What do you think of de-criminalising drugs?

Hi Masha

I couldn't agree with you more. Given that we already have two extremely toxic and addictive drugs in widespread and legal use in this country (I'm talking about alcohol and tobacco, but I could also add in prescribed drugs such as anti-depressants etc) I simply don't believe that the whole world would suddenly start taking heroin or smoking crack if those people who wish to or have to take these substances were no longer criminalised for so doing.
It is absolutely do-able. But I fear it will never be done because of the prevailing ethos that there has to be a WAR on drugs and that people who take drugs are BAD PEOPLE. Gawd, it's so blindingly obvious - but then so is most stuff to ordinary people like you and me. It's only those in 'power' who persist in muddying the waters.

There's always the mythical 'Hamsterdam' in Baltimore guys...;)

"What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we’ve been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose. The prison population doubles and doubles again; the drugs remain."

- Ed Burns and David Simon (writers of "The Wire")

.

.

I was going to mention Hamsterdam, Rog. Bunny Colvin was a wise cop. And look what happened to him!
xxx

Totally agree that drugs should be de-crimialised. This would save many lives as what addicts have to buy on the street varies in purity and people die often from overdosing. Addicts are ill and need help to help themselves. They do not enjoy stealing, mugging or selling themselves.
And yes the crazy war on drugs..but even intelligent Obama is all for it.
At least it keeps the drug dealers happy..business must be good.

These days TBH I don't know what I think on the thread topic.

On one detail:

There's always the mythical 'Hamsterdam' in Baltimore guys...;)

You may confuse folk, Rog?:) There really is such a place of course, but closer to home. (Yep, I just looked up your reference and find it relates to an episode of The Wire in which the idea was launched for such a place in Baltimore?)

Incidentally, there's a lesser-known such place in Copenhagen too, which I didn't know until my several visits to Denmark. I can't give trustworthy details on its origins as I never did a tourist tour of the city or read a book on it. But the story runs something like ... Back in hippy days (this would need fact-checking!) a bunch of blocks were simply taken over by the counter-culture. Nah, TBH, I'll stop the area's history right there, as I know no more for sure. Except that it became a kind of no-go area for police, yet it was found to work as a part of the city anyway. Left alone, nothing went badly wrong inside the area or out. Maybe it was thought good to have a place where the counter-culture could go to let off steam? Apparently it's not lawless as, for better or ill, it's said to be policed by Hell's Angel types.

Anyway, I write all that as I was wondering if such an idea would pan out in other cities. Have one in London, in Birmingham, in Bristol? I really don't know. Wouldn't it get to the stage where smaller cities and even towns would have some of the population trying to create tiny ones of maybe just one street? So off-hand, I think it'd only work - if it does work - in capitals? :confused: They're certainly a tourist attraction.

V

Actually, V, if drugs were totally decriminalised then you wouldn't need this:

Wouldn't it get to the stage where smaller cities and even towns would have some of the population trying to create tiny ones of maybe just one street?

Or yes OK but you could have drug pubs in the way you have alcohol pubs nowadays. And drug off licences for home consumption. I wouldn't envisage there being no restrictions whatsoever, you'd have to have an age limit etc. But it works with alcohol, doesn't it?

Edit to add that the hippy commune in Copenhagen to which you refer is Christiania:

Actually, V, if drugs were totally decriminalised then you wouldn't need this

True, Sunanda. Yours and Roger's posts on Hamsterdam just got me musing for a minute on whether, without decriminalisation, the Freetown idea might work. I've doubts. It's not as if there's no conflict of interest.

Thanks for the link! A guide even in cyberspace, you are. Will read with interest soon.

It's obviously a different thread topic, but whilst talking about making other drugs be like alcohol and tobacco (which each cause such devastation, actually), what about going the other way with those? (Sofa-duck smiley.) Not illegal - but to make them harder to come by? (But - not for this thread.)

V

I have been a member of and done voluntary work for Transform (The National Campaign to Decriminalise Drugs) for over ten years now, it's an issue I am passionate about and over the years I have learned some pretty interesting facts such as in the early 90's in Liverpool the local government gave the ok for a GP to prescribe pure Heroin to users, the scheme lasted for two years and nobody died, within a year of pulling the plug on it 41 souls died not from the Heroin but from the rubbish (Vim, curry power and bicarbonate of soda) that the street dealers mixed it with to make it go further.

Transform don't claim that decriminalisation is some form of utopia but I agree with them when they say it's better that what we have now, they have estimated that the UK spends close to 3 billion pounds a year on the so called war on drugs, if we added that money we would save if they were legal to the 2 billion we would make in revenue for selling it at the chemist at a very reasonable price ( so cheap people would not have to commit crimes for it) then that adds up to a lot of money which in my opinion could be spent on better things.

I have two friends who are both Heroin dependant one looks like your worst nightmare, skin and bone, dressed in rags with a permenant grey palor and boils all over her face because she is on benefits and shoplifts to feed her habit in between spells in jail, the other one has an allowance from her overly wealthy family despite being 39 years of age she has managed to track down some dealer who sells H that has not been mixed with anything, my friend is a picture of health goes to the gym every day and if your life depended on it you would never guess she injects 4/5 times in 24 hours and has done for over 20 years.

I don't believe that legalising it would lead to more young people wanting to try it I think this was proved post prohibition in American, while alcohol was outlawed people wanted spirtits when prohibition ended they turned to bottles of beer, also young people are attracted to things that are taboo not things you can buy in a chemist.

When I think of the entire chain of production and supply from the people working for peanuts in Afganistan and Columbia to the kids on my street drug running on mountain bikes I can't think of a single person on earth that benefits from prohibition, when I said this on stage at a decriminalisation rally about 6 years ago a lovely lady approached me afterwards and said that what I was saying was all very well would she would not want her Daughter living in a filthy squat looking like a skeleton my reply was that her Daughter would not have to if they were legal it's the illegal status that keeps people in dirty squats looking like skeletons, here in Manchester Heroin for example is £15 a bag Transform reckon we can sell the same bag for less than £3 and still make a huge profit.

Somewhere on Transform's website (I will try and find the link) they have an article which claims to have scientific proof that if Heroin was not cut with anything a person could use it X times a day for 50 years and the worst that would happen is constipation and a headache.

Love

Rebecca x

Super post, Becky. I couldn't agree more. In my often mis-spent youth, I too knew heroin addicts who lived perfectly normal lives and held down steady jobs. At that time, GPs were allowed to prescribe to addicts but there were a couple of bad doctors who over prescribed for money and the scheme was stopped. If heroin were legal, I think there would have to be a major campaign to make it pretty uncool to be an addict and measures taken to stop kids trying it just to see what it's like. But as I said in my first post, it's do-able.

A thought-provoking post, Becky. What particularly struck home for me were:

- During American prohibition, beer drinkers turned to spirits (I can understand this was due to the easier transportation of concentrated alcohol).

- If the whole line of illegal use were stopped ... oh, hang on. I was going to write: that it's actually a secondary reason why we are militarily in Helmand Province, because so many poppies are grown there. Poppies would still have to be grown, and I suspect we'd actually not be able to control where.

- Undecided, Midlands.

Sadly, I think the guy's write interesting copy... are we hearing our future in their description of their current reality? 🙁 [url]TIME_ article![/url]

.

I believe drugs should be legalised, which means they should be brought within the law.

Think about it. If it were legal to produce drugs, you would get:

Factories producing drugs, in the same way as you get breweries producing beer - increased employment = more revenue for the Government.

Different strengths available in different forms, in the same way as you get different strength cigarettes, snuff, patches... or different forms of alcohol (beers, wines, spirits)...

These strengths would be certificated - they would have to be what it says on the packet because the consumer production law would apply (sale of goods act etc)

People would be able to consume smaller amounts of drugs because these amounts would be accessible.

Drugs would be available from licensed premises, in the same way as alcohol and tobacco are, thus making people responsible for their sale to people. It is illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is or appears to be drunk: why shouldn't it be illegal to sell heroin to someone who appears to be high already? The licensee has a license to keep up and so wouldn't sell to just anyone.

The whole of the law would apply to the availability of drugs: not only consumer protection, but licensing. Policing would take a different tack.

And, best of all - at every stage of production and consumption there would be a TAX! Which means that, instead of wasting money on the "war on drugs" as we are doing at the moment, we would be making money out of the people who want to consume them!

It really is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. I haven't even mentioned the health benefits of legalised cannabis. It makes you wonder who is profiting from the present situation - it certainly isn't the British taxpayer!

hi guys you all seem very accepting of drug addicts,
i work in a part of town where the streets are littered with them,
and i can tell you none of them work,want to work or will ever work,
a high percentage have kids they hardly look after as they spend all their money on heroin,they rob people blind,the methadone they get on drug programs they sell for heroin and make no contribution to society whatsoever so i wouldnt be in favour of legalising and spending more tax on a hopless cause,what i would do is offer them one chance to get clean for good and help them with detox and counselling ect,
if they fail id cut them off from social welfare and take their children into care.
Im not a mean person but nobody forced a needle into their arms and this way they'd have a choice to get clean or not.
We cant pay for these people to live their lives doing nothing

hi guys you all seem very accepting of drug addicts,
i work in a part of town where the streets are littered with them,
and i can tell you none of them work,want to work or will ever work,
a high percentage have kids they hardly look after as they spend all their money on heroin,they rob people blind,the methadone they get on drug programs they sell for heroin and make no contribution to society whatsoever so i wouldnt be in favour of legalising and spending more tax on a hopless cause,what i would do is offer them one chance to get clean for good and help them with detox and counselling ect,
if they fail id cut them off from social welfare and take their children into care.
Im not a mean person but nobody forced a needle into their arms and this way they'd have a choice to get clean or not.
We cant pay for these people to live their lives doing nothing

Wow! Now, suppose you went back to your post and substituted 'alcoholics' every time you've written 'drug addicts'. Would you still argue along the same lines? After all, no one ever forced a glass into an alcoholic's hand, did they? Addiction, whether to drugs, alcohol, shopping, gambling, sex or chocolate (OK not chocolate!) is an illness. How can you possibly know that the addicts who litter your streets (and let's face it, if they could get a reliable supply of safe drugs, they probably wouldn't even be on the streets) wouldn't be willing and able to go to work and contribute to society again if they were able to get hold of drugs legally and safely? No one knows because no one is prepared to hold their breath and take such a mind boggling step. Alcohol kills too. But alcohol is a legal drug which brings in millions in revenue. Chris Rams makes some very valid points about how much money the government could make by taxing legal drugs. It could work. It would work. This war on drugs is never going to stop people taking drugs and makes criminals out of sick people. Stupid.

In reply to Chris Rams' post,

This painted an interesting perspective on the economics of legalised drugs ..... but then I started to get visions of - heroin advertising! cocaine subliminals! people shooting up or snorting on mainstream films, as they'd be doing this in normal life then, just as Hollywood depicts people today in bars or opening a can or smoking! packets or boxes of the stuff as you approach a supermarket check-out (exactly as you get in smaller, local supermarkets for drink today, tempting drinkers at the last moment.

- Devil's Advocate, presently SW.

... i can tell you none of them work,want to work or will ever work

I would say this is a gross generalisation. Whilst a few of the hundreds of drug addicts I've known indeed wouldn't choose to work, the majority desperately wanted to come off drugs and live a normal life and be of use to others. How successful they are at achieving this (not very successful, at least with the currently existing models of treatment) is a different side of the story, but demonising and isolating this group of people certainly does not work in encouraging them to change.

Masha

Hello louie147,

I can tell from your post that you have had negative personal experiences brought about the the volume of addicts in your town, as have I and many people all over the UK today and I don't blame you for your views, try to remember it's not the actual drugs that are the problem it's the cost of them, the dealers can charge what they like and when there is a drought due to a large police raid they often charge much more, it's the aquisitive crime to get the money for drugs that is the problem.

As for you assuming they don't or won't work this is too huge an assumption which I can again understand why you have said it I guess it's because you don't know any addicts personally to chat to and the reason for this is that addicts have tunnel vision they are very busy people with only their next fix and how to get the money for it on their minds 24/7 this lifestyle often means that they miss out on what's going on around them, I mentione 9/11 to my addict friend a week after it happened and her reply was "has it? where? what happened?". Couple their being so busy with the fact that most people in society don't want to chat to them then they live very solitary lives cut off from the rest of us.
Many do want to work last year I worked in a homeless hostel for men with substance misuse issues there was 36 bedrooms always full and most of the men did voluntary work through choice, this really touched me because they did some jobs (for no pay) that most human's would not even consider due to them not being able to get a CRB due to past criminal activity but they went anyway.
One last point I would like to make is that many members of society don't want to work and although I don't always agree with this but when it comes to who will and won't work it always appears to be the addicts who are targeted as an example and I can't help wondering if, unlike places like Sweden and Denmark where they have a union it's because they have nobody to stick up for them.

Love

Rebecca x

This painted an interesting perspective on the economics of legalised drugs ..... but then I started to get visions of - heroin advertising! cocaine subliminals! people shooting up or snorting on mainstream films, as they'd be doing this in normal life then

This is not at all as I envisage it, V. I see hard drugs addiction as being frowned upon and disapproved of, accepted only as an illness and an aberration. I see it as being seen as very uncool; thus no advertising. No shooting up in the street. Not a mainstream activity at all.

You know what HP'ers? I'm not one for so called 'Conspiracy Theories' but over the last ten years I've not yet met somebody who does not agree that drug should be decriminalised so I've often wondered what the government's real reason is for not taking steps towards it?
I wonder if it's the loss of jobs as the prisons would empty over night and sqillions of people like me would be out of a job, not that I care I'd find something else to do!

Rebecca x

You know what HP'ers? I'm not one for so called 'Conspiracy Theories' but over the last ten years I've not yet met somebody who does not agree that drug should be decriminalised so I've often wondered what the government's real reason is for not taking steps towards it?
I wonder if it's the loss of jobs as the prisons would empty over night and sqillions of people like me would be out of a job, not that I care I'd find something else to do!

Rebecca x

You haven't met all the hundreds of thousands of misinformed people who think that drug addicts are evil people, Becky! And our politicians don't have the bottle for it... I don't doubt there are people making a packet from the so called war on drugs....

No, I think they should be banned altogether.One thing leads to another.

I totally agree Sunanda, I was just musing to myself re one of the possible reasons xx

Hello Violetta, it's well thought out, well researched and well educated posts such as yours which most makes my brain ache from overuse.

Love

Rebecca x

This is not at all as I envisage it, V. I see hard drugs addiction as being frowned upon and disapproved of, accepted only as an illness and an aberration. I see it as being seen as very uncool; thus no advertising. No shooting up in the street. Not a mainstream activity at all.

OK, yes. Right now we have pushers at different levels of the hierarchy of the chain, and problems stem from the illegality. The core of the "vision" that shot to me was that alcohol and tobacco are so ruthlessly pushed and used by mega-companies, pushed in all manner of ways onto people to increase use and sales. (cf. alcopops .. how about reverting to a bit of more real "mild" coke-cola packaged for young teens?). So we'd get rid of illegal pushers, and then have to contend with the horrible power and utter immorality of Big Business that's legal, and can do these things out in the open. (Tobacco was pushed at us once as not just "safe" but even healthy and cool, was it not? Outsiders had to fight against that false image.)

V

You know what HP'ers? I'm not one for so called 'Conspiracy Theories' but over the last ten years I've not yet met somebody who does not agree that drug should be decriminalised

Just to be logical about this? Frankly I find that hard to believe. You must move in limited circles (I'm not being personal but trying to be logical like a statistician, OK?). Thinking statistically, I'd wager that you don't remember or, more likely, don't ask those likely to disagree. I'll give you an obvious example: on this very thread you are "meeting" some who clearly disagree. So your ten-years sans a contrary view has come to an end here. 🙂

so I've often wondered what the government's real reason is for not taking steps towards it?
I wonder if it's the loss of jobs as the prisons would empty over night and sqillions of people like me would be out of a job, not that I care I'd find something else to do!

Rebecca x

I can't agree at all, Rebecca. Government just loves the sale of alcohol and tobacco. Why do you think it's not more proactive against it? Not only are there huge lobbies from the mega-companies, but such a vast sum is siphoned off for governmental use from taxation on these products. Do you think Government wouldn't want to get a cut from dealing in drugs? Do you think Government would not just love to be a pusher? Only in their case it would be legal and called taxation.

A truly significant income is gleaned from taxation on alcohol and cigaretes, which Government could ill-afford (it thinks) to do without. Of course, saner people can see that if smoking and drinking were cut (and the present Labour government did introduce 24-hour licencing laws), lass taxation would be needed and less government spending, because the NHS needs so much money to cope with the outcomes of both drugs. Legalise other drugs, and is there anybody reading this so naive as to imagine that our government would not slap a huge, hefty tax on every drug, making its own "profit" as from drugs legal today?

V

Let me say this to start, i offered a solution to the problem of drug addicts,a clear way to motivate and HELP them get clean of heroin and crack in particular,if they dont take it whats the point giving them welfare? Whats the point letting them have kids ?
I ask the do gooders, those who seem so naive its unreal,
do you know any heroin addicts ? do you really believe they could hold down a job and bring up responsible children ??
Your living in fantasy if thats the case.I do know addicts and ive know some that have since passed.
My idea offers help but not in a softly softly approach as this doesnt work with a scheming druggie who will lie lie lie to get a fix.Ive known addicts who have robbed thier parents of everything they own for a fix,
Legalising is a silly idea as it hasnt worked with alcohol of cigerettes,
i would have more sympathy for alcoholics as its socially acceptable to drink and legal and not physically addictable in the short term like heroin so there is a big differance.Personally i drink very very rarley and recently gave up cigeretts so i know beating addiction isint easy but these ideas are just crazy.Money and respect should be earned not given to junkies who would rob you at the drop of a hat,
if they got clean(which they would if there money was threatened) they would earn my respect.Until then i see no point in their existance.
I also think tobacco should be banned for good as it kills

In reply to Chris Rams' post,

This painted an interesting perspective on the economics of legalised drugs ..... but then I started to get visions of - heroin advertising! cocaine subliminals! people shooting up or snorting on mainstream films, as they'd be doing this in normal life then, just as Hollywood depicts people today in bars or opening a can or smoking! packets or boxes of the stuff as you approach a supermarket check-out (exactly as you get in smaller, local supermarkets for drink today, tempting drinkers at the last moment.

- Devil's Advocate, presently SW.

Well tobacco and alcohol advertising are currently banned in certain circumstances, and I would envisage advertising for other stuff would be as well.

But when you think that even Queen Victoria wasn't averse to a little tincture of opium...

makes you wonder if we have got it right, doesn't it?

Queen Victoria ?
ah come on Chris your having a laugh now,
amy winehouse likes it too !
and for the record i dont base whats good and bad on what a useless royal figure head does,
aand may i say your coming accross as very pro drugs which suprises me as your a moderator

Queen Victoria ?

How do you think Hong Kong became a british colony:

Myarka.

And what's wrong with "being pro drugs" - do tell, because your tone suggests that you must have reasons that are both compelling and plainly irrefutable?


.