Hm.... yes not much happened today. I went out.

Um... ooh I promised a legalisation of drugs argument. Here y'are kids...

Okay before I write this, here's my little disclaimer:

I do not condone or aprove of drug use and this argument in no way encourages anybody to risk the perils of trying drugs.

Alright here we go.

Okay it's really a bit crap. It's an argument I already wrote as a template for arguing and I haven't bothered to improve it because I just use the points on it for the argument. I haven't read it in a long while either.

The point of view that drugs should be legalised is often dismissed as something that only drug users would be ridiculous enough to maintain, however I am of the opinion that to throw out the argument without considering it would be increadibly narrow minded.

It is most commonly just dismissed as plain stupid because people have not thought about it, and do not realise what benefits this would actually have on society and even the economy. I plan to discuss these benefits, specifically in the case of Opiates (that's heroin, methadone and opium, etc)

Before I begin writing I would just like to state that I in no way endorse the use of these drugs, and do agree that they are not good for you. Accepting this, read on.

The first point that I will make is that Heroin does not make you behave irrationally. People behave irrationally so that they can get hold of it once they have become addicted.

How would legalising it solve this problem? Well, if Heroin were legalised it would become cheaper. This is because it would not be on the black market, therefore dealers would not be trying to feed a habit of their own, so it could be sold for much less money. This would mean that less heroin addicts would lose other parts of their lives due to the drug, and if taxed this would make money for the economy.

As it is there is an endless cycle. A user gets addicted to Heroin, and (s)he can�t pay for her/his habit, so (s)he becomes a dealer. (S)he sells Heroin to other people to pay for it. Some of those people become dealers, they sell it to more people, and some of those people become dealers. More and more people get addicted, and become dealers, and the cycle will not stop until drugs are legalised, meaning that there is no further need for dealers. The people selling the drugs will not addicts themselves, but trained professionals. If something is not done about this problem, the entire population will end up addicted to heroin

My second reason is the way in which people would purchase drugs. They would not be offered drugs on the street. This means that they would not (mistakenly) think that this will be their last chance to do heroin and just buy it, unwilling to take the risk. They will have time to think it over.

Another reason is a prime example of why young people get into drugs � it�s illegal. So many ridiculously stupid teenagers get a thrill out of doing something that they are not supposed to be doing. In short � it�s cool to be bad. Were drugs legalised they would not necessarily be considered as rebellious (stupid still, but not as rebellious), they would be demoted in the minds of teenagers to something less interesting, and would not be touched.

I really do not believe that the law stops people from taking drugs. I think that what prevents people from taking drugs is the fact that people know they are stupid. They do not know this because they're illegal, they know this from other sources, and from their own common sense.

My next reason may sound a little harsh, but if people are stupid enough to do drugs, that is their decision � let them be. If they want help then it should be provided, and they by no means should be encouraged to do drugs, but I frankly think that there are more important people to worry about who did not ask for their lives to be messed up.

Furthermore, deaths are rising as a result of bad drug deals. It is not unheard of for a user or dealer to get stabbed in pure desperation for the drug. The environment that, if I were in charge, I would allow drugs to be done in is actually already being experimented with in Australia. People go into centres, they�re given clean needles and sterile equipment, and they have a clean and sterile cubicle to inject the drugs in, dramatically reducing the risk of contracting aids. Then they have a waiting room area where the addicts sit until they�re ready to leave. While they are there, trained staff talk to them about their problems and try to help them out. For instance, if the addict hasn�t got a place to live, that is sorted out for them, or if they don�t know anywhere to get help, information about that is given to them. Also there are medical staff on hand the whole time, in case of overdose. The only complaint that locals have is that it�s attracting dealers to the area. This however, would not be a problem if the heroin were sold inside the centres.

Now obviously users aren�t going to want to do drugs in such places. They want to be out doing it with their friends. This is good. Because the centres would be the only place they could do them. Drugs would be sold cheaper in these centres (because there would be more in the country and dealers wouldn�t be putting prices up to pay for their own habits) and the black market would be put out of business. The users would not be allowed to bring drugs into or take drugs out of these centres.

A major importance in all of this is money. The drugs could be sold cheaper for previously explained reasons. This would dramatically decrease crime and violence. Crime doesn�t happen when people have been getting high. It happens when people don�t have money to get the drug, so they go round mugging old ladies, selling their bodies (again spreading HIV) and shoplifting. I�ll also take this opportunity to point out that Heroin doesn�t make people violent at all when they�re high, it offers a feeling of happiness and relaxation, unlike alcohol which does cause violence (and tastes disgusting)

Of course this would all have to be paid for (not that that is a major importance) and in the short term, yes, it would come out of the peoples taxes. However, the amount that we�re already spending on a police service that we wouldn�t need so much of if it weren�t for drug related crime easily outweighs that. Plus if there was a tax (small) on drugs this would also bring in more money.

Just because you let less drugs into a country does not mean that less people are going to be addicted. Unless the government can stop every single speck of drugs entering the country, they will get sold on the street. The less drugs that enter the country, the higher the prices will be, increasing the amount of crime, and the more rubbish the dealers will mix in with it (flour, sugar, salt, rat poison) to make it go further, increasing the amount of deaths. Not only will people die directly as a result of the stuff in the drugs (which are actually worse than the drug itself) but also will get used to an impure version of the drug, will begin taking higher doses to get more of the actual drug, then sooner or later they will encounter a pure version, and they will overdose and die. If the government were controlling it, this wouldn�t happen (assuming you trust the government)

In conclusion; Less people would get addicted due to an end to the users becoming dealers cycle, due to an end to people having to decide there and then whether they are going to do drugs, and thirdly because half of the thrill of doing drugs is it being illegal. Also drugs would be cheaper due to dealers not having to pay for their own habits, cleaner, reducing risk of dying from whatever�s in them being put into their blood stream, and the needles would be clean reducing risk of HIV. They would also be cheaper, thus reducing crime and violence, and less famous people would take drugs (because it would be bad publicity to be seen in a centre doing them) allowing the great musicians who are still alive to continue to make this great music.

------------------------------

I know the style's a bit (okay, very) crap, all that "the fifth reason" bollocks at the begining of every paragraph. I'll try to improve it later maybe. Or maybe I'll just write a new one. I ought to start afresh from the looks of that.

---Later Comments On Entry--- 20/08/03 I know that's awful. I do much better if actually arguing with someone. And I'd probably do a lot better to just re-write the thing from scratch. But hey if you do feel like arguing with me my msn address is [email protected]>