Here's a libertarian subject SH forumites may be interested in !
Aside from the fact that vast amounts of taxpayers money is wasted on the war on drugs, surely what consenting adults do in an informed and educated fashion with their own bodies is none of the state's business ?
Some drugs have been used in an orderly fashion for millenia, ie cannabis, coca leaf, psilocybe mushrooms, peyote cacti etc, does the govt think we're all so stupid we can't do the same.
If someone has a drug problem surely it is between them and their doctor, not the police, I'm sure most people would rather the police were out catching muggers, rapists, burglars, terrorists etc instead of forcing people into the hands of gangsters selling dodgy chemicals.
mostly it is not the actual drug use from class b or class c drugs its the funding of the use of them ie mugging old ladies, shoplifting, breaking into houses that society and the police are more concerned with. i dont actually care who uses what drugs whether legal or not i dont want then to insist that i do the same and i also do not want the illegal activity that sometimes goes along with regular users.
I have to say Sarah has a lot of valid points.
Not only is drug use rife but society pays a price.
I believe that for a lot of people soft drugs only lead to harder drugs.
I think the law is too soft on pushers and I also think that the way things stand at the moment, is not tough enough.
Never understood the classification issues on letting cannabis be downgraded to a class c. Thankfully it has gone back up, but whoever the idiot was made a big clanger.
Drugs are the scurge of our youth in so many ways, and the law should come down on people who deal, and those who use it.
If someone does have a drug problem then yes it is their problem and of course a doctors but....more importantly the law say's it is also the polices too, and hopefully that will always be the case.
Society pays a price because of the illegality, if people could just go to a chemists and buy cannabis etc, the criminality would be removed.
Alcohol costs society vast sums due to health issues, violence etc - why not ban that ?
And again - what people do with their own bodies is their own business in a democratic society
I have never heard of anyone being stabbed for the price of a can of Carlsberg.....
However reading the local papers drug addicts are always in court for either armed robbery,mugging or shop lifting,so yes it is a police matter which costs us the tax payer and legalising it would make no difference as the user would still have to pay for the drugs.
With regards to the shop lifting that goes with it,then again we are all paying for it as the shops just increase prices to cover there losses.
Legalisation doesn't make it right.
What it would do is give it acceptability and in making it acceptable then there may well ne an increase in overall usage with the consequenes that would ensue if it did.
Legalisation would be a social experiment i dont find acceptable. Not even just to find out.
Tell you what.....let's make all drugs legal. On a Fri afternoon pop down to yout local GP and get a few lines of coke for the night ahead.
Of course the taxpayer will pick up the tab. As these are drugs I propose all smokers and drinkers to be able to go into a supermarket with their prescriptions for free fags and booze. Sounds fantastic.
Now in reality if somebody chooses through their own free will to do drugs, why the heck should they be able to feed their habit legally through their doctor? :shock:
Drugs reduce people to addicts and it is this addiction that feeds the dealers. Making it legal will get rid of the dealers, but with drugs more rife than ever because of their availability and more important their cheapness, making them legal will serve no purpose other than to make them even cheaper, as there will be no dealers to put their mark up on.
More drugs....readily available.....legal....spells absolute disaster to me. Thankfully it will never happen.
I'm not suggesting taxpayers pick up the tab for drugs, people wanting to buy them should be allowed to go to an approved outlet and spend their own cash.
At present the taxpayer does pick up the tab for police, courts, prison etc, and more to the point the taxpayer does pick up the tab for society's alcohol and nicotine use via hospitals and policing violent behaviour.
One campaign group worth checking out for a non hack journalist outlook on drugs is Transform ;
The sad thing is about cannabis, is that it's a very effective treatment for many illnesses - Parkinsons, muscular dystrophy, Crohn's, IBS, multiple slerosis etc etc. It's demonisation was all due to a man called William Hearst in the early 20's USA. Hemp was a cheaper and more viable alternative to paper made from wood pulp. Hearst just happened to own all the paper mills at the time.
Many countries allow or tolerate cannabis, like Holland, Spain, some US states, Canada etc and these countries have produced no evidence that their policies are detrimental to their society. Unfortunately, many people in the UK are far too up their own arses to expand their thinking - probably too pissed on the most destructive drug of all - alcohol. Alco-junkies are creating more and more problems, whilst thinking they're "ok, because it's legal". They're the ones that tax-payers stump up for. Triple the tax on booze, I say!
This Government thought that by allowing 24 hour boozing, people would stagger their drinking and that the binge drinking and it's problems would stop.
That does not seem to have happened at all, in fact in some areas it is worse.
I do not agree at all with the principle of being allowed to aquire drugs, whether that person pays for them or not.
Yes Holland is more relaxed than here but....they have massive problems with drugs there. I have seen it is Amsterdam for myself.
Still whilst this is a good debate, allowing people what the op is possibly asking for will never happen. They have realised that putting class b grugs into the lower catagory did not work, and as I have already said, they have now been reclassified back to class b. There must have been a reason for this?
I think the reason for "son of the manse" Gordon Brown re-classifieng cannabis back to class B was just to get one over on his old enemy Tony Blair !
NuLabour, prior to their election in 1997 was more or less saying on a nod and a wink to legalisation campaigners that it would be legalisied.
wouldnt saying drugs should be available for anyone to buy be promoting the use of?
just because alcohol is not illegal in certain circumstances does not mean that we should legalise all other narcotics.
canibis has sometimes been considered to be the harmless drug of choice.
the effects of this drug however are far reaching and damaging to our society.
the money to feed the addiction,
the children who go without when money is spent on the drug.
the drop out of youths from activities, getting out of bed, lack of motivation, loss of education, jobs.
the road traffic accidents while stoned.
the mental ill health depression and psychosis.
the rise in state benefits
the rise on nhs resources for associated treatments
i could go on but i wont.
just because there are legal drugs that are causing the same crap as above does not mean we should add to the the list.
xx fem xx
A legal market can be controlled an illegal one can't
Whilst undoubtably a small percentage of those who use drugs do become unstuck, often due to their own ignorance or stupidity, most people who smoke cannabis or occasionaly use magic mushrooms etc do so in a sensible manner that does not impinge on the rest of their lives or anyone elses.
The concentration of the media on the minority of casualties is akin to saying someone who enjoys a drink at mealtimes is the same as the meths drinker lying in the gutter.
Why should the mature and sensible majority be punished as a result of the actions of the idiot minority ?
It seems that most informed people I've spoken to feel that :
A) alcohol is as damaging (in the wrong hands) as cannabis
B) cannabis (in the right hands) - not skunk, is a harmless recreational addition to life - as is a glass or two of wine (see the What Fridays are for thread).
I'm not saying cannabis is safe - no substance introduced into your body is safe under all conditions - you can die of drinking too much water. What I'm saying is - we either protect the weak by banning (and being a darned sight better at banning it) everything from heroin to coffee and canabis and alcohol along with them. Or we ban those substances that are proven to be the most damaging to person and society.
In which case, opiates stay banned, as does crack, coke and speed. Nicotine (esp. in the smoked forms) is banned and cannabis is legal along with alcohol. But penalties for unacceptable behaviour under the voluntary influence of either are harsh and swift.
Oh, and for those of us who don't smoke, herbal buns would be sold at over-18 counters in cake shops.
If they do legalise it, they should have it made by pharmaceutical companies under the same astringent regulations that all drugs are made, and sold in chemist shops as a "P" medicine, meaning the pharmacist must be present at the time of purchase.
Take production and profit out of the hands of crumby dealers.
Make sure that everyone gets exactly the right drug at the right strength.
Generate extra tax revenue.
Admit that people can't be stopped from taking the drug, but help them to do so more responsibly.
Have drivers tested for cannabis every time they are tested for alcohol.
'The Drugs Don't Work'.. what a song & it's true.
I don't believe prohibition in any way prevents widespread drug use, or that legalisation would suddenly lead to more users of properly dangerous hardcore drugs like Heroin and Crack. Those intent on using drugs use them regardless of their legality.
, work, debt or just saying everything is alright.
