h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think alcohol is just a stupid drug and the abuse would be minimized if other drugs (like THC, MDMA..) would be freely available. alcohol is the one and only drug which is capable of destroying cultures (like the Indians). So we should first get a relaxed attitude to Drugs, especially psychedelica, before we discuss such things, mentioned above but this is only my opinion
Greets, Peter

But if other drugs were freely available, wouldn't they too be abused?

I think you'll find that they already are. It seems to me that some people have addictive personalities, and will abuse alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, whatever, whilst others seem to be able to take their drug of choice in moderation.

It's a question of finding the balance between allowing people (adults) the freedom to ingest what they wish and protecting them - and society - from possible harm. I would argue that the damage done to society is more the business of society than damage done by a consenting adult to him/herself.

I would also argue that the damage caused to society by abuse of alcohol through drink driving and alcohol related crime is far greater than that caused by, say, cannabis or Ecstasy, yet in the UK it is the latter which are illegal.

And prohibiton doesn't stop abuse - it didn't prevent drinking in the US when it was in effect, and it doesn't prevent drugtaking now.

True, but where do you stop?

People will always tend to go one futher than the law allows, and if drugs such as cannabis were legalised, then is it true that people will then progress onto the next step simply because it is then that that is now illegal?

I'm of the opinion that canabis is not a harmful drug, and I have no objection whatsoever to people using it, but I also don't want to see it legalised.

People are using cannabis now - they are also using heroin, but not necessarily the same people. If cannabis were legal would that necessarily lead to people therefore turning to coke or heroin? That presupposes that they are taking drugs *because* they're illegal, and for no other reason. In order to buy cannabis in this country, people have to go to drug dealers - these are the same dealers who will sell them other, more harmful drugs.

Most recreational cannabis users, I'm sure, would prefer to go to their local shop - or pharmacist, or, as in Holland, licensed coffee shop, and indulge their pleasure legally. Should we penalise them because of the activities of a few who want their thrills illegal? I smoked in the past (gave up when I got married, 15 years back) and would much rather have bought it legally. I had no desire to experiment with other drugs. A majority of my friends feel the same way.

Holland's experience would seem to suggest that decriminalising (not legalising) cannabis leads to a reduction in hard drug abuse, where here in Britain we have the toughest laws in Western Europe and the worst heroin problem. Should we perhaps retain the illegality but remove the sentence for possession of personal amounts, as the Dutch do? Perhaps h2g2 has some Dutch researchers who might be able to add to the debate? It's certainly food for thought.

I feel that the rhetoric of 'classes' of illegal drugs is entirely unhelpful. If I had the power to legalise one drug tomorrow, it'd be heroin, which does more damage to society, both financially and in terms of crime, than any other. Just imagine, a society where heroin addiction was treated like the illness it is, and addicts were given a clean stable supply, allowing them to not have to worry about where their next fix was coming from, or how they were going to pay for it. Pure heroin isn't even particularly damaging to your health, it's just very very addictive. Hell, William Wilberforce managed to abolish slavery, and he took laudanum every day for the last forty years of his life.

To start by legalising "soft" drugs encourages the idea that prohibition is still effective, when all the evidence shows that it ain't. In 1968 there were 3,000 heroin addicts in the UK. Now there are 300,000. The US spends billions and billions of dollars every year fighting a 'war on drugs' that it will never win; as the champion of free market economics, it of all nations should know that demand creates supply. If all drugs were legalised, and their purity and distribution were controlled and taxed by the state, there would be a lot more money in the Treasury for, say, the NHS. Or for illegal wars in Iraq, if that's your bag. Not only would drug-related crime drop, but the police would have more time to investigate more serious crime.

I don't think that this is a problem-free solution to all that's wrong with the country: clearly given the existence of a massive black market it's going to be very difficult to eradicate illegal supply with much speed. And it would make any country who took this approach a diplomatic leper amongst remaining prohibitive countries.

But you can't help thinking that the 'war on drugs' is very convenient, especially in the US. It's a scapegoat for a whole raft of domestic problems that the administration just don't want to face.