Can we imagine a Britain where all drugs are legal?
As drugs minister for two years and more recently as defence secretary visiting the opium-producing region of Afghanistan, Bob Ainsworth says he saw how a policy of prohibition has failed to reduce the harms that drugs cause: in his words, "fuelling burglaries, gifting the trade to gangsters and increasing HIV infections".
Now, he argues, it is time to make all drugs available legally within a strict system of regulation - either prescribed by doctors or sold under licence like tobacco.
Many people find inconceivable the idea that you could pop to the High Street and buy some cannabis or ecstasy along with a packet of twenty and a bottle of scotch. The notion that a doctor might sign a script for pure cocaine or diamorphine might seem equally extraordinary.
But Bob Ainsworth's ideas reflect the situation that existed in Britain in the last century. Until 1916 you could buy cocaine and heroin over the counter in Harrods. Shop assistants might have suggested "Ryno's Hay Fever and Catarrh Remedy" (basically pure cocaine) "for when the nose is stuffed up, red and sore". And what better way to support the boys at the front during World War I than Harrods gift packs containing morphine and cocaine?
Until the mid-sixties in Britain, doctors could and did prescribe heroin and cocaine to patients. Records confirm that in 1962 one London doctor prescribed more than 600,000 heroin tablets to hundreds of users.
The patient list of psychiatrist Lady Isabella Frankau reads like a Who's Who of sixties bohemian cool. Poets, actors, musicians, writers and refugees from the strict drug laws in the US and Canada knew that Lady F would not ask too many questions and, if you were a bit short of readies, might even waive her consultancy fee. American jazz trumpeter Chet Baker turned up at her door and later recalled how "she simply asked my name, my address and how much cocaine and heroin I wanted per day".
So Mr Ainsworth seems to be essentially calling for a return to a situation that was once described as "the British System" of narcotics control - regarding drug use as a health rather than a criminal matter.
The theory is that if you regulate the supply of drugs, so that they are available legally, you take the trade away from criminal gangs. Instead of buying heavily-adulterated and dangerous heroin from a street dealer, a user could obtain quality-controlled morphine from a GP - and be encouraged to get treatment and support to overcome addiction.
Mr Ainsworth is not the first drugs minister to change their tune on prohibition once leaving office. His predecessor in the job Mo Mowlam wrote an article in the Guardian in 2002 in which she said pretty much the same thing, as British troops fought the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"May I suggest that rather than bombing civilians in various Muslim countries, the United States and Britain begin to take a more intelligent approach to the international drugs trade: namely, to legalise it. For by doing this, not only will we help solve one of the major problems facing the world today, the unregulated growth of drugs trafficking, but it would also further isolate the terrorists."
Mr Ainsworth knows that public attitudes and the political weather are against him - so, rather than simply urging that ministers end the system of prohibition, he wants an impact assessment to be conducted on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - the legislation which introduced drug classification in the UK:
"I call on those on all sides of the debate to support an independent, evidence-based review, exploring all policy options, including: further resourcing the war on drugs, decriminalising the possession of drugs, and legally regulating their production and supply."Last week, in the foreword to a new UK drugs strategy, the home secretary said: "This Government does not believe that liberalisation and legalisation are the answer. Decriminalisation fails to recognise the complexity of the problem." Indeed, as reported at this blog, the government only considered two options in respect of its drugs strategy: doing nothing or implementing a prohibition-based strategy.
In my piece on BBC Breakfast this morning, Minister for Crime Prevention James Brokenshire said: "We don't think legalisation is the answer because it ignores why people actually get addicted to drugs in the first place. Those are a number of very complicated factors: some of them inter-generational, some of them relating to issues like homelessness or mental health."
However, Mr Ainsworth joins a growing number of public figures in Britain and around the world who are arguing for a rethink on global drugs strategy, among them chairman of the Bar Council Nicholas Green and former head of the Royal College of Physicians Sir Ian Gilmore.
Mr Ainsworth agrees that he has come a long way since his time as drugs minister. Then, in a debate in 2002, he warned Parliament that legalising drugs could see a rise in some crimes and that availability would inevitably increase with the risk that children as young as 10 could start using heroin and cocaine.
One MP on the opposite benches took a different view. "I ask the Government not to return to retribution and war on drugs. That has been tried, and we all know that it does not work," the member said. The rising star of the Conservative back benches had recently urged ministers to engage with the United Nations in considering legalisation and regulation of drugs. The MP's name was David Cameron.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Of course we can Mark :)
real comments after debate :)
Complain about this comment
Drug prohibition has been a way of life for a whole generation but things are clearly changing. I just hope this isn't opposition rhetoric to win a few votes. Will this be a promise that he later reneges as so many have before? We've had Blair argue for legalisation to win votes and more recently Clegg. How should we move forward on the issue of political trust?
Complain about this comment
Drugs policy in this country (and many others) is the result of political posturing arising from a fear of press.
Like the war on terror, the war on drugs has not worked and arguably it has made the situation worse for vunerable people. As a parent of teenage children, the current drugs policy does not give me confidence that they are safe.
There should be a dispassionate review of the likely outcome of legally supplying drugs.
I believe that such a review would recommend making drugs available under strict control to those in need.
Complain about this comment
Again High Profile Comments , by minsters that now have no control..typical...being shot to pieces by the media and government, thank ful to mark's balanced view..
Complain about this comment
Mark,
some people drive cars in a way that is both dangerous to themselves and others, why don't you ask James Brokenshire if the best solution to that particular problem is to regulate all car drivers and sanction those who misuse their cars or to ban all car drivers completely ?
And when Mr. Brokenshire has spun some weasel words to justify only punishing those who drive dangerously/anti-socially, ask him what the difference is with recreational drugs.
I have no doubt that once Mr. Brokenshire has left office he will also have a change of heart like Mr. Ainsworth and any number of worthies who have an epiphany at the end of their careers.
It is no good trying to curry favour now Bob, you had your chance and did nothing, it just demonstrates how spineless you were when you had the power, and how weak and inconsequential you are now.
Next up will be Alan Johnson saying how we should use evidence based policy.
I don't believe a word any of these people say, only concrete action can convince me of their sincerity. (and that includes the current Prime Minister)
Complain about this comment
"Mr Ainsworth knows that public attitudes and the political weather are against him"
There is a perception that public opinion is against this, but judging by this mornings "Have your say" column, the public is massively in favour of this. Bit surprising, but I think people can see a logical argument when they see one
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If the "war on drugs" we have been waging throughout my lifetime had any success over that period I might think of carrying on with it. But as it has been a total failure at everything but making criminals rich and giving a very good income for those waging this "war" we need to change the law.
Complain about this comment
Same comment as always:
Alcohol is legal and regulated, yet it causes thousands of deaths and massive amounts of violent crime.
Complain about this comment
Having been in nightclubs and pubs since 1961 I have seen the drug scene
evolve the biggest change was in the eighties with ecstasy and its clones the effect of this I feel was to introduce huge numbers of the ordinary public to drugs this was different from the sixties when pot and cocaine appeared to me to be confined to a small so called educated groups the marketing of drugs in the eighties became very sophisticated the enrollement of children mushroomed those who could not afford drugs were given 10 and charged for 8 the progression to the current situation was to be expected and the market seems at grass roots to be run by juveniles with such rewards and an indifference to penalties these kids are not worried about sanctions controlled legalising would serve a number of problems first removing the profit motive secondly providing the safest product possible and thirdly most important a chance to educate
Complain about this comment
' Can we imagine a Britain where all drugs are legal?' Give me the right drugs, Mark, and I can imagine anything.
Complain about this comment
Yes, please can we legalise drugs now. The fighting and prison are scary.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The whole 'legalisation will fix everything' argument is as simplistic and basic as the 'criminalisation will fix everything' argument.
What is the solution to the problem? There isn't any solution. Legalisation will not work and criminalisation will not work. We've seen prohibition fail with alcohol, but the liberalisation of the alcohol laws has failed too. Why exactly would it be different with illegal drugs?
Complain about this comment
People need to accept the fact that cannabis, ecstacy and cocaine are so readily available to those who are looking for them, that the current system simply criminalises young people who would live otherwise completely crime free lives.
Complain about this comment
It's a shame that Bob Ainsworth didn't realise all this when he was the minister responsible for drugs policy, but better late than never, I suppose.
It is so blindingly obvious that Ainsworth is right about the current system needing to change radically, that I really cannot understand why ministers are so unwilling to listen to him.
People are going to take drugs whatever the law says. Always have, always will. The question is, do you want the supply to be run by organised criminal gangs or by the NHS (or some other licensed and regulated body)?
Complain about this comment
For many years prohibition has been the way forward. Everyone knows this will not work, however there is political mileage to be gained as those passing prohibitive laws are 'seen to be doing something'.
You will never, ever irradicate drug use (or for that matter prostitution which has a similar argument) so it is better to legalise and control it. Firstly the state will get a cut of the proceeds (as with tobacco and alcohol) and secondly as stated in the article there would be a process of quality control removing most of the impure products from the market.
Sure there will still be a black-market and an underground market but it will be nowhere near as big as it is now which will allow law enforcement to target more effectively. Also as seen with Holland we would need to be mindful of drug tourism, but then done properly this could be seen as an opportunity?
Personally I would choose not to buy such products, but I do support their legalisation as I can see the bigger picture.
Complain about this comment
The question that needs to be asked is 'Was the drug problem worse or better in the late 60's' and the answer is it was much less.
The second question is 'was the level of petty crime in the late 60's to fuel drug usage more or less' and the answer is it was much less.
So it is a no-brainer, decriminilise all drugs and control the supply.
But in addition we would need to ensure that the driving of cars, trains, planes etc under the use of drugs was much more controlled, perhaps with the use of roadside 'spit' tests as is done in Italy.
By the way, I speak as someone that was at University in the late sixties and who spent 20 years in pharmaceutical research.
Complain about this comment
The simple truth about street drugs is they are very easy to get hold of. If you wake up one day and say i want to try this or that drug you can easily get it. The problem is the supply chain is not there to protect the user just to exploit them.
By legalising drugs we could make billions in tax's. I would really like it if we could have an adult conversation on drugs to stop people feeling like criminals for doing nothing wrong. I could mug an old lady and get less trouble then having a Spliff or an E. That is wrong.
Complain about this comment
I can't believe this has been brought up at a time when the NHS is failing for lack of funds. The debate on the radio has centred around legalising heroin, which is of course already legally available on prescription under the name of diamorphine. It's easy to focus on Heroin for that very reason, it would make someone some money if it were lealised for recreational use. I can't see the production of any other substances attracting a grant for starting up a new business.
I have frequently heard it said that if alcohol and tobacco were "invented" today, they would never become legal because they would be too dangerous . I wonder how much TAX would be levied on a shot of recreational heroin?
Complain about this comment
I agree... you only need to look at the US in the 1920s when alcohol was illegal to understand that banning things doesn't get rid of them, it simply drives them underground. When alcohol was re-legalised, people who wanted to drink were once again free to purchase safe, legal, regulated alcohol rather than rely on some concoction that someone anonymous had brewed in a barn. Those producing illegal substances for financial gain suffered as people turned to legal alternatives. Alcohol is just another drug after all.
But my main concern for this story: isn't it a bit late for Mr Ainsworth to be taking this stance now that Labour are out of power? Why didn't he do something about this when he was actually the home office minister responsible for drugs and organised crime?
Complain about this comment
Since most crime in this country is associated with the drugs trade - either in obtaining funds to get drugs, or in association with the supply and dealing of drugs - it seems self evident that the only way to cut out the crime is to make drugs available through regulated channels.
That way the delar is cut out of the system, and the risk to health and wellbeing through sharing needles, or buying contaminated product is overwhelmingly reduced.
Once the drugs are suppleid through a controlled system, the addiction itself can be be gradually dealt with.
Surely the lesson of the American prohibition era with regard to alcohol is clear - it didn't work then, and won't work now.
Furthermore, the billions of pounds and countless hours squandered by the Police and Customs services in this fruitless task could be better spent on other things.
Complain about this comment
A sensible stance in my eyes, nothing so far has worked
De-criminalise certain drugs and control the supply and quality. It works in the Netherlands, there are problems with harder drugs which are still illegal (cocaine and heroin) but there aren't many issues surrounding the de-criminalised ones
I hope that someone actually listens for once to evidence that increasingly points to the fact that prohibition doesn't work and isn't effective. We need to try a different approach
I fully expect his advice and comments to be completely ignored as the coalition would not want to touch this issue with a very long stick! They want to steer clear of any contentious issue and this will cause big arguments
Complain about this comment
I have been a regular cannabis user for a number of years, and frankly I despair at the current drugs policy in the UK; I go to work for 10 hours a day, pay all the applicable taxes and if I want to relax of an evening by having a couple of joints before bed, why should I not? I have never been much of a drinker, I have been in one fight in my life (a tussle over a packet of Jaffa Cakes in secondary school), and it sickens me that in the eyes of British Society I am labelled a criminal junkie.
At the end of the day, those using narcotics, especially the higher class substances, are not much ones for following the drugs laws: all the prohibition in this country does is make users open doors to the criminal world and spend far too much time hanging around in dark alleyways. As the article states, decriminalising drugs would decrease the impurities that lead to medical problems, and if curious citizens were able to go to their GP and find out the actual truth about substance abuse - not the fear-mongering slander that is currently taught to teens - then they would be able to make an informed decision and experiment in their own way. People zoning out on the sofa with chemicals sauntering around their veins aren't exactly likely to even bother to go upstairs, let alone start a fight. We need to remove the stigma and criminality of the drugs trade and adopt a policy of personal sovereignty.
Complain about this comment
Then logically, if we had legal "drugs" in the UK, government licensed companies could grow / produce it all and thus take money away from the Taliban who depend on the sales for financing weapons.
It's quite ironic that the very policies to protect British citizens create a market where money is used to buy weapons that are then used to kill and injure brave British service men and women.
Much as I would like to believe common-sense will prevail - I can not help but feel billions more will be spent on the continuing status quo which seems to be not working at all no matter what the evidence or level of support.
Complain about this comment
Well, in fairness to Bob, he does have a point.
Quite how it could be made to work in this day and age, particularly if the UK took this step unilaterally would be.... interesting. It would also be particularly interesting to see what effect on the plan the law of unintended consequences would have.
Thats not a reason for not debating it, I readily acknowledge that. But, a reversion to a 1961 policy would have interesting consequences, I think. And I'm not sure the criminal trade would suddenly pack their bags and retire without some sort of fight, considering how tooled up some of them are compared to your average GP or Chemist.
Complain about this comment
Paul Dacre has already expressed an opinion on this subject I think so why waste you're time discussing it?
The current bunch of politicians Conservative, Labor and Lib Dem at least, would appear to be just as carefully as on message as ever.
And they wonder why they are held in such contempt.
Complain about this comment
as David Cameron is fully aware of the millions of people in our country, in Afganistan, and in South America, who are killed by or because of drugs every year, but he continues to ignore the issue and do nothing at all about it, i hold him personally responsible for every one of those deaths
Complain about this comment
Yes of course. You (i.e. Mark Easton) have always been a bit of a trail blazer by mentioning all these other countries that relax their rules on drugs and about how nothing terrible happens. Keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
I can appreciate both sides of this argument, but one thing that seems to be missing from this is the effect on the supply chain.
If we regulate drugs, then we will need to provide facilities to produce and distribute these drugs in a secure and controlled fashion.
Lets assume that the criminal fraternity who depend on the current drug environment to fuel their enterprises, they will attack the source and supply routes for these legal drugs, so any facility and distribution chain will ned intense security to police, and keep secure - this means massively increased costs.
Add to this that drugs will most likely only be available through secured channels, such as GPs and Pharmacists, then these premises too become targets for robbery and violence, as the black market seeks to control these.
That will also then put at risk any independant pharmacist who would be unable to pay for the increased need for protection and security.
Then add to this that some pharmacists/GPs who do not wish to participate will also be put at risk regardless.
Add all of that risk and cost together, and then ask who will pay for all of this, and who will pay for the ingredients and the people to produce and distribute.
It all boils down to the vast majority of tax payers who DO NOT use illegal substances.
Why should I pay for those who are addicted to feed their habit? Or for those who wish get off their heads on a controlled substance?
I do appreciate why we could legalise, and the benefits of such action, but the increased risk and cost to the majority of the people is unaccetpable.
Complain about this comment
The law surrounding the use of chemical substances is confused and contradictary. There is alcohol and tobacco, two of the most dangerous substances and the're used as legal, social and economic lubricants. Then there's other chemicals, often used with great affect by the medical profession, that become illegal only if used socially and are, in fact, generally less dangerous than alcohol and tobbacco. Even plants that induce hallucigenic 'effects' are legal until processed.
I can see no logic in using the law to control substance use, if in fact 'control is required, but that's a debate for elsewhere. There is little, if any evidence that the law has made any differnce to the supply and use of drugs.
Complain about this comment
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" Albert Einstein.
If what you are doing isn't working, do something else - anything!
Criminalisation and prohibition benefits only the criminal and trafficker. And it costs an arm and a leg. How much does it cost to keep a frigate on antidrugs patrol in the caribbean? How much profit is lost to the traffickers and dealers? How much is spent trying to eradicate coca plants and opium poppies?
With regard to health and damage, how many deaths are from drug abuse compared with alcohol and tobacco? We are happy enough to trade them freely and to tax and apply duty to them. Where is the difference?
Complain about this comment
Hmm...
A system that keeps those who harm only themselves out of prisons and saves money while helping to solve our prison crisis.
That removes a major source of funding for all types of crime, including terrorism, one of the biggest problems we face today.
That adds an extra source of tax revenue for our seriously unhealthy-looking coffers.
That will save huge amounts of money that is otherwise wasted by police on enforcing prohibition.
That makes drugs safer to use for those who can get them anyway.
That has been shown in the Netherlands to decrease drug users who no longer find it exciting, and in Portugal to take a massive chunk out of deaths caused by overdose and HIV infections from dirty needles.
That would possibly be single most effective thing a government could do to improve our society and the lives of everyone in it...
Sounds convincing, but let's check with the tabloids and the mothers if we're allowed to do it first, shall we? They are the ultimate authority in this country after all.
Complain about this comment
Even though many drugs could be used resposibly and in moderation, (much like alcohol) -It always comes down to the lowest common denominator. If you allow 100 people to feely use a drug, chances are that 10 of them will abuse it, so to protect those 10, we deprive the 90.
-And unfortunately this is how it has to be, to protect the vulnerable minority we must deprive the responsible majority. However, as for cannabis, I feel that it is simply ignorance that makes people fear it as a 'drug' -My mother was convinced untill very recently, that Cannabis was not only highly addictive, but that a small amount could cause a fatal overdose. Education, control and moderation is the only way to get these substances out of the hands of criminals.
Complain about this comment
I don't use drugs myself, having better and more interesting things to do and to spend my money on, but I've spent a fair bit of time with peope who do. However the Will Self's of this world may glamourise drugs and pontificate about them, drug users are, in the main, people of limited imagination and/or aspiration. A few create great music or surreal art (often despite drugs rather than because of them) but as personalities they tend to be self-obsessed and boring (see Jenny Diski's amusing review of Keith Richards' book in the LRB!)
It follows that the real 'cure' for drug abuse is to build a society in which people's imaginations and aspirations are stimulated and have a chance of fulfilment. One in which people can realistically aspire to live full lives with continous personal development, outward engagement rather than inward obsession, and a sense of wonder.
Meanwhile prohibition clearly does not work because drugs are widely and easily available, despite the millions spent and the lives lost.
Quite apart from the important question of why adults should in any 'free society' be prevented from doing what they like to their own bodies in their own homes, if you look less sensationally and more intelligently at drug-related fatalities the overwhelming majority are due to ignorance of toxicity and side-effects and/or completely unknown dosage and/or contamination by unaccountable criminal suppliers with poisonous impurities.
Unadulterated pharmaceutical-grade drugs of known accurate dosage and with a safety leaflet should be available for purchase in pharmacies. Like tobacco, they should carry a tax tariff to fund the cost to the NHS of treating addicts. Buyers should have to show ID and sign the poison book, consenting to their GP being informed. There should be draconian penalties for intoxication in a public place and/or supply to minors.
Job done, millions saved, police able to get back to tackling crime.
Complain about this comment
I would like to see legalisation of drugs.
Think of it this way:
1. They can be taxed.
2. No one would die from impurities in drugs.
3. Everyone knows what they are getting because production is monitored.
4. It would take power from gangs, thugs and traffickers.
Why not introduce a test, just like driving?
Anyone above the age of 18 can take a written test in a centre to obtain a licence allowing them to buy alcohol, cigarettes and other certain drugs. This would mean that they would have to study and pass this test to obtain the license. The types of questions they could be asked would be based along the lines of dosage of the drugs i.e units of alcohol, grams of MDMA etc, long health problems including psychological conditions, addiction and their rights and responsibilities as a drug user. This means the person will be educated on drugs - whether they like it or not - before obtaining their license.
This means that instead of showing ID of age at a counter to buy your cigarettes you wold need to show a license that means you can buy these products. This would apply to anyone over the age of 18, so even if you are over 18 - no license, no drugs, no alcohol and no cigarettes.
I think it would be a great idea, then we would have educated people who are not criminals being able to purchase, clean drugs and take them, knowing what they are doing to their bodies and minds as they have been educated in this.
Complain about this comment
Once you legalise drugs, The students will be marching in the streets saying 'the Tories are trying to destroy our minds...boycott drugs now!'
So it's a good idea, once people (especially the young) are given something that's no longer taboo, they don't want it.
Complain about this comment
Wikileaks tells us that Saudi royals hold moonshine parties in an alcohol free contry. US presidents have a puff at uni. people will smoke/drink/do drugs regardless of the law. The key point here is all about whose pocket the cash is ending up in....
Complain about this comment
20. At 1:33pm on 16 Dec 2010, jeannette wrote:
I can't believe this has been brought up at a time when the NHS is failing for lack of funds. The debate on the radio has centred around legalising heroin, which is of course already legally available on prescription under the name of diamorphine. It's easy to focus on Heroin for that very reason, it would make someone some money if it were legalised for recreational use. I can't see the production of any other substances attracting a grant for starting up a new business.
I have frequently heard it said that if alcohol and tobacco were "invented" today, they would never become legal because they would be too dangerous . I wonder how much TAX would be levied on a shot of recreational heroin?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
typical misinformed comment.
the realities of treating a heroin user with legal heroin is around the £20k mark the criminalisation of the same addict 1.2 million. So any drain on the NHS as its put is purley down to the money spent in controlling and criminalising the user.
as for the end how much tax on recreational heroin??? none that's a daily mail fairy tale. Heroin has never except on the black market been sold as recreational! I do wish people could actually think about this instead of making stupid unhelpful comments.
Complain about this comment
"We've seen prohibition fail with alcohol, but the liberalisation of the alcohol laws has failed too. Why exactly would it be different with illegal drugs?"
We have seen a strict system of control and regulation work with cigarettes, use is going down and those who choose to smoke pay for themselves through taxation.
There is a space between the current alcohol laws and the current prohibition laws. Allow the manafacture + sale of soft drugs, no marketing, no advertising, no packaging. Harder drugs, provide them on the NHS to addicts. No need to rob people for money when it's given out free, with advice and encouragement to get them off it if they need it.
Prohibition doesn't work...and it creates multi-billionaires of criminals.
Complain about this comment
As so many of you have posted - drugs are available to those who want them now regardless of the law. The problem being those people are criminalised, whereas the other 6 days a week they live their lives without the rest of the world even realising they enjoy drugs.
Those serving the paying public whether gangsters or simply somebody that makes a bit on the side at university, are also criminals. Quite probably, the large majority of the "dealers" are proper criminals and are part of never ending cycle of people willing to take the risk in order to survive -
Surely it is a better system to make drugs legal and TAXABLE - that would see the deficit go down! The money can also be reivested into education and helping those who are criminalised. Jus because heroin becomes legal, does not mean I will go out and do it...why, because I'm educated and know the risks.
The UK needs to grow up with regard to drugs and in fact prostitution. These activities will never go away- so why not make them taxable and let the country get some benefit from them.
Complain about this comment
Why oh why didn't Mr Ainsworth make his views known whilst he had the power and influence to actually do something about it as the Drugs minister? He could have quite easily pushed for an impact assessment of the 1971 MODA during his tenure - as many drug campaigners have been asking for years.
This episode highlights the sorry state of British party dominated politics. Ministers must be free to speak with their own conscience and not allow party politics to dominate and rule their judgement. As citizens we should expect ministers to firstly represent the people NOT the party.
Complain about this comment
If I were a big time drug dealer (I'm not, by the way) I'd channel a decent chunk of my profits into supporting anti-drugs campaigners. There'd be no better investment in helping to keep my prices high, and my market position dominant.
It's tragic that so much of this (non-) debate is dominated by views that are ultimately purely moralistic, though invariably dressed up as health or social concerns (that never stack up rationally). At its heart is a view that "they" shouldn't be enjoying themselves by consuming narcotics.
Now, excuse me while I go off to quaff another large G&T.
Complain about this comment
It won't happen.
Any government in power will not let drugs be decriminalized because it's a major vote loser. Sure - those animated enough to discuss it here, those who have seen at first hand the devastation that drugs cause, know that it is a health matter, not a criminal matter, and that legalisation and regulation are the first steps to control and heal. But we aren't the majority.
The majority read the Sun or the Daily Mail or any number of other right-wing publications and have an entrenched view on drugs. One of the most insightful pieces of broadcasting about drugs was the Brass Eye mockumentary / episode on "cake". Sure - it's absolutely hilarious - but the reason it is so funny is that it completely sends up the current global consensus on recreational drug use - that drugs are "bad". We have been drip fed pap by journalists too lazy or stupid to be able to communicate concepts of risk and benefit (see the MMR - autism "crisis") while grasping at soundbites and headlines that are as ill-informed as they are harmful.
Imagine the headlines now. "Labour support drugs for school kids" "chemists, even those with 1 mile of a school would be allowed to sell dope to anyone over 18 or with fake ID" blah blah blah.
Of course, it fails to point out that your children are already taking drugs, the only difference is, the ones they are taking are from illegal street dealers who pad them out with all sorts of poisonous substances and actually your kids have no idea what was in that pill they took at the weekend that their mate gave them. But press won't tell you that because it is too scary to comprehend - that your children live by and large the same kind of existence that you did and take the same risks as willingly as you did.
1 million people were taking E every weekend at its height - those people haven't gone away. Ask police at football grounds and many will privately tell you they wish they'd come back but that's another matter altogether. But those people are still there, in their jobs, in their lives, doing what they do. Except now, older, perhaps wiser (debateable) certainly more entrenched in their views they would prefer their children not to dabble as they did. It has ever been thus.
The real point in all this is that there is no way on God's green earth that an incumbent party will ever give an inch on rational drug legislation and we're fools to ourselves and each other to expect anything other than the status quo. There is too much invested in the war on drugs. Billions of money to the arms industry to fight a war in Afghanistan ostensibly against drugs, the same for the fight in South America, the same for the issues in Africa which is the inevitable stop-off point for narcotics bound for Europe and the US. You think the arms industry will give up that level of funding without a fight?
Billions spent on insurance against theft - statistically most of which is fuelled by street drugs. You think the big insurers want to kill that particular golden goose. It pains me to say it but there is BIG money in the war on drugs and the little matter of what is actually good for you or harmful, risky or otherwise, is but a footnote on the balance sheets of these corporations. Any serious government proposing regulation and legalisation will be swamped by the combined negative PR and press that these parties could generate in the space of a few days... it's just not going to happen. Ever.
Complain about this comment
Well done Bob,
This certainly is an issue that needs full public information, ideas and debate. Look what the abolition of alcohol did in the USA!
I know the answer is not a simple one and hopfully at the very least we can drill down into the issues.
My instincs tells me that the state would make a better 'drugs Baron' than the 'pond life'!
Complain about this comment
Forty years of total failure. Just on its own, isn't that enough evidence for the heroes at Westminster that it is time to change the approach?
Complain about this comment
dark nown - i have to disagree.
a few comments. 1. if the government create the drugs themselves they will be much better and therefore the black market is cut out the loop. why would you buy drugs which dont work, are cut with all sorts of stuff and from a dodgy source, if you can get from a reputable sourse?
Who will pay for this - the people that take drugs. The drug are taxable.
Why should you pay - same reason you pay all other taxes - because your part of society. Paying for the health care people will get is a public good.
The criminal fraternity will of course find something else to get their fingers into - such is life.
The UK must grow up - and those who sit up their ivory towers thinking its only hardened criminals who take drugs and have a habit are sadly out of touch with reality. Just pop into the bars in the city on a friday night and see the evidence for yourselves.
Complain about this comment
Finally the sensible answer to drugs.
The Govt can reduce a multiple of social & economic problems by accepting peoples willingness to consume drugs; we can save £Billions and pump that money into rehabilitation, buy the raw material for heroin & cocaine straight from the source (poor Afghan & South American farmers) and help them create a viable economy.
Complain about this comment
Darkrenown, if drugs are available legally, why would it be worth criminals'while to then steal them as determinedly as you suggest?
Well, I mean obviously being criminals they will steal anything, fags, booze, Xmas turkeys, but why would they steal them so much more than anything else?
If drug users can buy pure drugs of known dosage from a pharmacy, only a desperate minority will consider saving a small amount of money by risking adulterated drugs of unknown dosage. There's always going to be such a minority but no more so than with any other stolen goods, surely?
Also as crimes go a pharmacy break-in is a jolly sight easier for the police to solve than persistent street dealing. If dealers are really going to be daft enough to break into pharmacies initially, bring it on! Let them leave their DNA in an obvious, easy-to-find place, and present the police, at last, with an unassailable conviction that takes them off the streets. Omelettes and eggs. Pharmacies could choose what they sell or don't sell, and adjust their security and/or insurance accordingly.
Complain about this comment
30#
Good points. Kind of agree with your conclusion, personally, but if there is to be any momentum behind a legalisation stance, it absolutely has to take the factors you've mentioned into account, rather than them being an afterthought. There is no way on this earth that the criminal gangs are just going to pack up and go home quietly when their client bases start to dry up by buying from the state instead..
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark,
The tide is now flowing against the continuing criminalisation of drugs, with their associated huge criminal costs to the police and prison system and the effect on the public in crime and health service costs.
Drugs without harmful additives are also safer.
Little emphasis has been placed on the effects of legitimation of the production, distribution and supply of drugs. The denial of income to criminal and terrorist organisations and the gains in revenue to nation states would be enormous. The effects would be profound, particularly in some of the most troubled areas of the world like Afganistan and South America.
I would recommend everyone to visit http://www.tdpf.org.uk/AboutUs_Publications.htm to inform the debate
Complain about this comment
I agree with some of the previous posters who say that legalisation can never be a silver bullet solution for this problem, but having spent some time studying the impact of drugs on British society from the lowly viewpoint of a Social Policy undergraduate, I think an honest and thorough cost-benefits analysis will demonstrate that legalisation is a far better alternative than the current criminalisation policy.
For example, one area of this analysis/debate that might interest the current government is the level of resources currently being spent on trying unsuccessfully to restrict drug supply and break up the criminal gangs illegaly distibuting them. Legalisation will not only dramatically reduce the amount of money that needs to be spent on policing drugs, but it will provide the government with a new cash-cow that they can regulate and tax to their heart's content, just as they currently do with alcohol and tobacco. Legalisation equals control and taxation.
Were legalisation to be adopted, occasional users and addicts alike might have to pay more for their drugs, but they would do so in the knowledge that they were getting an unadulterated and good quality supply, with no nasty secret ingredients giving you unwanted side-effects, and no shady criminals to deal with on street corners. Whether they be legal or illegal, people always have and always will continue to use drugs. Unfortunately some people will use drugs irresponsibly; unfortunately some people will become addicted and will suffer the associated health consequences - as many people do with alcohol and tobacco. These things will always be; the situation will never change regardless of the law's stance on drugs - to think otherwise is pure naivety, fantasy and denial, and for a long time it has really surprised me that this view is prevalent in both UK and US society and government. Legalisation is simply the government getting smart and saying "we'll make drugs safer for you the citizen, we'll cut off the cash supply to international organised crime and terrorists, and we'll make a tidy profit from doing so". It really is a no-brainer, and I welcome any move towards an honest, grown-up and thorough debate on the issue.
It'll never happen of course; government and public alike will continue to bury their heads in the sand on this one.
Complain about this comment
40#
Free? The decriminalisation argument I can see the validity in, but giving the stuff out for free?? So, the rest of us, who dont have such empty lives that we have to get stoned out of our box have to work like trojans to subsidize a bunch of wasters who just want to get off their heads for free????
Are you quite sure about that, or have I misinterpreted you?
Complain about this comment
Ref 30
Why should I pay for those who are addicted to feed their habit? Or for those who wish get off their heads on a controlled substance?
---------------------------
Do you really believe that you arent already paying for people to feed their habit?
Figures quoted on this blog have estimated the war on drugs to cost £16 billion plus lost tax of around £4 billion.
I would be very surprised if the extra cost of securing the supply chain reached numbers anywhere near these levels. In addition the GP's and pharaceutical companies are already producing these substances i.e diamorphine (heroine), methadone etc which are legal to prescribe so i fail to recognise a need for a massive security increase.
Your points also dont address the issues of a failed policy i.e. continuing with the same policy is not going to make the problems any better.
Huge numbers of the prison population are only there due to drug and mental health issues. Reoffending rates amongst these institutional offenders is incredibly high with Ken Clarke recently quoted as saying 50%.
Therefore, in my opinion the cost in money terms and to society is far higher by running with the same policy that has failed for so many years to tackle drug use.
Complain about this comment
People are making comparisons with the proposed system of GP's prescribing the drugs and the current legalised state of alcohol and how that's not working and thus concluding it won't work.
Can I ask those drinkers who make this argument, which of you go to your GP in order to be prescribed drinks?
This argument also fails to take out of the equation the standard of the drugs (whether they are cut with other toxic ingredients) and the drug barons who make sheds of cash from the dealing (also the greater effect of this on our society and other societies.
The theory also sounds like it would help drop the taboo getting the drugs (buying illegally from dealers) and potentially make people more comfortable with asking for help and admitting their problems
Complain about this comment
so legalise drugs but put more tax on junk food - this seesmt to be the latest ideas
I don't get it
I don't think a person who has had too many burgers or chocolate bars has ever threatened me
Complain about this comment
I have never taken illegal drugs, have worked with thousands of addicts in my former 30 year career as a criminal justice practitioner and believe regulated access to drugs in a similar way as is now provided with nicotine is the most constructive way forward.
Complain about this comment
"Minister for Crime Prevention James Brokenshire said: "We don't think legalisation is the answer because it ignores why people actually get addicted to drugs in the first place. Those are a number of very complicated factors: some of them inter-generational, some of them relating to issues like homelessness or mental health."
Which seems to ignore that most people actually get additcted to drugs in the first place because drugs are 'pushed' on them by criminals wishing to create a market dependent on their goods, and simply because it is illegal, and hence "cool" for the younger generation.
Yes it is complicated. But stop saying "it's complicated", and then only using one side of the arguement that fits conveniently with your strategy, whilst ignoring the other 'complications' that don't...
Complain about this comment
Bob Ainsworth’s call for the legalisation of all drugs demonstrates an intelligent, commonsense approach to dealing with the huge problem we have in this country with drug abuse. The cost to the country is immeasurable, consisting as it does of the cost to the NHS, the cost to the Police, the loss of potential of the drug users and the pain and suffering caused to individuals and their families.
The call is not to issue drugs to all and sundry, but to remove drug usage from the criminal gangs who currently control it. By putting control of drugs in the hands of trained and caring professionals, drug users will more readily be able to access the help they need to break their destructive habits, they will be removed from the twilight world of criminality in which they live, even when they are not involved in crime to support their addiction. Yes, of course there will be problems, those selling drugs will have a lot to lose and will try to maintain a black market economy. The cost of introducing rehabilitation programmes needed to support users will be high.
Nevertheless, as someone who has seen the impact of drug usage at first hand for many years, I believe legalisation is the only way forward. Those who claim otherwise are naïve or bigoted, lack humanity or even pragmatic commonsense. As Mr Ainsworth says we need “a grown up debate”, we need to take advice from those who have experience and knowledge of the subject, including drug users. We do not need to be driven by media hysteria or the pressure of party politics. The problem will not go away, it will continue to grow if we don’t deal with it now.
Complain about this comment
14. At 1:16pm on 16 Dec 2010, StatedIndicator wrote:
What is the solution to the problem? There isn't any solution. Legalisation will not work and criminalisation will not work. We've seen prohibition fail with alcohol, but the liberalisation of the alcohol laws has failed too. Why exactly would it be different with illegal drugs?"
You don't have to have 'liberalisation' or 'prohibition' - there is the middle ground of legalisation and control. So, you don't let Tescos give you free heroin with every packet of crisps (or 'heroin flavoured crisps'), but you do let doctors (and maybe pharmacists) supply it legally. Presumably they'd record who had it, ensure they only get what could be used by that person reasonably safely and maybe they would give you a rehab centre voucher with every 20 packets...
I used to be pro-prohibition, but I'm not sure now. Prohibition doesn't seem to be working, and it is making bad people rich, and getting vulnerable people into all sorts of dangerous situations.
Maybe they should try the legalise & control strategy with something like cannabis first, rather than heroin. It would be less controversial and less dangerous, but could be an indicator of how it might work with stronger drugs.
If done with decent controls, taking drugs doesn't harm anyone other than those involved (at least, no more than alcohol) - the fact that the act is criminal is more likely to cause harm than the act itself - mixing with the wrong people, or getting infections, committing crimes to pay dealers' prices etc.
Prostitution is a very similar case where legalisation and control could be much better than prohibition.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to stereotype but most drug abusers (not just the weekend high crowd) are unemployed and as such receive free prescriptions on the NHS.
You could argue that an average heroin habit costs the user £15K and around £45K in stolen goods covers this. On top of that you have police cost, insurance costs, court costs, jail costs.... the list goes on so there are benifits in a regulated supply but legalisation is not a realistic option.
The swiss started a shooting gallery clinic system which has virtually eradicated heroin related crime. They have piloted shooting galleries in the UK but there is not enough evidence to show they work.
Oh and food for though 30mg of heroin is enough to kill a man that is opiate naive. The controlls are in place for a reason!
Complain about this comment
Holland is a prime example of drug and sex laws actually working.
In fact. The Dutch are amongst the lowest cannabis users in Europe. Reuters report Nov 5th 2009.
With the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe (8.4 per 1,000 girls between 15 and 19), any initiative in the Netherlands deserves attention. The Dutch Model
As with most things in life, knowledge is key.
Complain about this comment
"The NHS Constitution has been created to protect the NHS and make sure it will always do the things it was set up to do in 1948 - to provide high-quality healthcare that’s free and for everyone.
No Government will be able to change the Constitution, without the full involvement of staff, patients and the public. The Constitution is a promise that the NHS will always be there for you." (www.nhs.uk)
you need to realise that the government is not going to profit from this, all you get is a failing NHS thats being squeezed even tighter!
Complain about this comment
How does Bob Ainsworth regard the addicts who have been prescribed methadone for four years or more? Why would prescribing drugs work where clearly, it doesn't work.
Complain about this comment
Yes. It will be a Britain with far less petty crime, fewer girls forced into prostitution, no one dying from impure drugs or accidental overdose. Far preferable for most citizens why not for politicians?
Complain about this comment
Its a pity he didn't express this view when he actually had the power to do somthing about it don't you think?
Its lik the lib dems coming out with progressive policies when they know they have no chance of getting in to power and when they do?
They do nothing to adress drug policy and they go back on lots of other promises ie: not raising tuition fee's.
Everyone knows this issue is obvious, everyone knows drugs need to be legalised/decriminalised but once people are in power they are too keen to keep monies headed to them from lobbyists and they are scared to death of the daily mail and its frankly dim witted readers.
Complain about this comment
Anyone with any sense knows that prohibition is not the answer to the drugs problem, it does far more harm than the drugs themselves, and that is even before you consider whether such prohibition is acceptable in a liberal democracy.
However, just like organised religion, anyone with a shred of intelligence knows prohibition is damaging, but no politician in power can risk publicly saying so because the general population is simply not smart enough to realise (or perhaps stomach) the truth.
Complain about this comment
The War on Drugs has been a massive and costly failure. We need a complete rethink and whether it is legalisation or decriminalisation (as a starting pointing) something has to give.
I am tired of our politicians deciding policy based on shrill right-wing trash newspapers like the Daily Mail.
For start lets accept that Alcohol and Nicotine are BOTH drugs, if you drink regularly you are drug user, if you smoke you are a drug user. Alcohol has been shown time and again to kill far more people in this country than the illegal drugs.
Complain about this comment
"61. At 3:44pm on 16 Dec 2010, macdos wrote:
Sorry to stereotype but most drug abusers (not just the weekend high crowd) are unemployed and as such receive free prescriptions on the NHS."
I'd like to hear what you base that on? I am a 'drug' user, i smoke cannabis every night with a can of beer and i do it after a hard days work. And i earn well above the national average.
In fact most of my friends smoke cannabis also and many of them take cocaine on occasion and not a single one of them is unemployed. They are all highly successful in their careers of choice in fact a couple of my friends run their own businesses.
So keep your ill informed ignorant opinions to yourself.
Complain about this comment
There are so many benefits to legalizing drugs:
a) the crimes committed to fund drug habits would stop (all those poor old ladies mugged of their pensions, etc);
b) the crime syndicates would lose their biggest source of income and terrorist funds would take a blow – instead this income (we’re talking billions upon billions here) would be diverted into public coffers, at a time when it’s rather needed;
c) all that wasted police time chasing after piffling offences for possession of a couple of grams of cannabis (plus dealing with crimes committed as in a) above), and the court time, could be far better used;
d) there is no proper legal grip on drug use anyway – millions of people in this country smoke, or have smoked, cannabis or taken ecstasy, etc. Only a handful have a criminal record for it, the unlucky few, making it a kind of scapegoat justice, which isn’t any kind of justice at all.
There was a trial of legalizing all drugs – in Zurich, I think. Confirmed heroin addicts had to go to hospital three times a day, or whatever, to receive ‘treatment’, free of charge. Numbers of long term users didn’t really drop – though at least there was less likelihood of spreading infections, less crime and fewer deaths from cut drugs. But the startling thing was that there were almost no new users – perhaps because now that this kind of drug addition was being treated like a nasty illness, which I suppose it is, it became seen as monumentally uncool.
Usually heavy drug addiction is symptomatic of other problems, often mental illness, just as alcoholism is. Certainly it should be treated, if possible, like all other illnesses. Suggesting that, overall, legalized drug users would be a tax burden is ludicrous – all those I know are punching way above their weight in tax terms. (Maybe that’s why they need a little joint at the end of the day …!) Plus just think of all those lovely billions of extra tax that’d be coming in.
Of course, before legalizing drugs, some kind of system of road side driver testing would need to be devised. Other than that the current policy is out and out barking. How the criminals must be laughing and rubbing their hands together with glee at it! Because they are the only ones who benefit from it.
Complain about this comment
People who abuse alcohol with start abusing heroin. The drug leaglisers will see this as progress.
Complain about this comment
I think that it might be a good idea but I doubt it will happen. I mean, if he so believes in this, why didn't he do it when he was Drugs Minister? Because no government would even contemplate it, that why.
Complain about this comment
Having spent over 50 years working with, and wondering about, the drugs laws; the arguments pro and con are all entirely familiar to me and none of the current ones is new.
It seems very obvious to me that the legislative and judicial "war on drugs" has been and is a failure; with many bad side effects.
But whether or not taking the lid off would in practice result in lots more people taking drugs and behaving badly must remain a guess until it is tried. Pre Drugs Act experience may not be comparable.
Complain about this comment
The sheer amount of human misery (human trafficking, child abuse, murder, torture, rape, slavery) involved in a caused by the illegal drugs trade should be enough to fuel the controlled and regulated legalisation of all drugs.
This will take time so, in the meantime some hard-hitting public service adverts highlighting the human cost, both in the UK and in the countries where they are grown/produced, of illegal drugs are urgently needed.
A combination of basic documentary style information films (e.g., highlighting poisonings/birth defects resulting from poisoning of villages in Colombia resulting from dumping of chemicals used in drug production) together with stylised commercials (e.g., guy buys heroin, cut to sniper crosshairs, back to guy shooting up, cut to british soldier being shot in Afganistan, cut back to guy stoned, cut to family of a real British casualty asking "so you think it's cool to take drugs") would make a big difference to 'recreational' drug users who are either unaware of, or turn a blind eye to, the real costs of the drugs trade they are supporting and the fact that by using drugs, they are complicit in the crimes
Complain about this comment
Fact 1 - The UK already has a legalised form of drug distribution...aka the selling of alcohol and tobacco which cause vast amounts more harm than other drugs anyway. Just because alcohol is available, do we all go out and down bottles of scotch every night - of course some do, but they're very much in the minority. If drugs were legalised, would I go out and start trying heroin? Of course not.
Fact 2 - You can EASILY get any drug you want in the UK, right now anyone could go out on the streets, or call a number and get heroin if they wanted. Legalising wqouldn't actually change anything about the supply of drugs, it would just make it safer, and usage could be tracked...oh, and it could be taxed as well!!
Fact 3 - Why does a no brainer decision which would makes so much sense, get torn to shreds. Middle England and their misguided views on drugs (whilst sipping their nice glasses of alcohol - the worst drug of all), means politicians daren't do anything for fear of losing the next election. One day maybe Middle England will realise by doing so they've been actively endangering and criminalising their children.
What a waste, and how very very un democratic it all is! The UK should wake up and stop being hypocrits!
Complain about this comment
What a lot of people seem to miss here are the social users. People who do not have a problem and therefore do not need feel that they need help. How would a “part time user” get there couple of e’s for the weekend? There would still be an illegal market for these. Also just because some thing is legal does not make it safe look at the issues and health implications of the so called legal highs or even alcohol for that matter. Legalising drugs will not stop an illegal drugs trade or prevent deaths.
Complain about this comment
Ainsworth is quite right. The drugs war is an abject failure, which is exactly what happens if you set a ridiculous and completely unattainable objective. I personally abohor drugs but think we should cease to proscribe them (rather than making them legal, which may glorify them).
The money saved on interdiction (probably several billion pounds per year should be spent on rehabilitation. However, in the abscence of hanging, I would lock up for a minimum of 25 years anyone found selling drugs to children.
Complain about this comment
Prohibition (of alcohol) in the USA between 1920 and 1933 didn't work and led directly or indirectly to a huge crime wave.
Isn't there a parallel with the UK's current drugs policy?
I'm all for legalising. And I'm not a young "clubber" but a 72 year OAP.
Jack
Complain about this comment
The experiment has already been done (at least where decriminalising possession is concerned). See, for example:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
As the politicians are so in thrall to the media, I'd exhort the BBC and (dare I say) the Daily Mail to send their reporters to Portugal and give us an update on how things have gone since 2001.
Complain about this comment
"StatedIndicator wrote: The whole 'legalisation will fix everything' argument is as simplistic and basic as the 'criminalisation will fix everything' argument.
What is the solution to the problem? There isn't any solution. Legalisation will not work and criminalisation will not work. We've seen prohibition fail with alcohol, but the liberalisation of the alcohol laws has failed too. Why exactly would it be different with illegal drugs?"
As far as I'm aware, criminals don't break into houses for money to buy alcohol. I've had my house broken into twice in the last 4 years, on both occasions the crimals were caught and admitted to the police they needed money for drugs.
Complain about this comment
Lets give it a go for five years, if it does not work, change back, simple, Now I'm off for a pint. cheers merry Christmas !
Complain about this comment
The speed limits do not stop some people speeding. However having them there keeps a lot of people alive the same can be said for the drug laws.
People under 16 have access to legally brought cigarettes and alcohol. They will be able to get hold or be sold legally brought drugs. As any one who has worked with patients with psychoses will tell you, mind altering substances on underdeveloped brains is very dangerous.
Complain about this comment
"Mr Ainsworth knows that public attitudes and the political weather are against him"
Inregard to the public's attitude, is that your ascertion or Ainsworth's?
I am not at all sure that is the public's view. There is a growing majority, who if asked, has the war on drugs worked would say no. It's what to do next where opinion varies.
Complain about this comment
Oh for goodness sake! Please stop making such a song and dance over the legalisation of drugs, it's no big deal. Drugs have been among human society since the beginning of humanity yet the world still turns and humanity continues to flourish.
Drugs are already legal. We have pharmaceuticals, alcohol and nicotine to name but a few.
Prohibition is obviously flawed, unworkable, immoral, unethical, highly corrupt and extremely unjust. Based on a 72 year old lie that was dreamed up with racist and discriminatory fervor by those at the top. Dreamed up so that the corrupt few can hold sway over the masses. Dreamed up so that Big Pharma, Big Alcohol & Big Tobacco can tap into an unobstructed revenue stream. Dreamed up so that indivduals would not begin to think for themselves.
The moment anybody tells me that using a natural plant is illegal and that I should not use it is the moment I, along with billions of others, stop listening and do what we want anyway.
Prohibition is pure, unfettered madness. Prohibition must end, there is a better way. Legalise, Tax & Regulate. It is that simple to break the chain of criminality, fear, incarceration and dependence. It is that easy to allow adults the freedom to do as they please with their own bodies. One must ask themselves, what right does any single adult have to determine what another adult consumes if they are harming nobody but potentially themselves? Why would a prohibitionist deny other people the freedoms that they so cherish and enjoy while sipping a glass of wine?
Enough already, stop the madness, end prohibition. It isn't scary, it is natural. What is scary and unnatural is prohibition. Therefore, Mark, I would suggest rephrasing your question: Can we imagine a Britain where prohibition was a criminal act and illegal? (for the only real criminals in all of the madness of prohibition are those that proliferate it and maintain it).
Incarcerating somebody for a victimless drugs "crime" (although it cannot possibly ever be a crime if it were victimless) is legalised, state sanctioned, kidnap. The state ruins lives left right and centre and for what reason? Well, simply, that they happen to think that their drug (alcohol or cigarettes)) is better than your drug (even though all the empirical evidence suggests otherwise).
The madness MUST STOP! END PROHIBTION! The sooner the better! In my opinion, it is time to NORMALISE the entire debate and stop making a mountain out of what has always been considered a mole hill up until the previous 72 years of ridiculous prohibtion.
Complain about this comment
150 years ago the 'drugs war' was fought with Britain on the other side. British gunboats forced China to accept imports of Indian opium. The Emperor of China had an edict against the stuff because he could see that it was corrupting his civil service (those best able to afford it), his ability to rule and his treasury weres depleted. China lost and the Qing Dynasty was the last.
My friend Tim enjoyed these bits of history as he'd been a Heroin user and on / off addict for twenty years. He tried most drugs but Heroin was his favourite. One day (after he'd been off Heroin for a couple of months) he was going to a concert and decided to have a 'weekend dose', he got the drugs off another user rather than one of the more established dealers he knew, they were cut with a nasty barbiturate and a couple of days later Tim was dead.
I know that Tim would have not died from those drugs if there had been a legal option - he was a good worker and earned decent money. He put a lot of effort into finding a legal alternative or getting on a project.
But my experience of drug users does not end there and I would challenge the idea that 'what gets people addicted is a combination of homelessness and mental illness'. I think it is the other way round, people who have mental health issues start to use recreational drugs (which may provide temporary relief) and become very seriously ill from it, similarly I don't know anyone who became homeless and then started to use hard drugs, I know a good few people for whom it is the other way - drugs took over their life and they became homeless.
A medical approach rather than criminal approach would save many lives and save huge sums of money.
Legalisation and taxation may have advantages of moderating and monitoring and guaranteeing quality but Heroin and Cocaine are potent drugs and a medical approach is probably the best. Other drugs could be taxed and regulated including some of the class A such as ecstasy and LSD but without international agreement it would be tough to do these things.
Complain about this comment
Drug prohibition has failed. Under the British System in the 60's there were less than 700 registered heroin addicts in the country - now there are around 300,000. For a policy that aimed to eradicate drug use that is a monumental failure.
What has the Misuse of Drugs Act achieved at the cost of £13bn a year ? Higher drug use, vast profits for criminals, large increases in burglary by addicts and millions of otherwise law abiding citizens criminalised. Time for a change. To carry on as we have done is madness and everyone knows it, even if politicians and some media outlets are too scared to say so.
Complain about this comment
#44 - Several good points.
Fact of the matter is it all boils down (or cooks up) to money. Illegal drugs are big business for so many different organisations, some of the most influential being pharmaceutical (for the case of cannabis in particular). Legalising the drug cannabis, which is a plant, cannot be patented. It happens to be a plant that could be used to treat many different illnesses and health conditions, to the extent it would be worth many billions of pounds.
Cannabis is the big one in my opinion, legalisation doesn't necessarily have to mean any old Tom, Dick or Harry can go down the shop and buy it - you will have much more control of how and where it is sold from, and who it's sold to.
As someone else mentioned earlier, knowledge is the key.
Legalising less widely consumed substances such as heroin and crack cocaine would be even more beneficial to society on the whole. Most people are drawn into the downward spiral of hard drug abuse through peers or family members. If it's legally available in regulated doses to current users, who are limited to purchase a personal amount and who can be treated for their addiction - they're unlikely to encourage others!
Complain about this comment
Whilst I agree that problems such as addiction would still be with us after legalization,comparisons with alcohol legislation are misleading.
The weekly drink-fueled mayhem and violence are caused by the wide availablity and cheapness of alcohol- not simply by its legality.
You can buy a pint of lager for about 30p in the supermarket. Thanks to 'pre loading', as the practice of consuming alcohol at home before going out is known, our town centres are practically no-go areas most nights of the week.
I completely support the decriminalization of drugs and I think once this happened, we could bring alcohol under the same umbrella of stricter regulation.
The alternative is to pour billions down the drain and perpetuate this dangerous criminal fantasy world that our kids find so glamorous. The guns on our streets, for example, are there simply because drugs are illegal.
Drugs are not immoral in themselves. What is immoral is legally selling one drug cheaper than water, with the result that billions are spent dealing with the consequences, whilst demand for another means ordinary peaceful people become criminals.
Complain about this comment
Bob Ainsworth is to be congratulated for his present position. This shouldn't be a party political matter, but its to be regretted that Ed Miliband has already come out against it.
Complain about this comment
Drug dealers are not the only ones clamouring to keep drugs illegal.
They are in alliance with police, prison service, alcohol manufacturers, drug manufacturers and worst of all : politicians who are either ignorant or gutless when it comes to this subject.
Complain about this comment
Wow were to start very interesting debate rather one sided but that was expected.
The first thing is recovery the Nelson trust was given as an example 250 people awarded for the efforts to abstain and recover is very good but what is the long term recovery rates say over 5 years? and should MP's be paying from NHS funding when the is already money set aside for rehab through the criminal justice system?
Andrew griffis then goes on to give an example of a phone call and an email both playing out the classic free for all scenario.. If heroin is on prescription you have to sen me back to prison or Ill need 5 bags a day.
why would the said recovered addict need to return to prison as he would be unable to get heroin as its only prescribed to addicts and not straight people. the email addict goes on about needing more and more, if the medical heroin was the same as street heroin then yes but as its clean unadulterated which the addict will NEVER of had unless prescribed the answer will be no she wont need more and more, even the most chaotic of addicts become stable and healthy on pure medical heroin.
We are then referenced to RIOT and the 3 treatments trialed there enhanced methadone injectable methadone and medical heroin. within 6 weeks the medical heroin users were stable and reducing intake if not almost clean however the methadone treatment was inconclusive (something which i have to agree on knowing addicts of 30 years methadone use)
while on the rehab line we come to payment by result what counts as a result and at what point will payment be made to ensure the QA of treatment? 4 weeks? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? What is perceived as payment by success?
the methadone bill is apparently 235 million or 1 million every 5 minutes which is the equivalent of 11.000 nurses for the NHS. the only way to fix this is through rigorous abstinence programs, which will need 100's of psychiatric nurses and doctors many secure units or half way houses which as i have posted before will be random houses in random streets right around the UK, id would be very worried about the big empty houses in your streets as the councils will by them and use them regardless of what the locals want. This will have to be done in order to break the first trap of abstinence based recovery 'past association' after 6 years of fighting this answer in my community that has 4 such places locally I can say it does not work as they organise themselves and the trade blossoms.
Jimmy then goes on to ask why people start using drugs... lets see mum and dad introduce them to psychotropic drugs in the form of alcohol which for most children will be the first altered state of mind so we really need to begin with a clean up and real enforcement of alcohol, especially in light of recent inflation were soft alternates rose by and average of 10.1% while alcohol remained mostly affected if not generally falling in price as we come to the Xmas state taxed drug binge and a large majority of sensible drinkers will be suffering from a drug overdose regime lasting several festive days. Harsh? I think not.
We then come to the ACMD and other bodies consulted on removing science from the need to ban drugs, who were the people in these institutions and what is their affiliation with current government and its departments and how much future funding was promised for the right choice?
Jimmy broke it then goes on to say the will be an annual review but no new options will be explored at the annual review. This is just lip service around saying NO.
Does Jimmy know that the UK is one of the largest producers of cannabis in the EU?????? we only import a very small percentage now as there are grow ops appearing in every spare room especially as the price has tripled since classification.
Nothing that came from the opposition made any sense as its either already in practice or was scraped as it didn't work.
Bad policy all round.
Complain about this comment
I know that logically/financially it all makes sense to legalise drugs but something still doesn't sit right with me about it
If a person has a cigarette, they are in total control of their faculties, not so with other drugs.
How come crime will go down? If an addict needs drugs they still have to buy them off of the government so cash is still a requirement.
Once again we're back to the argument that individuals will act responsibly, some will but I fear most won't
How about the children? Wasn't it reported that there was a higher rate of depression in people born to parents that smoked cannabis during puberty? And hasn't cannabis been linked to the increased rates of schizophrenia?
Maybe i just feel a little sad for people that have a need to be 'high' 'stoned' or whatever. There is no better high than watching your little ones hanging up their xmas stockings or building a snow man, it costs nothing and the high stays with you forever.
Perhaps we all just have too much time on our hands. If we were in a situation where the main focus of the day was a bowl of food and a cup of water .... ? Who knows.
I just don't think I bring myself to agree with the legalisation of the abuse of the most complex part of a human being.
Complain about this comment
Message to any politician reading this: If you advocate the legalisation of drugs, you will have my vote and I undertake to campaign on your behalf until I drop dead, regardless of what political party you belong to.
Prohibition is a joke and always has been. Does any politician out there have the bottle to actually say this BEFORE they are in office, rather than after??
Complain about this comment
Point 90, and all most all the charities and organisations who work with people who are effected by drug misuse.
Complain about this comment
Prohibition (of alcohol) in the USA between 1920 and 1933 didn't work and led directly or indirectly to a huge crime wave.
Isn't there a parallel with the UK's current drugs policy?
I'm all for legalising. And I'm not a young "clubber" but a 72 year OAP.
Jack
And I suppose that the UK's liberalised laws in regards to alcohol have worked then...
Complain about this comment
Can anyone clarify for me as to why in the '60's, if drugs were then legal, what prompted the criminalisation?
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
I had a real sleazy aquaintance who had dealt in both legal and illeagal drugs (i designed his website for mephadrone when it was legal). He always said he preferred dealing in illeagal drugs as it gave him access to desperate young girls who would do almost anything for them if they didn't have money. He is dead now but has left behind 4 kids to 4 different women who are now all in care. he never wanted drugs legalised.
Complain about this comment
As someone who, in a past life, partook freely and enthusiastically in drug-taking, and in doing so skirted the fringes of those involved in their supply and sale, I feel I am well placed to offer an opinion.
The war on drugs is failing, and will continue to fail. Every time the government succeeds in restricting the supply in, say, safrole (an essential ingredient in the production of MDMA), a new supply-line opens up elsewhere, or dealers just start selling untried, untested and probably very dangerous drugs, such as mephedrone or methylone.
Drug suppliers aren't these faceless creatures hiding in dark corners: they're people. Some pride themselves on selling high quality product, whereas others (arguably most of them) are seeking only to make as much money as possible. I once saw a dealer empty out blisterpack after blisterpack of painkillers and caffeine tablets into a mortar and pestle, crush them up, and mix in a bag of cocaine. Without quality control, people are at a real risk of dying from the filler dealers add to bulk up their wares. One need only look at the anthrax-laced heroin deaths in Scotland to see that prohibition is more dangerous for users, not less.
In an ideal world, nobody would take drugs. Nobody would drink, smoke, eat unhealthily, or have unprotected sex, either. But we don't live in an ideal world, and people are going to continue to want to get wasted no matter the risks. The best solution would be legalisation and regulation.
The value of the drugs market here in the UK is estimated at £6.5 billion. If the government were to open state-run outlets, selling high-quality drugs produced by the government (or by private companies - after all, they developed most of them), they'll see a good portion, if not most, of that money piling up in their coffers. That money could go towards better education, better healthcare, and drug rehabilitation programs.
Criminals would find themselves without a source of income, drug-related deaths will go down, and if Holland and more notably Portugal's recent experiments with progressive drugs policies are anything to go by, drug use itself would fall. Actually, while on that point, does anyone remember what happened when we decriminalised cannabis for a while? Use fell. The world didn't end. People didn't spontaneously combust or drive cars into shopfronts stoned out of their heads.
It's time people stopped frothing at the mouth whenever drugs are mentioned, and start thinking clearly. Nice article, Mark.
Complain about this comment
92. At 5:38pm on 16 Dec 2010, LouisW wrote:How about the children? Wasn't it reported that there was a higher rate of depression in people born to parents that smoked cannabis during puberty? And hasn't cannabis been linked to the increased rates of schizophrenia?
quite the reverse I'm afraid THC aids in the recovery and symptoms of schizophrenia
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/12/thc_reduces_aggressive_behavior_in_schizophrenics.php
Complain about this comment
Those who advocate the decriminalistaion of drugs have not stopped to consider the effect that this will have on demand and the amount of usage.
It stands to reason that any illegal drug which is decriminalised and then becomes readily and legally available will generate a greater demand by existing users and generate vast swathes of new users. Is that what we want as a society?
In a decriminalised world of drugs, the criminals can only be driven out of the business if the cost of legal drugs is far cheaper than the price criminals can provide the drugs. This will mean that the price of drugs will have to be far cheaper than now. And cheaper drugs will generate far greater usage and also attract far more users. Again, is that something we want as a society?
We have seen tobacco usage decline because of the expense and because of health campaigns about the danger. Cigarette consumption is price sensitive because the cost of the addiction is a great financial incentive to give up smoking. However Customs estimate 16% of consuption is of non duty cigarettes and that hits revenue as well as well as undermining the campaign to reduce smoking. This also shows that legalising drugs and putting the criminals out of business can only be achieved by reducing the street price of drugs. And this will, as I have argued above, will certainly increase consumption of drugs and greatly exacerbate the harm they cause.
Complain about this comment
I believe that a large percentage of the population has a problem with the moral concept of legalising drugs, as it may infer that it is then morally acceptable to take them.
However, by approaching the concept in a broader sense you can see that by legalising drugs and having very carefully thought out policies controlling drugs; the benefits to society far outway the disadvantages.
Complain about this comment
I agree that the current system isn't working but still don't understand how legalising drugs could actually be managed. I can see how it might work with drugs such as cannabis but not so much with heroin.
People build up a tolerance to heroin which means you need more and more to get the same effect. So if heroin was for sale by the state you would still need large amounts of money to buy it (and so turn to crime to buy more). Unless your giving it away for free, but how much would you give away for free, an unlimited amount or set limits? and send people to a black market for extra if your set limit doesn't provide enough.
But who knows maybe everyone will behave responsible and you'll be able to pick up some supermarket own brand cannabis in a few years.
I mean as people have mentioned there are far more deaths caused by alcohol and smoking a year than drugs but this is partly related with how easily available and cheap they are. This is a difficult issue and I don't think it can be solved as simply as legalising everything.
Complain about this comment
Who gains from criminalisation of drugs?
The Taliban with their tightly controlled heroin exports from Afghanistan.
The traffickers buying pure dope, and diluting it down for more profit, supporting local communities selling luxury goods.
Bribed politicians, civil servants and law enforcement officials in Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, and Ghana, carrying suitcases filled with millions of US$.
Violent drug dealers, targeting our children, menacing communities with heavy weapons.
Decent, but misguided law enforcement trying to get this rubbish off the streets.
The Daily Mail and their ilk, with alarmist stories to pump up circulation and sell advertising.
But the biggest concentrations of cash, billions of US$ and Euros lie where the crops are grown, and seemingly protected by all warring forces. One just has to ask, is significant amounts these mind numbingly large quantities of cash finding their way into our government institutions and Western banks?
Complain about this comment
War on drugs - complete failure. Politicians in power - head in sand. Former politicians - talk common sense - pity they couldn't do it when they had the power to change things.
Complain about this comment
96. At 5:55pm on 16 Dec 2010, LouisW wrote:
Can anyone clarify for me as to why in the '60's, if drugs were then legal, what prompted the criminalisation?
Thanks.
it was abuse of the british system by the richer clients
Complain about this comment
as a teenager in a well rated and respected state school i can admit that a lot, probably about a third of those in the senior years have done/are doing drugs including some of my friends but because of drugs they've got "new friends". making them legal would probably good thing, due the financial aspect but also they those in my year could get them legally and safely and would not be mixing with dangerous people. it would reduce crime and save lives, and also with reasonable tax on them would make the govt. more money therefore resulting in the taxpayer paying less through mainstream taxes.
Complain about this comment
LouisW wrote:
"If a person has a cigarette, they are in total control of their faculties, not so with other drugs."
Naive users can feel quite dizzy after a cigarette.
"How come crime will go down? If an addict needs drugs they still have to buy them off of the government so cash is still a requirement."
In the case of incorrigible hard drug addicts who commit crime to fund their habits, it would be cheaper to provide the drugs free of charge.
"How about the children? Wasn't it reported that there was a higher rate of depression in people born to parents that smoked cannabis during puberty? And hasn't cannabis been linked to the increased rates of schizophrenia?"
Rates of schizophrenia have remained constant at about 1% of population, despite a massive increase in numbers of cannabis users. There is weak evidence of a link between early cannabis use and onset of mental problems in susceptible people. I haven't seen a study about inherited depression.
"Maybe i just feel a little sad for people that have a need to be 'high' 'stoned' or whatever. There is no better high than watching your little ones hanging up their xmas stockings or building a snow man, it costs nothing and the high stays with you forever."
OK, so you're a teetotaller - nothing wrong with that.
Complain about this comment
Legalising drugs will be for the good of society! I have a strong gut feeling that the ONLY reason they won't become legal for some time is that a few politians are getting fat off kick backs from drug lords. Think about, a drug lord makes millions and will do anything he can to keep drugs illegal so he can keep making money; even if this means bribing corrupt politicians.
Do not believe what the government tell us about drugs. The reason people die from drugs is because they are cut with dangerous chemicals so dealers can multiply their profits. I fing it quite distressing that OUR government cannot protect it's own society from the dangers of dangerously cut drugs.
Drugs will always be part of human history. Criminalisation does not work and will not stop people taking drugs. Reform the laws before it's too late.
Complain about this comment
#92. I take your point. I lost a friend to paranoid schizophrenia, which was brought on (probably) by cannabis use at university. However, the cannabis was (probably) the catalyst rather than the cause. And cannabis was, and is, illegal. The outcome would have been the same had it been legal – or maybe, with heightened awareness of attendant mental illness, not. Who knows? Yes, certainly cannabis doesn’t agree with some people, nor does alcohol, or even gluten or nuts.
Your family Christmas sounds idyllic. But not everyone is in your fortunate position, and sometimes an artificial high is better than none at all. Certainly children must, or should, be protected, as from many things.
Crime reduces, because hard core addicts are given what they need, they don’t have to steal to get it. And the big guys’ seedy business dries up.
NB: Good on Jack #78
No, #92, the liberalization of licensing regulations for alcohol has not worked. But I don’t think any (or many) are suggesting that heroin should be available 24 hours a day from the local corner shop or pub. Surely the discussion is about the legalization of drugs in a strictly regulated fashion, not a free for all.
Complain about this comment
Give society a small amount of choice and responsibility and you'll be amazed what good can come out of it. For example, Germany let their drivers choose the speed at which they drive on the Autobahn and their accident rate is lower, the Netherlands have legalised cannabis use and a vast majority of the Dutch don't even use it, and as an added bonus it provides economic revenue to the country through tourism.
I personally am not ashamed to admit that I have tried and used many recreational substances in the past, and I do continue to do so, on an occasional basis, I have still been able to complete two degrees and hold down a good job throughout the duration, whilst never at any point developed an addiction. So should I be labelled as a socially unacceptable individual just because of this recreational and controlled use of an illegal substance on an infrequent basis? The health benefits of some illegal drugs are promising, yet terminally ill patients cannot get access to pain relief due to the narrow-minded assumption that all people who try/use drugs will inevitably become drug addicts. Research has shown that LSD for example can help the human minds through creativity and reflexion. And heroin and cannabis can provide much needed pain relief.
Legalise drugs, gain some control and perspective on drug trafficking, and give people some responsibility, chances are very few people would abuse the system if it is intelligently regulated, and a large percentage of users would get bored and lose interest as the novelty wore off. The vast majority of teenagers I knew who used drugs growing up do not use them now.
The problem with politicians when it comes to the drug debate is that they are far more than happy to ignore and disregard undisputed peer-reviewed scientific evidence regarding drug use, purely to allow them to secure the vote of a minority group who oppose it. As I scientist myself I find it insulting that evidence and research is ignored in this way, and all the time our government and economy is haemorrhaging state money in a futile attempt to gain control of the drug markets. Its time to realise that you lost the battle, only with a radical change in approach and opinion can you even hope to win the war.
Complain about this comment
Again ex ministers coming up with ridiculous headline catching ideas on drug policy, so if drugs are regulated and given out on prescription how does a govewrnment regulate the actual physical taking of the drugs? are government officers going to be there when they are taken and then follow those people to ensure that the effects that come from taking drugs does not effect the rest of the public? do we lock people up until the effects of the drug have worn of to protect others? the fact is you can make drugs legal to take, but it does not answer the question of what do we do to counter the aftermarth of people taking them, drugs mentally make people do things they may not do when not on them,it is society that would have to deal with the consequences of making drugs legal. i had a brother who committed suicide last summer who had descended into the drug world and it make my blood boild to think of ex has been ministers trying to stir up justifications in making drug taking legal,the reason we fail on drug problems in this and every other country is that we fail to enforce current laws in a ruthless manner, no doubt the big drug compnaies will be rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation of being the providers of this filth, and finally as for the fool who makes comment about what harrods nearly a hundred years ago, what rubbish, a hundred years ago there were many things you could do but do not today because they would be considered STUPID to do so
Complain about this comment
Many drugs have medicinal purposes (in their natural form). So these drugs could be legalised and regulated for medicinal purposes only. I wouldn't agree with buying for example, cannabis or heroin over the counter like you can with alcohol or tobacco. But if prescribed under strict conditions with other therapies to deal with the underlying problem of addiction and other issues, it could very well work.
However, it still won't stop the drug dealers from operating because there will always be those who are looking for a cheap thrill. Can you honestly see a teenager who is planning a night out asking their GP to prescribe them their drug of choice so that they can get wasted? No. So they'll go to a drug dealer or ask a friend to get their drugs for them.
Complain about this comment
Louis wrote:
"If a person has a cigarette, they are in total control of their faculties, not so with other drugs."
having been a smoker for 25 years and recently moving to poly smoking tobacco and e cig I have to say it was really weird feeling the nicotine hit from the e cig and the resulting highs that i got for the first few days. So reminded me of my first ciggy at 15. Made me realise just how powerful nicotine was.
There is no better high than watching your little ones hanging up their xmas stockings or building a snow man, it costs nothing and the high stays with you forever."
I have now done that twice as a grandparent and that's not a 'high' its a nice memory that releases various chemicals to make you feel all warm and buzzy..its also stored with the appropriate chemical responses so in the future when you recall the memory you get that warm feeling or that familiar smell.
Complain about this comment
on a slightly different note... im sure instead of all this law enforcement and our army overseas, why not buy the drugs direct and just dump them in the sea.
That must be cheaper than doing what we are doing. Its clear the current system does not work.
Complain about this comment
mark predeth good call to ban alcohol there, as apart from cocaine i cant think of any other drugs that would need such heavy handed approaches to enforce safe behaviour.
Complain about this comment
if we look at the approach we have taken to tobacco, education, we see that people are actually intelligent enough to make informed choices (unlike most politicians it seems) obviously we are never going to see heroin and crack at the local sweetshop and different approaches will be needed for different drugs.
Continuing with the current approach the 'war on drug users' will lead to continuing problems. Depriving criminals of income, de stigmatising users allowing them easier access to treatment, emptying our jails of non-violent criminals, and generating some tax revenue from the safer drugs (cannabis, ecstasy etc.) does seem the only logical approach.
No chance there then
Complain about this comment
Whenever the drugs debate comes up, we normally hear from people who have themselves or whose family members/friends have suffered as a result of drug addiction. This is very relevant in its own way but is a distraction from moving the drugs debate forward and forming policy that is progressive. Incidentally anyone who sais that cannabis is harmless is not speaking the truth. It has been proven to be detrimental to physical and mental health with over excess to large numbers of people (although no worse than alcohol)
First of all we can see that all measures that have been taken to reduce drug taking/trafficking have in the large part failed. We can also see that harsher punishments also fail. Take Thailand for example. We all know the Thai governments ultra strict laws and sentences in regard to drugs, yet the country has a huge problem with drug addiction, especially methamphetamine.
We can see the huge financial cost in the war against drugs and the cost to society as a result of increasing prison population. We can also see that criminalising people for drug taking does absolutely no-one any good whatsoever, the opposite infact.
So what what would happen if drugs were decriminalised. Well it would certainly allow people to smoke weed without feeling like a criminal although the drug dealers would still be there and flourish.
What about legalisation. Well it certainly wouldn’t suddenly solve the issue either. Although crucially it would allow huge funds to be spent on education, rehabilitation and support for users and their families (and thats not even factoring in the tax take). It would also ensure people knew what they were taking. People could smoke natural strength cannabis rather than the super strength genetically enhanced variety that is causing many problems. The black market would still exist but to a much smaller scale.
I was very disappointed that Ed Miliband dismissed Bob Ainsworth and didn't even conclude to debate the ideas further. Although I don’t blame him. That would be veering away from the sacred/hallowed middle ground of politics. Where appeasing majority right wing and middle ground press is essential for being elected. Unfortunately though this just means that the drugs issue and progressive policies in regard to drugs doesn’t ever move forward. I note also the little understanding of cannabis by the ruling/political classes. How very hypocritical and inane it is that they no doubt discuss these issues while enjoying a legal tipple of their favourite drug alcahol, knowing that alcahol causes more harm to society that cannabis ever could.
Complain about this comment
"some people drive cars in a way that is both dangerous to themselves and others, why don't you ask James Brokenshire if the best solution to that particular problem is to regulate all car drivers"
That's exactly what we do - we don't ban all drivers because some are dangerous, we punish the dangerous ones! In the same vein, we don't ban football because some fans are hooligans - and I'd rather be surrounded by a bunch of wasted potheads than drunken football yobs.
I personally believe a fair society would not punish drug use - but would come down hard on those who steal to fund it, particularly as it could be made reasonably cheap if legal.
This is the foundation of a libertarian society - to punish only that which harms others. Ironically, the last Labour goverment proposed exactly the opposite - keep drugs illegal, but use drugs as a mitigating factor in robbery! Talk about back to front logic!
Complain about this comment
lefty11 my brother heroin addict died heroin overdose so now you have heard from such a person. so now we can talk sence and not Myth.
what happenes to the black market real life case...
http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/alternative/2010-12-08-marijuana-prices_N.htm
All harms come from contamination.
Complain about this comment
The only people to benefit from drugs being illegal are the producers, traders, and pushers, who generate enormous cash profits. This illegal cash in turn corrupts all it touches including bankers, accountants, lawyers and politicians. The illegal drug industry will use its financial power and influence to keep drugs illegal, for legalised drugs would destroy their livelihood.
If you endorse keeping drugs, illegal you are supporting the drug producers and the misery and corruption associated with drug use and distribution.
Complain about this comment
If it were to be legalised we'd see an increase in car accidents and violent crime plus the health of the nation would take a nosedive. If you think the NHS is in trouble now it would be nothing to what would be unleashed.
Complain about this comment
Can we imagine a Britain where journalists come clean about their personal interest in the matters they campaign on?
Complain about this comment
What a breath of fresh air it is for someone of a fairly prominent role,albeit the previous government,give such an honest,and quite frankly,common sense answer to a quite complex issue.
I know there are a lot of factors to take into consider on this subject,but from a previous recreational drug user(i used to go to all night raves,was an occasional cocaine user and now a "once a year user at a festival" type of person.People are being criminalised for a choice of a way of life.The people I know who use recreational drugs are honest working people,hold down steady jobs(paying their taxes i might add) and have kids of there own.
Yes there are some issues relating to health,but also a fair bit of myth/fear spreading going on-when are we going to stop putting our head in the sand,have a proper look at the subject with our eyes wide open,and not tunnel visioned to suit the narrow minded.
Not everyone has addiction problems,not everyone's life falls apart from drug use.Awareness and education is the key.Stop the illegal trade and you're better able to guide those who need help.
Complain about this comment
119. John Ellis
John, Im sorry about your brother. For my part ive chosen not to talk about my experiences and with friends and family because I think it clouds the debate. This is not about if heroin is bad or not. It is . We all know that it is bad stuff. What I know for sure is
1. where we are now is not working.
2. trying to eradicate it hasn’t ever worked and tougher sentences hasn’t worked.
3. people are dying because they are overdosing due to not knowing what purity they are taking.
4. by legalising it would mean a huge amount of cash could be spent on education, much more help for addicts and their families and a huge reduction in crime.
Complain about this comment
It does seem to be an appropriate time for a properly independent, authoritiative review of the evidence. This is one of those areas where rhetoric & political expediency get in the way of facts and evidence. A Royal Commission of experts (& not stacked with people who know what the favoured answer is) would be the right way forward. If we could cut down on the costs of enforcement & get some money from taxing some of the recreational drugs, perhaps we could cut less in areas that are going to hurt normal decent people
Complain about this comment
John Airey can I ask what is 'IT'? and what is 'ITs current effect on society?
In the case of cannabis the nations health would vastly improve especially in older people whose ECSN is failing taking a massive burden of the NHS.
unfortunately our media is terrified to talk about THC and CBD and the effects on cancer alzheimer's/dementia not to mention the massive variety of other ECSN related illness we suffer from.
cancer http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196
dementia http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Endocannabinoids-prevent-beta-amyloid-mediated/20923768.html
diabetes type 1 and cardiac http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/25/2115
the current list. http://www.uccs.edu/~rmelamed/endocannabinoids_and_medica.html
This is world class R/D that are far beyond what we are allowed to research in the UK because of the MODA and the wall of moral panic towards change.
so why will the NHS suffer?
if anything regulation of cannabis will save it billions and provide a wide range of treatment across all departments.
Complain about this comment
Mark the people need someone like you to stand up for what deep down everyone educated knows is right.
Yes for legalisation, education and regulation.
i urge you to stand up for common sence!
Complain about this comment
lefty11 no need to apologize it could have been a car accident cancer etc but it was an unprotected unregulated industry that holds no account to anyone under the sun as its been made untouchable by our cleaver leaders who turn up at drug rehabs say awe this is nice smile a bit and then go back to their cushy lives.
There is only one way forward total regulation and control at government level to supply a mainstream industry with alternate recreational drugs and move treatment for addicts to prescription heroin with a full support network to catch them when they fail as they will many times over.
I strongly object to result related pay unless its incremental over a 5 year period, they should not be paid unless true long term recovery can be proven. otherwise its an easy way to fleece local councils of money which belongs to the tax payer.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I have no experience of Heroin or Cocaine , but have indulged in cannabis use for about 30 years with no ill effects. Many times over the years, this legalisation issue has come up, and now, at a time when almost all of the politicians have used recreational drugs in their lifetime, it is only political expediency and a fear of voter backlash that prevents legalisation. At a time where the govt is scratching around to save every penny ( other than expenses ) Taxing cannabis is the obvious solution. I appreciate that some get cannabis psychosis , but the numbers are probably similar to those with nut allergies. Not a reason to ban the substance. The arguement that it leads to harder drugs is also a nonsense , as most cannabis users started on mothers milk . If there is truth in the arguement, it is because dealing with criminals to buy it causes them to explain that there is a cannabis "drought" so try this instead. Legalisation would offer the opportunity to regulate the strength of the drug, raise income for the government, stop the criminalisation of thousands of otherwise upright citizens/subjects and if all of the "harder" drugs were legal, stop the worldwide illegal trade,cutting the funding to al-quaida and the taliban.
Complain about this comment
Apart from the social, economic and health reasons for ending prohibition, there is the aspect of personal freedom.
I cannot see why another person or society should have any say in what I choose to consume or take into my body.
Let us give responsibility back to the individual with a properly regulated system of drug supply.
Complain about this comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12011866
Nice peice Mark :D
Complain about this comment
I have never been in trouble with the law, neither have I stolen, vandalised or cause harm to anyone, yet I have taken drugs since I was 16! In the same context as we have alcoholism, we have drug addicts. It is down to the individual to regulate their use and to not let it affect their daily routine as most of the UK already do with alcohol. Make certain controlled substances legal and tax it! With the tax money produced, use this to then change peoples attitudes and behaviour towards drugs. Take the financial gain away from criminal gangs and terrorists and clean up the dirty drugs that can be bought on the streets!
Complain about this comment
I think it's a good idea.
1) stops scores of people going to prison for drug related offences
2) if it is highly taxed, helps the government get more of the deficit back
3) highly controlled, medically pure drugs. 'safer'
4) with the money from tax, use in the NHS to treat the problems associated with misuse of drugs and advertising to not smoke, etc..
5) anyone caught dealing other than chemists or doctors, hit them HARD with prison sentences, even for first time offenders.
6) because of the legal availability, it will drive the drugs trade down in illegal places, disband many gangs and will more than likely shoot down the violent crime rate in Britain.
7) leaves police with more time rather than stopping petty criminals for having 1 small bag of weed or whatever. can be on the streets protecting and serving the public how they should be doing
Of course, there are negatives, but, the amount of positives, I'm sure we could cope with them, overall, I think it would benefit society!
Complain about this comment
There are benefits of making everything legal:
The consumer gets a safer quality assured product without the risk of being mugged or ripped off. The taxman levies duty on the product so the treasury wins aswell.
Whether legalisation would encourage more people to use is debatable. Drugs are already easily obtained, people who use them don't deliberate over the moral dilemma of breaking the law.
All the authorities need to do is acknowledge that there is this huge market out there and regulate it. It's not going to go away.
Complain about this comment
Not many negative comments so I am not quite sure where opponents of regulation (of drug production and distribution) get their information from - since they always claim that there is no public appetite to pursue the legalisation approach to drugs. If the comments here are in any way representative they must have no idea of what public opinion is on this issue is. If public opinion is that strongly in favour of radical change and no one is listening then some one will see an opportunity for overnight popularity and cash in on the issue - If everyone wants it then it will have to happen or the politicians will simply risk being voted out and made obsolete. Even though politicians may act tough on the issue they are thinking about it - trust me !
Complain about this comment
Agree the current criminalisation system is only making matters worse
1. Drugs are illegal and not-controlled which means they are available to anyone including children. For drug dealer it does not really matter who to sell as long as they are paying, hence children as young as 10 can get hold of hard drugs such as crack, heroin or skunk which is much cheaper and highly addictive
Read the following article about the real facts of drugs in the UK the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8340796.stm
2. Young people are being criminalised as mainly young, black and ethnic minority people are stopped and searched frequently and they happen to have a bit of weed worth £10 they get a criminal record which deprives them of a bright future or good job. How many white middle class and professional people who actually use higher class drugs getting stopped and caught?
3. British soldiers are dying in the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, not so much Iraq but Afganistan provides the most heroine sold in Britain's and Europe's streets. 9 years of war in Afganistan has shown that this is a war that never can be won simply because it is against the lucrative heroin and opium production in A. War barons in A are drug barons and they won't give up their trade. It has to be taken away from them by simply cutting the demand. If British producers can produce own heroin and opium which is strictly controlled than there is no need for a supply from A.
4. to ordinary Mothers who will start a histerical cry about dangers - think again - your children don't have to fight and die in the wars which is never going to be won. There is a direct link between wars in the Afgan streets and British streets. Criminalisiation of drugs here is creating a market for Afgan drug barons. Young kids as young as 19-20 are sent to fight them and die needlesly.
5. Most people are paying for addicts right now as some parts of our contribution to NHS are spent on addicts, etc. Making drugs legal will ensure everyone who buys them pay some tax. this will lessen a burden on NHS which is facing a huge efficiency savings and cuts in real terms.
7. Agree with points about less money spent on street controls, police, and more importanly on prisons. The vicious circle of a small offence of carrying some weed leading to a bigger offence then eventually to jail. Then re-offencidng as no job prospects, etc. Decriminalisation will help to lessen a burden on all public services from prison, police, GPs, NHS to schools.
8. Like the idea of a license for over 18's to buy drugs. If everyone has to go through the licensing then they can learn about the dangers of all substances. education is the way forward. TAxation will help to fund it. Parents who are scared for thei children don't need to be scared as the field will be much more controlled and regulated. As of now it is very DANGEROUS to children as it is undergound and available to anyone.
9. How about Professor Nutt's recent report about the dangers of various drugs. As far as I remember Alcohol's danger to the society and person was more than crack cocaine and heroine. search for that and see the picture yourself.
Complain about this comment
just saw your video mark easton
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12011866
thought I might put it out there that irrespective of quality/strength cocaine still has serious risks for the heart. think got to be clear that although some illegal drugs have medical benefits e.g. cannabis most of them have serious side effects and especially in cases like cocaine where addiction is psychological prescription to help those already addicted would be of limited value.
Complain about this comment
I work with young people who have early episode serious mental health problems - and see first hand on a daily basis what a sensitivity to cannabis (and other street drugs) can do in terms of aggravating underlying mental health conditions. Cannabis cam trigger the kind of serious mental health problem that can lead to compulsary hospitalisations and years of work getting people back on track again.
For all the damage that I regularly see from personal drug use I have never seen one shred of evidence that the criminalisation of drug use is an effectve deterrent or does anything other than make the illicit drug industry highly profitable, fill our prisons, encourage violence, encourage the recruitment of people who owe money to dealers into crime (that they would not otherwise be involved in), encourage people on low incomes to buy drugs at inflated prices on the black market. I have never once been convinced that the money and time spent on criminalisation has ever created a situation where a particular drug has been unavailable if one wants to buy it.
In other words if drugs are the problem criminalisation of use was never and will never be the solution. Criminalisation has been an ineffective failure and worse still has become the kind of issue that politicians can bandy about to appear to be 'tough on crime'.
Complain about this comment
I worry about what legalisation will really mean. it's bad enough having people light their ciggarettes and blow smoke in front of you in streets or seeing people passed out in the street due to alcohol usually at midday in a town centre.
But if you legalise drugs you could easily see people shooting up in the streets in front your children. I admit that this does go on even now in some places but it would be even more wide spread.
The most dangerous drugs at the momment in society are nicotine and alcohol and they are legal. If we start making opiates and other drugs legal will we see deaths due to these drugs pass deaths due to alcohol or ciggarettes?
Also what are you going to do to all the people already in prison for selling drugs? are the government going to release them as the drugs they were selling would now be legal?
Complain about this comment
Great article Mark and good to see on the BBC. I have written my own quite extensive article on the prohibition of marijuana. Comments and criticism most welcome - http://orwellandothermatters.blogspot.com/2010/03/indefensible-war-on-marijuana-and_18.html
Complain about this comment
I am glad that John Ellis (post 128. John Ellis) is an educated person who despite loosing someone close recognises where is the real danger. SO often uneducated people who loose their loved ones because of the drugs they have taken/ overdose/ bad reaction/ etc get a lot of media coverage saying how dangerous the drug are.
While I understand their loss they are not ehlping the debate as without proper knowledge and facts they shout out loudly and give a bad coverage. Their own ignorance might prevent the decriminalisation of drugs for now and actually be a reason why another child who has not been educated about the dangers of drugs can be a victim of unregulated and mixed drugs.
People like John need to speak up more as to counter the ignorance and show that actually decriminalisation, education, control and taxation can save more lives in the future.
Complain about this comment
a note to #137 - just a comment about the professor nutt report. He mentions alcohol is so harmful because it is so widely available. wouldn't legalising drugs make them just that bit more available?
Complain about this comment
What is so bad about life that mood-changing drugs are seen as so essential?
Surely it is better to be in our right mind and face up to the suffering and joys of life.
I have seen much grief caused to individuals and families through drug and alcohol abuse.
Complain about this comment
137. At 9:25pm on 16 Dec 2010, Sashon wrote: crack, heroin or skunk which is much cheaper and highly addictive
please do not include cannabis along side class A drugs it is misleading.
Also Skunk was developed in the 1970's not as the press and government likes to report late 90's - 2000 and compared to a lot of natural cannabis is actually low in THC coming in at an average of 15%.
other wise a nice piece :D
RE point 3 we dont have to worry about afghan heroin now the trade has moved back to asia were heroin production has gone up 75% :) and I cant really see us invading some of the most powerful nations in the world to stop it this time. the same nations that also house the labs that make the myriad of legal highs our younger generations have now encountered through this failed war on people using drugs.
Can the government explain the emergence of unclassified highs and how does it tie into the framework of prohibition and change within laws of current drugs?
If you look at the emergence of the unclassified drugs it was around the time of the shift in price with the classification of cannabis. When cannabis was reclassified to class B it added 5 billion to the market and saw the average £20 bag go from 3.5 gram to as little as 1.2 gram. 28 grams to the ounce.
So we had a quick financial gain on cannabis which allowed the flood of research chemicals onto the streets of the uk.
We have no choice in the matter drugs = 8.9 % world economy.
Complain about this comment
Sashon TY and I do speak up someone has to keep calm amidst the maddness thats killing people.
Complain about this comment
I heard a commentator saying much the same as Mo Mowlam did about drugs, before we went to war in Afghanistan. I can't remember who the guy was but he said there was no lateral thinking about things that could provide alternative solutions to military aggression. He was talking about creating links between the Afghan poppy farmers and the big pharmaceutical companies who, at the time, were in need of opiates. The money could have gone to the peasant farmers and taken them out of the clutches of the gangs of criminals and subsequently the Taliban. It might have been a less expensive and dangerous policy than the one the Amenicans and their allies chose to follow.
Tim Sharp is quite right, there are many people whose lives are destroyed at least for a time, if not permanently, but the same is true of alcoholics. That does not mean we criminalise alcohol though, does it? There's a generation out there whose relaxation drug of choice is marajuana and they relax with it and most do not become addicted. Many prefer it to alcohol, the drug of choice for the older generation. Yet they are doing something illegal and therefore run the risk of being found in possession and therefore a become a criminal. There is something ridiculous in this state of affairs. We ought to be thinking more about what sort of society we have created in which so many people want to get off their trollies and escape reality for a while.
Complain about this comment
John Ellis - the health of the nation would suffer because of the side-effects of cannabis which are much worse than even those of tobacco and alcohol. The driver in the Cannon Street train crash had taken cannabis. Cannabis can also cause mental health problems such as Bipolar Affective Disorder as Tim Sharp points out. This is not a harmless drug by any stretch of the imagination. I would estimate that you would put at least £10 billion onto the annual budget of the NHS and who will pay for that?
Complain about this comment
2001-2002 Afghan poppy production was at its lowest, the "taliban" which can translate to "student" had reduced the production. In 2009 back up to 80-90%. we are gaurding it people, either that or we are a poor army.
Over 500billion dollars per year flow round the world in drug money, where does it all end up?? A bank. Suspect number one.
In the prohibition era the biggest exponants of keeping alcohol illegal where the hooch manufacturers, bribing and fearing the congress.
So who do you think wants to keep drugs illegal, yes the drug barons who fear and bribe politicians to lobby against the legalisation or even decriminalised.
Why do you think they sacked or pushed the prof they asked to do a study on cannabis, whose answer they didnt like.
COME ON PEOPLE!!!! stop watchin tv
Complain about this comment
# 140 @ kmarkc - I understand what you are getting at you are worried that decriminalisation will mean more public drug use.
I think that decriminalisation would mean that people with problematic drug use would be in a better position to get their issues dealt with through healthcare providers and would destroy the markets and business practices of the dealing networks which account for most of the social ills created by drugs.
Complain about this comment
Bob Ainsworth is right, for as long as we allow drugs to be unlicensed and criminalised, we leave them in the hands of those who want to make money from an unregulated, untaxed business where the profits are potentially vast and the demand is always in a state of growth. Qualified health professionals who are currently unable to find suitable employment could be better employed running a national drug service that is predicated on the rehabilitation of users, weaning away from hard drugs and allowing the medical use of some of the class B and C drugs. The billions spent annually on "the war on drugs" (a nonsensical title), could be used for any number of projects for social and health improvement. Its not about being soft, its about being pragmatic and realising that humans have used drugs for thousands of years and do not seem to be willing to change that impulse any time soon. To de-criminalise is not necessarily the same as to legalise, although it can be, if we tax peoples drugs while at the same time ensuring that they must enter into a legally binding contract to engage fully with a national rehabilitation program, with jail-time penalties for any attempts to work the system, then we can start to create a humane, enlightened and practical approach to a social endemic that is worldwide. The problems in kick-starting this kind of approach are mainly twofold, The police and law courts would lose masses of revenue, from budgets and fines, the drug squad would become an irrelevance and prisons would see a massive reduction in inmate numbers, none of which would go down well with the police, the courts or prison service. The other problem stems from the anti-drug-use rhetoric that every administrations ministers has employed to garner support for their party, people have been propagandised for so long that they really believe all the false horror stories along with the genuine horror stories, about drug use and drug users. If a user can legally obtain his or her drug of choice, no matter what the caveat is for that, then they will not need to engage in any criminal activity to continue with their habit, and if the main caveat is that they must become rehabilitated through a mandatory program then we could confidently expect to see hard-drug user numbers fall dramatically. These rehab programs have been shown to work time and time again, yet their funding is always cut and then removed altogether, simply because the "war on dugs" is now a multi billion pound industry for the government of the day and the police and law courts and prison service, they do not want to "fix" the "drug problem", no matter what their rhetoric is, its just too profitable to have a "scourge" that they can "wage war on" using taxpayers money of course, handy to have as many scapegoats as possible as well, young people, unemployed, single mums, druggies, immigrants etc.etc. Think about it.
Complain about this comment
to 148 AllieK
The drugs are widely available in the streets as of now anyway... It is not hard to walk into any night club and get any drug you want. Or ask a couple of friends for a delaer's phone number and you will have several operating in your area. it is laughable to think that they are not available because it is illegal. just search the internet and there are hundreds of various types of drugs which are not made illegal yet and anyone again ANYONE even a child can purchase them as long as they pay with their parents or friends cards.
And also dealers don't really choose who to sell to. That's the single reason why so many children aged 10-15 have tried various drugs already.
By the way Alcohol and Tobacco are drugs too. They are legal drugs which cause the most damage to people, communities and society. Professor Nutt proved with his 20 odd years of research that the most recreational drugs are harmless and even widely available won't cause much harm to the community and society.
I am for controlled and regulated system where hard drugs will be hard to get and only on prescriptions while soft ones like marijuanna, weed, MDMA, ecstasy, mephedrone and others are less harmless and available over the counter.
Complain about this comment
Madness, what next legalise burglary cos it is getting out of control. Give the police the job of protecting us. forget (for a while at least ) the useless job of fining mororists and other non victim crimes. We all know that the majority of theft is from Drug addicts. Message to the police -- go get them.
Complain about this comment
Sashon your article is so miguided it is ludicrous. So if the government get some tax from drugs it will be OK -- Legalise all drugs -- You do not understand. You say alcohol is more widespread and is legal, So you suggest making drugs legal? you will see a huge increase in drug taking with all the consequenses, the country will sink into what China was before the Boxer revolution.
Complain about this comment
148. At 10:06pm on 16 Dec 2010, John Airey wrote:
John Ellis - the health of the nation would suffer because of the side-effects of cannabis which are much worse than even those of tobacco and alcohol. The driver in the Cannon Street train crash had taken cannabis. Cannabis can also cause mental health problems such as Bipolar Affective Disorder as Tim Sharp points out. This is not a harmless drug by any stretch of the imagination. I would estimate that you would put at least £10 billion onto the annual budget of the NHS and who will pay for that?
Lets not use hearsay John Airey facts and figures research papers please.
also read the links i posted as the use of cannabinoids is done daily by ALL of us.
Complain about this comment
Often the problem is that the people promoting legalisation are people who use drugs.
Maybe in the case of MPs and ex-ministers this isn't the case. But decriminalisation will increase use. People who are law abiding citizens will then have nothing to fear and might give it a go.
Complain about this comment
153. At 10:14pm on 16 Dec 2010, virtual purple haze wrote:
Message to the police -- go get them.
that gets the funniest comment so far.
1% of heroin into Scotland was seized this year ramp that up country wide and you will need to increase police budget for drugs by 99 times
or we can go the Mexico route and get the army in to randomly kill people who use drugs without any form of police work good way to get rid of nuisance neighbours...
Complain about this comment
Although my gut feeling is that drugs should be controlled , I see the logic in the liberalisation argument .
But ... if drugs are taxed , or drug users made to register , the illegal sector will continue to flourish ;
..the organisations presently making money from drug trading , may turn to protection rackets or kidnapping ;
...if more people take drugs ,there may be more people about with altered consciousness . Not as easy to spot as drunks , they may act irrationally , especially in arguments or when driving . Or they may feel detatched from real life and comply unthinkingly with government dictats - a peasantry of lemmings , jumping merrily off cliffs or committing atrocities when told to .
Complain about this comment
Car drivers,Teachers, students, train drivers, in fact a very large proportion of the population, off their heads most of the time on some mind altering narcotic or other. Bob Ainsworth is whinging because he had a job that was hard to do and he was unable to do it. Wasn't Ainsworth also responsible for another job that was actually impossible and that we and he shouldn't have been doing, fighting a war in Afghanistan.
The Singapore solution is the only one that works. Countries that legalise anything else other than alcohol and nicotine( and that should be banned) will collapse into anarchy and economic failure.
Complain about this comment
What I love about this whole argument is that you just know the ones backing prohibition are, as a rule, the same ones who always insist that someone got off some alleged offence "on a technicality". Yet prohibition itself, being an intrusive limit on personal freedom, is only justified ITSELF on a technicality, i.e. that it purportedly prevents personal harm.
The fact that it has failed to do this for forty years never seems to be noticed by those same people.
Complain about this comment
as someone involved in the cannabis business for over 20 years :
where big business has been unable to go, small entrepreneurs have established over many years an extensive UK wide supply and distribution network , a pure capitalist economy undistorted by tariffs and taxes, where prices follow basic supply and demand curves, set by the market place just as efficiently as the commodities exchange. Legalisation would make little difference to supply and consumption, only the price would drop as the premium for producing an illegal product was removed, soon economies of scale would be needed to realise a profit, big business moves in.
It is true the consumer would benefit from drastically reduced prices, the government would benefit from possible taxes and law enforcement savings, but in general the poor would suffer, the simple fact in the UK today the illegal drug trade is the most efficient distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.
Howard
Complain about this comment
155. john ellis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
We can all look at the stats from holland to see what happened there. Control and education is the key.
This is an extract from the link above..........
"In the Netherlands 9.5% of young adults (aged 15–34) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level of Finland (8%), Latvia (9,7%) and Norway (9.6%) and less than in the UK (13.8%), Germany (11,9%), Czech Republic (19,3%), Denmark (13,3%), Spain (18.8%), France (16,7%), Slovakia (14,7%) and Italy (20,9%) but higher than in Bulgaria (4,4%), Sweden (4,8%), Poland (5,3%) or Greece (3,2%).[21][22] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.30%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[22]
The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is together with Poland, France, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic the lowest of the EU.[23] The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help-seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising.[24]
Complain about this comment
154 virtualpurplehaze - your ignorance is just laughable. Just go back and read the article again. It points out that till mid 60s Britain was much more tolerant to drugs and most were available thru GPs or over the counter. From even Harrods. Which part of the article said it turned the country into a junkie state?! All sensible and educated people can see that anti- drugs campaigns are ignoring hard facts. Again top scientist like Prof Nutt publicly confirmed with their years of research what drugs are harmful such as alcohol, heroine, crack cocaine and tobacco in that order. Other recreational drugs are less harmless to the people consuming and to the society. Their actual harm to the society is that many young people are criminalised for small amounts of marijuana or other less harmful drugs. Those y p's future has been tainted cos ignorant people like yourself cannot see the truth from lies. Lies about drug harms is suitable for governments because their policies are driven by mothers and sun readers. The Sun backed Tories and you've got them in power who only worry about their image and nit about the society.
Complain about this comment
Lots of good logic, reasoning and facts being put forward for de criminalisation. I am nearly convinced
However, since 24hr drinking was introduced, I have had mouthy drunks screaming and shouting outside my house at all hours, kicking over bins on their way home. (I see some cities have conceded that it was a bad move and are limiting drinking hours again)
Do I now have to look forward to a comatose creature in a drug induced stupour laying in my petunias?
Frankly, take drugs, don't take drugs, your choice, but this will be a very complex and complicated debate because we are all squashed in on this small island and our actions will have an affect on those around us.
Will we all be guaranteed that one mans life choice (I cannot deny that people have a right to choose what poisons they will use in their own bodies) will not overspill into our own personal spaces? These are my concerns.
As other people have stated, I struggle with the concept that an artificial high is needed to start with, so my input into this debate is probably very limited.
Complain about this comment
As for alcohol - I don't have to state stats as anyone educated and able to use Internet can find how much it costs to the country, economy, communities and people who abuse it. That doesn't mean it has to banned but it also provides huge revenues in taxes and some of it cover the costs associated with it. Cos despite all regulations it is sometimes available to children. Nothing can be totally controlled but legalisation might provide more control and regulation of any product.
Complain about this comment
The vast majority of comments are in favour of legalization and regulation. No one, least of all the politicians can come up with a good argument or any evidence in favour of continuing the present system which clearly is hugely advantageous for just one group- the importers and dealers. The only argument I can see against legalization is that it would take away the main source of income for the criminal classes who would then turn to some other form of crime.
All this has been said over and over and over by everyone who studies the subject yet when in power politicians immediately become drug warriors. Why? Is there a conspiracy? I would like to hear from ex-government ministers who recant not just that they have recanted but why they towed the drug war line when in office. Is it a condition of kick backs as someone in this blog has suggested? Do the Americans threaten reprisals if we don't tow the line? I genuinely want to know why being in office means you have to pursue a failed policy to the detriment of everyone except the drug importers and distributors. Something very fishy is going on here.
Complain about this comment
#30 darkrenown
Surely you can't genuinely believe that the cost of providing security to a few factories is going to cost more than the billions spent already enforcing the failed policy? The cost of policing the streets and imprisoning drug users costs this country vast quantities every year.
You said "why should I pay for those who are addicted to feed their habit? Or for those who wish get off their heads on a controlled substance?" The answer is, of course, that you wouldn't be paying a penny, in fact you may even end up paying less; the huge income generated by taxing these products would end up putting more money in the government pot.
If your argument is based soley on money, then the only logical thing to do is to leaglise it. However I strongly suspect that your views are based on prejudice as you characterise drug users as 'addicts', completely ignoring the huge majority of users who safely and regularly take drugs without ill-effect.
Complain about this comment
They might as well be. Saw a PCSO put a parking ticket on a car the day after Moat. The PCSO had just walked past a dealer dealing! NICE
Complain about this comment
De-criminalisation could be the only chance the Lib-Dems have to regain a bit of credibility with the students...
Complain about this comment
lefty11 good examples but as the article says supply is still illegal even to the coffee shops. What is more significant is the 5 plant rule that allows you to have upto 5 plants. although they must be handed over no charge will be made. If as many people who support prohibition look at just this example then they can not argue that use will rise. even when you take into account that the right strain of cannabis can produce upto 16oz under SOG growing conditions and extended vegetative period. That equates to about £1000 a plant dry under today's markets. The people of the Netherlands would by their estimates on the freedom have 60% monthly use.
This simply does not happen drug use does not go through the roof it gets boring...
Complain about this comment
As supplied by lefty11 post 162 there is an evidence that the legalisation of soft drugs in Holland did not lead to an increase of users and on contrary to the scaremongering tactics it is actually lower than in the UK where it is illegal. Ignoring such hard facts and various studies is not helpful. When people are going to wake up and be real?
Complain about this comment
Proibition as failed and as the income from things like tabacco the next best thing to come along are the drugs that used to be legal in the victorian times till the commoner found them it would also help people get off them as you could ask for help from a GP and not have to try and get help from people you could not trust it might even help people who use drugs to ease pain without having to break the law its a case of swings and round abouts
Complain about this comment
When this subject comes up, as it does with regularly all that is every refurd to are troubled minoirty of addicts. Go to any big city any night of the week and coke an ectacy are being used routinely by normal people with regular jobs who pay for their drugs out of their salary's just like ordering a beer.
This is the reality of mainstream drug use and media party, and I have been to a few drugs are used routinely and non thinks they are doing anything wrong.
Wise up drugs are already part of the fabric of life and the sooner we work from this position the better
Complain about this comment
Have some questions.
Everyone is writing about legal or not legal.
My questions are little different.
1) What is best for the general society?
Then knowing that if the drugs are to be made legal.
2) What will happen with the drug gangs?
They will not sit still and let their financial income go…
3) What would be the costs
a. Saved from making it legal
b. Expenses keeping it illegal
c. Additional costs with the drug gangs
4) What is the bigger picture from inside and outside needs to be addressed.
Complain about this comment
Quick note to virtualpurplehaze - amongst the many things I disagree with you on, unless you're planning on bringing the British Empire back to life and using its combined resource to push drugs down the throats of uneducated peasants through the zealous use of gunboats, I fear your China Boxer revolution analogy is somewhat misplaced.
But onto my main point - I agree with many of the comments here on legalisation, but the biggest reason for legalisation must be the crippling effect it has on other countries much less able to bear the burden. We in rich nations worry about middle class productivity and the odd youth stabbing whilst South America breaks kidnapping and murder records every day and struggles on with corruption endemic in all walks of life.
Slightly disappointed so few posters, or Mark, have raised this argument, which is to my mind both more valid and more compassionate.
That said Mark (and I accept your overall brief is 'Home'), excellent article, thanks
Complain about this comment
LouiseW 164 - I can understand your fears of junkies on the streets as you observe people fuelled by alcohol causing disturbances. It has to be said that alcohol makes people angrier and volatile where most recreational drugs make people milder and happier. I am not ashamed to say I have dabbled with soft drugs and know a log of people who regularly go out and enjoy them. But I've never seen them being angry, causing damages or disturbances or hanging out on the streets shouting and so on. Most people enjoy them in the clubs, social groups or at home. How many reports we get involving people on drugs? If you compare to alcohol it probably doesn't even make 1%. Effects of soft drugs are not comparable to alcohol at all. Edward 166 - America is governed by religious groups and the soft stance on drugs is not particularly family friendly. That was what defeated a recent poll in LA to legalise marijuana. The most Americans are churchgoers and would rather believe wheat their preacher says than real stats and facts as well as common sense. In the UK the Government scares of the public opinion and they think the majority against the decriminalision. That is why they keep ignoring the facts and study findings produced by their own drug's council. The British government is ruled by a bunch of media and their followers. I'm for one glad we have BBC who represents the balanced view and a platform for liberal views.
Complain about this comment
There are a lot of drug users writing on here in defence of the idea of legalising drugs. Great idea. The present system of control is not working so let's get rid of it. Whilst we are at it, speed limits are broken by vast numbers of motorists and attempts to control that situation almost always fail, so we should have all speed limits removed. Murders still happen despite laws against, so we will legalise murder. In fact, why have any laws atall? They cost a fortune in law making and attempts at control - we could save billions of pounds by simply having a society completely free from the restrictions of laws. A totally lawless society - what a great idea. Just give me time to ship out to a country with laws to protect the populace then go ahead. Good luck to you.
Complain about this comment
John Ellis, the problem is not the MDAct, its the regulatory policy choices made by the SSHD under the MDAct's discretions. For example, s6 re cannabis is subject to s7. S7 would allow any research thought fit. This goes for any controlled drugs.
And no one seems to mention that as the most compact form of untraceable money bar diamonds, heroin, cocaine and other so-called controlled drugs are the finest source of money for black operations by our governments. Decriminalisation would end that.
Complain about this comment
To pkcool 1) less crime, less people dying in alien wars, less resources wasted on criminalising young people, less money spent on NHS, more taxes to deal with health issues, more control over underground business, more resources put into education and protecting young people & children - enough benefits for the society? 2) drug gangs will fight another business - it is a scare tactic to say - they will fight and attach pharmacies and gp's. You cannot win against the government and police so most petty crime will go away and most gangsters perhaps turn their life around. Cos some born gangsters will find another thing to make money. 3) costs - just google how much is spent on criminalising people for soft drugs plus cost of the Afgan war over the last 9 years. Lost lives plus people dying from using all sort of mixed stuff from dodgy sources etc. If the demand goes as the product becomes legal the most gangs will dissolve themselves without any fight as their source of income will dry up. 4) Finally the bigger picture is the society will show that it is grown up, liberal and tolerant to people's choices. At the end of the day it is up to you what you believe, eat, drink, take or follow. That's a status of maturity.
Complain about this comment
And for the rest of you, illegal drugs do not exist. Nor do legal drugs. That is because the law regulates actions by us humans! This also means that drugs can't be legalised only people can be regulated differently! Possession, use, production, supply are all actions. And these actions are regulated differently depending on the drug and the jurisdiction.
Finally, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 contains beautiful mechanisms to create a fully taylored lawful commerce in any controlled drug.
For more info on legal options and opportunities under the MDAct, including Ainsworth's regulatory model see http://www.drugequality.org and http://www.tdpf.org.uk
Complain about this comment
I take the view that it is no business of the state what we do to our bodies. If adults wish to harm themselves by consuming products (drugs and food) that cause them harm, that is their choice. Attempted suicide has not been a not crime in England since 1961. Tax the drugs and food that cause harm to pay for the health and social costs. As we do now with tobacco and alcohol. Take the profits away from the criminal gangs. You will never beat them.
Complain about this comment
macdos wrote,
"Oh and food for though [sic] 30mg of heroin is enough to kill a man that is opiate naive. The controlls [sic] are in place for a reason!"
Oh, for goodness' sake.
Dealers aren't going to spend tens of thousands on analytical equipment, supplies and reagents to carry out purification and quality control on their wares. Firstly it's expensive, and they'd only price themselves out of the market. Secondly, buying specialist kit and large volumes of interesting organic solvents as a private individual is as good as putting up a sign saying "Large-scale clandestine drug processor lives here."
In other words, there are currently NO controls on the purity or strength of any dose of heroin bought on the street, and that is precisely because heroin is currently illegal and its supply is in the hands of people who either don't know or don't care what they're selling.
PS. I've used cannabis, MDMA, MDA, amphetamine and LSD. I "enjoyed them responsibly", as the big brewing and distilling multinationals exhort us to do with their heavily-marketed fighting juice. And it would be really nice if people had to to risk a criminal record simply for disagreeing with the Daily Mail demographic on what constitutes an acceptable recreational drug.
PPS. To answer Mark Easton's question: yes I can. It would be wonderful, if only because it would indicate that this country had finally decided to embrace rationality. And that in turn would suggest that our schools were fulfilling the proper goal of education, which is not to produce the next generation of docile wage-slaves, but to produce well-read, scientifically-literate critical thinkers.
PPPS. Oh, and thank you, Mark, for covering this issue sensibly.
Complain about this comment
"Decriminalisation fails to recognise the complexity of the problem"
And prohibition does?
Complain about this comment
178. At 00:33am on 17 Dec 2010, Mafficker wrote:
John Ellis, the problem is not the MDAct, its the regulatory policy choices made by the SSHD under the FActs discretion's.
Yup lot to say without complicating it to much should have been current implementation of MODa :D
Complain about this comment
#176 Thanks for reply to my question in #166. I think you just about nailed it as far as political pusillanimity and domination by the red-top press go. In the UK with a church going rate of under 1% one might think the balance would be different than in the USA, but we are subservient to them in so many ways including this one. The one attempt made to decriminalize hash in Brixton was suppressed by the police colleagues of the enlightened officer who introduced it. It will need a thorough going revision of the whole policy country wide to get us on a new track and unless the lib-dems push for it I don't know when if ever we will get that.
Complain about this comment
Mark, you have my utmost respect as you seem to be one of the few media commentators who cover this ongoing groundhog day of a story rationally. The only place where I'd disagree with you is your statement, "Mr Ainsworth knows that public attitudes and the political weather are against him". If the comments on this blog are anything to go by, public opinion is firmly in favour of changing our approach. I am amazed at the level of support that has been shown on this page for a change in the law. Normally the political view on the HYS site are akin to those expressed in Berlin in the 1930s. What's even funnier are the comments left on the Daily Heil's website. I wouldn't be surprised if that page and its associated comments are subtly removed from the net. The only thing that stops bold change is political cowardice in the face of right wing tabloid lies and hysteria. It's high time that, as a country, we stop listening to unpleasant people like Paul Dacre who hanker for a past that never existed and face the truth.
Complain about this comment
@ John Ellis
Thanks for your contributions on here - it's nice to read comments that are both informed and rational when discussing this issue
I lost my brother to an overdose, I don't blame dealers or society or the government (neither did he) It was his choice to use and he admitted that. If you talk to any serious drug user/addict then the honest ones will tell you it's no-ones fault but themselves. Others try to blame society or their surroundings but ultimately it's miss-placed blame
De-criminalising drugs is a good idea, nobody is talking about selling them in sweet shops or off licenses (apart from Daily Mail readers) but just making it a non criminal offense
Rehab centres are good places and we need more of them, the funds raised from taxation of drugs could fund a lot more of them. People who are serious about kicking get good help and support and there are (fairly) good success rates with people who want to kick. I spent quite a bit of time in one with my brother when he wanted to stop, and the help and advice was excellent. They give as much support and advice to the family as to the addict, it really helps you to understand what the causes and effects are
Most folks have no real clue about drug use/abuse because they don't have any real experience with it, all they have are the usual scare stories - general ignorance mostly
We need as a nation to accept that it happens and try and deal with it sensibly. Education and understanding are both key to this, we need a sensible debate on this issue
#177 Norfy - you have no clue about what you're talking about
Complain about this comment
186. At 09:08am on 17 Dec 2010, Angry Leftie wrote:
"Mark, you have my utmost respect as you seem to be one of the few media commentators who cover this ongoing groundhog day of a story rationally. The only place where I'd disagree with you is your statement, "Mr Ainsworth knows that public attitudes and the political weather are against him". If the comments on this blog are anything to go by, public opinion is firmly in favour of changing our approach. I am amazed at the level of support that has been shown on this page for a change in the law".
By their own admission, it would appear that the vast majority of those who agree that drugs should be decriminalised on this blog are drugs users. And they would say that wouldn't they?
As far as I can see, nobody who wants decriminalisation has given any reason to argue against the views I expressed in post 100
Complain about this comment
Busby
Whilst price does have a nominal effect on drug use it bears very little weight in drug use. Addicts don't care if crack is 50 pence of 50 pounds a hit - they just want it, regardless
If it's 50 pence then it's cheaper to fund the habit. If it's 50 pounds it's more expensive, it really is that simple. Making it more expensive will not stop users who are addicted
Making it legal will not cause hundreds of thousand of new users as you claim - do you have any evidence to this? A lot of folk on here have provided details and links pointing to the exact opposite of your claims. Existing users will not use more because it is legal, addiction has no laws anyway. Social drug users will not take more either, nobody will
You need to step back and realise what the real problem is, and prohibition is not working
Complain about this comment
busby2 188 wrote "As far as I can see, nobody who wants decriminalisation has given any reason to argue against the views I expressed in post 100"
Your concerns in post 100 were that usage would go up. The evidence is quite strong that if anything usage would go down. Forbidden fruit is exciting and attractive. For example the cannabis usage rate in Holland (where it is freely available) is around 6%, against 8% in the UK and 12% in the USA (where penalties are the highest). When cannabis was moved to class C, the governments own figures show usage, particularly among the young reduced.
Even with heroin, the experience in Zurich using "the British method" of prescribing heroin almost completely stopped new addicts being created and reduced crime by 90%. Indeed in the UK before 1971, when heroin was easily available on prescription there were less than 700 registered addicts against something like 300,000 now.
It seems to me that as prohibition has only increased usage, harm and criminality then it is only sensible to try legalisation. At least as an experiment.
Complain about this comment
Yes I can almost touch a UK without the current ineffectual laws against drug use, without the current ineffectual laws against corruption is business, finance, and banking, and without the current excuses for a ruling class. It is normally in a dream reserved for the night after a pleasant evening enjoying things others would rather not have me do.
And making the connection has made me realise why we need a revolutionary change in the personnas of those who represent us. The reality of that change remains just a 'pinprick' away, as always.
Complain about this comment
Mightychewster
You wrote in #189
"Whilst price does have a nominal effect on drug use it bears very little weight in drug use. Addicts don't care if crack is 50 pence of 50 pounds a hit - they just want it, regardless
If it's 50 pence then it's cheaper to fund the habit. If it's 50 pounds it's more expensive, it really is that simple. Making it more expensive will not stop users who are addicted."
That analysis takes no account of the fact that at 50 pence, it is far easier to find new customers than if the price was £50.
Decriminalisation will increase availability and cut the price and that will drag in large numbers of new users whose lives are blighted and cut short by drugs. That is simply making a bad problem even worse. It is illogical to argue otherwise.
There is abundant evidence that increasing the price of cigarettes has played a substantial role in reducing the numbers of men smoking from 66% to circa 20% today over the past few decades. Govt policy has however been undermined by smuggling which accounts for an estimated 16% of consumption.
As cigarette consumption has gone down as the price has increased in real terms, why shouldn't the consumption of illegal drugs increase and drag in many new users if the product is legal and therefore cheaper?
Complain about this comment
I am an ex user of heroin and I am absolutely overjoyed with the attitude of some of the contributers on this blog as well as, as usual,not surprised. If you listen to the comments made by ill-informed people who think that all their grandchildren and children will grow up to be drug addicts it's no wonder people are scared. What do they think is going to happen?? Shops selling heroin/crack willy nilly on the high street?? Of course it won't be like that. Before jumping in and making silly, unfounded statements like that people need to read through what will actually happen.Things will be so much safer and crime will inevitably go down. I can imagine a country where drugs are legal. It would be a country with less crime and a smaller prison population, therefore less tax payers money being spent.
busby2 You are so wrong about it being drug users who want decriminalisation of drugs. I haven't used Class A drugs for 8 and a half years and Class c drugs haven't been in my system for about 6 months now so you are being very general with that statement. Maybe I WAS a user but no more. I can just see more pros of legalising drugs than cons and it has nothing whatsoever to do with me benefitting from a change in the law.
Complain about this comment
182. At 01:51am on 17 Dec 2010, RedGreenInBlue wrote:
In other words, there are currently NO controls on the purity or strength of any dose of heroin bought on the street, and that is precisely because heroin is currently illegal and its supply is in the hands of people who either don't know or don't care what they're selling.
-----------------------
It is very easy to sell to people who don't care what they are buying. Stop awarding victim status to authors of their own misfortune. If you choose in ingest a dangerous substance and die, tough, its Darwin at work.
Complain about this comment
Tony Gosling wrote #190
"Even with heroin, the experience in Zurich using "the British method" of prescribing heroin almost completely stopped new addicts being created and reduced crime by 90%. Indeed in the UK before 1971, when heroin was easily available on prescription there were less than 700 registered addicts against something like 300,000 now".
I think this makes sense. It does not decriminalise the supply of heroin by dealers or resale by addicts but ensures that registered addicts can obtain a supply legally. However steps will have to be taken to ensure that heroin is taken in controlled conditions and not removed from the clinic where it is provided to ensure that addicts do not sell on an overprescription of heroin. Under those conditions, I would expect that clinics could slowly reduce the daily doses to bring them off heroin altogether.
Complain about this comment
busby2 re 100 :Those who advocate the decriminalization of drugs have not stopped to consider the effect that this will have on demand and the amount of usage.
=========================================================================
As a community leader that has tackled drug problems for many years I can say that you are wrong there. I do not however support Decriminalisation this is a false idol of the current arguments over control. in 2008 we won an award for the reduction of drugs and the crime that is associated with it.
=========================================================================
It stands to reason that any illegal drug which is decriminalised and then becomes readily and legally available will generate a greater demand by existing users and generate vast swathes of new users. Is that what we want as a society?
=========================================================================
This is what we already have in society the average age of Internet drug dealers in my area is 12-17, experience tell us that you can no more regulate illegal drugs than you can stop people putting salt on their food. As you say it stands to reason however all models that have shown reduction in drug use are based on liberal drug law. Please explain further with current literature to back up your reasoning how your reason holds any weigh?
=========================================================================
In a decriminalised world of drugs, the criminals can only be driven out of the business if the cost of legal drugs is far cheaper than the price criminals can provide the drugs. This will mean that the price of drugs will have to be far cheaper than now. And cheaper drugs will generate far greater usage and also attract far more users. Again, is that something we want as a society?
=========================================================================
In a regulated frame work drug use would drop through identification and licenced sales, the punishments for out of licence drug selling could and will be vastly easier to punish especially with long term prison sentences. Again can you please show were in the world that has taken a liberal approach to drugs that drugs use has increased and continues to increase?
=========================================================================
We have seen tobacco usage decline because of the expense and because of health campaigns about the danger. Cigarette consumption is price sensitive because the cost of the addiction is a great financial incentive to give up smoking. However Customs estimate 16% of consumption is of non duty cigarettes and that hits revenue as well as well as undermining the campaign to reduce smoking. This also shows that legalising drugs and putting the criminals out of business can only be achieved by reducing the street price of drugs. And this will, as I have argued above, will certainly increase consumption of drugs and greatly exacerbate the harm they cause.
=========================================================================
I have no complaint with this as I buy my tobacco from friends in the EU however my smoking has remained the same if not lowered as im reluctant to pay the high price in the UK for a product I can buy on a free market at reduced cost and still pay tax on.
=========================================================================
As i have said in previous posts if you want a serious debate then include current data and research to be taken as anything other than a troll.
Complain about this comment
@ Busby
I personally think that the main reason smoking has declined has nothing to do with price and more to do with education and acceptability
20 years ago it was highly fashionable to smoke - so everyone did. Now it's seen more as a bad habit. Everyone today is well informed about the dangers of smoking. Smoking rates have not fallen because of the price
In Ireland a packet of smokes costs 9.80 (Euro) and as far as I know the smoking rates are about the same as they were when they were half the price
It's the same with drugs. Heroin used to be a fashionable drug, as to some extent marijuana was/is.
As pointed out above all the evidence points to drug use decreasing when it has been de-criminalised
"Decriminalisation will increase availability and cut the price and that will drag in large numbers of new users whose lives are blighted and cut short by drugs. That is simply making a bad problem even worse. It is illogical to argue otherwise."
Every study that has looked at this has found the exact opposite, the illogical part is refusing to accept the fact that it won't
Drug use is an emotive subject, most people's judgment is clouded before the discussion starts. I used to think the same way as you - my mind has been changed with my experiences, as would a lot of others if they allowed themselves to look at the issue objectively
@Jusco, glad you're of the hard stuff mate. I've seen people going through detox and it's not nice, it's a horrible experience that I don't want to repeat. Keep it up.....
Complain about this comment
What does surprise me is why the coalition has been so negative and not latched on to drug control as part of their solution. Ken Clarke wants to reduce the prison population - well 10 years of medical heroin supply in Zurich showed a 90% reduction in crime. They want more taxes - taxing cannabis would bring in a couple of £bn. They want to show they are not the nasty party any more, it would be a good liberal measure. Indeed David Cameron in 2007 said he was in favour of medical cannabis, but now he seems to have gone quiet on even this minimal, compassionate step.
Complain about this comment
194. Shaunie Babes. You say Stop awarding victim status to anthors of their own misfortune. If you choose to injest a dangerous substance and die, tough, its Darwin at work.
Heartless comment to make Shaunie Babes. What about their family, what about their friends? Would you say that to someones mother/father, brother/sister who had lost their family member? I hope not. Maybe it is their choice but things could change if laws were changed. Don't know if you've had personal experience of drugs but you don't sound like you have.
Also,methadone is hell to withdraw from and if I had the choice to come of heroin or methadone it would be heroin everytime. Not that I'd CHOOSE to do either. I might have had the choice in the first place but now 15 years down the line and after 8 years of being clean of heroin I am still reducing my methadone intake with the help of my drug worker. I am dreading the final stages of the withdrawal but I know I have to do it and I don't want to be a methadone user for the rest of my born days. I want to get on with my life and although I volunteer for peer-mentoring and other areas of the programme that has helped me so much, I will never get a full time job working in this area unless I come off my medication. I plan to be off the stuff in the next 6 months but I know it's going to be tough. I would welcome methadone being stopped all together and heroin being prescribed safely, it makes so much sense to me.
Complain about this comment
Tony indeed medical cannabis is a whole new argument that has been proven to work (see post 126), however our government uses current medical cannabis products 'Sativex' as a leaver to imprison and punish sick people even though they can NOT get it on the NHS. I did try to block Sativex from being floated on the stock market for this very reason.
Still the development of Sativex meant that GW pharma lost their rights to patented medical plants, as the people who developed the plants also are responsible for the seed banks cannabis scene in Holland so now we have the same plants flooding the market very high in CBD's.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark, another well written article.
It's good to see that the discussion hasn't lost momentum, and we seem to be getting a growing number of, for want of a better word, academics, speaking up in favour of change. Of course, it's a gamble for any 'in-office' politician to front such a campaign, but surely some kudos could be sought if such a politician were to front an honest and frank discussion on the subject.
It's a natural reaction, when dealing with something as emotive as illicit drug use, to opt for one extreme or the other; it's illegal, let's legalise it, or it's legal, let's outlaw it. What is needed, and it's been said before, so I'll say it again, is proper grown-up discussion, publicly, transparently, and with authority from all sides (not both sides, but all sides).
There are many options and a bit of imagination will probably come up with some more, but the most likely way of getting all of this further into the public domain is by discussion. That will lead to education - everyone will learn something, and thereon could lead to some form of regulation to bring this pathetic prohibitive policy (another acronym for PPP) into the light of the 21st Century. A fairer Britain for All? Let's discuss.
EDUCATE, REGULATE AND TAX
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
199. At 12:40pm on 17 Dec 2010, Jusco44 wrote:
..."methadone is hell to withdraw from and if I had the choice to come of heroin or methadone it would be heroin everytime"..."15 years down the line and after 8 years of being clean of heroin I am still reducing my methadone intake"..."I am dreading the final stages of the withdrawal"..."I want to get on with my life"..."I will never get a full time job working in this area unless I come off my medication"
Jusco44, I couldn't agree more with you. Methadone has such a 'cure-all' image in much of the Daily Fail readership, but if the truth were known about it, Heroin (clean heroin, not street gear) would be seen as a much safer alternative. Heroin is bad because it is addictive, hugely so, and made worse by the usual method of administration, but the press have given it such a horror-story image and then said Methadone is the 'cure-all'. What rubbish! The fact that you are still on reduction regimes after 8 years must be testament to the evils of Methadone.
In my opinion, Buprenorphine is a much better alternative. I've known £20 a day habits being brought down to zero, overnight, and then withdrawal from that took 3 months on a strict reduction regime. It's expensive, but then so is 8 years worth of Methadone.
The final step is something to be proud of. When you've suffered an addiction, you wind yourself up that the final step will be the biggest hurdle of all, and mentally, maybe it is, but that's all it is. You need a strong mind to overcome that final hurdle, but you can do it. Good luck.
This is but one part of the big picture than honest grown-up debate / discussion can deal with, and education for all, users, addicts, recovering addicts, parents, husbands, wives, children and friends can teach a lot. Ignorance may be bliss, but only knowledge can save us.
As for S.Babes - ignore him, he's a familiar WUM to many on this blog and it's not worth your energy responding to him.
EDUCATE, REGULATE, TAX
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK
Complain about this comment
I still believe that, as Bill Hicks commentated: -
Making drugs illegal has never stopped people taking them, it has just made them criminals.
But...
If drugs were legalised in the UK, there would need to be a growth in jobs, services and infrastructure to prevent social exclusion and (expected) eventual drug taking and abuse
Therefore, it's too late to legalize drugs - inherent British culture will abuse the system and make the situation worse
There's really no argument against leaglising drugs other than society itslef....
Complain about this comment
indeed Jusco 44 very well done in making the steps you have done, especially in today's climate of hate towards addiction and those that have fallen into what is nothing more than chemical slavery.
Methadone has always been a poor substitute for managed recovery as it takes so long to actually come off, this is what makes me fear for future programs were some treatment including methadone will be offered for a very short period of time with little or no psychological support.
I know personally how addiction works both through my brother and through personal medication prescribed by my GP for my health problems since puberty and teenage brain development showed flaws in my everyday functioning, having been physically addicted to very dangerous psychotropic drugs several times over the years. I can fully appreciate the struggle to remain healthy and in control.
Complain about this comment
Can we imagine a Britain where all needed drugs are legal AND free at the point of 'sale'?
The tax paid over a lifetime should be able to cover the costs and this could cover the drugs which are called the drugs of abuse as well as the drugs the doctors use.
I suppose problems could arise if the drug addicts continue their addiction, and there would also be problems if 'ordinary' old people keep on living - perhaps because of the free drugs.
But we can hardly kill off the old people and the drug addicts just to keep the taxes down.
We must simply accept the ever-increasing cost through our taxes of giving free drugs to old people and to drug addicts.
The hope must be that there will be enough people paying taxes so we can ever-increase their tax-payments in line with the need. If, through getting the economy in balance again, too many people get unemployed (and perhaps turn to drugs), the taxation on those still in employment will have to approach 100%.
"Houston, I think we have a problem." Perhaps all addicts and all oldies will have to be stripped of their personal assets in order to avoid impact on our few and fewer productive tax-payers.
Complain about this comment
"...methadone is hell to withdraw from ..........."(Jusco44 @188)
"..............You need a strong mind to overcome that final hurdle, but you can do it. Good luck." (Steve @203)
................................
Steve,
a really good, positive posting. Thanks.
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
The way to get people to recognise it as a cultural issue is to stop misusing language. This piece cites the whole problem, we can't imagine it because we cannot even say it. It is not about 'legalising drugs' that misses the whole human element - right now it is about criminalising people because of their interests or orientation around a particular drug. We want an amnesty for all the prisoners on the war on some people who use some drugs now.
Complain about this comment
208 - Sunshine band. Good point. One particular misuse that's peddled by Those Who Stand To Gain is the very phrase "Drug Crime". It's actually Prohibition Crime. Use that more often and one other obstacle to a common-sense approach will be removed.
Food for thought: Tonight is "Fighting Friday" - the night when our police and casualty departments have their busiest and most chaotic time due to the number of people finishing work and going out for a full night of drinking alcohol to excess. You all need to ask yourself what the effect of legalisation of none "fighty" drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy could do to alleviate this problem. Alcohol itself certainly needs greater control but this needs to be done within the law by such things as cheaper soft drinks and no 2-for-1s etc. Persuasion is always the best way.
As for James Brokenshire, the Government's alleged "Minister for Crime Prevention", perhaps he needs to look up the word "prevention" since prohibition has done exactly the opposite. Nice of him to admit that the issue is not a simple one however, which we've been saying for ages, but I just don't get why he thinks that organised crime should be the experts chosen to administer the solution.
Perhaps he should go back into the financial world since that's already a mess and he probably can't do much more harm there..
Complain about this comment
I do believe that the war on drugs is one of the most heinous policies ever engineered, and should be stopped. Yet, those who support the legalisation of drugs should stop using the misleading argument according to which we have legalised alcohol, tobacco, etc., so why not legalise drugs. The point is not that we have legalised other, ‘unhealthy’, substances. The point is that we have legalised them because prohibiting them is irrational, for despite the undeniable bad consequences their legal consumption carries, by making drugs illegal the consequences are even greater. Besides, is not as if by banning drugs, the consumption will be eradicated or made negligible. Prohibition is the worst of both worlds: the negative side of consumption and the obscene effects of prohibition. Nothing gained, all lost!
Gart Valenc
http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org
Complain about this comment
As bloggers have started to talk about the details of how to come off (and that is just as important as decriminalizing drugs) may I say a few words about my own experience of coming off a very highly addictive and extremely damaging drug. I was only addicted for five years and started taking this drug in my early fifties as a crutch for psychological difficulties associated with a marriage breakdown. I used this noxious substance whenever I could get hold of it and it was so easy to score. For a long while I used substitutes, that turned out to be as addictive in themselves as the original. I finally cracked it when on holiday in a remote place with no access. The drug.......nicotine.
Complain about this comment
Is this what we have to look forward to ?
Mexico prisoners in 'mass jail break' near US border
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12023119
More than 140 Mexican prisoners have escaped from a jail near the US border, local media reports say.
The prisoners - many of them believed to be serving sentences for drugs trafficking - broke out of the jail in Nuevo Laredo early on Friday morning.
Complain about this comment
Legalising dangerous drugs fails to recognise the damage caused to those other that the users.
I do not want to down play the effects on those burgled or robbed for one moment but the real victims are the families and loved ones of those addicted.
I have spent my adult life dealing with drug users and this has brought me into contact with those close to them.
Take a good look at the children of a couple of young heroin addicts, see the mother of a suicidal MDMA user or the partner of violent amphetamine user that cannot control there rage due to their addiction.
Legalisation will increase the number of users, of that there is no doubt.
Look at the likess of these former government ministers and tell me how many of them live in the real world. It is very dangerous to listen to the views of people who have never met a drug user other than in the course of an arranged visit to a deprived area, you need to get the views of those who live with it daily before you can get close to making a decision.
Complain about this comment
jennings 310 you need to get the views of those who live with it daily before you can get close to making a decision.
funny comment that obviously not one person has talked about their experience here or have the 'wrong opinion' after dealing with a life time of addiction within families.
Again give evidence of increased addiction as this is a personal view. Currently my community is full of addicts and growing rapidly due to many households selling drugs, we have a fantastic relationship with Merseyside police and our local commanders who act within days of relevant intel, even they admit there is nothing they can do against this global business in my community.
Or did you just find the blog and post your opinion that chemical slavery is just fine the way it is and will not lead to a huge explosion in addicts over the coming years under the current interpretation of MODa.
Complain about this comment
Been thinking about all the recent jailing of merseyside dealers, 2 large groups have between them received 348 years. Great result you may think or is it? taking that prisons now hold the managers of large international business, the highest rates of drug supplies is in prison are we merely creating new business opportunities for the drug dealers?
We already know that UK wide drug operations are run from prisons are we just providing the leaders of this trade with a safe sanctuary in the war on people using drugs? While continuing to run UK wide drugs from the safety of their cells.?
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry to observe that the BBC once again appears to have adopted a position on the question of legalising drugs, or not.
In a Radio Four programme interview this week the interviewee in favour of legalising was given the last word, a coomon indicator of the BBC's positioning on an issue.
The correct procedure would be for those proposing any change to make their pitch and to have those opoosed to the change to respond.
There can then be a rejoinder from each side, in the same order .
That's it... but not unless you want to leave the listener with a particular impression. Heads up!!
Complain about this comment
# 212. At 11:45pm on 17 Dec 2010, John Ellis wrote:
"Is this what we have to look forward to ?
Mexico prisoners in 'mass jail break' near US border
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12023119
More than 140 Mexican prisoners have escaped from a jail near the US border, local media reports say.
The prisoners - many of them believed to be serving sentences for drugs trafficking - broke out of the jail in Nuevo Laredo early on Friday morning".
Do you honestly believe that the murderers etc who escaped from prison in Mexico would become model citizens if drugs were legalised? They would turn to other illegal activities like people smuggling, kidnapping, prostitution rackets, extortion and protection rackets, to give just a few examples. Legalising drugs will not reduce crime or reduce the evil power that these drug gangs exert.
This is a war that the Mexican authorities cannot afford to lose. Locking up those they capture is ineffective because the gangs can easily intimidate the guards and threaten their families. It is no wonder that there are escapes.
This link gives a flavour of what Mexicans are up against.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2010/12/17/hospitals-clinics-offer-safe-haven-mexicos-murder-capital/
And this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12023345
"Marisela Escobedo was shot dead by masked gunmen outside the state governor's office in Chihuahua in northern Mexico, prosecutors said.
She had been protesting against the release of the man accused of murdering her daughter in Ciudad Juarez in 2008.
Governor Cesar Duarte said he had no doubt the killing was an act of revenge by the alleged murderer.
He said he would seek to have the judges who released him removed from their posts.
Mrs Escobedo, 52, was shot in the head at close range by one of three masked men who approached her as she was protesting on Thursday evening. She died in hospital".
This is a society in which criminal gangs believe they can act with impunity.
If ever there was a case for the restoration of the death penalty, Mexico provides the best example. After all, prison is no deterent as the escape you highlighted proves.
Complain about this comment
Busby2 no i dont believe they would become model citizens anymore than I believe James Brokenshire is doing the right thing as he has no experience in the field.
I do however believe that instead of the mexican army just randomly killing and arresting people with what in most cases turns out to have no detection work done is not the answer either.
The really sad thing is that the USA arm both the drug lords and the army. so fighting will be all that happens.
I read thanks to a few American friends Mexican papers online occasionally especially when there has been a surge in fighting.. A couple of months back Drug cartels executed 3 police offices and hung body parts over the front of a local church. they burn down police stations. Will the USA do anything about it no.. as one reporter said about the drug war "Americans love their country but they can only face it when they are high" the story is currently being shown on national geographic "inside the drug war" phoenix arizona and mexican drugs.
Complain about this comment
John Ellis wrote:
"I do however believe that instead of the mexican army just randomly killing and arresting people with what in most cases turns out to have no detection work done is not the answer either".
Where is your evidence for that sweeping statement? The Mexican authorities have seized record numbers of illegal guns and arrested or killed 10 of the 24 leading drug barons in the last year or so. Were they randomly killed or arrested by the Army?
Complain about this comment
its from a report 'Drug war zone' its under documentaries on tv on demand.
I can only find copies of the book online and interviews with the author. its an excellent watch. it cover the current conflict and kidnappings in arizona were i boarders with mexico.
Complain about this comment
As I mentioned in a previous comment, the so called "drug problem" is really serious and the legalisation of drugs should be properly debated. One angle of the debate I would like to encourage readers to consider: what is the level of responsibility countries like ours or the US, or any other drug consuming country for that matter, have for sustaining and stimulating the market for narcotics and therefore, for making it possible for the drug barons and their henchmen to commit so many crimes (30,000 drug related death in Mexico alone over the past four years). Have we seriously considered that our demand for drugs is fuelling the violence, destruction and corruption of countries like Mexico?
Gart Valenc
http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org
Complain about this comment
Ever since puritanical temperance movements began in the eighteenth century someone, somewhere, has had an eye on prohibition as a means to curb individual pleasure and make a lot of money from ensuing crime. How many big and wealthy families owe their fortunes to the times when crime, in one form or another, paid?
And prohibition never concentrates on stopping the sale of whatever it targets, only the redistribution of the revenues it illegally creates. And so the War on Drugs is a phony excuse for a class of "who knows who" to make money whilst many ordinary people die, are imprisoned, or criminalised to suit. Indeed even crooked lawyers can be engaged to write catch22 laws requiring you to have a license before you can grow a plant, but have a plant before you can obtain the license!
It would be comic were it not tragic. Many tens of thousands indirectly die every year trying to prevent the deaths of a few thousands directly from a prohibited substance, and yet everyone knows it is just a game of charades played out for the benefit of the few who continue to stay rich.
And all because the ruling classes know they cannot be trusted, and if they cannot be trusted then who can?
End the scam now. Make everything available, regulated, licensed, taxed, and clean. Even if the crime lords continue at least fewer people will trouble the legal system outside of their empires.
Complain about this comment
Legalisation of Class A drugs like cocaine and heroin in the UK will not solve criminal activity of distribution and dealing.
Moreover, it sends the wrong message to young people. Parents already struggle to protect their children from the serious harm of alcohol and cigarettes. These destructive Class A substances are no different in their addictive and life destroying effects - it is the UK government's duty to fight against legalisation and to fight all Class A drugs.
Alcohol and cigarettes are legal and taxed. Has that improved anyone's life? Counterfiet alcohol and cigarette sales are rife from criminal gangs - so legalisation of Class A drugs will follow the same path of counterfieting and robbing of 'designated' legal outlets for cocaine and heroin.
In addition, the UK police need to be provided with equipment for drug-testing roadside tests as used by the German police. These kits are quick, cheap and easy to use. Drug driving is equally dangerous as drink driving and on the increase - the UK government and UK police need to get real to protect all road users.
Complain about this comment
Legalisation of Class A drugs like cocaine and heroin in the UK will not solve criminal activity of distribution and dealing.
so prescription only heroin will make addicts? are our doctors corrupt?
Complain about this comment
#223 corum-populo-2010
You do not send messages to young people via legislation. If it was ever a deterrent then there would never be under aged sex but there is.
Children are influenced by literally millions of factors and mostly they fall into a random category, well outside parental nous or intervention. That is what makes them so very frustrating to over zealous parents. But it also means that what they learn via mistake or misadventure is normally stamped hard on their minds.
A mollycoddled child is much more likely to fail and transgress in life than is a straightforwardly raised one, warts and all. Falling into addiction is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of circumstance.
Complain about this comment
James Brokenshire believes that the higher the contamination of drugs the more effective his policies are.
“The quality of cocaine on the streets is, in some cases, as low as 10% in purity at the moment. That shows some of the very effective work that is taking place.”
Is this harm reduction or causing harm?
I would firmly say that it is irresponsible to say that the more impurities there are in a drug the better the policy is working.
this is akin to saying the more mouse droppings in a pie in an unclean food production facility improves the taste of the pie and should be legislated for to increase the amount of mouse droppings in your food.
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/the-most-dangerous-man-in-britain/
Complain about this comment
I'm very much in agreement with Aneeta Trikk's comments. Prohibition is definitely not the adequate solution, and not only is it not smart, it's totally inefficient and impractical.
Regarding corum-populo-2010 last comment, I wish his question asking whether legalisation of alcohol and cigarettes consumption has improved anyone's life were rhetorical. But I'm afraid is not and therefore, would merit a full response. Unfortunately, this is not the place to do that. The short answer is that he's asking the wrong question – could he imagine what the world would look like were they banned and we were engaged in a Tobacco & Alcohol War? The long answer is: haven't we learned anything from history?
Gart Valenc
http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org
Complain about this comment
"... the so called "drug problem" is really serious...
What is the level of responsibility countries like ours have for sustaining and stimulating the market for narcotics and for making it possible for the drug barons and their henchmen to commit so many crimes? (30,000 drug related death in Mexico alone over the past four years).
Have we seriously considered that our demand for drugs is fuelling the violence, destruction and corruption of countries like Mexico?
http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org" (garval 221)
............
Garval,
there seems to be no common ground between (i) the gentle UK users and their supporters, and (ii) those millions damaged or killed in the communities back along the supply chain.
I live alongside Brazilian drug-dominated favelas and I know, first-hand, the extent to which the we suffer to provide you users with your drugs. This does not disappear if drugs are legallised in certain 'drug-sophisticated´countries. Even a world-wide legallization would not stop these gangs as there are always trades to be made and heavy weapons to help matters along.
When you see on television the police shooting down these bandits like dogs, it is because they are dogs and deserve putting down. Not all police are corrupt, though corruption exists all along the supply chain and in all the societies where end-users exist.
If we could also 'put-down' all the drug-corrupt politicians, the drug-corrupt 'industrialists', the drug-corrupt pharmacists, and the drug-corrupt defenders of society (police, military and intelligence services), then the world would be a better place to live. There will still be corrupt politicians, industrialists, police, military, intelligence service personnel, and 'men in the street', but there would be fewer of them and those that remain might take the lesson that corruption (with or without drugs) results in death.
Complain about this comment
GeoffWard There is a common ground between (i) the gentle UK users and their supporters, and (ii) those millions damaged or killed in the communities back along the supply chain, it's called Prohibition. There is a direct link. Countries like Mexico are considering other ways other than prohibition.
Complain about this comment
Geoff Ward: why should people be put to death for using plant materials?
I believe the last people to treat a race of peoples to the extent you suggest who had a different belief to how they should live their lives were the Nazi's.! Once on this road of Moral denial there is no turning back. There is no stopping point.
There are two types of drug corrupt politicians those that take from it and those that allow it we currently have both types controlling the world. The third type who wants to bring about control to drugs is always put aside as a fool and a nutter. Yet as regulation has shown with the drug caffeine and its natural plant sources once regulated and monitored inspected it brings about a better quality of life for all, same with the chocolate industries which were mostly supported by slave trade production up until real time regulation was put in place. While these two drugs are very wide spread and on their own lead to little problems with immediate use they both carry a great impact to society and its long term running.
If you want to be angry at someone be angry with the law makers and our countries politicians, they can bring it under control overnight if they choose to!. Here in the UK we have our own poppy farms already and with modern agriculture and advanced hydroponics could grow all the drugs we needed as a country to supply our needs. Which in turn would end the drug trade and poverty at the production end in Afghanistan Africa Brazil. It would also bring about the end of so called terror funding, which again current policies support through denial of homeland issues with acceptance.
Is acceptance really so much to ask for?
Its the reckless attitude of the governments of all countries around the world that fuel the drug war either through half hearted measures like the UK or through decriminalisation like portugal. Both methods still support the initial problems in counties of origin.
Withing the next few years the drugs industry will be worth on average 10% of the world economy funded by some of the poorest people on earth both in 1st world counties through addiction and through 3rd and now 2nd world production. 50 years of war on this problem has turned into what is probably the longest war fought in the last 500 or so years has no end unlike all other wars fought. Why is this ? Far to much money invested in both sides requires support for a continuation.
You also pay to punish these unwanted people with what soon will be a private prison service. This our government will have to pay for per head out of tax payers money to private shareholder companies, then you have all the well educated lawyers judges, well trained police and other enforcement agencies, followed by pay per result rehab. As the uncontrolled trade grows and addiction grows especially to new drugs that will hit the markets over the next few years crime will grow. This in turn will lead to higher insurance premiums for your home. higher food costs and goods costs due to widespread shoplifting which for shops by us stands at about 40k a week per large dept store. They in turn will have stock insurance so they can claim against these losses. So drug prohibition is excellent for the financial institutions that sell us personal insurance and other types of insurance.
Complain about this comment
"Geoff Ward: why should people be put to death for using plant materials?" (John Ellis 230)
......................
Yes, John. Why indeed? Has somebody suggested this?
Complain about this comment
drugs are just components of plants, seems i worded the start of that badly. should have read 'the extent you suggest from the TV show,'
even these 'dogs' started out as children taught a world trade and brought up to support and protect this trade, victims of circumstance.
sorry if i appear to suggest drug genocide :)
Complain about this comment
OMG the apprentice today.....
How to make market and manufacture a new drug is the test today..!!!....
It may be alcohol but its still a dangerious drug.....
Complain about this comment
Have to say that the apprentice did well they managed to market bourbon that is not really drunk by younger generations unless its Jack D. To the younger generations with sugar and spice..... Im sure the bourbon industry and the tax man will be delighted.
and it is after all an easy product to market.
Complain about this comment
I am always amused by the term 'controlled substance'. I can drive for ten minutes and pick up as much 'controlled substance' as I want on a 24/7 basis. I can't even do that to pick up a tub of yoghurt at Sainsbury's! The police have lost the battle and they lost it years ago.
Personally I would not touch the filthy stuff but all prohibition has achieved is:-
- driving up the crime statistics to frightening levels
- killing people through taking substances not subject to any quality control
- made criminals of other-wise law-abiding people, many of them living in society perfectly respectably
- made billions for some very nasty people.
What it has not done is to control the supply of drugs.
The current legislation has let down the people it is intended to protect. Current drug legislation is as much a failure as was communism - also a nice idea which led to a nightmare.
It is time to get rid of this legislation and treat the drug issue as a health issue.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Can we imagine a Britain where all drugs are legal?"...Over 11 million adults in England and Wales have used drugs at some point in their lives. The drug law is irrelevant to many, by my calculations 1 in 3 adults have/do ignore the drug laws.
Complain about this comment
just came across a post by Bob. http://www.totalpolitics.com/blogs/index.php/2010/12/16/the-uk-needs-a-proper-rational-debate-on
this is very much needed now as good results = widescale adulteration with dangerous cutting agents.
the government response is we will control the cutting agent.. Paracetamol is one of the common cutting agents for cocaine..
Now that really would just give society one big headache.
Complain about this comment
John aren't glucose and lactose widely used cutting agents, how would the gov control these substances, ban sugar!!!
Complain about this comment
indeed they are Have your say.
Complain about this comment
I couldn't agree more with Mark Easton's analysis and suggested solution. The sooner we implement it and redirect the wasted resources the better.
David Cameron, ignore the 'we don't want to change' brigade, announce it now and implement it by the end of this parliament.
In case your wondering, I'm a conservative voter aged over 50 who has never used illegal drugs.
Complain about this comment
the main cutting substances are listed here Have Your say.
http://freedom4all.org.uk/Freedom/2010/12/19/james-brokenshire-re-defines-success/
Seems many people are picking up on mr brokenshires claims that pollution is a success, good job hes not an environment minister as well.
Does he also agree that anthrax which is found in some heroin supplies now is also a good thing? as this to is a contaminating agent. Remembering that he stated this live on air via the westminster broadcast of the event with the few ministers that have any sanity or humanity left and dared to suggest ending the drug war.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
John Ellis. 'sign of success’ I remember reading something a while ago claiming only 1% of Heroin consumed in Scotland is seized, maybe this is the success brokenshire talks about.
Complain about this comment
I do think that those of us who believe that the War on Drugs is an obscenity and should be stopped can make our opinions count by demanding that Parliament debate the need for an Impact Assessment of Drug Policy (IADP). Log on to
http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org
to see what an IADP is all about.
Gart Valenc
Complain about this comment
garvel..."Impact Assessment of Drug Policy"...Sounds like something the Gov should be doing on a regular basis. Actually sounds like it should be a treasury rule.
Complain about this comment
Have your say Rejected-246:
I know, it is quite a mouthful, and even though we Anglo-Saxon seem to get quite a kick from acronyms and abbreviatons (otherwise, why we put up with so many of them), I like IADP even less. Having said that, did you read it? I think it may be a extremely useful vehicle to force the government to take a serious, scientific, objective view at our current drug policy. So, start calling/writing/talking to your MP and any other member in position of authority. Have Your Say! It matters to us all!
Complain about this comment
garvel...I have read it. I agree, the prohibitionist policy in the western civilisation has consequences, and those consequences are felt in other areas of the world. It's chaos theory in action. I have written several times to my MP and also to both brown and cameron, each time I got exactly the same reply. It is like they read from the same script, maybe handed to them from a daily mail editor or some other denizen of the prohibitionist camp, who knows. It is quite clear in my opinion that these people are affected by others once they reach their positions, because many either renege on things they say, cameron for instance has had a turn about on drug police since gaining power, on the other hand Ainsworth has found 'his' voice since losing power. It leads me to think there are other powers which influence this. In light of this my opinion is I do not respect the 'democratic' system of this country and neither do I respect the laws of this country. In my opinion it is as barbaric as it was 1000 years ago, I am ashamed to be English.
Complain about this comment
Have your say Rejected-248, I agree with you to a point. Firstly, our "democratic credentials" are in question when democratic expressions are ignored at best and curtailed at worst. Remember the Not in my Name march? The fact that the government in power at that time did manage to get re-elected tells me that we, the citizens of this country of ours, failed in our duty to make the government accountable for ignoring the opinion of million of people. In other words, we ourselves let democracy down. Secondly, there is no question that a myriad of murky and nefarious interest are lurking about the whole War on Drugs business, which should make us even more committed to denounce it and do whatever we can democratically (a slow and painful path, I'm afraid)to put an end to it. If the War on Drugs were an issue anchored in scientific, objective evidence, everybody would have arrived long, long time ago to the conclusion that the consumption of drugs is a health matter, and not a criminal one. And the War on Drugs had not been engineered in the first place. Finally, because it is difficult, because it is an affront to our democratic credential and because there are too many nefarious interest involved, is why we need to DEMAND that politicians take our opinions seriously. Otherwise, will we vote them out! That's democracy for you!
Complain about this comment
What has Vince CAble and Jimmy brokenshire got in common?
they both put personal belief before policy.
It would be interesting to hear the real reasons for the current drug policey as it can only be based on personal belief and personal opinion. Which as we see in the case of Vince Cable is against goverment rules.
Why is it not the same for jimmy brokenshire? When ALL evidence says different to the current policy for a successfull drug harm reduction.
Also a single owned media is no different to a dictatorship run media exept on is considered comercial and the other brianwashing...
Complain about this comment
All drugs should be legal so they can be controlled and the government can tax them. History shows us that prohibition doesn't work. The government will NEVER be able to stop people using drugs.
Hard drug users cause a huge problem for society as they constantly need to steal to feed their drug addiction. If we provided drugs for these addicts on the NHS, most crime would stop over night. And lets not forget that heroin is actually very cheap when imported legally by governments (the only reason it's expensive now is because it's illegal). Don't get me wrong, I don't think heroin should be freely available but it should be prescribed to existing addicts.
As for soft drugs like cannabis, they should be legal or at least decriminalised like in the Netherlands. The police spend way too much time dealing with people for possession of cannabis, which is not only a waste of police time but it also means lots of people end up with criminal records for smoking a plant that grows naturally, meaning that they may not be able to pursue their chosen career.
At the moment, with the current drugs policy, everyone seems to be a loser.
It's time to look at the bigger picture and legalise drugs!
Complain about this comment
Did you know that in the UK, class A drug use creates around £15.4 billion in crime and health costs each year—in case you're wondering, this is a Home Office figure. What about the other side of the coin: I do also want to know how much the UK government spend, directly and indirectly, on fighting the War on Drugs (WoD) at home and abroad. Do you? Well, let's ask them!
Gart Valenc
http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org
Complain about this comment
It's Boxing Day and the whole weekend has revolved round people celebrating drinking. It seems like people can't imagine having a good time without alcohol. But drugs are still demonized. Hooray for Bob Ainsworth It's just such a huge relief to hear that this debate about legalising them is AT LAST coming out into the open. 50 years of a crazy war which can't be won. Millions of us take drugs as a aprt of life but can't speak openly in public. If they were legalized then we could talk sensibly and honestly about the risks.
Complain about this comment
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341944/Police-chief-duped-house-rented-turned-cannabis-factory.html
Ho Ho Ho
Good job he was a top policeman anyone one else would be under suspicion of production with intent to supply....
Complain about this comment
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342661/Fears-new-legal-party-drugs-dangerous-cocaine.html
2 to 4 to 6 to 8 when will we learn to regulate :D
Complain about this comment
Thanks to BBC3 for tonight's "How Drugs Work" episode on Cannabis. Finally a fairly balanced program showing how cannabis really affects users' bodies and minds against each way of ingestion - with real scenarios. I learned for example that holding in cannabis smoke for a long time doesn't get you any higher but does increase the tar in your lungs. That's something I'm not going to do any more and a whole lot more useful health information than the bland message "don't do it cos we say so".
There seemed to be a genuine portrayal of the range of user effects. At one stage it looked like they were going to go down the usual worst case scenario route with the lad that spent a lot of time in the psych ward but at the end we found it was probably genetic.
Non-users who watched the program would still have a slightly negative view of cannabis use due to the fact that these programs always visit someone who has had problems (the lad who started smoking cannabis at 11 years old - prohibition works, anyone?) but the program makers could not be blamed for putting across both views.
Finally an apology from me to Professor Robin Murray - I have referred to him somewhat negatively in previous blogs (OK he's probably got too much sense to care what I blog + bigger fish to fry) but I've got to say he came across as a very thoughtful researcher who was more interested in finding solutions to any cannabis side effects than blindly toeing the official line. I realise now that he's probably been misquoted by tabloids for someone else's purposes. One note of caution, though. In the program he said it would be great if it were possible to develop a "finger-prick" genetic test so people could be checked on the way into concerts to see if they fall into the 10% or so that shouldn't take cannabis. There would be a massive amount of pressure from the lobbies to prevent such a test becoming reality as it would inevitably lead to full legalisation.
Complain about this comment
Police test positive for drug use
The Metropolitan Police had the largest number of positive results Twenty-seven police officers have tested positive for drugs in the past two years, according to Jane's Police Review magazine.
but this is a missleading story....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12324973
maybe if ALL police were tested we would get a totaly different picture as the testing here proves to be very slective and only deals with either reported drug use or those that use guns in the line of duty.
Complain about this comment
In a new CBBC show rastamouse protects the cheese industry.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd38CMW42ik&sns=fb
work it out for yourselves... Rasta and cheese.... cheese being one of the most sought after types of cannabis in the UK its even famous in cali dispensaries......
Complain about this comment
http://www.druglawreform.info/en/weblog/item/1131-seventeen-objections-to-abolish-coca-chewing
Seventeen objections to abolish coca chewing
Although the deadline for filing objections expired, governments can still withdraw their objections …
17 countries voted to destroy the culture of the counties involved in coca leaf chewing and coca leaf tea drinking. the other 167 countries did not register an objection to having coca leaf use removed from the single treaty.
Complain about this comment
Seems the DEA in the USA have given cannabis based medicenes the all clear.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/is-the-dea-legalizing-thc/
now we just need our goverment to do the same.
Complain about this comment
Interesting report for WHO
WHO Study: Alcohol Is International Number One Killer, AIDS Second
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/216328.php?fb_ref=article_bottom&fb_source=home_multiline#opinions
REaly are running out of reasons why we should not have alcohol included in MODA 71.
It kills and there is no such thing as a culturaly acceptable drug.
Complain about this comment
The stories and Tales of this safe culturally acceptable drug is showing the problem we have with alcohol more and more clearly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12428856
Time for a safer alternative?
Complain about this comment
Fake alcohol on sale in many UK off-licences
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12456360
This is what happens when you don't control a substance of abuse properly, many will say well this would happen with an licensed cannabis or ecstasy market. To which I cant really argue but one thing I do know is you cant make cannabis out of ISO alcohol or nail varnish remover.
Seems drinkers are not as safe as they would like to think they are.
Complain about this comment
Exelent little peice from Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley on prohabition and the lesson it does not wrok.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8455569.stm
Complain about this comment
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/02/20/scotland-exports-more-cannabis-than-it-imports-as-triad-farms-grow-86908-22937013/
HAAHA Chinese exports o.O
Complain about this comment
This is interesting concerning people with mental health and energy drinks.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/energy-drinks-exacerbate-psychosis/story-fn6ck45n-1226009002821
I believe these are also quite common in the UK.
red bull and vodka being one of the most popular amongst young people.
Whilst more evidence will be needed to provide a true link it will be interesting to see if energy drinks will carry a warning that they may 'induce psychotic behaviour' due to the chemical reactions they may have in some people.
Sorry for yet more spam :D
Complain about this comment
Yup me again :D
This makes me laugh, with just the current known harms they still treat it like something special this drug Alcohol.
Drinks industry says
"That's why the industry puts its energies into funding health education campaigns and working with people who are serious about reducing alcohol misuse in the UK."
Will they work with the drug equality alliance to have alcohol controlled under the MODA? No
Why are they allowed to run their own health campaigns? I'm sure the local dealer also insists that heroin and cocaine are good for you with minimal health risks used in moderation and sensibly.
Drinks industry on Alcohol
"Creating doomsday scenarios is not in anyone's best interests, least of all the responsible majority of people who enjoy alcohol in moderation as part of a healthy lifestyle."
Im quite sure the same can be said of common recreational drugs let alone medical cannabis.
How do they get away with this???
Complain about this comment
oops forgot the link to my babble Thousands are 'at risk of alcohol death' say doctors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12506127
Maybe if big drink and little government cant do anything about it maybe Big Society can. Time to push for locality tax on alcohol sales 5% community tax on the door of all of-licences soon raise cash for BS.
Complain about this comment
A great free documentry on cannabis/hemp and whats possable with legal hemp/cannabis.
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/when-we-grow-this-is-what-we-can-do/
The BBC should show this right after eastenders...
Complain about this comment
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/mr-cameron-its-you-who-needs-education-about-cannabis/
Recent questions to Camoron about cannabis from an open public interview.
Al Jazeera: This was incidentally, the second most popular question because viewers would submit questions and then members of the public would vote.
Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol and tobacco are more addictive and dangerous to our health, but we manage to control them? Wouldn’t education about drugs from a younger age be better?
Cameron: Well there’s one bit of that question ........
Complain about this comment
The reason drugs are freely available in every city and town in the country is because they're popular, people like them, get over it.
Prohibition just drives the industry underground where you can't regulate, at the moment, the age you can buy drugs is £10, criminals have no morals, and pay no tax, this is a multi billion £ industry and we're just giving it to them, tax cannabis at £1 per gram at point of sale, Britain has an estimated 6 million regular users, if they bought 10 grams a week it would raise £60 million pw. into our economy,
It's anyones guess how much we would save in policing, how much does it cost to send those spy helcopters over our houses at night?
Drugs need to be legalised, regulated and taxed like every other recreational stubstance.
The ludicrous situation we have now is non-users paying taxes to harrass and imprison users, Switzerland, Holland and Canada all have liberal drug laws and all have far less crime than us.
Also think of the tourists it would bring in, nobody really goes to Holland for the scenery do they? you've seen one tulip, you've seen them all, we as a nation need all the foreign cash we can get, weed tourism has done very nicely for Holland over the years.
Complain about this comment
Tony 10 grams currently sells for £100 from a good dealer in merseyside £20 for 1.6 to 2 gram is the average bag now.
USA its $50(£31.13) for 7 gram of high grade bud of a better quality than we get on the streets. The average price for an ounce in the USA of what most of us get on the streets is just over $100 (£62.26) current UK price I pay is £190($305.21) - £220($353.4)
Some one in the UK is making serious amounts of money out of cannabis its not the majority of the tax payers though. There are so many industries just waiting to bloom from the freeing of hemp aka cannabis from the current classification on the MODa, 100's of medicines are going to be held up. Major long term fuel problems will be held back both in the form of ethanol and bio oils. So much forsaken for a bit of teenage angst....
The very people the law fails to protect at all levels because of this angst.
Complain about this comment
Sativex banned from use by Midlands Therapeutics Review & Advisory Committee
http://195.62.199.219/pctsla/mtrac/latest/news.html
People with MS now have no choice but to grow thier own... Or has the MTRAC decided its to expensive for what it is.?
Complain about this comment
Interesting story today in the telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8393838/War-on-drugs-has-failed-say-former-heads-of-MI5-CPS-and-BBC.html
At a time when we are facing so many cuts to everyone's lives isn't it about time we removed the financial burden of the drug war from them as well which in turn would be another successful cut in today's failing economy.
Complain about this comment
This really makes you wonder why cannabis is illegal http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-12814258
one 16 year old kills another over a piece of plant matter....
I feel so very sorry for the family of these 2 boys especially the youngster that died.
Why has the law allowed this to happen were are the controls on cannabis
Were are the licenced sales the age protection the education.
Was this young mans life really worth just the few pence it actually cost to grow the cannabis that he tried to buy at a greatly extortionate price?
Complain about this comment
Blimey...is this debate still going,over one year on from it's initiation.
#272 John Ellis...these prices you give for dope sound expensive,28 grams of home grown quality grass that I buy is £140,same goes for the Afghan black that's been around for a year or so,the Moroccan is cheaper still,generally around £100-£120 for the ounce,or 28 grams.
Is that really what people are paying on the street? if so, someone is making a fortune out of little more than being "green fingered".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
http://neurobonkers.com/?p=2695
#CrusadeGate: US “Crusade” on Harm Reduction
A newly leaked cable (not yet reported on elsewhere) exposes how the United States placed extreme political pressure on the leaders of the member states ....http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/01/09UNVIEVIENNA31.html
Complain about this comment
I notice this is now closed for comment? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/03/drug_laws_may_make_matters_wor.html
Dont want to talk about drugs...?
Complain about this comment
I proposed a solution earlier. Let's designate pilot cities for legalised drugs. All drugs are legal in these cities - provided that they are purchased and consumed within the boundaries of these cities.
For the sake of example, let's designate Brighton. I wonder how many people would like to live there after 5 years.
Soft and hard drugs are completely different matters. Passing simplistic judgements about all drugs is incredible dangerous.
In addition, claiming that legalising drugs will stop gangs is extremely disrespectful to the victims of these gangs.
Gangs - being selfish and evil subhumans - will always find some illegal activity. Always.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS