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

SGE1

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

If your argument refers mainly to hard drugs that are without a doubt 'bad' for you, that implies that lots of people aren't currently on crack cocaine and heroin because it's illegal, but that legalisation would suddenly make people think 'oh well it's legal now, so I'll start a habit up'. Doesn't make much sense to me.

At the end of the day, it's about what works, and evidently, outlawing everything hasn't worked very well. We still have the related crime, the addicts etc. Not exactly an ideal situation.

MyLastFiver

SGE1 wrote: »

that implies that lots of people aren't currently on crack cocaine and heroin because it's illegal

1. Yes, some are deterred by its illegality, but more importantly:
2. Illegality restricts supply, and
3. Makes its procurement covert. Most people (me included) would have no idea where to get heroin if they wanted it.
4. Legalizing something sends a powerful legitimizing message.

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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.

The 'freedom to choose' argument is weak. Some people will indeed succumb to an addiction beyond their willpower and have no real freedom to choose. To use this to imply that nobody should have any choice in the matter in the first place is perverse.

The 'harm' argument is much more powerful. It is open to debate how harmful legal recreational drug use is to family and friends. Obviously everyone won't end up living rough in Baltimore. The exact nature of the drug is crucial.

Of course the 'harm' argument also applies to the harm the individual may cause to themslves. This is the case with laws against climbing pylons or not wearing a seat belt / crash helmet. Should I be free to harm myself or knowingly risk harm to myself?

I think the default position should be liberty, unless there is evidence that a restriction on liberty would be sufficiently beneficial to society to be worth paying the price. Which is ultimately why we don't ban bacon sarnies, but we do have seat belt laws.

Clearly drugs are closer to the line than bacon sandwiches. Which side of the line? Probably depends on exactly what drug we are talking about, and I think medical evidence should be at the heart of the decision. Unfortunately, a proper analysis of the costs and benefits of such a policy is considered unimportant by the powers that be. Most current politicians are conservative in that they would continue with the current inconsistent sub-optimal framework just because they'd need a very good reason to rock the boat.

endure

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.

Before the Misuse of Drugs Act there were approx 5,000 heroin addicts in the UK. They got their medical quality heroin of a known strength from their GP. Most of them led perfectly ordinary lives. Drug-related crime was, to all intents and purposes, non-existent. The Misuse of Drugs Act stopped GPs from prescribing for addicts - thus creating an instant black market which has grown like Topsy ever since. There are reckoned to be 250,000 heroin users in the UK now (we don't have accurate figures because they're longer registered) and 70-80% of crime revolves around drugs whether possession, dealing or crimes to get the money to buy. The 'War on Heroin' has been a major and expensive failure.

Wookster

MyLastFiver wrote: »

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.

No its not. The point is that if you legalise such activities you safely segregate addicts, provide them with substances to get high on and effectively remove them from harming society. That would be no bad thing - most crime around the procurement of drugs and drug smuggling would be eliminated, and a revenue would be earned.

MyLastFiver wrote: »

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

Not much, no, certainly not in significant numbers. Most people don't want to have hard drugs.

MyLastFiver wrote: »

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

See the top point above.

MyLastFiver wrote: »

I've already covered this twice.

I would differ but it seems we've reached an impasse on this point. Would you concede that tax revenues from tobacco and alcohol products more than cover the medical cost associated with the related problems?

MyLastFiver wrote: »

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

Quality is most certainly an issue, as is safety. Bad quality can cause serious health problems requiring significant NHS resources. Same with safety... shared needles can cause even more problems with nasty bugs like HIV and Hepatitis. Drug problems cost money, why shouldn't revenue to offset that be an issue?

MyLastFiver wrote: »

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.

Not at all. If its legalised, people buy their drugs in the view of society - that must be a highly degrading thing to do. At the moment all these nefarious activities are conducted underground and in the shadows where people can hide, legalisation would go some way to changing that.

I don't disagree with you that drugs break lives, they can be highly destructive.

So far you've argued against the legalisation of drugs. I propose it as something that I think would work. What do you propose, given that the current policy so patently is not working?

iltisman

Singapore seems to have the drug issue under control.

Wookster

MyLastFiver wrote: »

2. Illegality restricts supply

Does it? Really? I believe that drug prices have been decreasing for many years now, didn't David Davis recently say that a pill of ecstasy could be bought for as little as £1.50? He'd know wouldn't he

Talking of the law sending a powerful message, MPs expenses are legal, yet some of the perceived pillaging has created some of the most powerful public sentiment. The same could be said of bankers bonuses.

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

The 'freedom to choose' argument is weak. Some people will indeed succumb to an addiction beyond their willpower and have no real freedom to choose. To use this to imply that nobody should have any choice in the matter in the first place is perverse.

The rate at which people fall into addiction can vary from person to person - it is difficult to make a judgment, which makes a Act-Utilitarian consequentialist JS Mill approach to morality difficult in this case. However, for certain drugs such as crack, addiction is very, very likely after a very short period of use.

I am thinking of the Jazz Bassist Jaco Pastorus - reportedly his alcohol addiction was more or less instantaneous after the previously tee-total Pastorus was introduced to booze by Joe Zawinul. Zawinul immediately realised his error, but he could hardly have realised beforehand - Pastorus's initial preference for teetotalism was correct and based on his father's alcoholism. It seems Pastorus was vulnerable to alcohol and had underlying mental health issues that were made worse by booze - much in the way that some people are vulnerbale to cannabis.

His father had died of alcoholism (Jaco himself was beaten to death after picking a fight with a bouncer whilst in an alcoholic stupour).

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

The 'harm' argument is much more powerful. It is open to debate how harmful legal recreational drug use is to family and friends. Obviously everyone won't end up living rough in Baltimore. The exact nature of the drug is crucial.

Of course the 'harm' argument also applies to the harm the individual may cause to themslves. This is the case with laws against climbing pylons or not wearing a seat belt / crash helmet. Should I be free to harm myself or knowingly risk harm to myself?

I think the default position should be liberty, unless there is evidence that a restriction on liberty would be sufficiently beneficial to society to be worth paying the price. Which is ultimately why we don't ban bacon sarnies, but we do have seat belt laws.

Clearly drugs are closer to the line than bacon sandwiches. Which side of the line? Probably depends on exactly what drug we are talking about, and I think medical evidence should be at the heart of the decision. Unfortunately, a proper analysis of the costs and benefits of such a policy is considered unimportant by the powers that be. Most current politicians are conservative in that they would continue with the current inconsistent sub-optimal framework just because they'd need a very good reason to rock the boat.

That is more my less my POV on this issue. The harm to others argument I was directing more towards heroin or crack. Or indeed tobacco (I'd be much more upset if any future children of mine took up smoking than popped E's every so often). The "other harm" argument is conclusive for smoked tobacco owing to passive smoking - the science is clear on the dangers in enclosed areas. Most of my friends and family who smoke now accept this.

This is why I am very anti-smoking (I strongly support the pub ban), but am prepared to ignore Daily Wail "xyz will give you cancer" stories.

JayScottGreenspan

I don't think there would definitely be an increase in use if certain drugs were legalised. It's possible, but it could go either way.

Drug pushers treat their product like any other business, and have very effective (if rather unconventional) means of promoting, even advertising, their products. They're very good at getting as many customers as possible. All of that could go out the window and be replaced by a friendly granny with responsible advice at the Boots counter.

MyLastFiver

We may have to agree to disagree, Wook, but you certainly do make a bloke think hard. :beer:

What do you propose, given that the current policy so patently is not working?

That's a damned good question. In my less rational moments I would like to see people who deal crack and heroin strung up from lamp posts, the parasitic scum. And this is why I don't want the state to be involved in their supply. Then we would all be benefitting from the misery of addiction.

A more sensible answer? Look at both the supply and the demand.

Supply: Why do we have air superiority over Afghanistan but continue to allow them to produce most of the world's opium? Destroy the Afghan poppy crop. Give the farmers a million quid each compensation - bargain. There - that's pragmatism for you.

Demand: We need to ask ourselves why tens of thousands of young people feel the need to anaesthetize themselves every day. Maybe it's because we have an economic system which relies on there being a disenfranchised underclass. We have created these people. There is no simple answer, but we need a society which is fair and gives everyone the chance to be a valued and valuable part of it.