Police chief to call for all drugs to be legalised

[9sublime]

I think one of the best quotes is: He notes that figures from the Chief Medical Officer revealing that, in Scotland, 13,000 people died from tobacco-related use in 2004 while 2,052 died as a result of alcohol. Illegal drugs, meanwhile, accounted for 356 deaths.

Sure, legalizing them might mean more people dabble in them, which is never a good thing, but it will mean that the purity and the safety of the supply system will reduce the risks of overdose etc.

Also, much of the criminal world would be crippled.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/15/ndrugs115.xml

[Bunz]

Sure, legalizing them might mean more people dabble in them, which is never a good thing, but it will mean that the purity and the safety of the supply system will reduce the risks of overdose etc.
You know I am not so convinced that large amounts of people will start using a substance because it becomes legal overnight. Surely in the short term, there would be an increase. But that would most likely stablize after not to long. If heroin, cocaine etc became legal right now. I still wouldnt mess with it. Whether something is legal or not, often times have little bearing in its actual use.

Also, much of the criminal world would be crippled.
This is where you would notice a real difference. If the money were to dry up, you would see less crime associated with drugs. If the blackmarket mark-up were to allow price to become realistic in terms of actual supply and demand, and true production costs, people would be less likely to become violent in thier efforts to capture the market.

[SW85]

I think one of the best quotes is: He notes that figures from the Chief Medical Officer revealing that, in Scotland, 13,000 people died from tobacco-related use in 2004 while 2,052 died as a result of alcohol. Illegal drugs, meanwhile, accounted for 356 deaths.

OK, well, isn't that evidence that the war on drugs is working?

[Bunz]

OK, well, isn't that evidence that the war on drugs is working?
You might be able to interpret it that way.
It is indicative of several things to me.

It shows that drug users of the kind that can cause quick death are minimal in thier existence.

The hypocracy of the policy itself

That all substance abuse, if it is a legal or illegal substance, should be treated as a public health problem and not criminal activity.

[SW85]

It shows that drug users of the kind that can cause quick death are minimal in thier existence.

Eh? What does quick death have anything to do with drug use? Tobacco and alcohol use can take years to kill their victims.

The numbers for drug use are lower; drugs are illegal; the numbers for alcohol and tobacco are higher, and they're legal. I certainly don't mean to draw causation where there is only correlation, but the data certainly doesn't lend itself to the argument being used here.

The hypocracy of the policy itself

I don't follow. And the word is "hypocrisy." You would be well-served at least being able to spell the words you use to justify bad policy.

[Bunz]

but the data certainly doesn't lend itself to the argument being used here.

I was making reference to overdoses.

[r0beph]

Eh? What does quick death have anything to do with drug use? Tobacco and alcohol use can take years to kill their victims.

his assertion there isn't really...valid. However the number of deaths due to drugs is only accounted for in acute onset death, not death due to complications there of. A heroin overdose is labeled drug related. A heart attack due to a life of cocaine use but not due to the actual current usage will not be labeled as such, where as it would be were it tobacco related. We can also add that drug related murders as well as drug related crimes, including murders, as well as accidents due to drug use (as they are with drinking). This skews the number of what is more damaging on whole.


The numbers for drug use are lower; drugs are illegal; the numbers for alcohol and tobacco are higher, and they're legal. I certainly don't mean to draw causation where there is only correlation, but the data certainly doesn't lend itself to the argument being used here.

The numbers for drug use are actually, unknown. Since it is illegal, the majority of users are unknown. Tobacco and alcohol are easier to gauge since there is no stigma in telling people that you use.



I don't follow. And the word is "hypocrisy." You would be well-served at least being able to spell the words you use to justify bad policy.

on this note, please take your over zealous grammatical fascism and shove it up your arse. This is debate, not a playground, grow the hell up. His mispelling oh a word means very little in regards to any of what is being discussed here. People like you are pathetic and infantile.

[Truth-Bringer]

Sure, legalizing them might mean more people dabble in them, which is never a good thing, but it will mean that the purity and the safety of the supply system will reduce the risks of overdose etc.

Also, much of the criminal world would be crippled.

Precisely. It's just like Alcohol Prohibition in this country. Making the drugs illegal creates all sorts of unintended consequences which empower gangs and organized crime.

[Kwaku]

though we all agree on this it will NEVER HAPPEN.
Go figure...

I guess there are just too many people making a buck selling drugs or guns or whatever for politics to realise that this is the truth!

[USMC the Almighty]

Precisely. It's just like Alcohol Prohibition in this country. Making the drugs illegal creates all sorts of unintended consequences which empower gangs and organized crime.

It's funny to see you say this. I got in a debate with a lady friend of mine the other day about a similar thing. I was arguing that the organized crime bosses should get control of the drugs. The government does very little right and without corruption and they should focus on more important things so they shouldn't have control of drug trade.

And the disorganized gangs dominating things is certainly not a good thing. Think back to the crack epidemics. Street corners getting sprayed, little kids and elderly people getting killed, brazen daylight executions.

Look at the difference when the Mafia ran the drug trade and when the black and Latino street gangs ran it.

With the Mafia, the only people getting killed were each other and people dumb enough to do business with them. And a lot energy was devoted to fun stuff like racketteering.

[9sublime]

Thats a bit idealistic and nostalgic isn't it USMC? Almost like a coherent steveox haha.

Trial legalization with ecstasy and cannabis, even impose harsher penalties on non-government distribution (especially ecstasy). This will elimnate the dangers of purity and crime from these drugs. People will be able to enjoy them with the safe knowledge of where they came from and whats in them.

If that works out, try it with speed and other commonly avaliable drugs with distribution problems such as purity and the associate crime. Speed is 15% pure on average in the UK, and its no surpise a hell of a lot of deaths come from dangerous chemicals or overdose because of unknown strength.

Standardize it and you eliminate the problem.

[USMC the Almighty]

Thats a bit idealistic and nostalgic isn't it USMC? Almost like a coherent steveox haha.

Hahaha, it does sound a little bit like steveox. I was joking (mainly) but it's kind of interesting to look at.

I sometimes have a fun arguing for ridiculous postions like putting the Mafia in charge of the drug trade. I once argued that corruption in politics was good. How else would anything get done? We've chugged along for 175 years with a blatantly corrupt political system and it worked just fine.

[Bunz]

It is interesting, because the powers that be have vested all of thier focus on having Americans taking pills for all number of things and spending millions of dollars advertising it. I think we let the corporations take over the drug trade. I would imagine Merck and the others could come up with a pretty good product. The costs of enforcement and punishment for the current type of prohibition policy just isnt working.

[Truth-Bringer]

It's funny to see you say this. I got in a debate with a lady friend of mine the other day about a similar thing. I was arguing that the organized crime bosses should get control of the drugs. The government does very little right and without corruption and they should focus on more important things so they shouldn't have control of drug trade.


Neither the government nor organized crime should control drugs. If drugs were legalized, organized crime would no longer be able to deal profitably in drugs, because retail price increases over tenfold in a black market. Take away that black market, and drugs become much more affordable.

People can buy them in drug stores along with other pharmaceuticals. There's no need for any criminal organization to be involved.

The vast majority of people who don't use drugs don't do so because they fear criminal prosecution. They don't use drugs because they fear losing control over their lives, losing their job and not being able to provide for their family. Those powerful motivators will still be in place if drugs are legalized.

[USMC the Almighty]

Neither the government nor organized crime should control drugs. If drugs were legalized, organized crime would no longer be able to deal profitably in drugs, because retail price increases over tenfold in a black market. Take away that black market, and drugs become much more affordable.

People can buy them in drug stores along with other pharmaceuticals. There's no need for any criminal organization to be involved.

The vast majority of people who don't use drugs don't do so because they fear criminal prosecution. They don't use drugs because they fear losing control over their lives, losing their job and not being able to provide for their family. Those powerful motivators will still be in place if drugs are legalized.

But it's a lot more interesting when the Mafia's involved.

[Truth-Bringer]

But it's a lot more interesting when the Mafia's involved.

Please tell me you're just kidding around here. All violent criminals should be locked up for life. "Interesting" is irrelevant.

[USMC the Almighty]

Please tell me you're just kidding around here. All violent criminals should be locked up for life. "Interesting" is irrelevant.

Lighten up a little bit, TB. Of course I'm kidding (mainly). And the Mafia only kills other "violent criminals" and people stupid enough to do business with them. Think of it as Darwinism.

[Kwaku]

Trial legalization with ecstasy and cannabis, even impose harsher penalties on non-government distribution (especially ecstasy). This will elimnate the dangers of purity and crime from these drugs. People will be able to enjoy them with the safe knowledge of where they came from and whats in them.


Standardize it and you eliminate the problem.

Oddly enough, that is what the government in The Netherlands has been trying for the past decades and they've been crucified for it in the entire world!
We have less drug related crime, less deaths, even less users because of our way of dealing with it, but nobody wants to get on board.
That's what makes me wonder WHY the big leaders of say UK, US, France are so adament: who's pulling the strings behind the scenes?

I remember France's former president Chirac was one of the most rabid haters of the Dutch system: his own son was a heroin addict. Making drugs illegal and cracking down on them has only increased the amount of deaths and the crime rate.
But why is no one listening????

(sorry if I sound paranoid, I saw Sicko last night and now see conspiraies everywhere ;)

[Bunz]

Kwaku,
I would agree, the Dutch system appears to be a successful model in regards to recreational drug use. Having never been there, and for anyone else who hasnt, can you kind of give a run down on how the whole thing actually works. I know pot is more or less available from commercial sources etc. But Id like a little more info on how it actually works.

[Kwaku]

Well,
you can buy pot from a coffeeshop. There's quite a few of those all over the country and all towns have one or more of them.
Free heroin is given to longterm addicts
You can have your extacy tested at parties to see if it's ok
(I haven't been to a rave in years, but they used to have facilities there to have your pills checked and "black lists" with pills that were dangerous.

Pot isn't legal, because the European union wont let the Netherlands do that so you have this uncomfortable system where selling pot is legal, but growing it isn't. Weird huh?
It's not an ideal system, but it is much much better than making it all criminal.

Here's a wikipedia article on Dutch drug policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

[9sublime]

It is illegal to posses cannabis outside of a coffee shop, but the police don't have the right to search you on the grounds you might have it...

You can get ecstasy testing kits in the UK for your pills at raves.

Kwaku, you a raver? What are they like in the US cos you don't have the most thriving of drum n bass/hardcore scenes do you?

[Kwaku]

I'm Dutch, so I wouldn't be able to shed much of light on the US scene. Even in The Netherlands I must admit I haven't been to a rave in about 10 years. Back then it was good. Really good even, so I guess there's still a pretty good underground scene. The places I used to go to were usually squats, old swimmingpools or factories or cinemas being used for great parties.
Those have all been torn down by now, but I'm sure there's a whole new set of decrepid old buildings filled with throngs of ravers all over the country today!

[9sublime]

Yeah I've been to a few, all outdoors though recently. The scenes definetly shrunk since the the '90s in the UK, but the tunes are better.

[saggyjones]

I didn't see this topic before posting my drug legalization thread, but if you're interested in the subject you should take a look at it.

[bewitched]

drug legalities tie up the court systems that need to be cleared out for future problems that will be much bigger.

[9sublime]

Let me guess... these future problems are the Jews fault?

[bewitched]

Let me guess... these future problems are the Jews fault?

heh. that's funny.
no, I wouldn't say the Jews want anything more than to live in peace like the rest of us.
but the enemies of the West will need a place to be tried.

[WileE]

Free heroin is given to longterm addicts
You can have your extacy tested at parties to see if it's ok
The Dutch system of legalized narcontics sounds reasonable enough, but I was wondering who pays for this free stuff. If it's the taxpayers, I don't think it would go over too well, here in the U.S., as most Americans have a thing against socialism. Just curious.

[9sublime]

I'm guessing its the government who pays for the free heroin. I believe they give them diamorphine, and they do this in the UK too.

[kbthiede@gmail.com]

I don't believe in a nanny state where the government seeks to "protect us from ourselves" when our vices are our own choice.

[9sublime]

Yeah, but I think those who punt heroin to kids outside schools deserve some kind of punishment, don't you?

[foggedinn]

Stopped smoking pot about three years ago, shortly after coming back into the church. Smoked pot for over thirty years. Learned a few things about drug enforcement and exactly who it is who actually sells pot.

The newspapers lie to you. The police lie to you. The courts and the drug education system lies to you. There is no informed public debate taking place in this country about drugs and there hasn't been in over 40 years.

I was never arrested for drugs and held a high paying job for the thirty years that I smoked. I'm currently retired and living a modest but comfortable lifestyle. This isn't sour grapes.

It's my experience that about 1% of the drug dealers sell 99% of the drugs. 100% of the people going to prison for drug dealing come from among the 99% of drug dealers selling 1% of the drugs. Early on, the police offered me one of these politically protected drug dealing positions. All I had to do was be perfectly honest with the police about how much I sold, when, where, to whom, and for how much. I declined.

It's obvious to me that the drug problem will only be "solved" when we begin dealing with it in truth. That of course, would take an act of God. But I repeat myself.

[9sublime]

Early on, the police offered me one of these politically protected drug dealing positions. All I had to do was be perfectly honest with the police about how much I sold, when, where, to whom, and for how much. I declined.


Really??

[foggedinn]

Really??

Yes really. Deep cover confidential informant is really just another way of saying politically protected drug dealer. Undercover police is just another way of saying secret police.

The root of the drug problem is corruption. Not corruption in Mexico, Columbia, or Afganistan, but corruption right here at home. Corruption hides in the dark. It will take the light of truth and a whole lot of forgiveness to ever clear up the problem. The politic demands that undercover sources and methods be hidden. It is these hidden sources and methods that allow the problem to thrive.

Consider the word police. It has the same root as politic. Virtually our whole society is under the mistaken impression that the police enforce the law, when what they really do is enforce the politic. And quite frankly, it is a corrupt politic.

[Here We Go]

Since we cannot stop illegal drugs from coming into the United States, how can we stop illegal immigrants or terrorists? Everybody is passing the buck and I might add the buck is counterfeit.

Prisons were made to imprison really bad people. A lot of first time prisoners did not go in really bad but came out REALLY bad due to being around other really bad people. Hence, they are repeat offenders, getting worse and worse. No solutions to the problem has been made. Only added problems. Is there anybody out there with common sense to look at all these problems? Our present system ain't working sports fans!

[sheldonking5]

your takin all the fun out of it.....robbing for crack is the best part....

[yerlambreeze]

His idea is noble and unorthodox. It's like he's applying reverse psychology that the more we prohibit the use of, in this case, heroine, the more people will be using it and if we actually let them by legalizing it, then people might think twice. Bottom line,drug abuse needs to be stopped.

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

His idea is noble and unorthodox. It's like he's applying reverse psychology that the more we prohibit the use of, in this case, heroine, the more people will be using it and if we actually let them by legalizing it, then people might think twice. Bottom line,drug abuse needs to be stopped.

ROFLMAO!!! The funny thing is that anyone i their right mind thinks they will stop drug trafficing ever... The fact is ... there is money to be made from Drug trafficing... and no matter how you slice.. when people see green.. they do anything and everything to get it.. hence why you have people recruiting little old ladies to shove latexed kilos of cocaine in there arses to cross customs.

The amount of people in jail with marijuana related crimes is astounding.. just legalizing marijuana BY ITSELF would eliminate huge jail populations and also comepletely shatter the economy of the blackmarket because people can grow it at home... Also when have you EVER heard of a PoT related death.. really .. ever in your whole life ? its impossible to overdose and most people who use pot. The only deaths related to pot are those who are pushing it thru turf wars. which would be eliminated if it was legalized.

Literally all arguments fall by the way side considering this logic when it comes to marijuana. why truth be told the other drugs out there could pose a much larger argument for keeping a ban on them... I pose this thought to you..

if by any possiblity there is truth is the ablitiy to lower orgnaized crime thru legalization.. shouldn't that option be on the table? people are going to get the drugs they want regardless of the system in place to prevent them from it... Its evident in walking into any crumy neighbhorhood in america. All you do is simply invite criminals to do the work normal citizens would have done form themselves. BTW you would reduce government.. increase the economy (( because you could legalize it and allow corprations to produce it , which would inturn provide the government with money thru corprate taxes.))

[Not Amused]

An Interesting subject.

Too bad the public at large react so badly to the idea of such a move; knee jerk reactions almost always mean really constructive, probable solutions are dismissed.

When discussing the legalization of drugs with colleagues, they always argue that the costs of such a system to the public purse would be astronomical, that we would be encouraging our young people to take drugs, that we would somehow be condoning 'criminal activity'.

I totally agree with the poster who stated that criminalizing drug users is a mistake by the way.

The cost to the public purse would actually be far less than the cost of mechanisms currently in place, which are obviously have not worked in the past and are still not working? One only has to look at any set of stats anywhere in the world (apart from the Netherlands and a small minority of other countries) to deduce this.

The cost of the war on drugs in the US so far this year; your own money by way of taxes, has been nearly thirty four billion dollars.

I am not sure if this even includes the actual costs to the public purse for drug related crime, or the cost of incarcerating drug abusers who resort to crime to fund their 'fix'.

If a user was able to collect his/her fix, free of any charge, via a safe, controlled environment, such as a pharmacy for example; which option would the user take I ask myself. The Pharmacy, or the dealer along with all associated cost and risk to person?

Once you have them using said safe, controlled environment, not only do you wipe out possibly 85% of drug related crime, but also, you have access to them, enabling medical authorities to wean them off over a period of time. Not all of course, that is not realistic, but enough to make a huge difference.

The massive costs to the public purse regarding medical care for addicts would also be hugely reduced, as not only would the drug source be controlled, but so would all drug paraphernalia associated with drug taking. The incidences of AIDS, Hepatitis, infection etc. etc, all huge strains on the public purse would be all but eliminated.

Most class A drug users started, their spiral downward by using soft drugs. This in itself is not necessarily a huge danger to be completely honest; the real danger lies within the association, the company one keeps so to speak, when using and accessing drugs. This environment would also be removed, lessening exposure to harder and harder drugs.

Many of our young people ‘try’ drugs because it is illegal, just as they try smoking, because they are not ‘allowed’. There is an element of risk there, which appeals to a percentage of young people at a certain age; curiosity, danger from the drug and danger from authority if found out/caught (including parents). If legal, perhaps the majority of young, vulnerable people would not find it quite so exciting to ‘try’?