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

Just a couple of points I'd like to throw in...

On the legalisation point, if drugs are legalised and supplied through a government agency, that government agency should be able to price illegal dealers out of the market, ensuring that users get a clean supply. I made the case for this earlier on in this thread.

Secondly, on the escalation point, drug dealers have been known to do things like *give away free samples* to get kids hooked on harder drugs. Or even to tell them they're buying one thing, *but give them another*. Just to make them regular customers. Why? Possibly because they're lying, thieving pieces of sh*t.

I stand to be corrected, but a government agency supplying drugs legally to users wouldn't be trying continually to "upgrade" its target market in this way?

One would hope not.

I think the tax issue would be a thorny one. The government derives income from alcohol & tobacco sales, why should other drugs be any different? If cannabis etc was cheap & untaxed, some people would perhaps choose to buy these drugs instead.

Teasswill I think somebody said earlier thought that one of the main reasons drugs are so expensive is their illigality... not the production cost. It is logical to suppose then a they could be taxed (quite heavily) and still be much cheaper than today.

Well as an anecdote I was camping this weekend in a large group, several people were drinking copiously and several were smoking puff.

Two of the drinkers ended up having a fight and knocking over a tent; the smokers meanwhile sat around eating burgers and talking rubbish.

Whilst I realise this is anecdotal and proves *nothing* I would say that is is completly typical of my experience of what cannabis compared to alcohol does...

From quickly reading this thread, the comment that leaps out at me is that drugs should be made available for FREE. This would effectively stop all crime related to addicts supporting a habit and the money saved in policing costs could go to paying for the free drugs.

(I haven't completely thought this through yet.) I'd consider keeping a record of individual's uptake of these free drugs, and these records could be made available to employers and police etc. The records could even be made available for anyone to check.

So, those people that would destroy themselves regardless of illegality can continue to do so without any increase in crime for the rest of us. Plus they'll be recorded so Social can keep an eye out for their dependants.

The rest of the population can continue getting a little high at the weekend without having to find a dodgy dealer and support crime. I reckon that keeping an individuals drug use record in the public domain will prove to be an effective curb on the ordinary Joe's drug excesses.

The other benefits will be an accurate recording and costing of the free drug program, and will be able to give accurate statistics about patterns of addiction.

I'd send all youngesters around a tour of a "free drugs nursing" home so that they can see the final outcomes of a serious addiction - I'd imagine that would scare most people into a life of moderation.

Now - I'm not expecting this idea to be popular, but what do you all think?

QB

Interesting opinion QB... will have top formulate a proper response in a min...

Eeek, that's been a long minute. Have I killed this thread?



QB

Sorry QB, unfortunately I have the minor incovenience of having to attend work until 9.00, if I get a chance I will respond before then otherwise it will be when I get home.

No not by any means.

I dont think giving weed away free would be a god idea. It would not be the same as giving away booze as there would not be the same rise in violence as you'd get giving way but it would severly influence working patterns.

Crack for free would cause problems and although it is more addictive than heroin it has other affects that I would not want to see increased in some communities that are already affected by this drug.

Id hate to see lots of people hooked on heroin but the fact is loads are and quite often they cause misery and cost everyone lots by the laws they break to pay for their habits as well as putting themselves and others in danger. So I too have thought that free heroin would be making the best of a bad situation.

However much money this scheme and better funded detox and rehabilitation would save in the long run middle England will never put up with public money being spent on those who the right wing press ahs spent the last 40 or so years completely demonizing. Anything that is preceived as free is beyond the ken of some people, even if those freebies save them money overall.

We already have some programmes in place to help the children of addicts but they are not widlely known or well funded and suffer a certain stigma by association.

one love

Short answer is also NO.

The main crux of my argument is that if drugs were legalised then we are in a better position to deal with the problems, a big part of that is the revenue generated the UK cannabis industry alone is worth loads:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2118546.stm

5 billion according to the Beeb. Even if the government only made 20% of that figure that is a huge number of rehab clinincs, hospitals, doctors and nurses and police.

From a political perspective, the starting point for any legalisation strategy has to be that it must decimate the current illegal market and associated criminal activity, otherwise it's political suicide. Unfortunately, QueenBronners' proposal falls at this first hurdle: there will be no shortage of people who want to take drugs but don't want all and sundry knowing about it, and they'll pay to get the service they want. Only by offering a service that the overwhelming majority of users are happy with can the government make legalisation viable.

As for concerns about the government abusing a monopoly position, the way around that is hypothecating the funds raised to certain areas (presumably health). This approach seems to have worked fairly well at stifling criticism of the National Lottery.

"hypothecating"

Thank you Mycroft I have been trying to remember that word for ages !

Sory didnt realise I simulposted with ferrett earlier.

"No not by any means" was refering to QB "killing the thread"

I'd like to see heroin addicts getting much better help and treatment for their sake their families and wider societies benefit. I even agree with free heroin for addicts unable to go clean. If as Ferrett suggests this came through the creamed off profits from state marijuana sales then .

I dont see the point of a register though especially one that employers can have acess to. I think addiction is a medical matter. We dont have an open register of alcoholics do we?

I even like the idea of E clubs where drunk people are turned away and people are allowed to enjoy their drug of choice in a safer environment that is more suited to their particular tastes.

one love

I guess I'm thinking of a society where drug use is as excepted as smoking and drinking so there wouldn't be any stigma attached to a person getting some free drugs for personal use. There's no way that my idea for free drugs would work in our current society, and I expect that it would never get a chance to be trialled.

I really like the idea of an E club! Lets get that one set up first!

QB

Neitheralcohol nor cigarettes are free, so why should other drugs be?

RF

Is "Neitheralcohol" some new drug I have never heard of before?

Make mine a pint of neitheralcohol, barman!

RF

Freddy its because better health care eg rehab and free drugs as a last alternative in the case of heroin addiction would be cheaper than the cost of dealing with the crime, health problems and social welfare problems that are linked to addiction to expensive illegal drugs. Thats why.

Have you been reading any of the last couple of pages Freddy

one love