You can make one law . . . what would it be?

I'm going to be very controversial here, but:

I would legalise all drugs. All of them.

Now before you start beating me up with your rolled up copy of The Daily Mail, hear me out on this one. I say this for the following reasons:

1) The growth, production and distribution are all controlled in the same way as prescription medication. Distribution only through pharmacies at a set market price agreed by government (like prescription charges). This ensures that the quality of the products are guaranteed and are the highest and eliminates people dying not of drug overdoses but Vim that's been added by an unscrupulous dealer.

2) Price is set to reflect a profit but not as high as the 'street' level. This benefits the Treasury and the country as a whole but doesn't encourage illegal production because there is no money in illegal production of it. If you can't afford it you can't have it.

3) Drug dealers are put out of business overnight. This not only eliminates illegal drug dealing and the cost of policing/prosecuting it but all the associated peripheral crime associated with drugs (most burglaries are drug related).

Now, before anyone mentions anything, I am NOT a drugs user, I have NEVER been a drugs user and I am certainly not a drugs advocate. However I have seen the impact of the illegality of drugs. Teenagers that end up as prostitutes to feed a habit and THEN are dealt with as criminals. Someone's life is over at age 17 because they have a record for drugs.

I am a libertarian, if you want to smash your brains out on heroin be my guest but you pay for the privilege in a way that benefits the country. After all, are nicotine and alcohol really that different? About 800 people die needlessly every year due to foolishly taking heroin. Smoking still claims about 100,000 unnecessary, purely smoking related deaths per year.

I am always in a huge minority with this but to be honest no one has ever given me a better counter argument that makes sense.
 
UKRob said:
Beanie - how does this reduce crime/prostitution committed to feed the habit?
Click to expand...

You give it to users same as we now give needles - harm reduction.

mr..bean said:
if you want to smash your brains out on heroin be my guest but you pay for the privilege in a way that benefits the country. After all, are nicotine and alcohol really that different? About 800 people die needlessly every year due to foolishly taking heroin. Smoking still claims about 100,000 unnecessary, purely smoking related deaths per year.
Click to expand...

You don't smash your brains out using heroin - stop using, no physiological damage done. Alcohol does mash your brains, amongst other bodily organs, as does smoking mash your lungs and other parts.
 
I agree with you 100% Beanie, most people I know don't.
It reduces crime because it becomes cheaper, so less money required, and because it's not cut with all the shite under the sun, less hits are needed less often which also reduces the amount of money needed.
Less money needed = less crime committed to feed the habit. Extra taxes going into the treasury, less money spent on policing and low life dealers giving up because they can't earn a profit.
Granted it's a bit more complicated than the above, I know it's not quite as simple as that.

[/quote]

You don't smash your brains out using heroin - stop using, no physiological damage done. Alcohol does mash your brains, amongst other bodily organs, as does smoking mash your lungs and other parts.
[/quote]

I hate to disagree with you Carl, but I have two friends that are (were) heroin users. And it definately mashed their brains up. One of them could not function without it, when he was using we were able to get sense out of him (although not very much), when not using we couldn't even get a response from him. But I am talking about a very long time user, 15+ years at it. One died last year from OD, the other two years previously. Both had been on methadone program that didnt seem to work for them, so what's the answer? I believe legalising and controlling by the government could be an answer. But then again?
 
I agree with you Mr Bean all drugs should be legalized the government controls the amount and the quality they instantly remove the producers and suppliers I believe there would be a huge benefit all round If any government had the balls to implement it.
 
I agree in principle.

However, there might be other consequences. I can't help thinking that legalising / decriminalising drusg will lead to an increase in availability and use. Skunk has been implicated in mental health conditions (including schizophrenia, psychosis etc.) and other drugs (including downers and hallucinogens) might not be good things to have in your system when driving on motorways or operating heavy machinery etc.

But the "war on drugs" has been worse than useless.

One thing we could do is buy all the opium that Afghanistan can produce -- the whole lot -- at a better price than illegal traffickers. Undercut them and put them out of business through market forces. Even if we ended up dumping it all in the sea.

Anywaay -- a few more laws:

Ban dungarees on everyone except: lesbians, painters & decorators and toddlers

Ban Roman Numerals on watch faces / dials

Finally, when I am King there will be some sort of financial incentive for women to have short hair (maybe a tax per inch or even a direct payment proportional to how short it is). Why? Because I'm sick and tired of hoovering up massive hairballs, unblocking sinks, paying for hairdryers and straighteners (initial outlay plus running costs) etc etc. Also, short hair is often quite sexy. So, ladies: cut it off and keep it short. Rant over. Thank-you. Here ends the edict.
 
Having just finished watching the entire 6 series of Breaking Bad, I'm inclined to agree that the criminalisation of drugs leads to a lot more crime in the long run. Also, I'd guess there would be a big reduction in crimes of violence if the perpetrators had spent the evening smoking cannabis rather than drinking alcohol.

Rev-O's plan would lead to people injecting seawater, of course. Or just eating the fish they had scooped from the surface.:)
 
Breaking bad is more if an indictment of the US health system than their drugs policy. Breaking bad in the UK would be a one season hospital based drama.
 
Not necessarily Rev; if you recall, initially he wasn't going to have treatment, and the money was so his family would be financially secure. He'd have the same problem with that here.
 
I'm not sure that legalising all drugs would suddenly reduce crime. The drug traffickers and dealers would to stop trafficking and dealing, but would they really all decide to go straight and become upstanding members of the community? I'm not totally against the idea of legalising all drugs, but I just don't think arguing that crime will drop as a result makes much sense. Is there any evidence for this?
 
I did think thrice whether to post this or not, it is contentious but for me, as Bechet says, it's about harm reduction.

I used to be a very black and white thinker in a corporate career. I have worked in the Health and Social care arena for 5 years now and I have totally changed my views on social programs.

It's by far from simple but I am convinced that legalising drugs ultimately would improve society. The increased use argument is not founded in fact and is an emotional response (understandable) and I have seen people who's productive lives have been over by age 17 and were clean because of previous drug related misdemeanors. That cannot be right to me in a modern society.

Plus skunk has been implicated in mental health issues. But you do know that smoking is implicated in lung cancer right? Alcohol is implicated in liver cirrhosis and cancer, as well as the social problems with alcohol like violence and anti social behaviour. Come on Rev, a man in your line of work must see all this too!

I'm gonna shut up now because I feel passionately about this and I respect that I am in a minority. It shows you the power of the media in this country really, the facts about drug legalisation are pretty clear, however unpalatable to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
 
mr..bean said:
Come on Rev, a man in your line of work must see all this too!

I'm gonna shut up now because I feel passionately about this and I respect that I am in a minority. It shows you the power of the media in this country really, the facts about drug legalisation are pretty clear, however unpalatable to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
Click to expand...

Yes, and on balance I'm in favour of decriminalising drugs.

I do wonder what vested interests the govt is up against and/or in the pay of -- the whole "war on drugs" thing is good business for a lot of people.

Arms dealers, big pharma, etc etc have some of the most effective lobbyists.
 
I think if all drugs were decriminalised we'd have one generation of losers' bodies to sweep up which would serve as lesson for the future. Once cannabis was decriminalised in the Netherlands, after a brief period of 'yay', everyone got over it and left it to the tourists.
 
I'm not in favour of legalisation, it would just change which crooks were in the supply chain. At them moment try to stop the Colombians etc but if we let the politicians get involved then just like tobacco they would let people get hooked, charge them a fortune in tax and pay lip service to helping them get off the drugs. No doubt the tobacco companies would expand into that area as their market reduces.

Having spoken to a mental health nurse she assures me that the number of young men being admitted who are heavy users of marijuana is disturbing, of course she can't say whether that is a causal thing or whether the mental illness draws them into using dope but my opinion is that its the former.

I did hear an interesting idea, that was to legalise all drugs for pensioners. That way if your granny was getting off her tits on E the kids would be far less likely to try it, and since we say don't do drugs as it will ruin your life then allowing those who have already had the majority of their life the amount of ruining would be minimal. Funny but there is some logic in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom