Wol

Following on from the thread on drink driving, and the topical international debates about the ineffectiveness of the "war on drugs", do you think legalising narcotics would, overall, be a positive thing?

I saw one estimate that this would save over $4Bn pa, taking into account reduction in crime, taxation of the supply, increased police expenditure on drug/driving enforcement and so on.

Other sources show legalisation of some drugs hasn't had much of an effect on numbers in places such as the Netherlands.

Tens of thousands of people a year are killed in places like Mexico because of the illegal trade.

Prohibition in the USA changed the organised crime scene disastrously.

Thoughts?

paulry

You need to be more specific.

DadAgain

Couple of points:

A) Current classifications of various recreational drugs legal and illegal are almost completely arbitrary and have more to do with historical & political alliances than any medical/socialogical assessment of 'harm'

B) Prohibition does not significantly effect demand/usage of a drug, it merely ensures users are forced to associate with (and become) criminals and injects large amounts of cash into the illegal economy.

I'm all in favour of a widespread legalisation campaign together with quality controlled, professional production, distribution and retail.

Swerv-o

I can see a benefit for certain recreational drugs - pharmaceutical companies could then market them to people across the counter. This benefits in several ways:

1. People buying them can be sure that they are getting drugs that are suitable for human consumption, not cut with rat poison, washing powder or who know what

2. The government could take their cut in taxes, revenues and the inevitable licencing fees

3. As part of the packaging, you would include health warnings and information on what to do if something goes wrong, and how to spot when things may be going wrong. It could include little coloured wrist bands that people could wear so that emergency services, bar staff etc are able to quickly identify what somebody has taken

4. You take out the back street dealers/manufacturers who won't be able to compete with the scales of manufacture, quality and price offered by, say, Glaxo Smithkline.

I think you could reasonably do this with most of the recreational drugs that are used in clubs etc. I'm not so sure that I would extend it to harsher stuff like Heroin and Crack Cocaine. The rationale behind those drugs is very different to that behind recreational drugs. Recreational drugs, however, are a reality, and hundreds of thousands of people use them every weekend with little or no adverse consequences. It's usually only when things go wrong and people (usually through lack of information) do the wrong thing that it gets picked up on, like the Leah Betts case.

I would also be very surprised if you didn't get some sh!t over this thread from the overprotective parent brigade too. Drugs? For goodness sake, won't somebody think of the children...


S

paulry

I agree with the above - at least in regard to the softer drugs. With careful planning and execution, the social problems that we suffer from today because of prohibition can be reduced. For example, the legalisation and controlled sale of non-genetically modified cannabis will drastically reduce the usage of the far more dangerous skunk. Tax revenues can then be ringfenced to pay for the balance of the social problems - which by the way are miniscule when compared with that other drug: alcohol.

LouiseR

What drugs would you class as "soft"? ... Just out of interest!

paulry

Probably only cannabis.

Things like cocaine, heroin, etc I would consider "hard" and ecstacy somewhere in the middle.

Some interesting soft/hard classifications here

Admittedly, my personal experience is from more than 20 years ago and was limited only to unmodified cannabis. There's so many on that list that I've not even heard of .

LouiseR

I'm not so sure about cannabis, I don't think it's as "soft" as people make out. I'm no expert (by any stretch! ) but I thought there were links to long term paranoia and mental problems...

DadAgain

Yeah - but used 'to excess' there are lots of things that are very harmful:

Shopping
Gambling
Watching XXX YouTube-esque porn clips
Browing Internet Forums and arguing pointless arguments

are all capable of destroying lives if not done sensibly in moderation. Canabis is no different. Sure if you get the heaviest skunk available and sit in front of the TV toking your way through half a kilo every day you're in for a world of hurt - but moderate sensible usage (which is more common) is not so troublesome.

paulry

My experiences from > 20 years ago didn't cause problems for me or my friends at that time. That's why I believe that the paranoia and mental issues are more likely to related to the skunk variety.

LouiseR

From experience?

You're both probably right, it might be down to different strains of cannabis. I just remember that advert that was on in the UK a while ago about showing the effects it did to your brain.

I suppose it's one of them things, some one will smoke it every day for 10 years and be fine and someone else could try it a few times and have an adverse reaction... You just don't know do you...

Wol

I am thinking of *all* drugs - I would imagine that the largest effect in terms of reducing "collateral" crime would be by legalising the so-called hard drugs, and letting those who want to cook their brains do so.

My guess - and it's only a guess - is that those who want to use them already find them easily and that there wouldn't be much difference in the rate of usage.

ABCDiamond

That makes me stop and think. So we could add drug users to the smokers and alcohol drinkers that currently subsidise our taxes

Alfresco

My brother is a herion addict (plus anything else) and has been for the last 20+ years. He has completely destroyed my parents lives to the extent they have no money in the form of savings or pension. He has bled them dry.

He has also tried to destroy our lives, as well as our siblings'.

You can guess what I voted!

emelems

I have some one was is a family member who smokes cannabise regularly and over a period of years has gotten worse and worse... she literally can't get through a day without a smoke several times a day... I never used to think it was a serious drug before and used to think it should be legalised.. but since seeing her and her usage? nope.. I am pretty certain that she has now moved on to other drugs as she needs to get her "kick" back...

I voted no...

Em x