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

>>
And because of that everyone else has to suffer? No thanks. I'm for personal responsibility. If they can't overcome their addiction, then society should and can accept their existence in that state, and deal with them.
<<

Yes, society does need to deal with them. You however were suggesting that if they didn't fit your fluffy bunny picture of addiction recovery then they should be left to die. Either they have an illness or they don't, you can't have it both ways. For some people the illness is incurable and we have a responsibility to help those people live with their illness in the same way that we do with other chronic/permanent illnesses.


>>
Criminalising them, however, makes absolutely no sense. It's more expensive than just trying to help them, and it's a whole helluva lot more expensive than saying they can't overcome their addiction and just letting them get on with it.
<<

I agree that criminalising in the way we do is stupid beyond belief. However, I do find it hard to make a case for legalising something like P (methamphetamine). We could change how we legislate around those issue though, and I do agree there is some sense in charging people for their violence. Problem is we do that already - here in NZ at least people on P that are violent get charged with violence offenses. The point of the laws against P use and supply is an attempt to limit the numbers of people who have access to the P in the first place. I doubt that making P available on prescription would work, because doctors would be very reluctant to prescribe a drug that makes people crazy and violent. So there would still be a black market for it, and people using it off-license.



I'm still interested to know if you think alcohol should be by doctor's prescription like the other drugs you mentioned.

"The point of the laws against [insert name of drug here] use and supply is an attempt to limit the numbers of people who have access to the [insert name of drug here] in the first place"

And how's that working out for you? That, ultimately, is the flippant, fatal question that punctures most drug misuse policies.

I don't think alcohol should be prescription only, no. For one thing, it's far too easy to make it yourself for that to be a sustainable approach.

Prescription is not, in any case, necessarily the way to go. I'm sure there would be doctors who would be prepared to prescribe, with the right protections. One idea might be controlled locations where you could go to take drugs - drug pubs, effectively. Controlled access to clean, safe doses, administered with clean equipment and at reasonable prices. Open 24/7 and staffed with people trained to deal with the effects. All these are just spitballing ideas, but even the most ill-formed and off-the-cuff have the big selling point that they're different than the approach we're taking at the moment, and right now ANYTHING different looks good.

>>
"The point of the laws against [insert name of drug here] use and supply is an attempt to limit the numbers of people who have access to the [insert name of drug here] in the first place"

And how's that working out for you? That, ultimately, is the flippant, fatal question that punctures most drug misuse policies.
<<

Pretty good when it comes to P. I have no doubt that at this time, restricted access because of the law means less P crime. That will change eventually as the illegal networks spread, and the law doesn't address the problems where P is already available. But where I live P is not available because it's illegal. I still don't believe that doctors will prescribe P because of its association with extreme violence. Further, presumably the prescriptions are only for addicts? (or are you suggesting that people can get heroin and cocaine etc on prescription in the same way as say the Pill i.e on demand?) How does one become addicted to a drug that is only available on prescription? Either by poor prescribing habits, or by using the blackmarket (and you can count on addicts selling their prescription P illegally).

You've missed my point though. You can't insert name of drug because each drug needs to be looked at individually. Restricting access to P makes sense, but criminalising the smoking of cannabis doesn't.

Thus:

>>
I don't think alcohol should be prescription only, no. For one thing, it's far too easy to make it yourself for that to be a sustainable approach.
<<

Likewise cannabis.


>>
One idea might be controlled locations where you could go to take drugs - drug pubs, effectively. Controlled access to clean, safe doses, administered with clean equipment and at reasonable prices. Open 24/7 and staffed with people trained to deal with the effects.
<<

That will deal with supply (and may be a good idea). It will also remove alot of the criminal element (also a good idea). It won't however limit increasing drug use (and thus increasing cost to the state), and it won't address addiction issues (which are as much about emotional and mental need as biochemical need).

The increasing cost to the state could be mitigated somewhat by taxing the product, like tobacco and alcohol. But if you tax the drugs enough to cover the costs you create more problems because poor people, who will use drugs more and be more addicted, can't afford them. Back to criminal involvement.

You could subsidise drugs for low incomers, but no government that wants another term is going to do that.


Yes, the current system is incredibly problematic. But the solutions aren't straightforward.

"are you suggesting that people can get heroin and cocaine etc on prescription in the same way as say the Pill i.e on demand?"

Yes.

"It won't however limit increasing drug use"

This implicitly makes two assumptions:

1. the current policy limits increasing drug use.
2. drug use overall is, in fact, increasing.

The evidence of reality is that both of those assumptions are wrong.

For the first, you even admit as much yourself: "That will change eventually as the illegal networks spread". For the second, when the UK downgraded cannabis from class B to class C, evidence on the ground showed that usage FELL. Easier availability led to less use. I neither know nor care why, but the *evidence* is that if a government really want to reduce drug use, at least in the case of cannabis, they should relax the law, not tighten it. If, instead, they tighten it, I can only assume that they are (a) stupid or (b) they don't actually want to reduce drug use at all, but rather wish to be seen to be "tough", regardless of the actual outcome of that policy.

"(and thus increasing cost to the state)"

We have highly trained special forces soldiers all over the world knocking over drugs cartels. We have Royal Navy fast boats intercepting shipments on every ocean. We have whole divisions of law enforcement pursuing dealers. And we have endless police time spent processing users. A high proportion of our prison population, whose every expense the taxpayer covers at great cost, are there because they simple sold or used drugs.

Compare that with the potential cost of treating the minority who couldn't handle drugs if they were legal. The latter is peanuts in comparison. The War On Drugs is, like all wars, extremely expensive. Like most wars, it's also obscenely pointless.

"and it won't address addiction issues (which are as much about emotional and mental need as biochemical need)"

Other services would cover addiction issues for the tiny minority of users who need them. You don't see much emotional counselling on offer in pubs and coffee shops.

"if you tax the drugs enough to cover the costs you create more problems because poor people, who will use drugs more and be more addicted, can't afford them"

Way to stereotype poor people.

First of all, if you're not conducting a War On Drugs, the costs plummet.

Second, this makes the large assumption that all drug users are addicts. This is a common and pernicious lie perpetrated by people trying to scare young people off trying them. It's one of the things that makes said young people come to regard their elders as a bunch of inept liars.

Anyone with any actual contact with drug users knows that the vast, vast majority are perfectly able to moderate their consumption. Yes, there is a certain small minority of losers who get addicted. But the same applies to alcohol and tobacco. 95%+ of users have no major problems. It is perfectly reasonable to tax the 95% to pay for the 5%. And if that means giving the 5% their drugs free, or cheap, then so be it. It's annoying, but you know what? It's a price worth paying to live in a civilised society. If 20%, or 50% of the price of a hit of smack from my local drug bar is tax, and that tax goes to pay for some loser addict to get their hit free, I'll pay that tax with a spring in my step and a song in my heart, because I know it means that loser won't be breaking into my house or car looking for money. Cripes, fully EIGHTY percent of the price I pay for petrol is tax, and where does that go?

Ultimately, you're right - no government is going to get, or stay, in power, espousing policies that are soft on drugs. Not any time soon, anyway. This is because it is mainly reactionary old people who
(a) don't like other, especially young people, to have a good time, especially with drugs and
(b) vote.

Sooner or later, though, those old people will be dead. Perhaps, one day, when they are, and when the old people who are voting are people with a less jaundiced view of drugs, we'll get some sensible policies.

Depressingly, no amount of actual evidence is going to help. Evidence-based medicine took centuries to develop. Evidence-based politics? I give it another couple of hundred years before that even starts to become possible.

I agree with Tiggy here. Yes, some drug use is associated with violent behaviour, but the evidence tends to suggest that that is nothing compared to the effects of making it illegal (organised crime, theft and violence to feed habits, etc.). It's also a huge waste of money - in support of Tiggy's point, I read somewhere that the US 'war on drugs' costs around four times as much as the annual world cocaine market, and that's at prices which are hugely inflated because of it being illegal. There is a legitimate question of exactly how drugs should be made legal, but in my mind, no question at all that they should be made legal in some way or another (and indeed, decriminalisation is a bad solution).

Where politics meets evidence in respect of drugs:-

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/20/injecting-truth/

FB

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

>> Sooner or later, though, those old people will be dead. <<



Wot! Y'mean I'm not immortal. Merely immoral.
Hey don't wait for me to die to take a vote.
Hell I'd even come out to vote for legalised pot.
And that would be radical political action for me.
I suspect you've been hanging around the wrong sort of old people.
Or they are hypocrites. Probably all wussy boozers.


~jwf~

A pity you´ve got your lovely posts removed Mr. Fulton.

that´s for you, dear hippy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29RvK7OI2Fg

I'm too old for pity.

And I'm sure it was to protect me from repercussions resulting from
my own confessions. I keep forgetting that 'anyone' might be reading
here.
Or maybe it was yikesed in a rampant act of agism by the youthful who
don't like to be told that their stereotypes aren't just as bad as anyone
else's stereotypes; they are also ill-informed from lack of experience.


~jwf~

Bloody heck... so song lyrics that refer even overtly to drugs are banned on the Beeb?

Maybe they should shut down 6 Music after all because I doubt they will be able to play a great deal of indie or rock or hip hop or electronica anymore....

FB

Just to correct an assumption, the behaviour I was referring to in post 114 wasn't (just) violence, but the tendency of people under the influence of drugs (including alcohol) to strap (or, more commonly, not) themselves into a metal box with an engine and believe that they are in control of it.

RF

It seems strange to me that even though drugs are destructive they are easy to get hold of and little seems to be done to stop them coming into the country.
The reality of drug use was brilliantly depicted in 'The Wire' on TV.
Sure I listen to The Velvet Underground and Miles Davis. But most smack heads are not brilliant artists. They are scumbags who just want to get off there faces and when they cant get money, burgle your house. Legalise drugs....dumb idea.

Just came across this article from a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.economist.com/node/16791730?story_id=16791730

"So it came as a surprise when on August 3rd Mr Calderón called for a debate on whether to legalise drugs. Though several former Latin American leaders have spoken out in favour of legalisation, and many politicians privately support it, Mr Calderón became the first incumbent president to call for open discussion of the merits of legalising a trade he has opposed with such determination."

RF,

You seemed to be in favour of legalisation earlier in the thread so I'm not sure what your point is about alcohol and driving? I guess it's not that because some people will some of the time drive worse because of alcohol (or drugs), that nobody should ever be allowed to get drunk/high.

Todaymueller,

Funnily enough, I just finished watching series 3 of The Wire, and I'd say that the message of that series is precisely that it's the fact that drugs are illegal that causes all the associated crime, etc. And for what it's worth, that's not just my reading of it, the writers make their point pretty explicitly:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719872,00.html#

"What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose. The prison population doubles and doubles again; the drugs remain."

>>
"It won't however limit increasing drug use"

This implicitly makes two assumptions:

1. the current policy limits increasing drug use.
2. drug use overall is, in fact, increasing.

The evidence of reality is that both of those assumptions are wrong.
<<

I don't know what the reality is in your world Tiggy, but if I wanted to go out and buy cannabis this afternoon, I probably could if I put quite a bit of effort in. If I wanted to be heroin it's extremely unlikely that I could. Likewise P. Alcohol I can get within 5 minutes (or 30 secs if I go to the cupboard). So, yes, as flawed as the law is, it IS restricting use currently. The reasons I can get dak with effort and heroin not at all are because it's illegal and so the people selling those drugs are relatively hard to find.

I know the relative ease varies from place to place - it's easier to buy opiates in the city for instance. But the REALITY is that most people don't have easy access to illegal drugs compared to legal ones like alcohol.

So, yes drug use appears to be increasing, but not as much as if it was legal. ALOT more people would be using cannabis more than now if it was legal. This is so obvious that I can't believe I have to point it out.



>> For the first, you even admit as much yourself: "That will change eventually as the illegal networks spread". <<

yes, and I was talking about a specific, relatively NEW drug (P). It will reach some equilibrium at some point and before that point that will most likely include increased use where I live. But there will be a natural limit, again because it's illegal and there are serious consequences to using and supplying.

The law doesn't prevent people using drugs, it limits the access and so less people use. Again, this is so obvious I'm surprised I have to point it out.



>> For the second, when the UK downgraded cannabis from class B to class C, evidence on the ground showed that usage FELL. Easier availability led to less use. I neither know nor care why, but the *evidence* is that if a government really want to reduce drug use, at least in the case of cannabis, they should relax the law, not tighten it. If, instead, they tighten it, I can only assume that they are (a) stupid or (b) they don't actually want to reduce drug use at all, but rather wish to be seen to be "tough", regardless of the actual outcome of that policy.
<<

I'd love to see something factual on that. If it's true it's a phenomenon worth understanding better.

You do realise that I support the legalisation of cannabis (with some limits)?


>> Compare that with the potential cost of treating the minority who couldn't handle drugs if they were legal. The latter is peanuts in comparison. <<

Really? Care to provide a cost comparison? Has anyone actually done one?

Are you suggesting that there would be less addiction/health problems if the current illegal drugs were made legal? How do you figure that?



>>"and it won't address addiction issues (which are as much about emotional and mental need as biochemical need)"

Other services would cover addiction issues for the tiny minority of users who need them. You don't see much emotional counselling on offer in pubs and coffee shops.
<<

I'm not sure where you get the idea that addiction only affects the tiny minority. People how have alcohol addictions, and other abuse of alcohol problems aren't a tiny minority. People in recovery (you know, the people in the treatment programmes you espouse) pretty much all recognise that recovery has to deal with non-biochemical issues. Many people use drugs as self medication for emotional/mental pain. Legalising their drug of choice will reduce their problems for sure, but it won't change the fact that there a emotional/mental (and the aforementioned societal) issues that need addressing (ask people in alcohol recovery services).

I'm just going to repeat something there too - there's addiction, and there are the wider issues of drug abuse that aren't necessarily about addiction.


>>"if you tax the drugs enough to cover the costs you create more problems because poor people, who will use drugs more and be more addicted, can't afford them"

Way to stereotype poor people.

First of all, if you're not conducting a War On Drugs, the costs plummet.

Second, this makes the large assumption that all drug users are addicts. This is a common and pernicious lie perpetrated by people trying to scare young people off trying them. It's one of the things that makes said young people come to regard their elders as a bunch of inept liars.
<<

No it doesn't make that assumption. I'm well aware that there are plenty of drug users who aren't addicts (Duh, I drink alcohol without being an addict). I'm also aware that there are plenty of high functioning addicts.

What it does say is that there are very strong links between poverty and drug use. Are you saying that's not true?

Anyway, I could go on tit for tat, but I have to go out. You obviously have some ideas, but they seem very theoretical rather than based in practice.

>>

I agree with Tiggy here. Yes, some drug use is associated with violent behaviour, but the evidence tends to suggest that that is nothing compared to the effects of making it illegal (organised crime, theft and violence to feed habits, etc.). It's also a huge waste of money - in support of Tiggy's point, I read somewhere that the US 'war on drugs' costs around four times as much as the annual world cocaine market, and that's at prices which are hugely inflated because of it being illegal. There is a legitimate question of exactly how drugs should be made legal, but in my mind, no question at all that they should be made legal in some way or another (and indeed, decriminalisation is a bad solution).
<<

Dogster, not sure if that was in response to my point about violence, but I was speaking about a specific drug (methampetamine). It does have a specific effect on humans that leads to an increase in violence. Like I said, I find it hard to see a reason for legalising that particular drug.

I'm just arguing that you can't treat all drugs the same. You need to look at them on a case by case basis and decide about their relative benefit to harm for society, and how that should be managed.

I think we should leave the US out of this, because they're crazy

Before I go out, I thought it would be interesting to ask what is a drug? What's the definition here?

If all drugs are to be made legal with no restrictions or regulation then it doesn't matter. But if we are to regulate them somewhere (eg prescription/non-prescription, who should be allowed to grow/manufacture, who should be allowed to sell), then how do we say what is a drug and what is not? Think OTC party drugs if you're not sure what I mean.

Dogster, I was simply pointing out the fallacy of the "doesn't harm anyone else" argument. Other people are harmed, directly and indirectly, by drug use. This needs to be factored into any legalisation debate. generally, I'm in favour of decriminalisation, but we need to be aware of unintended consequences. As a nation, the UK seems to accepts something like 1,500* deaths per year on the roads as a fair price to pay for free availability of alcohol. How this number will be affected by drug use, I have no idea...just saying, it should be considered.

RF

* Around 3,000 deaths per year on the roads, 50% attributable to alcohol.

Dogster, thats a fair point you made about 'the wire' . I still think that we should stop the drugs at our borders. Or if they are home grown at the place there being farmed.
Has anybody mentioned the harm the drugs trade causes in the producing countries? How would legalisation help the people there?