Decriminalise All Drugs?

[mushroom25]

the Scottish government wants personal possession and use of all drugs (including class A) to be treated as a healthcare issue rather than a criminal one

https://www.bbc.com./news/uk-scotland-66133549

notwithstanding recent number decreases, Scotland still has the highest number of recorded drug deaths in all Europe

Drug laws are reserved to Westminster, but Scotland can legislate on healthcare issues.

Is this the right approach? or will it cause more problems than it solves?

[Zacs-Master]

'all of your argument is based on a doom-laden imagination'
No it isn't. It's based on what will actually happen rather than your really strange idealistic view of what might happen in a world inhabited by elves and unicorns.

[andy-hughes]

Zacs - I could equally say the same, although I would be less rude about it.

You can no more see into the future than I can - so I suspect some elements of both our arguments will come into play.

The difference between us is, I can accept that my vision is just that - a hope for a better system, but you are determined that I am being fanciful, and only your vision could possibly prevail.

[Zacs-Master]

There’s too much of this ‘oh it was only my opinion’ going on on Answerbank when people are proven wrong. If it was only a hope then the para in your previous post should have had caveats. If you’d written it as follows I might have had more respect but to state things as facts when they’re clearly not is a poor debating method:

‘ The incalculable rise in tax revenue COULD allow the government to oversee the production and distribution of 'street' drugs, POSSIBLY instantly cutting out the criminal gangs who take the billions in revenue that drugs produce, and the criminal activity caused by addicts stealing to feed their habit, which can be controlled medically by qualified doctors.

It would still have been fanciful cobblers but at least you would have been leaving yourself so open to deserved ridicule.

[douglas9401]

But that's not how deserved ridicule works. ;-)

[naomi24]

I’ve lost track of Andy-Hughes’ argument. He wants possession of drugs legalised and yet would ban alcohol outright. That makes no sense to me.

[Zacs-Master]

No, Doug, it isn’t according to MrH, is is (shrug emoji)

[andy-hughes]

Zacs - since my entire viewpoint is based on something that may or may not happen, I would have thought that the fact that my view can only ever be based on theory and supposition, was so obvious as to not need to be pointed out.

Since in your case, the obvious requires stating, I will be careful to so moving forward.

[CrapatCryptics2]

I`ve seen 5 people die due to drugs and I dont think we need our NHS picking up the pieces if even more idiots start taking drugs. or sharing the roads with high drivers who think they are ok to drive.

[andy-hughes]

Oh, and I'm not sure that anyone who refers to the other side's point of view as 'fanciful cobblers', is really in any position to start pontificating about poor debating technique.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - This is a debate about the specific approach to currently illegal narcotics.

I am hypothisising about that from the point of view of a practical way to deal with them.

To simply say 'I would bam alcohol' which is currently a legally sanctioned narcotic, dies not address the issue being debated.

I would ban nuclear weapons as well, but that is also another discussion for another day.

[naomi24]

I know what the debate is about but there’s a glaring inconsistency in your argument. How can you rationally argue for the decriminalisation of hard drugs when you would ban something that is enjoyed safely by most and is socially acceptable practically the works over?

[naomi24]

*the world over.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // I know what the debate is about but there’s a glaring inconsistency in your argument. How can you rationally argue for the decriminalisation of hard drugs when you would ban something that is enjoyed safely by most and is socially acceptable practically the works over? //

Because the OP does not invite my opinion on alcohol, which is a separate issue.

It asks about the decriminalisation of all drugs - so that is the question I answered.

If you want to start a separate debate about alcohol, I will be delighted to bring my view to that, but since alcohol is a legal drug, my view on it is not relevant to this specific debate.

I'm not a huge fan of cigarettes either, but I would not deliberately wish to derail the debate by going down that road either.

Tune in later, when I'll be happy to muddy the waters further with my firmly held views about people who fail to signal their intention on roundabouts.

[naomi24]

Oops.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // Oops. //

Is that an admission that you are in error?

That's a first!!!!!

[naomi24]

Not at all. You do want to ban alcohol and that, in my opinion, is relevant to this thread. That you choose to avoid the issue because it doesn’t align with your current argument is no surprise. When you launched into your deliberations here I suspect you’d forgotten what you said before - hence my ‘oops’. Not to worry. You don’t want to talk about that so we’ll leave it there as you suggest.

[Zacs-Master]

Andy, fanciful cobblers is fanciful cobblers. I could have put my English skills to the fore and described it as ‘the verbose and Ill thought out ramblings of an idealist who is clearly out of touch with reality’ but the content of your post called for a more succinct response.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // Not at all. //

Thought not.

I did look out of the window to see if there was blue snow falling, sadly not, but hardly surprising.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // Not at all. You do want to ban alc l and that, in my opinion, is relevant to this thread. //

Then we must disagree, because that is a legal drug, and the discussion is about illegal drugs.

// That you choose to avoid the issue because it doesn’t align with your current argument is no surprise. //

I am not 'avoiding' anything, I am sticking to the point, and answering the Question, so rather the opposite of avoidance I would suggest.

// When you launched into your deliberations here I suspect you’d forgotten what you said before - hence my ‘oops’. //

Something wrong with your suspecter then - I don't remember everything I ever said, but I do remember my, views on alcohol, a legally sanctioned drug - but as I confirmed, not relevant to this discussion, for that reason.

//Not to worry. You don’t want to talk about that so we’ll leave it there as you suggest. //

I am delighted to talk about it - if you wish to raise a thread about it, since it is not relevant to this one.

[andy-hughes]

Zacs - // Andy, fanciful cobblers is fanciful cobblers. I could have put my English skills to the fore and described it as ‘the verbose and Ill thought out ramblings of an idealist who is clearly out of touch with reality’ but the content of your post called for a more succinct response. //

For someone looking to take the moral high ground on debating skills, you seem unaware that simply belittling the other party, and being offensive about their view, is really poor debating.

Instead of being rude and scoffing, try arguing my points - if you are able, which I do not presume you are.