Think this is my stance too. Having legalised drugs would inevitably have the consequence of eventually giving them respectability and I don't see any positives in that.
Having said that though. What is happening now is very wrong. Not sure the drug war is one we can win.
I think most people agree that criminalising drugs doesn't actually help anyone.
I think they could be legalised 25-50 years from now. All research is showing that criminalising them doesn't help. I think there is still an element of our population which is very conservative, but younger people are more liberal and a lot will have experimented with drugs. Once that liberal young generation becomes the older generation, who knows what could happen.
I'm interested in exploring your idea that younger people are more liberal. When you say "older people" are you talking about the generation that spawned the Sex Pistols, or the generation that indulged in the "summer of love"? The drugs may be different now, but people were experimenting as far back as to sixties (and a lot further back than that).
The fact is that a lot of people get less liberal as they get older, so the young liberal people you see now won't necessarily feel the same 25 - 50 years from now.
This is something I feel strongly about. I wrote this after going to a talk with The Wire's David Simon last year.
- The issue should be treated as a health care problem, not a criminal one. - Decriminilisation would be the way forward, not legalisation. - Often the people involved are fathers, sons, brothers who have no education or place in meaningful work and turn towards drug dealing to provide. And to use one of their analogies, "if you work in a doughnut shop you're going to get fat." - US police departments are rewarded for their number of arrests, no matter the quality or whether they stand up in court. - This means that in for example Baltimore, policemen are rewarded more so for making 60 crap arrests a month (and corner boys are an easy one), rather than say 3 which involve actual police work. - These people have been promoted rather than the more stringent detective. This now means many people in higher places don't have a clue, whilst clearance rates for major crimes has gone from 70-90% to 20-40%. - As mentioned, the US has more people in prison than any other. New ones are being built, franchised, put on the stock market and are money making machines. - In a population of 100'000 people, 300 incarcerated acts as a crime deterrent. Go beyond that and all it does is perpetuate crime. USA has over 700 in prison per 100'000. - No one with a criminal record, no matter how petty, can vote. With such a high percentage in the inner cities in this position, they are forgotten about as politics is more so about votes and money. - In New York, every 45 seconds someone is stopped and searched. Not only are 90% of these are non-white, but the act itself is unconstitutional. - "Follow the money." An audience member pointed out that in the UK, whilst dealers are targeted these are only replaced. The problem is in fact in rich white crime families who import the drugs and are untouchable due to their lawyers. - South American countries are uniting and promoting a radical change where trade is controlled. Whilst we are the biggest consumers, it is their countries being torn apart. Previously, the US has just thrown more money at them to 'continue fighting the war'. - Addiction is emerging also as a white problem. With the decline of working class America (say, Season 2), more are being dragged towards dealing or drugs, especially with meth around. This maaay make people take a little more notice. - People will always take drugs. Baltimore is looking worse than it ever has. Drugs are more pure, more readily available and better value than they ever have been. The war has been lost.
Obviously that's US-biased but many of the points apply here.
When I was young I pretty much binged on everything, smuggled a few times (for personal use only) and enjoyed my 6 trips a year to Amsterdam. I haven't really had anything for years apart from the occasional spliff in Cambodia.
My worry about legalizing drugs is that all the people spending their benefits on drugs putting more pressure on a welfare system than it already is.
Cigarettes are legal but people still buy off the black market, the same thing would happen with drugs.
I don't agree with legalising it. At the moment the law acts as a deterrent for a lot of people and legalising it will see the number of users increase and I suspect many occasional soft drug users will be more willing to try harder drugs. There will also always be a black market for it. But I do think there should be better systems in place to help addicts.
All of them should be decriminalised. Soft drugs are far less harmful in the long term than currently legal tobacco and alcohol. More hard drugs have far worse consequences, but decriminalising them makes it far easier to control supply, monitor addicts and lower the crime associated with them.
This, basically. I seriously worry about anyone who thinks differently, please use your head, not your heart. The "war" on drugs is already lost, here in Portugal it's been decriminalised for some time and the problems have reduced dramatically.
The thing is MDMA will never be legalised. It was originally developed as a pharmaceutical drug but couldn't get past any regulatory checks as its long and short term effects were too damaging. There's an argument for the legalisation of some drugs like cannabis but it'll never happen for ecstasy.
One bizarre drug is the Magic Mushroom. How can a mushroom be a drug!!
they had a programme on it and some hippy ate one and they monitored him through the day and it done nothing to him except make his cock shrivel up into a ball and his pony tail stand on end. Oh and he started doing that dance,you no the big fish little fish cardboard box one...
I don't get the argument that tobacco and alcohol is more harmful than soft drugs so we should decriminalise soft drugs. Its like saying knives can do as much damage as guns so let's make it easier to buy guns.
I don't get the argument that tobacco and alcohol is more harmful than soft drugs so we should decriminalise soft drugs. Its like saying knives can do as much damage as guns so let's make it easier to buy guns.
no, it's like having a world where guns are legal and knives are not and saying guns do a lot more damage, why don't we legalise knives, at least something useful can be done with the knives.
When I was young I pretty much binged on everything, smuggled a few times (for personal use only) and enjoyed my 6 trips a year to Amsterdam. I haven't really had anything for years apart from the occasional spliff in Cambodia.
My worry about legalizing drugs is that all the people spending their benefits on drugs putting more pressure on a welfare system than it already is.
Cigarettes are legal but people still buy off the black market, the same thing would happen with drugs.
People already spend their money on drugs on the black market. If they're regulated and taxed at least the drugs their taking would put money back into the coffers and would stop people snorting/smoking the drug with other cancer causing chemicals thrown in.
I can't tell you how much I am against legalisation of these home breaking, relationship killing, mind destroying substances of scum.
And yes Alcohol and cigarettes are just as bad, but why add more to the list of accepted dangerous substances.
I think as the young liberals grow up, they will mature and realise that it's best left how it is.
except the world is becoming increasingly more liberal, its like saying kids in the 60s who accepted homosexuality and will grow up and realise its left how it is.
This is something I feel strongly about. I wrote this after going to a talk with The Wire's David Simon last year.
- The issue should be treated as a health care problem, not a criminal one. - Decriminilisation would be the way forward, not legalisation. - Often the people involved are fathers, sons, brothers who have no education or place in meaningful work and turn towards drug dealing to provide. And to use one of their analogies, "if you work in a doughnut shop you're going to get fat." - US police departments are rewarded for their number of arrests, no matter the quality or whether they stand up in court. - This means that in for example Baltimore, policemen are rewarded more so for making 60 crap arrests a month (and corner boys are an easy one), rather than say 3 which involve actual police work. - These people have been promoted rather than the more stringent detective. This now means many people in higher places don't have a clue, whilst clearance rates for major crimes has gone from 70-90% to 20-40%. - As mentioned, the US has more people in prison than any other. New ones are being built, franchised, put on the stock market and are money making machines. - In a population of 100'000 people, 300 incarcerated acts as a crime deterrent. Go beyond that and all it does is perpetuate crime. USA has over 700 in prison per 100'000. - No one with a criminal record, no matter how petty, can vote. With such a high percentage in the inner cities in this position, they are forgotten about as politics is more so about votes and money. - In New York, every 45 seconds someone is stopped and searched. Not only are 90% of these are non-white, but the act itself is unconstitutional. - "Follow the money." An audience member pointed out that in the UK, whilst dealers are targeted these are only replaced. The problem is in fact in rich white crime families who import the drugs and are untouchable due to their lawyers. - South American countries are uniting and promoting a radical change where trade is controlled. Whilst we are the biggest consumers, it is their countries being torn apart. Previously, the US has just thrown more money at them to 'continue fighting the war'. - Addiction is emerging also as a white problem. With the decline of working class America (say, Season 2), more are being dragged towards dealing or drugs, especially with meth around. This maaay make people take a little more notice. - People will always take drugs. Baltimore is looking worse than it ever has. Drugs are more pure, more readily available and better value than they ever have been. The war has been lost.
Obviously that's US-biased but many of the points apply here.
bang on, at least there are one or two educated posters in this thread. People coming up with half baked reasons why we shouldnt decriminalise or legalise as at least better than saying its scumming and shutting the debate down i guess.
I don't get the argument that tobacco and alcohol is more harmful than soft drugs so we should decriminalise soft drugs. Its like saying knives can do as much damage as guns so let's make it easier to buy guns.
no, it's like having a world where guns are legal and knives are not and saying guns do a lot more damage, why don't we legalise knives, at least something useful can be done with the knives.
But you still have the problem with guns you just have knife crime to deal with now as well. Its a crap argument.
Might as well legalise mushrooms while they're at it, would be a laugh seeing city centres full of young men tripping their balls off rather than stumbling around drunk and fighting each other!
They were only recently banned, upto about 4or5 years ago you could buy them in bong shops. I used to grow then from a kit when at uni.
Cannabis will probably be available for medicinal use, regulated by the Medicines Act in the not too distant future in this country. It is already grown under license for research purposes and it's therapeutic benefits may well win the day. But it won't be for sale in the corner shop for recreational use.
The problem with legalization is that parliament then is seen as condoning, or refusing to condemn, drug use and becomes culpable in any problems that emerge as a result (as well as the innate conservatism [small c] of the public when it comes to issues such as this). The accusations of hypocrisy with regard to the damage done by tobacco and alcohol (our two biggest killers) are well deserved and the Misuse of Drugs Act is a dreadful blunt instrument, but has come together piecemeal over many years and would be difficult to unpick. The law is not always a rational tool and drugs are scheduled not only according to their harm but also in response to public outcry and the media. For instance, the death of Leah Betts had a huge role to play in the classification of Ecstasy / MDMA as a class A drug in the 80's, although millions use it with few ill effects every weekend. An interesting sidetrack here is the role of the Alcohol lobby, who crapped themselves when young people started using E and consequently reduced their alcohol use. The industry saw the potential for losig a whole generation of drinkers and responded by heavily lobbying government to "crack down" on E and also began marketing substances such as "alcopops" to appeal to teenagers and get them back into using alcohol.
I think it is a fair point that we don't know what would happen to consumption and it is not unreasonable to fear an increase in use with an increase in quality and availability. Evidence from countries such as Portugal and Holland seems to indicate that what you get is a ageing population of problem drug users and a younger generation who never become introduced to drugs such as heroin and crack because the need to socialise in poly-drug selling circles to get your less harmful recreational drugs such as E, cannabis, powder cocaine, disappears as marketing becomes regulated.
The greatest danger is always oversimplification and a refusal to countenance intelligent debate, which is why the media play such a harmful role - emphasising as they do the presence of drugs in many incidents and deaths whether or not the drug had a role to play. We are working with realities, not ideals.
What happened in Portugal? Was there a serious problem before and what was legalised/decriminilised?
What has happened to levels of use and related crime?
There has been only a limited amount of significant change. The decriminlisation of drugs for personal use in Portugal was a response to incredibly high levels of HIV infection among injecting drug users, high levels of adolescent drug use and a criminal justic system that was bulging at the seams trying to keep up. In these respects it has been a modest success. New HIV infection rates have dropped by up to 20%, adolescent drug use has reduced and the criminal justice system has been freed up to deal with other (arguably more serious) issues. Self reported drug use has increased - especially cocaine, ecsasy and heroin, but this may be the self-reporting that has increased, rather than the actual drug use, as a function of the removal of risk of prosecution. Class A drug users are notoriously and understandably cagey about disclosing their drug use. The reduction in adolescent drug use MAY be an indication of the trend seen in Holland when heroin was provided for addicts and cannabis was legalised, in which young people tended to go for cannabis and never mixed with "harder" drug sellers. Decriminalization has not been a stand-alone policy. Needle supply programmes, substitute prescribing and improved treatment service availability has also been put in place. These alone may have accounted for some of the positive changes. Pre 2000 it was common for Portugueses nationals with drug problems to come to the UK for treatment. (One for the UKIP voters there. Fill your boots ;0)
I don't get the argument that tobacco and alcohol is more harmful than soft drugs so we should decriminalise soft drugs. Its like saying knives can do as much damage as guns so let's make it easier to buy guns.
no, it's like having a world where guns are legal and knives are not and saying guns do a lot more damage, why don't we legalise knives, at least something useful can be done with the knives.
But you still have the problem with guns you just have knife crime to deal with now as well. Its a crap argument.
Lol no now you can cut things and use your knives that you have to hide and get off gangsters. Basically your arguement is absolutely crazy, comparing drugs and guns
I think most people agree that criminalising drugs doesn't actually help anyone.
I think they could be legalised 25-50 years from now. All research is showing that criminalising them doesn't help. I think there is still an element of our population which is very conservative, but younger people are more liberal and a lot will have experimented with drugs. Once that liberal young generation becomes the older generation, who knows what could happen.
I'm interested in exploring your idea that younger people are more liberal. When you say "older people" are you talking about the generation that spawned the Sex Pistols, or the generation that indulged in the "summer of love"? The drugs may be different now, but people were experimenting as far back as to sixties (and a lot further back than that).
The fact is that a lot of people get less liberal as they get older, so the young liberal people you see now won't necessarily feel the same 25 - 50 years from now.
You're right, good point. Hadn't thought about it that way.
I think most people agree that criminalising drugs doesn't actually help anyone.
I think they could be legalised 25-50 years from now. All research is showing that criminalising them doesn't help. I think there is still an element of our population which is very conservative, but younger people are more liberal and a lot will have experimented with drugs. Once that liberal young generation becomes the older generation, who knows what could happen.
I'm interested in exploring your idea that younger people are more liberal. When you say "older people" are you talking about the generation that spawned the Sex Pistols, or the generation that indulged in the "summer of love"? The drugs may be different now, but people were experimenting as far back as to sixties (and a lot further back than that).
The fact is that a lot of people get less liberal as they get older, so the young liberal people you see now won't necessarily feel the same 25 - 50 years from now.
Erm, the people who have been campaigning for decriminalisation aren't teens. They're professors and people who have seen first hand the damage that drugs can cause.
I consider it part of human nature to want to experiment. Black lemurs, distant relatives, actually get high off millipedes. Gorillas and chimps have been known to eat hallucinogenic plants.
That's a valid point that I've always been, not confused but errrr wary about
Cannabis, opium and mushrooms are all organic substances. I don't agree with them being illegal. Cocaine bought off a chancer in your local that has gone through a lot of processing to get to the end user is what needs a grip taking on it. And mdma, there is a group in Austria who offer an amnesty test in clubs, they don't take names or confiscate anything but they do test whatever you give them. The results often turn whoever is putting their gear forward right off.
See this is the thing, at the moment there is no way of ever stopping people using drugs. There is a hard line taken that is not often very helpful and a lot of people taking bugle cut with god knows what. Be it cocaine, mdma, speed, meth amphetamine or heroin
This is done by unscrupulous people after a buck. If this is done in a laboratory (think breaking bad here) the quality is guaranteed and all of a sudden the user can make a bit more of an informed decision other than to put something they are not sure what it is (and has probably been up an arsehole at some point in its life) in their mouth.
Now if I had a child it goes without saying I would rather they never dabbled with illegal substances, but if they did I would feel a lot less worried if they could do so with minimal risk of being poisoned by a chemical used for killing rats.
There was some documentary on cocaine on BBC3 recently. The families growing the stuff literally have no choice as their other crops pay peanuts. Was sickening to then see all the choppers and police/military coming in geared up to the teeth with gear that must have cost a fortune to stop it all. If they spent that money on the people living in poverty they wouldn't have to grow it. Absolutely maddening and can't believe anyone watching would ever think the world is going about "the war on drugs" the right way. Seems to be just a gravy train creating a problem and keeping funding up for police / military departments and their suppliers.
War on drugs is a business lining many peoples pockets and keeping even more in jobs.. There is no incentive for it to ever stop.
That's an interesting and valid take on the situation. I think the lining pockets is more apt than keeping people in jobs though. Like all big business, if the people at the top can still make as much money and save on labour, they will...
War on drugs is a business lining many peoples pockets and keeping even more in jobs.. There is no incentive for it to ever stop.
That's an interesting and valid take on the situation. I think the lining pockets is more apt than keeping people in jobs though. Like all big business, if the people at the top can still make as much money and save on labour, they will...
Even just in afghan the amount of soldiers guarding poppies is Crazy. Wether this is for pharmaceutical companies I don't know, but availablity of herion has never been so high here in the uk.
Its a sad world we live in. Your children will never be safe from drugs...Theres' a lot we can protect, but sadly this is one problem that has spiraled out of control.
Comments
Having said that though. What is happening now is very wrong. Not sure the drug war is one we can win.
The fact is that a lot of people get less liberal as they get older, so the young liberal people you see now won't necessarily feel the same 25 - 50 years from now.
Channel 4 did a show on MDMA, the tests on some of the pills confiscated at Glastonbury where pretty worrying.
- The issue should be treated as a health care problem, not a criminal one.
- Decriminilisation would be the way forward, not legalisation.
- Often the people involved are fathers, sons, brothers who have no education or place in meaningful work and turn towards drug dealing to provide. And to use one of their analogies, "if you work in a doughnut shop you're going to get fat."
- US police departments are rewarded for their number of arrests, no matter the quality or whether they stand up in court.
- This means that in for example Baltimore, policemen are rewarded more so for making 60 crap arrests a month (and corner boys are an easy one), rather than say 3 which involve actual police work.
- These people have been promoted rather than the more stringent detective. This now means many people in higher places don't have a clue, whilst clearance rates for major crimes has gone from 70-90% to 20-40%.
- As mentioned, the US has more people in prison than any other. New ones are being built, franchised, put on the stock market and are money making machines.
- In a population of 100'000 people, 300 incarcerated acts as a crime deterrent. Go beyond that and all it does is perpetuate crime. USA has over 700 in prison per 100'000.
- No one with a criminal record, no matter how petty, can vote. With such a high percentage in the inner cities in this position, they are forgotten about as politics is more so about votes and money.
- In New York, every 45 seconds someone is stopped and searched. Not only are 90% of these are non-white, but the act itself is unconstitutional.
- "Follow the money." An audience member pointed out that in the UK, whilst dealers are targeted these are only replaced. The problem is in fact in rich white crime families who import the drugs and are untouchable due to their lawyers.
- South American countries are uniting and promoting a radical change where trade is controlled. Whilst we are the biggest consumers, it is their countries being torn apart. Previously, the US has just thrown more money at them to 'continue fighting the war'.
- Addiction is emerging also as a white problem. With the decline of working class America (say, Season 2), more are being dragged towards dealing or drugs, especially with meth around. This maaay make people take a little more notice.
- People will always take drugs. Baltimore is looking worse than it ever has. Drugs are more pure, more readily available and better value than they ever have been. The war has been lost.
Obviously that's US-biased but many of the points apply here.
And yes Alcohol and cigarettes are just as bad, but why add more to the list of accepted dangerous substances.
I think as the young liberals grow up, they will mature and realise that it's best left how it is.
My worry about legalizing drugs is that all the people spending their benefits on drugs putting more pressure on a welfare system than it already is.
Cigarettes are legal but people still buy off the black market, the same thing would happen with drugs.
they had a programme on it and some hippy ate one and they monitored him through the day and it done nothing to him except make his cock shrivel up into a ball and his pony tail stand on end. Oh and he started doing that dance,you no the big fish little fish cardboard box one...
People already spend their money on drugs on the black market. If they're regulated and taxed at least the drugs their taking would put money back into the coffers and would stop people snorting/smoking the drug with other cancer causing chemicals thrown in. except the world is becoming increasingly more liberal, its like saying kids in the 60s who accepted homosexuality and will grow up and realise its left how it is.
bang on, at least there are one or two educated posters in this thread. People coming up with half baked reasons why we shouldnt decriminalise or legalise as at least better than saying its scumming and shutting the debate down i guess.
What has happened to levels of use and related crime?
They were only recently banned, upto about 4or5 years ago you could buy them in bong shops. I used to grow then from a kit when at uni.
The problem with legalization is that parliament then is seen as condoning, or refusing to condemn, drug use and becomes culpable in any problems that emerge as a result (as well as the innate conservatism [small c] of the public when it comes to issues such as this). The accusations of hypocrisy with regard to the damage done by tobacco and alcohol (our two biggest killers) are well deserved and the Misuse of Drugs Act is a dreadful blunt instrument, but has come together piecemeal over many years and would be difficult to unpick. The law is not always a rational tool and drugs are scheduled not only according to their harm but also in response to public outcry and the media. For instance, the death of Leah Betts had a huge role to play in the classification of Ecstasy / MDMA as a class A drug in the 80's, although millions use it with few ill effects every weekend. An interesting sidetrack here is the role of the Alcohol lobby, who crapped themselves when young people started using E and consequently reduced their alcohol use. The industry saw the potential for losig a whole generation of drinkers and responded by heavily lobbying government to "crack down" on E and also began marketing substances such as "alcopops" to appeal to teenagers and get them back into using alcohol.
I think it is a fair point that we don't know what would happen to consumption and it is not unreasonable to fear an increase in use with an increase in quality and availability. Evidence from countries such as Portugal and Holland seems to indicate that what you get is a ageing population of problem drug users and a younger generation who never become introduced to drugs such as heroin and crack because the need to socialise in poly-drug selling circles to get your less harmful recreational drugs such as E, cannabis, powder cocaine, disappears as marketing becomes regulated.
The greatest danger is always oversimplification and a refusal to countenance intelligent debate, which is why the media play such a harmful role - emphasising as they do the presence of drugs in many incidents and deaths whether or not the drug had a role to play. We are working with realities, not ideals.
I consider it part of human nature to want to experiment. Black lemurs, distant relatives, actually get high off millipedes. Gorillas and chimps have been known to eat hallucinogenic plants.
Cannabis, opium and mushrooms are all organic substances. I don't agree with them being illegal. Cocaine bought off a chancer in your local that has gone through a lot of processing to get to the end user is what needs a grip taking on it. And mdma, there is a group in Austria who offer an amnesty test in clubs, they don't take names or confiscate anything but they do test whatever you give them. The results often turn whoever is putting their gear forward right off.
See this is the thing, at the moment there is no way of ever stopping people using drugs. There is a hard line taken that is not often very helpful and a lot of people taking bugle cut with god knows what. Be it cocaine, mdma, speed, meth amphetamine or heroin
This is done by unscrupulous people after a buck. If this is done in a laboratory (think breaking bad here) the quality is guaranteed and all of a sudden the user can make a bit more of an informed decision other than to put something they are not sure what it is (and has probably been up an arsehole at some point in its life) in their mouth.
Now if I had a child it goes without saying I would rather they never dabbled with illegal substances, but if they did I would feel a lot less worried if they could do so with minimal risk of being poisoned by a chemical used for killing rats.