About time too. by raistlin


User avatar
raistlin
It'll never actually happen of course but at least there seems to be an inkling of sense:-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/lib-dems-drug-policy-decriminalise-for-personal-use
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 08 Sep 2014, 17:18 #1 

User avatar
Mick
(Site Admin)
Online
I tend to disagree, at least in part, I believe the decriminalisation of Marihuana will eventually become the status quo as it has in several of the United Staes. It is the only sensible course of action.

Posted 08 Sep 2014, 18:19 #2 


PaulT
Where do you go with the decriminalisation on the basis that a large number do.

Does this go to speeding, using a phone whilst driving etc? Large numbers do so decriminalise them?
Paul

That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play

Image

Posted 08 Sep 2014, 21:27 #3 

User avatar
raistlin
PaulT wrote:Does this go to speeding, using a phone whilst driving etc?


Presumably somewhat tongue in cheek Paul? :)

Clearly, committing the offences stated above is the decision of the offender. Taking drugs is not.

Making the possession of drugs for personal consumption legal would reduce acquisitive crime massively, possibly by up to 70%, reduce the burden on the NHS significantly, reduce smuggling and save lives.
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 09 Sep 2014, 07:14 #4 


PaulT
Yes Paul, it was a little tongue in cheek but not 100%.

OK speeding and using a mobile phone can have direct consequences on others as you are no doubt told of frequently in your court.

Drug taking can have indirect effect on, say the takers family, but also consequences for others when the drug taker steals to fund the habit.

And surely:

'Clearly, committing the offences stated above is the decision of the offender. Taking drugs is not'

the person taking the drugs has made a conscious decision to take them - they may start off on the so called soft drugs but lead on to the hard drugs, possibly via discounts by dealers who want them hooked.

Drug taking though does seem to be extremely wide spread. How would making it legal to possess drugs reduce the burden on the NHS? A chain of 'Drugs R Us' shops would have the potential of reducing the illegal importation of drugs and the industry that they enable but would the official drugs need to be of a low price to stop people buying the drugs from the dealers (after all a number of people are willing to buy cigarettes from a man on the corner not knowing what they are smoking) and would lower prices mean a rise in the amount taken?
Paul

That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play

Image

Posted 09 Sep 2014, 07:39 #5 

User avatar
raistlin
I'm more aware than most of the effect drug fuelled acquisitive crime has on others Paul, both directly and indirectly, as you surmise :)

However, if they were not illegal, then there would be no pushers because there would be no money to be made. Ergo, there would be no requirement to fund the artificially high costs imposed by the pushers.

Illicit drug use accounts for the lion's share of all admissions to hospital for "blood based" diseases such as Hepatitis B etc. Legally supplied drugs would be of controlled quality and the circumstances of their use would be made safer.

Amplifying on the other main point. A speeding motorist has the ability to make a decision on each occasion, a junkie does not. They have a physiological and psychological need to take drugs each day just to function. Their use of drugs,I would say, is a requirement, not a choice.

As you might expect, the newspaper article was merely a brief pen picture of the idea and does not go into any detail regarding the nuts and bolts as it were.

I was lucky enough to be part of a working party some years ago, examining the feasibility of such a course of action and we made some detailed recommendations to the government of the day. Unfortunately, Governments do not like taking decisions which might have a negative effect upon their potential for re-election :(

The working party was well stocked with intellects far superior to mine including members of the Judiciary from High Court Judges down and equivalent from NHS, Police, academia, drug manufacturers et. al.

One of our conclusions was that the initial popularity of experimentation with drugs, ie. the culture, would be reduced by making drug use a humdrum, mundane activity, without the glamour associated with the illicit.

It would not be a perfect solution, in my view, but then again, what is? However, the situation as it stands at the moment doesn't work.

As a personal viewpoint, demonising people for something outwith their control doesn't make sense and is morally wrong.

As an aside, you might be surprised at the cost of class A drugs, Cocaine and Heroin, when supplied through legal channels. From what I can remember, a single dose would cost pennies.
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 09 Sep 2014, 08:32 #6 


PaulT
I will give you a little ammo for your argument.........

There was widespread illegal use of CB radio. It was legalised and it largely died.
Paul

That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play

Image

Posted 09 Sep 2014, 14:49 #7 

User avatar
raistlin
PaulT wrote:There was widespread illegal use of CB radio. It was legalised and it largely died.


Yes. They turned a thriving community into a an over-proscribed nonsense.

I have been there and have that particular t-shirt ;)
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 09 Sep 2014, 16:52 #8 


Top

cron