A sensible discussion about current drugs policy.

[spindrift]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23879990-drugs-and-yet-another-half-baked-solution.do

 

Tim Hollis, the chief constable of Humberside, was reported yesterday to be calling for soft drugs to be decriminalised — arguing that resources should be concentrated on catching dealers rather than end-users.

 

On the face of it, this sounds sensible. If our drugs laws have a purpose, it's to reduce the harm drugs do in our society. Giving a teenager a criminal record for smoking dope is likely to do more harm to his life-chances than the dope itself — and at considerable public cost. Serious dealers are more likely to be mixed up in organised crime, and by nabbing a dealer you interrupt the supply, at least temporarily, to a number of users.

 

So, yes, Mr Hollis's proposal sounds sensible: but only in the context of a system of prohibition that is simply bonkers in the first place. “Let's decriminalise drugs so that we can concentrate on catching the criminals who deal them.” Any guesses as to what's wrong with that sentence? Drugs can't be half-illegal any more than you can be half-pregnant.

 

It simply does not make sense, either morally or practically, to criminalise supply at the same time as you liberalise demand. It's like trying to rid your house of mice by scattering cheese all over the place and wandering from room to room with a tennis racquet.

 

Mr Hollis is also reported to have questioned a system that brackets ecstasy and heroin together. Well, the toxicity of ecstasy is comparatively low. The toxicity of clean heroin is even lower: it is addictive but nearly completely harmless.

 

What kills people who take heroin is its unpredictable adulteration, and what kills people concerned with its supply is a combination of its high scarcity cost and monopoly distribution by criminals.

 

 

 

Thank you Sam for talking some sense regarding the senseless prohibition on drugs! I hope that I will see an end to the fanatical discrimination based on drug preference in my lifetime.

[Bassman62]

Its a holier than thou attitude and is hypocritical.

.

It isn't a holier than thou attitude when one is given for genuine medical needs whilst the other is sought out for so called recreational pleasure but more appropriately called substance abuse.

 

And please, please remember for once that when I was prescribed Benzdiazepams it was at a time when nobody in the drug industry or medical profession knew that there could be a withdrawal problem when comong of the medication.

[Bassman62]

Heroin users given it on prescription can bring people back into society and get rid of the stigma that these people have to contend with.

A heroin addict on prescription would not have to be outside the law and be as acceptable as you or I bassman, leaving the dealer and organised criminals at the top without an income.

And who pays for these prescriptions, Jo public has to pay very high charges for his/her prescription, how much do drug addicts pay for theirs.

[Bassman62]

Giving a teenager a criminal record for smoking dope is likely to do more harm to his life-chances than the dope itself — and at considerable public cost. Serious dealers are more likely to be mixed up in organised crime, and by nabbing a dealer you interrupt the supply, at least temporarily, to a number of users.[/i]

 

So are you saying that it should be ok for the teenager smoking dope to purchase illegaly supplied substances, knowing that it is illegal?

 

Doesn't basic parenting discipline of being brought up to know right from wrong come into this.

[Magilla]

So are you saying that it should be ok for the teenager smoking dope to purchase illegaly supplied substances, knowing that it is illegal?

 

Since they're going to purchase it anyway, why have the monies syphoned into criminal pockets, and organised crime.

 

Doesn't basic parenting discipline of being brought up to know right from wrong come into this.

 

It would, but unfortunately the utterly ridiculous drug laws of the land mean it's impossible, since two of the most deadly drugs are freely sold and are legal.

 

How do you tell a child that taking one drug is wrong when another is OK, when the OK one is proven to be a greater threat to health.

[spindrift]

I can well believe that skunkweed may cause psychosis, but to ban cannabis because of that is a bit like banning alcohol because drinking meths can make you go blind.

 

The cops regularly trawl tube stations with sniffer dogs. Small quantities are confiscated but no cautions are issued. It boosts the cops detected crime rates so serves as a box-ticking exercise.

 

What a waste of time.

 

"The legality of alcohol and tobacco has not eliminated the black markets so why should drugs be any different."

 

 

This is news to me. I've never met anyone who would prefer to buy suspect moonshine from a dodgy gangster in preference to just going down the off-license to buy legal alcohol of known taste, purity and strength.

[Hairyloon]

It isn't a holier than thou attitude when one is given for genuine medical needs whilst the other is sought out for so called recreational pleasure but more appropriately called substance abuse.

May I trouble you for the distinction: how do you determine one from the other?

Ten pints of beer and a fight is recreation, but a toot on a joint is abuse?

[Bassman62]

May I trouble you for the distinction: how do you determine one from the other?

Ten pints of beer and a fight is recreation, but a toot on a joint is abuse?

 

You see this is where these topics become plain silly quite frankly your response not worth a reply. Overplaying one and playing down another is quite pathetic.

[Bassman62]

I can well believe that skunkweed may cause psychosis, but to ban cannabis because of that is a bit like banning alcohol because drinking meths can make you go blind.

Why don't you include drinking paint stripper as well it's just as daft an example, nobody in a stable state of mind is going to drink either.

[Bassman62]

The cops regularly trawl tube stations with sniffer dogs. Small quantities are confiscated but no cautions are issued. It boosts the cops detected crime rates so serves as a box-ticking exercise.

 

No report/caution means no detected crime rate surely.