[Archived] Drugs

[blue phil]

Having just lost another wonderful friend (only aged 50) to tobacco-induced lung cancer I would happily make tobacco a class A drug if we have to have drugs made illegal to keep Blue Phil happy.

I have known plenty of junkies and none of them have died from it.

So have we all lost friends and family to lung cancer .

But again you are falling back on the argument that just because one dangerous is legal then they all should be !

Anyway the way things are going you might get your wish about cigs being "upgraded" . So how would that fit in with your plans for the hard drugs to go the other way and be downgraded .

Sorry about your friend by the way ; it's not a pleasant thing to go through .

[American]

It is also simplistic to believe that the new suppliers would simply take over the reigns of distribution without a hitch and would do the job cheaper than , for example , the local Asians in Blackburn with their connections . (Unless the government would produce "substitute" drugs - which I reckon might not get the nod of approval , quality wise , from the "customer" ! )

I believe you Yankies are convinced that the market system always provides cheaper and better goods than any nationalised industry . Why should the drugs trade be any different ?

Also , have you seen the price of ciggies in this country ? Maybe the government should take over the industry and start giving them away or provide them in the NHS - I'm sure that would help the cancer problem .

If they did the same with that other drug , alcohol , I might even register as an addict myself ...

Yes, because Airbus is destroying Boeing....

My guess is that the same distribution process would be kept in place, just without the current restrictions (or need for murders).

If you look at the price of ciggies, at least in the US, the vast majority is the government tax.

Answer me this my libertarian friend - what place is it of the government to regulate a product of nature?

[blue phil]

In that case my libertarianism only goes so far .......I'll always put the interests of the majority of honest , working people before that of self indulgent wasters out for a free ride . The vast majority of people hooked on hard drugs are living like parasites on the state . They will always do so until they're forcibly persuaded not to .

Anyway a lot of things that are products of nature are subject to government regulation and have to be so if we aren't to live in a state of anarchy . Would you have kids buying heroin from the corner shop ? It's just a question of where to draw the line and what's counter-productive to society as a whole . Would anyone really want a situation without ANY form of regulation ?

As for the price of ciggies ; I'll bet you the tax on them over here is a damn sight higher than over there . What happens over here as a consequence is that most punters bring them in from abroad to avoid the tax .

With drinks the punters go to the multi national supermarkets to get the stuff at a decent price . With drugs they'd end up using their current suppliers who operate at a "street level" market system that doesn't involve health and safety rules , pensions for distributers and police and army security pay structures etc etc ......

The only workable alternative to break the current supply method would be for the government to actively subsidise the whole business - from the supply and distribution routes that stretch all over the globe right down to the point of delivery . Now you tell me what the reaction would be when Joe Public works his ###### off all week to pay for a pint or two and a ciggie ....and then sees his taxes paying for the non working local junkie to live a life of oblivion . I don't know what it's like in the USA but I do know that there's a whole generation of kids in GB who would take the "easy" lifestyle choice ...........

[Gareth]

Blue Phil said (Mar 26 2008, 22:22) Consider the practicalities of legalising ALL drugs - perhaps you could address the following points you have thus far managed to ignore. Who pays for the drugs? If 90% of heroin users for example don't work then I doubt they're going to start simply because of a change of supplier. The tax payer will simply subsidise a lifetime of oblivion for those who decide that is an acceptable way of life for themselves."

Where'd you get the 90% from? People can live fine off pure heroin, just like any other medicine...

Are the drugs to be subject to taxation? If so then they're going to be more expensive than at present.

Yes, they would be subject, unless they're only available on prescription, e.g. heroin. How would having a legal supply lead to an increased price? The current inflated prices are due to the costs and risks of them being illegal.

At what age will people be able to buy/be given/prescribed hard drugs? Or do you think kids are going to wait until they're 18 before starting?

When all of the "glamour" or "rebellion" is taken out of them, by being legal, less people will use them. The phrase "forbidden fruit" springs to mind... Compare, for example, our rate of drug use with that with countries like Holland and Switzerland, in which you can obtain heroin on prescription.

Do you really think that the government should be dishing hard drugs out to kids?

With all due respect, no intelligent person would ever suggest such a thing...

How much success have the government had in curbing alcohol abuse amongst the young? How much success do you honestly think they would have in discouraging "inappropriate use" amongst substances that are far, far more addictive - and which they themselves have just supplied?

1. not much. 2. Please define "inappropriate use". I'd take it to mean any amount which leads to harming other, i.e. people need to learn some sort of self-control, which is a lot easier if you know what you're taking, which isn't the case at the moment!

How will the government even manage to control the supply and distribution routes of heroin for example? Deal with the Taliban? The war lords in Pakistan? It would take an army to do so with any success; our own army collaborating in the drug trade with the intent to poison our own kids.

No, buying the stuff from the farmers help them out of poverty and so will turn them away from things like the Taliban.

If you suggest that heroin "substitutes" be used do you really think the punters will go through all the trouble of registering and going on schemes and sitting having talks with well meaning social workers? They'll simply take what's on offer, sleep through the sermons and carry on making the lives of honest people a misery.

The "misery" is caused by the illegality - people having to commit crimes in order to be able to obtain the stuff. Have a legal supply and you have a big drop in the crime rate (see the Swiss experience).

To counter all that, I'm afraid the only arguments you've put forward is that the government should start a few anti drug schemes alongside some propaganda slogans. All the evidence shows this hasn't worked with drink let alone drugs! If legalised alcohol causes our town centres to be no go zones at weekends then it's absolute madness to suggest we can curb that whilst legalising crack and heroin!

For heroin see above, as for crack, you are aware what it is don't you? It's a very cheap & nasty version of cocaine, which is a product of prohibition - it never existed until the late-70s around the same time that cocaine started to become glamourised - people want the stuff, but due to the price a cheaper version was created to fulfil a gap in the market. Good old capitalism!

Your argument that the government already indulges in shady practices with regard to alcohol and so might as well apply them to drugs needs no further discrediting - it's just plain barmy and has not the trace of any logic to support it.

No offence, Philip, but I fear your views are stuck in the past when the drug trade was largely confined to the relatively harmless stuff. Time has moved on and now it's not just a few students fighting the system by having a spliff; whole communities have been blighted by crack and heroin and the scum who supply it. It's immoral to do anything other than criminalising anyone involved in the trade.

Again, the crime is caused by prohibition - think of the success that the USA has in the 1920s with banning the legal sale of alcohol for a rough idea of the results and how to solve the problem...

Blue Phil said (Mar 27 2008, 20:59) In that case my libertarianism only goes so far .......I'll always put the interests of the majority of honest, working people before that of self indulgent wasters out for a free ride. The vast majority of people hooked on hard drugs are living like parasites on the state. They will always do so until they're forcibly persuaded not to.

You seem to be having a go at the people who use the stuff, not the drugs themselves... It appears that you don't have a problem with "honest, working people" taking drugs...

Anyway a lot of things that are products of nature are subject to government regulation and have to be so if we aren't to live in a state of anarchy . Would you have kids buying heroin from the corner shop? It's just a question of where to draw the line and what's counter-productive to society as a whole. Would anyone really want a situation without ANY form of regulation?

Was anyone seriously suggesting that there'd be no regulation and that kids could buy heroin from Spar? Legalisation DOES NOT EQUAL a complete free-for-all. You have a regulated system: some are relatively freely available, others on prescription.

As for the price of ciggies; I'll bet you the tax on them over here is a damn sight higher than over there. What happens over here as a consequence is that most punters bring them in from abroad to avoid the tax.

True, but that's due to government's taxation policy, not drugs...

With drinks the punters go to the multi national supermarkets to get the stuff at a decent price. With drugs they'd end up using their current suppliers who operate at a "street level" market system that doesn't involve health and safety rules, pensions for distributors and police and army security pay structures etc etc ......

Not sure about you, but I'd rather be able to have a safe and legal supply, as I'd have idea what's in it, how strong it is and the likely side-effects, as opposed to one, which is illegal and dangerous.

The only workable alternative to break the current supply method would be for the government to actively subsidise the whole business - from the supply and distribution routes that stretch all over the globe right down to the point of delivery.

No it isn't - a legal and relatively safe system is a lot more cost-effective way of dealing with the problem. After all, you don't hear of turf wars between the makers of Marlboro or Benson & Hedges, or between the makers of Stella Artois and Guinness do you?

Now you tell me what the reaction would be when Joe Public works his ###### off all week to pay for a pint or two and a ciggie ....and then sees his taxes paying for the non-working local junkie to live a life of oblivion. I don't know what it's like in the USA but I do know that there's a whole generation of kids in GB who would take the "easy" lifestyle choice ...........

Do you have the same view of alcoholics? it's the same position with people who are addicted to, e.g. heroin.

[Gareth]

You seem to be falling back on the illogical argument that because certain harmful substances are already legal then equally and more harmful substances should likewise be made legal. It just doesn't make sense. It would make more sense if the whole bloody lot were made illegal - cultural and historical realities make that impossible .

Oh ....and I like the bit about "quality control". I'd just love to know how you could subject crack cocaine and heroin to quality control whilst reconciling that to the war currently being waged on the humble ciggy and high strength lager from the "nanny state".

Do you see quality control as a means of diluting the hardest type of drugs? If so the druggies would simply go back to the street dealers . If you mean that they should remain "pure" and as addictive as they are at present then you are advocating that the state colludes with killing its own citizens . Nothing more , nothing less .

Like I said the logic of your argument just isn't there.

Thank you for your kind words. I'll expand my argument. I'm not saying "that because certain harmful substances are already legal then equally and more harmful substances should likewise be made legal", what I'm saying is that currently-dangerous substances should be legalised at it'd make them safer!

Quality control (to be read in conjunction with my other post): if you have a legal regulated system, you can specify what could be sold, in what amounts how the public would have confidence that the stuff isn't contaminated, which isn't the situation at the moment. BTW, who said I support the clampdown on people smoking fags or drinking booze? As long as no-one else is harmed, I'm fine with it...

To quote myself "Not sure about you, but I'd rather be able to have a safe and legal supply, as I'd have idea what's in it, how strong it is and the likely side-effects, as opposed to one, which is illegal and dangerous." "Druggies" wouldn't go back to dealers as there'd be no need to use them - they could get the stuff free/at minimal cost and know what is in it. Do you see alcoholics going to moonshine dealers instead of a pub or off-licence?

[blue phil]

You make your points well , Gareth ......but surely if the government cleans up the drugs to make them safer then that , to a great extent , defeats the object of those who would take them . They don't want ineffective watered down stuff . They want to get their brains blasted out .

Can you really make a heroin substitute that gives the user the same "kick" but that is in any way safe or non addictive ? After all , even at present it isn't in the supplier's interests to sell bad grade drugs and I can't recall many cases of death through "impure" supplies (although , granted , they probably don't get much publicity) . This may sound callous but even if some do die in such ways it's hardly a great loss to society .

With regard to your last paragraph you seem to have accepted the fact that the hard drugs would have to be "free/at minimal cost" . I've always argued that would have to be the case . In effect the tax payer would be paying to keep the druggies "hushed up" with the benefit being that their (the tax payers) lives would be less blighted by crime .

Maybe it would , maybe it would only have avery limited effect but it smacks of the kind of social engineering that many autocracies would be proud of . It's not what I call progress for society .

[BuckyRover]

Why weed should be legal....

It's quite shocking that you can risk your health in a far greater way just because Gordon Brown wants a few cheap votes

[thenodrog]

Why weed should be legal....

It's quite shocking that you can risk your health in a far greater way just because Gordon Brown wants a few cheap votes

I'll bet you are dying for the govt to legalise cannabis so that you can finally try some Bucky!

Problem is that smoking cannabis usually goes with furtive impoverished and inarticulate people smoking a few spliffs in somebodies scruffy flat. Not a form of social intercourse that I find an attraction. But hey if you are skint then I guess it's OK .... just not as good as the real thing.

[Gareth]

You make your points well, Gareth ......but surely if the government cleans up the drugs to make them safer then that, to a great extent, defeats the object of those who would take them. They don't want ineffective watered down stuff. They want to get their brains blasted out.

Can you really make a heroin substitute that gives the user the same "kick" but that is in any way safe or non addictive? After all, even at present it isn't in the supplier's interests to sell bad grade drugs and I can't recall many cases of death through "impure" supplies (although, granted, they probably don't get much publicity). This may sound callous but even if some do die in such ways it's hardly a great loss to society.

With regard to your last paragraph you seem to have accepted the fact that the hard drugs would have to be "free/at minimal cost". I've always argued that would have to be the case. In effect the tax payer would be paying to keep the druggies "hushed up" with the benefit being that their (the tax payers) lives would be less blighted by crime.

Maybe it would, maybe it would only have a very limited effect but it smacks of the kind of social engineering that many autocracies would be proud of. It's not what I call progress for society.

Users of ANY substance (inc booze & fags) do it for the effects, as you put it "to get their brains blasted out", or at least to feel the effects.

The "heroin substitute" would most likely be, well, heroin - in it's pure form - methadone's not as effective as medication. Heroin on its own isn't a bad substance, yes, it's very addictive (but less so than nicotine), but the problems with its usage are due to impurities it contains (as its illegal) and using unclean equipment.

I agree it's not in the supplier's interests to sell bad-quality stuff, but if you have a legal supply, the users would know how strong it is and adjust their dosage accordingly.

Yeah, I'm saying that the tax-payer should pay (legal supplies would be a lot cheaper in any event even if was a free-for-all) and the crime reduction (burglaries, muggings, forced prostitution, etc) would more than pay for it (the Swiss experience proves this point), so society would benefit overall. At the same time you'd also eliminate turf wars caused by the black market.

It's not "social engineering", it's accepting that prohibition/morality-based policies don't work.

[Gareth]

Problem is that smoking cannabis usually goes with furtive impoverished and inarticulate people smoking a few spliffs in somebodies scruffy flat. Not a form of social intercourse that I find an attraction. But hey if you are skint then I guess it's OK .... just not as good as the real thing.

You've obviously never been a student then

[BuckyRover]

I'll bet you are dying for the govt to legalise cannabis so that you can finally try some Bucky!

Problem is that smoking cannabis usually goes with furtive impoverished and inarticulate people smoking a few spliffs in somebodies scruffy flat. Not a form of social intercourse that I find an attraction. But hey if you are skint then I guess it's OK .... just not as good as the real thing.

Shakespeare?

[LeChuck]

Problem is that smoking cannabis usually goes with furtive impoverished and inarticulate people smoking a few spliffs in somebodies scruffy flat.

Not like you to generalise TND.

And, as usual, you're way off.

[Sparky Marky]

Problem is that smoking cannabis usually goes with furtive impoverished and inarticulate people smoking a few spliffs in somebodies scruffy flat. Not a form of social intercourse that I find an attraction. But hey if you are skint then I guess it's OK .... just not as good as the real thing.

Clueless Buffoon

[philipl]

Scientific article

[Gareth]

How much are we wasting on prohibition?

Quite a lot apparently...

[Gareth]

Cannabis back up to a Class B.

Sigh... So much for evidence based policies...

[philipl]

Another reason for decriminalising

[blue phil]

Reads like a further argument for more rigorously enforcing the laws to me , Philip ......

[colin]

Reads like a further argument for changing the laws to me , Philip ......

[blue phil]

I agree with you on that statement , Colin .

[philipl]

BBC blog explains how the drugs anti-prohibition argument is rapidly gaining ground

[blue phil]

A BBC blog ....!! ??

Talk about scraping the barrel . You'll be pointing us toward a Guardian blog next .....

I've got bad news for you , Philip ........if Labour haven't done much to bring about your dream of free hard drugs for all the wasters out there then I doubt the next government will do . Go back to sleep for a few decades

[Billy Castell]

It's not just humans that are smackheads

I'm in two minds. On the one hand, if we can legalise all the hard drugs, then it can presumably be regulated as is the case with alcohol. On the other, I think people who are my age and start doing heavy duty drugs are idiots. We all know the dangers, we all know we can end up sucking off some bloke in an ally in order to get our next fix so why start? I have no answers really, as if we legalise it, it could be very hard to take it from dodgy blokes on street corners and move it to pubs or Boots where it can be regulated.

[Majiball]

Before I write what I will below I have to say I am adamently againast Drugs.

Holland have Cannabis decrimanlised, they also in turn have the lowest % of hard drug users in europe (at least I think I'm right there). Surely the fact its taboo is the reason kids start using it. Once they pop they can't stop as pringles would say. I know it would not go down well with most people if the decision was made to de-crimilise it, but in the same breath how do you stop it?? Its a massive industry run by nasty people, the police really have no chance. Making it available on mass would mean taxes and the end of criminal control (you make it cheaper).

At the end of the day I think its sad that people feel the need to use drugs to feel better or fit in with their peers. Reality is a far better and rewarding experience.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Majiball

[philipl]

Cabinet Office Strategy Unit Report on failing drugs policy