegal?

Dude, you are really, really dumb.[/QUOTE]
I'm too lazy to waste my time in an argument with someone who completely missed the point so I'll make this short:


"Intelligence should be a factor in determining if a person can use drugs or not? Are you retarded? Very inteligent people get mixed up in drugs and ruin their lives."


For drugs like acid and mushrooms, FUCK YES IT IS A MAJOR FACTOR. I didn't say ONLY people with genius level IQ's can try them, just people smart enough not to do more than they should and to actually listen to the shit that would be taught in the class.


Healthiness-I take this idea back, I was skeptical in writing this part down but I don't think that an unhealthy person should be doing drugs. What if someone with an undiagnosed heart disease were to do coke?


SO THEY FUCK WHAT IF IT'S PREJUDICE?!
life is fucking FILLED with prejudice and don't fucking tell me that you aren't prejudiced in one way or another.

And if they were legalized, it wouldn't make a difference because people STILL wouldn't get convicted of anything if they tried these drugs without the license.
The whole idea is harm REDUCTION, not prevention.
People are stupid, so there's never going to be prevention.

Dude, you are really really dumb. I gave a short summarized idea that you even said you liked, What, do you expect me to outline every goddamn procedure for my idea of a drug policy when I'm not even planning to run for any form of government whatsoever?

I never said there would be prosecution of anyone. It would just make it harder for people without a license to get them.

When did I ever fucking say drugs would be illegal?


so what difference does it make if drugs were LEGALIZED?


You are dumb as fuck dude. Jesus Christ GTFO.


For drugs like acid and mushrooms, FUCK YES IT IS A MAJOR FACTOR. I didn't say ONLY people with genius level IQ's can try them, just people smart enough not to do more than they should and to actually listen to the shit that would be taught in the class.

Yes, because IQ points determine whether or not a person will take 150mcgs or 700mcgs, right?

The class would obviously have to require some forms of tests, or exams.


Healthiness-I take this idea back, I was skeptical in writing this part down but I don't think that an unhealthy person should be doing drugs. What if someone with an undiagnosed heart disease were to do coke?

That is their buisness, not yours homie. Don't be a control freak, just let go and everything will be better.. The class would also teach them this when they went to get their prescription/licence, and they might reconsider if they should or should not use.


SO THEY FUCK WHAT IF IT'S PREJUDICE?!
life is fucking FILLED with prejudice and don't fucking tell me that you aren't prejudiced in one way or another.


I'm sorry, I will edit that. I was angry in the moment because you are really dumb/embarassing. I meant to say "That is predjudice and our leftist and socialistic society believes that everyone is equal and should be treated equally. This would not fly under our governement." I am very predjudice.



And if they were legalized, it wouldn't make a difference because people STILL wouldn't get convicted of anything if they tried these drugs without the license.
The whole idea is harm REDUCTION, not prevention.
People are stupid, so there's never going to be prevention.

You are almost there, boy, the classes will teach harm REDUCTION, not prevention.

If a person w/o a licence was caught w/ drugs, they could always be referred to the classes and just have their drugs confiscated. No point in arresting them. It is called decriminilization.


Dude, you are really really dumb.
I never said there would be prosecution of anyone. It would just make it harder for people without a license to get them.

I am dumb? LOL. Reread what you have wrote and my arguements to them. You lack all forms of logic and common sence. You have no critical thinking skills.

Why would it have to be harder for non licenced users to get a licence? That is retarded. If this bill were to be enacted, which it never will, EVERY DRUG USER WOULD ATTEMPT TO GET LICENCED!

You are dumb as fuck dude. Jesus Christ GTFO.


Yes, because IQ points determine whether or not a person will take 150mcgs or 700mcgs, right?

The class would obviously have to require some forms of tests, or exams.


That is their buisness, not yours homie. Don't be a control freak, just let go and everything will be better.. The class would also teach them this when they went to get their prescription/licence, and they might reconsider if they should or should not use.



I'm sorry, I will edit that. I was angry in the moment because you are really dumb/embarassing. I meant to say "That is predjudice and our leftist and socialistic society believes that everyone is equal and should be treated equally. This would not fly under our governement." I am very predjudice.



You are almost there, boy, the classes will teach harm REDUCTION, not prevention.

If a person w/o a licence was caught w/ drugs, they could always be referred to the classes and just have their drugs confiscated. No point in arresting them. It is called decriminilization.



I am dumb? LOL. Reread what you have wrote and my arguements to them. You lack all forms of logic and common sence. You have no critical thinking skills.

Why would it have to be harder for non licenced users to get a licence? That is retarded. If this bill were to be enacted, which it never will, EVERY DRUG USER WOULD ATTEMPT TO GET LICENCED!

Yup, you're an idiot.
It would be SLIGHTLY harder for people without the license because they would have to buy from dealers instead of clinics where the drugs are available.
In other words that means that the people with the license could put whatever price they want on the drug they'd sell to the person without the license. There's also the option of making them yourself---it wouldn't be illegal.
And yeah, that's the goddamn point. To get the users a license to buy the drugs in pure form at reasonable prices. That's the whole damn point of the class, to sift out the people that are too stupid to use drugs.

This is the stupidest argument I've ever been in. All you're doing is arguing things that I never said----things that you ASSUME I did.

In other words, so fucking what if you don't get the license?
You still wouldn't get arrested even if you didn't have it and got caught with drugs.

And I don't think anybody with half a brain would ingest an unknown amount of a substance. And in the class, you'd be taught how to NOT OD either way----and if you don't want to die you'll pay attention to that.

I never said it would happen, It's just what I believe the entire WORLDS policy on drugs should be based on. It is YOU who lacks the critical thinking to go into these details that I didn't type up.
Anyone else want to argue in the same manner as this guy?

Yup, you're an idiot.

HAHAH.

This pussy doesn't have any counter arguements to back up his "logic" and tries to defuse the situation by making insults.

Back it up, bitch.

BTW that tactic of arguing doesn't work. When you quote 5 counter arguements + additional retorts and just make an insult, it doesn't distract anyone who is reading from the fact that you have nothing intelligent to say.

Admiting that you are wrong or ignorant of a situation and that you were talking out of your ass is OK to do, it's not gay or doesn't make you less of a man or w/e the fuck your problem is.

Yup, you're an idiot.
It would be SLIGHTLY harder for people without the license because they would have to buy from dealers instead of clinics where the drugs are available.
In other words that means that the people with the license could put whatever price they want on the drug they'd sell to the person without the license. There's also the option of making them yourself---it wouldn't be illegal.
And yeah, that's the goddamn point. To get the users a license to buy the drugs in pure form at reasonable prices. That's the whole damn point of the class, to sift out the people that are too stupid to use drugs.

This is the stupidest argument I've ever been in. All you're doing is arguing things that I never said----things that you ASSUME I did.

In other words, so fucking what if you don't get the license?
You still wouldn't get arrested even if you didn't have it and got caught with drugs.

And I don't think anybody with half a brain would ingest an unknown amount of a substance. And in the class, you'd be taught how to NOT OD either way----and if you don't want to die you'll pay attention to that.

I never said it would happen, It's just what I believe the entire WORLDS policy on drugs should be based on. It is YOU who lacks the critical thinking to go into these details that I didn't type up.
Anyone else want to argue in the same manner as this guy?






22221
HAHAH.

This pussy doesn't have any counter arguements to back up his "logic" and tries to defuse the situation by making insults.

Back it up, bitch.

BTW that tactic of arguing doesn't work. When you quote 5 counter arguements + additional retorts and just make an insult, it doesn't distract anyone who is reading from the fact that you have nothing intelligent to say.

Admiting that you are wrong or ignorant of a situation and that you were talking out of your ass is OK to do, it's not gay or doesn't make you less of a man or w/e the fuck your problem is.

22221

You're so stupid, you just edited your post and included everything else in it, after I posted that^. Jesus. It just said that one line and NOTHING else. Faggot.

It would be SLIGHTLY harder for people without the license because they would have to buy from dealers instead of clinics where the drugs are available.

Their are always going to be some problems to all solution. It is about finding the lesser evil. This was your idea (the licence to get drugs) and you are now attacking that to attack me. BTW the classes wouldn't be hard or difficult. They would be well worth it to learn, buy pure drugs and use safetly instead of wishing to continue to buy shitty cut dope from "dealer."


In other words that means that the people with the license could put whatever price they want on the drug they'd sell to the person without the license.

Look above. They could also come in a pill form that could be formulated to be safe to snort and filter/shoot to dissuade this problem.


There's also the option of making them yourself---it wouldn't be illegal.


Manufacturing can be really dangerous and should be illegal for most people. Why do you think that legalizing drug use would make it ok to legalize drug manufacture? I could go into this moar about how certain people should be able to if they learn etc. I'm not going to it's not relevant.


This is the stupidest argument I've ever been in. All you're doing is arguing things that I never said----things that you ASSUME I did.

? What did I assume you said? Everything you denied me saying you said I simply quoted to prove you said it.


In other words, so fucking what if you don't get the license?
You still wouldn't get arrested even if you didn't have it and got caught with drugs.

I already said:

If a person w/o a licence was caught w/ drugs, they could always be referred to the classes and just have their drugs confiscated. No point in arresting them. It is called decriminilization.

...


And I don't think anybody with half a brain would ingest an unknown amount of a substance. And in the class, you'd be taught how to NOT OD either way----and if you don't want to die you'll pay attention to that.


...Wow you are a hypocrit, proved by:

For drugs like acid and mushrooms, FUCK YES IT IS A MAJOR FACTOR. I didn't say ONLY people with genius level IQ's can try them, just people smart enough not to do more than they should and to actually listen to the shit that would be taught in the class.


Is this where you came up w/ the idea of me assuming what you said? You are a hypocritical piece of shit and I'm trying to put your retarded sentences together to make any form of sence.


I never said it would happen, It's just what I believe the entire WORLDS policy on drugs should be based on. It is YOU who lacks the critical thinking to go into these details that I didn't type up.


I didn't say you said it would happen. It is you who is making the assumptions, tweaker.

I lack the critical thinking skills? Everything you have said has been stupid and full of hypocrocy. You claim to not "type up the details" because of some justification.

If you have details, present them. It is not like you have anything better to do, seeming that we have been discussing this for the past several hours. In all the time that you have posted these stupid ass points that just cross each other, you could have posted "details."

Cunt.

Aside from the fact that your counter arguments are full of fail, you do not even attempt to say anything about half my arguements. I bet you will have an excuse like "you are not worth my time nub" but sence you have been saying all that shit^ for the past several hours I totally doubt that and you would use that as an excuse to get out of it.

Maaan, I saw the amount of replies and thought I'd be coming back to some decent arguments about the legal status of drugs :(

If drugs are to be legalised, the most important thing is to ensure that most of the general public don't start taking them. The easiest way to do this is to limit supply in such a way that only current users of drugs will be more knowledgeable on where to find them. Things like internet retail, or selling only in certain licensed clubs/bars/cafes would be best. I don't think it's in the public interest for the drugs to be stocked in supermarkets or shops like alcohol.

I don't think it's in the public interest for the drugs to be stocked in supermarkets or shops like alcohol.

How can an individual truly comprehend "public interest", truly?

But thats a very broad subject. So lets assume someone truly can.

How then, does this person come to the conclusion that its not in the publics best interest to be able to legally and safely obtain the substances they already have interest in and are going to seek out either way, but alcohol of all things is? Or that it is at least tolerable?

Simply because society accepts it already? Societies have accepted cannibalism, slavery, dictatorships, violence, the list goes on. I am sure that most of the observant, thoughtful people concerned with the rest of society would agree that these things usually are considered to "be bad", like illegal drugs usually are, and even counter-productive to the development of an 'ideal' society.

Clearly, societies do not always know whats 'best' for themselves. I think our acceptance of drinking alcohol recreationally, while condemning drugs like weed and mushrooms, is just one more example of that.

It could be argued that it is in the publics best interest to ban alcohol completely. Its been argued before! It's been banned before! And now, like before, those people who maintain law and order need to realize that society can't always live up to some individuals ideal conception of what it should be. That whether the issue aids 'production' and 'progress' and 'development' or not, the people who make up this society like to get intoxicated now and then, for whatever reasons of their own.

Those people also need to realize that society wants a selection. They want to experiment, they want to try these other drugs, and they're going to attempt to get a hold of them ... whether they're in a store, or on the street.

Considering that, whats in the publics best interest? To knowingly force the users into harms way? To deprive the economy of these markets, and promote organized crime?

Or allow freedom of choice?