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

Only Hash. That is all.

The current Class A drugs prohibition model is flawed. Police and Customs will never have the resources to exclude drugs imports to an island with a large, often remote coastline and some of the busiest international air and sea ports. Plus if they succeed; supply dries up and prices rise. Illegal profits go up causing more incentive for the criminal gangs to take bigger risks.

Add to this a perception among the middle clases, probably some involved in the so called war against drugs, that the rules don't apply to us, hell it's only a recreational line of coke at the weekend, and we end up with a problem the politicians don't know how to solve, andf some sectors of society don't consider it a problem.

So what do our legislators do, bury their heads in the sand. Only problem with that is it leaves a certain sensistve portion of the anatomy exposed.

Gedoogbeleid" and/or should drugs be legalised in britain
Post: 33

Posted Yesterday by Reddyfreddy
>> Well, because of the fact that both are (on average) highly addictive. that both are seriously bad for your body, worse than cannabis. Y'see, drugs are bad hmmkay...and these are worse! <<

Well, this is in fact exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction I was expecting. Alcohol is addictive. Nicotine is addictive. Both are "bad" for you.

Drugs are not inherently bad, or evil, of themselves. Nor are the effects - heroin was invented as a painkiller, and is used medicinally for that purpose today - bad. Why do people feel the need to demonise them?

RF


Yes, that both alcohol and nicotine are bad for you is very much true. that both are addictive is also true. There is no need to demonise drugs; they're here, here to stay. Thats a fact. What in my humble opinion also can be seen as a fact is that on general alcohol, nicotine and cannabis are relatively clean drugs, that is; on general you know what the contents are (for cannabis this only applies to homegrown...) The harddrugs are often cut and mixed with, with, with what? You don't know...

Also, both H and C are, i think, easily overused and once again highly addictive. So addictive and expensive that one might easily fall's off his senses, starts stealing and mistreating himself. It's the mental and fysical addictiveness thats so hard..

Nevertheless, if all the substances of the above are pure and used with moderation one could have a normal life.

Anyway. thats what i think.

>>Well, this is in fact exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction I was expecting. Alcohol is addictive. Nicotine is addictive. Both are "bad" for you.

Hardly a knee-jerk reaction: so just because alcohol and nicotine are unhealthy and legal, all unhealthy things should be legal - flawed logic surely?

>>Drugs are not inherently bad, or evil, of themselves.

Neither are nuclear weapons when they're sitting in a hangar somewhere doing nothing - that doesn't mean we should all start playing with them.

>>Nevertheless, if all the substances of the above are pure and used with moderation one could have a normal life.

Should we really judge our relaxation activities on whether they allow us to 'have a normal life'? "Oh, I'll just try this and if I'm lucky it won't permanently screw up my existance" - why not try football or cycling or video games or whatever instead? There are equally relaxing or exciting hobbies that don't involve messing with the delicate balance of your brain chemistry.

Yes, but I wouldn't have to approach the criminal community to football, cycle or video game and human nature being what it is, and has been from the earliest archeological findings, there will always be a demand to tamper with brain chemistry.

And surely, as its my brain, Im perfectly entitled to mess with its chemistry if I want to.

Tattoos arent banned just in case someone regrets it in the future, but they are a permanent change to the body...

My brain,
My body,
My choice.

>>Nevertheless, if all the substances of the above are pure and used with moderation one could have a normal life.

Should we really judge our relaxation activities on whether they allow us to 'have a normal life'? "Oh, I'll just try this and if I'm lucky it won't permanently screw up my existance" - why not try football or cycling or video games or whatever instead? There are equally relaxing or exciting hobbies that don't involve messing with the delicate balance of your brain chemistry.

==

No, you really shouldn't. I was just hoping to avoid the "but alcohol is just as bad for you!" posts.

Well, this is the fundamental question. Why should one thing that's "bad for you" be legal, and another thing that's "bad for you" be illegal?

Isn't it time we banned alcohol, nicotine, aspirin, caffeine, saturated fats, cholesterol, and bullets?

RF

>>Isn't it time we banned alcohol, nicotine, aspirin, caffeine, saturated fats, cholesterol, and bullets?

bullets - definitely

As for the others, yeah it's hard to know where the line between preventing harm and enforcing a regimented nanny state is. As for the "my body, I'll do what I like" argument - it's a fair point. Can't really argue with it. It just seems a shame to treat your body with disrespect. We all do it, but in the end it's kinda like suicide being illegal - the punishment is part of the crime and as long as it doesn't harm anyone else there's not really anything to say. Doesn't mean we should legalise drugs and make them more readily available though.

By not legalising them we are harming the victims of the crimes that are committed to obtain Class A drugs sold at an exorbitent price and uncontrolled quality.

Also, the users of those drugs are being harmed by the substances with which they are cut, which would not be the case with legalised drugs conforming to British Pharmacopoeia standards.

RF

Ok, now, lets suppose all drugs are legal. Should they be available at your local drugstore (pun intended) of farmacist?

OK, here's a simple test for those advocating that we should either

a) ban alcohol or nicotine in line with other harmful substances.

b) Legalise narcotics.

There's an election coming up in May. Put your money where it counts and see if you even keep your deposit by standing in front of the great British public and telling them that this is your policy n drugs.

THATS why we have the drugs policy we do.

Nah, I prefer the Labour technique of putting one lot of things in your manifesto, and then doing *something completely different* once the election's over and you don't have to keep those pesky promises any more. I mean, honestly, who'd notice?

RF

>>By not legalising them we are harming the victims of the crimes that are committed to obtain Class A drugs sold at an exorbitent price and uncontrolled quality.

Surely those crimes are the responsibility of those who commit them? You can blame society for uneven distribution of wealth, poverty etc but not for the actions of people who make the choice to take class A drugs - wasn't the argument just a second ago that it's their body and they can choose to do what they like with it?

>>Also, the users of those drugs are being harmed by the substances with which they are cut, which would not be the case with legalised drugs conforming to British Pharmacopoeia standards.

Again, but it's their risk, their choice. If I choose to parachute (it being my body, my choice) I accept the miniscule risk that the parachute won't open. If I decide that going to some dodgy geeza to pick up an illegal substance that may be cut with anything is the way I want to pass my time - I accept the risk.

The "your body, your decision" argument can't be applied selectively.

Say parachuting was illegal... And because the only way to do it was to do it illegally the miniscule risk is greatly heightened by criminal operations running the parachuting. Now someone might choose to parachute anyway, aware of the risk, and yes it would be their decision to do it, but wouldn't they prefer that it was legal, with less risk.

Just because I accept that drugs fund criminals and can be cut with other substances doesnt mean I have to like it or wish it was different...

Ok, then heres a question for everyone.
I don't break any other laws apart from drug laws, I work industriously as a lab analyst.

However, I take drugs.

So according to current laws, I should be sent to prison.

Should I be sent to prison?

Thats an easy and flippant answer RF, which i assume indicates that you know very well that no one, but NO ONE would vote for you?

yes, it's an easy and flippant answer. You could put, in very small print, the words "legalise drugs" into the manifesto. Or you could put in a promise to reduce violent crime, and burglaries by x%* without specifying how. Frankly, it would be dead easy to get the legislation through and even spin it as a "manifesto promise".

It would be best to do this as soon as possible after election, when, to be honest, you don't need to give a stuff about public opinion. You'd then need to organise the necessary infrastructure for a legalised drug culture. And, after 4 or 5 years, see whether the general public give a flying f**k about it. My guess would be not.

RF

* x being the percentage of violent crime and burglaries that are to fund drug habits.

Moose,

Nobody is denying the addictive element of Class A drugs. What I am arguing is that the harm comes not from the addictiveness but the means of obtaining money to support the habit. And the price is kept artificially high both by the criminals in charge of the supply chain and market forces whereby the more effective the police and customs are in reducing that supply the higher the price. Hence more crime to obtain more money to make the criminals even happier. What a stupid, societal cause and effect loop.

The harm doesn't stem from the addiction but from the current illegality of the supply chain. What is frustrating is that we have been having this same argument for 30 years and the only tangible results; massive gun crime all across the country.