Drug laws 'may make matters worse'

The assumption must be in the minds of governments and the enforcement industry is that given time they will be able to purge society of the illicit drug underground army. Probably it is the same psychology as with the IRA in the sixties and seventies when the state was exclusively seeking a military solution.

If the state can accept there is no enforcement final solution it can then consider choices in respect of regulation, licensing, monitoring and non-criminalised market arrangements. This will be very difficult for governments and it will need other countries to take the lead and demonstrate success which as with N Ireland will be less than total.

Well, well. The lessons of the US prohibition have still not been learnt. Legalise, pull the carpet from under the criminals. That will not solve the problem in its entirety, but will certainly reduce it to a manageable size. The policies pursued hitherto have clearly FAILED, in every way. Funny how people hang on to ideas that don't work!

I do welcome this study and hope war-on-drugs-mongers stop behaving like ostriches and do take notice for once of what this study, and others before it, have been arguing for decades—actually, since the very beginning of the Prohibition and the so-called "war on drugs": prohibition is the worst strategy to deal with the production and consumption of drugs.

It puzzles me, though, that people could possibly find the positive correlation between drug law enforcement and violence paradoxical. Even the more superficial analysis of the dynamics of underground criminal activities would tell you that the said correlation is what is to be expected. To think that the illegal drug market could be different is wishful thinking. The clue is in the title: illegal.

By blindingly pursuing the prohibition route, the drug gangs have been given access to one of the most lucrative industries in history, and they will fight to death anyone (inside or outside their business) trying to kill the proverbial goose that lays the golden egg.

Gart Valenc
https://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

Of course they make matters worse.
Its not just the criminal costs, health and social costs must also be included in the price tag.
I have been working at this with the current interpretation of MODa for 8 years now with only very limited effect at certain points but the effect is always brief and the bubble left behind is always filled by one or two other dealers, drugs are after all a pyramid selling system with the UN in control. They after all concluded the other day to continue with 50 years of failed policy but failed for whom United Nations or United Narcotics?
The Sun reported Myths again this week with them stating cannabis sold for £10 for 3.5 grams.. this generated the biggest ROFLMAO online within the cannabis communities covering not only the recreational but also the medical users. try £20 for 1.5 grams... Are they trying to cover up the 9-10 billion cannabis markets I predicted for the end of 2010.??? A child could do the math on it 2007 4.5 billion market at real prices £10-£15 for 3.5 grams take todays street price 2011 £20 for 1.5 grams for the market to remain the same over 1 million cannabis users must give up and no one must take up the habit to keep the figure at 4.5 billion for this year?

The new proposals the Sun made laughable are looking almost like decriminalisation of drugs in the UK. especially if you do the math on pure drugs v final cut. 55grams of cocaine turns into over 1lb in weight same for heroin 999.9 grams of cannabis 35 ounces for me that would be just under 3 years worth of personal!!!@ a gram a day.

2. At 10:48am on 31st Mar 2011, just_another_observer wrote:
"Funny how people hang on to ideas that don't work!"
It's the power of the drink and tobbacco industries that are stopping any advances in thinking. The "war on drugs" is no more successful than the "war on terror" and the sooner we face up to this and apply some radical thinking to finding a solution the better. Removing or blocking the "legal" drug industry's political lobbying would be a start.

With regards to heavier policing provoking more violence from criminals.

Isn't this the subtext to the recent Batman films?
It used to be cops and robbers, then Batman started dressing up in a mask and providing a more ruthless style of policing, then the criminals started dressing up in masks with more violent / phsycopathic crimes to redress the balance.
I think it could be quite interesting in the future buying my weed from a bloke in a mask and spandex tights.

For the older readers you could also see The Untouchables with Sean Connery's monolog about "If they bring their fists to a fight you bring a knife, if they bring a knife you bring a gun..."

The war must go on. The policing industry worldwide depends on our taxes and they will not give them up. They are a self perpetuating monster.

Drug laws "may make matters worse",shouldn't that read "do make matters worse",it appears that even the people doing the research cant admit to the reality of the situation.
From the drug dealers perspective,if his income and lifestyle are coming under threat then they reach for the guns and the violence ensues.
The only way to stop this is for the drugs to be legalised and taken out of the hands of organised criminal gangs,but as comment#5 states,the drinks industry more than the tobacco industry I would have thought will be doing their level best to prevent legislation,knowing full well that if cannabis was legal then millions of people would use it in preference to their nasty little drug and their revenues would fall drastically.
As for comment #4,relating to what was written in the Sun,this just goes to show that you cant believe anything that's written in the papers,especially the Sun which seems to deliver it's own brand of populist nonsense for the simple minded, these newspapers,the Telegraph,the Mail,the Express,all they do is provide what the buyer wants to read,it makes them feel better about themselves if they think that a national newspaper has the same ideas,it's like a daily drug to them,confirmation from the press that "we're" in this together,when all these journalists do is write what they think will keep the paper selling and them in a job,in fact daily newspapers are probably a more dangerous drug than most of the illegal ones as far as effects on the mind goes.
I stopped buying newspapers about 20 years ago and have to admit that I did feel some sort of withdrawal symptoms at the time,but I went through my "cold turkey" period and now I'm glad I dont contribute to the profits of these opinionated Tory owned muck spreaders,I've saved myself a few hundred quid and probably saved a few trees into the bargain.
It also does make you wonder why there's so much hysterical anti drug nonsense in these papers,someone with an interest in keeping drugs illegal maybe,someone with lots of money,someone to finance certain illegal smuggling operations.
It's not the people like you and me that provide the money for these operations,it's the rich and powerful,and what better cover than to be part of the anti drug brigade.

hmmm......funny how yet again a scientific paper comes out showing that he 'war on drugs' is not working and in fact makes matters worse, yet our government still claim that prohibition is the best policy. I was of the understanding that the government have claimed that they want 'evidence based policy', yet when all the evidence shows their policies are wrong they choose to ignore it!

I think they must have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between evidence and opinion. Evidence based policy makers would look at studies such as this one and conclude that regulation and legalisation would be the best policy, by reducing violent crime, as well as harm to drug users and tax evasion (think of the tax revenue they could get from the drugs industry!). Opinion based policy makers would look at this study and conclude that it may be right, but we don't like drugs so we will ignore it. I think it is clear which category our government fall under.

I would also be interested to know where else in the media this story has been reported? I doubt it will feature in any of the major newspapers or TV news, so the ill-informed public will continue to think that fighting drugs is a good thing. Keep fighting the good fight Mark, eventually someone in authority may actually listen (although maybe not in my lifetime!).

It's been obvious to me for a while that waging a war on drugs and attempting to enforce prohibition is a counter productive strategy.

I think the USA will take the lead on this one and legalise cannabis for recreational use, which will at least take a significant chunk out of the illegal market. We should follow 5-10 years later once it becomes clear society is not going to collapse.

Any other policy that consistently failed to meet any of its objectives for 50 YEARS would be scrapped and something new tried. Sadly, even our own government have admitted that our drug laws are not based on evidence, but on feeling - another word for "We're scared what the tabloids will say"

It seems that more and more people are realising that the war on drugs is a failure, and always will be.

My last point - if you wage a war on drugs, why are people surprised when they come up against warriors?

Below is a copy of the letter/email I have sent to a couple of MPs asking for advice as to the options available to ordinary citizens to force the UK government to publicly discuss their drug policies. We need to put pressure on the government to discuss the issue and tell them that they cannot keep ignoring the evidence.

Dear ...,

Back in January 2011 the Irish Times newspaper published the following article:

https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0124/1224288164475.html

I am the author of a blog whose main objective is to explore and discuss issues concerning the liberalisation of drugs. One of my concerns is trying to find out ways to force Parliament to discuss the current UK drug policy.

The ideal situation would be one where Parliament could designate an independent body with a mandate to assess the current drug policy (something akin to an Impact Assessment, say) and if possible, to make their recommendations legally binding.

Since I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in constitutional or parliamentary issues, I would sincerely appreciate your advice as to what venues are available, if any at all, to force the said discussion. For instance:

1. Does a mechanism similar to the one mentioned in the article above exist in our legislation?

2. Could a Private Member’s Bill be used to this effect?

I would like to thank you in advance for your help and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Gart Valenc
https://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

Law enforcement intervention impacts on the supply briefly and on the shape of the supply chain. It has no impact on demand at all. So the supply and the chain re-organise themselves very quickly to accommodate the impact of the law enforcement activity. That change often involves violent reworking of borders of command and control. Obvious really.

Free market economics may have failed utterly in the public services but in the drug market they are alive and well. The market grows and grows, sometimes gently and sometimes in bursts. I imagine product sales profiles also change and old products slip away as new ones arrive. It still grows. It never contracts in any noticeable way.

Current strategy continues to ignore this and other inconvenient truths. This survey is welcome evidence in an ongoing effort to have a grown up discussion about the matter.

We come back to the classic definition of insanity; it did not work, so we will do it again, only more, harder and blah, blah, and this time it WILL work.

Could we please stop urinating into the wind, and try adopting the Portuguese approach? Legalise everything, and treat the users as a health issue.

The "War on Drugs" is like the "War on Terror" in many, many, many ways(channeling Commandant Eric Lassard from "Police Academy" here).

a) Both rely on the idea of "just a bit more money, police, troops, time, and we will win".

b) Both are unwinnable.

c) Both are wasting huge amount of resources to no good end.

d) Both have created huge constituencies/vested interests, in the USA in particular, whose economic future is tied to the continuation of stupid and counter-productive policies. The American prison "industry" and their logistics industry are particularly dependent - someone has to fly all those urine samples to the lab.

e) Both have dramatically increased corruption, violence and instability.

Will anything change? I think the main issue here is that the amount of taxpayer's money available is going to shrink drastically, in most Western countries anyway. There will simply not be any cash free to throw at either of these colossal idiocies.

Prepare yourselves for an outbreak of politicians trying to talk sense(I know, novel concept!). Prepare yourselves also for an outbreak of senior police officers talking apocalyptic nonsense.

It will end simply because the budget will not be there.

The root of the drug trade is cash ; legalise hard drugs, sell them on prescription in the high street chemist at a knockdown price and the criminal activity surrounding drugs will disappear. It may result in more addicts and an increase in addict death rates but does that really concern anybody apart from those employed in the huge industry that councelling , social care for addicts and all the other legal but unnecessary jobs that are created around the drug trade now provides.

I can tell you that being on the receiving end of said U.K. drug policy is not funny at all. I had my house raided, the prosecution case is that I was cultivating 4, 0r 7? Cannabis plants and 40 unrooted cuttings, I work in the NHS and I am currently on suspension.
Obviously loss of income will be very bad for us with four young children, 2,4,8 and 10 years, our ten year old didn't even know his dad smoked anything...

Until the police enacted their search warrant, there was no problem, no social harm on any level.

I know that the only reason I am to have my life so drastically effected is because of someones bigotry and self interest, and amongst elected individuals.

The Misuse of Drugs Act is being fundamentally maladministered, like so many other things in this country.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This simply is a debate that will never find room for observable evidence. There are over-riding moral and political obstacles to amending our drug laws in ways that may improve public health and reduce criminal activity. In other words, reduced public health, increased criminal activity, lost tax revenues and increased public expenditure are all acceptable consequences in order to send out the message "Drugs are bad".

The story mentions firearm violence....that's impossible, guns are banned in the UK and since no one has any guns except the police, there can't possibly be a single gun crime committed ever again.

@flux5000 - full sympathy, one of the reasons I moved from my old house was because my boyfriend's brother was cultivating plants and I feared if he ever got raided I would lose my job. I work with (medical) drugs on an almost daily basis, so any drug convictions would look really bad. It's a shame that the police feel it is worth tax payer's money to bust small-time personal growers, who are hard-working normal people otherwise, branded criminals due to a lifestyle choice.

Remember the war against the I,R,A how was that war won? there is no sense in fighting a battle that cannot be won and we now know 50 years of history on the war on drugs and how it has done the opposite to what it was intended, so just like the war on the I,R,A ended with sinn fein in government this war will end with drugs being legalised the question is how do we do it without crime gangs makeing all the money and how do we keep users as safe as possible so how do we Control the Quality ,sale ,distrubition and advertising that is what we need to start talking about

Very pleasantly surprised by the overwhelming majority in favour of a legally regulated drug trade. Whilst I do realise that this is not a "cure" for the "drug problem", it does change the goalposts: what is a huge drain on public resources as specified above and at the root of a great deal of our public security problems. The public health considerations will persist, but their treatment, stripped of criminal overtones, will simply be a health concern, which it already is, but we would have a vastly increased budget to tackle addicts. In addition to savings on policing and collateral activities, goverments would, of course, be raking in the tax (70% as in the case of petrol tax?). It would also bring wealth and better living conditions to many depressed areas round the world as their crops are now legal, thus bypassing intermediaries and increasing profits to the cultivator. I once heard a "Daily Mirror Reader", say that a policy of this nature would mean hoards of pushers flocking around school gates. His choice of reading should have so indicated, but this level of ignorance does make one doubt the wisdom of "one man one vote". What reason would they have, now that kids will have the same level of access as they do to alcohol?

Are letter writers the only ones to see the glaring facts of this case? Why has there been no profound political discussion of the pros and contras? I really do not want to believe that the tabloids set the agenda on serious debate. Though it has been proved time and again that they do on a number of topics: violent crime, paedophiles, gays, philandering politicians, footballers etc.

Mexico. Now there is a success.

Anyone see the parallel between the current hard-line approach to drugs and the war on bacteria? You cannot eradicate either problem, and whatever survives a crack-down or (dose of antibiotics) is stronger and even harder to control than that which preceded it. We need to change our approach to both issues, because in both cases we're losing at the moment. Badly.

Anyone involved in this argument will find great interest in this short Interview with Darryl Bickler DEA (SSDP UK Conference 2009)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-xmb7SOjjk

Colombia is a textbook case. There you will find the devastating effects of Prohibition and War on Drugs policies in all their “glory”. Corruption at all levels of their society. Violence coming from all sides: far left (guerillas) and extreme right (paramilitaries). Political institutions being totally discredited by the interference of DTOs (i.e. infiltration, threats and killings). Development of a very sophisticated criminal infrastructure at the service not only of DTOs but also open to be used/hired by anybody wishing to enforce or pursue their illegal deals, personal vendettas or political ambitions.

Ask anybody familiar with the Colombian situation and they will tell you that it is extremely complex (for historic and socio-economic reasons), but one thing is clear: the real and only source of DTOs power is the enormous wealth they have been able to cumulate over the many decades the prohibition regime and the WoD have been in place. No other industry or activity (legal or illegal) could have possibly generated the billions and billions of dollars the illegal drug market has put in the hands of criminals.

No one is naïve enough as to believe that Colombia’s political and socio-economic problems will disappear if drugs were legalised, but it would certainly solve the lion’s share of the misery, violence, corruption and social havoc the criminals that control the drugs market have been imposing on Colombia (or Mexico for that matter) for so many decades.

It is just a snap, but I recommend having a look at this contemporary view of Colombia’s situation here:

https://colombiareports.com/opinion/the-colombiamerican/14234-the-war-on-drug-gangs-finally-begins-but-is-it-too-late.html


Gart Valenc
https://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

Any plausible reason, appart from all those authorities on the take, for NOT legalising drugs?

Yes, worse.


Prohibition failed in the USA.
The war on drugs is simply a name change.
The name was changed to promote it as a new idea, to sell the idea.

Both Prohibition and the War on Drugs successfully created very rich and powerful criminals.
In the US the organized crime the Mafia was made very powerful.
Now we have created Drug Lords, International Drug Lords billionaires.

Whenever the beliefs of the religious right are used to make policy,
policy goes wrong.

We're a funny old species, sometimes I'm amazed that we've managed to evolve as we have. The illegal drug industry creates some of the richest people on the planet and creates unimaginable poverty for the growers on the bottom of the rung.

If we were to remove the word "illegal", wouldn't everything be much simpler and easy to manage?

Just asking..............

If drugs were to be legally sold, gangs are not gonna stop as they see their golden egg being taking away... They instead will turn to other illegal profitable activities (human, organs trafficking, kidnapping, extortion...) you name it. I don't deny those activities are currently going on and sometimes used by drug gangs to keep their business running but then it will just make it spread broader and wider...

No disrespect AmosR but are you really saying that the only reason to keep the drug gangs in the riches they're used to is that if we stop them dealing drugs they'll go into human organ trafficking etc??

Across the world 10s of millions of people take drugs recreationally with no negative effects except those enforced on them by 'legality'. Do you honestly think that instead of dodgy geezers standing outside schools with a little package to try for free, they'll be away with the kids to extort money from the cash strapped parents or find some back street butcherer to sell their organs to?

It makes no sense, open your mind! We hopefully all respect the law and do not want to rock the boat, but sometimes there are laws introduced, however long ago, that have been proven time and time again to be ineffectual and yes, it needs some very brave politicians to stand up and say "ok, this isn't working", but other countries have tried it and, contrary to what a lot of people would like to think, it has worked!!

We need to grow a pair and go for it ;-)

@AmosR

Your post brings up an argument I hear again and again when discussing this. Your argument seems to be that we have to gift the drugs market, the 350 billion dollar market, to criminals because otherwise they'd be out of a job? That's lunacy!

Besides,do you really think drug gangs could make ANYWHERE near the amount they make now on people smuggling?

Really, it boggles the mind that people argue that we can't legalise drugs lest criminals be forced out of the market!

So, AmosR, you're basically saying that we shouldn't try to reduce crime whilst saving an enormous amount of money simply because criminals might do something else illegal instead?
They might. Most probably won't though - selling drugs or growing weed doesn't involve directly harming anyone and I suspect a lot of low level dealers/growers don't have the stomach for kidnapping or exhortion.
Even if they did though it would still save the country a hella lotta money and stop us incarcerating a shedload of people simply for choosing the wrong intoxicant or (worse) for having their only effective medicine a criminal offense to possess and manufacture.

House of Lords debate from Wednesday 9th March


www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7754&wfs=true&player=smooth]click

Skip to 4hr 42min 45s

A good sensible debate except when it comes to the Governments same old same old response to this majorly important issue.

I currently live in Porto, Portugal and am originally from Birmingham, UK. Portugal has a very relaxed legal approach to drugs in comparison to the UK and the US and whilst I have observed very little difference in the quantity of drug users, I know of little to no crime that we would associate with drug users in the UK. I live within 200 metres of a methadone distribution centre and whilst it is usually fairly obvious who is in the area for that reason apart from some slightly tiresome begging we have very few social problems in the area that could be attributed to drug addicts. I do not understand why the evidence that is apparent and easily visible in other countries cannot be adapted and applied to policy in countries with a more stringent approach.

The argument from many here seems to be that we can't fight the drugs trade because the gangs might hurt each other....

Cannabis should be legalised because there is no logical difference between it and tobacco or alcohol but harder drugs seriously mess people up and can become addictive very quickly. If many more people become too wrecked to work to fund their habit are we going to give them their legal drugs courtesy of the tax payer? If not will they resort to crime to feed their craving - at knocked down prices or not, there is still a cost.

If the tax payer and ordinary members of society are protected - including kids who would more easily get hold of legalised hard drugs - and the main 'victims' are drug dealers, how is that a failure?

It depends upon what the objective of the war on drugs is. I don't think protecting criminals is it...

Cav if drugs were legal would you choose to become a heroin addict?
If your answer is no then why would anyone else.
If your answer is yes then you would need to find a back street dealer as such drugs would not be available to you over the counter.

Also with all current heroin addicts if the state picked up the bill for the heroin then the price of enforcement would drop from the £1.2 million per addict to a mear £24k per addict to treat via a medical outlet. Whilst saving the general public the stress of finding someones turned their home over for a few valuables or mugged their kids for the Iphone etc....

Its not the gangs hurting each other that is the problem its the chaos it brings to communities that's the problem. Government support this chaos.... Protecting criminals is the main stay of drug policy if it wasn't then drugs and the use of drugs would be properly regulated with a balanced system of supply and demand that exists on both sides of law.

The war on drugs is really a war on nature/human-nature. Plant extracts are used and have been used by humans for thousands of years involving ritualistic and recreational activities. Certainly these substances have been refined by humans to illicit the purest form and thusly increased risks of overdose (witness alcohol). There are also questions over the psychological side-effects of use by the young and the use of drugs by them must be minimised as much as possible. However these are manageable issues if confronted as health concerns not as criminal.

It is clear to many in the community now that use of drugs is not going to be stopped by using the power of the state to sanction those who are involved in the market. The supply of medicinal drugs to patients has been present for a long period of time, why is the same model not used for all socially used drugs? Legal medical supply would provide the catalyst to move the war into peace and from hysteria to logic; and from contempt to compassion. Corruption would also be undermined and many associated criminal activities such as theft, prostitution and supply of drugs would also be significantly reduced. A large proportion of the economic foundations of organised crime would be removed. Enforcement activities could then concentrate on heinous crimes such as people smuggling, weapons trafficking and terrorism.

It seems to me that the only way for this historic mistake to be rectified is for we, the people to be able to receive drug education based on science (the truth); drugs to be legalised; users to be registered; rehabilitation and health services to be publically funded from the saving on enforcement, judicial, and incarceration activities. The upshot would be that drugs would lose their illegal status but also the aura around them being something taboo. Illegal supplies would diminish and therefore the proliferation would diminish. Children would then be at less risk of becoming a user. Of course this wouldn't stop people doing what they will always do, but it might just make our world a better place and place some compassion and light on this controversial topic. Over to you – world.

o become addicted. Granted tobacco is actually more addictive than many drugs but hard drugs are more immediately lethal. It's also true that the cravings with tobacco are less, many smokers crave a cigarette but few burgle homes to fund a packet of fags.

I have no idea how to go about buying illegal drugs and many youngsters don't either. Most people get hooked on things when they are young and inexperienced. Making drugs legal increases their availability. It's no good saying that other countries have different experiences and that legalisation would work here. Many other countries don't have our yobbish, Friday night booze-up culture...

It isn't just the actual cost of drugs themselves that the tax-payer would have to bear but the extra health care costs and also the violence of tripped out addicts out of their minds, extra car smashes etc, etc.

The so-called war on drugs is indefensible. The evidence is overwhelming; criminal gangs can afford helicopters and submarines, not to mention weapons, to continue the production and distribution of their wares. The incredible death toll in Mexico over the past few years ought to be sufficient for the powers that be to sit up and take notice. Apparantly not. I am not advocating drug consumption. However, human beings will continue to smoke tobacco products, drink alcohol and consume drugs no matter what legislation and health warnings are in place. One cannot be more explicit than the 'smoking kills' warning on cigarette packs. It is about time that governments accepted these indisputable facts and acted with wisdom, for once. Perhaps spelling out how much tax revenue could be raised from legalisation, combined with a significant drop in low-level crimes such as burglaries, shoplifting, pickpocketing and petty theft would convince them; although somehow, I doubt it.

" Cav wrote:
Cannabis should be legalised because there is no logical difference between it and tobacco or alcohol"

Well, cannabis of course is actually far less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco, surely we can all accept this now, there is so much supporting evidence? But there's the rub, I can (and do) quite legally produce my own alcohol in my home 20+litres at a time for my own use, but if I was to grow a few cannabis plants in my home for my own use I risk having half a dozen police officers come crashing through my front door! Now does his make sense to anybody? because it makes no sense to me whatsoever! And is this a good use of taxpayers money? Time to end the war on drugs that simply makes the criminal gangs richer.

Drug gangs exist, not because of the law, but because they are funded by drug users.Law-abiding people wouldn't dream of supporting violent thugs.Drug users are like people who buy stolen car radios then complain there's nowhere safe to park.

#41...We live in a Capitalist economy where the laws of supply and demand rule,drug users demand the stuff and dealers supply it.
I have smoked dope for over 40 years and have never come across any of these violent drug gangs that the Tory press would have you believe are hanging around outside schools waiting to sell their wares to the kids,this is just a small minded and ill informed press pandering to a simple minded public who actually believe all the rubbish they read in papers.
The whole idea of legalising all these drugs is to prevent these "violent thugs" you speak of running the operations,personally,in the 40 years plus that I've been smoking dope all the dealers I've dealt with are just normal family guys with kids and mortgages and bills like the rest of us,it's just a bit of extra income for most of them.
But there you go,apparently 5 or 6 million people read the Sun with it's unfounded tittle tattle about celebrities,soap opera news and numerous other puerile items that serve to keep the nation dumbed down and misinformed.

@Shaunie Babes The problem is that "Drug Gangs" only cause harm because drugs are illegal - take the example of alcohol, in exactly the same way that drug dealers only exist because people want to use drugs, alcohol dealers (pubs) only exist because people want to drink alcohol. The key difference is that sales of alcohol are legal and regulated and therefore for most drinkers there is no crime associated with going to the pub.

Which brings me on to your second point, sale of illegal drugs is not the same a the theft of a car stereo. Drug dealing is a consensual crime, both the dealer and the buyer wish to take part in the crime, the only people who do not want that crime to take place are uninvolved 3rd parties. Car stereo theft on the other hand is not consensual someones stereo has been stolen and they were not willing participants in the crime.

Finally your premise seems to be that we should eradicate demand for drugs - here finally we do agree, targeting demand is much more likely to have an effect than targeting supply. Unfortunately the police, courts and prisons are not an effective way to deliver a public health message - demand needs to be reduced by effective public health initiatives not the blunt instrument of the law.

@#41

"Drug gangs exist, not because of the law, but because they are funded by drug users."

Drug gangs are funded by drug users but they exist purely because of the law. Profits are inflated because of the law, profits are not taxed because of the law, the market is unregulated because of the law, disputes between suppliers are resolved with violence because of the law, products are cut with dangerous substances because of the law, the drugs they sell get stronger and stronger because of the law.

Nearly all of the negative consequences of the illegal drug trade are, if not caused by, exacerbated by prohibition.

We need to start with cannabis at least - the fact that it is illegal is absolute folly, highly hypocritical, a huge waste of money (YOUR money), and counter productive!

I am not pro 'war on drugs' and support evidence based policy which will realistically improve the situation

But I want to ask about enforcement, because the likes of Peter Hitchens will continue to insist that harder enforcement will stamp it out - for example, drug-related problems are far worse in poorly governed countries like Mexico compared to ourselves, or to use a favourite, Sweden

Would more respect for the rule of law and harsh Singaporean style punishment work better?

Cav, I do understand your concern, but there is a big difference between legalising and regulating the distribution of hard drugs to current addicts, and allowing them to be sold over the counter. I don't think anyone here is advocating that anyone can just go down to their local chemists and buy heroin over the counter like paracetamol. However, if you allow current addicts to get a regulated, clean supply of their drug of choice not only will you reduce crime and the health problems associated with addiction, you should also reduce the number of new addicts.

I have never tried heroin, not because it's illegal, but because its a hard highly addictive drug. Simply legalising drugs will not necessarily increase the number of users. Cannabis is decriminalised in the Netherlands but I believe they have a lower percentage of users than we do.

It seems obvious that if drugs are legalised then regulation must be put in place and a distinction made between hard and soft drugs. Also, with proper education about the effects and potential side-effects of drugs, rather than populist propaganda, people should be able to make an informed choice about whether or not to take them. Children should be protected, but if anything they are less protected now. Making things illegal makes them appeal to young people.

Most people I know tried shoplifting at least once when younger, because it was illegal, everyone I know who smokes (including myself) started at about 13-15 years old, because it was illegal and we were repeatedly told not to do it.

'Just say no' doesn't work, increasing sentencing for drug-related crime doesn't work. We've tried everything else and it has FAILED. Miserably. Worst case scenario: drugs are legalised and regulated, it doesn't work, we re-criminalise. Don't you think it's worth a try?

Its too late. Its well past midnight in the War on Drugs. The gangsters don't want drugs legalized, and we missed our chance. In any case, when the criminals start to completely run the world later this century, do you think that they could make a bigger mess of things than the corrupt self-serving politicians who currently run the show? Precisely. Keep it coming. Drug dealers are more trustworthy than politicians.

1. At 10:38am on 31st Mar 2011, watriler wrote:
The assumption must be in the minds of governments and the enforcement industry is that given time they will be able to purge society of the illicit drug underground army. Probably it is the same psychology as with the IRA in the sixties and seventies when the state was exclusively seeking a military solution.
_____

Bad analogy. In the late 1960's the British army was deployed to PROTECT catholics from 'Loyalist' groups. Nor where the IRA in the 70's treated as 'soldiers' but prosecuted as common criminals. The British govt. maintained covert talks with the IRA throughout the 70's 80' & 90's (it just denied doing so) . The military solution was fairly effective, at least in that it curtailed the IRA to the point where they could never win through violence and forced them into negotiations. Its worth remembering that effectively the UK govt won: Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, British troops are still there & the IRA have permanently stopped their violence.

That apart this report doesn't surprise me. I live in Nottingham which has an amazing (and fortunately in the past couple of years completely undeserved) reputation for gun crime linked to drugs. This was largely due to a very successful operation against white, local gangs dealing drugs in the early 90's. With the local operators (who tended to use baseball bats) in prison a vacuum was created that was filled with West Indian 'Yardies' who use guns to settle their scores. The plus side is that its mostly each other they shoot.

I can't say I'm especially keen on legalising drugs but as with many things it seems the least worst option... the current policy doesn't work.

hmmm this dont sound like a way forward for people.....
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/housing-management/tenants-forced-to-grow-cannabis/6514321.article

dont even need to be involved to get involved in the drugs industry, So Cav how would you deal with this???

11. At 13:11pm on 31st Mar 2011, garval wrote:
"The ideal situation would be one where Parliament could designate an independent body with a mandate to assess the current drug policy (something akin to an Impact Assessment, say) and if possible, to make their recommendations legally binding.

Since I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in constitutional or parliamentary issues, I would sincerely appreciate your advice as to what venues are available, if any at all, to force the said discussion"

I'm hardly an expert on constitutional issues either but what you're suggesting would by-pass the whole process by which a bill becomes law. Any recommendations on changing the law have to be discussed in the commons, passed through the lords, then signed off by the Queen (even if that is a merely symbolic act these days). Unelected bodies can't just make new laws.

The other problem is that while there is no real logical reason why cannabis is prohibited but alcohol & tobacco legal (subject to being over 18 etc) we do live, more or less, in a democracy and the majority opinion in this country is to keep cannabis as a controlled drug. Even California (a more liberal place generally than the UK) narrowly voted in favour of keeping it illegal. If there was a genuine majority of the UK population in favour of decriminalising some political party would have jumped on the bandwagon to try and get votes.

Ultimately thats your biggest problem.

41. At 10:56am on 1st Apr 2011, Shaunie Babes wrote:
Drug gangs exist, not because of the law, but because they are funded by drug users.Law-abiding people wouldn't dream of supporting violent thugs.Drug users are like people who buy stolen car radios then complain there's nowhere safe to park.

WOW realy so drug gangs arn't the direct result of MODa... just like gravity has nothing to do with the core of the earth. May I suggest you fire up the other brain cell.

ALL LAW ABIDINDING CITIZENS SUPPORT DRUG DEALERS... If you agree with the current interpritation of MODa
Myself and many other Free thinking people don't we support a legal framework without dealers and street crime.
I dont support Decriminalisation as this leaves the current system totaly unregulated and power still with drug gangs.

26. At 18:52pm on 31st Mar 2011, Peter wrote:
Any plausible reason, appart from all those authorities on the take, for NOT legalising drugs?
_____
Several, not least the fact that 'drugs' covers a huge spectrum & 'legalising' could mean anything from govt production and selling pharmaceutical grade stuff via pharmacists to just allowing the current dealers to flog the current muck which is cut to hell with all sorts of poison without fear of prosecution.

I'm fairly neutral on this subject: I've smoke a bit of weed in the past, but I also had a short work placement testing methadone addicts for compliance and know full well what street drugs are cut with.

The single biggest reason why we don't legalise drugs is that the majority of the UK does not want this to happen. Politicians are cynical creatures and if 60% of the population really wanted legal cannabis one party would take advantage and get votes. In large part this is because the tabloids tell a huge proportion of the UK's voters what to think & how to vote. I don't like this either, but thats how it is.

Also importantly no matter how much 'liberalisation' you allow there will always be some controls: you need to be 18 to buy alcohol. At what age should you be allowed to buy heroin? If you say 18, then someone will make a profit buying it and selling it on to kids (happens with alcohol & tobacco after all). Likewise fancy sharing a road with a driver on crystal meth? You'll need legislation to stop that happening too.

I'd be much happier if heroin users could buy pharmaceutical grade heroin from a pharmacist for £5 a shot (not least because its about 1000% profit at that cost straight to the chancellor and he might leave the petrol alone!) than the present mess, I don't care if anyone smokes weed as long as they accept that its at least as carcinogenic as tobacco and doesn't get in a car afterwards, but I really don't want to see crack rock dispensing vending machines in pub toilets.

I do not consider it to be wishful thinking to believe that after fifty years of pursuing a policy that has failed on every possible sense, the rational and responsible thing to do is to search for a better alternative, one whose benefits outweigh its costs. And this is the crux of the matter: no alternative policy is exempt from costs. The challenge, therefore, is to put in place a policy that maximises the benefits and minimises the costs.

Analysis after analysis, evaluation after evaluation has shown that regarding prohibition, the costs are much, much greater than the benefits. And there is something even more significant: it is not just the current prohibitionist regime whose balance happens to be in the red, historic records show that the same goes for prohibitionist regimes in previous centuries, be it tobacco, opium or alcohol.

One can only assume that something deeply ideological, prejudicial or irrational prevents people from understanding that the problem is prohibition, and not the drugs themselves; that no matter what drug one is considering, prohibition is not the solution...far from it, it can only make things worse.

My hope is that any rational, responsible and caring individual will able to understand that a regime seeking to legalise and regulate the production, distribution and consumption of drugs CANNOT be as destructive and corrosive — socially, economically and politically speaking — as the current prohibition regime is. Moreover, my hope is that even those who believe that legalisation and regulation of drugs is evil will be willing to accept that it is the lesser of two evils.


Gart Valenc
https://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

51. At 14:50pm on 1st Apr 2011, John Ellis wrote:

I dont support Decriminalisation as this leaves the current system totaly unregulated and power still with drug gangs
___
That makes two of us. Either go Malaysian style with draconian prison sentences for even low level drug offences or cut the criminals out of the loop all together & state manufacture and sell the stuff through licensed premises (as with alcohol or pharmaceuticals like codeine).

If alcohol had been 'decriminalised' in the US post-prohibition it would mean Al Capone would be making and selling it but he'd be 'untouchable' rather than Elliot Ness.

Necessity or nastiness? The hidden law denying cannabis for medicinal use
https://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/2010/12/

good example of how we have reached a point were sufferance is law, So while everyones happy doing away with dealers and cannabis they are also implementing vast acts of cruelty upon fellow man. Drugs that are prescribed are generaly far more dangerious then cannabis which helps a lot of illness related to the ECSN.

If your stupid enough to belive that there is a differance between addiction to prescribed drugs and proscribed drugs that one is safer then you need to consider which is better a hard drug or a soft drug what defines a hard drug v a soft drug is prozac better than cannabis for instance? Does it provide better mental health with less risk to the user who in many cases will be addicted for many years before a successful outcome is reached and they can be weened of the prescibed drugs.?

#55. Interesting article but it has a slightly dodgy angle: at present morphine and even heroin- diamorphine (my mum had two shots giving birth to me and swore blind she hadn't given birth yet when she sobered up!) are medically prescribed drugs, but if you are in serious pain (say terminal cancer) the law doesn't allow you to buy street heroin for pain relief. The morphine has to be prescribed. You can't self prescribe.

The question should be does cannabis REALLY work for MS etc and if so why isn't it prescribed as a therapy? The idea that the evil pharmaceutical industry is somehow stopping it doesn't hold water... they've no problem producing & selling opiates.

Interestingly German oncologists are extremely reluctant to give morphine to cancer patients even when they're days from death and in extreme pain for fear that the patient will become addicted! Britain is one of the most 'generous' countries in the world when it comes to prescribing opiates, especially for terminal cases where enough drugs to actually euthanase the patient are often handed out.

The 'medical cannabis' angle is often overplayed. Cannaboids within the cannabis plant seem to have very useful medical properties but smoking the stuff along with a hundred different carcinogens isn't the best way to take it medically.

Most people can't even spell 'paradox', let alone understand the concept or figure out when they are imprisoned in one. The paradox of prohibition has accelerated the foul plague of humanity on Gaia's face, and the tipping point is so far behind us that most people interpret the slide into chaos as an illusion of stasis. Depression and anxiety is the only realistic response to the present hell we live in, and if you do not feel either, then you already love Big Brother, and you have won the battle against yourself. Laugh or cry, it matters not.

Peter_Sym.... at this point ill drag out the big QI screen you know the one big keyword misconception.

"The 'medical cannabis' angle is often overplayed. Cannaboids within the cannabis plant seem to have very useful medical properties but smoking the stuff along with a hundred different carcinogens isn't the best way to take it medically. "

Common misconception between medical and recreational, and also a very blured line in the debate.
the original medical treatments like pheonix tears are edibles as is the majority of the medical cannabis. The advent of the vapouriser gave a clean and mostly harmless way to take up cannabinoids at select tempretures these themselves have now evolved in to oil collectors which many patients are switching to as they allow full vapourisation of the oils but the end result is for tinture or foodstuff.
Smoking blunts n such tends to occur more socialy plus there is the smell problem which many patients do not want to carry around with them all day long.

These are the lines we are trying to make people aware of much as you said a cancer patient wouldnt go out n score heroin or even have to prepare the treatment legaly and inject it straight which is the stigma around heroin. They would use a medialy prepared pill or liquid. Which is what happens in a lot of cases once the cannabis is put to use within the patients home.

I myself tend to have a vap in the morning and then get through the day with a joint... bad i know but... It allows me to be very responsive to my health problem as sometimes it can be just 3 tokes on a joint to settle the condition.. my alternate is Sativex which I write to the goverment about a lot for me such a treatment would be vastly superiour over vaped bud. Then there is cost. vaped and cooking requires a little more than conventional smoking, hence why more people choose to smoke it on the offset of treatment. could ramble about this all day... best not.:)

Eloquently put ellis +1

Medical cannabis misconception One BUSTED!

Don't forget kids "cannabis is toxic, in some cases very toxic" Not my words but the words of the man in charge. Remember TOXIC. I'm off for nine lime breezers and a snake bite. Kebab, fight, bed

Welcome to britain

interesting peice on power and tech for drug dealers.

Authorities in Awe of Drug Runners' Jungle-Built, Kevlar-Coated Supersubs
By Jim Popkin March 29, 2011 | 12:00 pm | Wired April 2011
https://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/ff_drugsub/all/1?pid=4963

@43
Drug gangs will still exist to take advantage of any taxation and regulation changes if drugs were legal.
Drug use is not a victimless crime. Familiies, the health service, communites and the welfare system are all victims of feckless drug users. Claiming making drugs easier to get will reduce use, crime. or anti-social beaviour is nonsense.

Drug use is not a victimless crime. Familiies, the health service, communites and the welfare system are all victims of feckless drug LAWS. Claiming making drugs easier to get will reduce use, crime. or anti-social beaviour is correct.

51. At 14:50pm on 1st Apr 2011, John Ellis wrote:
41. At 10:56am on 1st Apr 2011, Shaunie Babes wrote:
Drug gangs exist, not because of the law, but because they are funded by drug users.Law-abiding people wouldn't dream of supporting violent thugs.Drug users are like people who buy stolen car radios then complain there's nowhere safe to park.
WOW realy so drug gangs arn't the direct result of MODa... just like gravity has nothing to do with the core of the earth. May I suggest you fire up the other brain cell.
------------------
Child porn rings are the result of the Sexual Offences Act.
People smuggling gangs are a result of the Immigration Act.
Shoplifting gangs are a result of the Theft Act

WOW just look at all the crime we are causing by making things illegal. Although the only people who actually have a problem with these laws are Paedophiles, Eastern European gangsters and shoplifters.

62. At 11:06am on 2nd Apr 2011, John Ellis wrote:
Drug use is not a victimless crime. Familiies, the health service, communites and the welfare system are all victims of feckless drug LAWS. Claiming making drugs easier to get will reduce use, crime. or anti-social beaviour is correct.
------------------
Lets analyse this using druggie logic:
Alcohol is a drug.
Alcohol causes crime,health and social problems and anti-social behaviour.
Legalising a drug reduces use, health and social problems,crime and anti-social behaviour.
Therefore the fact alcohol is legal has reduced use, crime,health and social problems and anti-social behaviour.

Therefore the fact alcohol is legal has reduced use, crime,health and social problems and anti-social behaviour.

Yes history tell us this.

Since, politically, an end to the policy of prohibition is not on the table in Britain, the question is how police and crime agencies ensure that their actions don't end up making a bad situation even worse.

Well, I guess that about closes the discussion then. It is somewhat equivalent to...

Armed only with a bucket of petrol, the question is how can fire-fighters put out a forest fire?

The answer to both questions is “they can’t”.

65. At 11:37am on 2nd Apr 2011, John Ellis wrote:
Therefore the fact alcohol is legal has reduced use, crime,health and social problems and anti-social behaviour.
--------
Yes history tell us this.
--------
Which is strange, because druggies like nothing better than telling us all how evil alcohol is, therefore we should legalise other dangerous substances.

"Which is strange, because druggies like nothing better than telling us all how evil alcohol is, therefore we should legalise other dangerous substances."

Whom is telling the public that alcohol is bad for them? Druggies or highly respected medical professionals from a wide range of health services?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

68. At 14:22pm on 3rd Apr 2011, John Ellis wrote:
"Which is strange, because druggies like nothing better than telling us all how evil alcohol is, therefore we should legalise other dangerous substances."
Whom is telling the public that alcohol is bad for them? Druggies or highly respected medical professionals from a wide range of health services?
-------------------
Highly respected medical professionals from a wide range of health services also say drugs are bad for you. This doesn't stop druggies taking pharmaceutical advice from people on street corners

SB its nice to see you decend into everdecreasing circles, its a good job that the Law is allowed to develop without the imput of uneducated bigoted people .
Gay men would still go to Jail, blacks would still have to use seperate services.

the temperance movement also told us how evil alcohol was were they druggies?

To be clear there will be no change from prohibition on drugs. The reasons are very clear;
+ ignorance in the general population
+ prohibition provides jobs for police, border agency, prisons and broader public sector like probation.
+ government has no real alternative given their limited approval ratings

It is very sad that the higher and higher costs to society of drug taking is not managed or dealt with. Such incompetence is perhaps the norm in todays society.

"the temperance movement also told us how evil alcohol was were they druggies?"

Well, they were known to enjoy the odd toke, I heard.

I prefer how cannabis leaves me feeling. I have MS and alcohol leaves me feeling crap. I find drunks to be noisier too.

I don't smoke cannabis when the means to vaporise is available. It does provide more pain relief for those who need it though. There are lots of questions still to be answered. Very scary for some tabloid readers. The truth always gives a good beating.

I must admit I'm a little surprised myself that the enforcement of drug laws increases prohibition violence - it's probably more to do with the way that enforcement takes place, (i.e. in a non-subtle way) but anyway it's doomed to failure - the drug gangs are only interested in profit and, even when they are jailed someone else will spring up to take their place - the power struggle is most probably what causes the violence.

Whether we know it or not, we non-combatants are ALL victims of prohibition - I myself had my house burgled as one of a string of five houses in a row in a daytime smash-a-window-and-grab-whatever-you-can raid. That's not a carefully planned operation, it's a desperate attempt to get goods as quickly as possible, presumably for a car boot sale which would probably have netted the addict (as it turned out - he got caught) about 10% of the cost to the householders. And if you think that didn't cost you - just remember YOUR insurance premium is affected by burglary figures.

Peter Sym et al: I, too, am not a fan of decriminalisation - other than unfairly tarring drug users with the "criminal" keyword (which is really why you get the more unintelligent posts in here, some people cannot react at any higher level than Pavlov's dog, trained as they are by their particular tabloid), it essentially gives lawbreakers a free rein to make money from other people's addictions without quality control or an incentive to get them clean. Only proper regulation and medical supervision will finally minimise drug harms - and pretty much obliterate prohibition crime.

I have to take issue with this comment, though:
"The idea that the evil pharmaceutical industry is somehow stopping (the legalisation of cannabis) doesn't hold water... they've no problem producing & selling opiates."
- The big difference here is that cannabis doesn't really need any processing, it can just be grown cheaply, which removes Big Pharma's chance to patent and make a profit out of it and it will certainly reduce their sales of other patented drugs by giving a cheap alternative.

You're right to say, however that "The single biggest reason why we don't legalise drugs is that the majority of the UK does not want this to happen." But remember this is only the CURRENT position and, given the arguments, most thinking people can change their mind. (I'm one of those - about 4 years ago I thought that it's better to keep everything illegal but that's only because I hadn't really thought about it). My mind is now changed, thanks to Mark Easton's persistence and people like this:
https://www.tdpf.org.uk/

There are always those who prefer to keep a war going for their own ends (which is always about profit), but the great thing about a democracy is that once you get the majority over to your point of view you can stop these things.

As John and Yoko once said: "War is over - IF YOU WANT IT".

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-04-05a.50474.h&s=speaker%3A11640

James Brokenshire (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office; Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)

The Home Office has no plans to undertake research into the effects of the criminalisation of drugs.

The head in the sand aproach works well why should it change?????

hhmm maybe a double post here. but then the bbc has been flakey of late...
7 April 2011

Bodies found as Mexicans march against drug violence
Protests in more than 20 Mexican cities against drug-related violence have been interrupted by news of the discovery of 59 bodies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12992664

James Brokenshire (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office; Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)

The Home Office has no plans to undertake research into the effects of the criminalisation of drugs.

No hes right the effects are very CLEAR......... very acceptable to ant goverment with its head in the sand....

who does the drug laws effect...?
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs
Its happening every day in every country, even if our banks say it does not, how many companys are just fronts for the drug trade in the UK?

Unnecessary adulterants: Confusion over mephedrone legislation

April 8, 2011


In this guest post, Dr Les King and Rudi Fortson Q.C. highlight how the last government’s meddling in legislation regarding cathinones, including mephedrone, at this time last year has generated confusion for forensic scientists and legal practitioners regarding the precise placing of some cathinones within Class B. It is a problem that is only now being addressed.

https://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/unnecessary-adulterants-confusion-over-mephedrone-legislation/

No shet shirlock.

Just what sort of a discussion is this - We have recently seen the callous shooting to death, of a young girl, by two callous murderers using a sub-machine gun, on the streets of England in broad daylight.

Now to be kept in relative comfort, in a warm dry cell, fed and watered, free medical attention, at our expense for 32 years !

What kind of justice is this - The answer to drug problems, gang problems and wanton killing is totally obvious - So get into the real world !!

80. At 08:13am 13th Apr 2011, David Bale wrote:
Just what sort of a discussion is this - We have recently seen the callous shooting to death, of a young girl, by two callous murderers using a sub-machine gun, on the streets of England in broad daylight.

David get used to this in liverpool a 16 year old was stabed to death over the amount of cannabis in a £20 bag. The harder the goverment come down on an industry that is well used, when the goverment use a system that incresses the price of drugs and uses this as a messure of success you realy have to start to question is this the right route for our country to be taking. How many more young people will have to die in the war on drugs. I have many times asked the goverment for at least a legal cannabis market to seperate it from other drugs, which I have personaly spent 8 years fighting on our streets. But to no avail the goverment will hold this death up as a sign of success!! look we put 2 scumbags away for 32 years. There will be no payment to the family involved there will be effort to help this family once its past the news papers. The goverment will make no applogies that are worth the sentiments congured for the media.
This is just the begining for the UK its time that the media started to count these deaths in succesion .
ie " Today the 22nd civilain died in the war on drugs in the UK" but they dont have the Balls for this. Indervidual deaths are soon forgoten exept by family and friends.

Time to legalise a base of drugs for consumption to take away control from the gangs.

"38. At 07:07am 1st Apr 2011, Cav"

When speaking of specific drugs like heroin then the tax payer SHOULD pick up the bill. It is the only way to defeat the problem.

In the UK we currently have methadone clinics where addicts get free clean needles and methadone.

They usually say their habit is worse than it is to get as much methadone as they can so they can sell/trade it for more heroin.

If those addicts could put their arms through a hole in the wall and be injected with uncut pharmacuetical grade white heroin whenever they liked then over a peroid of a couple of years the illegal supply would dry up 100% because illegal dealers/importers would go out of business.

How can a dealer/importer compete with pure pharmaceutical FREE heroin? And why would any addict buy his dirty brown power when said addict could get better stuff for free?

After a while there would be no heroin anywhere in the UK other than at injection clinics. As such no knew addicts would be created because in order for that to happen somnebody would have to make a concious decision to want to become a heroin addict and apply at the doctors. Who is going to do that?

The netherlands have followed exactly this policy and today in 2011 there are virtually no heroin addicts under the age of aobut 40. In a few more decades the netherlands won't have a heroin addict under the age of 70 and eventually there will bo no heroin addicts in the netherlands.

Today there is cirtually no illegal spplu there because there is no market.

Paying for free heroin costs the tax payer far less than chasing after addicts who have stolen peoples possessions and to prosecute dealers.

Such a policy could also mean we could buy up all the poppies off the impoverished farmers of afghanistan and so win hearts and minds of the local population, put the taliban out of business, create a blossoming middle class and win the war for good.

A similar policy can be used for other addictive substances like amphetmines/meth amphetamine and cocaine/crack which in turn would sort out the myriad of problems in south america.

Drugs like ecstasy and cannabis should be freely vailable to over 21's in licensed premises.

Its not rocket science, the track record of these policies working is already there. Anyone with half a brain knows what we need to do so oet this situation out.

ACMD ask for help with heroin addicts who leave prison..
https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/12/heroin-overdose-antidote-prisoners?CMP=twt_gu

Good for bigsammyb at 82! I stand absolutely alongside everything you say: it makes perfect sense and, as you say, the evidence is already there.

How anyone could still be going for enforcement, criminalisation and so forth, when we've had the example of Prohibition in the States for 80 years or so to point up the folly of such a policy, I shall never know.

One of Mr Fords earlier creations used hemp-fibre panels - true.
Hemp was villified by the cotton and alcohol industries for greed/survival and by politicians for the same obvious reasons. Nothing has changed - they are still the problem. Given that these rulers in the uk tried changing the law to avoid prosecution I would suggest that their views and input are null and void.

#82..Yes,this is a good post,but unfortunately will fall upon deaf ears as most of the common sense suggestions posted here,remember we're dealing with Tory's who are innately opposed to change and a population fed on drivel by daily rags like the Sun,the Telegraph,the Mail etc,what hope for any decent solution to a problem that is perpetuated by successive governments who's only desire is power,they cant even bring themselves to talk about it,just sweep it under the carpet and continue with the same old tired and ineffective policies,to talk about legalising drugs in the UK is,for the most part,political suicide,the aforementioned newspapers would see to that.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

re 87 shrugs live in hope ... had a feeling that was gone when i posted it .. so ill let the Man explain CLEAR himself.
Peter Reynolds interview on Cannabis Cure UK EP10 April 2011
https://vimeo.com/22613251

A very thoughtfull peice From Dave Nutt

Blair’s Other War

https://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/blairs-other-war/