We've Lost The War!

[Lonan3]

We haven't had a drugs legalisation debate for.... oooh, it must be months, now. So it's rather nice to see THIS ARTICLE in today's Independent.

 

One of Britain's most senior police officers is to call for all drugs – including heroin and cocaine – to be legalised and urges the Government to declare an end to the "failed" war on illegal narcotics.

Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales, advocates an end to UK drug policy based on "prohibition". His comments come as the Home Office this week ends the process of gathering expert advice looking at the next 10 years of strategy.

In his radical analysis, which he will present to the North Wales Police Authority today, Mr Brunstrom points out that illegal drugs are now cheaper and more plentiful than ever before.

The number of users has soared while drug-related crime is rising with narcotics now supporting a worldwide business empire second only in value to oil. "If policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral, to be replaced with an evidence-based unified system (specifically including tobacco and alcohol) aimed at minimisation of harms to society," he will say.

[Pragmatopian]

I'm open to persuasion. There are certainly some good arguments for legalisation:

 

(1) Prices go down, reducing the incentive to produce

 

(2) Products can theoretically be subject to regulation and taxation

 

(3) Products may lose a dangerous image that may be attractive to some

 

However, I still have a nagging doubt that legalising products that, in their normal course of use, have extremely harmful physical, psychological and social effects can ever be justified. It just seems wrong at a level which goes beyond simple social conditioning that 'drugs are bad'.

[P.K.]

Bit of a contradiction in terms - this:

One of Britain's most senior police officers....

with this:

Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales

Oh yes, compare Llandudno with London, Snowdonia with Sheffield, Bets-y-coed with Birmingham, of course his finger will be right on the pulse of drugs and their effect on the crime figures.

 

Brunstrom is the zero-tolerance speed camera clown and yet he can happily extol the virtues of zero tolerance on drugs, despite the fact that over 95% of his employees (The Police Federation) are against it. I'm no fan of the rozzers but Brunstrom seems hell bent on alienating what little public support they get. Fool.

[thebees]

Social conditioning which means that ordinary people are criminalised.

[Pragmatopian]

Social conditioning which means that ordinary people are criminalised.

 

And what is it that allows you to define an ordinary person and the range of things they could be expected to do?

 

May I suggest that what you're trying to say is 'If I want to do something and it has no negative impact on anyone else why shouldn't I be allowed to do it?'. So you could use drugs legally, but if while under the influence of drugs you did something which has a negative impact on someone else (stealing or damaging their property, hitting, injuring or killing them) then you would feel it was fair to be criminalized for those acts. This is certainly a more arguable position.

[thebees]

stealing or damaging their property, hitting, injuring or killing them

 

I think you have been watching too much TV prag. I'm not talking about people who get trashed out of their minds, you see enough of the damage done by alcohol abuse it the papers weekly to know excess of anything is dangerous. True & wise education is absolutely necessary, all things in moderation and having more tomorrow is never a good idea. The loons that blame drugs for their crimes are playing up to what society and the courts want to hear - the conditioning.

 

BTW I am not in favour of complete decriminalisation, but I strongly feel cannabis is not an evil weed. Point .1 gram of cannabis taken in food (baked in a cake or what so ever) would ease the pain without getting the person high. I dont know enough about other drugs to argue their case, for or against.

[*daniel*]

Another pro point for the legalization arguement is of course:

 

# Legalization would mean the contents of the drugs would be able to be monitored meaning safer drugs.

 

I'm very much for the libertarianism. If you did get trashed or whatever and did something harmful you would still have to pay the price (jail time), same with if you get drunk and show "anti-social" behaviour.

 

As long as there is an age restriction on the products and children are properly educated about the effects of X drug, then it's only fair to give people the right to their choices.

[Pragmatopian]

stealing or damaging their property, hitting, injuring or killing them

 

I think you have been watching too much TV prag. I'm not talking about people who get trashed out of their minds, you see enough of the damage done by alcohol abuse it the papers weekly to know excess of anything is dangerous. True & wise education is absolutely necessary, all things in moderation and having more tomorrow is never a good idea. The loons that blame drugs for their crimes are playing up to what society and the courts want to hear - the conditioning.

 

BTW I am not in favour of complete decriminalisation, but I strongly feel cannabis is not an evil weed. Point .1 gram of cannabis taken in food (baked in a cake or what so ever) would ease the pain without getting the person high. I dont know enough about other drugs to argue their case, for or against.

 

I certainly accept that cannabis is far less damaging than, say, heroin or cocaine and that crime resulting from cannabis use would be negligible in comparison to those resulting from the use of other drugs, including alcohol. Decriminalisation seems reasonable.

 

Although consider this a warning against excessive use: