UK - THE ISSUE: Should the Government bring about the legalisation of drugs?

[edgarshade]

Oxford Mail

7:30am Wednesday 18th June 2014

With reader comments

YES says Anne-Marie Cockburn, whose daughter Martha Fernback, of Summertown, died after taking Ecstasy in July last year

I AM not a drug policy expert, I am an expert on being a bereaved single mother of 11 months whose only child died from a mistaken ecstasy overdose at Hinksey Lakes in Oxford. Martha was an ordinary teenager of 15 years and nine months. I have sought the advice of Transform, a Bristol-based charity, established 20 years ago. They advocate for strict regulation of all aspects of the drug trade and it is their research material that I’m using as the basis for my vote to regulate drugs. By legalising drugs you take them out of the hands of criminals and enable strict and responsible regulation of drugs to be under the jurisdiction of medical professionals, such as pharmacists and doctors.

More than 50 years of prohibition have failed to prevent a dramatic rise in the use of drugs, despite vast resources spent on enforcement. Today, 240 million people use illicit drugs worldwide. All drug use carries risk, but even if levels of use continue to rise under legal regulation, levels of harm would be significantly reduced. Ultimately, we all want to get drugs under control, but that is only possible under a regulatory model.

NO says Wendy Dawson, chief executive, drugs and alcohol theraputic charity Ley Community, Yarnton.

THERE has been much debate over the years for legalisation of drugs but the point is often missed or not fully understood. Taking drugs has and always will be part of human nature. Legalisation is not the answer. We need more robust education for children, young people and adults. For example, let’s take legal highs. Many people, young and older, believe these drugs are safe because they are ‘legal’, however in many cases they are far more dangerous and life-threatening than heroin. It is generally known there are four stages to addiction: experimentation, recreation, habitual and chronic.

Most intervention begins at habitual and chronic stage, which is why we need to improve education and ensure it is correct, credible and factual and reaches as many people as possible. Part of the transition from childhood to adulthood historically involves some sort of ritualistic passage – in the 70s it was drinking cider, smoking weed and taking LSD or maybe speed. Today, the vast amount of information and ‘goods’ one can get over the internet that is not ‘policed’ is causing a huge problem but legalisation will not stop people experimenting because individuals need and want excitement, to be different, to engage in risky behaviour.

More...
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11...nment_bring_about_the_legalisation_of_drugs_/

 

[S.J.B.]

Wow, that is among the worst anti-legalization arguments I have ever read, and I've read some pretty bad ones.

 

[weekend addiction]

I don't think drugs are all of a sudden more available because of the internet. That's the stupidest thing I've read all day in fact.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

I hate how such an imbecile can refer to drug users collectively in such a condescending way as if she understands them. She implies policing the availability of information on the internet like China does is the solution. Her calls for more education are despicable, thinly veiled encouragments for pumping young children full of more lies, misconceptions, scare-mongering and lop-sided arguments against drugs that will only serve to alienate them while eroding their trust.

Cockburn (lol) gets props for not having a visceral propaganda inspired reaction to her daughters unfortunate death.