NationStates Jolt Archive

this applies specifically to the UK, but i suppose these ideas could be just a relavent and applicable to any other country. this is also (partly in responce to tonights "What if" documentary on BBC2 (linky). I'll spell it out nice and clearly




I am proposing a hybrid legalisation-regulation-prohibition policy
Dangerous, harmful and highly addictive drugs (class A and B) will be decriminalised for POSSESSION.
Supply of these class narcotics will remain prohibited and mandatory jail sentences increased (perhaps to life)
Addicts of these class drugs will not be criminally charged for posession, but will be made to attend rehabilitation clinics
These clinics will be government funded with the aim of curing addiction. Addicts will be given their drug(s) of choice on perscription
Patients in these clinics MUST cooperate and try to get over their addiction(s) (with medical, psyciatric and supervised help)
Those who refuse treatment will be held securely in the clinics and have their drugs(s) witheld - be forced to go 'cold turkey' - until they are willing to cooperate
Those found in posession of prohibited drugs, and who are sent to correctional facilities, will be ensured of keeping their job/house, with rent/mortgage paid for by the government.
Children may accompany the detainee to the facility depending on the severity of the addiction, the background of the addict and their willingness to cooperate.
A comprahensive anti-prohibited drugs campaign will be started.
Class C narcotics will be LEGALISED, with heavy regulation. Only approved merchants, meeting strict safety checks, will be allowed to sell these drugs (eg Cannabis)
This will mean that only a handful of national chains will be allowed to sell class C drugs. Companies may be forced to specialise in the sale of a particular (set) of class-C drugs. Eg one store sells cannabis while another sells amphetamines
These companies will be strictly monitored by a OFTEL/OFCOM/OFWAT style regulatory board, who will have the power to fine, fire the directors of, or shut down any narcotics-trading company.
These companies MUST produce their own drugs. This will ensure assurance of quality (as to not be more detrimental than is necessary to the user's health)
Public users of class-C drugs will be told to move to a more secluded area. Around children police may use force to move users. Use in nightclubs will be allowed freely, though the police will be given powers to randomly search clubs, and those people inside, for prohibited drugs: their mandate will be to look out for sellers.
To buy class-C drugs, one must sign forms and have a form of ID on them (passport for eg)
Class-C drugs must be sold at prices lower than the current street price. This price must be flexible: illegal (black market, other than the approved private-sector firms) class-c sellers need to make profits on their drugs. In a price war, approved firms will be given government funding to maintain a price advantage.
Illegal supply (black market) of legalised class-c drugs will be met with confiscation and a minimum of 15 year jail sentence.
Cannabis may be, in time, deregulated further to allow Amsterdam-style 'coffee shops'. Any firm, meeting stringent regulations, may sell cannabis over the counter. Newsagents and other similar local community shops will be disallowed.
Cultivation of cannabis will be allowed. pharmalogical/chemistry-lab style production of non-prohibited drugs will not be allowed and kit will be confiscated by police.


That's my ideas/plan. Any comments?
Taxes may not have to rise much. Legal drugs themselves will carry a tax which will help fund the regulatory board and police, as well as the rehabilitation clinics for addicts and users of banned class-a and -b drugs.

Benefits would be less drug-related crime - both organised criminal activity in the supplying of drugs and also in theft to buy drugs by addicts. Police activity will be cut by not chasing after the millions of cannabis users, and thus they can use their resources more effectively targeting truly harmful, prohibited, drugs. Slowly the criminal drugs market will be phased out, or greatly reduced through this police action, and by a reduction in the number of users of class-a and -b drugs. rehabilitation, and subsequent community-care and support programs, after completion, will reduce the number of addicts and thus the number of people willing to buy from illegal dealers. Increased police action (as a result of freeing up of resources) will help catch dealers of illegal class-A and -B drugs, and a very high price of being caught (mandatory minimum sentence much higher than current, ie more than 'life') will discourage pushers. Addicts will also be able to both help themselves and get their drug for free (in helping to get them off it) by admitting themselves to rehabilitation centers. These centers will be welcoming, open and friendly places as a result.
Illegal dealers of legalised class-c drugs will be pushed out of the market by continuing to undercut their prices, and an assurance of superior quality products form licenced retailers. Cannabis, due to its prevalence, will be given special consideration, with sharing or "social-dealing" ignored (or at least not charged) by the police.

Overall, it'll probably benefit the average non-drug using taxpayer more than it'll cost them. taxes would have to rise, but are buffered by reduced police costs - not policing class-c users and a reduction in drug-related thefts and crime by addicts - and tax income from licenced sale of class-c's.

Whaddya think?

I am proposing . . .
Dangerous, harmful and highly addictive drugs (class A and B) will be decriminalised for POSSESSION.
Supply of these . . . .
Addicts of these class drugs will not be criminally charged for posession, but will be made to attend rehabilitation clinics
These clinics will be government funded . . . .
Patients in these clinics MUST cooperate and try to get over their addiction(s) (with medical, psyciatric and supervised help)



In general it seems reasonable, however there is a problem with a conflict within the section I have quoted.
If possesion is decriminalised, how do you legally enforce the clinic treatment without charging people for possession and creating probationary circumstances wherin you could enforce treatment.
I believe that it would be better to prosecute addicts with clear sentencing guidlines to create the legal framework within which clinical treatment can be enforced.

What are class A, B, and C narcotics? Are class A guaranteed to be better?

why not just legalize everything and leave people alone?

I agree with the general idea of "punish the supplier, not the user". Harming yourself should not be a crime, but harming others sure as hell should be.

In general it seems reasonable, however there is a problem with a conflict within the section I have quoted.
If possesion is decriminalised, how do you legally enforce the clinic treatment without charging people for possession and creating probationary circumstances wherin you could enforce treatment.
I believe that it would be better to prosecute addicts with clear sentencing guidlines to create the legal framework within which clinical treatment can be enforced.

good point, though the general idea is still sound. this is something of a 'sideline' legal matter, though still important. perhaps decriminalised is the wrong word then? i suppose in reality class-A and -B will have to remain illegal BUT with the provision that, legally, no criminal charges can be brought against those in posession. Ie: they are illegal but possession is not chargable or arrestable for by the police. Thus the government will have legal authority to send addicts to clinics.

What are class A, B, and C narcotics? Are class A guaranteed to be better?
http://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo/drugsearch/faq_template.asp?file=\wip\11\1\2\laws.html
Basically, class-A are really dangerous and addictive drugs, B are less so, and C are the least harmless narcotics. LSD, cocaine, heroin are class A (LSD undeservedly so imo) and cannabis is class C.

why not just legalize everything and leave people alone?
a difference in ethics... an arguement for another day perhaps (or later on this eve cos im a little busy atm.....)

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo/drugsearch/faq_template.asp?file=\wip\11\1\2\laws.html
Basically, class-A are really dangerous and addictive drugs, B are less so, and C are the least harmless narcotics. LSD, cocaine, heroin are class A (LSD undeservedly so imo) and cannabis is class C.
Whiskey.
Tango.
Foxtrot.

LSD is class A? That's messed up. It's one of the least dangerous drugs.
Damn Gummint...

Whiskey.
Tango.
Foxtrot.

LSD is class A? That's messed up. It's one of the least dangerous drugs.
Damn Gummint...
indeed (though i confess i still haven't tried it :( )
physical health-wise its fine - completely non addictive and few biological side-effects.
mental health-wise you just have to know what you're letting yourself in for.

physical health-wise its fine - completely non addictive and few biological side-effects.

Except, of course, for those random flashbacks 30 years later in avid users.

Whiskey.
Tango.
Foxtrot.

LSD is class A? That's messed up. It's one of the least dangerous drugs.
Damn Gummint...

If you do not count permanent psychological effects as dangerous, then true. I however prefer to think that damage to my mind, memory and reasoning ability is rather more serious and dangerous than damage to my respiratory system, for example (I used to smoke)

They suck

Except, of course, for those random flashbacks 30 years later in avid users.
i'd count that as a mental-health problem, personally

If you do not count permanent psychological effects as dangerous, then true. I however prefer to think that damage to my mind, memory and reasoning ability is rather more serious and dangerous than damage to my respiratory system, for example (I used to smoke)
Damage to reasoning ability? Permanent psychological effects?
Other than flashbacks, I haven't heard of anything like that.
Care to post some supporting facts?

i suppose in reality class-A and -B will have to remain illegal BUT with the provision that, legally, no criminal charges can be brought against those in posession. Ie: they are illegal but possession is not chargable or arrestable for by the police. Thus the government will have legal authority to send addicts to clinics.


Unfortunately, to have the legal power to send the addict to a clinic, a legal charge has to be made. This record of this can be deferred pending the probation, but possession still has to be illegal and arrestable. No getting away from the blue flashing lights I'm afraid.

Why though do you want to differentiate between class A, B, and C drugs. If alcohol were not legal it would be at least class B, and nicotine probably class A. As they are not illegal our society supposedly respects the free choice of the individual as to whether to use these narcotics or not. Why not simply decriminalise all narcotics and allow the individual the right to be an addict if they want to be. Addiction to a narcotic would not count as mitigating circumstances in any criminal wrongdoing just as being drunk does not count now. What is wrong with letting junkheads be.

Damage to reasoning ability? Permanent psychological effects?
Other than flashbacks, I haven't heard of anything like that.
Care to post some supporting facts?

well they do say after continued use it "fried your brain"
but then i have seen and heard many interviews with people who have (frequently) taken LSD in the past and they seem perfectly normal, intelligent and coherent to me (linky (coming)). perhaps this is anti drugs propoganda working its way into mainstream acceptance as the truth? (out of curiosity, i have done a little research on the subject of lsd)

I like your thoughts on drug laws.

well they do say after continued use it "fried your brain"
but then i have seen and heard many interviews with people who have (frequently) taken LSD in the past and they seem perfectly normal, intelligent and coherent to me (linky (coming)). perhaps this is anti drugs propoganda working its way into mainstream acceptance as the truth? (out of curiosity, i have done a little research on the subject of lsd)
Ja.
Like Tim Leary.

Unfortunately, to have the legal power to send the addict to a clinic, a legal charge has to be made. This record of this can be deferred pending the probation, but possession still has to be illegal and arrestable. No getting away from the blue flashing lights I'm afraid.

Why though do you want to differentiate between class A, B, and C drugs. If alcohol were not legal it would be at least class B, and nicotine probably class A. As they are not illegal our society supposedly respects the free choice of the individual as to whether to use these narcotics or not. Why not simply decriminalise all narcotics and allow the individual the right to be an addict if they want to be. Addiction to a narcotic would not count as mitigating circumstances in any criminal wrongdoing just as being drunk does not count now. What is wrong with letting junkheads be.

hmm good points again... without posession being arrestable, the police have no legal right to forcefully send addicts to rehabilitation clinics. that is, under the current legal structure as it stands. i am evidently talking about a major legal and structural reform - this sort of police power, only applicable in this one instance of course, must be possible to implement. i do not know how because i don't know enough about the law. you have me licked on this one AB :)

As for distinguishing between A, B and C; this is done because the current UK system already does this, and has done for some time. I am building on a well founded system that the public have come to understand and trust. implimenting a whole new system would be exceedingly hard. however i think that the this class-based aspect of the current system works well, and there is no sense in getting rid of it. especially as it is absolutley necessary to my ideas proposed above.
put it this way: throwing a blanket over the whole lot of narcotics and calling them all 'drugs' with no distinction is crazy. some drugs are bad - very bad - for the user, and these people may not realise it, or care, or have any choice, when they begin to use it. these drugs should be distinguished as the 'bad' ones - class-A. It is for these reasons that people should be stopped from harming themselves.
Some others, like cannabis, are *relatively* harmless to the user and are less (in marijuana's case, is not) addictive. these are class-C. it makes sense to distinguish between drugs because they are not all the same at all.

Oh and i agree that alcohol and nicotine would certainly be classed as dangerous narcotics if discovered tomorrow. it is only because they are heavily entwined with our cultures that they are seen to be ok. i hate it when friends of mine, who binge drink excessively, say that pot is an awful drug. weed is medically proven to be less, or at most, equally harmful - overall and in the long term - as drinking or smoking tobacco.

I like your thoughts on drug laws.
why thank you :D

this applies specifically to the UK, but i suppose these ideas could be just a relavent and applicable to any other country. this is also (partly in responce to tonights "What if" documentary on BBC2 (linky). I'll spell it out nice and clearly




I am proposing a hybrid legalisation-regulation-prohibition policy
Dangerous, harmful and highly addictive drugs (class A and B) will be decriminalised for POSSESSION.
Supply of these class narcotics will remain prohibited and mandatory jail sentences increased (perhaps to life)
Addicts of these class drugs will not be criminally charged for posession, but will be made to attend rehabilitation clinics
These clinics will be government funded with the aim of curing addiction. Addicts will be given their drug(s) of choice on perscription
Patients in these clinics MUST cooperate and try to get over their addiction(s) (with medical, psyciatric and supervised help)
Those who refuse treatment will be held securely in the clinics and have their drugs(s) witheld - be forced to go 'cold turkey' - until they are willing to cooperate
Those found in posession of prohibited drugs, and who are sent to correctional facilities, will be ensured of keeping their job/house, with rent/mortgage paid for by the government.
Children may accompany the detainee to the facility depending on the severity of the addiction, the background of the addict and their willingness to cooperate.
A comprahensive anti-prohibited drugs campaign will be started.
Class C narcotics will be LEGALISED, with heavy regulation. Only approved merchants, meeting strict safety checks, will be allowed to sell these drugs (eg Cannabis)
This will mean that only a handful of national chains will be allowed to sell class C drugs. Companies may be forced to specialise in the sale of a particular (set) of class-C drugs. Eg one store sells cannabis while another sells amphetamines
These companies will be strictly monitored by a OFTEL/OFCOM/OFWAT style regulatory board, who will have the power to fine, fire the directors of, or shut down any narcotics-trading company.
These companies MUST produce their own drugs. This will ensure assurance of quality (as to not be more detrimental than is necessary to the user's health)
Public users of class-C drugs will be told to move to a more secluded area. Around children police may use force to move users. Use in nightclubs will be allowed freely, though the police will be given powers to randomly search clubs, and those people inside, for prohibited drugs: their mandate will be to look out for sellers.
To buy class-C drugs, one must sign forms and have a form of ID on them (passport for eg)
Class-C drugs must be sold at prices lower than the current street price. This price must be flexible: illegal (black market, other than the approved private-sector firms) class-c sellers need to make profits on their drugs. In a price war, approved firms will be given government funding to maintain a price advantage.
Illegal supply (black market) of legalised class-c drugs will be met with confiscation and a minimum of 15 year jail sentence.
Cannabis may be, in time, deregulated further to allow Amsterdam-style 'coffee shops'. Any firm, meeting stringent regulations, may sell cannabis over the counter. Newsagents and other similar local community shops will be disallowed.
Cultivation of cannabis will be allowed. pharmalogical/chemistry-lab style production of non-prohibited drugs will not be allowed and kit will be confiscated by police.


That's my ideas/plan. Any comments?
Taxes may not have to rise much. Legal drugs themselves will carry a tax which will help fund the regulatory board and police, as well as the rehabilitation clinics for addicts and users of banned class-a and -b drugs.

Benefits would be less drug-related crime - both organised criminal activity in the supplying of drugs and also in theft to buy drugs by addicts. Police activity will be cut by not chasing after the millions of cannabis users, and thus they can use their resources more effectively targeting truly harmful, prohibited, drugs. Slowly the criminal drugs market will be phased out, or greatly reduced through this police action, and by a reduction in the number of users of class-a and -b drugs. rehabilitation, and subsequent community-care and support programs, after completion, will reduce the number of addicts and thus the number of people willing to buy from illegal dealers. Increased police action (as a result of freeing up of resources) will help catch dealers of illegal class-A and -B drugs, and a very high price of being caught (mandatory minimum sentence much higher than current, ie more than 'life') will discourage pushers. Addicts will also be able to both help themselves and get their drug for free (in helping to get them off it) by admitting themselves to rehabilitation centers. These centers will be welcoming, open and friendly places as a result.
Illegal dealers of legalised class-c drugs will be pushed out of the market by continuing to undercut their prices, and an assurance of superior quality products form licenced retailers. Cannabis, due to its prevalence, will be given special consideration, with sharing or "social-dealing" ignored (or at least not charged) by the police.

Overall, it'll probably benefit the average non-drug using taxpayer more than it'll cost them. taxes would have to rise, but are buffered by reduced police costs - not policing class-c users and a reduction in drug-related thefts and crime by addicts - and tax income from licenced sale of class-c's.

Whaddya think?A waste of time, that will most likely do more harm than good.

If you keep the selling them illegal, you won't get the drop in gang crime, but instead you'll open up a whole new market for the dealers, cos of the people who won't fear being caught.

If you make class C drugs a pain in the arse to buy, you'll end up with no one buying them from the authorised sellers.

I'm in favour of controlled legalisation/decriminalisation, but I don't like your strategy at all. It doesn't go far enough and I don't see it becoming any more pallatable to the public because of that.

put it this way: throwing a blanket over the whole lot of narcotics and calling them all 'drugs' with no distinction is crazy. some drugs are bad - very bad - for the user, and these people may not realise it, or care, or have any choice, when they begin to use it. these drugs should be distinguished as the 'bad' ones - class-A. It is for these reasons that people should be stopped from harming themselves.


Sorry, I do not understand the basis upon which we should stop someone from harming themself. If they do not realise that narcotics are bad for them then they are simply suffering from that universally fatal condition called stupidity. It will get them one way or another. If they do not care then fine, they don't care and who are we to say they should. No choice, now this I need to have some example or idea of how this could be. If someone else is forcing them to take the drug then the legality or not of the drug makes no difference. If someone else is not forcing them then how can they not have a choice?

Respectfully
Alien Born (an idea i copied from aahhz, or something like that, which I found to be really nice)

I must say I mostly agree with your proposal. It would certainly be an improvement over the Draconian drug law in the U.S. today. Drug addiction should be a public health concern, not a criminal one. I think that for addicts who are not in other legal trouble and aren't trying to raise children, then forcible rehabilitation is wrong. If someone is a functional addict and not responsible for children, leave them alone.

Sorry, I do not understand the basis upon which we should stop someone from harming themself. If they do not realise that narcotics are bad for them then they are simply suffering from that universally fatal condition called stupidity. It will get them one way or another. If they do not care then fine, they don't care and who are we to say they should. No choice, now this I need to have some example or idea of how this could be. If someone else is forcing them to take the drug then the legality or not of the drug makes no difference. If someone else is not forcing them then how can they not have a choice?
But some are worse than others, is what he's trying to say, I believe. Like smoking a few blunts isn't anywhere near as bad for you as tripping on PeaCe Pills a few times.

i'd count that as a mental-health problem, personally

Which, in this case, would be caused by a biological physical change.

Ja.
Like Tim Leary.
mm i have come to respect and almost believe in Leary's ideas (link (http://www.drug-abuse-us.ru.com/tim_leary.htm))
he may be in this interview (on BBC Radio 4 a week or 2 ago): link (http://www.hlj.me.uk/lsd.mp3).


A waste of time, that will most likely do more harm than good.

If you keep the selling them illegal, you won't get the drop in gang crime, but instead you'll open up a whole new market for the dealers, cos of the people who won't fear being caught.
The market for illegal sale of class-A and -B narcotics will remain the same - i do not see how this will open up a whole new market. Over time, the market will diminish as addicts are rehabilitated. Advertising campaigns (that are currently not present) will discourage new people from becoming addicts. Rehabilitation will seem a worthwhile and acceptable option for addicts or users of high-class drugs: if nothing matters to them but getting their next fix, they, or with the help of those around them, may be willing to go to a clinic to get out of their personal hell. addicts don't like being addicts and will not, i believe, refuse help if it is a viable alternative. the clinics will thus be free and accessable, there will be no criminal charges and 'no questions asked', and the prospect of returning straight back into their old life when 'cured', by government assurance of job security (if they have one) and assurance that they will not loose their house, will make the clinics a viable alternative.
not only this, but the extra police resources gained from not policing posession of class-c drugs, coupled with raised stakes if caught, might be enough to discourage dealers of class-a drugs.
it's a long-term goal: eventually removing (or severely reducing) the demand for the class-a drugs while making it more dangerous to sell them. over 20 or so years, this might make a significant change.
If you make class C drugs a pain in the arse to buy, you'll end up with no one buying them from the authorised sellers.
presenting your passport to buy a couple of week's worth of weed isn't a pain in the ass. hell, to sign up at Blockbusters to rent videos you have to bring two forms of ID! Plus the UK's plans of bringing in mandatory ID cards to be carried at all times will make this especially plausable.
Alternatively, another form of identification could be used that would be less of a pain in the arse. Fingerprint technology or a 'chip & pin' card and an account with the company would allow easy and buying, while still enabling the police to keep track of who is buying what, and how much of it.

I'm in favour of controlled legalisation/decriminalisation, but I don't like your strategy at all. It doesn't go far enough and I don't see it becoming any more pallatable to the public because of that.
good for you, and fair enough. i see my strategy as more fair and real-world applicable (and acceptable) than either the extreme of tighter prohibition or complete legalisation. what, may i ask, would you do differently?

But some are worse than others, is what he's trying to say, I believe. Like smoking a few blunts isn't anywhere near as bad for you as tripping on PeaCe Pills a few times.
quite. well said. thanks :)

Sorry, I do not understand the basis upon which we should stop someone from harming themself. If they do not realise that narcotics are bad for them then they are simply suffering from that universally fatal condition called stupidity. It will get them one way or another. If they do not care then fine, they don't care and who are we to say they should. No choice, now this I need to have some example or idea of how this could be. If someone else is forcing them to take the drug then the legality or not of the drug makes no difference. If someone else is not forcing them then how can they not have a choice?

Respectfully
Alien Born (an idea i copied from aahhz, or something like that, which I found to be really nice)
well it all boils down to ethics. i want to help my 'fellow man' to coin a cliche. i believe that people - all people - need help at some point in their lives, and who am i, or, indeed, who is anybody to refuse them this help? everybody makes mistakes in their lives, through their own fault or not, and if i were in their situation i would hope somebody would help me. with drugs, where the problems only manifest after (usually fairly frequent) use, we help people by preventing them from making that bad choice in the first place. by setting a system and making it illegal for them to make this bad choice, we reduce the risk that a lot more people would make this bad - stupid as you say - choice and harm themselves, and thus be in a position where they need help. of course, with drugs, addicts are often not aware that they need help - or do not care. another reason why we, as an ethical society, caring about each individual, should prevent them from making that bad choice in the first place. its for their own good.
this is why we have to distinguish between different types of narcotic. some fit into this category whereby people can make a bad mistake and mess up their lives, the lives of those around them, and generally be a pain to society. these are the dangerous, or class-A or -B drugs. for the benefit of the potential users, and everyone else, they should be illegal. other drugs, which are far less harmful, do not ruin lives in the same way. because of this, it can be left up to the individual whether to make the 'mistake' or not. these are the class-C drugs like cannabis.
any clearer?

Which, in this case, would be caused by a biological physical change.
of course, but now you're just being picky ;)

bump... wow a triple post by me. that's a new low.

quite. well said. thanks :)
well it all boils down to ethics. i want to help my 'fellow man' to coin a cliche. i believe that people - all people - need help at some point in their lives, and who am i, or, indeed, who is anybody to refuse them this help?

If they ask for help then fine. If they do not ask for help then it is just plain and simple authorotarianism. We know what is good for yoiu and you will do as we say!

everybody makes mistakes in their lives, through their own fault or not, and if i were in their situation i would hope somebody would help me. with drugs, where the problems only manifest after (usually fairly frequent) use, we help people by preventing them from making that bad choice in the first place.

We learn from our mistakes. The worst thing you could possibly do for anyone would be to protect them from making mistakes. Yes, some mistakes are more serious than others:- drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, believing the media being really serious whereas buying a Westlife album is simply not in the same category. However the point is that it is the other person's life, not yours or mine. At what point on the scale of criticality do we justify interfering with their choices. No teenager should have sex. No one should drink too much coffee. No chocolate without a medical prescription. You see the ethical problem?

by setting a system and making it illegal for them to make this bad choice, we reduce the risk that a lot more people would make this bad - stupid as you say - choice and harm themselves, and thus be in a position where they need help. of course, with drugs, addicts are often not aware that they need help - or do not care. another reason why we, as an ethical society, caring about each individual, should prevent them from making that bad choice in the first place. its for their own good.

A caring ethical society would not, under any system of ethics that I have encountered, control rigidly the actions of the members of that society. However a caring authoratarian society, a daddy knows best state, will overstep the limits of ethics and interfere in the freely made choices of the individual. It appears that you missed the point about stupidity. We can try to protect people who have poor judgement from their own errors, but to succeed in doing this we would have to control every single decision they made in their entire life. Under those circumstances it is difficult to say that this controlled entity is, in any meaningful sense, a person. So, we try to protect people from their own stupidity and we destroy the person, or we simply let them be who they are and do the stupid things that they want to do. Yes this will alm,ost inevitably cause them to have problems in their lives, but at least they will have their lives and not those that some one or some group have legislated for them. To protect someone from themself is not, ever, in their interest, unless they have asked for help.

this is why we have to distinguish between different types of narcotic. some fit into this category whereby people can make a bad mistake and mess up their lives, the lives of those around them, and generally be a pain to society. these are the dangerous, or class-A or -B drugs. for the benefit of the potential users, and everyone else, they should be illegal. other drugs, which are far less harmful, do not ruin lives in the same way. because of this, it can be left up to the individual whether to make the 'mistake' or not. these are the class-C drugs like cannabis. any clearer?


The basis of the distinction between types A, B and C drugs has always been clear to me. (Although I live in Brazil, I am a UK subject, and lived there for 30+ years.) My concern was over the reasons why one of these catagories should be decriminalised and not the others, given my observations above.

why not just legalize everything and leave people alone?
Best answer yet. Best answer at all.

First, stop saying "narcotics". Say "recreational drugs" or something, since not all recreational drugs are narcotic.

Addicts of these class drugs will not be criminally charged for posession, but will be made to attend rehabilitation clinics
How can you tell if someone is an addict? They may use 'shrooms every once in a while, though not addicted. If someone possesses a class A or B drug, then how can you prove that they're addicted without sending them to a place where testing can be done, which would be an extremely huge use of resources? But it would be better than current laws.

Patients in these clinics MUST cooperate and try to get over their addiction(s) (with medical, psyciatric and supervised help)
Can you really legislate that? That could be enforced on a low scale, but on a national level it would just be impractical all of the rehabilitative suggestions you proposed. They are all good ideas, just not practical.

Those found in posession of prohibited drugs, and who are sent to correctional facilities, will be ensured of keeping their job/house, with rent/mortgage paid for by the government.
See supra.

Class C narcotics will be LEGALISED, with heavy regulation. Only approved merchants, meeting strict safety checks, will be allowed to sell these drugs (eg Cannabis)
Though I'm unaware of the drug laws in the U.K., I know that marijuana is illegal because the government can not really benefit from it. It is such an easy plant to grow inside one's house that, unlike tobacco, the government can not tax it. Though this sounds paranoid and all that, this really is the only possible logical reason that pot is banned. So legalisation of marijuana really isn't going to happen unless the government becomes less money-grubbing.

This will mean that only a handful of national chains will be allowed to sell class C drugs. Companies may be forced to specialise in the sale of a particular (set) of class-C drugs. Eg one store sells cannabis while another sells amphetamines
First, amphetamines are not actually illegal. They are merely a controlled substance, at least in the U.S. I know because it is an ADD medication, and I have taken them legally. And, as I stated earlier, marijuana is too easy to grow personally for anyone to actually sell it like that.

Class-C drugs must be sold at prices lower than the current street price. This price must be flexible: illegal (black market, other than the approved private-sector firms) class-c sellers need to make profits on their drugs. In a price war, approved firms will be given government funding to maintain a price advantage.
Never gonna happen in the foreseeable future. Extremely difficult and way too much effort for the government to do just to allow some people an escape from their crappy lives, or just for fun.

Cultivation of cannabis will be allowed. pharmalogical/chemistry-lab style production of non-prohibited drugs will not be allowed and kit will be confiscated by police.
It is "pharmacological", just so you know. And, again, that would be disadvantageous to the government. The only advantage is that the police force would be less occupied with arresting drug users and more on actual crimes, but the social authoriatrianism in the U.S., and supposedly the U.K. as well if I understand correctly, will not permit this.

Taxes may not have to rise much. Legal drugs themselves will carry a tax which will help fund the regulatory board and police, as well as the rehabilitation clinics for addicts and users of banned class-a and -b drugs.
Indeed. Taxes could be lowered, actually, since the revenue gotten from taxes on drug providers and producers would be extremely lucrative. And the taxes would be quite high, probably higher than the huge tariffs on tabacco currently.

Benefits would be less drug-related crime - both organised criminal activity in the supplying of drugs and also in theft to buy drugs by addicts. Police activity will be cut by not chasing after the millions of cannabis users, and thus they can use their resources more effectively targeting truly harmful, prohibited, drugs. Slowly the criminal drugs market will be phased out, or greatly reduced through this police action, and by a reduction in the number of users of class-a and -b drugs.
Yes...wouldn't it be nice if the government was like the Scarecrow and realised that it actually does have a brain?

Increased police action (as a result of freeing up of resources) will help catch dealers of illegal class-A and -B drugs, and a very high price of being caught (mandatory minimum sentence much higher than current, ie more than 'life') will discourage pushers.
Now this is terrible. The people lower down in the drug business are typically doing it because they need money. I have a friend who used to sell cocain, and I see no reason that she should have been incarcerated for more than 5 or 10 years for that, and certainly no capital punishment. She really needed the money, and that was an extremely practical and lucrative way to do it. What you need to do is catch the higher-up people, but no overt prosecution of the grunts.

Whaddya think?
Idealism typically leaves you dissapointed...

Damage to reasoning ability? Permanent psychological effects?
Other than flashbacks, I haven't heard of anything like that.
Care to post some supporting facts?
I apologise, I have no hard facts, but I am pretty sure the only long-term deleterious effects are that it is stored in fat, so in moments of extreme stress, there can be a burst of the drug years after use, which can present large dangers to the former user if he or she is driving. Though I admit most of my pharmacological knowledge is limited to amphetamines, marijuana, and to a lesser extent, tobacco.

Some others, like cannabis, are *relatively* harmless to the user and are less (in marijuana's case, is not) addictive. these are class-C. it makes sense to distinguish between drugs because they are not all the same at all.
All recreational drugs are addictive. Granted, some do not induce physical addictions, but psychological addictions take place uniformly given enough time, no matter the drug in question.

Oh and i agree that alcohol and nicotine would certainly be classed as dangerous narcotics if discovered tomorrow. it is only because they are heavily entwined with our cultures that they are seen to be ok. i hate it when friends of mine, who binge drink excessively, say that pot is an awful drug. weed is medically proven to be less, or at most, equally harmful - overall and in the long term - as drinking or smoking tobacco.
That is so, so true. Alcohol and tobacco are both much more harmful to an individual than many illegal drugs, marijuana being the least harmful of all recreational drugs. Marijuana has something around 3 times more carcinogens in it when smoked than tobacco, however, though no studies have shown any deaths to be directly related to marijuana in any form. OD'ing is impossible. However, I feel that the carcinogenic properties of Cannabis sativa have just not been sufficiently researched, seeming as, chemically speaking, it should be more dangerous that tobacco in regards to cancer, though, again, this has not been proven. But alcohol is extremely harmful to the body, and people are much more likely to harm others under the influence of alcohol than many other drugs. (I believe that when you're coming out of a heroin high, you may become very violent, but I might misremember.)

If they ask for help then fine. If they do not ask for help then it is just plain and simple authorotarianism. We know what is good for yoiu and you will do as we say!
To be honest, this is almost my view exactly. There should be no legal punisments or anything for any drug use, in my opinion. It is a person's right to do pretty much whatever they want to his or her own body. I admit that if someone shows evidence of reliance on a recreational drug, then he or she should be at least encouraged to seek help, but I think that people are just acting self-righteous when they ban recreational drugs. Though I do see the parents' point of view that they want to make it difficult for their children to get and be exposed to. However, drugs such as marijuana were said to be pretty damn easy to obtain by something like 75% of high (secondary) school seniors in the U.S. And these are the people in school.



We learn from our mistakes.
*Coughs*

The worst thing you could possibly do for anyone would be to protect them from making mistakes. Yes, some mistakes are more serious than others:- drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, believing the media being really serious whereas buying a Westlife album is simply not in the same category. However the point is that it is the other person's life, not yours or mine. At what point on the scale of criticality do we justify interfering with their choices. No teenager should have sex. No one should drink too much coffee. No chocolate without a medical prescription. You see the ethical problem?
I agree, however, people should be helped from making too serious of a mistake. If a toddler tries to touch a candle flame, let him or her. If he or she tries to walk into the middle of the street, stop 'em quick! But people should not keep said toddler until they're fully grown and still not permit him or her to cross the street, it's just a little ridiculous.



A caring ethical society would not, under any system of ethics that I have encountered, control rigidly the actions of the members of that society. However a caring authoratarian society, a daddy knows best state, will overstep the limits of ethics and interfere in the freely made choices of the individual.
Ethics do not exclude authoritarianism. Theocracy is an example--they care about the people, and have a strong code of ethics, but the government.religion decides just what that is.

I apologise for such a lengthy post...

First, stop saying "narcotics". Say "recreational drugs" or something, since not all recreational drugs are narcotic.

*snip*

First, amphetamines are not actually illegal. They are merely a controlled substance, at least in the U.S. I know because it is an ADD medication, and I have taken them legally. And, as I stated earlier, marijuana is too easy to grow personally for anyone to actually sell it like that.

*snip*

I have a friend who used to sell cocain, and I see no reason that she should have been incarcerated for more than 5 or 10 years for that, and certainly no capital punishment. She really needed the money, and that was an extremely practical and lucrative way to do it. What you need to do is catch the higher-up people, but no overt prosecution of the grunts.

*snip

Ethics do not exclude authoritarianism. Theocracy is an example--they care about the people, and have a strong code of ethics, but the government.religion decides just what that is.


I refer to narcotics as that is what they are called in the UK at least. They are not referred to as recreational drugs, as this would have to include nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, refined sugar, and probably many other substances which are not in the discussion here. But if you want to read "recreational drugs" when we write narcotics

All narcotics are simply controlled substances. If they can be used for medical purposes under strict supervision is a seperate question. Thei r use without prescription is illegal. In the UK there is, as I understand a trial being undertaken with marijuana as a treatment for muscle spasms and chronic pain, opium can be prescribed as an analgesic etc.

You give no indication as to why your friend needed the money so badly. Another alternative for her would have beebn to rob banks, mug businessmen, etc. Needing money is no justification for breaking the law. While the law bans the sale of cocaine, selling it should be punishable. The argument that you do not get the real criminal, the guy at the top, by punishing the dealers is irrelavent. OK, the death penalty would be a liitle over the top, but severe punishment, enough to make the risks too high for sane individuals would seriously hamper the activities of the top guys as well by removing their workforce.

OK Theocracy is a political system and nothing whatsoever to do with ethics. Authoratarianism simply does not leave room for ethical behaviour, as ethics depends upon the individual having the freedom to act as they see fit. If your actions are severely constrained by a restrictive and enforced code of conduct then you simply do not have ethics. The government could be ethical, but the people not, just puppets.

If they ask for help then fine. If they do not ask for help then it is just plain and simple authorotarianism. We know what is good for yoiu and you will do as we say!
in a way everything i am proposing is authoritarianism - less so than current prohibitionist policies, and evidently more so than complete legalisation. its all relative; and it is only your opinion to say that this form of authoritarianism is a bad thing. others may, and do, agree with this.

We learn from our mistakes. The worst thing you could possibly do for anyone would be to protect them from making mistakes. Yes, some mistakes are more serious than others:- drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, believing the media being really serious whereas buying a Westlife album is simply not in the same category. However the point is that it is the other person's life, not yours or mine. At what point on the scale of criticality do we justify interfering with their choices. No teenager should have sex. No one should drink too much coffee. No chocolate without a medical prescription. You see the ethical problem?
that is precisely what i am saying should happen - as a society we know the true problems, both to the individual and society as a whole, of people making these bad mistakes. addiction to drugs (and the others you mentioned like teenage pregnancy) are mistakes that are too great; as you say some are more serious than others. some have too high a cost to allow people to make it for themselves. once addicted to a high-class drug, users most often cannot find a way out themselves and, without help, being enforced if necessary, it could be the last mistake they ever make. the drugs can either kill or ruin their lives - the damage is too great to allow them to make this mistake. as society we know the true damage addiction can do, while individuals - and certainly as addicts - may not. to me, the attitude of 'its their mistake, their problem' totally lacks compassion and an understanding of what it is to be human.
I see the ethical problem, and this is again simply your opinion against mine - i think we will have to agree to disagree on this. i cannot say where the line is between compassionate authoritarianism and totalitarianism - what i am proposing is to help prevent and save people from making seriously bad choices. that is, choices that can kill them, ruin their lives and the lives of those around them. eating too much chocolate isn't going to kill you - you can't 'OD'. before a problem develops you have the choice and chance to remedy it yourself - thus it is your decision and the line is not drawn here. with dangerous and addictive drugs it is a different matter.


A caring ethical society would not, under any system of ethics that I have encountered, control rigidly the actions of the members of that society. However a caring authoratarian society, a daddy knows best state, will overstep the limits of ethics and interfere in the freely made choices of the individual.

It appears that you missed the point about stupidity. We can try to protect people who have poor judgement from their own errors, but to succeed in doing this we would have to control every single decision they made in their entire life. Under those circumstances it is difficult to say that this controlled entity is, in any meaningful sense, a person. So, we try to protect people from their own stupidity and we destroy the person, or we simply let them be who they are and do the stupid things that they want to do. Yes this will alm,ost inevitably cause them to have problems in their lives, but at least they will have their lives and not those that some one or some group have legislated for them. To protect someone from themself is not, ever, in their interest, unless they have asked for help.
Who is to say that the state will always overstep its bounds? The state takes many civil liberties away from you right now, and yet i don't hear of the state suddenly seizing control of our lives (except for the Patriot act...). What i am proposing is actually reducing the state interference in drugs policy - surely this cannot be argued to be a prelude of a totalitarian society?
Once again, on the point about stupidity, this boils down to using addictive and harmful drugs being amongst the worst things a person could do. this is why 'stupid' people should be prevented from using them - the problems are too great. if they want to be stupid in any other walk of life, then, by all means, let them. i am not trying to outlaw stupidity, or stupid decisions, but just the absolute worst of the bad decisions one can make. they still have their lives and they can do what they want - except for one minor and ultimatley beneficiary infringement into their lives and liberties that isn't going to 'destroy the person'. the drugs will do that if allowed to be used freely.

The basis of the distinction between types A, B and C drugs has always been clear to me. (Although I live in Brazil, I am a UK subject, and lived there for 30+ years.) My concern was over the reasons why one of these catagories should be decriminalised and not the others, given my observations above.
Ah. Simple: the level of harmfulness to the individual. Class-C drugs should be legalised because they are relatively harmless compared to -A and -B. Many are no more harmful than alcohol or smoking. Yes these are also harmful drugs, and many would argue for making them illegal too. however these, to me, as well as class-C drugs, fall under the 'acceptable risk' category described above, like chocolate. people may use them (relatively) freely as the problems associated with the drugs are not so severe they will destroy the individual and thier life.

oh god i just saw Gnostikos' post...

Apologies if this has already been said, I don't have time to read the entire thread. But Class A, B and C are somewhat arbitrary. While it may be a good Idea to force a heroin addict into Rehab (I'm undecided on this). What would be the point of sending someone who uses Ecstacy at the weekends to rehab? Yet both ecstacy and Heroin are class A drugs.

Personally I am in favour of legalization of all drugs, not just out of harm reduction but because drugs are fun!!!!

I believe that mostly it boils down to definitions of addiction. I am currently being forced into an alcohol rehabilitation course because I was charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol. Now, I don't consider myself an alcoholic, nor do I consider myself disposed to become addicted to anything. I've used marijuana occasionally, but not regularly (interferes with college much more than it ever did in high school), and like to enjoy a beer or two on the weekends. In my opinion, if the government allowed corporations to produce recreational drugs, then the FDA could regulate said drugs and allow for safer usage.

But the issue here isn't about ethics, it's about power.

Did you think we want those laws observed? We want them broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power the government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can be neither observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - then you cash in on the guilt."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged --

By choosing to create and enforce drug laws, the government has effectively created a state where the police can plant an eighth of an ounce of marijuana in your car and lock you away for your life. Not to mention the "Patriot Act" which is little more than a "We said you did it so you did it" law. Protecting people from themselves comes second, profits come first.

How can you tell if someone is an addict? They may use 'shrooms every once in a while, though not addicted. If someone possesses a class A or B drug, then how can you prove that they're addicted without sending them to a place where testing can be done, which would be an extremely huge use of resources? But it would be better than current laws.

better than the current laws is the key. what i wrote is not the be-all to end-all answer, but what i would consider a more fair and compassionate system. testing would have to be done, yes, and this will indeed require a lot of money - hence why i say taxes may rise to pay for this. however, for some drugs - especially Heroin - users quickly become addicts, and there are relatively few 'recreational' heroin users. plus addicts exhibit signs of their dependance which vary from drug to drug (don't ask me what signs because i don't know specifics), and the police and other groups have become adept at recognising these signs. (some) addicts also turn to crime to fund their addiction and thus open themselves up to police scrutiny anyway and make themselves easier to catch and spot. for the record, shrooms are non-addictive :)

Can you really legislate that? That could be enforced on a low scale, but on a national level it would just be impractical all of the rehabilitative suggestions you proposed. They are all good ideas, just not practical.
there would need to be a number of these facilities nationwide, perhaps run as a government-backed but private sector quasi-market. this could ensure reliability and quality of service through government subsidy, and efficiency of administration and execution. If it can be enforced on a 'low scale', why not on a series of low scale firms making up a national scale?

Though I'm unaware of the drug laws in the U.K., I know that marijuana is illegal because the government can not really benefit from it. It is such an easy plant to grow inside one's house that, unlike tobacco, the government can not tax it. Though this sounds paranoid and all that, this really is the only possible logical reason that pot is banned. So legalisation of marijuana really isn't going to happen unless the government becomes less money-grubbing.
the government will make money by not having to waste it on policing cannabis users and, in the long run, high-volume suppliers. the government may be able to make money out of marijuana sale by setting up the comanies that are licensed to sell it as a different kind of quasi-market as mentioned above. a public sector quasi-market would mean competition between firms, efficiency and all profits going back to the government. efficiency gains would be especially profound if these companies must grow their own and are in a oligopolistic market, whereby a few firms will be able to take advantage of the economies of scale gained from operating on a national scale.
people will be allowed to grow their own cannabis, though it is not as easy as all that: a friend of mine tried and failed miserably (although another has a healthy crop ;) ). it is also quite expensive to grow good quality weed well as to do it properly you really need a lot of UV lamps, hydroponics kit, use a lot of electrisity and spend a lot of time tending the crop. the licensed firms will provide regulated high quality dope at less-than street price; stoners are lazy at heart and will prefer to buy this.


First, amphetamines are not actually illegal. They are merely a controlled substance, at least in the U.S. I know because it is an ADD medication, and I have taken them legally. And, as I stated earlier, marijuana is too easy to grow personally for anyone to actually sell it like that.
aphetamines are class C in the UK: http://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo/drugsearch/faq_template.asp?file=\wip\11\1\2\laws.html
Class A: These include, cocaine and crack (a form of cocaine), ecstasy, heroin, LSD, methadone, processed magic mushrooms and any Class B drug which is injected.

Class B: These include amphetamine, barbiturates, and codeine.

Class C: These include mild cannabis (in resin or herbal form), amphetamines, anabolic steroids and minor tranquillisers.


Never gonna happen in the foreseeable future. Extremely difficult and way too much effort for the government to do just to allow some people an escape from their crappy lives, or just for fun.
the big picture and long-term goals are also important to consider here. yes it is difficult, but forcing illegal drug controlling gangs, who are often linked to violent and organised crime, out of the market will benefit all society. providing legal, government-backed competition will, given time, force them out of the market; especially as these people will suffer higher penalties for illegally supplying class-C's if caught. police time now wasted on preventing possession of these drugs can be focused instead on catching illegal suppliers of all classes of drug.



It is "pharmacological", just so you know. And, again, that would be disadvantageous to the government. The only advantage is that the police force would be less occupied with arresting drug users and more on actual crimes, but the social authoriatrianism in the U.S., and supposedly the U.K. as well if I understand correctly, will not permit this.

did you mean social authoritarianism? if so what exactly do you mean by that and why will it not permit the police to actually catch crimes and not harmless users? I do not understand your point (sorry).
Smashing labs etc will be advantagous as dangerous drugs often require complex distillation and chemical procedures, often requiring a lab of some sort. this will help reduce supply of A and B drugs, as well as helping to prevent new drugs being concocted.


Indeed. Taxes could be lowered, actually, since the revenue gotten from taxes on drug providers and producers would be extremely lucrative. And the taxes would be quite high, probably higher than the huge tariffs on tabacco currently.
Yes taxes could be very high while still undercutting street price. Many drugs (class Cs, with the exception of marijuana) carry a very high profit rate for suppliers. Even cannabis, if grown by the licenced companies, can be highly profitable (it doesn't cost much for seeds, and significant economies of scale can be enjoyed). Whether the government raises income from taxation of the drugs themselves or recieves the licnenced companies' profits, a fair bit of money can be raised.


Now this is terrible. The people lower down in the drug business are typically doing it because they need money. I have a friend who used to sell cocain, and I see no reason that she should have been incarcerated for more than 5 or 10 years for that, and certainly no capital punishment. She really needed the money, and that was an extremely practical and lucrative way to do it. What you need to do is catch the higher-up people, but no overt prosecution of the grunts.
fair enough. a valid point - catching the people 'higher up' should, perhaps, be the goal. however the premise is to force out the entire high-class drugs market over a long period of time: through education, advertising, treatment clinics and perhaps a better welfare system (topic for another debate) the number of users of, and thus demand for high-class drugs will reduce. it'll probably never reach zero, but we can try to get as close as possible to that. simulatneously the sellers of the high-class drugs must be discouraged and caught: whether this is high up or low down the chain is a practicality issue.


All recreational drugs are addictive. Granted, some do not induce physical addictions, but psychological addictions take place uniformly given enough time, no matter the drug in question.
again, fair point. perhaps i should have specified physical addiction. there are, however many many other things - not 'recreational drugs' or narcotics that (can) induce psycological addiction: chocolate, fatty foods, shopping, masturbation, sex... anything we enjoy. everything is relatve: these drugs are generally more psycologically addictive than most other things.


That is so, so true. Alcohol and tobacco are both much more harmful to an individual than many illegal drugs, marijuana being the least harmful of all recreational drugs. Marijuana has something around 3 times more carcinogens in it when smoked than tobacco, however, though no studies have shown any deaths to be directly related to marijuana in any form. OD'ing is impossible. However, I feel that the carcinogenic properties of Cannabis sativa have just not been sufficiently researched, seeming as, chemically speaking, it should be more dangerous that tobacco in regards to cancer, though, again, this has not been proven. But alcohol is extremely harmful to the body, and people are much more likely to harm others under the influence of alcohol than many other drugs. (I believe that when you're coming out of a heroin high, you may become very violent, but I might misremember.)
well the fact that, gram-for-gram in a spliff one smokes far less weed than baccy negates the fact that, gram-for-gram it is 3 times more carcinogenic. in an average spliff they are probably about equal. interestingly i have read that, when smoked, cannabis produces its own anti-carcinogens which help alleviate the cancerous properties of the weed. ODing is possible but it would take roughly 34 tons of weed, smoked in one sitting, to kill you. so yes, it is impossible - though i'd like to try ;)
alcohol is indeed a socially more vile drug than marijuana. stoners are nice, friendly people who enjoy a sit down and a chat. drunks are loud, obnoxious and frequently violent. a drunk person driving is exceedinly dangerous, while a person under very mild effects of cannabis is likely to drive more cautiously, safely and better a recent study in the UK showed (it was on the news a while back, no source)


To be honest, this is almost my view exactly. There should be no legal punisments or anything for any drug use, in my opinion. It is a person's right to do pretty much whatever they want to his or her own body. I admit that if someone shows evidence of reliance on a recreational drug, then he or she should be at least encouraged to seek help, but I think that people are just acting self-righteous when they ban recreational drugs. Though I do see the parents' point of view that they want to make it difficult for their children to get and be exposed to. However, drugs such as marijuana were said to be pretty damn easy to obtain by something like 75% of high (secondary) school seniors in the U.S. And these are the people in school.
see my first post on page three. i just resonded to AB's point, and i don't feel like doing it again... :)

Apologies if this has already been said, I don't have time to read the entire thread. But Class A, B and C are somewhat arbitrary. While it may be a good Idea to force a heroin addict into Rehab (I'm undecided on this). What would be the point of sending someone who uses Ecstacy at the weekends to rehab? Yet both ecstacy and Heroin are class A drugs.

Personally I am in favour of legalization of all drugs, not just out of harm reduction but because drugs are fun!!!!
ecstacy is a class-A drug? that i didn't know! well along with my original post i think we need some drug reclassifications here in the UK. the A, B, C system is most useful, however.
i agree, some drugs are fun (i, myself am a frequent, daily, user of marijuana and have used salvia divinorum a number of times. next i will get some shrooms and then try LSD). I am not proposing these drug laws because i despise drugs and want nobody to have any fun - in fact, i'd love to be able to use whatever i wanted whenever i wanted with no fear of reprisal. however i believe these suggestions in the original post to be more realistic and acceptable to the ordinary, voting, members of the public than this approach.

I believe that mostly it boils down to definitions of addiction. I am currently being forced into an alcohol rehabilitation course because I was charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol. Now, I don't consider myself an alcoholic, nor do I consider myself disposed to become addicted to anything. I've used marijuana occasionally, but not regularly (interferes with college much more than it ever did in high school), and like to enjoy a beer or two on the weekends. In my opinion, if the government allowed corporations to produce recreational drugs, then the FDA could regulate said drugs and allow for safer usage.

But the issue here isn't about ethics, it's about power.

Did you think we want those laws observed? We want them broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power the government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can be neither observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - then you cash in on the guilt."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged --

By choosing to create and enforce drug laws, the government has effectively created a state where the police can plant an eighth of an ounce of marijuana in your car and lock you away for your life. Not to mention the "Patriot Act" which is little more than a "We said you did it so you did it" law. Protecting people from themselves comes second, profits come first.
the american system appears to have many, many problems.

ecstacy is a class-A drug? that i didn't know! well along with my original post i think we need some drug reclassifications here in the UK. the A, B, C system is most useful, however.
i agree, some drugs are fun (i, myself am a frequent, daily, user of marijuana and have used salvia divinorum a number of times. next i will get some shrooms and then try LSD). I am not proposing these drug laws because i despise drugs and want nobody to have any fun - in fact, i'd love to be able to use whatever i wanted whenever i wanted with no fear of reprisal. however i believe these suggestions in the original post to be more realistic and acceptable to the ordinary, voting, members of the public than this approach.

I agree that the voting public are unlikely to be generally in favour of complete legalization! but I'm not really interested in working out the fine details of compromise.

I also belive that if all drugs were legal, it would be a good idea to make crack and heroin addicts register with the NHS to receive drugs, and rehab if they desire it.

presenting your passport to buy a couple of week's worth of weed isn't a pain in the ass. hell, to sign up at Blockbusters to rent videos you have to bring two forms of ID! Yeah, but if there was a shop next to Blockbusters that let you rent videos without requiring ID, don't you think you'd go to them?


Plus the UK's plans of bringing in mandatory ID cards to be carried at all times will make this especially plausable.
Well that's a whole separate issue of evil, so lets keep that to one side

I see the ethical problem, and this is again simply your opinion against mine - i think we will have to agree to disagree on this. .

oh god i just saw Gnostikos' post...

OK. It is simply a matter of what we believe the role of the state etc. is; and we obviously disagree and we will have to agree to differ.

You have made your case eloquently and clearly, I hope I have done likewise. I for one will leave it at that and allow others to decide which position they prefer, or to propose an alternative to both.

(We have fundamentally replayed the socialist - libertarian discussion in another context)

Regards
Alien Born.

p.s. Good luck with Gnostikos.

good for you, and fair enough. i see my strategy as more fair and real-world applicable (and acceptable) than either the extreme of tighter prohibition or complete legalisation. what, may i ask, would you do differently?
I think what you're trying to do is admirable, but overall, you seem to be maintaining the same attitude towards drugs: a criminal problem. All you've done is reduce the size of the offence. And, there are some benefits to this, lower prison population and whatnot, but I don't think this goes far enough. I think that it won't reduce the problems much, but it'll prevent a proper push for the kind of regulized legality that we need.

Differently: all current recreational drugs legal. Selling them in specialised stores, pharmacies, pubs and clubs. Production turned over to pharmacutical companies. Selling on the street, illegal, but with punishments in the confiscation and fine kind of region, unless a dangerous product is being sold. Invest the money in the NHS and in education, primarily (though not exclusively) drug safety and awareness education.

ecstacy is a class-A drug? that i didn't know! well along with my original post i think we need some drug reclassifications here in the UK. the A, B, C system is most useful, however.
i agree, some drugs are fun (i, myself am a frequent, daily, user of marijuana and have used salvia divinorum a number of times. next i will get some shrooms and then try LSD). I am not proposing these drug laws because i despise drugs and want nobody to have any fun - in fact, i'd love to be able to use whatever i wanted whenever i wanted with no fear of reprisal. however i believe these suggestions in the original post to be more realistic and acceptable to the ordinary, voting, members of the public than this approach.


A final note, do yourself a favour and avoid LSD. It is far from harmless. I have lost friends (they died, I mean, not that they broke off the friendship) through its use. Anything that seriously impinges on your ability to deiferentiate between reality and hallucination is dangerous, as reality is dangerous. :)

The market for illegal sale of class-A and -B narcotics will remain the same - i do not see how this will open up a whole new market. If drugs becomes more socially acceptable, legalisation may well mean that people are more likely to do use drugs. There isn't necessarily a correlation between legal status and social acceptablity, but I'm guessing that probably there will be. If you open up a new market without improving the quality of the drugs, then deaths will increase.

not only this, but the extra police resources gained from not policing posession of class-c drugs, coupled with raised stakes if caught, might be enough to discourage dealers of class-a drugs.With profit margins still at 2000-3000%, you're not gonna get anywhere by increasing the punishment. People dealing drugs live their day to day lives under the threat of being killed by other dealers. If they're worried about anything, it'll be that. They aren't scared of prison.

it's a long-term goal: eventually removing (or severely reducing) the demand for the class-a drugs while making it more dangerous to sell them. over 20 or so years, this might make a significant change.Why do that when legalising them is such a better option? Instead of crippling the problem slowly over 20 years, you could finish it off in two months.

ecstacy is a class-A drug? that i didn't know! well along with my original post i think we need some drug reclassifications here in the UK. the A, B, C system is most useful, however.
i agree, some drugs are fun (i, myself am a frequent, daily, user of marijuana and have used salvia divinorum a number of times. next i will get some shrooms and then try LSD). I am not proposing these drug laws because i despise drugs and want nobody to have any fun - in fact, i'd love to be able to use whatever i wanted whenever i wanted with no fear of reprisal. however i believe these suggestions in the original post to be more realistic and acceptable to the ordinary, voting, members of the public than this approach.
I think that with Cannabis as class C, the only class B drug is speed.

A final note, do yourself a favour and avoid LSD. It is far from harmless. I have lost friends (they died, I mean, not that they broke off the friendship) through its use. Anything that seriously impinges on your ability to deiferentiate between reality and hallucination is dangerous, as reality is dangerous. :)
LSD is the only drug that I think is probably dangerous from use (as opposed to abuse). I'd definately want a talk with medical professionals before I could advocate the controlled sale of unadulterated LSD.

Yeah, but if there was a shop next to Blockbusters that let you rent videos without requiring ID, don't you think you'd go to them?


Well that's a whole separate issue of evil, so lets keep that to one side
not if it were illegal, and blockbusters were cheaper and legal.

OK. It is simply a matter of what we believe the role of the state etc. is; and we obviously disagree and we will have to agree to differ.

You have made your case eloquently and clearly, I hope I have done likewise. I for one will leave it at that and allow others to decide which position they prefer, or to propose an alternative to both.

(We have fundamentally replayed the socialist - libertarian discussion in another context)

Regards
Alien Born.

p.s. Good luck with Gnostikos.
very honourable of you, old boy :p
seriously, you (and of course Gnostikos and Spoffin) get a pat on the back for giving me one of the most interesting and engaging debates i've had on any forum. thank you, all very civil and eloquent points: i commend you. agreeing to disagree seems best :)

I think what you're trying to do is admirable, but overall, you seem to be maintaining the same attitude towards drugs: a criminal problem. All you've done is reduce the size of the offence. And, there are some benefits to this, lower prison population and whatnot, but I don't think this goes far enough. I think that it won't reduce the problems much, but it'll prevent a proper push for the kind of regulized legality that we need.

Differently: all current recreational drugs legal. Selling them in specialised stores, pharmacies, pubs and clubs. Production turned over to pharmacutical companies. Selling on the street, illegal, but with punishments in the confiscation and fine kind of region, unless a dangerous product is being sold. Invest the money in the NHS and in education, primarily (though not exclusively) drug safety and awareness education.
indeed. my ideas are not perfect, or even the best out there. perhaps full legalisation is preferable. all i am saying is that my ideas, to me, offer the best next logical step in reforming drugs laws (quite a big step, mind...)
full legalisation could not be adopted overnight, and it will take steps like this - and then further debates as to where to go from there then when we achieve first step - to get to that goal.
i apologise if i was arrogant in any way, or shoved my opinions down anyone else's throat in the first few posts on this thread - i simply felt strongly about the issue last night and was quite excited having solidified my opinions on it.
A final note, do yourself a favour and avoid LSD. It is far from harmless. I have lost friends (they died, I mean, not that they broke off the friendship) through its use. Anything that seriously impinges on your ability to deiferentiate between reality and hallucination is dangerous, as reality is dangerous. :)
i'll take your advice into consideration. thank you


If drugs becomes more socially acceptable, legalisation may well mean that people are more likely to do use drugs. There isn't necessarily a correlation between legal status and social acceptablity, but I'm guessing that probably there will be. If you open up a new market without improving the quality of the drugs, then deaths will increase.
quality of the drugs will be regulated by a OFTEL style regulation board.
With profit margins still at 2000-3000%, you're not gonna get anywhere by increasing the punishment. People dealing drugs live their day to day lives under the threat of being killed by other dealers. If they're worried about anything, it'll be that. They aren't scared of prison.

there is little i can propose that will change this, except that my plan will, over time, reduce the market for illegal drugs.
ok - there are a couple of major flaws in my arguement, and this is one of them. i, however, hold that this plan would be better than current prohibition.
Why do that when legalising them is such a better option? Instead of crippling the problem slowly over 20 years, you could finish it off in two months.
as i have said above, perhaps full legalisation is best (still dont think so, but certainly understand why others think so, now) but this cannot be achieved straight away. for one thing, the non-drug taking, voting, public would be appalled - i am sure of that. can you imagine little old grannies and their vast arrray of cats voting to legalise all drugs :p ? i cant lol. slow progress has to be taken towards this end.

i think i'll give this debate a rest for a while (at least a few hours ;) ) - i conceed that my plan is not without practical fault, and ethically i'll just have to agree to disagree with other people's ideals.