Dublin GAA star calls for drugs to be decriminalised
Connla Young
15 February, 2016 01:00
Dublin GAA star Philly McMahon has called for the use of drugs like heroin to be decriminalised.
The double All-Ireland winner, whose brother John died after a battle with drugs in 2012, also appealed for society not to isolate those who struggle with addiction.
The tough-tackling defender from Ballymun in north Dublin spoke about the impact of drugs on his family during an interview on RTE's Late Late Show on Friday.
Last week Mr McMahon called for drugs to be decriminalised and for tax proceeds to be put into recovery programmes.
"I think the majority of people are uneducated about addicts," he said.
"If you fell and broke your leg tomorrow and went to the hospital we'd get pure heroin, believe it or not - you get diamorphine, it's pure heroin.
"The heroin you buy in the street is actually diluted down a lot, so a lot of people would probably think if I take heroin today I am going to be hooked and believe it or not it's the social hooks that addicts - addicts will be on drugs from the social hooks, it's not from the chemical hooks in the drugs."
He said more can be done to help those with addictions.
"It's just getting our heads around when you see addicts in the street, it's important we don't push them away from society."
15 February, 2016 01:00
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2016/02/15/news/dublin-gaa-star-calls-for-drugs-to-be-decriminalised-417627/
He is biased in his opinion obviously but if they river get around to legalizing any of that illegal shot I day legalize it all and tax the shit out of it, regulate the quality and stick the profits into rehab centers.
He makes an excellent point. And prohibition has been a disaster.
Quote from: MoChara on February 15, 2016, 12:42:57 PM
Dublin GAA star calls for drugs to be decriminalised
Connla Young
15 February, 2016 01:00
Dublin GAA star Philly McMahon has called for the use of drugs like heroin to be decriminalised.
The double All-Ireland winner, whose brother John died after a battle with drugs in 2012, also appealed for society not to isolate those who struggle with addiction.
The tough-tackling defender from Ballymun in north Dublin spoke about the impact of drugs on his family during an interview on RTE's Late Late Show on Friday.
Last week Mr McMahon called for drugs to be decriminalised and for tax proceeds to be put into recovery programmes.
"I think the majority of people are uneducated about addicts," he said.
"If you fell and broke your leg tomorrow and went to the hospital we'd get pure heroin, believe it or not - you get diamorphine, it's pure heroin.
"The heroin you buy in the street is actually diluted down a lot, so a lot of people would probably think if I take heroin today I am going to be hooked and believe it or not it's the social hooks that addicts - addicts will be on drugs from the social hooks, it's not from the chemical hooks in the drugs."
He said more can be done to help those with addictions.
"It's just getting our heads around when you see addicts in the street, it's important we don't push them away from society."
I didn't see the interview but very well spoken by Philly, not necessarily very well expressed. Not wishing to speak for Philly but I think if he had a more relaxed situation he would be explaining that a person doesn't get hooked to pure heroin as is prescribed in hospitals.
What Philly is saying is that clean heroin does not have a physical hook, otherwise your granny in for hip replacement
would be coming out of hospital a heroin junkie. If you use clean heroin twice a day for 3 weeks you won't turn into a junkie . The actual addiction to the substance is a different chemical issue and a wider social issue.
And it is a nonsense to criminalise, stigmatise and dishonour the drug addict. It has never worked anywhere and never will.
Keep it up Philly, speak up on behalf your lost brother.
Quote from: Main Street on February 15, 2016, 11:33:13 PM
Quote from: MoChara on February 15, 2016, 12:42:57 PM
Dublin GAA star calls for drugs to be decriminalised
Connla Young
15 February, 2016 01:00
Dublin GAA star Philly McMahon has called for the use of drugs like heroin to be decriminalised.
The double All-Ireland winner, whose brother John died after a battle with drugs in 2012, also appealed for society not to isolate those who struggle with addiction.
The tough-tackling defender from Ballymun in north Dublin spoke about the impact of drugs on his family during an interview on RTE's Late Late Show on Friday.
Last week Mr McMahon called for drugs to be decriminalised and for tax proceeds to be put into recovery programmes.
"I think the majority of people are uneducated about addicts," he said.
"If you fell and broke your leg tomorrow and went to the hospital we'd get pure heroin, believe it or not - you get diamorphine, it's pure heroin.
"The heroin you buy in the street is actually diluted down a lot, so a lot of people would probably think if I take heroin today I am going to be hooked and believe it or not it's the social hooks that addicts - addicts will be on drugs from the social hooks, it's not from the chemical hooks in the drugs."
He said more can be done to help those with addictions.
"It's just getting our heads around when you see addicts in the street, it's important we don't push them away from society."
I didn't see the interview but very well spoken by Philly, not necessarily very well expressed. Not wishing to speak for Philly but I think if he had a more relaxed situation he would be explaining that a person doesn't get hooked to pure heroin as is prescribed in hospitals.
What Philly is saying is that clean heroin does not have a physical hook, otherwise your granny in for hip replacement
would be coming out of hospital a heroin junkie. If you use clean heroin twice a day for 3 weeks you won't turn into a junkie . The actual addiction to the substance is a different chemical issue and a wider social issue.
And it is a nonsense to criminalise, stigmatise and dishonour the drug addict. It has never worked anywhere and never will.
Keep it up Philly, speak up on behalf your lost brother.
Would you leagilize the shot and profit from it, would you give all the profits to fixing the junkies? I would in a heartbeat,
Quote from: stew on February 15, 2016, 11:37:27 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 15, 2016, 11:33:13 PM
Quote from: MoChara on February 15, 2016, 12:42:57 PM
Dublin GAA star calls for drugs to be decriminalised
Connla Young
15 February, 2016 01:00
Dublin GAA star Philly McMahon has called for the use of drugs like heroin to be decriminalised.
The double All-Ireland winner, whose brother John died after a battle with drugs in 2012, also appealed for society not to isolate those who struggle with addiction.
The tough-tackling defender from Ballymun in north Dublin spoke about the impact of drugs on his family during an interview on RTE's Late Late Show on Friday.
Last week Mr McMahon called for drugs to be decriminalised and for tax proceeds to be put into recovery programmes.
"I think the majority of people are uneducated about addicts," he said.
"If you fell and broke your leg tomorrow and went to the hospital we'd get pure heroin, believe it or not - you get diamorphine, it's pure heroin.
"The heroin you buy in the street is actually diluted down a lot, so a lot of people would probably think if I take heroin today I am going to be hooked and believe it or not it's the social hooks that addicts - addicts will be on drugs from the social hooks, it's not from the chemical hooks in the drugs."
He said more can be done to help those with addictions.
"It's just getting our heads around when you see addicts in the street, it's important we don't push them away from society."
I didn't see the interview but very well spoken by Philly, not necessarily very well expressed. Not wishing to speak for Philly but I think if he had a more relaxed situation he would be explaining that a person doesn't get hooked to pure heroin as is prescribed in hospitals.
What Philly is saying is that clean heroin does not have a physical hook, otherwise your granny in for hip replacement
would be coming out of hospital a heroin junkie. If you use clean heroin twice a day for 3 weeks you won't turn into a junkie . The actual addiction to the substance is a different chemical issue and a wider social issue.
And it is a nonsense to criminalise, stigmatise and dishonour the drug addict. It has never worked anywhere and never will.
Keep it up Philly, speak up on behalf your lost brother.
Would you leagilize the shot and profit from it, would you give all the profits to fixing the junkies? I would in a heartbeat,
The mechanics and and the economics of legalising such class A drugs, I leave to others more qualified. The reality of legalising class A drugs is complex and as regards nice slogans like Philly exclaimed "tax proceeds to be put into recovery programs" i really have no idea of the practicalities involved but I do have issue with the principle.
In some scandinavian countries, the gambling operations are controlled by GA (Gamblers anonymous). GA supply all the gambling machines to retail outlets, manage the whole operation and take their % of the profits to run rehab programs for gamblers.
I just think that's fcking weird and immoral.
There's a big difference between decriminalisation and legalisation of drugs. There are no tax proceeds from decriminalisation AFAIK
Quote from: Main Street on February 15, 2016, 11:59:44 PM
Quote from: stew on February 15, 2016, 11:37:27 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 15, 2016, 11:33:13 PM
Quote from: MoChara on February 15, 2016, 12:42:57 PM
Dublin GAA star calls for drugs to be decriminalised
Connla Young
15 February, 2016 01:00
Dublin GAA star Philly McMahon has called for the use of drugs like heroin to be decriminalised.
The double All-Ireland winner, whose brother John died after a battle with drugs in 2012, also appealed for society not to isolate those who struggle with addiction.
The tough-tackling defender from Ballymun in north Dublin spoke about the impact of drugs on his family during an interview on RTE's Late Late Show on Friday.
Last week Mr McMahon called for drugs to be decriminalised and for tax proceeds to be put into recovery programmes.
"I think the majority of people are uneducated about addicts," he said.
"If you fell and broke your leg tomorrow and went to the hospital we'd get pure heroin, believe it or not - you get diamorphine, it's pure heroin.
"The heroin you buy in the street is actually diluted down a lot, so a lot of people would probably think if I take heroin today I am going to be hooked and believe it or not it's the social hooks that addicts - addicts will be on drugs from the social hooks, it's not from the chemical hooks in the drugs."
He said more can be done to help those with addictions.
"It's just getting our heads around when you see addicts in the street, it's important we don't push them away from society."
I didn't see the interview but very well spoken by Philly, not necessarily very well expressed. Not wishing to speak for Philly but I think if he had a more relaxed situation he would be explaining that a person doesn't get hooked to pure heroin as is prescribed in hospitals.
What Philly is saying is that clean heroin does not have a physical hook, otherwise your granny in for hip replacement
would be coming out of hospital a heroin junkie. If you use clean heroin twice a day for 3 weeks you won't turn into a junkie . The actual addiction to the substance is a different chemical issue and a wider social issue.
And it is a nonsense to criminalise, stigmatise and dishonour the drug addict. It has never worked anywhere and never will.
Keep it up Philly, speak up on behalf your lost brother.
Would you leagilize the shot and profit from it, would you give all the profits to fixing the junkies? I would in a heartbeat,
The mechanics and and the economics of legalising such class A drugs, I leave to others more qualified. The reality of legalising class A drugs is complex and as regards nice slogans like Philly exclaimed "tax proceeds to be put into recovery programs" i really have no idea of the practicalities involved but I do have issue with the principle.
In some scandinavian countries, the gambling operations are controlled by GA (Gamblers anonymous). GA supply all the gambling machines to retail outlets, manage the whole operation and take their % of the profits to run rehab programs for gamblers.
I just think that's fcking weird and immoral.
Brilliant Street, 100 percent correct, that said it works and right now we have an alleged outsider in hc running for the presidency and sheep on here that buy into it, morality is all but dead so I say f**k everything and lets get nuts and cut out the cartels and make lots of money so that we can liberally clean up the lives we ruin through drugs, after all, it is the liberal way!
Sticking a needle full of really bad shot in your arm is normal? Only Eamonica and galksnan think so on here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg&feature=youtu.be)
Here's the link Philly was referring to
Quote from: Declan on February 16, 2016, 08:21:45 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg&feature=youtu.be)
Here's the link Philly was referring to
I'd never seen that before, but it tallies with everything we now understand about what works and what doesn't work in dealing with addiction and drug dependency. See the results of decriminalising drug use in Portugal (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html), for instance.
As regards the 'war on drugs', we've understood for all of human history that war is practically never the solution to any problem. See the 'war on terror' for a great illustration. I think society is slowly beginning to understand that, as the video says, "the war on drugs we've been fighting for almost a century now has made everything worse".
Quote from: Hardy on February 16, 2016, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Declan on February 16, 2016, 08:21:45 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg&feature=youtu.be)
Here's the link Philly was referring to
I'd never seen that before, but it tallies with everything we now understand about what works and what doesn't work in dealing with addiction and drug dependency. See the results of decriminalising drug use in Portugal (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html), for instance.
As regards the 'war on drugs', we've understood for all of human history that war is practically never the solution to any problem. See the 'war on terror' for a great illustration. I think society is slowly beginning to understand that, as the video says, "the war on drugs we've been fighting for almost a century now has made everything worse".
A bit like Tony and the Unionists, if you can't beat them join them.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 16, 2016, 10:43:54 AM
Quote from: Hardy on February 16, 2016, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Declan on February 16, 2016, 08:21:45 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg&feature=youtu.be)
Here's the link Philly was referring to
I'd never seen that before, but it tallies with everything we now understand about what works and what doesn't work in dealing with addiction and drug dependency. See the results of decriminalising drug use in Portugal (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html), for instance.
As regards the 'war on drugs', we've understood for all of human history that war is practically never the solution to any problem. See the 'war on terror' for a great illustration. I think society is slowly beginning to understand that, as the video says, "the war on drugs we've been fighting for almost a century now has made everything worse".
A bit like Tony and the Unionists, if you can't beat them join them.
What a remarkably ridiculous observation.
I'm pleasantly surprised by the reaction to this thread. There was at least one other thread on the issue and the "just say no" message was seeping in.
I agree with most of what's been said but you need to be careful with over-taxing something or it'll just end up back on the streets again.
Quote from: Declan on February 16, 2016, 08:21:45 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg&feature=youtu.be)
Here's the link Philly was referring to
That's an excellent presentation.
One thing I would add is that heroin usage, is proven to be more common in more unequal societies.
according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report.
I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, people will get it if they want to get it but if its off dealers you dont know what its cut with or what you are going to get?
Everyone thinks it will get out of hand, look cigarettes and alocohol are legal, both types of drug and some people will drink or smoke and some people won't. At least if it was taxed to a degree money wouldn't be going to dealers (perhaps reduce crime) and centres setup to help people.
Obviously nothing is perfect but it must be alot better than the way some situations turn out, philly Mc Mahons brother perhaps one.
Quote from: Longshanks on February 16, 2016, 03:02:02 PM
I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, people will get it if they want to get it but if its off dealers you dont know what its cut with or what you are going to get?
Everyone thinks it will get out of hand, look cigarettes and alocohol are legal, both types of drug and some people will drink or smoke and some people won't. At least if it was taxed to a degree money wouldn't be going to dealers (perhaps reduce crime) and centres setup to help people.
Obviously nothing is perfect but it must be alot better than the way some situations turn out, philly Mc Mahons brother perhaps one.
I think this is a non argument and one always put up for legalisation.
The thing is its the same type of characters that will end up being addicted. This therefore does not solve the problem of where do they get the money from to feed their habit, only problem now is that with the tax it is more expensive. So does this mean they do more home invasions, more prostitution or just move to the next under ground drug?
Also seems to be a bit of misnomer to set up clinics to treat addicts using the money that comes form making them addicts in the first place, something counter intuitive about the whole argument.
Quote from: NAG1 on February 16, 2016, 03:38:31 PM
Quote from: Longshanks on February 16, 2016, 03:02:02 PM
I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, people will get it if they want to get it but if its off dealers you dont know what its cut with or what you are going to get?
Everyone thinks it will get out of hand, look cigarettes and alocohol are legal, both types of drug and some people will drink or smoke and some people won't. At least if it was taxed to a degree money wouldn't be going to dealers (perhaps reduce crime) and centres setup to help people.
Obviously nothing is perfect but it must be alot better than the way some situations turn out, philly Mc Mahons brother perhaps one.
I think this is a non argument and one always put up for legalisation.
The thing is its the same type of characters that will end up being addicted. This therefore does not solve the problem of where do they get the money from to feed their habit, only problem now is that with the tax it is more expensive. So does this mean they do more home invasions, more prostitution or just move to the next under ground drug?
Also seems to be a bit of misnomer to set up clinics to treat addicts using the money that comes form making them addicts in the first place, something counter intuitive about the whole argument.
I'd assume that any such plan that's put in place would involve the drug being supplied free together with an attempt to eventually get the addict off the drug and back on their feet. More generally, education and other methods to prevent these "same type of characters" from becoming addicts in the first instance would be put in place as part of an overall drugs strategy.
I'm not aware of any evidence of heroin users moving on to the next underground drug.
Serious question. The hallucinatory and paranoid effects of some drugs (LSD etc I'm thinking of) have, in the past, led to some seriously criminal instances. I'm not talking about robbing to feed a habit, I'm talking about lads going crazy, hearing voices, getting psychotic basically as a result of taking something which disagrees with them. We've all heard the horror stories.
I don't think Nicotine or Alcohol (or Cannabis to be fair) have anything like that sort of effect on people. (Rows with drink are not what I'm talking about here).
Surely we shouldn't be legalising substances like that, that can literally affect people in such a way?
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 16, 2016, 03:57:33 PM
Serious question. The hallucinatory and paranoid effects of some drugs (LSD etc I'm thinking of) have, in the past, led to some seriously criminal instances. I'm not talking about robbing to feed a habit, I'm talking about lads going crazy, hearing voices, getting psychotic basically as a result of taking something which disagrees with them. We've all heard the horror stories.
I don't think Nicotine or Alcohol (or Cannabis to be fair) have anything like that sort of effect on people. (Rows with drink are not what I'm talking about here).
Surely we shouldn't be legalising substances like that, that can literally affect people in such a way?
I suppose the first point on this road is that these drugs are available anyway so by legalising them you take them out of the hands of gangs. By doing this you allow the market to be standardised and regulated.
On the assumption that people who wish to consume these drugs aren't doing so in order to hear voices or drive themselves insane, you can then hopefully provide the "buzz" they desire but without many of the side-effects that are present in unregulated products.
But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.
In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.
Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 16, 2016, 04:11:12 PM
But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.
In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.
Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.
If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.
With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 16, 2016, 03:57:33 PM
Serious question. The hallucinatory and paranoid effects of some drugs (LSD etc I'm thinking of) have, in the past, led to some seriously criminal instances. I'm not talking about robbing to feed a habit, I'm talking about lads going crazy, hearing voices, getting psychotic basically as a result of taking something which disagrees with them. We've all heard the horror stories.
I don't think Nicotine or Alcohol (or Cannabis to be fair) have anything like that sort of effect on people. (Rows with drink are not what I'm talking about here).
Surely we shouldn't be legalising substances like that, that can literally affect people in such a way?
In terms of crime, violence and people going crazy in Ireland, I would say alcohol is still way ahead of any illegal drugs. It might not have the same reality-distorting, psychotic effects of some drugs like LSD but in some people it releases fatal levels of anger, aggression and recklessness. Cannabis too, can have very dangerous psychiatric consequences for people prone to mental health problems, though I'd say it's far less likely to lead directly to violent behavior.
Legalisation of drugs would be a disaster.Look at alcoholism problems,cancer from cigarette smoking etc,all legal activities.Education to avoid drugs,legal and illegal is the answer,in addition to giving people in deprived areas a stake in society
Quote from: T Fearon on February 16, 2016, 11:00:24 PM
Legalisation of drugs would be a disaster.Look at alcoholism problems,cancer from cigarette smoking etc,all legal activities.Education to avoid drugs,legal and illegal is the answer,in addition to giving people in deprived areas a stake in society
Yeah, I think more needs to be done to help people on low incomes. Not sure about the north but down here people can get as much money from welfare as they can from a low-income job, maybe more if they have kids. I think it kills the motivation to find and keep a job, and if people aren't working they're much more likely to develop addictions. It's true that a lot of people on the dole aren't that interested in finding work, but that's because they're faced with the prospect of some mindless, degrading job for 400 euro a week or less. No prospect of ever owning a home and probably wouldn't be able to keep a car on the road, with the cost of living as it is. It's usually not because they're inherently lazy, as many middle-class people like to think. There's a growing gap between the middle class and those on low incomes, and without opportunity and prospects, drugs look a lot more tempting.
If people want to load up on substances, let them at it. Provided the impact on the rest if us is limited
At the moment when the average inner city Anto decides to take up heroin, the system dictates that he has to rob X amount of handbags, shop tills, houses and cars to pay for his habit. There is often an onus on him to recruit several others to the zombie world in order for him to stay inside with his dealer.
The cost to the state and society is bigger because of the rules as they exist. Then he'll probably end up on a state sponsored methodone programme anyway. The irony/hypocrisy of a state spending billions trying to win a drugs war on the one hand and dishing it out with the other hand...
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on February 16, 2016, 11:42:20 PM
If people want to load up on substances, let them at it. Provided the impact on the rest if us is limited
At the moment when the average inner city Anto decides to take up heroin, the system dictates that he has to rob X amount of handbags, shop tills, houses and cars to pay for his habit. There is often an onus on him to recruit several others to the zombie world in order for him to stay inside with his dealer.
The cost to the state and society is bigger because of the rules as they exist. Then he'll probably end up on a state sponsored methodone programme anyway. The irony/hypocrisy of a state spending billions trying to win a drugs war on the one hand and dishing it out with the other hand...
https://taylry01.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/review-of-freakonomics-ch-3-why-do-drug-dealers-still-live-with-their-moms/ (https://taylry01.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/review-of-freakonomics-ch-3-why-do-drug-dealers-still-live-with-their-moms/)
In the third chapter of Levitt and Dubner's Freakonomics, the authors explore a fascinating perspective on the drug culture in an extremely poor south Chicago neighborhood. The chapter uses the field work of Sudhir Venkatesh, who was a student at the time while actively observing the daily activities and cause/effect actions that prolonged these behaviors.
The main take away from this chapter was to prove wrong the misconception that those who are drug dealers are all very well-off and make a lot of money. After spending much time in Chicago, Venkatesh observed quite the opposite; the vast majority of individuals that were involved in the illegal drug selling industry made little or no money. There existed a pyramid structure in the business, where only those at the very top of the business made big profits, with the rest of the workers and foot soldiers laboring in an extremely competitive environment in hopes of one day becoming the boss. As Sudhir saw, this tough road did not deter many of them–the position seems glamorous to many youths growing up in the projects, and they want to succeed so badly that they will sacrifice their wages and their own safety in order to attain their dream.
4 statistics that I found interesting are listed below:
1) "The top 120 men in Black Disciples gang represented just 2.2 percent of the full-fledged gang membership but took home well more than half the money." p. 93
2) "If you were a member of J.T.'s gang for all four years, [your] chance of being killed = 1 in 4" p. 94
3) "In 2003, Texas put to death...just 5 percent of the nearly 500 inmates on its death row" p. 94
4) "Fewer than 5 percent of the neighborhood's adults had a college degree" p.95
These statistics all are very pertinent to the story of the drug culture in Chicago because they show that despite how seemingly impossible it is to make it to the top as a big earner, many young people still are extremely driven to participate in this highly dangerous and illegal activity. The final statistic serves to further demonstrate why many of these people chose to enter such a risky business. Many of them don't know any different and most of their family members have proceeded down a similar path.
I think the order in which the statistics are presented is also relevant. The first stat is pretty discouraging, but it is feasible to see how younger people could aspire to be at the top some day. However, the following two statistics are extremely alarming and really make the reader step back and realize just how risky and dangerous it is to even try to become a part of that 2.2%. It is scary to believe that one has a better chance of survival sitting on death row in Texas than dealing drugs in this particular Chicago neighborhood. Finally, the last statistic goes to show that despite these incredible troubles and difficulties, many youths still turn to the streets because they don't have an alternative and/or their parents also participate in drug dealing.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 16, 2016, 11:00:24 PM
Legalisation of drugs would be a disaster.Look at alcoholism problems,cancer from cigarette smoking etc,all legal activities.Education to avoid drugs,legal and illegal is the answer,in addition to giving people in deprived areas a stake in society
Tony then why don't we make alcohol illegal if we all have so many problems with it? is there a wider drug or alcohol problem? which scenario seems to be having more success??
There's a difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. I don't think anyone is calling for all drugs to be legalised, but surely any rational person can see that the current approach to drug laws both domestically and internationally is not working?
When there are solid facts on the positive effect of decriminalisation (Portugal), and many states in the US are legalising cannabis for both medicinal and recreational use, it would make sense to at least examine the facts. The UK government's handling of their drugs advisor, (Professor Nutt ?), whom they fired when he presented facts that did not suit their narrative, sums up the attitude towards drugs in this part of the world.
Quote from: laceer on February 17, 2016, 09:22:23 AM
There's a difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. I don't think anyone is calling for all drugs to be legalised, but surely any rational person can see that the current approach to drug laws both domestically and internationally is not working?
When there are solid facts on the positive effect of decriminalisation (Portugal), and many states in the US are legalising cannabis for both medicinal and recreational use, it would make sense to at least examine the facts. The UK government's handling of their drugs advisor, (Professor Nutt ?), whom they fired when he presented facts that did not suit their narrative, sums up the attitude towards drugs in this part of the world.
Some people are and I might well be one of them.
I'm shocked, absolutely shocked. A news headline with the words "GAA star" that involves a bona fide GAA star rather than a junior footballer who was once on the fringes of the county Minor panel. I've seen it all now.
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2016, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 16, 2016, 04:11:12 PM
But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.
In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.
Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.
If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.
With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.
Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal, but limited possession for personal use is no longer a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of LSD or that more people will take the risk to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines without the appropriate license, the same will continue apply for illegal substances.
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse is if there is a dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.
Quote from: Longshanks on February 17, 2016, 09:19:02 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 16, 2016, 11:00:24 PM
Legalisation of drugs would be a disaster.Look at alcoholism problems,cancer from cigarette smoking etc,all legal activities.Education to avoid drugs,legal and illegal is the answer,in addition to giving people in deprived areas a stake in society
Tony then why don't we make alcohol illegal if we all have so many problems with it? is there a wider drug or alcohol problem? which scenario seems to be having more success??
While we're at it, time to make gambling illegal.
Quote from: Main Street on February 17, 2016, 12:38:07 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2016, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 16, 2016, 04:11:12 PM
But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.
In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.
Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.
If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.
With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.
Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal, but limited possession for personal use is no longer a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of LSD or that more people will take the risk to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines without the appropriate license, the same will continue apply for illegal substances.
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse is if there is a dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.
I know, I was talking about legalising it rather than decriminalising it.
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 17, 2016, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 17, 2016, 12:38:07 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2016, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 16, 2016, 04:11:12 PM
But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.
In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.
Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.
If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.
With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.
Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal, but limited possession for personal use is no longer a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of LSD or that more people will take the risk to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines without the appropriate license, the same will continue apply for illegal substances.
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse is if there is a dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.
I know, I was talking about legalising it rather than decriminalising it.
Legalising a drug like LSD would mean there would have to be a license granted to prescribe it, after clinical trials, safety concerns addressed, medically proven indications for use and all that. That is not going to happen with LSD.
Even if it did happen with a mild dose form of LSD, the indications for use would be so controlled as to make it unavailable for most users who would continue to use the illegally produced stuff.
Quote from: Main Street on February 17, 2016, 08:19:41 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 17, 2016, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 17, 2016, 12:38:07 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2016, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 16, 2016, 04:11:12 PM
But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.
In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.
Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.
If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.
With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.
Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal, but limited possession for personal use is no longer a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of LSD or that more people will take the risk to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines without the appropriate license, the same will continue apply for illegal substances.
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse is if there is a dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.
I know, I was talking about legalising it rather than decriminalising it.
Legalising a drug like LSD would mean there would have to be a license granted to prescribe it, after clinical trials, safety concerns addressed, medically proven indications for use and all that. That is not going to happen with LSD.
Even if it did happen with a mild dose form of LSD, the indications for use would be so controlled as to make it unavailable for most users who would continue to use the illegally produced stuff.
I agree in the first instance and the likelihood of it being legalised isn't the point in the second.
What do you mean by "the indications for use"? Do you mean the potency? Again, I'm not a scientist so I couldn't comment.
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 17, 2016, 09:09:19 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 17, 2016, 08:19:41 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 17, 2016, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 17, 2016, 12:38:07 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2016, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 16, 2016, 04:11:12 PM
But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.
In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.
Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.
If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.
With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.
Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal, but limited possession for personal use is no longer a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of LSD or that more people will take the risk to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines without the appropriate license, the same will continue apply for illegal substances.
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse is if there is a dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.
I know, I was talking about legalising it rather than decriminalising it.
Legalising a drug like LSD would mean there would have to be a license granted to prescribe it, after clinical trials, safety concerns addressed, medically proven indications for use and all that. That is not going to happen with LSD.
Even if it did happen with a mild dose form of LSD, the indications for use would be so controlled as to make it unavailable for most users who would continue to use the illegally produced stuff.
I agree in the first instance and the likelihood of it being legalised isn't the point in the second.
What do you mean by "the indications for use"? Do you mean the potency? Again, I'm not a scientist so I couldn't comment.
According to current medical practices and controls the likliehood of LSD never being legalised is my considered opinion and therefore germane to the questions AZ was posing. And it is also germane to refer to the hypothetical that if ever it was legalised, such would be the controls that AZ's expressed reservations about legalisation would not be realised.
A drug has an indications for usage, e.g. rozrem is indicated for sleep issues ,insomnia. A MD can prescribe rozerem to a patient diagnosed with insomnia. The MD cannot prescribe it medically and legally for depression. He would leave him/herself open to a charge of malpractice.
In the hypothetical scenario of LSD going through a series of clinical trials, indications for usage would have to be medically defined and medically proven, at least to better the results of the trialists who were prescribed placebo.
I presume Esmarelda is talking about drugs being legalised as recreational drugs rather than medical.
If alcohol was illegal and was being assessed for legalisation, I don't think it would fare too well!
Quote from: stew on February 15, 2016, 07:40:28 PM
He is biased in his opinion obviously ...
Yes. Obviously.
I'm curious. What do you think an opinion is?
Can you give me an example of an "unbiased" opinion?
Quote from: Main Street on February 15, 2016, 11:59:44 PM
The mechanics and and the economics of legalising such class A drugs, I leave to others more qualified. The reality of legalising class A drugs is complex and as regards nice slogans like Philly exclaimed "tax proceeds to be put into recovery programs" i really have no idea of the practicalities involved but I do have issue with the principle.
In some scandinavian countries, the gambling operations are controlled by GA (Gamblers anonymous). GA supply all the gambling machines to retail outlets, manage the whole operation and take their % of the profits to run rehab programs for gamblers.
I just think that's fcking weird and immoral.
You were doing fine until the last line. You described a system that sounds perfectly logical and then said it's "weird and immoral." Why do you say that?
Quote from: NAG1 on February 16, 2016, 03:38:31 PM
Quote from: Longshanks on February 16, 2016, 03:02:02 PM
I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, people will get it if they want to get it but if its off dealers you dont know what its cut with or what you are going to get?
Everyone thinks it will get out of hand, look cigarettes and alocohol are legal, both types of drug and some people will drink or smoke and some people won't. At least if it was taxed to a degree money wouldn't be going to dealers (perhaps reduce crime) and centres setup to help people.
Obviously nothing is perfect but it must be alot better than the way some situations turn out, philly Mc Mahons brother perhaps one.
I think this is a non argument and one always put up for legalisation.
The thing is its the same type of characters that will end up being addicted. This therefore does not solve the problem of where do they get the money from to feed their habit, only problem now is that with the tax it is more expensive. So does this mean they do more home invasions, more prostitution or just move to the next under ground drug?
Also seems to be a bit of misnomer to set up clinics to treat addicts using the money that comes form making them addicts in the first place, something counter intuitive about the whole argument.
If it's driven underground then it's harder to get, hence more expensive. If it's legal and regulated then it's going to be more affordable, hence no need to resort to desperate measures to pay for the stuff. Tobacco might be expensive by the standards of what it used to be, but it's not so dear that smokers are driven to robbing banks to feed their habit.
Quote from: Main Street on February 17, 2016, 09:32:02 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 17, 2016, 09:09:19 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 17, 2016, 08:19:41 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 17, 2016, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 17, 2016, 12:38:07 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2016, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 16, 2016, 04:11:12 PM
But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.
In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.
Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.
If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.
With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.
Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal, but limited possession for personal use is no longer a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of LSD or that more people will take the risk to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines without the appropriate license, the same will continue apply for illegal substances.
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse is if there is a dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.
I know, I was talking about legalising it rather than decriminalising it.
Legalising a drug like LSD would mean there would have to be a license granted to prescribe it, after clinical trials, safety concerns addressed, medically proven indications for use and all that. That is not going to happen with LSD.
Even if it did happen with a mild dose form of LSD, the indications for use would be so controlled as to make it unavailable for most users who would continue to use the illegally produced stuff.
I agree in the first instance and the likelihood of it being legalised isn't the point in the second.
What do you mean by "the indications for use"? Do you mean the potency? Again, I'm not a scientist so I couldn't comment.
According to current medical practices and controls the likliehood of LSD never being legalised is my considered opinion and therefore germane to the questions AZ was posing. And it is also germane to refer to the hypothetical that if ever it was legalised, such would be the controls that AZ's expressed reservations about legalisation would not be realised.
A drug has an indications for usage, e.g. rozrem is indicated for sleep issues ,insomnia. A MD can prescribe rozerem to a patient diagnosed with insomnia. The MD cannot prescribe it medically and legally for depression. He would leave him/herself open to a charge of malpractice.
In the hypothetical scenario of LSD going through a series of clinical trials, indications for usage would have to be medically defined and medically proven, at least to better the results of the trialists who were prescribed placebo.
I'm not sure it is relevant to what AZ was saying but that's not important. I was giving my opinion on whether drugs should or should not be legalised, not the likelihood.
As macganger2 said, I'm not talking about medically using any drug. I'm talking about them being used recreationally.