[Closed] If we legalised drugs....

8 pages

Custard creams

Tom_W3.141592654 and TJ in "Handbags of Fury"

They are legal, you just buy them from a shop just as you do cigarettes and alcohol. Age limit, ID etc,.

how would we know that the person making the request was a first time user assuming that if they were their request would most likely be refused?

Surely if they were legalised, then anyone above the chosen "age of consent" could purchase them.
Why would we be refusing anyone ?

If we did structure it so that we only provided for legacy users wouldn't that still result in an illegal drugs trade, albiet a greatly diminished one?

That would be "de criminalised" rather than "legalised"

Anyone under that system not on the "approved list" would still be buying illegally, so it wouldn't really make any difference (other than helping addicts I suppose, which is a good thing)
But it's not "legalising drugs"

They are legal, you just buy them from a shop just as you do cigarettes and alcohol. Age limit, ID etc,.

You'd have to have some sort of controlled use. Fags and booze can kill you but not from one hit. An overdose however is all to easy to achieve. You'd have to have some way of managing what an individual consumed.

If we legalised drugs....

everyone will look like this:

[img] [/img]

everyone will look like this:

Wow, what drug turns your vision from colour to B&W?

I always find it ironic that the same politicians who have been telling us for decades how everything must be dictated by 'The Market' also then tell us that there are certain (very desirable) substances that we absolutely, totally can not have! Under any circumstances!!

Then they wonder why they've presided over the present nonsensical, and totally ineffectual farce

Legalise everything, sell pure product through licensed premises, and spend the money saved on not having the ridiculous and utterly pointless 'War on Drugs', and the tax revenues raised on education!

Wow, what drug turns your vision from colour to B&W?

Depends on the potency. The less effective only renders people like

[img] [/img]

are these the addictive drugs or just the ones that make you want more

You'd have to have some sort of controlled use. Fags and booze can kill you but not from one hit. An overdose however is all to easy to achieve. You'd have to have some way of managing what an individual consumed.

No you wouldn't. You would leave that up to the individual. Overdoses won't happen any more than they do already.
Legalising really is as simple as just making them available for purchase. Putting controls and caveats into it are done by people who don't really want to legalise them. Where is your control for how much alcohol you can buy?

Where is your control for how much alcohol you can buy?

She's called "Mrs Glover" in my case 😆

Where is your control for how much alcohol you can buy?

Hardly the same thing. That's largely controlled by your ability to consume.

Pop to the supermarket and try to buy 40 boxes of Paracetamol, see how you get on.

No you wouldn't. You would leave that up to the individual. Overdoses won't happen any more than they do already.

Aye - with a suitable public information campaign (like booze/smoking) it should be easy: no-one WANTS to overdose. If you tell them not to take more than one heroin every 8 hours (etc), then most wouldn't. Especially new users.

Remember we've been prescribing methadone for years. Not exactly a roaring success but in terms of safely getting dangerous drugs to people who need them it probably provides a reasonable base to work from...

I think one the problems with "legalise everything" is it adds a legitimacy to it. for instance, when I was young and starting drinking, the rationale my teenage mind has was that whilst drinking wasn't particularly good for you, it must be ok because it's legal. Illegal drugs I had no interest in because, well, they were illegal, so they must be bad, right?

That said, it wasn't something I ever really saw at school / college / university, not even rumours of someone else partking, that I remember. Maybe I led a sheltered life or maybe it was a side effect of the people I hung round with. Could also have been that we all grew up with Zammo chasing the dragon and getting a smack on the nose, "just say no" kids.

Legalise it, tax it, vat it.

Let the druggies have it.

As it stands I have no desire to start 'using', just not my bag really. Maybe if it was more readily available and socially acceptable I might be tempted - smoking weed in a bar and such. Therefore would legalizing it bring with it a larger uptake in drug use? Possibly...for people like me.

Remember we've been prescribing methadone for years.

Thats not really a great example if we're talking about risk of overdose - you take a methadone prescription in a measured dose standing in front of the pharmacist. Methadone users don't get given enough rope to hang themselves.* Otherwise what we're talking about people being free to take whatever they want so long as they're chaperoned by the state.

* although I'm sure hanging yourself is actually a symptom of having slightly too little rope. If you had enough rope you'd just be tethered.

Transform - http://www.tdpf.org.uk/ - is your source if you want to read up on this.

Cannabis first - which is already happening in the US -

[url=

GREA.CH "http://www.grea.ch/sites/default/files/transform-how-to-regulate-cannabis.pdf"

]"How to regulate Cannabis - a practical guide"[/url] (free pdf download) is pretty comprehensive. I've only scanned it but a friend who worked for them gave me a copy that's in my reading pile.

What I don't understand is how you manage who does and does not get hold of the substance (whatever it is) in such a situation. How would it work for those that are already addicted? What impact does removing the need to worry about financing the problem have on their user behaviour

Just like alcohol is the basic answer I think.

Is there any data that suggests in such instances that users/addicts can revert to leading otherwise product lives? What if someone isn't already an addict but wants to try it; how is that managed; how would we know that the person making the request was a first time user assuming that if they were their request would most likely be refused?

Lots of users already lead productive lives. Use of drugs =! addict any more than drinking alcohol = alcoholic. I can smoke a few cigarettes and then stop again - I know many people can't

UK Cocaine Use - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/12/cocaine-ballooned-across-society-since-2001-report

Many of the problems experienced by drug addicts are a result of adulterated drugs or dirty needles. Legalisation addresses that.

We already have a (potentially) dangerous drug legalised - alcohol. Responsible for alot of domestic abuse, violence, deaths due to drink driving, big part in some rape cases, plays a part in many cases of the neglect of children, too much rots your liver, responsible for heart disease etc.

My point? It's a socially constructed narrative regards which drugs are evil and dangerous. Some people talk about current illegal drugs as if they're worse than alcohol - they're not, it's just we've been told they are bad and have accepted alcohol as a norm of society and choose to ignore all the bad stuff that happens as a result of drink.

although I'm sure hanging yourself is actually a symptom of having slightly too little rope. If you had enough rope you'd just be tethered.

It's a good point and not one I'd considered before. Not that I'm a leading expert in such matters, but I'd have thought that too little rope wouldn't give you sufficient drop to snap your neck, perhaps?

Legalise all of them, we don't have enough dickish drivers on the roads as it is.....

Rather than be influenced by others, I haven't read any replies.

I have, in the past, more than just dabbled with 'the drugs' and oddly now work with people who help people with drugs.

Decimalisation would be a fantastic step towards fixing our Drug Problem – it’s only misunderstanding and frankly stupidity stopping us – it’s not a leap into the unknown, other countries have successfully reduced their drug problems by decimalisation and targeting support and treatment and not enforcement.

That’s not to say we should just tear up the anti-drug laws and let the chips fall where they may, that would be, if anything, worse than the system we have now.

Our current drug laws for the most part were drafted with one clear goal in mind, scare the population and keep the government of the day in power - we learnt this from, as usual, the US – where Ronald Regan won office and kept it through the combined fear of drugs at home and communism abroad - he really was a ruthless unpleasant Man who was more than happy to falsely accuse other actors to further his career 20 years before he was president.

My solution would be this:

Cannabis, is it harmless? No – is it dangerous? No in my view. Nothing is completely harmless, nothing fun anyway – if we are happy to live in a world where alcohol, fast cars, motorbikes, action sports, martial arts and Golf is tolerated and accepted – we should be able to live with people doing a bit of cannabis, promote it? Well no, we don’t allow tobacco advertising and we restrict alcohol advertising – I wouldn’t want to see adverts for Virgin Ganga on TV, but as long as it’s regulated and taxed and sold with the appropriate information – I’d rather see the revenue go to HMRC than the local dealer.

With harder drugs I think a compromise still needs to be found – the best solution for existing addicts would be state provided, state administered drugs – support if they want to quit (most addicts do) but no requirement for them to do so – it seems counterintuitive, but if you, in any way, restrict access to them – you create a market for their illegal sale, and it’s that sale that creates the market, which creates the addiction, which creates the crime waves to pay for it.
But equally, I couldn’t sleep easy knowing there was a ‘bar’ where people could, if they wished – turn up to, say – “I’d like some heroin please” and be passed a clean, regulated product in a safe environment with someone ready with Naloxone and a defib if you over do it.
Maybe we need more work done in the causes of addiction, but as I understand it, it rarely the old “my cousin tried reefer for the very first time/Now he's doing horse, it's June” line Prince sang about, gatewaying is usually caused by dealers selling weed to naïve kids and talking them into harder stuff – it’s the dealers you’ve got to remove.

That or we do what they do in the Philippines - just kill all users and dealers in the street. I'm sure with enough time and ammo it'll be pretty effective - not my cup of tea though.

Decimalisation would be a fantastic step towards fixing our Drug Problem

What, like weighing it in grams you mean? (-:

Some people talk about current illegal drugs as if they're worse than alcohol

I think this argument fails simply because one legal and socially acceptable substance doesn't mean that you want more. I also think it fails, though I am prepared to be wrong, in that while I know things like heroine are no where near as chemically addictive as people make out (you tend to get routinised to its use before you become chemically dependent), a prolonged period of use will still result in chemical addiction and does have a rapid negative impact on the body.

It's all degrees for sure.

Cougar - Moderator

Decimalisation would be a fantastic step towards fixing our Drug Problem

What, like weighing it in grams you mean? (-:

****ing spell checker ha ha.

geetee1972 - Member

Some people talk about current illegal drugs as if they're worse than alcohol

I think this argument fails simply because one legal and socially acceptable substance doesn't mean that you want more. I also think it fails, though I am prepared to be wrong, in that while I know things like heroine are no where near as chemically addictive as people make out (you tend to get routinised to its use before you become chemically dependent), a prolonged period of use will still result in chemical addiction and does have a rapid negative impact on the body.

It's all degrees for sure.

Heroin is also damaging in any quantity - there is no safe amount.

Ironically unlike cananbis, herion is allowed for medical reasons - although they call it diamorphine, it's usually restricted for end-of-life pain control though - so if you're dying on cancer, you can have a bit of smack - but not weed, because that would be dangerous.

**** spell checker ha ha.

I figured autocorrect. Made me chuckle, it sounded like the sort of thing an EDL Brexiter would add to their list of complaints.

Wow, what drug turns your vision from colour to B&W?

DMT did that to me.

Surely there is a big difference in the way you would need to treat drugs depending on their type of usage, physical effects,societal impacts etc... legalising weed or MDMA would require a system like we have for booze or fags. Smack would require a very different approach and Acid another still.
The problem with drugs is that the classification (A,B,C) system used is an irrelevance for anything other than a legal system of prohibition.

Could a UK government manage such a step change? I very much doubt it.

I think one the problems with "legalise everything" is it adds a legitimacy to it. for instance, when I was young and starting drinking, the rationale my teenage mind has was that whilst drinking wasn't particularly good for you, it must be ok because it's legal. Illegal drugs I had no interest in because, well, they were illegal, so they must be bad, right?

the flipside here (and I had similar views to your up to around 16/17ish) is that when I finally took an E in my late teens - and had the absolute time of my life, and didn't become a drooling addict - I promptly decided that all the drug education I'd ever had was pure propaganda with no basis in reality. Which is also not a great position to be in!

Removing the whole countercultural appeal of drugs probably wouldn't hurt, either...

Who would control the supply chain, that's what I find interesting, rather than the should it/shouldnt it.

There's always some talk about it being controlled by the government, but I imagine that the industry would be a prime candidate for a ppp, else it wouldn't take long before it was totally sold off to pay pensions or similar.
Otherwise, a toss up between the pharmaceuticals industry, forever trying to patent new variations on existing stuff, or possibly see the market being hoovered up by the tobacco companies, which would seem rather wrong to me.

Only other candidate would be organic growth, but couldn't see organised crime being kept away from that.

Just talking about cannabis. The industry is varied of course as it is something anyone can grow, but the organized crime side is as far away from the perceived lifestyle than it is possible to get. Exploitation, slave labor, dangerous conditions. That is this country we are talking about, not overseas. If nothing else the demand fueling those setups would drop significantly if it was legalized. Legislation would require approved suppliers to account in detail for their product. I'd rather that be done by a tobacco company than a 15 year old kid sold into slavery.

Who would control the supply chain, that's what I find interesting, rather than the should it/shouldnt it.

Well that is precisely my question. I'm genuinely interested to know how this would work, not whether it is or isn't a good idea. Let's assume for a moment it is.

Strikes me if we legalised drugs we could probably fund the entire NHS on the profits and logic says the two should be connected.

kerley - Member
booze can kill you but not from one hit.

The word overdose, means what it says, [i]over [/i]dose.

Cougar - Moderator
I think one the problems with "legalise everything" is it adds a legitimacy to it. for instance, when I was young and starting drinking, the rationale my teenage mind has was that whilst drinking wasn't particularly good for you, it must be ok because it's legal. Illegal drugs I had no interest in because, well, they were illegal, so they must be bad, right?

We'll that's just some kinda crazy association that legal = moral or right. Which is a whole other argument. safe to say I completely disagree with the premise.

There's a converse, i'm that illegality is itself attractive, we'll maybe not the illegality its self, but the taboo nature of drugs is a turn on for some. Plus as edukator says, if you do finally take some drugs, likely hood is that you'll realise the propaganda, is exactly nonsense.

So bit of a double side coin that one.

If it happened, which it won't, then marketing certainly wouldn't be allowed.

So the pharma companies would be in a much better position than the tobacco firms to become the "dealers", with the government taking a huge cut in excise, obvs.

They'll already be supplying diamorphine and cocaine to the NHS. I was given cocaine solution last year for an op to fix my broken nose, and I haven't turned into an addict... yet.

Heroin is also damaging in any quantity - there is no safe amount.

The shite that suppliers cut it with, that is then injected and causes infection, damaged veins etc

Overdosage - when there's less shite in there than you're used to and so you get more actual heroin than you were expecting

Infections due to use of shitty conditions in which to prepare and inject said shite

Infections (inc STIs), beatings, self-neglect etc that go with the "lifestyle" of some heroin users paying high prices for their fix and having to resort to alternative means of financing it and/or having no time or money for decent food and living conditions

Legalisation would fix ( 😉 ) pretty much all of that - even for such a [i][b]terrible[/b][/i] drug as heroin

Who would control the supply chain, that's what I find interesting, rather than the should it/shouldnt it.

OK, well it is all about tracability. This exists in many industries now, it is not difficult.

So for cannabis. Points of sale must be licensed. Part of the license is that all product must come from licensed farms. Licensed farms must audit and account for their produce. And so on. Regular inspections by a regulatory body - could be the ministry of agriculture - or something else ofWeed? or ofHead maybe?

There would probably be some level of fraud, but that is going to be small fry compared to the current organized crime.

vinnyeh

Who would control the supply chain, that's what I find interesting, rather than the should it/shouldnt it.

I thought the U.S and British Army already do? Not JivehoneyJive stuff, but apparently they protect the poppy farmers/heroin trade in Afghanistan to maintain stability.

Read the book, Good Cop - Bad war .
Its written by an undercover officer who spent years putting dealers and generally nasty people away.
At the end of it his conclusion is legalise it. Regulate it heavily, and put a system in place to help addicts get off whatever they are addicted to.
The drop in crime rate , and the circle of violence and prostetution that accompanies the hard drug culture would be a huge benefit to society.

The drop in crime rate , and the circle of violence and prostetution that accompanies the hard drug culture would be a huge benefit to society.

It would undoubtedly be a very good idea, but the last year has shown that the British public isn't really open to rational discussion or expert opinion.

Maybe in 100 years time.

What's happening here? There's no arguing or pointless graphs. I'll come back when it reaches 6 pages 😉

I wonder what impact, if any, the theoretical legalisation would have on crimes that are associated with drink and / or drugs (particularly driving and antisocial offences) and what percentage of the population who previously haven't partaken would decide to give something a go.

I think legalisation or decriminalisation along with education would be a good thing. I think everybody knows that people will take drugs if they want to irregardless of legality. Making it safer to do so would be a good idea IMO.

what percentage of the population who previously haven't partaken would decide to give something a go.

This is an interesting question.

I expect there'd be a bit of that, but I think the real sticking point would be on rationing.

Do you let people buy 20 pills for their weekend's entertainment? I think there'd have to be a bit of damage limitation built into the rules.

I don't really agree with the point of decriminalisation, why would you leave control of the trade in the hands of the black market?

It isn't really the drug that's the dangerous bit IMO.

Well I sort of see the point your making, but heoin use is still really bad for you.

OK so to outline my question again, for comment and opinion.

Let's assume we have legalised all class A drugs and they are now being distributed through a controlled government channel.

If you still charge for it, you still have the problem that addicts, who can't hold down a job because they are addicts, can't afford to pay for it. So let's put that issue to one side and agree that we're going to give it away for free, like methadone.

So now you still need to control it's distribution.

Are you going to let anyone have it assuming they are old enough (you'd apply an age restriction obviously).

If anyone can request it and be supplied it, then we have to accept that as a society, we are enablign the creation of a new population of heroin/cocaine/ecstasy users. That might be a price worth paying for the benefits?

What do people think specifically about this?

Heroin is also damaging in any quantity - there is no safe amount

There really is as long as its pure and t can be prescribed in the Uk as diamorphine.

Dont mistake this for me saying its safe nothing is 100% safe and o ones life would be enhanced by being a heroin user never mind a heroin addict

Prohibition does not work so it ought to be legalised so as we can control it, do less harm and make shit loads of money stopping the "war on drugs" and getting some tax payments out of it

These days with the dark web and other avenues the only people - especially young people- who have not done drugs have done so largely from choice [ rather than lack of opportunity/sources]and legalising them wont alter my behaviour nor the vast majority of the population.

Objecting to it wont stop it and when we cannot stop the supply in the most controlled environments in the country [prison]there is no chance we will end it in wider society.

Prohibition does not work so it ought to be legalised so as we can control it, do less harm and make shit loads of money stopping the "war on drugs" and getting some tax payments out of it

Junky (how ironic that moniker is now) I'm prepared to believe you.

Tell me how you would manage it's distribution as outlined above. Please believe I'm not trying to be argumentative. Think of it as being the opportunity to convince me to your point of view.

and it becomes alot less edgy and way less cool if its legal all of a sudden. Significantly reduces the appeal and the 'look at me, Im double hard coz I do drugs (( zamo )) '.

If you still charge for it, you still have the problem that addicts, who can't hold down a job because they are addicts, can't afford to pay for it. So let's put that issue to one side and agree that we're going to give it away for free, like methadone.

I wouldn't subsidise it. not like we give alcoholics free bevvy. I wouldn't give people a script for methadone either.

yes it can, go and down a bottle of vodka or 2 and see how you get on.

I'm sure it's possible, but I'd expect that you'd almost certainly spew most of it back up before hitting lethal levels, unless you were a pretty hardcore drinker / alcoholic to start with. Your average 17 year old isn't going to be dropping two litres of vodka 'down in one.'

Far as I know, most alcohol-related deaths are a) long-term cumulative damage, b) choking on your own vomit in bed, or c) doing something stupid because you were pissed. I don't know for certain but I'd be surprised if a single-session overdose in isolation was particularly common.

We'll that's just some kinda crazy association that legal = moral or right.

Crazy or not, it was my reasoning when I was at school. I don't doubt that when you were at school you were the paradigm of perfect thinking with a comprehensive understanding of socioeconomic politics. Me, I'd only just discovered that girls didn't have willies.

Prohibition does not work so it ought to be legalised so as we can control it,

Prohibition does work for the people it does work for. It just doesn't work for the people it doesn't work for.

Prohibition doesn't work for people who don't care the consequences. This is most acutely the case in the US where they try to create ever greater consequences for the things the prohibit but fail to create a society where people care about themselves enough to see any kind of punishment as a threat to their well-being.

If the prohibition of a self-destructive activity 'isn't working' then that activity is doubly self-destructive. In that situation you need to look at what the problems are with our society that would fuel both the escapism of drug use and the self-carelessness that leads people to risk liberty and future prospects to achieve that momentary escape.

Cougar.

Was in the news the other week some 20 something odd did that very thing and carked it, think it was just the one bottle. Don't have a link. Just my point is that most over doses are equivalent to doing something as silly.

Re second point: I know just saying there is a converse to your statement.

When i was a teenager the legality didn't come into it for me. I just wanted to get ****ed up! 😆 Some of the drugs were even legal at the time, some weren't. Magic mushrooms didn't get outlawed till 2005 i think, might have been a bit earlier..

If you still charge for it, you still have the problem that addicts, who can't hold down a job because they are addicts, can't afford to pay for it. So let's put that issue to one side and agree that we're going to give it away for free, like methadone.

Have you actually used many different drugs? Not all drug use leads to not being able to hold down a job.

Are you happy for alcohol to still be legal or should that be made illegal? TO em either all drugs are legal or all drugs are illegal. Much, much more harm caused by alcohol than any other drug. Short term )policing, drink driving) long term (NHS bill of slow deaths)

Prohibition does work for the people it does work for. It just doesn't work for the people it doesn't work for.

So it doesn't work then ?

If it doesn't work for everyone, then it's not prohibition.

kerley - Member
Have you actually used many different drugs? Not all drug use leads to not being able to hold down a job.

Let's assume we have legalised all class A drugs and they are now being distributed through a controlled government channel.

If you still charge for it, you still have the problem that addicts, who can't hold down a job because they are addicts, can't afford to pay for it.

Most addicts and casual users are already holding down jobs.

"Problem" users would be dealt with in the same way as alcohol dependency: Through the health system. Taxes on the supply of said substances would easily cover the cost of treatment (IMHO) - we are already paying for this out of general taxation, so *any* revenue raised would be an improvement.

So let's put that issue to one side and agree that we're going to give it away for free, like methadone.

No, it would have to be bought - just like beer / wine / spirits / tobacco from licenced premises.

So now you still need to control it's distribution.

As above, the same as existing 'stimulants'.

Are you going to let anyone have it assuming they are old enough (you'd apply an age restriction obviously).

Yes

If anyone can request it and be supplied it, then we have to accept that as a society, we are enablign the creation of a new population of heroin/cocaine/ecstasy users.

Anyone can get anything now - the ease with which cocaine, ecstasy and similar 'middle class' drugs are available is laughable. The difference is that at the moment, illegal drug users are the "consumers" that pump funds into the criminal underworld. [b][u]Drug dealers don't operate for the benefit of drug users; they are in it to make money[/u][/b]. What better product to sell than one which makes your customers dependent on it? One where you can expand you market by tempting people with free hits to get them started? Where you operate completely above the law, because your customers accept it that way? Where you can put so much pressure on people that they rob their own grandmothers?

The whole thing is a money making exercise - profits don't go to buying better drugs, they go to other illegal activities.

I would legalise the whole bloody lot tomorrow and make it available as above.

I would argue that the 'drugs problem' would get much better because:

a) Commercial pressures that lead to minor dealers encouraging / recruiting new users would be eliminated.

b) Users would get clean, consistent products, greatly reducing the risk of overdoses, poisonings and infection.

c) Use would be 'above board', making it easier for problem users to seek and receive help without being under the threat of physical violence.

d) The 'underground mystique' of drug use would disappear, making it less appealing.

e) Elimination of drugs-related gang violence

f) Reduction in petty crime as customers could be readily identified.

g) No incentive to smuggle / recruit drugs mules as the supply chain would be legitimate.

I drink alcohol, but don't use illegal drugs, or advocate their use. The current 'war on drugs' is the very definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

Time for a change.

new population of heroin/cocaine/ecstasy users

THey already exist throughout society, and go right the way up to the high echelons I'd imagine.

It isn't really the drug that's the dangerous bit IMO.

I disagree. Heroin is addictive and causes physiological changes in the brain which cause the dependence. This goes for other opioids too, including prescription painkillers like fentanyl. There's a big problem with opioid dependence in the US involving perfectly legal prescription painkillers.
While there's a case for some drugs to be legal on the basis that they may be no more harmful (or maybe even less harmful) than alcohol and cigarettes, I disagree with that suggestion for opioids.

THey already exist throughout society, and go right the way up to the high echelons I'd imagine.

They do; I was referring to the generation that is to come that would ostensibly be legitimised/created by civil society.

But that's by the by.

It's intersting but really the practicality of this comes down to the simple question as to whether we think making some legal legitmises its use and therefore increases the likely use.

Here's a follow up question:

If a substance was known to be extremely harmful and in many instances fatal to 50% of the population, but the other 50% of the population were able to use it without any real harm, would that substance be something you were comfortable to sanction the sale of?

Up until quite recently doctors were allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts. This helped in 4 ways

1. Allowed addicts to get medically pure drug without recourse to crime
2. Allowed them to have normal lives
3. Removed dealers from streets
4. Prevented threat of crime to local communities

You no doubt won't be surprised to hear that these policies were removed because of US pressure applied to make the UK align with the US war on drugs....stupid Americans

Up until quite recently doctors were allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts. This helped in 4 ways

Well this is the workable system that it would seem sensible to move to.

If we legalised drugs.....
It would save the prison service an absolute fortune, that's for sure.

Junky (how ironic that moniker is now) I'm prepared to believe you.
Tell me how you would manage it's distribution as outlined above. Please believe I'm not trying to be argumentative. Think of it as being the opportunity to convince me to your point of view.

We regulate lots of things in society bookies, alcohol, driving licences etc so a similar method to that used to buy alcohol
If you want to have some intervention may everyone register first and attend a course offering help run by Daily Mail readers:wink:

I am sure we will have issues with it but the reality is today there is a drug dealer in many many school in the uk and most children can get hold of drugs. Whatever we do it it will be better that letting amoral money mad junkies control the distribution with a poorly controlled supply chain.

Its irrelevant whether one advocates it or not we cannot make it go away so we should monitor it rather than let it be run by criminals. This wont end the harm of drug use but it will reduce it. Its just the least harm outcome and we have to deal with reality not whether we want folk to do or not do drugs. the reality is they will so how to we want to manage this issue as we cannot make it go away.

They've legalised cannabis in California. So far, the sky has not fallen in.

[img] [/img]

May as well close the thread now.

Y'all been leaving the TM offa Heroin

[img] [/img]

Flash, please can you overlay a plot of numbers of pirates in the world in the last century?

Heroin is addictive and causes physiological changes in the brain which cause the dependence. This goes for other opioids too, including prescription painkillers like fentanyl. There's a big problem with opioid dependence in the US involving perfectly legal prescription painkillers.

IMO the actual drug and its addiction are not in themselves the major cause of death or morbidity (unlike, say, alcohol or tobacco)

Pure medical grade diamorphine is really quite cheap, especially compared to costs of caring for folk with the fallout from using heroin in the current "system". Add in the costs of crime (and policing/judicial processes) to support the habit and you're well away

I'm roughly of the opinion, that people should be educated in regards to the risks they are taking in regards to their health - and then be given the freedom to take those risks but at no cost to the rest of society - cheapish mandatory government insurance should be introduced for those that drink or use, to cover addiction rehabilitation - either through direct tax or a tax on the substances themselves.

However, heroin - possibly coke and a few of the other high risk drugs, in my personal opinion - should only be decriminalised in that users won't be sent to prison, but be placed into schemes where they can use safe GMP standard drugs and have a support system that helps them kick the stuff.

well your opening sentence would somewhat suggest you are being a teeny bit argumentative....its either that or i am just paranoid

I honestly just thought it was funny, your name being Junky in this thread. I really am not being argumentative. It's a genuine attempt to educate myself by hearing other people's opinions.

The argument you laid out is compelling in answering whether we should or should not take this legalisation approach. I buy that argument but it doesn't answer how we should implement such a policy. That's the part that the pro-legalisation lobby rarely addresses.

I can't imagine a situation where somthing as dangerous as say heorin or its derivatives is sold as freely as alcohol or tobacco, but I can see a situation where we have doctors prescribing it routinely to addicts in a controlled envuironment. That would seem very sensible at least as a first step, or as someone pointed out, a return to the previous policy sa it may have existed.

I haven't read the whole thread and I am sure the points have all been made.

The approach should be harm reduction and a move towards a healthcare approach not criminal justice

Different drugs require different approaches.

By making Cannabis available you create a relatively safe place for those who want to get high. People will anyway and while cannabis is not harm free, experience from other countries is that a decriminalisation in some form does not lead to huge increases in consumption or issues

Heroin. Prescription for addicts and make the whole experience dull. Its the dutch method and it works. Dutch junkies are not allways rattling and looking for the next fix causing huge amounts of petty crime and heroin is not the issue in the netherlands it is in the UK

MDMA - Decriminalisation or regulated market Harm reduction. Millions of folk take it anyway and its safe in relation to other drugs so make it safer.

Cocaine decriminalisation of small amounts ( harm reduction, healthcare approach). Remains criminal in larger amounts with it being a law enforcement priority. It really has no redeeming features and was responsible for all the financial shenanigans of the 90s

Other drugs as cocaine

While I've no personal interest in using drugs I'd have to say that the level of cannabis use in the UK is such that it's got to be a better option to legalise its use now.

Thing is with legalisation, particularly with the likes of cannabis is that you could easily legalise it but have a campaign of healthier consumption along with it for example. Prohibition makes that type of thing impossible at the moment.

Take leah Betts as an example. she took an E at a party. she and her friends panicked, she had heard something about taking lots of water so drank pints and pints of water diluted her blood and died from brain swelling.

With a healthcare approach she would not have been worried about criminal records so could have phoned for healthcare advice / gone to A&E and she would have been fine.

Thing is with legalisation, particularly with the likes of cannabis is that you could easily legalise it but have a campaign of healthier consumption along with it for example. Prohibition makes that type of thing impossible at the moment.

The 'socially acceptable' aspect of it changes as well but not necessarily in the way you think. I know a fair few stoners who think nothing of waking up in the morning and having a joint (one of them is a city lawyer incidentally)

For some reason that's considered acceptable in a way that getting up and having a couple of shots of vodka isn't. I think that would change.

Step 1: Legalise Everything
Step 2: Sell softer drugs from authorised licensed dealers (taxed as per alcohol/cigarettes)
Step 3: Sell Harder drugs from government run clinics, where you have to consume/use the product on the premises in a safe environment. This will make it less appealing to newer users. Again taxed as per alcohol, but far cheaper and purer than street prices, thus removing wealth/power from dealers, and reducing drug related crime (as a habit will cost a lot less)

Step 4: Ban drivers etc from using, same as Drink Driving.

Step 5: Spend Money raised from taxes on Drug Education so users can make an informed decision, as well as every other aspect of society, new hospitals, better health care, education etc

Step 6: Enjoy a better society, no more nasty dealers, far less thieving junkies and a better quality of life for everyone.

Wouldn't there always be an arms race with dealers looking for newer, more potent illicit drugs and generally the availability of such a thing moving faster than legislation?

Wouldn't there always be an arms race with dealers looking for newer, more potent illicit drugs

Well there seems to have been a reverse arms race of chemists making crapper and crapper "legal highs" in response to better, safer drugs getting banned - so users may choose to stick with the good stuff.

Wouldn't there always be an arms race with dealers looking for newer, more potent illicit drugs and generally the availability of such a thing moving faster than legislation?