At Last Some Sense In The Drugs Debate..

It's not a new idea but at least the government may listen this time. I once saw that old rascal, Judge Pickles, advising the same. He went further and want all drugs legalised!

We'll always have people who "do" drugs and I know some will be jumping about in a rage at the thought of treating users like human beings but it would be better for society, and a lot cheaper, if we listened to the new proposals...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049249/Government-left-red-faced-OWN-advisors-say-possession-drugs-decriminalised.html

A good comment from one of the readers of the article in the comments section..

Heroin on prescription was the system in the UK from 1929 to the end of the 1960s. While American cities were ravaged by crime as a result of heroin, Britain largely wasn't, until this enlightened policy was ended and the whole thing kicked off here as well. Scrips for addicts take away the false glamour of being a junkie, stop crime, prevent other illnesses like hepatitis and so on and on. Nobody should spout about what to do without first studying the UK's earlier successful policy on heroin addiction.

- Oxford, Comma, 15/10/2011 07:45

You won't convince people like Bassman and upinwath though, they can't see beyond the "illegal" label, it blinds them to rational argument.

You won't convince people like Bassman and upinwath though, they can't see beyond the "illegal" label, it blinds them to rational argument.

This is my theory on some of the arguments on here. Some posters will disagree with an argument even if they can see the point. It becomes more a battle of wills against someone they've crossed swords with in the past. Certain posters disagree with each other about everything and that's not rational. We're all guilty of being self righteous but some can accept, that on some occasions, they're nemesis is right....

PS. I'm always right of cause. Except in that debate the other day when I conceded to that Bimbo Suffy...

Being 'under the influence' of drugs is not (on its own) an offence.

Possessing drugs is an offence.

Dealing in drugs is an offence.

Rupert's fix:

1. De-criminalise possession of a 'user amount' of ANY drug.

2. Make drugs readily available (in 'user amounts') through approved (government - includes NHS doctors) sources at cost. (Undercut the market.)

3. Make dealing in drugs - in any amount - an offence with a minimum jail term of 9 years (so you do 6.)

Ruin the market (low prices and high penalties) and put the dealers out of business. If it's not profitable, nobody will do it.

A good comment from one of the readers of the article in the comments section..

 

Heroin on prescription was the system in the UK from 1929 to the end of the 1960s. While American cities were ravaged by crime as a result of heroin, Britain largely wasn't, until this enlightened policy was ended and the whole thing kicked off here as well. Scrips for addicts take away the false glamour of being a junkie, stop crime, prevent other illnesses like hepatitis and so on and on. Nobody should spout about what to do without first studying the UK's earlier successful policy on heroin addiction.

- Oxford, Comma, 15/10/2011 07:45

My bold. Introducing a tightly controlled supply of cheap, good quality heroin for addicts would also make dealing unprofitable, thus drastically reducing the amount of heroin available on the streets. The rate at which new people become addicted would drop right off, as illegal supplies dried up.

Being 'under the influence' of drugs is not (on its own) an offence.

 

Possessing drugs is an offence.

 

Dealing in drugs is an offence.

 

Rupert's fix:

 

1. De-criminalise possession of a 'user amount' of ANY drug.

2. Make drugs readily available (in 'user amounts') through approved (government - includes NHS doctors) sources at cost. (Undercut the market.)

3. Make dealing in drugs - in any amount - an offence with a minimum jail term of 9 years (so you do 6.)

 

Ruin the market (low prices and high penalties) and put the dealers out of business. If it's not profitable, nobody will do it.

What is the point of decrim? You can't keep dealing illegal and then have the government deal to the populace - you'd end up in the situation where you could face criminal proceedings because the government sold you drugs.

Decrim has none of the advantages of legalisation, and none of the advantages of prohibition - it's just a deferment of the right to criminalise large sections of the population.

My bold. Introducing a tightly controlled supply of cheap, good quality heroin for addicts would also make dealing unprofitable, thus drastically reducing the amount of heroin available on the streets. The rate at which new people become addicted would drop right off, as illegal supplies dried up.

9 years for dealing - even in user amounts - would be prohibitive.

Ruin the market by making all drugs readily available to people through governmant sources and you put the dealers out of business.

I'd prefer that people didn't tale drugs (but I'm not too worked up about it.)

I would prefer that people didn't burgle my house to steal stuff which they could sell to buy drugs ... and I am very worked up about that.

How many people (in the UK) are in prison for acquisitive crimes which they committed to enable them to buy drugs?

Make drugs readily available (At low or no cost) and that number will fall.

it's just a deferment of the right to criminalise large sections of the population.

Not if you look at it from this perspective..

 

Heroin on prescription was the system in the UK from 1929 to the end of the 1960s. While American cities were ravaged by crime as a result of heroin, Britain largely wasn't, until this enlightened policy was ended and the whole thing kicked off here as well.

You could argue criminalizing it was a criminal act upon society itself.

If they do away with possession charges and you can buy drugs legally, then I think it would be fine to throw the book at dealers. but everyone should be able to grow a few cannabis plants

The majority of people across the political spectrum seem to agree that this makes much more sense than present policy. But unfortuantely, when it comes to drugs the debate is always won by those who scream the loudest.

We are all have suffering the consequences of being vetoed, time and again, by a small minority of extremely loud and self righteous reactionaries who are adept at manipulating public fears and spreading mis-information.

Another possitive would be that it may stop or at least slow the production of new research chemicals, legal highs, designer drugs etc. because lets be fair the majority of these are poor substitutes for 'traditional' drugs, but the fact that we know nothing about them could potentially make them more dangerous. at least there's been decades of reserach into stuff like cocaine and heroin. what do we know really about methadrone, 3meo-pcp etc. that are sold online?