BBC - Why not... legalise drugs?

[edgarshade]

5 September 2013
By Brian Wheeler Politics reporter, BBC News

With reader comments

A look at eye-catching policy ideas that are often talked about but never seem to feature in UK general election campaigns.
The background.

Drug prohibition began in the UK during World War I, when the possession, distribution and sale of cocaine and opium was outlawed. Cannabis was added to the list in 1920, in line with international treaties. For many years, in contrast to the US, the emphasis was on treatment rather than punishment. Heroin was prescribed to addicts on the NHS. But the climate changed in the 1960s, with the explosion in drug use among young people. The 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, which categorises drugs by their perceived harm, remains the key piece of legislation. In 2002, the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, downgraded cannabis to Class C, only for it to be reclassified as Class B by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown five years later. As a young Tory MP, David Cameron backed more lenient penalties for the possession of cannabis and ecstasy - and allowing heroin to be prescribed to addicts in "shooting galleries". He was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee when it called for an international debate on the legalisation of drugs. Since entering Number 10, he has changed his view and now supports the current laws, in common with his Labour and Lib Dem counterparts.

Danny Kushlick: The case for legalisation

In 1961 the world embarked on a US-led act of collective folly when it identified the non-medical use of specific drugs, including cannabis, cocaine and heroin, as a global threat and attempted to rid the world of them using punitive enforcement.

After 50 years of global prohibition, drugs are cheaper, more available and widely used than ever before; a $300bn (£190bn) a year - and still growing - trade has been gifted to organised criminals and unregulated dealers - creating vast costs for those least able to bear them - undermining public health and human rights, fuelling crime, corruption and conflict, and destabilising entire regions.

So, why has this war not been ended? Why do politicians continue to support it? The fundamental answer is disturbing. Prohibition clearly does not work for the vast majority of the world's citizens. However, it meets the needs of the world's superpowers, who can resource and engage their military, police and criminal justice systems, all justified in the war against the global "drug menace".

....

Kevin Sabet: The case against legalisation

It is easy to be dissatisfied with current drugs policies. Kids report they can get drugs relatively easily, and too many of us have suffered the heartbreak of addiction affecting a loved one or ourselves. The market for drugs is violent and deadly. But being unhappy with the drug abuse in society is no reason to legalise drugs. In fact, the best evidence we have shows that legalisation would make a bad drug problem much worse - by increasing addiction, normalising use among kids, and relegating its sale to profit-hungry corporations or governments with every incentive to increase addiction to advance their bottom line. Legalisation is a very sloppy way to address the unintended consequences of current policy.

First, we know that legalisation would significantly cheapen the price of cocaine, cannabis, and heroin, making them more accessible and therefore increasing addiction. Additionally, allowing drugs to be sold on the open market implies we would allow the sale of highly dangerous drugs such as crack and methamphetamine by multinational conglomerates.

More...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23374228

 

[plmar]

interesting comments

 

[rickolasnice]

In fact, the best evidence we have shows that legalisation would make a bad drug problem much worse - by increasing addiction, normalising use among kids

Pulling "evidence" out of his ass.

First, we know that legalisation would significantly cheapen the price of cocaine, cannabis, and heroin, making them more accessible and therefore increasing addiction.

Why would it?

 

[MrPorter]

If legalisation happened suddenly and we were able to purchase 99%+ pure compound, do you think many people would OD because they're used to seriously cut product - causing a media scare and rapidly getting the chems banned again. They can put as many warning labels on packages as possible but that won't stop Mr. Jones who does 1g K to 'just about get there' from racking up 2 .5g lines and entering k-hole ego death land (or worse if it was a more dangerous chem)

I think the drugs would be cheaper to begin with but once there's a solid market set up they can add tons of tax with no worries - the black market will only appear when people aren't allowed to get what they want (via health checks or regulated purchasing)

 

[plmar]

It's difficult to argue FOR the hard drugs like Heroin, coke, strong stimulants like meth etc but on the other hand, drugs which are on par, if not worse than the ones I just mentioned are already being prescribed to shitloads of people legally. Shit is cray.


Anyway, weed should be completely legalized and people should be allowed to do whatever they want with it for free. Goddamn it I don't even smoke the shit I would just wanna watch it grow up to my ceiling because it's a beautiful plant.
Of course we don't know IF that will even happen ;_;


-

Also I strongly agree with what Morpheus said. For drugs other than weed, people should have to go through some sort of evaluation of their knowledge regarding said drug and its effects, both positive and negative, as well as the dangers, before they can be prescribed it.

 

[edgarshade]

Prescribing opiates for someone addicted to them makes sense. But the ideal of needing a prescription to take an E at a night club seems a bit intrusive.

 

[rickolasnice]

Well, there are two reasons: If you want to drain the black market efficiently, you'd have to sell drugs cheaper than them so nobody would have a reason not to buy official drugs. The second is reason is that the total amount of drugs would increase (at least in the beginning), because a huge amount of the official drugs would swamp into the black market. More drugs, same or less demand = cheaper prices.

Fair points.. but i disagree.

You wouldn't have to sell them cheaper. Just knowing that they have gone through regulatory processes to ensure it's quality would be enough reason for 99.99% of drug users to go to a licensed outlet rather than a street dealer.

But fair enough.. a point of heroin would have to be more expensive than street prices due to the purity.. so ignorant folk will look at the difference and not understand it.. but that wouldn't last for long.. With legalization will come education.

As for your second point. The price could be set by the government.. so as that businesses can't lower their prices too much or come up with stupid 2 for 1 kinda deals.

I'd bet that the prices could be higher and people would still prefer to buy them.. due to the quality control etc.

What i think should and then would happen:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/...r-on-drugs?p=11739189&viewfull=1#post11739189

 

[f33lg00d]

It's difficult to argue FOR the hard drugs like Heroin, coke, strong stimulants like meth etc

The more dangerous a drug is the more important it is to legalize it. Knowing the dose is the difference between life or death with "hard(er)" drugs. Having pure product would save many from dangerous cuts like levamisole (in coke). And misrepresentations like fentanyl sold as heroin and methylone as mdma.

If legalisation happened suddenly and we were able to purchase 99%+ pure compound, do you think many people would OD because they're used to seriously cut product

I think most company's would sell drugs at different strengths with a lower purity for potent drugs and have a label that says compares to the average purity in the past black market and a naïve dose in mg/kg. One bag says street strength, 20% drug, and ones bag says extrastrong twice as strong as normal shit, 40% drug. For potent drugs used for injecting less fillers are usually better, so they should sell bottles of capsules in varying incremental amounts. People could just crack a known amount of capsules to get exactly the right dose.

People must be educated before they are allowed to buy drugs. There should be some form of "driver licence" for drug users, that makes sure people have heard and understood such warnings at least once.

They could have pamphlets come with each drug listing it specific risks. The gov't run programs in school, aka health class, rarely has factual information about drugs. I think a class taught senior year of high school that was fact based teaching harm reduction would be all that's necessary; along with the other harm reduction practices suggest earlier.

I just don't like the idea of needing a licenses but I just hate gov't involvement, and the god awful hell called the rmv. I'm pretty biased though because the gov't has all these fascist laws against my culture.

 

[23536]

It's difficult to argue FOR the hard drugs like Heroin, coke, strong stimulants like meth etc

Not for me. As a human being, I have an unflappable belief in my right to ingest whichever chemical I please.

 

[plmar]

Not for me. As a human being, I have an unflappable belief in my right to ingest whichever chemical I please.

Well to be honest that's a good point, people aren't suddenly gonna start speedballing just because its legal, and making it illegal for people to ingest certain drugs just because the politicians or whoever doesn't like them is stupid.
I think what I meant with that post is that it'll be difficult to change anyone's point of view towards the legal status of those drugs because of how addictive they are and the social stigma that comes with it.
In some peoples eyes, saying "heroin and cocaine should be legal" should be enough to get you locked up though, people are crazy.
I'm gonna leave it right there because I just woke up and don';t know if I'm even making sense.