Parliament debates drugs

[LeicesterMackem]

Alcohol no. Alchohol is an ingrained part of our culture and prohibition has a long track record of failure. At the moment alcohol policy is working - units drunk is falling. I see no reason why we would change policy, although we could do with more inpatient detox beds.

Smoking is in even sharper decline, and clearly policy there is working too. Once smoking rates fell to very low levels I would consider measures that would effectively ban smoking completelybut over a very long time - for example making it illegal to sell cigarettes to anyone born after 1st January 2010.

If prohibition has a long track record of failure why would you think making cigarettes illegal is a good move? (Sorry for all the questions )

 

[monkeytassle]

After a heavy 40th birthday celebration with 3 others (we all came along at once like drugged buses in the first place) involving 2 sickies in the Rijksmuseum, 15 pints of coke and 3 pints of livening Heineken the lad in the shop recommended a nice mellow skunk. The results were interesting but involved an Irish tramp, nudity and some extreme paranoia. A marriage died.

It was a right laugh.

f***ing hell man. Legalise it all!

I stood up and next thing I know I'm at the bottom of some very steep stairs with a head wound. Mrs Mt was stuck upstairs as she was also baked.

 

[Dibble]

Errr Aye! That was my point, maybe poorly written and obviously open to misinterpretation by coppers though

We can remove much of the gang violence, assaults and murders by taking drugs out of the hands of gangs and organised crime. Obviously once you start taxing drugs there will still be problems with smuggling, people will try and avoid drugs taxes in the same way as tobacco taxation is avoided.

Hows that? Think of all the legal breweries around the world. It must cost coppers to grow opium or the cocoa plant for instance. With legal grwoing and distribution networks without risk and deaths etc I would imagine profit could easily be made selling a gram of smack for 50p. Theres the criminal element associated with the trade gone, right there.

 

[Deleted member 22590]

Errr Aye! That was my point, maybe poorly written and obviously open to misinterpretation by coppers though

We can remove much of the gang violence, assaults and murders by taking drugs out of the hands of gangs and organised crime. Obviously once you start taxing drugs there will still be problems with smuggling, people will try and avoid drugs taxes in the same way as tobacco taxation is avoided.

Ah my apologies. Yes I completely agree that de-criminalisation, even legalisation and regulation are the way forward because whatever the stays say, most crime at the minute is drug related.

 

[Deleted member 29721]

Hows that? Think of all the legal breweries around the world. It must cost coppers to grow opium or the cocoa plant for instance. With legal grwoing and distribution networks without risk and deaths etc I would imagine profit could easily be made selling a gram of smack for 50p. Theres the criminal element associated with the trade gone, right there.

How much is the tax going to be? People will still try to avoid the tax by smuggling in the same way they do with tobacco and alcohol.

Tobacco smuggling accounts for approx 10% of the cigarettes smoked in the UK and 36% of hand rolled tobacco. The same gangs smuggling dope now will still smuggle, maybe on a smaller scale, but it won't stop completely.

 

[Dibble]

How much is the tax going to be? People will still try to avoid the tax by smuggling in the same way they do with tobacco and alcohol.

Tobacco smuggling accounts for approx 10% of the cigarettes smoked in the UK and 36% of hand rolled tobacco. The same gangs smuggling dope now will still smuggle, maybe on a smaller scale, but it won't stop completely.

'There will still be problems with smuggling' you said'. Yeah, dependent on tax differences there probably will, like tobacco now. Its nothing though is it, in the grand scheme of things. Drugs will be cheap. Real crime associated with the illegality of the drug will be eradicated.

 

[Lankester Merrin]

If prohibition has a long track record of failure why would you think making cigarettes illegal is a good move? (Sorry for all the questions )

As long as a large proportion of a population want to do something then prohibition is a losing strategy.

Getting rid of cigarettes would only work if the percentage of the population smoking fell to an incredibly small level. Even then I wouldn't ban it, I would allow current smokers to keep on smoking, but I would change the law to stop new smokers starting - for example by forbidding the sale of cigarettes to people born after a particular date.

 

[Deleted member 22590]

I'm surprised you want it legalised. Shite will be shite and if they are not dealing drugs they will move back to robberies , burglary etc.
They would still deal as well , only the profits will be less.
I haven't a clue what the best option is. I would certainly allow heroin addicts to be given it by a doctor as I believe that drug to be a special case, but for the rest of it I believe the situation should remain the same.[/

Every burglar I ever dealt with was on crack or heroin and everyone was grafting to pay for their gear and to pay off a drugs debt to a nasty man.
How many robberies get done by some daft crack head who was told to do it by a bloke who he owes £500 to? Lots. How many old women get their purses dipped by a non crack/smack head? None.
These are desperate people, they are in the pockets of their dealers who encourage them to commit crime . If they could buy gear that hasnt been cut from 95% to about 45%( as is street level coke), from a legitimate source and simultaneously get advice and help overcoming their addiction, I'd say its got to be better than the current status quo.

 

[Pants]

Lots of views regarding the practicalities of the legal status of drugs, but what about morality? By what moral right can you stop another adult putting whatever they want into their own bodies?

 

[Lankester Merrin]

How can drugs policy be broadly right when its effect is to simply hand the control and supply of drugs to criminal gangs? And how do you know drugs policy is responsible for the fall in drug use, as opposed to, say, changes in preference? Drugs are subject to trends. Also, what is the cost to the tax payer for this reduction? Is the expenditure justified for what would appear to be a relatively small reduction in drug use? How does it compare to the reduction in drug use in Portugal over the same period, for example?

When the media have a discussion about drugs, alcohol and smoking they always report it in apocalyptic terms - death rates always "soar", increases are always "massive", A&E is "swamped"

As a consquence the debate about drugs policy is always presented as a dichotomy between harsher penalties and legalisation.

Drug use in the UK is falling. Having worked a little bit with drugs and alcohol services it is clear to me that what has made the difference is public health measures such as better education, plus a gradual shift from incarceration to treatment. Alcohol use is falling too, as is smoking. This is a really great public health story, which is missed in the reporting of drugs because it is dull and worthy and doesn't make for good headlines.

The war on drugs doesn't work if everyone takes drugs (for the reasons I outlined above about prohibition), but the more drugs use falls (because of public health) the more effective police measures become (because they can target smaller groups of hard core users). The 2 strategies aren't mutually exclusive, they are self reinforcing if you can get public health, treatment services, police and criminal justice aligned.

Ultimately the drugs gangs behind the trade are evil, and need to be treated as such. We shouldn't be shy of saying so.

 

[Deleted member 22590]

If half an hours hit of alcohol cost 50 benk you can be assured those figures would change.

Well quite. It's be 99.99% if alcohol was made illegal.

 

[Lankester Merrin]

Lots of views regarding the practicalities of the legal status of drugs, but what about morality? By what moral right can you stop another adult putting whatever they want into their own bodies?

This for me is the only real argument in favour of legalisation.

I have no moral problem with drugs. I simply think that the drugs trade needs regulating, and the actions of criminal drugs gangs, and some users, needs punishing, while those who want to give up drugs should be given all encouragement to do so.

 

[palm 1]

Like I said in my post , heroin and possibly crack are special cases where even the addict probably doesn't want to be on the drug.
Your "average "coke and cannabis users are not banging old grannies over the head for their weekly fix.

No country in the world has the answer to this and I doubt we will ever get the ideal scenario.

 

[zwartekat]

f***ing hell man. Legalise it all!

I stood up and next thing I know I'm at the bottom of some very steep stairs with a head wound. Mrs Mt was stuck upstairs as she was also baked.

They were the bits I initially remembered. The other 2 lads ducked out after a while 2 of us played chess (about 20 mins for each move). Nee wonder I'm so slow.

 

[kossoff]

It's laughable that some people are so anti-drugs (namely weed) but are happy to go along with alcohol and tobacco being legal. The danger the latter two cause is immense.

 

[Deleted member 22590]

Like I said in my post , heroin and possibly crack are special cases where even the addict probably doesn't want to be on the drug.
Your "average "coke and cannabis users are not banging old grannies over the head for their weekly fix.

No country in the world has the answer to this and I doubt we will ever get the ideal scenario.

Might as well get some tax out of them then- better us than the current importers.

 

[Dibble]

Lots of views regarding the practicalities of the legal status of drugs, but what about morality? By what moral right can you stop another adult putting whatever they want into their own bodies?

Because its bad. You cant just have people doing bad things willy nilly. They may live next door to me doing bad things.

 

[barbieshellsaysFTM]

legal highs have killed far more people than pot ever has, pot is a natural substance and legal highs are poison...............there lies the madness. Oh and I'd far sooner walk past a bunch of stoners than a bunch of pissheads

 

[shogun1904]

Errr loads ! Every day there's doens of people getting a right kicking after being taxed ( robbed) of their drugs and money, I would estimate 95% of thefts are to fund drug habits and if a murders not a domestic, it's likely to be drug related.
That said, I don't see how criminalising users is helping anyone- get it legal and regulated, taxed and goverened properly and watch crime collapse, funding disappear from people traffickers, terrorists and gangs.

Agree with you on this.

 

[El Matador]

f***ing hell man. Legalise it all!

I stood up and next thing I know I'm at the bottom of some very steep stairs with a head wound. Mrs Mt was stuck upstairs as she was also baked.

The moral of that story is........don't go to coffee shops which are up stairs.

They were the bits I initially remembered. The other 2 lads ducked out after a while 2 of us played chess (about 20 mins for each move). Nee wonder I'm so slow.

You and @monkeytassle sound like a right pair of lightweights.