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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3460485.stm

hmmm this is a very controversial statement from a Police officer but one which I personally welcome.

First of all let me state that I have in the past taken lots of drugs (Ecstacy, Cocaine, Speed, LSD, Cannabis and various tranquilisers; but never Crack or Heroin). I chose to give up drugs after I realised they were messing up my life and the lives of several of my friends.

I make this admission not becuase I want to in any way glorify what I did (it really messed me up) but just to illustrate that I do speak from some experience.

Secondly i would also like to say that *I do not think drugs are good* nor do I pretend that *drugs are not harmful* however my argument is the the problems of drugs are EXACERBATED by prohibition rather than helped by it.

I feel that if drugs were legalised and regulated it would solve many more problems than it created:-

a) It would destroy one of the biggest (if not the biggest) sources of revenue for organised crim and terrorism
b) It would break many of the links between crime and drugs
c) It would allow better knowledge of accurate ammounts of Narcotics being taken
d) It would ensure that the quality and contents of drugs could be better regulated... less people being harmed from impurities
e) It would generated a huge amount of income in taxes which instead of funding crime could be used to deal with the problems generated by drug use.

People would still get messed up on drugs, people would be harmed some would die... BUT THIS IS HAPPENING ANYWAY, my argument is that I think it would happen less if we removed prohibition.

Imagine the scenario of the 18 year old clubber who is going to take ecstacy... what are the biggest risks (given that he/she is going to do it regardless of the legal situation) I think they are

a) The quality of the pills
b) The fact that he/she has to go to a disreputable dealer to procur them
c) That if something goes wrong and said person starts feeling ill bcause of the fact they are taking drugs they are less likly to seek help.

So what does the community think?

Speaking with no personal experience.

I understand the arguments for regulating sales, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of endorsing the sale of toxic substances known to cause harm (including tobacco). If sales were legally controlled, presumably they would incur VAT? Could this then make the cost of legal drugs exceed that of those available illegally & therefore not solve the problem?

*sits back to read the forthcoming posts*

I have no doubt that there would be a dgree of illegal drugs still coming into the system... 'fraid that is kinda inevitable. I rather feel though that the *majority* of people would buy from legal soureces.

Look at Tobbaco and Alcohol, some people buy bootlegged but the vast majority still buy it from shops and pay tax.

I ask you if you had a choice of paying £4.00 for an illegal pill that might contain washing up powder or £5.50 for one you *knew* didn't what would you do?

I have never taken any drugs myself but I can see some merit in making at least some of them legal because I do believe that a huge amount of crime is linked to drug taking. It is possible for people to buy cigarettes, alchohol and glue perfectly legally so what would be so different about popping down to your local chemist for recreational drugs?

Incidentally, I have often wondered, if it is possible to enjoy alcohol socially without becoming an alcoholic, is it also possible to enjoy some drugs socially without becoming an adict?

"Incidentally, I have often wondered, if it is possible to enjoy alcohol socially without becoming an alcoholic, is it also possible to enjoy some drugs socially without becoming an adict?"

Of course... the vast majority of people who take "Soft" drugs (Ecstacy, Cannabis ect) are social users who are not addicted. They tend to work and can oftn go easily without taking the drug. If for one would not be surprised it if one day transpired that much of the UK establishment socially used drugs.

However despite this some people take drugs to the extreme and cause themselves problems (I was one of them). The thing I think though is there are some destructive people whom this will happen to anyway. If they could have not got hold of drugs then thy would drink... or gamble... or something else.

The price argument is a false one. Heroin doesn't cost much to make. The price "on the street" is because people make a massive mark-up at each stage of the distribution process. Now, I don't know how much a single dose of heroin costs, and I'm sure there are regional and national variations, but if it's say £5.00, then I would be very surprised if the actual production cost of the dose was more than a few pence. The rest goes to profit-taking throughout the distribution chain.

So, say the government was to offer a clean product, at what level should it price it? Options:

1. Higher than the illegal, possibly contaminated product?
2. Lower than the illegal product?
3. The same as the illegal product?

Likely outcomes:

1. There are two competing products, a clean, expensive one, and a cheaper, dirtier one. Now, once again, my knowledge of drug users is minimal, based on prejudice, cliches and television, but the majority of them seem to be hard-up for cash, and would probably go for the cheaper option. So the government shouldn't price its product in this way.

2. There are two products, a cheap, clean one, and an expensive, dirty one. Bit of a no-brainer, this. What will most likely happen is that criminal dealers will be forced to price-match their competitor, which leads nicely on to...

3. There are two products available for the same price, one clean, one dirty. Again, shouldn't be a hard decision to make.

But then those crafty criminals might undercut the government price. In this instance the government should price-match its competitor. A price war will then break out, which will eventually push the criminal dealers out of business, as they're the only ones trying to make a profit from the trade. (I sincerely hope the government isn't trying to profit from this trade! Then again, my hopes have been dashed so many times.)

The government now has a monopoly on the supply. If it abuses that position, and increases the price (by taxing it harshly, for example), this leaves room for entrepreneurs (or criminal drug dealers, if you prefer)to enter the market again with a cut-price product.

Drugs I guess as this is an aunty beeb site I cant say anything too contentious but here's one of my favourite dead (ex)people talking about it saying what Id like to say only much better.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/revelations.html#Aaah,%20they%20lie%20about%20marijuana.

Drugs have done good things for us, if you don't believe they have, do me a favour - take all your albums, tapes and CDs and burn em cos you know what, the musicians who made that great music that has enhanced your lives throughout the years?
Rrrrreal high, ha ha ha ho ho.
And these other musicians today who don't do drugs and in fact speak out against them?
Boy, do they suck!
What a coincidence!

When has prohibition of any substance improved our country. OK Asbestos, uranium and dog poo on the grass but apart from those?

We have huge problems with addiction to alcohol and tobacco but because they make people rich its alright. Drugs make the wrong kind of people rich so they're bad it makes no sense at all unless you are one of the rich distillers or tobacco growers of this world who £ncourages the politicians to let you and your type continue getting richer and richer off peoples addictions.

Banning anything wont stop it from happenning and would ignore the fact that most people recognise the health risks of every drug and use them accordingly. Salt is bad for you, too much sugar can give you diabetes yet we dont treat these things in the same way. Why not? Its because the people who produce them £ncourage politicians not to do anything.

Ten people a day are killed in motoring accidents how many a year by extascy? Do more people die from cocaine misuse or alcohol abuse? Weight for weight what is more addictive heroin or nicotine?

The answers to all these questions are the opposite of what the governmetn would like you to believe.

I truly feel it is the misinformation and demonization of drugs and drug users that does more damage than anything else, even the drugs themselves. A kid who ends up seeing that what the establishment says is hollow propoganda is unlikely to ever listen to any health advice again even realistic advice. If you criminalise something that is comparitively less harmful then alcohol you teach people to hold the law in contempt and by extension encourage criminal behaviour.

one love

Ok, I have taken drugs in the past, but only cannabis and magic mushrooms, and I have no intention to take drugs other than those two in the future.*

However, I believe all drugs should be illegal. They're illegal- and we hear lots of bad stories about them- I have worked in the legal profession and seen people who's lives were wrecked not by taking the drugs but from the lifestyle changes that accompany it- the desperate need for more money for another expensive fix- the dealing.

Make it all legal for adults. We're old enough to make our own minds up, and if it is regulated properly, and appropriate support groups and the like set up and the stigma of seeking help removed, socirety will be better off. The only people we really harm by taking drugs are ourselves- same is true of tobacco and alcohol. it might affect our behaviour, personality or lifestyle- same as alcohol.


*for the purposes of this post, alcohol and drugs are not considered drugs...

Should we also make men illegal for the harm they do to women. No we make what *some* men do illegal.

Should we make alcohol illegal because of the harm it does. Mo but we restrict its sale and makeit illegal to sell to those who are already intoxicated.

Is it too much to ask that this same kind of sense is extended to drugs? Yes sadly. So we will still get people wrecking their lives on alcohol wrecking their health with tobacco and men emotionally damaging women. people stealing to pay for drugs that have inflated prices because of the risks involved in smuggling. Innocent people hurt and killed in violence between rival criminal suppliers.


one love

Not forgetting the emotional damage women inflict on men...

Blicky that's just a facetious argument. Men and women do hurt each other but this is unaviodable, you can't ban them from each other, you can ban drugs. I'll just lay my cards right on the table now, my family has been f****d up by drugs and as I was growing up it caused me more pain than I could ever relate in such an impersonal forum. My main argument for keeping drugs banned is that, eventhough they may do less damage to the person taking them, they tend to do more to others, like their kids. I don't believe the government should interfere in a person's private decisions but they must take a stand when others who are affected cannot take the stand themselves. You might not think drug use affects you that much but believe me, if you have kids it will affect them in ways you cannot imagine. On balance cannabis abuse tends to be more disruptive than alcohol abuse (I'm only talking about addicts here) so if the government can prevent this it should

Iago you really do for what its worth have my sympathies for what you suffered as a child, I think I can understand something of the way you feel, but that does not change anything that is actually happening.

We cant prevent drug use that is the copper in the article and many other peoples' point. Infact the steps society takes to stop cause more and worse problems than having the drug freely available would create.

Having seen the effects of alcoholism coulpled with depression I understand what your talking about. In my family it did not set in until I was about 16 so I was able to cope and care for myself in most repects. I think/know it would be harder if you were younger. I used to work for a young carers charity that helped children who have a similar background to yours. Some of those children lost some aspects of their childhood through having to care for addicted parents and/or other siblings, were deprived of material things because their parents spent any available money on booze or drugs. So I do understand a little. I also work with a boy whose father recently died due to heavy drinking and he is going through allsorts of difficulties. In his drunken rages his father would beat his mother, so much so they ended up in a refuge. Now the boy is almost daily in fights testament to his rage and pain. He is also very self critical and often misbehaves in other ways.

Spending money and resources on the policing of drugs has not really helped any one I would rather see that money and effort ploughed into education and better options for people than drugs and alcohol and most of all used to help those who are harmed by the effects of addiction in their family.

Prohibition did not work in the US with alcohol, people still drank and the profits went into crime. How can that be a good thing?

one love

I was just presenting the most powerful counter argument, I'm really not sure where my own beliefs lie. My instinct is (obviously) to say ban it all but I've grown good at keeping a leash on such opinions as I know they are based on nothing but fear because of what I grew up with. Fortunately, I'm a tough little get and am dealing with things that happened. I can see the argument for reducing money on policing and putting that money into help schemes, as in Holland and Belgium, but unfortunately Britain isn't exactly known for it's beaureaucratic efficiency and it is an area where you can't afford to make mistakes. If it could be worked out that this happened then I think my major objection to legalisation would be gone but I can't see it happening soon and so I think we have to keep the laws in place. Just a point about Prohibition, that didn't work because drinking alcohol is far too widespread in our society, drug users are still in a minority so banning drugs is still an option. I know it looks like what I'm saying is that because lots of people drink alcohol it's okay but I don't mean that, if we were to tackle alcohol it would need different methods, like the way smoking tobacco is slowly being eliminated from society

The consequences I have a problem with.
I think more problems are being created the way things are handled now in the US.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_08-09-03.html
A. Kennedy from the US Supreme Court.
A Kennedy speaking against the push for imprisoning by minimum mandatory sentences based on justice, cost and race.

The current administration is pushing for mandatory minimum sentances and has reportedly been keeping track of judges records.
The US currently jails 1 out of 143 citizens compared to 1 out of 1000 persons in England, Germany, France, Italy

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/
pie charts and racial inequality.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html
The second link is a short article from CS Monitor news.
The emphasis is more on race.
Those figures are much higher 1 in 17 for some groups

The law did not intend for the repeated violent offenders to be set free to make room for non-violent ones.

There is a move for more private prisons also.
I cannot help but see dollar signs for the privately owned prisons and a push to fill them.

This has helped to break social services and society. These figures make for a lot of broken families and lost children in the system. The domino social cost is much higher than for imprisonment.
There is welfare and foster care and the jailing costs. I think something better could be done with all that money.

Also these people are not allowed to vote!
That is making for a large block of mostly minority males with no voting power to change this situation. GWB mentioned a job training program in his state of the Union adress for prisoners because no one will hire them. Looks to me we are creating more problems than we are solving.

"Looks to me we are creating more problems than we are solving."

And that is the crux of my argument and presumably the copper. The question for me is not "Are Drugs good or bad?" it is "Does the prohibition of the cause or solve more problems?"

I think that there is certainly enough evidence and rational to suggest that it is at least within the realm of possiblity that it causes more problems.

I'm not fully decided on this issue (I live in a city with a chronic heroin problem and, having never used it or had anyone close destroyed by it I still utterly hate the stuff). However, it's increasingly obvious it makes sense for the following reasons.

1. Drugs legislation is based on the idea that by banning something you prevent people from having access to it. This is pie-in-the-sky idealism and, as any law-enforcement officer will tell you, reflects the truth not one jot.

2. The fact that drugs are illegal is a massive boon for organised crime. They reap massive, massive profits from the illegal drugs trade and this allows the drugs barons to tyrannise local communities. By creating the laws that allow this to happen, the state and the people who support it's laws must accept some personal responsibility (for me, this is the strongest argument by far).

3. Because so much effort is given in money and manpower to prosecute drug dealers, importers and users, this means by the law of common sense, that less effort is made to prevent other crimes.

The best argument *for* the prohibition of illegal drugs, is of course, that they damage people and we have a responsibility to stop that happening. However, looking at the reality of the situation, the illegal nature of the trade does more harm than good. The fact that the drug laws do not work is unthinkable to most people but it's a fact that people must stop ignoring for very, very good reasons. See point 2 above.

Zag

"On balance cannabis abuse tends to be more disruptive than alcohol abuse (I'm only talking about addicts here) so if the government can prevent this it should"

Honestlago, I work in a psychiatric hospital in Glasgow. This is nonsense.

Hmmm yes I would have to agree... I know several people who have been acloholics, and two who have developed cannbis psycosis. For me by far the more disruptive to both themselves and those around them are the ones who had a proper drinking problem.

Okay, I'll have to qualify, it's just from personal experience. I knew both sets of people and it seemed that the kids who had potheads as parents were having a worse time than me with my alcoholics - perhaps I shouldn't have posted this without anything other than personal experience to back it up so

Don't worry about it. To be honest, it was probably more down to the people personally as much as what they were using.