Legalising drugs could save the U.K £14 Billion a year

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

This is not to say that all drugs should be legalised. Even the legal drugs such as alcohol or tobacco have restrictions. IMHO, this is an area that has to be looked at as there are glaring anomalies (such as Ecstacy being classed higher than Speed, which seems ludicrous to me). .

Indeed it was a marital aid drug I believe (I love you man:))

What we also fail to recognize is that many drugs were made for a purpose like the above but the side effects are what they are now used for (so were indeed classified safe).

It is making them illegal that as made them dangerous due to cutting etc.

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

Indeed it was a marital aid drug I believe (I love you man:))

What we also fail to recognize is that many drugs were made for a purpose like the above but the side effects are what they are now used for.

It is making them illegal that as made them dangerous due to cutting etc.

It would be much easier to remove nasty cutting agents such as rat poison if they were regulated rather than banned. An argument for liberalisation, although there are arguments against too.

Wookster

MyLastFiver wrote: »

What argument? That if you give people condoms then it encourages them to have sex? I can't see any connection here with the drugs debate - can you explain?

The argument is that if you educate people (sex education)/ let them do something safely (condoms)/ give them a chance to redress the consequences of their actions (morning after pill) then it encourages them to go out and have sex. Your point about legalising drugs creating a new class of addicts is exactly the same string of logic. Its an argument that is used by anti-progressive people.

MyLastFiver wrote: »

Some do, but others have their lives wrecked by them. I think you're talking about cannabis, coke etc (the mild end!) and forgetting about the hard stuff.

Yes, just like they have lives wrecked by alcohol/ tobacco. If you control what people take then you can control the quality and gain revenue by taxing the supply. I am sure that this will more than pay for the problems drug use creates. The fact is that most people who use drugs are otherwise law abiding people who like having a normal life and who do not want to end up addicts and hence do not use drugs like crack or smack.

For those that are willing to use the hardest drugs, legal consequences make no difference.

Stephen, I think you'll find that most people who's schizophrenia is triggered by THC are bordering schizophrenia as it is. There are millions of people who do use THC and don't have any negative effects.

kennyboy66_2

MyLastFiver wrote: »

One difference is that white middle-class students do not tend to supply heroin or crack cocaine.

But moving on, if we consider a like-for-like comparison; two young men, one black, one white, both walking down the same street, in possession of cannabis with intent to supply. Is the black kid more likely to be arrested? I don't know. But if so, surely it isn't drug laws which are racist, but the way the police use their powers?

Black males are somewhere between 6 and 8 times more likely to be stopped by the Police.

77% of black males between ages 15 and 34 are on the UK DNA database (remember this is for everyone who is arrested not charged or convicted).

The equivalent figure for white males same ages is about 22%.

It is not that drug laws are racist (in the UK anyway), it is, as with most crime, the way they are enforced, from initial stop, all the way to probation.

I'd be broadly in favour of decriminalisation, however where it is done in isolation from other countries, it does tend to lead to drug tourism (Netherlands & Switzerland have previously found).

sabretoothtigger

In california they have both views.
Its illegal but you can buy tax credits for drug selling in case you are caught and dont want to be tried for tax evasion also

I think the NHS cost of increased use would outweigh the benefits generally

DKLS

stephen163 wrote: »

I think we should move slowly toward the ideal and the ideal is that no human consumes anything that causes them harm or drastically shortens teir life. Tobacco use shortens your life, but fingers crossed will be banned within a generation. Alcohol use is ok in moderation.

Cannabis is a really nasty thing to use over a prolonged period of time. If used as a teenager, it can trigger schizophrenia.

Somehow I dont think that your Ideal fits in with human nature, throughout history man has sought ways of reaching altered states of consciousness using a wide number of substances for a number of reasons.

Perhaps we should have a re-think on drugs policy, The "War on Drugs" hasn't worked and never will.

Last year I attended a conference on Drug misuse, and one of the keynote speakers gave an interesting example.

Male in his 30s, with a £100 a day habit, had to steal up to 2Ks worth of goods to fund his habit, whilst giving him pharma grade heroin would cost around £30 per week.

Might not be an ideal solution but what we have now isnt working.

Wookster

DKLS wrote: »

Might not be an ideal solution but what we have now isnt working.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

There is no magic solution, and clearly the current status quo isn't working. Some change is necessary. The question is what.

Talking of drugs, has anyone seen The Wire? Its truly superb.

Sir_Humphrey

Wookster wrote: »

Talking of drugs, has anyone seen The Wire? Its truly superb.

I'm liking it.

Really2

Wookster wrote: »

Talking of drugs, has anyone seen The Wire? Its truly superb.

I must be getting old (what is it?)
Fear and lothing in las vegas and human traffic were more relevent in my era.

mambury

stephen163 wrote: »

Cannabis is a really nasty thing to use over a prolonged period of time. If used as a teenager, it can trigger schizophrenia.

proven by studies in those people with a tendancy towards schizophrenia in the first place. Cannabis is a trigger not a cause.....