I'd recommend the new albums by Elbow (The Seldom-Seen Kid) and Portishead (Third)

Cannabis back up to a Class B.

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

How much are we wasting on prohibition?

Quite a lot apparently...

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

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.

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.

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 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.

Obviously some things in society have to be subject to "prohibition" . Others don't . It's a matter of opinion .

But to put them all in the same bracket and lump them all in alongside the phrase "nanny state" is just plain daft .

The Nanny State label is apt: grass/E/mushrooms/LSD, etc are banned for no apparent reason other than that the politicians don't want us to use them (for our own good of course) and the bans aren't based on any evidence of their need or effectiveness, and seemingly ignoring the consequences of the bans - substances in the control of criminals, violent crimes resulting from a black market in the trade, a complete lack of quality control - while at the same time allowing fags and booze to be freely available.

An absurd generalisation ......

Please explain

Two-year-old boy becomes the latest tragic victim of the drugs menace

For the 30-year-old man held on suspicion of neglect, I fear that he may get a pathetically low sentence, instead of the judge sending out a strong message to other drug users who are neglecting their kids.

In my view liberal Britain has not been tough enough in recent decades on the junkies and dealers who break the law. If Britain is to have any chance of winning the drugs war in this country, then tougher action and sentences are needed.

Is prohibition really something you support? Isn't that just part of the Nanny State?

Lighter sentences for the druggies who burgle our homes and steal in shops

Gordon Brown was a senior member of the New Labour shadow cabinet who went along with Tony Blair's "Tough on crime" promise to the British people before the 1997 election. It turned out to be one of many broken promises from New Labour.

We have a situation now where violent and dangerous criminals are currently being freed early to keep prison numbers down. New Labour are soft on crime and soft on the druggie scumbags who heap misery on us by breaking into our homes and stealing our property to feed their drug habits.

There are approximately 80,000 prisoners in Britain and the jails are almost at bursting point. This is because New Labour have not built enough prisons over the last decade to keep up with a growing population in our country and consequently our jails are seriously overcrowded. (I'm probably not allowed to discuss the issue of foreign prisoners and immigrants heaping further significant pressure on our prisons.)

In my view New Labour should by now have built enough prisons to house at least 100,000 criminals. With a British population of at least 60 million, a prison capacity of 100,000 would mean roughly one prison place for every six hundred of the population. Given the violence and disorder we see and regularly hear about on our streets, I think it's fair to suggest that jailing one person for every six hundred people would not be excessive.

It would also mean that judges would be able to give the druggie scumbags who burgle our homes proper sentences which take them away from the streets and into secure prison accommodation. The current policy from New Labour of giving druggie burglars light community sentences and a little slap on the wrist is certainly not being "tough on crime".

Well it's good to see that Prohibition is a resounding success...

"Druggie scumbags"? It's good to see that the author has a grasp on the situation, instead of resorting of name-calling and fear-mongering... Building more prisons doesn't solve anything - you need to tackle the causes of crime, not just lock people away.

EDIT I've fonud this article which seems to sum up the arguments used in that Torygraph article. It's related to the US Governor who's resigned for shagging prostitutes, but applies to drugs as well:

Misadventures in logical reasoning

...

Sometimes, people use drugs (prescription or recreational), get addicted and then steal or act violently. Therefore, we should outlaw all drugs (rather than just outlaw theft and violence).

Sometimes, people force women against their will to work as prostitutes. Therefore, we should outlaw all prostitution (rather than just outlaw forced prostitution and human trafficking).

Things I learned over the last 48 hours

* It's possible to eliminate recreational activities that people have engaged in privately for thousands of years simply by making it illegal and then imprisoning the people who do it. Thus, we criminalize prostitution and drugs to ensure that nobody does those things.

...

* Sometimes, adults make choices for their own lives that other adults perceive to be bad choices. When that happens, the adults who know better have the right to step in, pass laws to restrict the bad choices, and even make the bad choices criminal -- all for the good of the adults who don't know what's good for them.

...

* The way you protect someone who is doing things you don't like is to turn them into criminals and force them to do it underground.

Crackdowns on Crack are Crackers says this report.

Bill Clinton apologises for increasing crack sentences while US president.

Perhaps our perpetual-link posting friend from Malta could tell us all if he favours the government prescribing hard (or even soft) drugs to kids who are obviously addicts when they are barely in their teens and still at school.

If you legalise them you take the glamour out of them and so addicts be seen for what they are - people with problems, like alcoholics. That'd turn the kids away from them. Anyway, what's wrong with someone having a spliff in their own home? They could purchase them from some regulated place, only the more medicinal stuff like heroin would be on prescription, not stuff like grass.

Or would they have to kick their heels at the local Brownie or pony club until they're 18? Make no mistake; if the legalisation of all drugs were to take place then this measure would have to be taken if the scheme were to be in any way effective in reducing crime and prostitution.

I agree. if there is a legal market for the stuff, there would be regulations on who can buy them and when, a la booze and fags, which is a lot more effective way of dealing with them, than the current way which is to have a black market under the control of criminals.

Otherwise the dealers would NOT go away - they would just concentrate on ever younger victims in order to keep in business .

In the way that people who make moonshine specifically try to get the kiddies addicted?

NO2ID have found a document (pdf) over how ID cards will be sued and forced pn the public, which they've annotated.

The Register has a good guide to it.

A study has been published by NORML which claims to show that driving while stoned is safer than drink driving.

An opinion poll in the Telegraph says that more people now oppose ID cards than support them (48% against, 43% support).

The drop in support is due to the recent revelations over the child benefit database... At least some good has come out of it then.

The illicit drugs industry

Wonder how much tax money would be obtained if prohibition wasn't around?

Heroin clinics cut crime, reduce use and stabilise users' lives and families

Trial leader Professor John Strang, of the National Addiction Centre, based at London's Institute of Psychiatry, told BBC News that about 40% of users had "quit their involvement with the street scene completely".

"Of those who have continued, which obviously is a disappointment, it goes down from every day to about four days per month," he added.

"Their crimes, for example, have gone from 40 a month to perhaps four crimes per month.

"The reduction in crime is not perfect but is a great deal better for them and crucially a great deal better for society."

Many were leading much more stable lives and were enjoying better family relationships because they were no longer in and out of prison...

Similar heroin injection schemes in Holland and Switzerland have reported some users turning away from crime.

Speaks for itself... heroin clinics work.

Charlton are having a crap season, therefore, we're bound to lose

Chalrton 2-0

A comedown from our UEFA Cup qualification

Rovers 0-2 Fulham

I'm hoping that we'll get the draw we need to go through, but as it's Rovers, we'll lose and make it difficult to ourselves as usual...

Feyenoord 2-0

Another defeat 2-0

0-2 Utd

Well, they have to beat us a home some time..

Come down from Thursday: Villa 3-0