Should drugs be legalised?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Why you can hate drugs and still want to legalize them

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n10_v27/ai_17612755

[Medziotojas]

Shetland Today wrote:

 

At a conservative estimate she thinks islanders spend at least £1 million a year on heroin alone, it having mushroomed over the last year.

 

And then went on to write:

 

Even with the anticipated annual funding for the drugs team from Shetland Charitable Trust and the NHS, Ms Hession still needs another £170,000 just to keep the service running at its existing level for another year, never mind expanding to help all the addicts seeking help.

 

My point being that if the criminal element were removed from this equation, and a fixed tax rate was set for all drugs, then not only would the supply be uncontaminated, but there would be enough funding left in the coffers to promote education, rehabilitation and counselling.

 

The choices that surround us are here to stay. I say legislate for, and educate against.

[Fjool]

I say legislate for, and educate against.

A very rational attitude, Medziotojas.

I just wish everyone would think about this topic as logically.

[Fjool]

Legalise all drugs: chief constable demands end to 'immoral laws'

One of Britain's most senior police officers is to call for all drugs – including heroin and cocaine – to be legalised and urges the Government to declare an end to the "failed" war on illegal narcotics.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Gordon Brown signalled an intensification of the existing battle. "We will send out a clear message that drugs are never going to be decriminalised," the Prime Minister told the party.

 

Looks like things will get a whole lot uglier before reason is allowed to dictate on this one.

[Guest Anonymous]

With a bit of luck, and good judgment on the part of the electorate we wont have to worry about his opinion when he does eventually call an election

[EnglishinScotland]

It seems to me there are two possible reasons for legalizing:

Reducing the high crime surrounding illegal drugs.

Reducing rates of drug abuse.

 

The first is the more likely I would say, but even then it's quite possible such people who commit drug-related crime would still find other ways to commit crime. The argument that by making drugs less 'glamorous' and legal that you reduce usage just doesn't stand up. I'd wager there are way more alcoholics than chronic heroin users, and alcohol is entirely legal and not more addictive than heroin. I suppose it could be argued that people are less inclined to start using heroin than alcohol because of the perceived severity of the drug, but how on earth could we reduce the perceived severity by legalising? It's all very well to talk about education, but if something is readily, legally available that sends out a message to people.

[Fjool]

My reasoning is already explained in this thread but, to summarise:

 

Prohibition doesn't work. It makes dangerous substances more dangerous; stimulates the black-market; reduces control; encourages crime.

 

To call these drugs 'controlled substances' is an enormous misnomer. They are anything but controlled. The rapidly increasing number of people with drug problems, the decreasing cost of drugs (despite increasing money spent on prohibition) and the surrounding crime are all symptoms of the failed 'war on drugs'.

 

I'd rather the money spent enforcing prohibition was spent on honest education, rehabilitation and health support.

 

Our policies are also entirely inconsistent; alcohol and tobacco (demonstrably two of the more damaging) are legal, but others are not. This disconnect only promotes confusion and mistrust.

 

it's quite possible such people who commit drug-related crime would still find other ways to commit crime

This is just barmy, tbh. It implies that people commit crime just for the sake of committing crime. I don't think this is the case at all.

 

It's all very well to talk about education, but if something is readily, legally available that sends out a message to people.

It is not the place of the legal system to make statements about health; it is the wrong approach. People who wish to take drugs continue to do so, regardless of the illegality.

 

I could elaborate for hours, but you'll find everything already said back in the twenty or so pages of this thread.

[EnglishinScotland]

Will answer later.

[Ghostrider]

It seems to me there are two possible reasons for legalizing:

Reducing the high crime surrounding illegal drugs.

Reducing rates of drug abuse.

 

The first is the more likely I would say, but even then it's quite possible such people who commit drug-related crime would still find other ways to commit crime. The argument that by making drugs less 'glamorous' and legal that you reduce usage just doesn't stand up. I'd wager there are way more alcoholics than chronic heroin users, and alcohol is entirely legal and not more addictive than heroin. I suppose it could be argued that people are less inclined to start using heroin than alcohol because of the perceived severity of the drug, but how on earth could we reduce the perceived severity by legalising? It's all very well to talk about education, but if something is readily, legally available that sends out a message to people.

 

Another possible reason is, could legalising it possible make the status quo any "worse"?

 

You'd reduce markedly the criminal element in the supply chain, similarly you'd reduce the amount of Police, Court and Prison time and resources wasted on all the small fry that are in the system for nothing more than possession or at worst were supplying two or three mates occasionally, and are cluttering all three up.

 

Prohibition achieves nothing positive, the goods are available everywhere to anyone 90+% of the time, and the simple fact possessing and/or dealing is illegal only deters a very few, most who choose to use do so with the same cavalier attitude of anyone who chooses to ignore a law, getting caught and any subsequent court action are simply an occupational hazard.

 

What positive impact is prohibition achieving for anyone right now? Even if lagalising made not one scrap of difference to usage levels, crime levels etc, it would free up a considerable amount of man hours and resources currently costing the taxpayer an arm and a leg, plus it would allow the full extent and nature of usage to be far more easily observed, quantified and addressed effectively. I see prohibition as nothing more than a magician's cloak behind which reality is hid while politicians and the media continue to hype and spin total b/s about how effective and necessary it is. Yet behind the cloak it changes nothing. Just saving the taxpayer needlessly footing a bill for a pointless exercise, and bringing the full extent of the issue more out in the open so that it can be more effectively addressed, is more than enough justification to legalise IMHO.

[humptygrumpty]

 

folk could sit a gumption test to determine whether society would be in danger of losing all sense of moral fibre should that person decide to get monged up on wobble juice. quote]

 

Gumption test eh ? Oh well bang goes that idea in da toon hall den.

[EnglishinScotland]

If I might get slightly philosophical, the argument that one should decriminalize because it would not increase abuse rates and/or because of negative societal effects of prohibition, is a consequentialist one, ie the ends justify the means. The alternative, deontological argument is that we shouldn't legalise as the action implies that these drugs aren't harmful.

 

That said, I agree with who said that the policy is inconsistent because of tobacco and alcohol.

[Colin]

I may be a little simplistic here but, in my opinion, the problem with drug use will never go away until you can take organised crime out of the equation.

 

Why not devise a scheme whereby genuine registered addicts can get their drugs direct from their GP?

This would ensure that they are, at least, supervised in their use and subject to regular medical checkups. Proper controls would prevent any surplus "leaking" into the wider community.

 

Who knows, without their captive market organised crime might then find that it is not worth the time and risk providing the stuff illegally. If this could be made to work maybe, in time, drug use would decrease.

[EnglishinScotland]

Why not devise a scheme whereby genuine registered addicts can get their drugs direct from their GP?

This would ensure that they are, at least, supervised in their use and subject to regular medical checkups.

 

Maybe yeah. I don't know about addiction to other drugs, but there already is a better scheme which gives heroin users methadone and gives them the chance to wean themselves off heroin. Don't know what would be done about other drugs, but I believe cannabis and the other class A drugs are not supposed to be physically addictive, only psychologically. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[Fjool]

Problem with methadone is that it's even more nasty than heroin in some ways; it's just a different kind of poison, not a magic elixir. Remember that heroin was invented as a supposedly non-addictive cure for opium addiction. I wonder what's next...

 

Methadone is not a 'better scheme'. It's just a more manageable form of addiction. Heroin addiction is only as dangerous as it is because it is illegal. The logic for prohibition is somewhat circular in this regard.

 

The aim should be to make these substances as safe and clean as possible; not the reverse. Quite how is making heroin more dangerous going to help?