Organisation

[restin]

well yes, if only the company sells it there is a danger of a business and their only interest being making money - pushing THC, psilocybin, acid concentration to a maximum where the trip becomes too much etc.

If then the government and the people must control the production of drugs.

 

[GOD]

"concentration to a maximum "

Sounds good to me .

I think what was ment is that the chemical companys can produce cleaner drugs than are often available on the streets and for a cheeper price . If the price isnt cheeper the black market would take over . If i took drugs i`d rather get them from a chemists shop than from a dealer . If industry made them then the doses would be standardised so people would know what they were taking and people who wanted stronger trips could take more .

 

[restin]

yes, you are right. Maybe it is my natural paranoia/concern of giving the power of producing drugs to private companies. Drugs = a hellotta money = power = corruption ?

 

[magickmumu]

First of all we need to state our aims, as an anarchist i naturally feel total and absoloute decriminalisation is the key, but this is about all of us.

My four aims would be

1. Legalisation and Regulation of all 'controlled substances'.

2. Crimes related to addiction to carry softer sentences but intensive rehabilitation schemes.

3. No corporate involvement in the production and sale of drugs, State-ran organisation to regulate all drug traffic.

4. Unbiased drug education to be introduced into schools with the emphasis on harm reduction, not abstinence.

Of course i just reeled these off so there not perfect, but lets hear everyone elses!

And you call yourself an anarchist??? What about point 3 ????
State run ? anarchist? I don't get it.

 

[Forkbender]

yes, you are right. Maybe it is my natural paranoia/concern of giving the power of producing drugs to private companies. Drugs = a hellotta money = power = corruption ?

I think the government is not free from corruption either. If business, however, is controlled and licensed by government, it is harder to corrupt.

+ If drugs are legal they are probably less expensive. All the heroin the world 'needs' can be produced on a few acres, for example.

Your equation holds in the current situation, where drugs are illegal, but I think that if they were legal, it doesn't necessarily equate.

 

[Mr.Smith]

.

 

[GOD]

There is only a shortage because it drives the price up . If the fields in asia were legalised the market would be flooded and the price would go down . = some people couldnt make as much profit and others couldnt buy as many guns and bombs .

 

[restin]

I think the government is not free from corruption either. If business, however, is controlled and licensed by government, it is harder to corrupt.

+ If drugs are legal they are probably less expensive. All the heroin the world 'needs' can be produced on a few acres, for example.

Your equation holds in the current situation, where drugs are illegal, but I think that if they were legal, it doesn't necessarily equate.

Yesno. In a democracy, which is unfortunately rare, the people should control the government. But you are right in reality.

True, it is generalized. The probably best trick would be to forbid patents for drugs, so there would be no monopoly.