Should drugs be legalised?

[Njugle]

As a statistical aside, and something that is seldom considered in thes matters; Prescription drugs were in the limelight yesterday with adverse reactions and deaths caused by such.

The video report on the subject can be found here

The stats cite over 1000 deaths per year in the UK and 20,000+ adverse reactions, but the story reports that it is thought that many more occur, unreported.

 

For comparison, here are some illegal and legal drug stats from a website, which claims that overall figures cannot be quantified due to the multitude of circumstances resulting in deaths.

 

Table 1 Drug-related deaths in England and Wales 2000 to 2004

Cocaine 575

Amphetamine 384

Ecstasy 227

Solvents 246[3]

Opiates (heroin, morphine & methadone) 4,976

Alcohol 25,000 - 200,000 approx.

Tobacco half a million approx

NB. 4 year period here.

 

Not making any point here, it is just an interesting comparison to compare legal and illegal in some aspects,though always hard to do as stats are so hard to glean. Many prescription drugs commonly used have side effects to match those of illegal ones.

[Ghostrider]

The stats cite over 1000 deaths per year in the UK and 20,000+ adverse reactions, but the story reports that it is thought that many more occur, unreported.

 

A situation "helped" in no small way by a culture of denial, or "no blame" (for them at least) among many Doctors to whom such suspected occurances are presented. Leading to no investigation, and obviously subsequently no reporting of them.

[Para Handy]

The stats cite over 1000 deaths per year in the UK and 20,000+ adverse reactions, but the story reports that it is thought that many more occur, unreported.

 

A situation "helped" in no small way by a culture of denial, or "no blame" (for them at least) among many Doctors to whom such suspected occurances are presented. Leading to no investigation, and obviously subsequently no reporting of them.

 

 

Heath Ledger comes to mind here

Brokeback Mountain

[Fjool]

Asset forfeiture to be strengthened in the UK

 

Not only can the government now lock you up for 48 days without charge as a terrorist, now they can take everything you own if they suspect you might be dealing drugs.

 

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said suspects found to be "completely innocent" would get their goods back.

Oh well that's ok then, I'm sure everything will be just fine. I wonder how long it takes to prove your innocence, and reclaim everything.

 

This is a step closer towards the USA's system which has proved ruinous to many innocents; and is a well-known tool of abuse for the corrupt. In short: it is a bad idea.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

 

Furthermore:

The Assets Recovery Agency, set up in 2002, was criticised by the Commons public accounts committee last year for being "ill planned" and "unrealistic" after it spent £65m over four years to recover just £23m.

Value for money, eh?

[ArabiaTerra]

From the same report:

Addicts could also lose benefits unless they agree to meet a "treatment adviser"

Q: Why do addicts commit crime?

A: To get money to buy drugs.

 

Q: What do you think will happen if you take their benefits away?

A: They will commit more crime.

 

You really couldn't make this up. It just shows how totally bankrupt the Government's drug policy really is.

[Para Handy]

I suppose that every one who want's to make drugs legal would have no problem with flying with this idiot

 

A pilot whose light aircraft crash-landed in a garden in Kent has been arrested on suspicion of cultivating and using cannabis.

[Fjool]

Perhaps you don't mind driving with this guy then, ParaH'?

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=7930579&nav=23iiLbcF

[Para Handy]

Fjool

 

Sorry to disappoint but I don't Drink so they can ban that as well as far as far as I'm cornered

[Medziotojas]

Thinking about it though, a license for tobacco is probably a step closer to a license for cannabis overall. It's rather what DamnSaxon was suggesting earlier, and could be applied to various substances.

 

I've no idea if I like the idea or not yet.

 

I've been giving this some thought, and I could see it working as far as discouraging new smokers is concerned. Fully-fledged nicotine addicts would probably purchase such a license, but a youngster without a nicotine addiction would be unlikely to fork out the cash, therefore making cigarettes much harder to obtain, and hopefully creating a generation of non-smokers.

 

The downside would be black market cigarettes and tobacco being sold on the fly. Of course this isn't a new practice with many people selling duty free tobacco and cigarettes as it stands; however, this would increase should such a license come into force.

 

It also seems a little unfair to target one user group, and once the floodgates were opened we would be in danger of having to fork out for licenses for every little pleasure.

[Muppet]

It also seems a little unfair to target one user group, and if the floodgates were opened we would be in danger of having to fork out for licenses for every little pleasure.

 

It wouldn't be a case of "I've got a headache" It would be "Lets see your licence"

[Medziotojas]

Never mind prohibition, this is what happens when you make legal drugs prohibitively expensive:

 

Warning over 'toxic' cigarettes

 

"The problem is they have no idea where they come from or - more importantly - what they contain."

 

...sound familiar?

[Fjool]

Or how about this:

 

Police duped over fictional drug

 

This is the sort of nonsense which occurs when people react rather than think and take the time to investigate. Unfortunately most of our drug policies are even less plausible and carefully considered than this knee-jerk embarrassment.

[aWordinyourEar]

Prohibition encourages the kind of absurdity in the story fjool links to.

 

A police chappy said the other day if alcohol was discovered today it would be regarded as a class A drug... too right it would, it causes more harm to the body than heroin. But, as has been proved, prohibition does not succeed in curbing the behaviour of humans who like mind-altering substances.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

How drug laws work in America:

 

More and more ordinary people, elected officials, newspaper columnists, economists, doctors, judges and even the Surgeon General of the United States are concluding that the effects of our drug control policy are at least as harmful as the effects of drugs themselves.

 

After decades of criminal prohibition and intensive law enforcement efforts to rid the country of illegal drugs, violent traffickers still endanger life in our cities, a steady stream of drug offenders still pours into our jails and prisons, and tons of cocaine, heroin and marijuana still cross our borders unimpeded. 

 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes criminal prohibition of drugs. Not only is prohibition a proven failure as a drug control strategy, but it subjects otherwise law-abiding citizens to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for what they do in private. In trying to enforce the drug laws, the government violates the fundamental rights of privacy and personal autonomy that are guaranteed by our Constitution. The ACLU believes that unless they do harm to others, people should not be punished -- even if they do harm to themselves. There are better ways to control drug use, ways that will ultimately lead to a healthier, freer and less crime-ridden society.

 

A Nation of Jailers. The "lock 'em up" mentality of the war on drugs has burdened our criminal justice system to the breaking point. Today, drug-law enforcement consumes more than half of all police resources nationwide, resources that could be better spent fighting violent crimes like rape, assault and robbery. 

 

The recent steep climb in our incarceration rate has made the U.S. the world's leading jailer, with a prison population that now exceeds one million people, compared to approximately 200,000 in 1970. Nonviolent drug offenders make up 58 percent of the federal prison population, a population that is extremely costly to maintain. In 1990, the states alone paid $12 billion, or $16,000 per prisoner. While drug imprisonments are a leading cause of rising local tax burdens, they have neither stopped the sale and use of drugs nor enhanced public safety.

 

Ending prohibition is not a panacea. It will not by itself end drug abuse or eliminate violence. Nor will it bring about the social and economic revitalization of our inner cities. However, ending prohibition would bring one very significant benefit: It would sever the connection between drugs and crime that today blights so many lives and communities. In the long run, ending prohibition could foster the redirection of public resources toward social development, legitimate economic opportunities and effective treatment, thus enhancing the safety, health and well-being of the entire society.

 

They dont, they never did, they never will.

 

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/10758pub19950106.html

[KOYAANISQATSI]