The "war" on drugs

[Agent]

So it's finally started to kick off in the government. About time.

David Nutt, sacked for this comments on drugs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

An advisor resigns: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8336635.stm

Second advisor: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8336884.stm

And Johnson is still adamant: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8336509.stm

The "war on drugs" farce is starting to fall down. I just pray this doesn't get blown over with other news in a few days time, I hope this kicks off big time.

This "war" can't be won. You can't stop people growing a plant in their house or garden with any effectiveness. You can't stop the production of drugs that any A-level student can make in his kitchen.
But you can provide a safe source for those that want to try drugs. It's about time we started to seriously consider this route as a nation, and stop listening to the same old drone from the people at the top.

Where has this "war" got us? Billions wasted in tax money...and I can still go out on a weekend and buy Ecstasy in a club for considerably less than it would cost me to get drunk on alcohol (and we are constantly being told this is too cheap for us!).

This farce has to end.

[0iD]

I've seen just as many people screwed up on the effects of so-called soft drugs as I have alcohol whilst working for charity MIND. Why aren't there more people with these problems? Maybe because the drugs aren't more widely available? Having said that, I'm interested to see what is going to happen in a few years in Portugal with the new liberalised outlook on drugs.

[badass]

The problem with liberalising drug laws is that you can't convince the average potential voter that's the thing to do. So it won't happen. It's one unforrtunate facet of democracy. Thick people have more of an influence on how the country's run than intelligent people that know what they are doing. Still, if anyone has any better ideas of how to deal with who runs a country, I'm sure they'll get ignored by the majority anyway.

[nichomach]

I'm with Agent on this. Unfortunately, we are in the era of "Policy-based evidence-making".

[Knoxville]

Why aren't there more people with these problems? Maybe because the drugs aren't more widely available?

It depends on where you live obviously but when I was 15/16 it was easier for me to get my hands on cannabis and cheap pills than alchohol and drugs are even more widely available today, especially cocaine and steroids recently. The only drugs that aren't widely available are methamphetamines, opiates and crack cocaine in my experience and that's a very very good thing.

[Sippin40oz]

You cant deny the dangers of illegal substances. But there is a reason why Holland has the lowest cannabis use in europe and that isnt because of the government taking some stupid moral high ground!!! And the governments own statistics show when cannabis was lowered to class c its use fell and when they raised it to class B again its use increased! Drugs policy should be based on facts and the reduction of use. And they only way to do that is to decriminalise everything and help people instead of truning them to a life of crime.

[Mblaster]

I've seen just as many people screwed up on the effects of so-called soft drugs as I have alcohol whilst working for charity MIND. Why aren't there more people with these problems? Maybe because the drugs aren't more widely available? Having said that, I'm interested to see what is going to happen in a few years in Portugal with the new liberalised outlook on drugs.

From my experience drugs are pretty widely available, ever since I reached 15 years old.

You cant deny the dangers of illegal substances.

There's danger in most substances, but where is the acceptable level of danger. Many people would argue that some of the legal drugs are more dangerous that some illegal ones (see the links in the OP).

Also - in my opinion the more important argument - should laws attempt to protect people from themselves? If someone wants to take a drug that is known to negatively effect their health, so what? It's their choice to make, just like other life choices effect your health (e.g. diet and exercise). I think it's for similar reasons to why it's a legal requirement to wear a helmet on a motorbike, the government wants to show improvement in (for this instance, road safety) statistics.

[mycarsavw]

[...]

David Nutt, sack...

[...]

<chuckle>

I'm such a child.

[Sippin40oz]

Also - in my opinion the more important argument - should laws attempt to protect people from themselves? If someone wants to take a drug that is known to negatively effect their health, so what? It's their choice to make, just like other life choices effect your health (e.g. diet and exercise). I think it's for similar reasons to why it's a legal requirement to wear a helmet on a motorbike, the government wants to show improvement in (for this instance, road safety) statistics.

I totally agree but the problem is 'normal' people see drug use as a disease and so any users views are automatically biased! The only way the drug argument will be won is through facts and figures. opinions can always be subjective but its difficult to keep ignoring statistics that show lenient drugs policy is better for everyone involved.

I am quite encouraged by the recent relaxation of medical cannabis use in the U.S. Seems to be a step in the right direction and if it works there then I am sure other countries will step up and take notice.

[andrep]

Here is the problem:

The reason we can't have freedom is that we, as a society have empathy.

If we let people hurt themselves, through whatever means, then we have too much empathy to then say "too bad, we're not going to treat you medically or psychiatrically now, it's your own fault".

We're got too much empathy to say, "you can't get a job now because you're addicted to pot and have no motivation, so it's your own fault and we'll let you be homeless and starve".

Most people can handle dope without getting addicted or having motivational problems.

Most people can handle nearly everything bad for them and be just fine.

But we still need to pick up the pieces as a society when the small percentage of f***-ups go astray.

And that's expensive. And I don't really want to pay.

[JPreston]

Here is the problem:

The reason we can't have freedom is that we, as a society have empathy.

If we let people hurt themselves, through whatever means, then we have too much empathy to then say "too bad, we're not going to treat you medically or psychiatrically now, it's your own fault".

We're got too much empathy to say, "you can't get a job now because you're addicted to pot and have no motivation, so it's your own fault and we'll let you be homeless and starve".

Most people can handle dope without getting addicted or having motivational problems.

Most people can handle nearly everything bad for them and be just fine.

But we still need to pick up the pieces as a society when the small percentage of f***-ups go astray.

And that's expensive. And I don't really want to pay.

Sorry, but practically every word in that post in rubbish. If that's what abstinence from drugs does for one's grasp on reality, then we'd better all have a toke right now to maintain some semblence of coherency.


I personally find it very hard to 'empathise' with someone who holds such strong views on what everyone else may or may not do in the privacy of their own homes while getting every single one of his 'facts' completely backwards. Nonetheless, maybe I can shine a candle in that dark corner by pointing out the obvious - that the cost to society of prohibition (even just the direct costs such as policing, judicial and prison resources) outweigh the cost of ALL drug usage by several £bn.


Not to mention that these direct costs are themselves dwarfed by the indirect cost of criminalising millions of ordinary people and so limiting their employment opportunites for the rest of their lives - because that is seen as a positive benefit by the perverse authoritarians responsible for drug legislation and their Daily Wail reading useful idiots.

I find it most sad that in any other circumstances a government minister who sacks his expert scientific advisor for concluding that the truth is not in accordance with the minister's groundless opinions would become a joke, and hounded from office within hours. But when the Home Secretary does precisely this on the issue of drug legislation, he is actually applauded by much of the public out of nothing more than willful ignorance

[chuckskull]

I'm with Agent on this. Unfortunately, we are in the era of "Policy-based evidence-making".

On a similar slant;



*The cannabis death's figure is a bit dubious. Firstly, how can you die from cannabis? It's extremely non-toxic. There has never been a single documented case of fatal cannabis overdose. Also, the government's own figures don't tally. While drug figures from the Office Of National Statistics register 19 cannabis related deaths, the mortality stats from the same office log only 1 death.

[andrep]

Nonetheless, maybe I can shine a candle in that dark corner by pointing out the obvious - that the cost to society of prohibition (even just the direct costs such as policing, judicial and prison resources) outweigh the cost of ALL drug usage by several £bn.

I'd like to keep an open mind, and tackle this with facts instead of conviction.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors249.pdf

Summary estimates of criminal justice costs
£2.366 bn

"Problem drug users are estimated to cost the health service between £283 million and £509 million per
year"

Estimates of the victim costs of crime
£8.190 bn

So you're right that the amount it costs the health service right now is only 10%-20% of criminal justice costs. At the moment.

It stands to reason that if drugs are legal, access to drugs becomes far easier. There would be stores opening everywhere to satisfy demand.

People like me are scared that that figure will multiply when legal and easy access to drugs leads to far greater numbers of drug users.

Furthermore, I'm scared that the £8.2bn victim costs of crime will multiply too. People that become addicted steal to satisfy their habit.

Victim costs of crime right now are £136 per person per year (8.2bn / 60 million people), and I'm not happy about that number multiplying.

Also from the report "It is known that problem drug users have problems with maintaining employment in the legitimate economy." More problem drug users, more victim costs of crime, and fewer productive workers to pay for that with their taxes.

[JPreston]

I'd like to keep an open mind, and tackle this with facts instead of conviction.

Jolly good

Although you only quote Home Office statistics, and since the Home Secretary sacks experts whose findings do not accord with his pre-judged opinion then you might accept that you are not getting anything approaching an unbiased view from them. It's like exclusively quoting David Irving in a discussion of the holocaust. Please, you might like to read more widely.

...you're right that the amount it costs the health service right now is only 10%-20% of criminal justice costs. At the moment..

Remind me will you; how much does taxation on the manufacture, sale and consumption of illegal drugs - by all estimates the second or third largest industry on the planet, up there with oil and arms - contribute into the UK exchequer? I'm under the impression that it's £0.00 but that can't possibly be true, that would just be mental wouldn't it? Wouldn't it..? (Why doesn't the Home Office tell you about the taxation potential of legalisation?)

It stands to reason that if drugs are legal, access to drugs becomes far easier. There would be stores opening everywhere to satisfy demand.

Actually, no. It stands to reason that if drugs are legal, access to drugs becomes far safer. Not only for the user's health (with associated reduction in healthcare costs per user) and personal safety, but also for society as a whole - criminality associated with drug supply would be largely removed as respectable licensed sellers would undercut dealers. The local council could set rules for licensing, as they do for alcohol. That would be fair, wouldn't it?

Estimates for the tax benefit of legalisation do indeed include scenarios where drug use increases wildly, associated healthcare costs and the like. They are still several £bn positive. Wild increases are unlikely - it's already incredibly easy to buy drugs, and Portugal actually saw a decrease in drug use following decriminalisation of ALL drugs for personal use - but at least noone can say that hasn't been considered.

People like me are scared that that figure will multiply when legal and easy access to drugs leads to far greater numbers of drug users.

Furthermore, I'm scared that the £8.2bn victim costs of crime will multiply too. People that become addicted steal to satisfy their habit.

Well, the idea is that a sensible drugs policy implemented correctly would allow for cheaper, regulated drugs supply that could for example be offered in conjunction with education and offers of rehabilitation. 'Cheaper' and 'regulated' results in less crime - compared to inflated prices (due to inherent criminality) and the all-you-can-steal-to-support current business model.

Which is not to say that the vast majority of drug users commit any offences at all other than possession. I'm not following your link to the Home Office, because I bet the figure of £8.2bn is not defined in a way as to be relevant to this discussion (and even if it is, they're lying ). It should be purely the cost of aquisitive crime where it is established in court that the exclusive motive was to fund an illicit drug habit. Anything else is another issue. I'm all in favour of general crime remaining illegal, funnily enough.

But in the meantime be sure to let us know which of your other personal fears constitute grounds to curtail the freedoms of every person in the whole country, won't you?

Also from the report "It is known that problem drug users have problems with maintaining employment in the legitimate economy." More problem drug users, more victim costs of crime, and fewer productive workers to pay for that with their taxes.

Actually "it is known that completely law-abiding people who have criminal records/cautions as a result of minor personal drugs use have problems maintaining employment in the legitimate economy", and this group far outnumbers problem drug users. We are criminalising, and then stigmatising, vast swathes of our population to the extent that it harms the national economy for nothing more than the sake of moralising. That's messed up.

[daniel_owen_uk]

Could you tell me how a drug, cannabis in particular, that could be grown in your own home (in enough quantities for you to be happy with), could every be taxed?

And lets face it, that's why it isn't legal.

I do however completely agree with you, legalise heroin, hell we all might as well chip in and pay for all the heroin for all the users in the country, it would save us money! (and we could buy in bulk)

[andrep]

Remind me will you; how much does taxation on the manufacture, sale and consumption of illegal drugs - by all estimates the second or third largest industry on the planet, up there with oil and arms - contribute into the UK exchequer?

criminality associated with drug supply would be largely removed as respectable licensed sellers would undercut dealers

Here are some back of envelope calculations:

If the "Victim costs of crime" right now are £136 per person per year, and say 25% of the population partake in legal drug use, you'd have to raise £544 per year in tax per legal drug user to cover that.

If the victim costs of crime rise because we're introducing more people to drugs and this leads to more people committing crime to feed their habit (even if it's only a small percentage of the population that get out of control like this), then the "Victim costs of crime" would rise and you'd have to generate even more tax.

criminality associated with drug supply would be largely removed as respectable licensed sellers would undercut dealers

Estimates for the tax benefit of legalisation do indeed include scenarios where drug use increases wildly, associated healthcare costs and the like. They are still several £bn positive

If you have to raise at least £544 in tax per drug user, or perhaps even double or quadruple that if we increase the extent of crime related to drug use, then there would be a massive black market because legal outlets paying such huge amounts of tax would not be cheaper than illegal sources.

Wild increases are unlikely - it's already incredibly easy to buy drugs, and Portugal actually saw a decrease in drug use following decriminalisation of ALL drugs for personal use - but at least noone can say that hasn't been considered.

I'm in favour of decriminalisation. However I'm not in favour of legalisation. Like you say, with the trade in drugs being such a massive industry there can be no doubt that there will be chains of "drug" stores the way you see chains of coffee shops. It seems obvious to me that legalisation would lead to more people being introduced to drugs.

At the moment, you can go to a club, and you have to guess whom the right people to talk to are to get some supply. What if they sold it alongside Vodka Redbulls, and didn't eject you from the club for being found with such substances? You really don't think consumption of drugs would spike massively?

Actually "it is known that completely law-abiding people who have criminal records/cautions as a result of minor personal drugs use have problems maintaining employment in the legitimate economy", and this group far outnumbers problem drug users. We are criminalising, and then stigmatising, vast swathes of our population to the extent that it harms the national economy for nothing more than the sake of moralising. That's messed up.

That I'd agree with as long as the pattern of use after decriminalisation mirrors that of Portugal. How about we just compromise on decriminalisation, instead of on legalisation?