New possible drugs policy

[Lucio]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100727...s-6323e80.html

Found this article this morning and it's certainly an interesting idea, turning drugs users from criminals who need to be punished into people with a problem that needs to be fixed. Whilst I'm still not convinced that drugs should be freely available in our society, and would defiantely want heavy criminal penalties to apply to those distributing them, it may be a more realistic and cost effective approach to handle the users differently.

[DeludedGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Its a good example of a good policy...it also means police are given back more time to do other duties, but would also increase the need for more medical staff.

[SeriousSam]

Whilst at first glance this would appear to be a step in the right direction, i.e. ending the futile and ultimately doomed “War on Drugs”, it is actually just as myopic as the existing situation. Drugs, including alcohol and nicotine, are not the problem… as they are just a means of escape from reality, much like reading a book. The problem is that our society is so pressurising that people feel the need to find ever increasing degrees of “escape”. Until we deal with this situation by (a) making our society easier to live in and (b) accepting that prohibition just makes the situation worse we are destined to end up living in a “Brave New World”.

[Rave]

Gotta love Professor Nutt. In fairness I've been saying the same thing for 10+ years but I'm not in the public eye so no-one listens to me.

I can say from experience that it's hugely good fun asking politicians about their drug policy at hustings/ on your doorstep when they canvas at election time etc.

Just ask with a completely straight face what they plan to do about the drug use epidemic in this county. When they come out with the usual 'war on drugs' crud shoot straight back with the fact that the level of heroin dependency has increased 1000 fold since they made it a controlled substance, and watch their faces drop.

Or- use Nutt's 'Equasy' argument. Equally profitable.

[XA04]

Surely fining drug addicts will cause other crimes to go up due to them stealing etc to pay for their habits?...

[Lucio]

Surely fining drug addicts will cause other crimes to go up due to them stealing etc to pay for their habits?...

Unless it's a fine backed with a mandatory treatment clinic, including substitutes designed to wean people off the addiction. Obviously no where near self funding just off the fines, but combined with the drops in crime and hopefully lower rate of overdose, it might just work out better.

[oolon]

“Brave New World”.

Actually a Brave New World is probably the wrong example, in that book, work classes (Epsilons) where breed from the cell to be stupid and chemically dependant, and taught to like being so (no need for that weighty thinking leave that up to the alphas). The mass of the population was controlled by the use of drugs, given to the workers after a good days work.

[Saracen]

Gotta love Professor Nutt. In fairness I've been saying the same thing for 10+ years but I'm not in the public eye so no-one listens to me.
....

Couldn't agree more.

Whilst at first glance this would appear to be a step in the right direction, i.e. ending the futile and ultimately doomed “War on Drugs”, it is actually just as myopic as the existing situation. Drugs, including alcohol and nicotine, are not the problem… as they are just a means of escape from reality, much like reading a book. The problem is that our society is so pressurising that people feel the need to find ever increasing degrees of “escape”. Until we deal with this situation by (a) making our society easier to live in and (b) accepting that prohibition just makes the situation worse we are destined to end up living in a “Brave New World”.

The problem is .... is that underlying cause actually solvable?

My attitude is that the 'war on drugs' is self-evidently a dismal failure, and demonstrably so, after a prolonged period. If you're going to go to war on drugs, go to war on drugs dealers, and I don't mean the poor sap shifting a few items to mates to support his/her habit. I mean those raking in the money.

But treat most forms of drug addiction the same way we do those addicted to cigarettes or alcohol, because ultimately, it's the same thing. And we don't lock people up for possessing either of them, or for selling a pack or two, or a bottle, to a mate.

As I see it, the biggest single effect of the drug trade is the vast amount of petty crime done to support it. If addicts can get legalised support and don't have to commit crime, petty crime (and some not so petty) could reasonably be expected to collapse overnight.

And in addition to decriminalising many/most forms of drugs, treat people as having a medical problem and de-stigmatise it as well. It's perfectly possible for people to come off even serious addictions to hard drugs and turn their lives right around .... providing they get the support it requires both to get off, and afterwards to stay off. I'm not saying it's easy 'cos it isn't, or that everyone wants to do it, but it can be done. and part of it consists of addressing the underlying problem you refer to which is showing addicts that they can have a future worth having, if they want it and work at it.

Of course, this requires money as the level and scale of support won't be easy or cheap, but compared to the societal costs of the crime that is the alternative, it seems to me to be a no-brainer. At the very least, it's worth a good old try, because the current strategy is, as far as I'm concerned, demonstrably an abject failure.

The real problem is what Rave alluded to ....

I can say from experience that it's hugely good fun asking politicians about their drug policy at hustings/ on your doorstep when they canvas at election time etc.

Just ask with a completely straight face what they plan to do about the drug use epidemic in this county. When they come out with the usual 'war on drugs' crud shoot straight back with the fact that the level of heroin dependency has increased 1000 fold since they made it a controlled substance, and watch their faces drop.

That's exactly the problem .... the political will to do what I suggest simply doesn't exist, because no (or certainly not enough) mainstream politicians have the courage to admit that the current strategy isn't even keeping us with a score draw and is actually an ongoing and worsening defeat, because they fear an electoral backlash if they are seen as soft on drugs.

And without the political will, any attempt at change is about as productive as farting into a hurricane .... it won't do any good and you risk merely ending up covered in bad smell.

[scaryjim]

Of course, this requires money as the level and scale of support won't be easy or cheap...

And in fact, the money is already there to a certain extent. The government is already funding 2500 drug treatment providers *just in England*. And they're spending millions on a failing war on drugs. At least if they stopped the war on drugs they'd only be spending big bucks at one end of the process...

[matty-hodgson]

Why don't they just let us do what we want? At the end of the day, it's my body so I should be able to put whatever I want into it, whenever I want.

[scaryjim]

Because the government doesn't want to be in charge of a nation of tripped-out wasters, basically. It's considered bad for society in general for people to be free to avoid sobriety in whatever way they choose.

It's also a load of excrement, of course, but that's basically the up and down of it...

[Lucio]

There is one other underlying reason why legalising drugs would be a bad thing, the source of the drugs themselves are traditionally a bunch of violent criminal thugs, often working against our international partners. In addition, you'd have to get pretty much an international agreement that it's ok to legalise drugs, because our partners would otherwise worry about making it easier to smuggle drugs into *their* country for ours (e.g. a shipment marked "FOR THE UK" ends up instead in France where it attracts a lot higher value)

[G4Z]

Anybody else been watching this?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/our-drugs-war

[EnderDace]

My attitude is that the 'war on drugs' is self-evidently a dismal failure, and demonstrably so, after a prolonged period.

100% correct!

If you're going to go to war on drugs, go to war on drugs dealers, and I don't mean the poor sap shifting a few items to mates to support his/her habit. I mean those raking in the money.

This won't work though. Drugs are just too easy to produce, and people want them too much.

Drugs need to be legalised, there's no two ways about it. In a society that is as un-oppressive and un-fascist as ours there's just no way to stamp out the easy to hide drugs trade. Given that there will be a drugs trade whether it's legal or not, you need to look at the pros and cons of either method.

Many of the worst things about drug abuse actually come from the fact it's illegal. Like the prohibition it hands criminals a total monopoly on production and sale of the drugs. Among themselves they often fight to monopolise the entire trade in their area. Drug addicts are forced to pay enormous amounts, and steal, rob or prostitute themselves to pay for it. Impure and deliberately bulked-out drugs can cause side effects and poison people.

If we legalise drugs, institute a government monopoly selling all non-addictive drugs with pure, well regulated supplies, fewer poisonings would happen. Addictive drugs such as heroin and crack could be available on prescription, the only cost to them - attendance at non-oppressive drug therapy. Who would rather rob people or shag them to scrape money to buy rubbish crack from scum when the government will provide it and help you get off it. Criminals will be cut out of the loop. No more drug gangs. No more dealers, shootings, etc.

The downside of legal drugs is that they will be more available. So more people may take them. Will they? We don't really know, but it's certainly possible. But many drugs are legal- alcohol, caffeine and until recently magic mushrooms. Has society collapsed from these drugs? Why would it collapse if different types of non addictive drugs were available? Alcohol is far more dangerous than most of them, as David Nutt would verify.

[Brucelles]

At this moment there are 439 members logged into the uk420.com forum. It has 41,465 registered members, including myself. If this is winning the war on drugs, can you imagine the losing of it?

I read an estimate by the North Yorkshire plod that there were probably half a million people in Britain who have, at some point, grown their own dope. I don't see any downside to that. There are certainly a few criminal enterprises among that number, but the majority are just people like me, with a plant or two. De-criminalise us and what would change? Virtually nothing. The law doesn't stop us and removing it wouldn't encourage us. This is a case where the law is an ass.

[Agent]

An interesting read: http://neurobonkers.com/?p=1032