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

mambury

kennyboy66 wrote: »

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).

bonus, more revenue for the local economies and taxation revenue for the govmnt

Wookster

Really2 wrote: »

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

Its a police series based in Baltimore. I've just started watching it - its really gritty but a real accurate depiction of inner city Baltimore life. Its an old series - think it aired from 2002 to 2007 iirc.

lynnexxxo

mambury wrote: »

bonus, more revenue for the local economies and taxation revenue for the govmnt

And not to mention removing a vast amount of money and power from drug dealers, organised crime and gangs.

MyLastFiver

Wookster wrote: »

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.

No it's not! Condoms/sex ed are there to mitigate the harm that risky behaviour can cause, not to increase the opportunity for, and instances of, that behaviour. To (reluctantly) stick with your sex analogy, making heroin legal is more like providing free-of-charge prostitutes to the masses.

Are you seriously suggesting that, if heroin were available over the counter, there would be no new users?

Its an argument that is used by anti-progressive people.

Progress is only progress if it benefits society. I can't see what's progressive about making widely available a potent, highly addictive opiate.

Yes, just like they have lives wrecked by alcohol/ tobacco.

I've already covered this twice.

If you control what people take then you can control the quality and gain revenue by taxing the supply.

Quality is not the issue. And potential revenue certainly should not be the issue.

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

Most people don't use heroin because they've been taught it's highly dangerous (it is) and it ruins lives (it does). If the drug is sold legally, then that message is reversed and its use is legitimized and normalized. I don't know how you can assert that legalizing heroin would not increase its use.

You know what? I can sympathize with some of the arguments for legalizing cannabis, and maybe one or two other substances, but anyone you seriously believes that legalizing heroin is a good idea needs their heads testing!

purch

its really gritty but a real accurate depiction of inner city Baltimore life

When I was between marriages I was seeing a young lady from 'Ballimore' ......it's a nice City, especially around the harbour (harbor) area and Camden Yards.

Havn't been to the 'nastier' parts so I can't comment, but the TV series is typical high quality US TV drama. (shame we can't make stuff like that over here)

zappahey

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.

Utterly, utterly disagree. My ideal is that, so long as I'm harming no one else, people like you should leave me alone to do as I wish with my life.

We only have one life and duration is not necessarily the measure of a good one.

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

There is a hypothesis that it may increase the risk from 1% to 2% but the "trigger" is entirely unproven and subject to a great deal of debate.

Sir_Humphrey

MyLastFiver wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that, if heroin were available over the counter, there would be no new users?

I think this is a false argument. If heroin were legalised, it would be heavily regulated - in a way that is the current situation, as diamorphine (heroin) is in use medically as a painkiller for terminally ill patients.

I honestly doubt it would make much difference provided suitable restrictions were put on it's sale - after all I doubt it would take long for me to procure it if such a self-destructive impulse took me as it is readily obtainable anywhere (and I mean anywhere). I think people are generally aware that it f**ks you up. Also, some people start using due to its supposed rebel cache (think Lou Reed or Charlie Parker) which would disappear as soon as Hazel Blears said it was legalised.

If it were sold like booze that would be stupid, but I don't think that idea is on the table.

tomterm8

MyLastFiver wrote: »

What no-one seems to be discussing is that many drugs are controlled because they are very dangerous, either in the short or long term, both to the individual and to society. Tens of thousands of heroin and crack addicts already commit vast amounts of crime in order to feed their habits. And these drugs are already very cheap. £5 a bag round here, or £5 a rock. Legal or illegal, addicts will still need to pay for it. And legalization would surely create huge numbers of new addicts.

I know the argument is different for less addictive drugs like cannabis, but we've already had that argument on another thread

No, I think most people are aware that drugs can be harmful to the individual and society. That is why you would tax them, to balance any negative externalities it causes to other members of society. As to harm caused to the user, I don't think that's a good reason to criminalise something.

Criminalisation has not prevented ready access to drugs, it has however prevented society from instituting the kind of quality control found in other harmful products (such as spirits and tobacco). And it has result in substantial harm, with tens of thousands of people in jail who would otherwise be more or less productive citizens.

And no one says that actual crime (such as burglary, theft etc) should be decriminalised. If someone commits a crime to feed their habit, they could still be imprisoned.

MyLastFiver wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that, if heroin were available over the counter, there would be no new users?

If heroin were available over the counter, it would not be more available than it is now. I can walk from my home, 50 yards, and find a drug dealer. The reason more people don't take it is that you'd have to be a moron to take it.

JayScottGreenspan

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.

I strongly disagree. You're talking about laws restricting individual freedom to engage in acts that cause no harm to anyone else.
We do need some such laws to protect people from themselves, and prevent collateral damage to society or the economy, but we should think very carefully about them and only enact/tolerate them when the evidence of their overall benefit to society is overwhelming.

Why shouldn't I be able to consume unhealthy amounts of cheese, bacon, alcohol, tobacco, cocaine in the privacy of my own home if I so choose?

Wookster wrote: »

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

Best thing on TV right now. You feel me?
(And Avon Barksdale would be very firmly against legalising drugs!)

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I strongly disagree. You're talking about laws restricting individual freedom to engage in acts that cause no harm to anyone else.
We do need some such laws to protect people from themselves, and prevent collateral damage to society or the economy, but we should think very carefully about them and only enact/tolerate them when the evidence of their overall benefit to society is overwhelming.

Why shouldn't I be able to consume unhealthy amounts of cheese, bacon, alcohol, tobacco, cocaine in the privacy of my own home if I so choose?

I don't think the effect of taking heroin passes the John Stuart Mill liberty test for two reasons: firstly an addict has no true freedom of choice owing to the addiction, and secondly even if it were legal, the effect on friends and family would be sufficiently bad to cause moral issues.

There are plenty of non immoral actions that are outlawed for good reasons, such as climbing high voltage pylons or railway trespass.

For certain drugs taken in certain quantities, your argument stands however IMHO. The risk from bacon sarnies is much lower than for heroin or crack (or even tobacco).

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Best thing on TV right now. You feel me?
(And Avon Barksdale would be very firmly against legalising drugs!)

Word. 'tho the subjects of the other series are different. Yo's in for a shock if yo' thinks it's all about drugs.