Ex minister calls for drug legalisation

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • Can you answer these questions then coyote, I'm interested how you would make drugs more dangerous, do you give grants to the gangs to adulterate their stock?


    The drugs gangs already make them dangerous;market forces drives them to adulterate their 'products'. Its for us to add danger by punishments and taking away some supports for recreational users.


    Of course that gets interesting because you cannot put everyone who uses drugs in prison simply because there isnt the space...so it begs the question what the ultimate sanction would be in order to make the danger great enough because if you take it far enough you create Matty's underclass.....and what impact will that be having a large underclass such as that in society. Will they then all turn to crime (probably) if they can no longer get a job because of a criminal record from their drug use.....


    Eventually it will almost certainly get to the point that society as we know it collapses under such strain....or:
    * we either create walled enclaves and the underclass are thrown out into exile
    * or we instigate a death sentence/ethnic cleansing to get rid of that underclass


    Of course you would say we could avoid that by legalising drugs and making them 'safe' for the individual to use.... My response to that is that its short-sighted because it ignores the social harm caused by drugs that I have highlighted.


    Quote


    I'm also interested in how you decide whate drugs become illegal and what drugs don't, are they made illegal if you can get enjoyment from them?



    They are illegal if they are risky for dissociating from reality. Asprin and paracetamol deal with physical symptoms, whilst MDMA creates a fake "lovey" sensation that is utterly divorced from reality.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • This is becoming ridiculous. It's not safe to drive while eating. That doesn't mean that eating is dangerous - it means that you shouldn't eat while driving.


    The food isnt inherently dangerous to driving (the practice of eating it is). The drugs are inherently dangerous because they ALL skew the perceptions.


    So what about taking drugs around children?

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Coyote ().

  • Quote

    MDMA creates a fake "lovey" sensation that is utterly divorced from reality.


    Lot's of people take MDMA when clubbing. The fact that the drug increases the connection you have to the music and heightens the experience does not say to me that the sensation is divorced from reality. It just makes the here and now that little bit more fun. However this is becoming pointless because I don't think you are interested in even beginning to consider what other people are telling you, even although they might have a different perspective on drugs and a better understanding of them. This is the problem with the question over Drugs, it all comes down to hysteria and ignorance and until that changes things will stay the same.

  • The food isnt inherently dangerous to driving (the practice eating of it is). The drugs are inherently dangerous because they ALL skew the perceptions.


    So what about taking drugs around children?


    Skewed perceptions are not, by default, dangerous.


    A lot of drugs have the potential to be harmful to children in a way they simply aren't to adults. You also need to consider the fact that if drugs change the way you act around your children it could make them feel insecure. I used to get freaked when my dad was drunk because he was different. While drugs might not be a good idea around kids that doesn't mean that they are highly dangerous to adults.


  • So your method of avoiding the presumed social harm of legalising something that is already everywhere is to either put half the population in ghettoes or kill them off, don't you think your policies might create just a tad more social harm?



    Quote


    They are illegal if they are risky for dissociating from reality. Asprin and paracetamol deal with physical symptoms, whilst MDMA creates a fake "lovey" sensation that is utterly divorced from reality.


    Mdma has recognised therapeutic value, and is much safer than Aspirin and Paracetamol, it does not divorce you from reality, it is not a disassociative substance, but of course you get your facts about drugs from somewhere other than real life, they haven't destroyed society in the last few millenia so why should they now, it is the prohibition that causes the social problems.

  • Skewed perceptions are not, by default, dangerous.


    Of course they are; anything which obscures reality is dangerous because it impares judgement.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • The food isnt inherently dangerous to driving (the practice of eating it is). The drugs are inherently dangerous because they ALL skew the perceptions.

    Are you serious? Many things "skew the perceptions" without being inherently dangerous. Bloody hell mate... you really don't have the first clue about drugs, do you?


    Quote

    So what about taking drugs around children?

    That would depend entirely on the drug and the situation.

  • So your method of avoiding the presumed social harm of legalising something that is already everywhere is to either put half the population in ghettoes or kill them off, don't you think your policies might create just a tad more social harm?


    No. My prefered method is change in society's environment and values, but failing that I cannot see where continuing criminalisation will go except to either exile, ghettos or ethnic cleansing.


    Do I think the latter (exile, ghettos or ethnic cleansing) will create more social harm than legalising drugs? Actually, no I dont. That's is how damaging I see these substances as being, especially in a society such as ours; we cant even handle fatty food and a credit card safely....

    Quote

    Mdma has recognised therapeutic value, and is much safer than Aspirin and Paracetamol, it does not divorce you from reality, it is not a disassociative substance, but of course you get your facts about drugs from somewhere other than real life, they haven't destroyed society in the last few millenia so why should they now, it is the prohibition that causes the social problems.



    MDMA has recognised therapeutic value in a psychaitric medical establishment that likes to hand out pills, and of course it disassociates from reality because it puts up a screening fantasy that bares no resemblence to reality.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • You're incapable of objectivity. It's quite incredible. Are you suggesting a glass of wine is dangerous?



    Yes, a glass of wine IS dangerous. Its a psychoactive and addictive substance and should be treated with a great deal of caution, most especially in a society like ours.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Of course they are; anything which obscures reality is dangerous because it impares judgement.


    Judgement of what? If your driving don't use drugs but if your sitting in the house in a controlled environment that's different. You don't need absolutely perfect judgement and I'd question whether our judgement is ever entirely unimpaired. Regardless even if something does give you a different reality that can be an exciting experience without being harmful. When someone is having an operation we use drugs to limit the pain, which is masking the reality of how sore it would be without the drugs. I don't see what is bad about also using drugs to let us experience a skewed version of reality. It's not that big a deal.

  • Of course they are; anything which obscures reality is dangerous because it impares judgement.


    Judgement of what? If your driving don't use drugs but if your sitting in the house in a controlled environment that's different. You don't need absolutely perfect judgement and I'd question whether our judgement is ever entirely unimpaired. Regardless even if something does give you a different reality that can be an exciting experience without being harmful. When someone is having an operation we use drugs to limit the pain, which is masking the reality of how sore it would be without the drugs. I don't see what is bad about also using drugs to let us experience a skewed version of reality. It's not that big a deal.

  • Judgement of what? If your driving don't use drugs but if your sitting in the house in a controlled environment that's different.


    Laboratory conditions do not exist, even in a laboratory. You can be sitting in your house, taking said substance and then under its influence decide to go out after all. :S Even if you are locked in a room for the duration of using it, it being a psychoactive substance will mean its still effecting your mind.


    Quote

    You don't need absolutely perfect judgement and I'd question whether our judgement is ever entirely unimpaired.


    Perfect judgement doesnt exist. The whole point of drugs is though that they DO noticably affect our perception and judgement; if they didnt, nobody would bother taking them. :S


    Quote

    Regardless even if something does give you a different reality that can be an exciting experience without being harmful.


    It isnt a "different reality". Its a fantasy. A fake. The experiences you are getting are not related to the wider real world. They are created by the drug.


    Quote

    When someone is having an operation we use drugs to limit the pain, which is masking the reality of how sore it would be without the drugs. I don't see what is bad about also using drugs to let us experience a skewed version of reality. It's not that big a deal.



    Are you suggesting that real everyday life is comparable to a painful medical procedure?! :eek: If you are, that mean the drug us is medication and not recreation and brings up whole new HUGE questions on the usage.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Of course they are; anything which obscures reality is dangerous because it impares judgement.


    Hmmm so you yourself could be said to have impaired judgement (on this issue specifically) as your 'thinking' is biased by your own skewered perception... A skewered perction that does increase the risks associated with drug taking. Or does this only apply to people who take substances that you think are highly dangerous?

  • Hmmm so you yourself could be said to have impaired judgement (on this issue specifically) as your 'thinking' is biased by your own skewered perception... or does this only apply to people who take substances that you think are highly dangerous?



    What do you think? :whistle:
    Link

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • It's not market forces, it's greed, which isn't quite the same.



    Market forces tend to operate around maximising profit, so I'll be disagreeing with you there ;)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Assuming for a moment that you are correct (when you say that "given the opportunity that most people behave responsibly when those behavioural controls are relaxed"), why do you think they do so? Are you not saying, essentially, that the more dangerous the situation is, the more cautious people are?


    In the face of danger (not risk) people are naturally (though the process of evolution; protecting the chances of our species survival) more inclined to act in manner that is responsible to keep themselves (and also people around them; we are social mammals after all) safe. I am not saying for one instant that dangerous situations (or potentially dangerous) should me made more so... :screwy:... what I am saying is that divorcing people from their natural urges is what makes certain behaviours more dangerous; as it diffuses responsibility. So no I am not arguing that we 'need more danger'... we need more responsibility to be able to act in ways that are beneficial to ourselves and our social group. But I am repeating myself.., I have already said this (albeit it in different ways) many many times on this thread.


    Quote from Coyote

    Quite simply, the latter is responding to an actual change in the world whilst the former is not. The latter is a relationship with the world, whilst the former is purely about an experience that bares no relation to wider reality.


    And what evidence have you based this theory on... because as someone who has actually experienced the affects of drugs; as well as read medical reports on the affects of drugs... I personally think that the above statement is so far from reality that it is almost laughable...


    Quote from Coyote

    What concerns me is people living on illusions that are not relating to the reality of the wider world around them.


    But that is what people do with a wide variety of things... including inter-personal relationships, food, gambling... and a whole range of behaviours. If you take the question of legality out of the picture you can see that on an neuro-chemical level there is no difference between drug taking or being in love.


    Quote from Coyote

    Which brings me back to the point I raised a while back. What do you think of my idea that drug use (including medical psychoative use) is a strange variation on Stoicism? A Stoic being, for those who dont know, someone who seeks to remake "his will to suit the world and remain, in the words of Epictetus, "sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy,""(Source). I say "strange" because where the Stoic seeks to do this by bringing his will into line with reality, whilst the drug user seeks to bring their will into line with a fantasy that they hope and wish were true but do not believe it (hence needing to force the issue with a drug.


    To be honest Lee I don't think I could argue for or against... you seem to be thinking in a quite dualistic way on this matter; as a result you are totally unwilling to accept that yes for some people your statement may be applicable; for others not. You really do need to stop thinking in such black and white terms on this matter; as well as going away and actually learning about these substances you claim to know so much about. Because as it stands at present I agree with Atomik; you are showing that (on this subject) you are ignorant and prejudiced. And it is this kind of thinking that is stopping our society from dealing with the issues that drug taking poses. :shrug:

  • No. My prefered method is change in society's environment and values, but failing that I cannot see where continuing criminalisation will go except to either exile, ghettos or ethnic cleansing.


    Do I think the latter (exile, ghettos or ethnic cleansing) will create more social harm than legalising drugs? Actually, no I dont. That's is how damaging I see these substances as being, especially in a society such as ours; we cant even handle fatty food and a credit card safely....


    This statement just shows that you really are out of touch with reality.

    Quote

    MDMA has recognised therapeutic value in a psychaitric medical establishment that likes to hand out pills, and of course it disassociates from reality because it puts up a screening fantasy that bares no resemblence to reality.

    When I take MDMA I still know right from wrong, I still know the effects of gravity, I can still recite the alphabet, I still know that a gun can shoot you, I still know what day it is, etc etc. what aspects of reality am i removed from? tthe fact that I can do all these things on MDMA with a smile on my face and feeling good about the world is hardly a danger to society.

  • I'll respond to Tekno in a bit; I need lunch before digging into another essay ;)


    This statement just shows that you really are out of touch with reality.
    When I take MDMA I still know right from wrong, I still know the effects of gravity, I can still recite the alphabet, I still know that a gun can shoot you, I still know what day it is, etc etc. what aspects of reality am i removed from? tthe fact that I can do all these things on MDMA with a smile on my face and feeling good about the world is hardly a danger to society.



    And all the people taking it think they love each other and the world loves them. Which they dont, and it dont. Its a fantasy. An illusion. A delusion. When the effect of the pill wears off you'll give as much of a damn about them as you did before hand.


    That isnt therapeutic unless you want to live in a NewAgeEsque fantasy world. :S Just like Marx called religion the opiate of the masses, you are promoting the opiates to be the religion of the masses. Instead of pie in the sky when you die, it's pie in the sky before you die. Nothing to do with responsibility to the wider group-self and all about getting the experience for the personal-self. Pharmacological Thatcherism.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Coyote: correcting language ().

  • What do you think? :whistle:
    Link



    That you are willing to shift the goal-posts of your argument... Firstly alcohol (even in this society) is not that dangerous... but still dangerous enough to warrant putting the price up so less people could get access to it. But still alcohol would seem like less of a beast if drugs were made legal. Now you are saying that alcohol is 'a psychoactive and addictive substance and should be treated with a great deal of caution, most especially in a society like ours.'... I asked you ages ago to explain (based on facts not conjecture) to explain then why certain other psychoactive and [potentially... you see you were again showing biased thinking by not acknowledging that fact] addictive substances should remain illegal? We both know that it a small proportion of people (statistically speaking) that find it hard to be responsible with alcohol; and that the majority of young people who drink heavily stop doing so later on in their live... so why are people not to be trusted to do the same with drugs... You are bound to say because of the inherent dangers [which gain highlights your biased thinking; as most people would define drug taking as a risky behaviour; yes it may be semantics but find me an example of what isen't semantics; there is a difference between risk and danger] associated with the affects of being divorced from reality [yet another fine example of biased thinking; as I said earlier go and educate yourself about the real affects of each drug you think is dangerous]...

  • What is the point of listening/dancing to music that needs chemical enhancement to make it seem interesting?


    You don't need the chemical enhancement and you can think the music is amazing without the drugs but if you take drugs you can heighten your experience. Using anything other than drugs to enhance experience and no one would blink an eye. We do it all the time.

  • The contact high of MDMA is well known, the empathic effects wear off but while there they are real, your brain releases natural chemicals to cause this effect so how is it not real? because it is transitory? The after effects of feeling this empathy to your fellow man does indeed promote responsibility to the wider group self, it's well known that past ecstacy users are less aggressive than non users, ecstacy use was responsible for the decline of football violence in the 80's.

  • The contact high of MDMA is well known, the empathic effects wear off but while there they are real, your brain releases natural chemicals to cause this effect so how is it not real? because it is transitory?


    If someone is hypnotised into believing they are in love with you, are they? Or is it an illusion.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Yes, a glass of wine IS dangerous. Its a psychoactive and addictive substance and should be treated with a great deal of caution, most especially in a society like ours.


    At last we agree, but is it more or less dangerous than a spliff?Apart form the fact one is illegal and the other isn't?
    Do you drink in front of people under18?

  • At last we agree, but is it more or less dangerous than a spliff?Apart form the fact one is illegal and the other isn't?


    I consider them to be comparable...hence supporting decrim-ing plain old weed.
    Note, I do NOT mean skunk.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • I consider them to be comparable...hence supporting decrim-ing plain old weed.
    Note, I do NOT mean skunk.


    But what about Absynth, vodka and all, surely they are as dangerous as skunk, especially in the quantities that they are supplied in?
    And as I edited this post, I'll ask the question again, do you drink in front of under 18's