Richard Branson making sense again

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9031855/Its-time-to-end-the-failed-war-on-drugs.html

I've agreed with this stance for years. Decriminalise drugs, sell them in licensed premises and tax them. You manage the following:

1) Reduce violent crime

2) Render drug dealers and their bullying tactics useless

3) Reduce petty crime, addicts will no longer fear for their kneecap if they can't pay the dealer

4) Increase revenue

5) Reduce illnesses due to contamination of drugs

6) Reduce cost to NHS

There is no "war on drugs"

If there were the poppy fields and weed producing farms would have been burnt to the ground by now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9031855/Its-time-to-end-the-failed-war-on-drugs.html

 

I've agreed with this stance for years. Decriminalise drugs, sell them in licensed premises and tax them. You manage the following:

 

1) Reduce violent crime

2) Render drug dealers and their bullying tactics useless

3) Reduce petty crime, addicts will no longer fear for their kneecap if they can't pay the dealer

4) Increase revenue

Wouldn't the addict that commits crime to fund their addiction still need to commit crime to fund their legal drug addiction?

Wouldn't there still be a black market in drugs that are cheaper than those sold legally, just like there is with booze and fags?

Wouldn't the adict still need to commit crime to find the money to pay for the now ligal drugs.

Wouldn't there still be a black market in drugs that are cheaper than those sold legally, just like there is with booze and fags?

If the drugs were legalised, you could get the equivalent of nicotine patches that are sold by chemists.

Possibly so about the black market, but far far less people would use it and there would be far less money to made by illegal means reducing the number of dealers considerably.

5) Reduce illnesses due to contamination of drugs

6) Reduce cost to NHS

Wouldn't drug dealers just cut them more so they can undercut the legal drugs and therefore make the situation worse?

Wouldn't the addict that commits crime to fund their addiction still need to commit crime to fund their legal drug addiction?

Possibly.

The drugs that most commonly cause this behaviour are the most addictive stimulants and opiates. Heroin, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Crack Cocaine etc.

People addicted to these drugs could be given free drugs as part of a addiction management and harm reduction strategy.

Recreational users of Cannabis, MDMA, GHB, psychedelics and the least dangerous dissociatives, would be able to buy their drugs in from licenced vendors at a reasonable price

Wouldn't there still be a black market in drugs that are cheaper than those sold legally, just like there is with booze and fags?

Yes, but it's a question of proportion.

At the moment 100% of the trade in Cannabis is on the black market. If that dropped to 20%, then the 80% would be taxable trade worth billions to the taxpayer.

You could cut smuggling of fags and booze at stroke by reducing the excise duty (which seems an odd thing in this day and age).

The actual cost of a packet of fags is about £1.50, the tax on a packet of fags is about £5. Fags are extremely addictive, so even a small saving on the tax is attractive to users, hence the black market - which I should add is implicitly supported by the tobacco companies, as it means they shift more product.

Wouldn't drug dealers just cut them more so they can undercut the legal drugs and therefore make the situation worse?

You see examples like the dodgy alcohol being sold up in Crookes, or the glass dusted cannabis that turned up a few years ago.

Here's the principle difference.

Trading standards followed up the dodgy booze and got it removed from the shelf. They didn't follow up on the glass dusted cannabis though, as it wasn't within their purview.

There is no "war on drugs"

If there were the poppy fields and weed producing farms would have been burnt to the ground by now.

After the Taliban successfully banned the production of opium (the only group to have done so) in Afghanistan and production fell to a mere 4 tonnes. We invaded. Where were our troops based? Where was the most opium produced?

You guessed it.

More money is made from people getting 'illegally' smacked off their tits, than if people were to do so 'illegally', I quote the legality side of it, as our so called government has little authority, especially when compared to the likes of the Taliban.

If the drugs were legalised, you could get the equivalent of nicotine patches that are sold by chemists.

 

Possibly so about the black market, but far far less people would use it and there would be far less money to made by illegal means reducing the number of dealers considerably.

The jury is not out on NRT yet, it hasn't been studied. We have already had overdoses, and NRT is sold to children as young as 12. Probably safer to stick to the fags for the time being.

The jury is not out on NRT yet, it hasn't been studied. We have already had overdoses, and NRT is sold to children as young as 12. Probably safer to stick to the fags for the time being.

Nope. Garbage.

Nope. Garbage.

There have been no long term studies into the affects of nicotine administered as it is now with the NRT. NRT products often deliver more nicotine and are capable of causing overdose.