Singapore sentence 20yr old to hang
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
Cannabis buds can be milled into a flour after they're dried. I can only speculate why the dead person VK mentions used it. It could've be crack for all we know, but I'm not privileged to the knowledge of their flavours.
Pot smoke has a sweet smell. Don't indulge in it for too long, or at least don't get called up for drug testing, because it lingers for up to a month in the body. It's a hallucinogen and also a stimulant, which is why it's banned in sports (read up about what happened to Tomas Enge if you're not convinced), and possibly why it's controlled.
Side question: I wonder if you feel the same about LSD, given that it was placed even lower on the chart in the same Lancet journal. Sure, it's cut with other drugs that can make it fatal, but we've already cast aside the harm to self caused by such narcotics.
Until such a time where cannabis usage and abuse become acceptable practices the way alcohol consumption is, respect the laws of the land. Yeah, it also seems stupid to cover my arms and legs in some Islamic states, but if I don't then it's a risk that I take and I know the consequences. Fly into any (or many, if I'm wrong) country in this region and you're warned about the penalties for drug trafficking. The Ghanaian chap took his chances and he has been charged accordingly.
If you're not happy with that, then take a risk with salvia or poppers. But don't expect folks to sympathise with you online if a more osbcure law can be used to prosecute you for using them.
LSD isn't cut with other drugs. It isn't even cut. It's a liquid soaked into sheets of blotter paper. You would be hard pressed to find it mixed with any other drug.
It may not be acceptable practice in Singapore but it is in a lot of other countries. However, we should not let what is 'acceptable' dictate our laws. It perpetuates conformity and inhibits diversity, not only that but certain 'acceptable' practices may not be right. While on the topic of Islamic states, a lot of their methods or corporal punishment are inhumane but acceptable so they certainly need changing.
This perfectly illustrates the problem with certain drugs, it's almost traditional to perceive them in a negative light as its been preached to us by our parents, the media, government campaigns, etc. that we no longer question what we've been told about them. Much like the practices of Islamic states, they've been integrated into our society but we must be rid of them as it prevents advancement and intellectual development.
I don't see why we should adhere to a law if it is baseless and ultimately unlawful. You may argue that the rules are made known so it is one's fault if he/she breaks them, but you fail to question the rule itself.
-
Originally posted by furb:
Singapore laws classified marijuana as a banned drug and so it shall be. Nothing can change that fact, besides only certain part of the world classified it as not part of banned drugs. Majority of the world still classified it as one, so why should Singapore bend it's rules for the minority?
If majority of the Singaporean are not whining about the law, I don't see why there's a need to change it. Afterall, we are the ones living here, not those people in other countries shouting for human rights when their country is in a mess.
In reply to the first paragraph of your post, if Singapore were to change its laws against marijuana it would pioneer a step in the right direction. Just because the majority aren't doing it doesn't mean that's the way it should be, it's quite the opposite.
Well it's easy to take a stance of apathy if it doesn't affect you but we must think of the greater good and those who are affected by it. Not only that, Singaporeans are very complacent about political matters as they've been bred that way. With the current government it's hard to think there's any way for us to create change.
-
Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:
LSD isn't cut with other drugs. It isn't even cut. It's a liquid soaked into sheets of blotter paper. You would be hard pressed to find it mixed with any other drug.
I forgot that it was derived from a fungus. What do you make of that anyway?
-
Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:
In reply to the first paragraph of your post, if Singapore were to change its laws against marijuana it would pioneer a step in the right direction. Just because the majority aren't doing it doesn't mean that's the way it should be, it's quite the opposite.
Well it's easy to take a stance of apathy if it doesn't affect you but we must think of the greater good and those who are affected by it. Not only that, Singaporeans are very complacent about political matters as they've been bred that way. With the current government it's hard to think there's any way for us to create change.
I'd understand if that applied to homosexual relationships. How does the lack of availability of weed affect you? My understanding is that it's a hobby and not a lifestyle or orientation as the former is. To be cliched, where do we draw the line on the minorities?
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
I forgot that it was derived from a fungus. What do you make of that anyway?
Most drugs are extracted or synthesised from a natural source.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
I'd understand if that applied to homosexual relationships. How does the lack of availability of weed affect you? My understanding is that it's a hobby and not a lifestyle or orientation as the former is. To be cliched, where do we draw the line on the minorities?
It is not so much the availability of weed but the consequences for its possession and use. It may be a hobby to some but to others it can be a lifestyle, there is a very large stoner culture internationally and to a lot of users smoking weed is an important daily activity. People negatively perceive drug users as addicted criminals without any moral values who're only in it to have a good time but that is certainly not the case. Enjoyable as it may be drugs allow us to experience the senses in a different way, to explore the depths and power of the mind and imagination. I suggest you pick up The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley (known for Brave New World) if you wish to further investigate this concept.
-
Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:
Most drugs are extracted or synthesised from a natural source.
Poppers and ecstacy (semi-syn) are commonly-known synthesised drugs, but let's not digress. Anyway, do you think the other drugs lower down the list should be legalised?
Last bit edited out for a little more time to think.
-
Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:
It is not so much the availability of weed but the consequences for its possession and use. It may be a hobby to some but to others it can be a lifestyle, there is a very large stoner culture internationally and to a lot of users smoking weed is an important daily activity. People negatively perceive drug users as addicted criminals without any moral values who're only in it to have a good time but that is certainly not the case. Enjoyable as it may be drugs allow us to experience the senses in a different way, to explore the depths and power of the mind and imagination. I suggest you pick up The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley (known for Brave New World) if you wish to further investigate this concept.
Point taken, but the question remains - where do you draw the line on (sub)cultures that should be accepted and/or legalised, with consistency?
P.S. You do realise that it's a big ask for induced hallicinations to be accepted on the same level as the endorphin rush from sky-diving or eating chocolate, or the caffeine fix of a daily cuppa, even in other countries.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
Poppers and ecstacy (semi-syn) are commonly-known synthesised drugs, but let's not digress. Anyway, do you think the other drugs lower down the list should be legalised?
Last bit edited out for a little more time to think.
I think all drugs should be legalised as criminalisation has proved to be an ineffective method of prohibition. Drugs are so easily obtainable that if anyone truly wanted them, they'd be able to get them. The reason why people don't do drugs is not because it's illegal but because of the effects on one's health.
A good example of the ineffectiveness of prohibition is when the United States banned alcohol. What resulted was not a reduction in alcohol consumption but largescale production of moonshine or illegally manufactured alcohol which was dangerous as it wasn't under any health and safety regulations and the country also experienced a surge in crime.
The case is exactly the same with drugs, prohibition does nothing but fund organised crime and makes drugs even more dangerous as they can't be enforced by health regulations which apply to legal pharmaceuticals.
The notion that you could be killed for doing something which has no direct effect on others is ludicrous, these 'victimless crimes' need to go. What's worse is the perpetuation of anti-drug propaganda by the government and media. When somebody commits a crime while under the influence we instantly blame the drugs. We don't blame alcohol for drunk driving accidents, we blame the users irresponsible use of the substance.
It's a waste of tax payers money to fund the war on drugs and that money ends up with criminal organisations and drug lords who run their business through violence and other vices.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
Point taken, but the question remains - where do you draw the line on (sub)cultures that should be accepted and/or legalised, with consistency?
P.S. You do realise that it's a big ask for induced hallicinations to be accepted on the same level as the endorphin rush from sky-diving or eating chocolate, or the caffeine fix of a daily cuppa, even in other countries.
I realise that but like I said, we must not let social conventions interfere with our laws, especially to the point of being threatened with death for merely not conforming.
-
Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:
In reply to the first paragraph of your post, if Singapore were to change its laws against marijuana it would pioneer a step in the right direction. Just because the majority aren't doing it doesn't mean that's the way it should be, it's quite the opposite.
Well it's easy to take a stance of apathy if it doesn't affect you but we must think of the greater good and those who are affected by it. Not only that, Singaporeans are very complacent about political matters as they've been bred that way. With the current government it's hard to think there's any way for us to create change.
I don't see why should you side with drugs anyway, if you want to do drugs by all means go ahead, don't try to influence other people to join you.
If you have the time to fight for the rights of using marijuana in Singapore (which I don't see it happening) claiming it to be harmless (although majority of the reports states otherwise), why don't you use the time to fight for something with concrete evidence, like for example the banning of smoking (which I don't see it happening either) since it causes harm to both the user and the people around them.
If you are fighting for civil rights or something due to capital punishment, I suggest don't bother. If I'm not wrong, you don't live in Singapore, do you?
The main question is people who are living in Singapore is not making a fuss about it, why should you?
Because you wants to fight for the our rights? To put it straight, did we ask for it? If not, you are nothing but someone who likes to mix into other people's affair, in short, someone with no life or a pest. Please find something more meaningful to do.
Besides, there are other countries with capital punishment, so why only are you only fighting for the rights of (targeting) Singaporeans? There are some countries with lesser human rights than Singapore, why don't you fight for them?
If you wants to fight for your rights, by all means go ahead, but don't assume it is for the good of all of us. So stop trying to act like you are trying to save Singapore, because you are not. There are other countries with worst off situation than Singapore waiting for you to save them (that is if you can).
-
Originally posted by furb:
I don't see why should you side with drugs anyway, if you want to do drugs by all means go ahead, don't try to influence other people to join you.
If you have the time to fight for the rights of using marijuana in Singapore (which I don't see it happening) claiming it to be harmless (although majority of the reports states otherwise), why don't you use the time to fight for something with concrete evidence, like for example the banning of smoking (which I don't see it happening either) since it causes harm to both the user and the people around them.
If you are fighting for civil rights or something due to capital punishment, I suggest don't bother. If I'm not wrong, you don't live in Singapore, do you?
The main question is people who are living in Singapore is not making a fuss about it, why should you?
Because you wants to fight for the rights of us? To put it straight, did we ask for it? If not, you are nothing but someone who likes to mix into other people's affair, in short, someone with no life or a pest. Please find something more meaningful to do.
Besides, there are other countries with capital punishment, so why only are you only fighting for rights for (targeting) Singapore? There are some countries with lesser human rights than Singapore, why don't you fight for them?
If you wants to fight for the rights for yourself, by all means go ahead, but don't assume it is for the good of all of us.
People in Singapore aren't making a fuss about it? I really don't think you represent Singapore as a whole, there are many others who are affected by drug laws and they do care.
And no, I can't just go ahead and do drugs because the government is doing everything it can to stop it from happening and kill me if it does. There is concrete evidence which support my argument that marijuana is relatively harmless, especially when alcohol has been reported to be more dangerous. If you look back through the pages there are some medical journals and articles I have cited.
I'm fighting for human rights in Singapore because I'm currently living here and the original point of discussion was a Ghanian(?) man from who will be getting hanged in Singapore. Oh, and this is SGforums.
It is for the good of all of you despite what you may think. Legalisation will reduce crime, taxpayer's money will go to more useful causes and it will be a step away from a Big Brother state and towards individual liberty.
-
Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:
People in Singapore aren't making a fuss about it? I really don't think you represent Singapore as a whole, there are many others who are affected by drug laws and they do care.
And no, I can't just go ahead and do drugs because the government is doing everything it can to stop it from happening and kill me if it does. There is concrete evidence which support my argument that marijuana is relatively harmless, especially when alcohol has been reported to be more dangerous. If you look back through the pages there are some medical journals and articles I have cited.
I'm fighting for human rights in Singapore because I'm currently living here and the original point of discussion was a Ghanian(?) man from who will be getting hanged in Singapore. Oh, and this is SGforums.
It is for the good of all of you despite what you may think. Legalisation will reduce crime, taxpayer's money will go to more useful causes and it will be a step away from a Big Brother state and towards individual liberty.
True enough, my view doesn't represent Singapore as a whole, however I do see more people unhappy against government (e.g. GST increase, price hike) than people unhappy against the drug law.
My guessing is that the only people who are unhappy against the drug law is the one doing drugs. Average Joe wouldn't even be bothered about it since they aren't doing drugs, common sense isn't it?
Nah, if I'm not wrong, you won't get capital punishment for doing drug but not trafficking drugs so its fine for you to do drugs. Ok, so alcohol is more harmful, why don't we start focusing on how can we ban alcohol instead, since banning of harmful substance is much more a pressing issue than lifting the ban of something harmless. Don't you agree?
Yes, this is SGforums but that doesn't means that everyone here is living in Singapore, let alone Singaporean. There are some forumers here who are previously living in Singapore but migrated.
Let's start by having you listing out how does lifting the ban on marijuana be the good of all of us. By having you doing so may shred some light on us who think it is bad and thus understanding your view.
Oh yes, our current legalisation does reduce crime, making Singapore relatively safe compared to our neighbouring countries. so can I safely assume that taxpayer's money are already going to more useful causes and we are many steps away from a Big Brother state and towards individual liberty since Singapore is quite a peaceful country compared to our neighbouring countries?
Heck, we are even allowed to protest at a specific spot with permission when we aren't able to do so in the past. Now who can deny the fact that we are heading towards individual liberty.
-
Originally posted by furb:
True enough, my view doesn't represent Singapore as a whole, however I do see more people unhappy against government (e.g. GST increase, price hike) than people unhappy against the drug law.
My guessing is that the only people who are unhappy against the drug law is the one doing drugs. Average Joe won't even be bothered about it since they aren't doing drugs, common sense isn't it?
Nah, if I'm not wrong, you won't get capital punishment for doing drug but not trafficking drugs so its fine for you to do drugs. Ok, so alcohol is more harmful, why don't we start focusing on how can we ban alcohol instead, since banning of harmful substance is much more pressing than lifting the ban of something harmless. Don't you agree?
Yes, this is SGforums but that doesn't means that everyone here is living in Singapore, let alone a Singaporean. There are some forumers here who are previously living in Singapore but migrated.
Let's start by having you listing out how does lifting the ban on marijuana be the good of all of us. By having you doing so may shred some light on us who think it is bad and thus understanding your view.
Oh yes, our current legalisation does reduce crime, making Singapore relatively safe compared to our neighbouring countries. So I can safely assume that taxpayer's money are already going to more useful causes and we are many steps away from a Big Brother state and towards individual liberty since Singapore is quite a peaceful country compared to our neighbouring countries.
Heck, we are even allowed to pr otest at a specific spot with permission when we aren't able to do so in the past. Now who can deny we aren't heading towards individual liberty.
Because, like I stated in my post above in reply to Kuali Baba, prohibition doesn't work. That's why instead of banning alcohol as well, we should decriminalise all drugs.
The benefits of legalising drugs are as follows:
1. It allows politicians to address the real issues behind drugs, responsible drug use is done recreationally whereas problematic drug abuse and addiction are directly linked with poverty. It is through decriminalisation that we would be able to rectify these issues.
2. Criminal organisations are funded by the illegal trade of drugs. Legalisation starves them of the income required to run their activities.
3. Because prohibition is ineffective, our tax money is going to waste on the war on drugs. With legalisation our money will be better spent elsewhere. Much of the prison population is there for drug-related crimes as well. Legalisation would free up our prisons and again, less of our tax money will go towards the maintenance of such facilities.
4. Like all items, the price of drugs is determined by supply and demand. Because of its high demand which is satiated by an unregulated illegal market, drugs are very expensive and thus encourages some to resort to crime to fund their habit. Legalisation would enable us to determine a much lower market price.
5. Drug addicts would more actively seek help without fear of legal retribution as surveys have shown that many addicts would be willing to seek help if not for the possibility of prosecution.
6. Drugs would have to comply with health regulations imposed on consumables. Thus drug companies which would be able to legally produce those drugs would have to issue health warnings, etc. and also create unadulterated drugs which are a big problem.
And other reasons which I can't think of right now because it's 3 in the morning and I'm tired as shit.
-
Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:
I think all drugs should be legalised as criminalisation has proved to be an ineffective method of prohibition. Drugs are so easily obtainable that if anyone truly wanted them, they'd be able to get them. The reason why people don't do drugs is not because it's illegal but because of the effects on one's health.
A good example of the ineffectiveness of prohibition is when the United States banned alcohol. What resulted was not a reduction in alcohol consumption but largescale production of moonshine or illegally manufactured alcohol which was dangerous as it wasn't under any health and safety regulations and the country also experienced a surge in crime.
The case is exactly the same with drugs, prohibition does nothing but fund organised crime and makes drugs even more dangerous as they can't be enforced by health regulations which apply to legal pharmaceuticals.
The notion that you could be killed for doing something which has no direct effect on others is ludicrous, these 'victimless crimes' need to go. What's worse is the perpetuation of anti-drug propaganda by the government and media. When somebody commits a crime while under the influence we instantly blame the drugs. We don't blame alcohol for drunk driving accidents, we blame the users irresponsible use of the substance.
It's a waste of tax payers money to fund the war on drugs and that money ends up with criminal organisations and drug lords who run their business through violence and other vices.
Ahh but don't you realise that regulation is also part of legislation, and that producing items that don't conform to the regs would be criminal too? So as you as you tinker with the laws, one form of crime decreases while another increases - driving under the influence, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, etc.
When people commit offences or do stupid things, we also blame the drugs because the users lose their ability to make rational decisions whilst under the influence. I'd be amazed if someone tried to preach the anti-drink-driving message to a tanked pubgoer. It's this loss of judgment (one of those things that makes us human) under the altered state that will make turning drugs mainstream impossible.
You can obtain anything you want if you're desperate enough (as you implied). And you need to be if you risk associations with drug lords, the underworld and the other illegal activities they conduct. Such unsavouriness and the resulting high prices also put people off, as has been mentioned before.
People who try to benefit in irresponsible ways will always be a headache whatever the regulations, so the other approach is to reduce the demand, by setting barriers and making even that first taste less accessible than ideal. Criminalising the trafficking and propagation of the drug and its habit, whatever its effect on others, is a logical step that follows.
I don't have hard facts or figures, and it's flawed, but no less so than the alternative.
-
Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:
Because, like I stated in my post above in reply to Kuali Baba, prohibition doesn't work. That's why instead of banning alcohol as well, we should decriminalise all drugs.
The benefits of legalising drugs are as follows:
1. It allows politicians to address the real issues behind drugs, responsible drug use is done recreationally whereas problematic drug abuse and addiction are directly linked with poverty. It is through decriminalisation that we would be able to rectify these issues.
2. Criminal organisations are funded by the illegal trade of drugs. Legalisation starves them of the income required to run their activities.
3. Because prohibition is ineffective, our tax money is going to waste on the war on drugs. With legalisation our money will be better spent elsewhere. Much of the prison population is there for drug-related crimes as well. Legalisation would free up our prisons and again, less of our tax money will go towards the maintenance of such facilities.
4. Like all items, the price of drugs is determined by supply and demand. Because of its high demand which is satiated by an unregulated illegal market, drugs are very expensive and thus encourages some to resort to crime to fund their habit. Legalisation would enable us to determine a much lower market price.
5. Drug addicts would more actively seek help without fear of legal retribution as surveys have shown that many addicts would be willing to seek help if not for the possibility of prosecution.
6. Drugs would have to comply with health regulations imposed on consumables. Thus drug companies which would be able to legally produce those drugs would have to issue health warnings, etc. and also create unadulterated drugs which are a big problem.
And other reasons which I can't think of right now because it's 3 in the morning and I'm tired as shit.
Most of these points are addressed in my last reply, with the addition of the following.
- Syndicates are fluid and they'll find other ways of earning revenue irresponsibly. Legislation alone isn't enough to curb their power and you'll simply make enforcement more complicated, while spending additional money on education and rehabilitation.
- Addicts here can check themselves into halfway houses. Unfortunately, they don't a whole lot of support.
-
I've checked with some people.
Canabis legalised in USA, for medical purpose. It available in hospitals
If the doctor felt that you are depressed or whatever, he can give you a leave a absence from work and prescribed you the canabis.
Translate to Singapore terms....it means the doctor prescribe you some medicine for your use at home, give you a mc and has the necessary warning against sharing your meds, selling it or taking the medicune and driving, or going out in public.
Operating a machinery eg. a car is prohibited under the influence of prescribed medicine.
There also is limitation as to how many you can bring overseas, and warnings are constantly posted vehicles going into Singapore or any other country.
It is also stated that only hospital persons that is licenced to be carrying those canabis on person, are allow to transport the canabis for medical purpose.
Is the 20 year old Ghanian a medical doctor, licenced nurse or has a prescription?
And a mother has mentioned that she rather has her children away from any surrounding that suggest any medicine is okay without a prescription.
-
Originally posted by viciouskitty74:
I've checked with some people.
Canabis legalised in USA, for medical purpose. It available in hospitals
If the doctor felt that you are depressed or whatever, he can give you a leave a absence from work and prescribed you the canabis.
Translate to Singapore terms....it means the doctor prescribe you some medicine for your use at home, give you a mc and has the necessary warning against sharing your meds, selling it or taking the medicune and driving, or going out in public.
Operating a machinery eg. a car is prohibited under the influence of prescribed medicine.
There also is limitation as to how many you can bring overseas, and warnings are constantly posted vehicles going into Singapore or any other country.
It is also stated that only hospital persons that is licenced to be carrying those canabis on person, are allow to transport the canabis for medical purpose.
Is the 20 year old Ghanian a medical doctor, licenced nurse or has a prescription?
And a mother has mentioned that she rather has her children away from any surrounding that suggest any medicine is okay without a prescription.
why alway people like to compare laws with US of A, get over it, USA hv lost few trillions, they are on the downfall, this is Singapore, before any plane land here, there will be an announcement in various languages with ample warning of the consquences of drugs trafficking. Even if you want to bring in something that is offensive but for own usage, you must declare it before travelling and seek permission.The street of USA are full of junkies and druggies, dun bring it here, we hv enough of crisis from them already.
And for MC, in the context of singapore, it is not a document recognise in the court, read your MC probably ya.
-
Amnesty Bin pls...
at least.. for a last minute cold sweat decision.
-
if dare to do it, be a hero, admit it and face the music,...save your amnesty for real poor peoples better.
Do u know that if this guy succeed or had succeeded before, how much is he going to gain and how much our society is going to get bad to worst. Remember, a society that you and I live in peace.
-
*yawn*
a society gone bad and into anarchy because of marijuana ? lol..
-
n marijuana can also make one sleepy..ARhhhghh!...yawn!
-
N docile... so... less crime.. lol Cause everyone too stoned to do bad things. zzzzz....
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
And for MC, in the context of singapore, it is not a document recognise in the court, read your MC probably ya.
Well, I did HRM, so MC is not recognized in court if the condition is not serious.However, after the SARS scare, folks on MC is required to stay out of crowds and that can include going to court.
Its up to the courts discretion whether to recognise the MC or not.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
Ahh but don't you realise that regulation is also part of legislation, and that producing items that don't conform to the regs would be criminal too? So as you as you tinker with the laws, one form of crime decreases while another increases - driving under the influence, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, etc.
When people commit offences or do stupid things, we also blame the drugs because the users lose their ability to make rational decisions whilst under the influence. I'd be amazed if someone tried to preach the anti-drink-driving message to a tanked pubgoer. It's this loss of judgment (one of those things that makes us human) under the altered state that will make turning drugs mainstream impossible.
You can obtain anything you want if you're desperate enough (as you implied). And you need to be if you risk associations with drug lords, the underworld and the other illegal activities they conduct. Such unsavouriness and the resulting high prices also put people off, as has been mentioned before.
People who try to benefit in irresponsible ways will always be a headache whatever the regulations, so the other approach is to reduce the demand, by setting barriers and making even that first taste less accessible than ideal. Criminalising the trafficking and propagation of the drug and its habit, whatever its effect on others, is a logical step that follows.
I don't have hard facts or figures, and it's flawed, but no less so than the alternative.
I do understand that drugs would require regulation if legalised. However, to prevent crimes involving drug use such as driving while under the influence, laws enforcing a minimum age to purchase drugs as with alcohol and tobacco, making it illegal for supplying minors with drugs and imposing extremely harsh penalties for harming others while under the influence which would apply to driving under the influence whether or not anyone is actually harmed.
Even though another form of crime will increase, those crimes are actually unlawful and should be punished as opposed to the previous injustice of having many harmless and responsible drug users prosecuted.
Despite what many may think, obtaining drugs even in Singapore is extremely easy, by no means do you have to be desperate. You wouldn't even have to associate with drug lords, just small-time dealers at the very bottom of the chain, you can even get some from people you don't know by just asking around in clubs.
The reduction of demand could be done through the introduction of warning labels on legally sold drugs much like with cigarettes and the harder drugs such as heroin could be controlled by requiring doctor's permission for its medical use. I don't see why we need to reduce the demand of lighter drugs such as marijuana as it isn't as dangerous as those legal drugs sold openly such as alcohol and tobacco.