Home Law Legalising Drugs – Hmmmm

Legalising Drugs – Hmmmm

by Barry
Various prescription and street drugs may caus...

Image via Wikipedia

Bob Ainsworth has said that he thinks all drugs should be legalised, in order to take away the hold the criminal factions have on the industry.

On the face of it – fair enough.  it could be regulated, monitored even taxed.  The dealers out of business and the quality control would be good.But we also have to consider why they are illegal in the first place.  Many of them are instantly addictive, which is not a good thing, and the impact of overdose.  The reason they started getting banned was through public health issues.

Many crimes are drug related, but that is to fund the habit, if the state becomes the dealer, will that take away the funding problem?  I can’t see why.

But you could argue the law has gone too far, cannabis is an interesting example.  Maybe there is some argument that all drugs should be reviewed and greater freedom allowed, or at least personal responsibility.  But come down really heavy on the really bad stuff.

At this point I don’t know – I know Bob was keen to say that he probably hasn’t got through all the ramifications of his idea, but I do think it should be explored.  What exactly is the Anti-Drug stance there to achieve?

Thoughts?

 

You may also like

9 comments

Richard Bard December 16, 2010 - 6:28 pm

Someone commented on the radio today that many politicians express an interest in legalising drugs before they are in power & after they have left power. The same politicians change their minds when in power, I understand a certain Mr Cameron falls into this category.

My thoughts? Well what we do now certainly isn’t working, I’d be willing to look any ideas to improve the situation.

Reply
Joe K December 16, 2010 - 6:48 pm

‘Many crimes are drug related, but that is to fund the habit, if the state becomes the dealer, will that take away the funding problem? I can’t see why.’

Just for a start, the state will know who is having a problem with drugs, as the habit will not be covert as it was before. The criminal fraternity’s profit margin will vanish in a stroke.

Reply
Eddie December 17, 2010 - 9:06 am

Most of the crime is because of the illegality of the drug. Look at any one and change the drug to alchohol and it becomes clear.

The clear fact is that in the last 50 tears, none of our drug policies have worked. Unfortunately none of the parties have the balls to look at the problem. Indeed Labour even slammed Short for daring to say it should be discussed.

Reply
bazkirby December 19, 2010 - 10:14 am

Joe, i see what your saying, but it still doesn’t stop the fact that no matter who the supplier/vendor is, then people will still have to buy them and therefore get money to fund it.

In reality the problem is not people taking drugs, its the lengths they go to fund the habit. Its that funding issue that leads to petty crime such as theft etc.

However, we balance that off with why drugs are illegal in the first place, some of them are highly addictive and others can easily kill!

So do we legalise everything? and how do we then support the new wave of “legal” addicts?

I think this is why policy making is not easy, but personally I would like to see a number of drugs made legal, but some should still be illegal due to their severity!

Reply
Eddie December 19, 2010 - 10:21 am

“I think this is why policy making is not easy, but personally I would like to see a number of drugs made legal, but some should still be illegal due to their severity!”

The problem with your stance is that logically alchohol would be one of the banned drugs

Reply
bazkirby December 19, 2010 - 12:36 pm

Yes Eddie your right, as well as smoking. Its exactly the problem that policy makers face hence why its not easy. However Im more concerned with the likes of Heroin which can be properly addictive on the first hit.

To me it all boils down to just how much the state should protect the person for their own good. And what the state perceives as “good”.

I don’t have a complete answer, hence bringing it up here to get other opinion. Everyone says that something should be done, but once you start thinking about it and the consequences, it mushrooms.

Reply
trollhunterx December 19, 2010 - 11:57 am

‘In reality the problem is not people taking drugs, its the lengths they go to fund the habit. Its that funding issue that leads to petty crime such as theft etc.’

It’s the illegality of ‘hard’ drugs that leads to criminals (i.e., the dealers), literally, and thence to crime. Some people speak of cannabis as a ‘gateway’ drug, because it leads to more dangerous substances, but few will face the fact when you outlaw something widely regarded as less harmful than aspirin, you are blurring the line between reasonable enforcement of the law and political willy waving, or acting just to be seen to be acting.

But if you disagree with Ainsworth, you should tell him. I would hope he’s thought through the ramifications better than I have, considering his previous job.

Legalise and regulate drugs’ says UK’s former drugs and defence Minister

Reply
Eddie December 21, 2010 - 10:11 am

how much the state should protect the person for their own good

Reply
Eddie December 21, 2010 - 10:11 am

None. The nanny state was a labour invention that did nothing but harm

Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More