Why is drug liberalisation so hard to sell politically?

[JPreston]

If we legalised all drugs.

Should we still have harsher penalities for acts of public disorder that are performed by someone who isn't sober?

I still think that anyone who drink drives should be given an instant ban for at least 5 years. Then again, having seen a 6 year old boy loose his farther, by a drunk driver who pleeded in court that he'd only had 3 pints of larger, mabye i'm a bit over zelous against that.

Oi! No getting bogged down in practicalities in this thread please!

I am under the impression that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs can actually be a mitigating circumstance for public order offences - resulting in softer sentences. Whatever though, have it whichever either way you like it has nothing to do with the legal status of the drug itself. In the case of currently illegal drugs possession is a separate charge, and it's not a crime in itself simply to be under the influence of an illegal drug in a public place, or to have taken a drug in the past.

Drunk drivers are indeed scum and this extends to everyone driving under the influence of any other drug. If the evidence suggests that (say) a 48-hour sobering-up period is required after taking X amount of drug Y before a person should drive, then legislation should of course reflect this...driving legislation. Make it illegal to take Night Nurse and drive as well if that's appropriate, as long as we have legislation that reflects the physiological effects of each substance; science- not ideology-based. Sweat swab tests, blood tests following an accident, or whatever would all continue to supplement breath tests to test for the influence of other drugs.

Alcohol is actually an example of why liberalisation is not a problem for driving legislation; it's completely legal to possess and consume as much alcohol as you like but completely illegal to drive while under the influence....in exactly the same way that drug Z could be made completely legal to possess while remaining illegal to drive under the influence of. The legal status of that drug is and would remain completely irrelevant for anything other than charges relating to its supply and possession. Drug-driving already occurs because prohibition does not work, it would not be a new result of liberalisation.

[Saracen]

....

Alcohol is actually an example of why liberalisation is not a problem for driving legislation; it's completely legal to possess and consume as much alcohol as you like but completely illegal to drive while under the influence....in exactly the same way that drug Z could be made completely legal to possess while remaining illegal to drive under the influence of. ....

My view exactly.

And it works both ways. Not everybody drives. Whether someone can or can't take or legally possess certain drugs shouldn't depend on their ability to or inclination to drive. So, if a drug should, all other things being equal, be legal why should a non-driver be prevented from having it because other people drive?

I see it as two distinct issues ....... possessing and taking drugs is one issue, while driving under the influence of drugs of whatever type is another.

[TheAnimus]

I think your missing my point about added complexities.

If you have a blanket librarisation, then you have added costs with dealing with each exotic products use.

We have this at the moment with a lot of perscription drugs say, but with a full legalisation, increase in availability and potentially consuption, the nock on effect on EVERYTHING has to be considered, and costs produced.

That said, the simplest and least violent way to win any war, is and always will be economic. If you remove the massive margin for drug dealers, then the funding of organised crime will rapidly dry up.

[Lucio]

I think the reason it's so hard to sell politically is because many of the politicians aren't convinced that it's worth doing. One of the biggest motivations in politics is to maintain the status quo. Many of the new laws we've seen introduced in the last 10 years have been aimed as keeping things still, instead of adapating society and guiding it towards a new end, they're aimed at keeping things the same.


Personally, I don't support the arguement that legalising drugs is really the way forward, we already have far too many ways for people to stop being productive members of society and making drugs more readily available would only increase the numbers of people taking them. More importantly, many class A and B drugs are far more adictive than people can understand, especially when young, and once you're hooked, it can be incredibly hard to get off them, leading to a lifelong problem all because of one mistake.

[kalniel]

More importantly, many class A and B drugs are far more adictive than people can understand, especially when young, and once you're hooked, it can be incredibly hard to get off them, leading to a lifelong problem all because of one mistake.

Same with fags though, right?

[SeriousSam]

Having thought about it drugs legalisation is actually a bit of a non-issue currently. What benefit does it bring to any political party to start a debate on a subject where the public have been lied too for so long that having a reasoned discussion is nigh on impossible. Further to that we are in the last phase of government before a general election. So finding ways to convince the public to vote for you is top of the agenda, and there are far more viable topics for that available. Besides in some ways, as I have stated before, it is in some ways politically expedient to perpetuate the lies. If you want to push through unpopular legislation then create an even greater horror that will occur if you don’t put it into law. Modern governance is about control and the most effective method is keeping the populous ignorant and in fear of the unknown or "different". The same stands for the media, create hysteria to sell papers… the truth is an irrelevance.

In regard to the actual population of the UK and what their stance on legalisation, or even relaxing of some of the scheduling laws it is tough to say. Sadly I think that it is one of those subjects where people react first and then think later. Yes I’m sure there is a proportion of the population that is in favour of drug liberalisation, but there is also a proportion that has entirely the opposite view and guess which one will scream and shout the loudest. You will never convince these people because their thought process is based on emotion rather than logic, and they are also the easiest ones to manipulate. So governments and the media will focus on them, rather than say subscribers to these forums as we don’t take things at face value and always question what we are being told.

The situation is worse in the States than it is here, but there are parallels in terms of political leaders. Obama is the first intelligent president since Nixon, and even that side of him was played down during the elections. There is a tendency to fear “intelligence” and even distrust it as people think that they are being manipulated. The irony being that they are being manipulated all the time by politicians etc. that use emotion as an oratory tool. Of course it is called “connecting with the electorate” to make it sound palatable. So politicians over there will pander to the "all drugs are evil" mentality as they are the ones swayed by emotion, and thus easiest to draw to your side.

Now whilst we haven’t had a prime minister as unintelligent as George Bush, I don’t think any we’ve had in recent times have been that smart. Shrewd political operators and ruthlessly single-minded in a few cases, delusional and slippery in others. Our current incumbent is a lot less smart than he thinks he is, and is definitely one for dressing up emotional decisions with verbose post rationalised rhetoric. Plus he has a rather strange puritanical streak, which is at odds with some of his other views, so the chances of him pushing drug legalisation is rather slim. Again they have all relied on bold emotive statements in their leadership, so why start an intelligent debate and risk losing votes.

That just leaves individuals pushing a more rational approach to drug liberalisation, which does happen, as evidenced by some of the links posted in this thread. In fact I seem to remember that one of the former “drug tsars” come out and said that the war on drugs wasn’t winnable, a waste of tax payers money and a new approach should be found as soon as he left the job. Something he clearly couldn’t have said while he was in the job as he’d have to tow the party line. Over time we may see more individuals raising the subject as further credible research is carried out, and ironically as the “House Generation” reaches middle age and beyond.

Personally, I don't support the arguement that legalising drugs is really the way forward, we already have far too many ways for people to stop being productive members of society and making drugs more readily available would only increase the numbers of people taking them. More importantly, many class A and B drugs are far more adictive than people can understand, especially when young, and once you're hooked, it can be incredibly hard to get off them, leading to a lifelong problem all because of one mistake.

First off increasing the number of ways for people to stop being productive members of society isn't the issue, that they dont want to be productive is the problem. In addition, and in relation to your second point most illicit drugs are less addictive and toxic than alcohol and nicotene so that would be a step forward in a wierd way. Yes there are some illicit drugs like heroin and crack that are very toxic and addictive, but guess what they still rank lower than nicotene on both those measures. Oh and don't even get me started on prescription drugs, some of them make ecstacy look like smarties

[Lucio]

Same with fags though, right?

Not quite, ciggarettes take at least a few packets before you pick up the physical addiction. Whereas things like heroin can become addictive from the very first dose.

[kalniel]

Not quite, ciggarettes take at least a few packets before you pick up the physical addiction. Whereas things like heroin can become addictive from the very first dose.

Actually there is enough nicotine to develop some form of physical addiction after only one, for some people. Likewise some people aren't addicted to some class A drugs even after several doses. There are plenty of legal products that are very addictive, so it's not really a very good way of determining whether something should be legal or not IMHO.

[r3loaded]

There needs to be a clear distinction between drug addicts (the ones who need help the most) and drug dealers (the ones who blight society and and should be put away for a long time). Drug laws should therefore be adjusted to heavily punish the trading of drugs, while consumption and possession of a personal quantity should be decriminalised.

The most important thing is to give drug users the support they need to get them off drugs so that they can become an economically beneficial part of society rather than a hindrance.

[Michael]

There needs to be a clear distinction between drug addicts (the ones who need help the most) and drug dealers (the ones who blight society and and should be put away for a long time). Drug laws should therefore be adjusted to heavily punish the trading of drugs, while consumption and possession of a personal quantity should be decriminalised.

The most important thing is to give drug users the support they need to get them off drugs so that they can become an economically beneficial part of society rather than a hindrance.

Whattt?

What drugs are you talking about here?

I'm about to pick up a bag of weed, pay for it, and casually smoke it throughout the week.

At no point during any of this will I be hindering society or be economically UNbeneficial. There will be no muggings or burglaries. Who am I hurting? Nobody.

I work full time, for little pay because I am an apprentice, which means iI am actively working towards something that will better my life. I have tickets bought and paid for to go travelling next year, which I have saved for out of my own money.

As a normal member of society, who happens to smoke a bit of pot, I don't feel like I need any kind of 'help'. Really... stereotypes of drug users are insane.

I'm not denying there are scumbags who will put an OAP in hospital for £2.50, but really, they are a minority, just like all (fill in the blank) are not terrorists.

[JPreston]

Personally, I don't support the arguement that legalising drugs is really the way forward, we already have far too many ways for people to stop being productive members of society and making drugs more readily available would only increase the numbers of people taking them. More importantly, many class A and B drugs are far more adictive than people can understand, especially when young, and once you're hooked, it can be incredibly hard to get off them, leading to a lifelong problem all because of one mistake.

Can I outlaw football then? You see, I personally choose not play or watch football and think that the time that people spend playing, watching or talking about football should be spent on more productive activites such as working, or purchasing consumer goods. Clearly people cannot be trusted with personal choice when it comes to football - because they might make a choice that is different to mine, and obviously I know best - so why don't we just outlaw football altogether?

[Lucio]

Can I outlaw football then? You see, I personally choose not play or watch football and think that the time that people spend playing, watching or talking about football should be spent on more productive activites such as working, or purchasing consumer goods. Clearly people cannot be trusted with personal choice when it comes to football - because they might make a choice that is different to mine, and obviously I know best - so why don't we just outlaw football altogether?

That arguement makes no sense at all! You're trying to draw a parallel between entertainment and something that physically changes your body....

The alcohol and tobbacco arguements at least try and draw parallel's between similiar things..

[JPreston]

That arguement makes no sense at all! You're trying to draw a parallel between entertainment and something that physically changes your body....

The alcohol and tobbacco arguements at least try and draw parallel's between similiar things..

"Changes your body"? You do realise we are talking about recreational drugs, and not the green gas in 'Planet Terror'? A moment ago you wanted drugs outlawed because you believe they cause people to be less productive than you would like them to be, but now physical harm is the criteria?

OK then, following you down the rabbit-hole I've also banned fast food. That's very bad for you; it causes obesity, heart disease, various cancers and diabetes and that's just listing the ones off the top of my head. Clearly people cannot be trusted to choose whether to ingest fast food, and since in this country we do not allow adults to make informed decisions about their own health and lifestyle we cannot allow fast food in future.

And bleach! It is not currently illegal to drink bleach, but it's a very harmful pastime. I know very few people recreationally drink bleach, and that is because the (small) narcotic uplift that drinking bleach produces is not worth the (large) associated health risk. Meanwhile other substances that are so harmful we outlaw them altogether have historically been consumed quite commonly, because a large body of people (all obviously far less knowledgeable than you and me) erroneously judge their short-term positive effects to actually be worth the associated health risk. Who do they think they are, deciding things for themselves? Since these people are obviously so foolish that we have to prohibit many drugs altogether to keep them out of their hands (which has been so successful that there is no illicit market for drugs anywhere), why do we persist in letting them choose whether or not they drink bleach? The only logical answer is to pass specific laws forbidding the consumption of everything that might be harmful to anyone. And while we do all of this, let's keep tobacco legal...because....because....well maybe you'd like to explain that one?

And no, sorry I'm having football - or rather noone is having football ever again. People get injured playing (and fighting over) football - causing a drain on the NHS and they don't even pay a special tax to cover this cost in the way that smokers do. I'm sorry that you regard football as mere entertainment in a similar way that Michael does his weed, but we all have to make sacrifices if we are to build a better society, don't we? Otherwise we'd just be dictating what people may or may not do with their own bodies based on our own personal preferences, without any objective assessment of harm to health and without any regard for personal freedom.

And while I'm at it, if you're keeping ecstasy illegal then I get to ban both angling and horse-riding since both of these activities are many many times more hazardous to health than that particular drug. Obviously a 30-year-old adult who goes out at the weekend to recklessly sit right next to a dangerous body of water, perhaps under power lines, does serious damage to society and is certainly incapable of holding down a job during the week. This degenerate must be criminalised and imprisoned (at great cost to the taxpayer) in order to protect him from himself, there is no other solution.

This is all just common sense, isn't it?

[Michael]

Excellent points JPreston, and absolutely true.

Whatever somebody decides to do with their own body is their choice, and as I say, It has zero negative effects to society or anybody else, so what's the problem? There are none. The laws that are being broken are, as is being discussed, ridiculous and shouldn't exist in the first place. They exist just to keep people in jobs in my mind. Imagine how much 'the man' stands to lose if extasy, weed and cocaine were legal. Entire police divisions out of work, charities, even the jail system would be hit dramatically.

For reasons like those it will never happen, but oh well, I will always be able to buy a bag of weed as and when it suits me, and that's good enough for me.

Anyway, as the social and economical degenerate I am, I obviously won't be heading off out to work, on a Sunday, out of my own choice in a minute.

[TooNice]

Actually there is enough nicotine to develop some form of physical addiction after only one, for some people. Likewise some people aren't addicted to some class A drugs even after several doses. There are plenty of legal products that are very addictive, so it's not really a very good way of determining whether something should be legal or not IMHO.

How about the potential for overdose? Let's assume that those class A drugs are manufactured properly (no other substance beside what it is), how much quantity would it take to kill a person? Or would that simply not happen? I've not really heard of anyone dying from cigarettes. Not that I would miss it if it was banned - except maybe for the loss of tax which may need to come from other places. How lethal is it compared to alcohol poisoning (without medical aid would one likely die before the other).

There is one side of me that says, I am not bothered either way. You (not you in particular, but people who smoke, drink or take whatever substances) take responsibility of your actions, and if you die as a result from taking too much of whatever, it's your own fault. But I am curious - in all my life I have yet to personally know a person who managed to kill him/herself by drinking too much - even though frankly speaking, I do think that many -do- drink too much and will suffer in the long term. In contrast, I know one person during middle school who died from drug overdose.

The laws that are being broken are, as is being discussed, ridiculous and shouldn't exist in the first place. They exist just to keep people in jobs in my mind. Imagine how much 'the man' stands to lose if extasy, weed and cocaine were legal. Entire police divisions out of work, charities, even the jail system would be hit dramatically.

A little paranoid aren't we? There are enough crimes to go around for the police/fill the prisons, even without drug related crimes and enough and more causes than I care to list, for charity workers.

[Michael]

I've not really heard of anyone dying from cigarettes.

What?

in all my life I have yet to personally know a person who managed to kill him/herself by drinking too much

Maybe you haven't, but plenty have, including me.

A little paranoid aren't we? There are enough crimes to go around for the police/fill the prisons, even without drug related crimes and enough and more causes than I care to list, for charity workers.

Not really paranoid, no, just making a point.

To be honest, my stance on the law regarding drugs is irrelevant, because wether it is legal or not, I will buy and enjoy my drugs for a long time to come.

My issue is with people who have the idea that anybody who uses any kind of recreational drug is a deadbeat and a career criminal; If that is the mindset of the people in control, then really, do they have the mental capacity to deal with actual important issues? It's an absurd notion and people who have the idea are probably more of a drain on society than anybody who does take drugs...