22ANDUK

Illicit and Illegal Drugs Should Be Legalised.

Below are ten key points arguing for their legalisation.

1) Address the real issues
For too long policy makers have used prohibition as a smoke screen to avoid addressing the social and economic factors that lead people to use drugs. Most illegal and legal drug use is recreational. Poverty and despair are at the root of most problematic drug use and it is only by addressing these underlying causes that we can hope to significantly decrease the number of problematic users.

2) Eliminate the criminal market place
The market for drugs is demand-led and millions of people demand illegal drugs. Making the production, supply and use of some drugs illegal creates a vacuum into which organised crime moves. The profits are worth billions of pounds. Legalisation forces organised crime from the drugs trade, starves them of income and enables us to regulate and control the market (i.e. prescription, licensing, laws on sales to minors, advertising regulations etc.)

3) Massively reduce crime
The price of illegal drugs is determined by a demand-led, unregulated market. Using illegal drugs is very expensive. This means that some dependent users resort to stealing to raise funds (accounting for 50% of UK property crime - estimated at £2 billion a year). Most of the violence associated with illegal drug dealing is caused by its illegality

Legalisation would enable us to regulate the market, determine a much lower price and remove users need to raise funds through crime. Our legal system would be freed up and our prison population dramatically reduced, saving billions. Because of the low price, cigarette smokers do not have to steal to support their habits. There is also no violence associated with the legal tobacco market.

4) Drug users are a majority
Recent research shows that nearly half of all 15-16 year olds have used an illegal drug. Up to one and a half million people use ecstasy every weekend. Amongst young people, illegal drug use is seen as normal. Intensifying the 'war on drugs' is not reducing demand. In Holland, where cannabis laws are far less harsh, drug usage is amongst the lowest in Europe.

Legalisation accepts that drug use is normal and that it is a social issue, not a criminal justice one. How we deal with it is up to all of us to decide.

In 1970 there were 9000 convictions or cautions for drug offences and 15% of young people had used an illegal drug. In 1995 the figures were 94 000 and 45%. Prohibition doesn't work.

5) Provide access to truthful information and education
A wealth of disinformation about drugs and drug use is given to us by ignorant and prejudiced policy-makers and media who peddle myths upon lies for their own ends. This creates many of the risks and dangers associated with drug use.

Legalisation would help us to disseminate open, honest and truthful information to users and non-users to help them to make decisions about whether and how to use. We could begin research again on presently illicit drugs to discover all their uses and effects - both positive and negative.

6) Make all drug use safer
Prohibition has led to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of drug users. Countries that operate ultra-prohibitionist policies have very high rates of HIV infection amongst injecting users. Hepatitis C rates amongst users in the UK are increasing substantially. In the '80's clean needles for injecting users and safer sex education for young people were made available in response to fears of HIV. Harm reduction policies are in direct opposition to prohibitionist laws.

7) Restore our rights and responsibilities
Prohibition unnecessarily criminalises millions of otherwise law-abiding people. It removes the responsibility for distribution of drugs from policy makers and hands it over to unregulated, sometimes violent dealers. Legalisation restores our right to use drugs responsibly to change the way we think and feel. It enables controls and regulations to be put in place to protect the vulnerable.

8) Race and Drugs
Black people are over ten times more likely to be imprisoned for drug offences than whites. Arrests for drug offences are notoriously discretionary allowing enforcement to easily target a particular ethnic group. Prohibition has fostered this stereotyping of black people. Legalisation removes a whole set of laws that are used to disproportionately bring black people into contact with the criminal justice system. It would help to redress the over representation of black drug offenders in prison.

9) Global Implications
The illegal drugs market makes up 8% of all world trade (around £300 billion a year). Whole countries are run under the corrupting influence of drug cartels. Prohibition also enables developed countries to wield vast political power over producer nations under the auspices of drug control programmes.

Legalisation returns lost revenue to the legitimate taxed economy and removes some of the high-level corruption. It also removes a tool of political interference by foreign countries against producer nations.

10) Prohibition doesn't work
There is no evidence to show that prohibition is succeeding. The question we must ask ourselves is, "What are the benefits of criminalising any drug?" If, after examining all the available evidence, we find that the costs outweigh the benefits, then we must seek an alternative policy.

Legalisation is not a cure-all but it does allow us to address many of the problems associated with drug use, and those created by prohibition. The time has come for an effective and pragmatic drug policy.

************************************************** ***

What's your personal opinion? Do you believe that are drugs should kept illegal or some should be legalised, regulated and controlled. Please use the poll above to vote and elaborate further by posting. Are you happy with the stance on drugs the political party you support currently takes? If not, what should their stance be?

mkpdavies

If you combine legalisation, with a couple of conditions, then I would back it.

1) If you commit any crime while on drugs, you will be punished even more harshly, for being irresponible in your use of the drug.

2) If you hurt yourself while on drugs, then you will have to pay for any service or treatment you recieve.

This would include alcohol.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Roland

I agree with most of that the one exception should be heroin although I think those that are already addicts should be supplied through regulated clinics where doses could be administered through doctors.

There are two reasons for this-

1) It would remove users from any social scene around the use of the drug.

2) Heroin users can live normal lives with out criminal activity if they have the money to pay for the stuff. They only get involved in crime to pay for it. They end up lying scum not because they were lying scum but because the illegality of it and their need for it causes them to live a life where lying is so routine they literally can't distinguish between a lie and the truth (this also happens to politicians). People blame the drug for the way users end up the truth is it's the life they lead.

If the drug was legalized or regulated their would be no point in criminal organizations smuggling it in it would have no real value. If the criminal organizations stop bring it in to the country if theres no social scene attached
use then their will be no or very few new users. As for those already hooked they have a far better chance of leading a normal crime free life and a better chance of getting off the stuff.

As for the rest of the drugs every one under 40 dose them any way. The profit on them could go in the chancellors pot rather than organized criminals.

Kevin Adamson

Drug dealers are low life scum and should be banged up for life.
Drug users should go and keep them company for a couple of years,get the scum off our streets they will soon get the message.

Prohibition dosn't work because the penalties arn't severe enough

Roland

Half the population including admitted members of both sides of the house of commons is one awful big prison.

mkpdavies

I take it you are principled and apply that to alcohol too?

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Kevin Adamson

The point is the numbers would be greatly reduced if the punnishments were more severe.
The house of commons could become one awful big prison

Kevin Adamson

No I dont apply that to alcohol. The drinking of alcohol has been a safe and enjoyable social pastime for many generations. There are also some health benifits assciated with moderate drinking.Of course there are some who have abused the use of alcohol but they are a very small minority of those who partake.

I also think the use of certain drugs should be permitted in certain circumstances, I myself have brought cannabis (30 years for me then!) for a nieghbour who suffers from MS (She puts it in her tea)

Ea of Dune

I'd legalise the drugs and regulate them. Things like Heroin would be heavily regulated (to the point where we could hopefully stop people becoming junkies).
I'd then pump in some of the tax money to finding medical innoculations for drugs. People could then choose if they thought they where getting out of hand to have a innoculation which would prevent their body getting a high from THC or whatever.
If the innoculation was also offered as an option other then going to prison for offences commited on drugs, then I think we could crush the drugs related crime fairly quickly. No junkies = no dodgy dealers = no drugs gang crime and turf war.

I'd also set the bar to 21 for purchases to start with whilst we sensibly monitored the effect the de-regulisation had on society.

If importing drugs into the country without a license was treated super harshly then it just wouldn't be worth people trying to create a black market and we could regulate the content of the product like we do other products in our market place.

I think the above would see real results on combatting drugs related crime. At the same time we wouldn't be criminalising large sections of our society for what is basically a health/social issue.

Ea of dune

mkpdavies

Some would argue that Alcohol causes more grief than any other drug could or would.

So it comes down to some different factors.

For me what damage the drug does to the indiviudal isn't an issue. If they want to take the risk, that's their call. Anything in moderation is fine, including even the most addictive drugs.

That's the next point though. How easy is it to get addicted. Some people seem to have addicitve genes and get addicted to anything. Heroin and Crack are supposedly very addictive, so the responsible use of these may be more difficult.

Then we have the how much in control people have when on drugs. Some drugs (including alcohol) have very little effect. Indeed some will even calm people down and make them less likely to hurt others.

Some though, can put people into a violent uncontrollable rage (including alcohol) if abused.

Maybe licensing is the way to go for the high end stuff. However, that hasn't really worked on alcohol. So should these licensed premises have to make sure people leave them in a fit state? Or should they be allowed onto the streets and if people choose to let themselves get out of control and hurt people, then they get hammered in the courts with immense harshness. Maybe that deterent would either stop people using drugs they know they can't handle, or voluntarily go to "safe houses" that specialise in keep users safe and out of trouble.

Finally we come to unknown long term effects on the brain. Well, we won't know for sure, until we have had a lot of willing Guniea Pigs willing to take the risk and give us some evidence. Alcohol certainly kills many braincells and can harm mental health in the long run (if the livers don't pack in first!). What do we do with them? How do you know it was drugs? Well it's possible we will all lose our marbles in old age. We should all be saving for our final years anyway. What do you do with an oldy who is skint, mad and useless? If they have family, then they either take care, or at the moment, they dump them on the state to look after.

Would you expect people to be robbed to look after these people, or even just the ones who didn't provide for their old age. Or would you think some charities would spring up in a truly free society?

No easy answer for people who don't provide for themselves, when they know they are responsible for themselves. Stealing from the ones who are responsible doesn't seem like a good deal to me though.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems