Can i ask why you want one centralizaed govt source? Some FDA regulation on purity standards would be a good thing obviously lol, but the govt has historically been pretty bad at having the supply to meet popular demand
Good morning.
I'll address the last part first i.e. re: the government. Bear in mind we're talking about the UK here on this thread and which is way smaller than the USA in every respect. A quick look right now informs me that you have 11 states that are bigger than the UK (which in itself consists of four countries). So I figured from that point of view it'd be relatively easy to have a central point (but that's probably flawed i.e. at very least you'd have to probably have to have at least one distribution point in each of said countries that make up the UK). And for sure: even if we're on the right track here this would only be as good as it is managed. The whole plan would cave in on itself if deliveries took too long and didn't run smoothly. No user is going to wait for days for their super superb substance to arrive without resorting to the street to source while waiting let's face it (and that of course would be defeating the whole object of the exercise).
I suppose the centralized government source idea was because everything could be monitored and tracked (and even used for statistical purposes e.g. it'd quickly show up problem areas and where more intervention in the form of safe injection sites or extended rehab. facilities are required). And of course: it'd be easy to limit the quantities being sold (they're not, I'm sure, going to be allowing users to order by the kilogram or pound). And of course: the government would be testing each and every substance. Left to private enterprise and individual entrepreneur shit: you'd probably be back to square one. Then again: maybe not. See. Yet another idea forthcoming!
Just using the liquor industry here as an example: the one thing that makes liquor outlets obey the law is the fact that it is very very difficult to obtain a liquor licence and not to mention costly. And if such liquor licence is revoked for any reason: that's the end of the line i.e. there are no second chances. That tends to keep people in line (at least insofar as the liquor industry is concerned anyway). Suppose you'd have to set up a consumer complaints division type thing i.e. if somebody received bad or cut substances then that's their remedy and said suppliers would then be investigated and would lose their licences to distribute.
And of course in just looking at the above (again as I type): we're talking about setting up whole new departments and whatever else just to keep control. Mind you: I would imagine that at least given the subject matter said departments and whatever would easily cover their own costs.
The other thing that's been playing on my mind is the scheduling of these various substances and who is and who is not deemed fit to receive such little pleasures and by whom this is to be done. Putting it in the hands of private medical facilities and professionals to make such decisions? In other words: you'd need evaluation and a prescription? I only bring this up because of my reading the stuff on that website. Well: I could make the argument that if any of this stuff falls under the same category and controls as, for example, benzodiaepines then that's not going to work now is it.
Then I think to myself: maybe you just let it go and open the floodgates and see what happens. Maybe you'll simply reach a saturation point whereby you'll eventually reach a stable or saturation point where those that are going to use or abuse are those that would have done so anyway regardless and that'd be that. That's another way of looking at it I suppose. At least you'd be dealing with a known issue and be able quantify the resources necessary to ensure that everything remains nice and neatly packaged in the plan.
At the end of the day though and no matter how this goes down: I more keen to see how the potential problems would be addressed of street dealers being able to order quality government sanctioned substances and not cutting and re-selling in smaller quantities and how to ensure that the UK would not become a major exporter of said substances. In the case of the latter though: would it actually really matter given the revenue that would be generated? And maybe with the former it's just something that would be less prevalent and you'd have to live with it. No matter what the answers are though: at the end of the day and generally speaking the life of users and addicts alike would be improved. And I guess that's the most important and general idea anyway.
If nothing else though: for damn sure if any of our ideas get used I hope we at least get given a mention in the legislation!
