Crosswords0 min ago
Drugs Legalisation
19 Answers
No lins just an Idea.
I have never tried anything illegal but have looked into what each one does. Suppose we could legalise the drugs and create a new revenue stream for the government. Which ones would be legalised and which shouldnt?
i'll start with legalise
cannabis
ecstacy
mushrooms
illegal
heroin
Cocaine
any other ideas?
I have never tried anything illegal but have looked into what each one does. Suppose we could legalise the drugs and create a new revenue stream for the government. Which ones would be legalised and which shouldnt?
i'll start with legalise
cannabis
ecstacy
mushrooms
illegal
heroin
Cocaine
any other ideas?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sherminator. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
What's your criteria?
If it's harm then alcohol and tobacco should probably be in the illegal category.
They aren't because of the historical nature of them and how widespread their use is.
It's this widespread (ab)use of canabis which is one argument for its legalisation or at least decriminalisation.
Personally I think the ideal world solution would be rationing of harmful drugs (including alcohol) but I think it's totally impractical
If it's harm then alcohol and tobacco should probably be in the illegal category.
They aren't because of the historical nature of them and how widespread their use is.
It's this widespread (ab)use of canabis which is one argument for its legalisation or at least decriminalisation.
Personally I think the ideal world solution would be rationing of harmful drugs (including alcohol) but I think it's totally impractical
-- answer removed --
Banning things is definitely the way to go. Luckily for us, now that heroin, crack, speed, ecstasy, cannabis, cocaine, etc. are illegal, no one takes these substances anymore and society is all the better for it.
We should also ban alcohol. They tried that in the USA in 1920 and it was a triumph. Bizarrely, following the unmitigated success that was prohibition, the USA then made alcohol legal again in 1933! Colonial buffoons!
Banning things that are deemed harmful to society and individuals is always the way to go. By doing so, you reduce public demand and since there is no demand, criminals lose their revenue streams. Once the criminal's income is cut off, they resort to doing unpaid charity work or find legitimately paid legal work instead.
It's a no brainer!
We should also ban alcohol. They tried that in the USA in 1920 and it was a triumph. Bizarrely, following the unmitigated success that was prohibition, the USA then made alcohol legal again in 1933! Colonial buffoons!
Banning things that are deemed harmful to society and individuals is always the way to go. By doing so, you reduce public demand and since there is no demand, criminals lose their revenue streams. Once the criminal's income is cut off, they resort to doing unpaid charity work or find legitimately paid legal work instead.
It's a no brainer!
On a serious note, this question is relevant to a news item today – namely the sacking of Professor David Nutt...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm
This guy had the temerity to use his professional expertise and knowledge of drug use and abuse to suggest that drugs such as cannabis (and some others) aren't quite as scary and frightening and dangerous as certain politicians and pressure groups would have us believe.
God forbid that politicians should resort to listening to people who actually have training and experience in matters of science.
Yet another example of politicians who do not understand science and are fearful of it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm
This guy had the temerity to use his professional expertise and knowledge of drug use and abuse to suggest that drugs such as cannabis (and some others) aren't quite as scary and frightening and dangerous as certain politicians and pressure groups would have us believe.
God forbid that politicians should resort to listening to people who actually have training and experience in matters of science.
Yet another example of politicians who do not understand science and are fearful of it.
AOG....I just have the feeling that there may well be many more on the Committee who will resign in support.
What is the point in clinical trials and exhaustive research if your findings are not only ignored, but cause you to lose your job.
If I was Professor David Nutt, I would go and work for an American Phamaceutical.
What is the point in clinical trials and exhaustive research if your findings are not only ignored, but cause you to lose your job.
If I was Professor David Nutt, I would go and work for an American Phamaceutical.
Jake my Crieria....is based on personal opinion because I dont mind alcohol but recognise in comparison its very dangerous to say ecstasy and mushrooms so am just seeing what other peoples opinions are.
I suppose forgetting alcohol and cigarettes I would say my opinion is baed on how strong the drugs are and how addictive they are.
I suppose forgetting alcohol and cigarettes I would say my opinion is baed on how strong the drugs are and how addictive they are.
-- answer removed --
Tamborine you missed my point entirely! Your grand kids will very likely try alcohol and the professor has said its much mroe dangerous than ecstacy. So which would you prefer your child to try? (bearing in mind they will try something!!)
And incidentally The amount of peoples lives that have beeen ruined by ecstasy is so low its prob less than terrorism!
And incidentally The amount of peoples lives that have beeen ruined by ecstasy is so low its prob less than terrorism!
1 to 19 of 19
