why should drugs NOT be criminalised?

[Quagmire]

just after reading that sniffer dogs thread, i was just wondering...what are peoples' reasons for believing that de-criminalising (NOT LEGALISING) all drugs is a bad idea?

 

as i see it, you can actually control the substances a lot better and if people are going to their GP rather than their dealer for a dose of heroin, it'll probably loose that taboo edginess that might appeal to some...

 

it might seem like you're funding people's drug habits with tax money etc...but really, the cut down in crime to fund drugs would more than worth it...

 

i'm pretty sure much more tax money gets spent on alcoholics and binge drinkers anyway...

[I P Knightley]

just after reading that sniffer dogs thread, i was just wondering...what are peoples' reasons for believing that de-criminalising (NOT LEGALISING) all drugs is a bad idea?

 

as i see it, you can actually control the substances a lot better and if people are going to their GP rather than their dealer for a dose of heroin, it'll probably loose that taboo edginess that might appeal to some...

 

it might seem like you're funding people's drug habits with tax money etc...but really, the cut down in crime to fund drugs would more than worth it...

 

i'm pretty sure much more tax money gets spent on alcoholics and binge drinkers anyway...

 

I'd go one further. Flog the stuff in off licences or Chemists and tax it to the level that we are taxed on booze and baccy.

 

Hey Presto! An extra source of revenue to the Government; costs saved on trying to crack 'illegal' drugs; peace of mind for the many, many middle classed folk who dabble in a bit of blaw; distinct control of suppliers or less harmful stuff (e.g. cannabis) compared to the dangerous stuff (smack).

 

There's a reason that they don't legalise cannabis. I can't for the life of me remember it. Something to do with America & the CIA...

[Rick Grimes]

 

There's a reason that they don't legalise cannabis. I can't for the life of me remember it. Something to do with America & the CIA...

 

Paper mills & William Randolph Hearst

[Boris]

I'd go one further. Flog the stuff in off licences or Chemists and tax it to the level that we are taxed on booze and baccy.

 

Hey Presto! An extra source of revenue to the Government; costs saved on trying to crack 'illegal' drugs; peace of mind for the many, many middle classed folk who dabble in a bit of blaw; distinct control of suppliers or less harmful stuff (e.g. cannabis) compared to the dangerous stuff (smack).

 

There's a reason that they don't legalise cannabis. I can't for the life of me remember it. Something to do with America & the CIA...

 

The UN Charter as well.

 

In general, I would agree with what you say.

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

just after reading that sniffer dogs thread, i was just wondering...what are peoples' reasons for believing that de-criminalising (NOT LEGALISING) all drugs is a bad idea?

 

as i see it, you can actually control the substances a lot better and if people are going to their GP rather than their dealer for a dose of heroin, it'll probably loose that taboo edginess that might appeal to some...

 

it might seem like you're funding people's drug habits with tax money etc...but really, the cut down in crime to fund drugs would more than worth it...

 

i'm pretty sure much more tax money gets spent on alcoholics and binge drinkers anyway...

 

Don't know if I'm being daft here, but what's the difference?

[Riccarton 3]

I agree with others that decriminalisation of drugs is the way to go. Its very hypocritically of the government to be making vast somes of tax on a potentially very dangerous drug of addiction (alcohol) while banning out right other drugs.

[jambos are go!]

Other than booze I've never taken a recreational drug. I have some sympathy for decriminalisation but not if it was to lead to an increase in the human wreckage caused by Heroin and the like. I'd like to see the evidence on that front.

[Patrick Bateman]

I could really go for a cheeky bit of skag right now and I'd been doing so well. Cheers guys

[Riccarton 3]

Other than booze I've never taken a recreational drug. I have some sympathy for decriminalisation but not if it was to lead to an increase in the human wreckage caused by Heroin and the like. I'd like to see the evidence on that front.

Its way to late to ban Heroin and the like now as some folk will use it wether its legal or not. However if it was decriminalised or even legalised it would mean that the drug could be regulated and sold in measured 'safe' doses for users. I should point out that Im not a user either and if truth be told rarely consume alcohol.

[The Doctor]

I might have agreed with the sentiment of decriminalising or even legalising drugs before earlier this evening when I had to clear up the dirty used syringes and other paraphenalia of some ****bag junkie lowlife who left them in the toilet at my work.

 

This despite the facts that;

 

A/ He had a needle box with him, I found that on the floor of the toilet by the 'spoon', citrus wrappers and syringe packets. This contains new syringes and has an integral sharps box for used pins.

 

B/ There are clear signs offering the use of sharps box should you need it.

 

C/ These signs ask users to act responsibly and not leave their used needles for others to pick up.

 

I found one used syringe in the cistern, another on the toilet floor.

 

Filthy, dirty, sub-human reptiles.

 

I feel better for that.

 

Anyone following the debate on Christianity may be questioning my commitment to loving my neighbour with sentiment like that. Jesus loves these guys, I think they're arseholes.

[Beavis]

I'd go one further. Flog the stuff in off licences or Chemists and tax it to the level that we are taxed on booze and baccy.

 

Hey Presto! An extra source of revenue to the Government; costs saved on trying to crack 'illegal' drugs; peace of mind for the many, many middle classed folk who dabble in a bit of blaw; distinct control of suppliers or less harmful stuff (e.g. cannabis) compared to the dangerous stuff (smack).

 

There's a reason that they don't legalise cannabis. I can't for the life of me remember it. Something to do with America & the CIA...

 

I agree with you on most of that. Except from the off licences bit these guys canny be trusted not to sell booze and fags to under age boys and girls. No way should they be dishing out smack.

[this_is_my_story]

No Question - of course drugs have to be decriminalised.

Quote from the Misuse of Drugs Act:

 

"This is the main piece of legislation covering drugs and categorises drugs as class A, B and C.

 

These drugs are termed as controlled substances, and Class A drugs are those considered to be the most harmful."

 

Controlled? Think about the journey of a substance like heroin or cocaine - from the country of origin, all the way to the streets of the UK. How many pairs of hands does it go through? **** knows, but by the time it gets to the user it could be hundreds. At each stage it'll be cut, and often quite unscrupulously (as is frequently the case with heroin). By criminals with one sole intent, to make as much cash as possible. That's not exerting very much 'control' over these 'controlled' substances.

 

Consider the rise in drug use over the past twenty years, ecstasy coming on to the rave scene, cocaine use becoming more common to the point where you'd be lucky to go into any city centre pub toilet and not find a trace on the cistern lid. Then consider the cost to the state - Customs & Excise, Police, the Judicial System - of fighting a battle which is, under the current act, a perennially losing one. It's incomprehensible.

 

I genuinely don't think there would be a huge upsurge in the use of any drug; those that are inclined to take them will countinue to indulge, those who aren't, won't. Yes, of course people will take too much, and will become addicts, and lives will be seriously affected. That already happens with alcohol, and it already happens with the currently 'controlled' substances.

 

Demand will never cease. That is beyond any sane doubt. So surely, in fiscal terms at least, it makes sense to stop flogging a dead horse.

 

And anyway, why should anyone be criminalised for freedom of choice?

It's fundamentally wrong.

[this_is_my_story]

What I also meant to add, was that with drugs being contolled in the proper sense of the word, the big difference is that drug-related deaths would be reduced. This is because purity would actually be measured, decreasing the amount of overdoses, and impurities would be non-existent. It's often the case that life threatening abscesses and the likes, are the result of dangerous substances used to cut heroin, not the actual drug itself.

[Mr Nobody]

Its way to late to ban Heroin and the like now as some folk will use it wether its legal or not. However if it was decriminalised or even legalised it would mean that the drug could be regulated and sold in measured 'safe' doses for users. I should point out that Im not a user either and if truth be told rarely consume alcohol.

 

 

Problem is though that there are many people like myself who would not take Heroion as it may not be safe and couldn't afford the conviction from a professional point of view. However, if it was legal and safe I would probably give it a bash.

 

 

Is that a good or bad thing?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I've often said we should make a deal with junkies. They have two choices. Either they (a) sign up for a proper rehab programme that does not involve the joke that is methadone or ( sign up to receive controlled amounts of the drugs they are on (I'm talking about charlie and smack here, plus their derivatives) but the quid pro quo is that they don't qualify for healthcare on the NHS as a result.

 

The others can be legalised and taxed. Job done.

[Boris]

I heard anecdotally at the weekend that there was a GP in Liverpool who was prescribing smack to addicts.

 

Crime rates in the area went down 90%. Then The Sun got hold of it and the GP was forced to stop this practice. Crime rates then increased again.

 

In Switzerland, heroin addicts can sign up and receive free heroin. Of those one third are in full time employment (contributing to society), a third are in part time employment and a third do hee haw. If you are willing to take the third doing nothing this seems a sensible method.

[doctor jambo]

Every heroin user who presents anywhere- hospital, GP, police, courts, should be offered a detox/ substitute prescribing,

To decline it means a stop in benefits

Drugs per se are not vnecessarily a bad thing, it is just that some people should never touch some drugs and will never have a "recreational" relationship with them

They should be forced to accept help for the sake of society in general

It is not so much the criminal aspect of the drugs, but the activities necessary for their purchase- the theft/mugging etc

YOu cannot decriminalise drugs, as it is the fundraising to buy the drugs that accounts for the huge amount of crime

[Oxford City]

Decriminalising drugs (i.e. not arresting people for using them, but not making their sale legal) would mean that those who supply the drugs (who would still be acting illegally) would have a great deal more financial power. So, in effect, you would be helping organised crime in a lot of cases.

 

Decriminalising doesn't seem logical. Legalising drugs does. Whether you believe it is morally correct is another matter. As some people have said, there are currently legal drugs which are much worse than currently illegal drugs, but anyone who starts to raise this instantly gets leapt on as a loony in the media.

[Craig R]

No Question - of course drugs have to be decriminalised.

Quote from the Misuse of Drugs Act:

 

"This is the main piece of legislation covering drugs and categorises drugs as class A, B and C.

 

These drugs are termed as controlled substances, and Class A drugs are those considered to be the most harmful."

 

The problem is that this is nonsense. Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than many class B and C drugs, and even more so than Ecstasy and acid, which are class A. The classification system is a joke.

 

[I P Knightley]

Other than booze I've never taken a recreational drug. I have some sympathy for decriminalisation but not if it was to lead to an increase in the human wreckage caused by Heroin and the like. I'd like to see the evidence on that front.

 

I have a theory that separating the supply of cannabis from the supply of heroin would help.

 

Currently, the folk that supply you dope will be the same folk that can get you smack. There has to be some link - the dealer will try to push anything he can on you and so there will be a proportion of dope-heads who switch over to smack.

 

If there's 'official' dealers, I believe that proportion would be a lot lower.

 

Maybe selling thorugh pharmacies would be a better suggestion than the offies.

 

Why's this so obvious and logical to all of us but not being suggested by Government?

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

Decriminalising drugs (i.e. not arresting people for using them, but not making their sale legal) would mean that those who supply the drugs (who would still be acting illegally) would have a great deal more financial power. So, in effect, you would be helping organised crime in a lot of cases.

 

Decriminalising doesn't seem logical. Legalising drugs does. Whether you believe it is morally correct is another matter. As some people have said, there are currently legal drugs which are much worse than currently illegal drugs, but anyone who starts to raise this instantly gets leapt on as a loony in the media.

 

Cheers.

[Boris]

Why's this so obvious and logical to all of us but not being suggested by Government?

 

Because too many people still associate illegality with immorality. That and the headlines that would be plastered over the front of the "popular" press. The experts in this field seem to think that some sort of controlled relaxation of the law would be beneficial. The rabble rousing rhetoric of the red tops does not.

[Bindy Badgy]

Why's this so obvious and logical to all of us but not being suggested by Government?

 

My mate is a councillor and he's all for the legalisation of certain drugs. However, he wouldn't touch the issue with a barge poll as he knows that it is career suicide.

[Miller Jambo 60]

I'd go one further. Flog the stuff in off licences or Chemists and tax it to the level that we are taxed on booze and baccy.

 

Hey Presto! An extra source of revenue to the Government; costs saved on trying to crack 'illegal' drugs; peace of mind for the many, many middle classed folk who dabble in a bit of blaw; distinct control of suppliers or less harmful stuff (e.g. cannabis) compared to the dangerous stuff (smack).

 

There's a reason that they don't legalise cannabis. I can't for the life of me remember it. Something to do with America & the CIA...

 

Good thread and you are right my friend, might even put petrol prices down.

(Sorry getting carried away)

Make it all legal and above board ,you will get fewer deaths of poor souls dying alone.

Dont think the dealers will like it.

[doctor jambo]

Good thread and you are right my friend, might even put petrol prices down.

(Sorry getting carried away)

Make it all legal and above board ,you will get fewer deaths of poor souls dying alone.

Dont think the dealers will like it.

 

There will not be fewer deaths

large proportion of deaths in this country are due to people re-commencing drugs after a break (released from prison etc then go back onto same dose)

And almost all are poly drug use

Make drugs legal and you still have the crime problem ot fund them

Make the drugs cheap and the dealers will go cheaper/ pedal more directly to kids

They will find a market

On prescription? Why?

Methadone / DHC are already used and effective at cutting usage down and is safe IF the addict stays clean

Bad life = bad death

[the voice from above]

Q - 'Why should drugs NOT be decriminalised?'

 

A - They are fun.

[I P Knightley]

There will not be fewer deaths

large proportion of deaths in this country are due to people re-commencing drugs after a break (released from prison etc then go back onto same dose)

And almost all are poly drug use

Make drugs legal and you still have the crime problem ot fund them

Make the drugs cheap and the dealers will go cheaper/ pedal more directly to kids

They will find a market

On prescription? Why?

Methadone / DHC are already used and effective at cutting usage down and is safe IF the addict stays clean

Bad life = bad death

 

Dr J Knox, I presume?

 

Surely there are some drugs that aren't as bad as others yet are criminalised (if that's the correct terminology)?

 

If that's the case, surely it follows that making sure that users of those drugs have the opportunity to acquire them clean and regulated reduces risks associated with the current position of having to buy them from dodgy blokes?

 

There's always likely to be a black market, as there is for cigs at the mo. But folk who want to buy stuff off the black market know that there are additional risks.

 

I don't use cannabis but know plenty of folk in all walks of life who do. I wouldn't say a single one of them is leading a bad life but it annoys the hell out of me that their cash goes straight into the pockets of criminals (who do live bad lives) each time they score a bit of blaw.

 

Marginalise the bad guys. Booo!

[Ivan Drago]

Because too many people still associate illegality with immorality. That and the headlines that would be plastered over the front of the "popular" press. The experts in this field seem to think that some sort of controlled relaxation of the law would be beneficial. The rabble rousing rhetoric of the red tops does not.

 

This might be a bit off topic, but i find it hilarious the amount of coverage and praise the red tops give to festivals such as TITP, yet condemn drugs so readily.

 

Do they actually have a clue what goes on at these festivals?

[Riccarton 3]

Problem is though that there are many people like myself who would not take Heroion as it may not be safe and couldn't afford the conviction from a professional point of view. However, if it was legal and safe I would probably give it a bash.

 

 

Is that a good or bad thing?

Thats a good point, but like most things you are responsible for your own decisions and you cant lay the blame on legal endorsement surely?

[Maximus]

just after reading that sniffer dogs thread, i was just wondering...what are peoples' reasons for believing that de-criminalising (NOT LEGALISING) all drugs is a bad idea?

 

as i see it, you can actually control the substances a lot better and if people are going to their GP rather than their dealer for a dose of heroin, it'll probably loose that taboo edginess that might appeal to some...

 

it might seem like you're funding people's drug habits with tax money etc...but really, the cut down in crime to fund drugs would more than worth it...

 

i'm pretty sure much more tax money gets spent on alcoholics and binge drinkers anyway...

Like with booze?

 

Not sure I get your logic. We have enough problems as it is with alcohol (a drug with no taboo edginess), as you state in your post, yet you think de-criminalising drugs will be a good idea? You get a lot more than just a hangover with smack, all the potential savings made, both financial and social, would surely be lost due to an increase in usage of drugs? leading to more health problems (which we really could'nt cope with seeing the current state of the NHS) and economic problems - lost days off work/rise in unemployment. You have to remember the one thing keeping some so called educated people away from 'hard' drugs is the 'taboo' as you call it.

[Quagmire]

Like with booze?

 

Not sure I get your logic. We have enough problems as it is with alcohol (a drug with no taboo edginess), as you state in your post, yet you think de-criminalising drugs will be a good idea? You get a lot more than just a hangover with smack, all the potential savings made, both financial and social, would surely be lost due to an increase in usage of drugs? leading to more health problems (which we really could'nt cope with seeing the current state of the NHS) and economic problems - lost days off work/rise in unemployment. You have to remember the one thing keeping some so called educated people away from 'hard' drugs is the 'taboo' as you call it.

 

 

i'm not talking about nipping down to the shop for some smack - i think it should be prescribed to addicts from the GP.

[this_is_my_story]

i'm not talking about nipping down to the shop for some smack - i think it should be prescribed to addicts from the GP.

 

Interesting point, this has, to some extent been suggested:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/police-chief-calls-for-heroin-to-be-available-on-the-nhs-436974.html

I also remember a few years ago watching a c4 programme - 'The drugs work' or 'The drugs do work' or something like that - which followed the careers of professionals, including a doctor, who were able to function normally and go about their daily business seemingly without any problem, whilst using prescribed heroin (not methadone!).

[this_is_my_story]

Decriminalising drugs (i.e. not arresting people for using them, but not making their sale legal) would mean that those who supply the drugs (who would still be acting illegally) would have a great deal more financial power. So, in effect, you would be helping organised crime in a lot of cases.

 

Decriminalising doesn't seem logical. Legalising drugs does. Whether you believe it is morally correct is another matter. As some people have said, there are currently legal drugs which are much worse than currently illegal drugs, but anyone who starts to raise this instantly gets leapt on as a loony in the media.

 

Isn't that not the case with the Dutch laws on weed? I know for a fact that the cafes that supply it are at least regulated in the sense that they're only legally permitted to have a certain amount held on their premises at any one time.

 

Confused now!

[this_is_my_story]

I have a theory that separating the supply of cannabis from the supply of heroin would help.

 

Currently, the folk that supply you dope will be the same folk that can get you smack. There has to be some link - the dealer will try to push anything he can on you and so there will be a proportion of dope-heads who switch over to smack.

 

If there's 'official' dealers, I believe that proportion would be a lot lower.

 

Maybe selling thorugh pharmacies would be a better suggestion than the offies.

 

Why's this so obvious and logical to all of us but not being suggested by Government?

 

This has to be one of the most over-used and wildly inaccurate theories. Frankly, it's complete pish. Are there any smokers here who've ever been asked "I can get you heroin instead if you want" by their dope dealer? It's an undisputed fact that that a very large percentage of heroin users started their foray into drug use by firstly starting with weed.

This obviously does not equate to assuming that a similar percentage of cannabis smokers will 'progress' to using heroin.

 

Utter nonsense.

[Bindy Badgy]

This has to be one of the most over-used and wildly inaccurate theories. Frankly, it's complete pish. Are there any smokers here who've ever been asked "I can get you heroin instead if you want" by their dope dealer?

 

The first person to offer me hard drugs was a cannabis dealer. Smack wasn't on the menu but loads of other chemicals were.

[Gavsy Van Gaverson]

I'll try anything twice.

 

[200milesfromgorgie]

out of all the intoxicating substance flying about alchol is the worst.