ponyrama

Awesome fun! People could sprinkle it on their lattes at Gloria Jeans and then smash a few shops fronts up and blame it on the caffeine.

To clarify - I have never and will never advocate for the free, legal and unrestricted supply of substances that are deemed harmful to individual or others health. I just think that for those people who are unlucky enough to have gotten themselves dependant on certain substances, whether those substances are currently prohibited or not - we should spend the government dollar on providing quality controlled and safe access to those drugs (providing abstinence is not an option at that time) to reduce the individual, family and community harm that their addiction causes - instead of spending the government dollar on trying to lock them and their suppliers up which is effectively like just throwing the money down the toilet - it doesn't and never will solve the problem.

MartinLuther

I'd be tempted to do a trial. Make them legal, OTC from the chemist, but make it illegal to use in public or around children. Register and treat people with excessive use problems.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

So you can see AstraZeneca jumping in and start to supply crack and ice?

ponyrama

If it was profitable for them to do so yes they would. Diamorphine (pharmaceutical grade heroin) has been licensed for use in the treatment of addiction in the UK for a number of years. It is also used in palliative care.

There is only one company in the UK that produces diamorphine - some years ago one of their productions sites was hit by flood and had to close. It was the time of year that they also make flu vaccines. There's more money in flu vaccines and so the company switched all its other sites to vaccine production which resulted in a national shortage of diamorphine.

So basically yes - they do what makes them the most money. If pharmaceutical grade smokable cocaine and methamphetamine where licensed for use - and there was money in it for them - they'd make it!

iamthecreaturefromuranus

You really think they would? You can see the board meeting now...

"well they have legalised this shit, but what are the chances of having our arses sued if we start producing a product that we know, in advance, is harmful to it's users?. I think we will pass"

Any company producing those products would be insane, especially considering all the baggage that would go with producing, what were only recently, illegal drugs.

ponyrama

Hmmm.....and you think the stuff they all make now is safe? Look up Clozapine - a drug used to treat schizophrenia. That stuff is toxic - still got a license. Dexamphetamine is licensed for use to treat obesity and ADHD and is also licensed to treat addiction in the UK, Cocaine products are used in dental surgery, Ketamine is used in anaesthesia. Most of these drugs are already produced in some form or another on a pharmaceutical basis - all it needs is for someone to apply for and have a license approved for there use in addiction medicine and Bobs your uncle. Arguing that the stuff isnt safe for use is a hard thing to do when the person is using shed loads of the stuff anyway - albeit illegally. Most of the harm people suffer is caused by the adulterants that are used to cut illegal supplies with to make it go further - like baking soda and brick dust and aspirin and worming tablets and talc, ajax, caffeine, er..... gravy granules - ever tried injecting Oxo?

Wol

....like the tobacco companies?

lapin_windstar

Well, precisely. And if Scottish & Newcastle and the other breweries are happy to sell White Lightening supercider (booze that is pretty much only consumed by alcohol abusers - binge drinking kids or alcoholics), they wouldn't hesitate to sell superskunk.

There wouldn't be a shortage of people who'd sell drugs if they were legal. I mean, there's hardly a shortage of people who sell them now while they're illegal!

iamthecreaturefromuranus

yes, exactly like the tobacco companies.... and you are seriously suggesting that we set up more companies, selling products more damaging, than tobacco.... I fail to see the logic

MartynK

It's the wrong question. Who asked the state to start making personal decisions for free people in the first place?

emelems

I question the thought process that legalising drugs will prevent crime and victims of crimes carried out by addicts... or even lessen it.. I just can't see it.. most addicts are almost always out of money due to their addiction, and therefore will do anything for their next hit.. if you legalise it, or make it cheaper, then they will just do it more ... it certainly won't change the addictive nature of the addict nor the moral responsibility towards others..

I do, however, think if it is legal then the jail sentencing and over crowding of prisions will be impacted.. which I imagine would be cheaper for the general tax payer I would think..

Em x

sel

They should legalise cannabis and put more effort into policing the hard shit. Considering how widely available cannabis is and whatever they are doing to try and stop it hasnt and will never work, they may as well make something from it and use the money to fund the strained mental health system.

It all depends on what personality type you are ... you definitely get your addictive personalities and whatever drug they get their hands on, legal or not, they will happily abuse it.

emelems

Which is a very good question...

tomarense

You certainly do fail to see the logic.

Most illegal drugs are being manufactured already, in some form, by existing pharmaceutical companies.

The arguments for legalising "illegal" drugs are many and varied but, the main ones are:

1. >90% of premature deaths are due to adulterated (unknown strength) drugs.

2. >75% of drug related crime is due to association with illegal distribution.

3. The maintainance of "illegal" drug prohibition cost the UK alone £bns in police, prison, SW, health and insurance costs

4. The alternative, legalisation, would result in massive tax returns, lower deaths, lower crime and low health costs.

Prohibition has never worked: not with alcohol, gambling or anything else. Dare I mention drugs???

Society is at more danger through prohibition than it would be through legalisation.

tomarense

Hi Em,

There is some merit to your argument but, I would suggest that it is basically flawed.

The crime levels associated with drug-taking would, almost cetainly, decrease if drugs were made legal because:

1. There would be no black market,
2. Pricing could easily be made affordable,
3. Excessive drug taking would not rise substantially - very few people, including drug addicts, have the wish to kill themselves.