Drug legalisation for or against?

[doublesaint]

From today's papers, personally think it is a good idea.

 

The regulated legalisation of drugs would have major benefits for taxpayers, victims of crime, local communities and the criminal justice system, according to the first comprehensive comparison between the cost-effectiveness of legalisation and prohibition. The authors of the report, which is due to be published today, suggest that a legalised, regulated market could save the country around £14bn.

For many years the government has been under pressure to conduct an objective cost-benefit analysis of the current drugs policy, but has failed to do so despite calls from MPs. Now the drugs reform charity, Transform, has commissioned its own report, examining all aspects of prohibition from the costs of policing and investigating drugs users and dealers to processing them through the courts and their eventual incarceration.

As well as such savings is the likely taxation revenue in a regulated market. However, there are also the potential costs of increased drug treatment, education and public information campaigns about the risks and dangers of drugs, similar to those for tobacco and alcohol, and the costs of running a regulated system.

The report looked at four potential scenarios, ranging from no increase in drugs use to a 100% rise as they become more readily available.

"The conclusion is that regulating the drugs market is a dramatically more cost-effective policy than prohibition and that moving from prohibition to regulated drugs markets in England and Wales would provide a net saving to taxpayers, victims of crime, communities, the criminal justice system and drug users of somewhere within the range of, for the four scenarios, £13.9bn, £10.8bn, £7.7bn, £4.6bn."

Titled a Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of the Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs, the report uses government figures on the costs of crime to assess the potential benefits and disadvantages of change. The document, co-written by Steve Rolles, head of research at Transform, uses home office and No 10 strategy unit reports to form its conclusions.

It finds: "The government specifically claims the benefits of any move away from prohibition towards legal regulation would be outweighed by the costs. No such cost-benefit analysis, or even a proper impact assessment of existing enforcement policy and legislation has ever been carried out here or anywhere else in the world."

Taxing drugs would also provide big revenue gains, says the survey. An Independent Drug Monitoring Unit estimate, quoted in the report, suggests up to £1.3bn could be generated by a £1 per gram tax on cannabis resin and £2 per gram on skunk.

The report follows calls for legalisation or a full debate on reform. Last month, the Economist concluded: "Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution."

[Saint Martini]

One thing you should definitely not do is make it illegal but then condone the usage and distribution of it but not the other parts of the production of softdrugs. This is a major issue in the Netherlands where coffeeshops have to buy the drugs from criminals because growing it is still illegal whereas selling it to users isn't. This also means that it still cannot be taxed and that coffeeshops themselves cannot be taxed properly either since they can hadrly keep book on illegal transactions.

 

All in all, I say, just legalize the whole cycle of production and put a gigantic tax on it. Besides that make the usage of it only legal at home or in coffeeshops with special licences (and not on the street/train station).

 

Just to add, harddrugs should remain illegal. IMHO.

Edited 7 April, 2009 by Saint Martini

[Draino76]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind snorting the odd line now and again and not having to feel so paranoid about it.

[bridge too far]

I'm in favour of legalisation and controlled dealing.

 

a) it could be taxed

b) its purity could be guaranteed

c) it might, just might, get rid of the criminal element behind the supply

[Jillyanne]

Drugs are bad kids, stay away from them. I don't speak from experience.

[Master Bates]

I'm in favour of legalisation and controlled dealing.

 

a) it could be taxed

b) its purity could be guaranteed

c) it might, just might, get rid of the criminal element behind the supply

 

d) Make povety history, cheaper drugs now

 

Imagine, an 8th of skunk at £5

[Jillyanne]

d) Make povety history, cheaper drugs now

 

Imagine, an 8th of skunk at £5

 

You'd be permanently off our face MB!

[benjii]

Does making drugs illegal actually achieve anything, at all?

 

If drugs were legal would everyone be monged out?

 

I'm honestly not sure.

[bridge too far]

Does making drugs illegal actually achieve anything, at all?

 

If drugs were legal would everyone be monged out?

 

I'm honestly not sure.

 

Only inflates the price and fosters crime IMO

[benjii]

Only inflates the price and fosters crime IMO

 

I'm inclined to agree.

 

If the answer to the question, "if all drugs were legal would the level of heroin / crack use rise significantly?" is "yes", then I think the continued illegality of drugs could be justified. If not, it seems a woefully misguided policy.

[View From The Top]

I'm in favour of legalisation and controlled dealing.

 

a) it could be taxed

b) its purity could be guaranteed

c) it might, just might, get rid of the criminal element behind the supply

 

I agree 100%.

 

It's a false economy making them illegal.

[Jillyanne]

Legalising drugs would not encourage me to want to partake in snorting coke etc.

[jeff leopard]

well well well, who let all the guardian readers out

 

when we apply this to cannabis it does make perfect sense to legalise it. The govt could control its strength and greatly reduce the amount of this 'super-strength skunk' that the daily mail likes to bang on about. Personaly, I enjoy a joint now and again and I hate skunk, when I smoke I want to be about 60% stoned so I can still function and do stuff. who wants to be reduced to a joyless zombie for hours on end?

 

but the thought of legalised cocaine sits uneasily with me. it turns too many people into prize cants and could well lead to more violence on a Friday/Saturday night. but thats my personal preferance, on balance, its probably the most socially acceptable drug of the moment.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind snorting the odd line now and again and not having to feel so paranoid about it.

 

Quite. Save the paranoia until you come back down.

[the stain]

well well well, who let all the guardian readers out

 

when we apply this to cannabis it does make perfect sense to legalise it. The govt could control its strength and greatly reduce the amount of this 'super-strength skunk' that the daily mail likes to bang on about. Personaly, I enjoy a joint now and again and I hate skunk, when I smoke I want to be about 60% stoned so I can still function and do stuff. who wants to be reduced to a joyless zombie for hours on end?

 

but the thought of legalised cocaine sits uneasily with me. it turns too many people into prize cants and could well lead to more violence on a Friday/Saturday night. but thats my personal preferance, on balance, its probably the most socially acceptable drug of the moment.

 

I think with cocaine in particular, the production process and chain of supply is so unethical and inhumane that legalisation is the only way out. And yes it does turn people into whanqers, but booze affects a lot of people that way too. And if you believe, as I do, that government has no business regulating what you can and can't use to stimulate your body, then you can't really get squeamish about it.

[Weston Super Saint]

I'm in favour of legalisation and controlled dealing.

 

a) it could be taxed

b) its purity could be guaranteed

c) it might, just might, get rid of the criminal element behind the supply

 

a) Correct.

b) Incorrect. As people strive to beat the tax man there would still be a huge black market.

c) Incorrect - see b).

[Bentley]

You have got to think about it though. If drugs were made legalised, would you feel comfortable with seeing someone in power like Gordon Brown taking drugs? Would you feel his important choices he makes to be completely his decision without the drugs, or would you have a slight doubt?

[Jillyanne]

You have got to think about it though. If drugs were made legalised, would you feel comfortable with seeing someone in power like Gordon Brown taking drugs? Would you feel his important choices he makes to be completely his decision without the drugs, or would you have a slight doubt?

 

I have more than slight doubts about him anyway.

[Pancake]

You have got to think about it though. If drugs were made legalised, would you feel comfortable with seeing someone in power like Gordon Brown taking drugs? Would you feel his important choices he makes to be completely his decision without the drugs, or would you have a slight doubt?

 

Bearing in mind most whispers are that he is a functioning alcoholic anyway (allegedly)...

[the stain]

You have got to think about it though. If drugs were made legalised, would you feel comfortable with seeing someone in power like Gordon Brown taking drugs? Would you feel his important choices he makes to be completely his decision without the drugs, or would you have a slight doubt?

 

There's legal and then there's enforced...

[Sheaf Saint]

You have got to think about it though. If drugs were made legalised, would you feel comfortable with seeing someone in power like Gordon Brown taking drugs? Would you feel his important choices he makes to be completely his decision without the drugs, or would you have a slight doubt?

 

Are all politicians tee-total then?

[Kadeem Hardison]

I bet the people who put that report together were off their t¡ts at the time.

[Barfy]

Drugs are bad kids, stay away from them. I don't speak from experience.

 

I do speak from experience, and as much as I've enjoyed them in the past, drugs are bad m'kay.

 

I think with cocaine in particular, the production process and chain of supply is so unethical and inhumane that legalisation is the only way out. And yes it does turn people into whanqers, but booze affects a lot of people that way too. And if you believe, as I do, that government has no business regulating what you can and can't use to stimulate your body, then you can't really get squeamish about it.

 

Alternatively, international governments could pay the farmers in south & central america to grow useful crops rather than cocaine. Those same governments would then have to spend less on preventing it's production and distribution and the farmers don't end up suffering (e.g. health problems, violence, prison etc). Same applies to herion production in Afghanistan.

 

You have got to think about it though. If drugs were made legalised, would you feel comfortable with seeing someone in power like Gordon Brown taking drugs? Would you feel his important choices he makes to be completely his decision without the drugs, or would you have a slight doubt?

 

I personally wouldn't want anyone in power stoned & making decisions. What about doctors, would you want to be operated on by a stoned surgeon? or one who's just snorted a couple of lines of Columbia's finest marching powder?

 

I can see the theoritcal benefits of legalising certain drugs, but can't see them working fully in reality. Increased tax revenues could easily be offset by increases in healthcare costs.

[Sheaf Saint]

I can see the theoritcal benefits of legalising certain drugs, but can't see them working fully in reality. Increased tax revenues could easily be offset by increases in healthcare costs.

 

You're assuming that useage of drugs would increase dramatically if they were suddenly made legal, but there is no evidence to suggest that would be the case. Indeed, when cannabis was de-classified, useage actually went down instead of up.

[Barfy]

You're assuming that useage of drugs would increase dramatically if they were suddenly made legal, but there is no evidence to suggest that would be the case. Indeed, when cannabis was de-classified, useage actually went down instead of up.

 

I can see a case for useage dropping, after all, who wants government approved weed? it kind of takes the 'cool' edge away from getting stoned!

 

The problem with estimating drug useage if it was legalised is that you can spin the story to suit your own stance. Until a widescale test is done, it would be impossible to estimate whether use of cannabis would increase or not. Just think of the potential munchie related obesity problems though!!!

[Draino76]

Quite. Save the paranoia until you come back down.

 

Bingo.

[the stain]

Alternatively, international governments could pay the farmers in south & central america to grow useful crops rather than cocaine. Those same governments would then have to spend less on preventing it's production and distribution and the farmers don't end up suffering (e.g. health problems, violence, prison etc). Same applies to herion production in Afghanistan.

 

That does nothing to decrease demand.

[Barfy]

That does nothing to decrease demand.

 

It will if no cocaine/herion is being supplied...

[the stain]

It will if no cocaine/herion is being supplied...

 

Surely if we know anything about the black market it's that it likes to supply to a demand..?

[James_O_Mac]

i think they do something similar in switzerland - instead of spending loads of taxes keeping the drugs out the country, they put taxes into rehabilitation instead.

 

the problem is with this country is that if we have such a 'binge' culture, do you really want to add drugs into the mix as well? the taxes will have to be spent on even more policing in some form..

[Barfy]

Surely if we know anything about the black market it's that it likes to supply to a demand..?

 

Which is why you have to go right back to the farmers who grow the coca leaves and make it more profitable for them to grow benficial crops. Not only would that cut off the main supply of raw materials for cocaine, it would improve the lot of the farming communities in South America in one fell swoop.

 

Lack of raw material = massively reduced ability to supply.

 

I don't know what the figures are, but surely this would be a far cheaper way of restricting the cocaine trade than the huge resources that must go into trying to restrict it at national borders and on the streets?

[jeff leopard]

Last one on drugs is a queer!

[Kadeem Hardison]

People say that alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug, it's a drink!

[Saint George]

I'm in favour of legalisation and controlled dealing.

 

a) it could be taxed

b) its purity could be guaranteed

c) it might, just might, get rid of the criminal element behind the supply

 

I used to feel the same...But then i realised there's a huge hole in that theory.....The problem is, the criminal element wont just disappear off the face of the Earth....They'll just move on to something else...Robbery, Car jackings, extortion etc...all of which involve innocent victims.

 

At the moment they're all rapped up with making money and ripping off and robbing 'each other'. and over here, when things go bad most of them end up dead...The survivors get arrested and put in jail for a long long time and then the next gang moves in and takes their place and its rinse and repeat.......kill each other and more jail time....Thus a perpetual means of clearing the vermin off the streets.....Either in coffins or though the legal system. All without 'innocent' victims

 

I like it just the way it is

[Sheaf Saint]

People say that alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug, it's a drink!

 

drug (drg)

n.

1.

a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.

b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.

3. Obsolete A chemical or dye.

tr.v. drugged, drug·ging, drugs

1. To administer a drug to.

2. To poison or mix (food or drink) with a drug.

3. To stupefy or dull with or as if with a drug: drugged with sleep.

 

Hope this helps

[Mao Cap]

Yep.

 

Brothels too, while they're at it.

[Barney Trubble]

Whilst I am probably inclined to lean more towards the legalisation of certain drugs I can't help thinking that the criminal element won't actually go away.

 

So to legalise drugs may bring a decrease in this particular area but I would suspect that the criminal fraternity at the higher rung of the ladder will just use their knowledge and transfer their skills to another illegal industry, this in itself could increase crime in the short term as it would mean cutting in on others patches and raising the stakes.

 

I'm sure the foot soldiers in drugs crime may be put out of work but those who are conditioned to a lifestyle or way of life associated with major crime will simply move to another industry to exploit, for example, people trafficking/prostitution.

[Jillyanne]

Whilst I am probably inclined to lean more towards the legalisation of certain drugs I can't help thinking that the criminal element won't actually go away.

 

So to legalise drugs may bring a decrease in this particular area but I would suspect that the criminal fraternity at the higher rung of the ladder will just use their knowledge and transfer their skills to another illegal industry, this in itself could increase crime in the short term as it would mean cutting in on others patches and raising the stakes.

 

I'm sure the foot soldiers in drugs crime may be put out of work but those who are conditioned to a lifestyle or way of life associated with major crime will simply move to another industry to exploit, for example, people trafficking/prostitution.

 

A bit too full on damning society do you not think?

[Barney Trubble]

A bit too full on damning society do you not think?

 

No. It's an accurate reflection of society and the people that make a living out of the drugs trade.

 

Do you seriously think that once drugs are legalised then all life's problems will be put to rest?

 

Do you think that people who make serious money out of the drugs trade will just call it a day and get a job in an office or something else mundane?

 

Maybe you're naive and don't quite understand the complexity of the networking involved in drugs cartels, the people involved in the illegal side of drugs make a serious amount of money and they are not going to give up the luxuries that the trade has given them, they'll just adapt and transfer their skills and knowledge to another illegal industry and make that more lucrative for themselves and at the same time make it more cut-throat and dangerous.

[Saint George]

No. It's an accurate reflection of society and the people that make a living out of the drugs trade.

 

Do you seriously think that once drugs are legalised then all life's problems will be put to rest?

 

Do you think that people who make serious money out of the drugs trade will just call it a day and get a job in an office or something else mundane?

 

Maybe you're naive and don't quite understand the complexity of the networking involved in drugs cartels, the people involved in the illegal side of drugs make a serious amount of money and they are not going to give up the luxuries that the trade has given them, they'll just adapt and transfer their skills and knowledge to another illegal industry and make that more lucrative for themselves and at the same time make it more cut-throat and dangerous.

 

What he said!

[the stain]

I don't think the standard argument runs that the 'criminal element' (as in everyone involved in the supply of drugs) will suddenly smarten up their act and get a job in a bank.

More that the element of criminality is removed from drug use e.g. heroin addicts will suddenly stop being criminals by default and, if there was a safe, legal, even prescribed supply, wouldn't have to commit further crimes like robbing houses to feed their addiction. Police can stop wasting their time busting kids for possession. That sort of thing.

 

Of course there will always be people who want to break the law for financial gain. It's madness to conflate the two issues.

 

Barfy - You make some valid points that I'm not going to argue with, mainly because I'm not interested in restricting the supply, but in legitimising the supply.

[Barfy]

I don't think the standard argument runs that the 'criminal element' (as in everyone involved in the supply of drugs) will suddenly smarten up their act and get a job in a bank.

More that the element of criminality is removed from drug use e.g. heroin addicts will suddenly stop being criminals by default and, if there was a safe, legal, even prescribed supply, wouldn't have to commit further crimes like robbing houses to feed their addiction. Police can stop wasting their time busting kids for possession. That sort of thing.

 

Of course there will always be people who want to break the law for financial gain. It's madness to conflate the two issues.

 

Barfy - You make some valid points that I'm not going to argue with, mainly because I'm not interested in restricting the supply, but in legitimising the supply.

 

The problem is if you're talking about legalising/legitimising drugs like herion & cocaine (in all it's forms?), the people who are truly addicted to these will generally have no money to pay for their habit. That leaves two options, prescribed supply as you suggest, which would really negate any tax benefit of the legalisation, or continuing with criminal activities (theft, prostitution etc). Furthermore if it was easier, cheaper and safer (i.e. no threat of prosecution) to get hold of, it wouldn't take long for levels of useage to increase in the existing addicts meaning that the health service would have to cope with the fall-out of this too.

 

Legalising or legitimising more recreational drugs (cannabis, acid, ecstasy) is in theory fine, but do you then restrict who can use it? as I said, would you want your doctor or dentist stoned? what about the emergency services? also do you then have to take into account that more people might be tempted to drive whilst under the influence and have to increase policing in this area? What about if your boss is on a bad trip when doing your annual appraisal?

 

I used to be a strong supporter of the idea, but having now come to terms with the possible long term side effects of extended/excessive drug use, I don't personally think legalisation is a viable or sensible option. I'd like to see more common sense used with regards to mere possession of drugs, and more support for the rehab of addicts (not just getting off the drugs, but addressing the reasons they started taking the drugs in the first place). Until the governments of Europe and the USA start addressing the root of the problem, drugs and the related social problems will remain, and legalising them won't really have much effect.

 

So, any news on consortiums then?

[bridge too far]

Barfy - I enjoyed your very articulate POV but I've got to take issue with this bit:

 

would you want your doctor or dentist stoned? what about the emergency services? also do you then have to take into account that more people might be tempted to drive whilst under the influence and have to increase policing in this area? What about if your boss is on a bad trip when doing your annual appraisal

 

That could equally apply to alcohol, don't you think? I think some employers do have random alcohol testing already. For sure in the NHS you're not supposed to have alcohol in your blood stream (this can cause some people problems if they're on call when there's a Major Emergency). And I know of some anaesthetists who sniff stuff in Theatre.

 

So I don't really see how legalised drug consumption is any different to alcohol consumption in this respect.

[the stain]

The problem is if you're talking about legalising/legitimising drugs like herion & cocaine (in all it's forms?), the people who are truly addicted to these will generally have no money to pay for their habit. That leaves two options, prescribed supply as you suggest, which would really negate any tax benefit of the legalisation, or continuing with criminal activities (theft, prostitution etc). Furthermore if it was easier, cheaper and safer (i.e. no threat of prosecution) to get hold of, it wouldn't take long for levels of useage to increase in the existing addicts meaning that the health service would have to cope with the fall-out of this too.

 

I wish I had the facts to hand to back this up, but i haven't so apologies for that. But trials in this country prescribing decent, legal herion to exisiting users seem to suggest that use didn't rise and that, if anything, it was easier for users to quit because purity and dosage could be regulated (coupled with the fact that heroin is far less addictive than the substitutes given to ween people off). The truly addicted generally have no money because black market heroin is so expensive, and so harmfully cut, that it prohibits gainful employment in a way that a pure and legal supply wouldn't.

 

Legalising or legitimising more recreational drugs (cannabis, acid, ecstasy) is in theory fine, but do you then restrict who can use it? as I said, would you want your doctor or dentist stoned? what about the emergency services? also do you then have to take into account that more people might be tempted to drive whilst under the influence and have to increase policing in this area? What about if your boss is on a bad trip when doing your annual appraisal?

 

I don't know that this argument carries any weight. Alcohol is legal. You're contract at work obliges you not to turn up drunk. People aren't going to lose all sense of responsibility overnight.

 

I used to be a strong supporter of the idea, but having now come to terms with the possible long term side effects of extended/excessive drug use, I don't personally think legalisation is a viable or sensible option. I'd like to see more common sense used with regards to mere possession of drugs, and more support for the rehab of addicts (not just getting off the drugs, but addressing the reasons they started taking the drugs in the first place). Until the governments of Europe and the USA start addressing the root of the problem, drugs and the related social problems will remain, and legalising them won't really have much effect.

 

So, any news on consortiums then?

 

There's clearly a difference between hardcore addiction and recreational/devotional drug use. The latter has always been with us, in every culture, and it is IMO outrageous of governments to presume to limit or prohibit that aspect of human experience. The former (again IMO) is the result of a mode of civilisation multifariously at odds with its own nature. That situation can only be exacerbated by criminalising the people who find themselves in some way spiritually displaced.

 

No news on consortiums though, I'm afraid, although if I push enough of this horse...

[Barfy]

Thanks btf, there's not many subjects I can be arsed to climb onto the high horse for so I like to go for it when one comes along

 

I certainly wouldn't dispute that legalised drug consumption would be much different to alcohol consumption. But if drugs are as accessible as alcohol it is surely reasonable to assume that there would be an increase in cases whereby those in positions of trust would be required to perform their roles whilst under the influence of drugs.

 

Random testing is fine as a means of deterrent, but in large organisations like hospitals, it only would take one 'miss' for something potentially catastrophic to happen. Personally I'd prefer that not happen to me or my loved ones.

[the stain]

Random testing is fine as a means of deterrent, but in large organisations like hospitals, it only would take one 'miss' for something potentially catastrophic to happen. Personally I'd prefer that not happen to me or my loved ones.

 

Fair point, but you can't legislate against stupidity and irresponsibility. If a doctor ****ed up because he was on acid, it would cause a massive outcry and probably a press campaign against acid. But the root problem would be the doctor, not the acid.

 

In the same way that legalising drugs wouldn't make honest people out of gangsters, it wouldn't make idiots out of reasonable people.

[Rattlehead]

Why not just shoot suspected addicts (obviously not rock stars though) and dealers. Mucho cash saved and problem solved.

[Barfy]

Fair point, but you can't legislate against stupidity and irresponsibility. If a doctor ****ed up because he was on acid, it would cause a massive outcry and probably a press campaign against acid. But the root problem would be the doctor, not the acid.

 

In the same way that legalising drugs wouldn't make honest people out of gangsters, it wouldn't make idiots out of reasonable people.

 

I don't specifically disagree with anything here or in your responses above. I'm not intrinsically anti-drugs, but struggle to see that legalisation could provide long term solutions particularly where harder drugs such as herion & cocaine are concerned. They don't provide any great benefits to society, and would probably be better for everyone if eradicated at source.

 

With regards to cannabis (and other softer drugs), it's not addicitve and apart from the smoking part probably is no more harmful than alcohol. Although I wouldn't take advantage, legalisation probably wouldn't be a bad thing, I would just feel a little uneasy about some of the things I've already highlighted happenning due to easier access to drugs.

[Kadeem Hardison]

An overdose of heroin is fatal - in the short term. But there has been no research whatsoever into long term effects.