11–20 of 376 posts
I ask because, unless there is, I'm afraid I do not understand why it would be rational to do so...
It really is a difficult problem. Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster. On the other hand, enforcement only has a moderate impact, but comes at a huge financial and social cost. And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Maybe the grim reality is hanging a few hundred…
Drug users should be left alone and drug abusers should have access to treatment.
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...
Source: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-...
It really is a difficult problem. Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster. On the other hand, enforcement only has a moderate impact, but comes at a huge financial and social cost. And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Maybe the grim reality is hanging a few hundred…
But - hey, might be worth executing anybody who uses drugs to see what happens. But I hope you're going to start with the really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine before you start looking at the less harmful ones such as cannabis.
It really is a difficult problem. Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster. On the other hand, enforcement only has a moderate impact, but comes at a huge financial and social cost. And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Maybe the grim reality is hanging a few hundred…
I can't find any source for this. What I can find is information about legal prescription from '65 to '67 to a limited number of addicts, who were able to get sufficient doses that they in effect became a source of drugs for drug dealers.
So they continued to have the same problem of dealers, but with substantially increased supply.
Note that many countries today have legal prescription of proscribed drugs to addicts. Prescription of heroin is legal in the UK, for example (and, in fact, it is not only prescribed to addicts, but also used for post-op pain management in hospitals), without the problems Sweden ran into, because the amounts are strictly controlled.
It seemed the Swedish government managed to get the worst of both worlds by continuing to fight drugs while turning themselves into a cheaper, safer source for dealers.
Is there evidence to show that legalizing drugs (I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones) won't significantly increase their consumption? I ask because, unless there is, I'm afraid I do not understand why it would be rational to do so...
Take for example Portugal: Almost 1% of the population was addicted to heroin a couple of years ago, as the country moved away form a dictatorship and found freedom (also coming from a colonial war). With decriminalisation, and by treating addicts as patients, instead of criminals, the panorama improved greatly.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...
It really is a difficult problem. Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster. On the other hand, enforcement only has a moderate impact, but comes at a huge financial and social cost. And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Maybe the grim reality is hanging a few hundred…
Even if hanging drug users is effective, it certainly isn't a conscionable solution. However, I really don't believe that would work anyway. Drug users should be left alone and drug abusers should have access to treatment.
It misses the fundamental point, which is that the goal isn't - or shouldn't be - a drug free society. But to reduce harm. Including to the drug users.
Accepting that ruining drug users - addicts or not - lives doesn't reduce harm needs to be the first step, because we seem all too willing to lock them up and ensure their prospects of making a living in any other way than through crime is removed, without considering that these people are also part of the community we are supposedly trying to save from harm.
It really is a difficult problem. Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster. On the other hand, enforcement only has a moderate impact, but comes at a huge financial and social cost. And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Maybe the grim reality is hanging a few hundred…
Singapore is somewhat unique in that it's a country with very restricted freedoms, which have been given up in exchange for security/safety. It's extraordinarily rule-bound, and, in many ways, is the antithesis of the United States, in which freedoms reign. In such a structured, government controlled and monitored society, all sorts of rules can be laid down, and enforced through strict punishment. I wouldn't try and…
Is there evidence to show that legalizing drugs (I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones) won't significantly increase their consumption? I ask because, unless there is, I'm afraid I do not understand why it would be rational to do so...
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-...
Can you ban math(s)?