A sensible discussion about current drugs policy.

[spindrift]

Can the people who see Portugals decriminalisation as a success explain why they want to legalise hard drugs or give them away for free?

 

The number of druggies going into rehab has doubled - surely thats part of the reason why they don't have as many druggies as the UK.

 

The costs of trying to enforce prohibition, combined with the costs of drug related crime, are already far higher than the costs of treating drug addiction as the medical problem that it is.

 

 

When the "solution" cost many times more than the problem it's supposed to solve, and has vastly worse side effects for the rest of society, it's very hard to see how such a "solution" can be justified.

 

The current approach makes about as much sense as trying to cure a sore foot by amputating both legs, without anaesthetic.

 

The current arrangement is much like a massive protection racket, but where the criminal and protection roles have been separated. The State imposes "protection", while criminal gangs and drug addicts provide the threat and actuality of criminality. Criminality is sustained by the State's prohibitionist "protection", and, in turn, that criminality sustains the apparent case for such "protection".

 

 

It's a vicious circle.

 

This vicious circle isn't going to be broken by the drug-dealing criminal gangs.

 

 

It's in their interests for the circle of criminalisation and criminality to continue.

 

 

It isn't going to be broken by the drug addicts, since they're addicted. It has to be broken by the State, and that means decriminalisation

[Magilla]

Mods please note posts #542/#549, as per usual nil contributions just aggro.

 

Perhaps they should look at #543 first?

[Bassman62]

3) I also don't understand why you would be against crime falling - is it because it would reduce the number of things you can complain about?

 

While you may not have taken your views directly from the red tops, they are very similar in the narrowness of the views.

 

Oh so typical.

[spindrift]

ASUL - the Addictive Substances User Licence for those 21 and older is probably the best way to legalise heroin or any other recreational drug.

 

Those who want to "use" buy a government issued photo licence, just the same as those who want to use a car or a gun or fly a lane.

 

Product supply prices are fixed low to keep out smuggled / stolen supplies, and quality and strengths strictly controlled and visible on all product packaging, along with health and penalty warnings.

 

The licence fee would effectively be a government tax on addiction which did not inflate the retail price and would thus avoid encouraging the development of a criminal market, as there would be no profit in it.

 

70% of those who have used heroin for three or more years have usually tried to quit and failed, so we would also need a truly viable and effective system of recovering an addict to the natural state of relaxed abstinence into which 99% of our population is born.

 

Such a recovery programme has been available for 44 years and today delivers such a result at more than 150 addiction recovery training centres (including prison units) in 43 countries, with a 69+% success rate first time through the programme, and with 15% more graduating into relaxed abstinence after a shorter second programme.

 

Those who have smoked, injected and snorted themselves into addiction and been rescued by training which enables them to get themselves "clean", have also learned how to stay clean, and don't want to "experiment" again.

 

A "convert" from addiction to relaxed abstinence is usually a stronger believer in abstinence that he or she who has never been addicted.

 

The same scheme could be used for cocaine, alcohol, cannabis and any other addictive substance.

 

The Chancellor would have a ball, but we would need better regulated more secure supply outlets.

 

The only crimes would be selling or otherwise passing supplies to someone who was not licensed, and the most severe penalties would be for supplying those below 21 years, with such penalties being increased the younger the person supplied.

 

The above is just an introduction to a detailed proposal, further information on which can be obtained at no cost by phoning 0844 800 9359.

 

Kenneth Eckersley,

C.E.O. Addiction Recovery Training Services,

[spindrift]

Prohibition, of anything, has never worked.

 

Sex, guns, drugs, gambling; whatever a government bans, some people will always find a way. In the case of drugs, very many people consume their substance of choice (you can guess mine), despite the harshest penalties that have ever been threatened - you'd do more time for a drugs offence in many countries than you would for a sexual assault.

 

The most ironic thing about this is that the public are well ahead of the politicians on drug policy. No surprise there; we all know a few people who take some banned substance or other.

 

The government's first duty is to protect the people - from military threats, from disease, and from other harms. For years drug policy has been exacerbating harms, not reducing them, and at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer.

 

Time to grow up. We need to legalize, regulate and tax recreational drug use.

[spindrift]

More people are in prison for smoking or dealing grass in America than are in prison in the UK for anything at all.

 

 

In prison.

 

For smoking a plant.

[harvey19]

Why were these illegal drugs banned in the first place ?

[spindrift]

Why were these illegal drugs banned in the first place ?

 

With cannabis, it's an interesting story of commecial interests:

 

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

 

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

 

For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

 

Then along came Anslinger:

 

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

 

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

 

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

 

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

 

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

 

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

 

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

 

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

 

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

 

Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

 

“Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

 

Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”

 

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

[harvey19]

With cannabis, it's an interesting story of commecial interests:

 

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

 

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

 

For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

 

Then along came Anslinger:

 

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

 

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

 

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

 

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

 

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

 

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

 

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

 

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

 

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

 

Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

 

“Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

 

Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”

 

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

 

What about the U.K. ?

[willman]

The costs of trying to enforce prohibition, combined with the costs of drug related crime, are already far higher than the costs of treating drug addiction as the medical problem that it is.

 

 

When the "solution" cost many times more than the problem it's supposed to solve, and has vastly worse side effects for the rest of society, it's very hard to see how such a "solution" can be justified.

 

The current approach makes about as much sense as trying to cure a sore foot by amputating both legs, without anaesthetic.

 

The current arrangement is much like a massive protection racket, but where the criminal and protection roles have been separated. The State imposes "protection", while criminal gangs and drug addicts provide the threat and actuality of criminality. Criminality is sustained by the State's prohibitionist "protection", and, in turn, that criminality sustains the apparent case for such "protection".

 

 

It's a vicious circle.

 

This vicious circle isn't going to be broken by the drug-dealing criminal gangs.

 

 

It's in their interests for the circle of criminalisation and criminality to continue.

 

 

It isn't going to be broken by the drug addicts, since they're addicted. It has to be broken by the State, and that means decriminalisation

 

But decriminalisation ISN'T legalisation. So aagin i ask if you think Portugal is so wonderful. Why don't we adopt Portugese or Dutch or French rules which HAVE NOT legalised drugs.