Drug decriminalisation, your views.

This is argument has been raging on for so long. Prohibition doesn't work! The money spent on trying to enforce these ridiculous laws would be far better spent on education and drug rehabilitation facilities.

The government just has no idea about the drug culture in Britain and how prolific it is.
 
Prescibing herion to addicts can also only be viewed as a good thing, especially in light off the recent deaths where herion was cut with anthrax.

Who foots the bill for this prescribing to addicts? Taxpayers or does the junkie addict pay for it themselves with crime? Cut it all with anthrax, it'll cut out the taliban's income source, get rid of the junkies, and save loads longterm.

-also portugal seem to have decriminalised people personal possession, i think they still got after suppliers and dealers, and the junkies just don't get jailtime, instead they get counselling. Well thats a move, and a fine onel but they still target dealers, so it is not as if the drugs are legit. They simply don't prosecute small amounts.
 
Last edited:
Who foots the bill for this prescribing to addicts? Taxpayers or does the junkie addict pay for it themselves with crime? Cut it all with anthrax, it'll cut out the taliban's income source, get rid of the junkies, and save loads longterm.

I would argue that prescribing heroin to addicts wouldn't cost the taxpayer anything as the reduction of crime the addicts commit to fund the heroin addict costs the taxpayer far more, not to mention the effects of dirty needles, abscess's, infection, and many other health problems caused by the life style. Why does it always come down to cost? surely from a cost point of view this approach would be beneficial, not just for the addicts but for society as a whole.
 
I would argue that prescribing heroin to addicts wouldn't cost the taxpayer anything as the reduction of crime the addicts commit to fund the heroin addict costs the taxpayer far more, not to mention the effects of dirty needles, abscess's, infection, and many other health problems caused by the life style. Why does it always come down to cost? surely from a cost point of view this approach would be beneficial, not just for the addicts but for society as a whole.

heroin addicts already get subscribed substitutes anyway
 
Drugs will always be apart of the UK culture, even world culture.

Anyone trying to justify them in this life time will be ridiculed, any move to ease up will be squandered.

At the end of the day it is not profitable to be weak on drugs, I do however find it funny that all the hype about Mephedrone has been based on the back of cocktails with other drugs.

One lad mixed it with methedrone (heroin subsitue - Called speed balling) and his mother said it was the only drug he took, its all a scaremonger tactic but everyone buys into it.

KaHn
 
Everytime a thread like this starts (and I give it 48 hours at most before someone posts something that gets it deleted, like all the others) I think it should come with a survey:


1) I take drugs and think they should be legalised.
2) I don't take drugs and think they should be legalised.
3) I take drugs and don't think they should be legalised.
4) I don't take drugs and don't think they should be legalised.

plus of course:

5) Pancake.



Because it seems to me that that most of the posters supporting legalising just want their hobby un-banned. I have no problem with self-interest, but I do when it tries to masquerade as "for the good of the country".



M
Yep that way we can see who has absolutely no clue about it yet is against it somehow. It's like people against cars and for silly low speed limits like 50 mph nationally ( green party plans) who have never driven a car.
 
The fact is, we are not solving the problems caused by drugs with the way things are at the moment.

Nick Davies has written some excellent articles on this in the past:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/may/22/drugsandalcohol.ukcrime

Exactly.

Great articles, well worth the read.

Who foots the bill for this prescribing to addicts? Taxpayers or does the junkie addict pay for it themselves with crime? Cut it all with anthrax, it'll cut out the taliban's income source, get rid of the junkies, and save loads longterm

The black market and the inelastic price of such an addictive drug, along with a restricted supply, creates such a high price in the first place. If it were provided on the NHS for example, it wouldn't cost nearly so much. And could be paid for easily by the money saved otherwise spent criminalising users. Methadone is also prescribed FOC on the NHS.

heroin addicts already get subscribed substitutes anyway

Methadone is that effective, otherwise we wouldn't have a problem would we?
 
Last edited:
The general election is round the corner, so it's very much up for debate. Although that is not really what this threads about, I'm sure it'll turn into that..

I can't see it honestly, salvias up for becoming illegal soon much to my annoyance.

The only difference in drinking now is that people are starting about the same time, but certainly round here in the old days, my mum and dad used to be able to walk into a pub when they were 13/14 and drink. Now more people are drinking on the streets, it's not behind closed doors any more.
 
Exactly.

Great articles, well worth the read.



The black market and the inelastic price of such an addictive drug, along with a restricted supply, creates such a high price in the first place. If it were provided on the NHS for example, it wouldn't cost nearly so much. And could be paid for easily by the money saved otherwise spent criminalising users. Methadone is also prescribed FOC on the NHS.



Methadone is that effective, otherwise we wouldn't have a problem would we?

One of the main reasons why methadone was used as a substitue is because chemically it is not in the same group as heroin, morphine and other opiates. Addicts clearly prefer heroin so why not prescribe it. heroin or morphine does have several 'advantages' over methadone, half life is short and is much more consistant between different people unlinke methadone, also, the withdrawal syndrome for methadone is much longer than heroin and morphine. Methadone is also much more dangerous due to its long half life and slow onset of action that overdose is a big risk. Although, I get the sense i'm fighting a loosing battle here
 
Legalise it and you'd just make it freely available to anyone with cash. Criminals would still get there drugs by just buying it or stealing it, drug use would go ever higher due to it being freely available, many youths, depressed and idiots would end up become addicts and before you know it we have another societal problem on the level of binge drinking, football hooliganism and whatever else. It's too easy a thing to abuse and it'll go wrong, you'll get a society of stoners and ***** with youths becoming ever more dillusioned as they have to try the adult thing which would happen to be drugs, alcohol and sex.
It's a ridiculous notion and just another part of a greedy and selfish societies pleasure crave that would catch out more people and have us taxpayers trying to cover the costs.
 
I think everyone needs to accept that some people like altering how they perceive the world with the use of substances. I'm not saying it's a good thing but it needs to be accepted as a thing humans like to do. Most of the **** aspects of drug use stems solely from its illegality. This is one thing the government should be controlling. A system where the government is effectively the main dealer wouldn't be perfect but surely better than people lining the pockets of some nasty individuals? Everything is clean and controlled then. It wouldn't be the government "promoting" drug use but identifying a problem and going for the lesser of two evils.

Legalise it and you'd just make it freely available to anyone with cash.

You must lead a sheltered life. This is already the situation mate.
 
Last edited:
I think everyone needs to accept that some people like altering how they perceive the world with the use of substances. I'm not saying it's a good thing but it needs to be accepted as a thing humans like to do. Most of the **** aspects of drug use stems solely from its illegality. This is one thing the government should be controlling. A system where the government is effectively the main dealer wouldn't be perfect but surely better than people lining the pockets of some nasty individuals? Everything is clean and controlled then. It wouldn't be the government "promoting" drug use but identifying a problem and going for the lesser of two evils.



You must lead a sheltered life. This is already the situation mate.

I know it's the case, I saw people get wasted around me while on an action 4 employment course (during the time they were meant to be looking for jobs outside) and one of my friends brother did it very frequently (with all his friends) but the more you make it available the more it can happen ofcourse. And the point about money was more that I believe celebrities would find it cool and just buy **** tons and make youths want it more etc.

You mean just like it is now?

God forbid some people want easy access to the meds they need.
I believe those who need it as meds should have it. That's not the same as completely legal sale of drugs for anyone though is it?
 
I do not take drugs. But I think they should be de-criminalised. Here is an article I read not long ago from NewScientist:

Better world: Legalise drugs

11 September 2009 by Clare Wilson
Magazine issue 2725. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
For similar stories, visit the Drugs and Alcohol Topic Guide
Far from protecting us and our children, the war on drugs is making the world a much more dangerous place.

SO FAR this year, about 4000 people have died in Mexico's drugs war - a horrifying toll. If only a good fairy could wave a magic wand and make all illegal drugs disappear, the world would be a better place.

Dream on. Recreational drug use is as old as humanity, and has not been stopped by the most draconian laws. Given that drugs are here to stay, how do we limit the harm they do?

The evidence suggests most of the problems stem not from drugs themselves, but from the fact that they are illegal. The obvious answer, then, is to make them legal.

The argument most often deployed in support of the status quo is that keeping drugs illegal curbs drug use among the law-abiding majority, thereby reducing harm overall. But a closer look reveals that this really doesn't stand up. In the UK, as in many countries, the real clampdown on drugs started in the late 1960s, yet government statistics show that the number of heroin or cocaine addicts seen by the health service has grown ever since - from around 1000 people per year then, to 100,000 today. It is a pattern that has been repeated the world over.

A second approach to the question is to look at whether fewer people use drugs in countries with stricter drug laws. In 2008, the World Health Organization looked at 17 countries and found no such correlation. The US, despite its punitive drug policies, has one of the highest levels of drug use in the world (PLoS Medicine, vol 5, p e141).

A third strand of evidence comes from what happens when a country softens its drug laws, as Portugal did in 2001. While dealing remains illegal in Portugal, personal use of all drugs has been decriminalised. The result? Drug use has stayed roughly constant, but ill health and deaths from drug taking have fallen. "Judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalisation framework has been a resounding success," states a recent report by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC.

By any measure, making drugs illegal fails to achieve one of its primary objectives. But it is the unintended consequences of prohibition that make the most compelling case against it. Prohibition fuels crime in many ways: without state aid, addicts may be forced to fund their habit through robbery, for instance, while youngsters can be drawn into the drugs trade as a way to earn money and status. In countries such as Colombia and Mexico, the profits from illegal drugs have spawned armed criminal organisations whose resources rival those of the state. Murder, kidnapping and corruption are rife.

Making drugs illegal also makes them more dangerous. The lack of access to clean needles for drug users who inject is a major factor in the spread of lethal viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C.

So what's the alternative? There are several models for the legal provision of recreational drugs. They include prescription by doctors, consumption at licensed premises or even sale on a similar basis to alcohol and tobacco, with health warnings and age limits. If this prospect appals you, consider the fact that in the US today, many teenagers say they find it easier to buy cannabis than beer.

Taking any drug - including alcohol and nicotine - does have health risks, but a legal market would at least ensure that the substances people ingest or inject are available unadulterated and at known dosages. Much of the estimated $300 billion earned from illegal drugs worldwide, which now funds crime, corruption and environmental destruction, could support legitimate jobs. And instead of spending tens of billions enforcing prohibition, governments would gain income from taxes that could be spent on medical treatment for the small proportion of users who become addicted or whose health is otherwise harmed.

Unfortunately, the idea that banning drugs is the best way to protect vulnerable people - especially children - has acquired a strong emotional grip, one that politicians are happy to exploit. For many decades, laws and public policy have flown in the face of the evidence. Far from protecting us, this approach has made the world a much more dangerous place than it need be.
 
Drugs will always be apart of the UK culture, even world culture.

Anyone trying to justify them in this life time will be ridiculed, any move to ease up will be squandered.

At the end of the day it is not profitable to be weak on drugs, I do however find it funny that all the hype about Mephedrone has been based on the back of cocktails with other drugs.

One lad mixed it with methedrone (heroin subsitue - Called speed balling) and his mother said it was the only drug he took, its all a scaremonger tactic but everyone buys into it.

KaHn

You do know Metadone and the recently banned drug of similar name are two entirely different products, don't you?

Speedballing is and always has been heroin and cocaine injected.
 
I believe those who need it as meds should have it. That's not the same as completely legal sale of drugs for anyone though is it?

In reality it boils down to that. Doctors are reluctant to prescribe them because they are controlled, getting my prescription was nothing short of a miracle in this country. For a controlled drug that isn't approved due to economics there's no chance of being prescribed it, despite being vastly superior to other drugs on the market. With legalisation anyone who needed a controlled medication could immediately receive it without jumping through hoops.
 
In reality it boils down to that. Doctors are reluctant to prescribe them because they are controlled, getting my prescription was nothing short of a miracle in this country. For a controlled drug that isn't approved due to economics there's no chance of being prescribed it, despite being vastly superior to other drugs on the market. With legalisation anyone who needed a controlled medication could immediately receive it without jumping through hoops.

I have found this also, the stigma attached to morphine etc is horrendous, i'm sure there are many people who currently are refused long term prescriptions because of fear of addiction and the stigma attached. In some respects its a different topic but the two are definately linked.
 
As it stands, I am against the decriminalisation of marijuana, because I believe it's beyond the competency of our government to manage such a thing responsibly. However, were that to change, I would probably support decriminalisation.
 
Back
Top Bottom