Drug dealers in your neighborhood

[PutneyO]

The only drug dealer I know is my local pharmacist

[Admin]

I must admit I found it much more convenient when they were outside my house.

[Scuba Diver]

Not sure whether they're dealers or not, but a couple of heroin addicts in the block where I live.
They seem nice fellas: troubled, naturally, but nice enough. I always give 'em the time of day.

Needs to be remembered that 'junkies', are just people who just made the wrong choices in life. No doubt if they could turn the clock back, they wouldn't have got on the s*** in the first place, but it's a very difficult to reverse process.

'Drug dealing', is just business really: supply and demand. I too would support decriminalisation; it would reduce crime levels, and send the levels of violence and 'turf-war' plummeting.

Also needs to be remembered, that unless a person is teetotal, then they use drugs too. Alcohol too is a drug, so those that get all sniffy about drug-takers, but drink, are drug-takers too.
Just because it's government controlled (booze), doesn't mean it's not a drug. Anyone that drinks, takes drugs. On that basis, I see no need for them to get all holier than thou about heroin addicts, who have simply a different drug of choice.

[Dunners]

If the current approach to recreational drugs worked then nobody would take them. So it seems stupid to carry on doing something that doesn't work.
I doubt that anyone has ever pondered taking drugs but then thought to themselves, "oh, better not, it's against the law."

Criminalisation just results in the manufacture and distribution being controlled by organised crime gangs, with the exploitation of communities, misuse of law enforcement and the state being left to clean up a mess from which it has not financially benefited. It's one of the key reasons why, in the case of cannabis use, we've witnessed relatively less harmful strains being replaced by super-strength strains that have a detrimental impact on the mental health of users.

The tide is clearly turning, and more states are adopting a more sensible approach. I'd go further than decriminalisation. I'd go for full legalisation and regulation. I'd start with the softer drugs to monitor the impact and then, if it was working okay, be prepared to roll our to all drugs.

You're just never going to stop people getting high, so we may as well make it as safe as possible.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

My local drug dealers, in that case, are Nero.

[Max B Gold]

Not sure whether they're dealers or not, but a couple of heroin addicts in the block where I live.
They seem nice fellas: troubled, naturally, but nice enough. I always give 'em the time of day.

Needs to be remembered that 'junkies', are just people who just made the wrong choices in life. No doubt if they could turn the clock back, they wouldn't have got on the s*** in the first place, but it's a very difficult to reverse process.

'Drug dealing', is just business really: supply and demand. I too would support decriminalisation; it would reduce crime levels, and send the levels of violence and 'turf-war' plummeting.

Also needs to be remembered, that unless a person is teetotal, then they use drugs too. Alcohol too is a drug, so those that get all sniffy about drug-takers, but drink, are drug-takers too.
Just because it's government controlled (booze), doesn't mean it's not a drug. Anyone that drinks, takes drugs. On that basis, I see no need for them to get all holier than thou about heroin addicts, who have simply a different drug of choice.

I would like to confess to having a drink.

I would also like to confess that I don't take junkies in my taxi when they want to do a " wait and return to Feegie Park" . Even with the money up front and permission to take the longer motorway route (information for junkies reading this. It is NOT a motorway. It is a dual carriageway. It only becomes a motorway when the A737 joins the M8 at the St James's Interchange. Now good day to you sir)

This is because of the occasion when a guy from one of the few non dealer properties volunteered to rearrange my car with a golf club just for parking outside his house whilst the junkie secured his lifeline.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

If the current approach to recreational drugs worked then nobody would take them. So it seems stupid to carry on doing something that doesn't work.
I doubt that anyone has ever pondered taking drugs but then thought to themselves, "oh, better not, it's against the law."

Criminalisation just results in the manufacture and distribution being controlled by organised crime gangs, with the exploitation of communities, misuse of law enforcement and the state being left to clean up a mess from which it has not financially benefited. It's one of the key reasons why, in the case of cannabis use, we've witnessed relatively less harmful strains being replaced by super-strength strains that have a detrimental impact on the mental health of users.

The tide is clearly turning, and more states are adopting a more sensible approach. I'd go further than decriminalisation. I'd go for full legalisation and regulation. I'd start with the softer drugs to monitor the impact and then, if it was working okay, be prepared to roll our to all drugs.

You're just never going to stop people getting high, so we may as well make it as safe as possible.

Ok, you’re back in favour.

[Scuba Diver]

My local drug dealers, in that case, are Nero.

Time we got these dastardly peddlers off the streets of Britain, imo

[Dunners]

If the current approach to recreational drugs worked then nobody would take them. So it seems stupid to carry on doing something that doesn't work.
I doubt that anyone has ever pondered taking drugs but then thought to themselves, "oh, better not, it's against the law."

Criminalisation just results in the manufacture and distribution being controlled by organised crime gangs, with the exploitation of communities, misuse of law enforcement and the state being left to clean up a mess from which it has not financially benefited. It's one of the key reasons why, in the case of cannabis use, we've witnessed relatively less harmful strains being replaced by super-strength strains that have a detrimental impact on the mental health of users.

The tide is clearly turning, and more states are adopting a more sensible approach. I'd go further than decriminalisation. I'd go for full legalisation and regulation. I'd start with the softer drugs to monitor the impact and then, if it was working okay, be prepared to roll our to all drugs.

You're just never going to stop people getting high, so we may as well make it as safe as possible.

Ok, you’re back in favour.

Good to know that you're a full-on, free-market liberal after all.

[Long slender neck]

If the safe strains were available from holland and barrett, then wouldnt the baddies just peddle the illegal strong stuff?

[Dunners]

Possibly. But the diminished market place for illicit drugs would undermine the viability of the drug trade as a large a scale operation as it is now. And those who would prefer to take something that isn't going to completely melt their brain would have that choice.

It's like you being able to select a nice medium strength continental larger from Sainsburys instead of have little option than to guzzle Special Brew if we fancy a tipple.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

If the safe strains were available from holland and barrett, then wouldnt the baddies just peddle the illegal strong stuff?

No.

[Ornchurch]

If the safe strains were available from holland and barrett, then wouldnt the baddies just peddle the illegal strong stuff?

No.

Why?

[Dunners]

If the safe strains were available from holland and barrett, then wouldnt the baddies just peddle the illegal strong stuff?

No.

Why?

If booze had been illegal, but was then legalised, would you continue to go to your dealer for your hit of Special Brew, or would you pop past your supermarket for something you actually like? (Obviously, I'm assuming you're not actually into Special Brew)

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

If the safe strains were available from holland and barrett, then wouldnt the baddies just peddle the illegal strong stuff?

No.

Why?

They wouldn’t. They may compete on price, i guess but they wouldn’t be competing on quality. But what sort of idiot would buy illicitly and run the risk of buying any old sh*t when you could buy guaranteed medical grade drugs from Boots.

I’d expect them to move into other things like prostitution and Bitofacon.

[Max B Gold]

No.

Why?

They wouldn’t. They may compete on price, i guess but they wouldn’t be competing on quality. But what sort of idiot would buy illicitly and run the risk of buying any old sh*t when you could buy guaranteed medical grade drugs from Boots.

I’d expect them to move into other things like prostitution and Bitofacon.

One way to compete on price would be to avoid selling it through legal channels and by doing so avoid tax and duty charges. Much in the same way as the illegal market for tobacco which currently exists in the UK.

[Dunners]

There will always be some demand for illicit goods. But time and time again the consumer has proven that, when offered the choice, they will go with convenience the majority of the time. It's the only explanation we have for the MP3 file format.

[tuffers#1]

whats an eighth of Pepsi go for these days ?

[BiggsyMalone]

Supporting drug dealers isn't the best look

I support decriminalisation of drugs.

And the criminal exploitation of the mentally vulnerable it seems

That assumes everyone taking drugs is mentally vulnerable

[Mick McQuaid]

This was one of those 4andom videos that came up in my YouTube recommendations a while ago but I thought very interesting. Decriminalisation is the only sensible answer.

[Currywurst and Chips]

I support decriminalisation of drugs.

And the criminal exploitation of the mentally vulnerable it seems

That assumes everyone taking drugs is mentally vulnerable

Well done on missing the point

[Long slender neck]

This was one of those 4andom videos that came up in my YouTube recommendations a while ago but I thought very interesting. Decriminalisation is the only sensible answer.

I reckon the guy near me must be a 'user-dealer'. Perhaps i wont bother grassing him after all.

[BiggsyMalone]

And the criminal exploitation of the mentally vulnerable it seems

That assumes everyone taking drugs is mentally vulnerable

Well done on missing the point

Well done on generalising

[tuffers#1]

If the current approach to recreational drugs worked then nobody would take them. So it seems stupid to carry on doing something that doesn't work.
I doubt that anyone has ever pondered taking drugs but then thought to themselves, "oh, better not, it's against the law."

Criminalisation just results in the manufacture and distribution being controlled by organised crime gangs, with the exploitation of communities, misuse of law enforcement and the state being left to clean up a mess from which it has not financially benefited. It's one of the key reasons why, in the case of cannabis use, we've witnessed relatively less harmful strains being replaced by super-strength strains that have a detrimental impact on the mental health of users.

The tide is clearly turning, and more states are adopting a more sensible approach. I'd go further than decriminalisation. I'd go for full legalisation and regulation. I'd start with the softer drugs to monitor the impact and then, if it was working okay, be prepared to roll our to all drugs.

You're just never going to stop people getting high, so we may as well make it as safe as possible.

it does Open the Question as to why governments all
over the world criminalise drug use .

Maybe there is a reason they arent telling us .

[Currywurst and Chips]

That assumes everyone taking drugs is mentally vulnerable

Well done on missing the point

Well done on generalising

Still missing the point, congrats

Maybe make it a hattrick?