Decriminalisation I can see a lot of sense in.
Really?!? Do please explain. I'd be fascinated to hear why it would be an improvement to have drugs made equally as available as they would be if fully legalised but rather than being a regulated industry the supply is left completely to existing criminal networks.
Availability of heroin and crack are major concerns, seeing first hand how they can ruin people and how addictive they can become. With the current system, if you run into problems you can cut your contacts off, maybe even move town if it's severe. If drugs were available like this legally over the counter, conquering an addiction would be very hard to put off over a life time.
Cos heroin and crack are really hard to get hold of at the moment aren't they. Availability has gone up since prohibition, cost has gone down since prohibition. The current situation has clearly not done what you think it somehow will do in future if things stay the same. Do you not see this is a rather bizarre argument? If drugs of addiction were legal I'm sure there would be a blip in addiction rates - perhaps even quite a big one - but much as with alcohol people could be treated for their addictions and - more to the point - society would learn that if you abuse them you will be addicted, that addiction is nothing to be ashamed of, and that addiction can be successfully treated in every case. Not saying it is successfully treated in every case but anybody can beat an addiction given the appropriate treatment and support. This would be much, much easier to do without the criminalising of addicts. There'd also be a helluva lot more money available to fund treatment when vast amounts aren't being wasted putting fingers in dykes and instead tax is being paid - profits go to boost government coffers (which helps all of society out - at least it does in theory) rather than going straight into the pockets of criminals as is currently the case.
Some people will always be addicts cos it's not availability of something that makes people become addicted to it - the reasons are far more complex than that. When something is illegal it puts barriers in the way of seeking help. Some will try to hide their addiction - perhaps fear of losing a job, or alienating friends and family, simple shame because there is additional factors simply because it's an illegal substance. In my experience, people can deal with a relative who develops an alcohol problem - it's seen as a medical issue which can be treated and the person given suitable support to help them deal with their issues. Many people who are addicted to, say, heroin or crack will be disowned by their families when they admit to their problem. I've known plenty who've been chucked out onto the street for "bringing shame" on their family. That happens because it is illegal - it would happen a lot less if all addictions were treated similarly in terms of being a medical issue not a criminal matter.
I do take your point about it being harder to quit something when it is all around you. However, how many ex-alcoholics are there out there? How many ex-smokers? Ex-gamblers? People can beat addictions even when temptation is everywhere. There's no getting away from drugs anyway - they are everywhere in every city, town and even village in the country. Anybody who wants to find them will find them so legality makes a slight difference at best. A minor irritation rather than an absolute barrier which you appear to think may be the case for some reason. I moved town - moved to another country actually - to get away from where the majority of my addiction happened. I could hop on a train and have a bag in my hand within an hour even though I know not one dealer. I choose not to though. That's what beating an addiction means - you choose not to, you are not prevented from having the choice cos that just isn't practical and would not work. You can't beat an addiction by force, you have to choose.
Because... ? As Matt points out, the real risk with LSD is being sold something else that isn't LSD. LSD itself is an incredibly safe drug - certainly physically safe even in the most extreme "OD" situation, I'd also argue it's safe for the vast majority of people as long as proper information and advice were widely available. You seem to have some very strange ideas about LSD - what is it about it that concerns you so much over and above other psychedelics?
Drug usage would grow tenfold due to availability, and all kinds of physical and mental health problems would occur
Actually it would decrease a hundred fold and everybody in the world would spontaneously be cured of all ills and there'd be world peace and free chocolate for everybody. See - I can make stuff up off the top of my head too
Drug combinations becoming more popular, which are considerably more dangerous
And that is relevant how...? And you know this to be the case from...? All drug combinations are considerably more dangerous or is it maybe just that dangerous drug combinations are dangerous? How does prohibition prevent them from being dangerous? How does prohibition prevent people from combining drugs whether dangerously or otherwise?
Again, all your arguments argue
for legalisation. Everything you've brought up is a problem either caused by or greatly exacerbated by prohibition. You're batting for the wrong team, old bean
