Well, apparently 45,000 have signed the petition in 6 weeks... So, some people agree. I think it's an awful lot of fuss over a pair of boobs!! But, some people consider it inappropriate in newspapers (which is backed up by the fact that daytime TV shows have to be careful not to show page 3 when they do their newspaper reviews).
I just wondered if anyone has any views that support the campaign - I doubt many SH-ers will agree with the campaign, but you never know!!
This is possibly going to be a rather one-sided debate in here, but I wonder what people think about the campaign that is currently running to ban page 3 girls in papers like the Sun.
The point of the debate here is whether it is appropriate in a newspaper.
Thoughts??
Firstly, I think that there is some confusion here over the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. What the op is talking about is, in fact, legalisation. It would be necessary to legalise the production and supply of drugs in order for the State to regulate that supply. Legalisation is not possible in the UK because of current UN conventions.
The term "decriminalisation" simply means that there are no criminal offences in connection with certain acts. This means that those acts remain illegal, but shift from constituting a criminal offence to constituting an administrative offence. In relation to drugs, decriminalisation usually relates to possession and consumption. Following decriminalisation it is still illegal to buy, possess and use drugs, but it is not a criminal offence. Instead, there are administrative sanctions (e.g. fines), and it is treated as a health issue (so rehabilitation may be offered).
Examples of decriminalisation in relation to drugs can be found in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Luxembourg. In all cases, it is not a criminal offence to possess certain drugs, but there are administrative consequences. So, for example, in Spain if a person is caught in possession of drugs for personal use (provided there is no evidence of a criminal offence - e.g. drug dealing), the drugs are seized and the person is referred to the administrative authorities. They may then be fined and invited to attend counselling sessions or undergo rehabilitation treatment (if they present signs of addiction).
By way of contrast, an example of an industry where legalisation is more prevalent than decriminalisation is prostitution. Where prostitution is legalised, it is controlled by the government and is only legal under specific conditions. The sorts of controls that tend to be introduced include licensing and mandatory health checks. There are a number of jurisdictions where prostitution is legalised, for example: the Netherlands, Germany, Iceland, Switzerland, and Austria. This is not to be confused with jurisdictions where prostitution is entirely unregulated (i.e. where there are no laws in place at all), which is predominantly found in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
The final point that I would make is that it is also important to avoid confusing decriminalisation with tolerance. Many people think that smoking marijuana is legal in the Netherlands, but it's not. Personal use of marijuana is not even decriminalised in the Netherlands, let alone legalised: it is merely tolerated by the authorities. Possession of marijuana in the Netherlands is a crime, but coffee shops have flourished because the prosecution guidelines mean that coffee shops will not be prosecuted as long as they sell under certain conditions.
Coming back to the actual debate now, I do not think it is as simple as the op suggests. I am a trustee of a charity that works with people who have committed crimes in connection with substance addictions (in a voluntary capacity in my spare time). So I know a reasonable amount about the effect that drug misuse can have on people, having seen it first-hand. I agree that criminalising drug addicts, locking them up and throwing away the key is not a solution. However, our system is more sophisticated than that, and people are not simply thrown into prison on a first offence. My charity works in conjunction with the local authorities and every single person who walks through our doors has committed a drug-related crime. I agree that the system is not working and something needs to be done to improve the war on drugs, but I do not agree that legalisation is the answer.
My fear with the sort of legalisation of drugs that the op describes is that it would ignore the serious damage caused by drug misuse and it would entirely blur the message - are we supplying drugs over the counter or are we trying to stop people from using drugs? It would be like holding an AA meeting in the local pub. You talk about offering rehabilitation at these "walk-in-centres" at the same time as providing controlled amounts of the very drugs that the individuals are addicted to. Do you actually know anything about drug rehabilitation? Do you understand how difficult it is to work with a drug addict and successfully get them to stop using? The process is extremely difficult, requires an individual, tailored approach, and would not be helped at all by supplying that person with the very drugs they are trying to stop using.
I do not think that legalising drugs is the answer. That is why no jurisdiction has ever tried to implement the sort of scheme that the op describes. Decriminalisation is a solution that I think could work and has been shown to work in other jurisdictions. The reason that I think it works is because it does not mix messages: the possession and use of drugs remains illegal, with administrative fines and the requirement to undergo treatment as the consequences of being found in possession. Decriminalisation moves drug use from being a criminal issue to being a health issue, and means that taxpayers money is spent on rehabilitation rather than imprisonment.
In my opinion, it is very important that any sensible discussion of decriminalisation of drugs is properly understood, and what has been outlined by the op is, in fact, legalisation. I do not agree that legalisation is the solution.
Very well said, neil.
I'm actually a little turned on by your eloquence... :rascal:
I think it is way too much of a political hot potato for any political party to go anywhere near it. If a party were to offer a referendum on the death penalty, I think it would inevitably come across as that party supporting the death penalty. To make any referendum worthwhile, people need to be told the arguments for and against. I just can't see any political party wanting to get involved in that.
There are a whole host of problems with the death penalty. There are lots of practical, procedural and cost implications. Because of the need for absolute certainty and the fact that human error can and does happen, people on death row in the USA wait for years and go through a long series of appeals before the sentence is carried out. So, it costs a lot more to imprison and process death row prisoners than it does to imprison a person with a sentence of life imprisonment. There are therefore no arguments that it saves tax-payers' money to impose the death penalty rather than imprison people for life. This leaves us only with a potential moral justification, which makes it a political hot potato.
My personal opinion is that there is no place for the death penalty in civilised society. I believe that criminals should be punished, but also that reform and education should play a part in the criminal justice system. The death penalty is nothing more than state-sanctioned revenge.
Not this op!!
I stand firmly by my comments!!! I didn't say our system was perfect, but I believe it is one of the finest in the world. So there. :-D
